« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
Ben Stein on Oil Company Profits
Ben Stein tries to knock the sense in to Senators and others who are bemoaning the profits being made by oil companies:
I don’t get it. Why are we angry at the oil companies? Is it because of high gas and heating oil prices ? But wait: The oil companies don’t set the world price of oil. That’s set in trading rooms in banking houses in New York and London and Hong Kong by young guys who make zillions each year. There is absolutely no evidence that the oil companies are colluding to fix prices at artificially high levels. Those prices are set, again, by traders with Ferraris, not by John D. Rockefeller, who has been dead for many years.
Yes, the price rose a lot after Katrina, but that’s because producing and refining capacity fell off drastically after the storm damage and thus the traders, sensing shortage, drove up the price. The oil companies benefited from this rise in price, but there have been plenty of times when the price has plummeted and the oil companies have taken it on the chin. The oil companies do help set the price at the pump and they set it based on the world price–which, again, they do not set-- to replace the oil they use up. That is a standard way of setting prices and not at all a conspiracy. When the world price of oil falls, pump prices fall too and they have fallen dramatically since Katrina.
The best part of the piece is this:
I have the sneaking suspicion that this hatred of the oil companies is largely for the reason that teenagers hate their parents: because they are so dependent on them, they respond with anger. But Senators are not supposed to be teenagers and neither are newspapers.
Bravo! But I don't expect certain Senators and their MSM pals to grow up any time soon.
"Bueller? Bueller?"
Posted by Pam at 01:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Howie Not Cutting It
While Howard Dean may be doing the Republicans lots of favors of late, he isn't helping his own party much. From Drudge:
Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean’s management of the Democratic National Committee and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee’s cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle, ROLL CALL reports.
Congressional leaders were furious last week when they learned the DNC has just $5.5 million in the bank, compared to the Republican National Committee’s $34 million.
Senate and House Minority Leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), along with the Senate and House campaign committee chairmen Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have made their concerns -- directly or indirectly -- known to Dean, claims the paper.
Emanuel was particularly upset last week upon seeing the latest DNC numbers.
“A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what’s going on,” said one senior Democratic aide.
Another Democratic source familiar with the party fundraising apparatus said there is “obvious displeasure” among the leaders.
Will they fire him? Let's hope not.
Posted by Pam at 07:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Misread Headline of the Day
Rush to adopt baby found in bag
Obviously, I thought I shouldn't have missed Rush LIMBAUGH'S show today! He's going to adopt that baby.
But alas, it was a simple rush of people to adopt the baby.
Pardon me.
Posted by Aaron at 04:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Unhinged College Professor
There is a liberal college professor whom I believe fits the category of "Unhinged". He is Mark A. Foster, a sociology professor at Johnson County Community College in Overland Park, Kansas.
Here is what Foster wrote recently on his blog:
Jack Cafferty just read my email on The Situation Room:
Hi, Jack,
I am one of those academic leftists, and it wouldn't be surprising to any of my friends and acquaintances that I strongly agree with Joel Stein. Indeed, I would go further. The troops, in my view, should, along with King Bush and his court, be tried on war crimes charges.
To reach the blog page containing the above statement, click here.
If you don't know what Joel Stein wrote, then click here to read his commentary published in the L.A. Times.
Ben Stein has written a rebuttal to Joel Stein's commentary, which you can read by clicking here.
[Hat Tip: Real Clear Politics]
What follows is an excerpt of Ben's commentary:
The American Army soldier, Marine, Navy sailor, Air Force warrior, and Coast Guardsman fighting in Ramadi or Mosul is fighting men and women who kill children and old people for sport. The men and women of the United States military are fighting the remnants of a regime so evil that it pioneered the use of torture against children -- just for the amusement of Saddam and his family. The men and women whom Joel despises rid the world of a dictator so twisted and murderous that he openly admired Stalin and Hitler and sought to match their level of atrocities. The men and women who wear the uniform fought, bled, and died to rid the world of the most dangerous man on the planet in the most flammable place on the planet. They died to save a slave people from the genocidal control of a mad killer who thought nothing of gassing his own people, of wiping out entire regions, of setting up special rape rooms to allow his henchmen and his sons to rape women at will, who amused himself by pouring gasoline down the throats of totally innocent people and setting them on fire.
Ben Stein knows who the true villains are. It's too bad that Mark Foster doesn't.
Posted by Dodo David at 09:51 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Newspaper Reader Clarifies Abortion Issue
Sometimes a letter to a local newspaper is worthy of being read by a national audience. I believe that the following letter to the Tulsa World is one such letter. The letter's author is responding to an editorial published by the Tulsa World.
Here is the letter in its entirety:
In "Roe at 33: New strategies" (Jan. 22), Tulsa World editorial writer Janet Pearson discussed women being "forced to carry a pregnancy to term," as if they were victims of chance. Almost anyone old enough to get pregnant knows how pregnancy occurs and how to prevent it.
While access to abortion may be limited, access to preventive measures is not. Any woman can obtain birth control free or at low cost through insurance or public health organizations. For unmarried women, abstinence has a 100 percent success rate. Adoption services are also available.
Pregnancy does not make a woman a victim. It is the outcome of an activity, which, in most cases, a woman willingly participated in without taking precautions. Why should an expectant mother be entitled to snuff out the life of her unborn child just because its existence is inconvenient, especially when she had the means to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
Ms. Pearson believes teens should be entitled to abortion without parental consent. Yet teens need parental consent for other procedures. Telling a parent of a pregnancy is difficult, but why should parents be kept in the dark while society coddles their teens by enabling them to take a perceived easy way out?
Ms. Pearson made abortion sound like the only option for many women while ignoring the dangers, which are numerous. Overturning Roe v. Wade, or even doing away with abortion, would not take choice away from women. Women can choose morality and self control over what feels good for a moment, and if that is too difficult, they can choose to use birth control or give their babies up for adoption. There are plenty of choices available to women besides abortion.
Candace Marra, Mounds
Side Notes:
1)Many readers of the Tulsa World are unaware of the fact that the publisher's mother (and wife of the former publisher) used to serve on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma. It would be reasonable to suspect that the newspaper might be biased when it comes to the issue of abortion.
2) The Tulsa World might object to me posting the aforementioned letter in its entirety. However, the letter's author doesn't write for the Tulsa World, and she is the one who possesses all rights to the letter's contents. I suspect that she would welcome her letter being shared with a national audience.
Posted by Dodo David at 12:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Story Update: Eminent Domain Hoax
In my post Blogosphere Spreads Eminent Domain Hoax, I relay a story about church property being taken through the use of eminent domain. Then I claim that the story is a hoax.
As it turns out, the Oklahoma Constitution supports my claim.
Here is what the constitution says about the taking of private property for private use.
Article II: BILL OF RIGHTS
Section II-23: Private property - Taking or damaging for private use.
No private property shall be taken or damaged for private use,
with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner,
except for private ways of necessity, or for drains and ditches
across lands of others for agricultural, mining, or sanitary
purposes, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.
According to the story published by National Review Online, the city of Sand Springs, Oklahoma wants to replace three churches and other private property with a new super center. The last time that I checked, super centers are commercial property, not public property.
It would be a violation of the state constitution to use eminent domain to seize private property for commercial use. Thus, if the city of Sand Springs wishes to acquire private property for commercial use, then the city will have to acquire the property without using eminent domain – which is what the city of Sand Springs is trying to do.
The city isn’t using eminent domain because it would be illegal for the city to do so.
Heather Wilhelm, the author of the NRO story, has taken an attempted government purchase of church property, which is a fact, and turned it into an attempted use of eminent domain, which is fiction.
In a related matter, I was correct when I said that eminent domain would be a hot topic during the 2006 session of the Oklahoma Legislature. The Tulsa World reports that two members of the legislature have introduced bills aimed at limiting the use of eminent domain. The bills would define the term “public use” in a way that excludes private development for economic benefits.
Posted by Dodo David at 09:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
UPDATED! Queen Ann Places Foot In Mouth
I just cannot condone her joking about poisoning Justice Stevens.
Its disgusting and dispicable. I hope she apologizes, but I don't think she will.
UPDATE! There have been more articles written about the incident. THE MAN (I mean, this guy is the Jack Bauer of New York City; he's got some serious "onions") pointed out the response of a student at the HBCU (that's Historically Black College or University to our liberal readers).
It seems there is more to the story than I thought:
Coulter did provoke some booing, though, especially after she stopped two black men during questions, telling them, "I'm not gonna be lectured to," according to the newspaper account. She also was booed when she said that the crack cocaine epidemic "has pretty much gone away."
Blacks "are the most loyal group for Democrats and you ought to be getting a little more out of them by giving them competition through the Republicans," Coulter said.
She hailed the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, suggesting that now there might be a fair vote on abortion.
Afterward, black students stood around "lashing" back at Coulter's "rhetoric," the newspaper said. One sophomore girl said: "We need someone on the Democratic side who is just as outspoken as she is."
The college president, Walter Kimbrough, had told the audience, that inviting Coulter to speak at the black school made sense because like hip hoppers she is "raw, outspoken, uncensored." He also called her the "conservative answer to rapper Lil' Kim -- [both] attractive and sexy, long-haired blondes. ..."
Coulter said it was "the best introduction" she'd ever had.
Posted by Aaron at 03:31 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Eggggssselent! [said like Burns on the Simpsons]
I just got an invite to a private tour of the West Wing sometime in February! Yahoo!
Posted by Aaron at 01:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Damn Southerners
Ronald Brownstein has a review of several books on the South and national politics over at the American Prospect. I couldn't help chuckling at this part:
Consider the Senate. In the 11 states of the old Confederacy plus Oklahoma and Kentucky -- the generally accepted political definition of the South -- Republicans hold 22 of the 26 Senate seats. In the rest of the country, Democrats control seven more Senate seats than the GOP. But that’s not nearly enough to offset the lopsided Republican advantage in the South.
The same is true in the House. Outside the South, Democrats hold a 152-140 edge in House seats. But the GOP’s 40-seat cushion in the South ensures that Illinois Republican Denny Hastert holds the speaker’s gavel, not San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi. The imbalance is even more pronounced in the race for the White House. In 2000, Al Gore won just over 70 percent of the Electoral College votes at stake outside the South. But George W. Bush narrowly won the White House because he swept all 165 Electoral College votes in the 13 southern states. Four years later, John Kerry won 68 percent of the Electoral College votes outside the South. But Bush won because he again swept the 13 Southern states -- this time worth 168 Electoral College votes after population growth measured in the 2000 Census.
You can almost hear the sighing, the call for the United States to be split into two countries--Jesusland and the United States of Canada, as some liberals put it following the 2004 election. Apparently they have forgotten that we fought a war over that very issue, 140 years ago.
Although many liberals claim that the South went to the Republicans because Nixon pursued the "Southern Strategy" of "coded" appeals to racist rednecks, I suspect more than anything else it was that Southern white men were being pushed away from the Democrats than that they were being courted by Nixon.
The irony, of course, is that because Southern white men have abandoned the Democrats in such massive numbers, the ones who remained behind have become more important to the party. Since 1968, the Democratic ticket has included at least one Southern white male in every election except the two landslides: 1972 and 1984. The only Democrats to be elected to the presidency since then were from Georgia and Arkansas.
By the same logic, black men and black women have become more important to the Republican party. Think about the strong support than Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have enjoyed from polls of conservatives over the past decade. Either or both have been mentioned as potential running mates or presidential candidates more times than you can count.
Posted by pat at 01:08 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Be Very Afraid
Someone at National Journal penned my worst nightmare.
We cannot be lazy this year. We have to love our Republican Majority as much as we love Bush.
Posted by Aaron at 11:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Senator Lurch Calls for Filibuster of Alito
Sen. John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional Correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday.
Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.
Ah, yes. Davos. That seems to be the place to make ludicris statements.
Posted by Aaron at 04:32 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
This is truly heartbreaking
I cannot imagine the grief this mother must be going through right now. Please keep her and her other relatives in your prayers.
News of a crash in which seven children perished so upset their grandfather that he had a massive heart attack and died, the children's adoptive mother said.
"I lost my daddy tonight," Barbara Mann said Wednesday. "My dad died of a massive heart attack tonight over all this. He lost all seven of his grandkids ... I can't deal with this."
Posted by Aaron at 01:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
DOPPELGANGERS
Posted by kitty at 11:46 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Even MORE Hilarious!
I gotta give it to BulldogPundit over at ABP for one-upping me on the hilarious video. You will NOT believe this!
Posted by Aaron at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Crazy Hilarious
Do you need a good belly laugh? You have to check this out.
Posted by Aaron at 10:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Sine Wave of Political Coverage--Updated
Okay, so I wrote a post a couple of days ago that said Hillary was inevitably the nominee of the Democrats. And as if encouraged by my prediction, everybody in the universe has been writing "Hillary is Not Inevitable" stories. Do I want to fold my cards, or should I try to double up?
Answer: I'm going to double up. But before I show my cards, let's take a look at the hands of the other people at the table.
John McIntyre, Real Clear Politics. It's tough to call him, because you know he's got a steady finger on the political pulse of the nation. But I gotta think he's bluffing with this hand (J-10 Suited):
Which is why Monday’s gaffe [House of Representatives is a plantation] could be particularly damaging. It showed the nasty, very partisan side of Senator Clinton, and it raises the question of whether Hillary will ever be able to outrun the first impression she formed with the American public in the early ’90’s. The issue isn’t that huge numbers of the public are paying close attention to this particular story, but rather what sort of judgments the political elite in the Democratic Party may draw from the Hillary “plantation” dust-up.
Compared to the rest of the Democrats, Hillary has largely been coming off to us Republicans as the sane liberal. No, not as much as Joe Lieberman, and yes, I'm very suspicious. But compared to the knuckleheads in her party she seems quite moderate.
Then Arianna Huffington raised all in (with a small chipstack). At first you think she must be bluffing in a desperation move, but she's actually got one terrific point (Ace-Five):
Even more damning is the fact that the presidential runs of both Al Gore and John Kerry attracted more upstate voters -- and carried more upstate counties -- than Hillary did. "If Gore and Kerry won upstate New York," writes Katz, "but couldn't make sufficient red-state inroads, Clinton's loss upstate doesn't seem to bode well for her potential in truly red parts of the country." The final nail in the upstate/redstate coffin: Hillary's upstate numbers are very similar to those of the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer -- and, as Katz zings it, "no one is talking him up as the Democrats' best chance to reclaim the White House."
It was quite noticeable that Al Gore got more votes in New York than Hillary Clinton in 2000. Gore pulled in 3.77 million while Hillary only drew 3.43 million. And it's not a simple case of down-ticket dropoff in voters; Lazio got 460,000 more votes than President Bush.
But does anybody really think Gore has a chance of getting chosen by the Democrats? And Hillary in 2000 was definitely pulling the ultimate carpet-bagger move in coming to New York, a state where she had never lived; I am still amazed that she won a Senate seat on the strength of her name alone.
Then there's this CNN/Gallup poll which seems to indicate she's unelectable (Ace-Ten Offsuit).
So why am I unconcerned about the sudden "Hillary Can Be Stopped" coverage? Because I'm holding pocket queens.
It's just the sine wave theory of political reporting. There's nothing to report on campaigns for the White House right now, so the chattering classes have to generate some buzz. Hillary will surf up and down on the sine wave for the next two years, but the buzz will always be about Hillary. Which is exactly the way she wants it.
There's a lot of talk that people don't want a dynasty, but as of 2008, the same two families will have run the country for 20 years. Hillary will offer them a chance to make it 28 (as would Jeb Bush). I don't get any sense the people are ready for radical change.
Update: Jonah Golberg piles on.
Posted by pat at 01:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
INTERBLOGATORY TRAVELS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by kitty at 11:22 PM | Comments (2)
Hynes on Black Hat Democrats
Great piece by our friend Pat Hynes from ABP and the American Spectator. He describes how the political theme of 2006 needs to not only show how dishonest and trite liberals and their policy is, but how liberalism itself is corrupt:
AND LET'S NOT DISREGARD the looming (and increasingly inevitable) financial disaster that will strike when swarms of baby boomers storm the pay window to collect what they've been promised. The politicians in Washington and American interest groups spent the first half of 2005 debating the creeping crisis as it relates to Social Security and whether we can or should do anything about it. President Bush and some Republicans wanted to introduce personal retirement accounts. Democrats (sadly with the help of more than a few RINO's) demonized the plan. But what is most notable about the debate is that the Democrats' official position was that we had nothing to worry about. Don't be fooled by Republican tricks, they told Americans. Everything is going to be just fine.
This false sense of, ahem, security, over the years has resulted in millions of soon-to-be-on-the-dole Boomers making the disastrous decision to not put money away for themselves. And so now we have the most prosperous generation in human history prepared to retire without a penny to their names, fully convinced that the government checks are on their way; "guaranteed" in a "lock box," as the liberal parlance goes.
But what happens when the bill comes due? Ask the city fathers in Duluth, Minnesota. Since 1983, that city has promised lifetime health care for all retired municipal workers, their spouses and their children up to age 26. The result? Well, according to the New York Times:
No one really knew how much it would cost. Three years ago, the city decided to find out....The total came to about $178 million, or more than double the city's operating budget. And the bill was growing....For years, governments have been promising generous medical benefits to millions of schoolteachers, firefighters and other employees when they retire, yet experts say that virtually none of these governments have kept track of the mounting price tag.
Now, replace "Duluth, Minnesota" with "the United States" and "retired municipal employees" with "everyone" and you begin to see the sheer heartlessness of the liberals' empty promises. Many retiring Boomers will be turned away at the pay window. Still others will receive something much smaller than they were promised. And the rest of us are going to have to pay more in taxes.
There's liberal compassion for you.
If Karl Rove and the Republicans pursue this mean meme throughout 2006, I hope they extend it past trite anecdotes about liberal tomfoolery. They ought to make the point finally and convincingly that liberal policies break hearts and destroy lives. [emphasis mine]
Posted by Aaron at 10:49 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Get the Quote Right
Wow, Michelle Malkin made a great catch in this photo of protestors of the NSA program that listens into international calls between terrorists and their sympathizers in the US:
But that's not the real quote. Here are the two quotes:
The Ben Franklin quote that has been so misused and abused by the civil liberties absolutists since Sept. 11 originally appeared in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The version that appears on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal reads: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Are your phone conversations with terrorists overseas and ESSENTIAL liberty? Hardly. I love how these people so misquote Ben Franklin...another fake but accurate incident. Good going MM!
Posted by Aaron at 10:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Cindy Does Caracas!
Because no one here will give her the time of day anymore:
CARACAS (AFP) - Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq, joined more than 10,000 anti-globalization activists in Caracas, where she hailed Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez.
"I admire him for his resolve against my government and its meddling," said Sheehan, who gained notoriety when she camped outside US President George W. Bush's ranch last year to protest the Iraq war. She said she hoped to meet Chavez later in the week.
Move over, Harry Belafonte. The banana boat has a new captain!
Posted by Pam at 09:03 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Blasphemy of Kanye West
The arrogance of Kanye West is becoming quite obvious:
The outspoken rapper defends his brash attitude inside the magazine's pages, on newsstands Friday. He is also pictured posing as Muhammad Ali.
"In America, they want you to accomplish these great feats, to pull off these David Copperfield-type stunts," he says. "You want me to be great, but you don't ever want me to say I'm great?"
West also says his hit song "Gold Digger" was the best song last year and that it should have been nominated for the Grammy's best rap song category: "That's a gimme Grammy."
And then there's this tasteful admission:
The strangest tangent of the Rolling Stone story, however, is when West says he's addicted to pornography. He remembers first seeing his father's Playboy magazine when he was 5 years old.
"Right then," West says, laughing, "it was like, `Houston, we have a problem.'"
Wow.
Posted by Aaron at 04:06 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Oh, Canada!
Thank you for ruining Michael Moore's week! God bless you. Our conservative world domination is almost complete. :-)
That Stephen Harper's kinda hot.
Posted by Aaron at 07:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Inevitability of Hillary
Andrew Sullivan, clearly engaging in wishful thinking, writes that perhaps Hillary is not fated to be the Democrats' candidate in 2008.
Clinton's straddle between two political identities is, of course, temporarily shrewd. She knows full well that the Democrats' key weakness is the war on terror. They have yet to persuade the public that they can defend the West more effectively than the Republicans.
But Sully goes off the rails when he talks about the risks to Hillary from the left:
The Left loathes the war in Iraq, believes it was started in bad faith, and that it is counterproductive in the war on terror. It has gained traction from the internet as left-wing collective websites such as the Daily Kos ramp up the anti-war and anti-Bush rhetoric. Their favourite candidate is senator Russ Feingold, an independent liberal who is unrepentant in his anti-war stance and a big campaigner against Washington sleaze. If Feingold falters, there's even Al Gore, now well to the Left of Hillary and incensed by what he argues is systematic abuse of executive power.
That's all well and good and true; the question is whether it means anything that Kos supports Feingold. Let's remember that Kos and many of the Lefty bloggers supported Howard Dean in 2003 and early 2004, then switched over to Wesley Clark when the Dean bubble burst. They did not succeed in stopping the "electable" candidate; why is there any reason to believe they will have any more success in 2008?
As I wrote in the aftermath of the 2004 elections, it is easy to demean and denigrate the liberal blogosphere. But believe it or not, the liberal blogosphere represents only a tiny fraction of the far left wing of the Democratic party. Yes, they are the vocal ones, the ones with 500,000 uniques a day. But they're extremely unrepresentative and have shown a singularly poor record at getting candidates elected. If I recall correctly, Kos raised money for 15 candidates in 2004; none of them won.
So I say Hillary's the nominee. And I note that Tradesports, an online futures exchange agrees with me. Hillary's shares are trading at about 45 right now, which means that about 45% of those willing to risk their money think Hillary will be giving the big speech Thursday night at the Democratic Convention. Warner, whom Sullivan touts, is the only other candidate whose shares are even in double digits. Feingold and Gore are around 6 and 5 respectively.
Posted by pat at 03:42 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
YUP!
Click cartoon to enlarge.
h/t Louis!
Posted by kitty at 12:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Talkin' 'bout a Revolution
The bloodless kind.
While columnist Kathleen Parker may bemoan the blog explosion in the US, it's a sign of (better) times in Wahabbi-controlled Saudi Arabia. It seems that along with men, women are electronically shedding the burqa and reveling in the freedom the Internet provides.
Men and women blogging together, of course, represents a total flouting of Saudi rules mandating sex segregation. And there can be no turning back. Saudi authorities cannot confiscate all the computers, Blackberrys, and cell phones in the kingdom. Nor can they forbid the use of the English language.
Some women are quite bold in their blogging entries. One blogger, Farooha, discusses many of the challenges that women face in Saudi Arabia, and some of the less savory aspects of fundamentalist Islam.
The same article condemns Saudi-Wahhabi incitement to rape non-Wahhabi women: "Imagine that women in the 21st century follow fatwas of scholars who at one point start to discuss the viability of capturing the enemy's women, and then having sexual relations with them. Some even go on to discuss the capturing of this enemy's women at time of peace, as well; and all the while, you do not even know who the enemy in question is."
Discussions like this could never take place in the open, especially by women. But the blogsphere is providing a forum for people to stand up and be heard, albeit anonymously.
The MSM elite in this country dislike the blogosphere because they fear the masses are wresting control of popular opinion away from them. In countries like Saudi Arabia, the stakes are much higher, as an entire way of life is at stake.
The ruling Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia may well be fearing their grip on power. Thanks to modern technology, there's no telling how long they'll stay on top.
h/t: GD
Crossposted at Blogmeister USA
Posted by Pam at 11:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"THIS MAN CANNOT BE BELIEVED"
Cindy Adams may be a gossip columnist, but people talk to her -- all kinds of people. Scoff all you want, but her track record is damned good. So when Cindy prints an interview with someone in the know, I take notice.
SISTER-IN-LAW OF OSAMA'S WARNING
[link timed out by tomorrow]
"Nobody outside knows how they think. Saudi wives may not speak in the presence of men. So at family gatherings I, too, never spoke. But I listened. I learned. I am the only one on the outside who knows how they think.
"Why am I sure he is alive? Because, if he was dead, the family would say so right away to take the presssure off themselves.
...
As to her brother-in-law's truce offer: "My opinion? Be very vigilant. America cannot afford to put her guard down. This man cannot be believed. In this tape he threatens again to harm the United States. He is planning something else barbaric. For him [those] who love the West are infidels. I said this once before, but until 9/11 nobody wanted to listen to me."
Should the time come, THIRDWAVE wants to know, Who y'gonna call?
Posted by kitty at 10:21 AM | Comments (0)
Blogosphere Spreads Eminent Domain Hoax
This past week, National Review Online posted a story about an alleged case of the misuse of eminent domain. Heather Wilhelm, the story's author, wrote the following:
For seven years, Reverend Roosevelt Gildon has preached the gospel at the Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Springs, Oklahoma. His congregation, around 50 strong, is like a small family. The elderly members, and those without cars, often walk to Sunday services.
“Rosey,” as his friends call him, figured he’d go on preaching in the tidy steel structure for years to come. That was, until the government told him they were taking his church away.
. . . The town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, has plans to take Centennial Baptist — along with two other churches, several businesses, dozens of small homes, and a school — and replace them with a new “super center,” rumored to include a Home Depot.
. . . What’s most egregious about this application of eminent domain is that there’s already plenty of room for development, even if the pesky church sticks around.
This story was featured at Right Wing News under the title "Kelo Vs. Churches".
There is a problem with the NRO story - it makes a false claim. The city of Sand Springs isn't trying to use eminent domain to seize church property.
Here is the beginning of a story published by the Tulsa World:
SAND SPRINGS -- A church that lies in the path of Sand Springs' proposed Keystone Corridor redevelopment project is being cited nationally as an example of government flexing its power of eminent domain to take property for private commercial use.
But there's a problem with the National Review Online's assertions, city officials said: The city hasn't filed any condemnation action against Centennial Baptist Church, nor does it intend to.
"There's no eminent domain action going on against any properties there," City Manager Loy Calhoun said. "No actions, no intents -- nothing like that's been done in the area."
According to the city manager, "no specific businesses have been selected to build in the vacated area." Furthermore, National Review Online didn't contact the Sand Springs goverment prior to posting its story. Thus, the city wasn't given a chance to refute the eminent domain claim made in the story.
If you want more information about this story, then you can contact Tulsa World reporter Louise Red Corn at 1-918-581-8480 or at louise.redcorn@tulsaworld.com .
Folks, this story pertains to a larger plan involving all communities within Tulsa County, which is where I live.
Let me fill you in on a little detail about my little corner of the world.
Sand Springs is a bedroom community of Tulsa, the buckle of the Bible Belt. If the city of Sand Springs were to try to seize church property through eminent domain, the resulting uproar would be so great, that any elected public official involved would be voted out of office.
There is already a movement in Oklahoma to restrict the use of eminent domain. This issue will most likely be a hot topic during the 2006 session of the state legislature, which begins February 6th and ends May 26th.
Oklahoma lawmakers don't need a hoax to prompt them to protect the property rights of Oklahoma residents.
Posted by Dodo David at 03:04 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
How To Stay Out of Power
A brilliant piece by leftwing, liberal cheerleader, Joe Klein (in full):
Why liberal democrats are playing too fast and too loose with issues of war and peace
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat, engaged in a small but cheesy bit of deception last week. She released a letter, which quickly found its way to the front page of the New York Times, that she had written on Oct. 11, 2001, to then National Security Agency director General Michael V. Hayden. In it she expressed concern that Hayden, who had briefed the House Intelligence Committee about the steps he was taking to track down al-Qaeda terrorists after the 9/11 attacks, was not acting with "specific presidential authorization." Hayden wrote her back that he was acting under the powers granted to his agency in a 1981 Executive Order. In fact, a 2002 investigation by the Joint Intelligence Committees concluded that the NSA was not doing as much as it could have been doing under the law—and that the entire U.S. intelligence community operated in a hypercautious defensive crouch. "Hayden was taking reasonable steps," a former committee member told me. "Our biggest concern was what more he could be doing."
The Bush Administration had similar concerns. In the days after 9/11, it asked Hayden to push the edge of existing technology and come up with the best possible program to track the terrorists. The result was the now infamous NSA data-mining operation, which began months later, in early 2002. Vast amounts of phone and computer communications by al-Qaeda suspects overseas, including some messages to people in the U.S., could now be scooped up and quickly analyzed.
The release of Pelosi's letter last week and the subsequent Times story ("Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show") left the misleading impression that a) Hayden had launched the controversial data-mining operation on his own, and b) Pelosi had protested it. But clearly the program didn't exist when Pelosi wrote the letter. When I asked the Congresswoman about this, she said, "Some in the government have accused me of confusing apples and oranges. My response is, it's all fruit."
A dodgy response at best, but one invested with a larger truth. For too many liberals, all secret intelligence activities are "fruit," and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent. This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legality—spying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders.
Henry Kissinger even wiretapped his own aides. But the "all fruit" assumption doesn't take into account the strict constraints placed on the intelligence community after the Nixon debacle, or the lethally elusive nature of the current terrorist threat. The liberal reaction is also an understandable consequence of the Bush Administration's tendency to play fast and loose on issues of war and peace—rushing to war after overhyping the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons program, appearing to tolerate torture, keeping secret prisons in foreign countries and denying prisoners basic rights. At the very least, the Administration should have acted, with alacrity, to update the federal intelligence laws to include the powerful new technologies developed by the NSA.
But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.
There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.
Pelosi made clear to me that she considered Hayden, now Deputy Director of National Intelligence, an honorable man who would not overstep his bounds. "I trust him," she said. "I haven't accused him of anything. I was, and remain, concerned that he has the proper authority to do what he is doing." A legitimate concern, but the Democrats are on thin ice here. Some of the wilder donkeys talked about a possible Bush impeachment after the NSA program was revealed.
The latest version of the absolutely necessary Patriot Act, which updates the laws regulating the war on terrorism and contains civil-liberties improvements over the first edition, was nearly killed by a stampede of Senate Democrats. Most polls indicate that a strong majority of Americans favor the act, and I suspect that a strong majority would favor the NSA program as well, if its details were declassified and made known.
In fact, liberal Democrats are about as far from the American mainstream on these issues as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of Terri Schiavo's family in the right-to-die case last year.
But there is a difference. National security is a far more important issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country.
Copyright © 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Posted by Aaron at 11:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Abortion Polls
Look at how bizarre these poll statistics are:
So almost 2/3 of Americans believe abortion is murder. But even more believe that they shouldn't have a say in the law regarding abortion.
My opinion? This smacks of the same mentality regarding slavery and Jim Crow. Most people were against it, but none had the motivation or conviction to change it. I used to be pro-choice...but now I don't believe a woman has a right to have an abortion unless her life is at danger. Strech marks, finances, adultery, sluttery and looking good in that dress could never excuse this:
[Do not click below if you are squeemish; I show a picture of an actual aborted fetus to demonstrate]
Posted by Aaron at 08:36 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Bin Laden's No. 2 releases poetry tape
It seems the Tookie Williams phenom is spreading like wildfire:
With no mention of last week's attempt on his life, Ayman al-Zawahiri recited poetry to jihadists on a 17-minute audiotape that appeared on the Internet on Friday.
Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant was the target of a January 13 CIA airstrike on a home in Damadola, Pakistan, where al Qaeda members were believed to be attending a dinner.
Friday's tape makes no reference to dates, so it is unknown when al-Zawahiri recorded it. The Egyptian doctor has released numerous taped messages in recent months.
A U.S. counterterrorism official said "it could be old tape" because there is no reference to recent events. This official added that he doesn't "read much significance into it."
On Friday's tape -- which comes one day after a tape was released by bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader's first in a year -- al-Zawahiri recited a poem called "Tears in the Eyes of Time."
It is posted on numerous jihadist Web sites and described by the radical Web sites as a eulogy for the martyrs in the crusaders' attacks on Afghanistan
He dedicated his message to the "mujahedeen brothers in Palestine, Iraq and Chechnya, and to the lions who are targeting the crusaders in Afghanistan in its villages and mountains."
WOW. He's redeemed himself since 9/11 and doesn't deserved to be stalked by Chimpy McBushitlerburton's storm troopers and jets that reign terror from the skies. It was torture to scare him last week with that bombing in Pakistan. We should nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize! A Pulitzer!
Will Susan Sarandon play his lawyer? Only time will tell.
Posted by Aaron at 06:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Hitch in the Conversion?
Christopher Hitchens, who has become known as perhaps the most vocal Leftist in support of the Iraq War, has signed onto a lawsuit seeking a ban on the "domestic" spying authorized by President Bush.
This has come as something of a surprise to many conservatives who thought that Hitch had finally "got it", and that it was only a matter of time before he registered Republican and started writing for the National Review.
There is an argument that all children are born conservative. They instinctively fear change and embrace order. One of the reasons children love to have the same book read to them over and over again is that the story never changes. Their embracing of order makes sense; when you are learning something new (and everything is new to children), the last thing you want is for it to be rapidly changing at the same time.
Many become more liberal in their teens; I certainly did. Liberalism appealing to the idealism of youth; the notion that we can cure lots of social evils is seductive. And we want our children to boldly embrace challenges and try different approaches. As conservatives we may feel that some problems are intractable, but we certainly don't want our kids to feel that their individual problems are similarly incapable of being solved.
Going back to conservatism after being liberal is fairly common, but it can be a difficult process. There's an old saying that conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil, and if you read the lefty blogs you'll quickly find that the second part of that formulation is true.
A big part of the conversion process is trust. I became a conservative in the early 1980s because after hearing what a monstrous disaster Ronald Reagan's presidency was going to be, I saw instead a strong, almost booming economy result.
I began to trust Reagan more than I did the liberals. Not on everything, mind you; I was still fairly socially liberal, so I clucked my tongue when he went on about abortion, or when Ed Meese decided to tackle pornography. I didn't particularly care for his confrontational policy with the Soviet Union, or "Star Wars". But you know how it is, you trust somebody on one thing, inevitably you will trust them on another when they are proven right. Reagan said, "Mr Gorbachev, tead down that wall!" and a few years later the wall came down.
And over time, you begin to worry less and less about the issues where you disagree with your party's consensus. You begin to see that while your position on that issue remains your position, it matters less and less. Why? Because you trust your side not to go to the extreme opposite end of that position.
That to me is why the Democrats have reacted with horror to the NSA spying program, and why Republicans are yawning. It's not so much the specifics of the program as it is trust or lack thereof. Democrats have zero trust for President Bush, and so they immediately assume that he's spying on his enemies for political reasons, not terrorists and terrorist contacts for national security reasons.
Hitchens? He's at the beginning of the road. He trusts Bush on Iraq, but that's about it.
Posted by pat at 12:33 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Counter the ACLU's Lawsuit on Behalf of Terrorists
Join Stop the ACLU's counter lawsuit to the ACLU's NSA lawsuit. Sign up here.
Posted by Aaron at 11:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
25 Year Ago Today, the Revolution Came to Washington
God bless Ronald Reagan.
Posted by Aaron at 10:30 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Harry Reid Victim of Body Snatchers
What other explanation can there be for this?
WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled "Republican Abuse of Power."
"The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets," Reid said in a letter.
"I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it."
Perhaps Chuck Schumer will take Reid's lead and apologize for his aides' (allegedly?) illegally obtaining Maryland Republican Lt. Governor Michael Steele's credit report?
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by Pam at 09:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Court Rules Spanking Advocate Should be Reinstated in Graduate Studies
We all remember how the school expelled Scott McConnell because his dissertation advocated corporal punishment of children and decried multiculturalism. Remember, colleges want diversity except conservatism. Well, Le Moyne College will have to suffer Scott McConnell again!
Yesterday, a New York appeals court ordered Le Moyne College to reinstate Scott McConnell in its graduate education program. The school took first prize in the Collegiate Network's 2005 Campus Outrage Awards (the "Pollys") after the administration expelled McConnell for writing a paper rejecting multiculturalism and advocating light spanking in elementary school classrooms. Despite receiving an "A-minus" on the paper and earning exemplary grades in all his coursework, McConnell received a letter from the Director of his program stating: “I have grave concerns regarding the mismatch between your personal beliefs regarding teaching and learning and the LeMoyne College program goals…. You will not be allowed to register for any additional courses. Your registration for Spring 2005 courses has been withdrawn.”
The NY appeals court ruled, however, that Le Moyne had failed to respect McConnell's due process rights. The college's own handbook states that a student may not be disciplined or expelled simply for expressing unorthodox views. Terry Pel, president of the Center for Individual Rights, the group that represented McConnell during the legal proceedings, commented on the appeals court decision: "Institutions that claim to believe in academic freedom cannot selectively protect only the speech they happen to favor."
Good for him. I hope he publishes his dissertation for all of us to read.
Posted by Aaron at 04:07 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Vocabulary Lesson
From Jack Kelly:
What, you may ask, is the difference between a whistle blower and a leaker?
A whistle blower is someone who discloses secrets helpful to Democrats or embarrassing to Republicans.
A leaker, on the other hand, is someone who discloses secrets helpful to Republicans or embarrassing to Democrats. The person or persons who told journalists that Valerie Plame, wife of Joseph C. Wilson of uranium-in-Niger fame, worked at the CIA invariably are described as "leakers."
Posted by Aaron at 12:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Overreach?
Everyone is (rightfully) up in arms over that Vermont judge giving that pedophile only 60 days in jail for continually raping a seven year old girl for four years.
Now, Ace points to a 24 year old man who trapped a 15 year old boy in his jeep and assaulted him.
But this case here seems a little light for a sexual assault case:
Hoff told the boy other friends had canceled on plans for dinner and a movie, but he still took him out. The boy said Hoff hugged him while driving and being sexually aroused. The boy broke away from Hoff, who told him, "still looking good buddy."
Hoff encouraged the boy to take his shirt off for a photo, claiming he resembled singer Justin Timberlake. He also massaged the teen's back.
Returning home from the movie, Hoff offered the boy $20 to not wear his shirt. The boy said, "this was an easy $20."
"I'm truly sorry to the court and would like to offer my heartfelt apologies to both Jeb and [the 17-year-old boy]," Hoff said during his sentencing hearing.
So the 17 year old (hardly a child) already knows how to hustle for 20 bucks. The only contact was the hugging. Is this sexual assault or is it harrassment? Should the dude be in jail or wouldn't losing his job and paying a hefty fine be appropriate?
Posted by Aaron at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
MIZZ HILLARY GETS UPPITY
Politicians who reach for the plantation simile seem not to understand just how absurd it is for them to compare the status of being in the minority party on Capitol Hill to the existence of blacks on plantations in the Americas.
It risks further trivializing one of the greatest atrocities ever visited by humans on other humans ...
...
Being in the congressional minority in Congress today means not being invited into the closed-door meetings where final details on legislation are hammered out. It means often not being able to offer amendments to legislation during floor votes. OK, we get that it's frustrating and demeaning.
That's a far cry from being a slave staked to the ground by an angry master, unable to protect yourself as rats chew off your ears.
First Lady Laura Bush yesterday slapped down Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's racially charged claim that Republicans run the House of Representatives "like a plantation."
"I think it's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous comment that's what I think," Bush told reporters aboard her plane, sparking laughter as they flew home from an Africa trip.
...
[Hillary] avoided repeating the explosive word "plantation" and yesterday she ducked out of a Democratic press conference at the Library of Congress without answering questions from waiting reporters.
SEN. Hillary Rodham Clinton could take a few les sons from Laura Bush if she really wants to run for president in 2008.
The current first lady used the scalpel of ridicule to deftly cut the former first lady down to size by dismissing her "plantation" crack about Republicans as "a ridiculous comment."
Mrs. Bush's real message: Someone who makes "a ridiculous comment" on a serious issue is someone who lacks the gravitas to sit in the Oval Office as president.
It may be unfair, but a woman always runs a greater risk of getting rated too shrilly by voters and that's something Mrs. Bush seems to implicitly get.
Posted by kitty at 08:14 AM | Comments (6)
Quote of the Day
Stolen from Laura Ingraham:
We went for one solid year, taking heat from everyone who said 'why don't you have a plan? You can't beat something with nothing.' And we said, 'yes we can.'
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), at a town-hall meeting.
I hope she keeps this philosophy. I want to see the liberals cry foul in July when the GOP starts running this quote as a demonstration that Democrats have nothing to offer the American people but whining.
Posted by Aaron at 08:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hillary's Plantation Remarks
The fact that Hillary Clinton used the word "plantation" to describe how the House of Representatives is run is not offensive. The conservatives/Republicans who are up in arms of the TERM are being hypocritical. I use the term all the time to describe how as a minority I've "left the Democratic Plantation."
But what offends me more is that Hillary Clinton used the MLK holiday, not to discuss his movement, leadership and vision, but to bash her political opponents. That is what is offensive.
Republicans use the term "Democratic Plantation" all the time, so they need to pipe down about the use of the word "plantation." What they need to be outraged about is the use of Dr. King's holiday as a political soapbox instead of respecting the day and offering the reverence it deserves.
Posted by Aaron at 07:20 PM<