A random Sunday morning thought...As I picked up this morning's paper to see what the Times' editors would pull out against President Bush and the military today, I reflected on how the press has established itself alongside the terrorists as a front in the war. Perhaps I have too many conversations with myself, but I then asked, internally, "who has been more effective in trying to harm the nation, the press or the Islamic terrorists?" What I concluded was that they have not only had the same talking points and methods of attack, they've also had the same levels of success.
In other words, they've harmed themselves more than they've harmed the President or the nation. Both the press and the Islamic terrorists, as they score cheap points with things like IED's, suicide attacks or smear stories, lose long term credibility and have the majority of those that used to support them turn against them. They've both shown that rather than being true to a cause (even if the cause is evil), they only care about damaging systems and people for the sake of chaos.
With the Big Three (bin Laden, Al Zawahiri and Zarqawi) having released video or audio statements attacking the US this week, I was a bit surprised that Pinch Sulzberger failed to grab Paul Krugman, a ski mask and a video camera and join the tirade.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Argh
Without a doubt, I've been stressed lately. Most of it has to do with the demands of work and today, Saturday, was probably a day that was meant to push me over the edge. Last night I almost responded to a work email with such a nasty response that I was sure to be fired. When I was at work today and got a call from my wife to inform me that a mole was destroying our yard, it was just what I wanted to hear.
I had just planted new annuals in the yard. I took the mole attack as a personal insult.
So I left work while there was still sunlight and determined that I would find and kill the mole.
Here's a peek at the damage (click to enlarge, as always). It doesn't look that bad here, but it's ALL over the lawn.
The little fucker tore up the bulbs I had planted.
I went about sticking the garden hose down the holes to try to locate Mole bin Laden. He was a tricky bastard but I was determined. I was armed with my trusty .177 pellet gun and was willing to wait all night to get him.
Alas, too many kids were playing in the street near the house and I had to wait for them to move on before I could load the pellet gun and give it the 10 pumps.
And then, I saw the earth move. The mole was trying to escape the flood and it was time to act!
Quickly, I loaded a pellet in my rusting pellet gun, pumped it to the max and then fired into the leading edge of the moving earth.
With a nice, sharp PFFFFFFFFFFFT/CRACK, the soil stopped moving. I reloaded and repumped. Using the garden hose, I pushed aside the soil and was rewarded with this beautiful sight.
A mortally wounded mole! Huzzah!
I was REALLY in a bad mood and figure that it was time to take it out on something. So for the next minute I loaded, pumped, fired, reloaded, pumped and fired until all the evil in the world had received its punishment through the proxy that was the mole in my yard.
The moral of this pictorial is that pellet guns are an important part of an arsenal. There is nothing better for the elimination of gophers, moles, rats or birds that crap on your truck than a nearly silent pellet gun. Neighbors have no idea what you're doing, kids aren't at risk, property is safe. Fun for the entire community.
I had just planted new annuals in the yard. I took the mole attack as a personal insult.
So I left work while there was still sunlight and determined that I would find and kill the mole.
Here's a peek at the damage (click to enlarge, as always). It doesn't look that bad here, but it's ALL over the lawn.
The little fucker tore up the bulbs I had planted.
I went about sticking the garden hose down the holes to try to locate Mole bin Laden. He was a tricky bastard but I was determined. I was armed with my trusty .177 pellet gun and was willing to wait all night to get him.
Alas, too many kids were playing in the street near the house and I had to wait for them to move on before I could load the pellet gun and give it the 10 pumps.
And then, I saw the earth move. The mole was trying to escape the flood and it was time to act!
Quickly, I loaded a pellet in my rusting pellet gun, pumped it to the max and then fired into the leading edge of the moving earth.
With a nice, sharp PFFFFFFFFFFFT/CRACK, the soil stopped moving. I reloaded and repumped. Using the garden hose, I pushed aside the soil and was rewarded with this beautiful sight.
A mortally wounded mole! Huzzah!
I was REALLY in a bad mood and figure that it was time to take it out on something. So for the next minute I loaded, pumped, fired, reloaded, pumped and fired until all the evil in the world had received its punishment through the proxy that was the mole in my yard.
The moral of this pictorial is that pellet guns are an important part of an arsenal. There is nothing better for the elimination of gophers, moles, rats or birds that crap on your truck than a nearly silent pellet gun. Neighbors have no idea what you're doing, kids aren't at risk, property is safe. Fun for the entire community.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
I Have A Dream....
Civil war at last, civil war at last, thank G-d Almighty, there is a Palestinian civil war at last!
Fatah, Hamas Gunmen Clash in Gaza By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 35 minutes ago
Violent clashes and mass protests erupted Saturday across the West Bank and Gaza Strip between followers of the militant group Hamas and Fatah rivals, after a Hamas leader accused Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of treachery.
The two sides traded gunfire and hurled stones and firebombs, escalating a fierce power struggle between militant and moderate factions focused on control over Palestinian security forces.
Abbas said Saturday he would not allow the accusations to plunge the Palestinians into civil war.
The unrest followed the president's recent moves to take control of all six security forces and Hamas's response that it would form its own shadow army, made up of militants and headed by a top fugitive Israel has been hunting for years.
Abbas' prompt veto of that plan provoked a scathing comment late Friday from ruling Hamas party's political chief, Khaled Mashaal.
"We can understand that Israel and America are persecuting us, and seeking ways to besiege and starve us, but what about the sons of our people who are plotting against us, who are following a studied plan to make us fail," Mashaal said from his base in Syria, without mentioning Abbas by name.
Fatah's senior leaders promptly accused Mashaal of "igniting and preparing for civil war." Tens of thousands of party loyalists took to the streets of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, protesting Mashaal's remarks and demanding an apology.
Clashes were ugliest Saturday in Gaza City, where Hamas and Fatah followers traded gunfire and hurled grenades and firebombs. Hundreds of university students threw stones over the wall separating Hamas- and Fatah-run schools. Fifteen people were wounded, two seriously.
Later Saturday, hundreds of Fatah activists marched to Gaza's parliament compound, throwing stones and shattering windows in a government building.
Elsewhere across Gaza and the West Bank, tens of thousands of Fatah backers marched through the streets of cities, towns and refugee camps, denouncing Mashaal as a "dirty animal," setting tires ablaze and waving yellow party flags.
In Nablus, Fatah-affiliated gunmen stormed a courthouse, ejected dozens of employees, ordered guards to lock up the building and vowed not to reopen it until Mashaal apologized.
Abbas, a peace-seeking moderate whose Fatah party was ousted from power in January elections, has been trying to shore up his already considerable powers to better serve as a counterweight to Hamas' militantly anti-Israel program.
He refused to directly address Mashaal's comments, saying he wanted to avert further tensions in the Palestinian territories and would instead tackle the matter through unspecified "quiet political channels."
He did say there were significant gaps between his policy and Hamas', including the Islamic movement's refusal to accept past peace agreements with Israel.
"We must find solutions, we must reach a middle ground," he said. "In the meantime, we don't want the situation to escalate, we will not allow a civil war and we will not tolerate military confrontations."
His sentiments were echoed by Fatah lawmaker Mohammed Dahlan who appealed to Fatah loyalists to "show self-restraint and protect the national unity."
Hamas officials tried to distance the government from Mashaal's remarks, saying they reflected his own opinion, and not the government's. But at the same time, the government remained committed to forming its army of thousands of militants.
Interior Minister Said Siyam, who announced the new force earlier the week, told a news conference Saturday he would pursue his plans — despite the presidential decree — and would meet with the force's designated head, fugitive Jamal Abu Samhadana, to discuss when he would take over his new duties.
At an emergency meeting in Gaza, Rafiq Husseini, a top Abbas adviser, told Mohammed Awad, Hamas' Cabinet secretary, that Abbas was determined to block the Hamas security force. The two decided to meet again later along with Egyptian security officials who arrived in Gaza on Saturday.
Hamas' refusal to disarm and recognize Israel has already cost it hundreds of millions of dollars in Western aid and Israeli transfer payments. The Palestinians' sense that they are under siege internationally has intensified friction in the already volatile West Bank and Gaza.
On Saturday, Communications Minister Jamal Khodari said that during his recent visit to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, leaders there had pledged $71 million to the empty Palestinian treasury. The financial crisis has prevented Hamas from paying April salaries to 140,000 government employees, and Khodari told a news conference that those wages would be paid immediately after the money from Qatar and the UAE comes in.
Nabil Amr, another Abbas aide, said Saturday that the U.S. has warned international banks not to transfer money to the Hamas-led government — the first time a Palestinian official has acknowledged such U.S. pressure.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The Face of the New York Times
Pasted below is yesterday's NY Times editorial regarding Hamas. The Times editorial board takes issue with Hamas' support of the recent Tel Aviv terrorist attack. What's wrong with this, you ask? Read the editorial and note why the editors think that Hamas ' support of and involvement in terror is wrong.
Do you see ANYWHERE in that editorial a statement a condemnation of the terrorist attack for the reason that killing Israelis is wrong?
All I see is a parroting of what the so-called "moderate" Palestinians say about terror, which is that it doesn't help the Palestinians. Tacitly, of course, it means that there's nothing wrong with terrorism if it does further your cause.
Whatever happened to "terrorism is wrong because it is the targeting of innocent people and no matter what the justification, it can not be tolerated"???
The true face of the NY Times.
April 19, 2006
Editorial
The Face of Hamas
After the Palestinian election, the burning question was which part of Hamas would dominate the new government: would it be the political organization that provides a desperate people with vital services, or the terrorist group that advocates the violent destruction of Israel? Now we have the answer, in Hamas's monumentally cynical and dimwitted applause for the bombing that killed nine people and wounded dozens in Tel Aviv on Monday.
In contrast, Israel's prime minister-designate, Ehud Olmert, has taken the high road, at least for now. Israel didn't launch a big reprisal attack. Mr. Olmert's office said Israel would instead revoke the residency permits of Hamas officials living in East Jerusalem, and the Israelis conducted raids in the West Bank and made arrests. Mr. Olmert's cabinet also approved a police crackdown on the smuggling of Palestinians into Israel, tightening what is an already tight noose around Palestinian territory.
That's really what makes Hamas's response to the suicide attack not just immoral, but stupid as well. The attack was presumably not carried out by Hamas; Islamic Jihad said it was responsible. But Hamas is no longer just a terrorist ally of Islamic Jihad. Last time we checked, it is the government of the Palestinian people. It cannot just sit on the sidelines and cheer terrorist attacks that were renounced by the same Palestinian Authority that Hamas now controls. In a democracy, Hamas cannot reject positions ratified by previous Palestinian parliaments without first going back to the Palestinian people for a vote.
Hamas's support for terrorism encourages Mr. Olmert's strategy of a unilateral separation from the Palestinian people. It's a sure bet that if Israel carries out this separation without input from the Palestinians,— as it is now doing, the Palestinians will not end up with enough land for a viable state.
Finally, lest Hamas forget, it is flat broke. The coffers it inherited from Fatah are empty, and both the United States and the European Union have rightly refused to bankroll a Hamas government that preaches and practices terrorism, denies that Israel has any right to exist, and refuses to abide by peace agreements signed by previous Palestinian governments. Hamas has received pledges from Muslim states,— notably $50 million each from Qatar and Iran,— to help make up some of the shortfall. But that doesn't come close to the $300 million the United States had pledged, and it would behoove Hamas to remember that the gulf states in particular are notorious for not keeping their promises.
Do you see ANYWHERE in that editorial a statement a condemnation of the terrorist attack for the reason that killing Israelis is wrong?
All I see is a parroting of what the so-called "moderate" Palestinians say about terror, which is that it doesn't help the Palestinians. Tacitly, of course, it means that there's nothing wrong with terrorism if it does further your cause.
Whatever happened to "terrorism is wrong because it is the targeting of innocent people and no matter what the justification, it can not be tolerated"???
The true face of the NY Times.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
If He Is Risen, Did He Complete His 1040?
Ok, maybe not the most clever of titles and this post has nothing to do with Easter or Jesus. What it does have to do with is taxes and what rights paying taxes should provide a person with.
Notwithstanding the insane braying of the liberal media, who claim that the economy was awful in 2005, the Zhid and his wife had a very good year. Between the two of us having high paying jobs (and the Zhid actually keeping a job for more than a year), good bonuses and some excellent stock market results, we ended up owing the federal government just about $100,000 in taxes.
Yes, $100,000 in federal taxes for one couple. We have to write a check today for $14,000 to uncle Sam to cover the excess over what was already withheld from our paychecks. And, of course, the state took a bite of about $30,000 and we have to write them a check today for another $5,000.
We also paid about $11,000 in property taxes for our house. So between the federal income tax, the state income tax and state property tax, we pay about $150,000 to the various government entities. That, of course, doesn't count all the other taxes, like the taxes on gas or sales tax (at about 8%, I believe).
The bottom line is that we, like many Americans, pay a LOT of taxes (and it was made worse by the AMT, which boosted our federal tax bill by about $8,000, from what my accountant tells me).
The point of this post is not to spill my financial guts to the public. I'm setting out this information to ask a question: Do I, as a person who paid so much into the government's accounts, have more of a right to comment on what the government does with my money than someone who contributes far less into the system and gets far more tangible benefits out of it?
That is, should I, a guy who paid $100,000 in taxes to the federal government and got very little back (I'm talking about things like welfare payments, disaster relief, etc.) get to have more input on how my money gets spent than the guy who put virtually nothing in and took a lot out (for example purposes, let's look at some unemployed guy in New Orleans who not only got welfare payments before the storm but also got all sorts of benefits by way of disaster relief afterwards, which resulted in a windfall of federal benefits for a person who paid virtually nothing into the system).
While the numbers would make it look like I (and others like me) live a life of luxury, the reality is quite different. In 2005 I didn't go on vacation, I didn't eat in fancy restaurants, I didn't buy expensive clothing or cars (in fact, I still drive the 2000 Dodge pickup I bought new in 2000 for $21,000). I did put a new roof on the house for about $20,000 and we did do a fairly minor remodel of part of the house, but for the most part I spent the year working, often on weekends and evenings, without much of a break and without any indulgences.
At the end of 2005, my bank account balance was higher than when 2005 started, but the increase wasn't very dramatic. I do have a nice house, but it's hardly a temple of luxury...a 2,800 sq ft house on an 8,000 sq ft lot that is an hour and a half commute from my work.
So while my life is comfortable, it's not even close to lavish or chock full of luxury.
In fact, last year, my biggest splurge was on taxes.
What do I get in return? Do I get more than the guy down the road who made 1/10th what I made and who paid a lot less than 1/10th the taxes? I drive the same roads that he drives. Our kids (if I had any) would go to the same schools. We are both defended in exactly the same way by our military.
In other words, no, I simply am charged more for the same services because I make more. And the higher the tax rates go, the more this serves as a disincentive for me to work harder, as if I get no more government services (and in fact, less) and end up with a smaller percent of my salary after taxes, what is my motivation for working hard?
Not much. All in all, I'd prefer to be mountain biking or shooting or camping, rather than working. I'm in it for the money and benefits and so far, I'm not seeing a marginal return that justifies the increased burden.
And this is in under an administration that has actually REDUCED the tax bite. Lord help us when the Democrats are back in office and they pounce on people like me, the "rich" (who, in urban areas, really are nothing more than middle class), with a significantly higher tax rate.
So the solution, as I see it, is for me to either stop working and earning so much or to get more of a say in the enterprise that takes my money.
Indeed, what I am suggesting is that if I send $100,000 to the government and the average taxpayer only sends, say, $20,000, that my vote count for 5 times the vote of the average taxpayer. Or, if that's not palatable, find some other way to provide me with value. Give me a ride in an F16. Something like that.
It's especially interesting when one looks at what is going on locally (in the SF Bay Area) these days. Where I used to live, the disgusting left wing shithole of Oakland, where the city government is 100% democrat, the long and wet winter has resulted in terrific landslides and property destruction in my old neighborhood. I moved out of that area in 2004 in part because our house had already been affected by the idiotic development policies of Oakland (which were: if you want to build a house without any concern for the environmental effects or the effects on the hillside's stability or drainage, please pay your fee and proceed at will) and in part because while we paid massive amounts of property taxes (over $12,000 a year then, which would be closer to $15,000 today), the city refused to provide any services, whether it was filling potholes or providing proper drainage facilities.
The city's response was that the budget was already in the red due to the amounts spent in the lower income areas of Oakland for police and fire and social services and, even though the affluent residents of the hills spent far more on taxes, they would get no services. In fact, they put on a new tax on hills residents to provide fire services, which were provided to the lowlands residents with no additional tax.
Now, as I write this, a number of houses in my former neighborhood have been red and yellow tagged (meaning they are uninhabitable) as a result of landslides and the city has told the residents that the city will do nothing more than provide sandbags and close roads.
The point of this is to show, once again, that there is a serious disconnect between the amount of taxes paid and the rights and benefits that accrue.
Of course, I know this isn't going to happen, but when I see the liberal forces, from local politicians and activists to the NY Times and other media, screaming for higher taxes on the right, I want to know why the rich should agree to pay the taxes. Or why we, if stuck with these taxes, should continue to work hard to support a system that bleeds us.
Ultimately, with most parasitic systems, the host dies and the parasite has to find a new host. I wonder what will happen when this host decides that it has been bled enough.
Notwithstanding the insane braying of the liberal media, who claim that the economy was awful in 2005, the Zhid and his wife had a very good year. Between the two of us having high paying jobs (and the Zhid actually keeping a job for more than a year), good bonuses and some excellent stock market results, we ended up owing the federal government just about $100,000 in taxes.
Yes, $100,000 in federal taxes for one couple. We have to write a check today for $14,000 to uncle Sam to cover the excess over what was already withheld from our paychecks. And, of course, the state took a bite of about $30,000 and we have to write them a check today for another $5,000.
We also paid about $11,000 in property taxes for our house. So between the federal income tax, the state income tax and state property tax, we pay about $150,000 to the various government entities. That, of course, doesn't count all the other taxes, like the taxes on gas or sales tax (at about 8%, I believe).
The bottom line is that we, like many Americans, pay a LOT of taxes (and it was made worse by the AMT, which boosted our federal tax bill by about $8,000, from what my accountant tells me).
The point of this post is not to spill my financial guts to the public. I'm setting out this information to ask a question: Do I, as a person who paid so much into the government's accounts, have more of a right to comment on what the government does with my money than someone who contributes far less into the system and gets far more tangible benefits out of it?
That is, should I, a guy who paid $100,000 in taxes to the federal government and got very little back (I'm talking about things like welfare payments, disaster relief, etc.) get to have more input on how my money gets spent than the guy who put virtually nothing in and took a lot out (for example purposes, let's look at some unemployed guy in New Orleans who not only got welfare payments before the storm but also got all sorts of benefits by way of disaster relief afterwards, which resulted in a windfall of federal benefits for a person who paid virtually nothing into the system).
While the numbers would make it look like I (and others like me) live a life of luxury, the reality is quite different. In 2005 I didn't go on vacation, I didn't eat in fancy restaurants, I didn't buy expensive clothing or cars (in fact, I still drive the 2000 Dodge pickup I bought new in 2000 for $21,000). I did put a new roof on the house for about $20,000 and we did do a fairly minor remodel of part of the house, but for the most part I spent the year working, often on weekends and evenings, without much of a break and without any indulgences.
At the end of 2005, my bank account balance was higher than when 2005 started, but the increase wasn't very dramatic. I do have a nice house, but it's hardly a temple of luxury...a 2,800 sq ft house on an 8,000 sq ft lot that is an hour and a half commute from my work.
So while my life is comfortable, it's not even close to lavish or chock full of luxury.
In fact, last year, my biggest splurge was on taxes.
What do I get in return? Do I get more than the guy down the road who made 1/10th what I made and who paid a lot less than 1/10th the taxes? I drive the same roads that he drives. Our kids (if I had any) would go to the same schools. We are both defended in exactly the same way by our military.
In other words, no, I simply am charged more for the same services because I make more. And the higher the tax rates go, the more this serves as a disincentive for me to work harder, as if I get no more government services (and in fact, less) and end up with a smaller percent of my salary after taxes, what is my motivation for working hard?
Not much. All in all, I'd prefer to be mountain biking or shooting or camping, rather than working. I'm in it for the money and benefits and so far, I'm not seeing a marginal return that justifies the increased burden.
And this is in under an administration that has actually REDUCED the tax bite. Lord help us when the Democrats are back in office and they pounce on people like me, the "rich" (who, in urban areas, really are nothing more than middle class), with a significantly higher tax rate.
So the solution, as I see it, is for me to either stop working and earning so much or to get more of a say in the enterprise that takes my money.
Indeed, what I am suggesting is that if I send $100,000 to the government and the average taxpayer only sends, say, $20,000, that my vote count for 5 times the vote of the average taxpayer. Or, if that's not palatable, find some other way to provide me with value. Give me a ride in an F16. Something like that.
It's especially interesting when one looks at what is going on locally (in the SF Bay Area) these days. Where I used to live, the disgusting left wing shithole of Oakland, where the city government is 100% democrat, the long and wet winter has resulted in terrific landslides and property destruction in my old neighborhood. I moved out of that area in 2004 in part because our house had already been affected by the idiotic development policies of Oakland (which were: if you want to build a house without any concern for the environmental effects or the effects on the hillside's stability or drainage, please pay your fee and proceed at will) and in part because while we paid massive amounts of property taxes (over $12,000 a year then, which would be closer to $15,000 today), the city refused to provide any services, whether it was filling potholes or providing proper drainage facilities.
The city's response was that the budget was already in the red due to the amounts spent in the lower income areas of Oakland for police and fire and social services and, even though the affluent residents of the hills spent far more on taxes, they would get no services. In fact, they put on a new tax on hills residents to provide fire services, which were provided to the lowlands residents with no additional tax.
Now, as I write this, a number of houses in my former neighborhood have been red and yellow tagged (meaning they are uninhabitable) as a result of landslides and the city has told the residents that the city will do nothing more than provide sandbags and close roads.
The point of this is to show, once again, that there is a serious disconnect between the amount of taxes paid and the rights and benefits that accrue.
Of course, I know this isn't going to happen, but when I see the liberal forces, from local politicians and activists to the NY Times and other media, screaming for higher taxes on the right, I want to know why the rich should agree to pay the taxes. Or why we, if stuck with these taxes, should continue to work hard to support a system that bleeds us.
Ultimately, with most parasitic systems, the host dies and the parasite has to find a new host. I wonder what will happen when this host decides that it has been bled enough.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Honky Tonk Hypocrites
I was reading today's NY Times and saw a story on the Rolling Stones performing in China recently (I think it was yesterday, in fact). That shouldn't really be front section news, but the NY Times editors apparently thought it was since the Stones allowed the Chinese government to censor the performance.
Specifically, the Stones agreed to not perform the songs Brown Sugar, Beast of Burden, Let's Spend the Night Together, Honky Tonk Woman and Rough Justice. Mick Jagger, who seemed to be so upset at the alleged abuses of the Bush Administration with regard to civil liberties that he wrote a song, Sweet Neo Con, to attack Bush, could do nothing more than grin like an idiot as he collaborated with the Chinese censors.
Jagger's song had the following lyrics:
What was Jagger's reaction to the Chinese government's ACTUAL censorship? He thought it was funny and, rather than standing on his claimed principles and refusing to do the show unless it was uncensored, he caved in to the Chinese repression.
To quote from his own lyrics...Mick, you call yourself a defender of rights? I think you're a hypocrite. You say you're for free speech? I think that you're a crock of shit.
This is just the latest in a string of self imposed acts of censorship on the left to coddle truly repressive powers. In addition to the general fawning over Islam as a reaction to 9/11, there was also the liberal news media bowing down to Islamic terror and not printing the Danish Muhammed cartoons, then there was liberal universities refusing to allowing discussions about the Danish cartoons, followed by the city of San Francisco enacting a resolution condemning Christian youth for gathering in the left wing city of San Francisco to rally for more civilized behavior in youth culture.
Yes, you read that right...the city of San Francisco thought that kids gathering to object to the glamorization of violence and anti-social behavior in popular culture was wrong, and I'm quoting from San Francisco politicians here, characterized the participants in this way: "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco." Uh, yeah, and all of the left wing protests in San Francisco are quiet, respectful and proper???
Let me point out that San Francisco has willingly (nay, enthusiastically) hosted all sorts of gatherings without ever passing negative judgment on them, including some pretty ugly anti-American, anti-Semitic events (see here for details on the latest one, which featured some scumbags holding up these signs:
(in case you can't read them, click the picture for an enlargement...one says "SMASH THE JEWISH STATE" and the other says "I SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE").
Yes sir, readers...a few thousand Christian youth rallying against violence in the media gets this reaction from San Francisco's city government:
yet those who come to San Francisco to support and encourage terror get police protection and a big welcome. "America's most tolerant and progressive city* indeed. (*for leftists, but for everyone else, SHUT UP AND GET OUT OF OUR CITY!)
So back to my point...I constantly hear from the left that Bush has eroded civil liberties, but, as you can see from the picture above, I see nothing stopping the left from speaking some of the most vile speech imaginable. The only censorship I see is the left censoring itself when the real forces of terror and oppression claim to be offended.
Mick Jagger, San Francisco, NY Times and the rest of the liberal establishment, you say you fear Bush but you should really fear yourselves. You say you are protectors of free speech, I think that you're a crock of shit.
Specifically, the Stones agreed to not perform the songs Brown Sugar, Beast of Burden, Let's Spend the Night Together, Honky Tonk Woman and Rough Justice. Mick Jagger, who seemed to be so upset at the alleged abuses of the Bush Administration with regard to civil liberties that he wrote a song, Sweet Neo Con, to attack Bush, could do nothing more than grin like an idiot as he collaborated with the Chinese censors.
Jagger's song had the following lyrics:
You call yourself a Christian
I think that you're a hypocrite
You say you are a patriot
I think that you're a crock of shit
...
It's liberty for all
'Cause democracy's our style
Unless you are against us
Then it's prison without trial
What was Jagger's reaction to the Chinese government's ACTUAL censorship? He thought it was funny and, rather than standing on his claimed principles and refusing to do the show unless it was uncensored, he caved in to the Chinese repression.
To quote from his own lyrics...Mick, you call yourself a defender of rights? I think you're a hypocrite. You say you're for free speech? I think that you're a crock of shit.
This is just the latest in a string of self imposed acts of censorship on the left to coddle truly repressive powers. In addition to the general fawning over Islam as a reaction to 9/11, there was also the liberal news media bowing down to Islamic terror and not printing the Danish Muhammed cartoons, then there was liberal universities refusing to allowing discussions about the Danish cartoons, followed by the city of San Francisco enacting a resolution condemning Christian youth for gathering in the left wing city of San Francisco to rally for more civilized behavior in youth culture.
Yes, you read that right...the city of San Francisco thought that kids gathering to object to the glamorization of violence and anti-social behavior in popular culture was wrong, and I'm quoting from San Francisco politicians here, characterized the participants in this way: "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco." Uh, yeah, and all of the left wing protests in San Francisco are quiet, respectful and proper???
Let me point out that San Francisco has willingly (nay, enthusiastically) hosted all sorts of gatherings without ever passing negative judgment on them, including some pretty ugly anti-American, anti-Semitic events (see here for details on the latest one, which featured some scumbags holding up these signs:
(in case you can't read them, click the picture for an enlargement...one says "SMASH THE JEWISH STATE" and the other says "I SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE").
Yes sir, readers...a few thousand Christian youth rallying against violence in the media gets this reaction from San Francisco's city government:
Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."
yet those who come to San Francisco to support and encourage terror get police protection and a big welcome. "America's most tolerant and progressive city* indeed. (*for leftists, but for everyone else, SHUT UP AND GET OUT OF OUR CITY!)
So back to my point...I constantly hear from the left that Bush has eroded civil liberties, but, as you can see from the picture above, I see nothing stopping the left from speaking some of the most vile speech imaginable. The only censorship I see is the left censoring itself when the real forces of terror and oppression claim to be offended.
Mick Jagger, San Francisco, NY Times and the rest of the liberal establishment, you say you fear Bush but you should really fear yourselves. You say you are protectors of free speech, I think that you're a crock of shit.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Pop Quiz
As I was waiting for the latest carnival of cordite to be posted I thought I could use the time to sort through some ammo for my C & R rifle collection. As I was doing that, I thought it may be interesting to line up the various rounds for the rifles and do a visual comparison of what is there. The results, unfortunately, were not that amazing. However, I thought that it might be a bit more interesting to post the picture of the rounds lined up to see who can guess the order of the rounds.
Note that I have added in a ringer that is not a C & R rifle round.
The picture is below and below it is a random list of what they are. Put your guesses in the comments. The first winner gets, uh, satisfaction. Remember to click on the picture for an enlargement.
If you want to see a random list of the rounds, scroll down.
more
more
7mm Remingtom Magnum, .303 British, 7.5 mm Swiss, 7.62 x 54R, 30/06 Springfield and 8mm Mauser. Remember, that's a random order. Sort of.
Note that I have added in a ringer that is not a C & R rifle round.
The picture is below and below it is a random list of what they are. Put your guesses in the comments. The first winner gets, uh, satisfaction. Remember to click on the picture for an enlargement.
If you want to see a random list of the rounds, scroll down.
more
more
7mm Remingtom Magnum, .303 British, 7.5 mm Swiss, 7.62 x 54R, 30/06 Springfield and 8mm Mauser. Remember, that's a random order. Sort of.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Be The Bear
I just finished reading "Warrior", the autobiography of Ariel Sharon (written in 1989). It's a great book about an even greater man and I encourage anyone who is interested in the history of modern Israel to read the book, as Sharon's story is the story of Israel.
Sharon's story is also the story of the war against terror and there's a lot that can be learned about today's so-called Global War on Terror from Sharon's commentary and experience. While some (including many people in Israel) criticized Sharon's approach to Arabs and terror, they tend to be of the same mindset as those who criticize Bush's war on terror. That is, there are some people who have the amazing capacity to ignore what is actually happening and instead argue that the correct response to terror is to appease or ignore the terrorists.
President Clinton was a master of this, as was Jimmy Carter, and I have to admit that after reading Sharon's commentary on what the Reagan administration did during the 1980s vis a vis the war against terror in Lebanon (primarily through Weinberger, Shultz and Habib), Reagan wasn't much better. What allowed the terrorists to develop the strength that resulted in the terror attacks against the US (culminating on 9/11/01) was the utter failure to understand that terrorists are nothing like common criminals.
Our policy, before 9/11, was to do as little as possible to inflict harm on terrorists and to instead contain them until we could rehabilitate them. It seems that we considered terrorists to be nothing more than criminals. The best analogy I can make is that we saw terrorists in the same way that some see a criminal who steals because he's hungry: if you provide a way for the person to earn a living lawfully, he'll quickly change his ways. Similarly, our leadership thought that if you find a way to preoccupy or mollify the facile demands of terrorists, they will revert to being good western citizens.
In fact, terrorists are not criminals. While what they do may be criminal, they do not have the mindset of a criminal; rather, they have the mindset of a warrior and they use the same tactics as a good warrior. They learn their enemies' weaknesses, they exploit those weaknesses and they fight for the long term victory.
In the case of Islamic terror, they saw that the west (including Israel) would not respond with massive, sustained military force to any attacks. Each time that the terrorists struck and we engaged in nothing more than finger wagging backed by very limited and ineffectual military force, they became more comfortable expanding their goals and planning for the long war of attrition.
While I despise Islam, I know that Islam is not a criminal enterprise. Islam is a religion and culture of hate and extremism, a culture and way that was founded on the notion of usurping existing norms and cultures through violence and a culture that still desires to use violence and the exploitation of the civility and passivity of the dominant culture to undermine that culture.
Thankfully, George W. Bush also understand this.
I certainly have my issues with the way that he has prosecuted the war. For example, I think that the reliance on small forces was horribly misguided. I disagree with the positioning of the war as a response to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, I think that the war is necessary and it must continue.
For the first time in the modern history of relations with the Islamic world, the west has taken off its blinders and defended itself. In fact, beyond defending ourselves, we have gone on the offense and, notwithstanding what the media and left try to claim, have dealt devastating military defeats on the Islamic terror armies.
I suppose that people have become so brainwashed by movies and video games that they expected we'd roll into Baghdad with three casualties, raise a new flag and walk out a week later with a new, friendly, peaceful government in place.
The fact that we've fought a war for over three years and have averaged under 800 combat deaths per year is an amazing, positive statistic.
It's also a statistic that has been twisted by the left in the most grotesque manner.
Those who would prefer that we appease Islamic terror cry crocodile tears over the number of American dead, yet we lost more people in one morning in New York by appeasing Islamic terror than we've lost in three years as we defeat Islamic terror on the battlefield and prevent any further attacks on our civilians.
As I point out below in another post, even the al Qaeda leaders admit that they had planned more attacks on the US after 9/11 and were stopped only by the resolute military response of the Bush administration.
This is a war that started decades ago and will likely last for several decades more. We will never have the Hollywood ending so many seem to expect. The Islamic terrorists are in this war for the long run and George Bush understands this. He and the US military have acted with great courage and understanding of who our enemies are and what they seek.
When I see or read of Americans attacking President Bush for going to war (and I see a lot of it in the Bay Area) and insisting that he, rather than the terrorists, is the enemy, I can only think that we are becoming a nation of Timothy Treadwells.
Who is Timothy Treadwell?
Click here.
Sharon's story is also the story of the war against terror and there's a lot that can be learned about today's so-called Global War on Terror from Sharon's commentary and experience. While some (including many people in Israel) criticized Sharon's approach to Arabs and terror, they tend to be of the same mindset as those who criticize Bush's war on terror. That is, there are some people who have the amazing capacity to ignore what is actually happening and instead argue that the correct response to terror is to appease or ignore the terrorists.
President Clinton was a master of this, as was Jimmy Carter, and I have to admit that after reading Sharon's commentary on what the Reagan administration did during the 1980s vis a vis the war against terror in Lebanon (primarily through Weinberger, Shultz and Habib), Reagan wasn't much better. What allowed the terrorists to develop the strength that resulted in the terror attacks against the US (culminating on 9/11/01) was the utter failure to understand that terrorists are nothing like common criminals.
Our policy, before 9/11, was to do as little as possible to inflict harm on terrorists and to instead contain them until we could rehabilitate them. It seems that we considered terrorists to be nothing more than criminals. The best analogy I can make is that we saw terrorists in the same way that some see a criminal who steals because he's hungry: if you provide a way for the person to earn a living lawfully, he'll quickly change his ways. Similarly, our leadership thought that if you find a way to preoccupy or mollify the facile demands of terrorists, they will revert to being good western citizens.
In fact, terrorists are not criminals. While what they do may be criminal, they do not have the mindset of a criminal; rather, they have the mindset of a warrior and they use the same tactics as a good warrior. They learn their enemies' weaknesses, they exploit those weaknesses and they fight for the long term victory.
In the case of Islamic terror, they saw that the west (including Israel) would not respond with massive, sustained military force to any attacks. Each time that the terrorists struck and we engaged in nothing more than finger wagging backed by very limited and ineffectual military force, they became more comfortable expanding their goals and planning for the long war of attrition.
While I despise Islam, I know that Islam is not a criminal enterprise. Islam is a religion and culture of hate and extremism, a culture and way that was founded on the notion of usurping existing norms and cultures through violence and a culture that still desires to use violence and the exploitation of the civility and passivity of the dominant culture to undermine that culture.
Thankfully, George W. Bush also understand this.
I certainly have my issues with the way that he has prosecuted the war. For example, I think that the reliance on small forces was horribly misguided. I disagree with the positioning of the war as a response to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, I think that the war is necessary and it must continue.
For the first time in the modern history of relations with the Islamic world, the west has taken off its blinders and defended itself. In fact, beyond defending ourselves, we have gone on the offense and, notwithstanding what the media and left try to claim, have dealt devastating military defeats on the Islamic terror armies.
I suppose that people have become so brainwashed by movies and video games that they expected we'd roll into Baghdad with three casualties, raise a new flag and walk out a week later with a new, friendly, peaceful government in place.
The fact that we've fought a war for over three years and have averaged under 800 combat deaths per year is an amazing, positive statistic.
It's also a statistic that has been twisted by the left in the most grotesque manner.
Those who would prefer that we appease Islamic terror cry crocodile tears over the number of American dead, yet we lost more people in one morning in New York by appeasing Islamic terror than we've lost in three years as we defeat Islamic terror on the battlefield and prevent any further attacks on our civilians.
As I point out below in another post, even the al Qaeda leaders admit that they had planned more attacks on the US after 9/11 and were stopped only by the resolute military response of the Bush administration.
This is a war that started decades ago and will likely last for several decades more. We will never have the Hollywood ending so many seem to expect. The Islamic terrorists are in this war for the long run and George Bush understands this. He and the US military have acted with great courage and understanding of who our enemies are and what they seek.
When I see or read of Americans attacking President Bush for going to war (and I see a lot of it in the Bay Area) and insisting that he, rather than the terrorists, is the enemy, I can only think that we are becoming a nation of Timothy Treadwells.
Who is Timothy Treadwell?
Click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)