Big S Blog

2002-11-03T22:18:00.000-08:00

Hey! What are you doing here?
Don't you know that I moved?

2002-10-30T23:41:00.000-08:00

The National Organization for ~~Man-Hating Marxist Lesbians~~ Women are in a snit because there are too many good looking women on TV. No, I'm not making that up. Some other bits of unintentional hilarity in their report:

The Jennifer Aniston Rule. The majority of women in the U.S. are young, thin, white and fall within a narrow standard of "beauty." FALSE. Really? Wow, am I glad NOW clued me in on that. I went to the senior center to cruise for chicks, and they all looked like Bea Arthur. I thought God was playing a cruel joke on me.
Opposites attract. Attractive women often couple with less attractive "average Joe" men and older men, placing value on personality over appearance. MOSTLY FALSE. Gee, and I thought my bald spot would attract all those Jennifer Anniston lookalikes too. Someone should clue NOW in--we overweight balding guys already know this, and we know that the only way we'll date supermodels is if we earn the equivalent of the GDP of Ecuador.
The WWE Smackdown! (UPN) web page lists 35 male "superstars" and only 6 females. That's only because they haven't signed up Janet Reno yet.
FOX's America's Most Wanted: "Clips before[the] show and in between cases focus onthe victims who are young and attractive and frightened. Emphasis on their beautyand fear seems geared toward attracting male viewers . . . Excuse for program is to identify most wanted criminals--but selection of content is questionable." Imagine that--crime victims being frightened. The next thing you know, they'll talk about how apprehending crooks is too violent.
FOX's Cops features violent arrests, often involving men and women of color and lower-income people. Oops, never mind.
Field analysts commented on the low level of maturity in primetime TV and its overall lack of interest in social issues. I think this became commonly accepted wisdom by the second episode of My Mother the Car. Nonetheless, let's applaud NOW for getting to the bottom of this deep conspiracy that the networks have engaged in for the past 45 years or so.

I have to hand it to NOW. For an organization that has absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever, they do an admirable job of putting out some really hilarious material.

2002-10-29T20:54:00.000-08:00

Bjorn Staerk has a good post about anti-Americanism in Scandinavia. The part that most intrigued me was this part:

The best way for a foreign artist to get good press in Norway is still the magic word Norgesvenn, "friend of Norway". (Anything is forgiven of a Norgesvenn, even failing careers, and becoming one can actually be a good retirement plan.)

Which explains what happened to all the guest stars on The Love Boat.

2002-10-29T20:51:00.000-08:00

Last weekend my sister came up to visit with some friends of hers from college, then she came over to the house to visit. Over dinner, she mentioned that all her friends from college are idiotarians. She didn't use that exact word(she doesn't read any blogs but this one), but from what she related of the conversation, it was pretty obvious. They mentioned Kyoto to her, about how Bush is "stupid", etc. Pick a style of tinfoil hat, and they're probably wearing it. Anyway, because she doesn't read blogs outside of this one, doesn't surf the net much, and gets her news primarily from the Howell Raines Gazette,the Scare Quotes Sentinel, the Clinton News Network, PMSNBC and other ~~birdcage liners~~ mainstream news sources. As soon as I get an e-mail from her with the questions, I am going to do a multi-part series, answering one or two questions a day. Anyway, it should make good reading, and I welcome any and all participation in it.

2002-10-29T16:44:00.000-08:00

From Cato Mark Steyn hits another one out of the ballpark:

You get the picture: Sure, Muslim fundamentalists can be pretty extreme, but what about all our Christian fundamentalists? Unfortunately, for the old moral equivalence to hold up, the Christians really need to get off their fundamentalist butts and start killing more people. At the moment, the brilliantly versatile Muslim fundamentalists are gunning down Maryland schoolkids and bus drivers, hijacking Moscow musicals, self-detonating in Israeli pizza parlours, blowing up French oil tankers in Yemen, and slaughtering nightclubbers in Bali, while Christian fundamentalists are, er, sounding extremely strident in their calls for the return of prayer in school.

2002-10-28T17:59:00.000-08:00

Watching Donahue, So You Don't Have To I'm doing this on a full stomach, so I'm taking a chance here. This is going to be a stream-of-consciousness thing, so if the post appears disjointed, that's why. Michael Moore is now comparing the executives of K-Mart with Nazis. He's also drawn a connection between Lockheed and Columbine. Michael Moore just claimed that all the countries with less murders than the US is because they don't have the death penalty. Of course, the fact that Japan has a death penalty he completely forgot, and the fact that Britain had far less crime when they had the death penalty, and the crime rates of all the countries(with the possible exception of Japan) is increasing. Now Donahue has put up this lovely clip of Moore drawing a connection between Kosovo and Columbine. Of course, it is obvious that stopping a tyrant in the Balkans would cause two crackpots to shoot up a high school. Mikey is saying that increasing the minimum wage will reduce the murder rate. That makes perfect sense, if you are tripping on bad acid. Now Michael is going to miracle himself full employment with a $10.00 an hour minimum wage. Of course, that also makes perfect sense, if the only economics course you've taken is home economics. OK, my stomachs rumbling a bit, and I'm feeling woozy. I can make the last 15 minutes, I can make the last 15 minutes. It's nice how Donahue has stacked the audience with a whole gang who all think Michael Moore is such a great guy. I'd like to see Donahue pack the audience with folks like Misha, Rachel, Cato, Glenn, and myself. Maybe have someone bring up the fact that he makes up such gems as the NRA/KKK link. Now Mikey is saying that Bush is declaring war on Iraq to distract from the economy. Mike's saying that Canada is the paragon of virtue. We should sign kyoto, the land mine treaty, etc, etc. OK, this mikey more love fest is making me ill, and I just can't watch any more.

2002-10-27T19:40:00.000-08:00

Yet Another Sign of the Apocolypse The Howell Raines Gazette has endorsed George Pataki.

2002-10-27T09:43:00.000-08:00

A side note to the previous post: If you have learned about poker from watching the movies, don't send me any comments about Royal Flushes and beating four of a kind with a straight flush or a royal. The only movie I have ever seen which accurately portrays the game is the movie Rounders. Every other movie about poker sucks in portraying the actual game. You learn as much about poker watching your generic poker movie as you would learn about auto mechanics by watching an episode of Speed Racer. Yes, they are all that bad. Update: Everything they say is good, except for the casino that the Matt Damon character says everyone plays at. You want to play poker at Atlantic City, play at the Tropicana or the Trump Taj Mahal. If you live in New York or Boston, play at Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun instead. It's closer, and they both spread more games.

2002-10-27T09:33:00.000-08:00

We've got the nuts at the UN I haven't mentioned it here before, but I am an avid poker player(I'm not a great player, but I love the game). Usually I will play either 7 card stud(2 down then 5 up then 1 down at the end) or I will play a game called Texas Hold 'em, where each player is dealt two cards individually, and then five community cards are dealt(two individual cards, then 3 community cards(the flop), then one more community card(the turn) and finally the last card(the river). You make the best hand using the cards you hold plus the cards on the board. There are other games, Hi-Low games and such, but they are beyond the scope of this post. In Texas Hold'em there is a term known as having the nuts, or having the nut straight, or nut flush(Ace high), etc. In the parlance of the game, that is the absolute strongest hand that can be made using the five cards on the table. Having the nuts is a very good thing. It means you can afford to slowplay a hand(pretend you have a much weaker hand than you do) and it means that you can be 100% confident that you will scoop the pot at the end of the hand. Also, in poker, there are a number of strategems you can use to get the pot. First there is the obvious way, having the strongest hand at the table. The second way is to bluff. You bet and raise, with the idea towards making other players think you have a stronger hand than you actually do. One thing about bluffs, is often the player engaging in the bluff projects a rather aggressive stance. He'll stare you down, act intimidating, and generally try to make himself look strong. Bluffing is rarely done in a casual manner. There is also a form of reverse bluff. Instead of bluffing to project strength, you bluff to project weakness. For example, I was playing in a 7 card stud game, and with the fifth card, I made a full house, queens full of deuces(3 queens, 2 deuces). This is a very strong hand, and I didn't want anyone to drop by my betting. So, instead of jumping out with a bet/raise right a way, I let out a loud moan when the deuce paired. The other players happily bet and raised, because they believed that I had crap, but I took the pot(and a big pot it was). There are different kinds of poker players. Rocks, very tight, passive players, never play anything unless it is the absolute best hand, and will throw away just about everything else. Maniacs bet and raise with any two cards. Calling Stations do just that. Every hand, they call. They rarely raise, and they rarely fold. They basically just tag along for the ride. Sometimes you lose to a calling station, but mainly they just donate money to the pot. One thing I've noticed is how much diplomacy is like poker, and the goings on in regard to Iraq can be put into poker terms pretty well. Iraq is the prototypical inebriated maniac player. Saddam is holding a lousy hand(a ten and a deuce before the flop), but he is betting and raising like mad. He thinks that by raising any bet, acting bellicose, and staring real hard at the other players, they'll fold. Its worked for him pretty well in the past ten years, so he thinks it will work again now. Of course he is bluffing, but he thinks his bluffing will work forever. However, all he is doing is digging himself a deeper hole. France and Russia are each holding a pair of Kings(the UN Veto). Both have a big stake in the pot from previous rounds of betting, and now are engaging in one last raise on the hope that the US and Iraq will drop their hands, and and France and Russia can share the pot. The problem is that Saddam has had his fifth shot of Jack Daniels in the last hour, and really thinks he can win with his pair of deuces, so he will raise until he is out of money. China held a pair of nines at the initial deal, and Jiang Zemin decided that he didn't want to waste money on such an obvious loser, and threw away his hand, instead waiting for the pair of pocket Aces which he will get--someday. The rest of the UNSC got their two cards, and called, like they do just about every time they get dealt a hand(or asked to vote on a resolution) Finally, there is the US, with his friend Britain watching from the rail. The US holds the nut flush(a congressional resolution), and has held it right from the flop. Bush isn't going to project too much strength. In fact, it is to his advantage to project weakness. Witness all the talk about how Iraq might be able to avoid being invaded if they comply, etc. Bush wants Saddam to raise the bet again(deny his WMD program exists). He wants Saddam to raise, and raise, and raise. Bush wants this, because no matter what, Bush is holding the nut flush and cannot lose. Saddam's bluff is DOA, but Saddam is convinced somehow that it will work. France and Russia are hoping against hope that Bush will drop his hand, but even they realize that is a losing proposition, so their attempt will ultimately fail, and if they don't drop their hand soon, they could lose a lot more than what they have already bet(Lukoil and ELF Fina). But they are trying to do something to stop him, but eventually they'll drop, because while losing the oil concessions is bad, losing their Security Council vote is worse. Saddam, however, because he is drunk(Jack Daniels, dictatorial power, same thing), is going to raise. Bush is going to raise him back, and Saddam will raise again, and eventually, all of Saddam's money(power) is going to wind up in Bush's hands, and Saddam will lose his entire bankroll(or get hung from the nearest lamppost). So when you hear about the gnashing of teeth about how the UN is dragging their feet, remember something. Bush could end this charade any time he wants by launching military action. The reason he's not isn't because he can't, but because it is in our best interests for him not to. He is playing Saddam, and the Russians, and the French, and at the end, the result is going to be the same it would have been before. There are only two possible outcomes: The UNSC approves our action, and we invade Iraq(and win the pot) or the UNSC vetoes our resolution, and we invade Iraq(and the UNSC becomes irrelevant in the process). Either way, Saddam falls, and the FrancoRussian oil concessions are dead. Update: In response to Cato's post, I think I need to clarify/change the situation France and Russia are in. France and Russia are now engaging in what is known in the poker world as a crying call. The crying call is a bet that is called when you have every expectation of losing. You are calling the bet not to win, but on the notion that you probably won't win, but you need to see the cards anyway. The problem, in France and Russia's case, is that they are between Iraq and the US. So the more they try to defend the oil interests, the more likely it is that the United States will consider the UN irrelevant, and that cost is more than I think either country is willing to bear.

2002-10-25T23:24:00.000-07:00

Bellesilles in his inordinately long attempt at rescuing his obliterated reputation is saying he will explain all the descrepancies in the second edition of his book. Don't be surprised if instead of guns, he proves via probate records(miraculously recovered from the Chicago fire) that instead of guns, all Americans were armed with ray guns, and did not venture out at night, because vampires roamed the streets.

2002-10-24T09:07:00.000-07:00

I am way behind on everything this morning. The power went out at about 8:00, and I've just gotten online about 1/2 hour ago. I just saw them push the Caprice into a garage. They caught the pair sometime last night. The plates for the Caprice were registered in Camden, NJ. I don't know how big an Arab community there is in Camden. I know there is a big one in Jersey City, and I think there is one in Patterson as well. I just saw a picture of agents carrying a box into a building which I think may be the rifle. The box doesn't look like it could fit an AR-15, but it could fit a regular bolt action long gun. That is rank speculation on my part, so I could be very wrong here. Update: I was wrong, Indepundit is saying it is an AR15 Bushmaster.

2002-10-23T21:31:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to a Fox News story about the arrest, and they mention the Marion camp.

2002-10-23T21:21:00.000-07:00

Here is a picture of John Allen Mohammed:

I know, it's on fox, etc. I'll change it with a pic from the ATF site when it isn't as overloaded as it is now.

2002-10-23T21:13:00.000-07:00

Welcome Freepers. More info from Fox. They are looking for a White Chevy Celebrity, Maryland plate ZWE 510. There is also a Ford Crown Vic, no other info.

2002-10-23T18:38:00.000-07:00

While the sniper thing was going on, I initially thought it was a terrorist attack, then I thought it was a lone nut. I take that all back. I just heard saw on fox news that they are searching a property in Tacoma, and they are looking for suspects in Washington State and Alabama. I am now convinced that it is definitely, and I mean definitely al Qaeda. Here is why. Some of this you have heard before, and some you haven't.

The victims share nothing in common, except for being American.
The attacks were concentrated in Washington, which has a very high concentration of national media, political figures, and the like, guaranteeing national media coverage.
All the attacks have occurred from locations of good cover, indicating some reconnoitering has taken place, and the attackers have been able to escape quickly, indicating more than a bit of planning.
The demand for money--not the act of the average lone nut.
The area where the FBI is now searching with metal detectors in Tacoma, Washington. Earnest James Ujaama, a protege of Al Qaeda recruiter Abu Hamza Al-Masri, tried to set up a ranch as a training camp in Tacoma.
The FBI has also obtained a search warrant for some location in Alabama. In Marion, Alabama, a camp known as Ground Zero, USA was used for weapons training. On the grounds were shot up police vehicles and school buses.

This is no coincidence. I guarantee that by this time tomorrow, the Al Qaeda link will be firmly established. Update: Fox is now reporting that cops are looking for a Chevy Caprice with New Jersey plates. Gee, what a shock. Update: MSNBC has added some detail about the car. It is a blue/burgundy 1990 Chevy Caprice with New Jersey plates. And in case anyone doesn't know, a number of Islamofascist terrorist attacks have originated in New Jersey, the 1st WTC attack, Meir Kahane assassination, the attempted Lincoln Tunnel bombing, etc. Update(They're coming fast and furious today)Robin Goodfellow reports that they are looking for two people from the Bellingham Washington area. A quick google search brings up this reprinted story from the March 21 Wall Street Journal which has a vague link to Bellingham. In the intel business, there ain't no such thing as coincidences. Update: Fox News is now reporting that the FBI is now serving a search warrant in Marion, Alabama in (here's another shock) Camp Ground Zero, which means my initial hypothesis is now correct. Update: Fox news is reportings the names Lee Malvo(sp?) and John Mohammed(aka John Allen Williams), an ex soldier. Gee, Mohammed, who'd a thunk it? Update: Plate number is NDA 21Z

2002-10-22T14:48:00.000-07:00

Winona on Trial Winona Ryder is set to go on trial this week. If she gets off, don't say it was because she was a Hollywood actress and used her money to get acquitted. There is a lot of evidence that this is a politically motivated prosecution. First of all, she was arrested on drug charges. These charges stemmed from the fact that she was prescribed a name brand medication, and the pharmacist substitutded a generic, of which she had two pills on her person. The charges were dropped in pre-trial hearings. Secondly, they state that they have her on video stealing merchandise, except the video shows no merchandise was stolen. Third, she was indicted on felony theft charges. In no situation has someone accused of shoplifting what Ryder was alleged to have stolen ever been charged with a felony in California. (Needless to say, this was a first offense, which would argue against launching felony charges). Fourth she paid for merchandise and left the store, and again, has no history of shoplifting, or even being detained for shoplifting by store security, yet she is being prosecuted on a felony charges that can carry a three year jail term. This is not OJ part II here. They are going hammer and tongs to give jail time to go after someone is a first offender, and at worst, should pay a nominal fine and get a short probation. Lizzie Grubman got forty days for nearly killing a dozen people. Wynona Ryder should not be forced to deal with jail time for doing what is functionally the same thing as taking candy from the corner store. If she even intended to shoplift at all, from which I can definitely see reasonable doubt in that regard.

2002-10-21T19:30:00.000-07:00

If you haven't felt the urge to vomit today You will after reading this sob story about poor Lizzie Grubman. Poor Girl. She accidentally on purpose runs over 15 people, and she is all weepy that they are putting her in jail for 40 days. She should consider herself lucky. If I was the judge, she would have gotten 3 to 5 years. Update: I had to fix this one too. Damn, my typing skill are just plain embarassing!

2002-10-21T18:53:00.000-07:00

Weblog Central, meet Brendon O'Neill Remember when I mentioned about getting hits by making a phony shitstorm? Well that's what MSNBC did when it accused Little Green Footballs of being racist They knew that LGF was a wildly popular destination, linked to from many pages. It is fair to assume that the editor for MSNBC's site knew the strong anti-Islamofascist content of LGF. It is also fair to assume that the editor put up the site last week anyway, obviously believing that there was nothing wrong with that content. Now fast forward to yesterday. The editor gets some hate mail about LGF, from the usual suspects. Now, instead of saying that LGF is a racist site, and removing it because he put up that blog in error, he simply relates the accusations put forth by the usual suspects, using the sort of "some say" editorializing that one finds on the front page of the Howell Raines Gazette. However, and this is most important, he does not remove the site. If he really thought it was racist, he would have removed the site, with a note of apology. He didn't do that. What he did was toss out the accusation, leaving the link in place. When Charles saw the link, understandably, he got angry and asked people to email the editor and disabuse him of the whole "racist" claim. Then the Great Glenn linked. And Meryl Yourish. And Misha. And Bill Herbert. And Tony Pierce. And a whole bunch of others as well. I won't begrudge any of these bloggers for mentioning the abysmal treatment Charles has gotten at the hands of MSNBC. He was slandered, the accusations are baseless, and someone's good name was trashed. However, if one looks at it as a means to generate hits and emails, well, it appears that MSNBC has succeeded, using Charles' reputation as the fuel. I sent an email long before I wrote this post. Looking back on it, I wish I hadn't. All I did was fuel the appetite for MSNBC to create another phony shitstorm later, using some other poor blogger as the means to do so. Pretty slimy on their part. Update: First paragraph was a bit awkward. I edited it for clarity.

2002-10-20T17:48:00.000-07:00

Andrea Harris came across this entry in a home furnishings catalog:

Porcelain fragments from 14th- to 19th-century Ming and Qing Dynasty vases destroyed during China?s Cultural Revolution form the decorative inlaid tops of these silver-plated metal boxes. One-of-a-kind; please allow us to select for you. Imported.

This is a textbook example of the evils of communism. These were vases that were hundreds of years old, and were probably Chinese cultural treasures. Yet the ChiComs in their Maoist inspired frenzy destroyed these priceless objects of beauty because they were artifacts of a "bourgeois society". Any of the Castro butt-kissing idiotarians who fawn over the likes of Castro should look at these things and think about the sort of evil that would destroy such beauty. For those of you who think that such anger is best reserved for the human victims of Communism, you are right, but also wrong. These pieces of pottery were of great historical and cultural import, but because they did not advance the cause of Communism, they were destroyed and thrown away. It was an attempt at murder of a culture, as brutal and destructive of the human spirit as the physical acts of murder and torture were.

2002-10-18T08:39:00.000-07:00

Marv Albert's Dream Date Wife Allegedly Bites Husband To Death For Sex Refusal

2002-10-17T21:37:00.001-07:00

¡Que Bueno, David Gregory! NBC's favorite intercontinental reporter, David Gregory, on this evening's NBC news, engaged in a bit of "journalism" which appears to have been taken right out of the playbook of the Howell Raines Gazette. Anyway, it's been awhile, and I'm a bit out of practice, however, I spent most of the evening cleaning and reloading the fiskomatic, so let's do some full metal jacketed fisking:

TO PRESIDENT BUSH, there are many faces, but one fight: Iraq. Yet, it?s al-Qaida, not Saddam, doing more damage, like last weekend?s deadly bombing in Bali, a French oil tanker bombed off Yemen, and the Marines attacked in Kuwait. All are thought to be al-Qaida?s work.

And isn't it awful curious that all this started happening once Congress had voted to commit troops? Nah. It's just a big coincidence, right Davey ol' boy?

Confronting Saddam now, some argue, would ignore the unfinished business with Osama bin Laden.

Ah, the "some argue" form of editorializing as "serious journalism". Some would argue that David Gregory is editorializing in a news story, Some would also argue that there isn't a single fact in this entire "news" story. Some would argue that David Gregory has his head up his ass. I wouldn't argue that, of course, since I'm being completely unbiased. But some would argue that, mark my words!

"We certainly did bomb a lot of caves and did disrupt a lot of things, but it's kind of like a hydra-headed monster, and it pops up in different places," says former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. "And I think they need to stay focused on that." Despite President Bush?s pledge to get bin Laden, dead or alive, al-Qaida's leader remains elusive, as do his top lieutenants Ayman Zawahiri and alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Mohammed. "I don't think there has to be such a rush," says Albright. "I think the American people and the rest of the world is really owed a better explanation as to why this has to happen this minute."

Some say soliciting foreign policy wisdom from a woman who was responsible for letting Osama go, helping to strengthen the IRA, giving nukes to the North Koreans, and generally fucking up every bit of American foreign policy is the sign of a brain dead blinkered ideologue masquerading as a reporter. I wouldn't say that(gee golly no, I'm completely objective). But some say it.

Others worry that war with Saddam will push him to use the very weapons the U.S. most fears, raising the frightening possibility that the next terror attack against America could be deadlier than Sept. 11.

First some, then others. Others might say that David Gregory researched this story with all sorts of preconceived notions before interviewing one person. Some might say that he didn't do any research at all, but others might say that all the research he needed to do he did by examining his toejam.

"The greater risk is that in that greater point of extremis, [Saddam] will hand them over to these international terrorist groups who have many agents in the United States for their use against our people," says Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Some might say that Bob Graham is a member of the addled asses of appeasement. Others might say that all these Al Qaeda attacks on western interests just weeks before an invasion prove him wrong. Some others might say that Bob Graham is an idiot.

It?s not just Sen. Graham. The CIA has also warned that Saddam would only use his deadliest weapons, or put them in the hands of terrorists, if cornered by the U.S.

And the CIA has also said that Iraq has harbored al Qaeda, and given them aid and comfort. Some would say that David Gregory is ignoring that rather salient point. Others would argue that David Gregory would rather not mention anything that fails to back up his preconceived notions. Some others say that David Gregory is proving that whole "biased leftwing media" idea correct. Some might even argue that David Gregory is not going to let facts get in the way of a good story, and others might argue that neither David Gregory nor Bob Graham seem to understand that their course of action is the textbook definition of appeasement. Of course, I'm not arguing these things. Some argue that, but I'm not. See? I'm still being completely objective. Then David takes the big plunge into the world of middle east "experts"(some would say scare quotes are warranted):

To experts there?s also the dangerous issue of growing Muslim hatred toward the U.S., the very hatred that makes bin Laden so popular. That anger, they say, has been fueled by the emerging plan to attack Iraq, a country that is viewed differently by Arabs than Americans. "It's not the aggressor, it's the weak state," says Middle East expert Shibley Telhami. "And they see America as going after Iraq despite the opposition in the region."

Some might say that David Gregory deliberately picked yet another apologist for an Arab dictator. Others might say that David Gregory was too lazy to look up the numbers of Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, or Fouad Ajami, all of whom aren't complete fucking crackpots. Still others could argue that David Gregory didn't want to mention anyone that might bring his entire ideological house of cards crumbling to the ground.

Advocates of taking on Saddam argue that the use of force will not compromise the war on terror, quite the opposite. Force, they say, is the one thing this region respects. "The replacement of Saddam Hussein would do more to convince the Arab world that America was truly serious about terrorism than any other single act we could undertake," says former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Some might argue that David Gregory brought ol' Newt on board so that he couldn't be accused of bias. Others say that David Gregory's attempt to act impartial was about as transparent as the clothes in the Britney Spears formalwear collection, and as believable as Bill Clinton heading a forum on the evils of adultery.

But for President Bush, it remains a difficult question. Will war in Iraq make America more or less vulnerable to terror?

Some argue that David Gregory has already made up his mind. Others say that David Gregory thinks the president should consult him before any attack on Iraq. Some even say that David Gregory should find a job more in tune with his talents, such as being copy boy at the Howell Raines Gazette.

2002-10-17T21:37:00.000-07:00

Middle East experts who aren't complete fucking loons:

Fouad Ajami
Daniel Pipes
Michael Ledeen

Middle East experts that some would say are completely bonkers and are paid shills for dictatorships:

Every other Edward Saidesque crackpot on the planet.

2002-10-17T07:58:00.000-07:00

Paging James T Kirk A bunch of republican hopefuls are looking to unseat Mary Landrieu from the Senate. I think they are going about it all wrong. All you need to do is put up James T. Kirk on the podium, he'll debate Landrieu, then she'll explode in a shower of sparks and cheesy 60's era special effects.

2002-10-16T19:50:00.000-07:00

One more victory for the Clinton foreign policy team The IRA was supplying bomb-making expertise to FARC of Columbia, and those bastions of ethics in the Clinton white house decided to hide that inconvenient fact.

2002-10-16T19:38:00.000-07:00

Eric Raymond has written an Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto. Count me in as a signer, with a couple of minor amendments.

2002-10-16T18:55:00.000-07:00

Another victory for Clinton's foreign policy Remember the agreement with North Korea where they said they weren't going to build any more nukes? Well it turns out they were lying.

2002-10-14T17:13:00.000-07:00

Blogger sucks.

2002-10-14T17:05:00.000-07:00

Friggin' Blogger! My archives have been hosed, and now blogger won't let me republish. Maybe this post will fix it. Maybe now. In either case, it really sucks.

2002-10-14T16:32:00.000-07:00

If you want to keep up on what is going on over there, go to Tim Blair's site. I'm going to put him in the blogroll now.

2002-10-14T16:29:00.000-07:00

Maybe the Australians will see now why they are hated. Sure the Bali tragedy was a horrible thing. But it must be viewed in the context of years of Australian oppression. Wait. I take that back. It is a brutally insensitive and hateful thing to say. Outside of the UK, Australia was the only country to really support the United States in the past year, and unlike the most of the world, it was on a grass roots level, and not driven by some sense of realpolitik. Even a year later, when the shock of the atrocity had worn off for the rest of the world, the Australians were still openly and unashamedly sympathetic to our plight. The picture of Australians on a beach forming the American flag during the anniversary of September 11 was something most of the rest of the world did not do, and would not have done. The Australian people are probably the closest in temperament to the US. The deep roots of both countries existence is remarkably similar. The United States was formed and grew from the castoffs of the rest of the world. Australia's birth is formed by castoffs from English society. The influence of Aboriginal culture on Australia's heritage is very similar to Native American influence on American culture. Both Australians and Americans place a strong emphasis on self-reliance and individualism shaped in the crucible of our respective frontier cultures. Both also have a view of man and nature that is not based on a European romantic notion of nature, but on a real-world knowledge that not everything you see out in the wild is cute and cuddly. Australians and Americans are closer than either are to the British or to Canadians. With a few script changes, Crocadile Dundee, the quintessential movie about someone from the Outback transplanted to the big city, could easily have been Joe Bob Dundee, movie quintessential Nebraska farmboy transplanted to the big city. Which is why I'm taking those statements back. The problem is, I still want to say it, just not to them. When I think of the reaction that the United States received and continues to receive from continental Europe, as horrible as it sounds, I wish that instead of hundreds of Ozzies and a few dozen French and Germans, the numbers had been reversed, and hundreds of French and Germans had died. Then maybe the French and Germans would understand just how grotesque it is to say something like that. The worst thing is that I feel bitter enough towards the continent to think such a thing. (And towards Fisk, Pilger, and the rest of them too). Finally, when Australia starts taking strong action to capture/kill the bastards who did this, I wonder how many of those same bits of human fecal matter will publicly moan about how "Australia has now squandered all the sympathy they received because of the Bali tragedy." If I sound bitter, it is because I am. I will be putting up a list of charities that will be used for relief for the victims of the Bali atrocity and their families. Any Australians who know of specific charities that are organizing themselves to the relief of the victims, please e-mail me. For right now, here is a link to the Australian Red Cross. We should return the favor for the support they have given us over the past year.

2002-10-12T16:32:00.000-07:00

In the words of James Taranto You Don't Say

2002-10-12T08:10:00.000-07:00

Question of the day: Which news story appeared in the Howell Raines Gazette? This one: For Kuwait. Baghdad still the enemy or this one? Saved by U.S., Kuwait Now Shows Mixed Feelings

2002-10-12T01:13:00.000-07:00

What do Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have in common?

2002-10-11T22:16:00.000-07:00

I was prepared to do a big piece on how the Nobel Committee is a bunch of EUniks, and that the choice of Jimmy Carter was a perfect example of how Europe is filled with a bunch of weenies, yadda yada yada, and I realized that just about everybody else is saying much the same thing(Emporer Misha does the best job). Therefore, I have decided to pretend I'm Jimmy Carter and make the speech he should have made(after first taking my Carter self to the doctor and getting testicles attached):

Good Evening. When I received this award, I wondered if the Nobel Committee was honoring me or cursing me. [laughter] Sadly, I wish I was joking when I say that. When I see those who I share this award with, I wonder whether or not accepting the "Peace Prize" is the appropriate thing to do. I have found that I share this award with Mikhail Gorbachev, the last dictator of the Soviet Empire. The committee felt that Mr. Gorbachev should receive the award for relaxing his grip on power. If this is true, why has the Nobel Committee not given the Nobel prize to Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Galtieri of Argentina, or for that matter, given the award to Francisco Franco for dying at a convenient moment in history? While the Nobel Committee lauded Gorbachev for doing what he should have done the moment he achieved power, they have ignored Ronald Reagan, whose steadfast opposition to communism liberated over 120,000,000 people in Eastern Europe, and Boris Yeltsin, who braved the guns trained on him by troops to call for the Russian people to fight for their freedom, and this man,
who stood in front of tanks sent by the Communist regime in China to brutally suppress the first flickers of the light of freedom and took risks to advance the cause of peace and freedom that Gorbachev never thought of doing. And that is the problem with the prizes given out by this committee. When you choose peace, you choose peace at daggers drawn. You refuse to recognize that true peace can only occur when people are free. When you gave the prize to Le Duc Tho, did you not realize the nature of the Communists? Did you not see that the result of this treaty would be that hundreds of thousands would flee Vietnam in small boats, that Cambodian Communists would slaughter one in seven of their own people, and that the light of freedom in Indochina would be squelched for decades? When you gave the award to Lord Edgar Algernon Robert Gascoyne Cecil, and his pacifist International Peace Campaign, did you not take into account that such calls for pacifism in the shadow of monsters like Hitler would not cause prevent war, but only delay it, and bring about the deaths of millions in a World War that could have been prevented if only voices like Winston Churchill had been heard instead? When you gave the award to Yasser Arafat, did you not forget the wanton murders that he ordered? Did you not listen to his speeches in Arabic when he said that Oslo was the first step to taking all of Israel? Was the memory of the Munich Games that faded? Now, this winner of the Peace Prize sends the children of his people to kill yet more children. He has used the prestige handed him by this committee to foster a curriculum of hate in the schools under his control, has engaged in murder, torture, and wholesale violations of human rights. Yet this committee has given him the Peace Prize. Last year, the Nobel Committee saw fit to award the prize to the United Nations. Yet the United Nations acts as a bullhorn for countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and dozens of other regimes ruled by totalitarian dictators, petty autocrats, or decrepit monarchies, all of whom share the common interest in laying blame on the West while brutally suppressing the legitimate aspirations of their own people to be free. The UN has sponsored abominations like the Durban conference on Racism, which was used as a platform to launch anti-Semitic hatred, and the Johannesburg conference, which was used as a platform to act as an apologist for the continuing brutality and corruption that is endemic to most of the African continent. The United Nations has acted to protect murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein, and provide them with a legitimacy that they would never have been given under other circumstances. Now the committee has seen fit to give me this "prize", tarnished with the grubby fingers of dictators and tyrants, and poorly maintained by "peace activists" who refuse to confront evil, and give it succor and comfort, hoping that evil will just go away. The Nobel Committee has ignored the much more vital contribution to peace and true freedom that has been performed by the members of the American armed forces. Had it not been for the efforts of these valiant soldiers, 25 million people in Afghanistan would still be suffering under the tender mercies of the Taliban. They would be subject to the routine brutality that was the hallmark of that regime. So, in light of the following facts, I must reject this prize. I reject it not because I am not worthy enough to receive it, but because the peace prize has sadly made itself a mockery of its own name.

Update: Fiddled with the grammar a bit.

2002-10-11T17:54:00.000-07:00

I put in another counter on an archived page in the blog. I'm trying to find out if I'm turning into Walter Koenig.

2002-10-11T06:16:00.000-07:00

OK, here is the list of votes in the Senate, so you can look up how your own Senator voted. Dodd and Lieberman both voted for military action, so they won't get a position up on the front page alongside Saddam's Honorary Tongue Bather. Here is a list of how they voted in the House, so you can find who is in favor of hanging Saddam from a lamppost, and who wishes to be his foot masseuse.

2002-10-10T22:22:00.000-07:00

The Senate Voted, 77-23. I know Lieberman voted Yea, but don't know if Dodd followed suit. I'll find out tomorrow, though.

2002-10-10T18:26:00.000-07:00

I've noticed that the Great Glenn has now called his Congressman "Baghdad Jim" Duncan. He might be Baghdad Jim, but he isn't the winner of Honorary Tongue Bather!

2002-10-10T16:50:00.000-07:00

This Johnson/Maloney thing got me thinking. It would be a good idea for us bloggers if we used our clout to turn out the appeasers that make up so much of Congress. So, if you run a blog, and your congressman voted against war, you might want to put up a link to their opponent. Just because we won the vote doesn't mean we should let them off the hook.

2002-10-10T16:29:00.000-07:00

Remember when I posted yesterday I was in a conundrum? Forget everything. Jim Maloney(D-CT), soon to be ex-Congressman Maloney, voted with the 125 other Neville Chamberlains to appease Saddam Hussein. I have no qualms about voting for Johnson now. Social Security be damned. I am now actively campaigning for Nancy Johnson. I'll live with some of her RINO views, but I'll be damned before I'll let another member of the Addled Asses of Appeasement slide without getting booted out of office.

2002-10-10T14:43:00.000-07:00

I've noticed I've gotten a few hits from military sources. Not a lot, but a few, including some folks from a base that is literally in the middle of nowhere(I won't say where in case the brass has got a bug up their ass). So, as my contribution to the war effort, I engaged in a lot of copious research(a LOT) in order to bring you this to boost your morale:

I know what you're thinking, but this is a PG website, you know.

2002-10-10T12:13:00.000-07:00

Well the House voted, and the Dems had an opportunity to step up to the plate, and promptly went crying home to daddy. One Hundred Twenty Six Neville Chamberlains in the Democratic party. The majority of the Democratic Party. If they get slaughtered in the election, they deserve it.

2002-10-10T12:02:00.000-07:00

What does Saddam Hussein and Ron Jeremy have in common? Well, here we go again. The Independent Commie is reporting again about how Saddam is building a really big gun. Now what is amazing is that the "threat"(scare quotes are warranted) of this gun is trotted out every time someone talks about Iraq. Here is the big problem with the idea that these guns are any sort of threat at all. First of all, they are huge. That means they are easily visible by satellites, and easy to target by aircraft or missiles. Secondly, by their very nature, they are vulnerable. The barrel is very long, easily spotted, and difficult to aim. Finally, they actually use more resources than a ballistic missile, or a fighter bomber, and the latter two have better range and survivability in combat to deliver your payload. Now, I am inevitably going to get comments saying, "But these guns aren't like the guns the Germans used in WWI and WWII. They can shoot much farther than those guns. Big deal. The fact that the gun is nearly as long as a football field, can't be moved, and will have a thermal signature that you can read by every time it is fired all combine to give it a valiant and very short life in time of war.

2002-10-10T11:34:00.000-07:00

The Addled Asses of Appeasement in Action I am watching the C-Span coverage of the final House debates, where I witnessed a bunch of idiotarians jump up to protest the speech of the Asmoday of Idiotarianism, Dennis Kucinich(D, Pluto). I believe this is a perfect example of idiotarianism in action. Idiotarianists acting idiotically to interrupt the idiotic speeches of fellow idiotarians.

2002-10-10T06:35:00.000-07:00

Go read Cato. He has a very good piece on our role in the world.

2002-10-09T20:25:00.000-07:00

Stephen Green of Vodkapundit has an excellent post on why we need to win the war. Basically, the point he is making, and I completely, utterly agree with, is that in order for us to protect our civil liberties here, we need to win the war over there. That is why I believe that the only true error in waging this war that we can commit is not prosecuting the war fervently enough, and not acting with enough ferocity when we find terrorists. In one sense, we are already not acting ferociously enough. When we grab terrorists within the United States, such as the Buffalo six, the cell out in Portland, Jihad Johnny, and Richard Reid, we need to turn them over to the military as unlawful combatants. I would vastly prefer massive response against the few that we have confirmed plan to murder Americans, than to force millions to endure intrusive searches to minimal effect. Better to be a grim hardass against the few that have confirmed terrorist links than infringe on the millions of the completely innocent.

2002-10-09T18:14:00.000-07:00

I've run into a conundrum here. The two candidates running for the House seat in my house seat are awful close ideologically. Nancy Johnson is a RINO who opposes privatising social security. Jim Maloney is a Democrat who is hawkish--for a Democrat, and wants to privatise social security. So here is the problem. If I vote for Maloney, and the Dems manage to take the House back, we have crackpots like Conyers, Rangel, and Salman Pak McDermott chairing congressional committees, but I get a candidate marginally more in tune with my beliefs. If I vote for Johnson, I get an Arlen Specter in drag who will vote against a big issue I believe in, but will keep Delay, Hastert, etc. So, if you were me standing in the voting booth, what would you do? Update:Well, my mind is made up now. There are 126 aspiring Neville Chamberlains in the House of Representatives. Sorry Jim. Ask Sheila Jackson-Lee why you lost my vote.

2002-10-09T17:53:00.000-07:00

I was going to post this in the comments section for this post, but since it won't fit without cutting it(yet another reason to get away from YACCS/Blogger), and I don't want to cut the post, I'm putting it up as a blog entry. It is another attempt to bring the light of reason to an idiotarian. Alas, I don't expect it will work:

Trolls say inflammatory things for the sole purpose of imflaming.

And of course, ol' Pete wasn't doing any of that, right?

I came here from his blog, so yes, you're getting hits, but not from people who will ever come back again. Your little pictoral commentary offended the hell out of me.

Why? Because I juxtaposed the words of an Anti-American moron who openly sympathises with terrorists with imagery showing precisely why those terrorists are rotting away in Gitmo? Because I am confronting you with the wages of your own moral equivalence?

If you think you can boil a complex and volatile world down to a few emotional images (and they are emotional images -- I'm not made of stone), you are following the path to destruction.

No. But I am unwilling let stand unchallenged someone to spend more energy sympathizing with the murderers of American citizens than with the victims of their evil acts. Remember the guy with the shit-eating grin holding 3 severed hands as trophies? That is who the Mirror is sobbing over. Remember the picture of three people falling to their deaths? The Mirror spent more energy on trying to free those who trained, protected, aided, and abetted their murderers than it ever did on those poor souls doomed to choose between falling to their deaths or being burned alive. And those pictures are a blunt and brutal reminder of precisely who is in Guantanamo. They are evil, and I shall shed no tears over their treatment. If you find that to be "simplistic", too fucking bad.

Did you ever stop to think that the terrorists who did that terrible thing were likely influenced by the same kind of manipulative, one-sided imagery? That their vision of our western culture was likely as simple-minded and one-sided as your vision of theirs?

I have seen the products of Islamism. The kidnapping of Americans in Iran. The bombing of the Marine Barracks on a peacekeeping mission. Pan Am 103. Two Embassies in Kenya. The Bombing of the Cole. The World Trade Center in 1993 and in 2001. And let's not forget the weekly mass murder of Israelis by suicide murderers. It is the same evil as Nazism, Communism, and every other totalitarian ideology. It is evil, it is genocidal, and it is responsible for mass death and suffering. And those who have engaged in these acts weren't a bunch of poor deluded fools. They were intelligent and educated. They understood western civilization, and rejected it out of hand. I shall spend no time sympathising with their murderous cause. I will not spend time trying to understand their ideology of murder beyond that which I need to know to destroy it utterly.

You, sir, are a right and proper fool who is unwittingly leading us into the third world world war. Or does the idea of that suit you fine, because you think we'd win?

No. You are the fool. Even though they declared war on us 20 years ago, and even after the mass death they inflicted on our country in our homeland one year ago, you still do not see us at war. When a mushroom cloud erupts over an American city, or 20 percent of our population is slaughtered in a smallpox or ebola attack, will you be convinced then? How many more Americans need to die before you are convinced we are at war?

2002-10-08T22:22:00.000-07:00

High-tech royal flush: Japanese betting on 'smart toilets'

Japan's toilet wars started in February, when Matsushita engineers here introduced a toilet seat equipped with electrodes that send a mild electric charge through the user's buttocks, yielding a digital measurement of body-fat ratio.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but do we really nead a toilet that when you sit on it, says "Good morning, fatass?"

2002-10-08T22:16:00.000-07:00

Today, in the Detroit Free Press, a group of Idiotarians purged their mid-life crises by engaging in an anti war protest.

Elaine Mardirosian, a veteran of anti-Vietnam War protests when she was a teenager, brought her son Paul and several of his friends from Grosse Pointe South High School to the march. "I thought the crowd would be a lot smaller," Paul Mardirosian said as he watched hundreds of people wave picket signs and sing protest songs. "I'm against the war and I just wanted to see some people who agree with me." Talking with Detroit City Council President Maryann Mahaffey, Paul's mother said, "This brings back memories of Vietnam War protests."

I wonder if she also shared with her son the memories of free-love fuckfests, hash brownies, and gave him trips on bad acid. And wouldn't it be such a nostalgic trip through time if her kids could also join the Symbionese Liberation Army? Maybe her kids could learn the joys of not bathing and join a commune too.

2002-10-08T15:32:00.000-07:00

OK, I've got to get on the highway for a little drive. I just heard that Connecticut has opened its first Krispy Kreme.

2002-10-08T15:30:00.000-07:00

The Arab Street you won't hear about in the Howell Raines Gazette The Boston Globe today has an excellent article on the prevailing mood in Kuwait.

KUWAIT - In the debate that rages across the Arab world over the possibility of an attack on Iraq, one nation is absolutely certain of the answer. Unprovoked? The regime ''deserves it,'' declares one Islamist lawmaker in Kuwait. Anti-American feelings? ''America will go down in the books as the savior of the Arab world,'' answers a leading Kuwaiti professor. Advice to President Bush? ''You have to finish the job that your father didn't finish,'' counsels a former Kuwaiti oil minister. Forget the drums of war. In Kuwait, a country occupied by Iraq in 1990 and liberated by US forces in 1991, a full-blown orchestra is playing.

When you hear Christine Matthews gets the feminine vapors again over the uprising of the "Arab Street," don't expect him to bring up this article.

2002-10-08T08:39:00.000-07:00

When all pumpkins are outlawed, only outlaws will have pumpkins.

2002-10-07T21:05:00.000-07:00

Limo with Candidate hits 3 at S.F. Parade OK. Now ponder the following situation. You are a Republican in the most rabidly left wing city in the country. You are running for political office, and your opponent is calling you "a tool for the rich and powerful." The only way you even have a prayer of getting elected is to bypass the liberal establishment and press the flesh with the immigrant communities. Now your limo driver runs down a bunch of Chinese Immigrants. What should be your next step in the campaign? Should you:

Start blowing your campaign money on cheap liquor, or
Issue campaign ads calling for the abolition of the letter "Q", or
Transfer your campaign funds to the "Draft Yassir Arafat" campaign, and make an honest city out of San Francisco?

2002-10-07T19:18:00.000-07:00

The London Telegraph is reporting that the British are preparing for war by the end of the month.

Britain's armed forces are expected to be ordered by the end of the month to prepare for war with Iraq, a senior Whitehall source said yesterday.

War is coming, and it is coming soon.

2002-10-07T16:54:00.000-07:00

Robert Fisk owns a Time machine! Let's here it for the Independent Communist, who put this editorial on their website at 4:30 pm EDT, three and a half hours before Bush actually gave his speech. I'd fisk it, but they'll use their time machine to change their editorial afterwards. Update: The Great Glenn beat me to it. I knew I should have posted this before dinner. Update: Well, he didn't beat me completely. They not only wrote an editorial about a speech they never could have heard, but actually wrote a news story about it. Do the Baathist sympathizers at the Indy really understand how moronic they look? Update: Scratch that. I beat him to the editorial, he beat me to the news story. I thought it was the other way around.

2002-10-07T10:32:00.000-07:00

Cato emailed me an MSNBC article that predicts that an attack will occur as soon as Mid November:

Iraq?s neighbors, at least, are convinced not only that war is inevitable?but that it?s coming soon. Arab intelligence officials in two countries, who spoke on condition they not be identified further, both expected the Americans to attack Saddam as early as mid-November. Some Arab officials privately say they would like Washington to move soon. ?It must be quick, it must be strong and it must be decisive,? as one Arab minister put it.

Debka has a similar analysis(link to a local archive):

Our military sources stress that, notwithstanding the domestic and international importance attached to a formal, authorized declaration of war, battle has already been joined on the ground in Iraq. The question exercising Bush?s war planners is this: How long will Saddam Hussein join Washington in the pretense that international diplomacy, focusing now on the UN Security Council, has the power to prevent the outbreak of war. Until now, the charade suited Baghdad for two reasons: First, although much of northern Iraq has fallen to combined American-Turkish-Iranian forces - and heavy US-UK air raids have blasted most of his air force and air defense commands - Saddam remained firm in the saddle in central and southern Iraq and his army is still holding together. Second, he has watched the Bush administration cross the Rubicon with no way of retreat and looked forward to the moment that America could no longer pursue a covert war without incurring casualties. That moment may now be at hand. Our military sources calculate that Bush finds himself tied down by the constraints of protracted political and diplomatic processes that prevent him from admitting to ongoing combat in the field and force him to keep it low key. He dare not throw into the fray substantial air, sea or land forces, even though it is indicated by every tactical consideration. Last week, Iraq began to exploit this dilemma to military advantage by mounting a counter-attack on the American-led forces outside the strategic H-3 complex of bases in western Iraq. In other words, Saddam started to blunt the edge of the American-led vanguard operation inside the country. Bush, like the proverbial cork stuck in the neck of a bottle, can either push forward or out ? but not stay put.

This is an affirmation of what I said a few days ago, and back on August 11. I think Debka overstates how American forces are tied down. Once the congressional vote comes through, which is very soon, Bush will look forward for an excuse to commence hostilities. Now the big question is precisely when will the attack occur? I believe that three days stand out as the most likely dates to launch an attack(our time, not Iraqi time). The first date is November 6th, the other date is November 28th, Thanksgiving Day, or the 29th, the day after. If we are fully mobilized for war before the election, Bush will postpone action until the day after the election, to avoid a "wag the dog" scenario. If he is being a bit more patient, I can see us waiting until after Thanksgiving. The Armed forces make a point of delivering hot thanksgiving dinners with all the trimmings to all soldiers in all theatres in the world. Putting combat operations off until that makes that job a little easier. Engaging in combat operations right after that meal is consumed may catch the Iraqis unawares. Think of Washington's capture of the Hessians and the Tet Offensive as examples in a similar vein.

2002-10-07T09:55:00.000-07:00

Scott Ritter, Constitutional Lawyer Scott Ritter must be bummed that Baghdad Bonior and Salman Pak McDermott have taken his spotlight. In today's Guardian of Inaccuracy, he rants yet again about how Bush is acting illegally, unconstitionally, blah blah Saddam is disarmed blah blah blah. Anyway, time to load up the fiskomatic, and take aim:

As a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and as a registered member of the Republican party who voted for George Bush in the last presidential election, I have to admit to a certain trepidation and uncertainty when I was asked by Labour MPs to participate in the massive anti-war rally in London on September 28. In my way of thinking, mass demonstrations, regardless of the righteousness of the cause, were the theatre of the political left, and not something with which I should be associated. I was proven wrong on all counts. The outpouring of democratic will that occurred on that day came not only from the left, but from across the breadth of mainstream British society. It sent a message to a Blair government that had grown increasingly isolated from public opinion: UK support for an American unilateral war on Iraq would not be tolerated. That message met a response a few days later from the Labour party at its annual conference in Blackpool. Democracy in action is a wonderful thing

One would think this was because protesting against the United States from foreign soil. Of course, Scott "Saddam's tongue bath attendant" Ritter is more concerned about being around a bunch of people who don't take regular baths. The fact that they juxtapose the United States with Nazi Germany doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, as evidenced by this picture(look in bottom right corner):

To Benedict Ritter, the above picture is "democracy in action." Then Ritter, in his inimitable crackpot way, declares himself a constitutional lawyer:

To many Americans, myself included, the granting of such powers represents a breach of constitutional responsibility on the part of Congress, which alone under the constitution of the United States is authorised to declare war. There is at least one US senator - Robert Byrd of West Virginia - who recognises this, and has indicated his willingness to launch a filibuster of the debate. Senator Byrd is famous for carrying a copy of the US constitution in his breast pocket, and pulling it out on the floor of the Senate to remind fellow senators what American democracy is founded on.

The "many" in this quote consists of two people: Robert Byrd, and Scott Ritter himself. By any measure, what is being done is eminently constitutional. If you believe that the War Powers Act is constitutional(I don't), then the congressional resolution makes everything kosher. If you believe that the President is authorized by the fact that he is commander in chief, then everything passes constitutional muster, and congressional action is unnecessary. If you believe the ceasefire from the Gulf War is still in effect, then congressional action again isn't necessary. If you believe a declaration of war is necessary, then the Congressional resolution can be easily construed as a de facto declaration. Since it will get the requisite two-thirds vote from both houses. Any way you view it, everything passes constitutional muster. Of course, Ritter's foray into idiocy doesn't end there:

One man fighting in defence of the basic foundation of American society. Where are the large-scale US demonstrations in support of this struggle? Where are the voices of outrage over what amounts to a frontal assault on the constitution of the United States? Democracy silenced is awful.

Here is a point Scott might like to ponder: When everyone votes a different way than you do, that isn't a silencing of democracy. It is democracy in action. The problem is that unlike Scott Ritter, the bulk of congressmen are actually loyal to their country. Imagine that. Then Scott tries to establish his bonafides:

The constitution has always guided me in my actions as an American citizen. It establishes the US as a nation of laws, and sets high standards for the ideals we Americans strive to achieve as a nation. As an officer of Marines, I took an oath to defend the US constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is an oath I take very seriously and I am willing to give my life in defence of this document - something I demonstrated during my time in uniform, including service in Operation Desert Storm.

We saw in Baghdad what he thinks of his oath.

I am no pacifist, but I am opposed to President Bush's rush towards war with Iraq this time around.

Of course he isn't a pacifist. He's a traitor.

As signatories to the UN charter, Americans have agreed to abide by a body of international law that explicitly governs the conditions under which nations may go to war. All require authority of the security council, either through an invocation of article 51 (self defence), or a resolution passed under chapter seven of the charter (collective security).

Bzzzt. Sorry Scott, want to try the home game? The invocation of Article requires absolutely no permission from the Appeasement Council. But then, of course, it would make your entire treasonous train of thought wrong, wouldn't it? And that just can't be allowed to happen.

President Bush's case for war simply has not been demonstrated to meet any of these criteria.

At least to you, Baghdad Bonior, and Salman Pak McDermott. That's who counts most, right?

But now Iraq has agreed to allow the inspectors to return, unconditionally, and to be held accountable to the rule of law as set forth in existing security council resolutions governing Iraq's disarmament. The opportunity finally exists to bring clarity to years of speculation about the potential threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as an opportunity to resolve this ongoing crisis of international law peacefully.

Of course we should. Saddam is such a trustworthy guy, right?

But President Bush refuses to take "yes" for an answer. The Bush administration's actions lay bare the mythology that this war is being fought over any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It has made it clear that its objective is the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental problem.

He makes it sound like that is a bad thing.

The UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution states that international agreements entered into by the United States carry the force of law. The US has signed the UN charter. Regime removal is not only a violation of international law, it is unconstitutional.

The UN charter prohibits regime removal, except in cases of legitimate self defense, or when the Appeasement council says so. And both cases certainly apply. And since Iraq has failed to live up to its treaty obligations, UN resolutions on the matter are still in effect, and anticipatory self-defense applies. And that means another "unconstitutional" argument blows up in Ritter's traitorous face.

There is a way to deal with the need to change a regime deemed to be a risk to international peace and security, and that is through the UN. If President Bush truly wanted to seek regime removal in Baghdad, then he would push for an indictment of Saddam Hussein and his senior leadership in the international court for crimes against humanity, something that should not prove hard to do, given the record of the Butcher of Baghdad (and something other members of the UN would clearly support as an alternative to war). But seeking judgment through the international court requires a recognition by the US of the primacy of international law, something the Bush administration has been loath to do.

Scott's a hoot, isn't he? First he crows about how he took an oath to defend the constitution, and then, in the very same column, slams Bush for maintaining the primacy of the constitution in US law. And let us not forget why he is saying this, because Benedict Ritter wants to keep his paymaster alive, and is willing to subvert any principle to do so.

The fact of the matter is this crisis between Iraq and the US goes beyond even the issue of regime removal. It represents the first case study of the implementation of a new US national security strategy, [...] This strategy is a rejection of multilateralism, a turning away from the concepts of international law.

See? Now that his arguments have fallen flat in the United States, he attracts the love of tinfoil hat leftists by appealing to their need for "multilateralism", and hopes to use that to thwart the exercise of American military power.

This new Bush doctrine of American unilateralism reeks of imperial power, the very power against which Americans fought a revolution more than 200 years ago.

Now he frames himself as Benedict Ritter, anti-imperialist. Anything to prevent Saddam from taking his well deserved dirt nap, and ending Ritter's Baathist pension checks.

The streets of Washington DC are empty of demonstrators protesting at this frontal assault on American democracy.

Here is another clue Benedict, the House Foreign relations committee voted 31-11 in favor of war. The full House will cast over 300 votes in favor of war. Democracy is working pretty well, don't you think?

Will the streets of London be filled again with protesters against this assault on the rule of international law? I certainly hope so, because the people of Britain could lead by example, sending a clear signal to fellow practitioners of democracy in America that when it comes to determining what actions a government takes in the name of the people, the will of the people cannot, and will not, be ignored.

In other words, whether we Americans decide through our institutions that war is necessary is unimportant. If a bunch of tinfoil hat leftists in another country decide we shouldn't go to war, then we mustn't go. In other words, Benedict Ritter is saying that our national security policy should be decided by George Galloway and Robert Fisk.

2002-10-06T18:50:00.000-07:00

Love that Torque! I've been trying to find something political to talk about today, but, frankly, I haven't found much out there to talk about. I haven't even found any fisking material that has grabbed my attention to any degree. So right now, I am going to talk a little bit about cars. This might actually get more flames than a politics post, especially if any Honda VTEC guys are reading. There is a saying in the car world, "Horsepower wins reviews, but torque wins races." This saying applies to cars that are involved in drag racing, or the occasional stoplight battle, and it applies to the difference in cars with peaky, high-rpm motors vs. cars with large displacement motors.(Think of the classic V-8 engine vs the DOHC motors so common today). Let me give you an example out of personal experience. My daily driver is a Ford Crown Victoria with the handling and performance package(don't laugh--it's the civilian version of the cop car, with better cornering than the cop version). The car weighs about 3850 lbs, has a 210 horsepower engine(at 4500 rpm), with 270 ft lbs of torque(at 3500 rpm). My mother's car is a 2000 Ford Taurus. It weighs in about 3400 lbs, has a 200 horsepower engine(at 5650 rpm) with 200 ft lbs of torque(at 4500 rpm). For the sake of clarity, the horsepower numbers of both cars are pretty accurate, but the accurate weight could be as much as 120 lbs off, as both cars are pretty heavily optioned, and the Crown vic has a tow bar. One would think, given the Taurus' obvious HP/weight advantage, 17lbs/hp vs 18.3 lbs/hp, that it would beat a Crown vic at a stoplight. However, it is only a couple of tenths faster than the crown victoria(if that), and if both cars are loaded with 3 passengers, the Crown Vic is actually significantly faster. Why is that? Torque. The torque/weight ratio for the taurus is 17lbs/ft-lb, and that number does not reach its peak until 4500 rpm. The Crown Vic has a torque/weight ratio of only 14.3 lbs/ft-lb of torque, and that extra torque comes online at 3500 rpm, 1000 rpm sooner in the powerband than the Taurus. One can easily tell the differences between the two cars at a stoplight. The Crown vic positively "leaps" away when you hit the gas with any gusto. In fact, I have found that even when I am not flooring it, I am rocketing ahead of all the cars at the stoplight. It reaches it's power peak quickly, but then sort of "runs out of breath" as it reaches high revs(or at least, that is how it feels). However, even when fully loaded, that sensation of "leaping" is there, and when the power is needed, it typically is there. The Taurus is different. When you floor it, especially when loaded, it doesn't give the sensation of being kicked in the ass the way the Vic does. However, once the engine hits power peak, it pulls quite well. However, there is one big problem with that. By the time the engine is revving fast enough for you to take advantage of that power, you are moving to fast to take advantage of it. The extra power makes the car a blast to drive, but the opportunities to take advantage of all that top end horsepower are more rare, and the power doesn't feel as easily available. So what does this mean if you are going to buy a car? If you are looking for a performance car, pay attention to that torque number! It is not simple window dressing. A lot of manufacturers now build cars with very high horsepower numbers, but mediocre or even poor torque numbers. Honda is the worst offender in this regard, though they aren't the only one. Someone may buy a car with 200+ horsepower, but if that power isn't available under 6000 rpm, the driver will never be able to use it unless they sneak into Lime Rock for a few laps. When that person takes his girlfriend or coworkers out for a drive, and crows about his sports coupe, he might be in for a very rude shock when he realizes that unless he is willing to rev the engine like a madman everywhere he goes, he is going to get his head handed to him by Grandpa in a fake carriage roof Grand Marquis. If you are shopping for an SUV or pickup, torque isn't just important. It is everything. If you are going to tow a trailer, you are going to want torque. If you are carrying heavy loads, you are going to want torque. You are going to want torque, and a high-hp low-torque engine isn't just "not as good", it is actually a very bad thing. No SUV or pickup needs a high revving engine under any circumstances whatsoever. Low torque when it comes to towing is worse than useless. A high revving low torque engine when towing means burned out clutches, a strained motor, and other bad things. Again, let me use some personal experience to illustrate why. Before I bought the Crown Vic, we would use my brother's Ford Ranger pickup to pull the boat out of the water. The Ranger had a 2.3l motor with 100 hp and 133 ft-lb of torque. The boat & trailer probably weighed between 2500 and 3000 lbs. Every year fall we would engage in the same ritual when it came to pulling the boat out of the water. Put the truck into first gear, rev the engine up to 3500 rpm or so, then let the clutch out and hope the truck doesn't stall in the process. This would be repeated a number of times, and one could smell the asbestos as the clutch would burn off what would normally be about 10,000 miles of wear in an afternoon. One time we were lucky, and a guy with an F-350(probably with either a 351 or a 460 cubic inch motor) pulled both the pickup and the boat trailer up the ramp, with no fuss at all. Now after I used the Crown Vic(which I bought specifically because it makes an excellent tow vehicle), the experience was wildly different, and vastly preferable. I would put the boat on the trailer, and pull the boat and trailer out of the water, with virtually no fuss. I did not need to build up a head of steam to climb a hill with the trailer behind me, and I really didn't notice the trailer was even there. Why was the F-350 able to pull both another pickup and a boat up a ramp? Why did I have so little problem with the trailer when the Ranger could barely accomplish the same task? Again, the answer is torque. Trucks and SUVs need torque almost as much as they need four wheels. They especially need it when towing or carrying a heavy load. My experience at the launch ramp proved it beyond any doubt. So, what it all comes down to is this: When shopping for a car, pay attention to the torque number alongside the HP number. It will make a difference in how the car performs. When buying a truck or SUV, pay attention to the torque number first. Torque is very important component of both automobile and truck performance, and those who ignore it do so at their peril. Now, if you'll excuse, me I saw a Guardian article that urgently needs a strong fisking.

2002-10-05T21:40:00.000-07:00

The Scare Quotes Sentinel "reports" that Egyptian terrorists were trying to launch a terrorist attack on a cemetary for WWII American dead in Italy. Someone should let these brain surgeons know that it is kind of difficult to terrorize someone who has been dead for 60 years.

2002-10-05T06:24:00.000-07:00

From Little Green Footballs. I found a lovely new website, the Donahuesucks report. I can't hang around long now, but when I get back tonight, I am definitely going to contact the site owner and let him know about the Deathwatch. Great minds think alike, eh? Actually, I'm not sure he'll want the show to die, since Donahue is such a wonderful fountain of crackpot leftist material. Anyway, go visit the site. From what I've seen, it's pretty funny. Update: Yes, my grammar sucked eggs all over this post. I have now fixed it.

2002-10-03T21:36:00.000-07:00

Baghdad by Christmas Most of the Blogosphere and the mainstream media, possibly with the exception of Cato, think that war will be coming in January. They are all wrong(except for Cato). When we go to war, it will be in November, before Thanksgiving, and after the elections. Everything points to this. First of all, there is the Congressional vote. That vote will be completed by at latest, the end of next week. In the Gulf War, the congressional authorization only occurred 5 days before the air war started. Secondly, the build up in the countries around Iraq has been increasing slowly but surely for the past year. The base in Qatar is complete. The RoRos that are used to carry heavy armor first were announced in the news about a month ago, which means they have been able to sail for 30 days, at 400 nm per day, using a speed of about 18 knots give or take. That means the ships have been able to cover 12000 miles in that time frame. If those ships had to sail from Tokyo to LA, that is only a distance of 5000 nm(or about 13 days or so, no more than 18 days). If they came from Europe, the distance is less, and Ro Ros are designed to be loaded and unloaded quickly, in no more than a few days(and in that case I'm probably being generous) Also, there is at least a brigade of prepositioned equipment at Diego Garcia that is no more than two weeks away from Kuwait City, more likely 10 days, because military Ro-Ros are faster than civilian ones(for obvious reasons). Finally, there is the UN Appeasement Council. There is a reason why the Administration wants a very short deadline for inspections in Iraq. They would not want a seven day deadline for inspections unless they wanted to go soon. Bush is using the Congressional resolution as a bludgeon on the UN to get them to act immediately. The only reason why he would do that is if he did not feel he had the luxury of time. That can only mean one thing. We are a lot closer to war than people realize. Don't be surprised if sometime after the election, the six o'clock news is interrupted with a newsflash that warplanes are over Baghdad. It might even be the day after Thanksgiving. So if your bowl games get interrupted, blame Saddam Hussein.

2002-10-03T19:45:00.000-07:00

Another Bad Day for the Ayatollahs The BBC is reporting that the ayatollahs have shut down the state run polling service and arrested the people who commissioned the poll. The article states:

According to the poll of 1,500 Iranians, conducted by three separate institutes including the National Institute for Research Studies and Opinion Polls (NIRSOP) and published by Irna on 22 September:

74% of respondents over the age of 15 support dialogue with the US
45.8% believe Washington's policy on Iran is "to some extent correct".
But the judiciary has responded by charging NIRSOP director Behrouz Geranpayeh and Irna's Abdollah Nasseri of "publishing lies to excite public opinion", the Iran newspaper reports.

Imagine the following: You, your wife, and your kid are eating falafel around the dinner table. You get a call, and the caller says, "Hi, I wonder if you would like to take a survey. I work for the folks that can throw your family in jail at a whim, chop off your hands, and generally make life unpleasant if you don't say what we want you to say. By the way, incorrect answers might result in long jail terms, with ample bouts of torture." How do you think you would answer under those circumstances? Now, considering the consequences, nearly half of the Iranian population was willing to risk jail, risk torture, and possibly execution, and say "Yes, we are run by a bunch of ruthless murdering Islamofascists." Iran is going to explode, and soon. Link via Cato.

2002-10-03T17:49:00.000-07:00

2002 Winner of the Michael Dukakis Victory Award Word to the wise. When running for a major office, turning yourself blue is not a way of gaining the voters trust.

From CNN.

2002-10-03T09:36:00.000-07:00

Pick up your maracas and let's DANCE! Hi everybody! Suffering through another Al Gore speech? Are you forced to watch the Donahue Show because you lost the remote! Well then do I have the thing for you. So get up off that couch, pick up your maracas, put on your party clothes, and Sing a long with Louis Farrakhan!

2002-10-02T17:27:00.000-07:00

Today I got my first troll. If you go to the Silent Fisking you will see it, by a troll named Pete. I banned him, but I left the message up there for everyone to read. Now here is my message to you, Pete. It was a nice little attempt at flamebait you left on my site. I would have left it there, unchanged, except for one thing: I visited your blog. where you write:

I just threw an inflammatory comment at a popular warblogger who is unclear how the American concept of justice is supposed to work. Should be entertaining to see the hit count skyrocket on my tiny little superficial inconsquential nothing of a blog. Said blogger will likely label this "a phony shitstorm" -- or so I hope.

As I said, I was going to leave your link up there, so people could respond. But you want to use my site to improve the popularity of your site. I don't think that's going to happen now. I've banned your IP, and I've deleted the link to your site. Noone will be able to visit, and noone will know or care you exist. So you aren't going to get any hits out of this. What is going to happen is your foray into illogic will be preserved forever, and the only way you will be able to respond to the heaps of derision that will probably be heaped upon you by the readers of this site will be by emailing me, and if you are polite, and nice, I might allow your comments to be posted, along with copious interruptions by yours truly pointing out every single bit of your abundant idiocy. So you aren't going to get a phony shitstorm. You aren't going to get any shitstorm. By the way, only castrated transvestites like Abba. Update: My troll's failure is complete. Not only did he not get hits from me, but I got hits from him. Thanks, buddy!

2002-10-02T13:24:00.000-07:00

Quote of the Day "New Jersey has two senators. One who bought his seat, Corzine, and one who sold his seat, Torricelli."--Dick Morris.

2002-10-02T12:30:00.000-07:00

"I would like to welcome the Esteemed Senator from South Dakota, now will he please shut up and vote" The President has now reached an agreement with Gephardt and the House Republicans on a war resolution, and has gotten McCain, Lieberman, Warner, and Edwards to issue a concurring resolution in the Senate. Now that Gephardt is full sqare in favor of war, the House is going to vote 300+ in favor of war, and if Senate Democrats don't follow suit, it is going to look very bad. Daschle and Biden have proposed competing resolutions, but those are going to go down in flames. If Daschle tries to fence sit or dawdle any more, he is going to make life very rough on the Dems. By the end of this week, there will be an immense vote from the house in favor, Daschle and the Appeasement wing of the party are going to have burned dozens of house members and their own candidates by their dawdling.

2002-10-01T23:08:00.000-07:00

"When I said the Arab Street, that wasn't what I meant." John Dingell held a town meeting today in Dearborn, saying he hadn't decided on going to war, and asking his constituents to help him decide. Don't expect to see any of this at the Howell Raines Gazette:

Dingell, D-Dearborn, has said he is undecided about whether to support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the United States. Many students had to stand out in the hall, because they could not squeeze inside. To gauge the tenor of the crowd, Dingell asked for a show of hands. "How many people support Saddam Hussein?" The crowd remained still. Dingell then asked, "Is anybody against him?" They erupted into applause and cheering, many standing and shouting cheers in Arabic. Some waved their prayer beads in the air.

2002-10-01T17:36:00.000-07:00

Reason to invade Iraq, number 362:

Michael Corelone wants his hat back.

2002-10-01T07:09:00.000-07:00

From the Glass Houses Department The Howell Raines Gazette has an article about how two Clinton era national security aides are saying that Bush wasn't tough enough on terrorism during the 8 months before the Atrocity. They also blame the eight years before that on the fact that Louis Freeh believed the Saudi Ambassador more than he believed the president. Three things come immediately to mind: First, why did the director of the FBI have so little contact with the rest of the law enforcement, intelligence, and national security apparatus in the Clinton Administration that he was forced to rely on the Saudis for information? Second, if the Administration was trying to persuade the Saudis, why didn't they pressure them at all by withholding visas, persona non grata a low level diplomat, or other means of expressing diplomatic displeasure? Finally, if the Pentagon had a plan for launching a propaganda campaign against the Taliban, why didn't Clinton approve it when he had the chance? The article is par for the course. Yet another attempt by members of the Clinton administration to obscure the fact that they had eight years to do something about al Qaeda, and they didn't do a damn thing.

2002-09-30T18:21:00.000-07:00

I don't know what that smell is, but it sure is stinking up the neighborhood! Donahue Show Deathwatch Update: US News is reporting(scroll down) that Chris Matthews is a bit miffed that Phil Donahue is acting as a boat anchor around the neck of MSNBC, and, of course, Matthew's show. Chris might be a complete weenie, and if he still had his column, I would build a weekly fisking around it, but he isn't such a complete idiot as to bring on crackpot leftists like George Galloway, and still expect to have a show. Update: I forgot, if you are new here(which means just about everybody), don't forget to put in your date for the deathwatch.

2002-09-30T15:21:00.000-07:00

The National Review is defending Hollywood Bubbleheads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is one of the signs of the apocalypse.

2002-09-30T11:25:00.000-07:00

The wonderful consistency of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown Read this article. Then read this one. First, she engages in a bit of innuendo by accusing the anti-foxhunting demonstrators of being racist thugs(without any facts to prove this point), then the very next week waxes eloquent about what a lovely anti-war demonstration it was, while worrying about "being seen" near a bunch of islamofascist thugs, whose representatives then demand that the crowd chant "Allah is great." This for some reason troubles her far less than a bunch of people from the rural areas of England complaining about high gas prices. I could go into a detailed fisking, but if she can't make up her mind from one week to the next, what's the point?

2002-09-30T10:37:00.000-07:00

Wolf Blitzer was going after a "peace activist" with hammer and tongs today. As soon I can find a transcript, I'll put it up.

2002-09-30T08:27:00.000-07:00

Woohoo! I got myself an extra zero today:

Now that I've got my warm fuzzy, I promise no more self-referential posts for the rest of the week.

2002-09-29T20:34:00.000-07:00

I'm watching "Mail Call" on the history channel right now, which is narrated by the eternal drill instructor, R. Lee Ermey:

"My mission, is to read your mail, and educate your sorry ass." Watch the show. If you don't, you won't like what happens.

2002-09-29T17:17:00.000-07:00

More good news for Al Gore Ralph Nader might run again.

2002-09-29T09:47:00.000-07:00

A different perspective of the Atrocity Like I said yesterday, I am glad I am getting the extra hits from all of you today, and I am especially glad I didn't make a phony shitstorm to do it. This post might create such an occurrence. At least, it will if you don't read the whole thing. In the book, What's so Great About America, Dinesh D'Souza talks about how his grandfather came to hate the English, while he held no such animosity. The reason why was that while colonialism was bad for his grandfather, the aftereffects of colonialism were good for Dinesh himself. And this got me thinking about the atrocity. September 11 will be a cause for morning here in the United States. Thousands of people died, and a hole was carved out of our largest city. However, for millions of people, that is not the case. For them, it might even be a cause for celebration. Now, I can already tell that the blood pressure for a lot of you out there is already starting to rise. You are probably thinking I have pulled a giant bait and switch, with 8 weeks of conservative opinion, a post which has drawn thousands of impressions, and now that I have your eyeballs on this page, I am revealing my true nature, and engaging in some Fisk/Pilger/Donahue style wailing about why we are hated. In which case, you would be wrong. For millions of Afghans, Iraqis, and Iranians, September 11, 2001 marks the first day that their struggle for liberation received the first light of hope. Much as how Churchill was ecstatic about how Pearl Harbor brought the United States into WWII, those who suffered under the Taliban and their Arab colonial masters are ecstatic to have been liberated, and those who suffer under Saddam and the Ayatollahs have cause for hope that now, finally, their liberation is at hand. None of this would have been possible had not those 3000 died in lower Manhattan. Had the atrocity never occurred, millions of Afghans would be suffering at the hands of the Taliban. Saddam would still be on his way to building a nuclear weapon, and we would have wasted years trying to build a go-slow approach to building an Iraqi resistance. The Iranians would still be suffering under the Ayatollahs, and we would be ignoring the Iranian people's urgent cries for freedom. We would have spent most of the summer and fall agonizing over Chandra Levy, some moronic farm bill or drug program, and ignoring the plight of millions forced to live in darkness. The atrocity changed that. We are no longer worried about such petty things today. We are engaged in a struggle to change the very foundations upon which life in the Middle East is based. Already we have liberated 25 million people. By this time next year, another 25 million people will be liberated. The year after that, maybe another 70 million will breath the fresh air of freedom, and after that, who knows? That means that each of those who died on that September day will be responsible for liberating over 30,000 people. And that's not a cause for mourning, but a cause for celebration, and we should, alongside mourning for those who died, celebrate for those who are free, because the smiling faces of children in Kabul are as much a legacy of that horrible day as those anguished faces we saw through our television that horrible morning.

2002-09-28T22:19:00.000-07:00

Wow. That's it. Just wow. I've only started this blog back in August, and thanks to the Great Glenn who linked to me a few days ago, my hits have gone through the roof. Take a look at this graph:

On September 23, I was averaging about 35 to 40 impressions a day by the Counted stats(the "counted" bitmap at the bottom of the blogroll). I spiked a bit when Glenn linked to me for the McAfrica burgers, but that was on a weekend, in the middle of the summer, so it didn't spike anywhere near as much as it is now, though at the time, I thought it was the bees knees. Compared to the traffic I'm receiving now, it would barely twitch in comparison. The Bravenet counter numbers are similarly incredible too. Two weeks of minimal activity, followed by an explosion. For a lot of you established bloggers, who get a few thousand hits a day as a matter of routine, this must seem like no big deal. However, prior to this week, on a good day I would get a 60 visitors and be happy about it. Now, I have received three times more visitors since tuesday than I have since I started the blog. Wow. And thanks.. Update: I had to dump the bravenet table of hits. The HTML was becoming a pain, and I want to write posts, not play around with HTML all day.

2002-09-28T19:58:00.000-07:00

Tinfoil hat leftists, are you threatened by logic? Wishing you could spend more time listening to the wisdom of Noam Chomsky? You're not alone! With this handy-dandy product, all your problems are solved!

2002-09-28T16:59:00.000-07:00

Germany's contribution to the war on terror:

2002-09-28T08:27:00.000-07:00

Navy Launches new ship to fight on war on terror

The U.S.S. Edward Kennedy (I know, I know, old joke)

2002-09-27T19:58:00.000-07:00

I was reading Britain's Independent Communist a few weeks ago, and as usual, they had an wildly anti-American screed by an Anita Roddick. Now, I was thinking about engaging in a fisking, but it was such a doctrinaire piece, I thought, "What's the point?" That was until I read an article by Andrea Peyser in the New York post a few days ago. It turns out that Anita Roddick is the founder and a very major stockholder in The Body Shop a beauty shop which crows about its eco-fascist credentials:

World Leaders Criticised For Setting No Green Energy Targets The Body Shop today (3 September) criticised world leaders for failing to sign up for specific targets to make renewable energy available to two billion people in the developing world.

This is a perfect example of vomit-inducing limousine liberalism. The two billion in the developing world are far more concerned about having a roof over their head, food in their bellies, and not being a victim of the next Mugabe, Idi Amin, or Pol Pot. Their need for "renewable energy" ranks somewhere between a crop of freshly harvested poison ivy and The Body Shop's overpriced commie-friendly products. But I digress. Anita Roddick's website makes the Body Shop look like Worldnet Daily in comparison. Therefore, I have, on an empty stomach, waded through this vast septic tank of pseudo-intellectual fecal matter so you, the reader, are spared the agony of doing so yourself. The problem is where do I start? Her views are such a cornucopia of idiotarianism along such a wide range of topics that it is almost impossible to find a good place to start. Almost, but not impossible. The best place to start is with what brought me to this immense gathering of verbal flatulence, her September 11 anti-American screed, and then her "Oh horrors, they don't like me!" wail afterwards.(The anti-American screed in red, the shock at the reaction in green, in solidarity with her enviro-commie agenda):

How has the world changed since Sept. 11? For one thing, Europeans no longer aspire to be Americans. Who would, given how that country moves steadily and inexorably toward dictatorship? The American people, in a scant 12 months, have had their once-enviable civil liberties outrageously eroded in the name of patriotism. The ideals of freedom and democracy which America pledges to export across the globe have been perverted so spectacularly at home that America's admirers hardly recognise her anymore. Where once Americans reveled in their uniquely American right and willingness to criticize their government, they are now told that those who dissent are no better than terrorists, or terrorists themselves. They have had their pride of country, their patriotism, hijacked by a self-interested and short-sighted government which steals freedoms from its own people and gives riches to corporations and "security" infrastructures such as the military, FBI, and CIA, all of which which have proven, in the past 12 months, to be either fatally incompetent and totally corrupt. Those Americans who would question their government are told to "watch what they say." The FBI has been given broad reign to spy on citizens with phone taps and email snoops. Long-held ideals of fair and speedy trials are thrown out the window as suspected terrorists and sympathizers are "disappeared" like the enemies of Pinochet 20 years ago in Chile. (...) America's us-against-the-world mentality has managed to wear away almost all of the remarkable international sympathy it built up just after Sept. 11. Bush & Co. has slapped the international community in the face as the it tried to embrace and console the United States. Now the enmity has left America alone, more reviled and isolated internationally than before.

Then, of course, she's shocked to find that Americans might find the juxtaposition of the United States with Pinochet's Chile a wee bit offensive:

My outrage and sadness in these times is precisely because I love America. I am deeply sorry if a few Americans took personal offense because they misunderstood me or were misinformed by right-wing commentators who quoted me out of context, but I stand by my sentiment.

She doesn't need to just get a Clue, she needs to get the Parker Parker Brothers Deluxe version. She accuses Americans of being complete dupes, and when we take offense to her slanders of us, then we must simply be "misinformed", and read something quoted out of context. I'd like her to explain how, "...the enmity has left America alone, more reviled and isolated internationally than before," can be considered anything other than anti-American? Then, of course, in pure idiotarian rhetoric, she talks about how the boycott of her little empire is somehow "intimidating":

Those who have called for my head and encouraged a boycott of The Body Shop because they disagree with me may believe they are defending America, but is intimidation, retaliation, and suppression of ideas really what America is about? I don't believe it.

Of course, when it is her little bastion of leftism that is under boycott, it is intimidation and suppression of ideas. However, when it is Exxon, a greedy capitalist oil company, she sings a different tune:

In May 2001, The Body Shop was the first international company to join Greenpeace's Stop Esso campaign, calling on our staff and customers to buy petrol from anyone but Esso. I saw it as a good opportunity to repoliticize our staff. If we couldn't vote George W. Bush out of the White House, at least we'd be able to vote with our wallets against the company whose will he was exercising when he pulled out of the Kyoto treaty.

But her astonishing intellectual vacuity doesn't end there. She puts up a page of anti-war quotes, putting William T. Sherman and FDR alongside the wisdom of Abby Hoffman, Pat Schroeder, and George McGovern. She uses a quote of Teddy Roosevelt to imply that he would wholeheartedly approve of the drum banging morons who comprise the idiotarians. She should remember that Sherman promised to "make Georgia howl," and TR said, "don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." She should also remember that it was FDR who authorized the building of the A-bomb, and none of these three could be considered a pacifist in any way, shape, or form, and were actually quite the opposite, and, if any of them were alive today, they would have responded in such a way that there probably would not be a city left standing from Beirut to Islamabad. However, her idiotarianism is not simply related to the war. In this paragraph from a November, 2001 waste of bandwidth, she waxes nostalgic about how proud she was of her participation in the riots in Seattle, and how alarmed she is that the "success" of Seattle was not repeated:

I was one of those teargassed at Seattle when the World Trade Organization last met in 1999, and felt the collective outrage and sense of empowerment that we got from standing up to the world's economic bullies.

So this working class hero, with her TWENTY FOUR MILLION shares of stock, along with a bunch of spoiled trust fund kiddies, felt a sense of empowerment at shutting down McDonalds and Starbucks staffed by people making salaries marginally above minimum wage, throwing rocks and bottles at police who make less in a year than she makes in a week, and disrupting the lives of millions of everyday people who work in Seattle, most of whom work there to support their families. All so that she can show that she stood up to the "bullies." Maybe this old leftist crone and her trust fund kiddy brethren should ask themselves who the bullies really were. She continues:

So now when I see how little protest there was outside the latest WTO ministerial at Doha in Qatar, with only Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior in the harbor, I have quite mixed emotions. Granted, visa and travel restrictions in Qatar kept all but the most determined activists away. But even so, there seems to be less outrage just two years after Seattle, despite the fact very little has changed.[my emphasis]

Notice how she seems to completely ignore that minor event that occurred two months earlier. I guess the slaughter of 3000 people are just a trifling compared to some good drum-banging protest against more "bullies". Dang. I guess the war got into that too. Nonetheless, it serves its purpose. In her wailing about how she was being (gasp!) criticised for her idiocy, she writes the following:

I hate terrorism and terrorists. I was shocked and horrified and saddened as much as anyone at the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. My heart bleeds for everyone who lost loved ones on that awful day, and my heart aches for all Americans who were made to feel frightened and confused and terrorized. I celebrated, like everyone, stories of heroism and bravery; I cried a thousand tears at the stories of lives cut short by fanatics and their hatred. I would be devastated if people who know of me thought that I felt any differently.

Now justapose that little statement with the fact that only two months after the atrocity she laments that nothing has changed! What was she, in a f*cking cave?!? On the limo ride to Kennedy Airport, did she not notice that the New York Skyline was a little bit different? Or was it that she just considered those people in the towers an abstraction, like she considered the people and policemen of Seattle an abstraction, like she considers the American people an abstraction, and that her concern for the victims of the Atrocity lasted about as long as it was on the front page? Well. I could go into more detail, but I'm starting to feel a little ill. If you want to endure some time in the furthest ring of idiotarianism, go to her site. I would suggest you not do it unless you are rather well lubricated with alcohol, or have taken anti-idotarian immunity pills.

2002-09-27T11:58:00.000-07:00

Pejman Yousefzadeh posted yesterday that someone agreed with him. I commented that when someone agrees with something he says, he should say "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" and crow to the world that he said it first. In that vein, let me say the following:

Nanny Nanny Boo Boo

Why? Read this article by Dick Morris in the New York Post, dated yesterday. Now read this post by me dated six weeks ago. So how come everyone is beating his door down for speaking engagements, and he gets a regular guest spot on Hannity and Colmes, and I can't even get on cable access?

2002-09-27T08:03:00.000-07:00

Well it finally happened. My earthlink account maxed out, and all the pictures on the site disappeared. I was hoping I would be able to make it for another three days until the end of the month, but alas, it just wasn't meant to be. Time to go digging out the old sun box.

2002-09-26T17:35:00.000-07:00

Do you want to scare Richard Gebhart? Turn the volume on your speakers all the way up, then click here.

2002-09-25T19:40:00.000-07:00

The Nature of Deterrence This might cause a minor storm, but I was thinking today about deterrence. Most everyone who could be considered a warblogger, the President, and the entire national security apparatus believe that deterrence has failed. The few somewhat rational members of the anti-war crowd say that we should give deterrence another chance. The reality is that both are wrong. Deterrence has not been credibly tried in the Middle East, at least not by the United States, anyway(Israel is a different matter). First, a bit of history of deterrence. In the final days of Nazi Germany, the Soviet armies invaded Germany, they were kind of shocked at what they saw. Every major city they had approached had been already been turned to rubble by British and American air power. This had an impressive effect on the Soviets in general, if not Stalin himself . They saw the aftermath of what American air power could do, and they didn't want to be subject to it themselves, and the institutional memory of bombed out German cities proved the concept of a "decadent" West was a fiction. The A-bomb simply reinforced that viewpoint. Nonetheless, deterrence was tested, and repeatedly. First the Berlin airlift, then Korea. The fact that we were willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives in Korea, and that we had bled the Chinese in the process helped keep the concept of deterrence alive. Vietnam may have been a defeat for us in war, but that we were willing to endure riots and sacrifice 50,000 people half way around the globe simply so the Russians couldn't get their hands on it impressed both the Russians and our allies. When push came to shove, we would fight, and we would make an enemy pay a horrible price for doing so. The Soviets knew that if we were willing to sacrifice so much for a slice of bug-infested jungle in Southeast Asia, sacrificing Kansas City to prevent them from reaching the Rhine wasn't much of a stretch. While the Soviets might have used the "decadent west" as a propaganda tool, they never believed it themselves, and that is why deterrence worked. Now let's look at our record over the past 12 years or so. We let Saddam live after invading Kuwait. We kissed the butt of Aidid after he killed 18 Americans, when we should have dispatched a Mechanized battalion to rip him apart. When Saddam attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, we launched a token, worthless retaliation. We allowed a mob to bully an American expedition off of Haiti. The World Trade Center was bombed--nothing happened. Khobar towers bombed--nothing. After the embassy bombings, we launched the "ten million dollar missile to hit a ten dollar tent and hit a camel in the butt." If you were Saddam or Bin Laden, would you expect us to hunt you down and kill you after what we did during the post Cold War era, or more precisely didn't do at all? What we are engaged in now is not an abandonment of deterrence in favor of preemption, but a restoration of deterrence. Deterrence is a useless concept unless your enemies are convinced you are willing to fight a war. Say what you like about the Soviets, they knew we would fight, because they knew it, deterrence worked, so we never had to fight a war. We went into Afghanistan to evict al Qaeda and the Taliban, and prevent them from killing more Americans. However, that wasn't the only reason. We went into Afghanistan to shock the muslim world into reform, true, but that is only part of it. We are going into Iraq to disarm the country, give Saddam a dirt nap, and eliminate it as a base of terrorism, and hopefully create a prosperous and democratic Arab country. However, even though these are stated and unstated goals, they are still not the only reasons why we need to fight and win this war. The unstated, and unpondered reason why we need to fight, and win decisively, is to bring back deterrence. Winning the war against the islamofascists will make us safer, yes. It will eliminate the cesspools of Middle East tyranny, certainly. But it is also an unspoken warning shot to potential adversaries that no, the United States is not as decadent as they think, and yes, if they attack the United States, this vast war machine will show up on their doorstep, and do to them what we did to the Taliban, and what we will do to Saddam we will do to them, whoever "they" might be. Winning the war will restore our ability to deter potential unforeseen enemies(China?) for the next generation, and probably the next two generations. Noone appears to have considered this, but the beneficial effects of an American victory echo far beyond the Middle East. It will mean that threatening the United States becomes a vastly higher risk activity than it was just over a year ago. And that will mean that we can engage in deterrence far more effectively than we could have before. I'm not saying that we won't have to engage in preemption again, but speaking softly and carrying a big stick will be credible again. And that is a good thing.

2002-09-24T22:14:00.000-07:00

Newsweek(link in MSNBC's site) has an excellent article by Mohammed Al-Jassem, who writes for the Arabic language version of Newsweek. He writes an iron-clad confirmation of what I have written, and what Steven Den Beste, Cato, Indepundit, Bill Quick, and just about every warblogger of note has stated repeatedly and en masse. It also shows just how wrong the EUroleftists and the perpetually incorrect at Warbloggerwatch have been. Al-Jassem states:

The Arabs need shock therapy, some kind of tremor that would bring them back to reality and away from their political dreamscape. Egypt?s loss in the 1967 war against Israel was the sort of shock that did away with the nationalist slogans prevalent since the July 1952 revolution carried out by Gen. Gamal Abdul Nasser. If the 1967 shock laid the ground for the spread of Islamism as an alternative to the nationalism, the ?Saddam Shock? might be what is needed to launch the era of pragmatism. The Islamist mantra has not been dropped yet, but it was tested in the Afghan war and did nothing for its supporters except spark a few demonstrations here and there, which soon died out.

This is a solid confirmation of what we've been saying all along. We shouldn't pander to the Islamofascists and Baathists, we need to defeat them utterly. We should ignore the "Arab Street". We need to show, completely and unmistakeably, that the ideologies of oppression and violence that are part and parcel of the Middle East will only bring death and destruction to their adherents. Nothing else will suffice.

2002-09-24T17:20:00.000-07:00

A little exercise in demographics If you work at a major airport, bus stop, or railroad station, or have been to any of the above in the past two weeks, step back. If you share a house or apartment with someone who works at or has been to a major airport, bus stop or railroad station in the past two weeks, step back. If you live in, or work at, or have visited a major city in the past two weeks, step back. If you share a house with someone who has been to a major city in the past two weeks, step back. If you work as an EMT, in a doctor's office, or in a hospital step back. If you share a house with any of the above, step back. If you have been to a hospital in the past two weeks, step back, and if you share a house with someone who has been to a hospital in the past two weeks, also take a step back. If you have attended a national convention of any kind in the past two weeks, step back. If you share a house with someone who has attended a major convention, step back also. If you cleaned the hotel room of someone who has attended a major convention in the past two weeks, also take one step back. If you are a prostitute, or have visited a prostitute in the past two weeks, step back. If you are a stripper or have attended a strip joint, step back as well. If you share a house with any of the above, step back. If you have been to Disney World, or to a casino in Atlantic City, Tunica, Las Vegas, Reno, or Connecticut in the past two weeks, step back. If you work at any of the above, step back. As before, if you share a house with someone who has been to or worked at any of the above tourist destinations, step back. If you have been on a cruise in the past two weeks, or worked on a cruise ship, step back. If you share a house with someone who has been on a cruise ship in the past two weeks, step back also. Now for the kicker: If, in the past two weeks, you have come into contact with any of the above people either by direct physical contact, or by indirect contact via money, clothes, bedsheets, phones, silverware, etc step back. If somehow you didn't have to take a step back, consider yourself lucky. Had this been a real attack using smallpox, you would be among the few who would not have to worry about being infected. For the rest of you, I hope you had your shots early.

2002-09-24T16:18:00.000-07:00

The One Good Democrat Award Has anyone noticed that Rendell basically unendorsed Gore the day after Al Gore's "breakthrough" foreign policy speech? That flushing sound you hear is Al Gore's election prospects in '04.

2002-09-24T11:29:00.000-07:00

There are no terrorists in Iraq! And of course, OJ is innocent too. Ha'aretz reports that the Israelis have nabbed 3 Palestinians from the PLF who received training to be a terrorist in Iraq. After listening to the anti-war crowd crowing about how there is no link between Iraq and terrorism Iraq and Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons, and dismiss the mass murders he has already committed with a handwave. I am convinced that one of Saddam's secret programs was to replace rational people with pod people, completely impervious to all logic. The OJ jury was the first successful test of this, a pilot program was then used for the pod people to excuse Bill Clinton's rampant perjury in the Lewinsky trial, and now Saddam has fully deployed them to oppose his ouster. This explains the Scott Ritter phenomenon completely. He went to bed one night in 1998, and the next morning he woke up, but was, like, different. He sounded the same, had the same mannerisms, but he wasn't Scott Ritter. There are other explanations for Ritter and company, but this is the only way to explain it without my head exploding.

2002-09-24T07:36:00.000-07:00

Blogspot seems to have barfed a lung. I can post just fine, but all the blogspot blogs are dead as a doornail.

2002-09-24T07:11:00.000-07:00

AOL and Disney are looking to merge CNN and ABC news into a joint cable operation. Now, if they can get Donahue, Bill Moyers, and Robert Fisk as well, they can become the world powerhouse in aging crackpot leftists.

2002-09-20T15:38:00.000-07:00

Ewwwww!!! Someone arrived at my blog by searching for "Big testicular pics" on Google. I want to get more hits, but not those hits. Ick!

2002-09-19T19:25:00.000-07:00

Examine this photo:

This picture was taken of a meeting between MacArthur and Hirohito right after Japan surrendered. Steven Den Beste has made a lengthy post about the nature of our enemy. His thesis is that Arab culture has become morass of cultural stagnation and decline, prone to blaming everything that is wrong with Arab Society on Jews, Christians, and the West(specifically the U.S.). This applies both to the islamism of bin Laden and to the Baathists, pan-Arabists, etc. They all share the same basic goal, and have generally similar pathologies under the surface, even if they appear at cross purposes. Den Beste, along with Cato, myself, and others have this view. Now back to the picture. This picture was taken in the days immediately after Japan's surrender to the Allies. This picture became public, and spread alarm throughout the Japanese. Why? Because it showed that Japan had been defeated. There was an obvious difference in the stature and demeanor of MacArthur v. Hirohito. MacArthur is relaxed, wearing a relatively casual khakis. Hirohito is stiff, in very formal attire, and looking a bit worse for wear. The picture created an impetus among the Japanese to engage in self examination for the first time, and with the active help of the MacArthur, truly changed Japanese society forever. Now why do I bring up this picture? Because this is exactly the point that Steven is trying to make. We need to inflict a serious, undeniable defeat on the both Islamism and Pan-Arabism. Saddam is a perfect example of low hanging fruit. if we defeat, and hopefully kill him, preferably in some sort of public manner, we will create a reaction in the Arab world something akin to what that picture did to the Japanese. If you listen closely to what is happening in the Arab press now, you will notice that the process of self-examination is beginning, with vague fits and starts. The commonly accepted wisdom is being questioned, and talk of democracy is no longer being pooh-poohed. Our defeating Saddam, and either putting him in irons(publicly) or him dying(preferably in public) will strengthen and enhance that process. The questions from the Islamists about Bin Laden and the pan-Arabists about Saddam will be the same, "This was our hero, he was supposed to be able to fight the Americans, and instead, he was beaten and destroyed in a matter of weeks. Why?" When that happens, we will be able to change the pathology of Arab culture today, and that will make the world a far safer place. Update: I found an article in Newsweek that is a pretty strong confirmation of the point that myself and others have made regarding Iraq. Update: OK, not really an update. However, a lot(and I do mean a lot!Wow!) of you are coming here from The Great Glenn, and all the hits are probably maxing out my free webspace on earthlink, which I'm using to host all the pictures here. So, since you are here, please scroll down a bit and read A Silent Fisking, which is a response to a terrorist-sympathising sob story in the UK Daily Mirror. Since you are already here, the bandwidth has already been used for this story, and I'd hate to see it go to waste.

2002-09-19T12:49:00.000-07:00

I just realized something while watching the news. Tom Daschle, Trent Lot, Denny Hastert, and Richard Gephardt are probably 4 of the 8 most influential people on the planet, outside of the President, and the rest of Congress are probably 535 of the 700 most influential people on the planet. For all the talk of the UN, and sanctions, and the Indy's bleating that we poor Yanks will have to wait a year while inspections get underway, the congressional authorization of force will have a stronger international effect than anything the UNSC does. For all the blathering of Kofi Annan, and assorted EUroleftist ranting, the UN will have nowhere near the influence on the conduct of the war as these four people, and their 531 brethren. The congressional resolution will sail through in a week, and when it does, the UN is going to look like a completely failed organization if they don't authorize a resolution that isn't functionally identical in wording. In any event, the sound you hear in the next two weeks or so will be the collective gasp of dozens of EUroleftist journalists and minor government functionaries as they watch a war resolution sail through congress with the requisite 2/3rds votes that would qualify it as being a DoW.

2002-09-19T12:07:00.000-07:00

I just read the President's proposed Congressional authorization of force in regards to Iraq. If this gets passed, the UN can do what it likes. It won't matter whether the inspections are tomorrow, a week, or a year away. Saddam is toast.

2002-09-18T22:03:00.000-07:00

Fred Barnes agrees with me. However, I was right a month ago. I wonder if this will convince Roger Ailes to let me be guest host on the Beltway Boys.

2002-09-18T17:49:00.000-07:00

We're losing him! Give me 4ccs of D5W and lidocane, STAT! Donahue Death Watch update: Well, Donahue is on his way into ratings oblivion. On tonight's show Donahue has to bring in Katie Couric("the affable Eva Braun of Daytime TV") and Matt Lauer in an attempt to rescue his ratings. I am certain that there was an appropriately large announcement regarding this "coup" on the Today show this morning. I guess bringing George Galloway on didn't quite bring the ratings bonanza Donahue had hoped, and now they are mining NBC's prime time to try to keep this headless turkey alive.

Big S Blog

Hey! What are you doing here? Don't you know that I moved?

Hey! What are you doing here?
Don't you know that I moved?