Friday, April 28, 2006
Denial of Service Attack
Hosting Matters server is experiencing a DoS (Denial of Service)attack. All blogs that are hosted by HM servers are down, including but not limited to Instapundit, Powerline, Captain's Quarters and You Big Mouth You.
The attack originated overseas and may be linked to the cyberIslamics from Saudi Arabia that attacked Aaron's CC for the crime of being Jewish/blogger and vocally not tolerant of Islamofacist attacks on Israel, America or anyplace else.
HT: Shockingly goes to Malkin, again. That's twice today!
Liberal reporters: "Waaaaahhh!"
Oh spare me!
Can reporters get any more obvious where their politics lean?
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Lessons from the War for Southern Independence
Tim has put his finger on one of the two main things that fascinates me about the Civil War. The second part of the Davis quote below follows:
Reverently let us invoke the God of our fathers to guide and protect us in our efforts to perpetuate the principles which by His blessing they were able to vindicate, establish, and transmit to their posterity. With the continuance of His favor, ever gratefully acknowledged, we may hopefully look forward to success, to peace, and to prosperity.
Unlike some current politicians, who cynically use religion to further their own interests, Davis' devout piety is manifest. And he was so representative, in that respect, of the people he would lead for the duration of the conflict, Shelby Foote notes, that the Confederate framers went out of their way to invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" whereas the Deist authors of the US Constitution had not gone as far.
So how was it that such fervently religious, Christian people could claim God's blessing and guidance in the perpetuation of the now universally abhorrent, at least to Western Civilization, practice of human slavery?
"It wasn't about slavery, it was about States' Rights™" Horse manure. True, Tim, punitive tariffs kept superior European, mostly English, goods out of US, including Southern, markets. But has there been ANY developing industrial economy that did not protect its own growing industries by means of tariffs? They're still doing it today, or disguising tariffs by granting domestic subsidies. How was it that business interests could fashion legislative majorities to impose tariffs but no majority could be cobbled together to end the sin of slavery? Southern businessmen must have had more interests in common with their Northern counterparts than with plantation owners when it came to tariffs.
Getting back to my question, that's what fascinates me. I have no conception of how these people could consider themselves righteous followers of God's Word and yet consider others of God's children to be property and not persons. I can hear the atheists among you saying, "Well, duh, if they can believe in some invisible all-powerful being, they can convince themselves of anything." But this, to me, is just an instance of morality perverted to serve a material end. And besides, aren't atheists, with no external moral guidance needed or wanted, just as likely to justify one set of social beliefs as another?
Which brings me to my final point for part one: Even right-thinking (not necessarily Right-thinking) secularists should have no discomfort about living in a society that builds its moral values on a belief system that encourages its followers to treat others with love, kindness, and respect. Personally, I've got too much going on worrying about the beam in my own eye to care about the splinter in yours.
Just in case you've gotten here to the end and you really can't figure out how or why I got from point A to point B, what I'm trying to do is give you a feel for where I stand on things without just saying, "Hi, my name's Michael, and I'm a conservative, blah, blah. More tomorrow on the other thing that fascinates me about the Civil War.
Michael's Quote of the Week
History trivia: Identify the speaker. Bonus points: What book have I just started reading? (No fair Googling)
It is joyous in the midst of perilous times to look around upon a people united in heart, where one purpose of high resolve animates and actuates the whole, where the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in the balance against honor and right and liberty and equality. Obstacles may retard, but they cannot long prevent the progress of a movement sanctified by its justice and sustained by a virtuous people.
Once a week, I'd like to share a quote from other times (and/or places) which I find illuminating in the present context. I'll judge your continuing interest by your participation.
Happy Birthday To Ara
Today is the 53rd birthday of one of our favorite liberals.
Go and wish Ara a happy day but if you don't have an account - feel free to share your wishes right here.
We love you Dude! (and that damn bleedin' heart of yours!)
New Press Secretary: Tony Snow
I love the choice of Tony Snow as Press Secretary. He's smart, he's honest, he's a Republican but he hasn't been a lock-step supporter. He's disagreed with Bush often.
I'm thrilled with Snow as Press Secretary. Thrilled.
Update Ara has a collection of Snow quotes that further prove Snow is no talking point zombie. You gotta love a President that has no problem hiring a Conservative guy that not only doesn't kiss his ass but publicly criticizes him when he deserves it.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Cool tool for beating the "evil" oil companies
I just saw this on Drudge. You can right-click on your county and you go to a website where you and your neighbors can see and post the latest gas prices at stations near you. Looks like Wyoming is the place to be for cheap gas. But, as my wife says, then you have to live there. (If you're from Wyoming, don't be offended. She says that about everyplace west of the Hudson river.)
A burgeoning problem?
Most days, I only have time to read the blogs and other sources in my RSS Feeds folder. Sometimes, I take the time to follow links to links to links to places I've never been before. Which is how I was alerted to this issue that looks to be busting out all over China. (HT: Lone Star Times)
Which is more interesting, Blue on Blue or Red on Red?
Ezra Klein at The American Prospect opines that we don't hear about disagreements among Republicans as much as we hear about Democrat v. Democrat. His theory is that since most journalists are liberals (not that this in any way leads to bias in reporting), they are more interested in the internal squabbles of Democrats.
First, I disagree with the premise. I think I hear WAY more about Republicans crossing the aisle (or standing in the middle holding hands with Democrats) than I do about Democrats going off the plantation.
If you go along for the sake of argument, though, he concludes by saying that this is bad for the Dems. Again, I disagree. After all, everyone knows How the GOP Lost Its Way.
Guess What I Just Got?
I got a new
minion co-blogger for my birthday. It's just what I've always wanted.
Dude ran his own blog for a bit but life got too busy...for his readers, so he quit. :-)
He's got a lot to say and I've got a lot of readers. It seemed to be the perfect combination, so I threw down the gauntlet and he has accepted.
I ask that you give him the same consideration that you gave to Tim.
Love him, hate him or hate to love him. Whatever you want, just make sure you read him.
Joining the ranks with The Queen of All Evil and Tim, The Jack of Ass...
Here he is:
Michael, The Tool!
Woot, Woot, Woot!
Happy Birthday To Me
Happy Birthday To Me
Happy Birthday Queen of All Eeeevil
Happy Birthday To Me!
Monday, April 24, 2006
Somebody Call a Waaaambulance!
Some douch emailed my co-blogger Tim complaining about my blog. Here is my response, just in case anybody else has a problem with how I choose to run MY BLOG.
I found Rosemary's blog via Dean, who I continue to enjoy reading.
claims he is the defender of pure liberalism, which he defines to my
satisfaction. Rosemary's claim to being the arch-conservative of all
bloggers is merely ironic symmetry. This also explains her decision to
allow you to foul her blog with your talking-points tripe. I am
officially de-linking from QOAE.net and removing it from my RSS feed as
This is my real email address and I would appreciate it if you would
not splash it all over the internet.
Michael [last name deleted to prove I'm not a hardhearted bitch]
Sorry you don't like my blog anymore, actually I'm not sorry since it's MY BLOG.
My tagline is mostly a joke and if you've read me with any regularity you'd know it.
I don't claim to be anything other than what I am. What I am is open-minded and I desire debate. I can't have a debate if everyone on the blog kisses my ass and agrees with me. My blog is one of the few where commenter speech is not restricted, silenced or banned. I need opponents and so do my readers. We need to be challenged and that is why we debate a wide variety of subjects.
When I became ill, Tim stepped in to pick up some slack and help keep my blog going. He's done a great job and I'm happy he decided to help me out. If you hate him so much, why didn't YOU offer to give away YOUR free time and blog for me?
It's much easier to be rude and complain then it is to be part of the solution, isn't it?
So, delink me, runaway and never come back. I don't give a flying fuck what you do but don't play the pansy and hit and run my co-blogger with your crybaby bullshit. You got a complaint? Bring it to the boss or shut the fuck up.
The Leak Stops Here
Glenn Greenwald says that us evil Repugnicans are gleefully cheering the firing of leakers that hurt BushCo. In his post, liberally titled "Selectively punishing politically damaging leaks" he writes:
The CIA's firing of the official who allegedly leaked the existence of Eastern European black prisons to Dana Priest of The Washington Post has prompted an orgy of celebration among Bush followers, who apparently believe that the dreams they harbor — whereby anyone who discloses information which results in political harm to the leader will be imprisoned — are about to be realized. The NSA leakers are next, they gleefully proclaim, followed by the whole parade of nefarious, traitorous "cockroaches" — including reporters — who have leaked and/or published information that resulted in embarrassment to The Commander-in-Chief in this Time of War."
Yep, he's got us pegged alright! I'm hosting my pro-Bush circle jerk on Friday, I still have a few openings to fill...
We are all just a bunch of partisan hacks that want to make sure we stifle the freedoms of everyone that isn't us.
It certainly can't be that the leaks were in direct violation of the law, and if there was harm to anything, it was to the United States Government. The U.S government is not a member of any political party, it is us. It is "We the People".
The worst part, worse than betraying one's country, was that these Eastern European black prisons don't fucking exist. So, this bitch "leaked classified info" to the press and it turns out that she made the story up.
But, according to the Libruls, we "Bush followers" are the bad ones because we want to punish someone that not only broke laws by "leaking classified info" they made up most of it. I say hang the bitch from the highest tree in Washington. Hang her good and high.
Oh and for those of you that ride the "short yellow bus" to debate school, the President can't leak anything. He has the power to declassify whatever he chooses, so he can't ever leak something classified.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
If I were a Republican today...
I would be incredibly upset, disgusted, and calling for nearly the entire Bush administration to resign effective immediately. With the exception of MAYBE a few issues, they have failed the American people at almost every turn. Defenders point to the economy and say, "things are going great; the economy is growing at a record rate..." but aren't these the same folks that gave credit to Reagan for the boom during Clinton's terms? If that is the case, you've got to give credit to Clinton for today's economy. Now, most credible economists don't buy either argument....another day, another topic.
Point being: as a progressive, I am torn between celebrating the republican failures and being pissed off that our country is basically being governed by the "F Troop" of conservatives. Do republicans dislike democrats and their policies so much that they will defend any boob that gets elected just because they AREN'T a liberal democrat? Tell me that it ain't true. Somebody help us if it is.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
The New McCarthyism
The New McCarthyism is selling out your elected government and your people just because you don't like the people who were elected. Like Mary O. McCarthy.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Great Gift for Mother's Day/Father's Day
Che T-shirts only 12 bucks and the proceeds go to Cuba Nostalgia Convention fund.
I'm gonna get Dean and I a matching set!
Retired Generals Critcize Rummy
Everyone is talking about the Retired Generals criticisms of Rummy and the War. And they should be talking. I'm not sure if everyone knows this but these Generals have to wait until they are retired before lobbing criticism, active duty soldiers aren't allowed to badmouth the chain of command.
So, we should listen to these guys. It isn't necesssarily sour grapes, they've been required to hold their tongues for their entire career. So, I will listen and I hope you do as well. Just remember this: these guys are smart on military matters and they should be involved in war planning and etc but they should not be in charge of our Defense Department. Our Framers gave us civilian control of the military for a reason and that reason is as important today as it was then: military coups.
The last thing we need is guys with guns wrestling the government from power. Our system is set up to prevent that and that is a good thing. Remember that the next time some whiny liberal tells you that the military should be in charge of the war or they start chanting about chickenhawks.
Me, Myself, and I - The Blog Version
Patterico exposes LA Times Blogger Michael Hiltzik's penchant for sock puppetry.
Is an L.A. Times columnist leaving comments on the Internet under assumed “sock puppet” identities — identities which he pretends is someone other than himself?
Read on and judge for yourself. As for me, I’ve made up my mind, and the answer is “yes.”
The evidence is solid and the LA Times has suspended Hiltzik's Golden State Blog.
The Times has suspended Michael Hiltzik’s Golden State blog on latimes.com. Hiltzik admitted Thursday that he posted items on the paper’s website, and on other websites, under names other than his own. That is a violation of The Times ethics policy, which requires editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public. The policy applies to both the print and online editions of the newspaper. The Times is investigating the postings.
Not only did he post under other names, but it appears that Hiltzik's pseudonyms did so only to defend his stated positions and to attack his opponents. Hiltzik would then refer to the pseudonyms as if they were other people smacking down his detractors or lending credibility to his arguments. He and his "alters" liked to compliment each other.
After Patterico busted him, Hiltzik responded and his response was a pathetic attempt to evade the charges. This guy appears to be oblivious to the fact that Patterico was not attacking him for using pseudonyms, Patterico actually defends the use of pseudonyms, no Patterico was attacking the moron's lack of ethics and his use of virtual sock puppets. Patterico's point was that Hiltzik and his pseudonyms praised and defended each other as though they were different people. What Hiltzik did was misleading and a bit pathetic.
I read the posts that I linked above including the comments and I've been chuckling all morning. There isn't a better way to start the day than laughing your ass off.
Update: According to Patterico, the Hiltzik suspension get a mention by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post. The shit gets funnier by the minute!
Thursday, April 20, 2006
My Personal Philosophy
This is just something about me that everyone should know and I hope that my writings have born it out.
I cannot, in good conscience, condone an action done by a Conservative that I would not equally condone if it were done by a Liberal.
This is my problem with the "Bush Lied™" crowd. This is why I blog. If I think something is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone not just those that I disagree with.
If kos or Atrios did what Malkin did, I would be out there demanding apologies just the same. What would you be doing? Clapping? Cheering? Defending?
If I feel that something is wrong, it's wrong. I can't help it, it's just who I am.
Related Posts (on one page):
- My Personal Philosophy
- The Malkin Controversy
The Malkin Controversy
Mark left this comment in one of the Freedom of Speech threads:
[Edited for brevity]
Your hero, the truly evil media whore (with due apologies to actual whores, as well as conservative ladies who are only evil in that "so cute" twinkle-in-the-eye kinda nasty girl way) Michele Malkin believes she has every right to publish your, or my address and phone number and extol her readership to threaten and harass me for holding views at odds with her. Hell, I asked for it since I have made no secret of who and where I am because I hold that one has more credibility on the interwebs if you are not anonymous.
Indeed Malkin would delight if her readers' criminal behavior caused me change my phone number and live a less public life because after her readers make death threats against me, and I complain to her directly, she goes ahead and republishes my number and address.
That's her right. Free speech, don't ya know. But I submit that there are responsible uses of the privilege and wholly irresponsible yet quite legal ways to express yourself.
The controversy is this post where Malkin posts the phone numbers and email addresses of SAW (Students Against War) members. SAW is responsible for throwing rocks, slashing tires and running military recruiters off their campus.
Wince gave us a link to the Malkin post indicating that she got the info from a SAW press release that discussed the chasing off of recruiters. The private information of the students has since been removed from the press release.
Wince: It was a press release, which they made freely available on the web, including the contact information. As usual, when the other shoe drops, your accusations turn out to have no substance.
I'm probably going to shock a lot of people here but I actually agree with Mark. I don't agree with his portrayal of Malkin, a person that I respect and enjoy reading, I agree with the substance of his gripe.
On the merits, Malkin did nothing illegal. The information was public and posting it on her site wasn't a crime. It was, in my opinion, unethical and contemptable. I think the SAW members are assholes and they totally deserve to eat some shit BUT...
They do not deserve to die or to receive death threats. Saying that you do not condone death threats, like Malkin did, doesn't absolve you of bearing responsibility for the threats being issued. By posting the contact info and then systematically bashing the members of SAW she has, in effect, incited some of her crazy readers to issue hate mail and death threats. Is it possible that some crazies would have done so without her publishing the contact info? Sure it is. If you are a loon and you really want to threaten someone, you don't need any help from Malkin, you'll dig until you find what you need and you'll do it. Malkin made it too easy for some of her nuttier readers. None of us knows exactly "who" reads us. We do know that the larger your audience is the more likely you'll have some serious nutjobs reading. Because of this unknown factor, journalists and bloggers alike need to have high ethical standards.
My point and, if I understand correctly, Mark's point is that her actions are directly responsible for the flood of hate mail and death threats. She wrote a hit piece, like most of us do regularly, and then after riling people up she gave everyone the phone numbers and email addresses of the people she was bashing. She didn't directly say that people should write or call, but if she wasn't intimating it, then why the contact info?
Yes, it was publicly available information. So what? My name, my email address, my phone number and my address are also publicly available. I've been contacted by a variety of people that I didn't know, some really nice and generous and others not so much. If people really want to find you, they'll do the legwork. Most people, however, are pretty damned lazy and they wouldn't bother no matter how pissed they were. OTOH, if someone handed them all that they needed, they very well may fire off a nastygram or worse. That is why I think that Malkin was wrong and that she bears a great deal of responsibilty for the fall out.
Before you start telling me how wrong I am, I want you to ponder this senario:
Let's say that I write or do something that just pisses of the Kossites and the Atrios crowd. (Again, remember that I said all my personal info is available with a simple search.) Let's say I anger them so much that they each write a hateful and angry retort that includes my home address and phone number right in the body of their post. Naturally, I start getting death threats and nasty threatening phone calls from the looney fringe of Dailykos and Eschaton.
Would you tell me that they had every right to do what they did? Would you say that I brought it on myself because I was "evil"? Or would you rally behind me and trash Kos and Atrios for the unethical pieces of shit their actions proved them to be?
Bottom line: She was wrong. She should stand up, admit it and apologize for it.
Update: Dan Riehl and Don Surber agree with me.
Make no mistake, I oppose what those students stand for. And the phone numbers being included initially was probably a sign of their naiveté and lack of resources, as in an office for such things. But Michelle is not naive. I'm not sure what her excuse is.
Still, only faulting Michelle isn't really fair. I believe she's the most frequently read conservative politics only blogger. Things like that happen for a reason. What it ultimately speaks to is the current state of blogs, blogging and blog readers as a whole.
We can do trash TV one better, be sure and tune in. Unfortunately, as long as the more strident voices are also the most popular on the Left and Right, blogging in general will never amount to much as regards a broader more mainstream readership.
Liberals shouldn't kid themselves that Michelle is some gross exception. Were the tables turned, similar information would make its way to Daily Kos, or some other liberal blog. This isn't so much about personalities, as it is the tone of the blogosphere in general.
And it will remain a niche media product in political coverage until that changes.
"Now for my two cents, earned in 25 years in West Virginia newspapering plus a couple of years in the Army: The kids did nothing wrong.
So they listed their contact numbers after the “For Immediate Release” line? This is not law. This is not science. This is journalism. Only a mean person would be so crass as to put that information in mass circulation."
Related Posts (on one page):
- My Personal Philosophy
- The Malkin Controversy
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Dear Tom, Please Get Help!
This is just gross.
Hollywood actor and Scientologist Tom Cruise is planning to eat Katie Holmes' placenta.
It is the latest in a series of strange revelations by the 43-year-old 'Mission: Impossible' star about the child he is expecting with fiancée Katie Holmes.
Cruise told GQ magazine: "I'm gonna eat the placenta. I thought that would be good. Very nutritious. I'm gonna eat the cord and the placenta right there."
HT: The Moderate Voice
Gen. Anthony Zinni Gets Bitch-Slapped By Gen. Anthony Zinni
Can someone please teach the anti-Bush Generals how to use Google????
From the Grapevine
Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni — the most prominent of the retired generals attacking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — now says that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, "What bothered me ... [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD."
But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress: "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," adding, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."
You know if you are gonna talk shit about the current Administration's Iraq intel, you should at least double check your brown-nosing past.
Happy Birthday To The Queen Mum
Today is my mommy's 66th birthday. I wrote a piece about my mom a few years back. Since I wrote it she has become an American citizen and voted in a few elections including the 2004 Presidential one.
In honor of her, we shall sing:
Sto lat! Sto lat! Niech żyje, żyje nam.
Sto lat! Sto lat! Niech żyje, żyje nam.
Jeszcze raz! Jeszcze raz! Niech żyje, żyje nam.
Niech żyje nam.
I Love You Mom!
Monday, April 17, 2006
More Lefty Attacks on Free Speech
Many of us Conservatives are all too aware that Liberals view Free Speech as their Right, not "our" Right. The cowardly refusal of the NY Times and other MSM publications to print the "Mohammed cartoons" was not the first time the liberals buried their heads in the sand on this issue and it won't be the last.
As much as I hate the ACLU, at least they believe in protecting everyone's rights and not just those with which they agree. OTOH, Sally Jacobsen, the Northern Kentucky University women's studies professor thinks that her views and rights trump others. This whackjob enlisted her students to help her wreck a pro-life display of crosses that she didn't like. According to the linked article, "the crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials".
It is really an appalling display of campus fascism by the Feministas of the Reproductive Rights brigade. I'm pretty sure that they'd be calling for the head of the professor that incited his/her students to wreck their display of happy uteri or big hairy vaginas or whatever they chose to display. Oh, you can bet your unborn child's life on it!
Please note: "Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court."
The Underpants Gnome Guide To Muffling Freedom of Speech
- Step 1: When your religion gets mocked, blow something up. (If you include yourself there is a bigger impact) When someone decides to mock you because you blew something up, threaten to kill them, their entire family and all the people in a ten block radius of them and their family.
- Step 2: ...
- Step 3: Victory! Freedom of Speech has been defeated. The world cowers to your views.
Please note that the above only really applies to Islam. The MSM and their subsidiaries don't give two shits about mocking Judaism or Christianity. There are obvious negatives when your beliefs leave the 14th century.
Dean's World Reader, John B received this reply from Cowardly Central after it aired the South Park episode "Cartoon Wars":
I wrote to Comedy Central complaining about their cowardice and hypocrisy and received the following reply:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the "South Park" episodes entitled "Cartoon Wars." We appreciate your concerns about censorship and the destructive influence of outside groups on the media, entertainment industry and particularly Comedy Central.
To reiterate, as satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to make people laugh and perhaps, if we're lucky, even make them think in
Comedy Central's belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events.
With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it weren't the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have on innocent individuals around the globe.
It was with this in mind we decided not to air the image of Muhammad, a decision similar to that made by virtually every single media outlet across the country earlier this year when they each determined that it was not prudent or in the interest of safety to reproduce the controversial Danish cartoons. Injuries occurred and lives were lost in the riots set off by the original publication of these cartoons. The American media made a decision then, as we did now, not to put the safety and well being of the public at risk, here or abroad.
As a viewer of "South Park," you know that over the course of ten seasons and almost 150 episodes the series has addressed all types of sensitive, hot-button issues, religious and political, and has done so with Comedy Central's full support in every instance, including this one. "Cartoon Wars" contained a very important message, one that Trey and Matt felt strongly about, as did we at the network, which is why we gave them carte blanche in every facet but one: we would not broadcast a
portrayal of Muhammad.
In that regard, did we censor the show? Yes, we did. But if you hold Comedy Central's 15-year track record up against any other network out there, you'll find that we afford our talent the most creative freedom and provide a nurturing atmosphere that challenges them to be bold and daring and places them in a position to constantly break barriers and push the envelope. The result has been some of the most provocative television ever produced.
We would like nothing more than to be able to look back at this in a few years and think that perhaps we overreacted. Unfortunately, to have made a different decision and to look back and see that we completely underestimated the damage that resulted was a risk we were not willing to take.
Our pledge to you, our loyal viewers, is that Comedy Central will continue to produce and provide the best comedy available and we will continue to push it right to the edge, using and defending the First Amendment in the most responsible way we know how.
Comedy Central Viewer Services
They have no problem mocking my beliefs or yours and while it pisses me off to see the Virgin Mary made with shit or Jesus Christ made with urine, I will defend their right to do it (as long as I'm not forced to financially support it). Islam gets a pass because some of their members threaten violence. I will take it because I believe in the "Right to Free Speech". If the media and businesses continue to cower to radical Islamists then Free Speech will be less and less of a Right and more of a vision or even a goal.
Do not let these fundamentalist, radical fuckheads drag us back a few centuries with them.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More Lefty Attacks on Free Speech
- The Underpants Gnome Guide To Muffling Freedom of Speech
Sunday, April 16, 2006
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.--Matthew 28:5-6; Matthew 28:6
I know I'm 4 days late, I want to wish my friends that celebrate Pesach a peaceful and wonderful celebration. I hope the Seder was tasty. May your next 4 days be all that you hope.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
I'm Still Alive
Just when I thought I was done being busy...
Hopefully when Easter is over things around here will chill out.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Look Out ! Sharkjumping In Our Midst!
From the comments on Immigration:
I'm sorry all, but no matter what new legislation you pass, it's unlikely to be enforced any better than the current legislation.
This is not, as some keep harping, an issue of national safety and security. There has not been a Mexican terrorist on our shores in recent history. And all the Muslim terrorists came into the country legally--perhaps with fake passports, but still legally.
So the issue is the same as it's always been, and I believe this is a racist issue as all immigrants coming to this country faced: Italians, Jews, Irish, Puerto Ricans, Koreans, Vietnamese...and now Mexicans.
Further, no one has yet to prove how having "these people" in our country for the last 20 years has hurt our economy.
Where do we start. I guess I'll just go paragraph by paragraph.
First paragraph, we all agree that enforcement is a big issue. What is the point of having a law if it isn't enforced? We all agree that in the past enforcement of our immigration laws has sucked the big one.
Second paragraph, this absolutely is an issue of safety and national security. Whether or not there has been a Mexican terrorist isn't really the issue. The issue is whether or not a terrorist can/has enter/ed our country via a weakness at our southern border. If you think that Al Qaeda isn't aware of our weak borders then you have a serious Pollyana complex. Not to mention the fact that drug smugglers do enter via our southern border. If you think that drug smuggling isn't a safety issue then perhaps you should read up on drug cartels and the effects of cocain and heroin on our population.
Third paragraph, here it is. The official point where the comment jumped the shark. Racism!!! Ooooh, we are all naughty racists that hate brown people. I'm not claiming that our country is free of racism, it certainly isn't. I am just not willing to say that those of us that think illegal immigration is a problem are racists. Especially, since all the other groups that you claimed suffered the nasty fate of racism couldn't just shimmy or swim over the border. Most of them got in legally with a visa or a green card and while some may have overstayed their welcome, we at least have a record of who they are. And they are gonna get their asses booted too and many of those asses are lily white. This isn't about racism, this is about the law.
Final paragraph, no one has proved that illegals have hurt our economy? Let's look at California for some proof. "The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians"
According to the report "The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians," published in 2004 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the illegal immigrant population in the state is costing taxpayers more than $9 billion per year (after adjusting for estimated tax contributions of illegal workers). That amounts to approximately $1,183 per household.
The impact of illegal immigration on Americans and undocumented individuals is cause for concern among experts. Members of a panel hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) in Washington, D.C., in 2003 discussed the costs of undocumented Californians, financial and otherwise. Steve Camarota, director of research for the CIS, was dismissive of those who argue that illegal workers are crucial to the California economy. He asserted that Mexican immigrants account for only 3 percent of the state's economic output, despite comprising almost one-third of the population. "The idea that Mexican immigration is vital to the U.S. economy is simply false," he said.
Additionally, Camarota's data showed that 41.5 percent of Mexican immigrants used "major welfare programs" like Medicaid and food stamps, while native Californians used only 14.2 percent of the same programs. He argued that immigrants' contribution, when compared with their need for expensive social services, "means that there's a very high cost for cheap labor."
In addition to welfare programs, the cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants is seen by many as too high. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, hospitals with emergency rooms are required to treat patients with medical emergencies, regardless of their ability to pay or their immigration status.
Although states are now eligible for federal subsidies for providing emergency care to illegal immigrants (under the 2003 law that expanded Medicare), the grants barely put a dent in the state's out-of-pocket expenditures. This fiscal year, California will receive $70.8 million, but Jan Amerson, a spokeswoman for the California Hospital Association, said California hospitals provided $500 million last year in emergency care for illegal immigrants — seven times the amount of the federal grant.
The 2004 FAIR report put the number for overall healthcare at $1.4 billion annually. "What is unseen is [illegal aliens'] free medical care that has degraded and closed some of America's finest emergency medical facilities and caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing their doors," Madeleine Peiner Cosman, Ph.D., wrote in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
FAIR also highlights the cost of incarceration for illegal aliens. According to its report, the cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants in prisons and jails in California is approximately $1.4 billion per year. That number does not include the associated law enforcement and judicial expenses. Under the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), the state can be compensated for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants with felony convictions or at least two misdemeanors; in fiscal year 2004, the SCAAP amount received was $111 million — about one-twelfth of the total cost.
"The magnitude of illegal immigrants in prisons and local jails in the United States is huge," Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca told the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in December 2005.
Next argument please.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Immigration, Immigration, Immigration
That seems to be the only thing happening here. Debates, protests and bloviating. Border control and amnesty are the key words of the week. Oh and felony. Let's not forget felony.
Illegals and their supporters in the Democrat party don't like the idea of calling illegals criminals because these are hardworking people. Yeah, I know they work hard doing jobs uppity Americans wouldn't stoop down to do. That's true. I know, I know, unemployed Americans would never take jobs picking fruit or cleaning houses for below minimum wage. Actually, they probably would and do if they can avoid paying any taxes on the money like the illegals do. I know lots of people that work "under the table" while collecting unemployment. I know a few other fuckin' losers that do it so they can avoid paying child support and still get high.
I heard Erica Jong say that she has a nanny that is "legal status challenged" and she has her because foreigners/illegals aren't ashamed to be nannies and American women are.
No, Erica Jong, you bleedin' twit. Plenty of American women have jobs in the Childcare industry and lots of us stay home to rear our own children because we believe that child rearing is one of the highest callings. What we won't do is work for you making slaves wages. This isn't about who is better at caring for children, it's about cheaper labor and who will let you get away with shitty treatment. Do you think an illegal would complain about unfair labor practices, low wages or the fact that Ms. Jong isn't paying into SSI for her "Mammy", er, I mean nanny.
I'm pro-immigration. I'd be a major hippocrate not to be since I am American #1 in my family. My family started arriving here in the 1960's and a new wave of them got here in the 1990's. We got here legally.
Being illegal doesn't make you a hardworking and moral person, anymore than being born here makes you lazy and immoral. There are plenty of hardworking people immigrating here legally everyday. This debate isn't about work ethic, it's about legality and border security.
I'm sorry you don't like calling "illegals" criminals but that is what we call people that break laws. I don't like mandatory minimums for drug offenses, we all can't be happy.
Entering this country without an invitation is against the law. It is a crime and doing it makes you a criminal whether you work hard or not.
Many protesters were holding up signs that we illegally took land from Mexico. The winners are always the bad guys. All those sign holders have apparantly forgotten that Mexico wasn't much till Spain conquered them and took over.
What happened to all those Aztecs anyway?
Monday, April 10, 2006
I've been incredibly busy that last few days but it's over now. I'll be back to posting regularly on Tuesday morning.
Saturday, April 8, 2006
I watch Real Time with Bill Maher every week. I love the show and while I don't agree with much that is presented, I usually agree with something everytime. Last night, Cynthia McKinney was on and let me tell you something. That chick has no clue. None. She stated that she didn't say racism was an issue with the "cop bitch slap" episode. I was stunned that she could say that on national television just a couple days after her lawyer declared that her crime was "being black while in Congress", even Maher looked flabbergasted. She just gave her stump speech and talked shit. What a real moron.
Joe Biden was on the panel and he kept it pretty brief. He was on his game, sounded really presidential and announced that he is definitely running for POTUS in 2008. I was happy to hear that. I like Biden, I respect him and even though I'd never vote for him, I wouldn't be frightened of a Biden Whitehouse.
Ben Afflect and Bill Sammon were also on the panel. Afflect is one of the smarter and more tolerable Hollywood Liberals that I have ever heard. I don't agree with him but I appreciate the way he phrases his comments. He goes out of his way to be respectful and I dig that. Sammon is an author and Wash Post correspondent. He's written a couple of books on Bush, most recently "Strategery", and he's the guy Bush refers to as "Stretch". It was a pretty good show and if you get a chance you should check HBO for a rerun.
Thursday, April 6, 2006
How Bad Is It?
How bad is it when Tom DeLay charges you (Cynthia McKinney) with an ethics violation? Isn't that kinda like getting fired by Bill Clinton for sexual harassment or getting told that you're a shitty shot by Dick Cheney?
The good news is that a Grand Jury has been called to see if the "slapping of a police officer" merits prosecution. I was pretty bummed about Mandisa but things are starting to look up!
In what universe did anyone imagine that Bucky would still be in the competition and Mandisa would be sent packing?
America's bottom three was an abomination. Paris, Mandisa and Elliot in the bottom was wrong on an epic scale of wrongness. (BTW, isn't Elliot getting hotter like I said he would?)
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Who Cares About Facts?
What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way: "Demagoguery beats data."
People who urge us to rely on the United Nations, instead of acting "unilaterally," or who urge us to follow other countries in creating a government-run medical care system, often show not the slightest interest in getting facts about the actual track record of either the UN or government-run medical systems.
Those who believe in affirmative action likewise usually see no reason to find out what actually happens under such policies, as distinguished from what they wish, hope, or imagine happens.
The crusade for "a living wage" that will enable a worker to support a family proceeds without the slightest interest in finding out whether most people who are making low wages actually have any family to support — much less seeking out the facts about what actually happens after the government sets wages.
People who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts are a danger to the whole society. Since the votes of such people count just as much as the votes of people who know what they are talking about, politicians have every incentive to pass laws and create policies that pander to ignorant notions, if those notions are widespread.
Facts just mess up your beliefs and whether it is religious, scientific or political facts get overlooked way too often. Everyone has been guilty of it before and as a blogger, I see it all the time when debating hot issues. I wish we were all more like Sgt. Joe Friday.
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
Mexico's Immigrant Policy
The Mexican Solution
According to J. Michael Waller, under a constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called "racist" and "xenophobic."
Here are some interesting Constitutional ways Mexico deals with immigrants (both legal and not):
Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.
Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."
Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.
Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.
In accordance with Article 130, immigrants - even legal ones - may not become members of the clergy, either.
Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."
Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right!
The Mexican constitution states that foreigners - not just illegal immigrants - may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."
Remind me again, what Vincente Fox was urging Bush to do about our "border problem"??
Why didn't he just tell Bush what he would do?
Tom DeLay Resigns
Tom DeLay: "My constituents don't deserve this. They deserve a Republican."
"I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with a negative personal campaign," DeLay said. "The voters of the 22nd district of Texas deserve a campaign about the vital national issues that they care most about and that affect their lives every day and not a campaign focused solely as a referendum on me."
With his resignation the chances that his district will remain in Republican control just tripled.
Monday, April 3, 2006
Cynthia McKinney Victim or Criminal?
Let's look at the situation. McKinney was walking around a checkpoint to get into the Capitol Building when an officer told her to stop.
The officer, not recognizing McKinney as a member of Congress, tried to stop her from walking around a security checkpoint, which members are routinely allowed to do. Several Capitol police officials have said the officer involved asked McKinney three times to stop. When she did not, he placed a hand on her and she hit him, they said.
... [McKinney] acknowledged that when she was stopped, she wasn't wearing the special lapel pin given to the 435 House members to help police and staff recognize them. But she said the officer still should have recognized her because he was trained to do so. "I do wear the pin when I remember to wear the pin," McKinney said. "But the pin is not the issue. The issue is facial recognition."
Actually, I think that wearing the pin is the issue. Those pins are worn so that you can be recognized and so you can walk around a security checkpoint. I think that striking a cop for stopping you is "assault on an officer".
Ms. McKinney says that she is a victim of racism.
Her lawyer, James W. Myart Jr., said, "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin."
It's not racist for a cop to ask you to stop 3 times when you are trying to skirt a security checkpoint and YOU AREN'T WEARING YOUR FUCKING MEMBER OF CONGRESS PIN.
What it is, my dear race card playing moonbat, is a felony.
Vinick or Santos?
It's Election Day on the West Wing. Part 1 aired last night and the exit poll numbers aren't adding up for either side. Everyone is going crazy and now, sadly, it looks like Leo is finally being put to rest. I know the actor that played Leo died months ago but doesn't feel like we are losing him twice? Sigh...
So who's gonna win?
Saturday, April 1, 2006
Basic Instinct 2
What is the point of making this sequel?
My guess is that this is probably the last chance they have to get a snatch shot of Sharon Stone (48) before she turns 50.
Oy! Shopping on a Saturday...
What's going on with y'all?