Submission form:
Top Shelf
Sister Blog *
Friends of FIU
| Yours truly has just completed all the necessary forms and filing fees through his patent attorney for a weapon that doesn't exist yet but should. And will. Behold the inspiration for the Fully Automatic Shoe Throwing and Ejection Rifle.  From JR Ewing:   Labels: iraq, scoreboard |
Today I was reading a post and saw B.Blauser, an Aggie, get slammed on an Aggie message board in an extremely classless politically-motivated attack that made my blood boil... and then read his patient, supportive and "christ-like" response. It was very impressive. Anyway Blauser has been posting on the Aggies board for several years about some of the humanitarian endeavors he is helping out in Iraq and I can't believe I haven't posted any of this on FIU before. Brad Blauser (on the right in the above pic) was working in Iraq as a contractor and got involved with 'Wheelchairs for Iraqi Kids'. They ask for donations in order to provide wheelchairs to Iraqi kids in need. He posts updates and pictures (some of which are very graphic) of some of the children they help. 95% of these children have birth defects or are crippled as a result of childhood diseases. He has continued his involvement and now has stopped contracting and is a full-time humanitarian. Below is a description from their website.Many children in a number of nations are born with birth defects such as Cerebral Palsy, Spina Bifida among others, and Iraq is no different. Also, a number of children have suffered from injuries caused by the war environment. However, because of the environment and war situation in Iraq, there are no services to help these children with their disabilities.Just thought I'd post this here for everyone to read, visit the website and maybe pass this on. Brad and his cause deserve to get all of the pub they can. |
George W Bush has grown so powerful in recent years that he can now create 550 metric tons of enriched Uranium just to cover himself.The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.Thoughts from American Thinker The AP does not say alleged nuclear program. It does not add "according to military experts." It simply says "Saddam Hussein's nuclear program."From slashdot It appears that when George W. Bush, the CIA, and Tony Blair said that Saddam Hussein had yellowcake uranium, which was a violation of the UN resolution after the Gulf War, and one of the reasons why the USA and UK invaded Iraq to start the war, they were speaking the truth. 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium was found recently in Iraq, that Saddam had hidden for over five years from UN weapons inspectors, and sold to Canada recently.That rascal Bush... he's now such an idiot that he has figured out how to go back in time and plant enriched uranium. Labels: iraq, media, military, politics, scoreboard |
Petey, I feel ya man. It's ok. You were just born that way.WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark of California apologized Tuesday for comments he made last week suggesting President Bush was sending troops to Iraq to get their "heads blown off for his amusement. After his mea culpa, Stark walked walked off the floor to the Democratic side of the chamber and for at least five minutes stood sobbing while fellow Democrats gathered around him. Reporters close to the Speaker's Lobby were not able to hear why he was crying. Labels: iraq, politics, scoreboard |
| Hat tip to DrewM at Ace of Spades who quite eloquently states: "The media really are beyond parody at this point." As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch NAJAF, Iraq — At what's believed to be the world's largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good.This shit could've been on The Onion. |
So I took that Candidate Calculator test that Hoodlumman linked somewhere down below, and this is what I came up with:Um....yeah..... So, I'm still planning to vote for Rep. Ron Paul. We disagree on Iraq, but I pretty much agree with the guy where it counts most for me. The calculator appears to be broken. Besides, who the hell is Tom Tancredo? Labels: abortion, immigration, iran, iraq, media, military, oil, politics, terrorism, universal health care |
It seems some Reps of the Democratic Party are so keen on stopping the war they have a new idea. Top House Democrats Tuesday proposed a "war surtax" to pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a plan quickly condemned by Republicans and opposed by the House leadership.You know what? Fine By Me. I know what Murtha, McGovern and Obey are up to but you know what? I don't care. All I want to see is one change. Since they are always talking about equality under the law, today is the day to do it. Let's see a 7% even surtax on everyone. I'll gladly pay it. I've paid for mounds and mounds of Democratic crap and for loads of welfare, for once this is a tax I'd love to support. I support our troops and additional taxes to take care of them and to provide for the mission would be an honor to support. I'd also love to see the political hacks explain to the poor that they are truly equal and have to pay an equal share. To do any less is to call them second calls citizen and unpatriotic. Why , we don't want to question the patriotism of the underclasses do we? Of course not. A War Surtax. What a great idea, as long a these three have the balls to make it equal. If they truly had the strength of their conviction they would. As bonus sentiment:    Labels: iraq, moral relativism, morons, politics |
| As a recovering 40-hour-a-week addiction suffering player of EverQuest I still find myself drawn to the message board of my old server. The interesting thing about this particular server though, is the sheer number of elitist Lefties who happen to gather in the forums discussing politics. Today, while digging for an entry to deliberately troll, I found this gem: Eff this Congress!What I find most humorous about this is that no matter how many indignities someone like this gentleman suffers at the hands of the Democrats, he will continue to blindly vote for them - because "anything is better than having the Republicans in charge." Murtha accepting bribes? No biggie, beats Craig hitting on male cops in public restrooms. Teddy binge drinking his way through confirmation hearings or leaving his girlfriend in the car while he takes a little swim? Not nearly as frightening as the possibility of the Republicans lowering taxes or cutting a government program. As long as Democrats have guys like this drinking the party's own special brand of Kool-Aid, they will never actually have to work for votes. Now, I've had discussions with this guy on that forum before. He's intelligent, but horribly misguided. For some reason, like so many Democrats, he thinks that his elected candidates represent the interests of the "little guy" rather than those of George Soros or the American Trial Lawyers Association. But the blind make the best voters. Another tip of the hat indicating you might do what they want when elected will get you in the door every time. NOTE: Profanity isn't allowed in the subject lines of posts to the forum in order to keep the portal page SFW. EDIT: In case you're wondering about my follow-up to the post on the forums. I responded with this: Hey thanks.....it took some time, but I went through the house.gov site and I sent a form letter "thank you" to all the Representatives who voted in favor of this non-binding resolution. Had you not mentioned it I wouldn't have thought twice about the importance of letting the "Yay" voting house members know they'd done the right thing. Labels: donkey, iraq, media, military, morons, politics, terrorism |
Retired General Peter Pace:"Our democracy is strengthened by divergent views and dialogue about those views when that dialogue is conducted in a civil manner, in a gentlemanly way, in a way that allows people to argue on the merits of what they believe and to understand that what they believe is part of the answer and if they have the willingness to cooperate to find the right answer for our country," he said during a Pentagon ceremony held at nearby Fort Myers. |
| Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, is in trouble from both parties for saying that the war in Iraq was overly influenced by the Jewish lobby, AIPAC. I have to tell you, and maybe it's the effect of being a life long Texan, but I've never understood the whole "anti-Semites" or "Jew suspicion" angle. What I've really considered odd is that every ailment on the face of the planet seems to be a Jewish conspiracy to the people that really embrace it. Of course, now that the truther movement has taken hold and people question 9-11 and all that other crap you have even more supposed Jew Stealth involved. Of course in all of these wild ass speculations I never hear anyone express the common sense theme of "If the Jews are really secretly doing all of this stuff, then shouldn't we've lost before the whole thing began?" Seriously, if they can blow up the twin towers, move the gold in building 6, rig the 04 election, make us got to war with Iraq in 03 and make "ye cows dry" in Amish country then how can we possibly win? We have one of these guys at work. On occasion, I poke him with a stick just to get him geared up. It's a cheap laugh. The unfunny thing is that this kind of finding ghosts in the mist takes time and energy away from real issues and real solutions. However, since Rep Moran has gone against the Dem narrative, I'm sure that he'll be back in line towing the party rope instead of freelancing his opinions very soon. But as a special honor for the Rep from Virginia, I post a very special picture.  |
| I watched the Republican debate on Fox tonight. Over all it was pretty good, the best so far. I found that it made for some pretty interesting viewing and I did learn a bit about some of the lower tier candidates that I didn't know before. As I am prone to do, here are some random impressions from tonight's events. Let's start with Ron Paul. When Alan Combs is pointing out that you reside so far off base that getting nominated will be an issue and your answer to is that your going to "appeal to the independents" to win a REPUBLICAN primary you're in dire trouble. I'm sorry, but the view point is way, way too isolationist for me. All pulling out and back does is encourage the fight to come here. I say if they want to fight, why make them commute. Yeah.... I just don't think so. Oddly, Giuliani came off weird to me tonight. First off, I get it. You did things in New York. Great! So what are you going to do now? What's you're personality. What do you think? What drives you at the core because when push comes to shove that's what I want to know. I could care less about New York history and statistics. Tell me "why" and "how" more. That's what I need to hear, because make no mistake, I'm still not convinced I trust you to have a moral center to guide from. Your inability to see why abortion is wrong is a huge handicap and by not addressing it you damn well better show me a reason to trust you. McCain did better tonight that I expected and I was impressed with a lot of his answers but he has two problems. In my opinion, they are fatal problems. The first is that he's too arrogant. I don't mean to the other statesmen. Hell, that's fine with me. But you can tell that he's still pissed that the base rose against him on immigration. Hell, i bet he's still mad about being "swift boated." The problem isn't so much that he's been dinged, it's that he can't stand being dinged or answering to the people. You can see he feels above it. "Why didn't you sign the tax measure?" You didn't sign it because you feel that you above answering to us. The second is that I'd torture to save Americans from nukes, why wouldn't you? And don't give me the whole "America's reputation speech" because I saw the American soldiers bodies being hung from the bridges in Iraq and I saw the Nick Berg tape. I liked Mike Huckabee tonight. He was pretty good in the answers but i was disappointed in that he didn't hammer Paul when he had the shot and that he didn't show more force on the "Iran gets a nuke" question. Mike, domestically and morally, you're my guy but I have to see some strong authoritarian backbone in there to really trust you. I know that violence is not the first answer for you but I have to know that you will not flinch in the face of making people die to protect my family. So far, I'm just not sure that I see it. Brownback, I'm sorry but no. You got nothing. Rommney had a bad run but all night it was "kick Mitt in the balls" with the question night. I thought he took it like a man. In my book, he didn't gain ground but he didn't lose ground. Additionally, don't try so hard to separate from "MR New York." Every stat he gives us does that. Tell us what you want to do. Also, get hawkish. I don't want a realist as President. Realist suck because they dream realistically and provide realistic vision and realistic goals. Show more optimism. I know you were getting blindsided but you have a strong shot if you can provide a vision. Tancrado, I like you a lot and you have some damn good stuff but I'm sorry. There might be a veep out there for you though. Other than that, a parting comment for the Fred. Whoever told you tonight was a great time to announce was a moron. All you did was allow everyone to kick your ass while you were not there. Seriously, you've pissed away a great window breaking by not coming in earlier or coming in in a few days after today. You better stake a claim soon because right now you are still very much a face in a race of names. Labels: abortion, christianity, donkey, immigration, iran, iraq, islam, media, military, politics, religion, russia, terrorism, tragedy |
| Since A. Whitney Brown was kind enough to share with the world, via Youtube, his disregard and dislike for the troops, I feel it's perfectly justifiable for me to retort via our blog. After all, when one does a Google search for his name the first result is his wikipedia link. You search for me and your first result is FIU. I had no memorable roles on SNL. He had no memorable roles on SNL. So we're on level pegging. A Whitney Brown made several statements designed to be funny. They weren't though. However, this is a common thing and happens to everyone. For comics, or in this case comic-wannabees, it can be embarrassing. Sadly, medical science had not discovered the humorist equivalent of erectile dysfunction/premature ejaculation medicine for the comic who can neither maintain, nor time his delivery. While embarrassing, you have to applaud the dysfunctional comic who is brave enough to go shoot his wad with the lack of effectiveness displayed here, thereby risking certain humiliation and disdain, in order to make a point. What was his point exactly? Let's examine that. After boiling through the atrophied layers of fat surrounding what should have been a 30 second quip that was agonizingly drawn out, we come down to these points: ~ People say that they support the troops all the time ~ Some might be insincere ~ Not all the troops are brave or patriotic ~ Some are just there for the free school and for gay sex ~ Brown pays for all the military training, food and equipment from his taxes ~ Brown doesn't like taxes ~ He wishes he had an Iraqi skull because he doesn't get anything to show for all those hundreds of dollars that he pays for in taxes ~ Brown thinks the troops are stupid. ~ Brown thinks the troops are morally retarded ~ Brown doesn’t like our troops ~ Brown doesn’t like what they’re doing ~ Brown doesn’t like their fat, whining families Now, I'm sure that he would say that several of these comments are hyperbole or taken out of context or that he was just riffing. That may very well be true. If I remember correctly, so was Micheal Richards when he had his N-word laden meltdown. As was Imus, when he made his Rutgers remarks. However in both cases those were decisions and words said on the fly that people like Al Sharpton has assured me are "signs of what's really beneath." Brown, on the other hand, did this as a premeditated, written, produced and then published material. Unless he ad libbed during the execution of his posting, he had plenty of time to rethink the conventional wisdom of his commentary. In response, let me retort. In this war, people have died. People have been killed or wounded. Several people have lost time from jobs, families and their plans. Several people have had to make hard decisions. People have had to weight consequences. Some people have committed incredible acts of bravery. Some have committed acts of extreme cowardice and utter depravity. However, all of these thing have happened without a single second wasted on what A. Whitney Brown thinks or feels or believes. The reason for this is dual fold. On the first hand, he has absolutely nothing to offer to any side of the pro-war or anti-war efforts. He is not smart enough to lead either side. Strategy escapes him. He is not famous enough to engender support because he lived in Denis Millers shadow, much like a Remora fish living off the scraps of Miller's work. He's not particularly creative. He's not physically useful other than a low tech land mine finder, but the cost of transportation to the front wouldn't be worth it. He is essentially useless as a participant at any level. The second reason is that what he believes is so devoid of value that it actually repels both sides. The claim that the troops are "moral idiots" might be useful if it was delivered from someone who was seen to be as "morally astute." Brown has no claim to this. His sole claim to an level of notoriety is being the "yuk monkey" that lived in Miller's wake. In third rate comedy dives that might be good enough to get you half price Bud Lite but for the rest of the world we regard that position to be as relevant as the 16 year old kid that loads my groceries and squeezes the bread. He's barely a mind annoyance and a far cry from any type of moral compass. Additionally, his reasoning is so devoid of continuity and context that it is the equivalent to trying to teach brine shrimp how to do calculus. He has no grasp of the subject, it's relevance in the world or his relation to either of the aforementioned relationships. In fact, the only reason his video is a topic of conversation is one thing: A Whitney Brown has finally said what so many in the entertainment industry think but don't have the balls to say. They know it will make them look like elitist assholes. They know it will separate them from the people who purchase their products. They know that is can ruin their careers. Brown, hell he never had a career, so what does he have to lose? Sadly, this derangement has allowed for him to no longer have the foresight to see the connection to the underlying consequences of what he has to lose by so rudely asking his question: his freedom, his lifestyle and quite possibly some teeth. See, in the history of mankind, I can find a lot of people who think they are smart. I can find a lot who think they are smarter than everyone else. I can even find people who have expressed, due to what they consider their ample intelligence, the same disregard for the lives of soldiers. What I can't find is even one case in history where comedians, much less one comedian, much less one "spare of a comedian" used jokes to dethrone a tyrant or protect his homeland or stop a war. I can't find a place where comedians set the moral compass of a society. I can't even find a place where a comedian, cracking jokes, saved lives. Raising money on a telethon is about as close as it gets and Mr Brown's didn't exactly even make that cut. So while Mr Brown may not like the troops, what they are doing or their families, I'd like to inform Mr. Brown that we don't really like you. This should be a noticeable feature in that unlike so many others who went on to have further camera driven comedic careers after SNL, he disappeared like a fart in a tornado. So congrats on at least having the nuts to be honest about hating our soldiers, I'm sure that will be a lot of comfort if some supporter of our troops, former military person or current enlistee decides to activate your dental plan. But hey, that might actually get you back on TV for 15 seconds. Outside of that, you are still an unremarkable ball of lackluster talent and a trivia answer to the question "Who was the SNL cast member whom Denis Miller had to carry almost weekly?" Labels: iraq, media, moral relativism, morons, politics, psa, sarcasm, satire, scoreboard, terrorism |
This is from Senator Obama on Iraq:"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press. Now, if the role of internationally mandated military efforts are so effective, then why is there genocide in Darfur to begin with? Considering that the attacks that started this civil war happened in 2003 and that the US government was calling on the UN to take action in 2004, 2005, 2006 and this year, why don't we have a mandate, international or otherwise? The reason is that the UN is slow to issue an political mandate of any type because they cater to the politics of the countries that comprise it's membership. For a reference on that, look at the handling of the Iranian nuke situation by the UN. Deal after deal and proposal after proposal are stalled by China and Russia because of their ties with Iran. Add to this that most of the countries on the UN are not able to deploy a global force and in some countries case they are truly unwilling to. In that, they wait for the US to act and then rubber stamp, or not, the US's actions. The list of countries that will actually take action are short, the list of countries able of taking effective action are shorter still. For that reason, the list of countries able to take unilateral action can be counted on almost one hand and of those only one does anything of a humanitarian level, that being the US. Obama is trying to politically differentiate himself from those he is running against and this is a effort all candidates must make, but if this is truly his platform is speaks to a idealism that is naive to the way the international scope of politics are played out. Quite simply, America must be a leader, because if we allow ourselves to become international followers we will become ineffective and yet still expected to do everyone else's heavy lifting. Labels: iraq, military, politics, scary shit, terrorism |
Labels: iraq, photography |
| Thought I'd bring this back up again just to remind the finger pointers (though I doubt many, if any, read FIU). Rob - if you're on a political hiatus, don't read this. [from 2002] Nov. 18 — Three-quarters of Americans believe Iraq does not intend to cooperate with newly arrived U.N. weapons inspectors — and if that doubt is borne out, support for U.S. military action jumps. Just to remind ourselves where we as a country stood at the beginning of the Iraq War now that there is so much talk about not finishing what we started and/or ending "Bush's mistakes". |
On CNN today they have a story that I had honestly hoped to see years ago. Cindy Sheehan is quitting the anti-war movement."I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful," she wrote. "Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.Here is the crux of her whole problem, in fact the crux of many parent's problems, when is comes to having kids and what they do with their lives. Kids, regardless of their age, are free willed individuals. That means that they think and decide and do things on their own, without consulting us and , occasionally, totally contrary to what we think is good. Our children, from birth until death, will make an infinite number of decision of various scopes and sizes that are dictated by just as many external and internal forces. Our guidance, however thorough and comprehensive we endeavor to make it, is merely one of those forces. Casey made a choice. She may feel that the country is evil, Bush is Satan, Up is Down, Black is White and that Chocolate is Vanilla. Her feelings are irrelevant to the fact that he made his choice. She could have said any of 1,000,000,000 things to him and never had it effect his decision. She could have said nothing and had seen him change his mind. We don't know. We simply don't. However, we do know that the name on the enlistment papers said his name and not hers. We do know that he didn't fight his deployment. We do know he didn't shirk his duties. We know that he served his country right up to the moment he died. She might not agree with his decision but she needs to accept that she was never in control of him to begin with. She didn't "fail" him. He made a series of decisions. In fact, they were decisions that were his to make. As a person who also pointed out the negative effects that this could, and did, have on the troop morale and public perception of the war, I also feel like it's important to point a latter statement of Cindy's out. Sheehan warned that the United States was becoming "a fascist corporate wasteland," and that onetime allies among Bush's Democratic opposition turned on her when she began trying to hold them accountable for bringing the 4-year-old war to a close.Another life lesson to get out of this is one that Cindy, not Casey, missed. When you got from "no one" to "someone" question why that is. In the midst of all the rhetoric about "America's political hegemony" and "imperialistic war machines" she was spouting in sunny Venezuela and cheery Cuba, there had to be a moment where she realized that she had sold out her own cause. At some point she had to wonder why the politicians were so willing to be seen with her one week and then so willing to dump her the next. Sadly, if she ever had a clue that she was getting used before now we couldn't tell but it would have been better for everyone if she had discovered that a few years ago. It would have been better for her, and it seems that she realizes that it would have been better for her family too. Well, hopefully the next flash in the pan see Cindy and figures it out. People use other people, especially in politics. It's a concept I though that most people had grasped but it seems that some haven't. So now that it's over, if it truly is, am I going to miss her? No, not one bit. I prefer to watch the "train wrecks" not the slow grinding halt of a thrown rod. (H/t Kieth. I was typing on it even as you IM'd me.) Labels: donkey, iraq, media, military, moral relativism, morons, parenting, politics, terrorism, tragedy |
This human interest story was first brought to my attention a few days ago by an employee of mine. Dwayne is passionate about his dogs - to the point that I often wonder if they mean more to him than any person in his life.David the dog won't leave his master's side, but his story has gone international.Dwayne was originally planning to donate less, but something derisive in his wife's response caused him to up the ante, much to her dismay. Dwayne R. Machinski, 40, of Emmett called from Iraq, where he is a civilian contractor. A former Army infantryman himself, he said he has two dogs at home that he can't wait to see when he gets home. He's sending Reister $200.So, good on ya Dwayne, and my compliments to all of the other dog lovers out there who are helping Mr. Reister with his situation. Labels: iraq, not cat blogging, pets |
| I work in a fairly typical American office. In this office we have "several" motivational pictures on the wall. We seem to get "motivational presents" as well. For example i have this little wire guy that balances on a brass "razor's edge" with a plaque underneath that reads "The best way to predict the future is to create it." Um, OK... Regardless of that, it seems that America has been covered with motivational messages enough that people, despite the smarmy nature of their presentation, pat some degree of attention to them. That being the case, I've made one that needs to be hung in Washington, but I'll show you guys because your my pals ad it's Friday.  The quote is from Terry Goodkind and the picture is from D-Day but it think it makes a subtle point worth emphasizing in the halls of power. |
| Have you ever gone to a mall or a amusement park and seen the large map kiosks that show you the location of stores or rides. As a person that makes maps and looks at maps daily, I'll admit that I like to have a visual representitive frame of reference. It's how I roll. For me, it helps me to gain a better persepective of where I'm at and were I'm going. I think that some people in our nation need a little frame of reference, visual and otherwise, and I'm going to try to provide that today. As of today, we are here:  However, not all of us are here: Some of us are here:  and here:  Why are they there? They went there to make sure that this:  didn't happen here: Thankfully, the people here: didn't have any of those, though not for lack of effort. Still, the fact remains that we still have people here: Now, the people we have here: They were sent there because people that were hiding there made sure that we no longer have this:  here: Still, regardless of the reasons, we do have people here: and here: In order to do their jobs there, they need a lot of this:  from us over here: So my message to any person that believes that being from here: is more important than being from here:  is that your politics may very well land you in a place where you need to visit here:  So, get it togather, stop the partisanship and fund the troops! (h/t bubba for the paddle store pic) |
I went Watergate and broke into the DNC's headquarters. While in there, I found and copied their internal memo's of the intracacte, nuanced plan they had for dealing with Iraq. You know that "a better way" thing they promised before the election in 06? Well, here it is. The entire tactical playbook for dealing with insurgency, Iran, political factions, religious factions and saving America's image as "the" world Super Power. Granted, it didn't take long to copy but at least they kept it simple. Their political plan? Oh, it's right here. |
 "Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters. Guess what's AlJazzera's top story? Harry Reid: "The war is lost." Hey Senator, have you considered that what you say gets used as propaganda? Have you considered that an ailing enemy might be a little emboldened, a little cheered up by your political observation? Have you considered that your advocating on behalf of those who want our troops to leave so that they can burn Iraq out and hand it over to Iran? I mean, I know you guys are just nutting in your pants at the idea of getting the White House, but if you did win the Oval Office your party's highest member would be dead set in the middle of having to deal with this. Does that even register? Sen. Reid, with all due respect, I submit this next picture for you in the hopes that you'll remember that what you say sets into motion events that can cost American lives by giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Enjoy it, with my most heartfelt wishes that you'd grow some degree of nationalism.  |
| With the initial bout of baby induced chaos out of the way, I've had a chance to catch up on the current state of the news. I'm still in a bit of a grey zone on a few stories but the bigger ones are still in about the same shape. It looks like the Senate passed the funding bill with pull out provisions in it and as we can expect Bush is going to wield his veto for this one. I'm totally on board with that. I heard Pelosi's speech on the subject. She was saying that Congress respects the power and office of the President but that this was a "new Congress and that the American people had spoken." I totally agree, The left said what they've always said: "We hate Bush, get out now and give us free stuff." The centrist said what they always said: "What time is Timmy's soccer game?" But the right sang a different tune: "What are you jack asses doing? We want small government, less pork and you lied to us about immigration and the marriage amendment." As a result, the Dems got power. So...Dems...Here's your chance. Show us your Iraq option. Show us your leadership. Show us the non-obstructionist route you promised. Well, today it's March 29th, 2007 and the plan has been identified: "Run. Run like scared little bitches. Run and let the Iraqi's die and the middle east go to crap. Whatever you do, run back home, because we Dems can't run a wartime election." Don't believe that? Then show me one strong wartime Democratic candidate. Just one. Hell, Wesley Clarke and John Murtha are there two most popular ex-military possibilities and they are leading the pack in the "run" camp. It seems the democratic leadership plan is to win the election by making Iraq a non-issue by leaving no matter what it costs. Nothing else matters. That's why I can be totally on board with the veto. I may not like everything in the war plan or the leadership groups or the strategies but I know I don't like deciding what to do in Iraq by the measuring stick of what would help a party, any party, to get elected. Elections get bloody enough, lets not sacrifice America's name and millions of Iraqis just in order to get someone elected or so that Iraq "isn't an election issue." It's stupid So drop the veto on it and tell them that every day they wait they slow supplies to the troops. The issue is non-negotiable and if they don't like it let them try to get the votes to overcome it. We may have 1 or 2 spineless Republicans, like Hagel, but most of them have enough brains and balls to call this BS for what it is. |
Nancy Pelosi in the Huffington Post:The new Democratic Congress will live up to the highest ethical standard, beginning with the first 100 legislative hours when we start to change the way business is done in Washington. We are prepared to lead and ready to govern. We will honor the trust of the American people; we will not disappoint.And since Nancy is running the House, lets look at what those high ethical standards have brought at the time of the latest Iraq emergency spending bill. From USA Today: The $124 billion bill — which will be debated today and scheduled for a vote Friday — also includes:I wonder what farm aid has to do with funding the war in Iraq. Perhaps, to make things in Washington more ethically sound, and transparent to the taxpayer, the members of the House might just consider doing all of this on a Farm Bill instead of tacking it on the coattails of an emergency spending package for the War in Iraq. Or, perhaps that whole thing about ethics was just rhetoric. Today it is politically very dangerous to vote against a spending bill supporting the war effort, since that directly hurts the boots on the ground, so Democrats, who are never going to actual vote their spoken consciences on the matter of the Iraq will instead take the opportunity to sneak in some pork for their friends back home. Good play ladies and gentlemen. I didn't expect you to live up to Pelosi's words, and I'm glad you could prove your corruption so early in the political season. 2008 is still pretty far away. NOTE: This is up for vote today. It has not yet passed, but that doesn't change what the Democrats have managed to put in this Bill. |
Today, the House is debating a "non-binding resolution" regarding the war. Are they going to pull funding, stop the war, limit troops, bring our troops home or any of the things that the Democrats promised before the election? Are they going to provide a new direction, put forth a new plan, start up diplomacy or show us how they have "a better way?" Let's see. Here is the proposal, in it's entirety:IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Take note, Democratic voters, this is what your vote got you for the 06 elections. Their whole plan has boiled down to "we disapprove of the President." All the stuff that they promised you, they knew they couldn't do it. Oh sure, they might really care about the troops and they might really want to stop the war and they really might have a better idea, but we haven't seen it exicuted. Have we? Either they lied to you or they don't hold the strength of their own convictions to stand up and fight for it. That's between you guys and them, though. Me. I'm stuck with the House full of people who's sole response is a non-binding resolution that expresses disapproval. Well pardon me for being underwhelmed by their efforts. This is nothing more that Domestic politics in the face of a international issue in which their own words damage the reputation of our country and embolden the enemies of our nation, thereby endangering our troops. It's sad and pathetic. I may disagree with the Democrats on a lot of issues but I do wish that they were the party of John F Kennedy instead of Teddy Kennedy. At least JFK had the conviction and patriotism to stand in the face of the Cuba missile Crisis and not play with the domestic political agenda instead of dealing with the business at hand. You're a pale shadow of what you used to be, Democrats. Find your love of the country and consider it closely because this, non-binding partisanship, is not what you promised us, nor what we need. |
| But not if you read the NY Times headline: G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy What actually happened is that the Republicans blocked what would have led to a lot of Democratic puffery which Dems then wouldn't have to back up in a meaningful way. The vote blocked a resolution which would have allowed the Dems to make non-binding concessions to the anti-war Left while still allowing them to vote in favor of budgets to support the war by "supporting the troops." Money quotes: “Have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions." - Senator Joseph Leiberman (I) Conn. and.... “It may come as a surprise to my colleagues, but most voting members of the American public think that the Senate spends all too much time talking and not enough time casting votes.” - Senator John Sununu (R) - NH |
| 2006 wasn't so much about the Iraq War as it was about the earmarks - no matter Cindy Sheehan's moonbattery since the election. Stop the cowardice of the non-binding resolution. |
I found a link over at Say Anything that I just had to get behind. It's an online petition. Normally, I avoid most of these but this one is quite worthy. The petition states that:If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.I expect the Democrats to be half-assed in their "words only" support for the troops because it politically expedient for them if the war in Iraq fails. They believe that it is their ticket to the White House and they just can't wait to undermine anything that might prevent that like ,say, "a victory in Iraq." I, however, want to see our troops win. I want to see Iraq free. I want to see America help Iraq to become a stable middle eastern democracy. I want to see the reverberations of that in places like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Now, to be sure, if the Democrats wanted to make a principled stand they could pull funding on this and force the troops to come home. Just like at the end of Vietnam, this is the only tool that congress has to effect the direction of the war once they have legalized it, which all of our congressmen, except one, did. If they were to non-fund the war, I'd be angry to be sure, but at least I'd have to accept that they are functioning on their truest assumptions on what is good for America. They don't seemingly have the strength of those convictions. Instead, they are passing a "non-binding criticism" of the President's plan. Several Democrats and a few "opportunistic Republicans" see this as a way to stand on the fence so as to provide an 'out' for them if things go badly. That theory may be an honorable option on something like taxes or ethics bills but in the face of a war they are, in fact, undermining the commitment that our troops will be executing and continuing to damage the morale of our fighting forces. Let's make sure that the Republicans understand that there is a price to dodging their responsibility to the troops in the name of playing politics. Read the site and if you agree with it, please sign up. |
From the article Correlational selection and the evolution of genomic architecture by B Sinervo and E Svensson, from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA and the Section for Animal Ecology, Department of Ecology Lund University, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden, respectively:Many predators develop a search image for the most common prey and exert apostatic selection on polymorphic prey (Pietrewicz and Kamil, 1979), which should selectively favour the minority prey type. The converse could be also true, in which different morphs in the predators are involved in a frequency-dependent game with their prey. This process leads to a never-ending cycle of adaptation between the predator morphs. Hori (1993) has described an example of frequency-dependent selection involving a scale-eating fish that attacks East African cichlids. The scale-eater attacks the cichlids from behind, either from the left- or the right-hand side. The scale-eater has an asymmetric and discontinuous gape-morphology in that some individuals have a left-facing mouth and attack cichlids from the right-hand side, whereas others have a right-facing mouth and attack cichlids from the left-hand side. Gape morphology in the scale-eater is heritable and seems to be governed by a Mendelian locus (Hori, 1993). The relative foraging success of the two scale-eater morphs is inversely proportional to frequency because cichlid prey become more wary against attacks from a particular side (right or left). Consequently, the two scale-eating morphs oscillate due to frequency-dependent selection (Hori, 1993). I only say that because, at this point, I doubt that anyone is too surprised about anything the Democrats did in the non-binding Iraq Resolution. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that he's used to the back biting he got from Sen. Chuck Hagel. Mind you, it's not like Hagel has a dog in this fight, right? He put the "opportunity" into "opportunistic." |
| I've heard numerous reports of the troop deaths in Iraq passing the total deaths of 9-11. It seems that the media feels that this is an incredibly important statistic to use to erode the justification of this war. While 3000+ troops dying is tragic, it pales in comparison to the horrid 55,000 lost in Vietnam or the staggering 500,000 lost in WW2. The fact that the military has done so well in protecting soldiers lives is totally overlooked. The effectiveness with which they do their duty is overlooked. The gains that they have made in securing the country of Iraq and enabling the nation building process has been grossly overlooked. This is not an accident. It is purposeful omission. It is political omission. While I may not agree with every thing that the President or Congress or even the higher ranks of the military command structure does, I never forget that they are having their decisions served by our soldiers. Soldiers that deserve our support and prayers. I'm not one who hides behind the idealism of "you have the right to dissent by not supporting the troops" as any expression of patriotism. That's bullshit. So when I see some lame, bleeding heart clown revel in the fact that now "more soldiers have died in Iraq than people died in 9-11", I want to puke. These people, for all their sanctimonious "all life is precious" crap, feign concern for the troops and then turn around and use their deaths as a bludgeon to support their dissent, or their party's policy. To reduce soldiers deaths to nothing more than data for your policy points is a disrespectfully shitty thing to do. You want a fact? Try this: If life is so precious are you aware that since 1973, the year I was born, approx. 41.5 MILLION babies have been legally destroyed by surgical abortion. [According to industry trade group Computing Technology Industry Association [Spring 00] Does that mean that the soldiers deaths shouldn't matter because I could quote a bigger number? Did I gain points in the argument because innocents died as opposed to volunteers soldiers? In pointing out the irony that the same political side that will cry crocodile tears for the soldiers that have died is also quick to support a policy that has wiped out a huge segment of a generation, did I score an argumentative coup? The answer is: WHO FUCKIN CARES. IN BOTH CASES, IT'S ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU PUKE. 41.5 million lives lost to elective abortion and 3000 troops that died in Iraq represent the same thing. It's a repulsive, sickening loss of humanity that scars the soul. I don't care about the WMD, the BushcoHaliburton diatribe or convincing you about the merits of a "surge", a "redeployment" or the "cut and run" by using that information. I wish that I could bleach my brain and be ignorant to what I know at times because the inhumanity that we have inflicted on people in the name of "ideas" is so staggering that distorts your perspective past the point of rational thought. If our rights are so precious that we will not allow the soldier to fight for them because we have to protect them, yet kill the unborn for in order to not be inconvenienced and thereby lose them, then I may be willing to give them up in order to regain the shreds of humanity we've destroyed at the alter of "personal freedom." If "absolute power corrupts, absolutely" then I feel safe in saying that "absolute freedom" holds "power's" hand on it's path to corruption. The whole thing about these arguments is that while we can sit around and deliberate around the "ideas" involved, the reality is that is people dying or dead on the other end of the equation. Does it mean that we can't discuss it? Of course not, we have to. If we don't, it will continue to happen until we solve the issue in such a way that people aren't dying on the other end of the equation. However, we need keep in mind that whatever delight we get in making points and winning arguments is not justified in the morbid disregard for those that die while we are bystanders. I admire Gutfield for calling out Professor John Seery's morbid post in which he proposed a contest where people submit their estimate of how many troops will die this year. What ever the Professor's position on the war may be, the lives of soldiers are not there to be lost for his personal bemusement and intellectual disdain. Professor Seery is lucky that he teaches in another part of the country because that recommendation, in one of my classes, would more than likely allow the professor to become familiar with the nuances of his university dental plan. If you want to make a point and argue, do it. Have a great time. I have no issue with that. However, I'm disgusted and past the point of tolerating the disregard some people have shown for those who don't have a "political dog in the fight" but have given their lives doing their duty. Labels: abortion, censorship, iraq, media, politics |
| You remember when the congress kinda crapped a cow about the ports in the US being transferred to foreign controlled company? I believe that the argument was that the UAE couldn't be trusted with something connected to American security. That always struck me as stupid considering the amount of goods we get from China or the amount of oil we get from Saudi Arabia. However, in the spirit of information access let me tease your xenophobic curiosity towards something more essential: Water. There are 2 names you need to know: Veolia and Suez SA. Who is Veolia? We serve more than 600 communities and 14 million people through public-private partnerships. We are the proud operators of North America's largest water partnership in Indianapolis, as well as the first U.S. partnership in Burlingame, Calif., which was established in 1972 and is now the nation's longest-running. We also lead the industry in design-build-operate partnerships.So they essentially manage the the water assets for some U.S. cities. Here's a great map of their projects. Oh yeah, they also happen to be a French company. So the French are in charge of a large segment of the US's water. Yes, our water. That is , unless you count Suez SA. Another French company with multiple contracts for providing water, as well as electric and gas utilities, for several US cities. Now, do I think these companies are behind some nefarious plot to wreck life in the US? No. I have no reason to doubt that they work just like our companies. They work to make money. However, I hope this highlights that global interaction happens everyday at levels that we never consider in our nationalistic existence. For that reason, we need to be aware of the implication of our interactions with other countries and how that effects our way of life. This is even more relevant when you consider the discussions on how to proceed in Iraq. The commitment we make will be noted by many other people that have interests in the US and these things will effect our way of life. As we are learning, now that America has pushed it's economic edges into the global market we are not going to be able to approach things with a xenophobic mindset. For that reason, we must consider if we are going to viewed as a country that honors it's idealism and national commitments. If not, we must prepare for the globe to reflect our inability to project strength with a withdrawal in the faith of our commercial ability to ensure a strong market. Make no mistake, America's military might is seen as an extension of our capitalism and the failure to see it's venture through will reflect on the commitment we place on our own marketplace. Our standing as a nation is defined by our ideology and our ability to implement it. If one of those pillars fails the other will suffer for it. We cannot afford to see this as "their fight" any more than we can afford to see it as "our water." We are tied to the globe now. We will either lead or follow but there is no going back. |
 Apparently Pelosi has run the gambit from needing more troops to needing to withdraw troops since 2004. An aide to Pelosi said that the changes are not inconsistencies, but a matter of then and now. "Then" was a couple of years ago, guy. We are not talking 1976, here. Funny thing is whether she thinks we have too many or too few troops in Iraq, Pelosi openly criticized Bush for "mistakes" if things are not being done excatly as she thinks they should be at the time. With her 180 degrees changes, could it be that she just does not have any clue what should be done but knows that whatever Bush does has to be wrong? Whatever. Have the 100 hours started yet, or are we going to wait until after the Superbowl? I can't wait until they undo Katrina. That'll be cool. |
At the end of the "Democratic congress' 100 hours" which has passed, but now the Dem's say will actually start after the National Championship is over, I look at the political landscape and I see the need to take a step back from my partisanship for a second and extend a handshake, a pat on the back and a shoulder to cry on for my fellow Americans on the far, far left. Just like there was a smell of rotten apples in Manhattan today, there's going to be the smell of rotten pork around the beltway tomorrow. Even though we argue and bitch and moan about each other's politics in the end we essentially want the same thing. We want to live our lives free to pursue the things that matter to us. Sure we disagree on how to get there and what is right but that kind of difference in opinion is what keep Ben and Jerry's in business. It's not overly bad. Frustrating? You bet, but not bad. However, I've seen the political landscape in front of me before and like a conservative Sacajawea, I'll do my best to guide you through what's about to happen. You're about to get screwed. The people that you voted for, the ones that promised to stop the Republicans, investigate the ethics scams, start impeachment hearings and get the troops out of Iraq, they're all about to do the one thing you least expected. They're about to play ball. I know, you're saying to yourself, "No way, our people aren't like your corrupt officials. There going to put power back in the hands of the people. We gave them a mandate!" I'm so sorry, but you're wrong. I felt the same way. If it helps any, I bought the whole "marriage amendment, smaller government, stay the course, we'll fix immigration" pitch. And as Ted Stevens porked his bridge to nowhere and the marriage amendment died off and illegal aliens ran across the border to work at the meat packing plants, I was confronted with the reality that I was duped. It's hard to admit, like a 941 scammers wet dream, I had believed that they meant that they actually cared what the 33 year old father of 2.5 kids who was against stem cells and gay marriage and went to church and didn't like nascar but watched hockey instead thought about the way the nation should be run. Hell, maybe they did. However, once they hit those marble halls the quest was all about staying in power. And my dear counterparts, the yang to my political yin, you're about to see that your side may have meant it too but the crack cocaine of political power is going to jolt them into the same feeding frenzy of pork pushing, 2008 power scheming that made us stay home on election day. Prepare for disillusionment because it's a bitch. Still skeptical? Consider this:  Not subtle, but effective, right? There isn't any ambiguity in that message yet what was the Pelosi comment on impeaching Bush? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says "impeachment is off the table." Some of your own have already sensed it. The are already calling it a capitulation to make your own party into one indistinguishable from mine in order to get votes. Look for yourselves. Sure, I chafe at their characterizations but the fact remains that they are right. Your guys are selling out. Remember all that talk about defunding the war to bring the troops home? Sure you do. The Kos kids tried to elect a guy over Lieberman for just that reason. Listen to the chorus now.
That's great for news quotes but let me tell you what will happen if they actually do it: They will get slaughtered in 2008, and all of them know it, because "backing the troops" isn't congruent with not paying for their supplies, programs and requisitions. The Party that labors to not appear soft on defense can't afford to be the party that complains about soldiers body armor and then won't spend the cash to send it. Likewise, for all the complaining about gas prices, do you think the price will go up or down once Iran controls Iraq's oil? Folks, they are going to screw you for oil. Mark my words. I know that you'll snipe this and maybe mark a little of my text for anti-Republican quotes while dismissing my ideas out of hand. I mean, this paste eating rethuglican can't know a thing about what's going on, right? Well, sadly, no. I know all too well. So for what it worth console yourself with the fact you didn't waste your vote by voting the "green party." It's about all of the memories you got when you thought they were listening and, just like me, be happy that you tried. It was a noble effort and well played on your part but today is the day the music died. Again. |
Fear not! TNOYF has a great gift idea for that member of your family that loves to keep track of Iraq casualties: Are you freakishly obsessed with the daily casualty count in Iraq? Do you find yourself disappointed when a day or two goes by and no American soldiers die? Have you ever been at a cocktail party and said, "How can we be so damn jovial when George Bush is responsible for a death toll in Iraq that is approaching one-tenth the total of British dead in the Second Boer War?"But hurry - I'm sure supplies are limited. |
| For those on the left that have so much invested in seeing the US fail I have a quandry: Whose fault is it that the US was able to take over Iraq, install a government, have 2 sets of elections, see Saddam tried and have his death sentence upheld today in less time than our own legal system took to define the status of the "illegal combatants" we've caught and housed in Gitmo? (Somehow, I'm sure it's all Bush's fault, right?) Labels: iraq |
View/Hide Other Top Matches
