Our forces in Iraq have killed a guy (just a blog link for 'Inside DC and Red Carpets', might have to scroll down to find this story) named al Tunisi (which means, of course, the Tunisian), who was a very big fish.
It was an airstrike that killed him, and a note was found near his body, apparently a message he was trying to send away.
We're surrounded. Communications have been cut off. We're desperate, please send help.
Anecdotal evidence that the surge is working. :-)
Friday, September 28, 2007
even more frightening, even less press
Everyone heard little Mr. Cheapsuit when he said "we don't have that phenomenon... I don't know who's telling you this" when he was asked about government abuse of gays in Iran.
Liberal apologists have scrambled around to try to explain this away, to say he meant they don't have a gay culture or a gay cable network or a gay travel agency or some such, as can be found in this country. But of course Ahmadinejad was not trying to be coy. He meant to say there are no gays in Iran, and everyone knows it.
But if you don't believe that, read this story about a press conference he held. Toward the end, when told by that nervous Iranian female reporter "I know a few myself", he responded by asking for their addresses so that he could go and meet them to learn about them.
Gay activists try so hard to paint Christians this way, as cruel intolerants who would just as soonlive in a nation with no gay people. But when confronted by an actual head of government who chillingly asks for addresses so he can 'meet them', when it's well known that this government tortures, imprisons and executes them for the 'crime' of being gay, they say--
zip. nada. nothing.
I just don't get it.
Liberal apologists have scrambled around to try to explain this away, to say he meant they don't have a gay culture or a gay cable network or a gay travel agency or some such, as can be found in this country. But of course Ahmadinejad was not trying to be coy. He meant to say there are no gays in Iran, and everyone knows it.
But if you don't believe that, read this story about a press conference he held. Toward the end, when told by that nervous Iranian female reporter "I know a few myself", he responded by asking for their addresses so that he could go and meet them to learn about them.
Gay activists try so hard to paint Christians this way, as cruel intolerants who would just as soonlive in a nation with no gay people. But when confronted by an actual head of government who chillingly asks for addresses so he can 'meet them', when it's well known that this government tortures, imprisons and executes them for the 'crime' of being gay, they say--
zip. nada. nothing.
I just don't get it.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Bankrupt candidates
IT's hard enough to believe that Dem candidate Mike Gravel proudly proclaimed yesterday that he had "stuck the credit card companies with $90k worth of bills.... they deserved it!"
But what still baffles me is why no Democrat politician and no leftist voter seems to understand that in cases like that, the 'credit card companies' do NOT pay that bill.
WE DO.
No company simply absorbs business write-offs without making their best effort to pass the cost along to its customers. And in the case of credit card banks, it's quite easy to do so with a simple adjustment of future rates and fees, mostly for the less wealthy customer.
You see, they have to compete fiercely for the good customers, the ones with good credit who demand low rates and can get them. But the less well-off, the 'working poor', they have to accept much higher rates because it's all they can get. Their credit is not sufficient to give them bargaining power. And they need the cards more than the wealthier people do, because they don't have any cash for daily purchases.
So yesterday's 15% rate becomes today's 15.5% rate for this kind of customer (the one who cannot afford any increase in monthly bills), and the rate creep is thanks to weasels like Mike Gravel, who proclaim they've stuck it to the banks but have actually stuck it to their own constituents.
Democrats simply don't live in the real world and don't get held accountable for the real world consequences of their ideas and actions. Gravel's perverse pride in his own bankruptcy, as if he had done it on behalf of the American public, is the twisted result of the constant Dem haranguing of 'the evil corporations'.
Eyes open, voter; these people should not be in charge of anything.
p.s. Please note these banks, like Citi and Bank of America, are making annual profits in the 30% range, compared to ExxonMobil's single digits. If Big Oil is EEEEVIL, then these banks are EEEeeeeeEEEEEeeEEVVIIILLLLLLLL........ but you don't hear much about 'em from Dems (excepting, of course, the perversely proud Gravel).
But what still baffles me is why no Democrat politician and no leftist voter seems to understand that in cases like that, the 'credit card companies' do NOT pay that bill.
WE DO.
No company simply absorbs business write-offs without making their best effort to pass the cost along to its customers. And in the case of credit card banks, it's quite easy to do so with a simple adjustment of future rates and fees, mostly for the less wealthy customer.
You see, they have to compete fiercely for the good customers, the ones with good credit who demand low rates and can get them. But the less well-off, the 'working poor', they have to accept much higher rates because it's all they can get. Their credit is not sufficient to give them bargaining power. And they need the cards more than the wealthier people do, because they don't have any cash for daily purchases.
So yesterday's 15% rate becomes today's 15.5% rate for this kind of customer (the one who cannot afford any increase in monthly bills), and the rate creep is thanks to weasels like Mike Gravel, who proclaim they've stuck it to the banks but have actually stuck it to their own constituents.
Democrats simply don't live in the real world and don't get held accountable for the real world consequences of their ideas and actions. Gravel's perverse pride in his own bankruptcy, as if he had done it on behalf of the American public, is the twisted result of the constant Dem haranguing of 'the evil corporations'.
Eyes open, voter; these people should not be in charge of anything.
p.s. Please note these banks, like Citi and Bank of America, are making annual profits in the 30% range, compared to ExxonMobil's single digits. If Big Oil is EEEEVIL, then these banks are EEEeeeeeEEEEEeeEEVVIIILLLLLLLL........ but you don't hear much about 'em from Dems (excepting, of course, the perversely proud Gravel).
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Rhetorical question
Can a nude Alicia Silverstone persuade me to give up meat?
My first impulse is to point out that she hasn't yet tried-- but I'm free this afternoon.
My first impulse is to point out that she hasn't yet tried-- but I'm free this afternoon.
"damage to planet inevitable; poor, minorities hardest hit."
Template news from the leftist newzoids. All the news that's printed to fit.
Although they do acknowledge that some parts of the planet might actually benefit from being a bit warmer, pardon me if I don't rush out and invest in the British wine industry.
Template news from the leftist newzoids. All the news that's printed to fit.
Although they do acknowledge that some parts of the planet might actually benefit from being a bit warmer, pardon me if I don't rush out and invest in the British wine industry.
Out front with abortion opinions....
Here's one you shouldn't miss if it the issue resonates with you.
And if it doesn't, of course, it SHOULD.
The author of this article (Amy Alkon) believes that, in the absence of definitive opinion on when it is that a fetus becomes a person, individual choice should rule, and compares it to other personal choices like food and whatnot.
But ask yourself this- if you were in the woods and had your rifle trained on a target, but you weren't sure whether it was a deer or another hunter in camo, what would be your 'choice' about pulling the trigger.....?
Liberals, of course, would shoot the hunter or else throw down the rifle in disgust, but that's not what this metaphor is about. It's about the uncertainty, and what to do (or refrain from doing) about it... is this a human being or not?
Traditionally, in the case of such uncertainty, civilized people hold their fire. If it's possible that this is a human being, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. But in abortion terms, if there is some doubt about whether it's a human being, then stick some scissors in its brain and get it over with. "Definitely not human anymore, hah hah.. toss this in the dumpster, would ya? "
"There's no definitive answer", she says. But what she means is that she herself has already concluded that a fetus is not a person, although she suggests a generous willingness on her own part to let others entertain the opposite belief without argument from her-- provided, presumably, they do not attempt to stop her from having an abortion.
She clarifies her view thusly; "While a clump of cells or even a large gathering of them that resembles a baby can become a person, they don’t constitute a full-fledged human being deserving of rights."
Okay, so it can become a person, but it isn't yet. How does she know?
She doesn't, and neither does anyone else, in her stated view; "no definitive answer".
Again, lacking a definitive answer, her proposal that everyone is thus free to act reveals a bias toward a definitive answer, namely NO, this is not a human being. How else could she be at all comfortable with 'choosing' to kill it?
Unless she is way way less civilized than me. Or less human.
Enjoy her self-absorption and unrestrained ego here. And accept her 'advice' at your own risk.
And if it doesn't, of course, it SHOULD.
The author of this article (Amy Alkon) believes that, in the absence of definitive opinion on when it is that a fetus becomes a person, individual choice should rule, and compares it to other personal choices like food and whatnot.
But ask yourself this- if you were in the woods and had your rifle trained on a target, but you weren't sure whether it was a deer or another hunter in camo, what would be your 'choice' about pulling the trigger.....?
Liberals, of course, would shoot the hunter or else throw down the rifle in disgust, but that's not what this metaphor is about. It's about the uncertainty, and what to do (or refrain from doing) about it... is this a human being or not?
Traditionally, in the case of such uncertainty, civilized people hold their fire. If it's possible that this is a human being, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. But in abortion terms, if there is some doubt about whether it's a human being, then stick some scissors in its brain and get it over with. "Definitely not human anymore, hah hah.. toss this in the dumpster, would ya? "
"There's no definitive answer", she says. But what she means is that she herself has already concluded that a fetus is not a person, although she suggests a generous willingness on her own part to let others entertain the opposite belief without argument from her-- provided, presumably, they do not attempt to stop her from having an abortion.
She clarifies her view thusly; "While a clump of cells or even a large gathering of them that resembles a baby can become a person, they don’t constitute a full-fledged human being deserving of rights."
Okay, so it can become a person, but it isn't yet. How does she know?
She doesn't, and neither does anyone else, in her stated view; "no definitive answer".
Again, lacking a definitive answer, her proposal that everyone is thus free to act reveals a bias toward a definitive answer, namely NO, this is not a human being. How else could she be at all comfortable with 'choosing' to kill it?
Unless she is way way less civilized than me. Or less human.
Enjoy her self-absorption and unrestrained ego here. And accept her 'advice' at your own risk.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
the forecast for this weather story is FOGGY
Here's an illuminating story from the Times, UK that is.
Apparently La Nina is wrecking our world's weather. Whatever La Nina is.
Here's what the story in the Times says it is:
La Niña occurs when the tropical seas of the Pacific off the coast of Latin America cool down, while the waters turn warmer towards Australia, the Philippines and Indonesia. That lurch in ocean temperatures can send weather systems into havoc over vast areas, delivering huge deluges of rain over the Far East and tropical Australia, while western parts of Latin America turn much drier than usual. This is the flip side of El Niño, although La Niña lasts for a shorter time, usually no more than a year.
Clearly, the waters off Australia, the Philippines and Indonesia are getting warmer and it's time for us all to blame GLOBAL WARMENING (cue Vader theme from star wars), the evil corporate American plot by HalliBushitleroogabooga to ruin the world's weather.
But.... what on earth could be COOLING DOWN the waters of the Pacific off the coast of Latin America, they do not say, of course. Except to call it La Nina.
Does it seem to you that a critical bit of info is missing here?
Again, I want to know why the waters of the Pacific off Latin America are cooling! After all, we're supposed to be warmening the globe, increasing the temperature, you know? HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
At any rate, if it coolses in one spot and warmens in another, well the world's weather is in for some sharp turns, so say the scientists.
Yes, generally the same scientists who predicted so many horrible hurricanes in 2006. :-)
So, whatever La Nina is, it's going to be terrible, and nobody really knows what causes La Nina.
But hey, let's pour thousands of tons of IRON in the ocean and that should level things right out.....
Remember while you absorb this stuff--
in the 1970s a scientist named Hansen was one of the first to warn us of the coming ice age due to global coldening. Nowadays, the same scientist (presently funded by George Soros) is warning we must act now to stop global warmening or we'll all die.
Also in the 1970's there was a lefty envirowacko plan to use millions of old tires to create a reef off Florida to save the sea life. They built their reef.
The tires were scattered by the first storm and took years and hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up. They were everywhere, and no sea life wanted anything to do with them.
Morons. They should not be in charge of anything. Especially NOW.
Because now they want to dump iron in the ocean to save us all.
DO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE NEAR any fax machines, cell phones or live internet connections. They should not be allowed to encourage each other except perhaps through the postal service or with messenger pigeons.
Apparently La Nina is wrecking our world's weather. Whatever La Nina is.
Here's what the story in the Times says it is:
La Niña occurs when the tropical seas of the Pacific off the coast of Latin America cool down, while the waters turn warmer towards Australia, the Philippines and Indonesia. That lurch in ocean temperatures can send weather systems into havoc over vast areas, delivering huge deluges of rain over the Far East and tropical Australia, while western parts of Latin America turn much drier than usual. This is the flip side of El Niño, although La Niña lasts for a shorter time, usually no more than a year.
Clearly, the waters off Australia, the Philippines and Indonesia are getting warmer and it's time for us all to blame GLOBAL WARMENING (cue Vader theme from star wars), the evil corporate American plot by HalliBushitleroogabooga to ruin the world's weather.
But.... what on earth could be COOLING DOWN the waters of the Pacific off the coast of Latin America, they do not say, of course. Except to call it La Nina.
Does it seem to you that a critical bit of info is missing here?
Again, I want to know why the waters of the Pacific off Latin America are cooling! After all, we're supposed to be warmening the globe, increasing the temperature, you know? HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
At any rate, if it coolses in one spot and warmens in another, well the world's weather is in for some sharp turns, so say the scientists.
Yes, generally the same scientists who predicted so many horrible hurricanes in 2006. :-)
So, whatever La Nina is, it's going to be terrible, and nobody really knows what causes La Nina.
But hey, let's pour thousands of tons of IRON in the ocean and that should level things right out.....
Remember while you absorb this stuff--
in the 1970s a scientist named Hansen was one of the first to warn us of the coming ice age due to global coldening. Nowadays, the same scientist (presently funded by George Soros) is warning we must act now to stop global warmening or we'll all die.
Also in the 1970's there was a lefty envirowacko plan to use millions of old tires to create a reef off Florida to save the sea life. They built their reef.
The tires were scattered by the first storm and took years and hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up. They were everywhere, and no sea life wanted anything to do with them.
Morons. They should not be in charge of anything. Especially NOW.
Because now they want to dump iron in the ocean to save us all.
DO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE NEAR any fax machines, cell phones or live internet connections. They should not be allowed to encourage each other except perhaps through the postal service or with messenger pigeons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
