Thursday, May 17, 2007

Utterly amazing

More proof of insanity. My long-abandoned home town strikes a blow for the complete and utter dumbasses of the world.

Given that the city has lost some 2 million residents in my lifetime- roughly 2/3 of it's peak population, to the point that the population of what used to be the fourth-largest city in the country is now below a million; given that the crime rate is, at best, second-highest in the country; the unemployment rate is high; abandoned houses are everywhere; literacy hovers around fifty percent; yadda yadda yadda, you might think they'd have better things to do.

But you would be assuming that the City is run by adults. Ones with functioning brains.

And sadly, you would be wrong. I hope this gets a lot of national attention, so that people in this country will realise what a bunch of morons the "leaders" of this city are.

Remember: these people, being largely... shall we say "disadvantaged", are running the place. And being democrats, they all supported Jenny-poo Granholm for governor. And I would bet that, if they aren't blaming Bush for the fact that Michigan is in a one-state depression, they're claiming that Jenny-poo inherited a mess, and has only had 4 years to fix it.

Of course, she's done nothing but blame other people and try to find the most idiotic ways to "increase" revenue- by means of additional taxes which a 3 year old can tell will actually drive people and businesses out of the State- but hey, she's a Democrat. And therefore she's good. And Kwami (Detroit mayor) is good. And the entire conyers clan...

No way in hell I'll say that. Even sarcastically. The conyers clan is apparently the most stupid family on the earth. As proven by Congressman A**hole's constant attempts to curry favor with the Islamists among us, by making Islam the de facto official religion of the US.

Don't believe me? Do some googling. He's proposed legislation to make desecrating an Islamic flag a crime, proposed hate speech bills to protect Muslims, and so on. He's the leading dhimmi in the entire Congress, if not the entire US.

And coincidentally, he's the Chair of the House Judicial Committee, and the husband of the idiot that proposed this stupid Act.

Sorry. Got a little off-track there. But the fact that these morons are even allowed to have a driver's license is a crime.

Argh. It's only about a month until I leave this God-forsaken State. Hopefully never to move back. Along with most other people who can, I suspect.



Update: I was glancing at the comments for the Free Press story- most of which use the same words to describe these clowns as I did- and I found a reference to this story.

This is the man who the voters trust to run their city. Despite his constant attempts to defraud the voters. Not sure who's the stupidest- the Council or the Mayor.

Actually I do know. It's the voters.


Well, here's an example of the type of thing I posted about a few weeks ago. Slavery in the US.

In this case, it doesn't involve sex (at least not that we currently know of, but I suspect it might). Nor is it about the "Fourth Wave" of women from Eastern Europe.

But it's still about women who came to the US for what they thought were legitimate jobs. And who turned out to be very wrong about that. They were starved, beaten and otherwise abused. Probably suffered all kinds of mental and psychological torture as well.

Is it hard to believe they'd be raped as well?

According to what I've read- and recall, I'm not by any measure an "expert"- the women were probably also illegal aliens. (The article doesn't say that, but mentioning it would be an argument in favor of border security. Hardly something an AP writer would do). And the normal process for the "owners" would be to constantly remind the women of this fact, while also telling them a few other choice lies, in order to convince them that running away to the police would get them- the victims- in trouble.

If a person knows they're in a strange country illegally, then it's easier to convince them that they'll be arrested. And I would suspect that these women are not well-educated enough to know much about the US.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the Indian couple would occasionally read them articles from the newspapers about the horrible people out there who wanted to do nasty things to illegal immigrants, while skipping the ones about the politicians that want to crawl naked over glass to accept people that break our laws.

So anyhow, we have some people who came to the US themselves in order to make a better life. They certainly succeeded, and in the process took advantage of a couple of other people who also wanted to make a better life.

There's a special place in Hell for people like this.

Ah, but we must remember that they are only "alleged" to have held these women illegally. Read the accusations by the Prosecutor, and the casual responses by the lawyers for the defendants, and tell me which one sounds more honest.


A brief update: I just watched the video from the local TV station. The people that they interviewed were the store clerk who found one of the women and called 911, and another man who I presume was a neighbor. He, like the accused, is Indian. He said "it's hard to believe an Indian would do this to someone".

That pisses me off even more. Why is it so hard to believe?

I'm not pointing fingers, but I dunno. I'm kinda curious about this neighborhood and the residents now.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

British media supporting the War

Yeah. Like anyone actually believes that headline, right?

The British Ministry of Defense just announced that, in light of specific and credible intelligence, they're not allowing Prince Harry to go to Iraq as planned. Some of the "insurgents" there had already stated that they would know when he arrived, and would make his capture or death a priority.

If you read the article, it's clear how the Idiot from the newspaper feels. He's pissed off that not only is Harry not going, but the media played a role in stopping it, since they've apparently been announcing to anyone that cares when and where he would be going, and even what type of vehicle his unit is equipped with, as is suggested by this excerpt:

However, any insurgent group intent on targeting the prince would have plenty of other ways of knowing (including via the MoD's website) that his regiment was the Blues and Royals of the Household Cavalry and that its specific task was to carry out reconnaissance in ageing Scimitar armoured vehicles.

As I read it, the media has been announcing all of this, likely for months, and the jackass writing the article wanted to mention it again, just to be clear.

Further, if you notice, it's only those people who lost sons in Iraq and are opposed to the decision by the MoD that get mentioned in the article. I suspect that there are some folks out there that feel that not risking a member of the Royal Family is a Good Thing, and who also lost family there. But they never get quoted, of course.

One part of my brain says that this is just editing- you ask a bunch of people that lost family members in the War, and pick out only those who feel Harry should be sent. But in reality, I don't think that's the case. More likely, the people at the newspaper know certain people who meet the criteria here- lost a relative in Iraq, think Harry should go, and oppose the War- and thus make sure not to take any chances by interviewing people randomly.

As an aside, I recall reading an example of this technique a year or so ago. Somebody was reading an article in "the newspaper of record" and thought the name of a person quoted as a "man on the street" seemed familiar. He did some digging and found that this person
had been a Man on the Street several times before. Always saying the right things for the articles. Interesting, huh? Never gets mentioned by the newspaper, though.

At any rate, the "journalist" here makes a final dig. He admits that there's a propaganda side to this:

The MoD was also acutely aware that a decision not to let him go could be seen as a propaganda victory for those who promised to track down the prince.

But the brave media, who after all are the primary defenders of Individual Rights and Democracy (and if you don't believe it, ask them) are more than willing to give the terrorists the propaganda victory. In fact, it seems that the media is just too arrogant to believe that they're being played here. As usual. The terrorists know how the whole media game works. They've been using the western media all along. And here's yet another example.

I'm guessing this story doesn't die down for a little while.

Regardless of whether one thinks that a Royal prince should be exposed to the same dangers as others- and honestly, I lean towards thinking he should- the MoD makes an excellent point here. By the very fact of Harry's presence, he would increase the risks to his soldiers and comrades. Remember, we aren't dealing with normal people here, like those Argentinians that opposed the Brits- and young Harry's Uncle Andrew. These "insurgents" are perfectly willing to kill women and children in order to lure American and British soldiers into an ambush. Is there any reason to consider whether they would take any chance to destroy a British vehicle, in order to get this one person? The article has a quote from one of the terrorist leaders (amazing how the press can find them, but our soldiers can't), which suggests to me that they would launch suicide attacks on the bases where he would have been stationed.

So if Harry had gone, there would have been increased attacks on the British forces. These attacks would have caused increased casualties, regardless of whether they got him. Which the media would no doubt have used as an argument for withdrawal: After all, they would point out, the number of British casualties has increased in the last (whatever period of time). So it't time to pull out.

And nowhere would they have mentioned why this increase took place, unless it was in the context of "the evil military sent Harry over there, thus putting the lives of innocent soldiers at increased risk".

Ugh. These journalists make me ill. There's a reason why I almost never read newspapers anymore.


Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Why I hate liberals

Another good reason pops up today. People wonder why I say so emphatically that I HATE LIBERALS. Well, here's a good solid explanation.

This kind of thing is seriously deranged.

A follow up

Well after posting this morning, I decided that "When Islamists attack" was just too cool of a name to put out into the world for someone else. So I created another blog with that title. Hopefully it won't get anyone (i.e. Me) into too much trouble, but oh well.

I've got lots of other stuff going on at this point, but I'll try and do something with it. It'll be my place for posting other articles from the Web, my thoughts on Islam, etc.

Hopefully this will be the Idea That Works.

A trip to peaceful New York

[Hat tip to LittleGreenFootballs]

Here's a nice article about our friendly, peaceful Islamic Brethren in New York. Gunfire and small explosions from a compound that doesn't allow outsiders in.

Nothing to see here. Move along now.

Someday maybe I'll find a place like this to live. But I don't like the whole dirty-nasty-raw sewage-thing. So how about a nice 1500 acre property with a nice big house, located somewhere in Montana or Wyoming, with a breath-taking mountain view....?

If anybody has one of these they want to donate to me and the Church of Secular Democracy (this is just the working name, pending the moment when I come up with a better one), drop me a note. If the property comes with a nice, rich, attractive, single woman, even better.

BTW, Gates of Vienna has written a lot about this same group, and their compound in Virginia. And the folks there are just as charming as the ones in New York.

Remember, Islam is the religion of peace. When in doubt, refer back to the previous statement. When Islam attacks (what a great title for a blog!!!) refer back to the previous statement.


Monday, May 14, 2007

Is something fishy?

I've been spending a lot of time lately watching dvds and occasionally videotape. In the latter category, I started watching (again) "Cosmos", Carl Sagan's PBS miniseries. While I didn't think highly of him as a person, the show is for the most part interesting. When he's not lecturing us about nuclear weapons or other 80's perils, that is.

At any rate, one of the episodes I watched tonight dealt- for one segment- about evolution. It showed a pretty poor artistic progression of how life evolved on Earth (remember, the show came out in 1980, so computer graphics were primitive, to say the least). Along the way, Sagan mentioned the
coelacanth. And I had a sudden thought: this is a fish which was supposed to have been extinct for millions of years. And suddenly, it's rediscovered. Great, but that begs the question: is the coelacanth of today any different from the ones in the fossil record? And if so, how different?

This would seem to be an issue-probably not a major one- for the theory of Evolution. If we can compare fossils from 5-10 million years ago to the same creature today, then we can see whether or not it's evolved since then. And if not, then we would seemingly have to ask whether it's because A) the time frame is too short; B) The animal hasn't needed to evolve because it's "perfect" as it is; or C) Whether any evolution that occurred hasn't shown in the fossil record (or the living examples) because it was a "failed" trait.

I'm not sure about it. I suspect there's an explanation for the failure of some animals to evolve-sharks, crocodiles, etc., but I don't know. Nor am I sure how valid these explanations would be.

I'm not completely convinced by Evolution. It seems fairly solid, but I know there are gaps in the theory. I also know that, like global warming, the gaps can't be discussed.

Amazing how it's always the "liberal" side of the fence that declares certain topics off-limits, while the "conservative" people are willing to discuss them.

Anyway, it's just a thought. If the coelacanth hasn't evolved over the last 5 million years, I want to know why. There must be a good explanation, right?