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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (1)

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 | Comments (0) | 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:

Click to play

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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 6, 2008

Great Stuff. . .

When Barry met Hilly.

Right Wing Nut House via HotAir.

Posted by JasonColeman at 11:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 27, 2008

One. . .

Just thought that needed pointing out.

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 4:57 PM | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 13, 2008

Comedy Gold

Even better:

Kudos to Travis and Jonathan and of course Red State Update.

Fred '08

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 11:49 AM | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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? "

Read the whole thing.

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 10:55 AM | Comments (1)

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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (2) | 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 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 8, 2006

It's long since past the time. . .

That we should just start referring to this as

WORLD WAR THREE!!!!!

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.

WORLD WAR THREE!!!!!

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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (5) | 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 | Comments (9)

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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 20515-0107

WASHINGTON - 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (2) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (4)

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 | Comments (3)

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 | Comments (4)

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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (2)

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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (24) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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:

HALLIBURTON

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 1:57 PM | Comments (0) | 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.

Army Releases Captured War On Terror Documents: Al Qaeda Offers Medical and Vacation Benefits For Terrorists

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 12:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 17, 2006

The international language of. . ..

"Common Sense."

First found via my favorite web diva.

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 11:43 AM | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 31, 2006

Oh this is too good. . . . (It's in the Koran!)

Give it a bit to load and then click play. . .

It's in the Koran!

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 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

OMG!!!! OMG!!!! OMG!!!!

PLEASE LET HER RUN! PLEASE, PLEASE, LET HER RUN!!!!!!

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 12:11 AM | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (2)

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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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.

Main page here. . .

Posted by JasonColeman at 9:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 30, 2005

Grab a cup of coffee, sit back and . . .

Give this a read.

It's worth your time.

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 1:37 PM | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (2)

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!

Will a Republican Senator or Congressman PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE call for hearings to determine why Gas Tax Revenues are higher than oil company profits!!!!

--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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (4)

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 | Comments (2) | 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 | Comments (5) | 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 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

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 | Comments (3) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 23, 2005

TIME begins to correct the record. . .

LATEST STORY UPDATE IS HERE.

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 | Comments (2) | 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 | Comments (4)

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 Taliban

Stephen 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 | Comments (3) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (16)

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 | Comments (1) | 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.

All -Katrina posts by me.

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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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

Watch the Trailer

---

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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Another example of how. . . .

APPEASMENT DOES NOT WORK

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 | Comments (0) | 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.

Click here for Cindy.

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 11:57 PM | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 19, 2005

Action. . .

There's a movement afoot to IMPEACH La. Gov. Blanco.

I agree.

--Jason

Posted by JasonColeman at 8:23 AM | Comments (0) | 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.

Click here for video.

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 | Comments (1)

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.

Click here for the video.

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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (2) | 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 | Comments (10) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 Orl