America, Land Of Opportunity -- Even For Tiger People
America, Land Of Opportunity -- Even For Tiger People: Where else but the United States could a nutjob like this guy prosper?
That isn't face paint my friends, it's the result of tattoos and surgical alterations. Here are the details...
"Dennis Smith is tattooed from head to toe with orange and black stripes and his teeth have been filed to needle point.
He has also had latex whiskers implanted and surgery to his lips so he has a permanent snarl. He now wants a surgeon to graft tiger fur on to his skin, like a perma-wig.
Mr Smith, who has changed his name by deed poll to Cat Man, said: "I have a collection of old tiger pelts from the days of hunting. I want these grafted on to me. It will cost another $100,000 but will be worth it.
"When I have the coat of a tiger, I feel I will have reached my goal in life."
His fingernails have been crafted into sharp talons while his hands have tattooed markings like a tiger's paws. He says he feels like a tiger."
You may be wondering how this guy has managed to pay for all of this surgery. Well, this guy holds down a " £80,000-a-year computer programming" job. If the currency conversion program I tried works, that comes out to around $128,000 dollars a year in US currency.
Now think about this...here we have a guy who's trying to turn himself into a tiger via plastic surgery. But is he locked up in an insane asylum or has he had his brains blown out in a soccer stadium somewhere Taliban style? No, to the contrary, this guy has a cushy job. If this guy can make it in the US, anybody can.
I Bet This Won't Take Long: As many of you may have heard, Dr. Laura Schlessinger's mother died in a bizarre and terrible manner. Here are some of the details from the Drudge Report...
"Yolanda Schlessinger, 77, died... in her apartment months ago, authorities now believe.
Lt. Gary Gilmond of the Beverly Hills Police Department said an autopsy disclosed the woman was murdered."
Dr. Laura Schlessinger had this to say,
"I am horrified by the tragic circumstances of my mother's death, and so sad to learn that she died as she chose to live--alone and isolated. My mother shut all her family out of her life over the years, though we made several futile attempts to stay connected. May God rest her soul."
Of course, this is a terrible tragedy and my condolences go out to Dr. Laura's family.
I wonder how long it will take all the compassionate lefties out there to start tearing into to Dr. Laura over her mother's death? Trust me, there's no blow too low for the left and making fun of someone because their mother died is about the speed of a lot of the leftists on the web. If you run across any despicable posts from lefties on this subject, post the remarks or a link in the comments section. Let's just see if the left will sink as low as I expect...
***Update***: Team Atrios strikes first! From the comments section...
Atrios:"jesus, she's sick and twisted."
Digby:"...If Laura is anything like she is on the air, one would have to be utterly self-destructive to want to be anywhere near her. Better to die completely alone than live with that despicable hypocrite."
***Update #2***: Ah, the class of the Democratic Underground. Here's the 2nd group of lefties that views the death of Dr. Laura's mother as nothing more than a great opportunity to get in a few cheapshots...
Liberal_Guerilla: lol..I hate to laugh at this... but... I can't help it.. Perhaps Dr. Phys Ed. laura's children will do the same.
ronnykmarshall: LAURA DID IT!!! Wouldn't that be ironic if Laura murdered her mother?!!!
Sen. Patty Murray On The Virtues Of Osama Bin Laden
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) On The Virtues Of Osama Bin Laden:Charles Johnson sums up Washington Senator Patty Murray's ignorant comments from last Wednesday as follows, "Senator Patty Murray tells high school students the US needs to learn to be a "better neighbor" to the world-like Osama bin Laden." Here's what Charles Johnson was talking about...
"We've got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world?," said Murray, who faces re-election in 2004. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries ... that are riddled with poverty?
"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that.
"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"
I can't believe that...
1) We have a US Senator romanticizing Osama Bin Laden and trying to turn a career terrorist into some kind of starry eyed global philanthropist...
2) That a US Senator could be so incredibly ignorant of everything the US does for the rest of the world.
Why has Israel not been crushed by her belligerent neighbors? How is it that Taiwan is still free? How it can it be that South Korea is free and has been protected from the North? Which nation blew off 3/4's of the money of the money they were owed after WW2? What about the Marshall Plan, the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and even the new Afghan Democracy? How many billions do we give in foreign aid to Jordan and Egypt each year or to Africa? Who may have stopped a nuclear war between Pakistan and India earlier this year? Which nation is almost always the first to help in an international crisis? What percentage of the money spent by non-governmental organizations out there comes the US government or US donors? Which nation was supplying the majority of Afghanistan's food before 9/11 after helping them fight off the Soviets in the eighties? I could go on and on and on like this. The fact is that the United States has done more and continues to do more to help countries in need than any other 10 nations combined. But apparently, all of this is news to Senator Murray.
Then there is Senator Murray's claim that Osama Bin Laden is popular in the Islamic world because he's a philanthropist. That's a ridiculous assertion. Do you really want to know why Bin Laden is popular? It's because there are a lot of Muslims who detest Americans, Israelis and Westerners in general and they like Bin Laden because he kills the people they loathe. Trying to claim that Bin Laden is well liked in the Islamic world because of charity work is like claiming Michael Jordan is admired not because of what he's done on the basketball court, but because of that Loony Tunes movie "Space Jam" that he was in a few years ago. In short, it's a patently ridiculous idea and a US Senator should certainly know better.
***Update***:Rachel Lucas weighs in on Murray's remarks...
"Whatthefu-? He has? He did? Who? WHAT?
Maybe she's referring to his family, who owns a construction company and built lots of stuff. Maybe she wants to be his fifth wife and breed some baby terrorists for him. Maybe I just got confused all those times I read that for the last several years, he's been living in caves and plotting the destruction of the Great Satan. Maybe he had a few spare moments to build a Kinder-Care while planning for the mass murder of thousands of Americans. What a philanthropist!"
A Few Thoughts About Trent Lott's Resignation: After taking a savage two-week long thrashing, Trent Lott has finally decided to step down as Senate majority leader. Here are a couple of things I wrote about Lott early on...
-- RWN on December 9, "Now I'm sure Lott only made that comment because he was trying to be nice to Thurmond at his retirement party. However, it's absolutely inexcusable for the Senate Majority Leader to say that sort of thing -- especially since it plays right into the false racist stereotype that Democrats continually try to pin on Republicans... Maybe Trent can take a lesson from Newt and step aside. I would be pleased if he did...."
-- RWN on December 10, "Lott is damaged beyond repair with his own party. There is absolutely no way he should remain Senate Majority leader after what he's said and the insincere sounding apologies he has given afterwards. The best argument that can even be made for Lott at this point is that he's a bumbling incompetent who keeps putting his foot in his mouth and is not a racist. Is that the sort of guy we need leading the charge in the Senate?
Not only do I think that Lott should not be the Senate Majority Leader, I don't think he will be the Senate Majority Leader when this is over. Lott could survive this sort of beating from the left, but not from the right -- and the right is hitting Lott harder than the left. Lott has forever more been politically crippled by his thoughtless words and his abysmal handling of the controversy that surrounded them. So the sooner Trent Lott does the right thing and relinquishes his leadership position, the better."
Ten days ago I knew that Trent Lott wasn't going to survive as Majority leader and I wish that Lott had figured it out sooner as well because it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Now I'm sure that some Conservatives are going to be unhappy about Lott's resignation for a number of reasons: they think what he said was taken out of context and blown out of proportion, they don't like giving the Democrats a "victory" on the issue, they resent having the GOP tarred as racists, the Democrats are huge hypocrites on the race issue, etc, etc.
But keep in mind that there are some positives to this situation. Bill Frist looks likely to replace Lott and most people, myself included, think he'd be a much better Majority leader than Lott. Moreover, the Democrats have severely overreached on this issue. They've smeared Reagan, states rights, people who want to fly the Confederate flag in SC & GA, people who voted against the MLK holiday, Republicans in general, and the even entire South as "racists" over a comment made to a 100 year old man at his birthday party. That's going to infuriate a lot of people who resent being falsely called racists. Also, I'm hoping that this entire flap will embolden the Democrats to be more up front about pushing vile and discriminatory policies like Affirmative Action and Reparations. That can only help the GOP. You're also going to see a lot more Republicans who'll be willing to nail the Democrats on the issues of race and anti-Semitism. After all, we're the party that forced Trent Lott to step down because we felt he made a racist comment even though there was a possibility that Lott was going to give up his seat. Compare that to the Democrats attempt to steal the 2000 election in Florida & the Democrats sleazy replacement of Torricelli with Lautenberg. It's now fair to say that we're the party of conscience as compared to the Democrats who've shown time and time again that they're willing to do anything to hold on to power.
So hold your head up high, the GOP and Conservatives handled this thing the right way and in the end, this may actually be a good thing for us.
***Update***:Glenn Reynolds has an excellent suggestion that I heartily endorse....
"I think the Republicans should demonstrate that they're taking the country beyond the legacy of segregation by passing the "End to Racism and Segregation Act of 2003," which would provide that neither the federal government, nor the states, nor any entity receiving federal funds may take race into account in any manner in the making of hiring, firing, promotion, or benefits decisions.
What better way to show we've moved beyond racism than to put an end to official racism by statute?"
That makes perfect sense to me -- someone get Bill Frist and the phone and tell him to get to work on this ASAP...
Fark Posters On The Military: Fark is one of the best pages on the net, but their comments sections attracts more left-wing idiots than a Noam Chomsky rally. Here are a few of the comments from some Farkers in a thread called, "Send your thanks to the US Military."
MC_500foot_Nietzsche: Anyone who risks their own life for Bush's moronic personal vendetta are idiots.
Harmonia:Osama says
"thanks for missing me and recruiting lots of new members of my organisation, keep up the good work in 2003"
EmJSea: Dear Soldier/Soldierette,
Sarcastic: Thanks for being so homophobic and p*ssified that the thought of someone checking out your @ss in the showers makes you so scared that you can't perform your duties.
Heartfelt: Thanks for getting in the way of bullets for me so that I can suck d*ck in relative comfort and enjoy films such as "Marine Barracks Gloryholes Parts 1-6" in relative comfort and security.
Love,
EmJSea
Speedyj: good luck in Iraq! Don't kill *too* many innocent civilians while you're out there risking your @ss for Bush's oil.
Jochem: hope your death in Iraq will be quick and not painful.
If only we could get people like this as upset with the terrorists and the mass murdering dictators who support them as they are with the US military and the Bush administration, this would be a better planet.
Aussie Opinion Not That Big Of A Deal For Bloggers
Aussie Opinion Not That Big Of A Deal For Bloggers: I think the blogosphere has been getting a little overwrought about a case in Australia called the, "Dow Jones and Company v. Gutnick." I'll let Glenn Reynolds give you a summary of what the case is about...
"(T)he High Court of Australia, yesterday ruled that anyone who publishes on the internet should be liable to be sued in any country in which an individual believes that he or she has been defamed by that publication."
So if let's say a blogger were to be accused of libeling someone in Australia, this ruling would mean that the blogger would have to be judged based on the laws of Australia, not based on the laws of their country of origin.
Of course, that is a nonsensical ruling because if other countries were to adopt that standard, it would create a crazy kaleidoscope of laws that almost no one could comply with while writing anything other than the most blase form of drivel.
This has created a lot angst in the blogging world. Here are just a few comments about the ruling...
"But what about pipsqueak bloggers who can't afford to protect themselves from the umbrageous hordes at home, let alone abroad? The Australian precedent could burden them immeasurably and thus raises the question: Is policing speech in the blogosphere a good and necessary thing or just another way to mum the common man?" -- Norah Vincent
"Most media commentators and analysts have assumed that the response to the Gutnick decision will be a simple 'chilling' effect, where content providers become more conservative in what they say for fear they could be sued in a more litigious nation. " -- Heath Gibson of the Catallaxy Files
"The courts did what Gutnick wanted and now, should he win, the international impunity of free speech will be seriously threatened." -- Democrats.com
As I said earlier, this a foolish ruling. But, there is nothing for bloggers, well at least American bloggers with no assets in Australia, to worry about here. The courts in Australia can rule however they like, but fortunately, you don't answer to the court system in Australia. They can't force American citizens to pay judgements, they can't put you in jail, they can't make your provider take down your web page, they can't do much of anything to you other than conceivably have your website blocked in Australia.
There is precedent for what I'm saying here. France tried to force Yahoo to, "block Nazi-related material from French consumers." Yahoo chose to comply because they do business in France, however they also filed suit in the US.
Federal District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled in favor of Yahoo and said the following,
"Although France has the sovereign right to regulate what speech is permissible in France, this court may not enforce a foreign order that violates the protections of the United States Constitution by chilling protected speech that occurs simultaneously within our borders."
So is this a relevant ruling for multinational companies? Absolutely? But for the average "Joe Blogger" it means very little.
Why Are We Still In South Korea?: We've remained in South Korea since the Korean War mainly out of a sense of loyalty & committment. South Korea is of minimal strategic importance to us. Furthermore, while the forces we have in South Korea do help keep the peace, South Korea is capable of defending itself against the North without our help although a war between the North and the South would probably be incredibly bloody.
That being said, our relationship with South Korea has continued to sour over the years. There are now constant protests, Americans are not allowed to eat in some restaurants, and their have been assaults on American soldiers. Anti-Americanism has even become as issue in the elections, just as it did in Germany.
Now, Marc Miyake of the "Abode Of Amritas" has pointed out one of the most offensive cartoons I've seen in a long time. It depicts an American soldier raping a South Korean woman as her husband stands by and watches. Here's a panel from the cartoon that appeared in a "major Korean publication" that gives a good feel for what the whole thing is like...
You can see the entire cartoon by clicking here & Marc has posted a translation of the cartoon here.
Why shouldn't we just pull out of South Korea at this point since obviously a large portion of their population doesn't want us there? The South Koreans are capable of defending themselves and we have 37,000 soldiers we could station somewhere else. Moreover, it would likely lead to an increase in the number of weapons South Korea is buying from us since they'd certainly need to increase their defense budget if we left. I also think leaving South Korea would send a great message to the rest of the world. If your country hates Americans, that's fine and dandy. But don't come crying to us when you get in trouble. Let's make sure North Korea is out of the nuclear weapons business and then let's get out of South Korea.
***Update***: The anti-American candidate, Roh Moo Hyun, has been elected in South Korea. Here are a few clips from an article in the Washington Post about Hyun's election...
"Riding a tide of public resentment toward the United States, a former labor lawyer who supports continued dialogue with North Korea won a narrow victory in South Korea's presidential election Thursday.
Roh Moo Hyun, 56, campaigned on a vow to draw at least symbolic distance between Washington and Seoul....
But Roh's campaign clearly struck a chord in South Korea, where demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy have drawn increasingly large crowds, signs on stores tell U.S. soldiers they are not welcome, and U.S. servicemen are under curfew restrictions because of anti-American scuffles involving soldiers.
...Roh, who had once called for removal of the U.S. troops (a statement he has since retracted), rode that sentiment. But he also tried to reassure voters worried about losing the backing of the United States. Roh pledged to "meet with President Bush and Kim Jong Il."
Like I said, it's time to let South Korea handle their own affairs.
Applause For The INS?: The INS has finally started cracking down on immigration violations in California...
"Hundreds of Iranian and other Middle East citizens were in southern California jails on Wednesday after coming forward to comply with a new rule to register with immigration authorities only to wind up handcuffed and behind bars.
Shocked and frustrated Islamic and immigrant groups estimate that more than 500 people have been arrested in Los Angeles, neighboring Orange County and San Diego in the past three days under a new nationwide anti-terrorism program. Some unconfirmed reports put the figure as high as 1,000."
...The arrests were part of a post Sept. 11 program that requires all males over 16 from a list of 20 Arab or Middle East countries, who do not have permanent resident status in the United States, to register with U.S. immigration authorities.
...INS spokesman Arcaute said those arrested had violated immigration laws, overstayed their visas, or were wanted for crimes. The program was prompted by concern about the lack of records on tourists, students and other visitors to the United States after the Sept. 11 hijack plane attacks on New York and Washington.
It's about time that we started cracking down on immigration violations, especially when the immigrants in question are from terrorist supporting nations. But not everyone sees it that way...
"The arrests sparked a demonstration by hundreds of Iranians outside a Los Angeles immigration office. The protesters carried banners saying "What's next? Concentration camps?" and "What happened to liberty and justice?."
...The head of the southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) compared the arrests to the internment of Japanese Americans in camps during the Second World War.
"I think it is shocking what is happening. It is reminiscent of what happened in the past with the internment of Japanese Americans. We are getting a lot of telephone calls from people. We are hearing that people went down wanting to cooperate and then they were detained," said Ramona Ripston, the ACLU's executive director.
Visiting the United States is a privilege, not a right. If you break our laws, have connections to terrorist groups, or overstay your visa, you don't belong in the United States. That means you need to be locked up and then shipped back to your country of origin. If we'd been doing that from day 1, there would not have been a 9/11. Enforcing our immigration laws is one of the most important things we can do to prevent another 9/11 and I'm glad to see the INS doing their jobs for once.
The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States For 2002
The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States For 2002: If being annoying was a crime, there are a lot of liberals who would be sitting on Death Row in Texas waiting for them to crank up "Old Sparky." But until now, these "serial annoyers" have never gotten their proper due. Well, RWN thinks that's a crying shame. That's why we've punched up a list that's designed to celebrate annoying lefties. So get ready, because it's time for the first annual, "Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States For 2002."
Also, there are another couple of lists out there you might be interested in. Roger Schultz pointed me towards the Top Ten Democratic Disasters from the Junto Society and Charles Johnson is holding the first annual, "Robert Fisk Award for Idiotarian of the Year ." Vote early and vote often...
According To Bill Clinton, The South Is Voting GOP Because Of Racism
According To Bill Clinton, The South Is Voting GOP Because Of Racism: Well, well, well...Bill Clinton has finally weighed in on the whole Trent Lott controversy and he's not hesitating to play the race card...
"How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?" Clinton told CNN outside a business luncheon he was attending. "I think what they are really upset about is that he made public their strategy."
He added: "They try to suppress black voting, they ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina, and from top to bottom the Republicans supported it."
Asked if Lott should be removed, Clinton said, "That's up to them, but I think they can't do it with a straight face."
The former president then said, "He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day."
He accused Republicans of "trying to run black voters away from the polls" in states such as Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida. Clinton also cited recent gubernatorial elections in Georgia and South Carolina, won by Republicans.
..."I think the way the Republicans have treated Senator Lott is pretty hypocritical since right now their policy is, in my view, inimical to everything that this country stands for," Clinton said."
To begin with, isn't it amazing how the South is once again full of bigoted rednecks who'll vote en masse for whoever they think the biggest racist is now that the GOP has won in a lot of Southern states? I certainly don't remember Clinton talking about what a cesspool of racism the South was when Democrats were controlling a much bigger portion of it. But, I suppose that now that the GOP is making gains in the South we get to see what the bigwigs in the Democratic party really think of the South.
Then Clinton went on to the Confederate flag issue in Georgia and South Carolina. Now I find it funny that Clinton would bring that issue up for a couple of reasons. I'll let David Horowitz explain the first one...
"Forget all the arguments about the Confederate flag. The question is this: Is the flag a symbol of regnant racism? Are the gubernatorial mansions or the legislatures of states where flags incorporate the Stars and Bars bastions of Confederate diehards who want to keep blacks down? Don't make me laugh.... Elements of the Stars and Bars are incorporated into the flags that fly over many state capitols. Among them is Arkansas, which flew the dreaded symbol during the entire twelve years that Bill Clinton was governor."
That puts things into a different perspective doesn't it? Also, if Clinton claims supporting the flag is evidence of racism then what does he call the following...
"When he was the governor of Arkansas only two decades ago, Bill Clinton routinely issued proclamations, with the usual rhetorical flourishes, commemorating the birthdays of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis?
That seems to be quite the inconsistency on Clinton's part doesn't it?
Then there is Clinton's claim that, "their (the GOP's) policy is, in my view, inimical to everything that this country stands for." But, if Clinton is implying that the GOP is full of segregationists & racists, how can it be that so many Americans are voting Republican? So now Clinton has in a round about way, Clinton has called more than half of the country racists who want to return to the bad old days of segregation.
Coming from a guy who gave a Presidential Medal of Freedom to his mentor, William Fulbright, that's quite a claim. Let me give you a little background info on Mr. Fulbright. Fulbright signed the "Southern Manifesto", voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act., & voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This is a man of whom Clinton said,
"It doesn't take long to live a life. He made the best of his, and helped us to have a better chance to make the best of ours....The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it.
So what was Clinton proud of? Fulbright's vote against the Civil Rights Act? Perhaps it was Fulbright's fight against 1965 Voting Rights Act? He could try to say that he supported Fulbright's strong stand on defense but that didn't work out too well for Trent Lott when he tried it.
After taking all this into consideration, you'll have to excuse me if I don't think Clinton has a lot of credibility on this issue...
Murder, Mayhem, & The Animal Rights Movement: The lead singer of the Pretenders, Chrissie Hynde, says that big corporations, "are destroying the planet." Her solution? Murder in the name of the animal rights movement...
"The last resort is for someone to go in and actually take these guys out. Maybe it will have to be an out-and-out assassination. When no one will listen anymore, then individuals have to take the law into their own hands and it can get very ugly."
That isn't the first time Hynde has advocated violence either. She's described the terrorists in the Animal Liberation Front as "the world's newest freedom fighters" & she told an audience in 1989 that someone "should petrol-bomb Mcdonald's."
This sort of insanity is nothing new for the animal rights movement which has become more and more radicalized & dangerous in recent years. One of these days, these whackos are going to end up slaughtering a lot of people by accident or design. That's utterly predictable at this point and it's a shame that there aren't more people out there pointing out how cuckoo the animal rights movement has gotten.
Baby Jesus Has Been Kidnapped?: Now Al-Queda has gone and done it...
"(T)he baby Jesus statue was gone -- kidnapped from the front lawn of Tom and Candy Konczos who last night remained mystified as to why someone would swipe the religious ornament from their Daniels Street front lawn, and then demand cash to get it back."
What kind of monster would make his followers kidnap baby Jesus? Could it be...Osama Bin Laden?!?!? The ransom note -- that's right -- there was a ransom note for baby Jesus -- might as well have been signed by Bin Laden himself...
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE HAVE YOUR BABY JESUS. IF YOU EVER WANNA SEE YOUR BABY JESUS AGAIN, LEAVE 800 DOLLARS IN SMALL BILLS, NOT TRACEABLE, IN THE MAILBOX OF ... WE WILL CONTACT YOU LATER WITH FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. YOURS TRULY."
The note was signed by "Me, him and the other kid who was really scared and didn't want to take your baby Jesus and the whole time all he did was say stuff like you're going to hell, this isn't right, stop."
800 dollars buys a lot of explosives in a Third World country! And who else but a terrorist would write in all caps? Someone call John Ashcroft -- it's time to release the Predators! Then if we some bunch of guys walking down the street carrying baby Jesus -- we wait for them to set him down and then it'll be time for a "trial by Hellfire missile!" No terrorist who kidnaps baby Jesus deserves to make it to Gitmo alive....Hey you guys in the DOJ -- happy hunting!
Right After Iraq It's South Africa: This is hilarious! South Africa says they can't afford to fight against AIDS because they need to fend off a possible invasion. But who's about to invade South Africa? Why -- the United States of course...
"Is the United States about to attack its ally South Africa? That's a concern according to the health minister of Pretoria.
"Look at what Bush is doing. He could invade," Manto Tshabalala-Msimang told the Guardian newspaper.
According to the report, South Africa cannot afford drugs to fight HIV and AIDS partly because it needs submarines to deter attacks from nations such as the U.S.
The minister said that budgetary priorities meant her department could not provide anti-retrovirals to the estimated 4.5 million South Africans with HIV.
"We don't have the money for that," she said. "Where would it come from?"
Asked if it could come from defense savings from leaving out the submarines that formed part of a multi-billion dollar arms deal, the minister said that South Africa needed to deter aggressors, mentioning Bush by name."
I don't know if this qualifies as, "delusions of grandeur" because Tshabalala-Msimang thinks South Africa is important enough to attack or whether this is just plain old paranoia. But either way, this qualifies as entertaining...
Press Grasping At Straws -- For The Final Time, We're Going To Iraq
Press Grasping At Straws -- For The Final Time, We're Going To Iraq: Every few weeks some member of the press reads ways to much into the Bush administration's decidedly non-bellicose rhetoric about Iraq and tries to imply we're probably not going in. This time it's the Washington Post which headlines the story, "Powell: U.S. Not Trying to Oust Saddam." The Post is apparently making too much of what I like to think of as the, "he can change" line of reasoning. I've heard the President himself go down this road but Powell is laying it out for the press this time...
"If he (Saddam) cooperates, then the basis of changed-regime policy has shifted because his regime has, in fact, changed its policy to one of cooperation....We came into office in 2001 and kept that policy because Saddam Hussein had not changed....We now believe it is appropriate for Saddam Hussein to be forced to change, either by the threat of war, and therefore that compels him to cooperate."
You see if some wandering Middle-East Peace Fairy somehow managed to stick Jimmy Carter's brain into Saddam Hussein's body, we might have peace. That's because Jimmy Hussein would get rid of all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he's stop selling illegal oil, and he'd probably start personally building houses for all the Kurds. The problem with this is simply -- Saddam hasn't changed. He's still firing at our planes enforcing the no-fly zone, he's still selling illegal oil, he's still supporting terrorists, he's claiming to have no weapons of mass destruction.
Don't worry, soon we'll be bombing his palaces, sending Predators armed with hellfire missiles to assassinate his kids and if we're really, really lucky, Donald Rumsfeld will personally blow Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz's brains out in front of a live televised audience. We're not moving 90,000 troops into Turkey because we like the food and the four aircraft carriers we're sending over there aren't going for the Iraqi cuisine. Some time in late Dec, Jan, or at the absolute latest Feb, we're going to blow the Holy Hell out of Iraq. When we do, it wouldn't surprise me if we had Bush administration officials still giving Saddam a chance to "change" even while the missile that sends him to Hell will still be in mid-air...
Thanks to Rachel Lucas for pointing this article out.
The Democrats Do Stand For Something - Not Getting Voted Out Of Office
The Democrats Do Stand For Something - Not Getting Voted Out Of Office: Inexplicably, Al Gore has decided not to run again in 2004. That is probably going to force the Democrats to pin their hopes for 2004 on either John "The Boy Trial Lawyer" Edwards, Howard "Tax and Spend" Dean, John "The Hair" Kerry, or Joe "2nd Banana On A Losing Ticket" Lieberman. Having bad candidates is one thing -- but having bad ideas is even worse. Oh and do they ever have bad ideas. Most of them are so positively awful that the Democrats don't even want to tell people what they are. Have you heard those 7up commercials where they call themselves "the Uncola?" Well in 2002, the Democrats in effect became the "unparty" as they defined themselves on the issues as little more than "not Republicans". (Cont)
Quote Of The Day: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer comments on Gore dropping out of the race...
"(That is) an internal matter for the Democratic Party, and somebody will emerge from the Democratic field who will ultimately seek to raise taxes on the American people, but that's a decision that the Democrats will make as they select a nominee."
Reader Input #2: The Most Annoying American Lefties For 2002
Reader Input #2: The Most Annoying American Lefties For 2002: On Wednesday I'm going to be doing a feature called "The American Left's Most Annoying People For 2002." If you have any nominations, please post them in the comments section along with a short explanation of why you think they deserve to be included.
***Update***: I'm still working on this one. Look for it on Thursday.
Reader Input #1: An Adoption Agency: I know a couple that is having trouble finding an adoption agency that can help them get a baby. They are open to getting a baby overseas if they're unable to get a baby that is already in the states. Has anyone had experience with an adoption agency that they feel comfortable recommending?
College Republicans Hassled For Supporting Israel At St. Cloud State University
College Republicans Hassled For Supporting Israel At St. Cloud State University: Tonight, I received an email from a reader asking for help getting out the word about an incident that occurred at St. Cloud State University. Here's part of a press release sent out by the college Republicans at SCSU describing what happened...
"On December 11, 2002, the Saint Cloud State University College Republicans held a kiosk in the Atwood Memorial Center on the campus of Saint Cloud State University. The College Republicans held the kiosk as a means of showing our support for Israel in its fight against terrorism, as we felt that the pro-Israeli opinion is not often heard on campus.
The kiosk displayed a 39-page list of the names of all of those killed by terrorists from Jan 2002 through Oct 2002. It also included a display, which profiled some of the terrorist groups operating in and around Israel and Palestine and some literature that symbolized Israel's right to defense and self-preservation. Above the kiosk flew a replica of the Israeli national colors.
Two professors approached the kiosk and said that because of their Jewish faith, they found the booth offensive. They specifically pointed to our display of a replica of the Israeli colors and said that because those of us at the kiosk were not Jewish we had no right to fly the Israeli flag.
During the ensuing debate, one of our members, Mr. Zach Spoehr, took a photograph of another College Republican member. One of the professors, Prof. Rona Karasik, told Mr. Spoehr that she would break his camera if he took her photo. Mr. Spoehr said he had not taken her picture and also said that Prof. Karasik has no right to break his camera. She then lunged for the camera and Mr. Spoehr backed away. She lunged for him a second time, grabbed him by the throat with both hands, and slammed him against the wall. I then escorted Mr. Spoehr away from the scene.
Mr. Spoehr has informed the Saint Cloud State University College Republicans that he has filed a complaint with the Saint Cloud Police Department. The College Republicans support Mr. Spoehr's personal decision to do so.
A few minutes later, Dr. Nathan Church, VP for Student Life and Development, approached the kiosk and said that he "had to ask us to take down the flag" because some people were offended. He also reiterated the opinion that the College Republicans had no right to fly the Israeli flag because we were not Jewish ourselves.
We believe that Dr. Church left us no choice but to take down the flag. I personally argued our point, that forcing us to take down the flag was a violation of our first amendment rights, for close to 20 minutes. But Dr. Church would not back down. He said that he would like to take the flag to his office and that we could pick it up at the end of the afternoon. We convinced him to let us keep the flag, if we covered it up."
So what do we have here? An assault by a teacher on a student and real censorship (forcing the students to take the flag down) based on the fact that some people were offended by the way these students were supporting Israel. The claim by the professors that they were angry because only Jews have the right to fly the Israeli flag is laughable on the face of it. Particularly in light of a recent lawsuit that SCSU just settled. After doing a bit of research, I ran across the following...
"MINNEAPOLIS, Dec. 3, (2002) St. Cloud State University agreed today to pay nearly $365,000 to settle accusations of anti-Semitism among administrators and professors."
The lawsuit was settled on December 3, 2002. Know when the press release from the college Republicans was sent out? December 13, 2002. So it took SCSU all of 10 days to get into another flap related to supporting of Jews. But wait, it gets better. This is from an article on the suit from back on October 17, 2001...
"Three professors and a student plan to file a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday against St. Cloud State University and the entire MnSCU system, alleging that the school has done too little to deal with anti-Semitism on campus.
...St. Cloud State University and the MnSCU system are named in a lawsuit, alleging that SCSU faculty and administration have fostered an atmosphere of anti-Semitism on campus.
St. Cloud State has faced complaints of discrimination before, but this latest round began when Israeli-born history professor Arie Zmora was denied an opportunity for tenure and left the university last summer. Zmora had taught previously at Macalester College in St. Paul and the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. But says he never felt anything like the two years of "pain and agony" he says he experienced in the history department at St. Cloud.
"Continuous references and ridicule of Jews, especially this horrendous reference to fumigation of offices; sympathy with Nazi Germany; continuous questioning of my religion - why Jews do not believe in Jesus," Zmora recalled.
...This spring, the school commissioned a study by the Jewish Community Relations Council, which found what it called "an underlying environment of discrimination and bias against Jews at SCSU."
...But attorney Judy Schermer says her most important goal is achieving court-ordered changes in the way the school handles bias complaints. To this end, the first step in the lawsuit is to seek class-action status - an assertion that everyone who is Jewish or has expressed sympathy for Jewish causes is subject to a hostile environment at St. Cloud State (Ed note: my emphasis)."
The Anti-Defamation League also mentions that there was "retaliat(ion) against non-Jewish faculty for opposing anti-Semitism."
See? There's where the College Republicans screwed up -- non-Jews aren't allowed to oppose anti-Semitism at SCSU. But what do you want to bet that no one supporting the Palestinians would have been forced to take down a Palestinian flag? It's funny that we keep hearing stories related to anti-semitism on these left-wing college campuses isn't it? How can that be when the left-wingers are the tolerant ones (so they say) and we Conservatives (you know, the people who were harassed for sticking up for Israel) are supposed to be the mean, nasty, closet racists?
***Update***: The The SCCUScholars blog has some updates on this situation.
Also, I've received word from a source close to the situation that, "The College Republicans will be receiving a formal, written apology from the Nathan Church the VP for Student Life and Development. Along with the apology, the statement will consist of a reaffirmation of student's First Ammendment rights."
Arafat Sues Bin Laden for Trademark Infringement: Yassir Arafat this week told Usama Bin Laden to stop using the Palestinian cause as a reason for his terror attacks against the West. The Palestinian leader said Mr. Bin Laden tried to "piggy-back" upon the prestige and credibility of the Palestinian brand of terror.
Mr. Arafat's attorney said his client will file a trademark infringement lawsuit against al Qaeda, Mr. Bin Laden and "several guys whose names start with 'Prince'."
"The suicide bomber is to Palestine what the Golden Arches are to McDonald's," said the attorney. "It took my client many years to build a reputation in this niche market. When someone else blows up unarmed non-combatants, that infringes on my client's business. People who are riding buses, shopping or working peacefully in their offices have a right to know why they might suddenly be shredded by shrapnel. "
Al Qaeda marketing director Ali Abdomen Demolisha said, "Brother Arafat thinks he owns this business because he's been at it so long. But we are like Avis rental car...we are number two, so we try harder...Hey, I have made humor. Avis...ha, ha...that's better name for our business than al Qaeda."
If you liked this satire by Scott Ott, check out more of his work at Scrappleface.
No Gore In 2004: Last week, I told everyone not to buy the hype because Al Gore was going to be running in 2004. Well, I was utterly, completely, wrong....
"I've decided that I will not be a candidate for president in 2004," Gore told Lesley Stahl. "I personally have the energy and drive and ambition to make another campaign, but I don't think that it's the right thing for me to do.
"I want to contribute to ending the current administration. I think the current policies have to be changed. I think that my best way of contributing to that result may not be as a candidate this time around."
Right up until the moment Gore announced his decision, I would have bet anybody $20 that he was going to be in the race. That's not only because Gore was the front runner, but because this is probably going to be Gore's last go round for the Presidency. In 2008 the motivation for the Democratic base to give Gore another chance to avenge his loss in 2000 against Bush will be gone. By then Gore will be viewed as a boring loser who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in a race he should have won in 2000. Think of how Dukakis and Mondale are viewed today -- that'll be Gore in 2008. So why isn't Gore running? I can only assume that after Gore's tough loss in 2000, he just doesn't have the heart to go through another grinding two year long campaign now that he'll be the underdog instead of the favorite. See ya later Al -- I can't say that I'm sorry to see you go...
***Update***: Just for entertainment value -- here are a few reactions to Gore's announcement from our friends at the Democratic Underground. All of these posts are from threads about Gore throwing in the towel...
Jim Sagle:...We already know the Bush/Nixon/Kissinger/Scalia gang will stop at nothing: killing JFK, sabotaging Vietnam peace talks, making phony estimates of Soviet military power, stopping a vote recount via a riot by paid Republican staffers, stopping a vote recount via a blatantly crooked Supreme Court decision, letting 9-11 happen on purpose, and killing a couple Democratic Senators in plane crashes and sending anthrax to a couple more.
So why wouldn't they just tell Gore to shut up and sit down or be killed along with his family?
Maybe that explains the bad timing (smothering the Lott meltdown). Maybe they not only told him to quit, they told him WHEN to quit."
maveric:We may have resort to violence! Yes I said it. We dems/liberals and our "peaceful agendas" have done nothing for us the past few elections. These nazis are out for blood!! And they will lie, steal and even KILL!! They've done it before and they will do it again if there is no active RESISTANCE! They stole the country from the people. The people MUST TAKE IT BACK! Yeah I'm pissed and nuts! And I am ready to lay down my life so my kids and grandkids will be able to live in freedom. Go ahead and f*cking flame me or lock this thread!
Gayle:...WE CAN ALL SUPPORT ANY CANDIDATE WE WANT, BUT OUR CANDIDATE WILL NOT BE ELECTED UNLESS THE REPUBLICANS WANT THEM ELECTED. THE REPUBLICANS CONTROL OUR COUNTRY. THEY HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF OUR VOTING SYSTEM AND OUR VOTING MACHINES. THEY HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF OUR COURTS. THEY HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF OUR MEDIA. THEY COMPLETELY CONTROL THIS COUNTRY. WE ARE IN A COMPLETE DICTATORSHIP..."
