A Good Ol' Fashioned Ted Rall Ass Whuppin'
I apologize for the profane language. Sort of anyway.
Over at Right Wing News is documented a classic case of Ted Rall opening his mouth and inserting his leg quite possibly to his hip joint if not further. Seems he challenged the right winged blogosphere to provide examples of left winged blog hate speech. Rall thought there was none. Rall was obviously wrong.
Like that's a first.
Go. Read the whole thing. Chuckle. Feel free to break out in hysterical fits of laughter at his expense.
That kind of thinking is what results from a BA in History from Columbia. Go figure.
More Poking Fun at Rall
by Thom the Blog Culler
Hat Tip to Chris Muir, creator of Day By Day Cartoons
What can I say more?
Lightning Strikes Again
I was going to leave this in the comments, but I decided to post it here as well. To see the ongoing "conversation" please see this post.
Careful, there, Ms. Lightning, your word by word (blow by blow) dissections of my work may add to my growing messiah complex.
You went to great lengths to attempt to discredit my claims of fraud as it relates to "Professor" Churchill. While I am impressed with the lengths to which you will go to prove a point, I'm still not going to concede said point.
I don't care whether or not CU is investigating "Professor" Churchill's "ethnicity" claims or not. The fact is, he deliberately misled CU on his application/resume. I take it from the fact that you mentioned this in your comment that you stipulate to this fact. Thank you, counselor.
Do misrepresentations matter in the academic or professional worlds? Ask George O'Leary - he lasted about a week as the Notre Dame Head Football Coach before it was found that his resume didn't add up. Yes, I will grant you that was a sports job. Should not college professors be held to the same standards as football coaches?
The bottom line, Ms. Lightning, is there is some fine print at the bottom of most, if not all, job applications. It clearly states that any misrepresentation on the form can and may well result in the applicant not being hired, or being dismissed from said position if hired. I'm fairly certain that legalese was on Churchill's application form.
To be bluntly obtuse - what I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of reasons to fire "Professor" Churchill. He opened up this closet when he started taking cheap shots at terror victims. These are his skeletons, he'll have to deal with them.
Now, Ms. Lightning took several personal shots at me. That's ok. I'm a big guy and I can take my licks - unlike most lefties I'm familiar with who immediately start crying foul the moment someone takes a shot at them.
Ms. Lighting's comments will always be welcome here. We (there are three of us by the way - Bonjo gets upset when you mistake his posts for mine) don't censor, spike, or otherwise edit or delete comments. There are exceptions to this policy, namely those comments which are profane, abusive, or an obvious ad for some site that has nothing to do with the original post, are subject to deletion or similar fates.
A few closing comments:
1. On the definition of "fraud". I simply stated I had no idea where you got yours. Thank you for providing the complete quote. Even in that legalese definition, I believe "anything calculated to deceive, whether it be a single act or combination of circumstances, whether the suppression of truth or the suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth, or by look or gesture." fits "Professor" Churchill nicely.
By the way, if you're including me in the same breath with people like W, Condi, Rummy and company - thanx for the compliment.
2. Its good to know that we here at the Sons of the Republic may be infamous. We have no idea who the Sons of Liberty are.
3. Your work is very good - well thought out and very articulate - not to mention humorous as hell. Take ten minutes and start your own blog. For the record, http://lightningempiricist.blogspot.com is available.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some "silverback-style" chest-beating to do.
Here endeth the lesson.
Big Chief Runnin' Scared
Ward Churchill has called out the dogs, in this case, the lawyers. Now, I have nothing against lawyers. But liberal lawyers are a special breed. CU is reportedly considering buying out Churchill, giving him a "Golden Parachute" to early retirement. Given that Churchill never saw any action in the 101st Airborne, as he has previously claimed to his own chagrin, we all hope he'll (A) recognize a parachute when he sees one and (B) use it to his (and CU's) own advantage.
In the words of CU Regent Peter Steinhauer:
"The possible damage to the university this controversy has created will take years to recover from."I'm not one for dangling participles, but his point is well taken. Translation: Lose the baggage or we're going down!
Big Chief Runnin' Scared
Runnin' Scared's lawyer claims, however, that this is about "freedom of speech" and "First Amendment rights". It's not about money, according to David Lane... well, unless it's the right amount of money:
"If they offer $10 million, I would think about it. If they offer him $10, I wouldn't."The only thing faster than a super-computer is an attorney calculating his portion of a big settlement. "Let's see, 30% of $10 mil... To hell with the First Amendment, we'll take it! And I'll personally see to it that my client's mouth is hermetically sealed!"
And while David Lane would like to pretend this isn't about the money, it is to many people: the countless Colorado taxpayers who are abhorred at the verbal diarrhea they are forced to fund through their state's tax system.
All together class, "Fraud"
Recently, it was also revealed (yet again) that Runnin' Scared is about as honest as the evil white settlers who ran off and murdered his imagined native forebears. This time it involved cries of fraud regarding artwork from Runnin' Scared himself (are they calling it fraud because it strongly resembles someone else's work, or because Churchill claims it is actually art?).
As you can see in the above photo, Churchill spent months of introspection only to copy someone else's work. We shouldn't be surprised--he makes believe about his bloodline, and his military service, why should he actually do his own artwork? We just expect too much of him! Don't we realize that he has tenure? But of course, Churchill claims he received copyright permission to forge the above artwork. That makes us all feel much better.
So in the end, Big Chief Runnin' Scared will follow in the footsteps of his non-ancestors and accept a buyout to simply go away. What a triumph that will be for the First Amendment! But if Churchill really wants to play indian, shouldn't we just give him a plot of land with a pre-built, operating casino on it?
Calling the Bluff
Hugh Hewitt poses an interesting question as the subject for his Vox Blogoli 2.2. Does the GOP controlled Senate call Dusty Harry's bluff regarding the confirmation of Judicial Nominees?
I've been watching this issue for awhile. Now while the possibility exists that I may be wrong, I've never seen Dusty Harry, or Tiny Tommy before him, actually engage in a filibuster. I mean a real filibuster. I'm talking Strom Thurmond on a 24 hour rant kind of filibuster. To the best of my knowledge, the Senate Dems simply threaten to filibuster the vote, the Republicans quiver in fear, and the nomination dies.
I for one, and I'm not alone, have had quite enough of this school yard taunting.
The face of the Democratic Senate is not exactly the most telegenic crowd. Dusty Harry, Ted "Dude, Where's My Scotch" Kennedy, Hillary "We Are The President" Clinton, Babs Boxer and the rest of the Motley Crew need to be called to account for their behavior. They need to be shown for what they are - bigoted obstructionists. If obstruction is what they want, let them really try. Let the nation see the true nature of their extra-constitutional activities.
And, in the end, if the "Nuclear" Option needs to be exercised, make it so. On the issue of Presidential Nominees, the Constitution is very clear on the requirement of a "Simple Majority". For those mathematically challenged readers, that would be 51% of the senators present at the time. Constitutional language means something. Senate "rules" no matter how old or traditional they may be, are trumped by the Constitution. There's a reason its called the Highest Law of the Land.
So, to quote a worn out phrase, Bring It On. I'm reminded of a scene from Rocky III in which Clubber Lane (played by Mr. T) taunts Rocky with the phrase "Gonna bust you up!" to which Rocky replies "Go for it."
Dusty Harry is no Clubber Lane.
Here endeth the lesson.
Thom's Pic of the Day: I'M BAAAAACK!
by Thom the Blog Culler
Glad to be back where I belong. Literally and figuratively. More tomorrow about my long transition from the world of Cordeiro-esque governmental (with special emphasis on the "mental") endeavors to the world of Bonjo-esque capitalist (and if I dare say "entrepreneurial") endeavors.
What can I say more? Tune in tomorrow and find out!
An Email From Baghdad
This email was forwarded to me by a coworker and close friend of a U.S. soldier currently serving in Iraq. In his email he recounts his experience on January 30, the day of the Iraqi elections:
The Election was amazing. Truly one of the most uplifting things I have ever done. I was selected to escort, then monitor, over 200 Iraqi Nationals to a polling place in Baghdad. The men were a little apprehensive while enroute but very resolute in their determination to cast a ballot.A soldier recounting the uplifting events of Iraqi Election Day. A U.S. soldier telling of the bravery and courage of the Iraqi citizens. A U.S. soldier who says he loves Iraq.
Once at the Poll they were very solemn but joyful. Some Iraqi men & women even brought their children into the voting booths with them, dipping their tiny little fingers in the ink bottle along with their own. What courage that simple act took. Marking themselves, as well as their children, for all to see, including the insurgents that they had voted. Wow. The message was clear..."We want our Country back! No matter the cost".
The trip back to our compound was amazing. I turned the radio on the bus up full blast. We all sang or clapped and danced to the Iraqi music. The men laughed and showed their pride and lack of fear by holding up their ink stained finger and giving the thumbs up gesture to all we passed. Some even wept and sobbed openly, unashamed. On that day there were no Shi'a, no Sunni and no Kurds...only Iraqis. Unbelievable. I thank the good Lord everyday for allowing me to be a part, however small, of this wonderful event. Like I said, one of the most uplifting days of my life.
No matter what happens here, or if I live to be 150, I will never forget it. I love the people here, I love Iraq.
You won't see that on CBS.
CPAC 2005: Photographic Evidence
I've finally posted a few of my pictures from CPAC 2005. I realize that was a week ago, but what can I say, I'm a gainfully employed capitalist.
Poking fun at Rall
Hat-Tip to Captain Ed. Way to get under Rall's thin skin, Skipper.
Rall: Blogs Bad, Terrorists Abused
Ted Rall, the "Brainless Journalistic Wonder" has spoken out against bloggers denouncing blogs in general as "borg-like GOP drones" (my paraphrase).
Ironically, Rall finds it necessary to defend terrorists while railing against bloggers--perhaps he sees a connection between terrorism and the left wing media that we bloggers have yet to uncover.
In a most desperate attempt at self preservation, Rall lumps himself with the award winning journalists from Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera: We Distort, You Comply!):
Two more Al Jazeera journalists reported being tortured by U.S. troops last year; another has been rotting in the Guantánamo concentration camp since 2001.His use of the term "concentration camp" could be well disputed. I don't remember hearing about people gaining weight at Auschwitz from eating three hot meals a day. Nonetheless, the point Ted misses: if Al Jazeera didn't pander to and employ terrorists, those guys wouldn't have been in Guantanamo (or U.S. custody in the first place). Ever consider that, Teddy?
I now return to my capitalist endeavors.
Ted Rall Howling at the Whirlwind
If you're in need of comic relief today, go check out the ranting of Ted Rall. It seems he's got his undies in a tightly wound bunch because some Bloggers take issue with his work.
Thin skinned, linguini spined, America hating, frenchified "journalists" need to get used to taking fire from the Blogosphere. We're just getting warmed up.
Some highlights from Rall's whining rant:
Death threats against liberal pundits are commonplace among, and essentially unique to, the right-wing blogs. And the GOP thinks that's OK. Nowhere can one find a responsible mainstream Republican to speak out against this hate speech.Interesting there, Ted. Did you think about that before you penned your hate filled cheap shot at Pat Tillman? Oh, I forget, hate speech cannot emanate from leftist oracles such as yourself.
Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothingYes, Ted, we are ordinary people. But before you go off calling us uneducated with nothing to say, you better get your facts straight. Here at the SOTR we hold five college degrees among the three of us (two of them are graduate degrees). From your obvious lack of ability to string two sentences together with factual claims anywhere therein, I can safely say that our cognitive ability far outshines your own. You draw cartoons for a living. We actually have jobs.
interesting to say. They're sitting in their rec rooms, regurgitating and
spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work. They don't have
sources, they don't report, and no one holds them accountable when they make
mistakes or flat out lie. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town. Unfortunately
he's drunk, he's mean, and he works for the bad guys.
We are accountable, sir, to our peers and to our readers. If they don't like what we have to offer, they stop reading. The Blogosphere is driven by market forces - forces with which you are obviously unfamiliar.
You and your fellow "journalists" have operated in a vacuum for far too long. Eason Jordan learned that the hard way. Your parroting of his outrageous claims of American Forces purposefully targeting journalists in a war zone may perhaps bind you to his fate. Let me educate you on this subject:
Iraq was, and in certain places still is, a war zone. In wars people die - sometimes just by being where they are. Bullets and mortars cannot tell the difference between friend and foe, much less soldier and journalist. In war zones people die. Its as simple as that. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Learn the Eason Jordan lesson, Teddy boy - or suffer his same fate.
And finally, Teddy, stop the whining. If you can't run with the big dogs, get off the porch. Your incessant complaining is a waste of bandwidth. I shall link to your crap no longer.
Here endeth the lesson.
The Porous Southwestern Border
Over the weekend, I had a chance to sit down to dinner with a former special agent in the U.S. Border Patrol. A few years ago he moved to another agency -- one that actually receives funding from Congress. I asked him a few questions regarding reports I've read recently in the media, and he confirmed all of them.
Today I read this story from the Associated Press. This all lines up with what I heard over dinner last weekend. Well, except the part where the War on Terror is blamed for our inability to defend our borders--this has been a problem since the Louisiana Purchase.
Guess what happens to those who are caught crossing our borders illegally?
Go on, guess.
They are handed a little slip of paper indicating a court date. And then they are told to be in court that day, and off they go. Bye bye, enjoy our tax funded, socialist welfare system!
The disturbing trend with this problem is that more and more non-Mexican immigrants are crossing our borders. Sure, some are from Central and South America. But many are from Asia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria.
Surely we're doing something with those guys, right? Yes, we are. We're handing them a little slip of paper indicating a court date... 20 months in the future.
Let's see, 20 months. How long did it take our 9/11 pals to learn to fly 757's? How long would it take to assemble a car bomb? Or to lay the groundwork to import some nuke materials? Or to plan an assassination?
Well, the court date can only be a few weeks, right? Try 19 or 20 months. And we can't incarcerate these people, since our jails are over-crowded. So we release them without bail on their own recognizance, never to be seen again (do we really expect law breaking border hoppers to show up in court?).
Who needs prisons--how about we use some of that BLM land for good? Pave a few dozen acres, and have the illegals sit quietly on the ground until their court date. If you play nice, you get a nice suntan and three hot meals a day. If you move or try to run away, we shoot you. Again, who needs prisons with walls?
The Border Patrol agent I spoke with told me the problem could be fixed, but never will. He said it would result in an all out war. Perhaps that is the case, but what the Governmental powers-that-be need to realize is, we are already at war.
I now return to my capitalist endeavors.
Rathergate Conspiracy Exposed
Tim Blair has stumbled upon a transcript of the conspiracy leading up to the downfall of Dan "Stark Raving Naked" Rather.
Present at the meeting were Karl Rove, Clarence Thomas, Rupert Murdoch, Ann Coulter and others. Read the whole thing for the full effect.
Hat tip to Hugh - who is no doubt still experiencing heart palpitations directly resulting from having his name mentioned within one paragraph of Ann Coulter.
In yet another collassal failure of the MSM, another great Rumsfeld moment was missed. Thankfully, The Stanford Review caught it and documented it for posterity. Go take a look and read how Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez took a proverbial boot to the head from a man who knows what he's talking about.
Congresswoman, facts are stubborn things. Before you go up against Rummy, you'd better make sure you have yours straight.
A response to Lightning Empiricist Comments on the MVM
But first, a primer in Comments decorum.
This is a blog, which by definition is a small corner of the world of ideas. It is a place where myself, Bonjo, and occasionally the MIA Thom the Blog Culler may present our ideas in a public forum. The comment feature is a mechanism by which brief responses may be submitted regarding the commentary read here.
Comments are not a blog unto themselves. If you have an comment that exceeds say 500 words or so, go set up your own blog and see if anyone cares to read what you write.
Now, you may want to know what brought on this train of thought.
Some time ago, I posted commentary on "Professor" Ward Churchill (AKA Miserable Vomitous Mass or MVM) and his "academic" works portraying the victims of the WTC as "Little Eichmanns" and the murdering terrorist thugs as "combat teams".
In this post I gave my opinions on the MVM's use of the First Amendment as a shield against retribution or any other consequence for his statements. While I may disagree with MVM's use of this defense, I was willing to let it slide due to the fact there are far more effective reasons for firing his sorry carcass.
Enter Lightning Empiricist.
As you can tell by his "comment", Mr. Lightning evidently believes any attack on the MVM threatens the very foundation upon which this nation was built. I disagree - somewhat respectfully.
The MVM is in hot water largely because of the Blogosphere. You see, we don't let things blow over or fade into obscurity. Three, maybe four years ago, MVM's comments would've passed largely unnoticed. He would be free to litter academic journals with his pathetic excuses for learnedness. The world would happily spin forward and nobody would care.
Today, however, the online world doesn't let that happen anymore. Just ask John "Lurch" Kerry about his Vietnam record. If you can't find him, try Eason Jordan, formerly of CNN, and Dan "Stark Raving Naked" Rather, soon to be formerly of CBS.
The fact of the matter is, "news" organizations such as CNN have failed in their primary duty of reporting news. The New York Times boasts it has "All The News That's Fit To Print", when really its only all the news the NYT sees fit to print.
Why is it then that FOX News, Talk Radio, and the Blogosphere are so successful? I submit the reason lies in their penchant for providing news in an unfiltered environment. People watch FOX, listen to Talk Radio, and read the Blogosphere because those outlets give them what they want. What does the MSM give the people? The MSM gives the people what the MSM Establishment believes they should receive.
All you have to do is check the ratings for CNN and Air America to see that strategy is not working very well.
Freedom of Speech does not entitle you to an audience. It does not provide you with a shield with which to quench to scathing and blistering attacks provoked by your statements. It does not entitle you to avoid being canned as a result of what you say. It merely says Congress cannot outlaw your ability to speak.
For the record, Mr. Lighting Empiricist, I did not advocate firing the MVM for what he said. I provided ample evidence (of which there is plenty more) of his fraudulent background, which is sufficient grounds for dismissal even in the Ivory Towered world of Academia.
Should you wish for someone to actually take the time to read your diatribe, SCOTUS quotes and all, go start your own blog.
Here endeth the lesson.
CPAC 2005: The Libertarians
Another exhibit I found amusing (besides the ACLU, with their flyer, "The ACLU is a conservative organization) was that of the Libertarian Party. I strolled by, stopped to look at their display, when a couple of the LP staffers asked if I had any questions.
One question came to mind, and I couldn't believe I actually voiced it: "Is it just me, or do all Libertarians I ever talk to only want to legalize drugs?"
This drew a hearty laugh and we actually had an interesting discussion on various LP views and agendas. As with any party, the LP has members across the political spectrum, some who think there should be no taxes or laws whatsoever, to those who have more "moderate" views, like having some taxes for necessary infrastructure and defense. Thank heavens for the moderates!
The LP booth babe that helped me was Jessica, who took time to explain the current state of the party and offices held by LP members across the country. Admittedly, I still think they're "out there," but now I know that the main platform of the party isn't legalizing drugs. A flyer I picked up at the booth describes the LP's push to end the "welfare state" of America--a goal with which I entirely agree.
CPAC 2005: All is Zell, All is Zell!
Yesterday I had the distinct priveledge of shaking hands with the legendary Zell Miller. The Honorable Miller signed my copy of his book, "A National Party No More." I think he should have called it, "The Party That is Neither Grand Nor Old," but I kept my opinion to myself.
I told Senator Miller what I said here several months ago: That I thought I knew what to expect from his speech at the RNC, but was left in a stunned silence of admiration (and slight shock).
The guy in line behind me was supposed to take my picture with my digital camera, but couldn't seem to figure out how to do so. Maybe he was an NRA guy, and when I said, "Just point and shoot" it could have thrown him for a loop. I did get a picture of "All is Zell" Miller signing someone else's book.
CPAC 2005: My Date with Ann Coulter
The main attraction at CPAC, in my opinion, was the speech given by Ann Coulter on Friday afternoon. I arrived in the auditorium early, at least I thought--only to find it was standing room only.
Coulter came out amidst blaring rock music and a standing ovation from a welcoming crowd.
The long and the short of Coulter's address was: (A) Republicans have won because we're right, (B) Conservatives need to be ever vigilant against liberalism, (C) we need to practice "The New McCarthyism". The new McCarthyism, as defined by Ann, is that we "define, attack and destroy" liberalism and anything that threatens the conservative agenda.
Typically, the liberals are the ones to go on the offense, while the conservatives sit back and watch. Ann mentioned specifically how we've nailed several people in the liberal media, while they have outed someone from the "prestigious" (sarcastic tone) Talon News agency. She also pointed to the irony that while Democrats claim to love gay people, their favorite name to call Republicans is "gay".
A good point that Ann made was that Republicans are discussing the issues. We're planning and working to make America a better place. Democrats, on the other hand, are fighting each other. They're fighting over who will run in four years. They're fighting over who should be their leader. They're fighting to get themselves back into power, rather than focus on the issues at hand.
Dan Would Rather We Not Mention...
One touching part of Ann's speech was when she talked about the conservative Internet grass roots activists, i.e., the Blogosphere, and the sinking of Dan Rather's career.
"CBS is planning a tribute to Dan Rather... the memo went out a month ago but everyone assumed it was a fake...Cue the Surprise Guest...
Ronald Reagan was way ahead of his time predicting we’d bring the Soviet Union down; it was much tougher to bring Dan Rather down. We waited 35 years to get Dan Rather. Sleep well, Richard Nixon."
What happened next floored me. Coulter was going to take questions, and brought out someone to help her. She introduced someone who has been a "conservative voice in the media" (raised my eyebrows) and then introduced... Matt Drudge!
This was probably the best scene of the entire day. The entire crowd jumped to their feet in about .15 seconds. The rock music blared, Drudge ran out on stage to face a screaming crowd of well groomed, suit wearing conservatives. It's not every day you see something like that.
The one point Drudge made during Q and A that I remember was about the ever-shifting political and moral values of the liberal left. The example was Hillary, who now claims to be pro-life. As Drudge correctly pointed out, and he should know:
"[The Democrats] are also counting on people not remembering from one election to the next. But the Internet, to their horror, keeps track of these things."True, true. The Internet was around in '96, but wasn't mainstream. The Internet was around in 2000, but really became a factor in 2004. Now you have an entire block of the voting population that followed this election online, and in four years they will remember the stories. They will remember the headlines. They will Google the truth. The Internet does keep track of these things.
The closing point Ann made was that the Conservative movement has a tremendous following from the youth of America. I have to say, this impressed me more than anything else at CPAC. The attendees were young, bright, and numerous. As Ann said, "We are sweeping the youth of America while they are going the way of the Whigs."
CPAC 2005: ACLU Makes a Showing
This struck me as interesting. I'm walking around the exhibits at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, sponsored by the American Conservative Union. One of the booths I came across was that of the ACLU.
The bow-tie sporting fellow behind the desk was defending the ACLU to a conservative conference goer. I leaned in to listen, and he addressed both of us. "We support defending the First Amendment rights of everyone, Democratic or Republican."
Sure, there's a token ACLU lawsuit here and there for the conservative side of the spectrum, but that's also like saying that Ted Kennedy is conservative because he ate hot dogs with George W. Bush. Some things you do because you have to, not because you want to, and that applies to Uncle Teddy and hot dogs at the White House just as it does to a few token pro-conservative ACLU lawsuits.
The other conservative wandered off, I stayed and listened to the ACLU rep tell me how they defend Republicans when necessary. He had no statistics as to the percentage of lawsuits filed on behalf of "conservative" groups, since the ACLU is a strictly "non-partisan organization."
I couldn't resist. I asked the bow-tie what the ACLU's position was on private property rights. Given that the left defends anything insidious under the umbrella of "First Amendment rights," I figured this was a fair question.
He shifted and hesitated, then I informed him of the ACLU's actions in suing the pants off of my church. I interpreted his sheepish smile as a silent surrender (he knew exactly to which church and to which property rights I referred). I did tell him, however, that despite the ACLU's actions in dividing an entire community over a ridiculous argument that long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking, half-drunken "preachers" should be allowed to protest on privately owned land, that I appreciated them suing a school district that forced a girl to hide her Bible when sitting in class.
And a hearty welcome to CPAC Visitors
While Bonjo managed to pry himself away to go and hobnob with the crem de la crem at CPAC, I'm still paying for the time I spent in Sunny South Florida.
Hell, somebody has to work today.
We welcome those of you who come to us via the solicited plugs from CPAC. Feel free to peruse the site, learn about us, bookmark us and come back often. Check out the Glossrary and the About the SOTR page.
We promise to entertain. Thin skinned, linguini spined, frenchified lefties beware!
SOTR Heads to CPAC 2005
I'm heading down to CPAC today (and with any luck will drag Cordeiro away from his governmental endeavors) and will provide my commentary when I get the chance.
Missing Headline: U.N. Approval Rating Tanks
I have seen several headlines in recent weeks trumpeting the fact that President Bush's job approval rating has been suffering. The same headlines went silent after successful elections in Iraq and Bush's subsequent rebound in the polls.
The Rasmussen Reports have an interesting piece out. It seems that in recent national polls here in the United States of America, the United Nations scored a 37% approval rating.
I won't hold my breath waiting for that to be front page news in the Washington Post or New York Times, but it's good to know that I'm not alone in my disdain for the impotence and corruption otherwise known as the United Nations.
Speaking of the United Nations
While we're on the subject, let's also take a look at some other missing headlines. If Halliburton somehow mismanaged, oh, say $1 million, and this came to light in the media, do you think it would be on the front page of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or USA Today? My guess is, yes, it would be.
I case you've missed the blow-by-blow of all the corruption and how Kofi, Benon Sevan and other underhanded crooks at the U.N. swindled the Iraqi people, here are a few links for you to peruse.
When Good Leaders Go Bad (or, when "Lousy Leaders Get Worse")
Probably cause that Sevan broke the law
Let's not forget the $3 million missing from "Weathergate"
And lest you think the liberal media outlets here in the U.S. are totally ignoring the story, The Washington Post addresses the topic and blames -- surprise -- the U.S. for all of the corruption and evil. I was surprised, however, that this article didn't conclude with "If only President Hussein were still in power there wouldn't be an insurgency, and we still wouldn't know about the corruption at the U.N. so it wouldn't be an issue. It's all George W. Bush's fault."
Perception vs. The Fine Print
I don't often read hard copies of newspapers anymore. I simply don't have the time. I get most of my news from online sources. That said, a copy of the USAToday found its way to a spot outside my hotel room this morning, so I took it to read over my breakfast at Burger King.
On the last page of the first section, I found an article penned by one DeWayne Wickham in which he does a 66% job in debunking myths of black history. Why do I say only 66%? Well, he got two out of three points right. His first, and most glaring point claimed that Abraham Lincoln - the President whose determination to keep this union united is the reason we stand together as one nation - did not in fact end slavery.
While I cannot argue with the legalese fine print of what would become the Emancipation Proclamation, Wickham fails to understand a very important detail about the effects of this great document. Lincoln ordered the end of slavery in what he knew to be the United States. He did not accept the Confederacy as a legitimate government, therefore he did not care what their policies toward slavery were at that point in time.
Another detail missed by Wickham: As the slaves - both above and below the Mason-Dixon line - learned of the Emancipation Proclamation, they believed it applied to them. They weren't worried about the legal minutiae of the text or where it applied on the map. They knew it was for them.
Mr. Wickham would do well to read the accounts of many former slaves as they expressed their deeply felt love for the 16th President of the United States. Many of these accounts are contained in the book Lincoln in American Memory. Lincoln put it all on the line for this nation, and the slaves he worked to free knew it. I take their word over that of Mr. Wickham.
While the constitutional issue of slavery was officially settled on December 18, 1865, one should never forget that on January 1, 1863 Abe Lincoln freed the slaves. He saved this nation, and nothing Wickham or anyone else can ever say or do can detract from his accomplishments.
Here endeth the lesson.
I am Harry, hear me whine!
I have a philosophy about whining. For those of you already familiar with the story I’m about to relate (as I have previously told it, but cannot find the reference while flying to Florida) I apologize. You may skip the next few paragraphs should you feel so inclined.
Early one football season during my high school years, I played across the line from an offensive tackle that spent the better half of the first quarter moaning, groaning, and complaining to the referee about the treatment given him by my defensive colleagues. After each play had ended, he would complain loudly:
Hey, Ref! He’s holding me!
C’mon Ref! He cheap shot me!
And so on, and so forth.
For the record, I and my defensive line brethren steadfastly deny anything resembling a cheap shot. All our shots on him were legal, well placed, and highly effective. I digress.
At the end of the quarter, after having to endure much whining and moaning, the referee pulled the lineman aside and very forcefully said the following:
Son, they’re not cheap shotting you. They’re kicking your ass!
This offensive lineman reminds me of “Dusty” Harry Reid (D-NV) – Senate Minority Leader. Dusty Harry took to the Senate floor yesterday to whine. You see, after all his years in public service and having reached the pinnacle of his career, Dusty Harry doesn’t like it when people take shots at him. Evidently the RNC has compiled a list of Dusty Harry’s meandering political positions. Some detailed research has gone into this, and every word is Harry’s.
Dusty Harry even went so far as to decry the defeat of his predecessor, Tiny Tommy Daschle – blaming it on viscous personal attacks. Sorry, Harry. Tiny Tommy was tossed out by his own voters. Remember, your situation is very similar to his.
There are effective ways to deal with criticism. You can attempt to refute it. You can ignore it. Or you can follow Dusty Harry’s example and whine. Its pretty early in the game to start whining, Harry. We haven’t even gotten warmed up yet.
And finally, on a thought completely unrelated to Dusty Harry and his meandering band of Half Wits…
In my rush to get to the airport today, I pulled up next to a VW Jetta with a very interesting bumpersticker. It read “Half of My Heart is in Afghanistan”. This woman is the wife of a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. She bears the true weight of this conflict. She pulled off before I could get her attention – her thoughts obviously elsewhere and justifiably so. Valentine’s Day is a hard time to be separated by so big a distance. I sincerely hope some flowers made it her way.
Here endeth the lesson.
2004 Word of the Year: Blog
Old news by now, but Merriam Webster has a list of the top ten word searches performed on their site last year. The first term was "blog", and it has thusly been pronounced as the "Word of 2004". For those of you who were first exposed to blogging by the BonjoBlog, you're welcome. And my condolences.
The other 9 words making the top ten list are as follows:
2. incumbentPeople are obviously inspired in their word lookups by the news. Those words aptly describe the year 2004. But seriously, usually I only lookup a word when I don't know it's meaning, or when I want to analyze the meaning to some degree. I would assume, however, that the majority of people looking up "incumbent" and "electoral" and "insurgent" etc. were actually looking for definitions of those words because they didn't know what they meant.
7. peloton : noun (1951) : the main body of riders in a bicycle race
That shouldn't surprise us, given that liberals don't want us to teach reading and writing in school. No, we're supposed to teach about condoms and alternative lifestyles. People probably thought the MSM was insulting George W. Bush by calling him an "incumbent"... only to realize that it means, "the guy that's already in office." That's my definition, not Merriam Webster's.
The only two words on the list I didn't know were 7 and 10. I assume number 7 showed up sometime during the Tour de France. When I saw #10, I figured it had something to do with a window, given that "finestra" is Italian for window. Perhaps it meant taking windows out? No, I looked it up and it means, "a throwing of a person or thing out of a window."
Perhaps that word was looked up after the defenestration of the Democratic Party and liberal agenda by the American electorate on November 2.
I now return to my capitalist* endeavors.
* Some readers have questioned whether I should use "capitalist" or "capitalistic". I've consulted my in-house publication editor, who informed me that either is correct. For example, "America is a capitalist nation." If a nation is a noun, and an endeavor is a noun, one can then assume that "My capitalist endeavors" is also correct, though the dictionaries I've consulted seem to indicate the words can be used interchangeably. Therefore, if you prefer "my capitalistic endeavors" over "my capitalist endeavors," please let me know. I'll play the role of customer-pleasing capitalist and seek your input.
Freedom of Speech does not equate to Freedom from Consequences
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - Amendment 1 to the US Constitution
Much has been made regarding Freedom of Speech and the even more nebulous term Academic Freedom as it relates to "Professor" Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado. You see, "Professor" Churchhill has gotten himself into Heap Big Trouble because of remarks he made regarding the victims of the September 11th attacks. He has gone so far as to state that the Americans murdered in the World Trade Center "had it coming" because they were the modern day equivalent of "Little Eichmanns" (his words not mine). The term Eichmann refers to Hiter's infamous Adolf Eichmann. "Professor" Churchill goes into much more detail which I will not give the dignity of quoting here.
Why? Because "Professor" Churchill has crossed a very bright line in the course of civil discourse. He hates this country and what she stands for so much that he is willing to publicly entertain the notion that the victims of those terrorists acts deserved what they got. He has descended past the lunacy of Michael Moore, thus I will not dignify him with the title WOSABA (Waste Of Skin And Breathable Air). "Professor" Churchill has now earned the title MVM (Miserable Vomitous Mass).
"Professor" Churchill should be fired and then forced to explain his comments to a room full of September 11th widows, New York City's Fire and Police Departments, and Marine Force Recon Commandos.
He is currently trying to hide behind the First Amendment and Academic Freedom. I have quoted the aforementioned amendment. It protects against the state inflicting punishment for self expression. The University of Colorado is a state school, thus seen by the courts as an arm of the state. The First Amendment and Academic Freedom may prevent "Professor" Churchill from being fired for what he said. Fine.
It turns out his words don't have to fire him. One of his colleagues at CU has been kind enough to dig into Churchill's credentials and evidently easily found discrepancies sufficient to toss Churchill's carcass off the CU campus if not completely from the State of Colorado. See Professor Paul Campo's comments here.
"Professor" Churchill has a Bachelor's and Master's degree from what was then an insignificant and obscure Illinois college. For those of you unfamiliar with the world of academia, most if not all Professors are required to have a post-graduate Doctoral degree. Churchill never earned such.
His claim to fame (and evidently an affirmative action diversity tenure track at CU) is that he is either 1/16 or 3/16 Cherokee Indian. Geneological searches have failed to turn up any such evidence. Claiming to be part Native American is one thing. Using a teaspoon full of alleged Cherokee blood to bully yourself into academia as a 'diversity candidate' is what we outside the ivory towered academic world call "fraud". To quote the Enterprise's Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, "if my sister had wheels, she'd be a wagon."
Professor Campos gives a very damning litany of Churchill's abuses of the academic system. If the University of Colorado (an institution I once actually attended) cannot find a way to fire this MVM for what he said about the September 11th Victims, then perhaps they should just fire his sorry carcass for being a complete and utter fraud.
Even academics should see the wisdom in this.
Here endeth the lesson.
Virginia Legislates the Asinine
(I thought about putting two s's in the title, but then readers would think I just didn't know how to spell)
Joining California in legislating the absurd, the Virginia state congress has voted to make it illegal to have underwear hanging out of the back of your pants.
Violation? A $50 fine. Watch out plumbers!
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the end goal of this legislation, I just think it's absolutely ridiculous for the government to get involved in this. Why don't we just require--by law--that women wear burkas? And men should have beards! Regulate away, Virginia!
I have one question for the Virginia state legislature: Ever hear of parents? Oh, that's right, parents aren't an important factor for liberals. After all, if a girl can get an abortion without her parents' consent, why should a boy need to listen to his parents rules about flashing his underwear? What we need here is government regulation!
As my children are still young, I can only speak upon the experiences I've had in my own home growing up, and in the homes I've visited throughout my life. In my observations, no government regulation has been needed to prevent droopy drawers, or bare midriff clothing, or any other sleazy/slutty/sloppy derivative.
Kids with parents don't need the state government to tell them how to dress, believe me. They live under a government of their own, one much more qualified to regulate and supervise: parental law. Virginia, however, would have parents rest easy, knowing that the government is doing what the parents themselves should be doing.
Perhaps this is what Hillary meant by, "It takes a village."
Shocker: Corruption at the U.N., as reported by NYT
Imagine, if you will, the possibility of fraud and corruption and theft at the United Nations. I know, I know. It's difficult, at least for our liberal friends.
The New York Times almost seems surprised to learn of such chicanery.
Welcome to the party, lads.
With that I return to my capitalist endeavors.
1st Sergeant Brad Kasal, USMC
Today's commentary is provided by BlackFive. Read the whole thing, but pay special attention to the last paragraph which reads:
Despite everything that has happened to him, Kasal still believes America’s mission is Iraq is both important and terribly misconstrued. He harbors special venom for the so-called “mainstream” media reporters who portray the war as a failure and American policy as a gross mistake. He says he has heard reporters say their job is to make President George W. Bush and his policies seem a failure. “The insurgents are oppressing normal people,” Kasal said. “The press never reports the good things. When we open a school or fix a sewer, the things that make normal Iraqis happy, they never report it. There are plenty of Iraqis, thousands of them, who want to live normal lives. If we can help them it will be all right. The people just want peace and freedom.”Well done, Sergeant Kasal. Hooaah!
Ted Kennedy Proves CBS Wrong
CBS had promised us that this year, come Super Bowl Sunday, there would be no boobs on television.
They were proved wrong. They couldn't predict, however, that Senator Kennedy would appear that day on the Sunday talk shows. Kennedy was on the air to complain about Social Security reform, and the war in Iraq. I'm sure his viewpoint on both topics came as a surprise to all 10 people who were watching NBC's "Meet the Press".
Kennedy claims that Social Security needs mending, not overhaul. If "mending" involves replacing the engine, the transmission, the tires, the exhaust system, giving it a new coat of paint and adding a new stereo, then I suppose he's correct. But from my limited knowledge of auto mechanics, I believe that would qualify as an "overhaul."
Kennedy touted the Liberal claim that Social Security isn't going bankrupt. In fact, he says, it will be able to pay 81% of benefits in the year 2035. By the early 2040's, when yours truly will be looking to refrain from full-time capitalistic endeavors, Social Security will be able to pay about 71% of benefits.
If I were only able to pay my creditors 71% of the money I owe, I guarantee you they would consider me bankrupt. Fortunately for me, I have this nasty little habit of not promising more than I can produce... unlike the liberals in congress.
When "Senator Scotch" was done mumbling about Social Security, he went on to criticize the war in Iraq, saying we needed a new policy to deal with the country. Something must be wrong, what with Iraqis dancing in the streets, holding their own elections, and joining the military and police forces in increasing numbers. Yes, some might say we're about to succeed in Iraq, so no wonder Kennedy and his liberal buddies are all up in arms.
America's continued success means the Democrats' continued famine of political power.
With that I return to my capitalist endeavors.
In the hustle and bustle of a pre-Super Bowl Friday, I missed commenting on the latest efforts of "People for Sensitive War Fighting" to bring down a Marine Corps General for saying what he thinks.
The following quote was attributed to Lt. General James Mattis, USMC currently commanding the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico, Virginia. Up until recently, General Mattis was leading Marines tasked with capturing or killing murderous terrorists thugs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling...You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.Now, I've known quite a few Marines in my time. They are, as a general rule, blunt. They are long on combat training at Quantico, and evidently short on tact. This is as it should be. Marines aren't going to win any battles by being polite and sensitive. Lt. General Mattis, as I have already mentioned, currently commands the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico, Virginia. By all reports he is the epitome of an American Warrior, schooled in the art of warfare and its stated purpose of destroying the enemy. I, for one, am glad General Mattis enjoys his chosen profession.
Sempre Fi, General. That said, you might want to take a quick course in tactful speaking for those in your audience who don't, can't, or won't understand the meaning of combat.
And finally, Super Bowl Commentary. I know you've all been waiting for this.
The Super Bowl is the one game I have special dispensation from the fetching Mrs. Cordeiro to watch relatively uninterrupted. It was a good game, a defensive battle which is what I (as a former defensive player) really like to see.
That said, I can give you the reason why the Philadelphia Eagles are waking up today as the NFC Champions rather than Super Bowl winners. Its very simple. The New England Patriots simply wanted it more. Some of you may argue with this, but to me it was very obvious.
As a general rule, a hurry up offense is a hurry up offense. When you have 96 yards to the other end zone (OK, lets say 75 yards to field goal range for overtime) and only 55 seconds to get there, you don't huddle. If you do huddle, you sprint to the line of scrimmage to save precious seconds. The Eagles did none of this. They sauntered to and from the huddle, they wasted too many ticks of the clock getting started.
55 seconds to score a touchdown or field goal, put in the hands of Joe Montana or John Elway, is an eternity. They were masters of the Two-Minute Drill. That scenario with either of those two quarterbacks has led to many a defensive coordinator slamming himself against the press box window in a vain attempt to commit suicide. Why? Because they knew whatever defense they fielded would be shredded.
On Super Bowl Sunday, Donovan McNabb and the Philadelphia Offense's Two Minute Drill were sadly lacking. They just didn't want it bad enough.
Here endeth the lesson.
The Hug Felt Round The World
The MSM has made much of the embrace shared between Safia Taleb al-Souhail and Janet Norwood during the SOTU address on Wednesday. Most of it has been moving, positive, and respectful. But for some reason, the MSM cannot just leave it at that. Not ten minutes after the address had finished, Chris Matthews and his posse over at Hardball - soon to be renamed Hardheaded Whiffleball - started wondering whether or not the embrace was staged for political gain.
Chris and company have a complete lack of ability to understand or relate to Red State America.
You see, Americans can tell the difference between a staged media event and a spontaneous outpouring of emotion between two women bound by tragedy and strengthened by hope for the future. We grew accustomed to staged events during Clinton's sorry excuse for an Administration.
Mrs. Norwood would never allow herself to be used in such a manner. Why? Because she is a mother. More importantly, she is the mother of a United States Marine. Using her son to get fifteen minutes of fame would dishonor his sacrifice and tarnish the honor of his memory. Mrs. Norwood knows that as does her husband. They are the epitome of the heartland of this great nation.
The MSM would do well to steer clear of taking potshots at a Marine's Mother. Offending the USMC as a group is not something I highly recommend.
The State of our Excellent Union
Much is being said of the above-pictured moment during Bush's speech when Mrs. Norwood hugged Safia Taleb al-Souhail. A "Style" reporter in the Washington Post had the nerve to call it "staged" in order to win the "war on perception."
He's not alone in his bitterness. Others in the liberal left are criticizing the moment, since they realize that they've been on the wrong side of the Iraq argument for so long, they can do nothing but dig in their heels and sink with the ship.
What we saw last night with the Norwoods was real. Those feelings were real. Even if it was "staged"—-in politics, most things are--it was real.
It was a testimony of the American way: sacrifice for others. Nothing expected in return. Duty and service, preservation of freedom, and no thanks needed.
Compare this, if you will, to Bill Clinton. In the weeks following the Lewinsky sex scandal, we, the American public, were subjected to various photo-ops of Clinton going to church. Clinton went to church, holding a Bible, holding hands with his wife, and the footage was all over the news.
I don’t remember anyone in the media calling that "staged". It was staged, and I have no reason to believe it was real.
Whereas last night we witnessed a testimony of the American way and preservation of freedom, Clinton's display was a testimony of his own attempts at self preservation.
The same people who are saying the Norwoods were "staged" are the same people who criticize Bush for his religion. According to these same people, however, Clinton’s religion wasn’t staged. And we all know that it certainly wasn’t criticized.
I say let the bitter, powerless liberals criticize. For the rest of us, we can know that we've done something profound. If there were ever a doubt in America's mind about the war in Iraq, last night's display is proof positive that our sacrifice was needed, is appreciated, and will not be forgotten.
With that I return to my capitalist endeavors.
State of the Union
I took the time to actually sit and watch the W's fifth State of the Union address last night. It was good as political speeches go. W laid out a very ambitious task list for his second term. It is bold and reaching - I believe those are admirable traits. W is obviously not someone who wants to spend the next four years solidifying the legacy of the first four.
The main crux of his speech was, as advertised, Social Security. Democrats have pledged to lay themselves across the tracks in order to fight needed reform. Well, folks, W campaigned on this pledge. It will move forward because people my age are tired of throwing money down the Social Security Rathole with little hope of ever seeing a decent return on the principal investment.
So, Nancy "San Francisco Treat" Pelosi and "Dusty" Harry Reid, go ahead and stand in front of this train. Lay yourselves across the tracks (politically speaking). Take it from an old railroader. You won't want to see what's left after the train runs you over.
There is one singular event that will set this State of the Union apart from any other. In the gallery, set next to "Classy" Laura Bush, was Safia Taleb al-Souhail - an Iraqi woman still wearing the election ink on her index finger. Her father was executed by Saddam's intelligence service some years ago. W introduced her and she got a round of applause from the gallery.
Toward the end of his speech, W introduced a couple seated behind the First Lady. They are the parents of Marine Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas. Sergeant Norwood was killed in action during the assault to retake Fallujah from the terrorist thugs sworn to Al Sadr. W saluted them as they represented the families of those who have given the last full measure of devotion in defense of liberty and the liberation of Iraq. As expected, Mr. and Mrs. Norwood received a thunderous round of applause from the gallery.
Then a remarkable thing happened. Ms. al-Souhail turned to Mrs. Norwood, who then took Ms. al-Souhail in her arms and embraced her for what seemed like an eternity. Had they not separated and Mrs. Norwood returned to her seat, the applause would still be thundering inside the House of Representatives.
Both these women have cause to mourn. One lost her father to Saddam's tyranny. The other lost her son to those who would just as soon return Saddam to power. I have read and heard many Iraqis thank their American liberators, but this is the first time I've ever seen it happen. Mrs. Norwood's son willingly gave his life for the freedom of Ms. al-Souhail. Watching their embrace reminded me of a line from Saving Private Ryan - the last words of Captain John Miller to Private Ryan:
Somewhere, a Marine assigned to Heaven's Detail is smiling.
Here endeth the lesson.
Lurch's Search For Relevance
Meet the Press really needs to fire its guest booking agent. On the day of the very first democratic election in the history of Iraq, a day which could possibly stand as the beginning of a new era in the Middle East, who pray tell was the main guest on the show?
John F. "Lurch" Kerry, Junior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Full Disclosure mandates that I tell you Brian Williams did give a live report from Baghdad, but Lurch the Loser took the lion's share of the hour.
For the record, I believe Lurch the Loser was hoping and praying for disaster on Iraq's election day. He really, really, really wanted to do the political equivalent of the Dance of Joy over the failure of Iraqi elections and the carnage that was supposed to come with it.
The only problem with his wish is that it didn't come true, therefore he had to field questions about reality - a state with which he is wholly unfamiliar.
Reality is, Lurch ended up on the losing side of the presidential election. He tried to make it look like he only lost Ohio and if 50,000 people would've changed their minds he would be sitting in the big chair today.
Lurch the Loser's grasp of reality is only slightly better that is Babs Boxer's.
Somebody needs to show Lurch a map. It wasn't 50,000 votes. It was 3,000,165. He can complain all he wants about election results, but in the end the only result that matters is in the win/loss column. The American people weighed him in the balance, and he was found wanting.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!"I predict this past Meet the Press will be one of the last major appearances of Lurch the Loser before the MSM. You see, even the MSM is driven by the almighty capitalistic engine of ratings. Americans gravitate toward winners, and that is one title to which Lurch will never be entitled.
"However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."
Here endeth the lesson.