Including my utter disgust to the actions of the DEMOCRAT PARTY------who have turned their backs to the people of Iraq and conceded a temporary victory to the war on terrorism, I will be taking some needed rest from blogging..........also buried with voluntary work on our local Jazz Festival coming up this weekend in Eureka, California
Please take some time to visit some of my favorite bloggers on the links to the "left" (ouch!)
I should return to regular posting some time next week.
ROVIN
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Higher Education Woes
While I have been saying that the institution of higher learning, (colleges), have been fraught with a single political idealism, (leaning too far to the left), it appears that a young filmmaker has brought some of the "imbalance" to light:
'Indoctrinate U' Film Alleges Repressive Climate on Campuses (full story)
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
March 26, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Watch out, Michael Moore and Al Gore. A young filmmaker is preparing to release a full-length documentary that will "tell the story of how, in the name of education, schools from coast to coast ruthlessly compel conformity of thought.""When we think of college, we think of intellectual freedom. We imagine four years of exploring ideas through vigorous debate and critical thinking," filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney told Cybercast News Service Friday regarding his upcoming movie, "Indoctrinate U."
"But the reality is very far from the ideal," he said. "What most of us don't know is that American college students surrender their rights to free thought and free speech the minute they set foot on campus." ..........
The filmmaker's interest in the subject began when he was an undergraduate student at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa. "What I noticed was that basically, from the first day you set foot on campus, the notions of tolerance and diversity were drilled into your head," he said. "But there wasn't a lot of tolerance for diverse points of view."...........
To promote the documentary, production company On the Fence Films has posted a three-minute trailer at the "Indoctrinate U" website showing clips from the documentary and stating: "Welcome to the new American university. Keep your opinions to yourself."
I could come up with a few other titles for other docudramas: "Brainwash U"----forget what your parents taught you; they were all wrong. "Welcome to (insert university), where we will teach you the "evils of America". This is where your anti-capitalist indoctrination begins and the structure produces nothing but disappointing failure in the real world.
'Indoctrinate U' Film Alleges Repressive Climate on Campuses (full story)
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
March 26, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Watch out, Michael Moore and Al Gore. A young filmmaker is preparing to release a full-length documentary that will "tell the story of how, in the name of education, schools from coast to coast ruthlessly compel conformity of thought.""When we think of college, we think of intellectual freedom. We imagine four years of exploring ideas through vigorous debate and critical thinking," filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney told Cybercast News Service Friday regarding his upcoming movie, "Indoctrinate U."
"But the reality is very far from the ideal," he said. "What most of us don't know is that American college students surrender their rights to free thought and free speech the minute they set foot on campus." ..........
The filmmaker's interest in the subject began when he was an undergraduate student at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa. "What I noticed was that basically, from the first day you set foot on campus, the notions of tolerance and diversity were drilled into your head," he said. "But there wasn't a lot of tolerance for diverse points of view."...........
To promote the documentary, production company On the Fence Films has posted a three-minute trailer at the "Indoctrinate U" website showing clips from the documentary and stating: "Welcome to the new American university. Keep your opinions to yourself."
I could come up with a few other titles for other docudramas: "Brainwash U"----forget what your parents taught you; they were all wrong. "Welcome to (insert university), where we will teach you the "evils of America". This is where your anti-capitalist indoctrination begins and the structure produces nothing but disappointing failure in the real world.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Treasonous Traitors Amoungst Us......
This is how our "new leadership" rejoices in screwing our military in fighting to preserve our freedom and the freedoms of the Iraqi people.
I'm sure General Petraeus and 150,000 troops will be thanking these back-stabbers for micro-managing the war for purely political purposes:
"It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States. The restrictions on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings. For the Out of Iraq Caucus, which demands that Congress force a withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of this year, there is language that appears to deliver that mandate, albeit indirectly. For those who prefer a more moderate course, there is another withdrawal deadline, in August 2008. Either way, almost all American troops would be out of Iraq by the time the next election campaign begins in earnest."------The Washington Post
With the passage of this partisan resolution by a democratic party who are hell bent on embarrassing the President and putting the lives of our military at risk, it is hard to understand how they can some how find pride in what has become a shameful act. Nancy Pelosi (without a majority to support this legislation) added 10 billion in pork TO BUY THE VOTES NEEDED TO PASS THIS.
Spree AT at Wake up America has a great post up describing Pelosi's "chess game":
"Now Pelosi and crew have managed to ADD to the danger our troops are in with her little "show" bill that she knows will never make it to the President's desk as is, and will likely be vetoed even if it had a chance to make it past the senate.
The 218 to 212 vote shows that Congress does not have the votes to over ride a veto.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when the Dems practice to deceive......their voters."
(Read the whole post here)
When the safety and security of this nation is jeopardized by this political "chess game" being played by the democratic party, it's time to consider impeaching their leadership---starting with Nancy Pelosi.(Crossposted at SF Moonbats)
Friday, March 23, 2007
United States Congress to our Enemy's.......WE SURRENDER!
AND AT THE END OF THE VOTE.......ALL THE DEMOCRATS ROSE AND APPLAUDED THEMSELVES...........??????
House to pass "cut n run" legislation.......
Run now.........or run later........that is the question for the democrats who have surrendered to the enemy:
Liberals Relent on Iraq War FundingHouse Likely to Pass Bill With Pullout Date
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 23, 2007
Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.
A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats' first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.
Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.
after, Out of Iraq Caucus leaders decided to break the pact that members had made to stick together against the bill. "We have released people who have been pained by all this," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). "We told them we don't want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy's speakership."
"You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we're going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory," said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a group that opposes the war. "It doesn't make sense to me. George Bush got us into the war. They have challenged him on everything. Why would they give him this victory now?" he asked, referring to the liberals.
Wow! Just Wow........They sure throw that "victory" word around a lot. The democratic party would hate to give Bush a victory over them pesky jihadi's that are intent on killing us.
The administration's stand has only increased the anguish in the antiwar movement. The liberal activists of MoveOn.org opted this week to back the funding bill, but the decision split the group's members and prompted accusations that the MoveOn leadership had stacked the endorsement vote. Win Without War, an umbrella group against the Iraq war, met Tuesday to decide whether to endorse the bill, but the divisions were too deep to bridge.
David Sirota, a former House Appropriations Committee aide who is now an uncompromising blogger, dashed off a memo to progressive lawmakers Wednesday night, imploring them to "accept the congressional world as it is right now," not to insist on the world as they wish it to be, and vote for the bill.
Now thats profane! This is a party that is truly in another world.
Also, in the Senate:
Panel OKs War Bill With Iraq Deadline
Mar 22, 4:13 PM (ET)
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also calling on President Bush to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring.
The bill, approved by a voice vote, is similar to one the House began debating Thursday. The White House has threatened to veto the House measure and issued a veto threat against an earlier, similar version of the Senate withdrawal language.
One has to wonder why the AP didn't include the committee vote totals. Too much work, I suppose. If any legislation has a withdrawl date on it.......VETO!
Liberals Relent on Iraq War FundingHouse Likely to Pass Bill With Pullout Date
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 23, 2007
Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.
A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats' first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.
Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.
after, Out of Iraq Caucus leaders decided to break the pact that members had made to stick together against the bill. "We have released people who have been pained by all this," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). "We told them we don't want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy's speakership."
"You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we're going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory," said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a group that opposes the war. "It doesn't make sense to me. George Bush got us into the war. They have challenged him on everything. Why would they give him this victory now?" he asked, referring to the liberals.
Wow! Just Wow........They sure throw that "victory" word around a lot. The democratic party would hate to give Bush a victory over them pesky jihadi's that are intent on killing us.
The administration's stand has only increased the anguish in the antiwar movement. The liberal activists of MoveOn.org opted this week to back the funding bill, but the decision split the group's members and prompted accusations that the MoveOn leadership had stacked the endorsement vote. Win Without War, an umbrella group against the Iraq war, met Tuesday to decide whether to endorse the bill, but the divisions were too deep to bridge.
David Sirota, a former House Appropriations Committee aide who is now an uncompromising blogger, dashed off a memo to progressive lawmakers Wednesday night, imploring them to "accept the congressional world as it is right now," not to insist on the world as they wish it to be, and vote for the bill.
Now thats profane! This is a party that is truly in another world.
Also, in the Senate:
Panel OKs War Bill With Iraq Deadline
Mar 22, 4:13 PM (ET)
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate committee approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also calling on President Bush to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring.
The bill, approved by a voice vote, is similar to one the House began debating Thursday. The White House has threatened to veto the House measure and issued a veto threat against an earlier, similar version of the Senate withdrawal language.
One has to wonder why the AP didn't include the committee vote totals. Too much work, I suppose. If any legislation has a withdrawl date on it.......VETO!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Congress now rates below Bush
From the fellows at Powerline:
They Don't Impress 'Em Much
How many times have you heard that President Bush's approval ratings are low? Guess what: the Democratic Congress's approval rating is lower.
For some reason, this hasn't been getting much press. But the low esteem in which voters held Congress prior to November's election barely changed after the Democrats took power in January. Today, Gallup notes that the modest bounce Congress experienced in January and February is now gone:
The modest uptick in approval of the job being done by Congress has dissipated for the most part after only two months.
According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove.
And if the DemocRATS think this is bad, wait 'till they get the results from starting hearings, issuing subpoenas, and continuing to do what they disguised as a "change in direction" that got them elected. This is doing the peoples business? C'mon MSM.........step up and print this on your front pages.
They Don't Impress 'Em Much
How many times have you heard that President Bush's approval ratings are low? Guess what: the Democratic Congress's approval rating is lower.
For some reason, this hasn't been getting much press. But the low esteem in which voters held Congress prior to November's election barely changed after the Democrats took power in January. Today, Gallup notes that the modest bounce Congress experienced in January and February is now gone:
The modest uptick in approval of the job being done by Congress has dissipated for the most part after only two months.
According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove.
And if the DemocRATS think this is bad, wait 'till they get the results from starting hearings, issuing subpoenas, and continuing to do what they disguised as a "change in direction" that got them elected. This is doing the peoples business? C'mon MSM.........step up and print this on your front pages.
Monday, March 19, 2007
One Soldier is TIRED OF IT!
FROM BLACKFIVE
...I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.
I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.”
I am tired of every Battalion Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major I see over here being more concerned about whether or not I am wearing my uniform in the “spot on,” most garrison-like manner; instead of asking me whether or not I am getting the equipment I need to win the fight, the support I need from my chain of command, or if the chow tastes good.
I am tired of junior and senior officers continually doubting the technical expertise of junior enlisted soldiers who are trained far better to do the jobs they are trained for than these officers believe.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who fight this war with more of an eye on the media than on the enemy, who desperately needs killing.
I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers who were not there and will never really know the state of mind of the young soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.
I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant...
...I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.
I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.”
I am tired of every Battalion Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major I see over here being more concerned about whether or not I am wearing my uniform in the “spot on,” most garrison-like manner; instead of asking me whether or not I am getting the equipment I need to win the fight, the support I need from my chain of command, or if the chow tastes good.
I am tired of junior and senior officers continually doubting the technical expertise of junior enlisted soldiers who are trained far better to do the jobs they are trained for than these officers believe.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who fight this war with more of an eye on the media than on the enemy, who desperately needs killing.
I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers who were not there and will never really know the state of mind of the young soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.
I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant...
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Gathering of Eagles.....BIG HIT!
The anti-war left got a true taste of Patriotism in America on Saturday:
Saturday, March 17, 2007
The Morality of Homosexuality
Wesley Pruden at the Washington Times defends General Pace's statement on the morality of homosexuality in this piece. Pruden also writes about the "dance" that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do in avoiding alienating the gay community:
Dancing a two-step to a little jive
March 16, 2007
by Wesley Pruden
A lot of people are telling it to the Marines. Gen. Peter Pace, who serves as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set off a firestorm of lavender fury when he observed, answering a direct question, that he regards homosexuality as "immoral." Like it or not, but this is a teaching of all the major religions of the world. But the editors of the New York Times, dissenting theologians all, insist that the general "is wrong in every way, and out of step." Not only that, his remarks "carried a special meaning of hurt" when "thousands of gay men and lesbians are serving their country in Iraq." This suggests that the correspondents of the New York Times have been sampling forbidden pleasures in the fleshpots of Baghdad (such as they are), compiling statistics on who's gay and who's not. No other polls have been taken. But how can we rely on the efficacy of this sampling? The military rule is "don't ask, don't tell." The first rule of the mountains from whence many of our soldiers come is, of course, that "we always lie to strangers." You can see why. "General Pace should apologize for his remarks, forthrightly," the newspaper demanded. "Then perhaps some good could come out of his bigoted remarks if they add to the growing movement on Capitol Hill to finally allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military." The Times and its congregants no longer have access to the rack and the thumbscrew, so the general's joints and fingernails are probably safe for the moment. But you get the idea of where the high priests of the secular church would take him if they could. The "special hurt," however, has probably not been inflicted on gay soldiers and lesbian drivers and medics so much as on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They're trying to respond to the general, a straight shooter who only answered the question he was asked and as a faithful Roman Catholic has a perfect right to hold to the tenets of his faith. The contretemps is particularly difficult for Mzz Hillary, often photographed leaving a Methodist church with Bible in hand, as she tries to be faithful both to the Methodist Book of Discipline and the catechism of the Democratic left. The general is responsible first for the fighting spirit of the troops, and there's ample precedent for allowing the military to decide how to nurture this fighting spirit. Anyone who has slept in a military barracks understands the general's concerns, but how would most of the general's critics know? They wouldn't be caught dead in their country's uniform. But both Barack Obama and Mzz Hillary, eager not to offend the great unwashed on whom they know they must ultimately depend, approached this issue as if it were an angry porcupine, with quills aquiver. "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his comments to military matters," Mr. Obama said, scurrying away from reporters on the Hill as gracefully as he could. "That's probably a good tradition to follow." Pressed by a reporter for Newsday to say whether he thinks homosexual sexual relations are "immoral," Mr. Obama demurred, and answered questions nobody asked. Only later, he sent out an aide to say that the senator does, in fact, disagree with the general. Mzz Hillary danced delicately to similar music. When a reporter for ABC-TV asked whether she agreed with the general, she first replied: "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude." A day later she succumbed to pressure from the red-hots of the lavender wing of the party. "Well," she said, chastened, "I've heard from a number of my friends, and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with Gen. Pace completely. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of 'Don't ask, don't tell' is not working. I have been against it for many years." This is, of course, precisely the policy that she assisted in formulating, back in the day when she was something she and Bill called a "co-president." She was what we got when the voters fell for Bill's famous offer to "buy one, get one free." This "explanation," such as it is, hardly quelled the anger on her left, nor is it likely to satisfy her hoped-for straight friends, particularly in the black church, who agree with Pope Benedict XVI that opposition to divorce, abortion, homosexual "marriage" and euthanasia are "nonnegotiable" Christian values. So who's out of step?
Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.
And while I don't care for some of Sam Brownback's stand on certain issues, he has my respect for this:
At least Brownback stands on his moral principals:
Brownback's letter Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback is backing the Pentagon's top general over his remarks that homosexual acts are immoral. The senator from Kansas planned to send a letter yesterday to President Bush supporting Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who earlier this week likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing homosexual personnel to serve openly. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also said: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." Lawmakers of both parties criticized the remarks, but Mr. Brownback's letter called the criticism "both unfair and unfortunate," the Associated Press reports. "We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues," Mr. Brownback said. "In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views." Asked whether he agreed with Gen. Pace's comments, Mr. Brownback said: "I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this." Although there is no indication that Gen. Pace's job is in jeopardy, Mr. Brownback's letter to Mr. Bush said "personal moral beliefs" should not disqualify anyone from a position of leadership in the U.S. military. "General Pace's recent remarks do not deserve the criticism they have received," the letter said. "In fact, we applaud General Pace for maintaining a personal commitment to moral principles."
by Greg Pierce
My personal and religious beliefs are that homosexuality should not be condoned or accepted as a lifestyle in society. I believe this goes against the laws of nature and the laws of God. While I may still care for all human beings and their rights to exist, I despise the homosexual act in itself. And I will never apologize for how I feel about this lifestyle. You will never see me write that "I hate homosexuals", because to hate the person goes against what the scriptures teach me about loving our brothers and sisters. But I can and will hate the act.
Dancing a two-step to a little jive
March 16, 2007
by Wesley Pruden
A lot of people are telling it to the Marines. Gen. Peter Pace, who serves as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set off a firestorm of lavender fury when he observed, answering a direct question, that he regards homosexuality as "immoral." Like it or not, but this is a teaching of all the major religions of the world. But the editors of the New York Times, dissenting theologians all, insist that the general "is wrong in every way, and out of step." Not only that, his remarks "carried a special meaning of hurt" when "thousands of gay men and lesbians are serving their country in Iraq." This suggests that the correspondents of the New York Times have been sampling forbidden pleasures in the fleshpots of Baghdad (such as they are), compiling statistics on who's gay and who's not. No other polls have been taken. But how can we rely on the efficacy of this sampling? The military rule is "don't ask, don't tell." The first rule of the mountains from whence many of our soldiers come is, of course, that "we always lie to strangers." You can see why. "General Pace should apologize for his remarks, forthrightly," the newspaper demanded. "Then perhaps some good could come out of his bigoted remarks if they add to the growing movement on Capitol Hill to finally allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military." The Times and its congregants no longer have access to the rack and the thumbscrew, so the general's joints and fingernails are probably safe for the moment. But you get the idea of where the high priests of the secular church would take him if they could. The "special hurt," however, has probably not been inflicted on gay soldiers and lesbian drivers and medics so much as on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They're trying to respond to the general, a straight shooter who only answered the question he was asked and as a faithful Roman Catholic has a perfect right to hold to the tenets of his faith. The contretemps is particularly difficult for Mzz Hillary, often photographed leaving a Methodist church with Bible in hand, as she tries to be faithful both to the Methodist Book of Discipline and the catechism of the Democratic left. The general is responsible first for the fighting spirit of the troops, and there's ample precedent for allowing the military to decide how to nurture this fighting spirit. Anyone who has slept in a military barracks understands the general's concerns, but how would most of the general's critics know? They wouldn't be caught dead in their country's uniform. But both Barack Obama and Mzz Hillary, eager not to offend the great unwashed on whom they know they must ultimately depend, approached this issue as if it were an angry porcupine, with quills aquiver. "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his comments to military matters," Mr. Obama said, scurrying away from reporters on the Hill as gracefully as he could. "That's probably a good tradition to follow." Pressed by a reporter for Newsday to say whether he thinks homosexual sexual relations are "immoral," Mr. Obama demurred, and answered questions nobody asked. Only later, he sent out an aide to say that the senator does, in fact, disagree with the general. Mzz Hillary danced delicately to similar music. When a reporter for ABC-TV asked whether she agreed with the general, she first replied: "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude." A day later she succumbed to pressure from the red-hots of the lavender wing of the party. "Well," she said, chastened, "I've heard from a number of my friends, and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with Gen. Pace completely. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of 'Don't ask, don't tell' is not working. I have been against it for many years." This is, of course, precisely the policy that she assisted in formulating, back in the day when she was something she and Bill called a "co-president." She was what we got when the voters fell for Bill's famous offer to "buy one, get one free." This "explanation," such as it is, hardly quelled the anger on her left, nor is it likely to satisfy her hoped-for straight friends, particularly in the black church, who agree with Pope Benedict XVI that opposition to divorce, abortion, homosexual "marriage" and euthanasia are "nonnegotiable" Christian values. So who's out of step?
Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.
And while I don't care for some of Sam Brownback's stand on certain issues, he has my respect for this:
At least Brownback stands on his moral principals:
Brownback's letter Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback is backing the Pentagon's top general over his remarks that homosexual acts are immoral. The senator from Kansas planned to send a letter yesterday to President Bush supporting Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who earlier this week likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing homosexual personnel to serve openly. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also said: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." Lawmakers of both parties criticized the remarks, but Mr. Brownback's letter called the criticism "both unfair and unfortunate," the Associated Press reports. "We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues," Mr. Brownback said. "In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views." Asked whether he agreed with Gen. Pace's comments, Mr. Brownback said: "I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this." Although there is no indication that Gen. Pace's job is in jeopardy, Mr. Brownback's letter to Mr. Bush said "personal moral beliefs" should not disqualify anyone from a position of leadership in the U.S. military. "General Pace's recent remarks do not deserve the criticism they have received," the letter said. "In fact, we applaud General Pace for maintaining a personal commitment to moral principles."
by Greg Pierce
My personal and religious beliefs are that homosexuality should not be condoned or accepted as a lifestyle in society. I believe this goes against the laws of nature and the laws of God. While I may still care for all human beings and their rights to exist, I despise the homosexual act in itself. And I will never apologize for how I feel about this lifestyle. You will never see me write that "I hate homosexuals", because to hate the person goes against what the scriptures teach me about loving our brothers and sisters. But I can and will hate the act.
Friday, March 16, 2007
NEWS FLASH
Exclusive!
Karl Rove has admitted to firing attorneys, starting the civil war in Iraq, outing Joe Wilson's "spy", and claims he's the sole source of global warming.......claims also to have found inoculation for BDS, but refuses to release it's formula.......liberals, poor women and children hardest hit.
Karl Rove has admitted to firing attorneys, starting the civil war in Iraq, outing Joe Wilson's "spy", and claims he's the sole source of global warming.......claims also to have found inoculation for BDS, but refuses to release it's formula.......liberals, poor women and children hardest hit.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Confessions of a Terrorist
While I'm sure there are other news source reporting this, it was the first one I found:
From the LA Times:
Sept. 11 mastermind confesses, U.S. saysKhalid Shaikh Mohammed tells a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay that he planned the attacks 'from A to Z.'
WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the Kuwaiti national who is thought to be the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, told a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, last weekend that he was responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a transcript of the hearing.
In a written statement read to the three-officer panel, Mohammed claimed he was Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's "operational leader" for the "9/11 Operation," responsible for the "organizing, planning, follow-up and execution" of the plot.
"I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z," Mohammed said, according to the transcript of the hearing, which was held in secret Saturday. The transcript was released Wednesday night by the Pentagon. (link)
Now can we get the left to talk some more about releasing these poor lost souls?
From the LA Times:
Sept. 11 mastermind confesses, U.S. saysKhalid Shaikh Mohammed tells a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay that he planned the attacks 'from A to Z.'
WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the Kuwaiti national who is thought to be the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, told a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, last weekend that he was responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a transcript of the hearing.
In a written statement read to the three-officer panel, Mohammed claimed he was Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's "operational leader" for the "9/11 Operation," responsible for the "organizing, planning, follow-up and execution" of the plot.
"I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z," Mohammed said, according to the transcript of the hearing, which was held in secret Saturday. The transcript was released Wednesday night by the Pentagon. (link)
Now can we get the left to talk some more about releasing these poor lost souls?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Washington Post Spanks Pelosi
A Washington Post Editorial lets Pelosi have it:Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page A16
The Pelosi Plan for Iraq----"It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States."
"It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States. The restrictions on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings. For the Out of Iraq Caucus, which demands that Congress force a withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of this year, there is language that appears to deliver that mandate, albeit indirectly. For those who prefer a more moderate course, there is another withdrawal deadline, in August 2008. Either way, almost all American troops would be out of Iraq by the time the next election campaign begins in earnest."
"In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone."
OF COURSE, WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS SO CONFUSING TO THE DEMS:
"HOW CAN YOU INFORCE SOMETHING YOU CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN?"
Monday, March 12, 2007
Atheists, Conservatives, and Christianity
My dear brother in law sent me this essay in an email:
Atheists, Conservatives, and Christianity
By Steven M. Warshawsky
There is an interesting, and important, debate going on within conservative circles these days over the role of religion in American conservatism and the role of Christian conservatives in the Republican Party. In particular, the "atheist" wing of the conservative movement (largely made up of libertarians) is starting to challenge the supposedly predominant role of Christian conservatives within the movement.
This conflict is summed up in the title of Ryan Sager's new book, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party. Although Sager's book has garnered some attention, what brought this conflict out in the open -- and generated a firestorm of discussion and invective -- was Heather Mac Donald's piece in the American Conservative last summer, in which she wrote that
"the conservative movement is crippling itself by leaning too heavily on religion" and that "a lot of us do not have such faith -- nor do we need it to be conservative."
Writing this month in the webzine New English Review, author and commentator Christopher Orlet (who has written for American Spectator and American Thinker, among others) has weighed in on the side of the atheists in this debate. In his piece, titled "Skeptical Conservatives, Weary of the Theocon's Disdain, are Emerging from the Closet," Orlet rails against the Religious Right and "fundie pundits," whose "preening piety" (in Mac Donald's words) clearly has gotten under his skin. Unfortunately, the piece is a bit of an emotional rant, rather than a careful analysis of the issue. But it is very thought-provoking, nonetheless. In rebuttal to Orlet's piece, I offer some of my own thoughts on this issue.
Let me begin by identifying my own "allegiances." I am Jewish. I am not religious. While I hesitate to call myself an atheist, due to the philosophical impossibility of "knowing" that there is no God, I certainly am agnostic. Perhaps more importantly, religious ritual plays no role in my life. I certainly am more of a non-believer than John Derbyshire, who is one of the "skeptical" conservatives identified by Orlet as suffering the "enmity" of the theocons. Indeed, if one were to evaluate my "lifestyle" (non-religious, married to a doctor, no children, living in New York City), one likely would conclude that I should side with the atheists in this debate. I don't.
I have long believed that part of being a "conservative" is being respectful of religion. Or rather, to be more precise, being respectful of Christianity. Unlike Orlet, I am not offended when someone says that this is a "Christian nation." It is. America certainly is not a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist nation. As a Jew, I am deeply grateful for this nation's Christian heritage. No nation on earth treats Jews better. While there are many reasons for this, I believe that Christianity is part of what makes America the great country that she is. And as a fervently patriotic American, I will support and defend this country's Christian heritage to my dying days.
Orlet, like so many other critics of the Religious Right, fundamentally fails to account for the central role of Christianity in Western and American history. Most, if not all, of the values and principles that we hold dear -- the dignity of the individual, freedom of conscience, political and economic liberty, representative government, and so on -- are inextricably intertwined with the Christian culture that produced, developed, and/or sustained them. Sure, there were other cultural sources and influences that played important roles. But to suggest, as Orlet does, that ancient Greek and Roman civilization, let alone the civilizations of ancient Egypt and Babylon, played as great a role as Christianity is, quite frankly, ridiculous. To see the main roots of our culture in ancient civilizations that ended thousands of years ago -- instead of in the religious and philosophical framework that has dominated the West for the past 1,000+ years -- is to abuse history and defy logic.
I consider Orlet's recourse to sociobiology and anthropology equally unpersuasive. Orlet cites James Q. Wilson (who is, without doubt, a great scholar) for the proposition that "human beings share a 'moral sense' rooted in human biology and evolution." Orlet also argues that "anthropologists now believe that morality and the so-called Golden Rule were developed outside of religion to deal with the complexities of living in large-scale societies." Perhaps. But if by this Orlet means to suggest that all human beings are equally moral, then he needs to open his eyes. Not only are all human beings not equally moral, but all civilizations are not equally conducive to nurturing human beings who respect the values and principles that American conservatives, including Orlet, believe in.
Just look around the world today. Much of the world, outside the West, lives under conditions of tyranny, poverty, and/or barbarism, sometimes all three. And in modern times, the worst crimes against humanity have occurred, and are occurring, in the non-Christian and anti-religious (i.e., communist and fascist) countries. Is this a coincidence? Orlet would have us believe that it is. Orlet makes light of the connection between the atheistic ideologies that motivated Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and the genocides they committed. I am not nearly as confident as Orlet that atheism, per se, played no role in these tragedies. In any event, I believe the historical record is clear: While life in Christian countries has not always been free or humane, the alternative has been much worse.
Consequently, unlike utopians of all stripes, I am unwilling to gamble on what the outcome would be if Christianity in this country were replaced with some other ideology -- as the radicals of the 1960s and their present-day followers are trying to do (already with far too much success). Perhaps surprisingly, Orlet's brand of atheistic conservatism, in struggling so mightily to deny the Christian foundations of American culture, looks a lot like the specious multiculturalism of the left. Is this a weight he really wants to bear?
At its most basic level, American conservatism aims at preserving what I will refer to as "the American tradition." By this, conservatives generally mean the core values and principles upon which our nation was founded and prospered. Granted, there is room for debate here. However, I don't see how Christianity can be excised from this equation. While we never have had a theocracy in the United States (despite what ignorant and hysterical people might say about George W. Bush), the Christian religion always has played an important role in the private -- and public -- lives of our people. As a conservative, despite being non-religious, I believe this role must be respected and preserved.
In my view, the attack on Christianity in this country (like the attack on capitalism) is contrary to the American tradition. It was not until after World War Two, and especially during the 1960s, that American elites started to cast a jaundiced eye toward the role that religion played in American life. Perhaps the watershed moment was in 1962, in the Engle v. Vitale case, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that reciting a nondenominational prayer in public school violated the First Amendment. To borrow a line from Jay Nordlinger of National Review, I refuse to accept the notion that for our entire history prior to the 1960s, the American people were living in violation of the Constitution. This is a preposterous idea. Yet this is the direction we have been moving ever since when it comes to matters of religion.
One of the hallmarks of American conservatism is that we reject such elitist, top-down interference in the daily lives of our citizens. Unlike liberals -- who claim to know how the rest of us should live -- conservatives respect the rights of individuals and communities to govern themselves. Yet atheist conservatives, like Orlet, apparently do not believe that this respect should apply when it comes to religion, which they see as a backward and irrational force in society. This strikes me as pure anti-religious prejudice that in no way is compatible with preserving the American tradition.
Of course, another very important part of the American tradition is toleration for religious minorities and non-believers. As a Jew, I am very grateful for this tradition, which has been one of the distinguishing features of America's national greatness.
But toleration is a two-way street. By what political, moral, or logical principle should the views of religious minorities and non-believers take precedence over those of the vast majority of Christian Americans? Why should my non-religious "sensitivities," for example, trump those of my more religious neighbors? To put it in concrete terms, why should a small number of dissenters be able to prevent the larger community from consecrating their public ceremonies and rites of passage, like high school graduation, with a short prayer (nondenominational or otherwise)? Put somewhat differently, why are political majorities entitled to impose their political views on others with impunity, sometimes in the most obnoxious ways (think liberals in San Francisco or Manhattan), but religious majorities cannot even have a moment of silence in school or a representation of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom? Frankly, I do not see how any "conservative" can agree with the present treatment of Christianity in this country.
Does this mean that I agree with everything that so-called Christian conservatives believe in? Of course not. But the effort to marginalize, even demonize, Christian conservatives is unworthy of anyone who considers himself a member of the political movement that is trying to preserve the American tradition.
Lastly, let me suggest that Orlet's (and other libertarian Republicans') willingness to break with Christian conservatives reflects a basic misunderstanding of the political realities in this country circa 2007. Orlet writes in his piece,
"in the past half century conservative economic, political and social policies have triumphed."
But he worries that the "grudging respect for conservative intellectuals" -- whose ideas, presumably, are responsible for these policy "triumphs" -- is threatened by the supposedly dominant role of Christians and the "fundie pundits" in the conservative movement. Hence, the "skeptics" must rise up against the "theocons." This is all wrong.
The notion, shared by many on the right, that "conservative economic, political and social policies have triumphed" in this country is, sadly, far off the mark. As I have argued before,
"while we have some conservative-oriented politicians, who occasionally pass some conservative-oriented legislation, the truth is that on the truly big issues on the ground, America is still in the grip of the liberal paradigm that came into existence under FDR."
Government at all levels continues to grow bigger and more intrusive. The number and reach of economic regulations continues to expand. We're halfway to socialized medicine already, and appear likely to complete that journey in the next decade. There are more restrictions on political activity today than in 1980. The spheres of permissible private, personal, and local activity continue to shrink. We still have affirmative action and racial gerrymandering. Abortion on demand remains the law of the land. Gay marriage, and even legalized polygamy, is rapidly capturing elite opinion. And on and on and on. If this constitutes a conservative "triumph," I shudder to think what a liberal victory would look like.
Clearly, there still is much, much work to be done to implement a conservative agenda in this country. This being the case, why would anyone who shares a major part of this agenda want to eschew an alliance with largely like-minded folks, just because those folks happen to hold some conflicting views? This makes no sense. There are few "small government" supporters to be found on the liberal/Democratic side of the aisle. There are just as few believers in economic or political liberty over there. If the fundamental "conservative" project is to preserve and protect the American tradition, as represented by the Founding Fathers and their political and philosophical descendents, then both libertarians and Christian conservatives have vital roles to play. My message to atheist conservatives: grow up, have more respect for the Christian majority in this country, and don't be so sensitive. You're starting to sound like liberals.
I like Mr. Warshawsky's message!
Atheists, Conservatives, and Christianity
By Steven M. Warshawsky
There is an interesting, and important, debate going on within conservative circles these days over the role of religion in American conservatism and the role of Christian conservatives in the Republican Party. In particular, the "atheist" wing of the conservative movement (largely made up of libertarians) is starting to challenge the supposedly predominant role of Christian conservatives within the movement.
This conflict is summed up in the title of Ryan Sager's new book, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party. Although Sager's book has garnered some attention, what brought this conflict out in the open -- and generated a firestorm of discussion and invective -- was Heather Mac Donald's piece in the American Conservative last summer, in which she wrote that
"the conservative movement is crippling itself by leaning too heavily on religion" and that "a lot of us do not have such faith -- nor do we need it to be conservative."
Writing this month in the webzine New English Review, author and commentator Christopher Orlet (who has written for American Spectator and American Thinker, among others) has weighed in on the side of the atheists in this debate. In his piece, titled "Skeptical Conservatives, Weary of the Theocon's Disdain, are Emerging from the Closet," Orlet rails against the Religious Right and "fundie pundits," whose "preening piety" (in Mac Donald's words) clearly has gotten under his skin. Unfortunately, the piece is a bit of an emotional rant, rather than a careful analysis of the issue. But it is very thought-provoking, nonetheless. In rebuttal to Orlet's piece, I offer some of my own thoughts on this issue.
Let me begin by identifying my own "allegiances." I am Jewish. I am not religious. While I hesitate to call myself an atheist, due to the philosophical impossibility of "knowing" that there is no God, I certainly am agnostic. Perhaps more importantly, religious ritual plays no role in my life. I certainly am more of a non-believer than John Derbyshire, who is one of the "skeptical" conservatives identified by Orlet as suffering the "enmity" of the theocons. Indeed, if one were to evaluate my "lifestyle" (non-religious, married to a doctor, no children, living in New York City), one likely would conclude that I should side with the atheists in this debate. I don't.
I have long believed that part of being a "conservative" is being respectful of religion. Or rather, to be more precise, being respectful of Christianity. Unlike Orlet, I am not offended when someone says that this is a "Christian nation." It is. America certainly is not a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist nation. As a Jew, I am deeply grateful for this nation's Christian heritage. No nation on earth treats Jews better. While there are many reasons for this, I believe that Christianity is part of what makes America the great country that she is. And as a fervently patriotic American, I will support and defend this country's Christian heritage to my dying days.
Orlet, like so many other critics of the Religious Right, fundamentally fails to account for the central role of Christianity in Western and American history. Most, if not all, of the values and principles that we hold dear -- the dignity of the individual, freedom of conscience, political and economic liberty, representative government, and so on -- are inextricably intertwined with the Christian culture that produced, developed, and/or sustained them. Sure, there were other cultural sources and influences that played important roles. But to suggest, as Orlet does, that ancient Greek and Roman civilization, let alone the civilizations of ancient Egypt and Babylon, played as great a role as Christianity is, quite frankly, ridiculous. To see the main roots of our culture in ancient civilizations that ended thousands of years ago -- instead of in the religious and philosophical framework that has dominated the West for the past 1,000+ years -- is to abuse history and defy logic.
I consider Orlet's recourse to sociobiology and anthropology equally unpersuasive. Orlet cites James Q. Wilson (who is, without doubt, a great scholar) for the proposition that "human beings share a 'moral sense' rooted in human biology and evolution." Orlet also argues that "anthropologists now believe that morality and the so-called Golden Rule were developed outside of religion to deal with the complexities of living in large-scale societies." Perhaps. But if by this Orlet means to suggest that all human beings are equally moral, then he needs to open his eyes. Not only are all human beings not equally moral, but all civilizations are not equally conducive to nurturing human beings who respect the values and principles that American conservatives, including Orlet, believe in.
Just look around the world today. Much of the world, outside the West, lives under conditions of tyranny, poverty, and/or barbarism, sometimes all three. And in modern times, the worst crimes against humanity have occurred, and are occurring, in the non-Christian and anti-religious (i.e., communist and fascist) countries. Is this a coincidence? Orlet would have us believe that it is. Orlet makes light of the connection between the atheistic ideologies that motivated Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and the genocides they committed. I am not nearly as confident as Orlet that atheism, per se, played no role in these tragedies. In any event, I believe the historical record is clear: While life in Christian countries has not always been free or humane, the alternative has been much worse.
Consequently, unlike utopians of all stripes, I am unwilling to gamble on what the outcome would be if Christianity in this country were replaced with some other ideology -- as the radicals of the 1960s and their present-day followers are trying to do (already with far too much success). Perhaps surprisingly, Orlet's brand of atheistic conservatism, in struggling so mightily to deny the Christian foundations of American culture, looks a lot like the specious multiculturalism of the left. Is this a weight he really wants to bear?
At its most basic level, American conservatism aims at preserving what I will refer to as "the American tradition." By this, conservatives generally mean the core values and principles upon which our nation was founded and prospered. Granted, there is room for debate here. However, I don't see how Christianity can be excised from this equation. While we never have had a theocracy in the United States (despite what ignorant and hysterical people might say about George W. Bush), the Christian religion always has played an important role in the private -- and public -- lives of our people. As a conservative, despite being non-religious, I believe this role must be respected and preserved.
In my view, the attack on Christianity in this country (like the attack on capitalism) is contrary to the American tradition. It was not until after World War Two, and especially during the 1960s, that American elites started to cast a jaundiced eye toward the role that religion played in American life. Perhaps the watershed moment was in 1962, in the Engle v. Vitale case, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that reciting a nondenominational prayer in public school violated the First Amendment. To borrow a line from Jay Nordlinger of National Review, I refuse to accept the notion that for our entire history prior to the 1960s, the American people were living in violation of the Constitution. This is a preposterous idea. Yet this is the direction we have been moving ever since when it comes to matters of religion.
One of the hallmarks of American conservatism is that we reject such elitist, top-down interference in the daily lives of our citizens. Unlike liberals -- who claim to know how the rest of us should live -- conservatives respect the rights of individuals and communities to govern themselves. Yet atheist conservatives, like Orlet, apparently do not believe that this respect should apply when it comes to religion, which they see as a backward and irrational force in society. This strikes me as pure anti-religious prejudice that in no way is compatible with preserving the American tradition.
Of course, another very important part of the American tradition is toleration for religious minorities and non-believers. As a Jew, I am very grateful for this tradition, which has been one of the distinguishing features of America's national greatness.
But toleration is a two-way street. By what political, moral, or logical principle should the views of religious minorities and non-believers take precedence over those of the vast majority of Christian Americans? Why should my non-religious "sensitivities," for example, trump those of my more religious neighbors? To put it in concrete terms, why should a small number of dissenters be able to prevent the larger community from consecrating their public ceremonies and rites of passage, like high school graduation, with a short prayer (nondenominational or otherwise)? Put somewhat differently, why are political majorities entitled to impose their political views on others with impunity, sometimes in the most obnoxious ways (think liberals in San Francisco or Manhattan), but religious majorities cannot even have a moment of silence in school or a representation of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom? Frankly, I do not see how any "conservative" can agree with the present treatment of Christianity in this country.
Does this mean that I agree with everything that so-called Christian conservatives believe in? Of course not. But the effort to marginalize, even demonize, Christian conservatives is unworthy of anyone who considers himself a member of the political movement that is trying to preserve the American tradition.
Lastly, let me suggest that Orlet's (and other libertarian Republicans') willingness to break with Christian conservatives reflects a basic misunderstanding of the political realities in this country circa 2007. Orlet writes in his piece,
"in the past half century conservative economic, political and social policies have triumphed."
But he worries that the "grudging respect for conservative intellectuals" -- whose ideas, presumably, are responsible for these policy "triumphs" -- is threatened by the supposedly dominant role of Christians and the "fundie pundits" in the conservative movement. Hence, the "skeptics" must rise up against the "theocons." This is all wrong.
The notion, shared by many on the right, that "conservative economic, political and social policies have triumphed" in this country is, sadly, far off the mark. As I have argued before,
"while we have some conservative-oriented politicians, who occasionally pass some conservative-oriented legislation, the truth is that on the truly big issues on the ground, America is still in the grip of the liberal paradigm that came into existence under FDR."
Government at all levels continues to grow bigger and more intrusive. The number and reach of economic regulations continues to expand. We're halfway to socialized medicine already, and appear likely to complete that journey in the next decade. There are more restrictions on political activity today than in 1980. The spheres of permissible private, personal, and local activity continue to shrink. We still have affirmative action and racial gerrymandering. Abortion on demand remains the law of the land. Gay marriage, and even legalized polygamy, is rapidly capturing elite opinion. And on and on and on. If this constitutes a conservative "triumph," I shudder to think what a liberal victory would look like.
Clearly, there still is much, much work to be done to implement a conservative agenda in this country. This being the case, why would anyone who shares a major part of this agenda want to eschew an alliance with largely like-minded folks, just because those folks happen to hold some conflicting views? This makes no sense. There are few "small government" supporters to be found on the liberal/Democratic side of the aisle. There are just as few believers in economic or political liberty over there. If the fundamental "conservative" project is to preserve and protect the American tradition, as represented by the Founding Fathers and their political and philosophical descendents, then both libertarians and Christian conservatives have vital roles to play. My message to atheist conservatives: grow up, have more respect for the Christian majority in this country, and don't be so sensitive. You're starting to sound like liberals.
I like Mr. Warshawsky's message!
Saturday, March 10, 2007
E-Mails, Cell Phones, and Bibles
I have a dear friend in North Carolina that sends me some wonderful emails from time to time.
This one will go down as a "classic":
CELL PHONE vs. BIBLE
I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our cellphone?
What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
What if we flipped through it several times a day?
What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
What if we used it to receive messages from the text?
What if we treated it like we couldn't live without it?
What if we gave it to our kids as gifts?
What if we used it when we traveled?
What if we used it in case of emergency?
This is something to make you go....hmm...where IS my Bible?
Oh, and one more thing. Unlike our cell phone, we don't have to worry about our Bible being disconnected because Jesus already paid the bill.
And no dropped calls!
P.S. DO WHAT YOU THINK GOD WOULD WANT YOU TO DO WITH THIS E-MAIL?
Thank you Gloria
This one will go down as a "classic":
CELL PHONE vs. BIBLE
I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our cellphone?
What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
What if we flipped through it several times a day?
What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
What if we used it to receive messages from the text?
What if we treated it like we couldn't live without it?
What if we gave it to our kids as gifts?
What if we used it when we traveled?
What if we used it in case of emergency?
This is something to make you go....hmm...where IS my Bible?
Oh, and one more thing. Unlike our cell phone, we don't have to worry about our Bible being disconnected because Jesus already paid the bill.
And no dropped calls!
P.S. DO WHAT YOU THINK GOD WOULD WANT YOU TO DO WITH THIS E-MAIL?
Thank you Gloria
Thursday, March 08, 2007
WOULD SOME ONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS TO PROSECUTE WARS....
Democrats Plan Bills to Withdraw Troops From Iraq by Fall 2008
WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Thursday drew a veto threat from the White House after unveiling a plan that sets specific timetables to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq and bring them home before fall 2008.
In a direct challenge to President Bush's strategy for Iraq, the plan would have troops redeploying as early as July of this year but no later than March 2008, and full combat withdrawal by August 2008.
WHAT PART ABOUT SETTING A TIME-TABLE WILL DO NOTHING BUT PUT OUR ENEMIES ON HOLD.......DON'T THE DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THIS?
Definition of liberal "progressives": "regressive diversionaries"
I'm so pissed right now, I will leave this post open, go have a cocktail, and try to calm down enough to try to make some sense of this insanity.......................
UPDATE: I'm still fuming.....but Glen Beck was incredible tonight in scorning the Dems on their obstructive anti-American legislation that could very well cripple our efforts to keep the war on terrorism in the Middle East, and not back on our soil.
I'm hoping to see Allah at Hot Air get something up soon to link...........
UPDATE II: Hot Air Video: Petraeus’s first press conference; Update: Pullout could start by July 1, says Pelosi; Update: Bush counsel vows veto; Update: CNN reporter rips Dems’ timetable.........
The serious question is finally ask by Curt at Flopping Aces:
Can We Question Their Patriotism Yet?
So now the Democrats actually believe they can push through legislation that would force Bush to start withdrawing troops by next year. Yup, they will be fighting provisions that actually accomplish 9/11 Commission recommendations and make our country safer all the while they fight FOR unions to represent TSA employee's.Can we question their patriotism yet?
Rep. Boehner hits the nail on the head:
"Unfortunately, the Democrats latest plan is an old twist on an old adage: failure at any cost," he said in a Capitol Hill press conference. "Democrats are using the critical troop funding bill to micromanage the war on terror -- undermining our generals on the ground and slowly choking off resources for our troops.
This is not the last, but the beginning of a battle that the Left is going to lose. The safety and security of this great nation is being threatened from with-in. The Democratic Party will have to think long and hard about weather they intend to have the resolve to protect us. At this point, I have sincere doubts. And this battle is far from over..........
SteveK, a commentor at Blackfive ask:
What really is the "will of the people" on the war, democrat style? Most (not all) democrats I have spoken with are against withdrawing early, nor are they for not funding the troops or hard deadlines. They voted for who they did because they wanted a change in the way the war was being fought, a change of direction, new ideas. They aren't getting what they voted for because some far left extremists have high jacked the party.To be fair I'm from a conservative state where there are few far left, or far right, folks. But even in a democrat state I find it hard to believe the majority would be for these bills being discussed in Congress. Are there polls available showing what the democrat voters are really for? #
UPDATE III--Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters has the sad state of the left up here :
WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Thursday drew a veto threat from the White House after unveiling a plan that sets specific timetables to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq and bring them home before fall 2008.
In a direct challenge to President Bush's strategy for Iraq, the plan would have troops redeploying as early as July of this year but no later than March 2008, and full combat withdrawal by August 2008.
WHAT PART ABOUT SETTING A TIME-TABLE WILL DO NOTHING BUT PUT OUR ENEMIES ON HOLD.......DON'T THE DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THIS?
Definition of liberal "progressives": "regressive diversionaries"
I'm so pissed right now, I will leave this post open, go have a cocktail, and try to calm down enough to try to make some sense of this insanity.......................
UPDATE: I'm still fuming.....but Glen Beck was incredible tonight in scorning the Dems on their obstructive anti-American legislation that could very well cripple our efforts to keep the war on terrorism in the Middle East, and not back on our soil.
I'm hoping to see Allah at Hot Air get something up soon to link...........
UPDATE II: Hot Air Video: Petraeus’s first press conference; Update: Pullout could start by July 1, says Pelosi; Update: Bush counsel vows veto; Update: CNN reporter rips Dems’ timetable.........
The serious question is finally ask by Curt at Flopping Aces:
Can We Question Their Patriotism Yet?
So now the Democrats actually believe they can push through legislation that would force Bush to start withdrawing troops by next year. Yup, they will be fighting provisions that actually accomplish 9/11 Commission recommendations and make our country safer all the while they fight FOR unions to represent TSA employee's.Can we question their patriotism yet?
Rep. Boehner hits the nail on the head:
"Unfortunately, the Democrats latest plan is an old twist on an old adage: failure at any cost," he said in a Capitol Hill press conference. "Democrats are using the critical troop funding bill to micromanage the war on terror -- undermining our generals on the ground and slowly choking off resources for our troops.
This is not the last, but the beginning of a battle that the Left is going to lose. The safety and security of this great nation is being threatened from with-in. The Democratic Party will have to think long and hard about weather they intend to have the resolve to protect us. At this point, I have sincere doubts. And this battle is far from over..........
SteveK, a commentor at Blackfive ask:
What really is the "will of the people" on the war, democrat style? Most (not all) democrats I have spoken with are against withdrawing early, nor are they for not funding the troops or hard deadlines. They voted for who they did because they wanted a change in the way the war was being fought, a change of direction, new ideas. They aren't getting what they voted for because some far left extremists have high jacked the party.To be fair I'm from a conservative state where there are few far left, or far right, folks. But even in a democrat state I find it hard to believe the majority would be for these bills being discussed in Congress. Are there polls available showing what the democrat voters are really for? #
UPDATE III--Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters has the sad state of the left up here :
"Instead of focusing on losing the war, Petraeus needs to focus on winning it, and Congress needs to get out of his way. This gives a roadmap for the terrorists to follow to drive the US out of Iraq. All they have to do is read the list of benchmarks and do whatever they can do to block the first one, and Congress will declare defeat and run for the hills.
Expect the Republicans to successfully filibuster this bill in the Senate."
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Winemaker Ernest Gallo Dies at 97
Marketing genius parlayed $5,900 into world's largest wine empire.The passing of Ernest Gallo brings home personal memories of the fruitful decade of the eighties. As a wine and spirits sales manager in northern California, Gallo Wines was a major brand in our distributorship, the Northcoast Mercantile Company.
I once was told that Ernest Gallo said "Good for Kenny" while at a meeting with regional managers in Modesto. While I never met the man personally, he knew who I was by name and was happy with my results. Modesto, California is the headquarters of Ernest and Julio Gallo Winery, where the largest volume of wine sold in the world for more than fifty years is produced and distributed. Today, E & J Gallo Winery sells close to 75 million cases of wine each year. The company is so large that it makes its own bottles, caps, and closures.
I played a small part in those sales for a decade, (1981 - 1991), in the northern California region of Humboldt County.
I have a photo (somewhere) with Carlo (Charlie) Rossi's arm around my shoulder. Carlo had married Ernest and Julio's sister, and had already built an empire of his own when he joined up with the Gallo brothers. For those out west, Carlo Rossi's Red Mountain "jug wines" were well known in virtually every major grocery store, as well as most of the "mom and pop" stores.
While attending a regional sales managers meeting in Modesto in the mid-eighties, Charlie Rossi came into the room and stood at the podium for over a half hour and told us his history and involvement with the Gallo Bros. At eighty-six years old, Charlie still had the gift of vividly selling himself and his product to any audience.
Also at this two-day seminar I had the privilege of being allowed to tour the world renound cellars at the winery that few have ever seen. The single wine barrels in one room (the size of a football field) stood 17 feet tall and 10 feet across. Each single "stay" (board) was a cut and carved at seven inches wide and seventeen feet long. Individually cut and numbered, the French oak boards were shipped to Modesto back in the early 70's. A father and son team was imported from Portugal and took most of four years to assemble the barrels. Each individual barrel would hold 1,700 gallons of wine. The bulk of the wine stored in these barrels consisted of Chardonnay and Cabernet grapes. I can remember standing in awe while the tour guide ran the numbers of the total volume of wine stored in this one room. I also marveled that you could pour a plate of food on the floor and sit down with a fork and eat it. It was that spotless.
Later that same day we toured the warehouse, (in a small bus) where pallets of wine bottled and stacked to the ceiling were waiting for shipment. As the buyer for our distributorship this was of interest to me more than the others on the tour. At one point I mentioned (a little too loud) that I had ordered 75 cases of one product the previous week and was shorted the complete total, yet there, right before my eyes was the product. The top sales director of the winery (who was at the front of the bus) had the driver stop the bus. In almost complete silence, the director addressed me in the back. "Mr. Crumley, do you see the date on those packages of the product you ordered?" As all eyes were on me, I looked out and saw the dates on the cases, and meekly said "yes sir". The director said, "Well then, Mr. Crumley, you can obviously see that according to the release dates on those packages, we are out of this product. I knew what he meant as soon as I saw the dates. The product still needed seven more days to age in the bottle before it would be released.
"We will sell no wine before it's time" was a motto created by a competitor, (insert winery), but it was also a "religion" at Gallo. There were millions of gallons of wine in this one warehouse that would turn over (usually) in thirty to sixty days.
While many of you may remember Gallo wines were sold as a "bulk" wine, (Hearty Burgundy, and Chablis Blanc), Gallo also has produced some of the great Chardonnays and Cabernets at their Sonoma County location. The Gallo family now owns over 2000 acres of prime growing region in Sonoma Co. including the Alexander Valley. I will put up their Gallo of Sonoma Cabernet (approx. $12.00) against most thirty dollar Cabs. But of course, I'm biased. :)
Rest in Peace, Ernest.........and thank you for your contribution to the industry and to the people you touched.
( the "good for Kenny" comment by Ernest Gallo was when it was reported at the meeting that I had sold a 25 case Gallo order, (for the first time in ten years), to a local co-op store that had boycotted Gallo wines for a union dispute that went back to the seventies. The co-op was the last market that still did not carry a single Gallo product in the county. And while the union dispute had been resolved for years, this must have stuck in Earnest and Julio's crawl. (Patting myself on the back.......again).......... :)
Monday, March 05, 2007
The State of the Left
Are the Principals of the Democratic Party Sincere?
Observation: I have heard more democrats today mention the words "I hope" when describing how they feel about the surge in Iraq. What's wrong with "kick ass", get the job done, (victory), and then bring most of our troops home? Do you "hope" we win? Do you hope there is a finality to all this? Really?
Questions that need to be ask:
If God, (or some other supreme being that you believed in) suddenly appeared on the planet, and told all that listened, that He would grant one complete generation the gift of total world peace with only one condition, and that was that George W. Bush would be in charge, would you accept that gift?
If the war in the ME could suddenly come to an end, and every one of our brave comrades could come home, and if every person that lost a limb suddenly had them grow back----- but George W. Bush had to still be in charge, could you accept these conditions?
If world hunger could end tomorrow if we simply gave GW another four years, would you go for that?
If a dozen Ann Coulter's and Rush Limbaugh’s suddenly ceased to exist, (let’s throw in every evangelical preacher you ever detested), but George W. Bush was still in charge, could you make that choice? I DON'T THINK SO!
You see this is the severity of your derangement and hypocrisy. Because you would sacrifice everything that we all profess to care about as long as Bush is no longer leading this nation, your principals of "power first" comes to light.
I would submit that the stability of mankind is not your wish or agenda. Your "leadership", (and the power machine of your biased mainstream media), to this day dangerously puts control and power ahead of the safety and security of this nation. Your attacks on Christianity and the fear that a president can believe in a loving God that promises eternal life eats away at the very soul of this nation. No where in the scriptures does it say that God commands you accept Him, the choice is left up to each of us. And yet many see Christianity as a threat to our society. While the very principals of the Ten Commandments has ingrained itself into the founding of this great nation, and has been the guidelines that is the product of a civil society, many now seem to reject these principals as a threat to their civil liberties.
Is this the dawn of a secular-progressive nation that rejects a great deal of the moral principals that once made this the most "united" nation in the world? Under the disguise of diversity? If this is the case before us, then we should certainly remove the words "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust" forever from our vocabulary. To not do so would be at the least......hypocritical.
Update: Michael Medved has an excellent essay on "Why liberals are right to hate the Ten Commandments"
Observation: I have heard more democrats today mention the words "I hope" when describing how they feel about the surge in Iraq. What's wrong with "kick ass", get the job done, (victory), and then bring most of our troops home? Do you "hope" we win? Do you hope there is a finality to all this? Really?
Questions that need to be ask:
If God, (or some other supreme being that you believed in) suddenly appeared on the planet, and told all that listened, that He would grant one complete generation the gift of total world peace with only one condition, and that was that George W. Bush would be in charge, would you accept that gift?
If the war in the ME could suddenly come to an end, and every one of our brave comrades could come home, and if every person that lost a limb suddenly had them grow back----- but George W. Bush had to still be in charge, could you accept these conditions?
If world hunger could end tomorrow if we simply gave GW another four years, would you go for that?
If a dozen Ann Coulter's and Rush Limbaugh’s suddenly ceased to exist, (let’s throw in every evangelical preacher you ever detested), but George W. Bush was still in charge, could you make that choice? I DON'T THINK SO!
You see this is the severity of your derangement and hypocrisy. Because you would sacrifice everything that we all profess to care about as long as Bush is no longer leading this nation, your principals of "power first" comes to light.
I would submit that the stability of mankind is not your wish or agenda. Your "leadership", (and the power machine of your biased mainstream media), to this day dangerously puts control and power ahead of the safety and security of this nation. Your attacks on Christianity and the fear that a president can believe in a loving God that promises eternal life eats away at the very soul of this nation. No where in the scriptures does it say that God commands you accept Him, the choice is left up to each of us. And yet many see Christianity as a threat to our society. While the very principals of the Ten Commandments has ingrained itself into the founding of this great nation, and has been the guidelines that is the product of a civil society, many now seem to reject these principals as a threat to their civil liberties.
Is this the dawn of a secular-progressive nation that rejects a great deal of the moral principals that once made this the most "united" nation in the world? Under the disguise of diversity? If this is the case before us, then we should certainly remove the words "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust" forever from our vocabulary. To not do so would be at the least......hypocritical.
Update: Michael Medved has an excellent essay on "Why liberals are right to hate the Ten Commandments"
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Good News in Iraq......That You Won't Hear From The MSM
Curt, from Flopping Aces has an excellent post up on the SUCCESS that is transpiring in Iraq:
More and more good news is coming out of Iraq but we hear nary a peep out of our MSM. Hell, we don't hear crap from the left either. Two days ago the Iraqi police, Iraqi army, and local militia's fought back against al-Qaeda and killed over 50 of the terrorists, and captured 80: (via The Fourth Rail):
The media accounts claim 'insurgents' attacked the village, but do not provide a reason for the attack. "The clashes on Wednesday began about 1 p.m. when insurgents attacked a village near Fallujah, about 35 miles west of Baghdad, and ended about six hours later when Iraqi soldiers, police and the tribal fighters killed 50 suspected insurgents and captured 80 others, according to Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry. Khalaf declined to say how many Iraqi security personnel were killed or injured," The Washington Post reports.But the full story, according to an American military officer and an American intelligence source, is that al-Qaeda in Iraq, under the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq, assembled several hundred fighters to attack a prominent leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, the grouping of local tribes and Baathists, and former insurgents who now oppose al-Qaeda in Iraqi. The leader of the Anbar Salvation Council was to attend the funeral of one of those killed in last week's suicide bombing in Habbaniyah. The Iraqi police in Amiriya held off the attack, and radioed for backup from Iraqi Army, police and members of the Thurwa al-Anbar, the tribal militias assembled by the Anbar Salvation Council. U.S. air support was called in to help fend off the attack. The Anbar Salvation Council leader escaped as Army, police and tribal fighters poured into the village and routed the al-Qaeda force, which was estimated to be several hundred fighters. Once intelligence source claims the figure of 50 al-Qaeda killed is low, and the number is likely over 100.
Curt adds:
"So as you can tell, lots of good news. But the MSM spends the majority of their reporting on the dozen men found executed. Of course that is news, and should be reported on, but should they also ignore all the good stuff that is going on in the majority of the country?
The answer to that is no of course but we have all become used to this kind of reporting. Report only the bad, whether it can be verified or not by Capt. Hussein, as long as they can continue to mold the minds of Americans into believing Iraq is not winnable. " (link to full story)
Many thanks again to Curt for making the truth easier to see.
More and more good news is coming out of Iraq but we hear nary a peep out of our MSM. Hell, we don't hear crap from the left either. Two days ago the Iraqi police, Iraqi army, and local militia's fought back against al-Qaeda and killed over 50 of the terrorists, and captured 80: (via The Fourth Rail):
The media accounts claim 'insurgents' attacked the village, but do not provide a reason for the attack. "The clashes on Wednesday began about 1 p.m. when insurgents attacked a village near Fallujah, about 35 miles west of Baghdad, and ended about six hours later when Iraqi soldiers, police and the tribal fighters killed 50 suspected insurgents and captured 80 others, according to Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry. Khalaf declined to say how many Iraqi security personnel were killed or injured," The Washington Post reports.But the full story, according to an American military officer and an American intelligence source, is that al-Qaeda in Iraq, under the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq, assembled several hundred fighters to attack a prominent leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, the grouping of local tribes and Baathists, and former insurgents who now oppose al-Qaeda in Iraqi. The leader of the Anbar Salvation Council was to attend the funeral of one of those killed in last week's suicide bombing in Habbaniyah. The Iraqi police in Amiriya held off the attack, and radioed for backup from Iraqi Army, police and members of the Thurwa al-Anbar, the tribal militias assembled by the Anbar Salvation Council. U.S. air support was called in to help fend off the attack. The Anbar Salvation Council leader escaped as Army, police and tribal fighters poured into the village and routed the al-Qaeda force, which was estimated to be several hundred fighters. Once intelligence source claims the figure of 50 al-Qaeda killed is low, and the number is likely over 100.
Curt adds:
"So as you can tell, lots of good news. But the MSM spends the majority of their reporting on the dozen men found executed. Of course that is news, and should be reported on, but should they also ignore all the good stuff that is going on in the majority of the country?
The answer to that is no of course but we have all become used to this kind of reporting. Report only the bad, whether it can be verified or not by Capt. Hussein, as long as they can continue to mold the minds of Americans into believing Iraq is not winnable. " (link to full story)
Many thanks again to Curt for making the truth easier to see.
Two New Sites Added to Rovinsworld
Two new blogsites have been added to Rovinsworld today. I have decided that it took too much time to click thru favorites to get to NZ's Truth Laid Bear.
The Truth Laid Bear began as a humble BlogSpot blog over three years ago, and has since evolved into a fully developed portal to the blogosphere. The TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem is widely regarded as the definitive weblog ranking system, and TTLB receives an average of 1,684 visits and 3,637 page views per day.TTLB is an independent venture of one individual, the pseudonymous N.Z. Bear, who is available for print, blog, and radio interviews upon request. Inquiries from investors with large sacks of cash are also most welcome.On May 7th, 2006, the latest release of The Truth Laid Bear went public, bringing TTLB's functionality to a new level with new graphics, improved search capabilities, and many other enhanced features. Stay tuned for reactions around the blogosphere and the mainstream media!
This highly rated and respected site is a must read for serious conservative bloggers and those who may need to know the Truth Laid Bear
Also added to this site is a very important cause called the Victory Caucus. A creation of NZ for the soul purpose of obtaining a victory in Iraq and not some "slow bleed" from the defeatist on the left, who fail (or care not) to understand the ramifications of failure.
While I hope NZ never checks out where Rovinsworld fits in the ecosystem, I would like to proudly say welcome NZ, and thank you for all your contributions. When you look in the dictionary under patriot, it says-----See NZ
(no more "triple-clicks")
The Truth Laid Bear began as a humble BlogSpot blog over three years ago, and has since evolved into a fully developed portal to the blogosphere. The TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem is widely regarded as the definitive weblog ranking system, and TTLB receives an average of 1,684 visits and 3,637 page views per day.TTLB is an independent venture of one individual, the pseudonymous N.Z. Bear, who is available for print, blog, and radio interviews upon request. Inquiries from investors with large sacks of cash are also most welcome.On May 7th, 2006, the latest release of The Truth Laid Bear went public, bringing TTLB's functionality to a new level with new graphics, improved search capabilities, and many other enhanced features. Stay tuned for reactions around the blogosphere and the mainstream media!
This highly rated and respected site is a must read for serious conservative bloggers and those who may need to know the Truth Laid Bear
Also added to this site is a very important cause called the Victory Caucus. A creation of NZ for the soul purpose of obtaining a victory in Iraq and not some "slow bleed" from the defeatist on the left, who fail (or care not) to understand the ramifications of failure.
While I hope NZ never checks out where Rovinsworld fits in the ecosystem, I would like to proudly say welcome NZ, and thank you for all your contributions. When you look in the dictionary under patriot, it says-----See NZ
(no more "triple-clicks")
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Captain Ed Runs into the Stalker
Ed Morrissey had the unfortunate pleasure of having the slime-ball Mike Stark show up at CPAC:
"It remained rather quiet here until just a few moments ago, when Mike Stark showed up and tried to provoke an argument here on Bloggers Row. In case you didn't read about this on Hot Air, Stark showed up yesterday to get an autograph from Michelle Malkin and then started haranguing her about CPAC attendees not enlisting in the military. He videotaped the incident on his cell phone, and then Huffington Post for some reason gave him a forum to brag about his ohso-courageous intrusion on an event open to the public." (full story)
I would wonder if they called in a hazmat team to purify the location?
It turns out Michelle didn't even know who he was. May be that's a good thing.
Charles at Little Green Footballs jumps in on the Stalker story along with his 300+ commentors (per post).
"It remained rather quiet here until just a few moments ago, when Mike Stark showed up and tried to provoke an argument here on Bloggers Row. In case you didn't read about this on Hot Air, Stark showed up yesterday to get an autograph from Michelle Malkin and then started haranguing her about CPAC attendees not enlisting in the military. He videotaped the incident on his cell phone, and then Huffington Post for some reason gave him a forum to brag about his ohso-courageous intrusion on an event open to the public." (full story)
I would wonder if they called in a hazmat team to purify the location?
It turns out Michelle didn't even know who he was. May be that's a good thing.
Charles at Little Green Footballs jumps in on the Stalker story along with his 300+ commentors (per post).
Thursday, March 01, 2007
MSM and BDS.............
"The New York Times is so anti-Bush they won't print a crossword puzzle that has a word with the letter "W" in it"............ Dennis Miller
The Day the Dow Stood Still.......
I just happened to be home the afternoon of Tuesday, Feb 27th, when the "glitch" on the big board on wall street transpired. ABC online tells a good accounting of events:
Feb. 28, 2007 — We live in an age when money just isn't what it used to be. Today, trillions of dollars move around the globe each day not as paper currency in armored cars but as little bits — digital ones and zeros — flying through cyberspace.
It's great when it comes to speed. Whether you're a hedge-fund manager buying millions of dollars worth of stock in a few minutes or an average Joe withdrawing $20 from an ATM far from home, you enjoy the benefits of electronic transactions.
But the digital dollar age comes with some pitfalls that weren't big concerns in the past.
What happens if one of those computers moving money across a wire puts a decimal point in the wrong place, forgets how to do basic math for a few seconds or just isn't getting the information it needs to do its job?
The world found out yesterday.
But yesterday, starting at about 1:50 p.m. the lights were being fed numbers that just weren't right.
Dow Jones says that unusually heavy trading of the 30 component stocks that make up the Dow caused a 70-minute lag in correctly calculating the value of the index. Their main computer system wasn't getting what it needed to put the "real" numbers up there on the Big Board.
As one might imagine, a 70-minute lag in the era of fast electronic trading is a big problem. Especially on a day when the market is teetering on the precipice of a notably bad move down.
(This 70-minute lag is where I borrowed the title from the 1951 movie classic titled "The Day the Earth Stood Still"
As one might imagine, a 70-minute lag in the era of fast electronic trading is a big problem. Especially on a day when the market is teetering on the precipice of a notably bad move down.
When Dow Jones figured out what was happening — they weren't getting the values of the underlying component stocks in a timely manner — they switched to a backup system that was getting it right. That happened at 2:57 p.m. The rest is history.
In just three minutes the Dow fell by more than 240 points.
Jaws dropped on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and in newsrooms around the country. What was happening? A market crash?
The answers weren't clear, but traders did what they do best: react, and fast.
They started placing sell orders, trying to get out in front of a stock plunge no one really understood.
They wanted to keep their precious ones and zeros, and to do that they needed to turn them from electronic shares of stock into electronic dollars right away.
"This switch-over caused prices that were received during the latency period to be processed all at once, bringing the index immediately in line with its underlying component stocks," says a press release issued by Dow Jones.
The almost instantaneous drop — a compression of all the selling that had happened in the previous 70 minutes — triggered even more selling.
It was a snowball effect, where billions of dollars in stock value vanished over the cliff in the last hour of the trading day.
As luck has it, trading days end, even in an electronic age when computers could be pushing ones and zeros 24 hours a day.
When the dust settled, traders had fought back from the big 546-point loss that was the day's low point.
And a little bit after the closing bell had sounded — boos echoing around the floor of the New York Stock Exchange — Dow Jones publicly said it had made a mistake and "is continuing to investigate the latency issue to correct the root cause of the problem."
Today the backup system that got turned on yesterday is feeding the lights at the Big Board.
(link)
Feb. 28, 2007 — We live in an age when money just isn't what it used to be. Today, trillions of dollars move around the globe each day not as paper currency in armored cars but as little bits — digital ones and zeros — flying through cyberspace.
It's great when it comes to speed. Whether you're a hedge-fund manager buying millions of dollars worth of stock in a few minutes or an average Joe withdrawing $20 from an ATM far from home, you enjoy the benefits of electronic transactions.
But the digital dollar age comes with some pitfalls that weren't big concerns in the past.
What happens if one of those computers moving money across a wire puts a decimal point in the wrong place, forgets how to do basic math for a few seconds or just isn't getting the information it needs to do its job?
The world found out yesterday.
But yesterday, starting at about 1:50 p.m. the lights were being fed numbers that just weren't right.
Dow Jones says that unusually heavy trading of the 30 component stocks that make up the Dow caused a 70-minute lag in correctly calculating the value of the index. Their main computer system wasn't getting what it needed to put the "real" numbers up there on the Big Board.
As one might imagine, a 70-minute lag in the era of fast electronic trading is a big problem. Especially on a day when the market is teetering on the precipice of a notably bad move down.
(This 70-minute lag is where I borrowed the title from the 1951 movie classic titled "The Day the Earth Stood Still"
As one might imagine, a 70-minute lag in the era of fast electronic trading is a big problem. Especially on a day when the market is teetering on the precipice of a notably bad move down.
When Dow Jones figured out what was happening — they weren't getting the values of the underlying component stocks in a timely manner — they switched to a backup system that was getting it right. That happened at 2:57 p.m. The rest is history.
In just three minutes the Dow fell by more than 240 points.
Jaws dropped on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and in newsrooms around the country. What was happening? A market crash?
The answers weren't clear, but traders did what they do best: react, and fast.
They started placing sell orders, trying to get out in front of a stock plunge no one really understood.
They wanted to keep their precious ones and zeros, and to do that they needed to turn them from electronic shares of stock into electronic dollars right away.
"This switch-over caused prices that were received during the latency period to be processed all at once, bringing the index immediately in line with its underlying component stocks," says a press release issued by Dow Jones.
The almost instantaneous drop — a compression of all the selling that had happened in the previous 70 minutes — triggered even more selling.
It was a snowball effect, where billions of dollars in stock value vanished over the cliff in the last hour of the trading day.
As luck has it, trading days end, even in an electronic age when computers could be pushing ones and zeros 24 hours a day.
When the dust settled, traders had fought back from the big 546-point loss that was the day's low point.
And a little bit after the closing bell had sounded — boos echoing around the floor of the New York Stock Exchange — Dow Jones publicly said it had made a mistake and "is continuing to investigate the latency issue to correct the root cause of the problem."
Today the backup system that got turned on yesterday is feeding the lights at the Big Board.
(link)
I would guess that all them "boos" on the floor were for the 240-point glitch more than anything else. And them boys on the floor probably haven't had to work so hard in such a short time. How many got caught with their proverbial pants down........?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)