Our third winner

Well, better late than ever, I guess. It's time to review the candidates, and crown a new idiot with the "WTF was he thinking?" award.

Our first candidate was the moron who called for the overthrow of the Bush Regime (remember, Bush=Hitler.) He argues that Bush refused to heed a summons from Congress, and that this provides evidence of his intent to overthrow the Constitution and set himself up as El Presidente For Life. (Amazing that when Chavez does this in Venezuela, the Left cheers. When Bush allegedly plots this in the US, it's A Bad Thing. Partisanship conquers all)

At any rate, we can't give this jackass the award. He of course believes this inherently. In his pathetic, ignorant view of the world, it makes perfect sense. Again, we have to bow to the insanity of the Left. While a normal person (i.e. Me) can sit here and scratch his head and think "WTF??", it seems logical to the leftists. Sad but true.

Sorry, pal. You're a fool, but you're acting completely logically. For a fool. No award for you.

*****
Our second candidate was HBO, for their new hardcore sex series "Tell me you love me". A hardcore show during prime time. Really good idea.

But I guess they can't win either. Handjobs are something that men like, especially if the woman giving it is attractive. And the woman (I guess she qualifies as an actress, though I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a documentary or not) in question appears to be hot. So while most men would prefer the real thing, and from an honest-to-God-woman-who-looks-like-an-attractive-woman-they-might-know-rather-than-a- silicone-inflated-porn-star, doing the deed will likely get some audience. It might not last too long, but at least initially, the audience will be there.

And besides, they got a couple seasons out of Deadwood, which seemed to exist only for the reason of using the F word every sentence. I'm an ex-infantryman with a potty-mouth, and even I found it to be too much.

So again, sorry. HBO might be kinda dense, but they don't quite rise to the level we require.

*************
Our third nominee was Nebraska Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, for refusing to allow an alleged rape victim to use the word "rape" in court. Ditto for any other witness. Kinda hard to prove a crime if you can't describe it.

Reminds me of the tale I once read of a woman testifying on the witness stand that the accused had made an inappropriate comment to her. Since it was so awful, to protect her virtue she was allowed to write the comment down, and then it was passed to the jury to read. When it reached an attractive woman there, she read it and passed it to her neighbor. Unfortunately, he had been dozing while the witness talked, so he missed the basic story. When he got the note from the woman next to him, he winked at her and then pocketed the note, refusing to give it up, since he said it was "personal".

But onward.... The judge in this case would ordinarily rise to the level of stupidity that would earn him the award, but there are circumstances which prevent it. First off, this is the second trial of the accused, Pamir Safi. The first one couldn't return a verdict.

This kinda set off some alarm bells in my mind, but not strongly enough.

It turns out that, as far as I can piece the story together, it's too much a matter of "he said/she said". I gather that the "victim" Tory Bowen, admitted to meeting the accused at a party, getting drunk and then finding a flat surface (or not) and doing the thing that drunken coeds often do with men they meet at parties. And doesn't deny that this first time was consensual.

The problem arises from the apparent fact that, after they had consummated their new relationship, they apparently went back to the party, where Tory did some more drinking. Later, they apparently left together, and Pamir assumed that her earlier... cooperation... meant he still had a green light, despite her alleged inability to consent to the second time.

This is a toughie. If she was drunk and he had sex with her when she was passed out, that would seem adequate to satisfy me that it was rape. However, if she consented a couple hours earlier, and was still hanging out with him and drinking afterward, then that would seem to be a matter of Tory having a guilty conscience. I.E. The old "I don't usually do this, but...." problem.

The first time she could shrug off as being drunk and horny. The second time? Well she's either a slut, or she was raped!

Guess which one the average woman would choose?

So I can't award the judge the prize. I still don't think it was a good call on his part, but it's impossible to decide if she was raped or not- if she had sex with him a few hours earlier, and it was consensual, then how can one "prove" via normal investigations that the second time was rape?

Which I guess is why the first trial ended with no real verdict.

***********
So now we come to our final candidate. Michael Vick. Let's see.... you're a multi-millionaire when you're 20, due to your incredibly physical gifts. One of the faces of the most popular sporting league in the US. Besides millions of dollars in salary, you earn millions more in endorsements. And you decide to gamble some pocket change on dog-fighting, which is illegal.

And not just that. According to the charges against you, when a dog doesn't meet your standards, i.e. isn't willing to fight to the death for your entertainment, you slaughter it on the spot. Through such humane methods as electrocution and (still my own personal "favorite") slamming it to the ground over and over.

I question whether Vick and his cronies rise to the level of "human", after acts like that.

So.... for risking his entire career, his millions of dollars, his future, his (relatively) good name, the image of the entire NFL, and possibly his freedom, in order to watch Man's Best Friend kill another animal, Michael Vick gets this week's "WTF were you thinking?" award.

Congratulations, Mikey. Now I hope you burn in Hell.

The most despicable candidate ever.

Here's one that defines the concept of stupidity. Michael Vick. You're a professional athlete, making millions of dollars on the playing field, and millions more in promotions. Your talents are so amazing, that you're called a "freak".

So what do you do? You get into dog fighting (allegedly). You travel around the country with pit bulls, and gamble on their prowess in "death match" fights against other dogs.

This alone is enough to make you a strong "WTF was he thinking?" candidate. But you have to take things one step farther. As is apparently normal in this heinous, disgusting "sport", you take some of the helpless animals you are training, and hold "test fights" to see if they have what it takes to kill another dog for the amusement of you and your fellow cavemen. And if the dog appears to not be vicious, enough, well.... even with a contract worth over $100 million dollars, you can't afford to feed and shelter dogs that aren't paying their way, ya know? So they have to be gotten rid of.

And not in a normal fashion. No, you have to be more inhumane to the dogs that won't fight for your amusement than you are to the ones that will. According to the indictment against Vick and his cronies, the seven dogs that failed the "test" the last time-April of this year, apparently- were put down by such means as electrocution and (this one alone will reserve Vick and Co. a special placing the lowest pits of Hell), slamming them into the ground over and over until dead.

(Disclaimer: I don't know that Vick himself used this technique, but somebody apparently did, and there's apparently a 25% chance it was him. And either way, it did happen on his property, and with his knowledge.)

Sorry for the description, but people really need to understand what a piece of crap this guy is. Writing this now, even after I've read it several times, I'm still amazed. How disgusting.

So for cruelty to animals above and beyond anything that a normal person can even imagine, I give this piece of dog crap a resounding "WTF were you thinking, you piece of disgusting animal feces?"

Sorry for the tiny bit of editorializing there. But I don't apologise for saying it.

A gold mine of stupidity

Thanks to Ace today, we have a chance to catch up on our exclusive feature, "WTF was he thinking?" for this week. Reading along today, I found three-three as in a trio- of nominees.

So with no further ado, we'll run down the current crop. First off, we have judge Jeffre Cheuvront, in Nebraska. In 2004, a then-33 year old man had sex with 21 year old Tory Bowen. Problem was, she was drunk and passed out. She claims rape, while the defendant, Pamir Safi, claims she consented, but was just so drunk that she doesn't recall it.

Intuitively, not hard to decide which of the two is more believable. Here's a tip for Pamir, who clearly is a stud with the ladies: If she's too drunk to remember anything about it, she's probably not really capable of consenting.

Just a tip from your uncle here.

Now then, here's the problem: This genius was tried once for rape, but the jury couldn't return a verdict. So they got ready for another trial, at which point Judge Jeffre informed Tory she could not use the word "rape" on the witness stand. Similarly, witnesses are banned from using words like "victim", "assailant" and so on.

Can't do that, because they're "prejudicial" to poor old Pamir. As Ace points out, (in a quote from a judge) "The question isn't whether it's prejudicial to your case, it's whether it's unduly prejudicial. Of course it's prejudicial to your case, otherwise it wouldn't even be relevant to the case at all."

So, Judge Jeffre, congratulations: You are the first nominee for this week's award, and I salute you with a great big "WTF was he thinking?"

*******************

Now onto the second nominee, also through Ace. HBO has a new series coming (ahem) this fall. It's called "Tell Me You Love Me"; and the first episode has a woman masturbating her husband, in fully glorious detail (apparently). It's said to be the most hardcore show ever seen on TV (not counting the porn channels).

It's also going to be shown during prime-time.

But no fear, the show is actually about "relationships". And also about "bosoms and things". And the creator, Cynthia Mort pushed it through in part by asking why it's okay to show an onscreen rape (specifically in a show like the Sopranos), but not sex between a married couple.

Needless to say, the Network caved over that one.

So, since there's not that much information about it now, we'll call this nomination a short one and merely ask HBO "WTF were you thinking?"

Oh, and a quick link also, in case the one above doesn't work. The first is from the LA paper, and requires registration.
***********************

And finally, there's this moron. As Ace points out, in a day or two it'll likely be "revealed" that this is "satire". Because everyone knows that to get the best in satirical humor, you head on over to the Huffington Post. He seems to be calling for an overthrow of the "Bush Regime" (remember: Bush stole the 2000 election, and he's the reincarnation of Hitler. If you find yourself doubting either of those facts, refer to the HuffPo for more proof).

This moron, in strict accordance with leftist stupidity, harps on how Bush and his minions are refusing to obey a subpoena from Congress. Oh the horror! Congress demands that Bush provide people to tell them that he illegally fired people that he's legally allowed to fire anytime, and this proves that Bush is planning to throw out the Constitution, outlaw free speech, and imprison everyone that tries to criticize his evil plans.. As soon as he carries out his "next" terror attack, of course.

As I've mentioned before, Bush has no reason to cooperate with Congress on this issue, since he's allowed to do whatever he wants with the Executive Branch. (It's called Separation of Powers. Look it up sometime)

So for his paranoid and stupid ramblings, Eric Malone (whoever the hell he is) gets a big steamy pile of "WTF were you thinking?"

I'll announce the winner later this week.

gun-totin-wacko cinema

I just remembered something the other day, as I drove past a movie theater which was advertising the new Bruce Willis film "Live Free or Die Hard". Not sure why this escaped me for so long, but there you are. Here's a fascinating story...

A couple years ago, I came home from work one night, and when I looked at my Yahoo start page online, I saw a post from that bastion of taste and style, The National Enquirer. It mentioned something about a new movie that was going to be made, called "Die Hard IV". I looked at the article, because well, I'm a red-blooded American male. Die Hard is a matter of importance to us.

The article said that the movie had been green-lighted, but that at the moment there was nothing much to go on- not even a script. The movie (or perhaps gossip) columnist asked people to send in their ideas for a plot, with the winner getting $200.

Fifteen minutes later, I sent off my entry. It was as follows:

Die Hard IV:

John and his wife Holly have divorced. Holly has taken up with a younger man, leader of a gang of blow-dried Kaballah terrorists (played by Ashton Kucher). The climactic scene takes place at the Oscars, to which neither actor is invited. John and his sidekick, a Russian milkman named Tevye (played by Woody Allen) beat up all the terrorists, John beating his rival to death with a bottle of Kaballah water.

Meanwhile, a number of stars (most notably Madonna) show up to support the terrorists. Holly and Madonna get into a cat-fight, but later make up with a hot and juicy on-stage kiss during the show.

In the end, John is elected governor of California, where he balances the budget by imposing a 100% tax on everyone connected with “The Butterfly Effect”.

Remember, this came about a couple years ago. (2004, if I recall correctly). If you follow the whole Hollywood routine, it'll all make sense. And I must say, I think MY sidekick would have been the coolest ever. At least if you have a slightly twisted mind....

I would note that according to the later article announcing the winner, most of the entries mentioned Janet Jackson's breast. Very clever, I know. And quite topical, this being some six months after the Super Bowl in question.

As for my entry? Well, it was the easiest $200 I ever made.

And I got my name in The Enquirer. In the same issue with O.J. and Jessica Cutler, aka Washingtonnienne.

Sadly though, women don't seem terribly impressed with the line "I've been mentioned in The Enquirer". Though I admit, I never thought to use the OJ/Washingtonienne angle....

At any rate, my point is this: compare my plot idea to the one that was actually made, and then decide which one would have made a better movie.

Hollywood owes me a million dollars, at least.

Environmentalism and the American West

As I might have touched on before, I am now living in New Mexico. For personal reasons, and also because of the crappy state of affairs in my homeland of Michigan, I left last month. Still trying to get things going out here, but I have faith.

Last weekend, my sister and I went out horseback riding with a friend of hers. Now I'm a city boy through and through. I love the idea of riding horses, but this was the first time I've been on one since I was in high school, which is a long long time ago.

I made it through the day in one piece. I got tossed once at the very beginning, but that was it. We didn't go much faster than a walk, since the horses hadn't been out in a while and were a bit more feisty than we wanted. The host lives on a few acres, close to a state park, so we rode on over to the lake there, and then back. About 6-7 miles round trip.

As we rode back, I remember sitting there looking around me. We were out of sight of the lake and the people there, far from any roads, and with only a few houses in view. Off a bit to our left was a small herd of wild horses, maybe a dozen or so. And I realized for the first time ever, on a really deep, primal level, the attraction of The West.

It's hard to imagine if one hasn't ever been there. Sitting on a horse, in the middle of an open area. A short distance to the right was a small mountain range, or at least some good sized hills. In all other directions, just open ground. Fairly flat, but with some rolling terrain. The only sounds were the horses and the wind. You could see for miles, I guess, but there was very little to look at. Yet there was a sense of freedom, which made me long for a place that has more space yet. Somewhere like Montana, a place I've only seen a bit of. Someplace where you can just sit quietly on a horse and ride for miles without having to deal with another person.

And I recall thinking that I was At One With Nature in a way that the Gores of the world probably don't really grasp. I understand that there is pollution and that I'm not seeing the world in a perfectly natural place. But still, I felt a peace that one doesn't get in the city.

And if you have the chance to sit on a horse, alone with your thoughts in the open spaces of the West, you understand that this really is a privilege. It's not something that can be faked. And you find yourself wanting to protect it. I had a piece of gum in my mouth, and after a couple hours of riding, it was hard and completely tasteless. I wanted to get rid of it, but how? I didn't feel like swallowing it, and there were no trash cans nearby, but when I thought "I should just spit it out", I couldn't do it. It just seemed so.... indecent. Perhaps "immoral" would be a better word. I knew there was little chance anyone would ever step on it, but it still felt wrong. So I kept chewing that rock hard piece of gum for a couple more hours. I didn't feel any sense of triumph or morality over it. It just felt like it was the right thing to do.

I never felt that sense of nature in Michigan, even when out in the woods or on a lake. Much of it, I guess, is the scale. Michigan, even in the most pristine areas, is either wooded or built up. So it's rare to be able to see more than a couple miles at any time. Out here, it seems sometimes that you can see forever. If I ever get the chance to visit Montana for more than a few hours, I suspect it would be like that- after all, it's called The Big Sky Country for a reason.

In the end, it opened my eyes a bit. I'm not generally a person that throws my trash out on the side of the road by any means, but I'm not a fanatic about the environment either. Nor do I worship nature. But I do understand why so many people over the millenia have done so. It's amazing.

Well, it's time to bring this one to an end. So here's a thought, from a favorite song. This is from a New Mexico native, the late great John Denver (though he didn't actually write it. The composer was Kent Lewis). Still, it's kind of a pleasant thought that ties in with how I feel. The tune is called "Song of Wyoming", and here are the final few lines:

"... wakin' up on the range,
Lord I feel like an angel
Feel like I almost could fly
Drift like a cloud
out over the badlands
Sing like a bird in the tree
The wind in the sage
sounds like heaven singin'
A song of Wyoming for me
A song of Wyoming for me".

The newest winner

Sorry it's been a while since I've posted, but too much other stuff going on. Plus, I have a crappy internet connection, so it's slow going. At any rate, it's time to present the second winner of the G-T-W exclusive feature, the "WTF was he thinking?" award.

This time around we had only two nominees. The first was a pair of teachers in Indianapolis, who gave out their awards (not as cool or as well- thought-out as mine). Among the end of the year awards they gave out were awards for "Most Likely Not To Have Children" and "Sir Clowns-a-Lot". As Jenera remarked on the original post, "How insane!".

The second nominee was Hollywood writer Peter Mehlman, who made the usual leftist comparison of Bush to Hitler. The difference here was that Mehlman went further and argued that Hitler at least had the best interests of the German people at heart. You know, except for the part where he led them into a war against the 3 greatest powers of the day, and wound up destroying Germany completely for a couple generations.

On the other hand, according to this towering monument to intellect and history, Bush simply is a moron, whose ideas have no merit, no thought behind them, and prove that he doesn't even mean well.

Anybody that has read along with me over the last few months can probably guess which candidate I prefer. Mehlman is, by nearly any normal standard, a complete moron, who is blinded by his hatred of Bush. So he would be the likely winner, right?

Wrong. While I feel nothing but contempt for this idiot, he gets a pass. He clearly suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS. I'm told that this is now considered an actual psychological condition, which of course only afflicts leftists. In their insular, generally upper-class world, Bush really is an evil on a par with Hitler. And as I pointed out in the original post, far exceeding Stalin, Mao and the whack-jobs in North Korea,all of whom have the advantage of being Communists.

At any rate, I suspect that Mehlman really believes that Bush is worse than Hitler. The facts that can be brought out to prove him wrong would have no effect on his thinking. In his world, his statements are completely logical and truthful. So he knew what he was saying, and thought it through before he made the comparison. He's an idiot, but he's not guilty of carelessness, merely stupidity and/or insanity.

So, despite my true feelings that Mr. Mehlman is a moron, I have to give the award to the two unknown teachers in Indianapolis. Their asinine idea of giving out joke awards demonstrates a complete lack of the normal thought processes we take for granted. Their actions can't be excused by insanity or anything else. Therefore, I have no choice but to say to them

"WTF were you thinking?"

A quick suggestion

Anybody out there who believes in Truth, Justice, or The American Way, should sprint over to Gates of Vienna and check out today's posts there.

We've been sold out. Bush is speaking tomorrow at a Mosque, where he'll likely spout more "religion of peace" piffle. The US government is working with unelected officials from our neighboring countries to create an American version of the EU. And a real live "moderate Muslim" in Britain, a member of Parliament no less, is resigning because of death threats. He had the audacity to force the government there to request extradition of a couple brutal murderers from Pakistan. These animals tortured and killed one of his constituents, and he thought they should be punished. The Foreign Office disagreed, and apparently so do many British Muslims.

The governments of the West are selling out their people every chance they get. And they're no longer even pretending to care what we think.

Something has to give. Either we run the show or they do. Perhaps it's time we show them who it is. Because before too long, it'll be too late.

Another solid candidate

And we don't need to fear... I was concerned that I'd have to give the "WTF was he thinking?" award for this week to the Indianapolis teachers.

But our leftist friends have come through. We have another, probably better, candidate. A writer in Hollywood (there's a shocker) named Peter Mehlman wrote a piece the other day in which he went a bit further than usual. Rather than explain to us in the usual detail that Bush=Hitler (I've written in the past that Bush never equals Stalin or Mao, both of whom did more damage to their own countries than to others. But the point there is that they were both Communists, and therefore Good. Hitler being a Fascist, was Bad. Never mind that Nazi means National Socialist. But I digress)

At any rate, Hitler, while he did slaughter millions of Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Slavs, mentally and physically Handicapped; started a war that killed tens of millions of people and so on; had one advantage over Bush: He meant well. Bush of course, doesn't.

The supreme irony here, of course, is that Mehlman, as most readers have likely already figured out, is... A Jew.

Of course, one could also point out that he comments about how "everyone from Helen Thomas on down" says Bush is the worst president ever. Not sure why, other than being 372 years old, leftist, and god-awful ugly, Ms. Thomas is so important that she rates being on top. Aside from her liberal credentials, which are impeccable. That right there could perhaps earn Mehlman a nomination.

But why pile on? At any rate, for his incredibly stupid comments, Peter Mehlman is nominated for the second "WTF was he thinking?" award.

Oh, and a big old hat-tip to Ace Of Spades for this one.

A new candidate

Well, after a quiet week, we have another candidate (two actually) for the "WTF was he thinking?" award. Not sure whether it's a case of he or she, but it doesn't matter. Any time a schoolteacher gives a kid an award for "Most Likely Not To Have Children" and "Sir Clowns-a-Lot", there's something seriously wrong.

So the two unnamed teachers in Indianapolis are nominated for the second round of WTF was he thinking. Congratulations.

Idiots.

Coolest thing ever

A video of England's legendary Zimmers. Watch and enjoy!







Oh, and to explain further, here's a bit more about them.

Scare tactics

Just saw this article on Yahoo. Apparently, with the leftists there on the verge of getting their butts handed to them in the election for parliament, they've discovered that democracy is dangerous:

"the left and centrists said a crushing right-wing majority was unhealthy and threatened democracy."

Of course, a crushing left-wing majority would be A Good Thing.

Poor babies.

Well this is just.... odd

Feel sorry for the girl's parents, but wow. What are the odds? I also feel badly for the manufacturer, cuz they're gonna get hammered.

Deservedly or not.

And the winner is....

Jimmy Carter. Congrats to the former president for being the first ever winner of the G-T-W "WTF was he thinking?" contest. It wasn't really even all that hard to pick our winner.

The first nominee was Phillip Wellman, the minor league baseball manager who inspired it all. He gets a pass because, while he was completely obnoxious and way over the top, he was presumably trying to be entertaining.

The second nominee was Gary Sheffield of the Detroit Tigers, for his "Hispanics are more common in baseball because they're easier to control" lecture. He gets a pass because, as more people commented on the topic, it turns out that there is some degree of truth to it. I never knew that players from outside the US are not "drafted" in the normal way. The teams just find youngsters (Thanks to Ernie Harwell for that term), bring them to the US, and pay them whatever they can get away with. Given the desperation of these kids to make it and avoid going back to a life of poverty in Guatemala or wherever, the money is appallingly bad.

In fact, Sheffield might deserve a degree of praise. Perhaps his comments will bring this out into the open, and force MLB to change the way they do business in Latin America. Not necessarily likely, but it could happen.

Which brings us back to Dhimmi Jhimmi. There are no excuses for his particular brand of stupidity. I still shake my head in wonderment when I read this:

'In the Soviet Union, Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko laughed at Carter's human rights record behind his back, but knew how to manipulate Carter in public. Gromyko browbeat Carter, telling him the USSR's health care and housing trumped America's. "I couldn't argue," Carter winced in his book, "Living Faith." "We each had a definition of human rights, and differences like this must be recognized and understood."' (emphasis added)

As I mentioned in the original post, there's no logical basis for Carter's statement here. The facts would be easy for anyone to discover, especially if one has the CIA, the NSA, Congress, and the entire US government to assist your research.

So congrats to our worst ex-president. I suspect we'll be seeing him a lot more in the next few years.

And as commenter Eduardo Stump said, Carter might even be a candidate for a "WTF was he thinking?" lifetime award. Maybe I'll hold off on that kind of prestigious award until the next time he opens his ignorant mouth.

Which will likely be another week or two.

Cool bit of audio

Just found this clip. It's possibly the coolest song ever. It's from 1947. My dad had the song on a 78 speed record, but it was a special type of disc, so it warped and died.

I've been looking for it pretty much since I got on the internet, and just found this clip. Thanks to Stephen Howard for having it on his page.

Enjoy the dulcet tones of "Humphrey the Sweet Singing Pig", by The King's Jesters.





And if you doubt the coolness factor, check out the original record itself.

Hometown blues

Not that I really care anymore, since I haven't lived there for 20+ years, but I just looked up the old hometown, and looked at the census data.

In the time frame that roughly matches my lifetime, the population has declined by approximately 50%. The population's been dropping since the 1950s. This would seem to be a serious problem.

Sadly though, the people in charge are still clueless. The City Council takes long vacations to discuss urban problems, the Mayor uses City funds as his own personal bank account (allegedly), and throws a temper tantrum when asked about it, the schools are garbage (a study by the US government some years back found roughly half the population functionally illiterate), and on and on.

And they're unable- or unwilling- to do anything about it.

Fortunately, it's not my concern. Talk about "white flight", but the fact is that, to the best of my knowledge, every single person I know that lived in Detroit has either moved out or died. And that's over the last 20 years. To my knowledge, the last person of my acquaintance to live there was my uncle, and he passed away some 15 years ago.

It's a dead city, and it's providing a blueprint for other cities in Michigan. All the places that were built on the auto industry are following in Detroit's tracks. Flint, Saginaw, and now Lansing( my current home) are either dead or dying. All making the same mistakes. And it's not getting better, in part because of the idiot politicians around here. When you have a single-state depression, it's your own fault. Do something right- or at least, do something.

But they won't. And a lot of people are leaving. In a week or so, I'll be among them. Perhaps I'll be back, maybe even as soon as next year, but I don't see it. Other than my family, there's not really much here. Love the State, but the people... not so much.

So we'll see. It's been getting worse over the last 25 years, and the people running the State still haven't figured out what to do about it. So it just keeps getting worse.

Ah well. Just a few more days.....

Another nominee

Here we have another nominee for our brand new feature: Gary Sheffield, of the Detroit Tigers. Last week, Shef announced that if he were suspended for throwing a bat, he would inform the world about a huge conspiracy.

It turned out to be the fact that Blacks are not as common in Baseball as they used to be. Since it's obviously not a lack of athletic gifts, then it must be because baseball is actively trying to recruit more Hispanics. Why, you ask?

Well according to what he told GQ (hat tip to With Leather) it's because... '[It's about] being able to tell [Latin players] what to do -- being able to control them"'.

Brilliant, eh?

On the other hand, not unusual for him. Again via WL, here's a link to some of his all-time best.

So for managing to look like a racist, even though some of his best friends are Hispanic, and once again showing why athletes shouldn't be allowed to speak in public, Gary Sheffield gets a great big "WTF was he thinking?"

That gives us 3 nominees for the inaugural award. Anybody can vote, just leave a comment here. If nobody votes, then I get to decide. The winner will be in the running for the monthly award.

As a clarification, I've decided that I obviously have to nominate Phillip Wellman, the moron that started the whole idea. Together with Jimmy Carter, we now have 3 nominees. Oh the joy!

Warm fuzzy memories

Anybody that grew up in the Detroit area during the 70s, as I did, will remember certain things. I just found on youtube a video that puts it all together.




This is an absolutely iconic commercial for Detroiters of my age. It's for Faygo, the local soft drink, (and something to be experienced. Faygo Red Pop is awesome, and if you've ever had Rock & Rye, well consider yourself blessed).

A tiny bit of history. The boat they're on is one of the Boblo boats. Once upon a time, Boblo Island was the local amusement park. Located in the Detroit River on the Canadian side. (Fun fact I just discovered: It's actually Bois Blanc island. Heard the name, and never realized they were one and the same).

Riding the Boblo boats to the Park is one of the great memories of my youth. Truly a tradition there. On the other hand, I recall my last trip: I was 17, about to start college. My two oldest sisters had graduated college that spring, and for some reason we decided to go to Boblo. All I really remember was going on one specific ride... It was in the middle of the Park, and it was one of those spinny rides. That day reinforced something that I didn't keep in mind very well. I don't do spinny rides. I remember sitting between my sisters, moaning that I was gonna puke. They just kept telling me to look at them rather than outside the car, so I wouldn't.

My response was that if I looked at them, I'd puke on them.

In the end, I made it off in one piece. For the rest of the day, whenever we passed that ride, I had to look to the side- just looking at it made me queasy. Needless to say, I've never done a spinny ride since.

Anyhow, back to the commercial. I've loved it all along, and over the years, I've found some websites devoted to Detroit as it used to be, and this always gets mentioned.

True fact: A few years back, I was visiting a school friend and her husband and son. We were watching TV, and this commercial popped up. She and I were just standing up for something when it started. We immediately started singing along and swaying to the music just as they do in the commercial. Her family just stood there watching us, puzzled. As soon as the commercial ended, we came out of the reverie, and went about our business, like nothing had happened. Of course, we had to explain it to her husband...

That, my friends, is what you call effective advertising. When people sing along and immediately are transported back in time by your commercial twenty-some years later, you done good.

One final note: If you weren't grooving to this commercial, then I think you're dead.

A lesson on what I should have known

Do you recall the story of Jessica Cutler? She's the woman that started a blog called Washingtonienne, in which she wrote about her prolific and varied sex life. The part that caught the most attention was that she was working as a staffer for a congressman at the time, and her partners- one can't call them "lovers"-were also working for the Government. A big sex scandal was promised, with some chuckling that the evil Republicans would get their payback for the Clinton scandal.

Didn't happen, of course. Most of the people were too minor for anyone to care.

The blog lasted only a couple weeks before she was "outed" by another blog. In the end Ms. Cutler was fired, and one might say disgraced, over her admissions of sex for money, sex with up to 6 men (not at the same time), sex with married men, etc. A tawdry tale indeed.

Okay, enough background. I first heard of all this back as it was unfolding. I read the blog as posted somewhere, and even took part in some online discussions. I only made one post, and I do recall that the words "skank" and "pathetic" were among those that I used.

I also recall comparing her to a woman I once knew, who was so screwed up that sex seemed to be her way of finding a purpose in life. This particular woman asked me (her boyfriend had just dumped her, proclaiming that he didn't see her as someone he wanted to marry) "how can you sleep with someone for 5 years if you don't love them?"

Given how often this woman bragged about her prowess and appetite, and that her boyfriend was a stereotypical Frat Boy, I almost asked her if she was joking. But since she was pretty upset, I refrained.

At any rate, in my mind Jessica was equivalent to her. Perhaps so, perhaps not. Always tough to analyze someone you've never met.

And that was pretty much the end of my interest in the whole Cutler affair. Not long afterwards, she posed for Playboy. Yes, she's pretty attractive, though not IMHO gorgeous. I did see the pictures. Liked them too. And then I forgot about her. (insert "typical man" joke here, if you go that way)

But now, Jessica's being sued by one of the Washington men, claiming that it's an invasion of privacy "for public revelation of private facts". And she recently filed for bankruptcy, in part due to this lawsuit. Which brought it all back to my mind, and I've since glanced at her current blog.

So I was reading all this, some of her comments on the story that made her infamous, and the later events. And somewhere along the line, someone- I assume it was Cutler herself- pointed out that among other things, she lost her job; her privacy; and in some ways, her name. And while she's adapted well to it all, even turning the Blog into a "fictional" book, still she went through a lot. I kind of wonder how her parents took to the entire thing, for instance.

So it makes me wonder. Reading her current blogs, she might still be a "skank", assuming everything she writes is true. She might even be "pathetic", assuming my bit of psychoanalysis was correct. But it still must have been a bit of a hard time for her to go through, when the story first broke. And it's gotta be tough to have someone suing you. So maybe people were a bit hard on her.

I don't know. When you proclaim on your website that "I am a published author who jumps out of cakes for money", I think you're embracing your infamy. Shame doesn't appear to be part of her makeup, but perhaps it's something she covers up.

I dunno. I do think it was a bit harsh for me to proclaim someone I've never met a skank, and call her pathetic to boot. But then, I'm sure she heard both terms a lot in those days. I doubt she'd be bothered. Or even interested.

Doesn't matter. I doubt I'll ever meet her, and if I did, I don't imagine that I'd be introducing her to my parents, if you get my drift. From reading her blog, I doubt that if we met I'd be impressed, or vice versa. Likely, we'd say a few words and that would be it. No wild "he'in and she'in" either. Hell, I doubt even then we'd have much to say.

But still, she's a person and has to live her life. And for me to judge her on it, without remembering that the things I read over my cereal actually affect her, is wrong. She has to live with the outcome of whatever happened back then. All I have to do is pontificate on it.

Guess who's got the easier job?

I guess I'm finally learning not to judge people, a lesson I should've picked up a long time ago. Ah well. Sometimes I'm a slow learner.

Lovely summer in Michigan

Ugh. Yesterday, I finally got around to changing over my bed for summer. Took off the flannel sheets and the down comforter and replaced with something a bit lighter. So today it's all of 60 degrees out, and the weather forecast calls for a low tonight of around 40. Yeech.

But, this being the Midwest, no need to despair. Thursday it's supposed to be 90.

Wonderful, ain't it?

One for the WTF file

I'm always emailing hither and yon with a friend, over many issues. The other day, I sent him this quote:

'In the Soviet Union, Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko laughed at Carter's human rights record behind his back, but knew how to manipulate Carter in public. Gromyko browbeat Carter, telling him the USSR's health care and housing trumped America's. "I couldn't argue," Carter winced in his book, "Living Faith." "We each had a definition of human rights, and differences like this must be recognized and understood."' (emphasis added)

It comes from the 7th part of this series about Carter's "leadership" of the US. As I told my friend:...this story tells me everything I need to know about him. If the man's incapable of responding to that lame of an assertion (read it again if need be), then his moral relativism and ignorance are staggering...

I mean, I think I could have rebutted it when I was 15. Of course, housing and medical care (not that the Soviets could have topped anything save a grass hut and witch doctor respectively with their system) aren't what I think of as "human rights" issues anyway. So dumbass caved on everything, just because he couldn't rebut an obvious untruth...

So for his inability to face up to a representative of a repressive and morally bankrupt regime, despite having the entire US Intelligence establishment at his service- which I suspect could have easily provided the ammunition to rebut Gromyko- Carter decided that "differences like this must be recognized and understood."

How stupid can someone be?

So for his complete inability to respond intelligently to what can only be called a taunt, I give "Dhimmi Jimmy" Carter a great big

WTF was he thinking?

************

A quick note. I'm thinking perhaps I should add to this new feature the ability to nominate people, and then select a winner every week, month, etc. Any comments?

A new feature

I was reading up on sports today, and I came across this link. I'm almost hesitant to link to it, because it's so incredibly over the top, but I had a thought.

As I sat here watching the video, all I could think was "WTF is this idiot doing? Is he trying to be funny, or what?"

So I've decided to start a new feature: "WTF was he thinking?" It'll be my little attempt to highlight the absolute stupidest things I see. It'll be random. Whenever I read something that pops that thought into my head, up it'll go.

I won't do a lot of commentary on the items I post. In this case, I'll merely mention that, if I ran the team this guy manages, he'd probably be out of a job before he gets to the clubhouse.

Completely inexcusable.

Telling it like it is

Just a quick post. I came across this piece by Patti Davis, daughter of Ronald Reagan.

I've never tried drugs. Of any kind. Never smoked a joint, never put anything up my nose, never even stuck a cancer stick in my mouth.

And I'm damn glad of it.

I couldn't imagine going through this kind of crap, just because I needed some way to keep awake for the whole night. Or whatever it is that prompts people to do drugs.

Robin Williams said it best years ago (paraphrase alert): Anything that causes paranoia and impotence? Sign me up.

It would be nice to see these kids get through it and fix their lives. But they seem to have the instant gratification gene. And on top of that, they also are young and successful enough to be indestructible, right?

Some time ago, I did a post on Britney Spears, and how tough things must have gotten for her. Now it seems Lindsay Lohan is in the same boat, more or less. But she has less excuse, I think. I still hope she can get it together, but I don't know. I'm not sure that Rehab is intended to be a mini-vacation. It should be a cast-iron bitch, methinks.

Maybe they should be tied down and have water dumped in their faces until they scream for mercy. Maybe that would work, maybe not.

Thank God I just don't know.

Later.

Another bit of progress

Here's a quick link to a story by Michael Yon, probably the best journalist of the entire Iraq war. Not for nothing is he sometimes compared to Ernie Pyle.

Does this show progress? Absolutely. Would CNN or Reuters do a piece like this? Doubtful.

Oh, and here's a nice little excerpt about our Al-Qaeda friends. Clearly, in their minds morality is for the other guys:

"...the Al Qaeda (AQI) terrorists who had brazenly made Anbar province a home base and slaughter pad with their marketplace car bombs, beheadings, and reputation for hiding bombs intended to kill parents in the corpses of dead children they’d gutted.

Over time, AQI provided ample demonstrations of their ruthless and reckless abuses of power over civilians, shooting people for using the Internet, or watching television, or other “moral transgressions” such as smoking in public. AQI’s claim of fundamentalist piety proved to be a thin veneer that was quickly eroded by blatant drug, alcohol and prostitute use. "

Did you notice the part about gutting the bodies of dead children in order to hide bombs and kill the parents? Or the part about using prostitutes?

Do as I say, not as I do. But hey, they're essentially abiding by the same rules as their prophet.

Sometimes I think that we need a better "final option" for these terrorists.... er, "freedom fighters" as so many people in the US call them.

Later.

History repeats itself

I just found a short article at Defensetech.org (with a hat-tip to military.com) about the weapons our troops are using in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It seems that many troops are requesting that the military ditch the M9 pistol ( a 9mm round) because it has insufficient stopping power. Some are specifically asking for a return to the venerable M1911 .45 caliber. In fairness, I've been hearing this for a couple years.

Well duh. The US adopted the 9 mm about 20 years ago (give or take) simply because our allies all use it, and this way we could have compatible ammunition. The .45 on the other hand was designed for the US Army during the Moro rebellion in the Philippines. It was designed specifically to give the troops a pistol with terrific stopping power, as a last-ditch defense.

Here's a little tip: When your military buys a new weapon, designed specifically to be used to stop fanatical Muslim guerrillas who are whacked out on their narcotic of choice, and it works brilliantly for about 80 years, think hard about replacing it for no good reason.

The saddest thing about this whole affair is that it's just so... obvious. I was in the Army when the switch to the newer pistol began (though I never used one). I clearly recall discussions with other officers and NCOs, in which we all-without exception- took the view that it was a mistake to switch, because the .45 was a more "lethal" round. But of course, the decision was made up in Washington (I assume), which someone once described to me as "where the rubber meets the clouds".

I just wonder how many of our soldiers were killed because they couldn't stop an enemy soldier, even with multiple shots. As the article says:

'"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.'

This is a tragedy. You need weapons that are lethal to fight a war. It's pretty simple. The .45 is one of the best weapons mankind has ever designed for close-range fighting, like that in a fight to the death (which is what our soldiers have to expect when fighting these animals).

I hope that none of the soldiers that have been captured by terrorists-like the 3 young men this month- were captured by assailants that had already been shot, to no avail.

That would be a crime.

Later.

A belated and quick note on Memorial Day

Here's a link to another article from Mark Steyn. I can't praise him enough. He's a brilliant writer, and I only rarely disagree with what he says.

Which I guess proves what a genius he is, right?

Anyhow, here it is. A little perspective on things.

Later.

The Pessimism of being a liberal

As some readers might know, I've recently been reading a lot of essays by the late Sydney J. Harris. Mr. Harris was an elegant writer and a very intelligent man. Reading his columns is a pleasure.

However, one of the things I've noticed while working my way through several anthologies of his works, is that he often takes a tone of Gloom and Doom when it comes to the future of Mankind. It's a bit off-putting to read an article written in the early 1960s, for instance, in which the writer opines about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the US/USSR Cold War.

One of the dangers of prophecy-assuming that the prophet doesn't really have The Gift- is of being wrong. And I'm certainly glad that Mr. Harris has such an abysmal record when it comes to soothsaying. But still, I have to wonder what leads him to such ends.

I suspect that it's because, being a Liberal (in the best sense of the word) he wished for an Ideal World; one in which things like nuclear weapons don't exist. Fair enough. But they do exist. And he was always reflecting on the danger to everyone, and how many millions of people would die in some unknown future war.

One of the columns I just read was about how the reality of war has changed since 1945 (again, bear in mind the essay was written sometime in the '60s, during the height of the Cold War). In it, he spoke of how, prior to Hiroshima, war was largely limited in area, and that civilians were largely safe.

Of course, to anyone with any knowledge of history, this assertion is almost laughable. Anytime before the 19th century, any civilians caught in a "war zone"- which I'll define as an area in which armies are marching and fighting- were liable to lose their crops, their livestock and their woodlands (armies needed fires for cooking and heat). If it was a "friendly" area, the men would often be taken as soldiers or laborers. In a hostile zone, the men would often be killed, buildings destroyed, and the women would be.... "recreation" for the invading soldiers.

By the way, this also held true in 1945, when the Soviets moved into Germany.

But in the view of Mr. Harris, this is untrue. Okay, we're all entitled to a misguided Utopian view of history. But he also mentions that in "modern"- meaning nuclear-war, millions of innocent civilians will die, and we humans need to adapt our ethical system to prevent that. None of this is new, in an intellectual sense. And none of it is inherently wrong, either. It's merely naive.

What liberals like Harris don't take into account, as many have said before me, is that Mankind can adapt to changed circumstances. Yes, nuclear weapons can kill millions of innocent people. But they have to be delivered somehow. The easiest way to do it is to use missiles. But missiles, whether nuclear armed or not, need to be accurate. And as you increase the accuracy, you also make it easier to destroy a target without nuclear bombs. A cruise missile can take out a factory or government building, so there's no need to drop a giant nuclear bomb on it. Remember, in WWII, when the atom bomb was created, aerial bombing was still very primitive. Claims from the various air forces aside, a bombing raid on Berlin, for instance, was going to be a smashing success if the majority of the bombs hit the City. It was necessary to send 1000 bombers, if you only expected 500 of them to hit the target.

Besides, any rational person knows that there's nothing to be gained by destroying the entire world. A nuclear war would be fairly limited. Nothing like what my Political Science professors called "Spasm War", where the Button is pushed and everybody launches all their nukes at everyone else. Nuclear war can be "won", with the proper exercise of strategy, an idea that the Soviets were very aware of. Nuclear weapons are a terror tool, and at this point, any country-including, of course North Korea-knows that if they were to launch nuclear weapons at another country, the retaliation would be far worse.

And human rights have progressed by a vast measure today. A hundred or more years ago, the "abuses" of Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib would have been ignored, in light of more important issues. Today, they are a major concern. Clearly, we have a better world when these non-existent scandals take center stage.

Well, at least the Western World is better. In many areas of the world, civilisation hasn't progressed too far. But a true liberal must view these areas as better than ours. The Law of Multi-culturalism says so.

Again, I don't hold Mr. Harris up for ridicule. I don't expect him to be able to see 30 years into the future, and know that in 2007 we can destroy individual buildings in the middle of a big city, without damaging any other structure. Nor do I hold him responsible for knowing that we can even use technology to ensure that the building is empty of people before we strike.

But he often spoke of his fear that if we don't get around our traditional ways of acting, mankind would be doomed. And this attitude still seems to prevail in the liberal community of today. Doom-sayers predict that Global Warming- sorry, "Climate Change"- will destroy mankind.

But, even if we assume-without basis, in my opinion- that this is correct, we still must consider that there are ways to prevent this catastrophe. Much of the Netherlands is below sea level. How? They use dikes to keep out the water, just as we do in New Orleans. (Of course, the dikes in Holland are actually maintained, which is one up on the latter). Sure, there might be problems, but they can be overcome, with innovation, technology, and effort.

So if the sea level rises by 10 feet or so, why is it impossible to somehow protect coastal cities like New York or Miami? If the Dutch could do it 300 years ago, I don't see why it's impossible now.

Too many trees being chopped down? There's a simple solution. Plant more. It's being done by lumber companies in the US today. And it's working well.

Wildlife in danger of extinction? There are ways to ban hunting, and also ways to track down poachers. Not to mention the ability to breed them in captivity. The American Buffalo (or Bison, for any pedantic folks out there) is a prime example.

Drought? It's possible to cause rain by seeding clouds. I'm not sure how effective it is, but if it helps some, that's better than nothing.

Ditto for the potential shortage of fresh water. I don't mean to play this down, because it does have the potential to be a crisis. Here in Michigan the levels of the Great Lakes are down, and it's well known that the Western US is always in danger of running out of water, which is why many western states, and even Mexico, want to take water from our Lakes. Which would be disastrous, I suspect. But still....

Isn't there anyway to draw water from the oceans, remove the salt, and use it? I would think so. It might not always be drinkable, but perhaps a system could be devised to use it for irrigation, plumbing, etc. I've been out west in the past, and the water that comes from the water system in desert cities is often undrinkable. In any case, I know that companies and scientists have to be hard at work on this problem. If someone can come up with a fairly cheap and effective way of converting salt-water to potable, fresh-water, they'll make billions of dollars. That's what we call "incentive".

So all these crises-or potential crises, to be more precise- have the potential to be solved by human technology. I see no reason to believe that we won't be able to find answers to virtually any question that arises, if we try hard enough. Maybe not in 2007, but perhaps by 2020. Or beyond.

I guess that's the advantage of being a conservative. I see where we've gotten, how we've mastered our environment, and think that almost anything is possible. No, we probably won't convert the entire earth into a Garden of Eden, but we can live, thrive, and survive, to quote the Blues Brothers.

But for a liberal, the world must be a perfect one, inhabited in strict accordance with liberal dogma. Working towards perfection isn't enough. It must be achieved, and quickly. And the very term "perfection" must be defined in accordance with liberal values. Nothing else is good enough.

But this idea flies in the face of all logic. It's in the striving for perfection that we achieve greatness. And what we've got today, especially in the United States, is greatness.

And everyone except a liberal knows it.

Later.

Quotes to ponder

I just read an old article by Richard Lamm, former governor of Colorado. Overall, worth a read.
The best part, to my mind, is a quote at the beginning, and another at the end. Both relevant to today's society.

Last things first. A quote from one of the saints of the Left, Noam Chomsky-expert at abusing the system while also taking great advantage of it:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."

And Mr. Lamm also quotes someone that understands history, and how it works, historian Arnold Toynbee:

"an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide."

Both of these quotes are relevant today. And getting moreso.

Later.

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman for mentioning the article in a post.

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.

Later.

**************

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.

Grrrr

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.

Later.

********************
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.

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.

Later.

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.

Later.

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?

Later.

A musical note (Get it?)

Just fired up the trusty iPod. One of the first songs to pop up is from David Allan Coe. He's long known for doing "the perfect country song" (aka "You never even called me by my name"). And he did. It's just not the one you think.

The REAL perfect country song is called "Revenge", and it's from one of his first albums ("David Allan Coe rides again", I think). It's a country-blues piece, with a man talking to a woman from his past. She's long dead, he spent 20 years in prison for killing her murderer, and he's just been released. And he went straight to visit her gravesite. Wonderful song. Very simple arrangement, but it works terrifically.

One of my all-time favorite songs.

"Revenge was all I wanted
when I killed the man that took your life that day.
I've had my satisfaction.
But the price was more than love should have to pay."

Later.

Illiberal Liberalism

Back a couple months, I posted a quote from the late Sydney J. Harris, a newspaper commentator. I was quite a fan of Mr. Harris, reading him fatihfully as a teenager and on into adulthood, until his death in the mid-80s. I found him perceptive, educated, interesting, and so on.

Mr. Harris was what is often referred to as a "classical liberal". He believed in equality between the races, loving thy neighbor and so on. He was a solid Christian, and espoused "Christian values", though he also maintained that they were not merely "Christian".

None of this is unusual, innovative or even all that interesting.

Shortly after I posted that quote, I got onto one of my little obsessive kicks, where I spent a couple hours looking for more on Harris. I googled him, found him on Wikipedia, and went to Amazon, where I found several anthologies of his writings for sale. Naturally I jumped on them all. And I've been perusing them ever since.

The other day, I came across a column he wrote in the 1960s, a piece entitled "Can we prevent delinquency?" He mentions a boy whom he guesses to be "about 11 years old". He states that the boy, to his knowledge, has done nothing wrong, and behaves appropriately for an 11 year old boy.

Then comes the kicker: "But I am morally certain that he is going to become an active delinquent in a few years. The signs are all there, if one looks closely at his attitudes." And Mr. Harris suggests in the column that boys like this- a "potential pre-delinquent" need special attention from society.

He then goes on to detail his theory- shared by, among others Dr. J.M. Stubblebine, a psychiatrist- that we as a society have to work harder to identify the "pre-delinquents" among us, and work with them to prevent their later misdeeds. The identification would come from "the general physician, family counselors and clergymen", to which one would assume teachers could be added. The label would be applied based upon "traits that most of them share in common."

To an extent, there is something to be said for this. I suspect that there are certain "traits" that can identify potential criminals. But still.... This view completely overshadows anything resembling "Free Will". I suspect that many of the kids, if they have any upbringing at all, or any sense of self-awareness, can overcome their weaknesses.

When I was a a teenager, I did some things that I'm not proud of. Many things that were illegal and immoral. On at least one occasion, I committed something that was, I'm pretty sure, a felony. And I came very close to getting caught. Had I done so, I know I'd have gotten a serious rash of trouble at home, and some kind of juvenile record (though I don't think any time in an institution). Fortunately, nothing came of it. Even so, the things that were done, especially in The Incident, were, I suspect, far more than needed to become a "pre-delinquent", or even to make the leap into delinquency.

First lesson learned: if you are going to commit a crime, do it in the company of a friend whose father is a police officer. The potential for an intervention is much better. Or was back in the 1970s at least. Not sure about today.

However, this lesson became pointless fairly quickly. Because of the second lesson: Don't blindly follow the crowd. This was brought home to me then, though I should have been aware of it earlier. And I suppose on some level, I was. I knew my friends were talking me into things that felt wrong, but I wanted to be cool, and went along. After this Incident, I concluded that A) I would never be cool; and B) If this was what I needed to do to reach that lofty goal, I wasn't interested.

At any rate, I learned my lesson, which was the point made by my friend's father to his fellow officer. He got it swept under the rug, and except for some reminders from my friends over the next few years (I also learned exactly how trustworthy they were), that was the end. I've limited myself to less open displays of criminal activity since then.

None of which is intended to portray myself as some kind of hero: I didn't turn my life around, and escape from the mean streets of Detroit, though I suppose all of that is- technically- true. (Well... if the far limits of Detroit in an all-white, middle class neighborhood are "mean". If not, then I admit to embellishing the phrase "mean streets", while holding the rest as True).

But the issue which Mr. Harris overlooked was the possibility- and not necessarily anything else- that this boy could do the same. Whatever he was doing to earn the title of "pre-delinquent" was probably not much worse than what my friends and I did. I certainly didn't respect or even like my parents at that age. I shoplifted, like most kids. I did other things that, in retrospect, would have sent up big warning signs to adults that were aware of them, and justifiably so. But they weren't aware.

Another example is Gavin de Becker, the author of books such as The Gift of Fear (which I recommend). In this book, he talks some about his childhood. Apparently, he had a stepfather who was physically and emotionally abusive to young Gavin and his mother. (Which I note is worse than what I went through). At one point in "The Gift of Fear", he tells of speaking to some prisoners, and of discussing their relative backgrounds. One of them commented on how similar their lives were as children, and asked why he was a hardened criminal, and de Becker was not.

I would argue that choice probably had something to do with it.

Other factors certainly can play a role, but if the boy Mr. Harris was so concerned with made a decision down the road- a week, a year, five years- then it would have been fairly simple for the boy to turn it around. Not saying he did, as there's no way to be sure, but the potential was there. I've personally read many stories of teenagers who realized at some point that they were on the wrong path, and left it.

And this is the problem that I have with liberals. They seem, even if they're well-intentioned- to ignore Possibilities. Yes, we are a product of our backgrounds, childhood, environment, etc. But a person CAN change if they so desire. Labelling someone as a "pre-delinquent" would almost certainly have a negative outcome. At some point, he would simply shrug his shoulders and think, like Popeye "I yam what I yam", and keep moving along that path. In fact, I believe, as do many other conservatives, that this is the problem with Blacks today. Society, in the form of the government, Jesse Jackson, and "liberals" tell them they've been held down, and that they'll never manage to escape from poverty because they've been victimised by racism.

So why bother trying?

It would have been simple for me to decide that I was a victim of wanting to follow the crowd. And it was certainly true. But trust me, when you are 13, as I was, deciding not to stick around when things start to go the wrong way is tough. Deciding that the friends you've had since you were 3-4 years old are leading you down the wrong path is tough. Deciding that perhaps you need to not hang out with them all the time is tough. But if that's what you know is right, perhaps you can do it. It's always important to try.

Too many people seem to think that we are destined to follow a certain path. If you're black, you're doomed to be held down by The Man, unless society picks you up and carries you. If you're a terrorist, it's because you were forced into it by the Jews, Racism, Islamophobia, and by Bush's Middle East Policy.

As for labelling "Pre-Delinquents", I see that as another step down a very slippery slope. Anybody can look at a child and see the evil in him. And in some cases, it might be justified. But judging an 11 year old as being a threat to society because of his "attitudes" is completely misguided.

It's the ultimate Fascist dream: catch and label trouble-makers before they have a chance to act up. Only we have to be aware of who decides what "attitudes" constitute "pre-delinquency", who decides which kids have those "attitudes", and what actions should be taken to address the "problem". Because in most cases, it would be the same people. And those people are always going to have feeling, emotions, desires and agendas, even if they're unconscious.

Teachers, for instance, might simply want to get Johnny out of their classroom because he's "disruptive". Is that sufficient? What happens if he gets put into some kind of special group at a special school? Will he then learn to be even more disruptive? At that point, it's self-fulfilling.

But hey, it's a wide open field, and it needs to be pursued. And we'll need lots of Federal dollars to study it. So fork over the money, and I'll study the problem, and work with the kids. For at least 20 years.

It's amazing that even a true liberal can sometimes come up with a fascist idea, and not see the contradiction in it. And until they do, I'll always be suspicious.

But I guess being suspicious of others when they are trying to do The Right Thing is simply the hallmark of a conservative mind.

Later.

********

Note: All of the above quotes of Mr. Harris come from the article cited, which is included in the book Leaving the Surface, copyright 1968. Pages 66-68.

There's a shock

Well surprise, surprise. It turns out that my immediate suspicions were correct. The men "from the former Yugoslavia" are in fact Muslim. And they all seem to be saying that it's all about their religion.

Of course, the usual band of idiots are all falling over themselves announcing that it ISN'T about Islam.

I'll go with the guys that were there.

[Hat Tip: LittleGreenFootballs. And no, I didn't read them before I posted today]

I smell a rat!

Just a quick note here. I see this morning that several men were arrested in New Jersey for a plot to sneak onto Fort Dix and shoot soldiers. With automatic rifles, which is what led to their downfall and capture.

Now I just read at stratfor.com (an intelligence site that I can't recommend enough) that the men are from "former Yugoslavia".

I wonder which part of it? My guess would be the same part as the kid in Idaho that shot up the shopping mall.

That would be the Muslim part.

But I'm just sayin', you know?

Later.

Finding a Cause

Note: I suspect that perhaps a reader or two (Hi Jenera) might want to quote or link to this. Feel free. I just want to be sure that I'll get credit for it, of course. After all, if a post here somehow becomes the Answer to all my problems, I want to be sure I get recognized for what I write.


************
I just finished reading (for the second time) one of the most maddening books I've ever encountered. Victor Malarek's "The Natashas: Inside the Global Sex Trade". I first stumbled upon it about 3 years ago, when I saw it in a bookstore. Couldn't figure out what "the Natashas" were from looking at the spine. I pulled it out, flipped it open and was hooked.

It's a book that is sickening. It tells of how almost a million innocent women, a quarter of them from Eastern Europe and Russia, are dragged into prostitution and pornography every year. For instance, according to what he says, in Ukraine, unemployment for women is somewhere around 75%. Given that, is it surprising that a beautiful, intelligent, educated and yet desperate woman would be willing to take a chance on a "too good to be true" job in the West? Some are naive, some are misled into thinking it will only entail non-nude dancing, some are aware that it is prostitution (though not the true conditions), and some are simply kidnapped from their villages. And of course, some are led to believe that they are flying west to marry a rich man and raise a family.

These women are beaten and raped into submission, and then sold to pimps and other lowlifes. Then they're forced to "service" their "clients" for hours and hours on end. No days off, no lunch breaks, no nothing. Just a constant stream of unattractive men making humiliating demands. Often, when the money she brings in (every single dime she earns goes to the pimp, of course) starts to decline, she's sold again. And again. It's disgusting, unbelievable, and yet obviously true. As an American, I find the idea of slavery and violence against women to be appalling. And yet, a large percentage-possibly a majority- of the men that avail themselves of these women are also American.

I remember being incredibly angry as I first read the book (not that it gets any easier the second time). Some of these women sound like the sort that I have desired (unsuccessfully) my entire life. Perhaps my morality is misleading: from the sounds of it, I could get one for a mere $1000. One part of my brain (okay, maybe not my brain) wants a stunning 21 year old woman who would cater to my every whim. But my God, not if I have to beat her up to keep her. If I had a woman like some of these, I would want to look in her eyes and see respect, friendship, and humor. Perhaps even, during certain times, love and desire. No way on God's green earth would I want to look in her eyes during (forced) sex and see fear and loathing. The very idea is sickening.

Since I started rereading it over the weekend, I've been thinking. If ever there was a Cause that I want to fight for, it's ending the trafficking of women and girls for sex. It's hard for me to understand why I feel so strongly, but I do.

And there's the rub. I'm a middle-aged, unmarried American male. Frankly, people like me are more likely to be looking for a way to get involved in this from the other side of the fence. So I suspect that in this case, demography works against me. Why would a person that knows the real situation believe somebody like me really, truly, feels this strongly? It would sound suspicious, I think. Hell, I'm contemplating the idea of teaching English in Eastern Europe, and I understand schools there are suspicious of single men of my age. Apparently many want to get over there and live a life of hedonistic pleasure with the local women, work obligations be damned.

So what to do? One part of my brain says to just contact groups that work against Trafficking, and tell them "I want to help. To give of myself, not merely of my money." But that's the other part of the problem. The groups that I have found fall into 3 broad categories: Women's Groups, Human Rights Groups, and Church Groups.

The first of these doesn't sound appealing. I suspect some of these are comprised of women whose opinions and world-views clash strongly with mine. I don't want to be surrounded by hairy-legged women of the sort that, after the Tsunami in SE Asia a couple years ago, were collecting and sending birth-control supplies, nursing bras and such things to people with no food or clean water. And if anybody there ever suggested that Islam is anything other than an abomination against women.... well, I suspect I'd be fired within 5 minutes.

Ironically, I might be more of a feminist than some of these harpies.

As to the human rights groups, I'm sure the people working there feel strongly about what they are doing. And I'm enough of a realist to know that no group or country is perfect. But I think that these groups spend too much time worrying about the death penalty in the US, or how prisoners are treated at Gitmo. Again, I'd last only a few minutes there. My concern-my passion- at least at the present time, is trafficking and slavery. If a terrorist has to use a communal bathroom while in prison, tough. So I would want to focus my energy on just the one issue, and these groups don't.

Finally, the Church groups. Some seem to be focused on just the trafficking issue, which is great. The only problem is, I'm not a particularly religious man. I was raised Catholic, but I don't practice it, and I'm not even a strong believer in "Christianity". Thus, a group which requires (as one does that I found) a "statement of faith" from applicants is not a terribly good match for a "Jesus wasn't a Christian" kind of guy.

So I appear to be left out in the cold. There just don't seem to be any groups that work actively for human rights- REAL human rights issues, are "conservative", and also secular. I tend towards thinking I should just start one, but I have no experience and no knowledge of how to go about it.

And again we come back to the underlying theme: would people I meet take me seriously on this issue? Even if I was able to get to say, Serbia (apparently, thanks to the UN mission in Kosovo, one of the worst places on earth for trafficking), and even if I was somehow able to "rescue" some of the victims, what would they think? The last person in the world they would trust would be a man, right?

Ugh. It's a hard feeling when you find something that you feel strongly about- an issue that makes you simply think "this is it. This is my calling to make the world a better place", but you can't find any practical way to do it.

Of course, John R. Powers suggested in one of his books that the true meaning of the inscription INRI on the head of the Cross was "Below hangs an impractical man". Perhaps, having found something I truly believe in, I'm finally looking at the world through a "practical" eye.

Later.