Just because it's summer, I no longer live in the disgusting shithole of liberal Oakland and the backyard is such a pleasant place to spend a Saturday afternoon...
Saturday, July 30, 2005
And now for something completely different...
Just because it's summer, I no longer live in the disgusting shithole of liberal Oakland and the backyard is such a pleasant place to spend a Saturday afternoon...
Sunday, July 24, 2005
We Have A Winner Of The "Stupidest Fuck On The Planet" Award!
We have a winner of the "Stupidest Fuck On The Planet Award" and it's not that ignorant cunt, Dianne Feinstein! Nor is it the laughably clueless editors of the San Francisco Chronicle, who printed a letter to the editor last week written by someone using the name that is the Polish translation of "Surprise Cockfag." No, the stupidest fuck on the planet is... J.D. Coleman of Cincinnati, Ohio. Who is J.D. Coleman? J.D. Coleman is the supremely ignorant fuck who wrote the following letter to the editor, published in the NY Times Magazine today, in response to the NY Times Magazine's fawning story on Syria's dictator, Bashar Assad:
The NY Times Magazine writes a story that attempts to humanize a bloodthirsty dictator and J.D. Coleman goes a step further and states to the world that he'd really like to live under such a dictator.
I knew liberals were stupid, but after seeing this, I may have overestimated them.
The Enigma of Damascus
James Bennet's article on Bashar al-Assad (July 10) provided a much-needed insight into the workings of Syria and its president. I was struck by the account of Assad's night at the opera. There was no mention of a heavily armed escort or a selected and searched audience. And at the end of the performance, Assad and his wife mingled with the crowd before (and this was most amazing to me) driving off into the Damascus night traffic, the president at the wheel of an Audi.
I long to have a president who will take a Sunday stroll, even with his guards a few steps behind, one who will stop and chat with ordinary people and who might, God forbid, pop into Burger King.
J.D. Coleman
Cincinnati
The NY Times Magazine writes a story that attempts to humanize a bloodthirsty dictator and J.D. Coleman goes a step further and states to the world that he'd really like to live under such a dictator.
I knew liberals were stupid, but after seeing this, I may have overestimated them.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Happy Anniversary
...to me....
Tomorrow, July 18, is the one year anniversary of my move from disgusting, liberal Democrat dominated Oakland. As I've mentioned here before, I now live in a GOP majority area about 20 or so miles southeast of Oakland (and about 40 miles in the same direction from San Francisco). I lived in Oakland for about four years, and Brooklyn for about eight years before that, and then Oakland before that. It's clear that I've spent a good amount of time in cities that are dominated by liberals. New York is known as a liberal Democrat city but the reality is that there's a big enough conservative minority (three consecutive Republican mayors prove this) that New York is really a moderate city, not a liberal city.
Oakland, on the other hand, has no balance. It's virtually 100% liberal Democrat. I was one of the only conservatives in that disgusting city and all one has to do is look at the political affiliation of the mayors and city council members over the past 20 years and you'll see that it's 100% Democrat. Not a single Republican in office there. And the Democrats are the Barbara Lee/Barbara Boxer liberal types. Ignorant cunts, for sure (like Dianne Feinstein) and the epitome of modern American Democrats. So Oakland is a perfect case study of what America would be like under a Democrat administration.
Many Democrats, including those who try to hide their party affiliation by claiming that they're "centrists" when there's no such party, claim that the country would be better off under the Democrats. Those same Democrats usually have never had to live with the real effects of a Democrat agenda. Take our old friend, midlifeinmarin. He lives in a wealthy, white town that is nominally Democrat. But when you look at the way they live, they are far from the Democrat agenda. They don't have affirmation action, they don't bus minority kids into their schools (quite the contrary, they zealously exclude minorities), they don't build low income housing developments that would bring in minorities, they don't take any steps to diversify their population (in fact, midlifeinmarin says that people in Marin consider trees to be their form of diversity). As a result, Marin County is 90% or so white and they don't have to waste their tax dollars on the city services that lower income populations and minorities so often require (e.g., police, medical, housing, etc.). Those in Marin live conservative while voting liberal.
If, however, they were to live as they vote they'd be closer to the Oakland situation.
And that gets me back to the point of this post. A year ago, I was living in Oakland and paying a ridiculous amount of tax ($12,000 a year) into a liberal Democrat system. In return, Oakland delivered catastrophically high crime rates (among the worst in the nation), shockingly low school test scores, abysmal infrastructure maintenance (the streets of Oakland are generally worse than those you'd find in a third world country) and so few city services that my former neighbors reported with excitement that they had seen a street cleaner a few months after I left (I had been asking the city for years to have our streets clean, to no avail...Apparently, Oakland is on a once every three years cleaning schedule). Don't take my word for it, go drive around Oakland. It's a city in shambles, with conditions that are more akin to an African city than an American city.
The liberal Democrat agenda of Oakland is to blame for the above. Oakland's liberal politicians refuse to do anything to combat crime, as it would be seen as hostile to the majority of Negroes in Oakland, so the crimes rates spiral upward, the needs of the police department escalate and the taxpayers are forced to foot the bill. The same goes for just about every other social service. Oakland is what America would look like under the Democrats.
I couldn't take it anymore and I carefully researched other areas until I found an area that had a conservative majority and a conservative local government. Our tax rates here are 40% lower than in Oakland, our schools are top ranked (better than Mill Valley's, in fact), crime is low and city services are extensive. Our city runs a budget surplus and the streets are always clean and well maintained. There are vast areas of open space and landscaped public areas...it looks more like a botanical garden and a city street in most places here. And, best of all, out here, we have excellent growth management and tremendous areas of designated open space. Oakland, on the other hand, has totally destroyed the environment. Every inch of open space is permitted for development. Take a look at the pictures and stories here if you want to see what liberals REALLY do to the environment...it's a site established by Oakland residents to document the destruction of the Leona Quarry area of the Oakland Hills. I'm also going to post an email I received recently from someone who still subscribes to the Oakland Hills community newsgroup. This email, pasted below, will show how Democrats really treat the environment. Remember, Oakland is 100% Democrat controlled, so there's no finger pointing at Republicans possible.
So on this anniversary of my escape from the reality of Democrat rule, I thank the good Lord that I was able to get out of disgusting Oakland and thank the good Lord even more that I was able to find a GOP area to move to.
Let this be a lesson to anyone who tries to peddle the lies of the left...if you want to know what an America under Democrat control would be like, go to Oakland. I dare you to vote Democrat after that.
And here, the email that says it all. Names have been removed to protect the innocent. I also have to point out that the city council member for the Oakland Hills, Jane Brunner, and the city planning dept, especially Ann Clevenger, are a perfect match for the residents of the Oakland Hills. Brunner and Clevenger are corrupt left wing scam artists who prey on white liberal guilt/self loathing and their constituents are self loathing white liberals. They get what they deserve. Clevenger would approve plans to build an airport on a 30 degree slope in the Oakland Hills if someone were to propose it.
Tomorrow, July 18, is the one year anniversary of my move from disgusting, liberal Democrat dominated Oakland. As I've mentioned here before, I now live in a GOP majority area about 20 or so miles southeast of Oakland (and about 40 miles in the same direction from San Francisco). I lived in Oakland for about four years, and Brooklyn for about eight years before that, and then Oakland before that. It's clear that I've spent a good amount of time in cities that are dominated by liberals. New York is known as a liberal Democrat city but the reality is that there's a big enough conservative minority (three consecutive Republican mayors prove this) that New York is really a moderate city, not a liberal city.
Oakland, on the other hand, has no balance. It's virtually 100% liberal Democrat. I was one of the only conservatives in that disgusting city and all one has to do is look at the political affiliation of the mayors and city council members over the past 20 years and you'll see that it's 100% Democrat. Not a single Republican in office there. And the Democrats are the Barbara Lee/Barbara Boxer liberal types. Ignorant cunts, for sure (like Dianne Feinstein) and the epitome of modern American Democrats. So Oakland is a perfect case study of what America would be like under a Democrat administration.
Many Democrats, including those who try to hide their party affiliation by claiming that they're "centrists" when there's no such party, claim that the country would be better off under the Democrats. Those same Democrats usually have never had to live with the real effects of a Democrat agenda. Take our old friend, midlifeinmarin. He lives in a wealthy, white town that is nominally Democrat. But when you look at the way they live, they are far from the Democrat agenda. They don't have affirmation action, they don't bus minority kids into their schools (quite the contrary, they zealously exclude minorities), they don't build low income housing developments that would bring in minorities, they don't take any steps to diversify their population (in fact, midlifeinmarin says that people in Marin consider trees to be their form of diversity). As a result, Marin County is 90% or so white and they don't have to waste their tax dollars on the city services that lower income populations and minorities so often require (e.g., police, medical, housing, etc.). Those in Marin live conservative while voting liberal.
If, however, they were to live as they vote they'd be closer to the Oakland situation.
And that gets me back to the point of this post. A year ago, I was living in Oakland and paying a ridiculous amount of tax ($12,000 a year) into a liberal Democrat system. In return, Oakland delivered catastrophically high crime rates (among the worst in the nation), shockingly low school test scores, abysmal infrastructure maintenance (the streets of Oakland are generally worse than those you'd find in a third world country) and so few city services that my former neighbors reported with excitement that they had seen a street cleaner a few months after I left (I had been asking the city for years to have our streets clean, to no avail...Apparently, Oakland is on a once every three years cleaning schedule). Don't take my word for it, go drive around Oakland. It's a city in shambles, with conditions that are more akin to an African city than an American city.
The liberal Democrat agenda of Oakland is to blame for the above. Oakland's liberal politicians refuse to do anything to combat crime, as it would be seen as hostile to the majority of Negroes in Oakland, so the crimes rates spiral upward, the needs of the police department escalate and the taxpayers are forced to foot the bill. The same goes for just about every other social service. Oakland is what America would look like under the Democrats.
I couldn't take it anymore and I carefully researched other areas until I found an area that had a conservative majority and a conservative local government. Our tax rates here are 40% lower than in Oakland, our schools are top ranked (better than Mill Valley's, in fact), crime is low and city services are extensive. Our city runs a budget surplus and the streets are always clean and well maintained. There are vast areas of open space and landscaped public areas...it looks more like a botanical garden and a city street in most places here. And, best of all, out here, we have excellent growth management and tremendous areas of designated open space. Oakland, on the other hand, has totally destroyed the environment. Every inch of open space is permitted for development. Take a look at the pictures and stories here if you want to see what liberals REALLY do to the environment...it's a site established by Oakland residents to document the destruction of the Leona Quarry area of the Oakland Hills. I'm also going to post an email I received recently from someone who still subscribes to the Oakland Hills community newsgroup. This email, pasted below, will show how Democrats really treat the environment. Remember, Oakland is 100% Democrat controlled, so there's no finger pointing at Republicans possible.
So on this anniversary of my escape from the reality of Democrat rule, I thank the good Lord that I was able to get out of disgusting Oakland and thank the good Lord even more that I was able to find a GOP area to move to.
Let this be a lesson to anyone who tries to peddle the lies of the left...if you want to know what an America under Democrat control would be like, go to Oakland. I dare you to vote Democrat after that.
And here, the email that says it all. Names have been removed to protect the innocent. I also have to point out that the city council member for the Oakland Hills, Jane Brunner, and the city planning dept, especially Ann Clevenger, are a perfect match for the residents of the Oakland Hills. Brunner and Clevenger are corrupt left wing scam artists who prey on white liberal guilt/self loathing and their constituents are self loathing white liberals. They get what they deserve. Clevenger would approve plans to build an airport on a 30 degree slope in the Oakland Hills if someone were to propose it.
Hi All
Below I have provided the thread of correspondence between some
neighbors and Ann Clevenger regarding the lot currently under
construction next to our home. As you may already know, Grandview was
closed yesterday with no notice to any surrounding neighbors, and,
building has begun! Most of the surrounding neighbors were taken by
surprise. This lot had changed hands many times, at least 4 since 1997.
Last July we were visited by the owner before this current one, he
claimed, "he was using the old plans and ready to build", not long after
his third and last visit sometime in August, the lot went back on the
market.
A new owner of only a couple of months apparently also decided to use
the plans that Rita Moreno's architect drew up some years ago, but this
is purely conjecture my part as there has been NO notification of any
lot design review. If these are the old plans, I believe they would not
meet the current design review specs that occurred a few years back.
Many of my neighbors were shocked by the prospect of a new building as
no one seemed to be aware that such a project was being reviewed, much
less approved. Many of the neighbors are also wondering why, when a lot
changes hands, as this one did, the city had no obligation to provide
written notification to surrounding neighbors that the plans from the
prior builder were in play again? And why, when at least 2 of the
neighbors wrote to Ann, we did not get Reponses to our questions.
So let the games begin. It is now day 2 of construction and we have
already experienced the rude and unnecessary inconveniences of this new
builder. Yesterday after a very busy day, our driveway was partially
blocked requiring backing out and around a blind curve. I backed all the
way to the drive of the house that is new and 'open on Sunday'. I do
not understand why when a road closure is required a sign announcing
this and/or a flyer in the mailbox to future neighbors is so difficult?
Doing so a day or so in advance would make such a difference to those of
us impacted and could alter the way in which we respond to these
horrible messy and dangerous problems. Furthermore where were flag men
directing traffic and ensuring that those of us who lived in the area
were guided safely to and from our homes?
I also do not understand why it is that Ann Clevenger so conveniently
was too busy to address my questions regarding how this property passed
design review ...how is it so many neighbors were shocked at this sudden
building permit??? I also wonder why future neighbors who expect to live
in harmony with the neighborhood are so uninvolved with trying to ensure
the surrounding properties are respected. Having lived through 3 homes
being built to the west of us and several above and below, we expect
little and get less once the crews move in. A fence to protect our
vegetation and to keep clutter from our property would be the least that
one should expect. Ensuring traffic and exit routes are managed should
be the very least. If there had been any kind of a fire yesterday many
would have been impacted by the unexpected closure of this road. There
had been NO prior notification!!!! The crew pulled out a rock the size
of a small garage and left it on the TOP of the hillside by the
retaining wall supported only by a piece of wood...........if there had
been a mild earthquake that rock would have gone through at least 2
homes below before stopping.
Who manages these builders? Why doesn't the city take a more active role
in policing their activities? After all the city gets the revenue from
our property taxes! The builders DO NOT CARE about the surrounding area
they have a very different goal and agenda so who do the current
property owners turn to?
Regards
Hi Ann
I have been away and when I reviewed my email did not see a reply to my
note to you. I have noticed that there is some activity on the lot next
to us. Can you please tell me the status of approval? And respond to my
questions below?
Regards
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:34 PM
To: 'Clevenger, Ann'
Cc:
Subject: RE: New neighbor
Hi Ann
Sorry to take up so much of your time with this but I would like to
understand the process a little better. So here are a few questions:
I am quite certain that the current owners of this lot have only very
recently purchased the lot, maybe within the last 2-4 months? This is
why I was so surprised to hear they were going to begin building so
quickly and without the neighbors benefit of having been sent a new
design review notice.
After reading some of your email correspondence it sounds like the plans
from the prior owners, submitted in 2004, were in fact reviewed and
approved? The last design review for this lot went out to the
neighborhood last July, and, as you mentioned, I and others did react by
calling and emailing our concerns. The lot was back on the market so
quickly I never presumed a design review went forward. Am I to
understand that design review was completed for the 2004 owners? Are
these than the same plans the current owners are planning on following?
Is it the city's policy to move forward with old plans that may have
been previously reviewed and approved even if the lot changes owners?
Those of us who take the time to review these plans and write, call or
comment are obviously interested in assuring we have some input into the
process. I think many of us are unaware of what happens after we have
provided our input. Is there any mechanism in place to inform
surrounding dwellers about the decisions the city decides and why those
decisions were made? Is there any communication as to when a design
review is completed and approved sent to those of us who have commented?
Even if I operate on the premise that the plans were approved less than
a year ago and these are the plans the new owners are using, I would
think that at the very least a new design review notice should be sent
to the neighborhood simply because it has been a year of no activity and
many of us were unaware the last owners plans had been reviewed and
accepted, if in fact that is the case.
It is also my understanding that these plans, if they are still the
plans that Rita Moreno's architect drew up, no longer adhere to the more
recent and tighter design construction codes, which, I believe were
implemented 3 or more years ago. Is this correct?
Please understand I have lived through several difficult construction
sites, we had 3 houses built next to us and one across the street since
we moved here in 1997. You may recall that our lives were very disrupted
when it was discovered that property lines with the property next door
were incorrectly interpreted and the front wall our home had to be torn
down and rebuilt. the builder built both homes so he was at fault and
made the necessary changes). We, like so many others have tolerated
dealing with construction debris, noise, a water main break that flooded
our patio, (ruining our landscaping), electrical interruptions, frequent
and often very dangerous traffic issues which were poorly managed, and
countless other inconveniences. I think it stands to reason that as the
hill repopulates some consideration needs to be shown to those of us who
have endured so many of these difficulties.
As always thanks for your time and input.
Regards
-----Original Message-----
From: Clevenger, Ann [mailto:AClevenger@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 10:34 AM
To:
Subject: RE: New neighbor
If the trees are not protected trees, which are subject to Tree Removal
Permits, then they can be removed before the building permits are
issued. I
don't know whether they meet the definition of protected trees or not,
but
you can ask the Tree Section (615-5850) to check it out. Otherwise, you
can
contact the Building Dept. at 238-3891 or 238-3443 to find out what type
of
work can be done prior to issuance of building permits. I think they
allow
clearing of sites, but certainly not commencement of building
construction.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying "nothing was done". During Design
Review, we post & notice projects. The notices specifically invite
neighbors to come in to our offices and view the plans and submit
written
comments, and then staff takes any comments received during the comment
period into consideration, along with reviewing for conformity with
Planning
Codes and Design Guidelines, during our review/analysis of the project,
and
issues a decision.
Ann
Ann M. Clevenger, AICP, Planner III
City of Oakland - Zoning Division
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
phone: (510)238-6980
fax: (510)238-4730
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 10:07 AM
To: 'Clevenger, Ann'
Subject: RE: New neighbor
Ann
They are clearing the lot of trees and the owners told my family that
they were initiating construction next week. Are you telling me they are
not authorized to build yet? Could you please tell me what they are
authorized to do before permits are issued? And do we have any rights
now to question the plans or object to the building size etc??? Since I
did call within the time frame for which one can object why was nothing
done?
-----Original Message-----
From: Clevenger, Ann [mailto:AClevenger@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 8:06 AM
To:
Subject: RE: New neighbor
I can send you a copy of the mailing list from our Public Notices from
July,
2004, that has your name and address on it, as well as a copy of my
telephone log that has a message in it from you dated July 12, 2004, at
8:59
a.m., inquiring about this project. I also have a note in the file to
the
applicant mentioning that you had questions.
In case you are questioning whether you should have been noticed about
the
actual construction, we don't send or post notices for that.
Again, the building permits have not been issued, so they are not
authorized
to start construction yet.
Ann
Ann M. Clevenger, AICP, Planner III
City of Oakland - Zoning Division
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
phone: (510)238-6980
fax: (510)238-4730
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:24 PM
To: 'Clevenger, Ann'
Subject: RE: New neighbor
Ann I watch this lot very closely and I DID NOT receive any information
about this build what happened? I am so sorry that you are pressed for
time but this simply is not right.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clevenger, Ann [mailto:AClevenger@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:37 AM
To:
Subject: RE: New neighbor
Since you did not give me any location information, I looked up your
name in
the county assessor's records, pulled up the AP map and found the
address of
the property next to yours (1466 Grand View) and then plugged it into
our
permit tracking system to see which project it is. Turns out there has
been
no building permit issued (though it has been filed), but I do have a
set of
the building plans in my office for review. I have not looked into the
history of notification, whether extensions were granted, etc., as I
have
not started to work on this project yet. I can tell you it is not high
on
my stack of work to be done as I have many projects well ahead of it.
When
I get to it, I'll send you an update on the history of notifications,
approvals, extensions if any, or whatever we turn up. Thanks for the
inquiry, and feel free to check in again if you haven't heard anything
in
the next couple of weeks.
Ann
Ann M. Clevenger, AICP, Planner III
City of Oakland - Zoning Division
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
phone: (510)238-6980
fax: (510)238-4730
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:22 PM
To: 'Clevenger, Ann'
Cc:
Subject: New neighbor
Hello Ann:
This week I was suddenly informed by 'new owners' of the lot next to us,
(one of 5 or 6 buyers since 1997), that yet again, this lot had been
sold and somehow, without any notice to surrounding property owners,
building was to begin this week!!!! No one, and I have checked with my
neighbors and the NPA, has been informed that this lot, sold with old
architectural plans which, were designed before zoning changes occurred
a few years ago, were aware that this building approval was under
consideration........... let alone approved! Oakland never informed
anyone and no one was made aware that this building review was in
process. Given how old these plans are and that they occurred after the
zoning laws changed tells me that these plans are NO longer valid. How
is it possible than that building is to start this week?
Could you please let me know immediately what my recourse is to object
to a structure I had no idea was going forward for approval? How I can
contact the city to object and express my frustration at the lack of
communication regarding this action and voice my concern about the lack
of notification? I would appreciate some information as to what action
I can take to stop this and re-review these plans as related to the new
zoning code implemented after these plans were developed.
Any advise or explanation for this action would be appreciated. It seems
so obvious that Oakland just approves buildings to ensure a property tax
income regardless of what impact this may have on our neighborhood I
really think this will ultimately impact the positive growth of our
community if allowed to go unchecked.
PS I have forwarded my message on to some of the members of the NPA but
since I commute to Palo Alto for work I do not often get to interact
with the meetings they hold. Any information NPA could provide to me to
better manage this situation would be greatly appreciated.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Sympathy for the Devil
(Yes, this is the first post in a long time that will not involve commentary on Dianne Feinstein being an ignorant cunt).
I'm copying (and pasting below) an article from today's NY Times because I think it's so illustrative of the double standard of the left. This article gives lip service to how bad terrorism is but then goes into great detail to provide an implied and strong message: terrorism is the natural result of oppression and it's justified. That's the liberal Democrat message.
I grew up as one of the few white kids (and probably the only white Jewish kid) in a suburb south of San Francisco. My school was primarily Filipino, Negro, Mexican and Chinese (in that order)...they probably made up 75% of the population. Whites were maybe 10% at most. I can't count the number of times I was targeted by the Negroes (the Asians generally left me alone, especially after they found out that I had access to guns) and Mexicans. Through junior high, it was pretty common for the white kids to get beat up by gangs of Negroes (the Mexicans tended to not beat people up as much, for whatever reason). It was a weekly occurrence, at minimum. During junior high I made the mistake of stepping on a Negro's hand during a gym class and later that day, he snuck up behind me and stabbed me in the back and said something like "never touch me again, fucking honky" (it was the 70s).
The injury wasn't life threatening and some time later I challenged this negro. While I didn't win the fight, I stood up to him and got in some very good shots (I was a big kid and weighed a good 30 lbs more than the negro, so I was able to body slam him to the ground and put my entire weight on my arm, which was wedged against his throat...I was planning to break his neck, right up to the point that his friends pulled me off of him and roughed me up). After that, my parents got me to go to a private school so I wouldn't have to be distracted by negro violence.
So I wonder if I were to have killed that negro or had I gone on a rampage against Negroes, much like Muslims do against the west, killing scores of them, would the NY Times have printed a story about me and the surviving white kids that showed us to have a legitimate reason to hate Negroes and painting us in a sympathetic light? Would they have? What do you think?
I'm copying (and pasting below) an article from today's NY Times because I think it's so illustrative of the double standard of the left. This article gives lip service to how bad terrorism is but then goes into great detail to provide an implied and strong message: terrorism is the natural result of oppression and it's justified. That's the liberal Democrat message.
I grew up as one of the few white kids (and probably the only white Jewish kid) in a suburb south of San Francisco. My school was primarily Filipino, Negro, Mexican and Chinese (in that order)...they probably made up 75% of the population. Whites were maybe 10% at most. I can't count the number of times I was targeted by the Negroes (the Asians generally left me alone, especially after they found out that I had access to guns) and Mexicans. Through junior high, it was pretty common for the white kids to get beat up by gangs of Negroes (the Mexicans tended to not beat people up as much, for whatever reason). It was a weekly occurrence, at minimum. During junior high I made the mistake of stepping on a Negro's hand during a gym class and later that day, he snuck up behind me and stabbed me in the back and said something like "never touch me again, fucking honky" (it was the 70s).
The injury wasn't life threatening and some time later I challenged this negro. While I didn't win the fight, I stood up to him and got in some very good shots (I was a big kid and weighed a good 30 lbs more than the negro, so I was able to body slam him to the ground and put my entire weight on my arm, which was wedged against his throat...I was planning to break his neck, right up to the point that his friends pulled me off of him and roughed me up). After that, my parents got me to go to a private school so I wouldn't have to be distracted by negro violence.
So I wonder if I were to have killed that negro or had I gone on a rampage against Negroes, much like Muslims do against the west, killing scores of them, would the NY Times have printed a story about me and the surviving white kids that showed us to have a legitimate reason to hate Negroes and painting us in a sympathetic light? Would they have? What do you think?
July 16, 2005
Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain's Muslims
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
LEEDS, England, July 15 - At Beeston's Cross Flats Park, in the center of this now embattled town, Sanjay Dutt and his friends grappled Friday with why their friend Kakey, better known to the world as Shehzad Tanweer, had decided to become a suicide bomber.
"He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it," Mr. Dutt, 22, said. "Why, for example, don't they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?"
"It's a double standard, that's why," answered a friend, who called himself Shahroukh, also 22, wearing a baseball cap and basketball jersey, sitting nearby. "I don't approve of what he did, but I understand it. You get driven to something like this, it doesn't just happen."
To the boys from Cross Flats Park, Mr. Tanweer, 22, who blew himself up on a subway train in London last week, was devout, thoughtful and generous. If they understood his actions, it was because they lived in Mr. Tanweer's world, too.
They did not agree with what Mr. Tanweer had done, but made clear they shared the same sense of otherness, the same sense of siege, the same sense that their community, and Muslims in general, were in their view helpless before the whims of greater powers. Ultimately, they understood his anger.
The news that four British-born Muslim men from neighborhoods around Leeds were suspected of carrying out the bombings in London has made the shared dissatisfaction of boys like these and the creeping militancy of some young British Muslims an urgent issue in Britain.
The bombers are an exception among Britain's 1.6 million Muslims. But their actions have highlighted a lingering question: why are second-generation British Muslims who should seemingly be farther up the road of assimilation rejecting the country in which they were born and raised?
Speak to young Muslims like Mr. Dutt and his friends in Leeds, or to others like Dr. Imram Waheed, 28, and Farouq Khan, 32, two Islamic activists living in Birmingham, another Muslim population center, and the answers seem clear. Each expresses the grievance in his own way, but the root is nearly the same.
They say they are weary of liberal Muslim leaders and British politicians who promise changes. They see them backing policies against the Muslim world in general, from Iraq to the Middle East to Afghanistan, and promising relief from economic distress and discrimination. Still, Britain's Muslims have languished near the bottom of society since their influx here in the 1950's.
"I know what people don't understand - it's how terrorists could have been born in this country," Shahroukh said. "But my point is, why not?"
A recent poll commissioned by The Guardian found that 84 percent of Muslims surveyed were against the use of violence for political means, but only 33 percent of Muslims said they wanted more integration into mainstream British culture. Almost half of those surveyed said their Muslim leadership did not represent their views.
The grievances of the boys of Cross Flats Parks have not propelled them toward political action. But Dr. Waheed, a practicing psychiatrist, and Mr. Khan, a documentary filmmaker, are acting on their alienation.
Both men, eloquent, better educated and better off than most in their community, are also among the more politically motivated. They have embraced one of the more conservative, if not militant, Islamic movements in Britain today - Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation.
The party's stated goal is to rebuild the Caliphate - the Muslim state dissolved with the fall of the Ottoman Empire - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.
The group has drawn about 10,000 members to its recent annual meetings, its members say, and includes chapters abroad in places like Uzbekistan. It is a controversial movement, even among British Muslims, and its members have become emblematic of the shift of Muslims born in Britain to more conservative and outspoken expressions of their faith.
In interviews earlier this week in Birmingham, where they were born and bred, Dr. Waheed and Mr. Khan described the group's struggle as one for the very identity of Muslims in Britain.
"For our parents, the attention was focused on getting a job and building a life here," Mr. Khan said. "My generation had to go through more of a thinking process to discover who we are, our Islamic identity."
What makes the message of conservative movements especially compelling, Dr. Waheed, Mr. Kahn and others say, is that they articulate the fundamental anger of many British Muslims that more mainstream movements seem incapable or unwilling to discuss.
That anger stems not merely from unhappiness with the situation of Muslims in Britain, but also solidarity with what they see as the aggressive and unjust treatment of Muslims abroad, and not least from Britain's part in the war in Iraq.
For instance, at a small meeting hall in Birmingham last Sunday, Dr. Waheed, who now serves as the group's spokesman, and about 100 other members, discussed the London bombings. Unlike most Muslim groups, which have been seeking to reach out to other communities and stem the fallout of the bombings, this gathering was decidedly unsympathetic.
"We know that the killing of innocents is forbidden," Dr. Waheed said. "But we don't see two classes of blood; the blood of Iraqis is just as important to us as English blood." He emphasized that they in no way condoned the bombings. "But when you understand things from that perspective, why should we condemn the bombing?"
Dr. Waheed is ethnically Pakistani, but British in everything from his clothing style to his goatee. He said he was a model student, captain of the cricket team and among the top in his class.
But like many Muslims in this part of Britain, he has felt divided from non-Muslims. He married in his mid-20's and has a child. His brother-in-law is a member of the party, and his father-in-law has joined, too.
He sees Muslim political leaders basically as sellouts, beholden to the British government, and Britain's Muslims as so cowed that they choose silence.
He recalled one day, in particular, when the chairman of Birmingham's central mosque stood up to condemn the killing of Ken Bigley, a hostage taken in Iraq last year who was murdered, apparently by a group loyal to Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
"I remember the hypocrisy of it," Dr. Waheed said, "Then several older people in white beards stood up as well and said, 'Why did you not do anything when the Iraq war began?' "
Another turning point occurred when he watched a BBC Panorama program about Britain's Muslims aired in the summer of 1993. "It was a very harsh, Islamiphobic program about Muslims in ghettos, mistreating their women and similar things," he said.
His nerves rattled, he chanced upon a leaflet from Hizb ut-Tahrir discussing media propaganda against Islam. "I met with members of the group and became convinced on an intellectual level of what the party was doing," he said. "Most others wanted us to stay in mosque - change ourselves as individuals, they said, but don't stand up as a community. Some asked us to stay out of politics."
That prescription was exactly the wrong one, Dr. Waheed felt.
Mr. Khan's path was different. Unlike Dr. Waheed, who grew up religious, Mr. Khan was not particularly observant, the son of an upper-middle-class doctor who had come to Britain from Pakistan to study medicine and then stayed on. The spark for his activism was the war in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf war.
"Watching the news every day and watching people being killed every day got me to think," he said. "It made me start to think of my own identity and who I was, and it became especially important during the first gulf war, when Britain sent troops to Iraq and they were all very jingoistic and xenophobic."
Then he happened upon a Hizb ut-Tahrir member canvassing for the party, and everything clicked, he said.
"I could see the logic," he said. "It was the situation in the Muslim world in terms of killings, massacres and the realities of what our governments are doing to them."
Like the militant socialist movements of the 1960's, the group promises action, change and a well-packaged set of ideals. It provides a team and a sense of belonging. It publishes books with recommendations on how to live a better Muslim life. It actively proselytizes within the Muslim community.
Officially, the party is against the use of violence. It calls on members to use their minds to argue their stands, Dr. Waheed says. But its talk often comes perilously close to incitement, say mainstream Muslim leaders, who say they ultimately bear the brunt of the group's attacks.
In previous years, the members have taken to crashing other Muslim community meetings and drowning out speakers. They have taken imams to task and debated politicians in the media. Some Muslims accuse them of harassment, death threats and instilling fear of retribution in their communities.
In recent days, politicians have called for curbs on the movement's activities. Such efforts, Dr. Waheed said, are a "clear attempt to blur the margins between political Islam and violence."
"They want to say that Hizb ut-Tahrir is violent," he said. "We are not underground and we're not looking to recruit people. We're just looking for awareness."
He acknowledged the group's ways were more "controversial" a decade ago, but added that much has changed since. "Maybe some of the means and styles at those times could have turned people away, but we have moved on significantly," he said.
Even in Leeds, where Muslims have struggled to co-exist with white Britons, Hizb ut-Tahrir's activists have vied for control of some mosques, community leaders say. They are not always welcome, and the group has not enjoyed much success here, despite the grievances of young men like Mr. Dutt and his friends.
"They're too far over the top," Mr. Dutt said. "They talk about the Caliphate, when we have our own problems here."
Monday, July 11, 2005
What Becomes A Libtard Most? (The intersection of the NY Times editorial page and the ignorant cunt, Dianne Feinstein)
I've used the phrase "libtard" a few times here and today's NY Times' editorials perfectly illustrates why the two words, liberal retard, work so well together.
The first editorial of the day is a typical Times' screed against the PATRIOT Act and anything related in concept that could be used by the government to prevent terrorism through intelligence gathering. As typical, the Times cares more about the fact that there's a slim chance that the government could take a peek at your Visa bill without your knowledge than how such a power could be used to save American lives. Here's a sample of the Times' hysterical "there is nothing that justifies the invasion of privacy!" reaction to the proposal for an administrative subpoena power (which, curiously, already exists for investigations that don't relate to prevention of terrorism):
Now look at the next editorial of the day, on the very same page. It's yet another NY Times rant against guns (in the grand tradition of that ignorant cunt, Dianne Feinstein), taking issue with an effort to remove a law from the books in the District of Columbia which requires a person who legally possesses a gun in his or her house to keep it disassembled and unloaded. Anti-gun laws tend to be the product of liberal hysteria taken to its illogical extreme, but this law is worse than most. Not only does it only affect law abiding gunowners, it forces them to convert the only means of defense they probably have into a lump of metal that would be useless when it was most needed. This isn't a law that would prevent crime...it's a law that some Dianne Feinstein type of dumbass drafted to do exactly what the first editorial warned of-provide the government with an open-ended license to invade the privacy of ordinary Americans.
I used to think that the nonsense in the Times editorials was part of a brilliant liberal plan to change the country in their image. These days, though, it seems as though the rage that the Times editors have against Bush and the majority of Americans who elected Bush has so damaged their ability to screen their own editorials for internal consistency that they come out with something like this. Two editorials, one screaming against the government invading privacy, the other demanding it.
Here's the best part of the editorial:
I don't know how many kids have been accidentally killed by legally owned guns stored in their homes, but I bet it's a lot fewer than the number of people killed in London last week or in the US on 9/11. So, in the opinion of the Times, it's ok to invade the privacy of Americans to prevent an accident that may take a few lives a year, but it's not ok to invade the privacy of people to prevent terror attacks that kill thousands.
There you have it, the perfect example of libtardation.
One other thing that caught my eye about the administrative subpoena editorial...and it's this passage:
Interesting, isn't it, that the Times demands the right to use "secret" evidence in the form of anonymous sources (see the entry immediately below this one for the Times' defense of that) without any limitation because a newspaper trying to make a profit by titillating a liberal audience with anti-government exposes is important, but the government must not be allowed to use such sources, which would always be balanced by the subsequent open legal proceedings, to prevent a terrorist attack?
The first editorial of the day is a typical Times' screed against the PATRIOT Act and anything related in concept that could be used by the government to prevent terrorism through intelligence gathering. As typical, the Times cares more about the fact that there's a slim chance that the government could take a peek at your Visa bill without your knowledge than how such a power could be used to save American lives. Here's a sample of the Times' hysterical "there is nothing that justifies the invasion of privacy!" reaction to the proposal for an administrative subpoena power (which, curiously, already exists for investigations that don't relate to prevention of terrorism):
The Senate is considering something far more sweeping and dangerous: giving the F.B.I. an open-ended license to invade the privacy of ordinary Americans.
Now look at the next editorial of the day, on the very same page. It's yet another NY Times rant against guns (in the grand tradition of that ignorant cunt, Dianne Feinstein), taking issue with an effort to remove a law from the books in the District of Columbia which requires a person who legally possesses a gun in his or her house to keep it disassembled and unloaded. Anti-gun laws tend to be the product of liberal hysteria taken to its illogical extreme, but this law is worse than most. Not only does it only affect law abiding gunowners, it forces them to convert the only means of defense they probably have into a lump of metal that would be useless when it was most needed. This isn't a law that would prevent crime...it's a law that some Dianne Feinstein type of dumbass drafted to do exactly what the first editorial warned of-provide the government with an open-ended license to invade the privacy of ordinary Americans.
I used to think that the nonsense in the Times editorials was part of a brilliant liberal plan to change the country in their image. These days, though, it seems as though the rage that the Times editors have against Bush and the majority of Americans who elected Bush has so damaged their ability to screen their own editorials for internal consistency that they come out with something like this. Two editorials, one screaming against the government invading privacy, the other demanding it.
Here's the best part of the editorial:
The House has cavalierly overruled the city and voted to repeal a local law that requires licit gun owners to keep their weapons unloaded and locked or disassembled when stored at home. What could be more sensible in an American gun culture that is regularly punctuated by the tragic deaths of children who happen upon family weapons? Yet this worthy precaution proved too much for the gun lobby and its lock-and-load sycophants on both sides of the aisle, who voted 259 to 161 for repeal.
I don't know how many kids have been accidentally killed by legally owned guns stored in their homes, but I bet it's a lot fewer than the number of people killed in London last week or in the US on 9/11. So, in the opinion of the Times, it's ok to invade the privacy of Americans to prevent an accident that may take a few lives a year, but it's not ok to invade the privacy of people to prevent terror attacks that kill thousands.
There you have it, the perfect example of libtardation.
One other thing that caught my eye about the administrative subpoena editorial...and it's this passage:
When the F.B.I. wants access to private records about an individual, it ordinarily needs to get the approval of a judge or a grand jury. The proposed new administrative subpoena power would allow the F.B.I. to call people in and force them to produce records on its own authority, without approval from the judicial branch. This kind of secret, compelled evidence not tied to any court is incompatible with basic American principles of justice. It would also make it far easier for the F.B.I. to go off on fishing expeditions.
Interesting, isn't it, that the Times demands the right to use "secret" evidence in the form of anonymous sources (see the entry immediately below this one for the Times' defense of that) without any limitation because a newspaper trying to make a profit by titillating a liberal audience with anti-government exposes is important, but the government must not be allowed to use such sources, which would always be balanced by the subsequent open legal proceedings, to prevent a terrorist attack?
Friday, July 08, 2005
The New York Times Discovers Religion (but not in Dianne Feinstein's Ignorant Cunt)
Further to the post below on the New York Times' "we're above the law because we're a newspaper!" hubris, I present the following editorial from the same paper. This part of the editorial says it all:
Note what this says...that if you think a law is not "just" or "wise" you can violate that law. It's a tradition of our country, according to the NY Times.
WHAT?
What's the point of having laws if you excuse non-compliance for those who don't agree with it? Isn't the very nature of a law such that it restricts activities that some people want to do but we, as a people, have decided you can't do?
So a pedophile can molest a child because he thinks the law is unjust?
A person can rob a bank because he thinks that there is a need for wealth redistribution?
A newspaper can break into someone's house to obtain information for a story that it thinks is more important that the laws against breaking and entering?
A President can break into the rival party's headquarters to get information that will assist in defeating the rival party because he thinks that the rival party will harm the country?
This is absolute nonsense and it's such a disgusting bit of self justification and flaunting of the law that I am about as close as I've ever come to canceling my subscription to the Times.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can violate laws or ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court if you're a newspaper (and a for-profit, commercial enterprise newspaper at that...remember that the NY Times exists to make a profit, not to provide the truth to the people at any cost). You have a right to speak so long as you comply with the other laws and rules of the country.
Under the Times' logic, everyone has a right to utter "fighting words" or scream "fire" in a theater.
Extending the Times' logic further, we all have a right to own nuclear weapons, don't we?
It's troubling that the Times is so uninterested in making a cogent argument about anything these days. They put themselves above the Constitution because they're a newspaper and claim that there is some unwritten rule that exempts them from the laws that govern the rest of us.
Look at this line:
"These limits" were dictated BY THE SUPREME COURT. Is the Times seriously arguing that it, not the Supreme Court, is the arbiter of what the law is or should be?
The Supreme Court ruled and the Times argues that they are more powerful than the Supreme Court. This is the state of the modern American left. They delude themselves into thinking that they have been blessed by the creator with superior rights to the rest of us and, when faced with the hard truths of the law and our system, they refuse to abide by our rules and institutions, claiming that the laws are "unjust."
This is a very dangerous precedent to set, as it guts the foundation of our system. When the Supreme Court rules, there is no higher authority. You comply with their rulings.
Freedom of the press? I think it's more like a G-d complex.
Here's the editorial:
But she acted in the great tradition of civil disobedience that began with this nation's founding, which holds that the common good is best served in some instances by private citizens who are willing to defy a legal, but unjust or unwise, order.
Note what this says...that if you think a law is not "just" or "wise" you can violate that law. It's a tradition of our country, according to the NY Times.
WHAT?
What's the point of having laws if you excuse non-compliance for those who don't agree with it? Isn't the very nature of a law such that it restricts activities that some people want to do but we, as a people, have decided you can't do?
So a pedophile can molest a child because he thinks the law is unjust?
A person can rob a bank because he thinks that there is a need for wealth redistribution?
A newspaper can break into someone's house to obtain information for a story that it thinks is more important that the laws against breaking and entering?
A President can break into the rival party's headquarters to get information that will assist in defeating the rival party because he thinks that the rival party will harm the country?
This is absolute nonsense and it's such a disgusting bit of self justification and flaunting of the law that I am about as close as I've ever come to canceling my subscription to the Times.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can violate laws or ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court if you're a newspaper (and a for-profit, commercial enterprise newspaper at that...remember that the NY Times exists to make a profit, not to provide the truth to the people at any cost). You have a right to speak so long as you comply with the other laws and rules of the country.
Under the Times' logic, everyone has a right to utter "fighting words" or scream "fire" in a theater.
Extending the Times' logic further, we all have a right to own nuclear weapons, don't we?
It's troubling that the Times is so uninterested in making a cogent argument about anything these days. They put themselves above the Constitution because they're a newspaper and claim that there is some unwritten rule that exempts them from the laws that govern the rest of us.
Look at this line:
Responsible journalists recognize that press freedoms are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. This newspaper will not, for example, print the details of American troop movements in advance of a battle, because publication would endanger lives and national security. But these limits cannot be dictated by the whim of a branch of government, especially behind a screen of secrecy.
"These limits" were dictated BY THE SUPREME COURT. Is the Times seriously arguing that it, not the Supreme Court, is the arbiter of what the law is or should be?
The Supreme Court ruled and the Times argues that they are more powerful than the Supreme Court. This is the state of the modern American left. They delude themselves into thinking that they have been blessed by the creator with superior rights to the rest of us and, when faced with the hard truths of the law and our system, they refuse to abide by our rules and institutions, claiming that the laws are "unjust."
This is a very dangerous precedent to set, as it guts the foundation of our system. When the Supreme Court rules, there is no higher authority. You comply with their rulings.
Freedom of the press? I think it's more like a G-d complex.
Here's the editorial:
July 7, 2005
Judith Miller Goes to Jail
This is a proud but awful moment for The New York Times and its employees. One of our reporters, Judith Miller, has decided to accept a jail sentence rather than testify before a grand jury about one of her confidential sources. Ms. Miller has taken a path that will be lonely and painful for her and her family and friends. We wish she did not have to choose it, but we are certain she did the right thing.
She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government.
The Press and the Law
Some people - including, sadly, some of our colleagues in the news media - have mistakenly assumed that a reporter and a news organization place themselves above the law by rejecting a court order to testify. Nothing could be further from the truth. When another Times reporter, M. A. Farber, went to jail in 1978 rather than release his confidential notes, he declared, "I have no such right and I seek none."
By accepting her sentence, Ms. Miller bowed to the authority of the court. But she acted in the great tradition of civil disobedience that began with this nation's founding, which holds that the common good is best served in some instances by private citizens who are willing to defy a legal, but unjust or unwise, order.
This tradition stretches from the Boston Tea Party to the Underground Railroad, to the Americans who defied the McCarthy inquisitions and to the civil rights movement. It has called forth ordinary citizens, like Rosa Parks; government officials, like Daniel Ellsberg and Mark Felt; and statesmen, like Martin Luther King. Frequently, it falls to news organizations to uphold this tradition. As Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1972, "The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring to fulfillment the public's right to know."
Critics point out that even presidents must bow to the Supreme Court. But presidents are agents of the government, sworn to enforce the law. Journalists are private citizens, and Ms. Miller's actions are faithful to the Constitution. She is defending the right of Americans to get vital information from news organizations that need not fear government retaliation - an imperative defended by the 49 states that recognize a reporter's right to protect sources.
A second reporter facing a possible jail term, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed yesterday to testify before the grand jury. Last week, Time decided, over Mr. Cooper's protests, to release documents demanded by the judge that revealed his confidential sources. We were deeply disappointed by that decision.
We do not see how a newspaper, magazine or television station can support a reporter's decision to protect confidential sources even if the potential price is lost liberty, and then hand over the notes or documents that make the reporter's sacrifice meaningless. The point of this struggle is to make sure that people with critical information can feel confident that if they speak to a reporter on the condition of anonymity, their identities will be protected. No journalist's promise will be worth much if the employer that stands behind him or her is prepared to undercut such a vow of secrecy.
Protecting a Reporter's Sources
Most readers understand a reporter's need to guarantee confidentiality to a source. Before he went to jail, Mr. Farber told the court that if he gave up documents that revealed the names of the people he had promised anonymity, "I will have given notice that the nation's premier newspaper is no longer available to those men and women who would seek it out - or who would respond to it - to talk freely and without fear."
While The Times has gone to great lengths lately to make sure that the use of anonymous sources is limited, there is no way to eliminate them. The most important articles tend to be the ones that upset people in high places, and many could not be reported if those who risked their jobs or even their liberty to talk to reporters knew that they might be identified the next day. In the larger sense, revealing government wrongdoing advances the rule of law, especially at a time of increased government secrecy.
It is for these reasons that most states have shield laws that protect reporters' rights to conceal their sources. Those laws need to be reviewed and strengthened, even as members of Congress continue to work to pass a federal shield law. But at this moment, there is no statute that protects Judith Miller when she defies a federal trial judge's order to reveal who told her what about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as an undercover C.I.A. operative.
Ms. Miller understands this perfectly, and she accepts the consequences with full respect for the court. We hope that her sacrifice will alert the nation to the need to protect the basic tools reporters use in doing their most critical work.
To be frank, this is far from an ideal case. We would not have wanted our reporter to give up her liberty over a situation whose details are so complicated and muddy. But history is very seldom kind enough to provide the ideal venue for a principled stand. Ms. Miller is going to jail over an article that she never wrote, yet she has been unwavering in her determination to protect the people with whom she had spoken on the promise of confidentiality.
The Plame Story
The case involves an article by the syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who revealed that Joseph Wilson, a retired career diplomat, was married to an undercover C.I.A. officer Mr. Novak identified by using her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Wilson had been asked by the C.I.A. to investigate whether Saddam Hussein in Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger that could be used for making nuclear weapons. Mr. Wilson found no evidence of that, and he later wrote an Op-Ed article for The Times saying he believed that the Bush administration had misrepresented the facts.
It seemed very possible that someone at the White House had told Mr. Novak about Ms. Plame to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility and send a chilling signal to other officials who might be inclined to speak out against the administration's Iraq policy. At the time, this page said that if those were indeed the circumstances, the leak had been "an egregious abuse of power." We urged the Justice Department to investigate. But we warned then that the inquiry should not degenerate into an attempt to compel journalists to reveal their sources.
We mainly had Mr. Novak in mind then, but Mr. Novak remains both free and mum about what he has or has not told the grand jury looking into the leak. Like almost everyone, we are baffled by his public posture. All we know now is that Mr. Novak - who early on expressed the opinion that no journalists who bowed to court pressure to betray sources could hold up their heads in Washington - has offered no public support to the colleague who is going to jail while he remains at liberty.
Ms. Miller did not write an article about Ms. Plame, but the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, wants to know whether anyone in government told her about Mr. Wilson's wife and her secret job. The inquiry has been conducted with such secrecy that it is hard to know exactly what Mr. Fitzgerald thinks Ms. Miller can tell him, or what argument he offered to convince the court that his need to hear her testimony outweighs the First Amendment.
What we do know is that if Ms. Miller testifies, it may be immeasurably harder in the future to persuade a frightened government employee to talk about malfeasance in high places, or a worried worker to reveal corporate crimes. The shroud of secrecy thrown over this case by the prosecutor and the judge, an egregious denial of due process, only makes it more urgent to take a stand.
Mr. Fitzgerald drove that point home chillingly when he said the authorities "can't have 50,000 journalists" making decisions about whether to reveal sources' names and that the government had a right to impose its judgment. But that's not what the founders had in mind in writing the First Amendment. In 1971, our colleague James Reston cited James Madison's admonition about a free press in explaining why The Times had first defied the Nixon administration's demand to stop publishing the Pentagon Papers and then fought a court's order to cease publication. "Among those principles deemed sacred in America," Madison wrote, "among those sacred rights considered as forming the bulwark of their liberty, which the government contemplates with awful reverence and would approach only with the most cautious circumspection, there is no one of which the importance is more deeply impressed on the public mind than the liberty of the press."
Mr. Fitzgerald's attempts to interfere with the rights of a free press while refusing to disclose his reasons for doing so, when he can't even say whether a crime has been committed, have exhibited neither reverence nor cautious circumspection. It would compound the tragedy if his actions emboldened more prosecutors to trample on a free press.
Our Bottom Line
Responsible journalists recognize that press freedoms are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. This newspaper will not, for example, print the details of American troop movements in advance of a battle, because publication would endanger lives and national security. But these limits cannot be dictated by the whim of a branch of government, especially behind a screen of secrecy.
Indeed, the founders warned against any attempt to have the government set limits on a free press, under any conditions. "However desirable those measures might be which might correct without enslaving the press, they have never yet been devised in America," Madison wrote.
Journalists talk about these issues a great deal, and they can seem abstract. The test comes when a colleague is being marched off to jail for doing nothing more than the job our readers expected of her, and of the rest of us. The Times has been in these fights before, beginning in 1857, when a journalist named J. W. Simonton wrote an editorial about bribery in Congress and was held in contempt by the House of Representatives for 19 days when he refused to reveal his sources. In the end, Mr. Simonton kept faith, and the corrupt congressmen resigned. All of our battles have not had equally happy endings. But each time, whether we win or we lose, we remain convinced that the public wins in the long run and that what is at stake is nothing less than our society's perpetual bottom line: the citizens control the government in a democracy.
We stand with Ms. Miller and thank her for taking on that fight for the rest of us.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
What if the New York Times endorsed the Star Chamber (a post that has nothing to do with the ignorant cunt, Dianne Feinstein)
I read this in the New York Times today and was amused. No, maybe I wasn't amused. Perhaps it was more mild shock at how obvious the Times and the rest of the liberal media have gone over the edge in the past few years, fueled by rage against the President and the majority of citizen of this country, to the point where they'll endorse anything, no matter how much it contradicts traditional liberal notions, so long as it can be used as a weapon in their favor.
This story is nominally about Mark Felt, the convicted felon who conspired with the media to violate the bedrock rules of the FBI to further a political agenda. You can read my take on the real issues with Mark "Deep Throat" Felt in a post somewhere below, so I won't repeat my points here.
What I found most horrifying about the Times' take was this passage:
Read it. What it says is, in essence, the ends justified the means. Using an anonymous source, one who was charged with enforcing the law yet violated the law in everything he did, one who was allowed to make allegations without concern for procedure, rules, witness confrontation or any of those other quaint notions that are traditional in our system is ok so long as it results in harm to a President that the Times didn't like. Going around the established institutions that were established over centuries to ensure fairness is fine if you can take down a person you loathe.
The passage above totally neglects the most important part of the Deep Throat story-that Felt had a beef with the administration and had ample opportunity to cooperate with an official investigation but he chose, instead, to collaborate with a sympathetic and hostile-to-the-administration media to launch a smear campaign that would create such a first impression of guilt in the publics' mind that there would never be a chance of any fair proceedings. The story assumes away the likelihood that an official proceeding could have uncovered the truth and punished, if necessary, those responsible. Instead, it glorifies what was, in essence, a modern day Star Chamber.
Imagine, if you can, the Times' reaction to a proceeding under the Bush administration where procedure was tossed aside, anonymous accusers were allowed to publish allegations without question or cross examination and the guilt of the accused was established at the onset.
The Times ignores the majority of cases where anonymous sources have resulted in nothing less than a fraud upon the public. Take, for example, CBS' "Rathergate" debacle. When anonymous source reporting results in the spread of a lie, the Times turns a blind eye.
Honestly, I'd love a system where we could accuse and convict someone on the basis of what we were pretty sure of...OJ would be in jail, there would have been no need for a Scott Peterson trial and we could just execute all of those criminals in prison.
In fact, isn't it the NY Times who have screamed bloody murder about the Bush administration not having made out a proper case for war? Isn't it the Times who have ignored the fact that a ruthless and bloody dictatorship was ended in Iraq because certain pieces of evidence, in its opinion, weren't accurate?
Hmmm. There seems to be a double standard at work here.
This story is nominally about Mark Felt, the convicted felon who conspired with the media to violate the bedrock rules of the FBI to further a political agenda. You can read my take on the real issues with Mark "Deep Throat" Felt in a post somewhere below, so I won't repeat my points here.
What I found most horrifying about the Times' take was this passage:
The book also reminds us that without Mr. Felt and a host of other confidential sources, the course of history might have been very different: the Woodstein efforts to unlock the Watergate scandal could easily have stalled, and without their articles in The Washington Post a special prosecutor would most likely not have been appointed, Congressional investigations and impeachment inquiries would not have got off the ground and President Nixon would not have been forced from office.
Read it. What it says is, in essence, the ends justified the means. Using an anonymous source, one who was charged with enforcing the law yet violated the law in everything he did, one who was allowed to make allegations without concern for procedure, rules, witness confrontation or any of those other quaint notions that are traditional in our system is ok so long as it results in harm to a President that the Times didn't like. Going around the established institutions that were established over centuries to ensure fairness is fine if you can take down a person you loathe.
The passage above totally neglects the most important part of the Deep Throat story-that Felt had a beef with the administration and had ample opportunity to cooperate with an official investigation but he chose, instead, to collaborate with a sympathetic and hostile-to-the-administration media to launch a smear campaign that would create such a first impression of guilt in the publics' mind that there would never be a chance of any fair proceedings. The story assumes away the likelihood that an official proceeding could have uncovered the truth and punished, if necessary, those responsible. Instead, it glorifies what was, in essence, a modern day Star Chamber.
Imagine, if you can, the Times' reaction to a proceeding under the Bush administration where procedure was tossed aside, anonymous accusers were allowed to publish allegations without question or cross examination and the guilt of the accused was established at the onset.
The Times ignores the majority of cases where anonymous sources have resulted in nothing less than a fraud upon the public. Take, for example, CBS' "Rathergate" debacle. When anonymous source reporting results in the spread of a lie, the Times turns a blind eye.
Honestly, I'd love a system where we could accuse and convict someone on the basis of what we were pretty sure of...OJ would be in jail, there would have been no need for a Scott Peterson trial and we could just execute all of those criminals in prison.
In fact, isn't it the NY Times who have screamed bloody murder about the Bush administration not having made out a proper case for war? Isn't it the Times who have ignored the fact that a ruthless and bloody dictatorship was ended in Iraq because certain pieces of evidence, in its opinion, weren't accurate?
Hmmm. There seems to be a double standard at work here.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Happy Fourth To All (except you cocksucking left wing Bay Area traitors and your ignorant cunt leader, Dianne Feinstein)
What would Independence Day be without a rant against the disgusting left wing Bay Area assholes and their ringleader, the ignorant cunt Dianne Feinstein? As I've mentioned before, I used to live in the fetid Democrat dominated, liberal utopia of Oakland, California. It was the most miserable experience I've had in a long time...the people of Oakland (especially the white liberals in the hills, where I lived) are typical for the Bay Area-big mouthed, arrogant twits without a functioning brain cell among them all. Worse, of course was how utterly unfriendly they were and how much they lived out the stereotypes that they put on conservatives. They were closed minded bigots who refused to even consider any viewpoint that wasn't 100% in line with their own MoreOn.org supplied slogans. There's a reason why the entire area went up in flames a bit over 10 years ago...
Anyway, this isn't about the leftist assholes of the Bay Area, per se. I got the fuck out of Oakland almost a year ago and moved out of the Bay Area to a beautiful area about 40 miles east of San Francisco (which is why I say it's not the Bay Area...I'm closer to the central valley town of Tracy than I am to downtown SF). Out here we still have ranches and big open spaces (as compared to the liberal dominated areas of the Bay Area, where all open space is used as political capital to trade with developers). We have REAL diversity and balance here...In my area, which is a golf community (one that is well known in the area), most of the residents are Republicans. The streets are clean, well maintained and safe and everyone is so friendly that it's hard to go down the street without spending an hour saying hello to neighbors. It's the exact opposite of the Democrat controlled Bay Area, in other words. Quality of life is high, taxes are low and people are happy. Out here we don't plaster our cars with hate filled slogans of treason and reverse bigotry.
We don't walk around with bitter attitudes about the country and its leadership. In fact, all around this area we have American flags lining the streets and decorating almost every house. It's a real celebration of national pride here. In Oakland, San Francisco and Mill Valley, people are more likely to burn or spit on the flag than to fly it with pride. And that's what this picture is about...if you look closely you'll see one of the holes at the golf course. And at the hole, instead of the typical flag, there's an American flag (you have to click on the picture to enlarge it and then use whatever program comes up to zoom in a bit). It's not a joke out here...it's about pride of country.
Things like this are what America is really about. We have plenty of enemies who want to burn our flag or play up the negatives that exist. We, as a nation, have to not fall into the liberal trap of self loathing and embracing our enemies. That's what the liberals mean when they say that "dissent is patriotic." What they really mean is hating America and weakening ourselves to make our enemy stronger is their primary agenda.
So on this Independence Day, I take pride in this country, fly the flag in front of my house, admire my fellow Americans doing the same and spit upon the cowardly traitors of the Bay Area.
Happy Independence Day
and here's a closeup from another angle:
(oh, and if you want to see the interesting encounter I had while taking this picture, click here and look for the July 4, 2005 post.
Anyway, this isn't about the leftist assholes of the Bay Area, per se. I got the fuck out of Oakland almost a year ago and moved out of the Bay Area to a beautiful area about 40 miles east of San Francisco (which is why I say it's not the Bay Area...I'm closer to the central valley town of Tracy than I am to downtown SF). Out here we still have ranches and big open spaces (as compared to the liberal dominated areas of the Bay Area, where all open space is used as political capital to trade with developers). We have REAL diversity and balance here...In my area, which is a golf community (one that is well known in the area), most of the residents are Republicans. The streets are clean, well maintained and safe and everyone is so friendly that it's hard to go down the street without spending an hour saying hello to neighbors. It's the exact opposite of the Democrat controlled Bay Area, in other words. Quality of life is high, taxes are low and people are happy. Out here we don't plaster our cars with hate filled slogans of treason and reverse bigotry.
We don't walk around with bitter attitudes about the country and its leadership. In fact, all around this area we have American flags lining the streets and decorating almost every house. It's a real celebration of national pride here. In Oakland, San Francisco and Mill Valley, people are more likely to burn or spit on the flag than to fly it with pride. And that's what this picture is about...if you look closely you'll see one of the holes at the golf course. And at the hole, instead of the typical flag, there's an American flag (you have to click on the picture to enlarge it and then use whatever program comes up to zoom in a bit). It's not a joke out here...it's about pride of country.
Things like this are what America is really about. We have plenty of enemies who want to burn our flag or play up the negatives that exist. We, as a nation, have to not fall into the liberal trap of self loathing and embracing our enemies. That's what the liberals mean when they say that "dissent is patriotic." What they really mean is hating America and weakening ourselves to make our enemy stronger is their primary agenda.
So on this Independence Day, I take pride in this country, fly the flag in front of my house, admire my fellow Americans doing the same and spit upon the cowardly traitors of the Bay Area.
Happy Independence Day
and here's a closeup from another angle:
(oh, and if you want to see the interesting encounter I had while taking this picture, click here and look for the July 4, 2005 post.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
An Independence Day message to Dianne Feinstein and other ignorant cunts
In honor of America's birthday and the 2nd Amendment, and in defiance of Dianne Feinstein and other ignorant cunts who want to destroy our Constitutional rights, I went to the range today. I brought with me my SigArms SHR 970 7mm Magnum and 8mm Mauser, pictured below.
For you liberals out there, the rifles are those two long objects on the table...the 7mm Magnum is the black rifle with the bipod and the scope and the Mauser is the one without the bipod and scope. I know, you liberals love to talk negatively about guns but don't know a damn thing about them, so I have to point out the obvious.
The reasons for my trip to the range were to assert my 2nd Amendment rights, have a little fun imagining that the targets were whiny bitch liberals screaming their anti-American slogans, and to hone my shooting skills.
I brought the Mauser to the range because it's a relatively new addition to my collection and I haven't shot it much. I bought this beautiful piece from Empire Arms a few months ago. It's a 1943 German military surplus (Russian capture) rifle, complete with Nazi markings. I didn't expect it to be much of a shooter and intended it to be just a historical piece.
I've been pleasantly surprised with its performance, especially considering it's a 62 year old WWII rifle that obviously saw a lot of hard use. While it kicks pretty hard (though nowhere near as hard as the 7mm Magnum), it can put up a pretty nice group. So what I did was fire 20 rounds to get comfortable with it and then I decided to put five rounds through it and five rounds through the 7mm Magnum on the same target at 100 yards to compare performance. The results are below.
The Mauser shots are the ones ground around the center ring (that's the center of the target for you liberals). Not a bad showing for an open sight (no scope, for you liberals) rifle. It wasn't the tightest of patterns, but it's a very respectable showing.
Right when I finished the five Mauser shots, the rangemaster called out the 1 minute warning (until it was time to stop firing). Given that it was the end of the day, I had to get off the five 7mm Magnum shots in under a minute. I had put two black dots outside of the center ring on the target and decided to take three shots at one and two shots at the other. The results were, if I say so myself, damn impressive. These dots are a bit larger than a quarter and were randomly placed on the target. In under a minute, as you can see, I put the three rounds into the one dot and two rounds into the other, from 100 yards.
Here's a closer view of the two dots.
(that's three rounds through the dot...look closely and you'll see that two of the shots are almost on the same spot, in the lower left of the dot)
(the last two shots are in the dot at the 2 o'clock position on the target)
The dot with two shots in it, while nice shooting, wasn't as close a group as I would have liked (though I was still very pleased to have put both shots into the dot). They were the last two shots and I really had to hurry, as I had about 10 seconds to take the two shots. That 7mm Magnum kicks like a mule so the recovery time to reacquire the target isn't minimal. It's the first three shots that were my pride and joy. Take a look at the grouping of those rapidly fired shots and you'll see why I'm proud.
I load my own ammo for the 7mm Magnum (you can see my reloading bench in the background of the first picture, complete with 8lbs of gunpowder). The load I used for these rounds was 60 gr of H4831 with a 150 gr Nosler ballistic tip bullet. It's one of the most accurate and consistent loads I've ever made. As an aside, again for you liberals, the reasons I load my own ammo are (1) because I enjoy it; (2) the ammo is more reliable and accurate and (3) if there's ever a day when you bastards try to ban ammo, I have the ability and components to keep myself supplied with ammo for a very long time.
Anyway, it was a very nice day at the range. I defy you ignorant cunts to try to take my guns from me. Happy Birthday, America. With every year that passes, the liberals try to destroy the foundations of this great country and it's up to us real Americans to thwart their nefarious plans. On this anniversary of the country's founding it's important that we remember what America is about and to take the liberal threat seriously. Exercising your rights, especially the ones under attack like the 2nd Amendment's rights, is the best way to ensure that they are preserved.
For you liberals out there, the rifles are those two long objects on the table...the 7mm Magnum is the black rifle with the bipod and the scope and the Mauser is the one without the bipod and scope. I know, you liberals love to talk negatively about guns but don't know a damn thing about them, so I have to point out the obvious.
The reasons for my trip to the range were to assert my 2nd Amendment rights, have a little fun imagining that the targets were whiny bitch liberals screaming their anti-American slogans, and to hone my shooting skills.
I brought the Mauser to the range because it's a relatively new addition to my collection and I haven't shot it much. I bought this beautiful piece from Empire Arms a few months ago. It's a 1943 German military surplus (Russian capture) rifle, complete with Nazi markings. I didn't expect it to be much of a shooter and intended it to be just a historical piece.
I've been pleasantly surprised with its performance, especially considering it's a 62 year old WWII rifle that obviously saw a lot of hard use. While it kicks pretty hard (though nowhere near as hard as the 7mm Magnum), it can put up a pretty nice group. So what I did was fire 20 rounds to get comfortable with it and then I decided to put five rounds through it and five rounds through the 7mm Magnum on the same target at 100 yards to compare performance. The results are below.
The Mauser shots are the ones ground around the center ring (that's the center of the target for you liberals). Not a bad showing for an open sight (no scope, for you liberals) rifle. It wasn't the tightest of patterns, but it's a very respectable showing.
Right when I finished the five Mauser shots, the rangemaster called out the 1 minute warning (until it was time to stop firing). Given that it was the end of the day, I had to get off the five 7mm Magnum shots in under a minute. I had put two black dots outside of the center ring on the target and decided to take three shots at one and two shots at the other. The results were, if I say so myself, damn impressive. These dots are a bit larger than a quarter and were randomly placed on the target. In under a minute, as you can see, I put the three rounds into the one dot and two rounds into the other, from 100 yards.
Here's a closer view of the two dots.
(that's three rounds through the dot...look closely and you'll see that two of the shots are almost on the same spot, in the lower left of the dot)
(the last two shots are in the dot at the 2 o'clock position on the target)
The dot with two shots in it, while nice shooting, wasn't as close a group as I would have liked (though I was still very pleased to have put both shots into the dot). They were the last two shots and I really had to hurry, as I had about 10 seconds to take the two shots. That 7mm Magnum kicks like a mule so the recovery time to reacquire the target isn't minimal. It's the first three shots that were my pride and joy. Take a look at the grouping of those rapidly fired shots and you'll see why I'm proud.
I load my own ammo for the 7mm Magnum (you can see my reloading bench in the background of the first picture, complete with 8lbs of gunpowder). The load I used for these rounds was 60 gr of H4831 with a 150 gr Nosler ballistic tip bullet. It's one of the most accurate and consistent loads I've ever made. As an aside, again for you liberals, the reasons I load my own ammo are (1) because I enjoy it; (2) the ammo is more reliable and accurate and (3) if there's ever a day when you bastards try to ban ammo, I have the ability and components to keep myself supplied with ammo for a very long time.
Anyway, it was a very nice day at the range. I defy you ignorant cunts to try to take my guns from me. Happy Birthday, America. With every year that passes, the liberals try to destroy the foundations of this great country and it's up to us real Americans to thwart their nefarious plans. On this anniversary of the country's founding it's important that we remember what America is about and to take the liberal threat seriously. Exercising your rights, especially the ones under attack like the 2nd Amendment's rights, is the best way to ensure that they are preserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)