Saturday, January 03, 2009


HotAir linked this:

On CNN a few moments ago, Christiane Amanpour, in the midst of an otherwise completely warped report on the Gaza war, said that over the past year only two Israelis were killed by Hamas rocket fire. Her point in the segment was to insinuate that Israel is overreacting to Hamas attacks that have been largely harmless. In order to do that, she had to abstain from mentioning important facts and context, such as that Hamas’ attacks in 2008 more than doubled — to 3,278 — from the 2007 number. And this figures in the six-month “lull” period, during which “only” around 100 rockets were fired. She also did not mention that the range and deadliness of Hamas’ rockets increased as well, putting around 15 percent of the Israeli population under Hamas’ missile umbrella. (The “disproportionality” fetishists also never get around to noting that Israel has conducted less than a thousand air strikes in response to over 7,000 Hamas rocket attacks since 2005.)

Thus is the history of this episode of the conflict re-written almost in real time, from one of a gathering danger to one of a boring nuisance. Oh, and eight Israelis, not two, were killed by Hamas in 2008. Amanpour’s “errors” always seem to work in one direction, don’t they?

Good Commentary, but there is one thing alluded to here that needs to be spoken aloud. Do we judge conflicts only by the casualties? I mean, yes there were only 2-8 Israelis killed by Hamas in 2008, but isn't that only because Hamas isn't very good a warfare? Didn't they WISH to kill more Israelis? It's like someone who tries to murder someone else. Does it not count if the murder doesn't take place? Isn't that what we call "attempted murder?" 7000 rocket attacks since 2005 from Hamas tells me that they really wanted that number of dead to be "proportional." Just because they are unable to make that happen makes Israel the bad guy?

I don't get it.

Let's say several armed gunman starting shooting at a school in America. Let's say they only killed two teachers. They tried to shooting everyone, but they were just bad shots. Let's say our SWAT teams came out and took all the gunmen out. Would anyone claim that the SWAT team took "disproportional" actions? Should the SWAT team have only killed two of them?


*Had to add this. I found it at LST, It's a blog called "A Soldier's Mother."
It's a Mom of an Israeli soldier. She doesnt' want him in this war. She wants him home, as all mother's do. So why does she put on a brave face and not tell him that?

What gets lost, but what is so critical to remember, is the timeline here. Gaza fired on Israel, has been firing for many months and years. They chose the timing of this action, not Israel. To expect any nation to sit quietly while hundreds of thousands of people come under fire is arrogant and naive, and the Palestinian leadership showed both these sins and many others in the last few weeks.Gaza sent hundreds of missiles at our cities, our schools. Last week, the air force began to fight back. Earlier today, artillery joined the fight, and then tonight, many ground units, the navy, the engineering division and more moved in.

They say we hit several mosques, places of worship. That too is a lie and our answer is very simple, as I wrote on Friday: A House of God is not an arsenal, and an arsenal is not a House of God. The minute you use a mosque to house explosives and terrorists, it becomes a legitimate target. This is true of your home as well. So, if you are going to store explosives and rockets in your home, the army of Israel kindly requests you not to store your wives and children there too.

There was one problem with the hit on the Hamas leader's home. He indeed was not home - but the Palestinians didn't bother to evacuate the building. The man's four wives and eleven of his thirteen children were killed. One son survived. The other child died years ago when he decided to kill himself for the "divine" pleasure of becoming a suicide bomber to murder Israelis. So, this man who stored explosives in his home with his wives and children wakes this morning to a new reality - his wives, his children, and his explosives are all gone. I can't help but wonder what he mourns most.

Oh, and one more prayer - please take care of those Palestinian gunmen who are hiding themselves and their weapons in hospitals - especially in the maternity wards among the innocent newborns.Oh, wait - one other - please ask the Palestinians to choose between praying in a mosque and storing weapons there because, if they store weapons there, like the two we have already bombed, we are going to bomb those structures too. A House of God is not an arsenal and an arsenal cannot be a House of God.

She types this in between going to the bomb shelter. We can learn alot from her. Bookmark her. Learn what is really going on in this war. Learn from someone who had everything to lose....and still believes in the fight. She tells the story that isn't always told. Why are "civilians" killed? Because Hama chooses to use them as a shield. The intentionally do this.

Do I know this for sure? No. I'm not there. But Hamas is a terrorist organization. If there is anything I have learned in the last 6 years is that terrorists will do anything with any innocent person, including blowing up the handicapped and disabled with suicide vests to kill other innocents, and cutting off heads of civilians on videotape for the world to see.

So you can kinda see why I choose to believe this mother instead of them.

Random Christmas and New Years Pics

Top pic is me and my sis in law. Next is my oldest and me. Then my 16 yr old. Next is my neice and my oldest nephew's new wife. Sitting on the piano bench is my daughter and her boyfriend (aren't they adorable?). Next is me and my baby girl. Next is me with one of my nieces and a nephew in the background. Last is my girl and my baby boy Christmas morning.

Same goal, different tactics

The Green agenda is not about saving the earth, its about social engineering and putting money in their owm pockets. Since the nations who signed Kyoto are not living up to their obligations, its onto Plan B. As hilarious as these proposals are, a recent letter from James Hanson, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, reveals his real agenda in advocating global warming:

Acting either out of boldness or desperation, Hansen goes on to reveal the environmentalist left's deeper ambition: a collectivist redistribution of wealth. He recommends that the carbon tax be returned to the public in "equal shares on a per capita basis."

In other entertaining Global Warming news, Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic is set to become the figurehead of the EU. Mr Klaus is a Eurosceptic and dismisses Global Warming as a hoax.

"The European Union's new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state."

Note how the Times uses the term 'climate change' instead of Global Warming. Of course the climate is changing, the climate changes all the time. Klaus is skeptical of MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING caused by CO2, but by mischaractorizing what he thinks they can dismiss him without having to defend the indefensible.

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Patty Ann Browne is the Shiznit, or something

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive posts this compilation vid from Fox's Red Eye. Patty Ann Browne really is very attractive and quite funny. I watched it twice, and laughed so hard my dog came to see what was up.

There are some bleeped profanities. Its all in good fun.

Bush will be missed all too soon

Laura Bush, Steel Magnolia

Laura Bush is, imo, a personality and charactor all too rare in the spouses of Presidents. Honestly, she may be the finest First Lady in living memory.

A few links on Gaza

The Gaza Rules Vidctor Davis Hanson.
Proportionality. Intent. Culpability. Context. Victimization.
The world is a madhouse when clear distinctions cannot be made by supposedly rational adults. Hanson hits the nail on the head in this analysis.

Israel, Hamas, and moral Idiocy Christian Science Monitor
There is no moral equivilance here, folks.

Fight Fire with Cease-fire NYT
Speaking of moral idiots, I give you Exhibit A.

Israel Shakes Up the Information War Pajamas Media
Israel is trying to bypass traditional media which as noted above are moral idiots by using Twitter and You Tube.

Has Israel Learned Its Lesson? Boston Globe
Critical quote:

But it remains an open question whether Israel's leaders have learned the most critical lesson of all: that genocidal jihadists and other mortal foes cannot be wheedled, negotiated, bribed, or ignored into quietude. In a war with enemies like Hezbollah and Hamas and the PLO - enemies explicitly committed to Israel's destruction - goodwill gestures beget no goodwill, and peace processes do not lead to peace.

I do hope the current moderate gov't in Israel is not just trying to act tough for the election.

One of the most persistant foolish ideas floating about is that Israeli retaliation makes Hamas stronger. Sandy Tolan from CSM:
When the smoke finally drifts from Gaza, and the human rights investigations begin – into the death of schoolchildren in midday rocket attacks or the demolition of a women's dormitory – sober voices will ask why Israel has still not learned a fundamental lesson: By trying to crush your enemy, you only make him stronger

Poetic descriptions of collateral damage and the assumptions about 'human rights investigations' aside, her logic does not follow. Hamas is not made stronger by Israeli atacks. Hamas is made stronger by material support from Iran, financial support from the Arab world, the diversion of 'humanitarian aid' and charity to Hamas, smuggled weapons, and moral support from Europe and journalists.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The NYT's Pretense

The NYT presumes to lecture Catholics about the Ave Maria fund.

Ave Maria hews to a far narrower, unmistakably conservative Catholic outlook. A prime objective, explicitly promised, is not to subsidize sexual indecency. Scan its investor materials and you will not find companies like Playboy Enterprises or firms that donate to Planned Parenthood or bestow health benefits on same-sex couples.

But you will find United Technologies, which makes Blackhawk helicopters; General Dynamics, builder of Abrams battle tanks and the Stryker combat vehicle; the junk-food giant ConAgra; Exxon Mobil; Halliburton; and Smith & Wesson, one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the world. (Here is a helpful Q. from Smith & Wesson’s “Investor FAQ” Web page: “Does Smith & Wesson still make the 44 Magnum used in the ‘Dirty Harry’ films? Yes, that gun is the Model 29.”)

Pray tell us, Editorial Board of the NYT, what is wrong with building Blackhawks or Abrams tanks? Junk food? Is there some Catholic dietary restriction on Fiddle Faddle of which I am not aware? How does Exxon Mobile's exploring for, drilling of, refining, and sale of oil violate Catholic principles? And DO tell us about Haliburton. I believe Jesus was upset with money changers in the temple, not government contractors. Perhaps its because they are not union. I do love the digression about the S&W 44 magnum. Guns are scary, no need to explain why they are bad, I suppose.

It seems to me that the NYT is projecting their own - imo, rather dubious - moral construct onto Catholics and expecting them to live up to it. Good luck with that. I expect Catholics understand their own moral code.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Happy New Year!

I will be out of town for a few days, but I am leaving this blog in the capable hands of BigDog.

I'll be checking in and maybe posting, since I have my new little laptop that Santa brought me.

If not, please behave!

Have a blessed New Year everyone!

Texas boots Planned Parenthood

In the midst of feeling like we pro-lifers are always fighting a losing battle, we get some good news now and again.

Planned Parenthood has been shut down in the Texas panhandle.

American Life League's (ALL) Stop Planned Parenthood, or Stopp International, says it took a long time, but their campaign against Planned Parenthood finally got some results. "For 12 years in the Texas panhandle, there has been a fight against Planned Parenthood," he notes. "Planned Parenthood, in 1997, operated 19 clinics in the Texas panhandle."

Then the state reduced funding for the organization, and pro-life workers also continued in their efforts to shut Planned Parenthood's doors. "And as of December 31, there will no longer be any Planned Parenthood offices in the Texas panhandle," Sedlak explains. "They will all be gone."

Planned Parenthood has always tried to wear a mask of "taking care of birth control needs of women," but it has always been first and foremost the owner and operator of the largest number of abortion clinics in the country, running a billion dollar industry that profits off the agony of women and the destruction of unborn children.

Good riddance. Good on Texas.

Isn't 650 million Dollars Enough?

I guess not. Obama is still asking for money.

Here is part of the e-mail David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager is sending out today:

Between now and January 8th, 10 supporters and their guests will be selected to join the Inaugural activities.

If you make a donation -- in any amount -- to make the Inauguration a success, you and a guest could be flown to Washington, D.C., put up in a hotel, and be there as Barack is sworn in as the 44th President.Make a donation of $5 or more right now. You and a guest could receive your ticket to history.

A lottery type of thing. Perfectly normal. Only....seriously, do they really need any more of American's money?

Blagojevich and Clinton

It looks like Blagojevich is going to name former Illinois Atty Roland Burris to Obama's senate seat. This despite the fact that Democratic Senate leaders have said they would not seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich.

Blagojevich reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton. The things that would make most of us crawl into a hole out of embarrassment and humiliation, just don't bother men like Clinton and Blagojevich. It's surreal really. They both acted as if they had done nothing wrong. Even after Clinton could no longer deny the affair with Monica because of the blue dress, you could tell that he was much more angry at Republicans than he ever thought of being at himself.

Both men are so full of themselves, so egocentric, they cannot understand why people are against them or how they could possibly be wrong.

So they continue on, as if nothing extraordinary has happened, as if they shouldn't be completely mortified, like a normal person would be.

Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury, obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation, and lied straight face to the American people on, TV, and never even considered stepping down, even after being impeached.

The same will happen with Blagojevich. He will not step down, he will not admit he was wrong, and he will continue on as if nothing happened. Appointing someone to Obama's seat is part of his job and he is just going to keep doing his job. The difference is that the Democrats aren't sticking by him, but that doesn't matter to egocentric people. They don't need validation of others, only themselves.

Update: I think this news conference of Blagojevich proves my point from above. Blogojevich just actually said, "Although I've enjoyed the limelight for the last several weeks, this is the Senator's day."

That's right. He said he has enjoyed the limelight. He has enjoyed being called corrupt, being accused of lacking any integrity, and having his words from his filthy mouth played over and over. He's enjoyed it. Good grief.

Hey! I got some carbon offsets I wanna sell ya, oh and a bridge in brooklyn too

I apologize to Grouchy Old Cripple for stealing most of his post. But I knew I couldn't improve upon his commentary.

I was perusing the web yesterday and I came across this which has allowed San Francisco to rush past Seattle to reclaim the title of Moonbat Capital of the world.

"Environmentally conscious travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport will soon be able to assuage their guilt and minimize the impact of their air travel by buying certified carbon offsets at airport kiosks."

As P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

"The experimental program, scheduled to start this spring, would make SFO the first airport in the nation - possibly the world - to offer fliers the opportunity to purchase carbon offsets."

I'm sure that as soon as Seattle and Portland hear about this they'll follow suit.

"We'd like people to stop and consider the impacts of flying," said Steve McDougal, executive vice president for 3Degrees, a San Francisco firm that sells renewable-energy and carbon-reduction investments and is teaming up with the airport and the city on the project. "Obviously, people need to fly sometimes. No one expects them to stop, but they should consider taking steps to reduce their impacts."

I'm wondering if Steve was able to say that with a straight face? Even worse, I wonder if Steve believes his own bullsh*t.

"San Francisco's Airport Commission has authorized the program, which will involve a $163,000 investment from SFO, but is still working out the details with 3Degrees. Because of that, McDougal said, he can't yet discuss specifics, such as the cost to purchase carbon offsets and what programs would benefit from travelers' purchases."

The scam has not been totally finalized yet. They still haven't made up all the bullsh*t.

"But the general idea, officials said, is that a traveler would approach a kiosk resembling the self-service check-in stations used by airlines, then punch in his or her destination. The computer would calculate the carbon footprint and the cost of an investment to offset the damage. The traveler could then swipe a credit card to help save the planet. Travelers would receive a printed receipt listing the projects benefiting from their environmental largesse."

Ain't that sweet? Stealing money from idiots. I thought they kicked out the religious dudes soliciting money at airports.

"The carbon offsets are not tax deductible, said Krista Canellakis, a 3Degrees spokeswoman."

Why not? I thought the Dimocrats wanted to save the planet.

"While the carbon offsets purchased at kiosks can't be seen or touched, they are an actual product with a specific environmental claim whose ownership is transferred at the time of purchase," she said.

Psssst. Wanna buy some Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock?

But wait! There's more!


"The cost of offsets for SFO travelers is still being negotiated, McDougal said,"

We gotta figger out how much the suckers are willing to pay.

"but figures on the company's Web-based "carbon calculator" suggest that a two-hour trip uses about 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per person, and the cost to offset that would be about $4. Offsetting a trip to Europe would cost $36."

A "carbon calculator". How scientific.

I think they should call it the "stupid calculator." I mean, that is what it is really measuring after all.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Gawker Rocks

I admit it. I have become a Gawker fan. I love it because they are equal opportunity bashers. It's doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal, Hollywood, or regular folk, they will find something to hit you with and do it in a hilarious way.

Take for example this. The left is going ga ga over the film 'Milk' (a movie about California's first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk) because it's all teh gay, and Gawker tells us about a text message a Hollywood exec got from Micky Rourke saying that Sean Penn (the lead in Milk) is one of the most homophobic people he knows. Why does this not surprise me?

Then they have a piece on Christopher Hitchen's article slamming Rick Warren, but they deliciously describe Hitchen's perfectly as a "drunk crank," which is exactly what he is!

Then it gets even better! They list the top ten people who should be unemployed in 2009. #5 is "Wolf Blitzer and everyone else at CNN," which opines:

Wolf basically represents everything wrong with CNN. He just makes noises. Meaningless syllables. He fills up time, so much time, with these nonsense syllables, saying nothing, at all, ever. And CNN this year sucked. Anderson Cooper's show is ratings-grabbing fluff nonsense. The Magic Wall iPhone election map thing is stupid. The f**king holograms! Campbell Brown accepts no bullsh*t, stop bullsh*tting Campbell Brown. Oh, and they still let Lou Dobbs fear-monger every day for what seems like three hours of hate. Ugh. Go away, CNN.

Really. Go away.

No. Wait. It gets even better! This one is titled "Oprah Winfrey's Liar's Club," which hilariously chronicles the authors Oprah has had on her show who completely made up their non-fictional books. Gawker remarks, "But after awhile, we're forced to wonder if she's the victim or part of the problem." Well, duh. Part of the problem sweetie.

Ok, I was wrong. It. Gets. Even. Better. Than. That. They have been all over Caroline Kennedy for the rich elitest snob that she is. But "Caroline, No" puts it perfectly:

No more Senator Kennedys! (Or Senators Kennedy?) Ever again! Boo to dynasties and entitlement!

Yes, they bash Palin. But at least they bash Caroline just as much! Isn't that all we ask? Fairness in bashing?

Caroline's argument for receiving a free Senate seat is, you know, not much different from Michael Bloomberg's argument for remaining mayor of New York (or for running for mayor of New York in the first place): not a typical politician, beholden to nobody, allowed independence of thought and will through wealth and inexperience.
But dynasties suck, they are un-American and antidemocratic....

And if that couldn't have been written by Sean Hannity himself, there is this:

The gross entitlement is the absolute worst part of her bizarre and mismanaged campaign. Of course her competition for the title is a similarly dynastic Cuomo, but he has at least been elected to something, publicly. We understand and are sympathetic to the arguments against career political hacks, but encouraging the Senate to resemble the House of Lords even more is just about the worst impulse possible.

Now you see why I love Gawker.

Will Hollywood become pro-war?

There is nothing more I enjoy than seeing Hollywood trying to jam propaganda down down our throats, and then lose their shirts on anti-Iraq war movies.

Andrew Breitbart says it perfectly:

This was the year Hollywood finally realized that it couldn't sell an anti-Iraq war film. It also was the year the mainstream media discovered it couldn't report that the war on terror had failed.

Countless prime-time hours and untold acres of celluloid and newsprint were wasted demeaning the American mission. Yet, in the end, the heroic warriors destroyed their media adversaries by defeating our true enemies on the battlefield.

Except for the election of an antiwar candidate, 2008 was a great year for the pro-war side and only an economic meltdown could divert attention from this fact.

And even President-elect Barack Obama seems poised to disappoint the zealous anti-warriors who flamed his candidacy. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could not have been the "change" believed in, just as soon-to-be Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton - who voted to authorize the Iraq war - isn't likely what filmmaker Michael Moore had in mind.

Obama has said that we will re-focus our commitment to Afghanistan, bolstering our troops to defeat the Taliban there.

Will this be a war the Democrats can get behind? Will Hollywood make pro-Afghanistan movies?

Don't count on it. But I do have a feeling they will be very very quiet about the whole thing.

The Hypocrisy of the Media

So what else is new? But sometimes you just have to point out the obvious.

Christmas day the Washington Post slobbered (metaphorically speaking) all over it's front page about Obama's workout:

"The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games."

Now, if that doesn't make you wanna puke in your cornflakes, I don't know what would.

The subtitle of the piece is "Gym Workouts Help Obama Carry the Weight of His Position." The WaPo just gushes about how wonderful it is that Obama stays in shape.

Flashback to Pres. Bush's workouts and how the WaPo described them.

Former Post writer Jonathan Chait famously attacked Bush three years ago in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times headlined "The (over)exercise of power."

Recounting how President Bush ran 3.5 miles a day and preached more cross-training to a federal judge, Chait fumed: "Am I the only person who finds this disturbing? . . . What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy."

Chait argued that Bush's passionate devotion to exercise was a dereliction of duty. "Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement?" he jeered. "It's nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does."

Can you imagine any member of the Obamedia mocking the incoming gym-rat-in-chief this way?

The IBD editoral gives more examples of the press knocking Pres. Bush and his workouts but it comes down to this:

Fit Republican president = Selfish, indulgent, creepy fascist.

Fit Democratic president = Disciplined, health-conscious Adonis role model.

Media, thy name is hypocrisy. Which is why you are dying.

h/t BigDog

Christianity in Africa

In this article, an atheist from Africa concludes that Christianity is what is needed most in Africa:

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

The author reminds us how academia in this country emphasizes that our Christian culture is equal to any other culture's beliefs. I know I was taught that in sociology class in college:

There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: “theirs” and therefore best for “them”; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

The author doesn't buy it. He says the tribal belief in Africa suppresses individuality and "feeds into the "big man" and gangster politics...."

What the author is saying is basically that Christianity can transform a people into happier, better adjusted individuals, and therefore create a better society.

The incredible work of Christian missionaries all over the world is pretty much ignored by the mainstream media. But the work they do is transforming the world for the better.

h/t BigDog

"Human rights or national sovereignty?"

Here is an interesting article on the U.N.'s inner battle of what is more important, defending basic human rights or letting Governments have sovereignty over their own decisions in this matter.

As the author puts it:

a nation's right to non-meddling in its internal affairs by other countries, its sovereignty, versus the international community's responsibility to ensure human rights for all

It's obvious from the article that the author and most at the U.N. did not approve of the intervention in Iraq:

snarked the Russian permanent representative Vitaly Churkin in a security council meeting on Georgia. "And I would like to ask the distinguished representative of the United States: weapons of mass destruction – have you found them yet in Iraq or are you still looking for them?"

No, we haven't found them, but we did find mass graves of women and children killed by them. Guess that doesn't matter much to them. I'm thinking that if a dictator gassing, shooting, and torturing innocent people doesn't count as a "human rights" violation, I don't know what does.

But now that evil warmonger, George Bush is gone, I suppose the U.N. (who were very happy about Obama's win) can rest easy that the U.S. will not intervene again in a country's sovereignty.

Actually, not really.

The new US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, is on record saying she'd rather "go down in flames" than fail to do something about Darfur, so it seems clear that the Americans are still interventionists. So in the end, the question turns out to be whether Rice can convince the rest of the world that after Iraq, there is a difference between a neocon interventionist and a humanitarian one.

Yeah. Right. What's the difference exactly? Stopping the brutal killing of innocent people seems to be the same in Darfur as it was in Iraq. But the complaint has always been that we went into Iraq, a Muslim country, for it's oil. Ending the brutal dictatorship was just secondary. Yeah. Hmmmm..... Guess what? Going into Darfur would be the same thing. It's Muslim and Sudan has lots of the good black stuff too.

Doesn't look like the "change" the U.N. was hoping for, will come to pass.