The St. Valentine's Day Job Massacre Or Alternately Freedom, Horrible Freedom!
When I, along with all the other techs where I work, received an email two weeks ago asking every employee in tech support to report for an off-site meeting on Valentine's Day, we weren't sure what to think. The fact that it was off-site, that the regular employees and temps had different meeting times, and the fact that absolutely no one seemed to know what the meeting was about were all bad signs. Were we about to be fired, sold to another company, were we moving to another location...or was it something more innocuous?
Nobody really knew. The company made money last year and to the best of our knowledge was in the black this year. Furthermore, no ugly rumors had been floating around...still, my gut instinct was: this is going to be something bad.
The jokes in the tech room reflected the sense of unease:
Person #1: Yeah, we're going into the meeting and they're gonna be like, "We have good news for you...well, it's good news if you like Indian culture, we're moving to India!"
Person #2: Actually, I bet it's more like: "The good news is that you have more freedom, you've all been fired!"
Unfortunately, those jokes turned out to be foreshadowing. On to the meeting...
We all showed up at 8 AM on Valentine's Day and the company's designated hatchet man started trying to put the spin on the bad news right off the bat.
"The bad news could have been that we were sending all your jobs to India or Canada. That could have been the bad news...
Oooof. From there on out, they let us know that we had been sold down the river to another company...just us, mind you; the company was hanging on to the equipment and building. That's quite relevant, because the owner of the new company spoke to us and let us know he was all about cutting costs....and since the only costs they'd be bearing were personnel...you get the idea.
So did we. If we took the offer with this new company, we'd be in the same building, doing the same job, at the same desk -- except it would be much busier for a few months because of all the turnover -- and we'd be making significantly less money along with taking large benefit cuts. How much less, we wouldn't know until we received job offers the next week...but there was no doubt it was going to be bad. You don't make a move like this unless you plan to really cut to the bone.
So for the last two weeks, the mood in the tech room was, as you can imagine, dreary. Personally, I wasn't too happy either. My goal had been to work through the end of 2005 with the company, save up more money, get RWN's traffic up a bit, and then start working full time as a blogger/writer at the start of 2006. Sure, I could have looked around for a higher paying job, but I'd been there five years, had sweet benefits (including health care & 18 days of vacation/personal time which is the best deal you're gonna get this side of France) and the big bosses didn't care what we did when we weren't on calls with customers -- which meant that I could actually get in a little work on RWN while I was on the clock with their blessing. That wasn't a terrible deal given my situation.
But now, there was a kink in my plans...a pretty big kink as it turned out. The job offer I got from our "new" employer? It included a sick pay drop from 12 to 6 days, a vacation/personal day cut from 18 to 3 days, and a big cut in my hourly wage. Combine that with the fact that it was hard to muster even mild enthusiasm for the job given the circumstances and I decided it was time to go in a different direction.
So, that means that I've been officially laid off and I am -- at least for the moment -- a professional blogger. Sure, I don't have as much money saved up as I'd like, RWN is smaller than I'd like, and my expenses are way too high per month, but...wait, a second, I'm going to DIE! J/K =D
Actually, I am having to cut back on my living expenses quite a bit, but believe it or not, I think I'll AT LEAST be breaking even given the revenue stream I have coming in and with what I'll have my costs down to by April 1. Although I would feel a lot more comfortable with a few thousand dollars more in the bank, after crunching the numbers, I think full-time blogging is going to work. And of course, if it doesn't, well, I can always get another day job.
Over the next few months, I should be able to spend more time on RWN, get to work on the book I've been planning, have time to start writing regular columns again, and work on a little project that I hope to unveil in the next few weeks. I'd also like to get some paid writing gigs (email me if you'd like me to do something for your magazine or paper).
The timing may not have worked out exactly as I wanted, but that's life. I'm going to be doing what I want to do, when I want to do it, and that is a beautiful thing that's worth taking a risk for...
PS: Yes, I'm deliberately leaving the company's name out of it. I never mentioned their name while I worked for them and I'd rather keep it professional even though I'm out the door.
"Several Bushist blogger types have written to assert that there are as many violent and threatening remarks and insults coming from liberals online as there are from conservatives against liberals. I've spent many sadly-lost hours online, and I say: no way.
So here's my challenge: Please email your worst, most vicious examples of liberal/leftie blogger vitriol (with links, natch), and I'll post 'em right here. If they exist, obviously.
If not, let's take as a given what we already know: that Republicans' first impulse is to punch people whose arguments they can't defeat with logic and to bomb countries whose people know something we don't."
Here are the examples Rall gives of the sort of "violent & threatening remarks" that he's looking for...
Here are some sample posts to one of the "well-known" right-wing blogs, Little Green Footballs (Hawkins' Note: Rall's original post had no LGF link. I added it in.)
"I hope Rall dies now.
"I am glad that Bolshevik dog Rall is being targeted for termination."
"I found out belatedly that he made an appearence at the 2004 San Diego Comic-Con (for what reason I'm not sure) so I missed my opportunity to give him a complimentary tracheotemy or put out a cigarette in his eye or some other fair and accurate constructive criticism of his works."
"I wish somebody would drop Rall - out of a helicopter."
Some people can butt-f*ck anything, if they are desperate/ugly enough. Me, I'd butt-f*ck Rall. With a large caliber repeating weapon. Or a high-velocity flame-thrower. My choice... "
About an hour and forty five minutes ago, Rall claimed there was no response to his challenge. Gosh, if there were only someone on the right side of the blogosphere who loved a challenge....wait a second, I LOVE A CHALLENGE. So Ted, here ya go...
8) "I'm assuming (Michael Kelly's) family won't be reading this, but frankly, I'm gratified to learn that he paid the ultimate price for his sins of warmongering. This guy was scum. My first thoughts on seeing the thread were that I hoped it was that scum Post warmongering writer. My second thought was that it was a late April Fool's joke. But no false sadness from me, only happiness that someone as mean and vicious as Mike Kelly got what was coming. As for all the posts about "coming by his views honestly" and "not speaking ill of the dead", congratulations on taking the high road guys, but *ssholes like Kelly have to die sometime, and I prefer it is as a direct result of their sins. But what do I know, I'm happy that Reagan has Alzheimers and that * has access to pretzels. I wish death on my enemies, and these guys are enemies." -- jackswift on the death of Michael Kelly in Iraq
3) "When the 2nd plane hit the WTC I remember thinking......OMG, he's got his war now. Then, the next day or the day after that, when the roar of "war with Iraq and Afganistan" really got going I couldn't help but think "well Bush II get's to finish Daddy's work now". As for when the plane hit the Pentagon and the other plane went down in that field in Penn I screamed at the TV, "Get the WH, for God's sake you missed the WH." I invented some cuss words on that one. There were times before 9/11 as well as in the days to follow that the boy king mentioned Saddam "tried to kill my Dad" and couldn't help but scream at the TV each time, "Well, give him a medal for effort anyway." -- LiberalLibra
1) "I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a sh*t hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts." -- Starpass
8) "Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Well, we've been watching intifada in Palestine, we've been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don't have an intifada in this country? Because it seem[s] to me, that we are comfortable in where we are, watching CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and all these mainstream... giving us a window to the world while the world is being managed from Washington, from New York, from every other place in here in San Francisco: Chevron, Bechtel, [Carlyle?] Group, Halliburton; every one of those lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving individuals are in our country and we're sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every-- They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet." -- U.C. Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian fires up the crowd at an anti-war rally by calling for an American intifada
7) "...And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq 'We have our good days and our bad days.' We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days' and pull the trigger. Do you want to salvage our country? Be a savior of our country? Then vote for John Kerry and get rid of the whole Bush Bunch." -- From a fund raising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club
4) "Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm." -- The Village Voice's Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places
"...In an ideal world, American consumers could be convinced to do the right thing through an appeal to logic with public service messages like the "What Would Jesus Drive?" TV campaign, but the kind of people who would buy a car that increases the risk to other motorists in an accident can't be reasoned with. They're selfish and stupid. It's unfortunate that drivers must worry that their SUVs are being targeted by insulting stickers and Molotov cocktails, but one thing's for sure: It couldn't be happening to a more deserving group of people." -- Ted Rall winks at ecoterrorism
Add to those examples the nut who tried to "intimidate" Katherine Harris with his car, the loons from the National People's Action who (according to the WAPO) encircled Karl Rove's house while yelling and banging on the windows, and Checkpoint, an entire political novel about assassinating Bush, & I think we can safely say Rall's challenge has been answered.
Hat tip to RWN reader Ray Stickler & Polipundit for alerting me to Rall's challenge.
*** Update #1 ***: Rall has an email address up for the challenge. It bounced when I sent a message into it.
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
rightwingchallenge@rall.com
Wonder if it's an innocent mistake or if he realized this is a dumb idea and wanted to keep the number of responses down?
*** Update #2 ***: Rall now has up what looks to be a working email, chet@rall.com, says he has gotten over 200 replies, and adds...
"Believe it or not, no, I did NOT know that any of this stuff was out there. I'd read references by Republican bloggers to such things, but no one ever provided a link and I could never find it....Has the challenge been met? Yes."
Game, Set, Match.
*** Update #3 ***: Read more on this subject here.
Indicator You May Be Left Of Liberal By Spacemonkey
10. You never could throw your full support behind John Kerry once you found out his first name is found in the Bible, of all places.
9. One of the few reasons you couldn't bring yourself to assasinate the president is you'd have to actually buy a gun.
8. Your opinions and values carry more weight than those that oppose you, because you care.
7. To save money you bought an effigy of Bush made of asbestos. You later returned it when you realized 'the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed.' is ALSO found in the Bible.
6. You believe the death penalty should be abolished...after it's applied to those that support it.
5. You believe that any news service that doesn't keep 'Bush is EV1L Incarnate' as its lead story is undeniably linked to a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
4. Four years later and you are STILL protesting outside the Broward County Courthouse for Gore-Lieberman 2000.
3. You have made a sign which you carry to every protest that just says 'NO!'. It's written in your own blood from when you carved 'I'm Sorry, World' on your forehead.
2. You acknowlege the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' exists and is inherently evil but often lose sleep at night worrying there are smaller 'Widespread Right Wing Conspiracies' that need to be stamped out too and aren't getting the attention they deserve.
And the number one Indicator You May Be Left of Liberal....
1 You strongly believe cannibalism is wrong. Not because it takes a human life but because it's...meat.
If you enjoyed this satire by Spacemonkey, you can read more of his work at IMAO.
Dean Campaigns In The Red States -- But For Which Party?
Howard Dean is going to have a hard time helping the Dems make headway in the red states when he's apparently looked at as such a radical and polarizing figure that Democrats like Kathleen Sebelius don't even want to be seen with him...
"Before his selection as DNC chairman this month, Dean said he would bolster local and state party organizations even in the nation's most conservative areas.
"How do we expect those places to vote Democratic when we don't even show up?" Dean said during Thursday's speech.
Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who was elected in a 2002 race marked by tensions between moderate and conservative Republicans, hadn't planned to attend any of Dean's events."
You can't really blame Sebelius for not showing up. All it would take is a little footage of her with Dean to put together a commercial that practically writes itself.
You start with footage of Sebelius & Dean together, looking like the best of pals on stage, then show some clips of Dean sounding like an extremist or saying things that would aggravate half of Kansas...
-- "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."
-- "Dealing with race is about educating white folks..."
-- "I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
-- "(9/11 & the aftermath will) require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street."
-- "Yearggghhhhhhhhhh!"
Then you finish up the commercial by saying something like,
"This Nov. 2nd, let Kathleen Sebelius & her Washington allies like Howard Dean get a message: Their extremist, liberal values are wrong for Kansas!"
Watch for commercials just like the one I just described to be running in red states during the 2006 election cycle...
As we've learned from watching the left side of the blogosphere's bizarre and obsessive coverage of the Jeff Gannon AKA James Guckert non-story, it's vitally important that we have "real," "non-biased" reporters asking questions at White House press conferences...you know, like Dan Rather or Michael Moore.
In fact, the left is such a stickler over this issue -- in the case of Mr. Gannon at least -- that they're demanding to know why the White House didn't do a long, detailed examination of Jeff Gannon's sex life.
Who'd have thought this would be such a big issue to the left after they spent the Clinton years claiming that it was OK for the President to commit perjury as long as he was lying about sex? Interesting thought: I wonder how the left will react when Hillary's sex life is given the "Jeff Gannon treatment" when she runs in 2008? Why am I guessing that they'll be upset?
In any case, that's beside the point -- especially since I have a hot, juicy scoop (well, it should be at least as big of a "scoop" as the lefties had with Gannon) . I've found another person who's getting into White House press conferences even though she's not a reporter!
Her name? It's Helen Thomas.
She quit her job as a reporter with UPI back in 2000 and now is a syndicated columnist for Hearst Newspapers. Maybe Gannon was from a minor-league organization, Talon News, but at least he was a reporter which is more than anyone can say for Thomas anymore.
Moreover, you want to talk partisanship? Just take a look at some of the questions Thomas has asked at press conferences...
Helen Thomas:"My follow-up is, why does (George Bush) want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?" -- January 6, 2003
---
Helen Thomas:"Is this (war) revenge, 11 years of revenge?" -- January 6, 2003
---
Helen Thomas to Fleischer:"[W]hy is [Bush] going to bomb them? I mean, how do you bomb people back to democracy? This is a question of conquest. They didn't ask to be "liberated" by the United States. This is our self-imposed political solution for them." — Feb. 26, 2003. As reported by Salon
---
Helen Thomas:"We didn't go in to win the war on terrorism when we invaded Iraq." -- April 29, 2004. As reported by Unknown News
---
Helen Thomas:"...following up Ann Compton's question [regarding Saddam Hussein's court hearing], does [President Bush] agree with Saddam that Presidents are above the law?" -- July 1, 2004. As reported by Unknown News.
---
Helen Thomas:"Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full, personal responsibility --"
A:"I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat."
Helen Thomas:"Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the President take full, personal responsibility for this war?"
A:"The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confront the threat."
Helen Thomas:"There was no threat."
A:"The President made the decision to confront the threat."
Helen Thomas:"Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country." -- July 19, 2004. As reported by Unknown News.
---
Helen Thomas:"Why are we killing people in Iraq? There are many men, women and children being killed there. I mean, what is the reason we are there, killing people, continuing. It's outrageous." -- Nov. 29, 2004. As reported by Unknown News
---
Helen Thomas:"Has the President given any orders to stop the ongoing brutalization of Iraqi prisoners?" -- Dec. 8, 2004. As reported by Unknown News
---
Of course, Thomas hasn't been accused of any sexual misconduct, but how would anyone know unless Helen Thomas' sex life is given the same exacting scrutiny that Jeff Gannon's was? Is it possible that Thomas might be a lesbian? Could she have worked for an escort service on the side? Has she ever had an affair with a married man? Most conservatives, myself included, don't think those are relevant questions to ask of reporters, but since the left doesn't seem to share our opinion, perhaps there's an intrepid liberal blogger out there who wants to dig into Helen Thomas' sex life? Just look at the traffic that has been generated on the left by dragging Gannon's sex life through the mud -- who's to say it would be any different with Thomas?
Let me close with a warning that bloggers on the left should take to heart: the precedent you are setting by dragging a minor media figure's sex life (and even rumors about his sex life) into the public domain may come back and bite you. After all, if it becomes accepted that Jeff Gannon's sex life is fair game, then why wouldn't the sex life of major media figures or even big name bloggers be fair game as well? Let's hope that the left side of the blogosphere -- in a desperate attempt to keep a small, insignificant scandal alive -- has not created a "Gannon Standard" that will be used to justify this sort of public sliming for years to come.
"Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual.
Rice challenges expectations and assumptions. There is undeniable authority in her long black jacket with its severe details and menacing silhouette. The darkness lends an air of mystery and foreboding. Black is the color of intellectualism, of abstinence, of penitence. If there is any symbolism to be gleaned from Rice's stark garments, it is that she is tough and focused enough for whatever task is at hand.
Countless essays and books have been written about the erotic nature of high heels. There is no need to reiterate in detail the reasons why so many women swear by uncomfortable three-inch heels and why so many men are happy that they do. Heels change the way a woman walks, forcing her hips to sway. They alter her posture in myriad enticing ways, all of which are politically incorrect to discuss."
I know Condi isn't every guy's cup of tea, but she's right down my alley. Looks, brains, and style: Condi is the complete package....
Our "Friends" The French Are On Board In Iraq. Whoop-De-Do!
Liberals across America are today rejoicing, insurgents in Iraq are trembling in fear, and cowering monkeys in zoos all across America are waving their slices of cheddar in the air with abandon now that it's official that the French are on board in Iraq!
Yes, the frogs have hopped to the rescue once again, pouring into the breach -- almost as fast as they ran out of it when the Nazis rolled into their country in WW2 -- in order to prove that Nato still works, that the French are still our friends, and that France is one of the world's great powers!
"A day after the two old foes had a reconciliatory dinner, Bush trumpeted a promise from all the Nato allies, including crucially France, to train Iraqi security forces, as a sign of an end of the tensions over the war.
"Twenty six nations sitting around that table (at Tuesday's Nato summit) said it's important for Nato to be involved in Iraq - that's a strong statement," he said.
But the commitment of the principal anti-war nations, in particular France, will be minimal: France will contribute to a training fund; it will commit just one official from its Nato offices, and it will not take part in training inside Iraq."
Nearly useless help from a nearly useless country that's part of a nearly useless alliance. From the French this is to be expected, but it is sad to see a once great alliance like Nato reduced to this point.
In his latest column, obnoxious lefty Ted Rall chucks a huge stone from the window of his glass house...
"Bloggers want you to know that there's a new sheriff in town. Edward Morrissey, writer of the right-wing blog Captain's Quarters, boasts to the New York Times: "The media can't just cover up the truth and expect to get away with it--and journalists can't just toss around allegations without substantiation and expect people to believe them anymore." And what are Morrissey's qualifications to police the media? When he's not harassing old-school journos like Dan Rather and CNN's Eason Jordan out of their jobs, Morrissey manages a call center near Minneapolis.
...Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing interesting to say. They're sitting in their rec rooms, regurgitating and spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work. They don't have sources, they don't report, and no one holds them accountable when they make mistakes or flat out lie. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town. Unfortunately he's drunk, he's mean, and he works for the bad guys."
So the meanspirited cartoonist/columnist who has made a name for himself on the left by making deranged and inflammatory comments about conservatives, soldiers, terror widows, and America in general is questioning whether other people are qualified to have an opinion? That's a laugh.
You know, it has been a while since I got my psychology degree, but there was a word that perfectly described what Ted Rall wrote there...hmmm, what was it? What was it? Oh yeah, now I remember...
Projection:"In psychoanalytic theory, a mechanism of defense in which various forbidden thoughts and impulses are attributed to another person rather than the self, thus warding off some anxiety (e.g., "I hate you" becomes "You hate me")."
The Flat Tax: Working In The Real World By Prestopundit
SLOVAKIA goes to a flat tax and private retirement accounts. The efforts of George Bush and the Republican government look rather pathetic when set next to the freedom agenda of the Slovaks:
On Jan 1, 2004, Slovakia adopted a 19% flat income and corporate tax rate. The dividend tax and a plethora of tax exemptions were eliminated. The tax reform has resulted in an increase of tax revenues from SK 200 billion in 2003 to SK 209 billion in 2004 -- some 30% above government expectations. This tax reform is part of a regional trend. Flat tax rates in Estonia, Latvia, Russia and Ukraine have also proved successful. More recently, the flat-tax club grew to include Georgia, Romania and Serbia. As Alvin Rabushka of the Hoover Institution argues, "President Bush's most effective way to promote tax reform [in the United States] is to showcase the experiences of Eastern and Central Europe."
Like Social Security in the U.S., the Slovak pay-as-you-go retirement scheme faced adverse demographic trends and, consequently, long-term financial shortfalls. The Cato Institute's Jose Piñera, who as the former Chilean minister of labor and social security presided over the original social security privatization in Chile, helped Slovak reformers design legislation that allows Slovak workers to invest half of their social security contributions into private accounts. The legislation went into effect this year. Already more than one-third of eligible workers have switched to private accounts.
And economic liberalization is paying off big time for the Slovaks:
Between January 2000 and June 2004, cumulative foreign direct investment to Slovakia rose five-fold .. Steve Forbes .. wrote in Forbes Magazine: "The Slovak Republic is set to become the world's next Hong Kong or Ireland, i.e., a small place that's an economic powerhouse." -- Steve Forbes.
Bush To Boost Spending on GOP Spinal Research By Scott Ott
In an effort to strengthen Congressional Republicans' resolve to reduce non-defense spending by one percent, President George Bush today offered to increase federal funding for research aimed at "stiffening the spines of elected officials."
"Scientists tell me there may be a genetic defect which allows members of my party to campaign against government waste but then, once they're elected, to refuse to reduce spending or eliminate useless programs," said Mr. Bush. "The condition makes them look like they have no spine."
The president said this spinal deformity causes a gap between the brain's communication center and the motor neurons which lead to action.
"For the layman, you might call it a conflict between the talk and the walk," Mr. Bush said. "Although researchers tell me we're nowhere near a cure, I think the American people would be willing to invest in the hope that someday these politicians might be able to stand up, straighten their spines and achieve at least some minimal level of functionality."
Satire used with permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
I don't want to say that I told you so but...wait, yes I do want to say, "I told ya so you liberals, told ya so!"
From an article I wrote back on April 14, 2004 called "Why We Invaded Iraq"...
"If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region."
"The leader of this Lebanese intifada [for independence from Syria] is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus...
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.""
Could freedom in Iraq help lead to freedom in Lebanon? Yes, it could and that's one of the things George Bush and the other supporters of the war, myself included, were hoping to see. A Reverse-Domino effect that could help free people all over the region...
Why has the column generated so much heat? Mainly because Sager tapped into two wells of discontentment that Libertarians love to drink deep from...
#1) Resentment of religious conservatives who have sharp disagreements with Libertarians on social issues.
#2) Libertarian anger at being on the margins of politics in America.
Here's an excerpt from the column that gives you a pretty good idea of what infuriated Sager about CPAC,
"On the immigration panel mentioned above, Phyllis Schlafly took the hard line against immigration.
"The idea of giving any job to any willing worker is absolutely unacceptable," Schlafly said. American workers won't and shouldn't work for the wages Mexicans and other Latin American immigrants are willing to accept, she said, and companies should be forced to pay them more.
All of this met with wild applause from the audience. And so there we have the most conservative of conservatives fully buying into economic protectionism -- not to mention the minimum wage, which a past generation rightly saw as a destructive and outrageous intrusion into the free labor market.
Then there was the speech by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, another CPAC rock star. Santorum made the revealing choice of referring to marriage as "the ultimate public good" -- i.e. a product or service that the government must provide because the free market won't.
Santorum, of course, doesn't just support banning gay marriage (though that's where all the energy in the so-called "pro-marriage" movement is directed), he also supports various government programs to promote the institution of marriage.
But as one Log Cabiner asked, just when did the Republican Party become the party of Washington, D.C.? Just where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power or responsibility to manage citizens' family lives?
To be fair, libertarian -- or classical liberal -- principles were not without representation. The Libertarian Party (ugh…) had a booth. The ACLU had a booth. The wonderful folks over at Bureaucrash had a booth.
But precious little libertarianism came from the stage, and what little did was seldom well received.
Now, perhaps CPAC just isn't any place for libertarians. But that, in itself, is a problem. The conservative movement should be reaching out to people who, well, just aren't as bothered by "Will & Grace" as some other people are.
Conservatism can't survive by religious extremism and tax cuts alone."
Before I address what Sager said, let me say that I do not dislike Libertarians, write them off as kooks, etc., etc. However, I am a conservative, not a Libertarian, which means that I, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, don't see to eye with Libertarians on a lot of issues.
Two of those issues are gay marriage and illegal-immigration. The reality is that a large majority of Americans and most of the Republican base is staunchly opposed to gay marriage and illegal-immigration. Sager can (and did) complain about that, but it's Libertarians, not Republicans that are on the wrong side of public opinion on those issues. So there's not going to be a policy shift on those topics that is going to make Libertarians happy.
Furthermore, there are very practical reasons why Republicans tend to cater to social conservatives instead of Libertarians... first and foremost being that social conservatives probably outnumber Libertarians...oh, I don't know...20 to 1? So who should Republicans be trying to please: the large group of people who have been proven to vote conservative or a much, much smaller group of Libertarians who are the political equivalent of the Greens, a group of radicals who are always fickle when election time rolls around because the Party ideologically closest to them can't ever be extreme enough to please them? It's no contest.
Moreover, let me add that the stereotypical way that people like Sager paint social conservatives -- as religious zealots who only care about their pet issues -- is complete bupkis. Even if you completely set aside social issues, you'd find that prominent social conservatives like Michelle Malkin, Cal Thomas, & Bill Bennett have far more ideologically in common with other conservatives in particular, and the American public in general, than Libertarians do. That's why social conservatives are able to win elections even though they rub some people the wrong way while Libertarians almost always lose.
There are things that conservatives and Libertarians can and do work together on like shrinking the size of government, lessening the tax burden, & weakening government, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on certain issues like gay marriage and illegal-immigration. That's just the reality of the situation and anyone who expects that to change any time soon is just barking up the wrong tree...
Anybody Remember the “graveyard of empires” and the “brutal Afghan winter”?
After the Taliban’s three-year struggle against a superior US force, there is growing optimism among the Americans and Afghan government that the end is close.
More than 1,000 people have died in violence in the past 18 months, but attacks have tailed off since the guerrillas failed to make good their vow to disrupt the presidential election in October, which saw a huge turnout and was won by Mr Karzai.
Will anyone report that the war is over when the Taliban come out of the hills and join the free Afghan people? Doubtful. The American media have all fled the success of Afghanistan and only one or two reporters remain to document Karzai’s bold and effective initiative to entice lower-level Taliban to come in from the cold.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers are conducting secret talks with Iraq’s Sunni insurgents on ways to end fighting there, Time magazine reported on Sunday, citing Pentagon and other sources.
The magazine cited a secret meeting between two members of the U.S. military and an Iraqi negotiator, a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the senior representative of what he called the nationalist insurgency.
“We are ready to work with you,” the Iraqi negotiator said, according to Time.
Why, this is just…just…awful! But not to worry, you despondent LLL and MSM denizens: there is in fact one place on the planet that seems to be resistant to all attempts to straighten things out. Of course, there’s one catch: the real quagmire is not Bush’s but the UN’s:
The world reacted in horror six years ago when the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic embarked on an ethnic cleansing operation against Kosovo’s Albanians, forcing 700,000 people, nearly half the population, to flee the province. Reports of massacres and images of mileslong lines of refugees fleeing into neighboring Albania and Macedonia compelled the world to act. The NATO air campaign against Serbia that followed convinced Belgrade to give up its brutal assault, and Kosovo was put under United Nations administration.
And so it remains to this day: an international protectorate, legally part of Serbia, but with a 90 percent ethnic Albanian population that would sooner go to war than submit to Belgrade’s rule. Kosovars seek an independent state, and the seemingly endless delays over final-status talks are only causing deep frustration and resentment.
Their discontent is not simply a matter of hurt pride over national sovereignty; Kosovo’s unsettled international status has serious repercussions for daily life. Because it is under United Nations administration, Kosovo is in economic limbo: it cannot be part of the international bank transfer system, it is ineligible for sovereign lending from development banks, and it can attract few foreign investors. With 70 percent unemployment, the province is being starved of the commerce it badly needs.
Perhaps most important, the continuing uncertainty creates widespread insecurity among Kosovo’s ethnic Albanians, who live with a constant sense of dread that they could return to Serb rule. It is essentially a siege mentality, and it could explode into violence at any time.
Six years—six years, folks—and not once during that more than half a decade have we heard the word “quagmire” uttered by the Left, the Dems, or the MSM, or at least not that I can recall. Curious, no?
Yeah, I know: not really. After all, it was Saint Bill of Clinton who whopped that particular tarbaby.
(That last is also via Captain Ed, who offers up some good commentary of his own, as usual.)
Content used with the permission of Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
The Conspiracy Theory To End All Conspiracy Theories About The 2004 Election
Any old nutjob can opine that Jews control the media, Karl Rove set up Dan Rather with fake memos, or that George Bush had Paul Wellstone killed. However, it requires a particularly aberrant sort of creativity to come up with a conspiracy theory as implausible as the one Carol Rawle digitally scribbled on the pages of Unknown News. It just has to be seen to be believed...
"Maybe I've finally arrived at complete and total cynicism, or even turned the corner and become a conspiracy nutcase (*** From Hawkins: That's the one Carol! ***). But there's been something about the way Kerry conducted his campaign and his post-election behavior that has been nagging at my mind for weeks.
I've always considered myself to be a reasonable person, not given to jumping to conclusions on flimsy evidence, nor am I easily swayed by sensational sentiment. However, when things don't seem to add up, I can't rest until I find out why, and I'm now ready to admit that I strongly suspect that John Kerry threw the election, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was behind it.
...Dean had the nomination practically sewed up until "The Scream," (*** From Hawkins: The "Dean Scream" came AFTER, NOT BEFORE, Dean's embarrassing 3rd place finish in Iowa, a state he spent enormous amounts of money and time on. "The Scream" was just the cherry on the top of the chocolate fudge sundae of failure that Dean's campaign had become ***) but it could easily have gone the other way and energized the party if only they had wanted to play it that way. I think it's possible that the DLC was ordered by the corporate elite to use it as a way to get rid of Dean because he doesn't fit into their long range plan.
...Here's some circumstantial evidence to tally up. Everyone was disappointed in the piss-poor way Kerry ran his campaign. He blew it on so many levels that if it were an NFL football game, you can bet there'd be an investigation into point shaving. I won't go into the whole list of his campaign disasters, but didn't someone say at one point, that the election was "Kerry's to lose"? Yet he seemed bent on doing almost everything exactly wrong.
Well, just maybe it wasn't simply a case of bad campaign management from his DLC handlers. Maybe it's because Kerry had agreed not to try too hard to win the election, and he was just following orders to accomplish this.
...The question that bothers me most about this theory is probably the one you are asking now. Why would Kerry go along with the DLC and its corporate masters and agree to throw the election? I believed, and still do, that John Kerry is basically a principled and decent man. But he's a politician who grew up as part of the "ruling class." He is also a member of Scull and Bones, that secret Yale fraternity that George W. Bush also belongs to, who, as adults, call themselves The New World Order which controls the purse strings and politics of most of the world and are all loyal to one another, first and foremost. He was promised, no doubt, that he'd get his real chance in 2008, which could account for his not wanting to spend all of his campaign war chest on an election he'd agreed to lose. And why waste the money on contesting this same election when he has no intention of being president until 2008?
There are entirely too many coincidences. So it's just a matter of adding up all the evidence and drawing some obvious conclusions. I believe, given all I now know and understand, that it was in the best interest of this consortium of big corporations that Bush continue as president. Even though he's made a mountain of embarrassing mistakes, he has been flawless in delivering for the corporate ruling class. Big business hasn't enjoyed this level of pampering and privilege for the better part of a century.
Maybe at the end of four more years of Bush, things will be on track enough for the corporate elites to permit the Democrats, under the leadership of the DLC of course, to have another crack at the White House. And I'm sure that Kerry really believes they'll make him president.
I know this all sounds like some whacko conspiracy theory, but I don't know how else to make sense of this truly bizarre election. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence that we can and should begin to ask some hard questions about the true agenda of the DLC, and expose them for what they really are -- a group more loyal to the conservative right than to traditional Democratic ideals."
Make sure to keep this quiet, folks, or the next thing you know we might have Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore, & Maurice Hinchey calling for an investigation =D
What happens to a once great military alliance when the nations you're partnered with cease to maintain serious militaries? Unfortunately, that is not a theoretical question for the United States. Mark Steyn elaborates...
"In the column I wrote on September 11, 2001, I mentioned en passant that among the day's consequences would be the end of Nato - "a military alliance for countries that no longer in any recognisable sense have militaries". I can't remember why I mentioned Europe and Nato in that 9/11 column. It seems an odd thing to be thinking about as the towers were falling.
But it was clear, even then, that the day's events would test the Atlantic relationship and equally clear that it would fail that test. Later that week, for the first time in its history, Nato invoked its famous Article Five - the one about how an attack on one member is an attack on all. But, even as the press release was rolling off the photocopier, most of the "allies" in this post-modern alliance were insisting that the declaration didn't mean anything. "We are not at war," said Belgium. Norway and Germany announced that there would be no deployment of their forces.
Remember last year's much trumpeted Nato summit in Turkey? This was the one at which everyone was excited at how the "alliance" had agreed to expand its role in Afghanistan beyond Kabul to the country's somewhat overly autonomous "autonomous regions".
What this turned out to mean on closer examination was that, after the secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, put the squeeze on Nato's 26 members, they reluctantly put up an extra 600 troops and three helicopters for Afghanistan. That averages out at 23.08 troops per country, plus almost a ninth of a helicopter apiece. As it transpired, the three Black Hawks all came from one country - Turkey - and they've already gone back. And Afghanistan is supposed to be the good war, the one Continental officials all claim to have supported, if mostly retrospectively and for the purposes of justifying their "principled moral opposition" to Iraq.
A few months before 9/11, I happened to find myself sitting next to an eminent older statesman. "What is Nato for?" he wondered. "Well, you should know," I said. "You were secretary-general. You went into the office every day." With hindsight, he was asking the right question. On the other hand, if Nato is useless to America, it looks like being a goldmine for the Chinese, to whom the Europeans are bent on selling their military technology. Jacques Chirac is pitching this outreach to the politburo in lofty terms, modifying Harold Macmillan and casting Europe as Athens to China's Rome. I can't see it working, but the very attempt presumes that the transatlantic relationship is now bereft of meaning.
Nato will not be around circa 2015 - which is why the Americans are talking it up right now. An organisation that represents the fading residual military will of mostly post-military nations is marginally less harmful than the EU, which is the embodiment of their pacifist delusions. But, either way, there's not a lot to talk about. Try to imagine significant numbers of French, German or Belgian troops fighting alongside American forces anywhere the Yanks are likely to find themselves in the next decade or so: it's not going to happen.
"Old Europe" didn't start gearing down their miltaries when Bush came into office. It started happening after the Soviet Union broke up and continues to this day with the gap between American and European forces growing significantly wider each year. This cannot continue forever.
NATO is practically dead on its feet as it is and unless there are significant changes, the alliance will certainly wheeze its last breath, keel over in a ditch, and drift off into nothingness. It would be better to save NATO if we can, but the patient has to WANT TO LIVE, and there's precious little ACTION (as opposed to empty talk) on the European side that indicates anyone would be terribly upset if the plug were pulled...
The whole "feminism in the blogosphere" meme is cropping up again as it does every few months. After gaining experience by wading hip deep into the gory fray over why there aren't more successful women bloggers not once, not twice, but three times, I can now give a short, succinct explanation of why there aren't more top women bloggers out there.
Women on the whole are less interested in politics than men, therefore less women create blogs, thus the female talent pool in the blogosphere is smaller than the male pool, which leads to the dearth of "A-List" female bloggers.
In other words, there aren't as many really successful female bloggers because percentage wise, there aren't as many women who are interested in doing political blogging. It's just that simple...
*** Update #1***: Lori Byrd from Polipundit has done a post on this same subject and it sounds like she agrees with what I said about women -- as a whole -- being less interested in politics than men...
"I will say that just from personal experience, though, just in general, I don’t run into as many women who are interested in politics as I do men interested in politics. There are plenty of women on the cable news and talk radio shows talking about politics, and an ever growing number of female politicians, but in my life I just don’t run across as many women that are interested in politics. My experience is in North Carolina, and not in a political environment, so it may be completely unrepresentative of the population at large. It is just that – my personal experience."
Unfortunately, my web designer Nicole is in nuclear power school and is therefore indefinitely indisposed. That's a problem because I need some help from someone with web design skills. I don't THINK they'll need to know MySQL, but familiarity with HTML, PHP, graphics, web page design, and blogging tools (Blogger or Movable Type preferably) would probably be a good idea.
Anybody out there who works very cheap or better yet free, who has some time to spend over the next couple of week-ends, who'd like to find out more? If so, email me at johnhawkins --at-- rightwingnews.com. If possible, you may want to include some addresses of websites you've worked on in the past.
You know what really chafes conservatives about the mainstream media? It's not just that the MSM is overwhelmingly staffed with liberals who let their hostility to conservatism leak into their reporting, it's that they won't ADMIT THAT THEY'RE LIBERALS. The same liberal journalists who hate FoxNews with a passion because it leans to the right, will claim to be totally unbiased with their next breath.
"Keller also sees “blogging,” or online writing that blurs news and commentary, as a mixed blessing. While he celebrated the blogger’s ability to uncover breaking news, he noted that a blog’s inherent bias might be detrimental to the reader. “A blog is still a view of the world through a pinhole,” he said, noting that it can sometimes fall as low as being a “one man circle jerk.”
“There is a pressure to feel well informed without ever confronting an opinion that confronts your prejudices,” he said of blog readers."
You know how I'm going to respond to that? By posting this excerpt from my interview with media critic Bernard Goldberg...
Bernard Goldberg: But, I think that Jayson Blair took a lot of time and attention away from a much more important subject. What the media and the New York Times should have been paying more attention to is that they let their ideology slip off of the editorial pages and into their news pages way too often. You could read the sports pages of the New York Times and you get ideology shoved down your throat all the time. This Augusta story, right?
John Hawkins: Oh, that was so annoying...
Bernard Goldberg: They raised that to the level of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Then you read a movie review as I did week or so ago, the movie has nothing to do with politics, and the movie reviewer is taking cheap shots at the Fox News channel. So they're giving us ideology there. Then you will think I'm making this up, they run a piece about food in the magazine section. Now let me read this to you, it's a short thing. Johnathan Reynolds is the writer. He talked about his trip to Norway to learn how to prepare scallops and other fish. But in the midst of this piece, he's talking about monkfish, and he says, "it sits on the bottom of the ocean, opens its Godzilla jaws and waits for poor unsuspecting fishies to swim right into it, not unlike the latest recipients of W's capital-gains cuts."
John Hawkins: (Groan)
Bernard Goldberg: Now this is the problem at the New York Times, not Jayson Blair. You get ideology on page 1, you get ideology on the sports page, you get ideology in the movie reviews, and you get ideology in a story about monkfish! It's ridiculous!
Here's more from Daniel Okrent, the former public editor of the New York Times...
"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.
I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.
Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right."
Listening to the executive editor of the New York Times complain about how blogs look at the world "through a pinhole" and don't make their readers confront their prejudices would be like listening to Hillary Clinton complain about women who get ahead because of the men they marry: it's a joke.
Maybe Bill Keller and the rest of the staff at the New York Times will see that one day when they start confronting their prejudices.
As the liberal left has become more radical, the line between "the fringes" & "the mainstream" has gotten progressively more blurry for the Democrats. As a consequence of that, bizarre conspiracy theories that it was once hard to believe any serious person could give credence to, are now being casually tossed around by power players in the Democratic Party.
For example, take Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)....yeah, you better take him before the men in white coats take him to a nice, safe rubber room for saying this...
"People have been — people in the media have been intimidated. The media has changed in the last four years. People have changed in the last four years. They’ve had a very very direct, aggressive attack on the, on the media, and the way it’s handled. Probably the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they — and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only — what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They — the people there — they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it. And when they did, they had ’em. They didn’t care who did it! All they had to do is to get some element of the media to advance that issue. Based upon the false papers that they produced.
That Karl Rove, he's a nasty one!
Yes, it was Karl Rove who forged the papers, gave them to a Republican operative, who then passed them on to Bill Burkett, who gave them to CBS where teams of experts poured over them, pronounced them to be dubious, and then ran with them anyway.
It was all part of Karl Rove's eeeevvviiillll plan! Everything that happens to Democrats? It's all part of Karl Rove's master plan, his eeeevvviiillll master plan!
Did you know that Rove sabotaged the engines of Paul Wellstone's plane, founded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and got Jayson Blair hired at the New York Times? It was all Rove! When it rains on the day of a peace march? It's Rove using his secret CIA weather machine! When a Democrat misplaces his car keys? That's because Rove's magical leprechauns move them around! Ever lost a sock in the dryer? Somehow, someway, it's Rove's fault, Rove, Rove, ROVE!!!
How long are the responsible Democrats out there going to stand by and allow this sort of nonsense to go largely unchallenged as their own party continues to plunge deeper into the fever swamps of the lunatic left? If you stand aside and let your party be taken over by the likes of Michael Moore, Howard Dean, MoveOn, and their ideological allies like this loon Hinchey, then you will richly deserve the rejection that you will most certainly receive at the ballot box...
We all know now that our Fearless Leader, Jeff Gannon, may have done some shady things in the past. (Amish kept insisting that Gannon's innocent explanations were shaky, which I argued with him about... for one of the few times, I suspended my rule that "all rumors are probably true" and wound up looking foolish for it.)
But you tell me what's worse-- maybe at one time having been a gay escort, or dressing up your little dog like this?:
McCain Forgets Which Team He's On For The 2457th Time
For a guy who wants to run for President in 2008 on the GOP ticket, Johnny McRino seems to really have a knack for infuriating Republicans....
"Maverick Republican Sen. John McCain said Sunday that his New York colleague, Sen. Hillary Clinton, would do well if she becomes president of the United States.
"I am sure that Senator Clinton would make a good president," McCain told NBC's "Meet the Press," as both he and Clinton were being interviewed from Baghdad.
While noting that as a Republican, he'll be supporting the GOP nominee in 2008, McCain reiterated, "I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president."
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks a liberal like Hillary Clinton would make a "good President" isn't someone who would make a good President himself.
Terri Schiavo Spared By 'Endangered' Designation By Scott Ott
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has, at least temporarily, saved the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the Florida woman whose former husband, Michael, had planned to Disconnect her feeding tube on Tuesday.
The 11th-hour reprieve came in response to a plea from the Schindler family to have Terri classified as a silver rice rat (Oryzomys argentatus), considered an endangered species by the state of Florida and the USFWS.
"It was a longshot," said activist Randall Terry, who has recently come to the aid of the Schindler family in their efforts to save Terri from death by starvation. "But if we can prove that Terri is a silver rice rat, her life is protected by the state and the federal government."
Mr. Terry contacted the USFWS after learning that it is illegal to kill dozens of creatures in Florida, including the leatherback seaturtle, the marsh rabbit, the saltmarsh vole, the shortnose sturgeon, the Choctawhatchee beach mouse and the oval pigtoe (a mollusk).
"If we can apply to get Terri classified as a different endangered species each month, we can give her several more years of life," Mr. Terry said. "I know it sounds dehumanizing, but under our laws a rat has more of a right to life than this woman."
Satire used with the permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
One of the things conservatives have been saying almost since 9/11 is that the war on terrorism isn't just about eradicating Al-Qaeda, it's about destroying every terrorist group with global reach and any rogue regime that continues to support them.
That's why the Taliban were targeted, and it was, as I noted before the war, the key reason why Saddam had to go...
"Why are we going to invade Iraq? Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said,
"(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
That definition fits Iraq and since they happened to be the easiest nation to make a case against at the UN and in the court of World Opinion, they were our next logical target after Afghanistan -- although they're not our last target."
It's also why the regimes in Iran and Syria will either have to be driven out of the terrorism business or toppled.
But while our conflicts with rogue regimes gather most of the headlines, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have been incorrectly written off by many people as threats to Israel, not the US. While in the end, Israel, not the US, may be the ones "wielding the sword" against these groups, make no mistake about it, Hamas and Hezbollah are enemies of America and the road to victory in the war on terrorism leads over their corpses.
Don't buy that? Then just read a few quotes from some of the heavies in Hamas and Hezbollah and you may come to a different conclusion...
"If Iraq is attacked... all American targets will be open targets for every Muslim, Arab or Palestinian. Any attack against Iraq will be answered by resistance everywhere and American interests everywhere will be targeted. We say that all American targets will be open targets to every Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian." -- Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior member of Hamas.
"She is not going to be the last (attacker) because the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe." -- Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas
"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon. The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas." -- Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi
"We have oil, gas and all other natural resources and thus we don’t need interaction with other countries. We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn’t be afraid of anyone. The US is no more than a barking dog." -- A leading member of Iran’s Hezbollah, Hojjat-ol-Islam Baqer Kharrazi
"The United States has full responsibility for the massacres, the daily acts of aggression and the severe human rights violations that the Zionist regime has perpetrated. I call upon the Arab and Islamic states to hold the US responsible. The Arab and Islamic states must understand that the US is their number one enemy, who runs the conflict and campaigns against our nation both directly and indirectly through Israel, its proxy." -- Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah
"Death to America is not a slogan. Death to America is a policy, a strategy and a vision." -- Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah
"(Hezbollah's) slogan is and will continue to be death to America." -- Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah
When terrorist groups with global reach say that you are their enemy and they want you dead, you are a fool if you do not treat that threat with the deadly seriousness that it deserves. When it's all said and done, Hamas and Hezbollah must be stopped to protect American lives...
