Perhaps this might have something to do with it?
Are you telling me that Tancredo had enough sense to show up, but none of the frontrunners did? Are you kidding me?
Friday, September 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Michael Scheuer Is A Prick
These guys think so too, and I agree with them. You need to read the whole thing, and to my fellow liberals especially, ponder why it is that some of us are so quick to embrace such unreconstructed types. Interesting blog all around too.
UPDATE: Link fixed.
UPDATE: Link fixed.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
OK, Hold On A Sec...
You know, I've been hearing a lot about how Gen. Petraeus has somehow made himself a political tool of Bush, or has been forced to become one by Bush. This whole idea reeks of absurdity. Keith Olbermann, on most occasions is level-headed and relatively cool. He's opposed to the war in Iraq sure enough, and he hasn't hidden that fact. His criticisms are often snarky and biting, but most times I say, no big deal. But the rant I heard tonight at the end of his show (I'll post the link as soon as it's available) was, for the lack of a better word, unhinged. For a guy who counts himself as a foe of Bill O'Reilly, he sure managed to channel his spirit of hysterical outrage.
His comments were in response to Bush's admittedly self-serving pile-on about the MoveOn ad( backed up by an equally self-serving stunt resolution in the Senate). He argued that Bush and the GOP are in no moral position to chastise MoveOn, when they were mute on the Swiftboating of Max Cleland, and John Kerry. First off, as a rule, one should never justify bad behavior by other bad behavior, and secondly, Bush and crew may not have any credibility here, but the rest of us do. I condemned the Swiftboat smears. I condemned the smears on Max Cleland, and John Murtha (when they called him a coward), and others. John Cornyn (a guy I have limited respect for) has no moral position, but I do, and the 22 Dems who voted for the resolution do.
The thing is though, Olbermann actually goes on to defend the ad, and asserts that Petraeus has somehow made himself a political operative of Bush, and Bush has hidden behind Petraeus. Olbermann and others forget that it was the Democratic controlled Congress that rightly passed the measure that required Petraeus to testify before Congress. Petraeus is the top commander in Iraq. Based on his views and analysis, he supports the surge, and testified as such in the hearings. I fail to see how he made himself a puppet or a front man for Bush. It seems that those who believe he is a puppet, believe so because they cannot possibly fathom that anyone could possibly support the surge. According to Kos, only "moron dead-enders" still support the war, so when Petraeus says the war is still winnable, and that the surge is working, he must be a liar, and even a traitor.
At least, that's how Olbermann and others see it.
Olbermann comes close to making a valid point when he talks about the military influencing civilian policy, but he totally misses it. Petraeus is not MacArthur, or McClellan setting policy. He's simply doing the job the Senate confirmed him to do. Criticizing Petraeus is fine. But, I think he deserves a whole lot better than to have his loyalty and integrity tarnished, because he believes in his job.
Oh, and Keith, I know it gets on your nerves when the GOP calls the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party. It irks me too, but you do learn to get past it; to move on, if you will.
His comments were in response to Bush's admittedly self-serving pile-on about the MoveOn ad( backed up by an equally self-serving stunt resolution in the Senate). He argued that Bush and the GOP are in no moral position to chastise MoveOn, when they were mute on the Swiftboating of Max Cleland, and John Kerry. First off, as a rule, one should never justify bad behavior by other bad behavior, and secondly, Bush and crew may not have any credibility here, but the rest of us do. I condemned the Swiftboat smears. I condemned the smears on Max Cleland, and John Murtha (when they called him a coward), and others. John Cornyn (a guy I have limited respect for) has no moral position, but I do, and the 22 Dems who voted for the resolution do.
The thing is though, Olbermann actually goes on to defend the ad, and asserts that Petraeus has somehow made himself a political operative of Bush, and Bush has hidden behind Petraeus. Olbermann and others forget that it was the Democratic controlled Congress that rightly passed the measure that required Petraeus to testify before Congress. Petraeus is the top commander in Iraq. Based on his views and analysis, he supports the surge, and testified as such in the hearings. I fail to see how he made himself a puppet or a front man for Bush. It seems that those who believe he is a puppet, believe so because they cannot possibly fathom that anyone could possibly support the surge. According to Kos, only "moron dead-enders" still support the war, so when Petraeus says the war is still winnable, and that the surge is working, he must be a liar, and even a traitor.
At least, that's how Olbermann and others see it.
Olbermann comes close to making a valid point when he talks about the military influencing civilian policy, but he totally misses it. Petraeus is not MacArthur, or McClellan setting policy. He's simply doing the job the Senate confirmed him to do. Criticizing Petraeus is fine. But, I think he deserves a whole lot better than to have his loyalty and integrity tarnished, because he believes in his job.
Oh, and Keith, I know it gets on your nerves when the GOP calls the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party. It irks me too, but you do learn to get past it; to move on, if you will.
What Gives, Mrs. Clinton?
Senate votes to condemn the MoveOn "Betray-us" slander ad 72-25. Hillary votes no. Biden and Obama didn't vote (campaigning?). Hillary, as well as the other 24 Dems have some explaining to do.
To all the sensible Dems who voted to condemn the ad, I say thank you (I'm sure Gen. Petraeus does as well). I have a hard time believing Webb would've voted against condemnation anyway. Still not sure what Kerry was thinking.
To all the sensible Dems who voted to condemn the ad, I say thank you (I'm sure Gen. Petraeus does as well). I have a hard time believing Webb would've voted against condemnation anyway. Still not sure what Kerry was thinking.
A Brief Thought on The Jena Six
Just wanted to point out this from Glenn Reynolds, who wanted to get to the bottom of the controversy in Jena, and asked Radley Balko what he thought. Balko nails it, in my view:
The final fight took place in the school cafeteria. The victim was among some white kids who were taunting a group of black student-athletes, including one who had been beaten up several nights before. The black kids got angry, and jumped one of the white kids. Six black boys then beat the white boy. It was a fairly serious beating. The initial fall knocked him unconscious. But after treatment at a local hospital, he left on his own, and attended an event that night.
The prosecutor initially charged the six black kids with attempted murder. After some public backlash, he dropped them to felony assault with a deadly weapon (the weapons, as it turned out, were the students' shoes). As I understand it, none of the six had prior records. The first to be tried--Mychal Bell-- had his charges dropped to felony aggravated battery, but still received a 15-year sentence. An appellate judge just tossed that sentence out, ruling he shouldn't have been tried as an adult. The rest have yet to be tried.
Read the whole thing.
The final fight took place in the school cafeteria. The victim was among some white kids who were taunting a group of black student-athletes, including one who had been beaten up several nights before. The black kids got angry, and jumped one of the white kids. Six black boys then beat the white boy. It was a fairly serious beating. The initial fall knocked him unconscious. But after treatment at a local hospital, he left on his own, and attended an event that night.
The prosecutor initially charged the six black kids with attempted murder. After some public backlash, he dropped them to felony assault with a deadly weapon (the weapons, as it turned out, were the students' shoes). As I understand it, none of the six had prior records. The first to be tried--Mychal Bell-- had his charges dropped to felony aggravated battery, but still received a 15-year sentence. An appellate judge just tossed that sentence out, ruling he shouldn't have been tried as an adult. The rest have yet to be tried.
Read the whole thing.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Happy Birthday, Constitution!
Our Constitution is 220 years old today, and despite the opinions of a few, is still as strong and functional as it ever was. To explain further, I'll leave you with this, from back in the day(HT: Stubborn Facts):
Thursday, September 13, 2007
A Quick Question
Why are we expected to take hooligans like Code Pink seriously? Explain to me how this foolishness passes for worthwhile war criticism:
Outside of causing a ruckus, acting a fool, and trying to silence (and slander) Petraeus, as well as other voices that support the surge, I'm at a loss as to what these women hope to accomplish.
Outside of causing a ruckus, acting a fool, and trying to silence (and slander) Petraeus, as well as other voices that support the surge, I'm at a loss as to what these women hope to accomplish.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
This Made Me Laugh...
This from Austin Bay, via Glenn Reynolds, made me chuckle a bit:
"General Murphy is always at work. If it can go wrong it will. Murphy’s Law affects everything but it rules warfare. War is the effort where everything goes wrong — Clausewitz’ concept of friction recognizes this. It’s why perseverance and will are the traits of victors. I’ve dealt with Iraq’s creaky infrastructure –it’s frustrating. But from now on every mid-level Iraqi ministry is going to smile when a US diplomat or reporter asks him how his reconstruction and maintenance operations are going. The sharp tongued will say: 'Our parliament’s microphones work.' "
Ha! "Sure we've got problems, but damn it, when we do have meetings, our microphones work! What do you say to that?!"
"General Murphy is always at work. If it can go wrong it will. Murphy’s Law affects everything but it rules warfare. War is the effort where everything goes wrong — Clausewitz’ concept of friction recognizes this. It’s why perseverance and will are the traits of victors. I’ve dealt with Iraq’s creaky infrastructure –it’s frustrating. But from now on every mid-level Iraqi ministry is going to smile when a US diplomat or reporter asks him how his reconstruction and maintenance operations are going. The sharp tongued will say: 'Our parliament’s microphones work.' "
Ha! "Sure we've got problems, but damn it, when we do have meetings, our microphones work! What do you say to that?!"
Kos Drinks Too Much Anti-War Haterade
Althouse soundly schools the "rational" Kos, on his assertion that only "moron dead enders" still support the war:
Yes, you are the rational one, comforting yourself with made-up ideas that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be irrational. But I don't think Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, and I support the war. I'm sure General Petraeus doesn't think Saddam was personally involved, and Pet[r]aeus -- who knows a bit more than you -- supports the war. I think there are many others.
First off, I never believed Saddam was behind 9/11, but I supported and still support the war. Why? Because Saddam was a state sponsor of terror, and a menace, and if Iraq becomes a terrorist stronghold for al-qaeda and others, then the result is, now pay attention here, another 9/11. See, the idea is to prevent future attacks. You'd get that, if you weren't a hopeless ideologue.
Yes, you are the rational one, comforting yourself with made-up ideas that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be irrational. But I don't think Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, and I support the war. I'm sure General Petraeus doesn't think Saddam was personally involved, and Pet[r]aeus -- who knows a bit more than you -- supports the war. I think there are many others.
First off, I never believed Saddam was behind 9/11, but I supported and still support the war. Why? Because Saddam was a state sponsor of terror, and a menace, and if Iraq becomes a terrorist stronghold for al-qaeda and others, then the result is, now pay attention here, another 9/11. See, the idea is to prevent future attacks. You'd get that, if you weren't a hopeless ideologue.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Rules to Consider When Buying New Gadgets...
The iPhone has dropped in price, and some aren't happy. Consider these rules:
1. The price will always drop eventually. This ought to be a reasonable expectation of anyone possessing a cursory knowledge of the prices of expensive electronics (iPhones, PS3s, XBox 360s, PCs, etc).
2. There is always risk in buying an item as soon as it comes out.
3. This is more of an observation than a rule, but it really is naive (and somewhat selfish), if one forgets the first two rules, to then lament if the price later drops, as if you somehow got screwed. Let's say you bought a PS3 for $500, and you're happy with it. Why be jealous of the fortunate consumer how bought it a bit later, for $400? If you have yours, you're happy with it, and it was worth the price, why complain? Now, there are situations in which one could understandably be upset, such as if you bought an iPhone for let's say, $300, and you found out only a day later that Best Buy was selling them for $150. This scenario isn't really likely in the case of the iPhone, but you get the idea. Also, if it's the same store, most times you can get the savings back if you keep your receipt, which serves as a good fourth rule.
1. The price will always drop eventually. This ought to be a reasonable expectation of anyone possessing a cursory knowledge of the prices of expensive electronics (iPhones, PS3s, XBox 360s, PCs, etc).
2. There is always risk in buying an item as soon as it comes out.
3. This is more of an observation than a rule, but it really is naive (and somewhat selfish), if one forgets the first two rules, to then lament if the price later drops, as if you somehow got screwed. Let's say you bought a PS3 for $500, and you're happy with it. Why be jealous of the fortunate consumer how bought it a bit later, for $400? If you have yours, you're happy with it, and it was worth the price, why complain? Now, there are situations in which one could understandably be upset, such as if you bought an iPhone for let's say, $300, and you found out only a day later that Best Buy was selling them for $150. This scenario isn't really likely in the case of the iPhone, but you get the idea. Also, if it's the same store, most times you can get the savings back if you keep your receipt, which serves as a good fourth rule.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Let Me Say This...
Ron Silver has endorsed Rudy for Prez. I like Ron Silver, and I'm certainly not bothered by him backing a Republican, as others might be, but I feel the need to point out something.
Considering this related quote:
[H]e is still a registered Democrat, and Mr. Silver told his convention audience that he has not disavowed the left's social agenda. But at the moment he represents a particular slice of the American political spectrum: voters who put national security before ideology and want to keep President Bush's hand on the nation's rudder.
I certainly believe that national security is basically the primary issue (I'd like to think I've established that rep on this blog), but I have problems with the idea that believing that requires one to want to keep President Bush's (or in the case of the current election, a Republican's hand on the nation's rudder.
Considering this related quote:
[H]e is still a registered Democrat, and Mr. Silver told his convention audience that he has not disavowed the left's social agenda. But at the moment he represents a particular slice of the American political spectrum: voters who put national security before ideology and want to keep President Bush's hand on the nation's rudder.
I certainly believe that national security is basically the primary issue (I'd like to think I've established that rep on this blog), but I have problems with the idea that believing that requires one to want to keep President Bush's (or in the case of the current election, a Republican's hand on the nation's rudder.
This Is An Interesting Theory
Glenn Reynolds on the differences between lefty and righty blogs.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with this theory, but it is thought-provoking. The right has made media bias into a national religion, yet the activist Left often speaks about the "corporate media." Also, I see plenty of punditry on the left, as well. I'll have to ponder this some more.
HT: Booker Rising
Now, I don't necessarily agree with this theory, but it is thought-provoking. The right has made media bias into a national religion, yet the activist Left often speaks about the "corporate media." Also, I see plenty of punditry on the left, as well. I'll have to ponder this some more.
HT: Booker Rising
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)