November 17, 2008
Obamapaloodle. . . .
This week's weekend caption contest at Wizbang gives us a few laughs at the The One. It should be noted that the picture below is apparently NOT a photoshop.
I'm partial to faustian's caption:
"I would like to point out to our black friends that the white dude just behind Obama was a Republican.Those guys in the sheets were democrats."
But the top six are all winners.
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:41 AM | TrackBack
October 2, 2008
Alright now, knock it the hell off. . .
These things are getting a bit too creepy. (UPDATE: Both of the videos below have had their creators rethink what they have done, or perhaps they just didn't think people would catch on? Not to fear though, the videos are fixed.)
I really just don't know what to say about that. Actually, I know what I want to say. Wake the hell up America! The Obama-messiah BS has just got to stop! This Emperor has no clothes!
I was going to let the video below pass, but after the one above, I just had to put it somewhere I can easily reference it. So here it is, I'm sure you heard about it.
Oh well, there is of course hope. First there's this little Obama tid bit:
Which answers my earlier question of just what is Obama's real name. Turns out, It's Barry Soetoro. I wonder if some enterprising journalist out there would care to ask Candidate Soetoro/Obama when and why he changed his name, changed it back and just what is with "Barack Hussein Obama"?
You know, he could have cleared this up long ago, but now we have to get a court order for Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate ("a "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version Birth Certificate, no less").
Oh, but wait, it gets better:
"2. A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship
3. A Certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance."
As I said, he could have cleared this up long ago, but didn't. And HEY! What's this about 200 million in possibly illegal Obama campaign contributions????
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:06 AM | TrackBack
September 29, 2008
Origins of the financial "crisis" explained. . .
In the following video, it's plain that the Bush administration and Republicans have tried for YEARS to prevent the current financial crisis. Guess who added both fuel and the spark needed to elevate this into a crisis.
Watch the whole video, especially wait for the Clinton (President Bill) clip at the end.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:31 AM | TrackBack
September 22, 2008
Let's set the record straight about community organizers. . .
During her Emmy acceptance speechlet, actress Laura Linney made the statement:
"the great community organizers that helped form our country"
referring to the John Adams HBO mini-series and giving a nod to Democrat Presidential Nominee Barack Obama. Also:
"Our founding fathers were community organizers. And that is fact to me. And I feel that has been disparaged."
Let's set the record straight about Obama and our founding fathers as "community organizers."
John Adams was a lawyer and a farmer.
Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer, agronomist, musician, scientist, philosopher, author, architect, inventor, and statesman.
Sam Adams was an unsuccessful brewer, a clerk, an unsuccessful business man and a tax collector.
Benjamin Franklin was a businessman, writer, publisher and scientist.
(Here is a link to the bios of the signers of the Declaration of Independence)
Obama was hired by ACORN to be a "community organizer". ACORN is an international liberal activism group responsible for multiple instances of voter fraud. Also, in 2006, according to the WSJ "House Democrats pushed an "affordable housing trust fund" designed to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profits to subsidize ACORN".
It is INSULTING to our founding fathers to equate them this way.
--Jason
PS As an atheist, I really get a kick out of the "Jesus was a 'community organizer'" meme that circulates amonst the left. I can't really think of something that would me more offensive to a Christian and perhaps it's the faux Christianity that the left likes to portray that has caused them to fall into this trap. To suggest that Jesus was taking a low level job with international political action groups getting their funding from the Roman government; and that Jesus was going around taking census and holding peoples hands as they petitioned local government officials is simply absurd. Let's not mention that Jesus according to Christians and others ACTUALLY DID STUFF, while the communities Obama "organized" are generally worse off than they were before Obama.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:20 AM | TrackBack
September 10, 2008
Boy George endorses Obama. . .
Well, all righty then, that seals it for me.
Seriously, if you watch that video, and as a result of said watching. . . you think, somehow, that Barack Obama is "your kinda president", then please, don't ever bothering speaking to me again. In fact, don't ever bother reading this blog again, just ban this URL in your firewall settings.
I understand completely that Obama definately probably had no hand in the production of said video. I'll grant that they maybe probably did not approve of it. This may not be the Boy George Barack Obama thought he knew.
It's the messiah-ness of Obama's campaign. The examples are legion and too many to list at this point.
So, once again, if that video increased in any way, any positive feelings you may have of Obama's race for the Presidency of the United States, just turn around and go away now.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:52 PM
September 7, 2008
Sarah Palin, moose killer, maverick, moose killer. . .
This new campaign ad deserves a national run.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:04 AM | TrackBack
August 4, 2008
Why Bacchus should return to Washington. . .
As an original cosponsor of "The American Energy Act", Bacchus should be front and center in Washington DC this week as other GOP Congressmen continue their protest and demand for debate and and up and down vote on opening domestic reserves oil drilling.
The full test of The American Energy Act is here.
Where this current protest one the House floor (during adjournment) all started is captured in the video below:
I can definately say that I support The American Energy Act, very wholeheartedly, but I would support almost any legislation that would open America's proven oil reserves to be opened for drilling, NOW, YESTERDAY.
I support the "all of the above approach" that begins with drilling, and more drilling, and more drilling. Drill until the United States becomes not only independent of foreign oil, but ensures that we have sufficient supply to take care of the U.S. and her allies should the need arise.
Next, let's get started post-haste with nuclear power development. It's a proven and SAFE technology and it's economically viable now. Let's fast track "clean coal" and "coal liquification" technology and permitting. Let's get natural gas flowing south from Alaska and north from the Gulf of Mexico. Let's enact a national net metering law so that any individual can produce their own solar and wind energy and sell it back to local utilities. Let's create tax credits for companies developing alternative fuels and energy technology.
Democrats have been ubstructionist long enough, it's time that we return to an era of cheap energy (and yes, we can do it all much "cleaner" now and we shall and should), and stop waiting for the miraculous spontaneous development of a fuzzy bunny superfuel fairy sunshine breeze in the bright sun.
With abundant energy, things, not just some things, but almost all things, get cleaner quicker. That includes your home, your car, the streets, the lawns and gardens, the offices, the shops, the manufacturing plants and the service centers, the public areas and private areas, in fact, the whole damn planet will become cleaner due to cheap energy. If you don't understand why and how that is, you're simply a moron.
It's time to end the era of shortages and commodity price hikes, it's time to enter the era of surplus, diversification and prosperity for all. Cheap and abundant energy is the only way to get there.
--Jason
PS - Drill here, Drill Now, Pay Less!
Update: As I wrote this earlier, Obama was giving a speech about his energy plan, as expected, it's a recipe for shortages, with the hope of fuzzy bunnies to the rescue.
Update: To keep up with the protest on the House floor, the Republican Leadership has a "sort-of" blog.
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:03 PM | TrackBack
Congressman Spencer Bachus, please return to Washington. . .
Just got off the phone with Jason (no relation) at Congressman Bachus' Birmingham office and was told that Congressman Bachus was "in the district". How unfortunate.
Jason also informed me that I was the first inquiry to the local office about Congressman Bachus' and the current GOP protest over oil drilling taking place on the House floor at this very moment.
He suggested I call the Washington office. So I shall.
--Jason (again, no relation to the Jason above)
UPDATE: DC (Davis) doesn't know. Although I must admit that he offers an excellent excuse for being away from Washington. One that, at this moment, I do not agree with. I would hope that he plans to be back in Washington as soon as possible and suggest that he put out a statement of support at least.
-jc
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:39 AM | TrackBack
July 22, 2008
Bob Newhart vs. Obama
Every election that rolls round makes me think of Bob Newhart's "Abe Lincoln vs. Madison Ave."
The Intro -
"Thank you, thank you very much.Many of you may have read The Hidden Persuaders, it's about avertising. . . and one of the points the book made was that the real danger of the public relations man, or the advertising man, was that they were creating images. And they felt that in the presidential campaigns, the candidates were really getting closer and closer together, there was no real difference between them, and you were really voting for the man. . . and this got me to thinking. Now supposing this science, were as far advanced during the civil war. . . as it is today. . . and there was no Lincoln. . Now the advertising people realizing this, would have had to create a Lincoln, and I think they would have gone about it. . . something like this.
This is a telephone conversation between Abe, and his press agent, just before Gettysburg."
My, how far the ad-man has come.
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:46 PM | TrackBack
June 6, 2008
Great Stuff. . .
Right Wing Nut House via HotAir.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:19 AM | TrackBack
February 27, 2008
One. . .
Just thought that needed pointing out.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:57 PM | TrackBack
January 24, 2008
The third act. . .
So I guess it's down to Rudy or Mitt. (I've been leaning Rudy for some time, but I need to take a closer look at Mitt.)
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:51 PM | TrackBack
January 13, 2008
Comedy Gold
Even better:
Kudos to Travis and Jonathan and of course Red State Update.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:49 AM | TrackBack
November 30, 2007
Too funny to not mention. . .
62 percent of Democrats admit they are either a little or a lot crazy.
That's probably too mean, let's try this:
62 percent of Democrats aren't playing with a full deck. Yeah, that's better.
Hey! Don't get mad at me, I'm just the messenger, Gallup is the one that put together the report. (via WSJ Best of the Web Today)
The WSJ calls it "The Sanity Gap" but I like my phrasing better, I think it gets more to the point of the matter.
It's an interesting report, and worth taking a few moments to read through it. It also suggests a few possible explanations for the debacle at the CNN/YouTube Republican Primary Debate such as:
1. The reason so many Democrats thought it'd be ok to insinuate themselves into what was supposed to be a Republican Primary Debate of Republican candidates for Republicans. They were simply too mentally unstable to understand that they get their debate, and if they want to have all the questions asked by Democrat activists, interns for Democrat representatives, Democrat campaign steering committee members, Democrat campaign volunteers or Democrat Senator employees, former CAIR interns and Democrat aspiring TV writers who think that absurd racist stereotypes are funny, that's fine; and Republicans should be allowed to have their debate free from interference from Democrats masquerading as Republicans.
2. It also could explain why Democrat and Democrat agenda driven producers at CNN thought that it would be acceptable and appropriate to fly a sitting Hillary Clinton steering committee member from one side of the country to the other (creating what most likely is an illegal in-kind campaign contribution) and then have said Hillary Clinton team member miked up for more uninterrupted air-time than some Republican candidates (Hunter and Tancredo) at a Republican Primary Debate.
3. It could also explain the inability of CNN producers to use Google to vet questioners to insure they were on the up and up about their party preferences, affiliations and endorsements. They simply didn't have the mental capacity to use Google apparently.
4. It explains why Democrats would accept as valid the excuse, "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
5. It also explains why a majority of truthers are Democrats.
In all seriousness though, I think the report does raise some interesting points and suggests that accepting and believing in Democrat principles and policies is bad for your mental health. Which makes sense to me as the Democrat party moves farther and farther to the left and into the realm of socialism and communism. It can never be healthy for someone to intentionally subjugate their individualism in favor of collectivism in direct opposition to natural human nature. It also calls into question the validity of Democrat policies when a majority of Democrats admit themselves that their mental health is suffering.
The WSJ suggests that the fragile mental state of Democrats could be the result of spending 7 years in the wilderness while Republicans held the three branches of government, if that's the case, then one has to not only wonder about their mental health but also about their maturity. I've always thought that the Democrats penchant for demonizing Republicans, failing to accept the will of the people in 2000 and claim near constant victimhood status from the actions of Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc was a sign of immaturity just as their penchant for calliing Republicans infantile names like "rethuglican" or "Bushitler" was.
I agree with the WSJ's assesment that without longitudinal data we can only speculate as to the reasons a majority of Democrats are willing to claim themselves mentally defective. If such a survey is conducted over the long term we may find out why a majority of Democrats feel they are mentally defective. At least I hope we can, so that we can address the issue appropriately and turn them away from ideals that seem to be harming their mental health.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:19 PM | TrackBack
January 29, 2007
Today's Grab a Cup of Coffee - NASA Director Griffen's Speech
This is worth reading, on a number of levels. The quote below is pulled from the speech NASA Director Michael Griffin's speech accepting the Quasar award on Jan. 17.
"Let's think for a moment about national security. What is the value to the United States of being involved in enterprises which lift up human hearts everywhere when we do them? What is the value to the United States of being engaged in such projects, doing the kinds of things that other people want to do with us, as partners? What is the value to the United States of being a leader in such efforts, in projects in which every nation capable of doing so wants to take part? I would submit that the highest possible form of national security, well above having better guns and bombs than everyone else, well above being so strong that no one wants to fight with us, is the security which comes from being a nation which does the kinds of things that make others want to work with us to do them. What security could we ever ask that would be better than that, and what give more of it to us than the space program? "
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:55 AM
December 27, 2006
President Gerald Ford passes at 93
If you had lived in Vail, CO for any length of time through the 80's or 90's your path was bound to cross with the former President of the United States, Gerald Ford. At the very least, you'd come face to face with his Secret Service detail somewhere, I was lucky (and unlucky) enough to do both.
My first experience was with the agents that secure President Ford's home in Beaver Creek, situated directly under the Strawberry Park lift, is common enough (if you consider slopeside multi-million dollar homes common) but the pillbox shaped plain vanilla Secret Service residence and the tiny slopeside guardshack stands out, especially when Ford is in residence and the friendly but firm agents are directing wayward skiiers and snowboarders away from the residence.
On other occasions I was priviledged enough to meet, eat and converse for a few moments with the former President on multiple occasions, in short, he is a down to Earth, sensible and friendly man, whose presence not so much demands respect, but inspires it. He is quick to recognize that one is nervous or seeks a meeting and is quick to calm a visitor and greets humble meeting seekers warmly and with genuine courtesy and friendliness.
For a man who carried the nation's burden at one of her most difficult periods in history, Ford is perhaps a man who was ideally suited to the task. He was certainly not loved by Republicans and Democrats alike, but he was deeply respected by both parties for his intellect and logical approach to things. His decision to pardon Nixon was widely criticized yet proved to be the right thing to do and whiile comedians portrayed him as a bumbling klutz, in reality, he was a graceful, atheletic, surefooted. If you don't believe me, I'll give you a few challenges to prove the point.
First, head out to you local regional airport on an sunny day and bring a pair of very dark sunglasses, find yourself one of those staircars and stand at the top. Now take off the glasses and immediately walk down the stairs as fast as you can, smile and wave at some object/person in the distance and don't hold onto the handrails. Now repeat this exercise 100 times and see how many times you make it to the bottom without stumbling.
Next, lace yourself up a pair of cleats and head down to the local NFL franchise and challenge the boys to a little scrimmage and see how well you fair. Finally, cart yourself to the top of your local ski hill and strap on some vintage 60s era straight skis, bomb the most difficult runs and see how many times you fall. Now, do it again when you're 60, 70, or 80.
Sure Chevy Chase got some laughs at Ford's expense, some even say it cost him the election, but like most modern Presidents, their popular conception is misleading at best, grossly inaccurate at worst. Nixon, indeed, was not a crook, John F. Kennedy was not a saint, Reagan was certainly not an idiot and Ford was not a bumbling clown.
Like the others mentioned, now history can go about the task of evaluating Ford outside of the partisan spotlight and give us an accurate portrayal of the man as a leader, intellectual and genuine American President, who toasted his own muffins in the White House while restoring much confidence and repsect to the Office of President.
Ford won't go down as one of the nation's best Presidents, his term was too short and his tasks were not ones which gave opportunity for greatness, but President Gerald Ford was himself a Great Man, who loved his nation and his fellow citizens. President Gerald Ford had the mantle of a nation forced upon him at a time when few wanted it and still fewer were capable of wearing it.
I wish I could be more eloquent and describe my meetings with the man and the President in terms that showed a greater importance or say that we talked about great things, but alas my meetings were pedestrian, simple and the type one would have with acquaintance at mundane social functions, they were cordial, simple and short. We talked of the food, the snow, the games and the heaviest political discussions we shared revolved around the politics of a tiny ski-town. I will however forever count myself lucky however to have broken bread with him, share a few brief moments and consider myself lucky be recognized by someone I consider a Great Man when we met a second, third and more times.
Rest in peace President Ford, I and many others are sincerely grateful for your service, appreciate your sacrifices and honor your legacy. History will be kind, as well they should, for you were a Great Man in horrible times.
--Jason
President Ford passed at 93 at his home in Rancho Mirage, CA at 6:45 pm December, 26, 2006. [Link]
P.S. Above I allude that meeting President Ford's Secret Service detail was "unlucky". I mean that in jest. While certainly getting shoo'd away from his home while skiing was unlucky, I did have multiple occasions to meet his protective detail on multiple occasions. I even shared more than a few off-duty beers with them. These men and women were always the most professional and honorable of law enforcement officers, although they liked a good joke (as did the President) and were quick to remind me that their Department was under the Department of the Treasury just as the BATF was and since I held a BATF Brewer's license, they could make me squirm from time to time for fun (and it was fun). Professionally, the agents were masters of their craft; efficient, dedicated and trust-worthy almost to a fault, off-duty they were raucous and fun-loving (and some were quite good skiiers). I cherish my interactions with them just as much as I do meetings with the President. The term "unlucky" is used solely in jest.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:59 AM
November 8, 2006
Is this relevant. . .
I'm not really sure it's relevant TODAY, but with the election of a Democrat Congress, I fear it will be relevant tomorrow.
Anyhoo, the song has running through my head all day, so here it is.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:31 PM | TrackBack
I have no problem saying it. . .
I was wrong, and wrong in a rather big way.
Barring some MAJOR switcheroos the House is now controlled by the Dems, and it's very likely at this point that either Joe Lieberman is the most powerful man in Washington, or the Senate is fully lost (there's a chance we can hold the Senate now, but it seems unlikely).
It would be so easy to start with the Democrat tactic of claiming that the elections were stolen, that Diebold machines threw votes, or that operatives were suppressing votes. It would be easy to do that, but I won't. The Republican Party, my party, lost this fair and square, and largely through their own doins.
It unfortunate that this election now means that we may see the Democrats able to create the Vietnam in Iraq that they've been dreaming about for years now. I'm sorry for all of our men and women in uniform who now rightly fear that Pelosi and her comrades will de-fund them whilst they are in harm's way. I'm also very upset that we are handing to al-Queda the very victory they asked for.
I do see bright points of light however, and I see a very bright point of light in '08. I'll get to those another day.
For now, I'm going to have a beer, kick back and relax. That may seem flippant, but hey, I'm not a sore loser, never have been and never will be (except that one time, and that other one). I don't like it, but I won't let it consume me and drive me into a frenzy nut-case rage a la Al Gore. I also realize that things are going to get VERY sketchy the next two years; and since our national security is about to go straight down the tubes, it might be one of the last chances I have to relax for quite a while.
Oh yeah, if you're catching this early and haven't already done it, it might be a good idea to set up some automated trade triggers in case the Dow decides to tank.
--Jason
PS - On the plus side, the Republicans get to play the game like the minority party now, and boy oh boy will that be fun. Ya'll ain't seen nothing yet. If the Dems thought Rovian Campaign Strategy (which was certainly void in this election cycle) was dangerous before, they have no freakin' clue what happens when the gloves come off, and now they won't be able to cry the "we have no power to control that" card.
Actually, now that I reflect a bit, this isn't all that bad after all, and I feel so much better about '08. Enjoy your two years Dems, don't expect any more than that.
PPS - I want to retreat back a bit from the statement that a Republican Senate hold "seems unlikely". It's going to come down to Montana (where the polls are still open) and Virginia (where Allen is down by less than 3K, there WILL be a recount, and more than a few votes are still uncounted), if the Dems win both those races, it's lost. I am still very optimistic for both the VA and MT races, but we'll just have to wait till morning to see what shakes out.
One bright point is that a good friend is up and about in Montana and still working to get Republican voters to the polls.
Ya know, it'd be a great idea to pass a law that ends the publication of election results prior to a full count. I know it'll never ever happen, both sides would cry foul and the media would freak out about their loss of influence in the Western elections. However, it'd be a good law.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:18 AM | TrackBack
November 7, 2006
Let's just get this out of the way. . .
Republicans will retain control of the Senate.
Republicans will retain control of the House.
There is a chance that control of the House could be lost, but I just don't think the donks have the votes they think they do.
I could be wrong, we'll see. I do expect much shenanigans from the media, such as calling races before polls close, lots of doom and gloom in the AM television shows, in an attempt to demoralize Republican voters, but it will all be for naught. Of course the Dems will bitch and moan about "stolen elections", "diebold debauchery" etc etc etc in every loss for the Dems, and we'll have lots of media time wasted about challenges, recounts etc.
Once again the media and the left worked together hand in hand to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm most interested to see what happens in the Maryland race, I think Steele will win. I hope Steele wins.
I'm also of course interested in the Virginia Senate race, I'm fairly confident on that one that Allen will win.
Well, that's it. Sorry that I haven't been blogging much at all lately, but if you're a regular reader and still around, expect big changes in December.
One more time for the record. I predict that Republicans will hold both houses of Congress.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:35 AM | TrackBack
October 8, 2006
It's long since past the time. . .
That we should just start referring to this as
Look folks, it's time, we've got ideologies out there that are directly opposed to everything the sane people of the world have been working for since the end of the last worldwide conflict. Islamic Fasism and Personality Cult Communism are threats to FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and HUMANITY. It's time to stop pussyfooting around and just start calling this what it is.
Condi needs to get her butt over to China ASAP and get the Chinese to take the role of the Soviets in WW2 and lead on getting North Korea under control, the U.S. and it's allies need to get on the ball with Iran and end that threat sooner rather than later. If Chavez makes a stink, unleash Brazil on him and give them everything they need to finish him off too.
In the modern age, the world seems to have these conflicts every 50 years or so as a sort of re-alignment of mankinds direction forward. No rational person will advocate for Islamic Fascism to become a ruling power for the world, neither will a rational person advocate Personality Cult Communism as a positive way forward. It's time to recognize that certain ideologies are failed ideologies and remove them from the playing field.
I'm going to add to this the Democrats better get on board with being Americans and realize that we've got to end this petty BS and get busy with making the world safe for humankind.
Blockade NK immediately, slap the sanctions on Iran, and let's start getting rid of the nutcases. If the U.N. doesn't want to go the way of the League of Nations in short order, they'd better get on the ball too.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:42 PM | TrackBack
October 5, 2006
Can someone explain this to me. . .
So Bill O'Reilley had this guy on his show named Tyson Vivyan, who claimed to be a former Congressional page who'd also had sexual advances made upon him by Congressman Foley.
Ms. Underestimated, has a link to the video, and lemme add that there are DEFINATELY more reasons to check out her site.
So I was curious about this Vivyan guy, and wanted to see if there were any articles out there with this guy's story.
I had meant to search Google news first, but by accident I just ran a straight Google search on him. Lo and behold. . .
Not a peep. Now that seems VERY VERY VERY strange to me. One would expect there to be at least SOME hits on someone who has done enough in their high school life to merit getting a slot as a page, and certainly SOME of that would be referenced somewhere on the web. Alas, no, it seems this Tyson fella just magically appeared all of the sudden.
Seriously, there should be at least SOMETHING out there with this guys name attached to it. Congressional pages usually have some meritorious service before they become a page, right? Debate Club, Athletics, School Paper, SOMETHING!
Now I'll admit that I also ran a Google News search for the kid, and there were a couple of references, but only to the O'Reilley spot. So what gives? Is this the first guy to be lucky enough to be the only American with absolutely NO REFERENCE to him throughout the world wide web.
Well, I guess there is at least ONE now.
--Jason
PS - Before some leftard or Kos Kids descend upon me and try to paint me as a Foley apologist, lemme just make this perfectly clear. I think Foley acted inappropriately for a Congressman, very inappropriately. I'm glad he did the correct thing and resign immediately when this story popped up. I also feel that if it can be determined that he did in fact break the law, then he should go to jail, preferably under the jail, and not pass go, not collect a Congressional Pension.
Let me also say that this is looking like another RatherGate more and more. However that does NOT excuse Foley's abuse of his position with regard to Congressional pages. If he broke the law, throw the book at him, PERIOD. If he is vindicated of any legal wrongdoing, I still say it's good that he resigned, his actions were not befitting a Congressman.
-JC
UPDATE: From ZERO presence on the net via google to 42,000 plus and growing two days later. Nice PR campaign you created for yourself Tyson. Something tells me we'll be seeing more of Tyson in the future as he parlays this.
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:49 AM | TrackBack
October 4, 2006
VDH. . .(a cup o' coffee post)
If you don't read Victor Davis Hanson, you should.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:42 AM | TrackBack
October 2, 2006
Some people wont agree with me. . .
Some people won't agree with me, but I'm pretty sure that I'm right on this one. One day, most probably in my lifetime, there will be a terrorist attack involving a nuclear device, or a rogue state will use a nuclear device as a first strike weapon hoping to bring about a one hit coup de grace.
Some people will completely deny this as an impossibility, they will state that groups capable of producing a nuclear device will understand it's implications and only use such a device as a "deterrent". Others will claim that I am being alarmist and armageddonist, and totally dimiss this idea on that basis alone; without addressing the probability of such an attack, they merely will stick their heads in the sand. Still others will claim that such an event will only occur by the hands of the evil Zionists or equally evil Americans, which is simply ridiculous because neither nation needs a nuke to lay waste to their enemies, both groups can defeat almost any comer with conventional means quite easily from a military standpoint.
There is a sect within Islam that sees the use of a nuclear device as a means to bring about the reappearance of the 12th Imam, who will organize the world along Islamic lines and bring about the Koran's version of Biblical Revelations. There are groups, lets call them Islamists for simplicity, but recognize that they are known also as Islamic Fascists, Islamofascists, or elements of Radical Islam, and some of these groups have openly stated their desire to acquire a nuclear device, or a hybridized device (dirty bomb) for the intent of using it upon the United States, Israel or the nations of Western Europe with the stated purpose of destroying these institutions and jumpstarting the Second Caliphate. Other entities may "pop a nuke" as a last gasp of power concentrated in a select group of insane rulers (North Korea). Then there is the unknown, the threat of tomorrow, the threat we don't see at the moment, but nevertheless grows in dark corners of the world, biding it's time, waiting for the geopolictical climate to be right.
If you sit back and think about it, it's basically inevitable that sometime in the future these weapons will be used. The effect will be great and depending on the target, the results will range from destruction and horror quickly passing and settling into rage and revenge, at the other end of the scale, nations could fall within hours or simply cease to effectively exist (Israel could be an example, so could Great Britain or any other country with a small geographic footprint).
The device will most likely be small, in the kiloton range, not a city killer megaton nuke, but a man-portable "tactical" weapon used deep within a society to produce a profound strategic effect. There may be just one, which will be bad enough to deal with, but there most likely will be more than one, near simultaneously, or in a quick succession of a few days.
Some people will have already stopped reading because they can't handle thinking about such a possibility. I suggest that these people are more likely than not, the same people who would suggest that WE need to change in order to stop THEM from attacking us. That WE cannot fight THEM, because WE cannot change THEM, so WE must change and be kindler, gentler, and more accomodating to those who would wish US dead. To me, this seems like total insanity run amuck. It just doesn't make sense. If WE change, THEY will be emboldened. If WE change, THEY win, and their victory does not ensure our safety, in fact it only assures that another group will arise with another agenda to demand that WE change for THEM.
I don't have any answers, I don't have any program to make this all go away. I can only observe that it will happen, someday. Someone WILL use a nuclear device on a unsuspecting population sometime in the relatively near future. The only suggestion I have is for people to realize that there is a war on, it's a World War, and it's not the Global War on Terror I'm referring to, the GWOT is part of it, but it's more a battle or a theatre than it is the whole war. The war I'm referring to has not yet been named, it's not even realized by most that it's taking place, but it is taking place and it's important that people begin to recognize it.
We are at a unique place in the history of mankind. No longer are we disjointed and separate groups of people separated by trade routes and occasional contact. The entire world has become a community against it's own will. Disparate groups with different worldviews have been thrust together via the Information Age and the bridges between nations and people have been physcally bridged by the culmination of the Industrial Age providing mobility and travel options never before seen in human history.
Some call this a culture war, others call it a clash of civilizations, others call it all manner of things. I prefer to use the term, The Long War, because I don't see any resolution to this war coming any time soon, and by my reckoning, this war has been going on since the late 1940's. That means we're already 60 years in and the war isn't even recognized, to expect that The Long War could last for another 100 years is not unrealistic.
So what is this war all about? In short, this war is about the future of the human race, ALL of the human race. That word ALL is very important, it should be thought about at least a little. ALL of the human race. We are at a convergence of human society where every human on the planet, if he or she so chooses, can interact with almost every other human on the planet through travel and electronic communication. A global consciousness is emerging. Humanity as a whole has entered a NEW infancy, this new infant is taking it's first tenative steps and only beginning to explore it's world, and realize it's potential.
While this war rages on, it will take various forms. Just as World War 2 had smaller, seemingly separate "theatres", this war has component parts that can't properly be called theatres, so lets just call them for the purposes of this discussion "a battle" as opposed to "the war". I recognize that I'm using battle incorrectly, but we just don't have the terminology to describe what is happening yet, we are living it right now, and defining it as we go, which makes the realization of what is happening all the more difficult.
The battle that is the GWOT is a battle of religion, religious wars are common throughout history, and this is another in a long line of religious wars. I believe that this will be the last. Islam is the last "unreformed" universalizing religion. It's highly unlikely that another true religion will arise. Cults will rise and become somewhat legitimate, like those cultist who worship "the envrironment", but these are minor players and not capable or desirous of global war like the Catholics did once and the Islamists do now. This religious war, the GWOT, is one we can fight, and we can win, the endpoint will be the reform of Islam and the rise of Islamic moderates to the positions of power within Islam. Once the moderates gain control of their religion, it's unlikely that it will retain it's extremist appeal for very long, the radicals will be marginalized, and eventually they will fade away. While this might seem a condemnation of the GWOT in favor of an internal Islamic solution, it isn't; the GWOT is a necessary battle, because Islam cannot reform without pressure from the outside, just as the Catholic Church would have never reformed were it not for the Princes of Europe demanding and fighting for it in the Wars of the Reformation.
So we will go forward with the GWOT, we must. I say we in a much larger sense than it is now. The WE in the equasion will grow as more people begin to realize what is at stake and what the other side, the Islamists, are aiming for. The second Caliphate will not rise and any attempt to create it, no matter how severe the attack or action, will be resisted, and as the attacks from THEM increase, the WE component will grow. Eventually the WE's will conquer the THEM's and Islam will reform, it won't end the problem of Islamists, but the threat will be effectively mitigated, and when it gains strength, it will be slapped down hard again, just as Nazism is slapped down when it makes it's periodic resurgences. There is no real threat of a Fourth Reich or a disciple of Hitler arising to take over the world, such a threat would immediately be pounced upon and destroyed if it began to seek conquest of others. Such will be the case when Islamism arises again the future after this battle is won.
Yet The Long War won't be over when Islamism is defeated. Other ideologies will arise or existing ones will decide that the time to strike is at hand. It must be remembered, that it is STILL the goal of Communist China to control the world and bring all of humanity under the banner of Communism. That battle lies ahead. It may be another violent clash, with guns and bombs and death, or it may be a relatively peacefull battle fought in boardrooms and with policy speeches and the will of the masses determining the victor. This battle is coming, we just don't know what shape it will take and whether it will be a HOT part of The Long War, or a COLD part.
Down the road we'll have battles we cannot conceive of now, against enemies we do not know, cannot see and do not suspect malice from, but THEY will challenge the WE and the battle will be fought.
Will The Long War ever end. Yes, it will, but the nature of what the world will be like at the end cannot be forseen, it's simply too far off and to many variables are in the way. What we do know is that it will end one day, and there will be a victor. This planet is simply too small for multiple ideologies and worldviews to exist indefinately. Multi-cuturalism will not be the future of the planet, a single global culture will eventually emerge as transportation and information transfer improves.
We are still in a phase of our development where different groups of people are given different sets of information to base their opinions and actions upon. One day this will not be the place. We are only a few short years away from information access being a uniform global process. Just as fiber replaced copper, WiFi will eventually be replaced by SatFi and any human with a simple device will have access to the same information as every other human with a simple, portable and self-contained device, accessing a global network that cannot be interfered with by local or national governments. If you want to look at the US internetsat, you will be able to, if you want to look at the China internetsat, you will be able to, access points in orbit are coming, and keeping a population in the dark will become impossible. When this occurs, it will be the strength of the ideas and goals of groups that will make them powerful and not merely their access to weapons and their local power over a population.
As transportation evolves, it too will give greater access and greater range to the individual. Highways will be replaced by skyways, and mankind's mobility will both act as a dampening effect and inflamatory effect on the violence and scope of The Long War. Combatants will have greater and greater access to their targets, but those targets will be contaminated more and more by unwanted bystanders. How this will play out cannot be forseen, but transportation will both increase the violence of The Long War and decrease it over time as populations continue to merge and high value single targets become more scarce.
The Long War will determine the future of mankind. Will we take to the the stars seeking out new homes, new science and a greater understanding of the universe? Will we stay earthbound, working like ants to serve the desires of a select few in a Communist utopia? Or will we see a new "religion" preventing us from developing our technology in some warped sense of respect for the planet where we see mass starvations and depopulations before a complete technological collapse that sets us back hundreds or thousands of years because we must not damage our environment for the sake of improving the lives of humans?
The Long War will have an end. There will be an eventual one world culture, there will be one world language, it's inevitable. There will be one world system of government, that too is inevitable. There will be a common set of information and it will be universally accessible, that too is inevitable.
That language does not have to be English, I'd sure like it to be, because I feel that it's got the greatest headstart and would be the most efficient direction to take and retain the most knowledge along the way. That system of government does not have to be Democracy, I'd sure like it to be, because Democracy empowers the individual, and does not reduce man to slave. That set of information does not have to be science and truth, it could be a political information set a la Orwell's 1984, or a religous set that teaches only one fantasy worldview, I'd sure like it to be the science and truth set, and I think the reasons are obvious.
So what is the whole point of this. The point is to realize that things are going to get worse before they get better when it comes to the GWOT, the point is to realize that the GWOT is just a battle, or a theatre, in the larger war for humanity, The Long War, which will determine where we, as a species (think about that: WE, as a SPECIES) decide to go with our opposable thumbs and big brains. The point is for people to realize that we are in a War that we have not yet named, a war that we do not yet see it's full scope, a war that will make past wars seem unimportant and a war that will change the very nature and scope of what is considered humanity.
The point is to hopefully spark other discussions about the future, and how it will be shape by the new interconnected small world we now live in as opposed to the old disconnected large world we inhabited just a few short decades ago. Where once we could have oceans and deserts as barriers, we now have everyone thrown together in one big bowl, and we must hash out our differences and come to a realization of what humanity is and what our purpose will be. Are we to be ants? Are we to be worshippers? Are we to be individuals? What will it mean to be human at the end of The Long War? What will we have to endure to get to that end?
This is survival of the fittest, who will it be? Athens or Sparta? (See the PS below for an explanation of that.)
Comments are welcome and will be responded to.
--Jason
PS, This screed, rant, commentary, post, whatever you want to call it, was sparked by a reading of this fictional piece by Dan Simmons. If anything in this post sparked interest, and even if it did not, I highly suggest you take the time to read the April 2006 Message from Dan. It's interesting, it's thought provoking, it's scary, and it's enlightening, take the time to read it, make the time to read it.
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:50 AM | TrackBack
September 11, 2006
Eine minuten bitte. . .
As we enter this day (I'm sorry, but I can't bring myself to call it an anniversary), that marks the fifth year since the attacks of September 11, 2001; many will have Islamic Terrorism and the greater threat of Islamic Fascism on their minds. This is appropriate, it will be on my mind as well. I just want to put the brakes on a second and remind people that Islamic Fascism is not the only threat we face in the world today.
As we prepare to remember our fallen, North Korea plans to announce to the world that they have indeed created an atomic bomb. Their only possible motivation for this is to blackmail the rest of the world into accepting a regime that starves millions of it's own people intentionally, that imposes an iron fist of state control on a completely opposite end of the scale from the Islamic Fascists.
Now is good time, if you haven't before, to read Bill Whittle's Tribes.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:50 AM
August 22, 2006
Required Viewing. . .
I, a Muslim is a Czech documentary from a series called "infiltrator", it's runs about 30 minutes and is Czech with English subtitles. The documentary uses hidden cameras, microphones and a "potential convert" to Islam to enter Czechoslavakia's Muslim culture.
I believe the program speaks for itself. Watch it now, I'm sure it won't last long on the big public video servers.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:42 AM | TrackBack
August 18, 2006
15 Years Ago Tomorrow. . .
The Soviet Union collapsed under it's own weight, helped along with a shove from one of our nation's greatest Presidents, Ronald Wilson Reagan.
To many, including me, the collapse of the Soviet Union proved the fatal flaws of Communism. The Soviet directed economy was unable to react to local economic crisis and unable to find efficient ways of distributing resources. The simple fact that after decades of Soviet rule, the Communist Party was unable to find a way to feed it's people, provide goods and services and deliver the promise of a better life than that which existed in the West, condemned it to failure.
Gorbachev's policies of glasnost (political openness) and perestroika (economic restructuring), which included an easing of government censorship, exposed the average Soviet citizen to the fact they were far behind the West despite years of government propaganda. Regional economic autonomy led to a rise in regional nationalism and a diminished allegiance to the central government and the Communist party in general. The unintended results of glasnost and perestroika led to uskoreniye (speed-up of economic development) which was unable to counter the economic costs of inflation despite the government's attempts to hide it from the masses. Citizens began to realize that taking control of their own economic destiny (as exemplified by the rapidly expanding black market) led to greater prosperity for the individual, but still didn't match the prosperity of the West.
When they compared themselves to the West, Soviet citizens finally began to realize that they truly were "oppressed". As individual discontent grew, Soviet "states" began to become obstructionist to the Central Government's policies, turning instead to local initiatives and withholding tax revenues from Moscow. As the Politburo's power diminished at the local level, the Parliament (which prior to this period was a largely symbolic body) saw their power and prestige grow.
The Warsaw Pact states, looked upon the weakening power of the Soviet government as an opportunity to escape the Soviet's iron fist, by early 1991 the governments of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania had thrown off the yoke and set the stage for a revolution in Soviet Union.
On August 19, 1991 a group of Communist Party hard-liners seized control of the government. The world watched in fascination as the State Emergency Committee placed a vacationing Gorbachev under house arrest and tried to take the Soviet Union back to a period of iron-clad Soviet control. Despite the political power of the Committee's members, which included the KGB Chairman, Internal Affairs Minister and Defense Minister, they were unable to consolidate control as Russian President Boris Yeltsin and members of the Parliament defiantly held the "White House" (Russian Parliament Building) and the citizens of Moscow and Leningrad rallied round the resistance.
Soviet armor arrived on the scene at the White House and promptly defected to Yeltsin's side. Yeltsin's denouncement of the coup via megaphone from the top of a Soviet tank was broadcast to the world and marked the beginning of the end for both the coup and the Soviet Union itself. Commandos dispatched to seize the White House and arrest Yeltsin and leaders of the resistance unanimously refused their orders and stood idly by.
The "Vodka Putsch" collapsed after four days and Gorbachev returned to Moscow. His power was fatally wounded, and in very real terms, Yeltsin was the nation's new leader, if not yet in name. Despite resigning from the Communist Party and the promise to purge Communist Party hardliners from the government, Gorbachev was never able to regain real power. By December, the transformation was complete, all of the Soviet Republics had declared independence and the Soviet Union was no more. Communism was no longer on the march, it was in full retreat.
Fifteen years is a long time on the world political stage. Today a new breed of Communists is organizing in South America, while China's communists are embracing a hybridized free-market system in an attempt to mitigate the inefficiencies of Communist economic policy.
In my view, China and the new Communist states of South America are doomed to failure just as the Soviet Union was. Their hybridization of economic markets into a "free yet directed" economy is merely smoke and mirrors. While such policies may increase the economic prosperity of citizens in the short term, it's this very economic prosperity of individuals which will eventually lead to the collapse of the world's remaining Communist States.
Die-hard leftists and neo-Communists point to Venezeula's apparent success as proof that a Communist state can survive, they also point to China's role as a major industrial produced as an indication that Communism will rise again and be a viable alternative to Democracy and free markets, these are both false beliefs. While Communism can indeed create short term benefits for a people, the inflexible nature of a directed economy can never compete with a free market without crippling government subsidies and false economic props. Likewise the unparalleled capacity of the free market for economic development cannot be matched by centralized planning; it's simply not flexible enough or quick enough to effectively respond to changing market conditions.
Prosperity, which Communism promises, is also Communism's greatest enemy. Prosperity leads to a desire for greater prosperity as individuals realize their potential and seek greater wealth and the comfort and security it provides. The nature of individuals to seek a better life for themselves consistently trumps the misdirection of their economic activity for the support of others. This doesn't mean that people do not have great capacity to help others, but forcing people to give up a portion of their economic prosperity against their will through centralized planning, and forcing people into economic roles they don't wish to take is are untennable positions for a government to take.
Venezeula cripples itself with each move into a directed economy; Citgo (the Venezeulan oil-company) has the potential to be a major player in the world oil economy, in many ways it already is; but the interference of the Central Government in Citgo will lead to it's demise. For any economic entity to succeed, it must be able to recognize and adapt to changes on it's own. Citgo is hampered with a Government that sees it as an unlimited cash cow, while investment in the structures needed to ensure it's viability go ignored and development of new reserves are hampered by the removal of the cash assets needed to ensure viability go to other, unconnected projects. The failure of a Communist State to re-invest in the economic structures that support it is a common theme as managers who have no real hard experience in the industry make decisions from political perspectives rather than empirical economic perspectives.
A similar economic hamstringing is occuring in China, while the Chinese have been very effective in creating a broad based economic engine, it has no depth as critical infrastructure is put into place as window dressing to pay homage to the state rather than put into place to give solid support to China's growing industry. Across China today, there are scores of viable yet abandoned factories from projects which have fallen out of political favor and have their support or even liscense to operate stripped from them for political considerations, causing much needed capital to simply evaporate. As millions of citizens stream into the cities to find work, they are herded like cattle into appaling living quarters and become virtual slaves to the state and its favored industry of the moment.
For sure, there is great economic improvement of the lives of individuals in China, but this improvement is not based on an individuals performance under the whip, but rather his or her loyalty to the party. Businessmen have to constantly balance the needs of their economic activity with the dictates of the state, this leads to the inevitable hiding and hoarding of capital and the development of the black market. This black economy will continue to grow in China just as it did in the Soviet Union. As people begin to rely more and more on the black market and less and less on the state, the state's power will be undermined, and once individuals have tasted the sweetness of the economic apple, they are loath to abandon the flavor for bland handouts of Soylent Green. The Chinese culture historically has produced shrewd economic minds and many would argue that this culture actually supports the Communist system, I beg to differ. While today, Chinese culture independent of the state is complimentary to Communism, it's a certain eventuality that as the masses migrate into the middle class, the dictates of human nature take over, driving the individual to acquire more, want more, and most importantly, want more than the other guy. This desire to not only keep up with the Joneses, but to surpass them will eventually manifest itself in China, and in many ways it already has. As people move up in social and economic status, they demand a share of the political power which governs it. With prosperity comes a desire for more prosperity and as this desire increases, it must be accomodated. Communism by it's very nature, no matter what hybridization you put into it, fails to meet this challenge of the masses for greater and greater economic and political power. Eventually the balance will tip in the favor of the indivual as he (or she, but not in China) gains power and demands more control over his life.
The Chinese will be able to keep the lid on for the foreseeable future, but underneath the facade is a growing middle class, a middle class that will begin to demand protection for it's status and the protection of rights that become a need when wealth is generated. The state can not only content itself with protection of life (security, food, shelter, etc.), it must, if it wishes to survive in a modern economic construct, provide its citizens with protections for liberty and secure the mechanisms necessary for the pursuit of happiness, these latter two philosophic constructs cannot be accomodated in a political system such as Communism. Communism cannot deliver liberty to the populace, because the populace must always remain the property of the state to continue its viability. An individual cannot be considered property and have liberty at the same time, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. The pursuit of happiness means the pursuit of the things you want, not the things the state decides to provide for you, central planning cannot deliver the broad spectrum of goods and services the pursuit of happiness entails. Even if a Communist government were to try to respond to the changing tastes of individuals, it is incapable of responding fast enough or efficient enough to effectively deliver.
[Aside: Before you fire off an email telling me that Chinese citizens are not property, I will address that as follows: If someone (state or individual) tells you where you must live, if you must receive permission to work, if at a moments notice you can be forcibly removed from your home and job to be placed in another home and job not of your choosing, you are in fact property of another, be it individual or state.]
Communism, in a very real way, is slavery. The only difference between a traditional "slave" (as some Muslim communities still practice) and a Communist slave is who holds the whip. It doesn't matter to the slave if the whip is held by an individual or an actor of the state, he is still a slave, and slavery cannot be tolerated.
So on this day, with the anniversay of the collapse of the Soviet Union on the horizon, I urge you, my meager readership to think about the existance of Communist slaves the world over. Realize that our fellow human beings are held in bondage and prevented the very freedoms we all too often take for granted. I urge you not to fear the rise of Communism in South America or it's continued presence in China, Cuba and N. Korea, instead I urge you to despise it as the citizens of the Soviet Union came to. Recognize that "Che worship" is the worship of oppressors and those that would enslave other men to their will, to their dictates. The concept that a state can make better decisions for an individual is an truly evil concept. To deny an individual the control of their own destiny is to encourage evil in the world. To fail to support Democracy is to support the imposition of another's will on the individual.
As we remember the collapse of the Soviet Union, we must turn our attention to the other Evil Empires emerging. We must, at every turn do whatever we can to encourage dissent and rebellion in those areas of the world where an individual is stripped of his individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We must expose the man behind the curtain of Communist regimes and point out their failings at every turn, as loudly as we can so that the oppressed of the world know that we support them in their natural quest for freedom and liberty. We cannot continue to stand idly by while more and more people fall under the control of their "betters", for the concept of "betters" does not exist in a world where all men are created equal.
As we remember the collapse of the Soviet Union, we must look forward to the disintegration of Communism worldwide; in some cases this means we must destabilize those nations which oppress their citizens, in others it means we must "cook" their economy, drive it to a fever pitch where the ability of the state to control it collapses, in others we will have to act to remove regimes that are bent on oppression and where starvation is considered a means of control, in all, we must reject the tennents of Communism and do our best to bring about it's eventual demise.
This is what we should think about as we remember the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a victory over Communism surely, but it was only one battle, albeit a major one, but the war against Communism and for the freedom of mankind is far from over.
--Jason
UPDATE: Welcome Ace of Spades HQ readers, please feel free to take a look around, and thank you for taking the time to give my words a brief bit of your attention.
MAJOR UPDATE: Just a few hours after I posted this, Bloomberg reports that the last Soviet Premier/Dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, praises Hillary Clinton. If that's not telling, I'm not sure what is.
There are those that would look favorably on Gorbachev, I do not. While his policies led to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union, don't think for a second that Gorbachev was anti-Communist, he wasn't. The collapse wasn't an intended outcome of Gorbachev's polices; the intent of his policy was to stave off the economic and political collapse of the Soviet regime. He would have been more than happy to serve out his time as a Soviet Premier / Dictator for Life, thankfully, the world had different plans.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:33 AM | TrackBack
August 14, 2006
How did this guy ever become a Congressman. . .
Via Newsbusters:
Congress' village idiot, Charlie Rangel said on MSNBC's Hardball:
"You take Islamic and you call them fascists, you call them radical. You never called Hitler a Christian fascist. This is insulting to an entire religion."
You're right Charlie, we didn't call him a Christian fascist. We called him THE Nazi Fascist. Hitler was a Catholic apostate. As such, he could hardly be called a Christian. In fact, Hitler's mouthpiece, Goebbels, said of Hitler:
"The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
That's why no one called him a Christian fascist, Charlie. Germany was Hitler's religion, he abandoned Catholicism and Christianity and clamped down hard on the The Church and churches of Germany who put God-constructs first and Germany-second.
We didn't call him a Christian fascist because he wasn't trying to impose a Christian belief system on people (as Islamist fascists DO wish to impose Islam). He DID impose the Nazi belief system on people and that's why we DID and DO, call Hitler, a Nazi fascist.
This is just one in a long list of completely stupid and off the wall things Rangel has said and done, including (but certainly not limited to) sponsoring a bill calling for a draft and then voting against his own bill.
It just amazes me that this IDIOT is a United States Congressman.
--Jason
NOTE: Comments are closed due to spambots. If you have a comment related to this entry and wish to have it published here, send it to comments -AT- jasoncoleman -dot- com.
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:41 AM
August 9, 2006
More thoughts on Lieberman. . .
How Joe Lieberman's political future shapes out could very well shape the destiny of the national political scene.
Lieberman has an opportunity here to find the center ground of American politics. Americans are used to the two-party system, but they aren't THAT used to it that a third cannot emerge. Various constituencies have made a play for the center in the past and have even had success at the local and state level. Yet the development of a viable third party has eluded us. Now we have a viable chance to see a Party evolve around Joe Lieberman and his ousting from the Democrat party WHILE A SITTING SENATOR.
Make no mistake, Lieberman was kicked out of the Democrat Party. He didn't simply lose an election and get pushed to the back of the line, the Democrat Party machine itself worked to oust Lieberman. The tools of the Party were applied to one of their own with malicious intent. This move will seriously anger many moderate Democrats and they very well could jump ship and follow Joe's lead in national politics.
The Democrats will be forced to fight Joe and fight him hard. They can't afford to have Lamont win the Democrat primary, ousting Lieberman, and then have Joe come deliver a knockout in the second round. Lieberman wouldn't just be taking down Lamont, he'd be taking down the Democrat Political Party Machinery. A Lamont loss can only bring about a total implosion of the Democrat Party for it to survive. A Democrat Party trying to function mass appeal party needs credibility in their activities. With this ousting of a sitting party Senator and then the loss of the seat as well, the Dems will have ZERO credibility as a viable party for governance.
If Lieberman can harness his power right now, he can build an institution and shape the face of American Politics for decades to come. Joe Lieberman could coin the Independent-Democrat Party and embrace the former ideals of the Party of Jackson and abandon the far left. Many members of the center-right would flock to him in droves.
If Joe holds his seat in spite of the Democrats, he will become one of the most powerful political figures in the current scene. He will represent the will of the people rather than the will of the party. If, and this is a big if, he can listen to the will of the people and build their trust quickly as the leader of a viable Third, the Democrats will see their power wane further in '08 as the grassroots truely comes from the ground up and fields a number of Independent-Democrat candidates in blue states. Who, if they do emerge, will win handily against Democrat establishment opponents.
I don't see a Lieberman / Libertarian alliance, so there isn't really a ready made constituency for Lieberman to tap. To build a third he would have to start basically from scratch, but it has been done before and today the tools for outreach and organization are more effective than ever before.
I would have to give serious consideration to a third party, not because I'm unhappy with the Republicans, but because they don't fit my total bill, there's always room for improvement, there just aren't many options out there.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:00 AM | TrackBack
Where's the outrage, where's the congressional hearings. . .
With each round of oil company quarterly earnings reports of late, we've had cacophony of left-leaning morons call for Congressional investigation and calls for windfall profit taxes.
Now, Disney posts profits for the quarter of over a billion dollars and a profit margin of 39%.
Where's the outrage? Where are the calls for Congressional hearings? Where are the calls for investigation of movie ticket price gouging? Isn't this level of profit simply obscene to the Kennedy's and Kerry's of the world?
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:21 AM | TrackBack
June 19, 2006
Artur Davis issues a statement. . .
Background for this post -- Wow, look at what these "Congresspeople" actually voted AGAINST!
Over the weekend, Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL-7th) released a statement regarding his vote on the Iraq War Resolution from last week:
FROM THE OFFICE OF
Congressman Artur Davis
7th Congressional District of Alabama
208 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0107WASHINGTON - U.S. Representative Artur Davis offered the following statement concerning today's vote on the Iraq resolution.
"There are parts of the Iraq resolution that I fully support; I certainly salute the valor of our soldiers and the Iraqi people. I continue to believe it is unwise to announce to the enemy a date for withdrawal. I also recognize our genuine successes in Iraq, from the capture of Saddam Hussein to the killing of murderers like Al-Zarqawi.
But I could not support a resolution whose main purpose is to endorse the Bush Administration's policy of a continuing commitment to a large-scale troop presence in Iraq. That policy has cost us approximately 2,500 American lives, while still failing to stop the violent insurgency that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Our military should begin the process of transferring the overwhelming load of our responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces, and our new emphasis should be on training and modernizing those forces as best as possible.
As much as we desire a better future for the Iraqi people, we have sacrificed too many of our young people for the dubious purpose of securing another country's political stability. Whether Iraq can emerge as a functioning democracy is a test for the Iraqi people and for the tolerance of their competing religious faiths. It is the Iraqi people, and not our soldiers, who will determine Iraq's destiny. "
I appreciate Representative Davis issuing the statement, even if I completely disagree with his suppositions and conclusions. The text of the resolution is here, and for the record, the roll call is here. If you read the Resolution, you'll see that it's extremely straightforward and simple. Representative Davis has chosen to read more into the Resolution than there is, he's also chosen to side with a national political party over his constitutents. Representative Davis' district is overwhelmingly supportive of the Global War on Terror and also the localized battle of the Mission in Iraq.
In his statement, Davis dances around, but in effect, by his vote, he has dismissed the sacrifices of our soldiers, shown a disdain for freedom and democracy taking hold in Iraq and Representative Davis has also contradicted what he sees at the "purpose" of the resolution. I could comment more, but I'll leave that to you to decide for yourself, read the Resolution, then read Davis' statement, the two don't seem to connect.
Representative Davis, you have placed your partisanship above our soldiers and our mission, I suggest that you are in effect a declared enemy of our troops and their mission. You sir, should be ashamed, and more importantly, your constituents should be ashamed of you.
--Jason
P.S. I reserve the right to revisit Davis' statement later, for now I just don't have the time. I'll end for now by suggesting that we all should be grateful that Davis and his like weren't in Congress for the rebuilding of Germany, Japan and Korea. Perhaps Davis just doesn't feel the Iraqis don't deserve the same protections and nurturing of their democracy as the Germans, Japanese, Koreans and even Afghans, I wonder why?
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:09 AM | TrackBack
June 16, 2006
Wow, look at what these "Congresspeople" actually voted AGAINST. . .
The House just voted on HR 861 (Iraq War Resolution). As expected, the vote went largely along party lines. More Dems came out as opposing the Resolution than did Senators in a similar resolution yesterday.
So let's take a look quickly at what they actually voted against.
1. Honoring all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders portecting the homeland, as servicememebers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles.
153 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST HONORING THESE AMERICANS!
2. Honoring the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalitiion, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom.
153 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST HONORING THE SACRIFICES OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES, THEIR COALITION PARTNERS, THE IRAQIS AND AFGHANIS, ESPECIALLY THE FALLEN, WOUNDED AND THEIR FAMILIES!
3. Declaring that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq
153 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS APPARENTLY FEEL THAT CUTTING AND RUNNING (AND ANNOUNCING IT IN ADVANCE SO THE ENEMY CAN PREPARE) IS IN THE INTERST OF THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES!
4. Declaring that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free secure and united Iraq.
153 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE NOT COMMITTED TO COMPLETING THE MISSION, ARE NOT COMMITTED TO FREEDOM AND SECURITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS IN IRAQ!
5. Congratualtes Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitiution.
153 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS APPARENTLY FEEL THAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE VOTING IN FREE AND OPEN ELECTIONS ARE NOT TO BE CONGRATULATED OR FOR DOING SO IN THE FACE OF THE IMMINENT DANGER TO THEIR PERSONS! THESE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE TURNED LITERALLY AGAINST DEMOCRACY!
6. Calls upon the nation of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom.
153 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE GONE ON THE RECORD AS NOT SUPPORTING GLOBAL PEACE AND SECURITY AND HAVE VOTED AGAINST SUPPORTING FREEDOM FOR THE IRAQI AND AFGHAN PEOPLE!
7. Declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
153 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE DECLARED THAT THE U.S. SHOULD FAIL IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR AND THAT THE STRUGGLE TO PROTECT FREEDOM FROM TERRORISTS IS IGNOBLE!
Can we question their patriotism NOW!!!!
The entire text of the resolution is here.
------------------------
These members of Congress have shown with this vote that they are in fact enemies of freedom, democracy and United States and her national security. Instead of siding for freedom, democracy and the United States, they have openly sided with the terrorists who wish to deny freedom, deny democracy and who align themselves against the United States.
I say that these 153 "members of congress" have infact declared themselves enemies of the United States and enemies of freedom and democracy.
I'll post the role call vote when it's released, so we all can know exactly who makes up the fifth column in the United States Congress.
Thank goodness these idiots weren't around for World War 2. Du weißt doch, dass.
--Jason
UPDATE: The roll call is here. Are any of these fifth columnists your represenative?
UPDATE 2: For a little local flavor, I decided to take a look at the votes of Alabama Representatives on this issue. All were in favor of the resolution except two. Artur Davis (D - 7th) voted against, and Spencer Bacchus (R - 6th) did not have a vote recorded. I've contacted Bacchus' office to inquire if A) the representative was in the District (and he is) and B) why was he not present for this vote? I'm awaiting a response from his office. Representative Davis's office in Birmingham was unaware of the Iraq War Resolution vote, they contacted the legislative aide in D.C. for me and responded that they do not have a statement at this time, however, they'll get back to me with an explanation of the Representative's vote against the resolution. A few short minutes later, someone from the Representative's office took a look at this post, I wonder if they'll still get back to me with an explanation of his vote.
I'll post any responses from Bacchus or Davis that I receive.
-JC
UPDATE 3: I just spoke with Representative Bacchus' Chief of Staff Larry Lavender who related that Bacchus was present for the majority of the debate on the Resolution but was unable to stay for the vote as he needed to travel back to Alabama to attend his former Marine son's wedding. The Congressman has drafted a statement of support for the Resolution and will have his support entered into the Congressional Record.
Still waiting for comment from Davis.
UPDATE 4: Representative Davis has issued a statement.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:08 AM | TrackBack
June 13, 2006
The media. . . better late than never. . .
Seems that the media is finally getting around to taking offense at the "Hodji Girl" (or "Hadji Girl") video I posted back in March.
Here's my original post with the video embedded, and here's a post about the pseudo-third-party death threat I recieved for posting it.
Dan Riehl has transcribed the lyrics, and as I said before, if this video pisses you off, GO AWAY!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:30 PM | TrackBack
June 8, 2006
Woo Hoo, Woo Freakin' Hoo. . .
Zarq is Dead (click for links via Instapundit).
Did I say "Woo Hoo" yet????
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:07 AM | TrackBack
May 23, 2006
Can we please. . .
Just go ahead and drill in ANWR already!!!!!!
California Republican (oxymoronic I know, but it gets better) Richard Pombo has dropped HR 5429 on the House Floor to open ANWR to oil production (yes, you read that right, a California Representative dropped this bill, and he's from the 11th District just south of that bastion of liberal hysteria, San Francisco).
Here's the House Committee on Resources fact sheet on opening ANWR for drilling.
While I'm dropping links and runnnig, here's a VERY INTERESTING link on the real National Guard Response to Hurricane Katrina, grab a cup of coffee, read the whole thing, and then pass the link around to your friends and officemates.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:40 AM | TrackBack
May 16, 2006
For the first time, I'm worried. . .
Abu Grahib never really bothered me. I realized almost immediately that AG was the result of bad apples given the keys to their own sadistic version of a candy store and they made everyone look bad in the process. I was just as outraged as everyone else that a few of our soldiers could be so incomprehensibly stupid, but I knew that the truth would come out and the end result would be fine.
Other "scandals" like the inconsequential "Downing Street Memo", the Koran Flushed, and the myriad of other "scandals" never really bothered me, especially when viewed in the context of my side of the aisle. I had faith and assurances within myself that the Right-Center of American politics would find their way out of the sandtraps and put the shot up close to the pin. Each and every time, this has been the case; we are not perfect as a nation, and we're certainly not perfect in the context of political parties, but generally, at the end of the day, we come out pretty well. We, being the Right-Center of American Political life.
Today however, I'm not as sure we're going to be OK. This is cause for great concern within me.
This issue that concerns me is the birth of what I'm going to begin calling the "Angry Right" who've become drunk with political power.
If you look at my blogroll, you'll see that it's pretty short. This is pretty intentional and I've fought to keep it small for a reason. It's a list of the sites I visit almost daily, at least weekly, and which I return to again and again in my examination of the world. It's not a complete list of sites I visit, but it's a list of those that I feel somewhat politically aligned to. It's a list of those who I think share a similar world view, and I want to promote that world view. I do visit Democratic Underground to see what the most loony of lefty moonbats are talking about, I visit the HuffPo to find out what their commanders are saying, I visit Drudge for gossip and breaking news and I'll even drop over to Freeperville to see what nuts in my own party are bitching about on any given day. I also just wander around cyberspace looking for this or that or the other, following random links and generally trying to discover whatever I can about whatever I can.
I'm noticing something within my own little sub-section of the web however, it's not all-pervasive, but it's there nonetheless. I'm seeing the rise of the Angry Right within a self-moderated community of people whom I have respected in the past and who I found close kinship with in my Political Construct. The issue that crystalized it for me was the current Immigration debate, although now I'm beginning to question how long it's been there and how deep the sentiments are.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way shape or form breaking with my Republican Party, nor am I moving to the left. I'm still firmly rooted to my Republican-Libertarian roots and living in my Pro-Demo-Captialist sphere, but I'm questioning some of my peers and betters, and even more so, I'm questioning their motives.
The Immigration Debate has turned some of my kinsmen into downright loons. Some have let their passion on this issue cloud their better judgement, some have let this image become their White Whale and some have simply gone off the deep end.
I think it's important at this point to state my own position on Immigration and in particular, Illegal Immigration. So lets just lay out my position in a list.
1. I'm all for a fence. I realize that a ocean to ocean fence is a bit of overkill, there are some areas that can be better controlled with UAV's and patrols, but a fence must be built in many areas, it should be a strong fence, preferably double or triple layered in areas; and it should be supported with sensors and all the technology we can muster to reinforce it. It should also be patroled by humans with their attendant technology. It should be built sooner rather than later.
2. I'm for an unskilled guest worker program, just as I am for a skilled worker program. We already have a plethora of guest worker programs, some with and some without a path to citizenship. I think we can easily accomodate another guest worker program and that program should have two parts, one with and one without a path to citizenship.
3. I oppose amnesty. Additionally, I don't view paying back taxes, paying current taxes, paying a fine and going to the back of the line a form of amnesty. I look at it as a form of restitution and probation. I don't see it as amnesty.
4. I oppose the idea of mass round-ups and deportation. I believe that if we offer a restitution and probation program, coupled with a guest worker program, and if we give that a reasonable period of time to get up and running, that we'll see a large number, a super-majority of illegals currently in the country sign up and work on getting straight with the American people.
After that reasonable period of time, I fully support incarceration at hard labor followed by deportation for anyone who remains in this country illegally for whatever reason and who does not take advantage of the restitution and probation options.
5. I support a national I.D., preferably supported with biometrics. Additionally I support a screening process for communicable diseases and criminal background checks. I support this for citizens, citizen applicants, guest workers and generally anyone who happens to set foot at any time on American soil.
6. I support using any and all available resources to support the above measures including the National Guard, local, state and federal law enforcement, citizen watches (a la The Minutemen), as well as any current or to be developed technology to support the above points.
My position I think jibes closely with the President's and I think it also jibes closely with the American people and our history as a Nation of Immigrants. My postion does not however seem to jibe with many of those who I felt were my kinsmen and women within what is generally called the Blogosphere.
This came especially to light with a popular site which I've always considered Right-Center, Polipundit.com. In recent weeks, the tone of the Polipundit.com authors/bloggers has become more and more hostile to one another. I watched as the various authors went from blogging about their views and opinions to a defense of their views and opinions against one another. Finally, today, the entire group blog broke down when the site owner declared that if any of the "guest authors/bloggers" disagreed with Polipundit (the owner/author, not the site in general) on the Immigration issue, that they were no longer welcome as "guest authors/bloggers".
Of course, this has resulted in much animosity within the community that Polipundit.com supports. It's caused "camps" to develop and strike out at one another, and much hate laced vitriol to be spewed back and forth among the authors, commenters, and unfortunately, even myself. I finally realized what was happening in a larger sense, shook my head and withdrew, loaded up my own admin page, and began this post.
What I am seeing however, is not merely limited to Polipundit, it's much more widespread and has "infected" a number of the sites on my blogroll. I'm curious as to why, and I have a theory.
Politics in America has become severly polarized. Actually it's always been polarized, it's just that politics is moving much faster now and the Army of Davids is experiencing for the first time in historical memory, a real sense of power, and further, actual real power. With power, however, comes corruption, and I don't mean corruption in terms of paying for this opinion or action or that opinion or action, I mean corruption of the ideas, and positions of the individuals that acquire power, the groups that acquire power, the BLOGGERS who have acquired power.
It didn't begin with Harriet Miers, but Harriet Miers was a sort of "turning point" where the pundits began to realize the power they wielded. When the uproar from Harriet Miers resulted in her pulling her nomination, the Right-Center blogosphere erupted with a sense of victory, a sense of accomplishment and a sense of the true power they could wield. They went from commentators and observers and influencers of public opinion to actual players in the political game. They realized that they had political capital to spend, and by golly, they were going to spend and spend and spend it like a drunken Congressman just before they crashed their car into a barricade.
The turned their sites on issues across the board. Some fights were good fights, some were bad ones (most notably in my opinion is here, with the reasons) they won some, and they won some more. Their capital increased and their spending of it increased.
Now, some, like Polipundit, are drunk with that power, and in their drunken stuppor, they are kicking people out of what was the big tent that the Right-Center blogosphere represented. Further, they have begun to turn on their allies and their leaders when they feel resistance. Some have even broken completely and are advocating outright rebellion. Polipundit is a medium sized fish, and I realize that, I also realize his passion for the issue. I still think I'll find common ground with Polipundit and I'm not going to de-list his site or turn this into a rant against him, because I'm not mad at him. I just think he's a bit tipsy or buzzed at the moment and will return to his sensible self soon and realize like anyone who's had a few too many that he may have said a few things out of line, made a few bad decisions and made some mistakes. Hopefully he can reconcile with his "guest authors/bloggers" and that happy little community can return to what it once was.
Others however, I'm a bit more concerned with. Michelle Malkin has gained alot of political capital with Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports and alot of other issues. She's invested alot, and I mean alot of energy with the Immigration issue, and I commend her for all the work she does, even the parts I don't agree with have been very valuable to me in exploring issues. However, now, she's taken the position of the beligerant drunk, breaking with her parties leadership and her allies on the immigration front and has begun a mini-revolt, using her capital not to invest in issues and causes, but to wield like a club and batter away.
Powerline's, John Hindraker has also begun to behave in a rather poli-drunk fashion, suggesting that he has the speech that President Bush should have given and linking to it again and again. Suggesting that the President dropped the ball and betrayed the Right with his stance on Immigration.
Bob Owens of the Confederate Yankee, one of my favs, seems himself a little tipsy now that he's started into one of the refuges of the left by assigning cutsy, derogatory names for President Bush. I think C.Y. has just had one or two completely legit poli-beverages and hasn't become drunk yet, nor do I think he will continue to binge, but rather is just enjoying his light inebriation. However, the trend is visible across the right-center blogosphere, and it's becoming disturbing.
These are just a few examples, and I don't need to go into any more, I don't see any of them becoming raging poli-holics anytime soon, I just think they are a bit over the edge, and the former bar owner and bouncer in me wants them to calm down, have a cup of coffee and rejoin the party and have a good time.
So what's the point? I think that what I'm seeing is not only a result of the Center-Right blogosphere having a few too many and getting a bit rowdy, but I think it's a result moreso of the Political Left sitting this one out. The Political Left knows that they can't play with the big boys and girls anymore, they've simply become marginalized and actually resemble the rambling, paranoid, ragin alcoholic who comes into the bar, bellies up and begins to rant about mind control devices, black helicopters and ChimpyMcHaliCheneyburtonBushHilter. Without the Political Left engaging on this issue, the bar-fight has broken out among friends, who are itching for a fight, but can't find a real enemy. (It's a brilliant move by the Left to sit this one out, probably the first actual show of political sense that they've had in years.)
Now that the barfight has broken out, the Political left is sitting back waiting for the bartenders and bouncers to step in and break it up so they can make a grab for one of the bottles behind the bar. They realize that the Angry Right duking it out may wind up as an opportunity for them, so rather than jump into the fray and try to stop it, or jump in and join the fight, they are sitting back waiting for the taps to be untended or the cash drawer to be left open.
So as the fight rages on with the Angry Right, I'm posting this as my small part in breaking it up. I don't think I'll have any large effect, but I'm a bouncer at heart (my mother would call me a gladiato, and in some cases I am), but I can't stand by while I see my party turn into a bar-fight. Bar-fights are stupid, they are counter-productive, and it doesn't matter if you started it or finished it, it doesn't matter if you were attacked or are defending, when there's a bar-fight, everyone involved gets kicked out, and the rest of the patrons go on their merry way, order another round and the bar becomes theirs. The bar-fighters get left in the cold.
So if by chance this ever gets to the eyes of those with the Political Capital of the Blogosphere in their hands, I hope they take a moment and reflect on just how many they've had, how intoxicated they may be and whether or not they want to remain in the bar for the party, or be shuffled out into the cold.
I've said my peace, and I feel better, thanks for reading this rant. All 25 of you.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:57 PM
April 22, 2006
Let's do the election corruption boogie. . . . .
Today, New Orleans voters (and others as I'll show in a moment) will be casting ballots for the Mayor of New Orleans. It's no secret that Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin is hoping that this election will come down to race based politics rather than doing what's best for the city, but that's not what this post is about.
As voters go to the polls, I want to share something with you, my tiny readership, in the hopes that you'll share it far and wide.
So here we go. . . .
A few weeks ago, the Louisians Secretary of State's office sent out a 4 page document entitled "Municipal Elections Information" within the document was a form to request an absentee ballot by mail.
I've scanned the document and offer it here Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4
First I'd like to take issue with Page 1, please notice this:
Now we had a number of evacuees come through Birmingham and we provided aid and shelter to family members and friends in the aftermath of the storm, but I find this shotgun approach to locating voters rather . . . . inappropriate. The mailing came to us because various Katrina evacuees used our mailing address in the immediate aftermath for FEMA registrations, contact info and the like. So our address got on the list and this ballot request made it's way to my hands. Now that's not all that bad, I just thought it was worthy of note.
Here's where things get, in my opinion, VERY BAD. Take a look at page three, here's an excerpt:
Do yo see it?
Take a look again. . . .
Do you see it now????
Ok here you go:
Anything that would positively establish identity is OPTIONAL INFORMATION. Yep, that's right, optional. I could easily fill out this form, get my ballot, send it in; and I haven't lived in New Orleans in over a decade. Furthermore, I can make as many copies of this form as I'd like:
Instructions (NOTE: You may copy this form for outher Louisiana Displaced Registered Voters.)
Given the track record of Louisiana Government in the past say, um . . . well . . . FOREVER, I don't have much confidence that the Sec State will be able to provide for a legitimate election given that anything that could be used to positively identify a voter as a legitimate voter is *Optional.
I'm going to refrain from any more commentary about this, I think that by merely presenting this I'm giving enough condemnation to it. I hope if you have any opinions, you'll share them with me, and further, please feel free to lift these scanned images and repost them whereever you'd like. I'll even go the extra step of saying it's ok to hotlink these for those who may use blogger or other shared hosting resources. However, if you have the bandwidth, I'd appreciate it if you save copies for yourself and don't hotlink. OK???
So here's a final question. How many of those 16,000 absentee ballots already received for the New Orleans municipal election do you think were sent out with no positive identification of the voter based on this form????? I'm guessing it's significantly more than a few.
--Jason
PS You might also find something of interest in my -Katrina Category. Like maybe this.
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:40 PM
April 19, 2006
Oh damn, it's just gonna fall off?????????
Ok, so back in March, Larry O'Hanlon for the Discovery News service reported that there was "tectonic subsidence" in Louisiana which essentially amounted to:
"New Orleans is at the top end of what looks like a gigantic, slow-moving landslide"
O'Hanlon quotes LSU Geologist Roy Dokka as saying:
"Not only is southern Louisiana sinking, it's sliding"
O'Hanlon also describes the phenomenon as such:
"Like a smaller landslide on the side of a hill, the huge Southern Louisiana landslide has a "headwall" where the slide is breaking away and a "toe" out in the Gulf where the debris from the slide is piling up, Dokka explained. The only difference from a traditional landslide is that this one is far, far larger and it's buried under lots of wet sediments, so it requires very accurate survey measurements to detect it. "
Dokka's work in investigating the "Michoud Fault" which runs essentially through New Orleans' Ninth Ward is slipping, as a result of sediment piling up in the Gulf and pushing the tectonic plate down. While many have been keen to blame the "sinking" of SE Louisiana on the oil and gas industry, Dokka points out that:
"Subsidence associated with petroleum extraction was not a factor due to the lack of local production."
So that brings me full circle back to a topic I've explored here in the past. We simply are too quick and use too much energy decrying the evils of human impact on the planet without knowing enough about what we're talking about.
For years people have beat the U.S. up over CO2 emissions (one of those greenhouse gasses), stating that U.S. industry and American citizens (current target: the SUV) are killing the planet through global warming. For years this was a mantra repeated far and wide. Attempts to get the U.S. to voluntarily give up our industrious ways and return to eating grubs and berries, wearing loincloths (made from ecologically sound flax farming practices, not evil leather), and to continually in perpetuity pray to Gaia for her to forgive us our sins, have been made by the radical pseudo-scientists lamenting over global warming.
Then along comes a pretty exhaustive study from Columbia that the U.S. is not in fact adding to the global rate of CO2 production in the atmosphere, but we're actually sucking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than we're putting in, making us a NET ABSORBER OF CARBON DIOXIDE from the atmosphere. That's right, all those evil machines that pump out CO2 also had the coincident effect of allowing us to farm more efficiently, manage our forest better and keep millions of lovingly kept lawns and houseplants that sucked more CO2 out of the atmosphere than we were putting in. Big loss for the global warming crowd. They could no longer legitimately beat up on us for increasing CO2 levels (although they still try) and now they had to go look for another evil wrong-doer to blame the CO2 problem on (In truth, they still blame us, and simply ignore the evidence to the contrary, after all, the U.S. is an easy target, we're comfy and content, and the angry "change the world my way" crowd continues on.)
We've also been told that it's mankind that is responsible for Global Warming because of everything from the shoes we wear (more cows for more leather means more Methane) to the cars we drive (the CO2 issue again) to our air conditioners and hairsprays (nevermind we stopped using ozone depleting propellants and freon long ago and replaced them with safe alternatives unlike . . . cough . . . cough. . . Europe). Then we have NASA come back and let us know that the Sun is particularly angry right now (apparently at the U.S.) and burning hotter than any period since we've been aware that the Sun is a big ball of flaming nuclear hellfire at the center of our Solar System rather than Apollo's Chariot streaking across the sky. That would seem to be another loss for the "humans are evil" crowd, but again, it's not. They conveniently ignore the evidence and scream "It's the cars, it's all the cars, I tell you!!!!" This as they jump into their 70's era Volkswagen bus spewing black smoke behind.
[Ok Ok, that's not entirely fair, most of those "humans are evil" hippies are now driving hybrids filled with ecologically unfriendly heavy metal batteries which will be useless after 10 years and be hulks of rusting metal in junkyards with acid leaking from them. I'm not against hybrids, but their just a band-aid, we'll see the cool stuff soon enough if the hippies would just get out of the way of those people that are actually developing the technology. . . cough. . . Exxon. . . .cough. . . GM (ever wondered about why if GM's SUV sales are hurting so much why their stock and sales and profits keep going up. . . cough . . . cough . . . a nice shiny new SATURN anyone?)]
So anyway back to the Michoud Fault (pronounced Me-shoo with a silent d if you're a coon ass), and New Orelans and points south, sinking and sliding into the Gulf.
Here's my point, shut up with the blaming of every little environmental study and hiccup on humans and our activity on the planet. I've got a news flash for the hippies, Earth Firsters, Greenpeacers and my favorite environmental assholes the Earth Liberation Front (thanks alot for fucking up my second season in Vail), humans are a part of the natural environment too, we're animals just like the two toed slow moving Birdfood Salamander and we are filling our role in the evolutionary life cycle of the planet just like every other creature on the planet. The only real difference is that we've got opposable thumbs that allow us to all the things that a beaver can (build dams), the birds can (build nests -- but ours have roofs, score one for us --) and a cheetah can (move really fast, sure we use cars, but that's just another score for us). We're doing what we are simply because "we can". I've yet to see an environmentalist complain about a Beaver turning wetlands into a full fledged body of water, but having a human build it is an affront to Gaia or some such nonsense. We're here with opposable thumbs for a reason, because evolution or God or whatever construct you choose to follow gave them to us. Gave them to us so we could pick up one rock, spin it around a few times, and whack it on another rock to make a tool. Follow that out buy using that tool to break off some more rocks with ore in then, back to the opposable thumb allowing us to master the creation of fire and wham-o we've got metal George. Um, maybe we should put it back.
NO! We shouldn't put it back, we should get more and make more and use those big brains between our ears to accomplish more tasks, more complex tasks. Hey, lets try farming, and lets make some houses so we don't have to force bears out of their caves (or more correctly let's try to avoid having the bears force us out of caves by leaving the caves) and lets build the wheel so we can get around better and lets make a plow to increase our agricultural output to feed more humans, after all humans are animals too and they should be cared for and looked after and allowed to prosper because humans are a part of the natural order too.
Look, I know that it's a tragedy every time a species goes extinct, and it's just as tragic when a fishing village is swallowed by the sea, but lets get real for a moment, things have been going extinct since long before man started to stand up and look across the African steppes at the world beyond. There are also thousands of villages on seacoasts and waterways that have been washed away by rising tides, flooding, storms and tectonic subsidence. Let's get real for a minute and realize that we're just an ant colony (albeit a big one) to Mother Earth, we've got two power hands, like the ant's two powerful mandibles, with which to shape and develop our world to suit us.
When Mother Nature, Mother Earth, the planet, what have you, gets screwed up, she'll let us know, and she'll do it in a big way. Katrina wasn't that big of a storm, there have been bigger in the past, many more much bigger, what was big was that Katrina "just happened" to finally hit a city that for hundreds of years was unprepared for an event which they simply wished or willed to not come along. Well it finally did and to try and connect Katrina with global warming is downright silly. Unless you want to throw the one that hit Galveston, and Betsy and all the other into the "it's the U.S.'s fault bucket as well.
But let's connect up those opposable thumbs and get back to the Michoud fault. New Orleans is a doomed city. It's simply silly to think any other way. New Orleans was doomed from the start, when Iberville and Bienville had a spat and one brother took off to report back to his French overlords about progress in the New World, the other brother laid out New Orleans in a spot where the Dutch could come in and shell it, all for 30 pieces of silver. Yes kiddies, if you haven't heard it before, you heard it here first, the geographic placement of New Orleans is the result of traitorous actions and espionage committed against France so that the mouth of the Mississippi could be opened up to another nation and the port there (New Orleans) could be taken and destroyed, only to relocate the port to a more suitable location.
Events turned on their ear and New Orleans wasn't shelled or taken over and by the time the treachery and espionage was revealed, it was too late and too expensive to move the city to it's original surveyed location. New Orleans is doomed not only because of the treachery of an international plot, but it's doomed because one day the Mighty Mississippi is going to simply tell the Corps of Engineers to bugger off and it's going to reroute itself down the Atchafalaya Basin. No matter what the Corps does, it's merely buying time, the Mississippi is a bit tired of it's present location and wants a change of scenery, we've known this for decades upon decades, but we're fighting it, and putting up a good fight, an honorable battle, but a battle that is destined to be lost eventually. No matter how many control structures, levees, relief reservoirs and the like we build, eventually the Mississippi will change course, and leave New Orleans high and dry. Which to some will be a nice change, although economically it will be a disaster that dwarfs Katrina, Rita, Betsy and every other Gulf Coast hurricane combined.
Don't get me wrong now, I'm not about to suggest that we give up on New Orleans, I'm not saying that we shouldn't rebuild it at all. I'm saying we need to step back for a minute and realize that things are not necessarily what they seem. The present course, like the course of the Mississippi, is not necessarily a good one.
There is a strong urge to rebuild New Orleans exactly like it was (the new addendum to that plan is to raise everything in the city 1 to 3 feet off the ground. . . useless, but we'll get to that in a minute), and I understand that urge. New Orleans is my hometown and my trips down there since Katrina have been simply heartbreaking, but over time and with some reflection, I've come to realize that New Orleans was simply waiting for this to happen and in all honesty, Katrina wasn't quite bad enough for New Orleans. The storm actually missed the city, travelling up the Pearl River instead of the Mississippi. Katrina was a near miss for New Orleans. I know it doesn't seem that way from the destruction and chaos played out on our TV screens, but it actually did miss the city and that part of the storm that did hit the city were the weakest quadrants of the storm. An analysis of the data suggests that the actual category rating of the storm was somewhere between a 1 and a 2. That Cat 1 or 2 storm was enough however to bring about a cascade of disparate events sufficient to effectively destroy a city.
But I still say Katrina didn't destroy New Orleans enough. I'm sure many of my family members who read this, especially those still in the city will be positively horrified by me writing that, but in my mind it's true. I'm not wishing for any more loss of life (I wish Blanco and Nagin would have done their jobs and mitigated the loss of life when they had the chance), so don't try to paint this that way.
I'm talking about DESTRUCTION. I'm talking about shattering buildings instead of flooding them, I'm talking about scouring entire areas of the city clean, wiping the slate and REALLY allowing some rebuilding, the RIGHT kind of rebuilding to be done. Today across New Orleans people are ripping out sheetrock, carpets, and paneling, they are scraping out the inside of their homes with shovels and tossing the soggy remnants of former lives into the street where it cooks for days in the sun then carted away to landfills. Many of these people are "rebuilding" their lives, but it's my firm belief that most, not all but most are setting themselves up for even greater misfortune.
Katrina didn't do enough. The storm left hundreds of thousands of building shells, filled with the soaked remnants of their lives. Cruelly however, the storm left a false hope in place for many of those returning that they'd be able to rebuild, a false hope that levees would be rebuilt to protect against a future storm and a false hope that Katrina was "the Big One" and that New Orleans was safe from another storm for some time to come.
Talking to people in New Oreleans, many times I heard, "Well, it's over now, and we're safe for another hundred years." Similarly I heard, "Well, at least now we know what to expect, so we can build bigger levees to protect us." These are dangerous, albeit understandable, positions to take.
Like CO2 emissions and Global Warming and even "drilling is causing Louisana to sink" we simply don't have a good enough understanding of what happened during the storm on the BIG level. Sure we watched alot on TV, and we saw alot of destruction in real time, but we'll never know what forces were actually brought to bear at the height of the Cat 1 or 2 storm that hit the city. We'll never know if the local nutria had undermined the portion of the levees that failed, there's no possible way for us to know about that, because we hadn't looked at those sections, with an eye for observing what's about to cause this levee to break. Likewise we'll never know if the barge broke the London Ave. Canal levee or the barge was sucked into the Lower Ninth along with the water rushing in from the failed levee.
We do know however that it's far easier to blame human failure than it is to blame Mother Nature. After all, it's Mother Nature, we can't extract a pound of flesh from her, we can never toss her in jail or make sure she never has a job running the weather or even convince her never to strike the city (or another city) again. So we blame people. We look for individuals and say "It's your fault the levees failed" "It's your fault for driving that SUV that global warming increased and made storms increase and that caused Katrina, and it hit New Orleans to prove that Bush hates Black people." "It's you, the phantom government agent who mined the levee with dynamite to flood out the black homes." "It's you, the American people who caused all this by your insistence that you work hard and develop this nation and live comfortably in big houses while you use up oil that causes the SE Louisiana wetlands to sink."
It doesn't matter that all this is all bullshit, because it's easy. It delivers the pound of flesh.
So now that the pound of flesh has been taken. Come on people, it's been taken, lets move on. Let's use our opposable thumbs and big brains. We have to rebuild. But again, we find that the devastation is simply not as great as we needed it to be to make rebuilding easier, so we have to use our big brains to make some hard choices and difficult decisions.
Most of New Oreleans should be bulldozed. Most of the homes that people are currently ripping out sheetrock and carpet from should be bulldozed. Every flooded structure in New Orleans, no matter how severe, should be bulldozed. I'll never sell this argument to many people, but I believe it's what needs to be done.
Building a levee to protect the city against a CAT 4 or 5 storm is possible, but then again it's not. Many people who read this will have never experienced a hurricane. Many never will. Tornados however are a much simpler concept to understand and more of us have a common experience with or have seen a tornado in it's full scope on the television. We can easily grasp what a tornado is because we can see it in it's entirety in pictures with points of reference when we watch video of one.
A hurricane, in very simple terms is a tornado, a hundreds of miles across tornado.
Building a structure to withstand a direct hit from a tornado can be done. You wouldn't want to live in it however. It'd be an ugly structure, largely underground (ding ding. . . warning. . . put on your thinking caps), small and cramped and not what one would consider a home.
Have you figured it out yet? Structures that could withstand a tornado (the forces most similar to a CAT 4 or 5 storm) simply won't work in New Orleans, so it's back to the drawing board. Well, not really, we're back to levees. The levee system to survive a CAT 4 or 5 storm would have to be MASSIVE. Not just big, I mean MASSIVE, Great Wall kinds of massive, pyramids massive, panama canal massive. Massive with a tectonic fault running right through the middle. Do you see the problem yet??
So what's the solution. Honestly, there seems to me to be a solution, but you're not going to like it.
Bulldoze New Orleans. That's the solution. Buldoze every structure that experienced flooding, every structure that's been abandoned since the storm, hell, if someone leaves their home for the weekend and you can get away with it, bulldoze that one too. Wipe the slate clean, THEN you can rebuild the way rebuilding needs to be done.
The Ninth Ward should never be a residential area again. I'm sorry, but it's true. We have a major tectonic fault running right through the middle of it. It's indefensible, and to try is only to prolong the inevitable. I know that there will be an immediate kneejerk reaction to this. What about the homes, the lives, what will these people return to. The answer to that is simple, they won't. That's not a racist statement, although I'm sure I'll get email saying it is, but it's not, and I'd say bulldoze Lakeview if there was a fault running through that area of the city (wait a minute, I'm saying to bulldoze Lakeview too. . . maybe that will get the cries of racism off my back).
The Ninth Ward has a purpose in what I believe the New New Orleans should become. The ninth ward should be a shipping offload/onload and storage yard for the most advanced port facility the world has ever known. It's location is ideal for such a use, the land can be acquired at a reasonable fair market value and allow displaced families a real opportunity to rebuild someplace that A) Doesn't have a tectonic fault running through it and B) Isn't likely to be flooded again.
Rebuild the Ninth Ward levees to the levels they were pre-Katrina, level the shattered homes, pave it solid and turn it into a port facility that's the envy of the world, a port facility that can handle imports and exports for the new milennia, and most importantly, it's an area that would not have to be protected by new, larger levees that will be constantly on the move through tectonic subsidance.
Next, take a hard look at the size and shape of the New New Orleans. No matter what, it will be decades before New New Orleans has the population base that New Orleans did. The footprint of New New Orleans that is protected by levees can be adjusted, New Orleans East could be largely abandoned to create a series of chevron shaped open-ended levees to absorb the brunt of a storm coming from the Gulf and energy and resources can be devoted to rebuilding the core of the city and population centers on the north and west sides of the city.
Next, bring in the pumps. Begin pumping sediment from the Mississippi into the interior of the city. Millions of cubic yards will be needed, but it's there, in the river, and it can be relatively easily extracted, pumped and distributed throughout the city. The project would be a massive undertaking and certainly not easy, but filling the city would be far easier in the long run than raising every structure 1 to 3 feet above grade (the current plan) which will effectively do absolutely nothing in the event of a similar catastrophe (remember, this was a CAT 1 or 2 storm, 3 at most, but there are bigger storms out there, and ONE DAY, one will hit the city. Rebuilding to protect from the storm that just hit isn't enough, IF we're going to rebuild, and stay, we must plan and build for the storm that didn't hit, but almost did.
The filling of the bowl that is New Orleans may take years, but done sensibly, a section of the city at a time, with developers standing by at the ready to come in and build on the New New Orleans mound would do so mostly at their own expense, willingly. I also imagine that they'd be more efficient and effective than a government operation to do the same.
The material is there for us to do it. We have the technology. We just lack the will to do what's right because it's painful. It would be painful to tell families that their homes must be bulldozed and the entire level of the city must be raised 8 to 12 feet. It would be painful to watch billions of dollars go into a project that people wouldn't see create immediate gains.
The New New Orleans mound could be a planned city and again the envy of the world. A pace setting port for the rest of the world to look at and envy, a planned city laid out to maximize resources and space. Between the New Oreleans East Chevrons wetlands could form and nature would reclaim the land, further mitigating destructive forces from storms. Population centers on the West Bank and across the lake would supply safe housing for those wishing to work in the city and commute like workers from New Jersey and the East Bay do in Manhattan and San Francisco. A new example for city architecture and design could be built utilizing all the lessons we've learned over the millenia.
New New Orleans residents would finally see a day where rainwater falling into the city would naturally leave, the millions of dollars invested in pumps which can fail would be replaced by the natural force of gravity, which will never fail us no matter how severe the storm. New New Orleans residents would be able to look down upon the Mississippi river rather than up at it. New New Orleans residents would be facing the same set of problems and utilize the same solutions that other Gulf Coast cities on high ground do. The risk from storms would still be there, but the added danger of living in a bowl on top of a swamp with a tectonic fault running through it would be removed.
The character of New New Orleans must change too. New Orleans can no longer afford to be a hovel filled with poverty, it simply can't afford it. New New Orleans should be smaller, leaner, and meaner. It should be expensive to live in the city proper, and living there, just because it's where you live should be a thing of the past.
New New Orleans should be the Manhattan or San Francisco of the South. It should have a small footprint and space should be maximized due to the inherent dangers of living between a river that doesn't want to be there and a Lake that functions as a Hurricane Magnet (luckily we've dodged the bullet repeatedly of a Hurricane blasting all of it's energy into the city and then parking itself in Lake Ponchatrain to gain strength and batter the city to bits). New New Orelans could have the appeal for tourists that it's always had, with added attractions and facilities designed to handle the throngs effectively and maximize the returns to the businesses present and thereby the tax revenue to maintain the structures necessary to protect the city without fighting the constantly losing battle that it has been fighting for centuries.
What's happening in New Orleans now, as I watch it happen, only seems to be another step toward prolonging the inevitable. Lifting houses 1 to 3 feet is not going to help if New Orleans is hit again in the near future, and it certainly won't help if a bigger, stronger storm rolls through. Rebuilding the fragile wooden shells that have been wracked by Katrina will not serve the citizens well when the next storm hits. New, stronger building codes are necessary, and if the city is not going to "fill the bowl", then it MUST raise the houses, and not 1 to 3 feet, but 8 to 12 feet or more if damage by flooding is to be eliminated.
Stilts Ok, fine, build on stilts. They work, but there are other options, mandate that every residence be built on top of a first story (8 to 12 feet high) of cinder block or poured concrete, use the space for parking or storage, just don't be sad if the next storm comes along and junior is using it as his room, the goal is to save as much of the "authorized" living space as possible from the destructive forces of flooding.
DO SOMETHING EFFECTIVE NEW ORLEANS. Everyone in the city knows that 1 to 3 feet solves nothing. Most homes experienced far more water than 3 feet. Most homes were faced with 5 feet or more, some even more than that. 1 to 3 feet may put insurance risk tables into an acceptable range for flood insurance, but another Katrina event or worse and those 1 to 3 feet will be useless.
I'll wrap it up now, it's quite the rant already, and I went all over the chart with it. Alot of this is something I've wanted to say for a long time but I just couldn't bring myself to post something that my friends and family would read that said "Bulldoze New Orleans", but I really can't get behind the current plan by the city of having people build up 1 to 3 feet when every picture I took while I was there showed higher flood levels. I can't support 1 to 3 feet when I see that every home I ever lived in in New Orleans had 5 to 10 feet of flooding. I can't support the notion of rebuilding the Cat 3 levees that failed under a Cat 2 storm. I just can't.
A levee is like a chain, it's only as strong as the weakest link. The old New Orleans levee system incorporated hundreds of miles of levees, the breaches measured in 10's of feet, not miles, of levee. To assume the old system can be rebuilt and maintained to defend against the storm to come is simple unreasonable. Something bigger MUST BE DONE, a grander undertaking must occur if we're to rebuild New Orleans to any shade of her former self. If we decide not to have as big a city, that's GREAT, I'm all for it. Not because it's easier to evacuate, but because it makes the possibility of a LARGE USEFUL undertaking to commence. Not because I want to see a smaller New Orleans, but because logic dictates we NEED to see a smaller, stronger, leaner, meaner, more efficient, more robust NEW NEW ORLEANS.
Thanks for reading this rant if you got through it all, I appreciate your indulgence and welcome any comments, positive or negative, call me a loon, call me a prophet, I don't care, but if any portion of this struck a chord or sparked an idea, I'd love to hear it.
Thanks to Confederate Yankee (on the blogroll) for pointing me to the Discovery News Article, you can find Dokkas article here in abstract form and here in it's entirety, and once again, thanks for lending your ear (actually, your eyes) to me for a few minutes.
--Jason
I also have a hurricane Katrina category with pictures and other posts if you're interested.
-JC
**Comments are closes for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:18 PM
April 11, 2006
Grab a cup o' joe. . . .
Then sit back and read Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions take on the Immigration Reform Act and the so-called compromise amendment.
It's worth anyone's time who wants to understand what's going on without the cloudy and often misunderstood interpretations of the MSM.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:28 AM | TrackBack
March 16, 2006
Come on people. . . these are dots . . . you connect them . . . and you get a picture. . .
Much hay is being made about the largest air assault since the invasion going on in Iraq right now. Lefties are saying (WARNING: Link takes you to DU, and those peeps are crazy) that the assault is proof that things are getting worse in Iraq, the media is harping on and on about how this is somehow an "escalation" or a "response to a looming civil war" (hasn't that "civil war" thing been looming for a while now??? where exactly is it again???).
The operation is called SWARMER and yes it's a big deal but lets put it into just a small bit of perspective.
We're supposed to be over there "training up" the Iraq military. We're supposed to teach them tactics and logistics and develop their ability to govern their country in accordance with their Constitution, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING.
Back in February, the Iraqi military got their hands back on military helicopters, Mil Mi-17's from Poland to be exact. In February the first 10 of the machines were delivered, and here we are, half a month later, and the Iraqi's are using their new toys in conjunction with the 101st Airborne and other coalitiion partners to move troops around Iraq.
This is NOT the big deal that the media is trying to play up, it's not an escalation in the violence, it's an ESCALATION OF TRAINING AND OPERATIONS on the Iraqi's part.
This is a good thing people!!!!
--Jason
UPDATE: Here's a picture of a Mi-17 in case you're not familiar with the aircraft.
UPDATE 2: Welcome to the Slate readers stopping by, please take a look around and enjoy yourself. I talk about this and that and the other, with some more of this and a bit more of that.
UPDATE 3: This morning everyone was aflutter thinking that operation SWARMER was something that it wasn't. People who didn't know any better (most of the major media I might add) thought that "air assault" meant "aerial bombing". Now that that has been (reluctantly) cleared up by the big media, and relevant corrections issued, the chorus is changing.
Now people are trying to say this is some Wag the Dog operation designed by the administration to divert attention from this or that.
I can't help but point out that this isn't a story that was put out there by the Administration. The MSM picked up on Centcoms briefings this morning and then ran away with it thinking that we were in round 2 of Shock and Awe. They got the entire story wrong from start to finish and rather than report the truth of the event, they have to remake the remade story into something else that they can sell as controversy.
If anyone was wagging anything, it was the MSM trying to make a sensational story about events that they didn't know anything about.
So, what is this whole thing???? It's great news for both sides of the aisle. On one right hand side it's taking the fight to the enemy, going after him quickly, in sufficient force, using the tools of the trade available and giving the enemy no ground to go to and also showing that the Iraqis have a new trick up their sleeve, airborne assault. For those on the left, they should be cheering the Iraqis for being able to pull this off. It's their intel, they're flying their helicopters and they are leading their mission with U.S. support.
This is a shining example that REAL and CONCRETE progress is being made in training the Iraqis and getting them to a point where they can wield real power and then project that power into any region of their country. This is what the left has been screaming for since day one for the new Iraqi army. Training, progress and operational independence. We've been working on the training, we're seeing progress, now we just have to continue to work on that operational independence.
Pulling off a heliborne assault is a difficult task for any military. It's not the most difficult task, but it's a complicated undertaking nonetheless. Everyone should be happy about this. It's a good thing people. It's a sign of progress.
It's CERTAINLY a helluva lot more progress than Germany or Japan or even Korea had made two and half years after their militaries were beat down.
I for one, give props to Iraqi military for coming this far, this fast.
--JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:57 AM | TrackBack
March 15, 2006
Why? I'm not sure. . . but it's brilliant in a sense. . .
Lorie Byrd of Polipundit (on the blogroll and pretty much a daily read) asks WHY? In reference to this posting by Drudge.
At first I was asking the "why" myself. Then it dawned on me, it's just brilliant. Sit Jessica next to Boehner and for days you've got comedic fodder. Will Jay Leno or Dave Letterman be the first to use the "bone" joke.
So what's the brilliance? Someone in there (the Republican party) is playing out their own little joke and turning the liberal establishment on it's head. They (the left) have no choice to make the joke, it's just too obvious. However, with each passing of the joke from one to the next and with each decent into cruder and cruder commentary, the shrillness comes out, the anger comes out and the parody that the left makes of itself becomes more and more apparant to the average john and jane doe.
They'll belittle Jessica Simpson at the same time that they hold up a Madonna or Susan Sarandon. It'll be fun to see this one play out and watch the left get smug, all the while knowing that they're being played like a cheap fiddle.
--Jason
UPDATE: Welcome PoliPundit readers, thanks for stopping by, please take a look around enjoy your stay.
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:07 PM | TrackBack
March 14, 2006
Today's Cup O' Coffee Post #???
You'll find "Real Clear Politics" in the blogroll and if you're in the mood to get lost for a few hours, it's your place. For now though, I want to point you to a first-hand account of the situation in Baghdad from a retired U.S. Army officer. After all, if the MSM isn't going to do the job, it's going to have to be independent first-hand histories that tell the real story of this war.
While you're going that direction, I also want to plug Iraq the Model as a place to get lost for a while.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:29 PM
March 13, 2006
It's the little things that say so much. . .
So here I was, just minding my own business and about to call it a night when I decided to just check Drudge to see if there were any headlines just screaming for a quick read before slumber and decided to click on "Sen. Feingold Draws Little Support for Bush Censure... " (Go ahead, read the article and then come back.)
Ok, so there's not much to this article on the surface. Feingold's maneuver is a parlor trick of politics at this point, only designed to further polarize the electorate and show where he stands when it comes to running for President. ***CLUE FOR FEINGOLD --- You won't be facing Bush in '08, so you're really wasting your ammo here and only ingratiating yourself to that fringe, which worked wonders for Dean.***
But here's some things I want to point out in the article:
"The president has . . ."
". . . by Congress is . . ."
". . . when the president . . . "
". . . Congress has the . . ."
Now those on the left are going to immediately "knee-jerk" and say that I'm nitpicking, or attacking grammar instead of looking at context and substance. I'll suggest however that if, now, after I've pointed it out, if you have half-a-brain, the article takes on a whole different meaning. Notice even the extreme examples, like:
". . . George W. Bush, president of the United States . . ."
I'll suggest that the mainstream media has given up the ghost of objectivity, while they claim to have checks and balances on their content to achieve certain journalistic standards, it's the little things like this make the bias stand out so strongly. This piece has seen a number of editors along it's path to the web. It's been written, re-written, edited, checked, edited and then sent to the wire, and the issue that I'm pointing out made it through that process for a distinct reason. The groupthink or the agenda of the media put it there.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, well, let's just say, you're not my audience then.
If you're still struggling, go back and read it again, look for things like:
". . . only president ever censured by the Senate . . . "
" Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. . . "
But of course we've got ". . . what President Clinton was . . ." instead of Bill Clinton, Former president of the United States.
The media's objectivity and journalistic integrity are merely Charades.
--Jason
P.S. - If you want commentary on the stunt mentioned in the article, I'll leave that to Dan.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:11 PM | TrackBack
March 9, 2006
Ah, New Orleans gets the shaft again. . .
Now I bet you'll think that I'm talking about the storm system that's bearing down on Lousisiana threatening tornados. Well, I'm not.
I'm talking about the "Dubai Ports Deal". Are you looking at your screen like a dog does when he hears a high pitched whistle???
How can the two be connected? I'll tell ya.
Dubai Ports World knows ports. I mean they REALLY know ports, of all the companies in the world, DPW is probably the most efficient and effective managers of seaports there is. They've built some of the most sophisticated and efficient cargo handling operations on the planet, from Dubai, to Hong Kong, wherever you found large concentrations of ships and cargo containers you found DPW. They found their niche and became the worlds best player at the game of shuffling cargo containers on and off ships.
DPW is the world leader in automated handling of cargo containers. Whereever they've gone they've installed automated cranes, robotic trucks and computerized container storage yards and dramatically increased the efficiency of the port facilities they operate.
Now it seems they're about to be cut out of a market that desperately needs their expertise, and more importantly, their money and investement.
One of the port facilities . . . . OK, I'm going to stop here for a second and point out a few things.
PORT SECURITY - Port Security WAS NOT, I repeat WAS NOT being turned over to DPW. The deal was this: DPW would lease some land within a designated "port area" and offload and onload ships into a yard where US Customs would inspect and oversee the "border" within the ports. Security would have remained a U.S. responsibility.
It should also be pointed out that in MOST of our ports, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Venezeula, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Taiwan, South Korea and many more nations have entities like DPW that are CURRENTLY operating facilities within U.S. ports.
This ridiculous and false debate is NOTHING MORE THAN partisan politics, racism and ignorance combining to conspire against Dubai and Arabs in general. It's sickening in that sense alone, but wait. . . .there's more.
The port of New Orleans was devastated by Katrina, container yards, loading facilities and critical port infrastructure was largely destroyed by the storm, flooding and inattention after the storm as the companies that operated the facilities largely disappeared when their employees left town.
One of the most attractive portions of the DPW deal was the acquisition of leases for property in the Port of New Orleans. Making it more attractive was the need to completely rebuild the port facilities and making it even more attractive was that now there's actually an opportunity to expand port operations in New Orleans as the city is rebuilt in a more sensible and practical way. The Port of New Orleans was hemmed in, slums, housing projects and lower to middle class neighborhoods cramped any efforts to expand the port, sending business AND MONEY out of the city into St. Bernard parish, Baton Rouge and east and west along the intracoastal canal.
Katrina opened up whole new possibilities for New Orleans to become a MODERN PORT FACILITY. In fact, the possibility that the Port of New Orleans could be completely reworked was perhaps the one shining light in the entirety of the Katrina disaster.
Mardi Gras won't save New Orleans, tourism is only icing on the cake that is New Orleans. New Orleans is a port, it's always been a port as it will always be a port. New Orleans is the primary gateway for all those within the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and Red River watersheds to get their products to the open sea via water, the most cost efficient way to ship products long distances. New Oreleans was also the primary gateway for products coming into those markets. Take a look at a map of the nation and look at those three watersheds and the smaller ones that feed into them, New Orelans in many ways is the beginning and the end of domestic shipping for a large portion of the nation.
Katrina has given us the opportunity to expand, upgrade and enhance the Port of New Orleans. It was (and may still be be) our opportunity to create a seaport that was the rival of the world, unconstrained by zoning and neighborhoods preventing an efficient layout of the port. This was the opportunity to FIX so so so many problems with the Port of N.O. It was the opportunity to develop an automated system to handle cargo by offloading, scanning, monitoring, inspecting, TAXING and loading shipments in the most effective way possible.
DPW realized this opportunity and like any good business who's business was ports would, they struck a deal to get in on this exceptional opportunity.
There aren't many players in the port game at this level. In the United States we have Haliburton, in Israel they have Zim, in Dubai, they have DPW, the Brits have P&O, et cetera, et cetera. All of these players work together wherever you find large concentrations of ships and containers. All of these players come together wherever a nation puts its ports of entry.
Now, at the time we need international cooperation on international shipping the most, we've told one of our allies, both in business and in the GWOT to essentially go away, that we dont' want them to do business with us anymore. The players in this game (and that's what it's become, a game) are effectively stiff-arming New Orleans once again, and I'll suggest that their motives are far from honest and sincere once they step in front of the cameras.
On one front you have the President and the Administration, who approved the deal because it MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT CONGRESS LAID OUT. That's right, the Administration, through it's bureaucracy that transcends President Bush or any individual, put the DPW deal through the mill and checked it off against all the requirements that Congress had set forth. The DPW deal is a good deal. It's a deal we've done time and time again within our ports, it's a deal we make with numerous nations, Arab, Caucasian, Black, Asian, it's a deal that before now was blind to race, but GUESS WHAT? The Democrats (through Reid and Schumer) led the racist charge to bring this deal down and they convinced a number of Republicans to come along for this hate-fest through misinformation, fear and spin.
No one talked about New Orleans and the need to rebuild the port operations there from scratch, but BOY O BOY were they ready to LIE about "turning over security". No one talked about automated efficient cargo handling like they have in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Dubai or some of the major ports of Europe, but BOY O BOY were they ready to destroy the reputation and goodwill of one of our allies in the GWOT. No one talked about the reality of the deal, they only gave out the false soundbites, the false claims that security was at risk, and misleading assertions that the "port" would be taken over.
When I talk to people about the ports deal, they believe that it means the entire port would be taken over in various U.S. cities. Why do they think this? Because the media tells them so, even though the media knows it's untrue. It's easier and more effective to their purposes to scare and mislead than it is to tell the truth and explain what it means. People are also under the impression that there is a security threat, when exactly the opposite is true.
How can the opposite be true??? Well lets see there for a second. With more efficiency comes more time, with more time you can do more. Makes sense doesn't it???
So here's the kicker. DPW wanted to install automated loading, offloading and handling systems in their port facilities much like what they have installed in other places. By automating many of these processes you gain time, and time is what port security needs most. The reason that only 5% of containers coming into this country are inspected is because the offloading of ships is so inefficient. Every available shortcut is taken by companies to get cargo off ships and onto trucks because port facilities are generally too small and cramped. Containers now in many places come straight off a ship and are dropped onto a truck which passes through an inspection station and then moves out into the city. A majority of cargo coming into the country comes in just this way. It's rarely inspected in our ports other than a quick glance at the manifest, maybe someone walks around the truck with a radiation detector and maybe a dog sniffs the back end of the truck, but that's it, mostly cargo just sails on through.
DPW offered a partial solution in their automated cargo handling systems. By using automated cranes to transfer containers to automated shuttles you gained time. The actual unloading of the ships is dramatically increased and the congestion and chaos of the yard is replaced with the quiet hum of electric motors as automated shuttles ferry containers through a radiation detector, place suspect containers aside for customs inspection and move the bulky cargo away from the docks into holding yards where there is time (and in the case of New Orleans, ROOM) to actually undertake systematic inspections of containers on a grand scale. When you're paying people by the hour to sit in the cab of a truck and wait for inspectors to look at the cargo, money gets wasted and people get sloppy. No one cares about a robotic shuttle sitting still or going in circles back and forth to inspection stations, the computers won't complain about wasted time and not enough mileage. Robots don't argue with customs agents that they need to get on the road so they can get home early for their kids recital.
DPW wanted into the U.S. market in a greater capacity then they already had been. Yes, Dubai already has operations in the U.S., they bring in oil and natural gas to numerous terminals, and have shipping and receiving terminals in many ports across the U.S. The facilities that P&O operated were much sought after leases within the 6 ports in question, but the jewel of the deal, make no bones about it was the Port of New Orleans and the opportunity to create a world class port facility in New Orleans and turn the tragedy of Katrina into a godsend for a city that so desperately needed it.
But yes, fear, racism and partisan politics once again conspire to keep New Orleans down. Just like the idiocy of the reports of mass murders and rapes and lies about the events dominated coverage of Katrina, and continue to do so today, lies and misinformation dash hopes for a truely world class port facility to be developed in New Orleans.
I probably won't revisit this topic again, I'm pretty sick of spineless Republicans and fear-mongering Democrats and their treatment of this issue. I'll close by saying that when all is said and done, I'll tell you who's going to be controlling these port facilities now that the deal is killed. I'm sure we'll hear cries of foul and evil Bushhitler dirty tricks when it's said and done.
I'll tell you though, this new entity, when you look at who they really are, will be shown simply to be the company I mentioned in this post three weeks ago.
New Orleans gets screwed again. Of course people will say that it's all Bush's fault again. To be honest, it seems like the entire federal government on both sides of the aisle and in every agency is against New Orleans, add to that the mayor and governor too. It seems like the only one who is actually on the side of New Orleans, is the President. Go figure.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:03 PM
March 7, 2006
Behold, the Dhimmitude of Europe continues. . .
Somedays I just look at my inbox and shake my head slowly. I can't believe where the world is going sometimes.
Of interest to me today is a report coming from Islam Online that says that the top rock act in Germany will be prohibited from appearing at Berlin's ECHO Music Festival after a television station announced they would not broadcast the performance because to do so would be an "irresponsible act".
Read the article and decide for yourself if the organizers are doing the right thing by banning the top rock band in Germany (named Oomph!, by the way) from the festival to appease potential religious troublemakers.
For my part I'm going to do something "irresponsible" and post a sample of the "offending song" entitled "Gott ist ein Popstar (God is a pop star)." Click the title for a sample.
I hope all those who would be offended by such music are profoundly offended. I'm still waiting for that Fatwah folks, I keep checking, but I don't think anyone has decared a jihad on me yet.
More musical interludes later tonight folks, and I promise that this next one will be a howler!!!! You're gonna have to wait for it though, cause I'm like that.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:48 PM | TrackBack
March 2, 2006
Hey, MSM, topping and breaching are two different things. . . .
People are talking about the video now being passed around of a videoconference between President Bush, FEMA officials, and Max Mayfield at the National Hurricane Center.
Click here for AP's exclusive coverage of the video.
Now alot of people are trying to make political hay about the bit at the end. They're getting up in arms, again, about Bush's comment:
"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."
They start frothing at the mouth because in the video Max Mayfield says:
"I don't think anyone will tell you with any confidence or not whether the levees will be topped."
Now critics of the administration are going to scream their heads off about these two comments. They'll try to say that Max Mayfield is there on tape warning of levee failure, when in TRUTH, he is doing no such thing.
Mayfield is talking about water coming over the top of the levees, that's TOPPING. He is speaking to the issue of the storm surge and how high it will be. Mayfield is NOT, I repeat NOT talking about a levee BREACH.
The topping of a levee is one thing. A levee is "topped" when water levels on one side of a levee rise to a point where they spill over. Think of a bathtub filling with water, eventually the water will run over the side and onto the bathroom floor. This is what Mayfield is talking about, because it's a somewhat serious event normally associated with storm surge.
Now when Bush speaks four days after Katrina that "no one anticipated the breach of the levees" he is NOT talking about the topping of the levees, he's talking about total levee failure, a breach, an actual HOLE IN THE LEVEE. He's talking about what happened at the 17th St. and London Ave. Canals. President Bush is saying that no one anticipated that whole sections of the levee system would simply crumble and disappear.
While levee "topping" is certainly serious, it's a completely different event than a levee breach. When a levee is topped, water enters the protected area and collects in canals where, hopefully, the water can be pumped out by the city's pumping stations. When a levee is "breached" this is a whole different order of magnitude of serious. When a levee is breached, you can't pump the water out because it comes right back in through the hole in the levee. Pumping after a levee breach is useless. A levee breach is effectively a complete collapse of the system and it cannot be immediately remedied.
People are going to get worked up over this and the mainstream media is already mouthing off and saying that Mayfield warned of levee breach when he most certainly did not. Mayfield was warning about levee topping, not breaching. Until someone can come out and say that there was a clear indication given to the President that the levees would crumble under the storms assault, the President is correct when he says:
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
Personally, I expected topping of the levees, I expected water to run up I-10 into New Orleans East, I expected some of the inner city canal levees to be topped and some of the St. Bernard and Jefferson parish levees to be overtopped by the storm surge. I expected flooding, you always expect flooding in New Orleans during a hurricane, but then I expected the pumps to take over and pump the water out of the city. That was the defense plan for New Orleans. That's always been the plan. If water comes into the perimeter protected by levees, collect it in the canals and pump it out. A levee failure, like that experienced during Katrina, can't be "anticipated" because it's a catastrophic total failure of the levee. If you "anticipate" the breach of the levee, why even rely on the levee system at all, a breached levee might as well be no levee at all. For centuries New Orleans has relied on the levees to protect it, and for centuries, a levee breach was not "anticipated".
Levee "topping" however is a completely different story, and NO ONE has ever talked about not anticipating the levees being topped. In fact, almost everyone talked about them being topped.
I don't expect the mainstream media to notice or even accept this distinction between what Mayfield is saying, Bush is saying and what the media WANTS to say. I've pretty much given up on the mainstream media reporting the honest facts and making those important little distinctions that separate real truth from fantasy. I only hope that the blogosphere can get out in front of this and point out that Mayfield is talking about one type of event and Bush is talking about another. Most Americans aren't familiar with levees in as intimate a way as New Orleans residents are, but anyone who's lived in New Orleans and had an actual levee standing between them and water over their heads can certainly attest to knowing the difference between topping and breaching. Hopefully the blogosphere can make that explanation and demonstrate the difference between the two for people.
--Jason
PS - All of my Hurricane Katrina blogging can be found here.
UPDATE: Dabgummit, Powerline and Big Lizards beat me to the punch on this one (and of course did a better job), that's what I get for having Gumbo and watching local boy Taylor Hicks on Idol with the family before thinking about bloggin. I guess I just need to chain myself to the desk more. Patterico also weighs in.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:15 AM | TrackBack
February 28, 2006
A Manifesto for the new millennium. . .
Originally published by Jyllands-Posten
MANIFESTO:Together facing the new totalitarianism
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
12 signatures
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
As an atheist, it makes perfect sense for me to agree with this. As an American, it makes even more sense. As a product of Western Civilization, it makes even more. As one human among 6.5 billion others, even more. In fact, I can't find a single solitary reason to disagree with any of this.
So I'll make it mine and add my name to the list.
Mr. Rushdie and others, I'm proud to stand with you.
Jason F. Coleman
PS - Brief bios of the orignal signers in the extended post.
The signers:Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from somilian origin, is member of Dutch parliement, member of the liberal party VVD. Writter of the film Submission which caused the assasination of Theo Van Gogh by an islamist in november 2004, she lives under police protection.Chahla Chafiq
Chahla Chafiq, writer from iranian origin, exiled in France is a novelist and an essayist. She’s the author of "Le nouvel homme islamiste , la prison politique en Iran " (2002). She also wrote novels such as "Chemins et brouillard" (2005).Caroline Fourest
Essayist, editor in chief of Prochoix (a review who defend liberties against dogmatic and integrist ideologies), author of several reference books on « laicité » and fanatism : Tirs Croisés : la laïcité à l’épreuve des intégrismes juif, chrétien et musulman (with Fiammetta Venner), Frère Tariq : discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan, et la Tentation obscurantiste (Grasset, 2005). She receieved the National prize of laicité in 2005.Bernard-Henri Lévy
French philosoph, born in Algeria, engaged against all the XXth century « ism » (Fascism, antisemitism, totalitarism, terrorism), he is the author of La Barbarie à visage humain, L’Idéologie française, La Pureté dangereuse, and more recently American Vertigo.Irshad Manji
Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and the internationally best-selling author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith" (en francais: "Musulmane Mais Libre"). She speaks out for free expression based on the Koran itself. Née en Ouganda, elle a fui ce pays avec sa famille musulmane d’origine indienne à l’âge de quatre ans et vit maintenant au Canada, où ses émissions et ses livres connaissent un énorme succès.Mehdi Mozaffari
Mehdi Mozaffari, professor from iranian origin and exiled in Denmark, is the author of several articles and books on islam and islamism such as : Authority in Islam: From Muhammad to Khomeini, Fatwa: Violence and Discourtesy and Glaobalization and Civilizations.Maryam Namazie
Writer, TV International English producer; Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran’s International Relations; and 2005 winner of the National Secular Society’s Secularist of the Year award.Taslima Nasreen
Taslima Nasreen is born in Bangladesh. Doctor, her positions defending women and minorities brought her in trouble with a comittee of integrist called « Destroy Taslima » and to be persecuted as « apostate »Salman Rushdie
Salman Rushdie is the author of nine novels, including Midnight’s Children, The Satanic Verses and, most recently, Shalimar the Clown. He has received many literary awards, including the Booker Prize, the Whitbread Prize for Best Novel, Germany’s Author of the Year Award, the European Union’s Aristeion Prize, the Budapest Grand Prize for Literature, the Premio Mantova, and the Austrian State Prize for European Literature. He is a Commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et Lettres, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities at M.I.T., and the president of PEN American Center. His books have been translated into over 40 languages.Philippe Val
Director of publication of Charlie Hebdo (Leftwing french newspaper who have republished the cartoons on the prophet Muhammad by solidarity with the danish citizens targeted by islamists).Ibn Warraq
Ibn Warraq , author notably of Why I am Not a Muslim ; Leaving Islam : Apostates Speak Out ; and The Origins of the Koran , is at present Research Fellow at a New York Institute conducting philological and historical research into the Origins of Islam and its Holy Book.Antoine Sfeir
Born in Lebanon, christian, Antoine Sfeir choosed french nationality to live in an universalist and « laïc » (real secular) country. He is the director of Les cahiers de l’Orient and has published several reference books on islamism such as Les réseaux d’Allah (2001) et Liberté, égalité, Islam : la République face au communautarisme (2005).
Pesonally I fear a little for these individuals safety as this document begins to spread. I sincerely hope that no harm comes to them.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:10 PM | TrackBack
February 23, 2006
Two tales of a city. . .
Ok, not quite a city, more just a place, and a people. The place is Lalish, Iraq (Kurdistan Iraq, for whatever that's worth), the people are the Yezidi. The tales are from Michael Totten, who focuses more on the religion, and Michael Yon, who focuses more on the people.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:34 AM | TrackBack
February 22, 2006
Guess it's time we found out. . .
I've started learning more about the U.A.E. and Dubai. Have you?
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:54 PM | TrackBack
February 21, 2006
I'm happy to solve that problem . . . .
You know this hole "ports" kerfluffle, I'll give you the answer to it in one word:
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:57 PM | TrackBack
Your afternoon cup. . .
Here's your afternoon cup 'o coffee link.
Another declassified Al Qaeda document: The failed jihad in Syria
-via Austin Bay (who you can find on the blogroll, great blog).
AND, BONUS - if you liked that link, you'll appreciate this, also from Austin Bay.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:50 PM | TrackBack
February 17, 2006
The international language of. . ..
First found via my favorite web diva.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:43 AM | TrackBack
Did I say hell? ? ?
Freigh-train, I tell ya, freight-train!!!!
Where's my jihad?!?!?!
First caught this at California Conservative, then at Cake or Death.
It's a must see, but be warned, Not Necessarily Safe for Work (Language, and if you're an easily offended jihadist wannabe Muslim, you'll really hate it.). You've been warned.
Courtesy of Zipperfish.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:47 AM | TrackBack
February 15, 2006
More of what the MSM won't show you. . . .
Something tells me that you'll never see an article about this type of reconstruction in Iraq in the New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, nor will you probably see it on ABC, NBC or CBS.
Yes, that's in IRAQ, and so is this.
To find out about this kind of reconstruction. You'll have to look to the blogs. This time, you'll specifically have to check out Michael Totten, who's taken to blogging directly from the Middle East. Until recently he was living and blogging in Lebanon, and now he's taken his laptop and digicam to Iraq.
Have a look around his site at MichaelTotten.com, when you're done there, check out Michael Yon.
The MSM is dying on the vine, I'm just glad we have something to take it's place.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:29 PM | TrackBack
February 9, 2006
More Fowler, now with Crumley. . .
I've mentioned Donnie Fowler before, here, here, here, here, here and here, to be precise.
Donnie doesn't fit with my political mold, but I've heard him speak a few times now. I've met him personally and was able to get some candid reactions from him leading me to the conclusion that I like the guy even if I disagree with his individual and group politics.
Donnie, like myself, believes that the nation needs a two party system to present Americans with a real distinct choice about the direction that the nation heads. Personally, I believe that those two choices need to be the Republican party and some as yet undefined entity that grows from a libertarian base and picks up supporters from the fractured and irreperably damaged Democrats. Donnie believes that there is still hope for the Democrats to become viable again. If he's right, more power to them and him.
I still hold that the Democrats are now merely obstructionist, oppositionist and reactionary and have no real ideas to offer the electorate.
All that being said, I want to give Donnie props once again for keeping up the fight and forming a new venture with Amanda Crumley to:
"identify new markets of like-minded individuals, create communities from them, and deliver messages that get people to take actions that our clients wish"
Good luck in your new venture Donnie, I wish you luck, and just wanted to maybe send you a hit or two to speed you along your way. Click the banner below to visit Fowler & Crumley, Inc.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:31 PM | TrackBack
Witness. . . the next Rove-a-Dope
They're piling up the political hay on the left over Michael Brown, the ex-FEMA chief who handled 500+ federal emergencies for the Bush administration only to resign over criticism about New Orleans post-Katrina and the federal response.
The left is clamoring for a look at Brown's confidential and candid reports from the field in the immediate wake of the storm. Senators are beginning to grandstand that since Brown is now a "private citizen" he no longer needs to respect "Presidential perogative".
No matter how CNN tries to spin this, this is not an advance warning of some release of information that will be harmful to the Bush administration. Sure there will be some colorful language about Blanco and Nagin's incompetance and stonewalling, but that will be nothing compared to the direct indictments handed down about the failures of state and local officials to properly act as first responders (and even second responders) during and immediately after the hurricane. I'm sure more than a little will be revealed about how the emergency supplies DHS paid for (MRE's and bottled water) to be pre-positioned in New Orleans LONG BEFORE the storm were somehow MIA throughout the entire disaster.
Mark my words, if Brown does release his correspondence with the White House, it won't be hurting Bush or his administration, but it will be downright disasterous for Nagin, Blanco and the political left in general.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:16 PM | TrackBack
January 31, 2006
Oh this is too good. . . . (It's in the Koran!)
Give it a bit to load and then click play. . .
As always, give it a few seconds to load then click play, and PLEASE, no hot-linking. Link to the page, and that's great, but please don't just steal my bandwith without referencing, it's just uncool.
UPDATE: Google Video was originally serving the video but in their march toward Dhimmitude, they've taken it down. Never fear however, I had a copy laying around and am now glad to serve it up for ya.
Oh yeah, and just for Googles sake, lemme put in some keywords here: It's in the Koran song plus lyrics and audio, Islam's Not for Me.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:11 AM | TrackBack
OMG!!!! OMG!!!! OMG!!!!
PLEASE LET HER RUN! PLEASE, PLEASE, LET HER RUN!!!!!!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:11 AM | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
The Maple Revolution?????
For years (over a decade of 'em), the liberals have been in charge of our neighbors to the north. Today it seems, "could be" the Maple revolution we've all been waiting for. With scandals in their state controlled media, failings in their state sponsored "free"(NOT!) healthcare system and a general sense of rudderless drifting in the land of Snow and Beer, the conservative movement may finally be making it's run for the money and taking control of Canuckistan. Let the rejection of Leftist adgenda's continue, HOORAY!!!
Thank goodness.
Welcome back to the real world Canada, it's glad to have you back on the right side of the fence (hopefully).
Sam has been tracking the wierder of the Canadian political candidates.
Michelle Malkin has a good roundup today.
-and, of course-
For anything Canadian you have to check Small Dead Animals.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:16 AM | TrackBack
January 17, 2006
Another Cup 'o' Coffee Post. . .
If you're not up to speed on the "domestic spying" non-flap, or just want to get a good overview with lots of perspective, here's your cup 'o' coffee post for the day. So brew one up, kick back and start reading, don't forget the linkfest at the end.
I've said it before, if some terrorist a-hole is calling me, I damn sure hope the guvmin't is listening in. I hope that they use that information to catch the bastard and send him or her on their way to their 72 virgins (Do female terrorists get 72 virgins??? I'll have to check on that one.).
---------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, by the way, you know that "botched" attempt to get the al-Queda No.2? Turns out it wasn't so botched after all, score at least 4 or 5 dead terrorists for US and al-Zawahri can count on many "missed meals" in the future if he wants to keep his head.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:02 PM | TrackBack
January 16, 2006
On this of all days. . .
On the annual observance of "Martin Luther King Day", a day when it's suggested that people reflect on the legacy of Martin Luther King and the principles he stood for. A day when people should take a moment and think about the "One Nation" and about the "liberty and equality for all" and about King's, dreams.
Among those was King's dream that one day this nation would be:
"where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers"
We now present Ray Nagin, soon to be ex-mayor of New Oreleans (hopefully). . . Go ahead, click the play button. I dare ya.
CLICK HERE for the "Chocolate City" video clip.
Oh, oh, but wait, that's not all . . . Nagin's channeling Pat Robertson as well. . . just in case you weren't confused, befuddled or dumbfounded enough already, click here for more.
I could probably type for hours about how angry I am, how totally offensive, counter-productive and hypocritical Nagin is; but I won't, I'm just going to leave it there, and point to it whenever someone trys to drag out the "racist" crap when speaking of Katrina and her aftermath. I'll tell you where the racists were and ARE, they're right up there in those videos, and Ray Nagin has become their leader apparently.
As Ian asks, "Is that a “black power” swastika on his shoulder?"
Sick I tell ya, I'm just sick over this, and sick because the main stream media will give Nagin a pass, they will gloss right over this and pretend it never actually happened.
Oh well, while I got ya. Go back and read this and this about Nagin's success as Mayor of New Orleans. I no longer have mixed feelings, Nagin's got to go.
--Jason
PS, If you'd like to have your own copy of that little gem by Nagin to send to friends and family and don't want to link here, just RIGHT CLICK HERE and "Save As. . .", or for the God comments, right click here and "Save As. . . "
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:59 PM | TrackBack
January 13, 2006
Premature Electulation. . .
Boy do I wish I could take credit for coining that term, but I can't.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:39 PM | TrackBack
December 31, 2005
If I had to choose. . .
I choose this to represent 2005:
Click the picture for an explanation.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:16 AM | TrackBack
December 23, 2005
Boy, I sure hope. . .
That Daschle runs for President, then we'll have plenty of opportunities to point out THIS.
Thanks Captain.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:39 PM | TrackBack
December 20, 2005
Ya know what. . . .
If one day I pick up my phone when it rings and there's a terrorist or Osama bin Hatin' or just some nutcase from Ghanna on the other end of the line wondering if I've got all the explosives in place or am willing to host terrorists in my garage or let them hide under my bed:
I DAMN WELL HOPE THE GOVMIN'T IS LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION!!!!!!!
That's what it comes down to for me. If they're tracking down a terrorist or they're trying to bust up a terror cell, I say PLEASE LISTEN IN on my phoneline when they call. Sure it may be difficult to explain why Akhmed Jong Castro called my phone, but I'll be happy to cooperate with the authorities to catch the bastard. Also, if they listen in and I never know about it because just after they ask to camp out in my garage and I tell them to "Go to hell", I'll be happy to have given the NSA guy a smile.
Yet another non-issue from the NYT/MSM/Dhimmicrats cabal that wants to do everything they can to make sure we get whacked again.
I say, if you're tapping a terrorists phone and he calls an American, HELL YES, tap that Americans phone then come down hard on the traitor with both feet. If that American cooperates and helps bring some terrorist bastards to justice, then give that American a pat on the back and say "Well done."
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 6:13 PM
December 19, 2005
A few days late, but still worth it. . .
Michael Yon, for those of you who don't know, is an independent reporter in Iraq. He went over as an embedded reporter on his own chops the first time and has redefined what a blog-reporter can be. Since his original stint during the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Yon has picked up sponsorship from The Weekly Standard who offered him "affiliation with independence" (find out more about the embed process at this post of his).
Currently Yon is the front-runner for Time Magazine's Photo of the year with his photo "In His Arms" which deserves the top spot as it's one of the most moving pictures of the war IMHO. You can view the Time nominees and vote here.
Other bloggers have made the jump from "citizen jounalist" to "citizen foreign correspondent" or "citizen war reporter", namely Michael Totten (who's still freelancing pieces in addition to his blog) and Bill Roggio who blogs and writes for ThreatsWatch, but it's Mr. Yon who's on top of the heap.
Rather than just pumping up Yon, Totten and Roggio, this post has another purpose, Yon put up a flash presentation from the Iraq Elections on his site that he says:
"The video was not attributed, and I saw no information regarding the authorship to ask permission to run it. Apparently the author sent it out to be distributed by the winds"
So I'm adding my own little gust of air to the hopeful storm that this video represents and present it here:
Spread it around, you can "right click and Save As. . " here to download it and send to friends or post it wherever you can, no need to link back to me, but if you want to throw Michael Yon a link, it'd be appreciated. The world needs more of reporting like his.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:17 AM
December 5, 2005
Today's cup of coffee post. . .
is from the Ace of Spades HQ, which is quite the excellent blog to sit back and spend some time at.
So grab a cup of joe, sit back and have a read.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 6:20 PM | TrackBack
Rampaging gypsies????
That's a new one on me. Who'd have thunk it? Oh yeah, it's the French again.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:22 PM | TrackBack
December 1, 2005
De-Nile is a river in France. . .
Clive Davis (via da big guy) pulls out a quote from Dominique de Villepin that made me go "Ah-ooogha?"
"In France during the 2 weeks period of unrest, nobody died in France. So, I think you can't compare this social unrest with any kind of riots."
Um? Hmmmm. Seems to me that's playing a little fast and loose in light of this:
"The tough new measures came as France's worst civil unrest in decades entered a 12th night, with rioters in the southern city of Toulouse setting fire to a bus after sundown and pelting police with gasoline bombs and rocks. Earlier, a 61-year-old retired auto worker died of wounds from an attack last week, the first death in the violence. "
So? Was there a resurrection or something? Did I miss it?
--Jason
UPDATE: The deceased's name was Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec (via The Herald). Maybe someone in de Villepin's office should learn how to use Google News before they send their boss out to make statements that will make him look. . .um. . . French.
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:13 AM | TrackBack
November 30, 2005
Grab a cup of coffee, sit back and . . .
It's worth your time.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:37 PM | TrackBack
November 26, 2005
Well now. . . .ther's shootin' in Syria
DEBKAfile is reporting that Syrian and U.S. forces engaged each other with both sides taking casualties:
Syria claims US forces suffered 11 casualties in a Syrian-US clash Thursday night, Nov. 24 – without clarifying whether they meant dead or wounded. . .Internal Syrian communications channels report Syrian “Desert Guards” border units fought US Marines who crossed into Syria at a point west of al Qaim. They also claimed 30 Syrian casualties.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report the battle took place at the Syrian-Iraqi border town of Abu Kemal. US forces were in hot pursuit of a group of al Qaeda operatives who fled across to Syria in escape an American attack pinning them down in Mosul. The US military delivered Syria an ultimatum to hand the terrorists over. The American pursuit continued Friday when Syria failed to respond.
DEBKA is an interesting source for news, sometimes they drop the ball, but more often than not they seem to be about 24 to 36 hours ahead of the American MSM.
Israpundit noticed it too (as did The Commissar and others). Technically I'm a day behind on this one, but I'm not finding much info past what DEBKA reported. Anyone else out there have any other info?
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:44 PM | TrackBack
November 23, 2005
Hmmmm, yet again. . . .
By now you've probably heard of the big black 'X' that CNN ran over video of one of Vice President Cheney's last speeches. CNN has claimed that the superimposed X was merely a "glitch", but I am not quite in agreement with that.
Personally, I'm not convinced it was a "glitch", in college I spent a lot of time developing a campus television station and while we had our share of "glitches" they resulted mainly from jury-riggin' off the shelf consumer, professional and home-made components together to put a single feed out. As I understand modern television broadcast control boards, the event as CNN describes it would be a one in a billion shot, more prone to happen when coming into or out of a another feed and not just popping up in the middle of a feed as a glitch.
It's my opinion, and only my opinion, that someone in the control booth had the 'X' up on another feed source and thought it'd be a good funny to superimpose the two together. I do not think it was "official policy" or "commentary" on CNN's part, nor do I think it was intentional beyond those few misguided souls who sought to tarnish the Vice-President by taking advantage of the power of the media they "control".
I've got more links, but I'm gonna force you through this little rant first (scroll down a bit if you like).
The media today is seriously "out of control", now on the surface, that statement may rankle some. I encourage you to bear with me though; by "out of control" I'm not suggesting that there be some sort of outside over lording oversight or manipulation of the media. I'm as big a First Amendment supporter as you're gonna find. What I'm suggesting is that the media has become DRUNK WITH THEIR OWN POWER. They've taken the instantaneous and simultaneous effects of mass media and the internet as a junkie would take hard drugs straight to the vein. In their drunken state they've stumbled into a position where the media seems to believe that it is "making the news" rather than "reporting the news."
Objective "reporting" seems to be a lost art form in America AND the World. Gone are the lessons I learned in Journalism classes where the reporter should actively guard against becoming PART of the story, gone is the desire or nay, RESPONSIBILITY to present both sides of the story objectively. It's so easy to use the Mary Mapes/Dan Rather/CBS Memos (link is to animated gif showing the "1972 memos" and an identical copy created in minutes using a modern version of MS word with default settings) story to illustrate this point, and the recent creation of "false but accurate" reporting as legitimate journalism. The mass media tries to deny that it's practicing "false but accurate" reporting, but the cat's out of the bag. There are too many sources for news consumers to verify and fact-check with today to keep the FbA strategy a secret. Whether it's Koran's (not) flushed down toilets or memos created in MS Word to try to affect the outcome of a Presidential election, the media has openly begun to take sides on the issues, crafting their reports to actually "create" news out of whole cloth that will change the direction of political and national action throughout the nation and world.
The media has given up the ghost of objectivity with its recent discovery of instant media delivery and the ability to instantly correct, re-write, embellish and re-direct its stories. Today we see the most inflammatory, incredible and offensive images and reports broadcast immediately upon receipt of often very flawed information. In their race to scoop, the media has bought into every crackpot conspiracy theme and accepted any lunatic with a crumpled up photocopied "memo" as gospel. The media speaks all day long about their supposed "fact-checking" and their commitment to the truth, but the reality shows a much different picture.
The picture we're presented with as consumers of mass media is one of despair, lies, manipulations, half-truths and downright lies. Reporting from Iraq is overwhelmingly focused on suicide (homicide) bombers (insurgents (freedom-fighters)), the casualty counts (for the American side) are a mantra of despair in the mass media, and there was downright elation on the part of the media when the count hit 2000. CNN prepared special theme music and graphics to tout the 2,000th death in the Iraq War and spent considerable time in their celebration of the death to degrade the efforts and successes our troops on the ground were making in their struggle to bring freedom to 25 million Iraqis.
Abu Grahib is another example of the media's desire to present the worst and gloss over the best. The accusations against the Secretary of Defense and the President as the orchestrators of the Abu Grahib travesties was touted far and wide, but when those actually responsible were found to be guilty of crimes by the Department of Defense and the American Justice System, hardly a peep was uttered by the MSM. Today though, the left (and leftist media) love to drag out Abu Grahib and blame it on the President, when the actual perpetrators are sitting in prison.
Why? I'm sure you're asking, I sure am. I can't begin to pretend that I know all the answers, but I suggest that it really comes down to my suggestion that the media is drunk with power. In their drunken state they are acting just like a traditional drunk by becoming belligerent, dishonest, aggressive and overly loud in spouting off about whatever popped into their drunken minds, without regard for the truth, their perception in the eyes of others and the consequences of their actions.
The "Koran flushed" story by Newsweek was exactly akin to a drunk getting behind the wheel of a car. The drunk thinks he has it all in control, and so did the Newsweek reporter. The drunk thinks that despite his weak physical condition his superiority over others in the same or inferior states will protect him. The reporter enters into this same mindset when he gets a particularly sensational story, the story becomes whisky and in drinking the story over and over again the reporter becomes intoxicated with it. The reporter disregards authentication, counter-point or opposing views, instead relying on their own superiority and their "ability" to see beyond the facts to protect them.
Just like the drunk, the reporter is more and more often waking up to a hangover, only in the reporters case, the hangover is caused by critics, opposing news agencies and the newly emerging blogosphere to deliver the headache and that sickly feeling. The incorrect news item has a lifespan of a few days at the top of the heap, then the fact-checkers tear it apart, presenting the true facts and the true events in sharp contrast to the drunken reports pushed out to grab headlines.
Unlike the drunk however, there's not an force of police officers out there to catch him and throw him in jail for actions that can be just as dangerous as a drunk driver (sometimes even more so, in the case of the "Koran (not) flushed"). Instead the reporter has a series of enablers who will help him weather his hangover, as series of very responsible and honest looking attorneys and executives who will trot out their "overwhelming faith and confidence in the veracity of the reporting", they will play this enabling dance for as long as need be, wearing down the public and their appetite for the story until such time as everyone has given up on the REAL TRUTH, instead having to settle for a cloud of disinformation, untruths, false reporting, cover-ups and then the inevitable one-sided book deals to promote the idea that the drunken reporter was unfairly attacked for the substance of their "false but accurate" reporting.
It's ridiculous but it's understandable. Why is it understandable? Simple, the mainstream media is made up mainly of morons, simpletons who only find value in the negatives because it sells papers or captures viewers. These simpletons are reinforced by an army of accountants and executives who are so afraid of the shadow of the truth that they embrace the fuzzy facts and encourage sensationalism by condoning the use of "many say" "sources close" and "some say" as ways of getting around having to actually find the truth of the matter. In the modern world, if you can find one person to expound falsehoods or truths publicly, that's great, but if you have a conspiracy theory that you can't back up, it's now become perfectly acceptable to create false documents, create false reports and more, only to attribute them to secret sources, "some say" and other such ambiguous and deceptive sourcing methods.
The media has failed, just as certainly as the drunken fool will fail, but unlike the drunken fool, the media is propped up largely by the vestiges of the media monopoly, which in my opinion can't crumble fast enough. The major networks still hold their edge and the cable media outlets are scooping up the masses that want more, but other forces are beginning to emerge, the power of instant communications helped the media until it fell into the hands of the masses, where the power of the internet is being harnessed by individuals to create a worldview that is tailored to their interests and needs. The spoon feeding of America is over, although in their final throes the MSM is trying to poison the very nation that gave her such freedom, in their last gasps, they are doing whatever they can to disrupt and increasingly peaceful world and create the drunken fools love of chaos.
I suggest that if a major media source were to begin focusing on the realities of the world today from a factual objective viewpoint, they would become immensely successful. If they coupled that factual objective news with financial analysis and education, they'd find their advertisers and profits soar as millions upon millions tuned in to find out what the truth actually was and how they could benefit from seeking and knowing such truth. I suspect that if a major news agency were to shift away from "analysis" and turn more toward "raw facts" they would see a substantial increase in viewership or readership. I suspect that any return to a responsible and OBJECTIVE media would be embraced by those that hold the middle of the American divide (and we all know there are more "consumers" in the middle than on the fringes).
I know at least my TV would be turned more to a network that practiced the ojective reporting of truth and abandoned the false but accurate themes of the MSM today. Which for me would be an improvement because C-Span and C-Span2 are getting mighty boring this time of year.
--------------------------------------
So that's it for the rant, now I promised you some links on the 'X'. First we have this audio clip I found at Daily Pundit who doesn't quite vouch for its authenticity, and neither do I but I'll leave it to you to be the judge. The clip comes from an outfit called Team Hollywood who appear to be somewhat partisan in their own right. That doesn't exclude them as a valid source; it only casts doubt on it. After all, one would hardly expect a left leaning group to call up and complain about the 'X', they'd be too busy laughing and cheering CNN, and no one who's "neutral" would necessarily be phoning up CNN either. Listen to the tape and then read the updates at Daily Pundit, you can make your own decisions from there.
Others talking about the 'X' include:
American Daughter - CNN says X was intentional
Brutally Honest - CNN, can we get an explanation for this?
The Political Teen has the video - which looks more like a cross-fade dissolve or lap-dissolve than a "glitch".
Wizbang chimes in with the Team Hollywood audio clip and has links to much more commentary.
Cake or Death - Now that's why I don't watch CNN
Stop the ACLU offers some subliminal images of their own. They also are all over the Team Hollywood tape now.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:20 AM
November 22, 2005
If you don't read Michael Yon. . .
YOU SHOULD!!!!!
Ok, now that that's done, and I've convinced you that you should be reading Michael Yon: Online Magazine, I'll be nice and point you at his latest dispatch from Iraq which is a brief photo-essay. This is my "sit down and grab a cup of coffee" link for the day. Head on over and start reading, scrolling and clicking; read, scroll, click.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:52 AM | TrackBack
The skinny on willy. . .
No, I'm not talking about Bill Clinton or any of his anatomy, as a friend suggested while looking over my shoulder at the title of this post!
What I AM talking about is White Phosphorus, WP or Willy-Pete. There's been significant chatter from the ignorant left wing of the world's press trying to reclassify WP as a "chemical weapon". While it's true that WP is a "chemical", it's not a "chemical weapon" because of what it does and how it's used. WP is an incendiary and illumination munition, you either fire it up in the air where the charge explodes, igniting the WP and it burns with a bright white light as it descends (usually assisted by a little parachute) providing illumination, or you use it in something like a hand grenade that will explode, ignite and burn anything around it. In their zeal to cast America and her allies as the bad guys, the left wing of the press (yes, there is a right wing to the press as well, it's just smaller) wants to redefine WP even though many treaties on the governance of warfare have already decided the issue.
I could go on, but Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom has MUCH MUCH MORE, so I'll stop and let you go read over there. He also manages to get a few good slams on the Sic-Kos, so I gotta link to that, ya know.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:33 AM | TrackBack
Phone it in, Jimmah. . .
Jimmy Carter is supposed to be one of the world's principle figures in the spread and practice of Democracy. As a former U.S. President, Carter's presense on the ground in a national election should foster transparent democratic processes and represent a committment to democracy within the host nation.
Oh if that were true. . .
Carter's failure to recognize when democracy has been hijacked is coming back to haunt him on his latest book tour with angry Ethiopians protesting the former President for his role in certifying the bogus Ethiopian elections in May of this year.
Publius Pundit provides a bit of background on the protest.
If Carter's going to go around certifying elections before the vote is even counted, why does he even have to go, couldn't he just as easily phone in his support for dictatorships and corrupt regimes?
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:22 AM
November 18, 2005
Vote Dammitt Vote Dammittt...
Listening to THE VOTE debate. And I say, VOTE DAMMIT VOTE. I want a list of who wants to surender and who doesn't. That way I have a list of who the francophile,cheese eating, surrender monkies are! Then I can help get them voted out of office!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:39 PM
November 16, 2005
Harry Reid's Oil Exec Sham. . . .
Democrat Minority Leader Reid wants some of the oil company executives who testified before Congress to return and face more questioning under oath.
While on the surface this may seem like a good idea, especially after the temper tantrum the Democrats threw when the executives weren't required to testify under oath the first time.
So let’s think about that for a second. Now supposedly the first testimony was to be in order to investigate why gas prices ran up following hurricanes that devastated the Gulf Coast region of the United States, shut down oil refineries (destroyed some) and forced the industry to shut down production and shipments, twice, once for Katrina and once for Rita. Congress also wanted to know about record profits recorded in that same quarter.
Now it's important to note that these "record" profits represented a margin of less than 10% FOR THOSE THAT ACTUALLY MADE A PROFIT. Not all oil companies made a profit however, Plains Exploration and Production lost 31.8 million, Endeavor International lost 14.5 million, Abraxas lost 3.3 million. Congress isn't calling the companies who lost money to testify, only those that made money. Again, keep in mind that these companies' profit margins were less than 10%. While it's true that the larger, more diversified companies who could draw from areas unaffected by hurricanes made money; many other oil companies lost money. In essence, the money was there to be made, it just got concentrated to those companies who had the infrastructure to keep it flowing, that's not a crime; it's a demonstration that the capitalist model works to provide supply to meet demands.
So I guess it's shady and borderline illegal to make less than 10% profit on your goods and services in America now, so borderline illegal that you may be called before Congress. Nevermind that many of these companies making money NOW because they invested capital to whether "the storm(s)" lost money last year.
I wonder Reid going to call Google executives before Congress for their 20% plus profit margin last year and who's profit margin topped 14% in the 3rd quarter. Are we now going to see other companies called to the carpet when they make money? Is it a crime to make money in America now? Or is it just that you made money AND you're an oil company?
Ok, Ok, I'm inflating the issue a bit, but not really that much. Not nearly as much as Reid and the Democrats are inflating the issue. Reid and the Democrats want to draw blood, they don't care from whom, they just need to demonize and attack someone in front of the cameras, because that's all they have left. No plans for the future, no suggestions to end foreign oil dependency, no plans for the nation in general. It's simply cry-baby cry; demonize America and everything American for the Democrats of late. Capitalism is a part of America, the oil companies are part of capitalist America, but the Democrats feel that capitalism is evil and those who practice it are evil (well, to be honest, they only think it's evil when they can attach it to the Republicans, and the oil companies are generally considered to be a Republican domain ---- unless you happen to look at Michael Moore's stock portfolio or Barbara Streisand's driveway).
There's a reason that the oil executives weren't put under oath when they were called to justify their 3rd quarter profits, and I'll tell you what it is. Quarterly Reports are ESTIMATES, they aren't facts, they have some facts in them, but they aren't facts in and of themselves. Quarterly Reports are an indication of where the company is heading in a period, what major events took place, what changes in strategy are being made and what the balance sheet appears to look like at the time. Had the Democrats had their way and sworn in the CEO's of the oil companies that made less than 10% profit, very few questions could have been answered by the executives. Simply put, you can't testify to something you don't know for certain, you can't testify under oath on possibilities and estimates, and you can't testify with a weeks worth of notice on business financials covering trillions of dollars, spanning the globe in a myriad of nations and involving thousands (even tens of thousands) of accountants. Testimony on such things takes weeks, even months to prepare, and that's AFTER the annual report is signed sealed and delivered to the stockholders. Until the annual report is done, all the year's incomes and expenses are tabulated, taxes paid and interest collected, the TRUE and ACCURATE financial picture of a company is unclear.
Furthermore, the Congress wants the oil executives to testify about a process they are only a small part of. The oil companies aren't the end all, be all, omnipotent gods of the energy universe. Nationwide gasoline prices are NOT SET BY EXXON EXECUTIVES, there are thousands, even millions of middlemen the world over who speculate, manipulate, horde, dump, find, trade, buy and sell oil, gasoline, natural gas, plastics and manage delivery networks at the local, regional, national and international level. All have a function in the price of gas at the pump. All have a small cumulative effect on the market that rises and falls responding to all manner of natural and man-made events, some real, some imaginary and some manufactured out of whole cloth. Not to mention inflammatory and downright scary reporting by "news" reporters who know next to nothing about free market commodities trading and also bombastic irresponsible speeches by moronic Democrat leadership.
Putting the oil execs under oath last week would have led to a series of "I cannot answer that at this time", or "that's simply information I do not have at my disposal" responses. Nothing would have been gained from the hearings if you put these execs under oath with a week's preparation, the entire notion is nothing but preposterous. However, if you want to talk freely about and actually understand how the oil markets and companies work, if you want to know what the thought process was for the oil companies during the run up and immediate aftermath of the hurricanes and how they prepared for the market disruptions, then surely, call them in for a friendly and productive session where honest questions can get honest answers.
I suspect that if Crybaby in Chief Reid gets his way and brings the oil execs back, and then swears them in under oath, we'll see an army of high priced lawyers come along with them. We'll see hundreds of mid-level execs and high-level analysts tag along for the ride too. The "event" will cost the American taxpayer and the American consumer of petro-products millions of dollars to prepare for a sham hearing seeking testimony that simply can't be given on events that are still in flux or completely beyond the control of the oil companies.
But the Dems will have their opportunity to grandstand, badger, attack and bemoan the executives for the cameras. We'll have high-profile Dems bitch and moan about the "evil oil companies" acting all "corporation-y". How dare they make less than a 10% profit on trillions of dollars worth of investment. How dare they make a less than 10% return for their stockholders (damn right, I want my oil stock returns to be 15%, and so does Michael Moore, in fact I want my oil stocks to perform like Google stock!!!).
Newsflash for Harry Reid, it's not a crime in any way shape or form for a company to make less than 10% profit. In fact, companies that make less than 10% profit are considered to "less than attractive" to investors because they aren't making enough. One can make more in the bond and real estate markets. I don't see Reid calling the Chief execs of RE/Max to testify.
If by some chance, the Oil Execs do make it to Congress and are forced to testify under oath about a crime that doesn't exist, and then please, by all means, let them testify, and let’s make sure that good Republicans take the time to ask the right questions.
Let’s make sure they ask:
"Why haven't any refineries been built in the U.S. in the last 20 years to meet increased demands?"
----Because the enviro-whackos won't let them
"Why has the price of a barrel of oil skyrocketed?"
----Because the Enron traders are out there working privately now to run the price of oil up.
----Because the market is dependent on foreign potentates who set quotas and prices arbitrarily
"Why is the price of gas at the pump so high?"
----Because governments look at gas taxes as a cash cow and have been steadily influencing the market upwards by taxing fuel at every opportunity.
----Because our means of refining, extracting and delivering gas and oil has been hampered by natural events beyond the control of the oil companies
(BEFORE SOME IDIOT COMES IN HERE AND SCREAMS THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS CAUSED BY THE OIL COMPANIES, REMEMBER THIS, THE GREENLAND ICE CAP IS THICKENING YOU MORON, GLOBAL WARMING IS JUNK SCIENCE, A MYTH, OR AT WORST, A COMPLETELY NATURAL CYCLE AND WE'RE DUE FOR ANOTHER ICE AGE SO GET YOURSELF SOME PROPANE HEATERS)
There are a thousand and one questions I'd like to see asked that the execs for Exxon and the other biggies can answer honestly and truthfully to explain in real terms to the American public what the real reasons are that make prices at the pump so high (or so low by European standards, and we know how perfect the Euro society is, right?). So IF the oil execs are brought back, let Reid and the others make their bombastic threats, wild proclamations and lament for the cameras, and let the oil execs calmly and politely tell them that the 3rd Quarter figures are an estimate of income and that no specific information can be delivered until the year is over and a full accounting is done.
Then let the Republicans hammer home the need for new refineries in the U.S., let's hammer home that ANWR and the coasts need to be opened to drilling to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and let American traders use the might of OUR RESERVES to force the global price per barrel down. Let's spread our petro-chemical industry across the entire gulf-coast and open up new terminals on the east and west coasts so we're not dependent on the Port of New Orleans for a majority of our oil supply. Let's have some testimony that isn't just grandstanding for cameras and Democrats barking "SEE SEE they won't answer!" "SEE, Look at the evil corporations, acting all corporation-y."
Finally, BY ALL MEANS, let's drag Google into Congress and make them testify about their proprietary technology that they are making 20+% on when those evil oil companies with all their power and influence are only making LESS THAN 10%.
Before I finish, lemme just say that Reid is also trying to frame the Oil Exec Testimony around meetings with Vice President Cheney to discuss Energy Policy. This is a non-starter of the greatest degree. Firstly, you're getting into executive privilege here, and it should not be tolerated. Second, if you're gonna have discussions about Energy Policy, it's a good idea to get the guys WHO ACTUALLY MAKE THE ENERGY in a room and get some real work done without having to turn the whole thing into a parade.
I want everyone to realize, and I'm sure most of you do, that this is just one in a series of dog and pony shows by Reid to try and smear the administration by forcing a bunch of people under oath to testify about things that they legally and accurately cannot. Reid knows this, the media knows this, but he's going to put on his show anyway, and the media will report it as evil corporations in collusion with the evil Republicans to make an evil profit.
Ironically, Reid is doing this so the Dems can increase fundraising (make money) and the media is doing this to increase viewer ship and ad revenue (to make money). Making money is evil if you're Republican, but perfectly all right if you're a Democrat or Leftist (Michael Moore owns stock in Halliburton). Ten percent (or less) is too much profit if you're an oil company, but twenty percent plus is perfectly alright if you're an internet company.
Here's what will come from these hearings, if they ever happen, more legislation (leading to higher prices at the pump), more lawyers charging exorbitant fees (leading to higher prices at the pump) and a downswing in oil company stock (leading to less money for the American public, WHO ARE THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE PUBLICALLY TRADED OIL COMPANIES)
Way to go Harry, you dumbass!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:45 PM
You be the judge. . .
Click your way to the truth.
h/t - Michelle Malkin
Go and check for yourself, and if you want to continue with the "Bush Lied" meme after you examine the evidence, I expect that you will also have to admit that "Clinton Lied" too.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:38 AM
November 14, 2005
What do you think. . .
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
The above statement seems to me to be TREASON, flat out, unequivocal TREASON. Bashar Assad was the "head of state" of Syria and Syria at the time was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. By essentially telling a foreign "head of state" and sponsor of terrorism that the United States was planning for war and discussing the the "shape" of the course the United States was heading for seems to be straight out TREASON to me. (H/T to Captain Ed who beat me to the Treason punch. I need to blog on Sunday more.)
Senator Rockefeller should be investigated with regard to what exactly he told Bashar Assad in his visit. Did Senator Rockefeller compromise classified information he received via his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee in his discussion of the "course" the U.S. was taking after 9.11? Did Rockefeller explicitly warn Syria that the U.S. was planning military action against Saddam Hussein?
Floppin' Aces has more of the transcript from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, as does Powerline, but this snippet is MOST TELLING:
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
Now what I wanna know is, "Does Senator Rockefeller feel responsible for keeping secrets and information he learns in the course of his duty on the Senate Intelligence Committee from falling into enemy hands?" The links between Saddam Hussein and Syria's leadership have never been in question, telling Syria that the U.S. is contemplating war with Iraq is just like telling Saddam himself to "get ready to duck." Telegraphing, hell, blatently admitting that we're planning to remove Saddam with force can almost certainly be considered an impetus for Saddam to begin dismantling and hiding any material or transferring such material to other State Sponsors of Terrorism, like Syria.
Captain's Quarters, Sophistpundit, The Scriptorium and Mark A Kilmer have more on the possible TREASON and definate stupidity of Senator Rockefeller.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:47 PM | TrackBack
November 12, 2005
Here's an interesting development in France. . .
Two Molotov cocktails were tossed at a mosque Friday evening in the southern town of Carpentras, but it was not immediately clear whether the attack was linked to the unrest that has wracked the poor suburbs and small towns of France since Oct. 27. President Jacques Chirac demanded that investigators quickly find out who was behind the attack.
When I first read this, my thoughts centered around "Hmmm, looks like some Frenchie's fighting back against the violence that's sweeping their nation by dishing a little back." After all it's only a matter of time before the general public gets fed up with the violence and the government's seeming lack of ability to deal with it.
After reading it again, I was struck by the "demand" from President Chirac. Ok, so I get it. When these "youths" burn down police stations, drag handicapped women from a bus and set her on fire, drag a man trying to put out a fire into the street and beat him to death, or burn thousands of businesses and cars, the French President urgest restraint and understanding. When the "youths" spread to other cities and even nations, Chirac offers bribes and appeasment.
BUT WAIT, when Frenchmen who have gotten fed up with the entire situation toss a couple of molotov cocktails at a Mosque, there are DEMANDS for immediate investigation.
It's this very double standard that put Chirac and France in this situation.
I'll stop now and let you draw your own conclusions.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:13 AM | TrackBack
November 10, 2005
You may have noticed. . .
Iraqi Kurdistan has a new public affairs campaign to:
A) Say "Thank You" to the United States for liberating them from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein who used poison gas on Kurdish villages, relocated then murdered over 180,000 Kurdish citizens (in just one campaign, not related to the gassings), destroyed 4,000 Kurdish villages and generally conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansiing upon the Kurds for over 30 years.
B) To educate the world about Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish History and the Kurdish people in general.
C) To demonstrate that Iraqi Kurdistan has been a practicing Democracy for 10 years, protected by the U.S. even while under Saddam's heel.
D) Is safe, secure and growing economically since the Liberation of Iraq
and finally
E) To encourage foreign investment and tourism into the region of Iraqi Kurdistan by demonstrating the tolerance of the Iraqi Kurds in terms of ethnicity, nationality and religion. The campaign also emphasizes the free market economy developing in the region, the potential for investment, imports and exports and the significant natural resources and food production capability of the region.
The campaign is centered around three television commericals directing the viewer to their website "Kurdistan: The Other Iraq", which is quite comprehensive and informative on topics relevant to the region. Of particular note are three videos which tell the story of Iraqi Kurdistan ending with an appeal to investors.
Well worth your time to view the videos(each about 10 minutes long) and visit the site.
Chapter 1: Who are the Kurds
Chapter 2: Relationship with the West
Chapter 3: Economic Environment
There is SO SO SO much more going on within Iraq than we're delivered by the Mass Media, great strides for freedom and democracy have been made and progress in the region has actually been phenomenal. Sure there are problems, and there will be problems for some time in that region of the world, but rebuilding nations and fostering democracy takes time, to think that these things can happen overnight is just dishonest (after all, we're still in Germany, Japan and Korea, because they WANT and need us there, not because we're occupiers, but because we are partners in democracy).
You'd be well served to visit Kurdistan: The Other Iraq, yes it's a PR campaign, but it's a pretty honest one that not only pumps up the positives, but recognizes the difficulties of the past and present while trying to present a positive picture of what Iraqi Kurdistan hopes and desires their region of the world to become. Hopefully Iraqi Kurdistan can become a model for future democracies in the Greater Middle East.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:40 AM | TrackBack
November 9, 2005
Donnie is Blogging. . .
I don't have many good things to say about Democrats, generally I think that most of them are barking up the wrong tree and trying to reach for the far left fence when they should be looking toward the center.
There is one that I respect though. One that hasn't drunk ALL of the Kool-Aid and still thinks for himself. You probably won't guess who it is (unless you're a long-time reader here), so I'll have to tell you. It's Donnie Fowler, who gave Howard Dean a run for his money for the Chair of the DNC.
Of all the possible Democrat players out there Donnie scares me the most as a Republican because he's "acceptable" (which should not be considered an insult in any way shape or form).
Anyhoo, Donnie is pseudo-blogging at HuffPo (yes, I have to admit I check out HuffPo once a week to look at the insanity that's promoted as "mainstream" over there, plus it regularly yields a chuckle or two).
While I regret having to link to the HuffPo, I gotta give props to Donnie, and if you're an objective Republican you should follow Donnie's career. He's got a future in the Democrat party unless we can steal him away (given his father, that's doubtful, but we can hope he'll reject the "opposition politics" which seems to be the last card left in the Dem's deck).
Speaking of Decks, this is a fun little project, and even though no one nominated me for a card (which I wouldn't deserve yet anyway, I'm still a baby-blogger) it's worth checking out to find more bloggers with which you can expand your daily reading base.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:48 AM | TrackBack
November 8, 2005
Ok, listen up. . .
Thanks for stopping by, but I don't want your traffic today, so I'm sending you someplace else. It's not because I don't want you to read my stuff, but there's something else I want you to read. So grab yourself a cup of coffee, make sure you're comfortable. . . .
Ok?. . .?. . . ?. . .? Good.
Now, head over to VodkaPundit (which has been on my blogroll since day 3) and read Stephen Green's piece entitled The Arm of Decision. Come back later if you want, but if you only read one thing from the blogosphere today, this should be it.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:23 AM | TrackBack
November 7, 2005
Please let this be the end of "Frenchie" France. . .
The unrest in France is becoming ridiculous to say the least. The assertions that the violence is coming from "youths" rather than characterizing the rioters for what they are is an insult to France's citizens and the world at large.
There is a large "North African and Arab" component to the rioting.
There is a large "Muslim" component to the rioting.
There is a large "Hooligan" component to the rioting.
The first death from the rioting appears to be a 61 year old man, who left the security of his home to put out fires burning outside. He was beaten to death by a MOB OF NORTH AFRICAN AND ARAB MUSLIM HOOLIGANS. The French police respond with "understanding" the French Government respons with "appeasment". This is insane, insane, insane.
In their attempt to cover up the failures of their socio-economic system, France is prolonging the inevitable, and leaving the majority of decent French citizens at the mercy of a minority set upon creating social and economic chaos which is becoming more and more evident to be another example of Muslim Extremism masquerading as "youthful transgresion".
This is just BULLSHIT, give up the charade Frenchies, get out there and restore order, fight back for those who you're supposed to protect (your citizens), arrest the hooligans and stop the violence. Stop kow-towing to the Imams and Muslim leaders who have no desire to stop the violence, this is a Muslim Revolt, in the middle of Europe; deal with your dirty laundry and restore order as a government should for the safety and stability of your citizens and your region of responsibility in the world.
I could rant on and on about France's public characterization of New Orleans, their constant assertions that their social welfare model is the best (despite a failing economy, rampant unemployment, and a citizenry increasingly unable to care for themselves) or the supposed superiority of French culture, but it's just pointless right now. The French have failed their people, they've failed in their basic duty to provide for the safety and security of people and property in a modern nation, and they're dancing around the issue trying to find a way to appease the offenders, AGAIN. Have they learned NOTHING from all their failed attempts to appease those who would do them harm, WAKE UP FRANCE, appeasement does not work.
If you've been living under a rock, or just want to know more about what's happening over there, here are the links I'm using to TRY to understand the extent to which France has failed:
Map of the Riots
Boi From Troy [1] [2] [3]
So, Is it a clash of civilizations?
Michael Totten weighs in
Transterrestial Musing examines the "appeasement"
Captain Ed points out the warnings
Johnathan Gewirtz points out the Intifada connections
AND OF COURSE, if you want to know what's going on in Europe, you have to visit !No Parasan!. No specific link, just go there and keep reading and scrolling.
The Belmont Club is also doing EXTRAORDINARY WORK (as always) to analyze and put things into perspective.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:04 PM | TrackBack
November 5, 2005
Just some random thoughts. . .
So I was sitting here thinking about Harry Reid’s latest stunt, which has pretty much been branded by everyone concerned with such things as a pretty silly and stupid move prone to backfire on him and the Dems in general, when a new series of thoughts emerged about what this would mean for "Scooter" Libby.
Now I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be, but it seems to me that when Harry Reid, the Senate Democrat leader gets up to the micro-phone and starts saying:
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions."
And when Fitzgerald, who actually brought forth the indictment, says:
"This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel. ... The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."
All of this seems like a positive development for Libby. I'm sure it can be argued that by bringing the Libby indictment to the floor of the Senate, and to the front of the national stage, and then blatantly and grossly mischaracterizing the nature and focus of the indictment, Reid has done serious damage to the Libby's chances for a fair trial.
It's generally accepted that when an indictment is handed down or when an investigation is underway, politicians become very careful about how they speak of it. I have to qualify that, RESPONSIBLE POLITICIANS become very careful in such situations. Those merely trying to make political hay seem to totally disregard the "innocent until proven" guilty theory of law in the United States.
I'd suggest that there's a good case to be made for dismissal of the Libby indictment based on Harry Reid’s remarks on the Senate floor, or at the very least that Reid's comments open the door for Reid himself to be subpoenaed to testify.
Reid used his Senate speech to convict Libby in the court of public opinion; he's tainted the jury pool and interfered with an ongoing investigation and prosecution of an indictment. These irresponsible actions by Reid reached a widespread audience and did serious damage to Libby's case, or perhaps they actually strengthen Libby's defense that this is mere political trickery at work to try and take one indictment and characterize it to the public as something different.
I'm not sure how this will all play out, but my gut tells me that Reid is going to lose and lose bad; AGAIN with this latest stunt and that Libby will make significant gains in his defense by Reid’s reckless and inaccurate remarks. We'll see but in general, Reid's tantrum seems to be more and more a mistake with each passing day.
I understand that Reid wanted to put the Libby indictment back on the front page, and he did that, but in doing so he's opened Pandora’s Box again and those things never turn out well for those that open it. So lets rehash pre-war intelligence, lets get the Clinton White House statements on Saddam, Iraq and WMD back out into the open, lets put Kerry's and Reid's and Clinton's statements from 1998 and 1999 and 2000 back on the front page. Let's expose the Clinton CIA and their failures, but let’s also start talking again about what we actually did find. Let's talk about the thousands of liters of bacillus anthracis, let's talk about the 480 odd tons of yellowcake uranium lets talk about the 1.8 tons of low enriched uranium, lets talk about Sarin and mustard gas and most importantly lets talk about the fact that even Saddam Hussein himself believed that he had weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. And if anyone believes that THESE were to be used for legitimate purposes, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I can understand how the media didn't want to take up the task of explaining to the American public what thousands of liters of bacillus anthracis actually was and how easily a terrorist or even a rogue regime could use such products as weapons. I can almost understand why the media didn't make much hay over the 480 tons of yellowcake Saddam did have, and why exactly was he converting that yellowcake into low enriched uranium and why did he order his nuclear specialists to dismantle and bury centrifuges and plans for their use. These stories are not prone to easy sound bite parsing and their discovery would lead to a premise that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, which is not part of the media's agenda.
So let’s put Harry Reid's issue on the table, let’s look hard at what the Clinton and Bush era CIA told us, but let’s also look hard at what we actually did find and are continuing to find everyday.
Yes, I'm almost certain that Reid's tantrum is a net loss for his side of the aisle, and will only strengthen in the minds of the American public that not only was it the Law of the United States (signed by Bill Clinton) to remove Saddam, but that everything in the Iraq War Resolution was in fact justified and verified.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:19 PM | TrackBack
November 2, 2005
A response. . .
The following comment was made to this post regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito. The commenter remains anonymous, and I allow such comments, so that's ok. If the commenter would have included a valid email I'd be happy to make my response in private, but since they did not, it's gonna have to be public.
So, here we go. . .
Planned Parenthood is one of this country's largest organizations to supply women with various methods of birth control (condoms, the Pill, etc), reproductive education, and let's not forget gynecological services, all on a sliding payment scale. They don't tell women to have abortions, they present it as an option non-judgmentally along with everything else. I understand that you'll never have had reason to use any of their services, but please try to educate yourself about what they do for the sakes of those of us who rely on them for our pills.
Well, all those pre-pregnancy services you mention weren't the issue were they. Only the "options" after a pregnancy has begun is the topic we're discussing on the national stage and in my post. The commenter claims that Planned Parenthood presents abortion as an "option", well, I'm sorry commenter, but in order to present an "option" you have to have more than one. Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths and spent millions to fight any attempt to bring the "option" of adoption into their clinics. Planned Parenthood does not present the "option" of adoption to those that visit their clinics, do they?
As for spousal notification, no. Sorry. Your terror imagery has been the reality for too many women I've known. With two exceptions, the married women I've known who have had abortions did so because they *were* escaping abusive husbands (they also had other children who were escaping with them) and spousal rape, while common, is next to impossible to prove in court. In the case of the exceptions, one was therapeutic (the child would have been born without several major organs) and the other was in fact a joint decision. In a healthy relationship, that's what happens. It's like you believe (and I'm not saying you do, merely that it's the impression you're giving off by your statements) that wives all over are scheming behind their husbands' backs. Because women always lie, you know. Spousal notification carries the terrible implication that while you can always trust a man to make the proper decision for his family, you can't trust the woman to make that exact same decision. And that's creepy.
Well, commenter, the "spousal notification" requirement in question, specifically allows exemption for a woman who fears abuse arising from said "notification". And my point was that we were now going to be barraged with imagery of abusive husbands by anti-Alito activists. Guess what, I was right, the pro-abortion talking heads that are making the rounds in the newsmedia are doing just that, conveniently leaving out that in cases of spousal abuse or fear of such abuse the requirment no longer exists. They, and you, are mischaracterizing the law in question and leaving out those exemptions that are there. They, and you, do this to pretend that there's a risk that is not specifically accounted for. It's dishonest, and only serves to cloud the issue for some groups you mention later.
On to child support. Did you have sex? Okay. That means you're responsible for the consequences. For the woman, that means the following potentials: pregnancy, risk of death, lifetime decrease in her wage-earning ability, increased likelihood of living in poverty, and responsibility for someone for the next eighteen years. She can deal with these by having an abortion, by giving the baby up for adoption, or by choosing to keep and raise the baby. All of these are legal options for her. The man, not being pregnant, does not have the option for an abortion because, let me repeat, he is not pregnant. Only someone who is pregnant can have an abortion. He can choose to stay with the woman and the child and raise a family, or he can choose to leave. Either way, he still has a responsibility to the child he fathered because he fathered a child. If he did not want to father a child, he should have taken steps to prevent this outcome. A vasectomy would be choice, but a condom would be a reasonable attempt, too. And if either method fails, he is still responsible for what he did because a man is responsible for the children he fathers.
Again, you're not responding to my comments but parroting others talking points. My contention delt with the "responsibility" of the man to pay child support, but the man has no place in the decision. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're fine with the "repsonsibility" of paying child support for a child who isn't his, you're fine with requiring child support for a sperm donor to a lesbian couple, but when it comes to merely NOTIFYING a man that his child is to be aborted you rankle? Come on now, for women to demand a new double standard of responsibility is a little ironic don't you think? So the man is responsible, so is the woman, and I'll grant you both of those, I agree with those responsibilities. However, in a spousal relationship, when financial, physical and emotional descisions are to be made, lets continue with that same responsibility for both parties. Remember, this is only in a spousal relationship, and there are provisions for abuse (or fear thereof), adultery, non-location, etc. You can have all the responsibility you want from men, I'll agree to that, but lets continue that responsibility in spousal relationships forward to the totality of the "event", not just drop responsibility and add it when it suits one party. The goal is equality in relations between man and woman. . . correct? Cake? Eat? You gotta make a choice.
Finally, FMLA only affects employers of a certain size and employees of a certain length of service and location relative to the other employees in the company. So please, stop pretending that Mom and Pop will go out of business for letting Sally off (unpaid) for a few weeks after she's recovering from delivering her baby unless of course you'd prefer she had an abortion). Mom and Pop aren't affected by FMLA, and implying that they are just confuses the stupid people.
Ah, but wait? There are plenty of employers out there that are of that "certain size" and have a large number of employees co-located that are also privately held "Mom and Pop" companies, some of those companies, many in fact, operate on a VERY slim profit margin, some are even losing money. Placing regulatory burdens of this type on such companies can cause them to fail. There are significant costs to bringing in replacement workers over and above the salary, there are exponential training and productivity costs as well. The government should not be in the practice of deciding what benefits are offered to employees beyond worker's compensation insurance and minimum wage restrictions. Beyond that, in a free market capitalist society, it is the market forces that determine the rest. By dictating benefits employees receive, government is affecting the operation and profitability of businesses in a manner inconsistent with the concepts of free market economics and capitalism. By glossing over the possibilities and consequences, and saying that these private "Mom and Pop" businesses are not covered, it is confusing the issue for (not to mention lying to) those "stupid people" you mention. You're only allowing for a portion of the facts to be admitted with regard to how FMLA is applied. You want to say that it's only the large mega-corps that are covered, but that is simply untrue, many privately held businesses are affected and many of those owners choose to run their businesses with very little profit margin that can be thrown out the window when FMLA is forced upon them. So if you want to help the "stupid people", give them all the facts, don't just trick them into thinking this is only applicable to the "corporate suit" types.
Alito thinks I can't be trusted in my own relationship with my husband. He thinks my multi-billion dollar employer shouldn't be told they can't fire me just because I'm taking a few unpaid weeks off recovering from surgery. Why on earth would I want him helping to interpret the law of the land? Sounds to me like he wants me barefoot, pregnant, and unemployed. That makes him an ass. If you agree with him, well, birds of a feather, I guess.
No commenter, Alito thinks the State has the right to create laws through their legislative process. Alito recognizes that not all companies are (in fact most aren't) mutli billion dollar employers and recognizes that employee benefit packages are something to be determined by the free market. If you don't believe that your legislature has the right to make laws and you don't support the free market, then by all means oppose his nomination, but don't make up things out of whole cloth and only examine the half of the issue you want to examine and then declare it as fact.
You are "hearing" what you want to be predisposed to hear obviously. You're not being honest with yourself and you're propagating such dishonesty by saying it out loud. Please commenter, examine the issues in their totality, unless you yourself want to be among your so-called "stupid people."
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:19 AM
October 31, 2005
Dumbest soundbite eva. . .
I'm sorry Senator Specter, but this is just stupid (WaPo article):
SPECTER: Well, Judge Alito said a little more than Judge Roberts said. But, then, Judge Roberts ducked super precedents and he ducked super-duper precedents. . .
What's next Senator? Are we going to soon hear about "double-dare, super-duper, no takeback, no erasies precedents"?
Come on, there is no mention of "super-duper" in the Constitution and there damn well better not be any laws that have "super-duper" in their language. So give it up, there's law, precedent and if you really, really, really want something to stick, it's called an Amendment.
Shut up with this "super-duper" precedent stuff. In fact, give up on the "super" precedent stuff too. The Senate is not an elementary school playground Senator Specter, if you want to jump ship and switch sides, take some advice from Nike and "Just Do It!" Stop spreading this nonsense from the Republican soapbox.
--Jason
PS If anyone Tivo'd this comment by Specter, I'd love to have a copy of it.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:16 PM | TrackBack
Alito gets the nod. . .
The President has tapped Samuel Alito (here's the wiki on Alito and it's growing by the minute) to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. As many predicted (including me), Bush has selected an uber-lawyer and former judge. At first blush, I'm disappointed that we don't have a non-judge on the court, but Alito is a solid choice in terms of his credentials:
Clerked for the Third Circuits
U.S. Attorney for District of New Jersey
Assistant Solicitor General
Assistant Attorney General
Appeals Court Judge for the Third Circuit
The "gang of 14" can hardly duck their agreement to derail any filbuster, the Senate hearings will be mostly a replay of the Roberts confirmation hearings, so this fight is going to be held in the media. What this means in reality is that the left is going to mount a campaign to slander Alito, the media will pick it up and play it over and over. Alito will not have a chance to respond to any attacks on himself, his family or even his politics. The left will scream and moan, and the right will have to mount another campaign to counter. The media wins through increased ad revenue coming from the left and right political action committees and the public loses because Alito doesn't get to have a conversation with the Senate and through transferrence, no discussion with the American people.
Here are just a few of the issues that the left is going to take issue with:
1. Alito was on the dissenting side in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Alito's opinion upheld the Pennslyvania law that required spousal notification for women seeking abortions. The left is going to use this as their big stick in the opening stages of this fight. The left will argue that this amounts to a woman being the property of the husband, they'll allude to the Bible's references of a wife's subservience to the husband and claim that it's an affront to "choice".
The SCOTUS struck down the law, and Planned Parenthood declared victory. The law will almost certianly be in play again if Alito is confirmed.
My take on it? If you get married, you become a social unit. Abortion is a major decision, it touches on health matters, it touches on economic matters, it touches on religous matters and it's a decision that can affect the character and makeup of a family unit. I feel the spouse "should" be informed as the decision affects the family unit and the husband is part of that family unit.
HOWEVER, if the left is willing to give up "child support", I'd be content to let them have their "no spousal notification" rule. After all it's a woman's descision, a woman's choice, but it also becomes the husband's responsibility. The left has no qualms about going after sperm donors for child support, has no problem demanding child support for children born of adultery (arguing that the child may not be the husbands, but is nevertheless their responsibility as part of the family unit), or seeking child support for a one night stand. If you're going to make "child support" a responsibility of the male, the descision to have or not have a child should also be something the male is involved in.
I know that will rankle many of the pro-choice readers here, and I understand. I am pro-choice even though I hate the concept of abortion vehemently, but lets get real. If you want "CHOICE" then lets have "CHOICE", if you want to make this a "descision" and not a "child" then lets put all the players on the field. Upholding "choice" for women and "blind ignorance" for men doesn't seem like a very defensible position. They can have their "choice" but if they are going to put "responsibility" on the man, then they have to allow the man into the consideration of the "choice".
The "spousal notification" issue will be a big one, it should prove to be very confrontational and I'm quite sure it will be mischaracterized with TV, Radio and print ads showing an abusive husband, beating the wife and kids, then segwaying into a abortion question implying that if a woman has an abortion she's taking the honorable road and protecting a child and herself from said abusive husband. This imagery WILL be the dominant message the left tries to get out there, it's doubtful they'd consider showing a husband and wife making financial, ethical and moral descision leading up to the "choice", they'll use images of violence and abuse to hammer on this issue. That's just plainly NOT the real issue, the issue is about responsibilities taken on in the course of marriage and dealing with those responsibilities, together, as a family unit.
On a totally side note, why is it that "Planned Parenthood's" only "plan" is abortion? Why does "Planned Parenthood" violently dismiss any discussion of adoption in their "clinics". When laws have been suggested that any "planning" for dealing with unwanted pregnancies also mention adoption, Planned Parenthood positively goes bat guano. That's a curious thing to me. I makes me think Planned Parenthood is a bit deceptive in their methods and practices.
2. Religion and it's place in proximity to governmental activity will be another biggie. The left will dredge up ACLU v. Schundler in which Alito upheld that displays on government property that included secular images like "Frosty the Snowman" as well as religious symbols was acceptable. Personally, I agree here. If you put up a display of the "Nativity", I think you should also throw up a few symbols that are secular, like a snowman. If a Jewish group wants a manorah, let them have that too. I don't hold that we need to scrub any and all religious references from government property, we just need to be fair about it. If the community wants a "Nativity", let them have it, if members of that community come forward and want something else, let them have that too.
The left of course will go bat quano over this too. They'll bring up "In God We Trust" on our currency and they might event throw in Alabama Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument. This is clouding the issue though, it's coupling historical references and singular approval into an issue that is neither historical or singular. If you're following the standards of the community and make room for equal representation of other belief systems or no religious belief at all, that's quite different from putting a Christian monument in a central location in a courthouse.
Let the communities decide for themselves what their religious observances are, keep the federal government out of it until such time it becomes "endorsing" a religion. Recognizing that a religious sentiment exists in a community is not the same as endorsing one religion over another in the governance of the state.
3. The FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) - The left will try to argue that Alito is against Family Leave for medical emergencies, when it reality, Alito believes that Congress overstepped it's bounds by passing the law. I my opinion, and to many American's (including me) Alito is correct. Congress shouldn't expect to be able to determine the extent and nature of vacation and leave time with regard to private employers. A businessperson NEEDS to be able to make those descisions themselves. Many businesses cannot afford to have an employee off on 3 months leave, whatever the reason, it would simply bankrupt many small businesses who are new, struggling or exists on a small profit margin. The FMLA is poorly worded and doesn't take into account the financial stability of the business. The left will ironically argue that a business that cannot afford the FMLA has no right in business, this is ironic because it's the left basically arguing that only large corporations should be allowed in business, and that the small mom and pop grocery that's barely making it in the face of a Wal-Mart or Publix in proximity has no place in the marketplace. Yet when a Wal-Mart or Publix winds up running a mom and pop out of business they scream relentlessly.
The government should be making it easier and easier for businesses to start, run and add to the economy, not creating huge entitlement programs within private businesses. I'll be happy to see the FMLA go bye bye if Alito makes it to the court, let the market hash out things like payscales, leave, vacation and healthcare, the market has proven time and time again to be more effective in regulating business than the government ever has.
I'm all for employers granting medical leave to their employees, but I'm not a fan of forcing them to do so. It's a burden that many businesses and even some large corporations cannot afford, and of course, you know who winds up paying for that don't you? Yes, the consumer winds up paying for it. The goal is for the market to reduce costs to consumers, not for the government to raise costs for consumers.
4. Immigration - The left is going to characterize Alito as a hardliner on immigration. Boy do I hope they run with this one. Alito is hard on immigration, and rightly so. We need to take a harder line on immigration, we have a "grey area" in our employment sector which is too large. We need tighter control of the border, but we also need harsher penalties on employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens, we need deportation of illegal aliens who have chosen to ILLEGALLY enter this country and deny opportunity to those that are seeking entry legally. We need a SCOTUS that will take a hard line on immigration and bring it back inline with those provisions for Naturalization that are laid out in the Constitution.
These aren't the only points of attack for the left on Alito. There will be discussions of race issues (of course), and there will be handwringing about another white male on the court, there will be calls for the release of thousands of documents from the Reagan adminstration from Alito's time there, these documents will be bantered about as "Alito's position" and we'll have to jump through the hoops again of pointing out that Alito was WORKING FOR REAGAN and Reagan's opinions and policies are not necessarily Alito's. We'll have to point out that a lawyer cannot be held responsible for every position that they argue, and we'll have to ask for (but we won't get) a fair hearing where questions that are able to be answered are given and not just soundbites and mischaracterizations parsed for the cameras.
I had hoped for a non-judge so that the hearings could be actually of use to the American people and not just a soundboard for partisan attacks and posturing, unfortunately, it appears the time of constructive, informative hearings has long passed. The media has taken control of the selection and approval process and whoever gets the best sound bites wins.
I support the President's choice for Justice to the Supreme Court, just as I supported the Miers nomination. On first glances, I like most of the major positions Alito has taken. I'll keep looking on my own, because I don't believe anyone in the media is going to fairly examine the nominee. Maybe I'll find something that will make me oppose Alito, maybe I won't. We'll just have to see.
What I do know is that the left is going to lament the choice, the moonbat fringe is already calling for a filibuster:
Start the filibuster now. Refer to the nomination as "dead in the water". No point in even discussing the nomination. No point in even delving into the personal/professional history of Alito. It's all moot. He won't serve on the Supreme Court, so there's no need to even discuss the issue. Start the filibuster now.
That should say it all right there, they don't care about "personal/professional history", they just want to filibuster and claim victory over the President. It's insanity really, but I do hope that they try to mount a filibuster, that could possibly be the best thing for the right if they did. We'd be able to finally take the filibuster out of the game and move issues forward without the threat of gridlock from minority special interests. Mount your filibuster moonbats, I dare ya, it'd be just another in a long series of gifts you've given us showing just how out of touch the moonbat fringe is when it comes to the average American.
Oh but, wait, there's more, the moonbats true to form also want to go after his family (from the same thread at DU):
Destroy him, destroy his family now, we must take him down through whatever means.
Sorta reminds you of when they wanted to go after Little Johnnie Roberts and hoped that he was gay so they could drag it out for the cameras (little did they care that Little John was a 4 year old child).
All in all, it's a good day for the Right, the President, and the Country, we're moving forward, getting things done and not being distracted by the moonbats attempt to create gridlock. Alito will most probably sail through, although there will be much ugliness and hate displayed on the left, we'll just have to take the high road and continue winning elections and running the country while the left tries to fracture the country and falls further into political irrelevance.
--Jason
Hey, Libertarians, get loud, this is your chance to make some hay and gain some ground. Pay attention to the left on this one, they'll give us plenty of ammo that you can use too. Get your ducks in a row and get in the game, the country needs a viable choice, and the Dems have given up, it could be your turn.
-JC
UPDATE: California Conservative is one among many rounding up opinion on the Alito nomination. More links to opinion can be found at The Political Teen.
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:11 AM | TrackBack
October 28, 2005
Libby's getting slapped. . .
The New York Times (via Dan at Riehl World View) is saying that Scooter Libby is going to be facing indictment tomorrow, but not Karl Rove. They're also reporting that the indictment will be for making false statements to the grand jury, and not any actual official misconduct.
Hmmm, seems like there was another White House official who got popped for making false statements to a grand jury. It's gonna be hard for the Dems to get all in a tizzy over this indictment without admitting that it's wrong to lie to a grand jury.
--Jason
UPDATE: Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Media Advisory
UPDATE 2: The indictment itself is here. (PDF Format)
UPDATE 3: James Hooker has important stock news related to the indictment. Call your broker!
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:35 AM
October 27, 2005
Et tu Brutus? Malkin? Coulter?
Well, about an hour and a half ago the news broke that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from consideration for the SCOTUS. Many are going to play this as a loss for the President, I don't really see it that way. Primarily I see this for a loss for the Democrats, they had the opportunity to support her nomination and gain themselves a Reagan (Ronald) on the court rather than another Scalia or Thomas. A Democrat turned Republican, someone who once was firmly in their camp and now has drifted away from the far left hijackers of the party of Jackson. Now the Democrats will find themselves faced with an extreme far right candidate, and one that the Republicans will rally behind and force the "Gang of 14" to come on board with.
The Democrats will most probably now be forced to mount a filibuster attack on the next nominee, it's a fight they will lose, and lose bad.
As for my compatriots on the right? You've done a disservice to the President and our own party, but the damage can be easily undone. You wanted to start a fight and now we'll have this unnecessary battle. Personally, I think our battle could have been better fought with Miers than "another" Harvard super-lawyer. Instead of this battle being fought in the vernacular of the common man, we'll now be fighting it in the legal-ese reserved mainly for highbrow esoteric discussions found only in law schools. The general population will become quickly disinterested in such legal blather and when they lose interest, so goes the value of the debate.
So to the right? Ok, you've got your battle coming, it's a battle we didn't need to fight and will probably hamper other battles we could have fought over Social Security or IRS reform. But you got it, so start getting your ducks in a row.
To the left? You screwed up. Now you're going to have to fight and fight hard to retain your filibuster. Most probably we'll take it away from you and then hand you a severe loss on the eve of the 2006 election season.
To the President? No sweat. You tried to be a uniter and give a little to both sides, but neither wanted it. So forget about playing to the left, concentrate on the right and the center. Use the opportunity as you wish to put on the person you want, you're not hampered by the perceived necessity to put a woman up, or even a minority at all. You can put a far right white male if you want and no one can say a thing about it. Let the Republicans do the heavy lifting for you now, and move on to other things. If you wanted, you could even throw up Alberto Gonzales and watch the Democrats finally melt down completely.
What's obvious now is that the far right nor the far left wants any of this uniter BS, so why even play the game. If the far left and far right have resigned themselves to the fact that the only choices now are leading to a quantuum shift on the court? So be it. Let's put up a far right uber-lawyer, then let Stevens retire and do it again.
Probably the worst thing about all this is our lose of the concept of a "fair up or down vote", it's forever lost now as both sides have given up on the concept. The Senate has lost their real advisory power and it's gone over to the pundits and media hounds. Oh well, in the end, that will play to the President's advantage.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:29 AM | TrackBack
October 24, 2005
And the Chicken Littles of the Global Warming Crowd scream ---- Dammit!!!!
Greenland ice cap thickens slightly -- CNN
I say: "Ooooohhhh! That's gotta hurt!"
If you're curious about Icebergs, check out my posts on B15A, if you like dancing penquins, you might try searching for "Penguin" here too.
If you're here for a Taliban Burned Bodies update, it's coming later today, but first I want to listen to Alan Nathan's Battle Line... You can guess the topic. We'll see how he does with it.
By the way, Colonel Hunt fumbled the ball, he has since recovered it, but he's still not got it in full possession. Keep working on this Colonel Hunt, we're depending on you to bring the truth to light and protect our troops from the media. You've got access Colonel Hunt. USE IT!!!
I've also put all the Taliban Bodies Burned posts in their own category.
--Jason
PS - I wonder how the title of this will be interpreted when I trackback it???
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:44 PM | TrackBack
October 23, 2005
TIME begins to correct the record. . .
You're probably aware I'm blogging alot about the Taliban Burned Bodies story. I've got the original post that was pretty popular and well linked here, then a disection of the "Interview with Stephen Dupont" that draws out the REAL FACTS from Dupont's own words, and then I begin to examine the radical bias of anti-war activist and embedded war reporter (there's some oxymoronic irony for ya) John Martinkus.
I didn't find this until today (and give a tip and a link in a second) but TIME magazine has broken ranks with the MSM pile-on and has begun to present some actual facts:
"Stench Prompted U.S. Troops to Burn Corpses"Posted Friday, Oct. 21, 2005
There simply wasn't enough room on the rocky hilltop above Gonbaz village in southern Afghanistan for the U.S. platoon and the corpses of the two Taliban fighters. The Taliban men had been killed in a firefight 24 hours earlier, and in the 90-degree heat, their bodies had become an unbearable presence, soldiers who were present have told TIME. Nor was the U.S. Army unit about to leave—the hilltop commanded a strategic view of the village below where other Taliban were suspected to be hiding.Earlier, Lt. Eric Nelson, the leader of B Company, I-508 platoon leader had sent word down to Gonbaz asking the villagers to pick up the bodies and bury them according to Muslim ritual. But the villagers refused—probably because the dead fighters weren't locals but Pakistanis, surmised one U.S. army officer.
It was then that Lt. Nelson took the decision that could jeopardize his service career. "We decided to burn the bodies," one soldier recounts, "because they were bloated and they stank." News of this cremation might have remained on these scorching hills of southern Afghanistan had the gruesome act not been recorded on film by an Australian photojournalist, Stephen Dupont. Instead, when the footage aired on Australian TV on Wednesday, it unleashed world outrage. A Pentagon spokesman described the incident as "repugnant" and said that the army was launching a criminal investigation into the alleged desecration of the corpses, which is in violation of the Geneva Convention on human rights.
Fueling the furor was the fact that the TV report showed that after the bodies were torched, a U.S. Psychological-Operations team descended on Gonbaz in Humvees with their loudspeakers booming: "Taliban, you are cowardly dogs. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady-boys we always believed you to be."
Muslims traditionally bury their dead, and as one Kabul cleric Mohammed Omar told newsmen, "the burning of these bodies is an offense against Muslims everywhere. Bodies are burned only in Hell." But as one U.S. officer in Kandahar pointed out, the Taliban and al Qaeda never show any qualms about defiling the bodies of dead Afghan or American soldiers. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, anxious to quell any new wave of protests against the U.S. troops in Afghanistan of the sort that followed allegations of Koran desecration at Guantanamo, publicly condemned the burnings. A statement from the U.S. military command for Afghanistan said, "Under no circumstances does U.S. Central Command condone the desecration, abuse or inappropriate treatment of enemy combatants."
Congrats to TIME for being among the first in the MSM to not buy the "hit pieces" that Martinkus and Dupont have spun from lies, half-truths and misrepresentations.
Thanks to CounterColumn for tipping me to the TIME story, be sure to visit Jason's (not me) post on the issue where he points out the adherence to the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Army Field Manual (FM-27-10) which states:
Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead.
Just like the "Koran-flushing" incident, it's up to the average Jane and Joe and Jason to get the word out and make the media actually focus on the facts.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:09 PM | TrackBack
October 21, 2005
Martinkus, Dupont, and The Truth
LATEST UPDATE TO THIS STORY IS HERE
Only two, of the three above, go together. The odd one out is left in a cold dark place when all is said and done.
If you're a little fuzzy on what I'm saying at this point, you might want to take look back at my two previous articles, "Ok, time to elaborate" and "What's really going on. . .(The Interview with Stephen Dupont)".
For those who don't want to click on the links, or for those who repost this in their aggregator sites, I'll give some brief background.
At the beginning of October there was some military action near Gonbaz, Afghanistan. During the course of that action, American forces burned two Taliban Bodies that were rotting in the open and conducted a successful PsyOps operation to draw Taliban fighters out of a village where they were hiding among civilians.
Now here's where things get sticky, but if you hang out and finish this article with me, you'll see it's not really sticky, but something does definately smell.
Embedded with American troops were two Australian Journalists. One was Stephen Dupont, here's his picture, and here's his website, he's a photojournalist for Contact Press Images, he seems to be an excellent photographer; and while I question his "objectivity" in earlier posts, I believe that he's honest, but still susceptible to pre-conceived biases in his reporting. The second reporter is John Martinkus, you may remember Martinkus because he tends to "become the news" rather than simply stick to reporting it.
Martinkus, the reporter, was captured by insurgent forces in Iraq over a year ago. While most hostages in Iraq don't fair so well, Martinkus was able to convince his captors that they should release him. Ya see, Martinkus is an anti-war activist, he's been a featured speaker for "Coalition to Stop the War" events and he's written a highly critical book on the American actions in Iraq. Martinkus convinced his captors that he was of more value to them alive than he was dead. After all, what's the point of cutting off the head of someone who, if you release them, will go out and attack your enemy using their own institutions against them. Martinkus is a friend to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's actually a supporter of their causes and he's sneakily gotten himself embedded with American forces in Afghanistan and been patiently waiting for a series of events that he could mischaracterize, politicize and twist with the intention of hurting the efforts to bring Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq and peace to the greater Middle East.
All of my statements grow from investigations I undertook, of my own accord, but with a little prodding from Dan Riehl at Riehl World View. Dan got a tip from Richard of HyScience, and passed it on to me for my opinion. On first glance at the info, Dan and I both came to the conclusion that some political chicanery was a afoot, after one or two minutes of googling, we came to Stephen Dupont and based on what we perceived as Duponts bias, we began to deconstruct the emerging story of the Taliban Bodies Burned in Iraq (here's where AP picked up the story).
I've already covered Dupont and come to the conclusion that while Dupont disagrees with American activities and prosecution of the War on Terror, he's reporting honestly what he sees, he has bias, but he understands that and has tried to balance his bias with honesty. Martinkus is a different animal altoghether.
Given the same facts and on the same scene, Martinkus tries to put apples and oranges together repeatedly and count them as the same objects. He makes connections where there are none, and tries to paint innocent (although intense and horrific) events with a sinister and conspiratorial brush.
Despite the facts, Martinkus pens a hit piece on the American military with the intent to further his anti-war aims and incite hatred for Americans among Muslims. Martinkus' report can be found at the Dateline program page, the transcript is a bit difficult to get to, so it's here in .txt format.
So lets look at the "body burning incident":
Dupont makes it clear to the world that it was the Airborne forces conducting operations in the region that burned the two rotting Taliban corpses inside their position, he makes it clear that they burned this corpses because they were out in the open for 24 hours an were beginning to decompose and posed a health risk. Dupont also makes it clear that the solidiers believed that they were burning the corpses for hygenic reasons (whether they were right or wrong on the hygiene issue is immaterial, they are not doctors and morticians, but even a layman knows you try not to remain in close contact with rotting corpses).
Martinkus chooses to disregard the hygenic concerns of the Airborne troops, in fact, he disregards the Airborne troops altoghether, he has bigger fish to fry, he wants to go after American policy and presense in the region, and he finds his weapon when PsyOps operatives arrive on the scene to try and coax, persuade, trick and infuriate the Taliban fighters into engaging the Americans who are reluctant to engage them inside the village.
Martinkus "reports":
At the top of the hills above the village the soldiers have taken the tactics of psychological warfare to a grotesque and disturbing extreme. US soldiers have set fire to the bodies of the two Taliban killed the night before. The burning of the corpses and the fact that they've been laid out facing Mecca is a deliberate desecration of Muslim beliefs.
I offer this photo to show beyond a "shadow of a doubt" (sorry bout that pun) that this "reporting" is actually a "hit piece" to mischaracterize the actions and incite Muslim anger throughout the world.
Simple examination of the photo shows that the corpses WERE NOT laid out facing West, if they were, they would be oriented in line with the shadows on the ground, instead they are oriented perpendicular to the shadows, unless you live at the North or South pole, you can test this for yourself if you go outside with a compass in the morning or afternoon. Face West or East and observe your shadow.
So we know that they were not "laid out facing Mecca" and do not demonstrate a deliberate desecration of Muslim beliefs.
We also know, from the interview with Stephen Dupont who took the picture, that it was NOT the psychological warfare operatives who burned these bodies. The PsyOps operatives arrived on the scene LATER (how later does not matter), and while they DID use the incident as part of their PsyOps plan to draw out the Taliban, they DID NOT burn the corpses as part of the plan. The PsyOps operatives used the fact that the bodies had to be burned for hygenic purposes and twisted the event to suit their PsyOps operational plan. In other words.
The PsyOps operative lied to the Taliban soldiers in the village in the hope it would infuriate them and drive them into the open.
Guess what Mr. Martinkus? That's their job. PsyOps is not the practice of telling your enemy the truth, it's telling the enemy what you think will disturb them, it's telling your enemy what you think will enrage them and cause them to make mistakes and engage in poor tactical descisions that you can take advantage of.
MR. MARTINKUS IS ENGAGING IN PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AND HER ARMED FORCES!!!!
MR. MARTINKUS IS ENGAGING IN PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE DESIGNED TO ALSO INFURIATE THE MUSLIM WORLD AGAINST AMERICA!!!!
That's right, you heard it here. Mr. Martinkus has taken events, twisted them out of proportion and then broadcast that psychological warfare element back at the people of America and the world. Just as the PsyOps operatives wished to enrage the Taliban and get them out into the open where they could be destroyed, Mr. Martinkus is trying to get the American people to become enraged at the actions of our own military. But we know the facts now Mr. Martinkus! You can't twist them anymore, we've got Stephen Dupont's pictures to disprove your words. We've got your history in the anti-war movement and your own words supporting the actions of terrorists and insurgents to prove that you sir, are on the other side. Mr. Martinkus is fighing of behalf of the Taliban through the use of psychological weapons of his own
The counter to Psychological Warfare is knowing the truth. We now know the truth, it's right there in Mr. Dupont's pictures. Now the challenge is to spread the truth among our forces and people of the world that Mr. Martinkus is attacking us with his psychological weapon of a hit piece. We, the bloggers, and hopefully the American Mass Media, need to counter Mr. Martinkus' warping of these events with the truth of the events. The truth must be heard. It's not a pretty truth, PsyOps isn't designed to make you feel good about things, it's designed to make you unstable, weak and easy to break. Our boys did the right thing in burning the corpses for hygenic reasons, and our boys also did the right thing by using WORDS INSTEAD OF BOMBS to get the Taliban out of Gonbaz.
So which of the three did not belong??? Martinkus!
--Jason
NOTE: Thank you for taking the time with me to look at the events objectively, I encourage you to read my earlier posts, "Ok, it's time to elaborate" and "So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)". If you have information to share, I encourage you to send a trackback or leave a comment. I've been overwhelmed with supportive emails and positive encouragement to continue my examination of this event and the greater context, so I'll continue to do that. Please come back for more. The media is going to continue to spread Martinkus' own PsyOps attack if it's not countered with the truth. Spread that photo around and point out that the "desecration" did not take place, and if any of you are a physician with information about how corpses decay and why they must be removed from the area to prevent disease, I encourage you to email me at Jason-at-JasonColeman-dot-com. There are still a few loose ends to tie up, but they just loose ends that people are unclear on, they don't amount to intentional desecration and I want to get that out. Thanks again, and I'll see ya round the 'sphere.
-JC
UPDATE: Linked at:
The Political Teen who has a funny Chris Matthews doing the Karl Rove Scooter Libby boogie video on his Main Page.
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy who was the first to trackback my "Ok, time to elaborate post" with this post on MVRWC.
Mudville Gazette
Indepundit
Two Babes and a Brain
Wizbang
California Conservative
Stop the ACLU
**Comments are closed for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:50 PM
So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)
NOTE: If you are new to this story, you may or may not wish to refer to THIS POST FIRST and then return to this one, but be warned the story is complex and confusing, so if you're looking for easy reading, just stay here.
SUGGESTION: I would recommend that you read the entire article first and then go back through and use the audio and video clips. I think that would be the easiest way to follow this rather complex story.
The purpose of this post is to add to an explanation of what the REAL STORY is with regard to why two Taliban soldiers bodiers were burned in Afghanistan as mentioned in this article and this article, reported by two individuals embedded with an American Airborne unit in Afghanistan. The story orignally "broke" on the Australian program, Dateline. The Dateline piece (which you can view a video clip of HERE (requires Realplayer)) consists of an interview between the show's host and Stephen Dupont, one of the embedded reporters who captured video of the incident. The interview is about 6 minutes long and is a one on one exchange to discuss footage that Dupont took outside the village of Gonbaz, Afghanistan.
We don't know ALOT of "details" about the operation, at this point we are merely analyzing the "Burning Bodies" incident with the broad and small strokes available, but this is what SEEMS to be clear and accurate:
1) Airborne forces had an engagement with Taliban forces on the approximate date of September 30. In this engagement 2 Taliban we're killed. The Taliban corpses were in close proximity to the American airborne unit's position.
2) Additional Taliban forces were "holed up" in the village, hiding amongst a civilian population. The Airborne soldiers had the situation in hand and probably held a perimeter around the village.
3) 24 hours or so after the Taliban were killed, the decision was made to burn the Taliban bodies for hygiene reasons by the Airborne forces on the scene. The Airborne forces burned the bodies and Stephen Dupont there and took video footage of the burning of the Taliban corpses.
4) Later, a Psychological Operations group arrived on the scene. This PsyOps group proceeded to conduct psychological operations against the Taliban forces inside the village with the intent to "Smoke em out" (Dupont's Words) and force the Taliban to come out of the village and attack the Airborne soldiers and PsyOps unit.
5) The methods used to draw out the Taliban forces were VERBAL IN NATURE. The PsyOps operatives used megaphones to broadcast into the village, and the wording of these messages included defamatory statements to the Taliban soldier's honor and statements were made that the burning of the dead Taliban soldiers' bodies took place while they were facing West (toward Mecca).
Now we'll pause for a minute and look at the words of Stephen Dupont. I've got three audio clips from the interview and I've transcribed them to the best of my ability. There might be some slight differences in the transcript due to accents and mumbling, but I think that if you read the transcripts first, then listen to the clips and read along again, you'll find them very close.
Audio Clip 1 - The Different Views (MPG format)
This clip deals with how the two different groups of soldiers viewed the burning of the bodies. It needs to be noted that only the Airborne unit actually took part in burning the bodies, and they did so for hygiene purposes. Now, later (we don't know how long at this time, but LATER), a PsyOps unit arrived in the battlespace. This audio clip from the Dateline broadcast is the Interviewer and Stephen Dupont discussing why the bodies were burnt and how later, the PsyOps unit used the event in their broadcasts via loudspeaker to the hold-out Taliban forces in the village.
The Transcript -
Interviewer: Do you think they understand the significance of what they were doing? I mean the burning of the bodies, pointing towards Mecca, and then actually going to the trouble of reading, to you, in English, the deliberately provocative stuff that they were shouting across the valley to the TalibanStephen Dupont: Look, I think the, Airborne unit that were responsible with burning of the two Taliban soldiers, weren’t really thinking in that way. I think that the Psychological Operations unit that did the broadcast, of the incident with the Taliban including some of other broadcasts, ther. .they’re. . I think they are quite well aware of it, these are older guys, I mean that’s their job, they are PsyOps, ya know, they use this as a weapon.
Remember that Stephen Dupont was on the scene, he's there, embedded with these Airborne troops and filming this event. He says quite plainly that the Airborne troops DID NOT view the burning of the bodies as part of the Psychological Warfare. In a little bit we'll see how the Airborne troops did view the burning of the corpses.
We also see that the PsyOps group, in the opinion of Stephen Dupont, who was also on the scene for the later psychological operation, did INTEND to use statements designed to imply that the burning of the bodies was to desecreate them, to humiliate the Taliban soldiers taking refuge in the village. The PsyOps troops are not playing patty-cake here and Dupont realized this. Dupont admits that the PsyOps groups understood that their role was to inflict MENTAL STRESS on the holed up Taliban fighters with the INTENT to provoke them into coming out and fighting the Airborne troops guarding the perimeter. Dupont recognizes that PsyOps is a weapon of war.
Now lets move on to the second clip.
Audio Clip 2 - Two speparate groups (MPG format)
This clip shows how there were two separte groups, the Airborne and the PsyOps, both acting in different roles within the battlespace. Dupont describes what the Airborne troops reasoning was for burning the bodies, and points out that they were not intent on desecration. He also discusses the actions of the PsyOps operatives and their reasons for STATING to the Taliban in the village, that the corpses were desecrated. I identify the Airborne unit in brackets as [Airborne] merely for clarification between the two separate groups.
Transcript
Interviewer: What you seem, what you seem to be saying is that the guys [Airborne] who burned the bodies probably did think that they were doing it for the reasons of hygiene, that tha was mentioned in the story. . .Stephen Dupont: I believe that and tha was the feeling I got when I climbed up this hill and as I got to the crest of this hill, they [Airborne] started burning the bodies, and of course my initial reaction was, ya know like, my god, I’ve got to film this, this is really important stuff, and uh I’ve gotta I’ve got a, you know, inaudible, it’s my responsibility as a journalist to get some of it. . .
Interviewer: But PsyOps had a different purpose?
Stephen Dupont: I believe so, I think these guys, were, were really kinda, you know they, they said, they said to me, look you know, we’ve been told to burn the bodies, because the bodies have been here for 24 hours and they’re starting to stink, so for hygiene purposes, this is what we’ve gotta do. Later on, when I was down with the Psy Ops operation people, um they used that as a sort of psychological um you know warfare, I guess, you’d call it, they used that fact the Taliban were burned facing West, as they say in the the announcement. . . .
Interviewer: Now would you deliberately say it again to humilack, the Taliban. . .
Stephen Dupont: They deliberately they deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them.
Interviewer: Smoke em out
Stephen Dupont: Smoke em out. They want the Taliban to fight them because they can’t find them otherwise.
So now things are becoming clearer. Stephen says that he does believe that the Airborne unit was burning the corpses of the two Taliban soldiers for hygenic purposes. We can get into rotting corpses later, but for our purposes here, lets keep it simple. The Airborne troops were ordered by their officers in the field to burn the corpses because they had been in the elements for 24 hours and were beginning to smell. Stephen recognizes that this was the intent of the Airborne troops, and it WAS NOT the intent of the Airborne troops to desecrate the bodies. As we'll see a little later, the corpses were NOT placed deliberately facing West (toward Mecca) and that the corpses were merely burned for hygenic purposes.
Now in this clip Dupont also goes into the role and scripting of the PsyOps unit a bit. Dupont recognized again that the purpose of the PsyOps unit is to conduct psychological warfare against the Taliban fighters in the village. Dupont states that for the purposes of the announcements into the village, the PsyOps "used the fact" that they were facing West. Dupont admits that tht PsyOps operatives were intentionally tring to incite anger in the Taliban so that they would come out and fight. That the goal of the announcements by the PsyOps operatives was to "Smoke em out". Note that "used the fact" is a turn of phrase, and does not necessarily mean that the corpses were actually "in fact" facing West, as we'll get into later.
Before we make any conclusions here, lets finish up with the third clip.
Audio Clip 3 - Is Psy Ops Working? (MPG format)
Transcript
Interviewer: Do you think that the Psychological War is working?Stephen Dupont: Look, I, I think it’s having some, success, I do believe. I think it’s very very slow. But I think there is a certain amount of success, because they are engaging with the enemy, as in, The Taliban. The Americans are, using this, um, you know, psychological warfare, to announce, to make announcements to get the enemy to fight them. It is working on that level. And they are being attacked and so they are responding and they are taking prisoners of war, and so forth. So in the eyes of the Americans and the coalition there is a sense that things are working but it’s very very slow.
Now here we see that Dupont feels that the Psychological Operations are in fact, working. If you view the entire clip (available again HERE (Realplayer Required), you hear more about why Dupont thinks are going slow. He talks about "thousands of caves" and a place that is "like the moon" and talks for a while about the difficulty of finding the Taliban who do not wear uniforms and the Interviewer suggests are like "ghosts". What's at issue in this part though is NOT how fast or slow the war is going, but rather if the actions of American soldiers involved in this event were intailing the desecration of Muslim corpses, or to effectively prosecute a war against and enemy who:
1) Hides among an civilian population in a Village, and
2) Must be drawn out of this civilian population in order to engage and defeat the enemy with as little collateral damage to the village and villagers, who in this case are mostly, if not completely different.
The BIG issue at stake in this latest bruhaha over the burning of Taliban corpses is the tactics that were used to draw the enemy out so that they can be engaged and destroyed, or possibly captured as prisoners of war. It needs to be made clear here that war is not necessarily a spectator sport. To overuse a phrase, "War is HELL!" and warriors need to bring all the force they can to bear against their enemy in order to affect victory over the objective and opposing forces. No one in their right mind would honestly suggest that using loudspeakers and "implying" that desecration of corpses has been done is a "nice" thing to do. However, as Dupont admits, it is working to draw the enemy out so they can be engaged.
I'd suppose that there were alternatives to using the PsyOps operatives to engage the enemy. After all, the Airborne troops that had the Taliban cornered COULD HAVE simply leveled the village. That course of action would have led to the deaths of the villagers, and I think that the commanders on the field should be commended for not opting for that option to deal with the situation.
The troops could have entered the village and searched for the Taliban fighters door to door. They wouldn't be wearing a uniform and would be difficult to identify. A Taliban soldier might hide among a scared population or opted to ambush the American soldiers when they entered the village. This might result in unnecessary American or civilian casualties when a firefight breaks out in the village, and again, this is not the most desirable option.
So what was the decision in the field? The decision was made to engage the Taliban hold-outs using PsyOps techniques. The descision was made to broadcast messages into the town designed to provoke a rage in the enemy, so that he might recklessly engage the American forces and so doing, make a critical tactical mistake, allowing the Americans to defeat the enemy and minimize civilian and American casualties. It seems, that according to Dupont who was on the scene, that this option was the one that the commanders in the field decided to use. Dupont admits that PsyOps are effective if slow, but effective nonetheless.
Now lets just talk straight for a second, and be honest about it. Are the statements the PsyOps operatives used in their announcements "offensive"? Probably. . . and they are designed to be so. The "intent" is to drive the enemy into a rage so they flush themselves out. So harsh words are used, and mean things are said. The intent is to anger the enemy, and the best way in the eyes of the PsyOps opeatives to do that was to insult the Taliban hold-outs in the village. To deman their manhood and bravery, to call them "ladies" and to tease them. The PsyOps operatives also TOLD the Taliban hold-outs that their comrades had been desecrated, that their bodies had been burned while facing West so that they could not enter paradise. IN REALITY HOWEVER, neither the PsyOps, nor the Airborne troops actually desecrated the bodies. They merely made statements that they did. The bodies were not desecrated, they were burned for hygenic purposes, to stop the smell that distracted the American soldiers, and to prevent the spread of possible natural, yet harmful biologic (bacterial and other) agents that would spread into the air around the corpses, could be carried by insects or other pests or could possibly cause other health risks to the soldiers who were preparing to settle in for a bout of blasting insults and rock music into the village via loudspeakers. There was no way for the commanders on the ground to know whether the Audible Siege would last an hour, and evening, a day or a week, but the PsyOps operation was going to move forward. Having rotting corpses lying around your position while the troops awaited the emergence of the Taliban holdouts was not a good idea. You can hear in Duponts statements that the terrain is rugged and burial was probably not a viable option and would waste valuable resources unnecessarily. So the decision was made by the commander of the Airborne unit to burn the bodies in place. If you look at the situation through the eyes of the commander in the field, that was probably the best, if not the most tasteful, descision to make given the circumstances.
Now as I understand it, and I could be wrong, so I'll ask fellow bloggers for a little help here, but it is my belief that when enemy combatant dead are encountered on the field, every reasonable effort should be made to handle the dead with respect to the enemy culture first, and when such accomodation cannot be made, that the burning of corpses for hygenic purposes is acceptable under the Geneva Convention. We should not expect our forces in the field to become undertakers in the middle of a battle, and we should not expect them to work around rotting corpses when a hygenic alternative is available. So we could beat that horse all day, and maybe I'll address that issue in another post, but for this particular post, the intent is to clarify the events, and dispell the myths and untruths that are spreading like wildfire through groups opposed to the war or through the agitation of the media.
The troops that burned the two Taliban corpses DID NOT do so to desecrate the remains of the dead, the burning of the corpses was a hygenic move and NOT a part of the PsyOps plan. The PsyOps operatives did not even participate, nor did they order the desecration of corpses. A commander in the field, presumably the Airborne commander, did order that the corpses be dealt with so that the troops could continue their mission, which was to defeat the enemy. Which is exactly why we put our military in the field, to defeat an enemy. That's what they did. It wasn't pretty, but war rarely is. The psychological weapons employed were strong, and rightly so. When you engage an enemy, your goal is to win the battle, not to make the combat, whether it be physical or mental, fun, or even palatable.
Psychological warfare is an accepted part of war. In comparison to carpetbombing or artillery strikes, it even seems preferable. Civilian casualties are minimized and your enemy fights from a weakened position. Those are both objectives sought by any battlefield commander and that's exactly what occured in this case.
There will be more to come but I'll part with this image.
Now I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be, I'm just a humble blogger following the evidence as it shows itself, but I do recognize something about this picture that is relevant. It is my belief that the corpse in this picture is NOT facing west. Judging solely by the relationship of the body on the ground and the shadows in the picture, it is my estimation that this body is aligned more on a north-south axis rather than an east-west axis. If other bloggers can offer more definative evidence to support this, please leave a comment or a trackback and I will include it wherever applicable in future posts.
More to come. . . [LATEST UPDATE TO THIS STORY IS HERE.]
--Jason
UPDATE: New post on John Martinkus
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:00 AM | TrackBack
I'm here. . .
People are having trouble sending comments and trackbacks. I attribute this to my recent upgrage to Moveable Type 3.2 and not having it locked down and fine tuned. I'm here though, working on posts, editing audio and making transcripts to make this whole issue CLEARER to the average casual reader who's getting bombarded with MSM blatherings about UNTRUTHS. I'll approve your comments and trackbacks manually every 10 or 15 minutes.
So if you are looking for the REAL STORY of what happened with U.S. Troops Burning Taliban Bodies, stay tuned, and I'll try to make it as easy to understand and clear as possible. If you want to work for it and understand how this story developed this morning, continue down or click over to "Ok, time to elaborate".
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:18 AM | TrackBack
October 20, 2005
Ok, time to elaborate. . .
NOTE: New posts in this series HERE and HERE. Also linked at the end.
So first, go read this post (it's the one I made a short while ago). I wanted to just give Dan from Riehl World View a link for a good catch, but it's evolved a bit since then. I should also give a HatTip to Richard from HyScience.com for starting the ball rolling. So after a few emails back and forth with Dan, a larger picture emerges, and I want to lay it out as I see it here.
First lets start with the story Dan first turned me onto:
Report: U.S. Soldiers Burned Bodies of Taliban Fighters, Taunted Villagers
And here's an earlier story from the Sydney Morning Herald:
Film rolls as troops burn dead
Now these articles stem from the Australian program Dateline, which aired this segment (Requires Real Player) which is an interview with Stephen Dupont. Go ahead and take the time to watch it. You can find the transcript here.
Now it's important that after you read the articles and you watch the clip to realize that the troops that allegedly burned the bodies (to my knowledge, the actual event video hasn't been released as of this writing) did so because of legitimate hygiene concerns. The Taliban soldiers had been dead for over 24 hours and were begining to become a concern. So in keeping with good battlefield hygiene practices, they disposed the bodies in the most effective and safest means possible, burning. It's quite obvious that soldiers dug in around a position, with enemy forces in the vicinity, cannot be expected to go out and bury the bodies; and the Taliban certainly wasn't going to come out and collect them (this is a war, remember). So we can't really fault them for burning the bodies.
Now the reporter on the scene, Stephen Dupont, who was embedded with the American troops, himself admits that it was later, when a PsyOps unit arrived on the scene, that more was made of the burning than actually took place, IN ORDER TO "smoke out" and "provoke" a fight with other Taliban fighters on the scene. Taken as it is, a separate tactical event, this is not that big a deal. The goal of armies is to find and engage the enemy, to root them out and destroy them. PsyOps has long been considered a legitimate and effective means of waging war. All parties to conflicts use it and it generates the desired effects.
Now what the two articles are doing is trying to CONNECT unrelated dots. The articles, and Stephen Dupont himself, are trying to connect dots that aren't necessarily connected. Their purpose? I can only suppose that the purpose is to make American soldiers look bad and to try to incite Islamic hatred outside of this particular incident. By connecting these two SEPARATE events, the burning of the bodies for legitimate health reasons and the later PsyOps operation, the articles are trying to imply that the Soldiers who burned these bodies did so to "offend" Muslims, when it fact they did not.
Now it IS true that the PsyOps operatives used the burning to enrage or offend the soldiers they were trying to "smoke out" but that's a separate incident entirely and not related to the actual act of burning. I'd suspect that if half of the PsyOps techniques that were used on the battlefield were taken out of true context and broadcast as "representative" of combat soldiers actions, that people would positively FREAK OUT. Let's remember folks, the goal of PsyOps troops IS to freak out the enemy and provoke them into making mistakes that combat troops can capitalize on and destroy the enemy. That's their job!
So IF the bodies were burned for legitimate hygiene reasons, as the reporter on the scene suggests, that's a GOOD THING.
And IF the PsyOps operatives used the event to gain tactical advantage over the battlespace and draw the enemy out, that's ALSO A GOOD THING.
The articles though, try to lead the reader in another direction entirely and are attempting to take the tactical conflict out of it's isolated and local context and apply it to a general interpretation of the continuing war against Taliban remnants and al Queda in Afghanistan.
So let's move on.
Now Dan and I traded some links back and forth and began looking at Stephen Dupont.
This is the photo that Dupont chooses to be his representative image on his bio page on his own website (it's a flash site, so I can't link directly, you'll have to navigate to the bio page). Take a look at it for a second. Photographers ply their trade by taking images that represent something, an ideal, an event, a feeling or just a directed representation of the subject. I'm no expert and I don't pretend to be, but what that image represents to me is that Stephen Dupont is trying to show himself as somehow "connected" to the Afghans and Taliban in general. The garb and manner of the picture may not be exactly representative of Taliban or Afghan attire, but that's the perception that I believe the lay observer will get. Stephen is trying to send a message with that image, and I REALLY REALLY don't think that that message is "I'm an impartial objective observer/journalist". To me, and I suggest, the average lay observer, that image represents that Stephen identifies himself with the Taliban, or at the very least, Afghans.
If you take a surfing trip through Stephen Dupont's website, you'll see that Dupont tends toward supporting an agenda, and that adgenda is somewhat, if not decidely, anti-Western. Furthermore, if you take a look at Dupont's sponsoring agency, Contact Press Images, you'll find that they also aren't necessarily an impartial objective group themselves, they use phrases like "this so called 'war on terror'" and invite the reader to remember the "last Americans in Vietnam were hurriedly evacuated from a Saigon rooftop" [italics mine]. This group obviously starts from a position of opposition to the Global War on Terror and they leave objectivity at the door when they go out to cover a story.
Even the Australian Dateline, takes a particularly biased approach to the story, by leading with:
Since September 11, we've all become uncomfortably familiar with names like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah and maybe even Bagram in Afghanistan. They're all places we now associate with human rights violations or worse - military atrocities and possibly potential war crimes. But after our first story tonight, you can add another placename to that list - Gonbaz in southern Afghanistan, about a 100km from the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.
Now this paragraph says ALOT. First, they leave out that September 11th was an attack on the United States by al Queda, and that al Queda was sponsored, harbored and protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they jump to associating September 11th, not with the attack on the Twin Towers, Pentagon and the 4th failed attack on another target, but they associate September 11th with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah and stretch to include Bagram, labeling all as "human rights violations", "military atrocities" and "possibly potential war crimes".
I ask you? Is this what September 11th is associated with? I think not, maybe the War on Terror is, but not Septemeber 11th. The media is quick to point out that Iraq is not connected with 9-11 (despite the truth that Iraq WAS associated with al-Queda and merely that there was not an OPERATIONAL link between the specific 9-11 attack and Iraq), so why the mention of Abu Grahib and Fallujah?
The answer can only be that they wish to connect these dots illegitimately as well. September 11th is connected to the attacks on America, and the attacks on America are associated with the Global War on Terror, and the War on Terror is connected to the War in Iraq. However, by jumping over links in the chain and associating events in the manner that the Dateline lead-in does, the bias in the piece that follows is evident from the beginning.
Now I'll leave it to you, the reader to go back and view the articles, video, Dateline website and Stephen Dupont on your own and drag your own conclusions, but to ME, this whole shebang is a "hit piece" of local and separate events, taken out of context and rewoven to convey a wholy different representation of what actually occured.
What can we objectively say happened:
1) That allegedly (the video is still MIA, but I'm sure it will surface) American soldiers did the prudent and militarily accepted thing and burned bodies that were beginning to rot while they laid siege to an area where Taliban fighters were holed up.
2) That PsyOps operatives later arrived on the scene and tried to use localized events to affect a tactical advantage and flush out enemy troops so that they could be engaged and hopefully destroyed.
These two events ARE CONSISTENT with standard military practices and do not represent some grander evil scheme to "offend Islam", they DO NOT represent a "military atrocity" and they do not represent a "human rights abuse" as the articles and the Dateline piece would lead the reader to believe.
I can almost guarantee that this is not going to be the way this story is picked up and run with by the media and it certainly won't be interpreted that way by the anti-war crowd, the anti-American crowd, or the left in general. I'd expect that,unless this video never surfaces,we're in for a long road where unrelated dots are connected over and over again. I expect that this will develop into a media firestorm, and direct accusations will be made against the President, Donald Rumsfeld and the American Military that this is an evil and disrespectful affront to Islam and Muslims everywhere.
The detractors will try to use this incident to incorrectly claim that this was an atrocity, that it was a war crime and that our mission to destroy the forces of al Queda and the Taliban is a war on Islam itself, despite all the real indications to the contrary, this will become the latest marching mantra of the left and the latest call to denounce the War on Terror and a justification to pull out our troops before the mission is done. The left will call for someones head to roll over this even though it's perfectly consistent with the Geneva convention to dispose of battlefield dead and the PsyOps activities were consistent with standard and accepted activities of war.
This will be a firestorm and many half-truths, outright lies and slanders of our troops, their leaders and the goals of the War on Terror will be crafted around this actual non-event.
Thanks for your time.
ADDED NOTE: Hyscience got this ball rolling last night with the initial tip on the backgrounds of the reporters, today they've put up The Media's New Abu Ghraib
--Jason
UPDATE: After checking email, Dan left me one last tip to chase down for the night. While he and I chased down info on Stephen Dupont, we neglected to take a look at John Martinkus, Dupont's apparent co-reporter.
Martinkus is probably best known as the reporter who "googled his way to freedom" when captured by nationalist forces in Iraq.
Thanks to Tim Blair, I learned a little more about Martinkus which I think also points to bias in the reporting of this incident. Martinkus himself has participated in anti-war events and has spoken out against the War on Terror and the American presence in Iraq. Martinkus was a featured speaker at an event organized by the "Stop the War Coalition" and has authored a book, Travels in American Iraq, which is apparently very critical of the American efforts in Iraq and the War on Terror.
Martinkus has also drawn fire from Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer:
Kidnapped Australian journalist John Martinkus was attacked today by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and former hostage Steve Pratt for appearing to say that Iraqi terrorists had a reason to kill some hostages.Mr Martinkus, who was kidnapped and interrogated for more than 20 hours in Baghdad before being freed last weekend, sparked outrage when he said of his captors:"(From their perspective) there was a reason to kill (British hostage Ken) Bigley, there was a reason to kill the Americans; there was not a reason to kill me (and) luckily I managed to convince them of that."
Mr Downer said today it was pretty much the most appalling thing any Australian had said about the Iraq war.
He accused Mr Martinkus of giving comfort to terrorists by saying that their actions were understandable.
So, not only are Stephen Dupont's "objective journalist" credentials suspect, it appears that "co-reporter" John Martinkus is an anti-war activist and quite possibly a sympathizer with the very enemies that the forces he was embedded with are fighting.
NOTE: The Tim Blair links are from his old site. His current site is timblair.net.
UPDATE 2: Well folks, IT'S ON, as of 5:30 a.m. U.S. central time, Google News is listing 170+ reports on this "event" and just as expected, almost all are playing the "desecration" and "affront to Islam" angles and giving the bias of the reporting a pass. Another MSM "hit piece" on our military is underway.
UPDATE 3: Drudge / Breitbart have picked it up now.
UPDATE 4: The first pictures are showing up on the web now.
UPDATE 5: Checking in on some of the lefty blogs, the meme is already developing that the bodies were intentionally faced west and the PsyOps teams were somehow instrumental in this "symbolic" placement. Nevermind the "reporters" own admission that the Airborne units they were embedded with burned the bodies for hygiene reasons and the PsyOps operatives arrived sometime after the bodies were burned. The accusations and total disregard for the truth have begun.
UPDATE 6: Centcom Statements on the event ONE TWO THREE
Centcom site for News Releases
UPDATE 7: This post is also cross-linked with The Political Teen's Open Trackback Thursday. HEY, if the really big boys and girls aren't blogging much today, I gotta do what I gotta do to get the word out.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: NEW POST - So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: An examination of John Martinkus, PsyOps operator in his own right.
UPDATE: 11/26/05 - Centcom issues their report.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:30 AM
October 19, 2005
Oh brother. . .
Dan at Riehl World View threw me a heads up, go read for yourself. I'm sure that there's either much more to this. . . or much less to this, than is being reported. BUT! I know we're going to be hearing this bleated about over and over and over and over again till it's either proven (and of course, disciplining the guilty won't be acceptable to the lefties) or it's proven to be completely untrue (which won't matter to the left either).
Now it's out there. So I guess it's time to say . . . Play ball.
Go read it and I'm sure your head will hurt too.
--Jason
UPDATE: Before you go, just make sure to remember this face:
This is the "Stephen Dupont" that is reporting this tripe. Dan has a link to his other "work".
UPDATE2: If you arrived at this individual entry from an external link, you may want to take a look at this post where I elaborate.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:50 PM | TrackBack
Blanco, clueless. . .
I've been looking for a source on THIS for some time, and thanks to the Carnival of the Clueless and The Strata-Sphere, I finally found it.
Though experts had warned it would take 48 hours to evacuate New Orleans, Blanco did not order a mandatory evacuation that Saturday.“We’re going to pray that the impact will soften,” she said.
Blanco and the mayor waited until Sunday, Aug. 28 — only 20 hours before Katrina came ashore — to order a mandatory evacuation, the first of what disaster experts and Louisiana insiders say were serious mistakes by the governor.
Now as an atheist, I don't fault people for praying, it's what they do. For for Blanco to take the position that we're just "going to pray that the impact will soften" while on the other hand she's stonewalling the Feds, mis-managing the La. National Guard, sending people to shelters with no food and water and waiting until it was TOO LATE to order or even support the evacuation, is just well. . . . "Clueless".
So take a look at the video here (hopefully it'll stay up for a while), and read the whole article, then if you're so inclined I've put in a new category here on the blog, -Katrina, and put all my Katrina posts in there. Including the popular "Blanco's Insurrection" post.
Enjoy, get mad, but most of all, remember, and for goodness sakes, you people in Wilma's path, please keep a close eye on it and get out of the way.
Finally I want to link to Gateway Pundit for a round-up of facts and fiction about Katrina. Pay special attention to this part.
Fact: "The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."
Yep, the "slowness" of the Federal response was a MYTH.
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:55 PM | TrackBack
October 18, 2005
28 Questions for Miers. . .
The Senate Questionaire for Nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court Harriett Ellan Miers has been released. I'm putting it here in PDF Format, and for those of you that are Acrobat challenged (you can get it here), I've also gone through and put it into an easier to use HTML Format and made it a permanent part of the content of this blog.
View the Harriet Miers Senate Questionaire here. (It's long and may take a few moments to load.)
The Questionaire has alot of "junk" in it, like name, rank, and serial number, but there's also interesting info in it too. Such as her pro bono work before the U.S. Supreme Court to get disability benefits from the Social Security Administration for a single mom, her defense of Microsoft and Disney as well as some interesting discussion of nuclear energy issues before the SCOTUS.
For those who have been trying to find info, this document is the starting point, listing all of her publications and media mentions as well as her views on Judicial Activism (last question) and lots of other info.
Enjoy!
--Jason
PS - Full Disclosure: I'm a Harriet Miers SUPPORTER at this point. I feel that Bush has the right as President of the United States to appoint who HE wants and who HE believes will represent HIS views on the court. I see that as exactly what he's doing, so I have to support it. Just as I recognize that it was Bill Clinton's right to put ACLU Commie Liberal Whack-o Ruth Ginsberg to the SCOTUS. If Miers flubs up the Confirmation Hearings, then I reserve the right to change my position, but for now, I'm firmly on her, and the President's side of the fence.
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:25 PM | TrackBack
October 15, 2005
Iraq Votes. . .
BareKnucklePolitics and TheAdventuresofChester are live-blogging the Iraq Constitution Voting today.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:36 AM | TrackBack
October 11, 2005
So lemme get this straight. . .
In searching around today I came across this AP article via Yahoo.
All was well and good, I read the article, absorbed it's content, then WHAM! I was stopped dead in my tracks by this picture. Can you see what stopped me?
Click for larger screenshot.
So lemme get this straight, Osama Bin Laden is now described as a "dissident"? Heck, why don't we just stop playing around and start referring to Osama Bin Laden as "considered by the AP as a harmless Muslim slightly miffed at Zionists and the West".
This is pretty ridiculous, Osama has claimed responsibility for the 9-11 attacks, the Madrid bombings and countless other terrorist attacks worldwide, but the AP is now describing him as a "Saudi dissident"????
Am I the only one who finds this just a bit disturbing? Also, if you're referring to someone as a dissident, does it make sense to also in the same sentence say the "dissident" has a "deputy"???? Why don't they just call Osama a "sheriff"???
Boggle. . . Pure Boggle
--Jason
UPDATE: Welcome SondraK readers (she rocks doesn't she), please feel free to look around, comment, agree, disagree, or just look for Penguins and Icebergs. Please tho', no hotlinking of the videos, just right-click and "save as. . ."
UPDATE 2: Wouldn't you know it, now they've changed the photo and caption with something even less comprehensible - Small Screenshot - Larger Screenshot. And YES YES, I know the photos are "somewhat" automated in reference to the article, but referring to Osama as a "dissident" still seems a bit "off the mark" to me.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:16 PM | TrackBack
The big "Catch-Up". Part 1
Here's a selection of quick hits that I've been meaning to post for a while. Presented quick and dirty just so I can get them out of my list of "Things to Post".
Just in case you're one of those "unsure" about the GWOT, I think you should take a look at this article. The most telling quote:
"If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam"
The U.S. Rhein-Main air base in Germany is now closed, but that's ok, because, ya know, it was just another prop to the German economy and according to the Germany powers that be, it had nothing to do with the Berlin Air Lift or the U.S. efforts to "bring down this wall".
I was talking to high school kid the other day, and he had NO CLUE what the Berlin Wall even was. Sad, really sad. Oh yeah, it gets better, he was wearing a Che t-shirt.
If you haven't seen it yet, go out and rent The Shining. A wonderful film about a boy and his search for a father figure, finding one in the form of a writer struggling to finish his latest work and their adventures finding one another. But hey, don't take my word for it
If you own a computer and don't know what the RIAA is, you really should. The RIAA likes to identify people who have peer-to-peer file sharing programs on their computer, then they hack said computers and spy on the users. When they've collected enough evidence (or sometimes not enough evidence) they then begin demanding thousands of dollars in royalty payments for music you didn't download from bands you've never even heard of. These guys are thugs of the highest order, but some people are starting to fight back.
I have to agree with a few of the commenters that the Lybeck-Murphy firm may not be the best to represent this case because they may not be up to the task (they certainly can be outspent by the RIAA), but maybe, just maybe if people know more about the RIAA and their thuggish tactics, they may be able to give this case legs enough to get to the Big Show.
And speaking of the Big Show, I'm happy to say I'm on the Pro-Miers bandwagon. I know alot of Republicans aren't happy because they want a good ole fashioned slug fest over philosophy and issues, but I just want to get a common sense, NON-JUDGE, NON-Ivy Leaguer, Conservative on the court who's opinions I can sit down and read easily without a legal dictionary at my side. I'm pretty sure Miers just might be that Justice.
While I'm not saying I support Miers fully, I am definately on the "pro" side of the debate. Of course all that could change when the hearings start, but for now, I'm going to continue absorbing hard and fast evidence about her and refrain from spouting off about how badly I too wanted to see a good ole slug-fest in the Senate.
Nice end-run George, you made everyone scramble on this one, and that's exactly how it should be.
That's it for now, more in a bit, maybe just more quick hits, maybe something more substantial. Seriously though, scroll back up and watch that Shining trailer, it's good.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:52 PM | TrackBack
September 29, 2005
America. . . . Fuck Yeah!!!!!
The "fuckwads" (YES, I know that's harsh for me), have given up on their plan to HI-JACK the September 11th memorial and Ground Zero and the "Freedom Center" site for an anti-American museum.
Some days, truth and justice wins.
WOOT!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:31 AM | TrackBack
September 27, 2005
More Hmmm. . . .
The City of New Orleans has removed the Hurricane Emergency Action Plan page from their website (technically I guess they're just denying access). Guess they couldn't take the heat that arose when bloggers discovered the document and publicized it.
I had hoped to link to it in the article below, but now that they've denied access to the public, I'll have to look for another source for it.
--Jason
UPDATE: Good luck trying to register (I thought maybe that would get me access to the supposedly PUBLIC document). The registration for the City of N.O. site is broken.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:04 AM | TrackBack
Hmmmmm....
So I'm watching the Investigation into the hurricane Katrina response. Former FEMA director Brown is testifying and has some very strong defenses up his sleeve.
Could this be an indicator of another Bush masterstroke???
Release Brown from duty, knowing he's going to be pulled up before Congress, the take the chains off Brown and let him "tell it like it is".
Of course the Congressmen are asking tough partisan questions of Brown, but he's keeping his cool, pointing out that what the Congressman are trying to do is suggest that FEMA should be "doing" the job rather than "coordinating" the local, state and federal resources.
And there's the rub. Those that would criticize the federal response fail to realize that it is the local and state's responsibility BY LAW to manage a disaster until the effort is Federalized, since that didn't happen in a timely fashion (the fault of the Louisiana governor) FEMA had it's hands tied by that pesky Constitution and was sticking to it's "coordination" role until the Governor released control to the FEDS.
Brown doesn't get much love in the media, blogosphere or public at large, he was a convenient target and truly, Brown was not the problem, the Local and State officials were the problem. When every other player on the team decides they don't want to follow the called play, expect chaos to develop. Props to Brown and the FEDS for sticking to task while the locals just criticized, and getting things back under control in New Orleans.
It'll still gonna be interesting to see Brown, who's not beholden to PC gamesmanship anymore, play this out without having to fear anything. Cup of truth, anyone???
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:49 AM | TrackBack
Another example of how. . . .
Good luck France, you'd have thought that ya'll had learned your lesson by now and given up on the appeasement track. Well, I'm sure we'll help you out should terrorists get a good whack at you, I wouldn't expect much actual sympathy coming from this side of the pond.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:22 AM | TrackBack
September 24, 2005
I know I promised, but. . . .
Well, I sorta promised that I wouldn't talk about Cindy Sheehan, but when I found this at SondraK's place, I just couldn't help but want to pass it around.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:57 PM | TrackBack
September 21, 2005
You know you wanna see it. . . .
Click image to watch Gen. Honore, tell it like it is.
Radioblogger has a transcript in what looks to be his 1001st post. Congrats Radioblogger!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:04 AM | TrackBack
September 19, 2005
Action. . .
There's a movement afoot to IMPEACH La. Gov. Blanco.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:23 AM | TrackBack
September 16, 2005
No comment. . .
I don't really feel any comment is needed, if you don't understand what I mean, then just scroll down a few posts and you'll get the picture.
Ok, so if you don't want to work for it, here are the links. [1] [2] [3] [4]
--Jason
Commentary on the media bias in the clip can be found at NewsBusters.
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:30 AM
September 14, 2005
Blanco, in her own words. . . .
People are still trying to latch onto a myth that "Bush should have sent troops in earlier." When you press these people on it, they come up with lots of touchy feely reasons why he should have overridden Blanco and rolled into Louisiana. However, they can't seem to come up with a LEGAL AUTHORITY for Bush to send Federal troops into the state. President Bush DID NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SEND FEDERAL TROOPS INTO LOUISIANA WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE GOVERNOR. The only way that Bush could have sent troops in over the Governor's head was through an act of Congress (which was on vacation) or by invoking the Insurrection Act. I'm doubtful that the Insurrection Act would have gone over well with anyone, and Congress was out of Washington, so that left Bush in the position of waiting for Blanco to stop crying, blaming and whining and ask for troops.
So I thought I'd help out a bit. For those that are saying "Blanco did ask for troops!!!" I give you this. A video that shows Blanco herself admitting that she DID NOT ask for troops.
The video is a bit long, almost 5 minutes. If you're impatient, then skip ahead to about a minute in and you'll hear Blanco admit that she knows she didnt' ask for troops and that she needed to do that. KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS VIDEO WAS TAKEN ON WEDNESDAY. Shortly after the interview, she called the White House and asked for troops.
I may try to shorten the video down if it starts killing my bandwidth, so feel free to save the video by right clicking and spread it around.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:52 PM | TrackBack
September 11, 2005
The hits just keep on coming. . .
Now it's being reported that in addition to the City of New Orleans:
NOT EVACUATING CITIZENS ON AVAILABLE CITY BUSES
and the State of Louisiana:
STONE-WALLING THE FEDERAL RELIEF EFFORTS AT EVERY TURN
it appears that the city officials in New Orleans (these are the locals people, not the Feds and not the President) refused an Amtrak offer of assistance with getting people out of the city.
In fact, while the last regularly scheduled train out of town had left a few hours earlier, Amtrak had decided to run a "dead-head" train that evening to move equipment out of the city. It was headed for high ground in Macomb, Miss., and it had room for several hundred passengers. "We offered the city the opportunity to take evacuees out of harm's way," said Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black. "The city declined."So the ghost train left New Orleans at 8:30 p.m., with no passengers on board.
I really don't have any civil words to express the anger that builds greater and greater every day as I see the corruption, politicing and COMPLETE AND TOTAL INCOMPETANCE that is the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana.
It really, really sucks to be embarrassed by your birthplace and hometown.
Nagin and Blanco must go, IMMEDIATELY.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:59 PM | TrackBack
September 9, 2005
Blanco's Insurrection - It's time to act!
For days now, Major Garrett of Fox News has been reporting that it was the STATE OF LOUISIANA that refused to allow food and water from the Red Cross THAT WAS READY TO BE DELIVERED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HURRICANES PASSAGE to the throngs who congregated there to await evactuation.
HUME: Standing by, ready. Why didn’t FEMA send the Red Cross into New Orleans when we had all of those people there on that bridge overpass and elsewhere?GARRETT: At the Superdome (search), at the convention center...
HUME: Lack of water, right. Why not?
GARRETT: First of all, no jurisdiction. FEMA works with the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other organizations, but it has no direct control to order them to go one place or the other.
Secondarily, the Red Cross was ready. I just got off the phone with one of their officials. They had a vanguard, Brit, of trucks with water, food, hygiene equipment, all sorts of things ready to go, where? To the Superdome and the convention center.
Why weren’t they there? The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security told them they could not go.
HUME: Now, this is the Louisiana — this isn’t the Louisiana branch of the federal Homeland Security? This is...
GARRETT: The state’s own agency devoted to the state’s homeland security. They told them, "You cannot go there."
Why? The Red Cross tells me that state agency in Louisiana said, "Look, we do not want to create a magnet for more to come to the Superdome or the convention center. We want to get them out."
So at the same time local officials were screaming, "Where is the food? Where is the water?" The Red Cross was standing by ready. The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security said, "You can’t go."
Now I know that Moonbats out there will holla "How can you trust Faux News, they're on the Bushco payroll!!!"
How bout I just link to the RED CROSS THEMSELVES:
The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city. [Emphasis, mine]
The irony here is just tragic. But wait, it gets better. Beyond Blanco's refusal to allow the Red Cross to provide food and water, we have the evacuation issue.
SO. . .The State of Louisiana (read Governor Blanco) wanted people to leave the city. The mayor and governor jointly ordered an evacuation after being urged to by President Bush, so the wanted to get people out and had the buses to get people out, and didn't want the Red Cross to deliver food and water to those at the Dome and Convention center because they wanted to get the people out.
Do you get it yet, the City and State say they wanted to get people out. YET!!!! The buses that were supposed to GET THE PEOPLE OUT were left standing, unused. Now lets add some insult to injury, more than 24 hours after the storm passes, the 17th street levee breaks, but Nagin and Blanco STILL DON'T USE THE BUSES and eventually they are flooded. Now we've got a HUGE mess on our hands and people are trapped.
So now it's up to the FEDS to get the people out, and the Governor REFUSES to allow the FEDS to take over and GET THE PEOPLE OUT. So people suffer and the entire evacuation effort falls into chaos.
FINALLY, Blanco gives permission and the FEDS roll in and pull people out of the dome and the convention center.
But wait, it gets better.
Now we have a toxic soup in most of New Orleans due to the flooding. The water is so toxic that in some areas, simply getting the water on your skin can lead to death, in others, exposure will cause chemical burns to exposed skin.
The mayor has now ordered a FORCED evacuation citing public health concerns (that's good epidemiology folks, anyone who stays stands a good chance of becomeing a vector for some of the worlds most deadliest diseases), BUT GOVERNOR BLANCO REFUSES TO AUTHORIZE THE EVACUATION!!!! (At the time of this writing she has yet to authorize it.)
Gov. Kathleen Blanco said she was the only person who could call for such action as the National Guard reports to her. Blanco said she did not want to "put more grief on people" by ordering them to leave, noting that some may have everything they need.
***I'm sorry Governor, but NO ONE, short of those with specific training to work in biologically and chemically hazardous environments has "everything they need" to ensure their safety in the toxic soup that is New Orleans, and NO ONE with said training would choose to remain LIVING in said toxic soup.***
Let's recap a moment, the Governor wanted people out, but REFUSED FOR DAYS to allow the feds to get people out, while also refusing them food and water. All the while Gov. Blanco was screaming that she needed help to get the people out, she was preventing the federal government from getting them out. Now, when the situation is FAR MORE DIRE, and Gov. Blanco is refusing to allow the National Guard under HER CONTROL to take people out of the city by force if need be.
Keep in mind that staying in New Orleans presents a VERY REAL HEALTH RISK, not only to those who stay, but anyone that they may come in contact with in the future.
I'm starting to agree with the moonbats now. Not on who's to blame, but rather that George Bush needs to push Gov. Blanco aside and disregard the authority of the state.
I'm not advocating that Bush violate "posse comitatus", not at all. I will always support the authority of the State government until such time as that authority works directly against the Constitution or threatens the life of U.S. citizens. What I am now advocating, in light of Governor Blanco's blatant disregard for the safety and security of the citizens of New Orleans, is that Bush invoke the powers of the Insurrection Act to invalidate Gov. Blanco's authority in the State of Louisiana.
It's quite obvious that Blanco is working DIRECTLY AGAINST THE INTERESTS AND NEEDS OF HER CITIZENS. It's evident that Blanco is incompetant, negligent, directly responsible for the death of Louisiana citizens and directly endangering the lives of citizens still remaining in New Orleans.
U.S. CODE, TITLE 10, SUBTITLE A, PART I, CHAPTER 15, § 333:
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
I'm not a lawyer, but I knew about the Insurrection Act and googled the text. Until now, I don't think there has been sufficient evidence to invoke it's provisions. However, it's now clear to me that Governor Blanco is violating and has violated both of the code's cited provisions. Those who remain are certainly being denied the protection of the Federal Government with regard to the toxic soup that surrounds them, AND Gov. Blanco certainly appears to be obstructing the evacuation of citizens from the disaster zone.
While I would NEVER support a violation of "posse comitatus", things are getting further and further out of hand due to Governor Blanco's actions. It's time she be taken out of the equasion by using the powers contained in the Insurrection Act.
People need to realize that those attempting to remain in New Orleans pose a significant epidemiological risk not only to themselves, but to anyone who comes in contact with infected persons. Through her stonewalling, obstruction and incompetance, Blanco is putting hundreds, if not thousands of lives at risk.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:12 AM | TrackBack
September 8, 2005
Name Names. . .
Who the hell are the 11 Congressional members who voted agaist the $41B for continuing Hurrican Katrina relief? As soon as the list comes out, those 11 have some SERIOUS explaining to do.
--Jason
PS If you have the list, please let me know.
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:55 PM
Hey TEDDY!!!!
"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished died."--Ted Kennedy on Hurricane Katrina
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
HEY TEDDY! What do you say about those who had buses and could have gotten people out, but didn't???
Somehow I don't think we'll get an answer from Kennedy or Mary Jo any time soon.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:33 PM | TrackBack
Irony
I've had a number of conversations, on the net, phone and in person with people who REALLY HATE BUSH and honestly believe that Bush should have rolled in with the national guard BEFORE and IMMEDIATELY after the storm. These conversations have been quite interesting because in their blind hatred, they are actually being counter-productive to their own stated goals.
Here's a particularly interesting conversation I had yesterday.
Them: Bush should have been there immediately after the storm, he should have dropped paratroopers in, sent in aid convoys and troops as soon as the storm passed New Orleans.
Me: As soon as it passed New Orleans? Where should these troops have come from?
Them: They could have come from Mississippi, Bushco has plenty of military bases in Mississippi.
Me: Mississippi? Do you realize that after the storm ravaged New Orleans, it went straight into Mississippi. (I let the fact that the brunt of the storm's force was directed at Mississippi.)
Them: Well, that doesn't matter, he should have helped those people. The storm wasn't that bad in Mississippi.
Me: So you're saying that Bush should have rolled into New Orleans right after OVER THE OBJECTIONS and WITHOUT THE APPROVAL of the State of Louisiana.
Them: Yes, there were people dying, stranded by the floods, Bush didn't want to go because they were black.
Me: Wait a minute. Lets get through this first. You think Bush should have gone in over the head of the Governor of Louisiana.
Them: Yes, well. . . he didn't do that.
Me: Who? Who didn't do that?
Them: The Governor, the Governor wanted help.
Me: Yes, the Governor said on TV she wanted help, but when the Federal Government asked for permission to come in and help, she stone-walled them.
Them: That's not true.
(This is why I carry my laptop with me almost everywhere I go, and it's also why I generally save favorites so they are available when I'm offline. Within a few minutes I'd booted up and showed my friend the words from Louisiana Governor Blanco where she and her staff admit that they refused entry of the Federal Government directly after the storm. We continued.)
Them: Well that doesn't matter, Bush still should have gone in anyway.
Me: You realize of course, that that would be against the law.
Them: So what, Bush was killing black people, the Army should have been there anyway.
Me: Regardless of the State's objection.
Them: Yes, he's the President and he killed black people because he doesn't care about niggers.
That was the end of the conversation. The "nigger" comment effectively ended it. I was floored, I could hardly believe my ears. Here was a person for for some time I'd suspected had lost a bit of touch with reality, but this exchange confirmed something for me that I've long suspected.
The radical left and leftist Democrats know not what they do.
All over the internet, and in person to person conversations, there are people on the left who HATE BUSH WITH A PASSION, but ironically, without realizing it, they want to give Bush more power.
That's right. All these people who are saying that Bush "should have gone in sooner" fail to realize that the Constitution of the United States, as well as Federal and State law, prohibit the Federal Government from sending troops or National Guard units into a state without the approval or request from the Governor of said state.
The left likes to ignore this fact, saying that Bush should have went in anyway, or blanketly denying the facts and words from Blanco herself. When pressed into a corner, these leftists are perfectly comfortable with the idea of the Federal Government riding roughshod over the States and doing exactly what they please.
I warn you Moonbats out there. By popping off like this you're opening yourself up to something that you don't even realize. You actually ADVOCATING that the Federal Government be allowed to step into States and push local authorities aside whenever they feel like it. If you keep screaming about this you're going to get served.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if after the investigation is complete, and it is shown in bright clear relief that the Federal Government OBEYED THE LAW with regard to entering Louisiana, that some mis-guided politician starts a movement to allow the Government to bypass the states when it feels the need to do so.
Yep, that's right, without realizing it, the Democrats are posturing to give the man they love to hate, even more power, and eliminate significant checks on the power of the Federal Government. I've pointed this out to a couple of my smarter left leaning friends that are piping in with the same argument and after I explain what it is in reality that they are advocating, I notice something.
First, they get puzzled as they backtrack in their minds what they've said. Second, the puzzlement turns to concern as they contemplate the possibilities. Finally true horror overcomes their expression as they realize that, in fact, they did just advocate more power for the Federal Government, and by tranferrence, Bush.
I've had this discussion three times in person, two simply shut down as they realized the hole they had dug for themselves. The third came out swinging.
Them: Well, that didn't stop Democrat's when it came to segregation.
Me: Are you referring to the Insurrection Act powers.
Them: Yes, they went in then over the objections of the State.
Me: Yes, they most certainly did. So are you saying that Bush should have used the Insurrection Act to go into Louisiana?
Them: Yes.
Me: So you feel that Governor Blanco denying Federal Authorities request to enter the state with troops an act of Insurrection?
Them: No, um, no, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying they just should have gone anyway.
Me: Regardless of the law.
Them: Yes, the law can be changed after.
So there you have it folks. The end of the line when it comes to Moonbattery, break the law when it suits you, trash the Constitution when it suits you and disregard the responsibility and authority of the states and local governments when you feel like it.
The moonbats WOULD HAVE LOVED it if Bush had ordered the National Guard in over the head of the Governor of the State of Louisiana. I suspect that within hours of the move by the Feds that some hotshot lawyer would have asked for an injunction, and one of our "most honorable" (term used loosely) Senators would have called for Bush's impeachment under posse comitatus. The left loves to present Catch-22's to the President. The positively won't rest in trashing the administration until they find their blue dress. They have tried inventing their blue dress with Rathergate, that didn't work. Then they tried again with the "infamous" Downing Street memo (no matter that it wasn't a Bush Administration memo, or even a document produced by anyone even American), so now they are trying a new tactic.
Blame Bush if he doesn't do what we want, and if he does do what we want, we'll be able to impeach him.
Keep it up moonbats, a majority of Americans have gotten your number, and are rejecting your insanity in election after elections. Keep calling us stupid, keep calling us fascists, keep saying how we're all sheep bent on destroying the "republic".
I got news for you moonbats, it's the REPUBLIC, that the Federal Government respected by obeying the wishes of the Governor and not entering the state until she gave permission.
Keep on barking moonbats, and we'll keep on winning elections.
--Jason
PS - I especially love it when my Moonbat friends try to play the race/sex/class card, because it gives me the opportunity to point out:
Who gave African-Americans the franchise - Republicans
Who gave Women the franchise - Republicans
Who gave 18 year olds the franchise - Republicans
Who was the first black Governor - A Republican, in Louisiana
Who were the segregationist Governors - Democrats
Who has the only Senator who was also an official in the KKK - Democrats
This usually starts them spitting and huffing, screaming "Things were different then!" Yes, THEN, the Democrats were the majority party and Republicans had to show them the error of their ways.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:30 AM | TrackBack
September 6, 2005
Mixed Feelings. . .
Dan Riehl relays a report from Mister Snitch that Mayor Nagin of New Orleans may be resigning.
I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, emotionally, I want to see Nagin go, his performance in dealing with Katrina has been deplorable. I hold Mayor Nagin personally responsible for the deaths of countless citizens of New Orleans. His refusal to follow the established evacuation plan for the city meant that thousands of New Orleans citizens were left behind in the city when Nagin had the ability to get them out prior to the storm hitting. I can't help but wonder what part of "Mandatory" did Mayor Nagin not understand.
On the other hand, a vacuum will exist in New Orleans if Nagin resigns. There is NO EFFECTIVE MECHANISM in the New Orleans City Charter to replace him. The charter calls for a special election within 60 days, this will prove to be completely impossible as the citizenry of New Orleans is displaced and the infrastructure necessary to conduct a special election is destroyed.
A power vacuum in New Orleans would be catastrophic for a city already reeling from a disaster. While I'd love to see Nagin go for his inability to follow the evacuation plan, for him to cut and run at this juncture would only serve to throw the city into more chaos.
There is a provision for the Mayor to appoint an "acting Mayor" in his absense, but I'm not sure that resignation meets the legal definition of "absense". New Orleans doesn't need some hotshot lawyer trying to make a name for himself taking this provision to court and further hamstringing what's left of the New Orleans civil authority.
My advice to Mayor Nagin, although it's quite certain he'll never read this, is to stick it out, suck it up, ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES, and stop blaming others for your failure. Prostrate yourself before the city and accept it's absolution.
Regardless of his failings, Nagin can still redeem himself by getting the rest of the citizenry out of the toxic soup that the city has become. Nagin needs to be pleading with the people personally and over the airwaves to leave the city for their own safety. Nagin still has the opportunity to save lives at risk, and become a leader New Orleans can find some pride in.
I want to see Nagin called to the carpet for his failings, either by admitting them himself, or having them exposed by the media or subsequent investigation. It's important that we all learn from each other's mistakes, so that when the next mayor of a major city is faced with impending disaster, he or she may think twice about going "off book" and disregarding their role in Emergency Preparedness Plans.
However, I want to make sure that New Orleans doesn't further fall into chaos, I don't think New Orleans would be well served by a second abandonment by Nagin.
Stay the course Mayor Nagin, finish the evacuation you started, and work with the rest of the nation to rebuild a slimmer, cleaner, stronger and more vibrant New New Orleans. Learn from your mistakes and take care of those who trusted you with the keys to their city, don't add insult to injury by abandoning your post a second time in the face of hardship, and allow New New Orleans to rise from the ashes of the old.
I do not forgive you for your failings, but I will, IF you accept your mistakes and learn from them.
It's doubtful that you'll be re-elected, but you said in your campaign that you wanted to build a stronger city during your tenure, here's your chance to redeem yourself and do just that, from the soggy ground up.
--Jason
PS, BTW, I beat Dan in the Blogger Babe of the Week competition.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:35 PM | TrackBack
September 5, 2005
Thoughts on Katrina, a beginning. . . .
It's been very hard to put together something about the disaster in New Orleans. N.O. is my hometown, the place of my birth and where I came to realize who I was and what the world around me was like.
This hurricane was devastating to N.O. The city has been killed, it's quite possible that it can be resurrected, but not into the same form. I physically hurt for my friends and family that are suffering so much right now in the wake of this, this blow to my family is hard to wrap my mind around, but with time, we'll recover, like the city, and we'll all be stronger for it.
ANGER wells in me however, and it's hard to deconstruct it into something positive. I dwell on it constantly and resist the urge to lash out, instead I've been focusing on understanding the failure and breakdown of the systems and communities in the wake of the Hurricane and the second disaster of the breached levees after the storm passed.
There are many out there ready to blame President Bush. There are some that blame him for global warming, asserting that Bushco and the oil companies in the past five years have somehow cranked the pseudo-science of global warming into high gear, that his policies have somehow created more frequent and dangerous hurricanes. They don't want to acknowledge that the United States is actually a NET ABSORBER of greenhouse gasses, or that hurricane ferocity and frequency is actually on a downswing right now.
Others try to blame Bush by saying he's racist, wants black people to die and somehow delayed efforts to get the poor out of New Orleans. It doesn't matter to these people that it was actually President Bush that prompted the evacuation[1] after local officials refused to do so, and of course they've never been comfortable with admitting that the Bush Administration is more racially diverse than any administration previous.
Still others try to blame Bush by saying that he failed to act quick enough getting federal troops into the city. I'm sorry, and you know what, I wish that Bush had dropped regular Army troops in day one, but there are certain things that have to be recognized in this situation.
First and foremost was the law forbiding posse comitatus:
Section 1385 of title 18 (commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act) prohibits the use of the Armed Forces as a Posse comitatus to execute the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.
Bush did not have the legal authority to drop federal troops or National Guard from other states into Louisiana without the request or approval of the Governor of the State of Louisiana. Governor Blanco didn't give approval until well into the third day after the levee broke. Does the left think that Bush should have played fast and loose with the law, or even downright violated it by sending in other states National Guard or Federal troops.
YOU BET YOUR SWEET ASS THEY DO, because that would have been just the excuse they need to actually catch Bush doing something wrong. You can bet dollars to doughnuts that shortly after federal troops hit the ground in N.O. over the objections of the Governor, that Senator John Kerry or most probably Ted Kennedy would be calling for impeachment (the Dems aren't going to rest until they can get a Republican President impeached, regardless of the facts, so they can feel avenged for having their guy impeached).
Blaming Bush for anything related to the disaster that Katrina has become is ludicrous at this point. The President is NOT a micro-manager, and no one with any intelligence wants him to be. FEMA director Brown may have made some mistakes, and he'll probably pay for them and others that aren't his, DHS Chertof will take some heat too, and when all is played out, there may be some other administration officials that take heat rightly so and unjustly, but "blame" does not belong on the head of Bush.
But I will tell you where it belongs:
Clarence Nagin Jr., Mayor of New Orleans, if anyone deserves blame it's this worthless excuse for an elected official in a time of crisis. Mayor Nagin had to be essentially TOLD by the President of the United States that his city was in immediate danger and needed to be evacuated. Mayor Nagin, finally, called for the evacuation with less than 24 hours before the storm's landfall south of New Orleans.
Delaying the evacuation isn't all of it though. Mayor Nagin also miserably failed to implement the Hurricane Evacuation Plan for the city of New Orleans. He failed to evacuate those people that collected at city shelters via the buses he had at his disposal (ironically, within 24 hours of the levee breach, Nagin was in front of TV cameras blaming Bush for not sending buses, when he ordered the evacuation when he had over 1000 buses, that he never even tried to budge).
Click image for more info on these buses.
More buses Nagin had the authority and responsibility to use here:
When Nagin failed to follow the evacuation plan for New Orleans, he threw a HUGE monkey-wrench into the activities and responsibility of the Lousiana National Guard, who now had to shift gears to manage the masses converging on the Superdome. His failure disrupted the State of Louisiana Disaster Management officials and plans, which in turn set the State of Louisiana against the city and federal government. Nagin's failure left a gap between the First Responders on the ground in New Orleans and the Federal efforts. When Nagin abandoned all the plans in place, he sent the city into chaos, the National Guard had to play catch-up, the Fire and EMS officials had no plan left to follow, the Police became incoherent and simply disintegrated.
Nagins failure travelled throughout the city, state and all the all the way to Washington D.C. His failure caused a communications breakdown and total absence of civil authority, leaving the city in the dark to the outside world and the outside world clueless about the real situation inside the city.
Nagins failure is as inexcusable as it is tragic, but no doubt, he'll be defended by the left, as will Blanco. The fact that Nagin had the means and opportunity to save thousands of lives will be ignored, the facts that Blanco broke down and became totally incompetent, and at times counter-productive will be glossed over. The Robert Kennedy Jr.'s of the world will blame the republicans and global warning regardless, and the Michael Moore's will claim that we don't have enough troops to deal with this because they are all over in Iraq, despite the fact that less that 13% of the US military might is deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
The Left in general will blame Bush, they will develop conspiracy theory after conspiracy, about how this was all a plot to kill off the poor, or that it was some secret weather manipulation plot, or that it's all just another way to get Haliburton more contracts, or that somehow this is all a plot against the black man. It's ridiculous really, but easy to see when you have Oprah wanting overflights along with the NAACP, or when Sean Penn shows up with a boat that almost sinks (through his own incompetance for not putting the drain plug in) and a motor that won't start, that Katrina in the eyes of the left is not a tragedy, they view it as an opportunity.
Go ahead Lefties, blame Bush, harp over and over how it's all Bushitler's fault that he created the hurricane, then broke the levees, then plotted to get rid of a few thousand poor people. Keep ranting your pink heads off, keep being chicken little and looking for your equivalent of the blue dress, we don't buy your "false but accurate" thinking anymore.
Over here to the right of center, we'll keep on winning elections and managing the nation.
Back on topic, Clarence Nagin Jr. killed New Orleans, just as sure as he were the hurricane itself, he should never be forgiven for leaving the citizenry of New Orleans literally out in the rain when he had the ability and the assets in place to save them, and subsequently, save the city itself.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:34 PM
It's long past time to choose. . .
And I choose to be a Sheepdog.
Read the whole thing, come back later if you have to, but read the whole thing.
Then please take note of this:
In the absence of information and outside assistance, groups of rich and poor banded together in the French Quarter, forming "tribes" and dividing up the labor.As some went down to the river to do the wash, others remained behind to protect property. In a bar, a bartender put near-perfect stitches into the torn ear of a robbery victim.
While mold and contagion grew in the muck that engulfed most of the city, something else sprouted in this most decadent of American neighborhoods - humanity.
"Some people became animals," Vasilioas Tryphonas said Sunday morning as he sipped a hot beer in Johnny White's Sports Bar on Bourbon Street. "We became more civilized."
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:09 PM | TrackBack
September 4, 2005
Read This. . .
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:06 AM | TrackBack
August 18, 2005
So let me get this straight. . .
The Captain points me to this article from the AP about where SCOTUS appointee Judge John Roberts grew up.
Like many towns across America, the exclusive lakefront community where Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. grew up during the racially turbulent 1960s and '70s once banned the sale of homes to nonwhites and Jews.
The article suggests that Roberts' is somehow responsible for where he grew up. Excuse me, but generally, that's your parents decision, not yours.
BUT WAIT. . .
It turns out that the Roberts home did not have the caveats described in the first paragraph:
The family purchased land a few blocks from the beach in 1966 and built an unassuming tri-level house. The Roberts property did not include a racially restrictive covenant, according to LaPorte County deed records, and the restrictions had begun fading away by then.
So are we supposed to believe that somehow Roberts is responsible for events that transpired in the community DECADES EARLIER???
Other homes built decades earlier in the town had covenants. Deeds on file from the 1940s in Long Beach ban the sale or lease of houses to "any person who is not a Caucasian gentile."
So exactly what the HELL is the story here. That when Roberts was growing up (from elementary school til he left for college) he was living in a community where decades before there were covenants in property deeds (but not his family's) restricting the sale of property to non-whites and non-gentiles?
Or is the story in the second paragraph, which damns Roberts (WHEN HE WAS 15!) for living near another community where racial strife broke out?
Just three miles from the nearly all-white community of Long Beach, two days of looting and vandalism erupted when Roberts was 15, barely intruding on the Mayberry-like community that was largely insulated from the racial strife of that era.
Later in the article, it does try (but not quite succeed) to balance the smears of the first few paragraphs, by ending with:
"I think it's legitimate to look at the past if it tells you anything about the person. But so what if there were race riots? Did he cause them? No. He was a 15-year-old kid. We don't shape the events that take place in our hometown."
So there we have it, now it's considered improper form to grow up anywhere that decades before there MAY have been (even if there weren't) mechanisms of racism, and that while you're in elementary and high school, if you live NEAR racial strife, you are somehow tainted. The Democrats and MSM are really having to stretch to find something to use against Roberts. They went after his kids, then they used a BLATENTLY FALSE ad by NARAL to smear him, and now we see they are going after his parents (falsely as well) and their descision on where to raise him.
Newsflash for the lefties who are trying to smear Judge Roberts:
This guy IS going to get confirmed. I'm quite sure he's going to remember how your side of the aisle went after his children, his parents and how your side has lied about his record. If you think that telling lies about him, slandering his family or misleading the public is going to endear your causes to him in any way, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. In fact, I'd suggest that by attacking him in this way you are driving him further to the right, making him more adversarial to your causes and generally shooting yourself in the foot not only with the next SCOTUS Justice, but the American people in general.
It's high time we end this new "false but accurate" style of reporting. Telling lies, making false accusations and suggesting guilt by "extremely loose" association isn't proper political discourse, it's certainly not doing the Democrats and the left any good judging by the last decade and a half of elections and it's certainly not in any way shape or form good for America.
But then again, the left isn't about what's good or honest or proper for America anymore, are they???
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:30 AM | TrackBack
Someone else noticed Mauritania. . .
If your visit here regularly, you know about the coup in Mauritania (previous posts linked below). This has indeed been a story overlooked by the MSM and even much of the blogosphere. Finding reliable information about the coup and international reaction has difficult, but Donald Crankshaw has posted a good overview of the whole situation.
--Jason
Previous Mauritania Posts:
Puppets, Pledges and Cholera. . .A Mauritania
Conflicting Thoughts. . .
Military coup in Mauritania. . .
State Department Press Briefing excerpt.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:08 AM | TrackBack
August 17, 2005
Fire Away. . . .
Michelle Malkin and Brian Maloney fire the first of what promises to be a four-shot volley at Air America Radio and the growing scandal. It's a great read and very damning for the "network".
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:17 PM | TrackBack
Wal-ken! Wal-ken!! Wal-ken!!!
In case you didn't realize it, the webcomic "Day by Day" is available by clicking the link on the sidebar, but since today's comic is directly related to this post(maker sure to see the comment from Kyle), I thought it would be nice to throw it up on the main page today.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:22 AM | TrackBack
In case you're unsure why the Islamists are so bad. . .
You should take a deep breath, prepare yourself, then read this:
Of 1,554 women and girls over 10 years old interviewed by WADI’s local medical team, 907, or more than 60 percent, said they had had the operation [FEMALE CIRCUMCISION]. The practice is known to exist throughout the Middle East, particularly in northern Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan, and Iraq. There is also circumstantial evidence to suggest it is present in Syria, western Iran, and southern Turkey.
It amazes me that groups like the National Organization for Women are against the war in Iraq. In the world the Islamists want, women are little more than chattle, subjected to every sadistic whim of their male "owners", forced into the burka and given no chance to advance their place in the world.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have quite literally "freed" millions upon millions of women who have long been denied education, personal freedom and even the most basic of human rights. Yet groups supposedly supportive of women's rights and women in general, call for an end to the war and neglect to recognize that George W. Bush has given more women the franchise, and therefore the right and ability to control their own destinies, than any other figure in history. You'd think that that would be something the NOW would be pleased about, ironically, they don't even acknowledge it.
It's long time that the hypocrisy end. It's time that those groups on the left that constantly harp that this war was "all about WMD", WAKE UP and realize what we are really fighting over there. We're fighting groups of people with a warped world view, one that would roll back the freedoms of women worldwide and reduce them from human beings to property.
--Jason
PS - If you're looking for a gift to give that certain someone in your circle of friends who still doesn't understand what we're really fighting against, consider this:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:33 AM | TrackBack
August 14, 2005
Everyones gonna run, eventually. . .
Remember this?
At the time it was a fun idea (image courtesy the Wayback Machine), which of course turned out to a hoax, or at least a good prank.
Well, now we've got:
We'll have to wait and see what surprises they have in store at the "official" website. No matter what tho' it's a great publicity stunt for a great actor and a helluva scary guy.
And there's this great slogan:
He'd definately get my vote over Hillary, or even Frist.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:50 PM | TrackBack
August 13, 2005
Did we hurt yur wittle feelings???
!No Parasan!, which is always a good read, points out that the Frenchies have their feelings hurt.
------------------------------------
Totally unrelated, but interesting, he also points to the video to go with this report:
«''The 5-man Blackwater crew that was assigned to CPA Najaf were coming under heavy small arms and mortar fire, the city was being taken over by insurgents. The police stations and hospitals were taken over as well, after a day of fighting off hundreds of insurgents the city had been completely overrun, with the CPA in the heart of the city and no way out. … Well that night all hell broke loose and we flew back in. Over 1000 insurgents (reported by the F18 pilots) had taken the city and now wanted the CPA after a day of intense fighting by 11 BW guys, airstrikes, a handful of Marines and 1 sniper we were able to hold them off. After it DIED down and gunships and SF guys finally started to roll in the battle was soon over and the CPA was saved.That's pretty much it in a nut shell...''»
Read the description a few times for it to sink in, then check out the VIDEO.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:53 AM | TrackBack
Sheehan, Schmehan. . .
This is all I really need to know about this story.
The lady is either whacked and broke with reality sometime a while back, or she's a shill for the anti-war loonies.
Sure she's entitled to "change her tune" but to take her shift to this extreme just reeks of the Michael Moore Moonbat crowd (she's the star of his website for now) taking advantage of this woman's grief.
Michelle Malkin has more about her shift if you're interested. I'm not.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:27 AM | TrackBack
Never forget. . .
The New York Times has the NYFD Dispatch calls that were among the recently released oral histories of 9-11.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:13 AM | TrackBack
August 9, 2005
Puppets, Pledges and Cholera. . .A Mauritania Update
The military junta of Mauritania has begun freeing Islamist extremists jailed by the deposed civilian government.
Additionally, they've "selected" a civilian Prime Minister. Looks like their promises of "democratic reforms" have been quickly forgotten. I expect the junta will quickly stack all government posts with strict Islamists. They've already disbanded the civilian parliament are expected to stack this body quickly as well.
The junta has also sent a new representative to the U.N. who has presented his credentials to Kofi Annan. It will be interesting to see whether Annan and the U.N. will accept this new representative, and whether the deposed civilian government will have representation retained as a "government in exile". The African Union still condemns the coup and demands the return of the constitutional civilian government, although they are scheduled to begin talks with the leaders of the coup to try and resolve the issue.
Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade has pledged support for the junta and plans to continue normal relations. In other words, the African Union has already split.
Finally, to add insult to injury, there are reports of a cholera outbreak in the Mauritanian capital, Nouakchott.
Not good.
--Jason
Previous Posts on Mauritania:
Conflicting Thoughts. . .
Military coup in Mauritania. . .
State Department Press Briefing excerpt.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:09 PM | TrackBack
Looks like we spoke too soon . . .
Yesterday, I linked to a Lebanese blogger asking the question, "why isn't there a jihad against China?"
Well, something interesting is making out of the People's Republic despite efforts of the Chinese government to supress the information. A suicide bomber apparently has blown up a bus in China.
The Jawa Report has links to Chinese bloggers that are getting the information out.
Should this prove to be the work of Islamic extremists, and if it continues, I'd expect that the Chinese reaction will be swift and brutal. It's one thing when you have to fight a war in the full view of a free press and have dissidents and activists working against your efforts to defeat terrorists, but it's quite another when you're a totalitarian regime that controls the media and doesn't tolerate any criticism of the state's activities.
The Chinese won't play around with terrorists, and it's unlikely that if they get their hands on those responsible that anything close to humane treatment will be meted out. I doubt their interrogation techniques include Harry Potter and "proximity to females".
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:35 PM | TrackBack
August 8, 2005
Hey, Yeah, Why?
Why doesn't al-Queda declare a jihad against China?
Inquiring minds want to know. At least I do, and so does the Lebanese blogger at the link above.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:46 PM | TrackBack
More Air Amerika Madness. . . .
If you haven't been keeping up with the growing Air America scandal, here's the latest from The Radio Equalizer (who "owns" this story). It seems now that AA can't pay it's staffers, but no word yet on whether it's "top"(I use that term VERY loosely) talent will be getting their paychecks. Given that Franken, Garafaolo, Malloy et al are under contract and not "mere" employees, I'm doubting that they'll suffer any in the pocketbook unless they choose to do so, and there's not any indication that that is coming.
Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters and LaShawn Barber all have updates on the scandal today. So if you're looking to catch up, or find out about it for the first time, check there, because even though it's only a quick subway ride away, the New York Times is still silent.
Air America has already admitted that they received funds from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Center, and that those funds weren't meant for them. The Wise Center gave AA the funds, totalling over 800K, instead of using the funds for the intended purpose, namely to support children's and Alzheimer's patient programs. Keep in mind, that we're talking about FEDERAL DOLLARS HERE, that were diverted to the "radio network".
This is going to get uglier and uglier as the true nature of the left and their hypocrisy is revealed.
--Jason
UPDATE: Further reading of Captain's Quarters also reveals this VERY telling comparison of the coverage of the AA scandal and the last two weeks of Martha Stewart coverage. So, lets get this straight, Martha's ill-gotten 51,000 is more important to the New York Times than Air America's ill-gotten 800,000+++, even AFTER Martha has already served her jail time.
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:11 PM | TrackBack
August 7, 2005
Conflicting thoughts. . .
It's hard to support or condemn the events unfolding in Mauritania. As I mentioned before, the President of Mauritania has been deposed in a bloodless coup (as far as coups go, that's pretty good). President Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya has been characterized as a tyrant, and there are certainly some issues to look at in his 20 years of elected rule, but the fact remains that this is a military group that has seized power against that nation's constitution and trashing a constitution is never really a good thing. As we learn more, we may find that this case is the exception to the rule, I'm not sure, but I'll be watching.
Reuters is reporting that the Military Council that has seized power is stating that they will hold a Constitutional Referendum and elections within two years and they are making efforts to normalize internal and external relations. A positive sign, for sure, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. Military juntas historically, have been reluctant to turn over power to civilian constitutional rule.
The President remains in Niger, the African Union has condemned the coup, they're talking about it at the U.N. and the U.S. State Department says that they are monitoring the situation closely and do not approve of extra-constitutional seizures of power.
We're hearing NOTHING about this from the American MSM. Google searches return hits from Russia, China, South African and other African media, but there is virtually NOTHING from the American Media big boys. I can only assume that since there was no bloodshed, no rioting and nothing in this event to cast blame on Bush they just aren't interested in a soverign nation being taken over by a military junta.
Just another example of how the MSM just doesn't care about reporting, but rather that they care only about what they can cast in a negative light.
--Jason
PS - I'm still seeing hits from Mauritania in my logs, and a few have emailed that they are glad "someone in America" is noticing. If you live in Mauritania and happen to come across this blog, please drop me a line at Jason[AT]JasonColeman.com and share your experiences in connection with these events.
Military coup in Mauritania. . .
State Department Press Briefing excerpt.
**Comments are closed for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:28 AM
I'll tell you where the heroes are, but you won't report on them. . .
Damien Cave of the New York times wonders, "Where Are the War Hero's?" Cave uses the piece to criticize the administration for not promoting the individual heroic deeds of the GWOT and suggests that the reason the military isn't applauding their heros lies in their desire to avoid scrutiny.
NEWSFLASH FOR DAMIEN CAVE: You aren't hearing about heros, because the MSM is too busy looking for deserters and soldiers against the war whom the media-elitist wish to make out as "heroes" for opposing the President and our War on Terrorism. Yes, Mr. Cave, there are many heroes in this war, but you and your mentors at the NYT and the MSM in general aren't reporting on them. If you want to find an answer Mr. Cave, take a look around the NYT newsroom and you'll find it.
The "lesser media" and blogosphere has been reporting many heroic deeds and individuals from this war, but the MSM has been woefully silent. So before you go around critcising the Adminstration, remember that it's YOUR job to report these events, you get the Pentagon releases of activity in the war, you get the lists of medals awarded and you have reporters on the ground. YOU and your fellows in the media are the ones failing to report the heroic deeds of our soldiers and sailors in harms way, and it's YOU and the MSM in general that are failing, not the administration and not the military.
If you want to find heros, look to the blogosphere, or the lesser media who aren't afraid to praise the bravery of our boys and girls overseas for fear that their editors will scorn them for portraying our military in the good light they so richly deserve.
--Jason
Shrinkwrapped has a better commentary on this than I can offer, plus he's got an instalanche, so go check it out.
SondraK gives us yet another war hero, take that NYT, Neayh!
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:48 AM | TrackBack
August 6, 2005
Iranian Jedi????
I never really thought Jedi really existed, now we know that Lucas' Jedi are alive and well in Iran:
Blue text is translation to a well-documented Jedi Mind Trick.
The following are excerpts from a press conference with Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi, which aired on Iranian Channels 1 and 2 on July 31, 2005.Reporter: What will the scope of the (UCF) activity in Esfahan be at the beginning? Will it have full or partial capacity?
[Stormtrooper: Let's see some identification.]Asefi: What do you care?
[Translation - Obi-wan: You don't need to see his identification.]Female reporter: I'll repeat my colleague's question...
[Stormtrooper: We don't need to see his identification.]Asefi: Go ahead, please...
[Obi-wan: These aren't the droids you're looking for.]Female reporter:... regarding the UCF in Esfahan. Will its activity start at full or partial capacity, in order to show that the suspension...
[Stormtrooper: These aren't the droids we're looking for.]Asefi: He asked, and I already said it is of no interest to you.
[Obi-wan: He can go about his business.]Female reporter: Please tell us, it might interest us.
[Stormtrooper: You can go about your business.]Asefi: No. I know it is of no interest to you.
[Obi-wan: Move along. . .]Reporter: Regarding the IAEA inspectors stationed in Tehran, when the UCF activity starts in Esfahan, will the inspectors be there, or did the Iranians plan a special ceremony to mark the start of activity?
[Stormtrooper: Move along. . .]Asefi: No. If by "special ceremony" you mean handing out cake and candy, then we have no such thing.
[Obi-wan: The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded. You will find it a powerful ally.]
Yes, folks, it does appear that the Jedi Council may have taken conrol of Iran. It's getting close to the time we need to "Execute Order 66".(Excerpt courtesy of MEMRI TV & LGF)
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:23 PM | TrackBack
August 5, 2005
Mauritania Update. . .
The following is the transcript from the State Department's Daily Press Briefing that addresses Mauritania:
QUESTION: Mauritania, do you have anything to report on today's meeting between the coup leader there and the U.S. Ambassador?MR. CASEY: Let's see.
QUESTION: Was coup involved?
MR. CASEY: Well, let me just step back a little bit and talk a little bit about where I understand the situation is. I think most of you saw her statement last night. The United States joins the African Union in condemning the overthrow of the Government of Mauritania and we oppose any attempts by rogue elements to change governments through extra constitutional or violent means.
As I understand it, the situation on the ground is still fluid, but the Military Council for Justice and Democracy as it is calling itself appears to be in control in the capital. Certainly, we intend to work closely with the African Union and the UN and other regional and international partners to restore constitutional rule to Mauritania as quickly as possible.
Ambassador LeBaron, our ambassador in Nouakchott, has spoken with President Taya's chief of staff who is in Niger. President Taya, I think, as we mentioned yesterday, was attending the funeral of King Fahd and his plane diverted to Niger when news of the coup reached it and that is where he remains. The Ambassador was convoked for a meeting late this afternoon by the Foreign Ministry with leaders of the Council, but I don't have any readout on that meeting or any additional information at this time. And we'll endeavor to get something on it.
Yes. Saul.
QUESTION: Forgive my ignorance, "convoked"? Is there a particular diplomatic weight to that? What does it mean in diplomatic terms?
MR. CASEY: I think that in simple English, it means he was asked to come to the ministry.
QUESTION: Does he have to go? It's a request?
MR. CASEY: I don't believe there was use of force involved, no.
QUESTION: And he did go; is that correct?
MR. CASEY: That's my understanding was he was intending to do so, but I don't actually have a readout on it.
QUESTION: Even though he's our standing government official, these are coup (inaudible) officials, do you know? I mean they aren't the standing government.
MR. CASEY: Well, again, the request was made by the foreign ministry for him to
come and meet with the Military Council of Justice and Democracy. That is an
organ, as I understand it, of the Government in Mauritania and my understanding
was he is intending to go meet with them.QUESTION: Sorry, so when it's a request and this word convoked -- yes, he's not
being escorted by anyone with arms, but is there some kind of threat involved
in the request, that "You have to turn up, otherwise you" --MR. CASEY: I'm not aware of any threats involved in the request, no. Sorry, you
want to let Saul follow-up?QUESTION: Forgive me if I misunderstood. Has he met or is it that he's going to
meet?MR. CASEY: My understanding was he was going to. I don't have confirmation that
they have and I will try and get that for you and (inaudible).QUESTION: Can you explain the thought behind why you would decide to go meet
someone who's organized a coup, as opposed to making a symbolic a statement
that you know, we don't deal with you, you're not the constitutional
government?MR. CASEY: Really, Saul, at this point, I don't have anything more for you on
it. I'll endeavor to get you something else.QUESTION: So, how will the U.S. respond if its demands for the return to power
of the president continue to be completely ignored?MR. CASEY: Well, again, I don't want to speculate. At this point, we're working
with the African Union and with the UN. We certainly are seeking a restoration
to a constitutional government in Mauritania and we'll continue to put our
focus there for now.Teri, did you I'm sorry.
QUESTION: No, I was --
MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros?
QUESTION: On the Balkans --
QUESTION: No, can I just --
MR. CASEY: Sir, you want to stay on this for a second Peter?
QUESTION: Yeah, just to stay on this for one second.
MR. CASEY: Okay.
QUESTION: You say you want the return to a constitutional government.
Yesterday, you said you wanted the return of the president. Are you still
sticking to the return of the president?MR. CASEY: The president is the head of the constitutional Government of
Mauritania.
More later. . .
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:29 AM | TrackBack
August 4, 2005
Military coup in Mauritania. . .
Mauritania, a Saharan West Africa Islamic state, has apparently experienced a military coup while the President was out of the country. The US State Department issued the following statement:
The United States joins the African Union in condemning the attempted overthrow of the government of Mauritania. We oppose any attempts by rogue elements to change governments through extra-constitutional or violent means. We call on all members of the military and security forces to avoid violence and the loss of innocent life.
The group that staged the coup bills itself as the Military Council for Justice and Democracy and has announced that it will hold power for two years, while democractic reforms are implemented.
Mauritania has been fighting off coup attempts for some time now. The African nation established relations with Israel in 1999 and has incurred the wrath of the Islamic world for doing so. Islamic radicalism has been on the rise in region for some time now and is seen as a relatively new phenomenon in the region. It should be noted that Mauritania is home to a high-ranking al-Qaeda leader, Abu Hafs al-Mauritani (Mahfouz Ould al-Walid), who is billed as a spiriual advisor to al-Queda and has been implicated in the African embassy attacks and 9/11! It is believed that al-Mauritani is currently in Iran. Should this guy pop his head back up in Mauritania after this coup, I'm all for going in and cutting it off.
The French haven't been very vocal, YEP this is ANOTHER former French colony in turmoil in Africa, even though there are some strong diplomatic and cultural ties there. I'm sure the U.N. will pick this up (not that they'll solve anything) and we'll learn more about Ould Taya and this military "council" over the next few days.
Israel has not pulled out it's diplomats yet, but I'm sure they are watching the situation VERY carefully. (I'm sure some loon will begin shouting "It's the JOOOS!" any minute now.)
My logs indicate that I've got some regular visitors from Mauritania. Nothing beats a first hand perspective, so if you're out there and you read this, please drop me a line at Jason[at]JasonColeman.com if you have any info you'd like to share.
Until I can learn more about this, here's some info from The Jamestown Foundation.
UPDATE: Oh this makes my head hurt, apparently the deposed president is a Ba'athist and the leader of the coup is Col. Ely Ould Mohamed Vall (a former secret police chief). This whole thing will be quite the mess.
--Jason
**Comments are closes for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:33 AM
Sic 'em girl. . .
Michelle Malkin is still all over the "Air Enron" scandal. In her column yesterday, she explains why we haven't heard anything from Al and Jesse on this one.
She's also announced her new book, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, which I just ordered.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:07 AM | TrackBack
Minnie Driver??? Go figure. . .
Never expected this one at all. I just added every one of her movies to my Netflix queue.
--Jason
UPDATE: Some people are having problems viewing the link with certain firewall software. So I'm quoting the reference for those that are having difficulty:
I suppose most readers around these parts would reckon that actors should stick to acting, and keep their political opinions to themselves.But what about these opinions?
"People think more aid will help, but it won't," said Ms. Driver, an actress who is working on her second music CD. "Trade is the surest way of decreasing the savage amount of poverty in our world. These countries have got to be able to trade fairly."And the point is, by "fairly", she does not mean being paid artificially high prices; she means getting rid of agricultural subsidies in the rich countries.
It was never a practical project to silence the acting profession. These people are famous. Having acquired their fame, they then want to use their fame to do good, and in the process to become even more famous. This is only natural, especially when you consider that doing good and being heroic is what, according to the entertainments these people spend their lives making and acting in, life is all about. Trying to stop famous actors from expressing what they consider to be virtuous and heroic opinions in public is like trying to stop the wind from blowing or the sea from being wet.
No, the task that faces us is not to silence the acting profession from ever opining about goodness. That would be impossible, to say nothing of censorious and unpleasant. Rather is our task to change the definition of goodness that actors of sufficient fame to care about such things reach for when they get to the public virtue stage in their careers, and to make goodness really mean goodness.
Ms. Driver's pronouncements concerning the superiority of trade over aid as a means of rescuing the world's poorest people is evidence that some progress is being made along these lines.
Many actors surely already believe such things, on the quiet. But it is still a fine step forward when one of them feels able to say such things in public.
Hope that helps some of you that e-mailed me.
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:46 AM | TrackBack
Push them into the sea. . .
Pamela observes that Israel is the "canary in the coal mine", and you know what? SHE'S RIGHT! (via Trey Jackson)
She also provides a link to Briggite Gabriel's interview video and this quote:
"If we want to survive as a civilization, we must learn to classify Muslims not as moderate and extremist, because such distinctions only exist in our imagination; not as Sunni and Shia, because both are our mortal enemies determined to exterminate us before they go for each other's throats; but simply as observant and non-observant. A non-observant Muslim, even if his name happens to be Osama bin Saddam, is just a person. An observant Muslim, even if his name happens to be Chaim Baruchovich Shapiro, is our enemy for the simple reason that his religion demands him to be. And unless we treat him as an enemy before he gets a chance to blow himself up or slam an airliner into an office building, he will either do it himself or help his more stupid coreligionists do it. Depending on his choice, we will call him a moderate Muslim or a Muslim extremist. In both cases, we will be equally wrong; he is just an observant Muslim."
Take the time to read the post and view the video. It's more than worth it. If you still have time, take a look at the American Congress from Truth site.
NOTE: Server load for the video is quite high, keep trying.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:20 AM | TrackBack
August 1, 2005
Kerry and Kennedy miss the mark on Bolton. . .
Captain Ed points out that this statement by John Kerry (he was in Vietnam, ya know) is simply untrue:
"The president has the right to make this recess appointment, but it's the wrong decision. It only diminishes John Bolton's validity and leverage to secure America's goals at the U.N. John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs."Kerry gets it wrong yet again. A filibuster does not equate to a rejection; it means that the minority refused to let the Senate vote to accept or reject the nomination. Bolton did not get rejected by the Senate at all, and had the Democrats not filibustered the vote, he would have won confirmation, albeit on a narrow margin. That foregone conclusion led the Democrats to stage the filibuster in the first place.
The Captain goes on to skewer the other Senator from Massachusettes. Kerry just can't bear "the truth" and Kennedy has lost his mind long ago (it's probably under that bridge in Chappaquiddick). Do these guys actually think this is the sort of thing that will get their party more seats in '06?
I hate to break it to them, but I'd posit that the opposite will probably be the case and the Republicans will gain both House and Senate seats in the mid-terms. Of course, then we'll have the looniest of the left bemoan how the Republicans are taking over the country and how it's all part of Karl Rove's secret plan.
NEWSFLASH FOR THE LEFT: We're not taking over the country; you are giving it away.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:02 PM | TrackBack
Dean lies, and lies again. . .
Howard Dean really has lost touch with reality. In truth, the Democrats in general have lost touch with reality (check out the comments from the sick-KOS). All is ok with the world though, because now the KELO issue is in the realm of the states, and ironically ALABAMA is leading the way in anti-KELO legislation to protect the property rights of individuals:
Alabama was first out of the gate. At the urging of Gov. Bob Riley, a special legislative session unanimously approved legislation to forbid condemnation of private property for "nongovernmental retail, office, commercial, residential or industrial development or use." Sponsors note that Alabama never used eminent domain to acquire the property that Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes and Toyota used to build plants.
I've been saying it for a while now, but people really do underestimate Alabama. We're the butt of many jokes and the proverbial "Well, that's Alabama" statement in vogue to describe something backwards. Well, if having a thriving economy, clean air and water, sustainable development, the best high school in the nation and much much more (including anti-KELO legislation), then I'm proud to be Alabama.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:31 AM | TrackBack
Whoa now. . .
The Washington Times is reporting that U.S. Border Patrol agents now have $50,000 Bounties on their heads. If this is indeed true, it's a very, very disturbing development. Check out The Immigration Blog for more on current border and immigration developments.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:21 AM | TrackBack
Say it ain't so Al. . .
In case you haven't heard yet, the Moonbat echo-chamber, Air America, has been busy stealing money from kids and alzheimer's patients. Check Michelle Malkin's latest piece on the brewing scandal for a description and links.
--Jason
**Comments are closes for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:13 AM
But. . .But. . .What about our right to obstruct???
Oh lordy, the Democrats are ticked off. How dare President Bush use a "recess appointment" to install John Bolton as U.N. ambassador?
Well I'll tell you. . . He dared to do it because the whiny obstructionists who bark "no" blindly at any proposal or initiative offered by the administration wouldn't bring the Bolton nomination to an up or down vote. Sorry folks but we live in a democracy, and just because you Democrats don't want to live up to your responsibility to vote on issues doesn't mean the government stops moving. So the Dems blocked Bolton's appointment with games, and the President shows them who's better at the game. They had their chance and failed.
I expect we'll see great things from Bolton. The U.N. will rebuff him at first, but I don't think that will phase him and I'm sure he'll be a bull in China shop. That's EXACTLY what we need right now! Break some things, get out the broom and clean it up, and then move on with real work.
As for the Democrats' "right to obstruct"? Well, here's the short version, THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.
UPDATE: The DU'ers are positively off their rocker about it.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:32 AM | TrackBack
July 29, 2005
Dispatch from Mosul
Michael Yon has a new dispatch from Mosul. It begins:
Across Iraq, I keep running across American troops who are not Americans. Many of these soldiers and Marines are working towards attaining U.S. citizenship while in uniform, under fire, in Iraq.I was privileged to witness the award ceremony for 12 new American citizens in Deuce Four recently. I hope America makes them feel welcome. If the folks at home could see what these people are doing in Iraq, they would make these special troops feel as honored guests. But now, better yet, they are honored citizens, giving life to the concept of active citizenship.
Read the whole thing, then read his whole blog. It's beyond worthy.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:57 AM | TrackBack
In case you're unclear on the whole subject. . .
Jeff has a way of putting things into crystal-clear perspective.
Even though I beat him in the Blogger Babe of the Week competiton (I still think Beth rigged it), you should spend some time at his blog, you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll scratch your head, you might even get pissed off.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin points out that Michael Graham of WMAL-AM radio in Washington also tried to put things in perspective, and got suspended for it. Lots of great links there for you.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:51 AM | TrackBack
Now this is interesting. . .
The Blogfather directed me to this:
Kabuli, who blogs in English as Afghan Lord under a pseudonym in order to protect himself, has received numerous threats posted to his blog from the same IP address which belongs - shockingly - to the BBC. One of them, which Kabuli emailed to Global Voices, asks: “Do you think I do not know you?” Then it continues on to threaten: “There were a number of people like you, who did not remain alive. They were all buried in graves. You have to be taken off from this land so that better human beings could take your place. For, you are dirty.”
Read the whole thing at Gobal Voices Online.
While people will rush to the defense of the BBC reporter mentioned in the article, claiming that the IP coincidence isn't a smoking gun in his hand. The fact remains that these comments are coming from someone at the BBC. The BBC says they are investigating the claims, and I'll be interested to see where this goes.
Reminds me of the whole "Sassygate" affair playing out at The Guardian. The Daily Ablution can catch you up on that.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:32 AM | TrackBack
July 28, 2005
Ha Ha!
I guess telling LIES about U.S. Soldiers flushing Korans at Gitmo wasn't such a good idea after all.
Ohh, I'll bet no one has said this yet:
"The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be on the web!!!"
WOOT! My very own tagline. This may prompt me to finally redesign the blog.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:24 PM | TrackBack
July 27, 2005
Meet the new al-Queda information minister. . .
Minister Baghdadarella!
Via The Commisar of The Politburo Diktat -- new addition to the blogroll.
Tip o the hat to Beth.
If you have no clue what this is all about, READ THIS.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:50 PM | TrackBack
July 22, 2005
Rusten Currie:
I don't know much, I haven't been alive long enough to be wise. I have seen more of the world than most, but am not worldly. What I do know is this. Chamberlain was right (more than one hundred years ago, near Gettysburg, we are fighting a new kind of war, with a new Army. We are fighting for an ideal. Freedom, such an intangible notion, such a simple thing, such a complex thing. We can quantify the price in blood, we can quantify the price in dollars. What is so simple here in B'dad, is so lost on so much of America... Freedom.
And he's running for Congress when he gets home. [Via Backfive]
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:36 PM | TrackBack
It must be the booze. . .
But I love The Vodkapundit. Especially when he points me to articles that every person who values free speech and a free press should read.
This Chinese pseudo-net is really starting to annoy me.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:31 PM | TrackBack
Is it really about Style?
Lately, I've been on this kick about calling attention to those who wish to attack John Roberts family in an effort to get at John Roberts and by association, President Bush. [Previous Post] [Another Post]
In following that track, I come to Michelle Malkin's latest wiegh-in on the subject where she notes Washing Post Style reporter Robin Givhan's attack on the wife and children of SCOTUS appointee Roberts:
It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers...
My first thought was "Who the hell is Robin Givhan?" So I decided to turn to google and get a picture of how Gihvan presents herself to the world. Here's a photo:
Here's Givhan at the 2004 CDFA Awards.
So lets see. This reporter slams the Roberts family for being too clean and presentable. Well, sorry Robin, but you look downright unkempt in your representative picture, what's up with the hanging/showing slip, the top definately doesn't flatter and what is up with that handbag. Were you in too much of a hurry to grab a purse that did something for your ensemble??? After all, you are a Style reporter, aren't you. AND WAIT A MINUTE HERE, is that a Pastel Pink whateveritis?
Now myself, I don't have much "Style", I prefer Khakis and a Hawaiian shirt for my everyday attire, yet just this morning for a meeting I put on a conservative brown suit and a somber tie (I was dressing for the occasion). The Roberts family did much the same. Getting a child "well-scrubbed" and smartly dressed is appropriate for their first appearance at the WHITE HOUSE. Givhan apparently wanted the Roberts' children dressed in a GAP shirt and Levi's. I can only wonder, in that case, if Givhan wouldn't have chided the Roberts for allowing their children to be swaddled in the trendy corporate fashions more commonly found on playgrounds.
I find it very disturbing that whatever the scenario, reporters today seem to have bought into the assumption that the only way to report on anything today is to present any situation in the most negative light possible. Now I'm certainly not advocating that the press sugar-coat each news item, but WHY? For the love of Pete? Why? Does every single piece of reporting have to be scandal, hatred, insult and mockery. This is not what people expect or even slightly wish for from the mediascape we are presented with. What ever happened to the impartiality of the media? Where's the truely informative pieces on issues and policy? Where are the reports of what's right and decent with the world. It used to be that such reporting was commonplace, then it was pushed deep into the paper, NOW, it's completely gone. Replaced with a mantra that seeks to only show how disrespectful, downright snarky and negative in almost every respect a reporter can be. Unless of course, you're reporting on Bono and his upcoming promotion to Diety.
Why attack the children? Why attack the wife? Why attack at all? Why not report on the facts and the announcement? Have we sunk to such a cultural low that toddlers are now appropriate tools with which to attack the parents? Is the way that Mrs. Roberts dresses her children for her husband's first introduction to the American populace the story? Or is her husband's appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States the story.
I understand that Givhan is the Style reporter, even if she doesn't display much of it in her own attire or her writing, that's her job. However, this is not "Style" reporting, but rather an open display of contempt for the appointee, his family, his INNOCENT children and all for the grander journalistic passtime of insulting the President and all that goes on around him.
The Main Stream Media wonders why readers are turning away in droves, they are wondering why the American public's approval rating of the press is at an all time low and why blogs and "citizen media" is fast approaching a critical mass that threatens to destroy the dead-tree press. Well, here's your answer. Instead of pointing out that "Little John" or "Jack" was attired in a cute blue suit and took the occasion to show off his considerable dancing talents, the Post decides to attack the Roberts' and pontificate on their "old-fashioned" attire.
GIVE ME A BREAK, I've gotten tons of emails saying how cute the Roberts' children were and the downright charm of Jack's antics. The only people claiming that the Roberts family is "out of touch" seems to be the journalists, who the American people think are "out of touch".
--Jason
At least she didn't call little Jack gay.
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:56 PM | TrackBack
July 21, 2005
John Howard is THE MAN!!!!!
Boy, I'm glad this guy's on our side. Well said, Mr. Howard, well said.
--Jason
PS: I need some good Australian Blogs to read (besides Chrenkoff, I already read him). Any suggestions???
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:44 PM | TrackBack
WOW!!!
Talk about a "must read" from Michael Yon. Now this is good war reporting!!!
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:32 PM | TrackBack
Yes Senator, You are a Dumbass. . . . .
If you're looking for the "DUMBASS" audio clip, here it is. The clip is Senator Orin Hatch going after Senator Chuck Schumer for asking "dumbass" questions. You can see some of "Schumers Dumbass Questioning" in this VIDEO CLIP from Trey Jackson.
Jackson also has the transcript of Hatch and Schumer's exchance via Fox.
Hopefully John Roberts will come out and say something like this when Schumer tries the same old tried lines.
"With all due respect Senator Schumer, and I believe Senator Hatch pointed this out in 1993, but those were DUMBASS QUESTIONS then and they are still DUMBASS QUESTIONS now."
That'd be a clip I'd love to see.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:02 PM
More bashing Roberts' kids. . . .
I took a look around DU, looking at the Roberts responses, and sure enough, they're still going after John Roberts' kids:
KoKo01 (1000+ Posts [at DU])I AM worried about the way his kids are dressed. They look like kids from the fifties. Little short pants on the boy and mary janes with white socks on the little girl. They look very strange in these "retro" outfits. I don't see kids dressed like that these days.Am I out of it? What if she's a "retro" person. How old is she? Is she close to fifty and is bringing up her kids in some way that reflects the times of Eisenhower/Nixon administration?
Kay Bailey Hutchinson adopted twins in her very late 50's. Are these "trophy kids?"
All I have to say about this is LEAVE THE DAMN KIDS ALONE. You have no right or business going after toddlers to satisfy your bitter hatred of Bush and anyone in the Bush Administration. It's below the level of what should be considered American Political discourse.
Remember folks, these are the self-proclaimed "heart and soul" of the Democrat party. These are the "we bought it we paid for it, it's ours" camp from MoveOn.org. Ironic that these people consider themselves to be the "enlightened ones" yet for all their superior airs and showy protestations, the Democrats haven't offered anything significant to the U.S. citizenry in the last six years, other than "Impeach Bush" t-shirts and cries about (s)election. Get over it moonbats, you lost, TWICE!!!
I need to take a shower every time I read what the DU moonbats and Daily Sic-Kos have to say.
LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE!!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:33 PM | TrackBack
July 20, 2005
Sudan, anyone?????
Seems as though we're sending troops and supplies and support to Sudan. Good move!!!! Bout time!!!!
--Jason
Ok, ok, yes, yes, I know, it's not US troops, but we're helping in getting the needed troops and supplies into the region. We're finally doing SOMETHING!!!!
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:32 PM | TrackBack
Ah, behold the "Joy of Hate" . . .
So the morons from the "reality based community" (truely, that's how the Kos Kiddies describe themselves, LOL) are so twitchy and ready to attack, they're going to go after a 4 year old boy, eh?
If I were Bush and Little John busted out with some moves, I'd have smiled and smirked and even laughed too. I may have even said, "Well, Little John sure seems happy about the appointment, and encouraged the cameras to catch LJ's routine."
Go Little John, Go!!! I hope we see more of the kid in the future, cutting loose, being a kid and having fun where fun is to be had. I think Renquist should allow Little John to tour his dad's future workplace on his big wheel in light of the upcoming attacks on him and his dad by the leftists. I can't believe the Kos Kids want to go and to "opposition research" on a 4 year old. Michelle Malkin's right, they are sic-kos!!!!
Here are the Sic-Kos' comments.
ROCK ON, LITTLE JOHN!!!
--Jason
PS: Can I copyright "Sic-Kos"? After all, the Blogfather copyrighted "indeed".
**Comments are closes for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:43 PM
What those tree-killers say. . .
Captain's Quarters gives and overview of what the big newspapers are saying about The Honorable John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.
Looks like everyone but the NYT (which basically rejects him, go figure), is confuddled and sticking a wet finger up in the air.
--Jason
UPDATE: Iowahawk leaks the super-duper secret "Anti-SCOTUS Appointment" memo that was sent out surreptitiously to all the leftists, moonbats and general whiners out there.
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:30 AM
July 19, 2005
Roberts gets the nod. . .
Unless we're in for a switch-er-roo, looks like John Roberts will be getting the nod and not Edith Brown Clement. Oh well.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:34 PM | TrackBack
The WaPo had her on the short list July 1st too. . .
Edith Brown Clement, 57, is a judge on the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Judge Edith Brown Clement
Clement was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1991 and was elevated to her current post by the current President Bush in 2001.Clement, a graduate of the University of Alabama and Tulane University Law School, worked as a lawyer in private practice in New Orleans for 16 years before beginning her tenure on the federal bench. She specialized in civil litigation involving maritime law, representing oil companies, insurance companies and the marine services industry in cases before federal courts. She is a member of the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal organization.
As a district judge, Clement presided over such high-profile cases as the 2000 trials of former Louisiana governor Edwin W. Edwards (D) and former state insurance commissioner Jim Brown (D) on fraud charges. Edwards was acquitted; Brown was convicted of lying to the FBI and sentenced to six months in prison.
Lawyers who know Clement or have tried cases before her describe her as a judicial conservative who leans toward the defense in civil cases, and as a no-nonsense judge who is strict about deadlines and insists on professionalism from lawyers.
Analysts say Clement has not attracted attention for her judicial opinions, so it is unclear which of her decisions, if any, might become the focus of a confirmation battle.
Doesn't seem like much to get upset about, unless you wanna talk philosophy.
Some Old Guy from outside Chicago pointed me to the Wapo article. He's not as enthused.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:09 PM | TrackBack
Did I call it???? We'll see. . . .
Not to toot my own horn, cause I could be wrong still, but the media seems to be pushing that Edith Brown Clement may be Bush's pick. We'll find out at 9PM Eastern.
I now refer you back to my post of July 1st.
!!! BIRMINGHAM, REPRESENT !!!
--Jason
UPDATE: The text of Edith Clement's Appointment Hearings for the Fifth Circuit are here.
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:16 PM
I concur . . .
The Captain is dead on about asking (no, begging) Congress and politicians in general, to stop invoking Goodwin's Law when they want to bitch about one side or the other:
When will our politcians understand that Nazi analogies amount to an almost-certain political jinx? We don't need to debate the relative merits of one form of fascism and oppression over another; they're all bad, grown-ups know it, and those who don't won't learn anything from sound bites like these. Members of both parties have had their hands scorched playing with this particular form of rhetorical fire often enough in recent days that others should have already learned to avoid these analogies at all costs.
In case you're unfamiliar with Goodwin's Law, you can take a look at this, which I found some time back.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:03 PM | TrackBack
July 18, 2005
More good news. . .
Whenever Chrenkoff posts another in his ongoing "Good news" series on Iraq and Afghanistan, I wonder why some major newspaper or tv media outlet hasn't picked him up. I guess it just reinforces my belief that the MSM doesn't want to report the positive, but only harp on the negatives.
Nevertheless, without further ado, let me point you to the latest Good News from Iraq (Part 31). You can scroll down Chrenkoff's blog and find the complete series in the lower right.
WARNING: The quality of Chrenkoff's reporting is top-notch, if you're not careful, with all the back-up he provides, you could spend all day on this one post and not even realize it.
--Jason
**Comments are closed for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:32 AM
July 15, 2005
Close call, cool head and a job well done. . .
The Army times reports the story of Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer in Iraq. Private Tschiderer was shot in the chest by an enemy sniper.
Tschiderer's body armor stopped the bullet and allowed him to recover quickly, locate the sniper's position, and apprehend the sniper who had fired upon him.
The enemy sniper was wounded in the engagement and Tschiderer actually wound up rendering first aid to the man who only moments before had tried to kill him.
H/T to SondraK for first pointing me at the video.
Michelle Malkin has it to, so there's hope this will hit the MSM.
UPDATE: It appears that the snipers overhead in the video are speaking Dutch. I've asked a Dutch speaker that I know for a translation, as soon as I get a translation from a trusted source, I'll post it.
2ND UPDATE: Gannett has stopped serving the video apparently. So I've updated the link and will serve it myself as long as I can do so with my limited bandwidth. Please right-click and "Save As. . " if you would like to distribute it outside my blog.
3RD UPDATE: I asked for translation from a Dutch speaker that I trust and got it. There are two voices on the tape:
1> Allah Akbah (not dutch)
1> Allah Akbah
1> Allah Akbah
2> Heb'we 'em? (Hebben we hem?) (transl: Did we get him)
1> Allah Akbah
2> Heb'we 'em geraakt? (Hebben we hem geraakt?) (transl: Did we hit him?)
1> Allah Akbah
2> Heb'we 'em geraakt? (Hebben we hem geraakt?) (transl: Did we hit him?)
1> Ja (transl: yes)
Now I'm not going to get into the speculation game much, but this seems to be great evidence that we're not fighting the Iraqis over there, but rather helping them oust "foreign fighters" from their midst who have come to the call of jihad. Trey Jackson points out that these guys aren't fighting for a free Iraq.
WHEN IS THIS GOING TO HIT THE MSM?????? It's a damn near a crime that this hasn't led ever major newscast.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:11 PM | TrackBack
Launch of a different sort. . . .
The Launch of the new GOP website. Nice job Ken!!!
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:36 AM | TrackBack
July 14, 2005
Another quote history needs to remember. . . .
MAXINE McKEW: Prime Minister, if as you say you can't rule out that possibility that we could have potential bombers right here in Australia, what if today's announcement, this redeployment to Afghanistan and our continued presence in Iraq is all the provocation they need?JOHN HOWARD: Maxine, these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
From Australian Broadcasting Company's "7:30 Report" via Instapundit.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:10 PM | TrackBack
July 9, 2005
It's not practical to deny the Iraqis their oil. . . .
Practical Politics and myself are butting heads again. Here's their latest suggestion.
My response:
Your "practical" approach sounds great, except your leaving out a significant economic factor.
National economies are built upon natural resources present and exploitable within said nation.
America was built on fur, gold, food and fuels, we've grown our economy from this base to a vast destributed economic engine that is the greatest the planet has ever seen.
You also seem to keep this "oil dictator" theme going. "Oil Dictators" are definately a problem, but hardly the only source. The radical muslim extremists of Indonesia aren't "oil dictator" muslims, the radical muslim extremists of SE Asia aren't "oil dictator" muslims. The extremist muslims of Africa aren't necessarily either.
Afghanistan could hardly be considered an "oil dictatorship" either.
Your ideas of placing "moderate" Islamic ideas forward is kind, but it's "impractical". Why? Because there IS NO effective moderate Islamic movement. You'd be hard pressed to find 10 "moderate" imams willing to put a shiny happy face forward for their society and they MOST CERTAINLY won't disparage the Wahabbist imams. In fact, one of the restraints built into Islam is a prohibition of Muslims criticizing other Muslims in any venue for any reason where a Non-Muslim may hear such criticism. Any cleric who speaks out against Osama, or the Kohmenini's or Zawahiri's is guilty of defaming Islam. Salman Rushdie wasn't a cleric, but his case is an excellent example.
The "moderate" voices, AS ALWAYS have to come from the street. Martin Luther did not operate in a vacuum and was simply responding to the culture developing around him which rejected the heavy hand of the church.
By bringing democracy and economic prosperity (Iraqi's today have a higher per capita income than pre-war levels, and capital investement into infrastructure is higher than EVER) will allow the moderate voices to rise up. Telephones, Internet, Satellite Television and more methods of mass communication will turn the tide here. Libraries and universities and schools are opening in great numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq. And a true moderate voice is developing in each of these regions. Not because of denial of natural resources, but rather the free exercise of democracy (developing) and the utilization of natural resources to fund said democracy. Not to mention giving the people themselves a voice which in toto will always appeal to moderation.
Denying them the only major resource in the region is condemning their economies to certain death and should not be advocated. Economic collapse would only lead to a stronger foothold for extremists and radicals.
Not to mention that your suggestions are impractical for the non-muslim world (and I'm not talking about the Western World). I'm talking about emerging economies in the third world and even some second world economies. Destroying them will only create more desparate people.
The key to any stability anywhere is to get per capita income up to a livable wage. One that provides for the food and shelter needs in relative abundance and leaving enough income left over for pursuit of "leisure" and "self improvement". Sucking the economic driver for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or any other nation will only create citizenry in poverty, ease their trasition to extremism and tank any hope that a viable economy could develop.
It'd be the same as creating a ban on logging during the American westward expansion, or devaluing gold during the gold rush, or prohibiting the extraction of iron ore. National economies NEED their natural resources to build an economy from. The problem isn't the OIL, it's corrupt governments that were put in charge of it through English, French, Russian and American mistakes or through Islamic revolution.
Let them have their oil. Let them sell it, just help them use this wealth to build a viable economy that transcends a simply oil driven economy (just as you pointed out that Dubai did). Sell them John Deere combines and teach them how to use them in the Valley's of NW Iraq and SW Afghanistan, to crate an agribusiness infrastructure that provides an abundance of food. Build manufacturing plants and and a transportation infrastructre, work with them to create an energy infrastructure that delivers a surplus of energy. (Surplus food and Surplus usable energy are KEY FACTORS to creating a successful economy and stable governments).
I'm all for the elimination of oil as a source of energy, but it's going to take a while to manage such a quantuum shift (regardless of what anyone says, such a shift IS underway). Even after the US switches to another form of energy (which is inevitable) the rest of the world will still be using oil and buying it from those Middle East nations that have it. Even after oil-for-energy is gone, there will still be a need for it in plastics and more. Oil isn't going away anytime soon. It's also prudent to point out that the Earth is designed to produce oil as a natural resource, just as it's designed to produce trees.
Natural resources should only be denied to a population for exploitation when there's a problem with the governance of that population. Take out the problem governments, support the development of democracies and the "moderates" will eventually appear as a natural course of events, limiting the power of the radicals and extremists.
There you have it. Although I'm finding myself disagreeing with Practical Politics quite a bit, I'm still keeping them on my Blogroll. I believe they want to have a robust discussion, even if I find their suggestions a bit impractical.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:18 PM | TrackBack
July 7, 2005
Tragedy met with moonbatism
Multiple explosions have rocked London. Al-Queda in Europe claims responsibility. Most of the world sympathizes with the Londoner victims.
But not the moonbats, already, the Anti-Semitism of the Left shows itself.
They also got at least 3 official threads to blame Bush and Blair for this attack (at times they even allude to the bombing as a Rovian event). It takes them all of 8 responses to go from "what happened?" to "Blair is toast" and it's "Blair's fault".
This is beginning to seriously sicken me. As I read the words of the left, they have NO FREAKING CLUE about war, terrorism and justice are all about. As I read through the pages and pages of left-wing drivel this morning it's filled with "we need to pull out" (give the terrorists another victory), suggestions that the people on the buses that were injured and killed are to blame for voting for Blair (sounds like a Churchill "little Eichman's" comment), and how we created this bombing by invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
Get a clue moonbats, these people are terrorists, sworn to destroy the West and murder any infidel that doesn't bow down to Allah. Appeasement DOES NOT WORK, HAS NEVER WORKED AND WILL NEVER WORK. Yet the left wants to try it again. "Let's be understanding and compassionate to our terrorist enemies" is their mantra.
We've known that Al-Queda is doing everything they can to strike at the U.S., Britain, Austalia and others who don't want to roll over and play dead for Muslim extremeism. Let's get real folks. You idiotic moonbats want to get your panties in a bunch of religious fundies in America, well here's a newsflash, the lefts new allies (Muslim extremeists) are a whole order of maginitude more dangerous to your bleeding liberal heart than any right wing nutjob. Yet time and time again the left embraces terrorists, tries to urge compassion and understanding and then blames the evil JOOOS and everyday joe and jane who are the terrorists victims.
Yes, thank goodness we have at least a few strong leaders on the right that will step up and fight this war against Muslim Extremism and Terrorism, this bullshit has got to be dealt with, every day we don't hound the terrorists relentlessly is a day that they can make more bombs and plan more attacks on civilians.
Grow up Moonbats, realize that your precious freedoms are under attack worldwide. Unless you're planning on becoming a Muslim before they get to your door, you're just as much a target as everyone else. So you can hide from it and say how horrible we are for fighting those that attack and kill us, but it won't help you in the end. Only meeting this evil head on will prevent it from growing, threatening and killing more and more innocents.
--Jason
PS to any moonbats that may drop by, guess what you idiots. It wasn't George Bush that made it official U.S. policy to remove Saddam and topple his regime in response to his support of terrorism, it was Bill Clinton and the Congress of the United States. I give you President Clinton's statement upon signing the Iraqi Liberation Act.
I can't figure out why the moonbats didn't take up the mantra "Invading Iraq and Removing Saddam is a Democrat idea", had they done so they may very well have won the election. That's a problem of the left though, even when they have good ideas (like Liberating Iraq), they don't have the mental fortitude to remember it and have to fall back on their solely opposition mentality.
Some days I swear that it'd be hilarious if Bush were to come out and say "I see a blue sky and 2+2=4" just to watch Pelosi, Boxer, Conyers and Kennedy come out and scream for the rafters that Bush is wrong.
--JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:49 AM | TrackBack
July 4, 2005
Happy Fourth of July
Never hurts to read it again.
-------------------------------------
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
------------------------------------------
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:08 AM | TrackBack
July 2, 2005
And now here's the news. . .
News from Afghanistan you'll never see on TV.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:43 PM | TrackBack
LA has been captured. . .
Ok, just kidding, but I was trying to come up with a title to go with this post from SondraK! LA was captured long ago.
I'll bet some people thought I was talking War of the Worlds. Which SUCKED btw!!!!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:11 PM | TrackBack
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:23 PM | TrackBack
July 1, 2005
Start your engines. . .
It's being widely reported that Justice O'Connor is about to announce her retirement from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Wide speculation is that Bush will nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the vacancy.
So here we have a battle royale beginning. Democrats will be hard pressed to dig out more "dirt" on Gonzales since the dredging he received for the A.G. confirmation. Gonzales has enemies on the right though due to his decisions on abortion in Texas. A Gonzales appointment will be an ugly process. I'm not quite sure it's the best course for Bush to take at this time. I think Bush may want to wait on Gonzales' appointment to the SCOTUS until Renquist retires.
Also on Bush's short list is Appellate Court Judge Edith Brown Clement of New Orleans' Fifth Circuit. Clement would be a safer appointment for Bush, and wouldn't allow the left as much grandstanding as a Gonzales confirmation would. Clement was born and raised in Birmingham (plus for that), keeps the gender balance status quo and seems to be a strong conservative (two pluses there).
Clement is a graduate of the University of Alabama (Roll Tide) and received her law degree from Tulane (Go Green Wave), her career has been rooted firmly on the governments side of things, serving as:
Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1985
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985-1987
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Clement was nominated to the Appellate court by George H.W. Bush.
I'm currently looking for the hearing transcript from her Confirmation hearings and any floor debate on her nomination. If anyone has the GPO on Silverplatter and can access these documents. Please let me know.
More to come, I'm sure.
--Jason
UPDATE: While I was typing, the retirement rumor became fact (added link to FoxNews story.)
2ND UPDATE: The text of the Fifth Circuit Appointment Hearings are here.
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:22 AM | TrackBack
June 30, 2005
From executioner to President. . .
Chrekoff has some interesting tid-bits on the new Iranian President's work history.
Boy, dealing with this guy's gonna be a blast (pun intended).
Seriously, the days of ONE religion sweeping the world and conversion-by-force are OVER. I don't care what your religion, when you start taking hostages, cutting off heads and blowing up civilians in the name of your god, you shouldn't be allowed to play anymore.
NO GOOD will come from this guy Ahmadinejad I tell you, NO GOOD.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:14 PM | TrackBack
Davids Medienkritik has an update on the planned bulldozing of the Checkpoint Charlie Monument I mentioned in this post.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:51 PM | TrackBack
I gotta say it.
You know, it's pretty easy to see who the bad guys are when they're out there beheading Buddhists. I mean come on people. BUDDHISTS???
If there's ever a group of people that you SHOULD NOT have problems with, it's Buddhists. It really goes to show how just plain wrong these Muslim Extremists are, and why they need to be dealth with.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:16 AM
A newcomer to my blogroll found this by Jeff Jacoby about who people turn to when they're looking for freedom. Check it out, then take a stroll around !No Parasan!.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:58 AM | TrackBack
June 29, 2005
Must Read
It's about time the Media started printing some of the responses to Senator Durbin's remarks, written by people who have the qualifications to really comment.
And before you say it, NO, I do not consider Durbins later remarks to be a retraction nor an apology, no matter how many alligator tears were shed.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:37 PM
June 26, 2005
Some gratitude. . .
The Checkpoint Charlie Monument is scheduled to be destroyed by the Berlin city government on July 4th.
President Bush should definately ask German Chancellor Schroeder about this act that one can only describe as highly insulting to free people everywhere.
Secondly, I think we should think seriously about giving a sharp rap on the nose to the German government by ending all aid programs to Germany. They can try to get the aid back from the last remaining Communist countries (yeah, right).
They certainly have a right to do whatever they want over there, but lets get real. Checkpoint Charlie was the focal point for the cold war. The monument remembers those East GERMANS who died trying to reach the west. For decades, Americans stood guard at Checkpoint Charlie, manning the front line against the communists.
I don't think I need to remind people about the Berlin Airlift, nor the fact that even though Germany as a nation went decidely batshit in the 30's and 40's and tried to take over the whole damn world, we didn't hold it against the German people and we essentially rebuilt their nation and economy. Not to mention the billions in economic aid to Germany in the 60 years since the end of World War 2.
I'm sure if there's any outrage, the German authorities will say it's just a mistake and there was no "message" to be sent by doing this on the 4th of July, but lets get real again. If this isn't a message, I don't know what is.
So I say we send a message back, end all economic assistance to Germany, until they decide to play nice. I think we might start off by ending all purchasing agreements with German firms for goods and services used by our bases in Germany. We can simply buy supplies and provisions from Poland. If they bitch, we can move our bases to Poland, who would LOVE to have our American dollars deposited in the hands of deserving Poles who would actually be greatful.
--Jason
CLARIFICATION: In response to a comment, Checkpoint Charlie is not being removed (that's already been done, the original booth is in the Allied Museum in Zehlendorf). What's being removed is the CHECKPOINT CHARLIE MONUMENT that remembers those that died trying to escape from East Germany. Here's a picture of what they are bulldozing (in case you don't go to the linked article).
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:28 PM
June 22, 2005
Open Media 100
AlwaysOn and Technorati have come together to create the "Open Media 100". A comprehensive list of the movers and shakers in Open Media, from the creators and visionaries to the reporters and collectors that shape the new Mediascape. Described in their own words:
"The purpose of this list is to provide an initial, helpful framework of this emerging industry and highlight its key players who are influencing the adoption of open media and proving the impact it is already having on the technology industry, journalism, and marketing."
The list is VERY impressive, and is sure to give countless hours of reading material to anyone interested in Open Media. Additionally, the list serves as a Mega-Blogroll of the important players.
I'm reproducing it here for two reasons, one so you can have a look at it and two, so I can have it easily accessible for my own use. I'll probably wind up putting it in the sidebar in some fashion as well.
The list is pretty damn big, so I'm leaving out the 50 Honorable Mentions for now, I'll find a place to stick them for easy access in a little bit.
| Pioneers | Trendsetters | Practitioners | Toolsmiths | Enablers |
| Adam Curry The Daily Source Code Dan Gillmor Bayosphere J. D. Lasica New Media Musings Lawrence Lessig Lessig Blog Craig Newmark Craigslist Yeon Ho Oh OhMyNews Howard Rheingold Smart Mobs Doc Searls The Doc Searls Weblog Clay Shirky Shirky.com David Weinberger Joho Dave Winer Scripting News | John Battelle Searchblog Rebecca Blood Rebecca's Pocket Jason Calacanis Weblogs, Inc. Marc Canter BroadBand Mechanics Nick Denton Gawker Media Cory Doctorow, Mark Frauenfelder, Xeni Jardin, David Pescovitz Boing Boing Steve Gillmor ZDNet Matt Haughey MetaFilter Mary Hodder Napsterization Doug Kaye IT Conversations Amy Jo Kim SocialDesigner.net Liz Lawley Mamamusings Eric Olsen Blogcritics Tim O'Reilly O'Reilly Media Eric Rice Audioblog.com Brett Simmons Ranchero Software Elizabeth Spiers Mediabistro.com Phillip Torrone Flashenabled.com Joe Trippi Change for America Jeffrey Veen Adaptive Path | Mohamad Reza Abdollahi (Imprisoned in Iran for his blog) Jeff Bates, Rob Malda Slashdot Russell Beattie RussellBeattie.com Duncan Black Eschaton N. Z. Bear The Truth Laid Bear Stowe Boyd, Hylton Jolliffe Corante Ana Marie Cox Wonkette Mark Cuban Dallas Mavericks Matt Drudge The Drudge Report Kevin Drum Washington Monthly Barb Dybwad Geeked Mohammed Fadhil, Omar Fadhil Iraq The Model Hugh Hewitt HughHewitt.com John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff Power Line Jeff Jarvis BuzzMachine Charles Johnson Little Green Footballs Mickey Kaus Slate Jason Kottke Kottke.org Bob Lutz General Motors Om Malik Om Malik's Broadband Blog Josh Marshall Talking Points Memo Dave Pell Davenetics Chris Pirillo Lockergnome Dave Pogue New York Times Glenn Reynolds Instapundit.com Peter Rojas Engadget Steve Rubel Micro Persuasion Jonathan Schwartz Jonathan Schwartz's Blog Robert Scoble Scobleizer Roger Simon Roger L. Simon Andrew Sullivan The Daily Dish James Taranto The Wall Street Journal Jon Udell InfoWorld Eugene Volokh The Volokh Conspiracy Jeffrey Zeldman The Daily Report Markos Moulitsas Zuniga Daily Kos | Jonathan Abrams Friendster Tom Anderson, Chris DeWolfe MySpace Mitchell Baker Mozilla Foundation Nick Bradbury Bradbury Software (acquired by NewsGator) Stewart Butterfield, Caterina Fake Flickr (acquired by Yahoo!) Dan Chan Daypop Bram Cohen BitTorrent Dick Costolo, Eric Lunt, Steve Olechowski, Matt Shobe FeedBurner Neil Drumm, Zack Rosen CivicSpace Labs Mark Fletcher Bloglines (acquired by AskJeeves) Janus Friis, Niklas Zennstrom Skype David Galbraith David Galbraith's Weblog Meg Hourihan Blogger Salim Ismail, Bob Wyman PubSub Scott J. Rafer, Scott Johnson, Francois Schiettecatte Feedster Brewster Kahle Internet Archive Loic LeMeur Six Apart Paul Martino, Mark Pincus Tribe.net Ross Mayfield Socialtext Matt Mullenweg WordPress Greg Reinacker NewsGator Technologies Joshua Schachter Del.icio.us Ben and Mena Trott Six Apart Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales Wikipedia Evan Williams Odeo | Tim Draper, Steve Jurvetson, Andreas Stavropoulos Draper Fisher Jurvetson Esther Dyson Release 1.0 Bradley Feld Mobius Venture Capital Reid Hoffman David Hornik August Capital Joi Ito Neoteny Allen Morgan Mayfield Pierre Omidyar Omidyar Network |
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:00 PM
Must Read. . .
This is probably the best write-up for someone trying to understand the realities that lead us to this second war with Iraq, in a simple and easy to read format. It also debunks many right and left wing myths about the conflict.
It's definately worth the read.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:15 PM | TrackBack
June 21, 2005
Really Mixed Feelings
Killen convicted on all 3 counts.
#1 - EXTREMELY HAPPY THAT JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
#2 - EXTREMELY DISTURBED WITH THE ADDED DRAMA OF THE CONVICTION BEING HANDED DOWN ON THE 41ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE CRIME ITSELF.
#3 - I'll toss in the "Anti-Lynching" Vote in the Senate.
My Point? This contrived drama seems to be coming together better than a Hollywood script. I'm not sure I like the idea that our courts and mediascape have now combined to present morality plays.
Or perhaps they should.
Let's hold a public trial and televise it for the 20th hijacker guy. Pull a jury of 12 plus 88 alternates (100 or 2 from each state) lets lay it all out on the table. Let's talk about the USS Cole, the 1st Trade Center bombing, Bali, Israel, and then 9-11. Then we can talk about air-conditioning, Christina Aguillera and handling books THAT WE GAVE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE with rubber gloves and surgical masks. Then lets talk about Nick Berg and countless other beheadings. Connect them all up with the guy that WANTED to be a part of the Twin Towers attack. <-- Video you might want/need to see again. If you start, WATCH THE WHOLE THING!
On the side we can have a smaller trial televised from Europe (Italy), the one where the woman is on trial for "defaming Islam". Oops, looks like the guy that complained just got convicted for "defaming Christianity".
Oh yeah, don't forget, it's ok to sleep with little boys.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:24 AM | TrackBack
June 20, 2005
Glad these are going bye bye. . .
Russia has decided that it's time to take the BZHRK trains off the tracks. The 36 BZHRK trains were one of Russia's most feared weapons platforms during the Cold War. Each train consisted of a command post, and up to 5 nuclear tipped SS-24 ICBM's. The trains kept on the move constantly during the Cold War, each was capable of traversing 1000 miles over 24 hours.
These moving missile silos were very difficult for American and NATO intelligence analysts to track. The rail cars housing the weapons were very difficult to disguinish from standard rail cars and they were frequently "lost" in railyards and during bad weather. In the 1990's the U.S. struck a deal to keep the trains stationary.
The Russians say that the systems are no longer guaranteed reliable, and I supposed that's as good a reason as any for getting rid of them. Regardless, I'm happy that these are being retired. The world just became a slighty safer place.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:04 AM | TrackBack
June 19, 2005
Everyone should keep a close eye on these guys. . .
As I write this, a new operational unit is getting settled in Iraq. It's not a new US division from the states, but rather a hybrid, experimental embryonic unit being deployed from Bosnia. The ehnically mixed unit has Serbian, Croatian and Muslim soldiers in it's ranks.
I feel this particular unit deserves some close attention from the world community over the next few months/years. If this unit can function harmoniously and provide the Iraqi people with support, it may turn out to be that one example of cooperation that the world community has been looking for.
Centuries of ethnic conflict bubbled to the surface when the Yugoslav republic collapsed. The region saw the rise of tyrants, genocide and anarchy, followed by the arrival of "War - American Style", which eventually quelled the disruptions and finally brought stability to the region.
We can look at the Bosnian situation as a proto-example of many things happening throughout the Middle East. The Yugoslav solution was messy and fumbling, just as the Iraq/Afganistan situation is, but I see this deployment of mixed muslim, christian and other troops coming from a newly arising nation to help the people of Iraq recover as a very good thing. Even though the Bosnian Army is divided within along ethnic lines, I see this as still a tremendous step forward and an example that may help the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds find their way as a nation.
We'll see what happens.
Read the Reuters Article here.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:13 PM | TrackBack
June 6, 2005
Iraq Rap . . .
I'm not sure if it's in the same spirit as Kosovo and Way to Amarillo, but it's certainly "All-American". Members of Task Force 112, currently serving in Iraq have released an album, yep, a full fledged album, not just a net-video parody. Members of the task force had the recording equipment sent to Iraq, created a makeshift recording studio (actually a semi-soundproof room with exercise mats for soundproofing) and used the "studio" to "vent" their anger when returning from patrols. The result is their rap-album Live from Iraq, the Music of a Lifetime.
Now I'm not a big rap fan, I like R&B and some of the more mainstream rap, but if you ask me for details of the East vs. West coast thing, I'm clueless. Although I do think that Tupac is alive and well somewhere on an island dreaming up his next "post mortem" CD.
Now, on to the album, which you can buy at CDBaby.com. The "anger" I referred to earlier isn't what those lefties that come read my blog and then send me stupid emails might think. This is the ANGER of young men and women serving overseas and fighting a life-and-death battle every day to give a better life to the Iraqi people and protect our way of life here at home. Anger that's directed at the insurgents who target women and children, as well as American, Coalition and Iraqi forces. Anger that's directed at urban youths who are "playing soldier" (in reference to gang-bangers in America) and whose common lexicon tries to develop solidarity with soldiers fighting in Iraq (the track is called Reality Check, links below). Anger that's natural for any soldier to feel when he or she realizes that just a few moments earlier someone was trying to kill them. A special ANGER is revealed on many of the tracks for critics at home who are second-guessing every action of our soldiers and media whores who want to condemn every action of our soldiers as they put their very lives on the line. More than one track references the Marine who was vilified by the media for shooting an insurgent in a mosque which was videotaped and sent around the world as "evidence" - !NOT! - of soldiers acting inappropriately, namely Integrity and Testament of a Soldier.
From what I've heard so far (the sample tracks and trailer), I like it. While it's not what I normally listen to, the beats are rough yet catchy and the lyrics are direct and easy to understand. Most of all though I like the messages and honesty of the work and think it's worthy of recognition, if even only by me.
WARNING: The lyrics in the samples are strong, these are soldier's in the field remember, not rappers in a studio sipping on Cristal. There are also some images in the video trailer linked below that may be disturbing in their stark reality.
I've listened to all the tracks sampled at CDBaby, and even if you don't buy the CD, listen to the sample tracks, the first 2 minutes of each song is available at the CDBaby page. Each of the tracks carries a powerful message, some simple, some very complex, please go have a listen.
Here's the official website for the album -- www.4th25.com
Here's the trailer video for the album.
Now if I can just get my hands on a DVD of Gunner Palace, I'll be happy.
--Jason
PS I'm tired now, but I'll pull individual lyric quotes from the album tomorrow for those reading from work or dial-up readers.
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:57 AM | TrackBack
June 2, 2005
EPIC: 2015
Here's the bitorrent for EPIC: 2015 by Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson. Right click and select Save As. .
If you don't know how to use BitTorrents, CLICK HERE - It will take a while to download (Note, this link will go away if bandwith issues come up. So you might want to right click and Save As. ., in case you want to watch it agin.)
EPIC is a shockwave based animation depecting the future of our mediascape, the internet and how they might develop into the construct named EPIC. The battle between the internet and "old media" is played out as well as the News Wars between Microsoft and Google. It's an interesting piece.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:30 PM
May 31, 2005
So there you have it. . .
I have a pretty set routine in the AM, grab some juice, or coffee, depending on how much sleep I got, turn on the tube, check email, then make the rounds of about 15 websites/blogs to see what's up.
Frontpagemag.com is on the list and while normally just fly past them after a brief scan, the article on the front today caught my eye. I'm not sure why it grabbed me, maybe it was Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" episode last night, but read it I did. The following quote just SCREAMED at me. [Here's the permalink for the article.]
Mohammad Basirul Haq Sinha: "You often call for uniting Muslim and progressive forces globally. How far is it possible under current situation?"Galloway: "Not only do I think it's possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressi ve movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations. And the progressive organizations & movements agree on that with the Muslims."
"Otherwise we believe that we should all have to speak as Texan and eat McDonalds and be ruled by Bush and Blair. So on the very grave big issues of the day-issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization-the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side."
So there you have it, the poster-boy-du-jour of the left is calling for "progressives" to unite with Muslims against the US and the evil corporations, who act all corporation-y.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Has the left finally just lost all sense of themselves, and reached a point where they're willing to give up their stance on women's rights, gay marriage, the welfare state and human rights? Are they now actually suggesting that the Muslims are closer to their views than the majority of Americans?
Let's see, last time I checked, the Muslims that Galloway wants to get in bed with were chopping the heads off of gay people in the town square, stoning women for going outside alone and blowing up women and children with suicide attacks. I'm pretty sure that the Muslim world is pretty much anti-abortion and I'm quite sure that we won't see any female presidents or potentates in Arabia anytime soon.
OH WAIT, I SEE IT NOW. . . . It's the corporations, those evil corporations that are acting all corporation-y. Yes, it's evil Coca-Cola and McDonald's that are to blame. How dare the Coca-Cola executives offer their product for sale to people that want it. Shame shame on McDonald's for granting franchises overseas or even selling their product at all. Yes, it's the "globalization" argument all over again.
So let me get this straight, you make a product, you offer that product for sale, you sell that product to whoever wants to buy, and that makes you evil??? Yes, it's all perfectly clear now --- NOT!
The left has finally come out of the closet. Their issues don't matter, they have no principles and their willing to get into bed with anyone as long as it means that the evil corporations get theirs. Come on now!!! Is the left rank and file going to stand for this?? Of course they are. Why? Because they've never really cared about anything they spew as long as it goes against what the current status quo is.
That's their whole line, hook and sinker. Rail against anything successful because it's all driven by the Zionist corporations. They must believe somewhere in their dark little clouded brains that uniting with the Muslims against the US will somehow gain them sufficient favor in the Muslim world that suddenly the Muslims will see the error of their ways and begin treating women equally, respecting human rights, stop beheading gays and be happy happy joy joy with the rest of the world. Delusions, evil delusions.
NEWSFLASH FOR GALLOWAY AND THE LEFT --- Wahhabists and Muslim fundamentalists want YOU DEAD TOO. Just because you're willing to make speeches extolling the virtues of hybrid cars and express your hatred for everything Western isn't going to ingratiate you with the Muslim extremists. They still want you dead, the most you can possibly do is buy yourselves a bit more time, or convert to Islam and start chopping the heads off gays and stoning women for fun.
I find it very ironic that the left, which has now taken to calling itself "progressive" would choose to rail against progress at every turn, even going so far as to align themselves with possibly the most backward, oppressive and anti-thetical (to their previously stated views) major culture on the planet.
I also find it very ironic that the left doesn't realize that Muslim's hate the far left even more than they do the right. Yet they still look at the Muslims as their final saving grace. Yes, the Left thinks that the Muslims will overlook their embrace of women's right (a definite no-no in the Arab world) and gay rights (which is right OUT over there). Do they believe that the Muslims will invite them in with honest open arms??? I'm afraid they do, the delusional moonbats they are.
I am glad though, that the left is finally showing their true adgenda. It's not about human rights, it's about defeating those evil Zionists and Corporation-y corporations. Personally, I can't wait for Hilary to pull out her burka and show us her true colors.
--Jason
PS Before someone emails me or comments about what a right wing rag FrontPageMag.com is, keep in mind that it's only one of quite a few sites on the morning survey. It's balanced with DailyKOS, Democratic Underground, Air America and The NYT. Instapundit, WaPo, LGF, American Thinker and FreeRepublic also are on the list along with a few other "mainstream" media outlets.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:09 AM
May 23, 2005
The NYT has corrupted another one. . .
Here's a VERY interesting opening paragraph. . . .
For a certain segment of the population, Nascar's raid on American culture -- its logo festoons everything from cellphones to honey jars to post office walls to panties; race coverage, it can seem, has bumped everything else off television; and, most piercingly, Nascar dads now get to pick our presidents -- triggers the kind of fearful trembling the citizens of Gaul felt as the Huns came thundering over the hills. To these people, stock-car racing represents all that's unsavory about red-state America: fossil-fuel bingeing; lust for violence; racial segregation; run-away Republicanism; anti-intellectualism (how much brain matter is required to go fast and turn left, ad infinitum?); the corn-pone memes of God and guns and guts; crass corporatization; Toby Keith anthems; and, of course, exquisitely bad fashion sense. What's more, they simply don't get it. What's the appeal of watching . . . traffic? It's as if ''Hee Haw'' reruns were dominating prime time, and the Republic was slapping its collective knee at Grandpa Jones's ''What's for supper?'' routine. With Nascar's recent purchase of a swath of real estate on Staten Island, where it intends to plop down an 80,000-seat racetrack and retail center for the untapped New York City market, the onslaught seems poised on the brink of full-out conquest. Cover your ears, blue America. The Huns are revving their engines.
You might want to read the whole New York Times article before we continue.
You may not realize until you're half way through what is, in reality, a book review. Yep, there it is, halfway through page two is the first mention of the book that the reviewer is covering. Actually, it's 2/3rds of the way down.
So what do we have here? Bash the Red States, hate the moronic Southerners that gave us President Bush, stereotype and slander every NASCAR fan, essentially engage in racist behavior, and insult 75 million people because they "aren't like YOU."
I really wonder if this is "fit to print", or even what that means anymore.
For the record, I'm no NASCAR fan. I'm not a big race fan, period. I don't even drive my own car very fast. About 5 miles over the speed limit is my limit, I just don't see the point. Now I will say that I "appreciate" racing. I enjoy watching coverage of the Tour de France, Kentucky Derby, Olympics Track and Field and I'll sit and watch any Formula 1 race or Rally Car race. I'll also watch parts of big NASCAR races, especially if it's close to the end.
I'm curious? Miles must feel the same way about ski racing, bike racing and horse racing as he does about NASCAR. I'm quite sure he doesn't. In fact? I'm wondering if Johnathan Miles feels the same way about NASCAR as he says he does in the article. I suspect that the fact that Miles was writing for the NYT was the source of his vitriol.
I say this because This Article just doesn't make sense when you compare it to the NASCAR piece. So this Miles is all happy bout hunters killing rabbits and cooking them up but he doesn't like NASCAR? Does anyone see where I'm going with this? Maybe he just has a thing for wild birds.
Personally, I think Miles just graduated up to the big time now with the New York Times and part of his selling his soul is to hate that segment of America that put him there. I'm sure the percentage of NASCAR Fans that read Field and Stream is far greater than the number of Field and Stream readers that read the New York times.
Hey but what do I know, I'm just one of those Huns.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:39 PM | TrackBack
May 17, 2005
Mythbusting
When I first heard of the "Koran flushing" incident falsely reported by NEWSWRONG, I wanted to test the theory behind it.
Unfortunately, Silent Running beat me to it.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:20 PM
May 10, 2005
Kerry? Kerry? Bueller? Bueller?
Well, folks, it's been 100 days now since John Kerry promised to sign his Form 180. That's the form that would release his full military records. You know the ones that were supposedly all on his website during the campaign, later found to leave out such things as a "less than honorable discharge" then a special dispensation by President Carter cleaning up his record. Of course, we'd like to know about those medals with stars that only Kerry has, as well. You know, the ones that he threw over the fence. Oh, yeah, they were only the ribbons. Oh wait, they were someone elses medals, er, ribbons. If you're going to call for the President to release his info, then not be satisfied with the results of your fishing to the point you have to forge more documents, you should at least put your laundry out too.
You may think it's not important, but it really is. This guy blew smoke at us all through the election. Hoodwinked the media and the electorate and promised time and time again to sign a simple form all the while criticising the Presidents service. While the Dems had to go out and make documents up from scratch, parade them on CBS, then claim that they were "false but accurate", Kerry got away with never releasing anything about his service record but some tall tales (Christmas in Cambodia) and 8mm re-inactments of his heroics in Vietnam.
If you'd like to fax Kerry a copy of the Form 180, you can find it here. His fax number in Washington is (202) 224-8525.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:54 AM
March 30, 2005
And you thought our elections were bad. . .
You don't hear about it on the news much, but Zimbabwe is on the eve of a new era in its political life. Tomorrow Zimbabwe will host a national election pitting President Mugabe against the opposition MDC party, which bills itself as the "Party of the Poor". Zimbabwe has been a cauldron of unrest and shady dealings the last few years as it attempts to overcome mass corruption, horrific unemployment (close to 70%) and some shady dealings whereby the government has violently seized commercial farms, then chopped them up and distributed the land to "peasants" who actually turned out more often than not to be Mugabe supporters. The breakup of the commercial farms has created an agricultural disaster in the region. It's simple agricultural science that says once you begin to produce on a commercial farm, the processes (fertilization, irrigation, harvesting etc.) drastically change the way the land and crops behave. Simply redrawing property lines and trying to grow multiple crops on the same plot just doesn't work. The land's chemical properties have been changed as years upon years of commercial production have effectively "scrubbed" the soil of unwanted chemicals, nutrients, minerals, insects and other things that aren't part of the commercial production. When you go in and try to plant other domesticated crops without regard to what the soil has been through, you're just asking for massive crop failure, and that's exactly what has happened. In just over five years, Mugabe has turned a nation from the verge of self-sufficiency to one of abject poverty and borderline starvation (something Venezuela should take note of). All that's well and bad though, lets look at the election.
Mugabe says that an opposition victory in the election "will not be tolerated". This is not the statement of a man confident of victory, in fact it is more the statement of a man who's resigned himself to defeat and who is planning to invalidate the election results if things to not go his way. He has bullied opponents in the past and driven opposition parties underground when things did not go his way, and it looks like he is telegraphing that same intent again.
The EU and the British especially are looking closely at these elections, for the EU, it's another European colony in crisis and they feel the need to "put it on the adgenda" if Mugabe doesn't win a majority and somehow puts down the democratic opposition. For the Brits, it's a little more complicated, most of the farms that have been seized in the past few years have been operated by British companies. Britain hopes that with a Democratic government installed, they can possibly reclaim some of these farms and put them back into operation as viable agricultural production entities rather than the dustbowls they are developing into now. While there is some case to be made of British opportunism, these commerical farms were feeding the people, the re-distributed farms are failing miserably and not putting them back on track soon will lead to widespread famine in the region.
One can't predict what will happen over there tomorrow in toto, but we can be sure of a few things. First, that it won't be major news, although it should be, second, that it'll be bloody no matter how it goes, and third, no matter what the outcome, someone will somehow see fit to make sure that Bush gets blamed for causing this upheaval somehow. I know that last one may seem a stretch, but mark my words and we'll revisit this in a week or so.
Norm has a great write up about these elections that I found while searching on this topic. He's focused on the MDC and their efforts to ensure a fair election. It's a good read.
--Jason
UPDATE: If you don't go read Norm's post, be sure to check out this article he links to from the Scotsman.
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:43 PM
March 3, 2005
Democracy and wine
For those under that rock:
The past couple of weeks have seen the development of what is being called the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon. Thousands upon thousands of pro-democracy activists and general citizens have taken to the streets to demand that Syria withdraw it's troops and leave Lebanon to rule itself in peace.
It should be noted that Syria already agreed to leave Lebanon due to U.N. demands, over two decades ago. Boy, those middle eastern despotic regimes sure do sit in awe of U.N. decrees don't they.
Anyhoo, Peace is breaking out all over the Middle East. From Egypt to Afghanistan, the world is becoming a better, and safer place.
YAY DEMOCRACY, and Hot Chicks!
In other news, the Supreme Court has been busy lately; Striking down the death penalty for juveniles convicted of murder as adults, supporting the ban on sex toys in my home state of Alabama and they're working on that bastard Roy Moore's 10 Commandments case.
They are also expected to be ruling soon on a significant case regarding the personal sale and shipment of wine across state lines. Which I'm anxiously awaiting. I have a bunch of wines that are primed to drink but I have too many of them and want to trade some or sell some to buy other stuff to put in my cellar.
SCOTUS geeks can follow recent Supreme Court actions with this link.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:25 AM
March 1, 2005
Perspective
I've been reading VodkaPundit for a while. I'd thought that I had put that site on my blogroll, but I was mistaken. I've fixed that oversight and wanted to point readers to THIS ARTICLE comparing and contrasting Iraq and Iwo Jima.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:55 PM
February 22, 2005
February 22, 2005
Morning Blogroll roundup ----
LGF points how how Australia really is a good ally to the US and one of the more responsible countries out there.
Powerline touts George Washington. Truely a most phenomenal man.
New Sisyphus gives up a great report of Bush's speech in Brussels.
Classical Values points out that neither the left nor right can lay legitimate claim to Hunter S. Thompson's legacy. I agree, and prefer to just consider him a very unique American.
Reform protests in Lebanon and Egypt. OH yeah, and Togo??? (Togo apparently slipped under my radar, I'm gonna have to learn more about this one.)
Captain Ed caught my attention this morning, he's wondering if the war in Afganistan can be considered over.
Seems to be a good day.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:06 AM
February 21, 2005
Ah, feel the sympathy from the Democrats
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God, and I certainly don't support organized religion. However, I could be wrong about my beliefs; I realize that. I firmly support the right of anyone to worship any God they so please as long as they don't interfere with or harm others in the practice of their beliefs, that includes crashing planes into buildings, selling Child-Crusaders into slavery or refusing to have a doctor set your child's broken leg.
That being said, I also have a certain amount of compassion for all human beings. I think that our relationships with each other should be respectful and sympathetic for the good of all mankind.
That also being said, I want to direct your attention to a site that just makes me shake my head and wonder every time I visit it. The site is DemocraticUnderground, by far the best collection of moonbattery on the planet. In particular I would like to point your attention to this thread about Jerry Falwell's recent hospitalization. It simply boggles the mind.
To think that DU was touted (by Dean and others) throughout the election as the "internet home" of the Democrat heart and soul, is simply. . . well. . . read through the thread and form your own opinions. While I'm not a fan of Falwell, I would NEVER wish what these people do on him in light of his illness. In fact, I wouldn't even wish some of this or feel this way about Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Hitler or anyone (although I would wish these, in particular, a speedy recovery so they could be justly executed).
Lemmings they are. . . . and we all know what happens eventually to lemmings.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:24 PM
February 19, 2005
Yardwork is ruling the day.
Much to be done in the yard today before it rains, rains, rains. It's almost time to start cutting the grass on a regular basis, UGH! Oh well, that's the price ya pay, I guess.
Anyway, I don't want to leave you hanging with nothing, so take a look at this interesting article from Deroy Murdock. Few new factoids in there for me, maybe they'll be new to you too.
Thanks to Release the Hounds (a new addition to my blogroll) for the link.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:03 PM
February 8, 2005
Quick Hits-Feb 8th
I didn't watch the Superbowl. The Saints weren't in it, so I could care less. I'm not watching the Superbowl until the Saints are in it and it's in their new stadium. Ok, well I'm not sure I'll keep that promise, but I needed someplace to put the links and I wanted to show you where the SuperBowl Commericials are.
If you're looking for the President's Budget Proposal, you can find it here.
There's been no sighting of Kim Jong-Il yet, but they're setting the stage for the coup. Military leaders are re-affirming their allegiance.
As are "spontaneous" groups of youths.
I tell you, I think the guy's dead. Pushing up Daisy's. Doing the dirt nap.
IF I'm wrong? Well then I'll feel stupid, but I gotta call it like I see it.
I know that it's not until 2029, and I know that it's not going to hit us, when when you put out an image like this one:
that's showing that an asteroid will pass between the Earth and the Moon, I get a bit nervous. But I already covered this.
Peace is breaking out all over.
And Liesl is throwing a party.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:22 PM
February 6, 2005
Let the North Korea Sucession Games begin. . . . .
Last week I brought up the possibility that Kim Jung Il of N. Korea, may have been assassinated and we'd know more of the Dear Leaders fate on the twelth (his birthday).
Well, this weekend a number of sources are reporting that the Dear Leader is talking (through others) about the transfer of control to one of his sons.
Asia News touts Kim Jong-Chul, 23 as the next in line.
Reuters-India speaks to the dynastic wishes of the Kim family and it's Stalinist Patriarch.
My guess is that Kim Jong-Il is dead and the N. Korean government is planning to announce the succession this week.
Why do I think he's already dead? It's all speculation, but I believe that Kim Jung-Il was killed in a massive explosion. We know his train was in the area, and he hasn't been seen since. We also have the removal of his portraits. It appears that maybe someone pulled off a coup and are bracing the world for the announcement by giving Kim a lower profile.
Finally, on the eve of his birthday we have succession talk coming out of N. Korea. If this turns out to be the case it will be a remarkable feat of information engineering on the part of the N. Koreans.
We'll see this week though won't we.
I hope that I'm right, not just to pay myself on the back, but also because I believe that ANY change in N. Korea will be positive for the world at large. Any new government emerging would almost certainly back off of the hard edge that Kim Jung-Il is offering to the world. They know, as a nation, their economy is in a state of utter failure. They need the break along with some sort of economic aid, if they hope to retain any sort of control in the near future.
Pressure is coming from every direction to open up to inspections and disarmament, but The Dear Leader is the brick wall. Without Kim all things are possible. The moderates and even the conservative revolutionaries have to know they are between a rock and a hard place. If they choose to continue saber-rattling at the rest of the world, their economic situation will engulf them into famine and chaos. If they open up, the West will certainly ask for some sort of Democratic reforms.
The N. Korean people can see the success of their neighbors to the South. Any crack in the revolutionary dam will almost certainly lead to a cascading wave of democratic activity that will be supported by the U.S., Japan, South Korea and others.
Any new government that sticks it's head up on the 12th will certainly be keenly watched immediately for signs that peace can be achieved. I only hope that everyone keeps a cool head in the process.
In other N. Korean news, the N. Korean embassy has asked the Czech Republic to ban Team America: World Police-LINK NOT WORK-SAFE
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:00 PM | TrackBack
February 5, 2005
Donnie Fowler bows out
It appears that Donnie Fowler has bowed out of the race Chair. This
opens the way for Howard Dean to become the Democrat's counter-president. I don't agree with this tactic of the Dems to become the "opposition" party, and this seems like more and more sour grapes guilding up. A pull further to the left seems hardly what the party needs, but that's exactly what it's setting itself up for.
I wonder if this is the opportunity that the Libertarians need to make the jump up to the two party table. I'll have to see what Stephen at Liberty Flash thinks about that idea.
UPDATE: Stephen from Liberty Flash responds. Good read.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:00 PM
February 3, 2005
Disappointing Democrats
I'm going to post more about Social Security and the SOTU address a little later, but I just got through watching the speech for a third time while reading along with the transcript. One thing stood out that I just can't wait to comment on. I should have done it last night, but I didn't want to fly off the handle.
The Democrats did their normal "no clapping", "no standing" thing for the political issues they disagreed with; but when the President used the word "bankrupt", the Democrat side of the aisle actually booed and moaned quite audibly. I'm sure that this was an organized effort and not spontaneous at all, but I need to point something out.
When your ASSETS are less than your LIABILITIES, you are in a de facto state of bankruptcy. To deny this is ludicrous. It's a fact that within the next 20 years (could be as soon as 13) the Social Security system will be paying out more than it takes in. They'll then start using the built up surplus and when that runs out, the system will still have more LIABILITIES than it does ASSETS. That my friends IS bankruptcy. Get that through your heads people.
If the program can't pay for it's promises, then it's bankrupt. To boo and hiss, doesn't change this. "Bankrupt" is a strong term, and we all know that it's not the "Government" that would be bankrupt, but the program itself would be. The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with this because they are not in power. So they are just going to moan, cry and save their filibusters for the Social Security vote.
Frankly, the behavior of the Democrats last night made me sick. This behavior is becoming endemic in the Democrat Party that they will position themselves on the opposite side of any issue the President seems to promote. We don't need an "opposition" party in the United States, what we need are two VIABLE parties. The Democrats don't seem to care about two viable parties and just are content to rage against the machine. Where do they get the idea that this is helpful? I just don't get it.
Ok, well, I'll post more later on this, but while I have you here, I'd like to point you to this blog. Especially this post. Take a look, interesting stuff. Oh yeah, and I love THIS.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:59 PM
January 31, 2005
Moving onward - the next step for Social Security
Following the stock market crash of 1929, the United States government began a "social insurance" program for it's citizens. FDR's plan to provide a social safety net was one of the New Deal programs to survive Supreme court challenges and in 1936, the groundwork was laid for modern social security. In 1939, the program was expanded into what we think of it as being today, and since 1950, 21 separate legislative changes to the program have been enacted.
The concept of Social Security is one that few Americans disagree with, but almost to a man (or woman), Americans agree that Social Security is broke. The Social Security Trustees estimate that by 2042, the system will not be able to pay out even 3/4 of the benefits promised, by 2078, the system will only be able to pay out 68%.
The changing demographics of our workforce and the longer life expectancies of Americans were noticed as a major problem for Social Security's viability in the early 1980's although the rumblings of potential problems were felt much sooner. President Reagan made several significant attempts to modernize and "save" Social Security, but the reforms of 1983 were amended and watered down. The 1986 Tax Reform Act put new life into the program but didn't solve the core problem.
Here's how the White House explains the problem:
In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security. Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary. By the time our youngest workers - those just entering the workforce today - turn 65, there will only be 2 workers supporting each beneficiary. And, under the current system, today's 30-year-old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.
In 1950, the payroll tax supporting Social Security was 2%, today it's 6 times that rate (12%). In order to pay benefits to children born today, the Social Security Trustees estimate that rates would have to be raised to 18% or more.
On Wednesday, President George W. Bush is expected to reveal his plan to reform Social Security in a major way. He will make the case for individual retirement accounts that younger workers today can opt into and have some form of control over. This "control" will not be absolute, and it will not be mandatory for workers to use the private individual investment options the accounts will provide. The investments will be limited to low risk index funds, treasury notes and the like. Yet, even these low risk investments historically generate a greater return for workers when they reach retirment than current government programs provide. Workers who opt to stay in the government managed program can expect to see benefits paid along the same lines as recipients today. Additionally, those workers that select private investment accounts will also be allowed to include account balances in their estates and pass along this "nest egg" to their descendents.
The move is certainly epic in it's scope and promises to be one of the largest realignments of government programs ever. The implications are staggering for the American economy and citizenry. Capital will be re-entering the marketplace instead of being sucked into a governmental black hole, Americans will amass greater wealth, driving the economy forward and raising the standards of living for retiring workers.
The administrative costs of making the changes will of course be an issue, but workers who elect to invest in the private accounts won't see a higher rate as the worker is already required to have monies deducted, it's just a change in where that money is going. The exact cost cannot be determined as of yet (that will be determined by Congressional amendments and changes to the program), but it will be less than the estimated 10.4 trillion we will need by 2042 if we do nothing. (10.4 Trillion is more than double the wages and salaries of American workers in 2004.)
The proof will be in the payoff though, and a certain amount of faith in the American economy will be needed. How this will shake out is anyone's guess, it could even stall in the Congress and leave us scrambling for alternaives for the future. The "third rail of American politics" has been untouchable to previous administrations and success by the Bush administration in this endeavor would be a major blow to the Democrats who always have positioned themselves as the caretakers of the program. The Democrats know that it's broke though, and even though they will oppose almost every suggestion out of hand, they do know that something has to be done. Perhaps common sense and the betterment of the nation will overcome partisan politics.
It will be the court of public opinion that makes the difference in this battle, it will be up to each and every one of us to examine and evaluate the changes honestly and without partisan bias. We will be passing these changes on to our children and our children's children. Our opinions in this debate will matter greatly to its success or failure, and more than ever before will our voices need to be heard by our national leadership.
Many liberal and conservative groups are already trying to prime the pump for success and failure of the initiatives. Websites and newspaper articles are everyday calling for support or rejection of a program that has yet to be announced. Both sides of the debate are calling on their viewers and readers to send form letters to media outlets and politicians stating various positions on the as yet unannounced program. It's ridiculous to see two or three letters to the editor which are virtually identical in form decrying the suggested changes, equally annoying are the same form letters supporting the changes before the plan is even presented.
I'm sure that I'll be making a number of comments about Social Security over the coming months. I'll do my best to analyze and interpret the changes as I understand them and I hope to be able to present that information here in a concise and coherent form. I'm not an economist, and I'm not an expert on banking or investing, but I care about developing an honest understanding of the program and it's changes. I don't promise to be right, I don't even promise to support or reject it, but I do promise to be honest about what I see and what I believe the changes entail.
For now, though, it's important for everyone to understand their Representative's and Senator's positions on reform and monitor their activity to ensure that they are working on behalf of your best wishes and interests. In this era of "permanent campaigning" and partisan hackery, it's more important than ever to monitor your elected officials positions on Social Security Reform.
Use these links to find out your Senator's and Representative's positions and the means to contact them.
There will be alot of rhetoric out there to sift through from both sides of the aisle. It'll be up to each of us to make our own decisions about our future and the future of our nation's children as this process goes forward. Recent events have shown us that we can't rely on the media, so we have to rely on ourselves to examine the evidence and make our opinions known. I'll share my thoughts with all of you and I hope in return, some of you do the same.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:00 PM
Iraqi Election Video
I'd have to call this a MUST SEE VIDEO. Thank you Adam Keiper.
It's 8 megs or so, so please be patient, it's worth it.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:19 PM
Wassup Kim Jong-IL
Speculation is beginning to mount that North Korea may be on the verge of imminent collapse. It appears that the "Dear Leader" hasn't been seen for quite some time and all of the pictures released recently appear to be more than two years old. Additionally, North Korea officials in foreign lands are selling assets for cash, prices are skyrocketing out of control with no direction from the central committees and escapes of North Korean citizens to China are at an all time high. Has Kim been replaced in a coup and the new leaders are trying to figure out how to announce the maneuver so the country doesn't collapse? Is Kim dead (speculation is rising that perhaps the Ryongchon explosion may have something to do with this as Kim's personal train was known to be in the area) from an assassination or just in hiding grasping at straws? February 16th is the "Dear Leader's" birthday, and you can bet that all eyes will be on North Korea that day to see if he pops up out of his holes. I know I'll be watching.
Check out this report from North Korea, it's quite interesting. [Page 1] [Page 2] [Page 3] [Page 4]
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:35 AM
Go Donnie Go
I've mentioned Donnie Fowler before. In fact, I mentioned him HERE, and HERE and HERE. But that's not important. What is important is that he's actually got some momentum now.
It's no secret that I supported George Bush in the election, and I still do support him, but I also believe in the two party system and I DO NOT wish to see the Democrats go the way of the Whigs in American politics. I believe that they can legitimately offer an alternative to the Republicans if they get their act together and work to present a viable alternative.
With that in mind, I'd like to encourage everyone to visit www.changetheparty.com, Donnie Fowler's website. I personally believe that Donnie has the motivation, energy and common sense to revitalize the Democrat party into a viable alternative to Republican candidates. I truely believe that Donnie wants to offer a reasonable and centrist candidate for the American populace.
We NEED a viable alternative. John Kerry was not an alternative to Bush, he wasn't even a choice to be considered by reasonable Americans. If it were not for the ABB (Anybody But Bush) vote, the Democrats would be done today as a political party in the U.S. This is a travesty in American politics.
Lets be honest, the Red States and the Blue States aren't all that different. We all just want a safe, secure and economically viable life for ourselves and our children. Donnie wants this too, and I can assure you from meeting the man and listening to his opinions, that his #1 goal is giving people a viable choice. So PLEASE, I'm beggin you, visit his site at www.changetheparty.com and please give it an honest look.
I'm sure that you will agree that ONE CHOICE is no choice and regardless of what the Democrats have done in the past, we need them as an alternative in the future. The two party system is what we're all about, we need a choice. Donnie Fowler can offer that to us. Howard Dean CANNOT.
Visit WWW.CHANGETHEPARTY.COM
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:49 AM
January 30, 2005
Quick Iraq Note
I'm sure you've been indundated by Iraq election news, but I feel like I must chime in briefly. I cannot say how impressed I am that the Iraqi people actually did go out and vote, and in some pretty impressive numbers it seems. I'm not sure how even we as Americans would react to a group that was actively out there killing us, blowing up our schools and storefronts and saying that if we were to vote, that we'd be marked for death. I imagine, that ALOT of us would stay home on election day.
But not the Iraqi's, in what might be one of the bravest displays of the last 20 years, the Iraqi people went out in the face of this danger and thumbed their noses at it. Even to the point of staying in line when suicide bombers detonated themselves in front of them in an attempt to derail the democratic process. I'm so impressed with these people as a group that I can hardly contain it. I feel proud in what we as Americans have accomplished and even prouder for what the Iraqis themselves have accomplished.
Three Cheers for the New Iraq. I salute you all.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:58 PM
January 26, 2005
Hmmmm
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:54 PM
January 25, 2005
Something Positive
I needed something positive after watching "The Movie", so I went surfing. I came across this post from The Diplomad, and I feel a little better about humanity now. It's stellar to see what we are capable of doing when we are needed. It's a shame they don't appreciate it on a governmental level, but I'm sure we're making a difference in hundreds of thousands of individuals lives. I am quite sure that on an individual level, the people receiving our help will remember that we were there for them.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:06 AM
January 24, 2005
Does any Democrat realize how poor taste this is in?
Well, we expected something. We knew they'd make it an issue, but DAMMIT MAN, you'd have think that some Democrat would have pulled Robert Byrd (D-KKK-WV) aside and said:
"um, ah. . . Robert, hey, don't do this, we all know how you feel, but look, it's just bad form, let me do it."
Unless you've been under a rock, you'd know that I'm referring to Senator Robert Byrd, opposing the Confirmation of Condoleeze Rice as Secretary of State. If you've really been that out of touch, I should let you know that Rice is an African-American Woman, and Byrd is a former member of the Klu Klux Klan.
Yes, kiddies, that's absolutely right, the Democrats put a former klansman up on the Senate rostrum to oppose a black woman to what can be arguably be considered the highest position of governmental power a black woman has ever been nominated for. THIS IS BEYOND INSANE.
You would have thought that some rational Democrat Senator would have put a stop to this quickly and cleanly in the hallways and offices of the Senate. To let this action by a high ranking KKK member get onto the Senate floor and into the public record is simply beyond the pale. I guess there are no more Democrat Senators that are rational, and certainly as a party, they've demonstrated that they have no control or conscious.
The story gets better though. It's all partisan politics, I'm sure you already guess that. Originally, Byrd and Barbara Boxer (D-nutcase-CA) had planned to try and give long grandstanding speeches (filibustering the old way) to try and stretch the confirmation discussion into the evening hours in an attempt to keep Senator's away from the President's inaugural balls, and grab some camera time of course. I'm just glad that someone must have wispered into Boxers ear that the last time Byrd actually "filibustered" it was to oppose Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's really all just too nutty to comprehend. Basically, the Democrats have lost all sense of purpose, decency and common sense.
Well, at least by her actions alone, I can move Barbara Boxer firmly into the "BIGOT" column of my mind. She laid down with a pig and came up covered in s***.
Click Here, if you'd like to send the klansman (Robert Byrd D-WV) a message. Or HERE to send one to Barbara Boxer (D-nutcase-CA).
Here's a final look at the Klansman Robert Byrd.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:12 AM
January 20, 2005
Inauguration Day
Well, this is a happy day for me and mine. The inauguration is going off without a hitch. There are protesters and I'm glad that they are behaving with some civility (mostly, but there have been some anarchist a-holes getting outt of hand). PIC
Bush's speech was quite stirring and I think it's one of the best inauguration speeches I've read or heard. The tone and message was clear and concise, the whole gig was centered around freedom and the American ideals of freedom, justice and equality.
Click Below for more about the Inauguration, More Photos, and some deplorable actions by ABC news. . . . .
I have to admit that I caught the actual swearing-in then had to miss a bit while I made some appointments, but I'm catching up now and BOY HOWDY! is Shepard Smith from Fox News having fun. I've heard him make about 6 good-natured and fun quips about the scene and really appreciate that they've been having fun with this too. CNN seems to be much more somber in their reporting, almost "hurt." C-SPAN is it's normal droll self with very little personality. I can only sum up Chris Matthews over on MS-NBC with one word, annoying.
I do think it's important that I mention how the big boys are playing this, CBS seems to be still a little shell shocked from Rathergate and they're being quite tame. NBC's coverage seems to be fair and pretty impartial today.
HOWEVER, and this is a BIG "HOWEVER", ABC has now officially become my new hated media outlet. It appears as though yesterday, ABC put out a call to their affiliates to look for a military funeral of an American killed in Iraq to juxtapose against the inaugural ceremonies. They've asked their affiliates to go out and find a family suffering what can only be the greatest loss so that they can exploit it for what can only be considered partisan purposes. THIS IS SIMPLY DEPLORABLE. I cannot understand how some editor/producer can sit in a newsroom and think "Ok, we're going to have this great national event, one that only rolls around every 4 years and I've got the perfect way too ruin it. Let's go exploit some poor family in their moment of loss."
I just can't understand how a person can live with themselves in that sort of mindset. I can understand if some reporter were to cover the story on their own and then ABC made the connection, but to go out and look for the connection, is simply beyond the pale.
As with what has become usual though, the Blogosphere has responded. Captain's Quarters grabbed a screenshot of the request and posted it. ABC responded to the bloggers by pulling the page down off their affiliate network web and now they're ducking for cover as the fingers fly across keyboards across the world.
Damn you ABC for taking what should be a great celebration of freedom and democracy and ruining it. You've sunk to a new low in American discourse. You've shown once again that your colors are not Red, White and Blue but rather just plain sickly yellow.
Deplorable. Truely deplorable. Luckily though I can spend the rest of the afternoon watching the rest of the ceremony and parade. Democracy really is remarkable sometimes, I tell you. I hope you agree.
Here are some photos from the inauguration. . . . .
I'll add more as I come across them, for now though, duty calls, and I'm off.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:52 PM
January 19, 2005
The Russian Bear isn't hibernating anymore
In a move that shocks many in the Western world, the Russian government has announced that they will construct two new monuments to the former Soviet Premier, Joseph Stalin.
This is an distressing move by the Russians. It unequivocally signals that some elements of the Russian government are embracing the past and in particular, the tenents of authoritarian Soviet centralized power, or does it?
--Jason
**Comments are closed for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
No figure in world history, not even Lenin or Mao, exemplifies the oppressive and brutal nature of the Communist system. Stalin is vilified by most of the world, but as with all things, he is also hailed as a hero by many; and it part, rightly so.
The man's accomplishments cannot be denied. Without Stalin, it's doubtful that Hitler's Germany could have defeated in World War 2. Stalin's almost omnipotent control over the Soviet directly challenged the spectre of Nazi Facism. His ability to marshall the individually weak Soviet forces into a virtual meat grinder for the German war machine gave the Allied forces in Europe and those assembling in America much needed time to prepare for a liberating invasion of Europe.
It's ironic that in order to save Europe, Western Democracies put all their hopes in a Communist regime to split the fronts and draw the Nazis into a winter wasteland for which they were not prepared. Coupled with the awesome wartime production power of the United States and the Lend-Lease program, the Russian Bear was able to draw in the Nazi Stormtrooper, then crush him with the aid of the severe Russian winter and the seemingly never-ending supply of Soviet soldiers. Soviet losses were severe to say the least, but the Bear's contribution to the Allied victory cannot be denied.
Nor can Stalins role in building the USSR into a world power be denied. It's not politically correct to say this, but Stalin did bring the USSR up to the level of a super-power to rival the United States. In Russia, Stalin can rightly be considered a hero. However at the same time, he can rightfully also be considered to be one of the most evil human beings to ever walk the planet. His creation of what has been often referred to as a "cult of personality", his slaughter of millions of his real and imagined enemies, his brutal suppression of "undesirable elements", his "collectivization" efforts which almost starved a nation and the expansion of the Siberian Gulag system are all elements of this man's legacy that should rightly be decried as an affront to humanity.
So why exactly are the Russian leaders building monuments to a man who most of the world views as one of the great monsters of history?
The Russian Federation is facing a distinct and very real identity crisis. The heart of what was once the U.S.S.R., a world superpower, is now reduced to a nearly bankrupt nation, barely able to feed and clothe itself. A nation that once fielded a grand navy to sail the oceans of the world, to strike fear and project power is now seeing it's grand fleets rust at their moorings. The nation which once held a controlling presence in nations around the world is now having trouble defending it's own capital from terrorist attacks and sees it's territory fractured along, ethnic, political and religious lines. A nation who's every move prompted a swift and strong response from the United States and who's every sabre-rattle struck fear into Presidents and Prime Minister's world wide is now barely able to host a state dinner that impresses even minor diplomats. A nation that once controlled economies in far away lands with decrees from Moscow, now sees it's economic influence on it's closest neighbors gone in favor of the US Dollar or the upstart Euro.
Russia is dying. It's dying politically, economically and spiritually. The nation is gripped by a despair that it can't seem to shake. The defeat of a nation that considered itself to have toppled Hitler was defeated in the Cold War by Western nations. The Russian Bear now relies on the graciousness of those nations that were once considered to be arch-enemies.
The Russian people are a group who have repeatedly re-written their own history. They've denied who they are time and time again in the name of political expediency. They've been been beaten down from the inside, by their own people. People have been conditioned to not believe what they know, they've been led to believe that events that undoubtedly did happen, didn't. In a word, the people of Russia are but one thing, confused.
The Russian government claims that the statues of Stalin will be part of a greater tribute to the Russian heros that defeated Nazi Germany. Perhaps they are just that. However I expect that they are much more. I would suggest that the creation of the new monuments to Stalin are more a device to elicit Russian pride and a rediscovering of their history than they are a tribute to a great authoritarian. I would hope that by placing the tributes to Stalin in a greater context of WW2 memorials that people will realize that while Stalin was indeed evil, he did have a large part in saving the world from the Austrian Corporal turned megalomanic; and Stalin did bring the Soviet State into the modern world (albeit it slightly behind the Western powers).
It's difficult to support this move by the Russians because the motives and consequences are so unclear. Likewise it's difficult to patently oppose the tributes because of the context they will be placed in and the historical realities. For all his faults, Stalin is a central figure in the history of the Russian people.
Do his good deeds outweigh the bad? I can't answer that. For if we take just the bad and magically make the good go away, we all might be speaking German and marching along in goose-step to purge the world of all non-Aryans. If we take just the good and ignore the bad, we deny the oppressed and the fallen their voice in history.
If this move is a genuine examination of history and an attempt to honestly give recognition to the role of Russian leaders in WW2, then I support it. If it's an attempt to clarify the role of Stalin and others in defeating Nazism, then I support it.
However, if this is a more subtle and insidious attempt to garner support for the old Communist regime, if it's an attempt to pay homage to a man as a savior of the Russian people, I must deny it. I must condemn it and give a resounding objection on moral as well as historical grounds.
I have no problem with honestly discussing history in it's most brutal and painful reality. I feel it's necessary to remember the good and the bad of our historical experience. I believe that we cannot honor the good without also remembering the bad. To do so would be a disservice to those that come after us, a denial of our collective history and by denying history, we're doomed to repeat it.
In closing, I'll say I'm disturbed by this move on a personal level. I think it's dangerous to the people of the Russian Federation and Russian nation. Yet I'm not ready to outright condemn it because I believe that it's important that people be remembered for both the evils that they've committed, but also their positive contributions to mankind.
I don't like that Stalin is being honored, I think it may be misconstrued (especially by the West, and certainly by the young) as a return to the glorification of communism. I fear that coupled with the rise in popularity of the Soviet Flag and Anthem as current icons, those who do not remember the evils of Stalin will only see him as a savior of the motherland from German aggression. I fear that the Russian people will begin to forget the evils of Stalin and only remember the might and power and prestige that he brought to the Russian people (however misplaced).
I'm torn between two Stalins. I'm torn between two histories. I'm torn between two possibilities for a Russian future. I guess we'll just have to wait and view the statues in their greater context. Then we can pass judgement and examine honestly whether the legacy of Stalin is being treated fairly, or merely re-written yet again.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:00 PM
January 18, 2005
North Korea yearns for freedom
Now THIS has to be the best news I've seen in quite a while coming out of North Korea. Just a few short weeks after we hear of North Korea telling it's citizens to begin moving underground and to construct shelters, restaurants, living quarters and manufacturing facilities underground, the first concrete visual evidence that North Korean citizens are chafing under the Kim Jung Il regime. Funny that the portrait in the picture was one of the ones that was supposed to be taken down and moved underground.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:57 PM
January 14, 2005
Politically Correct Education Strikes Again
Great news from the PC folks in Newton, Massachusettes. It seems that they've overcome one of the greatest hurdles in the battle for Political Correctness. They've successfully created an "anti-racist multicultural" math.
"WOW! We really needed that." Is the only thing I can say.
Personally, I was never aware that math was racist, but then again, I guess all those round curvy numbers (oh wait, that's sexist, so I guess the new math has farther to go).
There's only one problem with the "anti-racist multicultural math" it simply DOESN'T TEACH MATH. That's of little concern to the guardians of political correctness in Massachusettes. It's far more important that students be protected from the racial oppression that positive and negative integers inflict upon our youth, and certainly lets not forget about the cultural damage that numerators and denominators create.
COME ON PEOPLE!!!! GET A LIFE!!!! Or, at the VERY least, make sure that you're own warped world view that everything is somehow racist and sexist and wrong needs to be replaced with a kinder and gentler multiculturalism. IT'S MATH for goodness sakes. 2+2=4 is no more racist than my coffee table, but on the OTHER hand a pure, accurate understanding of MATH is important for the future of our children. TEACH THEM MATH AND LEAVE YOUR OWN RACIST MULTICULTURAL HANG-UPS OUT OF THE CLASSROOM AND TEACH THE TOOLS OUR STUDENTS NEED TO SUCCEED.
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:27 AM
January 13, 2005
Where are the doomsayers
Of course they won't come out and say that they were wrong. In fact, most are going to stick their head in the sand and deny it. But facts are facts, and our economy is doing better and better everyday. Even with the horrific events of 9/11, two wars, and tax cuts, government revenues are going up.
Even with a weak dollar and a Euro screaming out of control across the pond (mainly driven by um. . NOTHING) our trade deficit is rapidly shrinking. So where are the naysayers, doomsayers and the chicken littles from the pre-election period??? Oh yeah, they're hiding from me.
Read John Kudlow's views on some economic movements.
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:33 PM
January 10, 2005
Rathergate AGAIN
Well, the "independent" (read: hired by CBS to investigate CBS) panel has released their report and pink slips have been handed out to 4 CBS News staffers over CBS's new "false but accurate" reporting style and the Rathergate memos.
The report stops short of saying that the "documents" were fake. However as John Hinderaker of Powerline says:
I should add that I don't attach great significance to the authors' failure to state a definite conclusion that the documents were fakes. The report does an excellent job of marshalling the evidence as to content, format and typography. No one (except, perhaps, Dan Rather) can read that evidence without concluding that the documents were a hoax. Whether the authors stopped short of the obvious conclusion in order to help CBS, or out of an excess of caution, I have no idea. But the evidence arrayed by the authors against the CBS documents is the last nail in the coffin of those who have continued to argue that they might, after all, be genuine.
While no one can say definately and without a doubt that the documents are indeed forgeries, there's no evidence out there at all to say that they are real. Unless you want to take Dan Rather's word for it.
There is however THIS, which I feel demonstrates quite conclusively that the documents are indeed forgeries. (Please give it time to load, it's worth it.)
None of this really matters anyway. CBS News will recover, Dan Rather will get his gold watch and retire peaceably. There's no crime to prosecute and we'll only be able to say that it's widely believed the documents are forgeries put forward in an attempt to influence the election. Those that are supporters of Rather and Mapes will say that the documents may be "false, but accurate".
Today the main stream media will continue to use "false but accurate" reporting simply because IT SELLS. It's now easy to go out there and make bombastic claims, throw out forged documents and make connections where none exist. The media has failed us completely with this issue and it's only the first outward indication of what we're sure to see come up time and time again.
Quite frankly, the entire episode is quite depressing. Journalists, who were once the "guardians of the truth" have merely become entertainers, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves out there in the wasteland.
Complete Independent Panel report on CBS News
Exhibits for reports and Appendices
CBS Official Statement Regarding the Report
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:17 PM
January 8, 2005
Blogging the DNC
Not quite livebloggin'
So here I am, in the belly of the beast, the DNC Southern caucus meeting. I came here on the pretense of meeting Donnie Fowler, who's running for DNC Chair. (Don't we look like a couple of drunkards at an insurance salesmen's convention????)
At first they didn’t want to let me in the meeting. Of course this is completely understandable, after all, I’m a Southerner, but I’m not a Democrat, and I can understand why they didn’t want to give me access to their inner party workings, but I am an American after all, and I’m entitled, aren’t I??
Well, apparently they think so, because after a considerable hemming and hawing, brief attempts to say that the room was full, they gave me a “Special Guest” pass. I’m wondering if the saw me get off the short bus.
This is my first attempt at liveblogging, so we'll see how it goes.
So first they want to explain how the 5 vice-chairs are going to be elected. Apparently they will distribute ballots, people will mark them and then "if a woman is elected" (yes, this immediately made my ears stand up), they will go on and validate the election and move on to the other 4 vice-chairs.
Oh hell it's all too complicated, and trying to describe it is just too difficult. I'm confused, so is everyone else. She says that if you don't understand to see here after she's done speaking. Apparently I'm not the only one confused, cause she's done now and she's being mobbed by people waving papers and cards at her in a fultile attempt to understand a process that's far too difficult for a mere mortal to figure out.
Oh, here's a picture of Me and Al. (Links aren't working at the moment, WHAT'S UP WEBSTRIKE.)
--JC
Bah, the wireless connection is buggy, keeps dropping in and out, just lost a bunch of stuff. Oh well. . . .
--JC
Simon Rosenberg is not a fan of Bob Schrum.
"listen to the people. Not Bob Schrum."
Ouch, Oooooohhhh, here comes Dean.
--JC
Dean, not much in the opening statement, he lamented a bit about how there were more Democrat governors when he took office than there are now. He didn't even touch on the South in his opening remarks. No screams either. Bummer.
--JC
Donnie Fowler - "A Democrat party without the south is like greens without cornbread." Woo Hoo, go Donnie Go. Only candidate so far that got spontaneous laughter and applause in his opening statement. Maybe he's got a chance after all. He's got my vote. Oh, wait, I'm a republican. Shucks.
--JC
Dean:
“What this country wants is a Liberal Demcratic adgenda.” Wha Wha What???? Didn’t we just have an election?????
Wellington Webb –
“We’re not going to let George W. Bush dance on FDR’s grave by privatizing Social Security”
Donnie Folwer –
“We lost because John Kerry couldn’t convince American families that he could keep America safe.” Yep, this kid’s got it dead on!!!
--JC
Donnie’s wiping the floor with these guys. I thought Dean would do better. He admitted that the Presidency wasn’t a 50 state race, and Donnie fired right back.
“…. The Democrat party has to be a 50 state party”
I think everyone up there visibly winced. Now they’re all rushing to use the “50 state” affirmation.
--JC
It's shaping up to be a three way contest here at the DNC Southern Caucus, Donnie Folwer, Howard Dean and Simon Rosenberg.
--JC
UH OH! Apparently the Democrat Party Chair from the US Virgin Islands is here and he's ranting that it need to be a 56 state strategy. Everyone is trying to be polite, but um. . . he's ranting. Apparently he did the same thing in Orlando.
--JC
Donnie –
“Some states and territories don’t want to be admitted as a state.” Well, in truth, he’s right. He’s the only one that has the cojones to stand up and say that though. Everyone else is giving the Virgin Islands guy lip service.
--JC
Donnie won the Affirative Action part of the debate. Rather than talk about how he'd "find new ways to spend money in black areas", he nailed it dead on by talking about how he's walked the walk in Michigan by increasing African American turnout and supporting African-American candidates. He's letting his record speak for him.
Rosenberg is making some inroads now. Maybe he's the sleeper in this race. Dean said something, but it was so bland and without substance, that I honestly can't remember what it was. And he just got done?? Go figure. Oh wait, I do remember one thing:
"I agree with Donnie."
Wellington Webb (gotta use the whole name when it’s such a fun one), is getting a pass on this one, after all, he IS African American. He did give everyone a good laugh though by saying:
“Uh, what was the substance of your question again?”
(For the record, the question was “What will you do to increase the numbers of successful African-American candidates.)
--JC
Donnie wins again with the question:
"What will you specifically do to help those of us elected officials that are closest to the people in terms of organizing?"
His Reply:
"I'm the only person on this panel who's been on the ground, organizing at the local level in a major national campaign."
--JC
OH no they got to the abortion question.
Lots of rehashing the same ole, same ole. Donnie gave a brief appeal for a moderate approach (makes sense).
Unfortunately, the line that got the applause:
“The Republicans are all about the delivery room, then nothing else. I will bring a Democratic party that will care about that child, for the long term, with WIC programs, and protecting a woman’s right to choose.” What???? Wait a minute. Long term? WIC Programs? Is that “long term” isn’t there anything more involved in the long term than WIC programs. Why’d this line get applause??? I’m confused. But that’s par for the course when anyone except Rosenberg and Donnie are speaking. No one else is saying anything.
--JC
Dean keeps going over time, he says he’ll stop, and that he’ll concede time later, but then he does it again, and again, and again. Poor Wellington Webb can hardly get a word in edgewise. However he did have a winner with:
“We need to have a conversation with white voters as well as black voters about their REAL economic interests and concerns.”
I think this is the first time I’ve heard an African-American politician actually say he was going to reach out to white voters. Webb’s credibility just went up with me, but unfortunately I lived in Colorado too long (Webb is Denver’s mayor) to overlook his shortcomings there with a few sound bites in this meeting.
--JC
Donnie hit another winner with sensible Americans and summed it all up with X words.
“The Democrat party doesn’t get it.” There were looks of shock throughout the room, but actually, he’s right.
--JC
Dean-
“I don’t believe that the Democrats will win the Presidency in 2008 unless we make the changes necessary in the Party.” Funny, that’s what Donnie’s been saying all along, in fact that’s his whole issue “changetheparty”
--JC
Things are wrapping up so I’m gonna shut down the puter and see what I can glean out of the “handshaking” rounds.
--Jason - Signing off.
UH OH, glad I stopped. They just figured out I’m not press and sicced the coppers on me. Seriously, they did. He just came over and told me that I have to stop typing or I’ll be removed. Funny, huh.
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:31 PM
January 7, 2005
More about Gonzales
John Hinderaker of Powerline is talking up the Gonzales confirmation. He agrees with me that:
All of this heavy breathing is grotesquely misplaced. The two "offenses" with which Gonzales is charged are: 1) he received a memo written by the Justice Department on the question of what conduct would violate a statute that prohibits torture and other cruel and inhumane activity. The Justice Department's analysis of that statute appears to me to be sound, but, in any event, it was their analysis, not the nominee's. 2) He received from the Justice Department, and passed on to the President, a memo from the Justice Department on whether the Geneva convention applies to al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. The Justice Department concluded, and Gonzales agreed, that the Geneva convention does not apply to those prisoners.
The whole article is a great read, check out the whole thing here.
What saddens me most is that it's journalist's quest to find negative news about any and every little thing that create great misconceptions about the motives and activities of people in the world today.
Whether it be Gonzales reading a DoJ memo or Bush following the law of the US with regard to pledging tax dollars for tsunami victims' relief. The news becomes the fight to discredit rather than the fight to report the events.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:35 PM
January 6, 2005
Canadian Drugs
Ok, so now I get to rant. Why? Just because I can.
Canadian Drugs -- The Canadians DO NOT want us buying drugs from them. They're about to cut off the ability of Americans to buy drugs from Canada. People are beginning to scream that this is because of some pressure that the Bush administration has put on the Canadians.
ANYONE WHO THINKS THIS IS AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!
The Canadians are about to cut off the drug pipeline to the US because the Canadian government is SUBSIDIZING the cost of drugs in Canada. It does absolutely NO GOOD for the Canadian citizen to subsidize American drug purchases.
Get the reality of the situation straight people. The Canadian government TAXES THE HELL out of the Canadian people. They then in turn use these taxes to subsidize prescription drug costs in Canada. When we (Americans) go across the border or use the internet to buy Canadian drugs, it's costing Canadian citizens their tax dollars that are meant to benefit Canadian people. When we buy their drugs, we are using Canadian money to subsidize our prescription drug costs.
NO WONDER the Canadians are pissed. And NO, it's not Bush or any American administration that's cutting off the suppy, it's the Canadians acting in their own best interests. They're getting taxed, those taxes are getting them cheaper drugs. They don't pay taxes so that Americans, or anyone other than Canadians, can get cheaper drugs.
We'd be pissed as all hell if our taxes were going to provide the Canadians with season tickets to NFL games wouldn't we??? Of course we would.
So stop this BULLSHIT about the Bush Administration cutting off the supply of Canadian prescription drugs. Canadians do not want, nor should they be asked, to subsidize our prescription drug costs.
NOW, DO NOT SEND ME EMAIL saying that we should have cheaper drugs. NO WE SHOULDN'T! The Canadians made the choice to have the hell taxed out of them and they made the choice to have those tax dollars go to subsidizing their prescription drugs. We have not made this choice. We DO NOT WANT to have the hell taxed out of us. It's a question of fundamental differences in how we view our healthcare system.
We want cheaper drugs, so we're trying to get those drugs from Canada. The Canadians want better access to healthcare so they stream over our border to see our doctors. It's Yin and Yang, give an take, it's the choices we make. However, taking advantage is taking advantage. Canadians coming here to use our doctors and our hospitals are not using our tax dollars when they do it. We should not be using their tax dollars by buying their subsidized prescription drugs.
Stop pissing off the Canadians by stealing their drugs, and their taxes. They are our neighbors dammit, show them some respect. After all, from time to time we borrow their tank. (Ok, I'm sorry, and yes, I know their military isn't THAT small.)
--Jason
PS I could have used another source for the link, but I've taken so much shit for being in Alabama lately that I thought I'd start to use more Alabama websites and news sources in my blog. Ya'll furgit folks, us redneks have a damn sight lotta smart folks down here an we'sa got us more rocket sci'tists heer in 'bama than any dang place ellst.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:40 PM
The Objection
The debate over the objection to count the votes of the electoral collge is underway. It's rapid fire debate, and it's just great. So far my favorite is from
Rep Keller - Fl. "Get over it."
I can't wait until "Thomas" has all the comments posted.
It's over, and I'm really looking forward to reading through the "official" remarks.
Nothing important was really said; there were complaints that people had to stand in the rain; there were complaints that people had to take time off work. Of course there were the claims that "people were disenfranchised" but no real evidence was presented.
In the end, 31 House Dems objected to the Ohio count, and 1 yep, 1 Senator objected. What's this tell me? That Barbara Boxer is a political HACK!!!! She knew she had NO support, but rather it was a good opprotunity for her to get some camera time, get her name in the news, but in the end she couldn't convince 1 other Senator to stand up with her. Even in principle, she should have been able to get ONE more to stand up, but she didn't really try. This was a dog and pony show for some of the House Dems that wanted to get up and make statements like "I came to this country a slave. . . " (I missed who said it, but I damn near broke my neck trying to get to the tube to see who did, I'll get it from Thomas tomorrow.)
It was a worthless debate, for a worthless cause and just another example of any little thing the "opposition party" can do to try and throw some semblance of illegitimacy to the Administration. In the end, it was a slam dunk, done deal and over before it began.
Total waste of time. Maybe now we can move forward. There was however, a great moment when another Representative from Ohio asked why it wasn't Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin or Michigan that were challenged. I know! I know! Because those states went to Kerry.
It should be noted that 25 Senators didn't bother to show up, and over 100 House Representatives didn't bother either.
I wonder what ever happened to the big DemocraticUnderground protest where tens of thousands of people were supposed to descend on Washington to disrupt the proceedings.
--Jason
PS, Sometimes the Google Adsense Box can be so much fun, look, it's showing an ad for a Democrat matchmaking service now. Funny stuff.
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:53 PM
Confirmation fun
Well, unless you're living under a rock, you probably know that Gonzales is being confirmed today. I say "confirmed" because I'm sure he'll go forward. There's really no reason to block his appointment.
WAIT A MINUTE? Isn't he that guy that said the Geneva Convention was outdated and quaint. Didn't that lead to torture and beheadings and burning in oil of those Iraqi prisoners at Abu Grahib???
Ok, that's my moonbat alterego popping up, but it's just rehashing the cries of the ABB crowd that will oppose anything and everything in the Presidents administration.
So let's take some time and look at the situation.
The Geneva Convention is a TREATY. Signed by multiple parties. Al-Queda has not signed this treaty, will not sign this treaty and will not agree to this treaty. The primary purpose of the Geneva Convention is to prevent attacks upon CIVILIANS. Al-Queda targets civilians specifically. That's their stock and trade.
Here's what people are upset about --
". . . the new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of it's provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary priviledges, scrip (i.e. advances of monthly pay), atheletic uniforms, and scientific instruments."
So? Hmmm. That's what people are upset about???? I thought I'd get some good writing time out of that, but, um. Yeah, that all makes sense to me. I would have to say yes, we can question them, and no, we don't need to get them scrip, soccer cleats and microscopes.
Welcome to the Attorney General's Chair Mr. Alberto Gonzales. Hopefully your time will be more pleasurable that Ashcroft's.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:32 AM
January 5, 2005
Venezuela Chavistas
Communism in Venezuela is on the march. Their first destination is a British owned farm that they will expropriate this coming Saturday. In clearer language, the Venezuela government and the Communist Chauvistas are going to seize the 13,000 hectare farm "for the people" because of what the Venezuelan government describes as a dispute over 3,000 hectare's land title.
This is disturbing on SO many levels. The farm in question is some of the most productive land in the country, the seizure is obviously directed to take the best for the government. The Venezuelan governement already owns a majority of undeveloped land in the South American country, but rather than redistribute that land to the people, they Chauvistas are going to seize foreign assets in a model similar to Zimbabwe's Mugabe government, and we know how successful that was.
The British say they will fight the expropriation, but it's doubtful that they will be able to successfully challenge the move. Time will tell on this one, but it's a sad sign for the future of Venezuela as they move further down the road to communism.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:47 PM
January 4, 2005
Yay for the Dutch
One of my favorite reads is The Diplomad. Mainly because of posts like this.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:48 PM
December 31, 2004
Tsunami Questions for Burma
First off, let me just bitch-slap all the America haters and point out that US Aid to Tsunami disaster areas is now up to $350 million. I said that we'd be putting more in the aid package and we have. I'll even say that we're not done yet and more will be added by the US government.
US citizens are donating like mad as well. Donations are flowing into aid agencies and Amazon.com has already collected 8.7 million.
Now, what's up with Burma? Oh sorry, Myanmar. No, I'm gonna call it Burma from here on out. It seems that the official death toll in Burma released by the military junta is only 90 people. I think that's just fantastic - IF IT'S TRUE. I'm not the only one that has a hard time believing that with many villages completely wiped out that only 90 people have perished. I'm afraid that the junta in power in Burma is too unstable to conduct an honest examination of the crisis and can't admit that they are going to need help rebuilding.
The Irish seem to agree. The numbers don't make any sense. We'll have to keep an eye on this one.
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:06 PM
December 27, 2004
We're stingy?????
What the hell. The United Nations is calling the US response to the recent Tsunami in southeast Asia "stingy". Some are even implying that the US stood by and let this happen.
What the Hell!!!! The world continues it's slide into madness.
FIRST!!!! The US has already pledged 15 million. The EU has pledged 4 million. And we're the stingy ones? Lets remember here, that it's more a European tourist mecca than a US one. We've already ponied up 15 mill, and it's just Monday. More is surely to come from both the public and private sectors of the US.
Give me a break Kofi, don't you have enough to worry about with genocide in Africa, you don't need to be trying to extort more money from us when the entire scope of the event isn't even known.
Besides 15 million vs. 4 million. Who's the stingy ones?
More will surely develop on this one.
UPDATE: A few treasury department people have sent letters to the UN pointing out that the US accounted for 40% of ALL foreign aid worldwide. The US has upped their aid assistance for the tsunami victims to 35 million.
2ND UPDATE: US Government aid up to 350 million. The American Red Cross has collected over 18 million and Amazon.com has collected 8.7 million.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:27 PM
December 23, 2004
Somethings VERY wrong here.
Ok, first off let me make a couple of things perfectly clear. First, I am an atheist. Fully, and without qualms or doubt, I am an atheist. I also have no problems with homosexuality. I feel that a person's sexual orientation is their business, PERIOD.
What I'm INFURIATED about is what I see in THIS VIDEO. (10 Megs / 7 min.)
What I see here is a peaceful protest by members of an organization with a message, the message is a religious one. I see them exercising their constitutionally protected right to assembly and speech. The event in the video is a festival called OutFest held in Philadelphia. The festival is a gay pride celebration and a Christian group called Repent Now staged a protest during the festival which occurred over 15 city blocks, and did not charge admission.
What I also see in this video is a group of people DENYING those constitutional rights. The group doing the denying happens to be a homosexual advocacy group called the "Pink Angels". What I see in this video is one group of people denying another group of people access to public streets and thoroughfares. I see them surrounding them and denying them their right to move freely and speak freely.
This is VERY disturbing, but it gets better. The activity of the "Pink Angels", denying others their constitutional rights was announced in advance.
But it gets better. The police wind up arresting the Christian group. YES. They sure as heck do, and it's all right there in the video. The police watch as the "Pink Angels" surround the Christians, the police whatch as the "Pink Angels" harrass the Christians. The police also watch as the "Pink Angels" impede the Christians on public thoroughfares, and deny them their right to assembly and speech. Then the POLICE arrest the Christians.
Ok if you haven't watched the video yet, HERE IT IS again.
This is HIGHLY HIGHLY disturbing to me. I could care less if one group wants to parade their gay pride around in a street festival, and I could care less if a group of Christians want to preach gospel at the same festival in protest. That is the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right of BOTH parties. What I DO CARE ABOUT is that the Constitutionally protected rights of one group was denied to them repeatedly by another group of people in PLAIN view of the police.
You'll see in THE VIDEO, that the POLICE even acknowledge briefly that the Christians are being impeded and harrassed. But when the Christians finally put their foot down and exercise their CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. They are arrested.
This is an OUTRAGE. But it's not over yet. The Christians that were arrested are now in danger of being sentenced to 47 years in prison for the activities shown in THE VIDEO. Please, I implore you, my readers, few that you may be to please watch THE VIDEO and then decide for yourselves. I'll put up more about this OUTRAGE as I investigate it further. Here are a few links about the incident so you can start investigating yourself. As I learn more about this I'll be updating this, as well as commenting on the larger implications of what's going on. PLEASE view THE VIDEO and read the links below to learn more.
Link 1 - Bill of Rights/Amendments to the US Constitution
Link 2 - Announcement of the intent of the "Pink Angels" published in advance of the event. NOTE: DEAD LINK, either this site has been getting hammered with hits in the last 24 hours or it has been removed by the owners. Below is a relevant quote from festival organizer Chuck Volz. I will try to find another source for the advance anouncement of the groups plans.
"We'll have a moving pink wall around them [protesters]," Volz continued. "Hopefully, they [protesters] will be so frustrated, they won't come again. Talking to a piece of Styrofoam is not the same as talking to a crowd of people."
Link 3 - Press Release from the AFA
Link 4 - Press Releases from the arrested group [ONE] [TWO]
Link 5 - Coverage of the incident by Ex-Gay Watch
Link 6 - WorldNetDaily Coverage - [ONE], [TWO], [THREE]
Link 7 - Philadelphia Inquirer coverage of the recent court decision.
I'll be adding more to this tomorrow when I've learned more about it, please check back and a special hat-tip to Geek Blonde Girl. Please feel free to save the video (right-click and "save target as. . .") and email it to concerned parties or direct them here to view the video.
The permanent link for this post is:
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2004/12/somethings_very.html
--Jason
UPDATE: Unrelated but equally egregious is this item from California
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:10 AM
December 20, 2004
Change the Party
So I'm sitting here surfing the web, doing my thing, and on Hannity & Colmes, they've got this guy on named Donnie Fowler. I'm not sure what it was that caught my ear, but something did, so I paid a little attention. Then he popped out with "changetheparty.com", and my fingers went to work. I poured through his site, trying to grab every bit of it and then finally, I bought it. Hook line and sinker. If this guy's serious, then I'm all for it.
He didn't have any issue that caught me, there was no platform to embrace, no rhetoric to absorb. This guy just wants change. He wants a viable two party system. TWO CHOICES. REAL CHOICES.
So as I looked more and more through the site, I began to get twitchy and then I took the plunge.
Ok, Donnie, I'm in. If you're seriously going to work to change the Democrat party into something that represents the mainstream of America, then I'm all for it.
I'm a realist. I know that the Republicans aren't "all that and a bag of chips" and I know that the Democrats as they are now I want nothing to do with, but I'll go along with you on this roller coaster and see where it goes.
Dear Readers, few as you may be, expect to hear more reports from changetheparty.com as time marches on.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:36 PM
December 19, 2004
Wha Wha What?!?!?!?
Newsweek is apparently reporting this week that Alberto Gonzales will have a hard time getting confirmed as Attorney General because of memos that he READ shortly after 9/11.
Yep, that's what Michael Isikoff just said on Fox News. The author of the Newsweek piece is criticising Gonzales because he read these memos. NOT BECAUSE HE WROTE THEM, but because HE READ THEM.
I'm flabergasted but I'll wait a bit to truely freak out until I get my hands on a copy of the newsweek article.
--Jason
UPDATE: HERE is the article that Isikoff was referring too. I'm going to have to chalk this one up to grasping at straws by Isikoff in an attempt to shine a negative light on Gonzales. The article refers to an article written by someone under Gonzales examining the Constitution and reporting on what the Presidents powers actually are regarding going to war. This should in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM affect Gonzales' confirmation. Of course it would make Isikoff dance in the streets if Gonzales were derailed, this moron (Isikoff) has been rooting against our troops, deriding the President and crying "the sky is falling" for months now.
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:18 AM
December 12, 2004
Geaux Breaux Geaux!!!!
Democrats should take note. Probably the best chance they have for 2008 to regain the White House is to nominate and truely support John Breaux. The Senator from Louisiana has led an honorable public life. He has a voting record that shows a depth of conviction and a responsibility to public service, and one that's remarkable in the CENTER of the political stream. He bowed out gracefully from the Senate, and even though his son couldn't win his vacated seat, John Breaux left the Senate honorably and with great respect from his constituents.
Breaux is a Democrat that many moderate Republicans can agree with, he's weathered the storms of 7 Presidential Administrations, and has repeatedly been looked at for cabinet positions in Repub. and Dem. administrations. In fact, political commentators often refer to the "John Breaux Era" of bi-partisanship.
He lauds Kennedy and Reagan, he's never had troubles with interns, he's strong enough on defense and he's been a leader when it comes to social policy legislation.
There's one problem. He's from Louisiana. Any politician from Louisiana is going to have a hard time. Louisiana is looked at as one of the most backward of Southern states. It's economy has been in the toilet for decades, the state has a history unparalleled by any other for political corruption and fraud. Let's face it, Louisiana can't even get on board with the rest of the U.S. when it comes to the basic system of law we live under. Yep, Louisiana still adheres to the Napoleonic Code.
Oh, wait? That will appeal nicely to the Francophiles on the Far Left of the political stream.
Look out Hilary, there's another John on the horizon, and he's not the one from N. Carolina.
I should mention that I'm from Louisiana, born and raised in New Orleans, with some time in Alexandria, Covington and other parts of the Pelican State. I should also note that I'm a Republican, but you already knew that. I make note here because I'm biased, I'd like to see another President from Louisiana. The only one we've ever had was Zach, and while he was the "Hero of Buena Vista", his Presidency was lackluster. Well that's not really fair, he died while in office and while the results are inconclusive, the cause of death was probably arsenic poisoning. There's some evidence that he ate a copious amount of iced milk and cherries which may have been contaminated with cholera or typhoid.
Breaux would make me think twice. If it were Breaux versus Guiliani, I'd go with Rudy. However, if it were Breaux versus Frist? I'd probably vote for Breaux.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:24 PM
December 7, 2004
Karzai's In -
Hamid Karzai is being sworn in as I post this. I'm really proud right now.
I hope that when people look back at this day, they see a turning point in the War on Terror. I hope that they see today as the start of a stable, strong and vital government. One that becomes a shining example of the principles of democracy and a free society. Yeah, that's kinda flowery, but it's how I feel.
I think that today is the start of something new in that area of the world.
--------------------
Overall, it was a pretty good speech by Karzai. He looked good, sounded strong and hit all the high points well.
He wants to set a stage for Afghanistan to succeed. He made positive remarks about Canada and Japan's committment to rebuild Afganistan. He thanked the US and the UN for the generosity. He made good gestures to Afghanistan's neighbors, the Arab world, Greater Middle East and the world at large. This guy's got potential as a leader, that's for sure.
He touched a few times on drugs. Especially the eradication of poppy production. Which reinforces "this post" about agriculture in Afganistan. Developing Afganistan's Agri-Business sector needs to be a major priority. With Western technology, the food output of Afghanistan could be drastically increased (last years Wheat Crop was the best in 20+years). Afghanistan could actually become a significant food exporter for a region that seriously needs it.
I really think that good things will come from Afghanistan. They have resources, if we just help them get at them. They have a labor force, and they have nowhere to go but up. When I think about the tremendous opportunities present for the Afghan today, it's kinda boggling.
Amost anything from this point forward is an improvement over what things were like 6 weeks, months or years ago. They've got the whole world on their side when it comes to economic development. They've got the US as a defensive umbrella, they've got our know how and our money flowing freely into every corner of the society.
And we'll keep up the flow, we'll give them everything they need to succeed, and they will succeed. Hopefully, other nations leaning toward extremism will see the success of Afghanistan and either reform politicially or through revolt and revolution.
A stable Afghanistan leads to a stable Middle East and it's a HUGE success in War on Terror and Muslim extremism.
--Jason
UPDATE: VP Dick Cheney and SecDef Donald Rumsfeld were in attendence for Karzai's swearing in. Way to go guys!!!!
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:31 AM
December 6, 2004
Pablo won't go
So here we have Pablo Paredes, a Navy Petty Officer who refused to board his ship today for Iraq. He's claiming that he's been against the war from the beginning, so why did he wait until the last possible minute and make a scene out of the whole thing with his dockside revolt?
Well it's pretty simple if you look at it with an eye to common sense and with a bit of skepticism. Pablo is a coward, and when he was safe and sound in Japan, he felt isolated from it. He didn't mind working on weapons systems, taking his pay and socking away money for college.
However when it came time for Pablo to make good on his committment to the US and each and every one of her citizens. He flaked. He turned yellow. Basically, he been taking advantage of the system and when it caught up to him, he's created a political event to get out of it. I'm sure the media that picks it up will go on and on about how military morale is low and that troops don't want to go over to Iraq to serve.
WELL OF COURSE THEY DON'T WANT TO GO. No soldier "wants" war. But our soldiers and sailors make a committment to protect the US and serve in her military. Their promise and contract with the people is what ensures our way of life. It protects our freedoms and provides for our way of life. Let's forget that most reports form the field acknowledge that morale is actually high.
The nature of the military is that you make a committment and serve it out. This term of service gives us the ability to invest considerable sums in the soldier to prepare to train him or her for the tasks assigned. This isn't just a job people, it's a military, and you simply can't take from the US people and her military in the form of pay and training, and then decide to pick and choose how that training is applied. SO . . .
I'm sorry Pablo, but we won't be sending you to Iraq. Instead, we'll send you here. After all, we've paid Pablo, trained Pablo and depend on Pablo to live up to his promises. If he's not going to do that, then he can pound big rocks into little rocks for a while.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:53 PM
November 23, 2004
Emerging Democracy
So far 127 Political Parties have requested recognition in Iraq. Most of these parties won't make it into any national level office; But it'll certainly be interesting to see. At least it gives the blogoshpere a whole bunch of new search terms.
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:11 PM
Good News from Iraq -- And Dolphins!!
The mainstream media still refuses to tell Americans about the good things happening everyday in Iraq. Fortunately, the Wall Street Journal and an Australian Blogger have filled the void.
CHRENKOFF'S Report on the past two weeks in Iraq.
Dolphins are getting some good press today. Here are some Dolphins in Iraq, keeping humans safe because they're trained to. And HERE are some Dolphins keeping people safe because they want to.
Maybe it's time to take a closer look at these aquatic buddies.
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:32 PM
November 22, 2004
Yasser died from a "ray-gun"
Ok, so the title is misleading, but come on people.
So now we have Mohsen Arafat, Yasser's brother, says that the Palestinian's chief terrorist was killed by poison. Regardless of what the French medical report says.
Mohsen Arafat claims that "There exists poisons which effects vanish a few hours later." Wha? Wha? What? Do I see here an attempt to inflame the Palestinian people against Israel because Mohsen here claims that Arafat was poisoned, by a phantom unknown agent that disappeared from discovery a few hours later? What does he base this on? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
It gets worse. Mohsen Arafat also claims that it's possible such a phantom disappearing poison was "administered using radioactive means." So lemme get this straight.
According to Moshen Arafat (Yasser's brother):
Yasser Arafat was taken out by the Israelis via a ray-gun that infected Yasser with a phantom poison, which also disappeared leaving no trace. This poison also happened to cause death while displaying symtoms approximating AIDS. [1] [2]
The world has gone mad. Oh, yeah, it was already mad, it's just gotten a little madder. (Pun intended.)
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:14 PM
The Kyoto Push
I know it's not popular to say this, but I have to. The KYOTO ACCORDS are a bad idea, propagated on bad science and will serve to be a destructive force for the world.
What? Wait a minute Jason, what are you saying? How can you be against the environment, how can you rant against the Kyoto Accords?
The examination of Kyoto has to start at the question "Why Kyoto?"
The Accords were suggested, obstensibily, in the hopes that the industrialized nations could establish an "industrial status quo" with regard to the emmission of so called "greenhouse gasses." The next step is the reduction of gas emmissions worldwide. While this is a noble effort and certainly one worth considering, the true motives and reasons are more complex.
If the true goal were the reduction of greenhouse gasses, the accords would have addressed the unfettered slash and burn practices of the rainforests. Only lip service is given to this issue in the accords. tens of thousands of acres of rainforest in equatorial regions are decimated daily in the third world. The forest is removed to create pastureland that remains fertile for a brief time then the thin topsoil washes away creating landscapes that resemble the surface of the moon. NOTE: The rainforests are the #1 converter of the most evil of the greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide, into oxygen, which is considered to be a "safe" gas. Rather than keep the ecological scrubbers natural to the planet, the Kyoto accords simply blame the industrialized nations for the problem, and create ticking time bombs of pollution in the third world.
While the industrialized nations are ordered to reduce emissions, third world nations are allowed, even encouraged to up their emission levels. A step further allows developing nations to "sell" their surplus emission allotments to other nations so they can remain inside the agreed upon levels. This is a bad idea on it's face, and even more insidious when you look behind the curtain.
The Kyoto Accords are condemning developing nations to pre-idustrialized status. Emission brokering will become the next "oil-for-food" fiasco, as third world potentates and dictators will sell off the economic future of their countries to larger nations who will in turn promise hard currency, manufactured goods and perhaps even kickbacks and military/economic development scenarios.
To top it all off? The science is bad. There's no concusive evidence that the planet is warming. In fact, for every scientific and anecdotal study that says the planet is warming, there's a counter study that says it's cooling.
The fact is that we don't know enough about what's going on with the world. Most of the data used to support global warming is coming from data collected in relative proximity to population centers. Put 10 people in a small room for an hour without any outside source of air conditioning, wait an hour and see what the temperature does. Or you could lay an acre of bright white cement and then put a thermometer in the center and locate another 50 ft from the slab and compare the temperature readings. In both cases you'll see that population and development increases local temperature.
Now get on a boat and travel to the center of any ocean. Drop a bouy with a thermometer on it and study those results. Yep, you've guessed it, the temperatures away from population centers are actually going down decade after decade.
The simple common sense truth is that we have no idea what's really going on with the warming and cooling of the earth. The Earth has been around longer than most people can conceive of. We have lots of theory and conjecture and even some sound scientific hypothesis about the mechanics of our environment, but we don't have anything that we can look at as fact. We're playing a whole new game with mother nature and given the size and scope of the playground, it's doubtful at this juncture that we're able to even field a team that can play with the old mother, let alone beat her at her own game.
I'm proud of the Clinton administration's initial obstructionist tactics when Kyoto started to turn into pop science. I'm even more proud of the Bush administrations' refusal to continue with the process in Kyoto. The popular opinion influences were turning against the demonstrated science. Any suggestion from NASA or any other scientific body that the Earth was actually cooling in some studies was met with jeers and attacks on the presenters, howling protests from eco-warriors and vicious personal attacks on the presenters.
Faced with the opposition science, the Kyoto group attacked the US, saying that "of course the world's largest polluter would present such 'manipulation' of commonly held opinion." Yes, the Kyoto signatories agreed that the Accords were based on "OPINION" not fact. The group looked at a political situation without regard to the science.
Of course cars are bad, but so is burning the rainforest, of course polluting coal fired electric plants are bad, but so are volcanos (which actually cool the planet btw). The simple truth is that all the money being poured into Kyoto based programs aren't being supported by scientific discoveries, they are based on pop science and politics. The Kyoto Accords are more about the redistribution of wealth on a global scale than they are about "fixing" the planet. A planet I add, that may not need fixing.
Rather than pouring money into an unknown "green hole", I suggest that we continue to fund and even increase funding for "true" scientific study of the history of the global climate. Lets get the ball rolling on Arctic and Antarctic ice core projects, lets get some more satellites into space to conduct a detailed planetary temperature study, lets approach the problem with common sense solutions that address the real issues rather than slapping band-aids on non-existant cuts and saying that we cured cancer.
Pollution is bad, we need to continue the development of hybrid vechicles of all types (here's a hybrid SUV), we need to help the developing nations meet their ecologic and energy needs without having to pass through the dark-ages of our own industrial revolution. We need to actively work with the third world to exploit, solar, wind, wave, water and geotherm energy production so they don't have to cut down rainforests for firewood, or burn noxious coal. We need to let industrialized nation's agribusiness interests enter into emerging markets to bring effective soil management practices worldwide. And we need to bring a new "Global Corps of Engineers" into being to work to correct and manage many of the worlds largest ecosystems for their effective long term stability.
For milenia, mankind has worked in harmony with nature, and nature has worked with mankind to provide for the development of the most successful species ever to move across the planet. We've integrated ourselves into every corner of the planets ecosphere, we've harnessed the resources and found the logical extentions of what the planet has to offer us; we moved from buring dung to burning wood, from wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to nuclear, then with this surplus, we've explored solar, wind, water, wave and geotherm technology. All of these sources of energy are a continuum of process. We'll continue to harness new and less polluting sources of energy as we progress.
Throw money at this process! Don't throw money toward hamstringing the economic drivers of the world economy; don't throw money to encourage development of "dirty" technology in the third world so they can "live up to" their quotas. Finally, throw money at those efforts that will give us a deeper understanding of what's actually going on, so we can have scientific fact on our side as we move forward rather than protests and propaganda that only assert that the sky is falling.
The Earth is not a political play-toy, it's our home. It's been around longer than we have, and will be around long after we're gone. We've certainly had our effect on it, but the ecosystem has the ability to shrug us off any any time if it so sees fit. We're going to have ice ages and periods of global warming again, and again, and again, it's better that we try to understand what these processes are rather than try to think we somehow have the ability to control it. Lets concentrate on getting off the rock before it shrugs us off before we try to start figuring out how to reverse ice ages or air condition the planet.
It's just common sense.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:11 PM
November 19, 2004
How the Dems stole Christmas
Here's a very telling and quite disturbing post found on one of the leading sites for Democrat whining. If you have a few minutes, explore the rantings found there. Just don't do so right after taking a shower, cause I'm sure you'll need another after a few minutes of reading their vitriol and conspiracy theories.
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:13 AM
November 18, 2004
They found God
So I was watching Hannity & Colmes last night. Well I wasn't exactly watching, it was just running in the background while I was doing other stuff. A little way in I noticed that Ann Coulter was on repping the right and Bob Beckel was giving the left perspective, Shaun and Alan were doing their thing.
I've heard Bob and Ann go at it before, so I kinda tuned it out. Then about halfway through, I heard Beckel say something along the lines of ". . . well, my faith says . . ." Wha Wha WHAT?!?!?!
Now I've listened to Beckel with interest through the election and heard him prop the adgenda of the left, but this was the first time I'd heard him mention faith. So I listened more.
Here's Beckel saying with every other breath, "my God. ." this and "my Faith" that. Then he busted into talking about the Bible and how it says this and that. I was floored. Never before had I heard this Mondale crony talk about religion or God in a positive way. In fact, leading up to the election he was deriding the christian conservatives and bashing every appeal to God and faith he could muster.
Well I guess this quantum shift in Democrat strategy stems from their belief that they don't have enough God in their party. I'd imagine that democrat strategists all over the country are now quietly reading their family bibles, trying to see what they can pull from it to further their cause. I shudder at the thought that the left is now pouring through scripture looking for catchpharases they can insert in their next campaigns, but I guess it was to be expected.
Personally, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God, Religion, Heaven or Hell. I think we get one spin around this big blue marble and that's it. The one thing that always kept me looking left from time to time was their conviction that religion and God has no place in politics. I guess that's all coming to an end as they realize they need embrace God and religion to try and win back some votes. Even Hillary has been making more and more references to faith and God in her speeches.
So I did some looking around and, LO AND BEHOLD, I found this little tidbit about our latest and greatest Bible-Thumper.
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:32 PM
November 15, 2004
Fallujah battle winding down.
It seems as though the heavy fighting in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah is coming to an end. Pro-Iraqi and Coalition forces now hold 100% of the city and all that's left seems to be some mopping up.
While it's obvious that some insurgent forces escaped and there is still some opposition in areas like Ramadi, the situation in Iraq is definately improving.
Import/Export trade is almost at pre-1991 levels and the Dinar is stronger than it's ever been. Electricity production is at an all time high, fresh water production is at record levels for the region and still increasing, and more children are in school now in Iraq than ever before.
With elections just two short months away, there's definately light at the end of the tunnel.
But for you war junkies out there, I found some video you might like.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 3:13 PM
November 13, 2004
Afgan Roses?
Ironic as it may seem, the rose may be replacing the poppy as the primary agriculture export of Afganistan.
Afganistan is known worldwide for it's Poppy cultivation; the mountainous nation supplies 85% of Europe's Opium market, but with democracy comes common sense and many of Afganistan's poppy farmers are switching to a Bulgarian rose. The rose harvest can be converted into Rose Oil which is used for perfumes. The oil is high profit, easily transportable and in high demand.
While the opium market may seem to be a more lucrative venture for Afgani farmers, it's not necessarily so. The European Opium market is estimated to be around $40 Billion US per year, but only about about 2.5B of that remains in Afganistan. The bulk of the opium profits are made by middlemen and dealers, while the poppy farmers receive almost nothing comparatively.
In addition there's been the nature of the opium industry itself; Corrupt officials who may support your crop one day, can turn on you the next. Smugglers can steal your harvest, and sometimes you just simply don't get paid.
With democracy taking hold in Afganistan for the first time ever, foreign investors are flocking to the nation to take advantage of the regions strengths. In the case of the Rose, the dry climate is perfectly suited for the production of high oil-yield roses.
The rose oil industry is not estimated to completely wipe out poppy production, as where there's a market, someone will supply it. But the Rose Oil industry does have promise to displace the Poppy in many of Afganistan's best growing regions as on a per hectare basis, the cultivation of roses is up to 50% more profitable than poppy productions on the same land. Also,the risk reduction in switching to a legal and easily handled crop is further reason for the Afgani farmers to make the switch.
It's a small step, but it's in the right direction. For decades, instability has necessitated that farmers get by with whatever product they could get to market, for many years, the Poppy was highly desired by terrorists and warlords for it's ease of production and high profitability. Now that farmers can work more for themselves and strive to build a legitimate agri-business, we will hopefully see some stabilization in agricultural incomes and further development.
Most people think that Afganistan is a barren rocky wasteland. Partly true, the terrain of Afganistan is difficult to manage without significant terra-forming, but with a free and stable government developing, foreign investment will continue to flow into Afganistan. Along with foreign farming practices and infrastructure support to terra-form areas of the country for Agri-business purposes.
The Afganistan Government has the opportunity now to exploit the natural resources that have so long been denied. Substantial oil reserves in the North can now be accessed and with the use of modern extraction technology; Afganistan can have oil flowing north to the former Soviet Union, east to China and south the the Persian Gulf. The export opportunities for oil are the most attractive for Afganistan, but there are also opportunities for natural gas, coal, iron, copper and gemstone production.
I know it's probably hard to think of Afganistan and agriculture in the same thought, most envision it as a dusty desert. So to help you think of the possibilities for Afganistan in the future, I'll leave you with these two pictures.
Afganistan Agricultural Potential 1
Afganistan Agricultural Potential 2
With a little help and American "know how" we can turn most of Afganistan just as green as these areas.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:37 PM
November 12, 2004
Well? Now What?
Hmmm....
It's been a week now. I'd promised myself that I'd wait a week before updating because I didn't want this site to evolve into another rightwing nutjob site. I didn't want to hash out the election over and over. I'll make mention of it of course, but I wanted to let the fever die down out there.
But is the fever dying down?? Or is the new American pass-time a game that includes:
Self-serving, Look at me, I hate myself and my country drivel?
Racist, Bigoted, Insulting, Profane Rantings?
Conspiracy Theories taken as fact?
And the media embracing "false but accurate" reporting?
It's been horrible to watch this whining, sniveling bunch of the sorest losers ever to go through their death throws. There are even people in Florida trying to describe this as "Post-election stress disorder" and they're trying to say that some kid was distraught over the election and decided to "blow his head off with a shotgun in downtown manhattan?" Gimme a break. In the first case, YOU LOST, GET OVER IT! In the second, there was definately something else going on there, it's hard enough to walk around NYC with a shotgun, let alone blow your OWN head off with one.
So can we expect now that people will try to claim disability because their presidential candidate lost? Yeah, I'm sure someone will try to sue Bush, or Rove, or the RNC, or the Swifties or even the DNC and the Kerry Kamp. They'll claim that their negligance or some BS cost them their electoral rights and they now need a stipend from the government so they can sit around and bitch about the government all day. It's out there, just around the corner folks.
But Hey, it's time to move on, and for me, it's great news that Bush is President. He's the guy I voted for, not because of the War on Terror, or for the return of family values, not for anything other than he was my guy, the guy that I trusted, the guy that didn't defame my dad's service in Vietnam, the guy that I believe will do better job with the economy, the guy that I believe will do a better job with education, the guy that I believe will do a better job on balancing America's responsibility to the world and her responsibility to her citizens.
That's the whole point right? America is supposed to work toward her own self-interests first right??? Isn't that the whole point of this geo-political game. To make the world better by starting right here in the USA. Yeah, that's why I voted for Bush, PURE SELF INTEREST. I like my Freedom, and I like being on top of the charts when it comes to things like money, shelter, security, cool gadgets, new toys and free time. I'm glad that I don't live a subsistence "lifestyle" in some third world country.
I'm glad that I have the time to expound about what I like or don't like about my country, my fellow citizens or the world in general. I'm glad that I don't have to go out and stand in lines to get my basic food needs met, only to have that food hoarded by a bunch of thugs with guns.
I'm glad that I drive a SUV, and I'm not upset about the price of gas. I'm glad that I get to have my MTV, FOXNEWS, CSPAN, HBO, History Channel, Nickelodeon and PBS. I'm glad that we're fighting over there, rather than in our grade schools and supermarkets. I'm quite comfortable with my life; I'd like it to be better, and it does get better every day.
I think "W - The President", has done a damn good job in a difficult time for this nation, and I want him to have a full term where he's not bound by the electoral politics that hinder real progress.
So I'm moving on and looking at the world with a sharper focus now.
More soon. . .
--Jason
**Comments are closed for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:51 PM
November 2, 2004
Election Day Coverage
California Dreaming
Strange rumblings are beginning in the west. I'll go ahead and say it. After all, if I'm wrong it's no big deal.
At 1:42 AM Election day (Nov 2nd), I, Jason Coleman, am calling the state of California for Bush.
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:37 AM
November 1, 2004
First Results -- Oh Boy!
Dixville Notch, that little bity town in New Hampshire that votes first every year, came out at midnight and cast their ballots. Now for the results (Drumroll Please):
BUSH - 19
KERRY - 7
Hart's Location, NH reports 16-14 BUSH.
Viva Bush. See predictions below.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:26 PM
Election eve prediction...
Submitted for your approval, or more likely your ridicule, I present my predictions for the National Election, and some general predictions for the next four years and the future.
1. Bush will win the popular vote with 54.5%; Nader and the others will pull slightly more than 1 percent with the remainder falling on Kerry.
2. Bush will carry 40 states in the Electoral College.
3. Kerry will concede on election night.
4. Republicans will control the house by 20%. Republicans will have a 9 vote lead in the Senate.
5. Court battles will be "token" in nature; most will be quietly backed away from with a few minor skirmishes here and there.
6. There will however be an investigation into keeping Nader off the ballot and indictments will be handed down. I suggest that the conspiracy will number between 20 and 30 people.
7. John Edwards will slowly fade into obscurity, make a brief run and the presidential nomination for 2008 and quietly back out to make way for Hilary Clinton.
8. Spontaneous displays of support for George Bush will erupt in Iraq. Democrat operatives in urban areas will instigate small scale rioting.
9. Teresa will make some gaff or some gesture that will be picked up by the media and fully seal John Kerry's fate. John Kerry will not run for re-election to the Senate.
10. Dan Rather will announce his retirement by January.
11. The stock market will hit 11K in the third week of December, there will be a brief dip at Christmas, then after the turn of the year, it will climb past 11K again.
12. Each major automaker will have a hybrid SUV within the next 4 years. Mercedes and Porsche will also introduce high dollar SUV's that will be well received.
13. The US will force to the UN to send peacekeepers to Africa, France will oppose the makeup of the forces.
14. There will be a revolution in Nigeria. France will be exposed as guilty in a corruption scandal in the country and the scandal will bring Chirac's resignation.
15. Asian banks will short the Euro; eventually the Zeropeans will require a World Bank loan guaranteed by the United States to stabilize their currency. EU nations will try, but fail to organize a rescue of the Zeropean currency.
16. Civil Unions will be suggested and passed into US law in 2006. The move will come after a majority of states outlaw gay marriage and the Supreme Court of the US will uphold the states elections on the issue. There will be little to no resistance to Civil Unions.
17. The US will implement a guest worker program for immigrant workers. The Guest Worker will have 4 weeks to secure and report employment, be fingerprinted, and photographed. Dna Samples may also be collected. Guest Workers will be required to renew their Guest Worker card every 6 months.
18. The United States will begin to decommission 4 Oil Refineries in the US. Two new refineries will be approved to replace them. Plans will be made to modernize all US Oil Refineries by 2018.
19. Fuel Cells for homes will become available through the local utility, but will not be available for private automobiles.
20. Tort Reform will pass with standards set for bodily injury; penalty judgments will be limited to 25 years of lost earnings.
21. The us will adopt a national sales tax or "fair" tax. This tax will replace personal and corporate income taxes.
22. A new Pope will be selected in 2005 and will announce plans for a Vatican 3.
23. England will hold early general elections in February and Blair's party will win in a landslide.
24. Germany will emerge at the leading power of the EU.
25. The governments of Iran and Syria will fall, as well as N. Korea and Saudi Arabia. (The House of Saud will take up residence in France.)
26. Bush will initiate Health Insurance reform, requiring insurance companies to issue a schedule of rates for coverage in states they operate in. Individuals will be able to purchase policies at these rates as well as Small Businesses. These rates will be tied to corporate rates with published percentage differences.
27. Giuliani/Rice will be the popular Republican pick for the 2008 nod.
28. In his final two years of office, George Bush will set in motion great reforms for NASA.
A location for the first "Earthport" will be selected. The site will straddle Libya and Egypt who will receive major technological and manufacturing investment in return for the territory.
NASA's budget will be increased by a factor of 5, paving the way for a Moon colony (mandate by 2015) and the first manned trip to Mars (mandate by 2018).
Of course, this whole set of predictions could be wiped out by tomorrow night, but who knows, it'll be fun to look back at them later and see what happens and what doesn't.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:07 PM
October 29, 2004
Usama chimes in on Election
Well we knew something was coming, and it broke today. Usama bin Ladin, public enemy number one, stuck his head up out of his personal spider hole and released his first confirmed videotape message since September 11th.
WHY? WHY NOW?
Well the answer is obvious, UBL wants to infect the election process it the US with his sick and twisted world view. UBL must hope that his visage will encourage Americans to recoil in horror from their TV sets and hide in dark corners of our homes fearing this Evil man.
Well, for months now, I'd assumed that UBL was dead. Vaporized in the caves along the Afganistan/Pakistan border. It now appears that we weren't so lucky and that UBL, the great terror leader, has been hiding like a coward somewhere, waiting to spring his latest trap.
It must be hard for UBL to sit in his hole watching as more and more of his lieutenants are captured or killed by US forces, he must be extremely wary of the Bush Administrations efforts to scour the globe for this criminal mastermind. Otherwise we would have heard from him sooner, but he recognizes that this is probably the one and only chance he has to relieve the pressure on him, by trying to swing the election for John Kerry.
But the reality of the situation is simple, and common sense reass it's ugly head again when viewing this tape. UBL says that it's our fault that the towers came down, that it was our denial of freedom to the Arab world, that it was our oppression of the Arab people that caused the hate and rage of the al-Queda network to strike the United States. This is all manner of B.S. no matter how you look at it.
UBL and the al-Queda network hate America with a passion unseen before in human history. Their hatred is not with the United States as a nation, or even an government, it's with the very people of the United States who don't follow the tennants of Islam, the very people of the United States who don't bow to Mecca and pray under the watchful eye of Muslim clerics. UBL and al-Queda have stated that they will not rest until there is a grand Mulim revolution, where Allah is worshipped by all and Islamic Law is the law of all lands.
To HELL with you Osama. Your attempts to spread fear and undermine our way of life will be laughed at by most Americans of substance. We look at your videotape message to us and see a corrupt, insane ideologue who wants nothing more than to oppress women, deny children an education, deny science, crush free will and force people to live in daily fear for their lives.
We look at things a little differently here Osama. We look at the world through glasses that only see liberty and freedom spreading, we look at the world as a place where free will, independence, choice and religious freedom are the tennants, not the where corruptions of a once peaceful Muslim religion can take over and deny all peoples of the world the freedoms inherent in human nature.
Make no mistake Osama, you probably thought that we'd appreciate your message, that we'd listen to you and your suggestions that we're on the wrong path to wipe you and your bretheren from the face of the planet. Showing your face and trying to tamper with our elections only reminds each and every one of us of the hatred and contempt that we hold in our hearts for you and only you.
Your message has most probably been the greatest benefit to the Bush campaign yet, we see you're alive and we won't stop until we find you and crush you like the insect you are. American forces will now begin anew to search the Afganistan/Pakistan border, we will look for you in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even France, whereever you may be hiding, we are coming for you. It may take a week, a month, a year, or 10 years, but we will find you and kill you and dismantle your network of cowards and assassins. You have probably guaranteed Bush his second term and this will be your fatal mistake. A second term president is now unbound by the politics and timidness of one who must secure another nomination and election. You've untied Bush's hands to unleash the full might of the military and intelligence community of the United States, hell bent to find you now, no matter what the cost. If you hide in a mosque, we will destroy it, if you hide in a country, we will invade it. We will come and keep coming for you until you don't have any friends left to hide behind, until you have no place to go, and until you are brought to justice, dead or alive.
Seeing this video in it's entirety simply infuriates me. I hope that each and every one of you look at it as well and realize that this psychotic wants to kill you, enslave your wife or sister or daughter, deny you basic and unalienable rights, force you to give up your god and worship a sick and demented version of a religion hijacked in the name of hate.
Thank you Osama, for making the decision so much clearer for Americans. If this is some silly coded message for your agents here to attack us again, you'd better think twice. For each snip you make at our heels, we will cut the head off the offending animal. Your 'video terrorism' failed Osama, you just pissed us off and made us want your head all the more.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 6:13 PM
Wafflehead
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:22 AM
Stolen Honor - The Movie
If you've ready any of my blog so far, you'll have probably figured out that I'm quite a Bush supporter. More than that though, I'm a person that feels strongly that the right choice should be made in this Presidential election. I believe that we need to select for the Presidency the man who's loyalty to the United States and her safety is unquestionable. George W. Bush has stood the test of adversity in his Presidency. Horrible acts were committed upon this nation on September 11, 2001. Acts of violence that changed how the US looks at the world and how the world looks at us. Our position as world economic driver, the last remaining Super-power, has made us the target of all those that oppose freedom, tolerance, diversity and the rule of law. The United States are not perfect in their conception or practice, nor are they the epitome of the virtures mentioned above. However, we are the guarantors of freedom, tolerance, diversity and the rule of law. No matter what befalls some small corner of the world, whether it be famine, disease, war, terrorism, natural disaster or some other significant event. The United States is involved, we feed the hungry of Africa (not all, but more than anyone else), we protect the innocent in war torn lands (not all of them, but more than anyone else), we provide economic and humanitarian and military aid more than any other world power. In some sectors and regions, more than all the others combined.
Our responsibility to the world is not deniable. We must continue to be the voice and upholder of reason, but we must also recognize when reasonable discourse will not resolve the problem. We must be prepared to force a resolution to a crisis through force of arms. Such was the case with Afganistan, who's Taliban rulers gave safe conduct and support to al-Queda even after they attacked the US. Afganistan could not be allowed to harbor and assist our enemies, and the force of will of America on behalf of the world was exercised.
We entered Iraq for exactly the same reasons. Saddam had for years made no secret of his desire to attack the United States and the Western World in his never ending quest for control of the region and the exportation of terrorists and support for their activities could no longer be tolerated by the United States. She was forced to strike and end the menace of Saddam Hussein and his threat to the world. The subsequent liberation and rehabilitation of Iraq is a moral imperative we now have. Yes, we will have to remain for some time and yes we will have to lose more brave American soldiers to complete the transition in Iraq.
These factors alone should be enough for any rational thinking American to vote for a candidate that will remain resolute and steadfast in the face of terrorist threats to the United States. These factors demand a leader who has made the difficult decisions and accepted the consequences for such decisions. These factors demand a leader whose loyalty and respect for America, her citizens and most importantly, her soldiers, is undeniable.
John Kerry does not, in my opinion, respect America, her citizens and most importantly, her soldiers. His statements in recent days have begun to criticize America's soldiers, their capabilities and their sacrifice to America's causes. Though some will say it does not matter, I hope that some of you will follow this link to the film STOLEN HONOR to see how once before, John Kerry attacked America's soldier's. His attacks then were far more vicious and affected more immediate harm to soldiers in the field in Vietnam, in Vietnamese Prison Camps and when our brave soliders returned.
How can a man who once destroyed the morale and jeopardized the well-being of our soldiers even be considered for Commander-in-Chief. How can we expect this man, who once disparaged them and who begins to disparage them again today, to be concerened for their safety. How can we expect John Kerry to respect the sacrifice our soldiers and sailors give for this nation on a daily basis. How can we trust him with our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends, and protectors.
I urge anyone that reads this message to cast their vote for George W. Bush or any other candidate opposing John Kerry.
Watch Stolen Honor. (43 minutes)
Stolen Honor Website
Thank you,
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:02 AM
October 28, 2004
The Plot thickens. . .
Ha ha, so now, the IAEA, those guys that say we lost all the explosives at al-QaQaa, have been challenged as to the reporting that there were 380 tons of explosives at the site. When pressed, the IAEA now says that not all of the explosives were being stored at the site, but rather that only part of the explosives were stored there and more were stored elsewhere. Um. . . What are we supposed to say now? Its funny to me. So we have the UN under fire for the oil for food scandal, the UN against President Bush and the coalition moving into Iraq. The UN wants us to turn over Iraq to their control but leave our troops there for security. We laugh in their face at all this.
So then they drop this "missing explosives" story out of left field. Declaring that these are somehow akin to WMD's that we let get away. However, when we challenge that they were moved beforehand (with some photos to back it up) or when we pull out their own earlier reports, they then change their story.
It's completely obvious that this was a deliberate attempt to attack the US administration by the UN in coordination with the Kerry campaign and complicity of the NYT. It's sickening to me.
HERE is a copy of the monitoring report we showed to the UN to challenge their claim of how much explosives were actually at the site back when the UN was "monitoring" it.
Oh yeah, keep in mind folks, that we're not even really talking about explosives here, but rather we're talking mostly about chemical components used to make explosives. Significantly different in that to convert these compounds into plastique, it requires some significant technology and infrastructure. This also supports the claims that Saddam (possibly with Russian assistance), moved the material beforehand. As the much of the raw materials themselves are useless without major factories to produce the finished product in.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:13 PM
First it's this, then it's that...
Today on the 24 Hr cable news outlets, democrat strategists seem to have new talking points.
"George Bush tried to do this(Iraq War) on the cheap. . . "
Weren't just a few days ago the Kerry party line was that the Iraqi War was costing too much? That we'd already spent billions that were unnecessary???
So which is it, was George Bush trying to do it on the cheap or was he spending too much.
I would start chanting "Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop. . ." if it wasn't so cliche.
Irregardless, I'm anxiously awaiting the satellite photos to come out showing the infamous explosive cache moved before the war. Expect them to come out on Friday morning as a weekend talking point to refute the Kerry claims.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:13 AM
October 27, 2004
From Russia with whatever...
In a developing story filed by the Drudge Report, Russia may have had a hand in removing explosives from the al-QaQaa military compound south of Baghdad before the US invasion. John Shaw, Undersecretary of Defense is apparently stating that Russian Special Forces assisted Iraqi intelligence with the materials relocation to Syria. I'll be watching this with interest as it leads to questions regarding what Russia's real role in Oil For Food, the War on Terror and even it's stated alliances with the United States.
Were the Russians trying to keep the material out of terrorist hands? Were they trying to affect the balance of power in the region? Or were they just trying to cover their own asses?
I don't know yet but I'm all over this one for the next few hours.
Story in the Washington times.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:39 PM
Political mis-fires and the Israel question
The man that's been widely considered to be tapped for the Secretary of State position, should candidate John Kerry win the presidency, may have given himself a minor flesh wound and tossed a little support Bush's way.
''I'm not here to criticize President Bush," Holbrooke, a former United Nations ambassador, told hundreds of members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, a major pro-Israel lobbying group, gathered for their annual summit. ''His support for Israel is, in my mind, unquestionable."The crowd -- to Holbrooke's chagrin -- offered rousing applause. ''That was not," he said wryly, ''supposed to be an applause line." --Full Report, Boston Globe
Although Holbrooke's remarks were probably meant in the best spirit of bipartisanship, they bring to mind some interesting questions about the geopolitical ramifications of this election with regard to the status of Israel.
Israel in particular is in dire straits depending on the outcome of this election. On one hand we have George Bush, who has been a strong supporter of the Jewish state and who will take some of the heat off Israel by keeping US forces in the region and be the focus of Extremist Islamist aggression. On the other we have John Kerry, who has stated that he would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within six months of becoming president.
Six months! Even in the best case scenario, no reasonable person can expect a nation (Iraq) to develop an effective and secure democracy in a land which has never had personal freedoms exercised and which sits between multiple Islamic states just waiting for the opportunity to pounce. Any person who would submit that Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran would leave the new Iraqi government alone in the absence of US forces needs to see their psychiatrist immediately.
Even Germany and Japan couldn't be left to their own devices after World War 2 within a few short years of their defeat. US Forces still remain in Germany and Japan and while their roles aren't for direct supervisory control of those nations, the presence of US Forces in these regions serve to stabilize relations and the economies of these former enemy's turned allies of the United States.
Has the American populace become so desirous of instant gratification that we now look at war and liberation as a quick and tidy operation that we can undertake on the cheap and on the fly. Subsequently abandoning our handiwork to the forces arrayed against it with the hopes that it's enemies will leave it be under some sort of gentleman's agreement.
But back to Israel, should John Kerry be elected on November 2nd, I'm quite sure the that the government of Irsrael will have no choice but to immediately strike at the heart of Iran's nuclear energy and weapons programs. The Israeli government's first and primary responsibility is to protect their population. Iran has stated repeatedly that should they acquire a nuclear weapon, that they WILL use it against Israel. They haven't said they will use it if Israel attacks them, they haven't said they will consider it's use on Israel, they have said UNEQUIVOCALLY, that they will USE said weapon on Israel.
Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Everyone knows this, no sane person armed with any knowledge of even half the facts can rationally deny that Iran does not wish to develop nuclear arms and is moving in that direction as you read these words. Iran has developed missile technology in coordination with North Korea to deliver it's nuclear weapon, and they intend to use it on Israel.
What is to be done about this? Well first and foremost, it's Israel's decision on what "they" must do, but make no mistake that they are intently watching the US election before they play their hand.
Israel knows that George Bush and his administration will do everything it can to protect our ally Israel. This policy is a function of international treaties, bilateral treaties, pledges to the United Nations and our European allies, and the policies of the Bush administration.
John Kerry has not offered any such promises to Israel, in fact he's offered many different opinions on what sort of policy his administration whill have toward the Jewish state. He's said publically that he's for the Israeli security wall and in the same day that he's against it. He's told one group that he will stand for Israeli independence and security, then told another group that he he will work to create a neutral ground within Israel for Islamic and Palestinian groups to adminsiter along with the UN and Israel.
If I were the Israelis, I'd be very very worried about this election. Should the tide swing over to John Kerry, it's probably advisable that Israel immediately set itself once again on a war footing and pre-emptively strike out hard at Iran before US Forces leave. It's hard for me to say that, because I don't like the prospects for US Forces to be drawn into defending Israel from invasion by Arab states, securing Iraq and Afganistan and also being somewhat forced to enter Iran to continue what Israel starts. But I'm afraid that such is the only course of action open to the Israeli's government should they be faced with a US withdrawl basically announced on November 3rd.
A Bush victory would have a calming effect on the Israeli's. They would be assured that the US would be remaining in the region to continue to bring pressure on terrorist elements in the region. The presence of US forces in Iraq also serves to keep Iran somewhat occupied with their own potential threats to their national security.
Iran is a terrorist state, of that there is no doubt. There is no doubt that a second Bush presidency would be focused somewhat on the Iranian question, and there very possibly would be an invasion of Iran during the course of a second Bush term. Such an invasion is NOT inevitable. Iran can return to the bargaining table with the US, but it must be noted that the US has not declared war on Iran, while the Iranians HAVE declared war on the US. Iranian officially for years has "declared a jihad" on the US. Iranian officials have publically stated that as long as the US exists, that a state of war will exist between the Iranian and US people. They have NEVER relented on this position, they have never softened it. Even in the wake of having the bulk of the mobile US military in Iraq, they still call for attacks on the US and her interests abroad. It's almost an amazing propostion to think that Iran would continue to call for it's agents and friends to attack us given recent history with Afganistan and Iraq, but that's still their position, as insane as it may sound.
There is a bight spot of hope in the question of Iran, Israel and the United States. Yasser Arafat has fallen ill and will most probably not be able to continue as leader of the Palestinian Authority. While I do not wish anyone harm, Arafat's long tenure as the de-facto leader of the Palestinian people has produced no positive lasting affect on peace in the region. Perhaps, the new leadership of the Palestinians will be more moderate in their outlook and accept the concessions of the Israelis for the establishment of a Palestinian state and not continue to argue that the Israelis owe them more and more with each concession. Perhaps a new Palestinian leadership can encourage the militants in the region to stop firing homemade rockets in to Israel on a daily basis. Perhaps a new Palestinian leader can show the Arab world that the Israelis and the Palestinians can agree to disagree on religion and politics but still live together as peaceful neighbors. I hope for these possibilities with every fiber of my being whilst my common sense tells me to be realistic and accept the probably inevitability that Palestinian controlled areas of the region will descend into further chaos when Arafat is no longer in the picture.
Palestinian civil war is almost certain, it will be an ugly and difficult situation for everyone in the region, it will involve Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and possibly even Egypt as different factions emerge and vie for power. We can only hope that whoever emerges on top has some sense of reality and common sense and brings a moderate outlook to Palestinian policy.
Each of these issues are intricately bound in the War on Terror, the Battle of Iraq and the Presidential election in the US. Each day brings the region further and further to the brink as long as Palestinians continue to make unrealistic demands and continue to attack civilians. No progress can be made when Iran declares that their development of a nuclear weapon will result in the annihilation of Israel. No progress can be made while US political candidates criticize the development of democratic states in the region and undermine all efforts to bring stability.
These questions and issues will dominate our lives for the rest of this decade and probably longer. The region has been ignored for too long by the world community and now must be addressed, much like Hitler was ignored by the US and much of the world as Europe polarized. We must continue to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East. This is a position which only president Bush supports and is actively committed to. It's yet another reason to support his re-election even in the certainty that it will cost American lives, American money and certainly lead to some measure of dissent and discontent here while we bring freedom and security to the greater Middle East.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 7:22 PM
October 26, 2004
Hilary's Hypocrisy
Hilary amazes me in her Hypocrisy. It's no secret that she wants to run for the Presidency in 2008, and I wonder about the Clinton's real adgenda in this campaign.
But what's particularly vexing today is this comment she made while addressing a group in West Palm Beach, FL:
"If we were living in another country and we had the president of the country and his brother controlling one of the biggest provinces or states, we would . . .have some doubts about whether, given their track record, they really believe in democracy," - Article
Can we take this to mean that since when she ran for and won the Senate seat, in a state she which she had never lived, that her own belief in democracy is suspect?
This goes right to the hypocrisy of the democrats in general. In the past two days we have seen the NYT publish two stories on the front page about a supposed "failure" of the adminstration to secure explosives that the IAEA was monitoring in al-QaQaa. The NYT fails to mention that the 3rd Infantry Division had visited the site to secure it, found it to be basically devoid of WMD's and moved on. A week later, it was visited again by US forces and again found to be not of much consequence to the war effort or securing the nation. The Kerry campaign is running full-tilt with this regardless of the emerging and common sense facts.
This partisan attack of the NYT, the Kerry Campaign and the left in general seems to assert that now we entered this "Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Place" war too early?? Just anothe example of the insanity that the Democrats have succumbed to in their attempts to gain power for power's sake.
Al-QaQaa was bombed repeatedly in the opening days of the Bombing Campaign against the Saddam regime. Saddam had long used the extensive bunker complex at al-QaQaa for the staging and logistical support of his army, the bunker complex there was heavily bombarded by us forces destroying many bunkers completely. To this day, the site remains a "non-issue" with regard to the security of Iraq due to this bombing.
Keep in mind that IF the 380 tons of explosives did in fact fall into enemy hands, they represent less than one-tenth of one percent (that's less than .1%) of the material already captured by US forces since the invasion. Not to mention the material destroyed in the bombing campaign.
I don't know about you, but if I see a Franklin lying on the street next to the dime, I'll definately pick up the Franklin, but I may very well leave the dime lying there and never give it a second thought.
Yes I know that these explosives are dangerous, and I know they can be fashioned into various devices to kill with. However, given the speed at which we were covering ground in this battle, I can understand the reluctance of commanders to focus on each and every weapons cache when they can concentrate on getting forward with the plans to capture Baghdad and get at the people that are actively shooting at our troops.
Do I wish US forces had gotten these explosives, of course. Even if they had captured them (my contention is still that they were mostly destroyed in the bombing campaign), there were plenty of other sources of weaponry lying around.
Terrorists have never had a problem getting their hands on weaponry and explosives. I also doubt they got their hands on these.
Word is coming out today that CBS News/60Minutes had planned to sit on this story until election eve and that the NYT scooped them. Some scoop, just another example of "false but accurate" reporting.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:41 PM
October 25, 2004
The Children weigh in. . .
The "Children of Vietnam Veterans" have release THIS video. Please take a look. I'm posting it out of respect for my dad, John.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:38 PM
Iraqi election process moving forward. . .
I find it interesting that when you try to find out information about the Iraqi elections in January, you have to dig pretty deep to find good info about them. It's easy to find information relating to the violence in the region, how that violence will probably impact the elections and the effect the violence has on our election here in the US.
But what I wanted to know was how is the progess going in the establishment of political parties, where are they with the preparations for the actual Iraqi election. Will they go forward?
Well the answer appears to be YES. It seems that while our media is remiss to let us know about progress being made in the move toward the January Iraqi elections, the groundwork is being laid and registrations are about to begin.
In fact, Iraq the Model reports that 80.5 percent of Iraqis are ready for elections to go forward at any time. That's right, a super-majority of Iraqis are ready to get the ball rolling on their democratic process.
Here's some info on the rules of the game. It's funny that I had to go to a Chinese site to find this info.
I'm glad to see that progress is being made on this front in Iraq, while things may be bad in the foreign-insurgent areas of Fallujah, it's good to see that democracy is moving forward in the rest of the country.
---Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:26 AM
October 24, 2004
This guy was our President???
Jimmy Carter has lost his GD mind.
Posted by JasonColeman at 6:57 PM
Where is John Kerry?
Well, we all know that he's on the campaign trail, swinging into Texas without even knowing it. He's playing catch with his daughter on airport tarmacs. He's also speaking from pulpits this Sunday morning.
What I'm asking is where is John Kerry in the face of the increasing numbers of attacks on opposition campaign headquarters.
We've already seen two shooting attacks, robberies, broken windows and doors, offices ransacked, campaign workers assaulted and even political thugs literally barricading early polling places in Florida.
We have widespread reports of voter registration fraud, thousand of names lifted from phonebooks, directories and any source of Name and address information people can find.
The Kerry campaign hasn't exactly been silent, they respond by saying that "republicans will do whatever they can to stop people from voting."
Wha. . Wha . . What??? Where are the reports of Democrat campaign offices getting vandalized? Where are the reports of shots fired at Kerry campaign functions? Where are the vandalized Kerry campaign signs ? Show me the video of Al Franken getting "pied" at his last speaking engagement?
What we're witnessing is the last gasps of the Democrat party. The party is poised to self destruct following a defeat in the November election.
Democrats are leaving the party in record numbers, it started before Zell Miller's (D-Ga) speech at the Republican Convention, and it's been continuing through this election cycle. More and more Democrats are becoming offended by the violence, lies, deceptions and downright disregard for one or this nations most sacred institutions, the Election process itself.
Already the Democrats have dispached thousands of lawyers around the county to challenge the election. Some have been so bold as to challenge elections before they actually take place. Jesse Jackson is already throwing the race card at the Party that gave African-American's the power of the vote.
The party that couldn't accept Al Gore's loss in the 2000 election is so afraid that they'll lose this one that they've decided to openly and without any embarrassment actively work to steal the 2004 election, and do it in plain sight.
At every opportunity, Democrat operatives are attempting to crush political speech that opposes them, giving out the home telephone numbers of theatre managers that schedule films unflattering to their candidate, blasting Sinclair broadcasting for threatening to show portions of the film Stolen Honor [Transcript] and destroying opposition campaign materials at every opportunity.
And this is the party that uses "Democracy" (See #5) as the root of their very name.
John Kerry refuses to comment on any of the activities carried out by Democrat radicals in support of his candidacy. To me this just shows his contempt for the election process, and even his contempt for America itself.
---Jason
Granted, I'll admit, there have been a number of recent reactionary activities by the pro-Bush supporters, defacing of Kerry signs and even some spray painting on Kerry campaign headquarters, but I've looked hard and can't find any Bush lawyers trying to block the showing of Michael Moore's film, I haven't seen reports of shootings at Kerry headquarters or any roving groups of pro-Bush thugs and celebrities blocking access to polling places or burglarizing Kerry or DNC offices. Send me stories and I'll post them if you have them.
---JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:29 PM
A plea from Iraq
Firas Georges was born in 1967, he's a Christian Iraqi, he's married and has a 5 year old daughter. These are his words:
I have been trying to post something for days, I even wrote two articles and was about to post them, then stopped because of new incident happened made what I wrote doesn’t fit daily happenings . Last time I was writing about how things are getting steadier and the terrorism actions are targeting the weaker rings in the chain, now churches and cafes and less actions against INGs volunteers centers and police stations and electric power stations and oil pipe lines, those things can be felt by someone who is really living our daily nightmare, but cant be said on TV station or written reports.
We do live a nightmare here because when you wake up every morning prepared to go to your work and you take the chance to be an easy target for a freak woman who wears a TNT bomb and drives her car toward a police station, like what happened last time in Dora police station and kill all innocent people who are there by a coincidence, then you do live inside a nightmare.This morning my wife told me that she suspects that our daughter who is only five years old is sick and she’s not sending her to school today, I felt happy and relief because I wont feel worry about her till she comes back home safe. But when a month ago my wife asked me “are we sending our daughter to school this year ?” , I answered directly, “yes”, I couldn’t stand that I will do what terrorism want us to do and be, and keep her home without education, but I still worried all my day long. This point of view is spreading widely among the Iraqi people they are really feeling that they should do something to stop those who are willing to paint our future with black color, and they are doing their best to stop terrorism and Arab fighters and old regime supporters and any other fanatics religious groups who want to live inside a wide kayos to benefit from and fill their sick hearts and minds with their desires and demands to rule by dark ages mentality. And the best they may ask for is a UN forces instead of the occupation.
Replacing the multi national forces by UN forces! What for?, well……. an answer to a single question will clear the matter “where in the world through all UN history a UN forces made a difference on land? “, answer “none”. We do need someone to support our government and not to rush things to go home fast; democracy will come, but step by step. And let me be honest and talk about something I have been avoiding to talk about for months, because I kept thinking that it’s not my business. Well it’s a free country now and I can say what ever I want to say and its FOR AMERICANS ONLY.
Americans……….what’s the matter with you, why are you talking a lot about dumping us to UN? Why are you thinking that you made a wrong act by removing Saddam?, Have any one thought for a moment about living under Saddams nightmare?. Was his dictatorship a right thing?, what about the mass graves?, he supported many terrorists in the world, and if you ask me, yes he would be happy to help Bin Ladin if Bin Ladin asked him for, and he would do whatever it would take to have WMD to use it not, if not now then later, and he would live all his live trying to kill more and more of all those who don’t carry on his ideas, Iraqis, Americans, or even Jordanians.
And with the entire bad nightmare we live in today, which we are cretin it will end soon, we are happy that we are a part of the rest of the world again and acting positively to continue being an active peaceful part.
After all that, don’t you ever think that removing Saddam was wrong, not only for Iraqis, but be sure that when many enough dictators will rule in the world even those who live under democracies will not be safe anymore.
And if and only if we will assume that you did something wrong towards Iraqis and made our lives more difficult by removing Saddam, then is it the right thing to leave us half way with all our problems and dump us to an irresponsible corrupt universal organization like UN who took long years working in Iraq before March 2003 hiring and employing only Saddams intelligence and Bathiyests ?, ..........of course not.
For all that, either you thought this or that, you should think you are obligated to continue helping us. I say that to those American who are willing to vote for the person who are planning to give up the war against terrorism and stay home waiting for them to come after him and act at then.
But for the man who took the right decision at the right moment and decided to fight terrorism and remove all its supporters all over the world and at the same moment he knew he would face many problems and criticism from that by his competitors, at his next presidency campaign I say Thank you President Bush you made the right decision from my point of view.
I know I can’t vote or make any difference but truth will make that difference, so it must be said, and telling facts will help showing the truth.
From a free country I want to say by the name of all those who share my opinions, and I don’t think we are a minority, that we do feel our freedom and we intended to keep it whatever it cost and we do feel that the future will be better and the light of the sunrise which begun on the 9th of April 2003 will continue to shine all over Iraq and Iraqis and January is not far to prove what I am saying.
You can read more about Firas HERE. I sincerely urge you to read more from and about this brave man trying to make a life for himself and his family.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:51 AM
October 23, 2004
New Flag Flying in the Middle East (and it's not the New Iraqi one, or is it?)
Well, boys and girls, it seems that in recent weeks, there’s been some stirring in that Middle East land known as Jordan. While our attention has been focused primarily on Iraq and Afganistan, and casting a wary eye at Syria and Iran, and looking back over our shoulder at the developments in North Korea, Jordan has been making some symbolic maneuvers that aren’t fully understood yet, but could wind up having some major implications for the region.
So what’s all the fuss about? And is it really serious? The answer to the second question is “I’m not sure yet, but it certainly could be an omen of the future.”
The answer to the first, is that there’s now a MASSIVE flag of the Hashemite dynasty flying over Jordan. More specifically, over the Jordanian King’s compound on the Gulf of Aqaba. What was originally thought to be a new watchtower erected to keep an eye on goings on in the gulf, turns out to be a VERY large flag (some 262 x 44 ft.) flying from what is now known to be a 446 ft. tall flagpole.
Big deal you might say? Well, there’s some significance to this flag when viewed in the historical context of the greater Middle East. The Hashemites enter prominence in the region by way of Mohammad. Mohammad’s great-grandfather was a Hashemite, and therefore passed that heritage to the Prophet. The most revered Hashemite line was carried on by Hassan, who was the grandson of the Prophet and son of the fourth Caliph named Ali. Hassan was the last Hashemite to make a claim to the Califate but his descendents became the Emirs of Mecca. The last ruler of this line was Hussein bin Ali, who was also the King of Hijaz.
Hussein bin Ali was conquered by Ibn Saudi (who in 1924 took control of the Holy sites of Islam and founded Saudi Arabia), overt Hashemite rule went into hibernation at this point.
Now the colonial powers stepped in sometime later and put Hashemite rulers back in power, the sons of Hussein, were placed on the thrones of the newly created Jordan (Abdullah) and Iraq (Faisal). Faisal was assassinated in the 1958 coup that led to the rise of the Baathists and Saddam Hussein.
The Hashemite line was gone (somewhat) in Iraq, but continued in Jordan through Abdullah (murdered in 1951), his son Hussein (installed as a boy king and who died in 1999) and finally Abdullah’s grandson, Abullah II who reigns today.
So there’s the history, but what does it all mean.
Well, the flag in itself is a symbolic statement. Such statements are very important in the Arab world. The flag represents an appeal to the people of Iraq who share a common ancestry with Jordan. The Hashemites view themselves as the legitimate Guardians of Islamic Shrines and the true defenders of the Islamic faith. The Hashemites view Saudi Arabia and it’s Wahhabist sect as usurpers, and their spawn, al-Queda, as an offront to Islam. With this flag, the Jordanians seem to be saying to the world that there’s a new historic-religious-political force awakening in the Middle East and it represents the true faith of Islam.
It’s considered improper in the Islamic world for one Muslim to criticize another in the view of non-Muslims, that’s the primary reason you don’t see Muslims the world over rising up to condemn the actions of al-Queda, so you have to look for subtle statements of solidarity, condemnation and support when you look at this world. While not “exactly subtle” this flag is perhaps a very pointed message to the Arab world, Iraq and al-Queda specifically.
The Jordanians seem to be saying to the Iraqis that they support the Iraqi people and their Hashemite heritage. I would suggest that it’s also a message to al-Queda that their version of Islam is not the true faith and teaching of Mohammad and that Jordan is ready to embrace a return to the pre-Ibn Saud era of Islam, it’s also one of the first overt signs in the region that the Arab world is turning against al-Queda.
Al-Queda’s roots are in Saudi Arabia, in 1979, Otheiba tribesmen in Saudi Arabia made a challenge to the throne, these Wahhabists seized control of many areas of Saudi Arabia including the Grand Mosque in Mecca, sensing that they were losing control, the Saudis first appealed to Jordan for help. Jordan agreed to send in commandos to help dislodge the radicals, but insisted that concessions to Jordan be made, namely returning some areas of the Hijaz to Hashemite control. The Saudis recoiled at this suggestion and turned to the French for help, the rebellion wasn’t so much put down, as it was “absorbed” by the Saudis. The Saudis tilted toward the Wahhabi faith and the fundamentalists within the new Wahhabist Saudi Arabia eventually created al-Queda and continue to support them.
Today, Saudis and the Jordanians are allies in the Arab world but each has one hand behind their back and keep their distance. The Jordanians are upset that Islam is being corrupted and it’s world view has turned toward hatred and radical extremism. With the balance of power in the Middle East in flux, it seems that the question may be developing “Which version of Islam is to be supported in the Middle East, Wahhabism or Hashemite. Both claim to be the “Defenders of the Faith” of Islam, and although Saudi Arabia may hold geographic control of the shrines and holy places, it now seems that a Hashemite wind is rising in the Middle East, and it’s now blowing a big flag pointed straight at Baghdad.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:17 AM
