I finally figured out how to best exsplain why I would never join the army unless forced to choose between Iraq or Illinois State Penitentary.
Joining the army circa 2010 is like going to Grambling State University.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Daniel Returns
Deja Vu.
That's what I'm thinking right now as I type this. Why? Because when I began this blog I began by mentioning at the outset that I had a habit of starting a blog going full on with it for a month or two, writing lots of posts that tended to turn out 4 times larger than what I set out to write and then quickly "burning out" and falling off till I forget the blogs existence entirely and return to the place of instant reaction, facebook. Well thats exactly how it went down this time aswell but, miracously, I return! Back with more knowledge that might start at fight thanksgiving. I ain't giving up on "America Departed" that easily. The sight of the header alone convinced me. I was exspecting to be embarrsed by this blog (as I usually am by my old writing, of any sort). But with this I looked at the header: "AMERICA DEPARTED: Chronicles of America at the Tipping Point, A Day by Day Record of the Obama Years" I said to myself, "that actually sounds like a blog I would want to read" which is a good sign.
I'd like to say after reading much of this blog for the first time in a long time that while I often wrote posts 4 times longer than what I set out to write that's not because it took me longer to say what I intialed sat down to write a post about but because the damn freedom of no word limits allowed me to exsplore and exspand my intial point to larger points). I'm used to using my Facebook status as my de facto blog and thus used to being cut off around 4 sentences worth of words. So what began as making a 3-4 sentence point about Haiti would turn into a mammoth 7 paragraph essay on Haiti. If my tone sounds regretful it's not because I consider those long distance efforts verbose (thats a problem for me all the time), rather they were some of my best posts on this blog, the problem is the exspareted feeling of writing a long piece, taking the time to edit it and make it good (out of sheer instict) and then finishing tired and realizing 1. that you did this work for no pay (which actually doesn't bother me much at all since what young person exspects money for there opinions when you grew up on facebook?) but worse 2. no one probably, ever, going to read your efforts-a very depressing thought. "Whats all the effort for?" Well I like writing. I have these opinions and what can one do with orginal ideas about the world? I feel I have to unload them. Discard them in a way. Put them in the archive for later reference. So that if I am thinking a lot about Haiti in July and about the loss of open spaces in autumn I can get a digital record of my thoughts on those issues down for posterity and sort of free myself from thinking (deeply) again about those subjects, atleast in the near term, and can move on to the next fascination (peak oil, at the moment) without the pent up baggage of previous thoughts that I think are worth sharing (or, usually, think are better than what the pro-pundits are saying) which I still have rattling around my head. This is why re-reading my old posts today was so fun. I couldn't remember any of them. It seemed like I wrote them 2-3 years ago thinking about how much I've learned in the time inbetween now and then. Anyways, to meander back to what I was talking about for an unknown upstart of 20 to start a mere blogger blog is such an up hill climb with no roadmap it's seems impossible. Sure, it can work 1. if your a Mickey Kaus or Steve Sailer who began in print media and in turn has a large pool fans to drawl upon when you launch a blog or 2. if you got in on the blogging revoultion on the ground floor ala Ezra Klein and Matthew Ygelsias and were thus easily and happily co-opted into cushy positions in the mainstream press online and/or print out of the Wadhington Post or whatever dinasaur media entities desire to get in on this whole blogging thing. How do you build up a blog that isn't a "Stuff White People Like" blog. What are you susposed to wait for a stray visitor searching through Blogger's 80 million unkown blogs and then hope he tells his friends? Or are you supposed to hope your friends who are nice enough to read your blog more than once email a link to it to there email-list. Well, my generation is post-email really so we don't even have email lists (if we do its all our siblings and parents emails probably). Are you depressed as hell already? Well, I wouldn't bring you this far down if I couldn't bring you back up. Because despite all the rational discouragement I just dished out to the aspiring young pundits of the world I have decided that all that rational pessmism doesn't matter at all. I have very little exsoectation of this blog being anything more than a diary. Sure your secret admirers and occasionally nice family memembers may every once and a awhile take a look out of curiosity but outside such far-and-between visits no one's going to read this (atleast in the near term) except for your humble servant. And I'm fine with that. So this is really just a record, a notebook, an archive of thoughts that were too long for a Facebook status. I like starting out with the slate clean as far as blogging again after a long absence but I've already done that 3 or 4 times and "America Departed" is such a damn good name that I think I should just come back here and start anew like Deja Vu. Boo!
So, yes, this is basically my diary/notebook. But, I warn you, you won't find any crushes or nightmares or gossip here. What you will find is terryfingly powerful knowledge the kind of knowledge that is compells the rigetous to action and compels scoundrels to slander and careerists to evasion. I'm giving you something here and your either going to slap back at it, walk away or join the cause. Your world is falling apart. The world you grew up in is in decay. Your intrest in your society is not selfless but competly self-intrested. Politics is not something that would get my attention had I been born in 1941 or 1912. The specter of the Soviet Union doesn't seem like something that drive me at all to write. The specter, however, of dispossesion of yourself, your family, friends, tribe, is a matter, for better or worse, which I must care about. This is my life. I have grown up with diveristy. I have spent a great deal of time in black neighborhoods and white ones (were I live) and I have concluded I much prefer to live within white "culture", "white world". You can call it "boring". Cool, hope you like living in Port-a-Prince. I myself am more of Paris-London-Berlin guy. Enjoy your shack. So I would prefer to live in a majority european America. NO hate in involved here. I come in peace. I don't want to hurt anybody from Haiti or Mexico I just don't want you to be able to sneak into my country, bring your 300 relatives each, and then make me submit to being ruled by Jesse Jackson Jr.. I prefer the alternative. Less Al Sharpton. Less L.A. Riots (diversity in action). Less LA RAZA. Less racial tension. Less discussion of race. Less conflict. I want community in the truest sense of that word, people getting along with each other, sharing a common culture, common language, common morals (e.g. monogamous marriage, etc.), and so on. Think London during the war. Does that make me a bad guy? A threat to you or anyone else? Whom? Why? You want to make a better world. You wanna cure AIDS or whatever. And I don't fuck with you for your worldview? I don't want any concerntration camps. I don't want blacks to have to walk on the side of the road or drink different water fountains. I don't want slavery back. No, I want to live my life in a society that values what European culture has valued and extolled for millena. I want a society with monogamous marriage where men who work hard and do good don't have to worry about finding wives because all the women have been shamed into not having kids and working like men. I want a society were its thought leaders understand the eternal truths of society. I don't want the Bishop of Cantebury endorcing lesbian priests, Sharia law, and feminism. I want leaders in my society who understand the difficult and inturn important truths of life, that men and women are different and have fundmrntally roles in a healthy society, who understand that family is the absolute buidling block of society without which a society crumbles into hellish decadence. I want to be able to focus as a society on us european's moral collapse. We must correct our tragic fall into moral anarchy and guess what? Not because I read it in the bible but because it's the best for our happiness as indivuals aswell. I don't want to have to deal with immigration. I don't want us to always have to talk about the racial strife, the muslim riots in Paris, the LA RAZA rallies on May Day. I hope you get the picture of the society I want. If you think the moral health of our society is A-OK and marriage is an obosolete instuition then go be a bachelor and/or bachelerotte the rest of your life, enjoy Thanksgiving at 65 by yourself. I myself think fuliment and family go together. I think hip hop is a descipcable music and culture. But if you wanna listen to 50 Cent when your 55 be a old fool. Our culture may be made for 21 year olds but I have bad news bro: your only 21 once, there of other years in life when hip hop and decadent chaos may not fufill you any longer. I could desrcibe much worse, rest assured. And to return the senstive but nessacairy subject of race: sure you have your store bough platitudes about co-existence and tolerance. Well, good. I'm not telling any one to shoot anyone cause there any color. Co-Existence, fine. I only ask you to look to the most diverse places on earth and tell me what you see: violence, strife, division, social atomization, secession, civil war, geonocide. And then I ask you only: do you want more diversity now or less? But hey Mr. white guy who pretends to not care a wit about race: how are you going to feel when you click on the telly for the state of the union and Jesse Jackson Jr. is giving it and the speaker of the house is Luis GUitterez? "I wouldn't mind at all. why would I?" Ofcourse, thats what you say. Nothing phases you with your PC poker face on. But tell me, Mr. Fashionable Yuppie, when you come home, take off the walking GAP catalogue, watch your Jon Stewart, and un-strap your PC Muffler what do you think then Mr. Fashionable Yuppie? Do you still "not care at all" about being a minority in a country you, deep down always thought of as a, gasp, "white country"? dare I say, even, thought of it as "your country?"
Are you scared that if you admit this that you will be on the road to Holacaust Denial? I assure your not. I myself am a jew and a scot. No, you are not, despite what years of insidious media and enternaiment brainwashing, becoming a right wing racist extremist Timothy McVeigh running around a winter forest in military gear preparing for the second coming of Christ. No, what your doing when you accept things like that your tribe, or that, as a human subject to evoultion, you naturally feel more comfortable around people of your own race you are not discovering that slavery was good or that there was no Holacaust, no, your accepting your natural human preferences and nature as a human primate which is true to every group of people on this earth. And accepting this as naturally is not to justify bigotry, it doesn't mean that it's OK to enslave black people. No, like most anything, too much tribalism can be a very bad thing. But tribalism when moderated at its natural level were one treats peoples of other races equally, but doesn't hate oneself for prefering the company, on average, of people like you is not an evil thing. It's something blacks and all other races are already to say whenever they want. I am not asking you to embrace Hitler or David Duke or the KKK. That stuff holds no intrest for me. I'm not into "all-white" this or that. I just want people of European ancestory to de-brainwash themselves. To rinse the white guilt and ethnocentric-masochism out of there minds that public schools, movies and TV shows with subtle (very subtle) but consitent anti-white themes/sterotypes have ingrained deep in our pysches not through persuading us to distrust ourselves and see the worst in our tribe/race/group/whatever. They instilled in us ("they" does not mean jews) by making the whitest, blondest, blue eyed actors the greedy, evil villian in the movies we saw everytime and making non-whites in films always kind, calm, smart, and sometimes even godly (e.g. Morgan Freeman in that Jim Carrey movie, Forest Whitker in "Ghost Dog") by never showing, say, black children in groups acting the rambacious way black children in groups often behave in real life. All the things in real life which breeds not hatred but fear and/or hostility towards to blacks (among all groups) in real life exsperiences like getting mugged or whatever by a black thug/bum or whatever that sttuff was long ago exiled from the silver screen, realism replaced with the new goal of dispelling "racist" sterotypes about minorities. Sterotypes ofcourse are often based on a germ of truth or, often, just plain facts (see crime stats for black on white crime, etc.). So Hollywood after the 70's decided to dispell these "racist" false sterotypes of blacks by creating actually fake sterotypes of another group but a group which society is allowed to slander and pick on and sterotype contrary to facts: white people. So next week "Law & Order" has a episode on Johnny Jihad a blonde haired blue eyed jihadist who blows up an airplane. Ever heard of that happening?
I'm tired, bye. I'm back.
That's what I'm thinking right now as I type this. Why? Because when I began this blog I began by mentioning at the outset that I had a habit of starting a blog going full on with it for a month or two, writing lots of posts that tended to turn out 4 times larger than what I set out to write and then quickly "burning out" and falling off till I forget the blogs existence entirely and return to the place of instant reaction, facebook. Well thats exactly how it went down this time aswell but, miracously, I return! Back with more knowledge that might start at fight thanksgiving. I ain't giving up on "America Departed" that easily. The sight of the header alone convinced me. I was exspecting to be embarrsed by this blog (as I usually am by my old writing, of any sort). But with this I looked at the header: "AMERICA DEPARTED: Chronicles of America at the Tipping Point, A Day by Day Record of the Obama Years" I said to myself, "that actually sounds like a blog I would want to read" which is a good sign.
I'd like to say after reading much of this blog for the first time in a long time that while I often wrote posts 4 times longer than what I set out to write that's not because it took me longer to say what I intialed sat down to write a post about but because the damn freedom of no word limits allowed me to exsplore and exspand my intial point to larger points). I'm used to using my Facebook status as my de facto blog and thus used to being cut off around 4 sentences worth of words. So what began as making a 3-4 sentence point about Haiti would turn into a mammoth 7 paragraph essay on Haiti. If my tone sounds regretful it's not because I consider those long distance efforts verbose (thats a problem for me all the time), rather they were some of my best posts on this blog, the problem is the exspareted feeling of writing a long piece, taking the time to edit it and make it good (out of sheer instict) and then finishing tired and realizing 1. that you did this work for no pay (which actually doesn't bother me much at all since what young person exspects money for there opinions when you grew up on facebook?) but worse 2. no one probably, ever, going to read your efforts-a very depressing thought. "Whats all the effort for?" Well I like writing. I have these opinions and what can one do with orginal ideas about the world? I feel I have to unload them. Discard them in a way. Put them in the archive for later reference. So that if I am thinking a lot about Haiti in July and about the loss of open spaces in autumn I can get a digital record of my thoughts on those issues down for posterity and sort of free myself from thinking (deeply) again about those subjects, atleast in the near term, and can move on to the next fascination (peak oil, at the moment) without the pent up baggage of previous thoughts that I think are worth sharing (or, usually, think are better than what the pro-pundits are saying) which I still have rattling around my head. This is why re-reading my old posts today was so fun. I couldn't remember any of them. It seemed like I wrote them 2-3 years ago thinking about how much I've learned in the time inbetween now and then. Anyways, to meander back to what I was talking about for an unknown upstart of 20 to start a mere blogger blog is such an up hill climb with no roadmap it's seems impossible. Sure, it can work 1. if your a Mickey Kaus or Steve Sailer who began in print media and in turn has a large pool fans to drawl upon when you launch a blog or 2. if you got in on the blogging revoultion on the ground floor ala Ezra Klein and Matthew Ygelsias and were thus easily and happily co-opted into cushy positions in the mainstream press online and/or print out of the Wadhington Post or whatever dinasaur media entities desire to get in on this whole blogging thing. How do you build up a blog that isn't a "Stuff White People Like" blog. What are you susposed to wait for a stray visitor searching through Blogger's 80 million unkown blogs and then hope he tells his friends? Or are you supposed to hope your friends who are nice enough to read your blog more than once email a link to it to there email-list. Well, my generation is post-email really so we don't even have email lists (if we do its all our siblings and parents emails probably). Are you depressed as hell already? Well, I wouldn't bring you this far down if I couldn't bring you back up. Because despite all the rational discouragement I just dished out to the aspiring young pundits of the world I have decided that all that rational pessmism doesn't matter at all. I have very little exsoectation of this blog being anything more than a diary. Sure your secret admirers and occasionally nice family memembers may every once and a awhile take a look out of curiosity but outside such far-and-between visits no one's going to read this (atleast in the near term) except for your humble servant. And I'm fine with that. So this is really just a record, a notebook, an archive of thoughts that were too long for a Facebook status. I like starting out with the slate clean as far as blogging again after a long absence but I've already done that 3 or 4 times and "America Departed" is such a damn good name that I think I should just come back here and start anew like Deja Vu. Boo!
So, yes, this is basically my diary/notebook. But, I warn you, you won't find any crushes or nightmares or gossip here. What you will find is terryfingly powerful knowledge the kind of knowledge that is compells the rigetous to action and compels scoundrels to slander and careerists to evasion. I'm giving you something here and your either going to slap back at it, walk away or join the cause. Your world is falling apart. The world you grew up in is in decay. Your intrest in your society is not selfless but competly self-intrested. Politics is not something that would get my attention had I been born in 1941 or 1912. The specter of the Soviet Union doesn't seem like something that drive me at all to write. The specter, however, of dispossesion of yourself, your family, friends, tribe, is a matter, for better or worse, which I must care about. This is my life. I have grown up with diveristy. I have spent a great deal of time in black neighborhoods and white ones (were I live) and I have concluded I much prefer to live within white "culture", "white world". You can call it "boring". Cool, hope you like living in Port-a-Prince. I myself am more of Paris-London-Berlin guy. Enjoy your shack. So I would prefer to live in a majority european America. NO hate in involved here. I come in peace. I don't want to hurt anybody from Haiti or Mexico I just don't want you to be able to sneak into my country, bring your 300 relatives each, and then make me submit to being ruled by Jesse Jackson Jr.. I prefer the alternative. Less Al Sharpton. Less L.A. Riots (diversity in action). Less LA RAZA. Less racial tension. Less discussion of race. Less conflict. I want community in the truest sense of that word, people getting along with each other, sharing a common culture, common language, common morals (e.g. monogamous marriage, etc.), and so on. Think London during the war. Does that make me a bad guy? A threat to you or anyone else? Whom? Why? You want to make a better world. You wanna cure AIDS or whatever. And I don't fuck with you for your worldview? I don't want any concerntration camps. I don't want blacks to have to walk on the side of the road or drink different water fountains. I don't want slavery back. No, I want to live my life in a society that values what European culture has valued and extolled for millena. I want a society with monogamous marriage where men who work hard and do good don't have to worry about finding wives because all the women have been shamed into not having kids and working like men. I want a society were its thought leaders understand the eternal truths of society. I don't want the Bishop of Cantebury endorcing lesbian priests, Sharia law, and feminism. I want leaders in my society who understand the difficult and inturn important truths of life, that men and women are different and have fundmrntally roles in a healthy society, who understand that family is the absolute buidling block of society without which a society crumbles into hellish decadence. I want to be able to focus as a society on us european's moral collapse. We must correct our tragic fall into moral anarchy and guess what? Not because I read it in the bible but because it's the best for our happiness as indivuals aswell. I don't want to have to deal with immigration. I don't want us to always have to talk about the racial strife, the muslim riots in Paris, the LA RAZA rallies on May Day. I hope you get the picture of the society I want. If you think the moral health of our society is A-OK and marriage is an obosolete instuition then go be a bachelor and/or bachelerotte the rest of your life, enjoy Thanksgiving at 65 by yourself. I myself think fuliment and family go together. I think hip hop is a descipcable music and culture. But if you wanna listen to 50 Cent when your 55 be a old fool. Our culture may be made for 21 year olds but I have bad news bro: your only 21 once, there of other years in life when hip hop and decadent chaos may not fufill you any longer. I could desrcibe much worse, rest assured. And to return the senstive but nessacairy subject of race: sure you have your store bough platitudes about co-existence and tolerance. Well, good. I'm not telling any one to shoot anyone cause there any color. Co-Existence, fine. I only ask you to look to the most diverse places on earth and tell me what you see: violence, strife, division, social atomization, secession, civil war, geonocide. And then I ask you only: do you want more diversity now or less? But hey Mr. white guy who pretends to not care a wit about race: how are you going to feel when you click on the telly for the state of the union and Jesse Jackson Jr. is giving it and the speaker of the house is Luis GUitterez? "I wouldn't mind at all. why would I?" Ofcourse, thats what you say. Nothing phases you with your PC poker face on. But tell me, Mr. Fashionable Yuppie, when you come home, take off the walking GAP catalogue, watch your Jon Stewart, and un-strap your PC Muffler what do you think then Mr. Fashionable Yuppie? Do you still "not care at all" about being a minority in a country you, deep down always thought of as a, gasp, "white country"? dare I say, even, thought of it as "your country?"
Are you scared that if you admit this that you will be on the road to Holacaust Denial? I assure your not. I myself am a jew and a scot. No, you are not, despite what years of insidious media and enternaiment brainwashing, becoming a right wing racist extremist Timothy McVeigh running around a winter forest in military gear preparing for the second coming of Christ. No, what your doing when you accept things like that your tribe, or that, as a human subject to evoultion, you naturally feel more comfortable around people of your own race you are not discovering that slavery was good or that there was no Holacaust, no, your accepting your natural human preferences and nature as a human primate which is true to every group of people on this earth. And accepting this as naturally is not to justify bigotry, it doesn't mean that it's OK to enslave black people. No, like most anything, too much tribalism can be a very bad thing. But tribalism when moderated at its natural level were one treats peoples of other races equally, but doesn't hate oneself for prefering the company, on average, of people like you is not an evil thing. It's something blacks and all other races are already to say whenever they want. I am not asking you to embrace Hitler or David Duke or the KKK. That stuff holds no intrest for me. I'm not into "all-white" this or that. I just want people of European ancestory to de-brainwash themselves. To rinse the white guilt and ethnocentric-masochism out of there minds that public schools, movies and TV shows with subtle (very subtle) but consitent anti-white themes/sterotypes have ingrained deep in our pysches not through persuading us to distrust ourselves and see the worst in our tribe/race/group/whatever. They instilled in us ("they" does not mean jews) by making the whitest, blondest, blue eyed actors the greedy, evil villian in the movies we saw everytime and making non-whites in films always kind, calm, smart, and sometimes even godly (e.g. Morgan Freeman in that Jim Carrey movie, Forest Whitker in "Ghost Dog") by never showing, say, black children in groups acting the rambacious way black children in groups often behave in real life. All the things in real life which breeds not hatred but fear and/or hostility towards to blacks (among all groups) in real life exsperiences like getting mugged or whatever by a black thug/bum or whatever that sttuff was long ago exiled from the silver screen, realism replaced with the new goal of dispelling "racist" sterotypes about minorities. Sterotypes ofcourse are often based on a germ of truth or, often, just plain facts (see crime stats for black on white crime, etc.). So Hollywood after the 70's decided to dispell these "racist" false sterotypes of blacks by creating actually fake sterotypes of another group but a group which society is allowed to slander and pick on and sterotype contrary to facts: white people. So next week "Law & Order" has a episode on Johnny Jihad a blonde haired blue eyed jihadist who blows up an airplane. Ever heard of that happening?
I'm tired, bye. I'm back.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The future we know is coming but ignore
Millions of westerners today claim that we know 1. how hot it will be in a century, how much climates will change and how much of that change will be natural and how much will be caused by man. They claim that there is no debate about these questions (even though they are almost impossible to answer) and claim that all the exsperts agree (also untrue). However in another hugely important era of demographics unlike climatolgy we can actually predict what the future will look like. We know that Russia will be majority muslim in 2050 and that France and the Netherlands will also go majority muslims in this century also. Furthermore, we know that our own nation, America, will no longer have a white/European majority in around 2050.
All those who don't care abobut truth and merely want to be PC should stop reading now. The truth is that we have a grim future ahead of us to avoid that unlike the climate scare is completly real and obvious. Their are no nations on earth with muslim majjorities which are also free. So if France becoming muslim is not good. We will slowly lose our European allies as they become muslim.
And why shouldn't we avoid a latino majority coming about in America also since latinos commit more crime, do worse at school, are more racist than, etctera ectera compared to whites? (and a latino-black majority would impose socialism aswell.)
so instead of reducing immigration we kill our economny with useless carbon taxes. decline, oh sweet decline.
All those who don't care abobut truth and merely want to be PC should stop reading now. The truth is that we have a grim future ahead of us to avoid that unlike the climate scare is completly real and obvious. Their are no nations on earth with muslim majjorities which are also free. So if France becoming muslim is not good. We will slowly lose our European allies as they become muslim.
And why shouldn't we avoid a latino majority coming about in America also since latinos commit more crime, do worse at school, are more racist than, etctera ectera compared to whites? (and a latino-black majority would impose socialism aswell.)
so instead of reducing immigration we kill our economny with useless carbon taxes. decline, oh sweet decline.
Muslims and I
I like muslims and I think that they like me more than the average Bill Ayers. A war between muslims & westeners is not inveitable.It didn't really exist until the 60's with the rise of hedonstic liberal culture, sexual anarchy, radical feminism that, reasonably, threatned many muslims who didn't want their daughters dressing like Paris Hilton & their wives cheating on them. They saw how liberals tried to purge the west of our identity, traditions & values & they feared the influx of 60's culture doing the same to their societies. Liberals don't realize that muslims hate them the most. & still liberals try to show what friends of Islam they are by saying things like that Dutch legislator (who said he would be ok with sharia law in Rotterdam who said, we need to be nice to Muslims now so that they treat us now so that muslims will be nice to us when their the majority in Europe.
Is it racist?
Is it racist to not embrace full on the demographic transformation of your society, a transformation, furthermore, that will make your group go from a majority to an minority in a few decades and be divested of substanial political say (e.g. to be divested)? According to a huge amount of liberals the answer is yes but only if your white and you don't love going from a majority to a minority in your beloved England, France or America. However, liberals conclude, if your a black South African who doesn't want to become a minority thats just fine. Isn't racism treating people different on racial grounds?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
If
If a terrorist attack occurs under Obama and the culprit trained along side the Nigerian bomber in Yemen and if the Nigerian knew them and knew of their plan, i hope those who fought to give the Nigerian terrorist lawyers, and mirnada right and to not allow him to even be touched (let alone waterboarded) & allowed us to only ask him nicely for info, i hope they know they will be responcible for the death of those people b/c they felt that saving the lives of innocents was less important than not touching a Nigerian terrorist.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Return of "The White Man's Burden"?
Are we a nation or a charity?
How many millions in free health care for Hitians (esp. those brought to south Florida hospitals has the American tax payer ponied up w/o even being asked? Half of America is on acid, they don't realize we are the world debtors nation & want us to give Afruca a 100 billion for "climate change" last month & now want us to become hopeless Haiti's baby sister, China doesn't act like this they aren't occupying 3 nations & spending billions on foreigners nor throwing away their economy w/ Cap & Trade nonsense, they arent paying a billion to give KSM a 5 year trial for a crime he already confessed to. I feel that a imposter has gotten ahold of our treasury (not to mention our justice department and all the rest).
China, detestable as the regime is in certain respects (it is just like a mob family), operates in all the good ways that American Presidents and diplomats sued to until the yuppies came along (hitting a zenith with Obama).
-When Africa tries to so obviously use "climate change" alarmism as a mere means of blackmailing money and aid out of the guilty white west, and Ethipoian delegates say that their willing to settle for a 100 billion up front in increasing payments for the next 50 years (from America primarily) for the purpose of helping Africa "cope with climate change" whatever that means, American diplomats just 20 years ago would've laughed the African global welfare hucksters out of the room. "'I will settle for a 100 billion up front' Who the fuck do these African primitivest ake us for Zulu's?'" George Kennan and Oliver North would joke had they been in power now. Ofcourse neither nor patriots like North and Kennan are anywhere close to the Obama adminstration and George Kennan and other statesmen unafraid of saying "America First" are long gone, replaced by namby pampy liberals with degrees in Multicultural Studies and Oppression Studies from Weslyan and Brown, literal, pussies who bow down to African dicators to quell their third world hard ons. They where only too happy to shovel the American tax payers money into the money bags of the Robert Mugabe's and General Gaddafi's of Africa. The whole continent is terminally corrupted and it's a waste of time to even try to help these goverments (outside preventing epdimics), the whole contient is cursed with misgoverment or so it has been since the end of colonial rule on the contient. I now see where the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's we Americans nknow and hate so well got their roots for these Africans are even better hucksters and shakedown artists and ehortationists than they are. The African delegates at the sinister Coopnhegan Climate Summit just started to collectivly shourt, repeating some African tribal phrase or whatnot again and again like barabarians at the gates. Their refrain probably translates roughly to, "DON'T FORGOT ABOUT AFRICA! DON'T FORGET ABOUT AFRICA!". The African poliical huckster has usually been educated in Europe for a little and knows how to push all the liberals buttons to make them reach for their nations collective wallots. They guilt weak chinned European liberals (and now American weak chinned liberals too!!) by saying that "you, in the west, have forgotten us and neglected us". Aren't tehy embarrsed to talk to their colonial owners-France England, Belgium, etc,-like they are, literrally, the children of the white europeans that white europeans all once thought if them as-children (as far as civilization was concerned). The great benefactors and enthusaists of Gilded Age imperialism-Teddy Roosevelt, Cecil Rhodes, the BOer leader Peter Krueger, etc. all shared atleast one general belief in common which was that Africans (among other "Mongogreloid" races) simply weren't equipt to govern themselves without descending into their natural state of anarchy, chaos and barabarism. But now it almosy seems as if this sadly determivistic view of Africa (which would obviously apply to African extracts like Haiti and Jamaica too) is some-what true. Haiti would be better off had Canada been running the nation for 50 years,and most all of Africa would be dramaticly worse off had European colonalism never come to what was a savage jungle and brought with them civilization (trains planes, automoblies, mickey mouse, offefe, magazines, the printed word, shoes, and all the 800 thousand things that certainly weren't invinted in Africa.
I mean what do the Haitians look like right now? they look like the black New Orlenians, like children screaming for help from their parents, who can make all their troubles go away and give them aide and shelter and food again and again and again forever. Yet it does no good. Its not our fault that Africans, in general, around the world, elect hucksters and con-artists to reprsent themselves in goverment posts. Just imagine a contient so full of corruption that the slimy, racist, anti-white, black Power, would-be-warlord, South African President, Jacob Zuma (read Peter Hitchens profile of Zuma in the American Conservative). Barring the discovery of some phenominally fought over rescource on the African contient, it seems to me that Africa will, no matter how you may or may not like it, be the poorest contient on earth. We have to come to terms with the facts of the matter. Their is no "Blank Slate" Steven Pinker showed that years ago. Africa doesn't have to be such a hell hole. It can be better than it is but it will never in my estmiation. Same goes with the black-white education/achievment gap which just won't go away no matter how much money the left pours into the task, how maany tests they make easier to leseen the test score gap and all the other outragous liberal schemes to thrawt honest hard working whites because their white.
It seems we haven't escaped the era of the "White Man's Burden", have we now? Just look out the national window to Haiti where platoons of American white do-gooders race into the nation. We saw the same mobilization in New Orleans after Katrina, Iran after their earthquake and after the Tsumani in the mid-2000's that wracked so much hof poly-Asia. This is a product of being too wealthy for too long perhaps. Americans (and I mean white Americans by "Americans") have 1. grown to take their/our huge post-WW2 wealth for granted almost as a constant that will continue as it has automaticly forever and 2. They have devolped a masochist, anti-white, self-hating, third world fetishizing pathology that makes them disdain even the suggestion of acting on grounds of national intrests.
Witness the terribly inept American anti-war movement that was led by the left (to the movement eventual downfalll). These self hating old hippy leftists that took the reigns of the anti-war movement (enter George Galloway) where so fucked up with their own "White Man's Burdens" issues that they couldn't even manage to argue against the war(s) in Iraq and Afganistan on grounds of national intrest (seemingly ever). In shunning self intrest & national intrest (as the idiot internationalists these liberal types are) they discarded the best arguments(s) against the Iraq (and Afgan) war(s) a crucial error which posssibly lead to the failure of what could've been a succeful movement had patriots from the Buchanan wing of the GOP lead the anti-war movement instead. But rather than argue that "I troops are heroes and thats just the point, its not worth shedding our best and brightestst, our blood and treasure in conflicts that have little to do with our national security at all. If we want to stop the next 9/11 we must secure our borders and ports and airports and fix our broken Immigration Units. Doing that would not only be a 1000 times cheaper and more effective in protecting us than a war in Iraq it would save us billions in other areas. And then again, why are we having our boys fighting and die and loose limbs and why are we spending billions we don't have on wars for people who , atelast in Iraq, hate us. !9 year old American young men should not be arriving home with out their legs just to help build a nation of people who spit upon his effort and our nation and all that we've done for the Iraqi's. We deposed of their dictator, spent trillions rebuilding their society setting gup the first arab democracy in the region. I think we've give more than enough of our blood and treasure on Iraq, this was a war of charity, we owe them nothing, if anything, the Iraqi's owe us!"
But instead of making fiery, logical, populist, patriotic arguments of national intrest in favor of withdrawl from Iraq the potheads at MoveOn.org, the Cindy Sheehans and Code Pink's and the rest of their ilk made anti-American arguments against the war that accused our President of deceit, conspiracy to make his friends rich, war crimes, they painted and someimes even called our soldiers murderers making them out to be sadistic cowboys running around Bagdad killing little brown people for fun. They threw red/pink paint on veterans and generals on the hill to symbolize "the blood on thir hands". They accused Donalds Rumsfield and the whole goverment of war crimes and rambled about half baked leftist conspiracy theories about Haliburton, the Caryllyle Group, Exxon Mobile, putting Bush and Cheney in office to bring the nation to war and increase their profits. Micheal Moore's shameful documentary film, "Farhenheit 9/11" asserted that the CIA had trained and created Osama Bin Laden, training Bin Laden at exactly the tactics he would use against America on September 11th, 2001. In truth, the CIA had a tenous indirect relationship with Osama and Osama got most of his funding from his brother Salem and his uber-wealthly Saudi cla though he did fight alongside the Mujohaiden who the US did fund to fight the Soviet invaders inAfganistan. Also, the CIA never trained Bin Laden least of all would they have treained him or any other Afgan freedom fighter how to ram airliners into sky scrapers considering their were not such sky scrapers to ram 747's into in Kabul at the time (or today probably too). This isn't the only such blatantly fallacious claim made by Moore and inturn made by his army of folowers in the course of the entire decade of the aughts. The most outragous perhaps is the claim that we went to war in Afganistan to build a pipeline which funnily enough has never been built still as of 2010.
Again, rather than saying "Bush went o war in Afganistan to build a pipeline" point out that we ran off to war in Afganistan with no long term gameplan or any conception of what the endgame was there. We were pissed off after 9/11 and ran off too war in a mindless rage not thinking off the long term at all. It would have been approbarite to go in and atleast shock and awe the Taliban into learning a lesson about who not to host (e.g. Al Quada). Thats what we should have done and then left within a year or two. rather than getting bogged down in a pointless occupation. We should've realized that we couldn't stay there forever and make sure Al-Quada didn't come back. We didn't have the money nor the will to do so. And the war was futile in that all that we did really was focre a nomadic inclined people to move into either Pakistan or someother Islamic country like Yemen where Al-Quada set up shop. We have to realize that Al-Quada is not a nation but a franchise that is scattered and has bases in Yemen, Jakarta, East Timor, Nigeria, Syria, and many more places (including probably the US) where we can war at all at once. We can't occupy Yemen and Nigeria and Syria and Afganistan and Pakistan all at once. But we can secure our borders and ports, and tighten the screenin process for deciding which muslims are allowe dto entire the United States and we can do all that for much cheaper".
This is basically, as I said before, the Buchananite Old Right paleocon arguments against the war and the American people would've had no trouble embarcing them. Because just like Pat Buchanan himself, we who opposed the wars on the right we're known to be patriots. With Buchanan you didn't have to wonder if he was using the anti-war movement as a front for his anti-americanism or anti-capttilist crusade. Americans didnt want to embrace anti-american demogauges and other forms of hucksters that made up so much of the anti-war movement like Jesse Jackson, George Galloway or Tim Robins.
How can you help the dear leader today?
Theres something creepy and servile and principally un-American about the fact that their is a book sold at every Barnes & Nobles & Borders entitled, "50 ways you can help Obama". They also have a gizzalion Obama personality cult merchandice (the little blue book of "the Ones" masterful qoutes like: "There is no red state America or blue state America, there is only the United States of America!"). This is something you find in North Korea, little kids being tested on what they can do for the dear leader.
Working for the worthless
The hardest working/most creative & intelligent people in America, people who have given us millions of jobs & great products like the Ipod & Starbucks-their income gets taxed upwards of 40-70%. You mightn't care if someones taxes are raised from 20 to 45% (so that Obama can send checks to ppl who pay no taxes) but that means that those people will work half the week for the Goverment & do they get the 200,000 they give in taxes back in gov. services? No, not even close.
"A History of Green Lights Gone Bad"...
...perhaps that would work as the title of the documentrary that Roger Ebert suggested in 1996 which would consist of segments devoted to chronicling indivual cases of mind bogglingly bad desicions on the part of film studios. This would means that you would take maybe 5-7 terrible movies with the worst/dumbest plots and try to answer for each movie in the course of maybe 15-30 mineutes segments, the question: how did this move get the green light?
So you would contact all the people known to have participated in the green lighting/finacing process for these films-executive producers, etc.-and interview them and then interview actors maybe too, etc.
Heres a good example of the kind of movie I'm speaking of: "Joe's Apartment" inwhich a guy finds he can talk to coackroaches, he becomes friends with his coackroaches and when he gets an eviction notice from the apartment landlord the coachroaches band together to bring down the landlord. By the way, "Joe's Apartment" was not an animated movie. It was from 1996 so they did the coachroaches with claymation (a important fact in the movie's badness. Another movie that would be a good fit for this would be "Even cowgirls get the blues" by Gus Zan vand starring Uma Thurman who plays a hitch hiker hippy with huge thumbs (seemingly a foot long).
The point is, i should say, that i think someone should make such a documentaries.
So you would contact all the people known to have participated in the green lighting/finacing process for these films-executive producers, etc.-and interview them and then interview actors maybe too, etc.
Heres a good example of the kind of movie I'm speaking of: "Joe's Apartment" inwhich a guy finds he can talk to coackroaches, he becomes friends with his coackroaches and when he gets an eviction notice from the apartment landlord the coachroaches band together to bring down the landlord. By the way, "Joe's Apartment" was not an animated movie. It was from 1996 so they did the coachroaches with claymation (a important fact in the movie's badness. Another movie that would be a good fit for this would be "Even cowgirls get the blues" by Gus Zan vand starring Uma Thurman who plays a hitch hiker hippy with huge thumbs (seemingly a foot long).
The point is, i should say, that i think someone should make such a documentaries.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Are liberals more close-minded than conservative?
NOTES ON LIBERALS FROM A FORMER LIBERAL MAROONED IN LIBERALDOME: I think liberals tend to be more close minded & intellectually curious. I think it b/ liberals hate to even hear others views they might not know anything about a immigration but if ur not a obama fan they don't want to hear wat u have to say. They hate debating issues. Yet conservatives love to argue & never refuse to even hear the left out, this all makes sense since most begin as liberals by default in life b/c the media is liberal & only those with the intellectual curiousity ever even exsplore the other side's views which most libetals dont even know.
There is no liberal version of William F. BUckley's TV show, Firing Line whererin Buckley would debate liberals paying fastidous attention to the details of liberal's arguments, usually disagreeing but still always taking the liberals arguments serious. People complain about FOX all the time as biased but there is no Hannity & Colmes on another network. On CNN and MSNBC all we got is liberals, they make no pretense of balance, Hannity was the conservative and Holmes was the liberal where is Rachel Maddow's counter-weight conservative on the other side of her anchor desk?
Just look at the classic libetal facial geture: the smug, condescending your-views-are-such-a-joke-its-comical face.
I hesitate to discuss this liberal smugness/clos mindedness because I fear being viewed as part of the Palin crowd. There is nothing wrong with being dismissive of Sara Palin cause she is not ready for show time, not even close. I've said this from the moment she came into our lives.
Anyways I really believe that atleast with regard to those Americans now below 30 years of age (my mileu) the following is the general case: that the more intellectually rigorous and curious exsplore the views of the right and are becoming conservatives as they see that the view point of a National Review which never gets any play on ABC or CNN is, on most things, the correct view. Those with the most complacent, smug, unintrested, uncurious minds stay default liberals which is to say they don't know what the liberal position may be on immigration but they know they support it, they are democrats by cultural affinties and accept the whole assortment of liberal views without scruntizing them.
Look are society since about 15 years ago has been one inwhich the partus of the media (celebrity tabloid blogs and magazine, political sites, movies,etc.) has become a bigger part of a lives as a result of our growing investment in the internet. With younger Americans, my crowd, who have grown up in this enviorment their whole lives, because of the Daily Show & Colbert those who became "liberals" became such at a younger age than previous generations but did so not because this generation of people is more political. Because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (shows for young people) and how politics has become more central to the arts and life in gen eral (as a watercool subject of conversation) kids develope political idenities passivley at a incrasing young age (before they know anything usually).
Kids are shaped by those around them, who they look up to, etc. Increasingly the immediate geographical and cultural surroundings of an indivual are supplanted by online or TV and media in generals influence in deciding someones views. Meaning that the daughter of a evangelical in Alabama 40 years ago would have been more likely to end up a Republican but because of the influx of the internet and cable TV, parents have become less of an influence on children and TV stars like Jon Stewart have become larger factors when it comes to determining a (young) persons political idenity.
So for instance, during the last decade, school kids came home (like me and my friends) and watched the Daily Show (while 30 years ago kids of the same age would've watched Happy Days or whatever). Being subjected to the Daily Show and CNN from a very young age on a regular basis has a great effect. And so i think most perhaps just many kids decide nowadays that there "a Jon Stewart person" rather than a Sara Palin type person. In other words, its become a way of cultural identifying yourself as being either hip, urban, edgy (e.g. Jon Stewart) or being square, provincial and traditional (Sara Palin). The influence of a celberity world of all liberals is also important.
There is no liberal version of William F. BUckley's TV show, Firing Line whererin Buckley would debate liberals paying fastidous attention to the details of liberal's arguments, usually disagreeing but still always taking the liberals arguments serious. People complain about FOX all the time as biased but there is no Hannity & Colmes on another network. On CNN and MSNBC all we got is liberals, they make no pretense of balance, Hannity was the conservative and Holmes was the liberal where is Rachel Maddow's counter-weight conservative on the other side of her anchor desk?
Just look at the classic libetal facial geture: the smug, condescending your-views-are-such-a-joke-its-comical face.
I hesitate to discuss this liberal smugness/clos mindedness because I fear being viewed as part of the Palin crowd. There is nothing wrong with being dismissive of Sara Palin cause she is not ready for show time, not even close. I've said this from the moment she came into our lives.
Anyways I really believe that atleast with regard to those Americans now below 30 years of age (my mileu) the following is the general case: that the more intellectually rigorous and curious exsplore the views of the right and are becoming conservatives as they see that the view point of a National Review which never gets any play on ABC or CNN is, on most things, the correct view. Those with the most complacent, smug, unintrested, uncurious minds stay default liberals which is to say they don't know what the liberal position may be on immigration but they know they support it, they are democrats by cultural affinties and accept the whole assortment of liberal views without scruntizing them.
Look are society since about 15 years ago has been one inwhich the partus of the media (celebrity tabloid blogs and magazine, political sites, movies,etc.) has become a bigger part of a lives as a result of our growing investment in the internet. With younger Americans, my crowd, who have grown up in this enviorment their whole lives, because of the Daily Show & Colbert those who became "liberals" became such at a younger age than previous generations but did so not because this generation of people is more political. Because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (shows for young people) and how politics has become more central to the arts and life in gen eral (as a watercool subject of conversation) kids develope political idenities passivley at a incrasing young age (before they know anything usually).
Kids are shaped by those around them, who they look up to, etc. Increasingly the immediate geographical and cultural surroundings of an indivual are supplanted by online or TV and media in generals influence in deciding someones views. Meaning that the daughter of a evangelical in Alabama 40 years ago would have been more likely to end up a Republican but because of the influx of the internet and cable TV, parents have become less of an influence on children and TV stars like Jon Stewart have become larger factors when it comes to determining a (young) persons political idenity.
So for instance, during the last decade, school kids came home (like me and my friends) and watched the Daily Show (while 30 years ago kids of the same age would've watched Happy Days or whatever). Being subjected to the Daily Show and CNN from a very young age on a regular basis has a great effect. And so i think most perhaps just many kids decide nowadays that there "a Jon Stewart person" rather than a Sara Palin type person. In other words, its become a way of cultural identifying yourself as being either hip, urban, edgy (e.g. Jon Stewart) or being square, provincial and traditional (Sara Palin). The influence of a celberity world of all liberals is also important.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Meg Whitmen: who the fuck greenlighted this pro-amensty nun's run?
"THE NEXT GOVERNOR MUST HAVE A SPINE OF STEEL KNOW WHAT SHE BELIEVES AND STICK WITH IT"
-MEG WHITMAN
I really hate Meg Whitmen cause she looks like McCain, the women to me. Shes like Gwen Ifill, she never says anything intresting and I'm sure that her whole political career was dreamed up in some mediocre neo-con's office (e.g. "Hey, what about that bitch, the CEO of Ebay? She'd sell real good with Orange County Housewives."
Meg Whitmen is so mind bogglingly bad a candiate for this race or any race. She is worst than Martha Coakely. Whitmen looks like a Catholic nun.
BUT MY GOD, THE GOP RUNS A PRO-AMENSTY, DULLER THAN A WHITE WALL OLD NUN FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR.
Ok, its come to the point where i think that leftists today are dumber than conservatives
Eric Alterman sounds so dumb here talking to Mickey Kaus. It's funny, you can tell Mickey Kaus is suprised by how unsophisticated Eric Alterman is (who is for the left, relatively smart).
Mirananda Rights or waterboards for terrorists?
The Nigerian Christmas bomber would've killed hundreds over the skies of Detriot hsd it not been for a Dutchmen bum rushing him. We now know that Obama would have preffered that the Dutchmen had first read the nigerian "his miranada rights" ("to remain silent...right to the power of attorney..") first & that whole tackling thing probably would've cost him a de-merit had he been a CIA agent. what did the FBI do when he gets off the plane at Obama request? They read a Nigerian non-citizen his miranada rights (though he doesn't have any such miranada rights)!"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT"! and then you give him a lawyer to tell him to not answer the CIA interrogators questions. This guy told them "their are more like me"! So that shows he has info about other plots & where going to just let him say "no" when we ask where the next attack is gonna be? NIGERIAN TERRORISTS WHO TRY TO MURDERER HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN A PLANE OVER DETROIT with potentially life saving info about future attacks ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE TO BE TREATED LIKE SHOP LIFTERS.
davidfrum tweets,
davidfrum tweets,
Yoo and Bybee: "Poor judgment" says DOJ review. http://bit.ly/9GLRtUAnd what do we say of the people who Mirandized the underwear bomber? 2 days ago reply
Monday, February 1, 2010
3 Issues We All Forgot
I've come across a debate over media bias at UC Santa Barbara between bow-tied Tucked Carlson and Eric Alterman.And it made me realize:
ABORTION
GUN-CONTROL
RELIGON.......are so 90's.
I'm serious people getting heated about gun-control sounds to my 19 year old ass like William Jennings Bryan raving about Free Silver.
If you need exsplanations of the decline in intrest in these 3 issues: 1. We have bigger issues than guns and abortion to reckon with, like stopping amensty:the sequel. and 2. fewer Americans are religous or own guns/go hunting.
ABORTION
GUN-CONTROL
RELIGON.......are so 90's.
I'm serious people getting heated about gun-control sounds to my 19 year old ass like William Jennings Bryan raving about Free Silver.
If you need exsplanations of the decline in intrest in these 3 issues: 1. We have bigger issues than guns and abortion to reckon with, like stopping amensty:the sequel. and 2. fewer Americans are religous or own guns/go hunting.
Hitler's Revenge
The most destructive ideology of the first half of the 20th Century was obviously Nazism. Ironically, the most destructive and insidious ideology of second half of the 20th Century (and beyond) was & is poltically correct multiculturalism. This was "Hitler's Revenge". Nazism caused the left to turn off their brains and move to the opposite extreme and scorning nationalism and patriotism and rejecting the idea that nation's had any racial or etnic identity (aka China is Chinese). This brought about unlimited mass immigration to the west & inturn brought about the death of the West.
Multiculturalism does not work within a society. Racial diversity at to fast at rate of growth creates what we have in California today: Governor Schwarznegger goes on TV his state deep and debt and lyingly asserts that there is nothing more to cut. The truth is that the California debt could be greatly mitigated by merely listening to the Californian majority (as of now atleast) and ending the transfer of billions of tax payer dollars to the millions of illegals living without fear, outside the shadows in California mooching off the tax payers receieving free schooling, welfare, therapy, scholarships, healthcare on Uncle Sam's tab. But why can't Schwarznegger tell the truth? Why does he lie so blatantly? Because California has a huge population of people-Mexicans-who have intrests completly different from that of "white Americans" which screws democracy up entirely. For the fragile instuition of pure one man one vote democracy to work everyone has to share a basic set of intrests. It fucks democracy up completly when , say, 30% of the population's allegiance is with another foreign nation.
Jim Pinkerton makes the above point well here.
Multiculturalism does not work within a society. Racial diversity at to fast at rate of growth creates what we have in California today: Governor Schwarznegger goes on TV his state deep and debt and lyingly asserts that there is nothing more to cut. The truth is that the California debt could be greatly mitigated by merely listening to the Californian majority (as of now atleast) and ending the transfer of billions of tax payer dollars to the millions of illegals living without fear, outside the shadows in California mooching off the tax payers receieving free schooling, welfare, therapy, scholarships, healthcare on Uncle Sam's tab. But why can't Schwarznegger tell the truth? Why does he lie so blatantly? Because California has a huge population of people-Mexicans-who have intrests completly different from that of "white Americans" which screws democracy up entirely. For the fragile instuition of pure one man one vote democracy to work everyone has to share a basic set of intrests. It fucks democracy up completly when , say, 30% of the population's allegiance is with another foreign nation.
Jim Pinkerton makes the above point well here.
Should Young Single Mothers Automaticly Be Seen As Victims?
Should 18-21 year old single mothers be treated like victims or should they ever be looked at as having any responcibility for their getting involved with irresoncible bums? Its like the women that gets beaten by her menfolk, I have no pity for these types because they usually stay with & are attracted to guys that batter them & then they act like they deserve pity when they get the abuse that they like in a way cause they wouldn't respect their boyfriends if they didn't do stuff like act like brute guerillas (which occasionally inolves infidelidty and getting hit for some shit). They wanted brutes so why are they victims when they get manhandled (and come back to him or another brute)?
Insights & Ponderings:
Today's Insights & Ponderings:
1. Think about it: what would the middle east be like today if Saddam Hussein where still in power? I must say, as someone who thinks the war should've have ended in 2005, Saddam was a crazy mother fucker, could u imagine having Amedinjihad & Hussein back to back? However, the prospect of a the Taliban still being in charge of Afganistan doesn't concern me at all cause they had no outside ambitions. So, again, "the good war" Afganistan was the dumber one and is as we can see, impossible to "win".
2. There is much to support in Ron Paul & the move away from the neo-cons within the GOP, however he has always come off as unimpressive, their must be smarter, less goofy uncle type liberterians and Paul wrongly resorts to left wing masochistic arguments against the wars in the middle east.
1. Think about it: what would the middle east be like today if Saddam Hussein where still in power? I must say, as someone who thinks the war should've have ended in 2005, Saddam was a crazy mother fucker, could u imagine having Amedinjihad & Hussein back to back? However, the prospect of a the Taliban still being in charge of Afganistan doesn't concern me at all cause they had no outside ambitions. So, again, "the good war" Afganistan was the dumber one and is as we can see, impossible to "win".
2. There is much to support in Ron Paul & the move away from the neo-cons within the GOP, however he has always come off as unimpressive, their must be smarter, less goofy uncle type liberterians and Paul wrongly resorts to left wing masochistic arguments against the wars in the middle east.
The Importance of Geezers
I think adults who never critize the youth are cowards. I'm talking about those middle age guys who only have the best of words for my generation. Geezers have been a cornerstone of civilization for time on memorial. Because they 1. have exsperience and wisdom the young dont have usually 2. they have more time to see the world around them more clearly. Geezers need to keep the young in check. And whats the result of it all? From Gary Cooper to Ira Glass in 1 generation. go fish.
Can you imagine the American political landscape without old white guys aka geezers? Without the old people who know whats up, Obama could replace the Constuition with "Rules For Radicals" and no one would even care (aka Brazil).
Can you imagine the American political landscape without old white guys aka geezers? Without the old people who know whats up, Obama could replace the Constuition with "Rules For Radicals" and no one would even care (aka Brazil).
good case for health care reform
from Mickey Kaus,
That makes a lot of sense, except that establishing a guarantee of affordable health care is one of the things that would enable painful cuts in both the public and the private sector. If you know your health care is taken care of, then a cut in your projected pension becomes less threatening. It's less of a big deal to be downsized or outsourced, to give up your Detroit assembly line job (or D.C. newspaper job) and move to find work at some other company with a future. It's just money, then, not life or death. .And it's easier to jump at risks when there's a secure platform underneath you
The Bastard Son
Do u feel that you've ever seen the real Barack Obama? I don't. He's very much like FDR in this way. He has 2 qualities found in many politicians: he's a bastard child and his political face is a mask. His feeling of being un-wanted seems to have engendered the classic personality of bastard sons: he's in politics cause he wants to be loved (bad reason) which means that he'll say watever it takes to get the most applause no matter how sappy and untrue the statement ("the Afgan, war is a war of nesscity" , "theres no blue state America and red state America"). He'll make policy on pure politics (ala Afganistan) He doesn't want you to know what he thinks and/or wants to do as much as he wants you to think he agrees with you.
However I don't believe Obama will change his major policies according to opinion polls. He will, as I say, temporize and "do what it takes". I along with David Frum find Obama's Afgan policy to be purely political to an extent I personally find sickening. I believe that if Obama where to go by his gut we would be out of Afganistan and Iraq very soon. Though then again i don't think Obama is nearly as intelligent as everyone asserts (though he defintely has a good post-babybommer sense of politics and political timing. I'm not sure he has the rigour of mind to see that it doesn't really matter if we leave tommorow or in two years. However it's really not a suprise that Obama has set a deadline (absurdly) for 18 months in Afganistan. Any President that adopts Iraq and Afganistan is not going to close them up done within his first year as President while he's doing healthcare, the economony, the stimulus, etc. He also seems to be willing to say nearly anything at times. The most appauling examples of Obama cynically lying is a two or three way tie. One egregious example is his first big war on the War in Afganistan where he deemed Afganistan, "a war of aboslute nesscity". He also said to the cadeats at the Anapolis that night that "I would never send you into harms way if I did not absolutely have to". Well that second statement is a lie and I would like to think that Obama woldn't have the ignorance to write either line that i quote above. Like so many Obama statements in his speeches, the assertions that get lauded and never challendged don't stand up upon inspection.
However I don't believe Obama will change his major policies according to opinion polls. He will, as I say, temporize and "do what it takes". I along with David Frum find Obama's Afgan policy to be purely political to an extent I personally find sickening. I believe that if Obama where to go by his gut we would be out of Afganistan and Iraq very soon. Though then again i don't think Obama is nearly as intelligent as everyone asserts (though he defintely has a good post-babybommer sense of politics and political timing. I'm not sure he has the rigour of mind to see that it doesn't really matter if we leave tommorow or in two years. However it's really not a suprise that Obama has set a deadline (absurdly) for 18 months in Afganistan. Any President that adopts Iraq and Afganistan is not going to close them up done within his first year as President while he's doing healthcare, the economony, the stimulus, etc. He also seems to be willing to say nearly anything at times. The most appauling examples of Obama cynically lying is a two or three way tie. One egregious example is his first big war on the War in Afganistan where he deemed Afganistan, "a war of aboslute nesscity". He also said to the cadeats at the Anapolis that night that "I would never send you into harms way if I did not absolutely have to". Well that second statement is a lie and I would like to think that Obama woldn't have the ignorance to write either line that i quote above. Like so many Obama statements in his speeches, the assertions that get lauded and never challendged don't stand up upon inspection.
Obama's is placing America down the European path as the European abandon that route for a more (pre-Obama) US Route relizing bankruptcy of nannystat
Have you noticed anything missing from the health care "debate"? Any words, in paticular the utter absensce of which has become rather striking by now?
Have you eyed or eared the following word lately: Europe? No? Well me neither which is only yet another inditment of the quality of the healthcare tug of war which is currently on hiatus while Obama tries to shepered the passing of a "Jobs Bill" they very sound of which makes me reach for my wallet and my revolver.
One would think, if rationality where the animating force of the health care scuffle, there would have been tremendous debate about whether European style socialist health care and the European welfare state was such a smahing success.
My intuitive media radar tells me that, amazingly, no one has yet to point out the Democrats are trying to drag a unwilling America onto a path that the more socialistic west Europeans democracies went down decades ago and yetto go by what can roughly be called the on going healthcare debate you would think that that the Democrats want to do something entirely orginal that has never been tried before by nation(s). It seems strangely that it's the Democrats who don't want to talk about Europe and how all the policy they yearn for worked out in the long run in the nations who adopted these basic policies long ago. Right now, figuring out whether the story of goverment run health care was a triumph or a tragedy (or a tragedy waiting to happen) is clearly the most important question to answer in the short term. But the other items on the Obama agenda after healthcare have also been in Europe sometimes not so long ago really at all. Take, Cap & Trade, one of the worst items on the Obama wishlist and a issue unlike obamacare is easy to understand and easy to predict in all the terrible economic effects Cap & Trade will have and all the "transformative" enviomental effects it won't have as a result of reducing carbon emissions a neglible amount easily nullfied by all the co2 the devloping world emits. The only thing that Cap and trade will be help to cut back on is jobs and business in America, the neglible amount of Co2 we cut back will have no effect on the climate. No one serious denies that Cap & Traade is bad for Americans economically. Combined with the increased burdens plcaed on buisness big and small the increased cost of doing business here created by Cap & Trade will send business and corporations moving out of the country for good and taking their jobs with them as well as rapidly bring about a massive wave of outsourcing of jobs to Asian economies whichhave become far more buusiness friendly than the United States. The Democrats don't realize that America has to actually compete in this world to keep and to imaintain and increase the appeal of the American economny. Businessmen, investors, and people in today realize or atleast think that the United States is about to move to the left, Obama may loose in 2012 but the feeling is that he will invetiably be able to put in place huge liberal structural changes that will have the goverment running American healthcare among other changes, following the European model that has proved sucidial if not simply diastrous for Europe economically as well as socially stymmying entrupernership, indpdence and indutrury on the oart of the indivual and mking citizens into the children of the stat and, meanwhile, as America appears adamant upon followiwng Europe's exact footsteps of decline, the Asiatic nations of India, China, Singapore and the like appear to have learned in a deep way all the lessons that America has forgotten for the moment, about limited goverment, taxes and beyond.
Americans seem to be blind to the fact that they can no longe exspect for business to turn the other check again and againand not move its jobs out of America if the Democrats levy the burdens of obamacare on business, then increase the cost of doing business in America even more (and raise energy prices) ship away even more jobs with Cap & Trade those sacrficies would allresult in the cutting back of a negligible, insignifgant amount of co2-as the most honest green people will admit like Ralph Nader. So Cap & Trdae will, in summary, ship away millions of jobs , dramaticly increase the cost of doing business in America,raising food and energy prices and imposing the largest ever tax aka transfer of wealth from the people to the Goverment in our history and all these sacrficies will be for what "pay off"? "Green jobs" won't make up dir anything like the huge amount of jobs lost to asia as a result o this. But won't we save the earth? No, because Cap & Trade will have no apparent climatological benefit s for the very reason that theactual cut backs in Co2 will be neglibible and completly nullfied, canceled out and over come by the amount of the Co2 China and/or India alone will increasingly emit. Once you make it clear that there is no climatelogical signifgance the hapless true believers of Cap & Trade tell you that its good for the economy to deveolp "green technologies" the fact is that no one wants to 3 times as much money for clean solar energy shen you can get clean nuclear energy without the higher prices with nuclear power plants which don't emit Co2. One lesson that should be taken from France is that if America got as much of its energy from nuclear as France did, we would be well below the traget emissions reductions and unlike with solar and wind energy it wouldn't exact a completly unviable economic cost. The fact is that"green" technologies aren't good enough yet and that if we were smart we would invest in further research that could create better green techbologies. In short, Obama's talk of "green jobs" as the new base of the glorious new American ecoconomy is something only Ralph Nader could come up with. But then again China and India are making it clear they won't sign on to any global govermental climate change agency or treaty unless they receive payments in the billions from America as Obama has just done for Africa giving them a 100 billion dollars we don't have for corrupt African regimes to "prepare forclimate change". Coopenheganshould have been the definitive turning point for americans who realized that the whole summit was basically a 3rd world scheme to force America to essentially create a binding international govermental body that will allow Africa and some other 3rd world nations to vote themselves 100 of billions of Americantax payer dollars without consolntanting the American people , without Americans having any kind of veto. Essentially, if America wants to try new, alternative sources of energy it should build its self more nuclear power plants and force the Nevaians not to reneg on there contract and allow Yukka Mountain to be used as a place to store nuclear waste. Getting more of our energy from nuclear power will unlike unvialable solar and wind energy won't double the amount of money Americans pay for energy. Since no one but a minature elite with money to waste will buy into hugely exspensive solar & wind energy if they free market is allowed to decide it would way Obama will be able to deliver even a small portion any of the 2 million green jobs (which Obama, in speeches and in TV ad's has poytrayed as the new base of the US economny itself over more billionr Only if the goverment tyranically forces Americans and American companies into buying overly exspensive "green" energy with crackpot schemes like Cap & Trade.
This generation of Americans hasexspects continued prosperity to continue automatic as the divine state of American economomc and more problematicly many Americans, again on the left,have trouble accepting truths that aren't what they'd like them to be. This is true of Global WArming, race, diversity, immigration, education, latinos, latino assmilation, patriotism and IQ. But at the moment the first a nd most important bubble belief to popped is the multi-faceted global warming myth(s) that include 1. Al Gore's "science" is shaky at best and is all best on computer projection modeling, much of the data has been shown to be manupilated and less credible than before thought Thomas Friedman doesn't know how hot it will be in 87 years and at what rate it will get hot 2.No one has shown for sure how much climate changecurrently is effected by man made activetly versus the natural climate cycle 3. CHina and India and Russia and much if not all of the devolpoing world is totally opposed to the global goverment treay/entity that would hava to be created in order to enforce a serious climate change treaty, even if China and India did join in and allow intrusive inspection and not enough co@, according to Al GOre 's sources, would be cut (let alone in time) to have any real effect. In other words it can't be done now, unless some new method of cleaning the climate, like cloudwashing and that type of stuff that could to alot more for alot less money compared to economony killing stuff like Cap & Trade.
that will lead to the shipping away of millions of jobs to more attractive and in a way more stable Asian markets long & short term effects the which is easy to understand not endlessly complex, issue that issue whicv
and the success and failure and sustsenability of French and other european' countries health care
Have you eyed or eared the following word lately: Europe? No? Well me neither which is only yet another inditment of the quality of the healthcare tug of war which is currently on hiatus while Obama tries to shepered the passing of a "Jobs Bill" they very sound of which makes me reach for my wallet and my revolver.
One would think, if rationality where the animating force of the health care scuffle, there would have been tremendous debate about whether European style socialist health care and the European welfare state was such a smahing success.
My intuitive media radar tells me that, amazingly, no one has yet to point out the Democrats are trying to drag a unwilling America onto a path that the more socialistic west Europeans democracies went down decades ago and yetto go by what can roughly be called the on going healthcare debate you would think that that the Democrats want to do something entirely orginal that has never been tried before by nation(s). It seems strangely that it's the Democrats who don't want to talk about Europe and how all the policy they yearn for worked out in the long run in the nations who adopted these basic policies long ago. Right now, figuring out whether the story of goverment run health care was a triumph or a tragedy (or a tragedy waiting to happen) is clearly the most important question to answer in the short term. But the other items on the Obama agenda after healthcare have also been in Europe sometimes not so long ago really at all. Take, Cap & Trade, one of the worst items on the Obama wishlist and a issue unlike obamacare is easy to understand and easy to predict in all the terrible economic effects Cap & Trade will have and all the "transformative" enviomental effects it won't have as a result of reducing carbon emissions a neglible amount easily nullfied by all the co2 the devloping world emits. The only thing that Cap and trade will be help to cut back on is jobs and business in America, the neglible amount of Co2 we cut back will have no effect on the climate. No one serious denies that Cap & Traade is bad for Americans economically. Combined with the increased burdens plcaed on buisness big and small the increased cost of doing business here created by Cap & Trade will send business and corporations moving out of the country for good and taking their jobs with them as well as rapidly bring about a massive wave of outsourcing of jobs to Asian economies whichhave become far more buusiness friendly than the United States. The Democrats don't realize that America has to actually compete in this world to keep and to imaintain and increase the appeal of the American economny. Businessmen, investors, and people in today realize or atleast think that the United States is about to move to the left, Obama may loose in 2012 but the feeling is that he will invetiably be able to put in place huge liberal structural changes that will have the goverment running American healthcare among other changes, following the European model that has proved sucidial if not simply diastrous for Europe economically as well as socially stymmying entrupernership, indpdence and indutrury on the oart of the indivual and mking citizens into the children of the stat and, meanwhile, as America appears adamant upon followiwng Europe's exact footsteps of decline, the Asiatic nations of India, China, Singapore and the like appear to have learned in a deep way all the lessons that America has forgotten for the moment, about limited goverment, taxes and beyond.
Americans seem to be blind to the fact that they can no longe exspect for business to turn the other check again and againand not move its jobs out of America if the Democrats levy the burdens of obamacare on business, then increase the cost of doing business in America even more (and raise energy prices) ship away even more jobs with Cap & Trade those sacrficies would allresult in the cutting back of a negligible, insignifgant amount of co2-as the most honest green people will admit like Ralph Nader. So Cap & Trdae will, in summary, ship away millions of jobs , dramaticly increase the cost of doing business in America,raising food and energy prices and imposing the largest ever tax aka transfer of wealth from the people to the Goverment in our history and all these sacrficies will be for what "pay off"? "Green jobs" won't make up dir anything like the huge amount of jobs lost to asia as a result o this. But won't we save the earth? No, because Cap & Trade will have no apparent climatological benefit s for the very reason that theactual cut backs in Co2 will be neglibible and completly nullfied, canceled out and over come by the amount of the Co2 China and/or India alone will increasingly emit. Once you make it clear that there is no climatelogical signifgance the hapless true believers of Cap & Trade tell you that its good for the economy to deveolp "green technologies" the fact is that no one wants to 3 times as much money for clean solar energy shen you can get clean nuclear energy without the higher prices with nuclear power plants which don't emit Co2. One lesson that should be taken from France is that if America got as much of its energy from nuclear as France did, we would be well below the traget emissions reductions and unlike with solar and wind energy it wouldn't exact a completly unviable economic cost. The fact is that"green" technologies aren't good enough yet and that if we were smart we would invest in further research that could create better green techbologies. In short, Obama's talk of "green jobs" as the new base of the glorious new American ecoconomy is something only Ralph Nader could come up with. But then again China and India are making it clear they won't sign on to any global govermental climate change agency or treaty unless they receive payments in the billions from America as Obama has just done for Africa giving them a 100 billion dollars we don't have for corrupt African regimes to "prepare forclimate change". Coopenheganshould have been the definitive turning point for americans who realized that the whole summit was basically a 3rd world scheme to force America to essentially create a binding international govermental body that will allow Africa and some other 3rd world nations to vote themselves 100 of billions of Americantax payer dollars without consolntanting the American people , without Americans having any kind of veto. Essentially, if America wants to try new, alternative sources of energy it should build its self more nuclear power plants and force the Nevaians not to reneg on there contract and allow Yukka Mountain to be used as a place to store nuclear waste. Getting more of our energy from nuclear power will unlike unvialable solar and wind energy won't double the amount of money Americans pay for energy. Since no one but a minature elite with money to waste will buy into hugely exspensive solar & wind energy if they free market is allowed to decide it would way Obama will be able to deliver even a small portion any of the 2 million green jobs (which Obama, in speeches and in TV ad's has poytrayed as the new base of the US economny itself over more billionr Only if the goverment tyranically forces Americans and American companies into buying overly exspensive "green" energy with crackpot schemes like Cap & Trade.
This generation of Americans hasexspects continued prosperity to continue automatic as the divine state of American economomc and more problematicly many Americans, again on the left,have trouble accepting truths that aren't what they'd like them to be. This is true of Global WArming, race, diversity, immigration, education, latinos, latino assmilation, patriotism and IQ. But at the moment the first a nd most important bubble belief to popped is the multi-faceted global warming myth(s) that include 1. Al Gore's "science" is shaky at best and is all best on computer projection modeling, much of the data has been shown to be manupilated and less credible than before thought Thomas Friedman doesn't know how hot it will be in 87 years and at what rate it will get hot 2.No one has shown for sure how much climate changecurrently is effected by man made activetly versus the natural climate cycle 3. CHina and India and Russia and much if not all of the devolpoing world is totally opposed to the global goverment treay/entity that would hava to be created in order to enforce a serious climate change treaty, even if China and India did join in and allow intrusive inspection and not enough co@, according to Al GOre 's sources, would be cut (let alone in time) to have any real effect. In other words it can't be done now, unless some new method of cleaning the climate, like cloudwashing and that type of stuff that could to alot more for alot less money compared to economony killing stuff like Cap & Trade.
that will lead to the shipping away of millions of jobs to more attractive and in a way more stable Asian markets long & short term effects the which is easy to understand not endlessly complex, issue that issue whicv
and the success and failure and sustsenability of French and other european' countries health care
By All Means Let's Fight Bias and Discrimination in Goverment: Heres a clue its not in fire department civil service exams but NPR
President Obama who is tired of politicians spending the American people's tax dollars "like its monopoly money" sure showed how un-cynical that statement was by hiring not 10, not 30, not even 50, or 80 but a whooping 150 new entirely unneded Civil Rights Lawyers. So we elect a black president and he exspands the Civil Rights Dicvision like crazy to counter what?
Its odd that billions are spent on "fixing" problems that either fixable arent real or a a big deal at all or crimes that aren't crimes at all (like giving a police exam with results Eric Holder doesn't like not because teh test was flawed or biased bor because the median score was lower than last year , no, but because he disaproves (he,, not the law not the Constuition, not the Congress disaproves of the amont of black testtakers who passed the said civil servce exam in question. Look it can be a nice goal to have a very diverse fire department or police department but that is probably something that should be an afterthought and completly secondary to the most important matter which is: is the police department and fire department in question doing its job well? And by and large, they are. We don't have a police or fire fighting crises that requires billions of dollars spebt on lawyers , paperwork, etc, etc.
If there was a huge systemtic problem with police departments and fire houses not doing there basic duties then tasks forces and other such things should be created at the tax payers exspence. But there is no such problem in policing and fire fighting.
And yet take a looki invite you at a another part of the goverment with the exact massive systemic problems that require tasks forces, and other such spending to correct: Public Radio-National Public Radio to be exact. The goverment has spent/wasted billions of dollars fighting or so it claimed discrimination, bias and the like within the police departments and fire houses of America when it comes to hiring. There was no problem ofcourse because the test decided but whatever.
Well the boogeyman of discrimination is no myth when it comes to NPR and Public Radio inwhich liberals dicriminate against conservative figures, employees, job applicants, figures and pundits. But the main problem is not nesscarily in itself the voting patterns of the staff of NPR news stations but whether there shows are systemitacially and regularily baised and biased against the right.
Its odd that billions are spent on "fixing" problems that either fixable arent real or a a big deal at all or crimes that aren't crimes at all (like giving a police exam with results Eric Holder doesn't like not because teh test was flawed or biased bor because the median score was lower than last year , no, but because he disaproves (he,, not the law not the Constuition, not the Congress disaproves of the amont of black testtakers who passed the said civil servce exam in question. Look it can be a nice goal to have a very diverse fire department or police department but that is probably something that should be an afterthought and completly secondary to the most important matter which is: is the police department and fire department in question doing its job well? And by and large, they are. We don't have a police or fire fighting crises that requires billions of dollars spebt on lawyers , paperwork, etc, etc.
If there was a huge systemtic problem with police departments and fire houses not doing there basic duties then tasks forces and other such things should be created at the tax payers exspence. But there is no such problem in policing and fire fighting.
And yet take a looki invite you at a another part of the goverment with the exact massive systemic problems that require tasks forces, and other such spending to correct: Public Radio-National Public Radio to be exact. The goverment has spent/wasted billions of dollars fighting or so it claimed discrimination, bias and the like within the police departments and fire houses of America when it comes to hiring. There was no problem ofcourse because the test decided but whatever.
Well the boogeyman of discrimination is no myth when it comes to NPR and Public Radio inwhich liberals dicriminate against conservative figures, employees, job applicants, figures and pundits. But the main problem is not nesscarily in itself the voting patterns of the staff of NPR news stations but whether there shows are systemitacially and regularily baised and biased against the right.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
"Adamant for drift"
"Adamant for drift" my friends:
In the near future America will look remarkably similiar to Canada in the following ways 1. Ever head of the Quebociouse? the French (terrorist) seperatists in Quebec? Southern California and then most of the south west of the US will be a near seperatist region (truelly New Mexico in all the worst ways) and you will have all the usually talk of "homeland" & "la reconquestidora" 2. We will have a European/Canadian style social welfare state with a rapidly declining economony and population as white women aren't having kids & the welfare state will will have killed that good ole American can do spirit!
In the near future America will look remarkably similiar to Canada in the following ways 1. Ever head of the Quebociouse? the French (terrorist) seperatists in Quebec? Southern California and then most of the south west of the US will be a near seperatist region (truelly New Mexico in all the worst ways) and you will have all the usually talk of "homeland" & "la reconquestidora" 2. We will have a European/Canadian style social welfare state with a rapidly declining economony and population as white women aren't having kids & the welfare state will will have killed that good ole American can do spirit!
“So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful for impotence.”
- Sir Winston Churchill
9:07 Wisdom
the best liberals are coy and mildly ashamed of being on the left (if not openly contempicious of much of the naives in there party). I need a spelling teacher, yes? I'm convinced I have Lou Gehrig Disease and the opening prelude phase of my dissent into crippledome is spelling ashamed "ashashamed" and staring blanly at the screen for way too long. I suggest curing insomnia by getting on the National Review email alerts cause they send you 3 old National Review articles (including 1 WFB column every fucking day). Reading a William F. Buckley column from October 3, 1975 makes the Cold War seem like a brisk picnic.
We couldn't get the Olympics but we got the jail
By moving the gitmo detainees (who should all have been pubicly beheaded 7 years ago) to a prison in Illinois, Obama has bestowed a great gift upon the natives of this state: at this moment five guys named Muhommad (RACISM ALERT!!!!) are circling a city on a map called Chicago. I don't think anyone can deny that Obama has increased the possibility of a terrorist attack upon Chicago by a factor of 40. If it happens and your or my relative is even grazed by a brick I'll go Timothy McVeigh on Obama's ass & make John Wilkes Booth look like Oliver Cromwell. (oh that would have gotten me kicked out of Oberlin!) jk sucides for sissies
Atlas On The Whipping Post
It took me a couple weeks to realize how huge the recent Supreme Court desiscion that lifts the unconstuinal ban on corporate campaign contributions. We are going to dunk these fucks in their own shit i swear to god know that the successful have been un-gags politically and can partcipate fully in our democracy by putting there money were their heart is (and hopefully never vice versa). You see the reason that the liberals fliipped out the way they did is ofcourse not because they just "can't believe" Alito thought that it constuinial (no it never somehow seems to be that) but because they realize, being not official borderline retarded, that people who start businesses and employ millions of Americans and have done 400 times more for people than Barak Obama has are all Republicans and the fact that they are Republican is more often than not integral to their business success ("I was a pothead till i saw "Firing Line" with Buckley on TV,I cut my hair and learned about the stock market the next day and never looked back").
See liberals being naive and unknowing about the world around them in the sense of how the world works (e.g. why people in Russia starved to death by the millions in 1915, etc.) and think that the private sector is "selling out" to nothing short of the devil. Business is lowly and corrupt and sinister. It's not be respected, "they aren't working for the public good! There working for their own self intrest the greedy fucks." So Nancy and Barak and Barney all spent their adult lives steal the productive sectors hard earned dollars to redirect to their prefer intrest and/or racial griveance racket of choice. And yet know one realizes that the average sellsman, let alone business owner has done more "for" his community and other people in a year that Obama has done his whole life. Redisturbting money, raising taxes, suing banks, suing police departments for not passing enough blacks on entrace exams doesn't help anyone it only hurts people, they don't realize but every time they try "to just do my part" they leave behind a vertiable trail of bankrupted business, closed down store fronts, welfare dependpenent Americans their souls and ambitious dilalted in a marijuana induced hazed.
Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb to help the world. No one works that hard for entirely selfless reasons. People do things most of the time for their own self intrest and their is nothing wrong with that at all especially when you realize that usually a person's self intrest involves mimproving other peeople's lives and giving to others. The guy who invented the world wide web did so because he wanted to buy a huge house and drive a ferrario and now the entire world has benefitted unimaginably from his gift yet he was apparently in inventing the internet being "selfish." If you truelly want to help people you should be selfless. The people who help others the most are in the private not the public sector.
THE STRING ATTACHED: The reason i wasn't partying after i heard about this descion is because i hear the descion may spell serious trouble for the Nation Question of
See liberals being naive and unknowing about the world around them in the sense of how the world works (e.g. why people in Russia starved to death by the millions in 1915, etc.) and think that the private sector is "selling out" to nothing short of the devil. Business is lowly and corrupt and sinister. It's not be respected, "they aren't working for the public good! There working for their own self intrest the greedy fucks." So Nancy and Barak and Barney all spent their adult lives steal the productive sectors hard earned dollars to redirect to their prefer intrest and/or racial griveance racket of choice. And yet know one realizes that the average sellsman, let alone business owner has done more "for" his community and other people in a year that Obama has done his whole life. Redisturbting money, raising taxes, suing banks, suing police departments for not passing enough blacks on entrace exams doesn't help anyone it only hurts people, they don't realize but every time they try "to just do my part" they leave behind a vertiable trail of bankrupted business, closed down store fronts, welfare dependpenent Americans their souls and ambitious dilalted in a marijuana induced hazed.
Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb to help the world. No one works that hard for entirely selfless reasons. People do things most of the time for their own self intrest and their is nothing wrong with that at all especially when you realize that usually a person's self intrest involves mimproving other peeople's lives and giving to others. The guy who invented the world wide web did so because he wanted to buy a huge house and drive a ferrario and now the entire world has benefitted unimaginably from his gift yet he was apparently in inventing the internet being "selfish." If you truelly want to help people you should be selfless. The people who help others the most are in the private not the public sector.
THE STRING ATTACHED: The reason i wasn't partying after i heard about this descion is because i hear the descion may spell serious trouble for the Nation Question of
All You Need To About Global Warming Profiteers
Al Gore's flock claim, with their usually uncanny certitude (e.g. "It will be this cold in 200 years!") that we only have about 10-15 YEARS till its too late to avert "diaster" (by the way:in 20 yrs. they'll be saying we have "10 years left") If they were not lying they would be THE BIGGEST FANS OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE WORLD b/c they'd realize 1.There's no chance of switching EVEN 30% OF THE US ECONOMY (which would do nothing if u could) to solar & etc.because Americans wont pay 3 times more for energy but they will switch to non poulluting nuclear power which is very cheap. So the alarmists if they belived their b.s. would comprmise to save the "earth".
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Soledad O'Brien: The Diversity Triple Threat of Cable News
Since diversity is now legally mandated in every sector of America life and enforced via hefty discrimination and dispirate impact lawsuites from racial grievance rackets like the SPLC and/or the Justice Department (which have become indistuishable in the last year) every company, its plain to see, has their own token minority employees in legion. You'll notice how rare it is to see black criminals on crime sitcoms and films. For instance from Steve Sailer:
Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002.
One of my readers recently pointed out that with non-Hispanic whites accounting for only about ten percent of the violent crime in New York City, the three Law & Order television shows were likely to feature more fictional white New York murderers in 2005 than there will be actual white murderers in real life!
Another reader pointed out:
"In the first 24 episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent there's only one black murderer, and she is a corrupt police officer. Make of that what you will…"
You'll notice how disportionatly blacks are anchormen and salesmen in the Obama era aswell. The reason that Chase bank and Chilli's all want a black guy selling their product in ad's is to quell potential Jack Jackson's from exhorting them for not having "enough" black employees. When the head of Google recently testified infront of the Senate, Sheila Jackson, the embarssingly ghetto black and proud senator from California used her time to reprsent her constiuents by asking,
"How many black employees does Google have?"
Well, CNN, FOX, MSNBC are all under the same threat of exhortation and to varying degrees work to avoid the R word by clearly having on regular black guests and, in the liberal cable news channels case more ofcourse, having a huge amount of black and hispanic and non-white, non-male anchors and reports. I can only recall 1 or 2 white male anchors at CNN. But more importantly take two constant commentators on FOX and MSNBC: Washington Post black colmunist Eugene Robinson on MSNBC and NPR's Juan Williams on FOX. Both Williams and Robinson hardly have never uttered anything orginal or intresting and are clearly products of affirmtive action for to go by merit cable news on the left and right would be all-white as far as commentators are concerned.
Among the most obvious affirmtive action babys as anchors and reporters are Gwen Iffel and Soledad O'Brien. Soladad is the queen of diversity in media bullshit affirmtive action or should I say diva? She is really hot, and not very bright thats not unique among cable news anchor women but what makes this airhead special is her de facto current position at CNN. Basically, CNN decided that rather than hire 1 black male affirmtive action reporter hire, 1 black female affirmtive action hire, 1 latino male hire, 1 latino female hire they would get multi-racial Soledad to play black and latino at once and make terrible PC documentrarys for CNN called "Black in America" and "Latino in America" (the latter of which didn't even try to hide its pro-amnesty agenda) both which no one in America including blacks and latinos wanted to watch. Soladad apparently had her own show once on CNN but it did so bad they had to delegate her to "making" 2 documentarys a year. Vdare.com's Joe Guzzardi writes brillantly about Soledad below:
O’Brien, who is half Cuban black, half Australian Irish, has gathered many boring conventional awards, including one named after herself: the “Soledad O'Brien Freedom's Voice Award” from the Morehouse School of Medicine for being a “catalyst for social change”.
But, because the competition is stiffer, ours is harder to win—and therefore more prestigious.
I note that the “O’Brien Award” given to O’Brien is significant because, as you will soon learn, she’s in love with herself.
O’Brien has also been included twice in Irish America Magazine’s list of top 100 Irish Americans—as well as on Black Enterprise’s hottest list!
Newsweek featured O’Brien on a cover story and named her as one of the “15 People Who Make America Great”.
Therein lies the secret of O’Brien’s success. No matter what the assignment O’Brien, ethnically speaking, is the right reporter for the job.
When CNN wants a black to interview Michelle Obama, the Hurricane Katrina displaced, or Haiti’s victims, there’s O’Brien posing as a black. (See O’Brien with Obama, her “passion for justice” for New Orleans’ residents displaced by Katrina and the Haitian orphan victims here, here and here. More evidence: in this interview discussing another of her documentaries, “Black in America”, O’Brien identifies herself as black.)
However, if CNN decides that it would be a good idea to run a documentary about being “Latino in America”, they can call on O’Brien, a self described Latina. (Here, among a Hispanic audience, O’Brien reconfirms that description.)
When a highfalutin’ organization needs an ethnically all-purpose speaker, O’Brien is their girl. Her appointment calendar is booked solid because she’s everything all rolled up into one: female, African-American, Hispanic and Irish.
For example, last year on November 10th O’ Brien travelled to Yale University as the guest of the Poynter Fellowship in Journalism to present her speech agonizingly titled “Diversity in the Media: Behind the Scenes & in Our Lives”.
Chances are good that O’Brien used the same notes from her October 28th speech at St. Joseph’s University: “Diversity on TV, Behind the Scenes and in our Lives”.
Or perhaps O’Brien rehashed her January speech given at Duke University, “Black in America: African Americans in the Last Forty Years”. (Watch here.)
Before I launch into why O’Brien won this year, a little biographical information will help you understand why my choice is an easy one.
O’Brien never misses a chance to literally cash in by referring to herself by her complete name, MarÃa de la Soledad Teresa O'Brien.
Although she doesn’t speak Spanish, this gives O’Brien an excellent opportunity to define herself as a multicultural maven who’s perfect for CNN or any other mainstream media outlet. Maybe if she looks back far enough in her genealogical tree, she’ll find Asian ancestors!
Against all evidence, O’Brien stretches to make a point of her black/Latina roots. In an interview for her official CNN biography, O’Brien states that she has: “a mass of kinky hair, light brown skin and lots of freckles”.
Photographs of O’Brien do not support her claim. In this ethnically ambiguous photo I see a traditional hairstyle, no freckles and either light brown skin or too much make up.
Now to my topic: During her seven year CNN career and before that at NBC, O’Brien has been consistently terrible on immigration and race.
What iced our award for O’Brien is her two-part documentary, “Latino in America”, which bombed in the ratings and had the curious effect of angering everyone including some Latinos. Her 2007 documentary, “Black in America”, also raised the ire of many blacks.
Defending “Latino in America”, O’Brien tries to make the case that she represents a “voice for the voiceless”.
This position is patently absurd. Anyone who follows immigration knows that immigration reform patriots are the voiceless ones, to the point that the media regularly censors us.
The immigrant story is told repeatedly in the most sympathetic terms on CNN or in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and other major dailies.
What the CNN documentary does, apparently without O’Brien catching the irony, is emphasize why illegal immigration does not—as she would have you believe—make the case for diversity but instead exacerbates the problems of multiculturalism.
One of O’Brien’s subjects is Francisca Abreau, a Dominican high school student apparently in the U.S. illegally, who when pregnant at 14, contemplated suicide. Then, after Abreau gave birth to her anchor baby daughter Destiny (!!!), she received therapy for her continued identity struggles.
Here’s what I take from Abreau’s story: at taxpayer’s expense she took up a seat in a New York classroom, delivered a baby and underwent costly psychological treatments. In the light of my twenty-five years in the California public school system, I would place Francisca’s odds for success as an adult at near zero.
In another segment, O’Brien featured Tucson illegal alien activist Isabel Garcia, who during an open borders rally beheaded a pinata that resembled Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (See it here.) Garcia (email her) defended it as free speech.
One of the interesting things about O’Brien is that for as much time as she spends defining herself as black or Latino, she never refers to herself as American—even though she is American-born, raised in Long Island in comfortable, middle class surroundings.
When O’Brien discussed the conceptual evolution of Latino in America, she said that she was approached by many ethnic groups urging a special on Asian in America, Gay in America, and Muslim in America. But O’Brien never mentioned what would be the most interesting of all: White in America. At least one black viewer agrees.
O’Brien is sharp enough to realize that the multicultural angle works for her. She’s parlayed it into a fat salary and inflated speaking fees. Moreover, she’s married to an investment banker and lives the high life in Manhattan.
Her ethnic roots, whatever they may be, have paid O’Brien rich rewards.
Along with her five siblings, O’Brien is a Harvard graduate. However, she didn’t learn much.
During her recent appearance on Celebrity Jeopardy, she came in last and finished behind basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (UCLA).
The final jeopardy question that O’Brien couldn’t answer: “Trees with biblical names include the Joshua tree and the world’s oldest tree, a 4,700-year old pine named for him. What is it?” O’Brien’s reply: “Who is Moses?” (Correct answer: “Who was Methuselah?”)
O’Brien’s excuse: the buzzer is hard to operate.
Along with her complete failure to report honestly about immigration, I deducted points for O’Brien’s smug attitude and grating voice, a big minus for a television anchor. (Watch her talk about Spike Lee here.)
Finally, O’Brien is not only a phony but flat out just not a nice person!
In a non-journalism related incident, last year O’Brien signed an eviction notice for her co-op neighbor because she did not like his dog!
According to O’Brien, a Neapolitan Mastiff in her building offended her because of its "size, slobbering, shedding, drooling, gassiness and odors".
Luckily for Ugo and his owners, the judge threw O’Brien’s case out.
I'm Your Worst Nightmare
I realize that I am liberals worst nightmare, much more so than a Palin or Beck. Because to a liberal Sara Palin is just a confirmation of how right they are about everything, about how Republicans are all hicks and how anyone with brains is a Democrat, etc. However I am not a yokel or a Jesus-freak, I don't compare Obama to Hitler or call him a commie instead I make arguments so cogent they usually can't respond with anything but ad hominems. Palin makes it easy to disregard us, I don't.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Living In A Dream World
As I begin reading Mark Thiessen's great earth shakingly important book called "Courting Diaster" (which the MSM is ignoring because it makes Obama look terrible and Bush look alot better) I realize more and more that basically Obama might as well live a puffy cloud land where any cliche he and David Axelrod dream is obviously true. We elected a guy who writes speeches like a High School senior: put in what sounds good don't worry about whether its true or not.
For instance remember his big line at the 2004 that got the zombies clapping, "There is no conservative America or liberal America, there is only the United States of America"
Wow, what a rhetorical craftsmen. Genius! Except of all people liberals assembled at the 2004 DNC in Boston knew that their was a discrenible blue state America or red state America, a cultural and moral and patriotic divide, they pride themselves on not being like the racist yokels in the red state's who want to preserve culture (how reactionary!). If you got teary-eyed watching Obama's vaccous 2004 speech your not worth your salt anylatically in my book and are most probably a women.
2. "We do not have to choose between our morals and our security."
Great! Again, totally disconnected from reality. As Thiessen's book shows in great detail waterboarding (which wasn't toture clearly) was the CIA's best tool and resulted in the stoping of several would be 9/11's under Bush's watch. Obama has dismantled our best counter-terrorism tool.
For instance remember his big line at the 2004 that got the zombies clapping, "There is no conservative America or liberal America, there is only the United States of America"
Wow, what a rhetorical craftsmen. Genius! Except of all people liberals assembled at the 2004 DNC in Boston knew that their was a discrenible blue state America or red state America, a cultural and moral and patriotic divide, they pride themselves on not being like the racist yokels in the red state's who want to preserve culture (how reactionary!). If you got teary-eyed watching Obama's vaccous 2004 speech your not worth your salt anylatically in my book and are most probably a women.
2. "We do not have to choose between our morals and our security."
Great! Again, totally disconnected from reality. As Thiessen's book shows in great detail waterboarding (which wasn't toture clearly) was the CIA's best tool and resulted in the stoping of several would be 9/11's under Bush's watch. Obama has dismantled our best counter-terrorism tool.
The Truth About Waterboarding
I. WHAT IS WATERBOARDING? WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE PERSON WHO UNDERGOES IT?
ANSWER: WATERBOARDING
1. INFLICTS NO SHORT OR LONG TERM INJURIES
2. IT DOES NOT CAUSE EXTREME OR SEVERE PAIN
3. IT MERELY MAKES DETAINEES FELL LIKE THEY ARE DROWING FOR AT MAXIMUM AROUND 3-5 SECONDS AND RESULTS IN USUALLY 1-3 SECONDS OF UNPLEASENTNESS AT THE FIRST MOMENT ONE FEELS THEY CAN'T BREATHE THEY EITHER YELL THE AGREED UPON CODE WORD OR DROP AND/OR THROW THE "DEAD MANS GRIP" WHICH ARE TWO TINTY BARS THAT ONE GRIPS IN BOTH HANDS TO THE FLOOR AT EITHER OF WHICH POINTS THE WATERBOARDING IMMEDIATELY ENDS.
Here is a video of the shockingly un gruesome method of extracting life saving information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E
II. HOW MANY TERORRIST DETAINEES AT GAUNTANMO BAY WHERE WATERBOARDED?
ANSWER: All of 3 terrorist murderers we're waterboarded the entire time at Gitmo in 7 years.
III. WHO WHERE THE TERORRIST DETAINEES THAT WHERE WATERBOARDED?
ANSWER: The first ever detainee to be waterboarded at Gitmo was the number 3 guy in Al-Quada the terrorist organization which had just attacked the United States and killed thousands of innocent civilians. In fact, all 3 where high up in Al-quada. Another detainee who was waterboarded was Khalid Sheik Muhommad, the confessed mastermind of the murder of 3 thousand plus civilians on 9/11/2001. (QUESTION: Does a unprovoked, delibrate murderer of 3,000 innocent civilians not deserve to be hung let alone to exsperience 3 seconds of temporary unpleasentness in order to not punish him but to extract information about future attacks that would save lives?)
IIII. IS IT TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS A VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS PRINCIPAL SIGNATORY?
ANSWER: Absolutely not. The Geneva Convention, which came about after WW2 in order to prevent the toture of soliders of nation states held capitive in a war does not apply to Khalid Sheik Muhhomad or any one ever detained at Gitmo for Al-Quada terrorists are not solidiers of a nation state being held behind enemy lines in a war between two nation states. (And even If they where it's debated where waterboarding would count as toture under the Conventions but thats irrelevent because they aren't. By the way, the conventions did not apply to spies of a nation state behind enemy lines or solidiers who didn't play by the rules of war. For instance, German solidiers who put on US solidiers uniforms during WW2 when caught behind the enemy lines trying to collect information where immediatly executed and no one thought that a violation of the Geneva Convention because the German officers had broken basic rules of war. In the same way, the Geneva Convention didn't apply to any solidier who broke the basic rules of war (of which it was apart), if you delibratly slughter civilians or solidiers waving a white flag or a group of red cross medics, you weren't going to receive the benefits of the basic rules of war that you defied. The Conventions applied to solidiers of a nation at war who where simply captured the usual way not captured along killing a child in the other nations uniform, etc.. Bin Laden broke the basic rules by delibratly targeting civilians.)
WHY DID THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ONLY APPLY ITSELF TO SOLDIERS OF A NATION CAPTURED IN A WAR RATHER THAN SOMEONE LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN IF HE WHERE CAPTURED?
Because it really would be cruel and unjust to waterboard, or even just make stand for 24 hours a, say, captured 18 year old German solidier who A. Didn't nesscarily go to war by choice for they would be jailed or executed for treason if they evaded the draft or deserted and B. They didn't kill civilians, they where commanded to, shoot at other solidiers in a war they didn't start of choose to fight quite often and 3. they were solidiers of a nation state at war and finally 4. A rank and file officer or private captured behind enemy lines has almost never any life saving, war winning information that would be at all worth waterboarding them for while OSAMA BIN LADEN and KHALID SHEIK MUHOMMAD and MUHOMMAD ATTA and all 3 of those terrorists the United States waterboarded to try to get life saving information that did save thousands of lives and prevented attacks, all 1. weren't forced to slaughter 3,000 innocent civilians, which they did delibratly, on September 11th, 2001 and 2. They where not the solidiers of any nation state (and weren't in a official war between two or more nations) 3. They weren't Americans and weren't entitled to Meridanda rights or a lawyer present and all the rest inturn 4. They, such as the number 3 man in Al-Quada or the mastermind of 9-11, had valuable if not life saving information that they weren''t going to give up by asking nicely and didn't give up when not coarsed by waterboarding and other techniques.
HOW DOES ONE DEFINE TOTURE?
One common sense of definition of toture is that if your willing to undergo a interrogation techinque voluntarily just to see what its like, or just so you can be a US Marine or Navy SEAL or just to write a article on a technique for your monthly column: it isn't toture.
If I ask you would if you'd like to try getting your finger nails pulled or your hand bashed with a being slamming hammer would you try it? Ofcourse not.
If I said that you could only become Navy Seal if you let your arm be cut off without anistetic would you do it anyways? Not a Chance
If I said that if you had your teech pulled out with out novacaine your could write about the exsperience in Vanity Fair, would you do it? No.
Now, then consider the following information:
1. The famous Anglo-American writer, Christopher Hitchens, last year, decided voluntarily to be waterboarded and write his monthly Vanity Fair column about it. Graydon Carter even had the whole waterboarding session photographed and filmed. Not only did Hitchens do this without receiving any short or long term injurys but feeling he could have held out longer than he did he, at his own insistance was waterboarded again-twice in one hour.
Now If you can possibly imagine a free man voluntarily getting his hand smashed by a huge metal hamme, I ask you, can you imagine any man after having their teeth pulled without novacaine coming back within the hour for more teeth pulling of this kind for any reason? Again, ofcourse not.
2.Talk about conviction those who render waterboarding to be not just toture but a procedure that would be completly unjust and cruel if employed even in order to extract potentially life saving information on, for instance, the mastermind of 9/11 and de facto murderer of 3,000. However, these same people raise no objections, and do not accuse our arm services of toture when they force every Navy SEAL to undergo waterboarding in their training for combat in order to prepare Navy Seals for potential interrogation tactics emplyed in the case of their capture. Why when a Navy Seal, a law abiding citizen of the US who has never murdered any innocent civilians (delibratly atleast) not being totured when they are waterboarded but the mastermind of 9/11, KSM being totured when he is waterboarded? Why is it unacceptable and unhumane and barbaric to put the number 3 man in Al-Quada through waterboarding but just fine for a Navy Seal. Isn't toture toture whenever its imposed on someone or carried out. If the Navy Seals where being made to have their teeth pulled with no antistect just like terrorist detainees at Gitmo would leftists be saying that only the detainees where being totured further more would America ever stand for that? No.
Usually at adolscent boys schools freshman hazing traditions don't inovolve 14 year olds and 16 year olds regularly toturing boys of 13 or 14 or 12 year olds, right? They usually lock kids in lockers or make kids pay for the tables food or beat up once for hazing rather than, say, pull their finger nails off their fingers with plyers right? Well according to those who say waterboarding is toture boys military academy cadeats have been toturing one another (committing war crimes that many on the left believe warrant decades mininiumum in jail) as part of school hazing rituals with younger cadeats for centurys in America because for centurys, junior cadeats would waterboard each other.
Finally, doesn't the mastermind of 9/11, the confessed mastermind, KSM deserve to die for their actions? It's almost certain that all 3 of those who where waterboarded will be setenced to death and If by some amazing miscarriage of justice they aren't, America will erupt in rage. Assuming they will all get death, why is it ok for us to kill them but not to put them through temporary distress for 2-3 seconds via waterboarding in order to extract information from them while their still alive that can save lives? Why would it be moral to put KSM to death or Osama to death after not even trying to extract life saving info out of them because they said no when asked for information and refused to go further? Isn't it moral to save lives when lives can be saved by possibly just putting a terrorist murderer through temporary discomfort?
Considering all this, I think it should be obvious to any honest person that waterboarding KSM or any of the 3 we waterboarded wasn't toture and that it is absolutely wrong that the left think that being against waterboarding the likes of Osama Bin Laden is humantarian since we know that if such people had been listened during the Bush years, many innocent civilians would be dead today as a result of terrorist attacks that were foiled as result of forced interrogation techinques. Ofcourse the stopping of these attacks such as the blowing up of the Brooklyn Bridge by the CIA and the FBI just like all the other incredible facts mentioned above like tha fact that only 3 detainees have ever been waterboarded at Gitmo are suppressed and ignored and/or hardly covered by the leftist media.
Let me leave you with another one of those facts you'll feel outraged that you weren't told about years ago. This one is from Mark Thissens excellent recent book, "Courting Diaster":
The first terrorist detainee to be waterboarded, Abu Zabada, thanked the CIA interogators for waterboarding him, he said "you must do this for all the brothers" and he said this because the Jihadi philosphy is that allah will prevail no matter what they do so there moral responcibility is to resist as much they can and once they've resisted there free to spill their guts.
Case closed.
ANSWER: WATERBOARDING
1. INFLICTS NO SHORT OR LONG TERM INJURIES
2. IT DOES NOT CAUSE EXTREME OR SEVERE PAIN
3. IT MERELY MAKES DETAINEES FELL LIKE THEY ARE DROWING FOR AT MAXIMUM AROUND 3-5 SECONDS AND RESULTS IN USUALLY 1-3 SECONDS OF UNPLEASENTNESS AT THE FIRST MOMENT ONE FEELS THEY CAN'T BREATHE THEY EITHER YELL THE AGREED UPON CODE WORD OR DROP AND/OR THROW THE "DEAD MANS GRIP" WHICH ARE TWO TINTY BARS THAT ONE GRIPS IN BOTH HANDS TO THE FLOOR AT EITHER OF WHICH POINTS THE WATERBOARDING IMMEDIATELY ENDS.
Here is a video of the shockingly un gruesome method of extracting life saving information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E
II. HOW MANY TERORRIST DETAINEES AT GAUNTANMO BAY WHERE WATERBOARDED?
ANSWER: All of 3 terrorist murderers we're waterboarded the entire time at Gitmo in 7 years.
III. WHO WHERE THE TERORRIST DETAINEES THAT WHERE WATERBOARDED?
ANSWER: The first ever detainee to be waterboarded at Gitmo was the number 3 guy in Al-Quada the terrorist organization which had just attacked the United States and killed thousands of innocent civilians. In fact, all 3 where high up in Al-quada. Another detainee who was waterboarded was Khalid Sheik Muhommad, the confessed mastermind of the murder of 3 thousand plus civilians on 9/11/2001. (QUESTION: Does a unprovoked, delibrate murderer of 3,000 innocent civilians not deserve to be hung let alone to exsperience 3 seconds of temporary unpleasentness in order to not punish him but to extract information about future attacks that would save lives?)
IIII. IS IT TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS A VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS PRINCIPAL SIGNATORY?
ANSWER: Absolutely not. The Geneva Convention, which came about after WW2 in order to prevent the toture of soliders of nation states held capitive in a war does not apply to Khalid Sheik Muhhomad or any one ever detained at Gitmo for Al-Quada terrorists are not solidiers of a nation state being held behind enemy lines in a war between two nation states. (And even If they where it's debated where waterboarding would count as toture under the Conventions but thats irrelevent because they aren't. By the way, the conventions did not apply to spies of a nation state behind enemy lines or solidiers who didn't play by the rules of war. For instance, German solidiers who put on US solidiers uniforms during WW2 when caught behind the enemy lines trying to collect information where immediatly executed and no one thought that a violation of the Geneva Convention because the German officers had broken basic rules of war. In the same way, the Geneva Convention didn't apply to any solidier who broke the basic rules of war (of which it was apart), if you delibratly slughter civilians or solidiers waving a white flag or a group of red cross medics, you weren't going to receive the benefits of the basic rules of war that you defied. The Conventions applied to solidiers of a nation at war who where simply captured the usual way not captured along killing a child in the other nations uniform, etc.. Bin Laden broke the basic rules by delibratly targeting civilians.)
WHY DID THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ONLY APPLY ITSELF TO SOLDIERS OF A NATION CAPTURED IN A WAR RATHER THAN SOMEONE LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN IF HE WHERE CAPTURED?
Because it really would be cruel and unjust to waterboard, or even just make stand for 24 hours a, say, captured 18 year old German solidier who A. Didn't nesscarily go to war by choice for they would be jailed or executed for treason if they evaded the draft or deserted and B. They didn't kill civilians, they where commanded to, shoot at other solidiers in a war they didn't start of choose to fight quite often and 3. they were solidiers of a nation state at war and finally 4. A rank and file officer or private captured behind enemy lines has almost never any life saving, war winning information that would be at all worth waterboarding them for while OSAMA BIN LADEN and KHALID SHEIK MUHOMMAD and MUHOMMAD ATTA and all 3 of those terrorists the United States waterboarded to try to get life saving information that did save thousands of lives and prevented attacks, all 1. weren't forced to slaughter 3,000 innocent civilians, which they did delibratly, on September 11th, 2001 and 2. They where not the solidiers of any nation state (and weren't in a official war between two or more nations) 3. They weren't Americans and weren't entitled to Meridanda rights or a lawyer present and all the rest inturn 4. They, such as the number 3 man in Al-Quada or the mastermind of 9-11, had valuable if not life saving information that they weren''t going to give up by asking nicely and didn't give up when not coarsed by waterboarding and other techniques.
HOW DOES ONE DEFINE TOTURE?
One common sense of definition of toture is that if your willing to undergo a interrogation techinque voluntarily just to see what its like, or just so you can be a US Marine or Navy SEAL or just to write a article on a technique for your monthly column: it isn't toture.
If I ask you would if you'd like to try getting your finger nails pulled or your hand bashed with a being slamming hammer would you try it? Ofcourse not.
If I said that you could only become Navy Seal if you let your arm be cut off without anistetic would you do it anyways? Not a Chance
If I said that if you had your teech pulled out with out novacaine your could write about the exsperience in Vanity Fair, would you do it? No.
Now, then consider the following information:
1. The famous Anglo-American writer, Christopher Hitchens, last year, decided voluntarily to be waterboarded and write his monthly Vanity Fair column about it. Graydon Carter even had the whole waterboarding session photographed and filmed. Not only did Hitchens do this without receiving any short or long term injurys but feeling he could have held out longer than he did he, at his own insistance was waterboarded again-twice in one hour.
Now If you can possibly imagine a free man voluntarily getting his hand smashed by a huge metal hamme, I ask you, can you imagine any man after having their teeth pulled without novacaine coming back within the hour for more teeth pulling of this kind for any reason? Again, ofcourse not.
2.Talk about conviction those who render waterboarding to be not just toture but a procedure that would be completly unjust and cruel if employed even in order to extract potentially life saving information on, for instance, the mastermind of 9/11 and de facto murderer of 3,000. However, these same people raise no objections, and do not accuse our arm services of toture when they force every Navy SEAL to undergo waterboarding in their training for combat in order to prepare Navy Seals for potential interrogation tactics emplyed in the case of their capture. Why when a Navy Seal, a law abiding citizen of the US who has never murdered any innocent civilians (delibratly atleast) not being totured when they are waterboarded but the mastermind of 9/11, KSM being totured when he is waterboarded? Why is it unacceptable and unhumane and barbaric to put the number 3 man in Al-Quada through waterboarding but just fine for a Navy Seal. Isn't toture toture whenever its imposed on someone or carried out. If the Navy Seals where being made to have their teeth pulled with no antistect just like terrorist detainees at Gitmo would leftists be saying that only the detainees where being totured further more would America ever stand for that? No.
Usually at adolscent boys schools freshman hazing traditions don't inovolve 14 year olds and 16 year olds regularly toturing boys of 13 or 14 or 12 year olds, right? They usually lock kids in lockers or make kids pay for the tables food or beat up once for hazing rather than, say, pull their finger nails off their fingers with plyers right? Well according to those who say waterboarding is toture boys military academy cadeats have been toturing one another (committing war crimes that many on the left believe warrant decades mininiumum in jail) as part of school hazing rituals with younger cadeats for centurys in America because for centurys, junior cadeats would waterboard each other.
Finally, doesn't the mastermind of 9/11, the confessed mastermind, KSM deserve to die for their actions? It's almost certain that all 3 of those who where waterboarded will be setenced to death and If by some amazing miscarriage of justice they aren't, America will erupt in rage. Assuming they will all get death, why is it ok for us to kill them but not to put them through temporary distress for 2-3 seconds via waterboarding in order to extract information from them while their still alive that can save lives? Why would it be moral to put KSM to death or Osama to death after not even trying to extract life saving info out of them because they said no when asked for information and refused to go further? Isn't it moral to save lives when lives can be saved by possibly just putting a terrorist murderer through temporary discomfort?
Considering all this, I think it should be obvious to any honest person that waterboarding KSM or any of the 3 we waterboarded wasn't toture and that it is absolutely wrong that the left think that being against waterboarding the likes of Osama Bin Laden is humantarian since we know that if such people had been listened during the Bush years, many innocent civilians would be dead today as a result of terrorist attacks that were foiled as result of forced interrogation techinques. Ofcourse the stopping of these attacks such as the blowing up of the Brooklyn Bridge by the CIA and the FBI just like all the other incredible facts mentioned above like tha fact that only 3 detainees have ever been waterboarded at Gitmo are suppressed and ignored and/or hardly covered by the leftist media.
Let me leave you with another one of those facts you'll feel outraged that you weren't told about years ago. This one is from Mark Thissens excellent recent book, "Courting Diaster":
The first terrorist detainee to be waterboarded, Abu Zabada, thanked the CIA interogators for waterboarding him, he said "you must do this for all the brothers" and he said this because the Jihadi philosphy is that allah will prevail no matter what they do so there moral responcibility is to resist as much they can and once they've resisted there free to spill their guts.
Case closed.
John Yoo!: I Hate You!
I don't hate many people on the Right, my political adopted homeland, but i think John McCain gots company cause now I hate my second Republican: John Yoo. Plus, I can't stop saying "John Yoo! I hate You!" try it, its addictive, my god. Anyways, I hate John Yoo, not you, just John Yoo, for the following reasons,
1. I watched this interview with nice-guy preppy interviewer of the Right, the Hoover Instuition's Peter Robinson, the Reagan speechwriter who coined the sentence, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" at an enviously young age and has since hosted the one time PBS, now even better NRO hosted, show, Uncommon Knowledge, which to me all true conservatives watch regularly,
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NjI4ZWFmZTQ5ZWUyNzVhMjZhYzliM2JlYjc3ZTdlZGY=
2. Here's my charcheter sketch of John Yoo: As you can see if you watch all 5 unusually unlively segments of the Uncommon Knowledge interview with Yoo, the man is such a neocon, so totally preoccupied with foreign policy and the "vital importance" of the Afganistan and Iraqi wars, that he has, quitely (though, really, whose asking?), morphed into a Obamacon as he divuldges here). I mean you really do get the sense from the manifestly unstimulating, John Yoo, that he cares about anything outside foreign policy, politically, at all. He exsplains to Robinson that he thinks Obama is going to go down as a great president because alone, he "realized Afganistan wasn't another Vietnam" and has gone hawkish. Now A. Afganistan is Vietnam exactly and it shouldn't take much more than Berkely proffership to realize that and B. even if Yoo was right and the Afgan war was this hugely important war as the Neocons hype it to be it is going to be only a segment of Obama's legend. Yoo reminds me of a mediocre follower, true beliver type who comes to the scene to late, like a Reaganite graduating college in 1996 but with an ideology that is terrible for America and self evidently weak unlike Reagonomics aka free markets. John Yoo seems like the only frustrated youngish product of the College Republicans brigade in America to have not just liked George W. Bush (which isn't something few so called active younger Republicans even did post-2004) but saw George W. Bush as Peter Robinson and David Frum and Ann Coulter, saw Ronald Wilson Reagan, a far far superior and more admirable man and politician. It seems, I'm almost certain of it, that Yoo was a very smart asian kid (you know the type) who has little talent or flair for talking especially public speaking but can kick your ass at a Geometry test, who is outside being incredibly gifted at Math is the model Everyday Average Kid and who thinks politics and liteature which white males tend to be suspetible towards at a early age than asian males. Suddenly, the John Yoo i have erected in my imagination goes to Stanford Unviersity just anothe brick in the great wall of American Education that is the Asian-American college student, having had hardly any intrest in politics, writing, liteature, music, or the like at all. At college, he finds his smartness, steely work ethic and traditional Chritian mores alienate him from dumb pot smoking leftists: a Republican is born! Yoo, his intrest in mathematics fading, applies his steely Asian-American Christian work ethic to a new field of intrest and work, the Republican Machine. Accept with one caveat, John Yoo is going to college in the post-Reagan era, post-bloated welfare state, post-huge taxes, post-hippies America. During Yoo's college days at Stanford, Clinton is in office, John Yoo's mind like the nation itself is no longer so focused on internal, domestic issues because the hippies are off the street (and in the establishment), the hige welfare state is being somewhat dismantled, taxes are not so high, immigration is not yet a big issue, the decline of morals doesn't attract John Yoo or any youngsters energies, so there is a huge void for some conservatives like John yoo and that void is filled by foreign policy, the fight against depotism, spreading of democracy and fighting of terrorism. Remember, at this time, during the political dogdays of the Clinton adminstration on the American right which was to an extent, save the brief 94' revivial, neutralized and partly co-opted by Bill Clinton with the help of the brazen if brazen aide of Jesse Helm's former political strategist, Dick Morris-who would resign only to rise back to promimence on the right after the curtain was raised on his ludicrous and often hilarous escapades with a high class D.C. rent-a-chick. The inevtiable lull for conservativtism in the years after immediatly following the twin triumphs of the Reagan years, the ending of the Cold War and the economic Reagan revoultion, had opened up the way forward for those strange guests within the Republican Party, the Neo-Cons, to hijack the Republican Party. Hense the rapid rise of the flagship neoconservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, which is launched in the mid-90's by David Brooks and the less talented, Ivy league, sons of neoconservatisms two founding fathers, Bill Kristol (son of Irving) & John Podhoretz (son of Norman). The Weekly Standard was symbolic not only of a resurgent neoconservtive movement during the 90's but of a mainstream rebranding of neoconservatism as no longer just a almost exsplicity ethno-centric, in this case, Jewish, movement.
The Weekly Standard would supplant Commentary magazine, father Norman Podhoretz's exsplicitly jewish centered magazine which began as the magazine of the American Jewish Commititee until Norman Podhoretz, a friend, at one time, to the leftist celebritys of NYC such as Norman Mailer, Allen Ginsberg and the Trillings, took the magazine toe the left in reaction to the tumultious hippy student movement in the 1960's.
So John Yoo became a Neo-con young true believer, with not only a bookshelf full of books by Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Sidney Hook but his very own magazine, the Weekly Standard, just like the Grover Norquists and David Frums who grew of age during the late 70's and ages had William F. Buckley books and Nation Review. For non-whites in America it is hard to leave the left without feeling a sense of betraying the race. I don't know how much of this pathology is present among asians but I know it is present and wouldn't be suprised if neoconservatism was the perfect for Yoo ideolgically because it could give him an identity (e.g. "I'm a neoconservative...that's reall grown up & cool."), a mission, and also a exsplanation to Asians who might think he wanted to be white by being a Republican, he could always say as neo-cons love to say that, he was part of the "good conservtive movement not the racist, nativist, old right of Robert Taft" that carried about immigration and keeping America out Europe's wars and mantaining American white Christian civilization. So off Johnny Yoo goes to some senators office or think tank in Wasshington D.C.. He takes the Matt Latatimer route and finds himself, just essentially naother college Conservative "geek" at the top end of the US State Department and find yourself at the center of a firestorm over executive power in regards to the Iraq war. Some provocative and, if I may say so, rather ridiclous statements in your memos about the Commander in Chiefs executive priviledges exsplode on the left. In these memos John Yoo deems that the executive has the power to declare war without Congressional or Senatorial approval and many other absurd statements. PBS does a Frontline episode inwhich Yoo is a central focus (he is interview in it making some the type of ludicrous constuitional assertions I reffer to). According to the Frontline documentrary which seems honest enough, Yoo was essentially used in the drum roll to war in Iraq in 2003 basically given the job of being in-house constuinal yes-man for the Bush adminstration. Its seems as if Dick Cheney or Wolfwitz gave one of his Strausian friends at whatever law school John Yoo was teaching constuinial law at the time and said "Look, do you have any young, wide-eyed, neocon true belivers on the Law School staff whose crazy enough to believe the President can go to war with the Senate declaring war?" and they had returned the name John Woo. I would even go so far as to say and i could easily be wrong, that Yoo was kind of brought into the Bush adminstration as kind of the desiginated constuitional fall guy.
And what was and is (because no one is more consititant than neocons) John Yoo's Constuinal law? Yoo is a living-document "conservative" legal guy who thinks that we can go to war without a declaration of war on the grounds that "we've had alot of wars without declarations" and that dispirate impact law is da bomb. The only bright spot in Yoo's constuinalism is his defence of waterboarding. John Yoo has rehabilated himself very well finding himself a job as a proffesor at Berkely of all places and publishing two books. The first book is just another forgettable Bushie White House memoir entitled "War By Another Name" and the recent book, "Crises and Command" which is far better in my view for its an actual history extending from Washington to Bush. Yoo's arguments are so weak as you can see here that it seems almost certain that he was a mediocre Bush adminstration buercrat that was shot into the spotlight by accident and was wiley enough to squeeze a book deal out of that. Yoo has the terrible job shared by the neocon movement of trying to exsplain why America needs to stay in two useless wars in Iraq and Afganistan for another decades, talking about 9/11 till its worn out beyond belief. Yoo as a indivual is innocent enough but insidious for what he reprsents. He reprasents the part of the GOP that is obbessed to an bizarre degree with neocon hawkishness and foreign policy epitomized by Rudy Gilullani and Glen Beck and the other segment of the party which is obbessed with talking about 9/11 and big goverment alone.
1. I watched this interview with nice-guy preppy interviewer of the Right, the Hoover Instuition's Peter Robinson, the Reagan speechwriter who coined the sentence, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" at an enviously young age and has since hosted the one time PBS, now even better NRO hosted, show, Uncommon Knowledge, which to me all true conservatives watch regularly,
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NjI4ZWFmZTQ5ZWUyNzVhMjZhYzliM2JlYjc3ZTdlZGY=
2. Here's my charcheter sketch of John Yoo: As you can see if you watch all 5 unusually unlively segments of the Uncommon Knowledge interview with Yoo, the man is such a neocon, so totally preoccupied with foreign policy and the "vital importance" of the Afganistan and Iraqi wars, that he has, quitely (though, really, whose asking?), morphed into a Obamacon as he divuldges here). I mean you really do get the sense from the manifestly unstimulating, John Yoo, that he cares about anything outside foreign policy, politically, at all. He exsplains to Robinson that he thinks Obama is going to go down as a great president because alone, he "realized Afganistan wasn't another Vietnam" and has gone hawkish. Now A. Afganistan is Vietnam exactly and it shouldn't take much more than Berkely proffership to realize that and B. even if Yoo was right and the Afgan war was this hugely important war as the Neocons hype it to be it is going to be only a segment of Obama's legend. Yoo reminds me of a mediocre follower, true beliver type who comes to the scene to late, like a Reaganite graduating college in 1996 but with an ideology that is terrible for America and self evidently weak unlike Reagonomics aka free markets. John Yoo seems like the only frustrated youngish product of the College Republicans brigade in America to have not just liked George W. Bush (which isn't something few so called active younger Republicans even did post-2004) but saw George W. Bush as Peter Robinson and David Frum and Ann Coulter, saw Ronald Wilson Reagan, a far far superior and more admirable man and politician. It seems, I'm almost certain of it, that Yoo was a very smart asian kid (you know the type) who has little talent or flair for talking especially public speaking but can kick your ass at a Geometry test, who is outside being incredibly gifted at Math is the model Everyday Average Kid and who thinks politics and liteature which white males tend to be suspetible towards at a early age than asian males. Suddenly, the John Yoo i have erected in my imagination goes to Stanford Unviersity just anothe brick in the great wall of American Education that is the Asian-American college student, having had hardly any intrest in politics, writing, liteature, music, or the like at all. At college, he finds his smartness, steely work ethic and traditional Chritian mores alienate him from dumb pot smoking leftists: a Republican is born! Yoo, his intrest in mathematics fading, applies his steely Asian-American Christian work ethic to a new field of intrest and work, the Republican Machine. Accept with one caveat, John Yoo is going to college in the post-Reagan era, post-bloated welfare state, post-huge taxes, post-hippies America. During Yoo's college days at Stanford, Clinton is in office, John Yoo's mind like the nation itself is no longer so focused on internal, domestic issues because the hippies are off the street (and in the establishment), the hige welfare state is being somewhat dismantled, taxes are not so high, immigration is not yet a big issue, the decline of morals doesn't attract John Yoo or any youngsters energies, so there is a huge void for some conservatives like John yoo and that void is filled by foreign policy, the fight against depotism, spreading of democracy and fighting of terrorism. Remember, at this time, during the political dogdays of the Clinton adminstration on the American right which was to an extent, save the brief 94' revivial, neutralized and partly co-opted by Bill Clinton with the help of the brazen if brazen aide of Jesse Helm's former political strategist, Dick Morris-who would resign only to rise back to promimence on the right after the curtain was raised on his ludicrous and often hilarous escapades with a high class D.C. rent-a-chick. The inevtiable lull for conservativtism in the years after immediatly following the twin triumphs of the Reagan years, the ending of the Cold War and the economic Reagan revoultion, had opened up the way forward for those strange guests within the Republican Party, the Neo-Cons, to hijack the Republican Party. Hense the rapid rise of the flagship neoconservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, which is launched in the mid-90's by David Brooks and the less talented, Ivy league, sons of neoconservatisms two founding fathers, Bill Kristol (son of Irving) & John Podhoretz (son of Norman). The Weekly Standard was symbolic not only of a resurgent neoconservtive movement during the 90's but of a mainstream rebranding of neoconservatism as no longer just a almost exsplicity ethno-centric, in this case, Jewish, movement.
The Weekly Standard would supplant Commentary magazine, father Norman Podhoretz's exsplicitly jewish centered magazine which began as the magazine of the American Jewish Commititee until Norman Podhoretz, a friend, at one time, to the leftist celebritys of NYC such as Norman Mailer, Allen Ginsberg and the Trillings, took the magazine toe the left in reaction to the tumultious hippy student movement in the 1960's.
So John Yoo became a Neo-con young true believer, with not only a bookshelf full of books by Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Sidney Hook but his very own magazine, the Weekly Standard, just like the Grover Norquists and David Frums who grew of age during the late 70's and ages had William F. Buckley books and Nation Review. For non-whites in America it is hard to leave the left without feeling a sense of betraying the race. I don't know how much of this pathology is present among asians but I know it is present and wouldn't be suprised if neoconservatism was the perfect for Yoo ideolgically because it could give him an identity (e.g. "I'm a neoconservative...that's reall grown up & cool."), a mission, and also a exsplanation to Asians who might think he wanted to be white by being a Republican, he could always say as neo-cons love to say that, he was part of the "good conservtive movement not the racist, nativist, old right of Robert Taft" that carried about immigration and keeping America out Europe's wars and mantaining American white Christian civilization. So off Johnny Yoo goes to some senators office or think tank in Wasshington D.C.. He takes the Matt Latatimer route and finds himself, just essentially naother college Conservative "geek" at the top end of the US State Department and find yourself at the center of a firestorm over executive power in regards to the Iraq war. Some provocative and, if I may say so, rather ridiclous statements in your memos about the Commander in Chiefs executive priviledges exsplode on the left. In these memos John Yoo deems that the executive has the power to declare war without Congressional or Senatorial approval and many other absurd statements. PBS does a Frontline episode inwhich Yoo is a central focus (he is interview in it making some the type of ludicrous constuitional assertions I reffer to). According to the Frontline documentrary which seems honest enough, Yoo was essentially used in the drum roll to war in Iraq in 2003 basically given the job of being in-house constuinal yes-man for the Bush adminstration. Its seems as if Dick Cheney or Wolfwitz gave one of his Strausian friends at whatever law school John Yoo was teaching constuinial law at the time and said "Look, do you have any young, wide-eyed, neocon true belivers on the Law School staff whose crazy enough to believe the President can go to war with the Senate declaring war?" and they had returned the name John Woo. I would even go so far as to say and i could easily be wrong, that Yoo was kind of brought into the Bush adminstration as kind of the desiginated constuitional fall guy.
And what was and is (because no one is more consititant than neocons) John Yoo's Constuinal law? Yoo is a living-document "conservative" legal guy who thinks that we can go to war without a declaration of war on the grounds that "we've had alot of wars without declarations" and that dispirate impact law is da bomb. The only bright spot in Yoo's constuinalism is his defence of waterboarding. John Yoo has rehabilated himself very well finding himself a job as a proffesor at Berkely of all places and publishing two books. The first book is just another forgettable Bushie White House memoir entitled "War By Another Name" and the recent book, "Crises and Command" which is far better in my view for its an actual history extending from Washington to Bush. Yoo's arguments are so weak as you can see here that it seems almost certain that he was a mediocre Bush adminstration buercrat that was shot into the spotlight by accident and was wiley enough to squeeze a book deal out of that. Yoo has the terrible job shared by the neocon movement of trying to exsplain why America needs to stay in two useless wars in Iraq and Afganistan for another decades, talking about 9/11 till its worn out beyond belief. Yoo as a indivual is innocent enough but insidious for what he reprsents. He reprasents the part of the GOP that is obbessed to an bizarre degree with neocon hawkishness and foreign policy epitomized by Rudy Gilullani and Glen Beck and the other segment of the party which is obbessed with talking about 9/11 and big goverment alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)