"After European representatives launched a campaign against Israel's separation fence, and voted against Israel at the UN general assembly, the EU is planning a separation fence of its own. The EU plans to build a fence to separate its new members - Poland and Hungary - from its new neighbors - Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - to prevent the free movement of migrants seeking to enter the EU.Israeli companies that specialize in the construction of warning fences and security systems will participate in tenders to build hundreds of kilometers of fences along the EU's new eastern border."
From this article, with a hat tip to LGF. The emphasis is mine.
So, let me get this straight. It isn't OK for Israel to build a fence in order to protect their people from Palestinian nutjobs who routinely strap bombs onto their bodies in the name of terror, but it is OK for the EUroweenies to build a fence to keep out people from Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine? What did they do? Do they have to start bombing railroads to receive overtures of welcome?
Whatever. On the other hand, am I the only person who catches the irony of the fact that Israeli contractors are being wooed for the job?
Unvarnished hypocrisy.
Display all comments »It's been thirty five months since 9/11, and there hasn't been a single (successful) strike on US soil since.
It's pretty clear that al Qaeda and their buddies are hoping to hit us again. And despite my faith that they will be thwarted in their attempt, I have only one thing to say to the terrorist bastards who are calling for Americans to conflagrate in hell:
You first, bitch.
Display all comments »A little sunshine for you. Read this right now, especially if you plan to get on a plane any time soon.
Annie Jacobsen from Women's Wall Street recounts her airline experience on June 29th of this year, on flight 327 from Detriot to Los Angeles. Put yourself on that plane while she relates the story, and seriously consider her question: Can the USA realistically uphold the civil liberties of everyone, everywhere, and still protect her citizens from terrorist attack?
I think not.
Sure, you can whine and whinge and talk about ideals all you want, but I'm one of those simplisme types who live in the real world. We've seen the Islamic threat to the West gathering since the Iran hostage debacle in the late '70's. 9/11 was just the big pop to a conflict that's been been stewing for years. To deny this is to lose sight of history and the context that brought us to 9/11, and the events of today.
In its most simple terms, Islamofacism teaches hatred of everything we are, which is to say free, well-fed, well-tended, healthy and opinionated. The materialistic stuff just falls into place with that. We submit to nothing; no one. It's a slap in the face to those people that we're still walking around. Islam means "submission". We haven't submitted. Shouldn't Allah have already destroyed us?
So, our existence must be a test by their Moon God. Are they devoted followers? Yes? Then they have to kill the infidel.
That's us. They want to kill us. They're willing to do anything to achieve that end.
We haven't shown a lot of determination to do everything it takes to save ourselves.
See, I don't give a shit about Halliburton, the "Bushco" allegations, who lied to whom, or why. The plain fact of the matter is that there are people who want to kill me, you, and everyone we hold dear. They want to see the US in all its cantakerous glory pass from the face of the earth. They'll use nukes if they can get their hands on them. They'll use airliners -- we already knew that. They'll take hostages and film beheadings. They'll do whatever it takes to demoralize, terrify, and cow us. It's easier to kill people who are afraid.
I don't give a shit about the reasons for going into Iraq. All I know is that once we got there, it turned out to be a damn good thing. Saddam Hussein is out of power. The rape camps and murder gangs and torture parties are over. People aren't getting fed feet-first into shredders any more.
All I care about is keeping my nation safe from these animalistic murderers, and I'm going to vote for the one man who stood up in the face of all opposition, and has actively done something to defend American sovereignty. No, it isn't John Kerry.
Do you know what I want? What I really, really want?
I want to see Iran freed: in the hands of the people, and playing with the West once more. I want Syria cowed. I want Lebanon freed from Syrian influence. I want to see Yassir Arafat dead. I want to see the Palestinian terror training camps dispersed, and Israel in a place where defensive walls are unnecessary.
I want to see sovereign Iraq come out of its shell, and kick our ass at soccor. I want every terrorist, everywhere, taken and shot. I'd like to see their heads on pikes, please, to serve as both warning and reminder.
I'd like to see the justification for these truths I hold to be so urgently obvious, that only someone who exclusively watches the news will miss it.
Speaking of news agencies, I want to see the Fifth Column break out, and start telling the truth about what's going on. I want to see liberal obstructionists silenced. I want the American people to have all the data, uncolored, so they can make their own decisions. I want a counter-revolution to PC culture so we can get back to calling a horse a horse, and a terrorist a terrorist.
It's simple, really. I want freedom, safety, common sense and integrity. Anyone else?
Display all comments »The media has attached themselves to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal with an unholy glee. In its way, that's as should be. As the liberators of Iraq, we have a responsibility to hold ourselves to the highest, purest ideals of comportment.
Lynndie England and her ilk are a disgrace to their uniforms, the Service, and this nation. I'm all for hanging them out to dry. I don't care that she's pregnant -- in my book, it's just further proof of the dereliction of her duties. Brigadier General Karpinski is just as culpable. Court martial her for her lack of discipline and leadership in Abu Ghraib.
I've blogged before about the damage these soldiers have done to the cause of liberty in the Middle East.
Which brings me to poor Nick Berg.
I've been silent until now on the issue, feeling that other bloggers have covered it well. I haven't watched the video. My imagination fills it all in: the ominous air of his captors, the knife, the pain and screaming and blood, spreading in a pool. In my mind's eye, I can clearly see his head, displayed, and imagine the orgiastic ecstasy of his murderers.
I don't need to watch the video, because I know what we're up against, and I weep for Nick and his parents the way I wept on 9/11. The cold, calculating rage I felt then is refueled. Oh no, my rage is not hot. It is cold and still within me. I know it will never burn itself out. Thanks to this anger, I will neither forget nor forgive.
This, with so much incontrovertible evidence that there are, among my own countrymen, people who hate this country and its duly elected President more than they love freedom and the lives of their brethren, galvanizes me.
The fact is that the media, as evidenced in my last post, would rather focus on events that can damage the Presidency. They want to dishearten the American people. They don't care about the barbarian hordes howling on our doorstep. They refuse to absorb and propagate the real message behind 9/11, suicide bombings, stonings, honor killings, and the murders of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg.
They would rather indulge their unreasoning hatred of one effective man -- George W. Bush -- than work to bolster the spirit of the American people and tell the truth about how much we have achieved since September, 2001. They wage a psychological war of propaganda, blinded by hatred and political agendas.
They hold up Abu Ghraib, and marginalize the murder of Nick Berg.
Likewise, we have celebrities, like has-been Chryssie Hynd, actively rooting for the enemy's victory!
This is unforgivable. It shows a disconnect from reality so profound that it cannot be tolerated.
Confrontation is called for. As servicemen and women fight and bleed on enemy soil, so should we fight the forces of betrayal and prejudice in our own midst. Our internal enemies are beyond reason. It is time to redouble efforts to refute their lies, bolster those who have been studying the flow of current events with fairness, and open the eyes of those who can be saved.
Blogging is a powerful tool to achieve this end, yet more could be done. Write to the editors of the local newspapers, call the local news stations, demand the publication of balanced op-eds from both sides of the coin. Write to and call all the major news outlets, demanding truth-based reporting pulled only from raw data. Demand that journalists refrain from the use of scare quotes and emotional language. Boycott entertainment featuring performers whose agenda is anti-American.
If nothing else, continue pounding family and friends with links to articles and sites presenting the unvarnished reality: for 1300 years, radical Islam has sought to force us all into submission. It espouses murder, rape, and slavery. It believes that it is the One True Faith, and unlike other faiths, has never abandoned the edict to make converts at swordpoint. Nick Berg's is not a sad, isolated story that will sit as a footnote in history. Nick Berg, Goddess embrace him, is representative of what the followers of the moon god's Cult of Death would do to us all.
Remember that. Spread it around. Let no one forget Nick Berg.
Display all comments »I cannot focus well enough to post anything of genuine value today; the constant oppression of an apparently endless wave of personal setbacks has once again strangled this column at birth. The project by which I had intended to finance my return to East Tennessee has proven impossible – a direct consequence of the unreported but growing economic panic triggered by runaway fuel prices – and there are no other fund-raising options available to me, now or ever. Given the fact the fuel price-hikes are likely to be permanent, and the fact the attendant economic dislocation is likely to last for many more years than I (at age 64) am likely to have left, this means I am now forever trapped in a hopelessly uncertain, thus infinitely miserable living situation – an emotional miasma from which there is no longer any possibility for escape. Hence my selfish, straw-clutching need for the dark comic relief of gallows humor, as in a strange episode where life not only makes a mockery of art, but imitates the deliciously outrageous satire of South Park at that, a story available here. Perhaps it is only my present frame of mind, but I think elements of this story are extremely funny, especially the solemnly reported part about “swords,” all the more so in the context of fanatically self-righteous, zero-tolerance public-school bureaucrats who clearly know nothing whatsoever about the elaborate adventure-fantasies of boy-children. I truly hope none of you are offended by my choice; perhaps I will feel somewhat better tomorrow.
Display all comments »I'm not going to bother linking the news articles outlining the abuse of Iraqi detainees. It's all over the news. Go Google it yourself.
This blog was started as a means of keeping the home fires burning, as it were; providing my fellow Americans with news from the other side of the coin. I wanted people to know that what they were reading and seeing via mainstream news outlets wasn't necessarily the unvarnished truth.
Secondary to that was the desire to show people that backstabbers and apologists like John "Medals, ribbons -- who cares" Kerry and Teddy "I can swim" Kennedy really have no place in office.
This blog has abjured people to remember 9/11; to keep firmly in mind that our safety is at stake.
Mostly, I want to do whatever it takes to keep the American homeland safe so that there's no risk of me and my baby being gunned down by Islamic terrorists like this Israeli woman and her baby girls. What's more, I want horrors like that to come to an end, altogether. I just happen to know that it takes more than good vibes, hugs and diversity training to defang murderers. Sometimes you have to kill them before they kill you. It's called "self-defense".
Then, a group of sick bastards soiling the uniform of the United States Army go and abuse Islamic prisoners. That is wrong on so many levels, I just don't know where to start.
They deserve the most horrible punishment we can dream up.
Not only are these individuals abusive, sadistic slime -- which is reason enough, in my book -- they've also aided our enemy by giving them anti-American propaganda to dine out on. They've given the likes of John Kerry, the Clintons, Teddy Kennedy, and Michael Moore something to crow about: "Lookit! We told you sheeple voters that the military consists of Neanderthal knuckle-draggers!"
What's more, they've given ammunition to our external enemies. This coupled with the fact that we've begun to negotiate with terrorists, just means that the danger to our homeland has increased.
We're looking awful weak on the world stage, folks. This is going to encourage continued attacks upon our integrity, our purpose, our fitness for the task, and perhaps even our soil.
This enrages me inexpressibly.
There is a way to pull this out. If the POTUS gives the fight back to the Defense Department, and tells the State Department to take a flying leap, while telling the public exactly what horrors he's inflicting upon those assholes who saw fit to abuse detainees, AND gives the UN an eviction notice (effective immediately!), we may yet prevail.
What's more, we will win this war if we pull together and focus on the end result: safety for our children.
To that end, there is no price too great to pay. Regardless of the crimes committed by only a FEW of our soldiers, I intend to go on supporting our troops and the War on Terror. I shall go on writing to the White House and to all my elected representation, encouraging them to focus on the long-term goal.
I shall not see my child enslaved because of terrorist sympathizers, apologists, and the transnationalists who would trade our freedom and sovereignty away.
Display all comments »First and foremost -- listen up!
The writers of this blog do not advocate criminal activity. Should criminal activity come to our notice, we will not emulate the French, we will report it to authorities. We work very hard at presenting interesting news items that support our closely-held belief that our civilization is in danger of erosion by both internal and external forces, and our main goal is to wake folk up and provide alternatives to mind-numbing mainstream media so that the people of this Nation we love can make their own decisions, free of bias.
That said, I think it's great that the FBI is keeping an eye on the scuttlebutt going around the Web. After all, even Hizbollah posts their manifestos, and it seems logical that a canny investigator can catch wind of criminal plans before they occur, and work to squash them.
Nevertheless, I want clarification of the FBI's definition of the term "hate group". If I were to say, "I hate Joe Blow, and I think he needs to get his ass kicked from here to the Mason-Dixon line," would that constitute a hate crime that could result in this blog being shut down? If so, we're in trouble. Deep Trouble.
Or would investigators have enough common sense to recognize venting as opposed to premeditation? The example in the previous paragraph was an emotional outburst designed to express frustration with someone. Premeditation, on the other hand, is rather more specific: "I hate Joe Blow and I think he needs a good ass-kicking. Let's get together at (insert time and place) with (weapon of choice) and deliver it personally."
That, Virginia, is a hate crime. A hate crime is also committed when the violence is premeditated not because of anything poor Joe Blow said or did, but because of his skin color, religion, or political platform.
Linda's Incomplete List of Hate Crimes
Nazis exterminating Jews in the 1930's and '40's? Hate crime.
Matthew Shepherd's murder? Hate crime.
Oklahoma City? Hate crime.
9/11? Hate crime.
Palestinians blowing up buses filled with Israeli school children? Hate crime.
Burning crosses on the lawns of a family who happens to be black? Hate crime.
Planning the murder of someone with a different ideology? Hate crime.
What is not a hate crime is saying, "This pissed me off," or, "I hate this person because they did (this) to me...", or "I think you're an idiot for saying...." Those are not hate crimes, even if the recipient of the statement happens to have a religion or skin pigmentation differing from your own.
So, in order to make sure that guidelines are clear for law enforcement personnel watchdogging "hate groups," get on the horn with your Congresscritters. They won't defend our Liberties unless we make them.
Display all comments »An article from Slate explains the real causes behind the Columbine murders five years ago. "The Depressive and the Psychopath" explains the psychiatric definition of a psychopath well.
I remember saying it at the time: "The murders had nothing to do with acting out, and everything to do with remorseless evil." I still believe that today.
Display all comments »Fourth degree arson charges are pending for the man responsible for the Picnic Rock fire. It's a misdemeanor. He could get a $1000 fine or up to one year in jail.
That's all I'm going to write about that.
--------------------------
Am I the only person around here who has had it up to here with politicians like Byrd, Kennedy, and Kerry?
Here we stand, with renewed fighting in Iraq, and they're sneering about Vietnam, and how we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place. Hypocrits, the lot of them. On one hand, they pontificate nasally about supporting the troops. On the other hand, they vote to cut funding to the military, which means that our armed services are put in a position in which they have to buy body armor out of their own pockets. Don't believe me? Go read this right now.
Seems to me that those men want to create another Vietnam with divisiveness at home. They marginalize the great victories we have already achieved in the War on Terror, and pooh-pooh the fact that we have a long way to go.
So, here's my question: what is it that men like Kennedy and Kerry have to lose if terrorism is stamped out for good? Why would they want to resist success in that vein? If they were wise and benevolent as they want us to believe, it seems to me that they'd be the loudest supporters of any platform that puts an end to groups practicing so many horrible human rights violations.
I'm just asking. Anyone? Bueller?
--------------------------
In regard to current events In Iraq, I note that I have read plenty of ghoulishly gleeful reports in the press, but little mention of the real reasons behind it:
It is obvious to me, a civilian, that the violence in Fallujah, as well as the activities of al-Sadr's thugs, are all geared toward one thing. They wish to derail the democratic process in Iraq through insurgency and civil war. They would rather tear their own country apart than allow it to live in peace and prosperity.
I rather hope there is a hell for such men to burn in.
Also, a pause in fighting is not a cease fire. Our troops are committing no wrong by responding in kind to hostile fire.
-------------------------------------
I've been a touch really burned out lately. My lack of posting has a great deal to do with work/life imbalance. So, not being one to sit on my (un)manicured little hands doing nothing, I've applied for A Job. A really, REALLY Cool Job.
Here's hoping I get at least an interview. (It would be the sort of job that ensures that (a)not only is my family beautifully taken care of, but (b) I would have more disposable income and time to devote to my favorite charities, and (c) we would also be able to have money in savings.)
---------------------------------
Have both a happy and a watchful weekend, all. Send lots of prayers up for our Coalition troops, and for the innocent souls in the Middle East. Pester the hair off the heads of your elected representatives to get them rallied behind the cause of Freedom and Justice For All. And remember, as Bill Whittle wrote in his wonderful essay, POWER:
There is loose in the world a cancer, a cult of death and destruction, a force that loves nothing but destruction and pain and revenge for slights real and imagined. We face people whose hatred and rage sends them into fits of ecstasy at the thought of their own children being blown to bloody shreds so long as they can kill as many innocents as possible. And the higher we build the more fervent and hardened their desire to bring us down.It is a sickness, it is a disease – it is, in fact, the last animal howling of rage and impotence at a new idea of humanity that is, at a long, bloody and terrible price, fighting and winning a war against racism, sexism, religious extremism, tribalism, conformity and slavery."
Accounts such as this leave me consumed with cold anger. In Fallujah, nine of ours were killed by people still supporting the memory of their deposed despot.
This is not the time to falter. Now is the time to focus, push forward, and crush the idolaters of torture, rape and murder.
Display all comments »The extension of the Assault Weapons Ban has been defeated for now. (Link takes the reader to the original Fox News article, which serves as the source for the following commentary.)
Yet, we did suffer setbacks.
Senate Democrats gunning for a ban on assault weapons unexpectedly forced down a bill Tuesday that would have prevented gun manufacturers from liability after the bill's sponsor said the amendment made the measure too unpalatable.
The Senate voted 90-8 to defeat the bill that would deny victims the opportunity to sue gunmakers and dealers when their products are used in a crime. The vote followed a 52-47 vote to attach an amendment that would have renewed for 10 years the assault weapons ban set to expire this year.That's the best part of this.
The Senate also voted 53-46 to require background checks of purchasers buying guns at private shows.I'm disappointed by this. People argue that gun shows are "black markets", seething with criminal evil-doers who are just frothing at the mouth to kill hundreds of innocents, but my father is a gunsmith and a legal dealer, and I can tell you that just isn't so. Perhaps it's just my years spent as a range safety officer, but it seems to me that the vast majority of gun-owners are pragmatic, safety-minded people who understand the responsibility entailed with holding a firearm.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who sponsored the bill that was strongly supported by the National Rifle Association, said it was doomed because of the amendments."The semiautomatic ban, the gun show loophole, a variety of other kinds of issues could simply drag this bill down and deny us substantial tort reform," Craig, an NRA member, said.
Even more laughable is this:
"It is a most bizarre and unusual day," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who opposed the measure to relieve gunmakers from liability and sponsored the assault weapons ban amendment.
Here's a head's up: people grow up and come to realize that authoritarian elitism is never in their best interest. Let me introduce you to one of your former constituents.
This is the type of person you would leave defenseless, Dianne. But then, I know what your real goal is. Once you defang the common citizen, you can step in with your nanny-state "protection", "for our own good", of course. It's Socialism you want to to achieve, Feinstein, and it just drives you mad to think that there are people like me standing in your way, doesn't it?
You are not fit for public office.
Feinstein and Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said they believed that the NRA heavily manipulated the vote by Republicans and accused President Bush of being absent during a time when his leadership was needed.
Bush said during his last presidential campaign that he supports renewing the ban on at least 19 types of military-style assault weapons. But he has not stood up in strong support for any legislation calling for a ban.Nonetheless, Democrats accused the bulk of Republicans of kowtowing to the National Education Association after Executive Director Wayne LaPierre sent a letter to GOP leaders announcing that the NRA opposed passage of the bill with its amendments and note recorded votes for future use.
"... Having made our decision, this vote on final passage is a key vote for the NRA and will be used in our future evaluations and endorsements of candidates for the U.S. Senate," LaPierre wrote.
"It is satisfying to know that the truth has come out... it's a pity, the American people have to look and say whose country is this?" Lautenberg said.
If you don't like it, I suggest that you consider moving to the socialistic nation of your choice. I can promise you one thing: unlike people who immigrate to America, you would forever be an outcast there. You would never again hold a political office.
But that might be a benefit.
House leaders said last year that they did not want to renew the ban, which opponents argue is ineffective and unnecessary. The White House had hoped for a "clean" bill — one with no amendments attached.But Republicans, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia, voted for the ban extension, saying he had changed his mind over the last 10 years when he voted against it after hearing testimony from his state's law enforcement officers.
"Law enforcement has shown that it has reduced the use of these weapons in crime, so my words pale in significance to the law officers of the four corners of the commonwealth of Virginia," Warner said.
The violent will always find a way to try and prey on others. The best deterrent is when they're wondering if that little Granny woman is going to pull out her .357 and help them answer the Final Question, should they accost her.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that he supported the requirement of gun dealers at private shows to ask for government checks before selling weapons because it would close a deadly loophole."Today's Senate vote to close the gun show loophole is a victory for common sense ... Americans will be safer when this sensible proposal becomes law," McCain said.
Ten Republicans broke party ranks to extend the ban: Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia.
Six Democrats voted against extending the ban: Max Baucus of Montana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Zell Miller of Georgia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Harry Reid of Nevada.Democratic presidential contenders John Kerry (search) of Massachusetts and John Edwards (search) of North Carolina broke away from the Super Tuesday campaign trail to cast votes — their first of the year. Both voted for the renewal and the background checks.
The appearance of Kerry and Edwards in the Senate for their first votes of the year underscored the political overtones of the assault weapons issue. Democrats argued that law enforcement officers and regular citizens all would be safer if the assault weapons covered under the bill continued to be banned.
"These are weapons of war. They are designed to kill a lot of people quickly," said Schumer, who authored the 1994 gun ban while in the House
Some of us still hunt to help fill the freezer, Schumer. Do your homework, and quit using scare tactics. I'm going to work to keep the public informed of your obfuscation and lies.
Display all comments »That stupid, soulless bitch. She seems to think that the women of Iraq were better off with Saddam around.
There is so much material to tear apart in the article, I thought I should just link it, and invite my readers to leave a comment should it please you.
All I have to say is this: if Hillary cannot see that the women of Iraq and Afghanistan are better off without the rape gangs, tortures, and murders, then she should go live there herself. I'm sure she'd look the best she ever has in a burqa. I'd be happy to contribute to the ticket. Anyone else?
Also, her hypocrisy is tangible in her whinge about avoiding slavish adherence to unrealistic timelines that might undermine our work over there. I find it pretty goddamned laughable, considering that she's been one of the loudest proponents for pulling out.
Her Daddy should've pulled out.
Display all comments »It's no secret that my husband is among thousands of good people out there who have been laid off from their jobs.
For the last three weeks, he has been home with our daughter, job-hunting online while she plays or naps.
When he made his application for unemployment benefits, he received communications telling him to contact the hotline for further instruction on February 8th to find out the status of his claim.
He called the hotline yesterday. The automated hotline asked him if he had made his minimal five weekly contacts?
My husband wasn't aware that he should have been documenting his contacts to date, because he wasn't aware that his claim had been approved, and that he was officially "in the system", as it were. So, he replied in the negative.
The recorded voice let him know that he might not receive pay, and he should contact the customer service department for further assistance. They would reopen on Monday (today).
He called. After waiting 53 minutes on hold, his call was taken by Gloria, with Team 1.
He reports that Gloria was ascerbic, condescending, and actively hostile, abruptly putting him on hold at one point for twelve minutes.
It seems that she did not allow him to explain all his reasons for calling. He had more questions than just the proper process for documenting the contacts he makes.
All she asked was if he had made his five contacts. When he answered in the negative, and started to say, "I want to make sure that in the future, I do this properly--can you clarify the correct process for me;" she interrupted with a tirade:
"Well, you just aren't going to get paid, then. We aren't going to pay you to just sit at home." She also made other comments, "Now I have to take several minutes to send you a letter that you have to sign, so you know why you aren't getting paid."
She told him that he could appeal--if he thought that would be successful. She phrased it thusly, "You can appeal, too. If you want to. If you think it would do any good."
With this attitude, Gloria with Team 1 of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment has gone way over the line. I question her suitability for the job she performs. Furthermore, I question the discernment of her immediate supervisor for hiring and maintaining such a person in customer service. In my opinion, by allowing such hostility to represent the CDLE, a message is delivered to unemployed Coloradoans who are desperately seeking work. The subtext could be read thusly: "You are a bad person for being unemployed. If you don't have a job, you must be lazy. Also, since something is so obviously wrong with you that you can't hold a job, we're going to treat you like a child, scolding you and condescending to you, in order to establish your inferiority."
S. and I are taking action. If anyone else out there is interested in making sure that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment knows that Gloria's sort of reception is completely unacceptable, please join us in writing or emailing them:
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
Executive Director's Office
1515 Arapahoe, Tower 2, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
Otherwise, follow the prompts at this link to use the On-line Form to email the Executive Director of the CDLE.
During such difficult times, people who are laid off, like my husband, do not need the extra stress of dealing with hostile unprofessionals. Regardless of the fact that Gloria may deal with a few deadbeats, it is not acceptable for her to treat all who call with such disrespect.
Should our actions result in a reassessment of her suitability for employment with the CDLE, I wish her luck in the days and months ahead. Let her pray that any experiences she may have as a member of the job-hunting public will be positive, instructive, and helpful.
(Thanks to Blackfive for the link.)
Key Evidence for Bush Being AWOL Crumbles
Of course this isn't going to quiet anyone who is so rapid that they're beyond sense or reason.
But the implied, "Now bite me" makes me feel better.
UPDATE: The President releases further documentation that he was present, and fulfilled his duties.
UPDATE #2: FOX ofers up a link to the raw data.
Display all comments »Cara at WhoKnew? has a great post on the dangers of appeasement while revisting a previous discussion on Stockholm Syndrome.
I recommend reading both posts, and giving it some thought.
Her posts resonate with me. As an anecdote, I also used to work in the healthcare and mental health fields.
I took care of a number of violently mentally ill patients, including one who was a convicted rapist and into animal mutilation. One fine day, thanks to a conglomeration of different business needs, I was left alone in the rec room with him.
He made a sexual remark, and I instantly confronted him about it. I told him that I knew all about his mental and legal history, and if he thought that he could intimidate me, he was sadly mistaken. I also told him that he was welcome to try and escalate, but it would see him back in court, and probably jailed. I looked him straight in the eye so he could see I wasn't kidding.
He backed down. After that, he was even respectful. Nevertheless, I never again allowed myself to be left alone with him, or any of the other anti-socials.
Ignoring his behavior, or even trying to empathize with him, could have gotten me hurt. He was known to make even cruder forays, the longer he was ignored. I set down clear boundaries, and maintained them.
On a grander, more complex scale, we have to do that with anyone who would harm us. A murderer, a rapist, a terrorist, has already psychically dehumanized his victims. Trying to treat such an animal with humanity only feeds their aggrandized sense of entitlement. Letting them feel superior only feeds their delusions, and enables them to further objectify the victim in their mind.
No, we have to set our boundaries and defend ourselves with enough violence to make sure that the assailant will never lift so much as a finger against us ever again.
Display all comments »Oh boy. The Screamapillar is so very out of touch...
In this article from The Seattle Times, he is quoted as saying, "We're going to tell all those white boys who run the Republican Party to stay out of our bedrooms."
Er, Howie baby? Hate to break this to you, but, um, you're white, too.
Next up: The Screamapillar reenacts Wally's tirade from, See No Evil, Hear No Evil: "What do you mean, I'm not white! Oh my God, you're right! Does dad know?"
Display all comments »9:15 a.m., MST
Lots going on in the world today. I plan to spend some time watching events unfold.
It goes without saying that the first item to watch like a hawk is the discovery of ricin in Senate buildings:
FOX News
CNN
MSNBC
Via Drudge
Hazarding a hasty opinion, this could be domestic terrorism, you know. Packets containing ricin have so far been mailed to the Republican-controlled senate, the RNC, and the Department of Transportation.
Loony as some Leftist groups have gotten in the last few years, I wouldn't be surprised. But then again, it could very well be that some Islamofascist sleepers are on the move.
Whatever the cause, and I won't give in to tinfoil hat cnspiracy theory, the message is clear: we're putting terrorism (of whatever flavor) on the defensive. It's a classic psychological pattern: when you begin to make it clear that a wongdoer's behaviors are unacceptable, and will not be allowed to continue, their negative patterns will flare up for a time.
Yes, that is a major oversimplification. No, I have never subscribed to the notion that the poor little terrorists are just misunderstood, and that enough therapy will make them all better. In fact, I plan to do everything in my power to make sure that this great nation goes on handing the little pukes their asses.
With enough force, applied long enough, we can break the little shits.
Just hold your focus, America. We're winning.
We ARE winning.
10:46 a.m., MST
Also, President Bush is proposing a $2.4 Trillion budget to boost spending in the technical arena. He's so cute when he tries to emulate spendthrift liberalism.
Of professional interest to me, MyDoom will force a revolution in network security. Mmmm. My capitalist heart sees ways to make money from this--if the behemoth I work for can move fast enough to ride the rising tide.
Or maybe I should go into business for myself. How perfectly, eee-villy capitalist of me.
What? You expected me to hole up in my home? To hell with the terrorists. I plan to go on being unabashedly, unapologetically, successfully, happily American.
Howard Dean's primal scream. The so-called "S Factor". Al Franken tackling a heckler at a Dean Speech. Free speech zones. Wesley Clark's real military record. Media bias revealed.
These links and references all provide examples of hypocrisy and elitism in American politics today. Each example is another expression of the campaign to sway the American voter to embrace ideals he or she might not agree with.
The fact of the matter is that a vast number of politicians and media moguls, particularly those on the extreme Left, have forgotten that the American people aren’t so easily misled – or bullied, manipulated, and insulted into submission. In fact, the Left's antics in the last several years, particularly since the election of President George W. Bush, have soured many average Americans not only toward the Left but toward the Democratic Party in general.
A silent majority does exist. Despite what the cocktail-party radicals and tea-house elitists believe, Americans are extremely intelligent, well educated, well read, and extraordinarily attentive. The silent majority tends to fill a demographic of people aged between thirty and seventy years of age. These are mature people who want to keep the majority of their hard-earned wages, meaning that they would like to see their tax burden decrease. They have friends or acquaintances from varying belief systems or political persuasions and from most socioeconomic levels. They have sons, daughters, and grandchildren serving in the Armed Forces. Above all, they want to live and let live – and to do so with as little governmental interference as possible.
The silent majority is the heart and soul of America, and let me tell you something – they're watching.
Mostly, these people let political punditry roll off their backs. They're too busy living to worry overmuch about what some self-appointed expert is saying on the television. In fact, when the "experts" begin lecturing, many Americans just turn the TV off – they don't care for some damn fool with more money than sense spouting off about how he thinks they should conduct their lives. How would he know anything, sitting there in his expensive suit, or in his expensive shirt with the sleeves O-so-fashionably rolled up?
The fact is, the silent majority readily recognize someone who doesn't work hard for his or her money. They see the soft hands, the spa tans, the lack of firmness around mouth and eyes that denotes someone who has never had a real conviction in the whole of his life.
The majority of Americans work hard, play hard, and rest when they can. When a bunch of politicians shout slogans at one another from a podium, most Americans aren’t much interested – or at the very least they take the sloganeering with a healthy grain of salt.
But Americans do notice when they're derided, called names, belittled, pandered to and condescended to. People noticed the "S Factor" column I linked earlier. It angered them. The average man on the street didn't say anything; he just made note of it and moved on.
They heard Howard Dean's frustrated scream in Iowa, and they made note of that, too. Few people outside the media commented, but the consensus is obviously growing that the man is too unstable to lead this country.
Many people know Wesley Clark was recalled in disgrace. People remember he was accused of illegal participation in the Clinton Administration’s murderous attack on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco. People also note Clark’s endorsement by Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton himself. These associations all leave a distinctly bad taste in the mouths of decent, practical, hardworking Americans.
In fact, the alertness of the majority of Americans is enhanced these days, with our nation at war, and so many of our loved ones in uniformed service to the cause of justice and freedom. The Left can scream all it likes: "Not in my name;" "No blood for oil;" or "Bush lied," and it can scream until its throat cracks and bleeds, but the fact of the matter is that the average American thinks the screamers are all traitors or fools.
Many Americans have received letters and emails from their loved ones overseas. These Americans have compared the facts reported in the letters with the tales told by the mainstream media. These Americans note the quiet jubilation in those missives from their children and contrast it with the shrill and desperate cries of "quagmire" voiced by pacifist politicians and echoed by the media, and these Americans decided long ago the media and the politicians are lying.
On the other hand, these same Americans also watch the current Administration's actions with genuine skepticism. The average American feels that actions do speak louder than words, and they aren't very impressed with the President's domestic policies.
The fact is that most Americans just want to be left alone. They want to get up in the morning, do their work, and come home at night with as little intervention from the outside world as possible. Whatever the religious authorities and political pundits try to tell us, the typical American really doesn't care who is sleeping with whom and does not see the need to bother with imposing a legal definition on marriage. The average American is interested in healthcare only insofar as children, spouses, and selves are covered. Americans are glad to see tax cuts and rebates, because that means that they get a little of their own money back. But they detest those who haven't paid a penny of taxes themselves yet dare demand rebates nonetheless. Just whose money is it, anyway?
I will admit, however, that the average American does have two ultimately self-defining, rock-solid political stances: on abortion, and on gun control. On these two controversies, just about everyone has strong beliefs.
Polls show that most Americans – especially those who are themselves parents -- approve of the ban on partial-birth abortion. The reason for this may be as ridiculously simple as it is inexpressibly profound: ask a mother her reaction to what she has witnessed via ultrasound, and she'll tell you about the genuine miracle of the new human life growing within her womb -- and why it's so infinitely repugnant to drive a spike through the skull of any fetus.
Ask just about any man – and many women – about their positions on gun control. You'll hear wildly differing opinions, but from the majority of Americans, you'll hear that the Second Amendment means what it says – and that rather than pass new laws against gun-owners and guns, the government should crack down hard on gun-wielding criminals.
In short, politicians and media today have it all wrong. Moreover, the joke is on them.
Despite what these elitists think, people aren't stupid; they are aware, and they are watching. They recognize the extent to which the traditional politics of issues is giving way to a politics of absurdities -- and they are evermore less impressed.
This election year will be a very interesting one. In the end, no matter what, we will see the true mirror of ourselves: We The People will have the final say in the fate of our nation.
Politicians and media are warned: be authentic in what you say and do. Anything else will only lose you the American mind and heart. We the People of America expect principles. Try having some yourselves.
*****
Thanks go to Loren Bliss for great insight, fact-checking, and outstanding edits.
--Linda
Roughly 18,000 Ethiopian Jews want to emigrate to Israel. Israel has said that they're willing to take them in, starting as early as next week.
The Ethiopian government is balking, saying that there's no need for massive airlifts, like occurred in 1984 and 1991.
The Jews who wish to depart are living in extreme poverty; but in Israel, they have a place to go. They can't afford to depart on their own, obviously, and I very much doubt that Israel is asking Ethiopia to defray the costs of the people's departure.
These people, called the Falasha Mura, have been persecuted and abused for centuries. They dream of returning to Zion, or Israel. In the 1980's and 1990's, in an effort to see the people peacefully brought into Israel, free from abuse they might receive from Islamic factions if they traveled on foot across the Sudan, Operations Moses and Solomon were organized, which brought all but roughly 18,000 of the Falashas to Israel.
Families were separated at that time. Children were orphaned by circumstance. These people can be reunited with their loved ones when the remaining emigres come to Israel. They'll face arduous process of integrating into an industrial society, but I perceive that they're strong. They can do it, and thrive among their Israeli brethren.
Given the region's history, and the fact that there is a thriving population of Muslims in that country, I intuit that Ethiopia's reticence may be based upon neither humanitarian or patriotic concerns.
Let Israel help the Falasha Mura go.
Display all comments »I thought I'd just point that out since the major news outlets seem to have glossed over the fact.
Display all comments »This is a picture
of the "stone-throwing protestors". It was taken by an AP photojournalist in Nablus.
You might remember the incident. It was the one in which 15-year-old Amjad al-Masri died in his (implied innocent) "protest" from a rooftop. The IDF has been criticized for "over-reacting" to mere "protestors".
Let's understand one thing. Depicted are cement building bricks. Dropped from a height, they can be deadly. There is a difference between petulantly throwing ground pepples at soldiers, and trying to crush their skulls with bricks lobbed from a height.
For me, the picture says everything that needs to be said.
I cordially invite the editors of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Associated Press, and Reuters to adequately explain their inaccurate portrayal of the events of January 2nd.
Display all comments »Via Trey Givens:
Their mistake was that here, Greenpeace actually paid for this very illegal protest. Call it peaceful all you want, but I'll wager this isn't the first time they've funded criminal activities.And keep in mind this is very illegal. You're allowed to say what you want and protest all you want on your own property. You are certainly NOT allowed to clamber upon someone else's boat, house, car, building, whatever, to speak your mind. If you are not welcome on private property, we call that trespassing and it is a criminal activity.
(Emphasis mine. --L.)
Display all comments »How dare we! We're so evil, so bad, so damn presumptuous, asking visitors to our country to check in!
My Anti-Idiotarian liege, Emperor Misha I, gives us the details in prose perfect for the occasion.
F.E.T.E
Display all comments »An article and a comment have me thinking about the legal system, its fallacies, and what we can do to improve it.
First, in response to a post I wrote about my reaction to the life sentencing of Gary Ridgway, Aelfheld gently admonished me,
"I understand the impulse to inflict horrific pain on someone like Ridgway, but if we are to lay claim to being civilised in any sense we can't succumb to the urge.'"I'm not saying that Ridgway and his ilk don't deserve to be maimed and tortured - they do. But we accomplish nothing by doing so except to degrade ourselves and diminish our claims to civilisation. The state, as the designated agent of the citizenry, must never act in a capricious or arbitrary manner; this is the reason for the elaborate machinery of the courts, not to protect the innocent, but to ensure that all of the rules are followed as impartially as possible.'
"For Ridgway, execution, public and non-clinical, would be the preferred solution; a public hanging is justice being done and being seen to be done. Incarceration is a sub-optimal solution, but any system formed and executed by man is inherently flawed; I don't have to like it (and I don't) but I do understand how it came about."
Very true. Aelfheld makes excellent points, especially in regard to the responsibility of the state, as agent of the citizenry, to avoid arbitrary or capricious action in regard to the law. Additionally, I believe that it is the responsibility of the citizens to shape the state accordingly; so that appropriate punishments are meted out for crimes committed.
Judging from the comment, Aelfheld and I agree, basically, that the death penalty is sometimes merited. In my opinion, I think Ridgway should be made to suffer as his victims and his families were made to suffer. Aelfheld asserts that the method I proposed in the heat of indignation is beneath a civilized society: if we were to kill him (and we won't--he's imprisoned for life; not consigned to death at the hand of the state), we should do it quickly. I respect that. In retrospect, I even agree.
What was hinted at, but not directly addressed in my post was restitution. I wrote that Ridgway should have been made to pay for his crimes with a slow, painful, and brutal death. (I've since rethought that. One slug, to the head, would be acceptable. Death by injection would be acceptable. But, I digress.) What I was thinking about when I wrote that were the families of the victims. I was empathizing with them, and thinking about what it would cost anyone who ever harmed my daughter.
Again, I was thinking about restitution.
It seems to be on many minds these days. Saddam Hussein's fate, especially, seems to be a matter of ferocious debate. Other legal proceedings: Ridgway's, John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo, Milosevic, and Richard Reid further feed the debate over just punishment.
Today, I ran across an opinion piece by Wendy McElroy on FOXNews.com.
Ms. McElroy and I are in agreement in terms of the following paragraph,
"For years, I've argued against the idea that categories of people commit crime -- e.g. "men" are rapists, "men" commit domestic violence, "whites" oppress minorities. Equally, I reject the idea that a category such as "society" can be a victim in any legally meaningful sense. Categories do not swing fists, rape, and murder: individuals do. Categories are not battered, violated, and killed: individuals are. The real victims deserve to be the focus of law."
(Of course, the emphasis is mine.--L.)
Ms. McElroy expounds on her position for victims' rights, positing that the taxpayer should be removed from the loop in terms of supporting convicted criminals. She holds that convicts should be made to work in order to provide for their room and board, as well as provide restitution to their victims, or their families. In the event of rapist, the rapist will pay for therapy, medical bills, and the cost of the emotional trauma. A murderer will provide for the family of the person they murdered, making sure that food is on the table, children are cared for, and that other costs, such as tuition, are met.
She also discusses the objections: directly addressing, as above, the crimes of rape and murder. She talks about the desire for vengeance, and repeat offenders. She also acknowledges the possibility of corruption in a restitution-based justice system, such as inmates who are made to work for too little compensation (thus never fulfilling their debt to the victim), or people who are unfairly jailed to feed a cheap-labor system.
She doesn't discuss the death penalty at all.
Now, I am the first to admit that I am no judicial scholar. American justice is just a subject that interests me. A healthy and fair justice system is the hallmark of a civilized society, ands so I like to keep an eye on ours.
This is where the point hangs: law scholars and laymen will argue, ad nauseum about what constitutes "healthy" and "fair" justice. Some people feel that the death penalty is never indicated, no matter what; some, like me, seem to feel that sometimes a perpetrator is just too dangerous to the people to be allowed to live. I'm thinking, specifically, of habitual rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. I'm also thinking of terrorists. I think people who have established a repetitive pattern of predation and human destruction should be removed from our midst with as much prejudice and vehemence as it takes to make sure that they stay in the ground.
In some ways, I'm with Ms. McElroy in terms of a restitution-based justice system. Let the perpetrator make it right with his or her victims, or their families. That way, the taxpayer is removed utterly from the system.
However, I don't entirely agree with all her points. Personally, I am willing to pay taxes that feed the sort of judicial system that provides thorough, fair, and equitable trials so that we can do the best we can, with all our human failings, to make sure that the innocent walk free. Once a perpetrator's guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, they're on their own, though. Let one of two things happen: in what I term mortal offenses such as murder, or rape, kill the convict. They've established that the sanctity of human life, safety, and innocence menas nothing to them. Remove them from our midst with the same level of compassion they showed their victims. True, they cannot make monetary restitution at that point, but the world is nevertheless rendered a little safer. As a taxpayer, I would be willing to contribute to helping the victims or their families get the help they needed to heal.
Other offenses would be punishable with fitting restitution, as agreed-upon by the people through the vote (establishing our mores). The offender would support the victim or the family, and work to pay his or her own room and board. Once restitution was made in full, there would be a meeting of an arbiter, the court, the convict, and those receiving the compensation. The arbiter would help settle the question of whether or not the convict's debt to the victim has been met satisfactorily. If so, then they're freed to try and rebuild their life. If not, they work a little longer. More than two work extensions would become a matter of review by previously uninvolved arbitration and jurisprudents. This might help keep the system clean.
Although the preceeding proposal is mental meandering, and flawed, there is still no question that the current legal system needs review. Ultimately, the face that justice wears does rest in the hands of the people. We must decide upon what constitutes crime, and assign appropriate punishment to violations.
So, let's do a little experimentation and open up some dialog. If so inclined, sound off in the comments about what you think would make up a fair and balanced system of justice.
DISCLAIMER:
First, however, are a couple of rules: dissenting debate is welcomed, so long as it is courteous. Anyone who comes in with an attitude, casting or looking for flames, will be summarily ignored and deleted. Obvious trolls will be deleted. Be nice, respect others, and be welcome. Be a dick, and begone. That serves as your one fair warning.