A Fashion Hypocrite.

Darleen has the following from Fashion Editor Robin Givhan of the Washington Post. No, not about the family you see in the picture here. Heaven forbid they would criticize a Democrat's family's way of dressing!! Although, as you see, it's almost exactly the same.


"It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.
There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.

The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection.

Wonder where Robyn was during the DNC convention?

The Left's frantic search for dirt.

Well, the left finally did get a hold of the story of John Roberts wife I wrote about here. She was the ex-Vice President of Feminist for Life. Now the story the media seems to be going with is this:

We shouldn't mention his wife's views (here they are by the way)

John Robert's wife's views are off limits says Senators (here they are by the way)

Should John Robert's wife's views be considered? (here they are by the way)

I don't know why any decent person would even want to go through this process for any nomination. It has gotten to the point where it is hardly worth it.

I guess digging around for some drunken college picture the left found a picture of John Roberts in high school wearing plaid pants. Then Wonkette, having nothing sexually nasty to say about him, slams what his little boy is wearing.

I guess we know we have a good one when even the meanest of the left can only find clothes to criticize.

Did you hear about these specially trained soldiers parachuting into various areas around Baghdad?

" These airborne "soldiers" are actually "Teddy Troopers" or "Para-Bears," stuffed animals with makeshift parachutes jumping into the arms and hearts of children during Operation Teddy Drop."

Just another good news soldier story brought to you by one who loves our soldiers. via Assumption of Command

We cannot do this alone.

An article in The International Herald Tribune describes the Mulsim community's reaction to the bombings in London. But one Muslim said it all for me:

"We can only stop all this when we are able to find the people who brainwashed the kids," said Abu Mumin, a worshiper at the mosque, who would not disclose his last name for fear of reprisal."

Exactly. This is brainwashing. Pure and simple. And if the Muslim community can actively root out those doing the brainwashing in their religion's name, then maybe we can put a stop to these insane bombings. But we have to have their help.

Egypt suffers the latest bombing.

Why Not Here?

What is happening in London right now is what I expected to happen in New York or Washington D.C. after 9-11. I just kept waiting. It seemed like such an easy thing to do. But anyone who has read this blog knows why I now think it never happened.

Bush kept us safe. And that is a fact.

I haven't commented on the Natalee Holloway for many reasons. For one, I have a teenage daughter close to Natalee's age and it hits a bit close to home. As unfair as it seems I don't worry quite as much about my 18 yr old son. (though he would disagree as you will soon see)

First of all everytime I see Natalee's mom on TV I just want to cry. What anguish she must be going through. She seems very strong and I admire her for that. I am not sure I could maintain my self as she has. I pray every day she will get the closure she needs.

I do not mean the following to be a judgement on her in any way. She is like so many parents who just wish their children to be happy and have fun while they are young. I understand that. Perhaps I am paranoid. But with the world as it is today, I would no more let my 18 yr old go off to a tropical island with a bunch of friends than I would let him drive off a cliff.

For years I have had to say no to numerous trips to Mexico or Florida that my kids have been asked to go on. It is clear that these trips are drunken fun fests for most kids. I was watching the reality show "Laguna Beach" with my daugher. It follows a bunch of Juniors and Seniors through their last years of high school. They go to Cabo San Lucas for Spring Break and the thing that happens at all these things happened, drunkeness and stupidity.

I realize that my children will be able to go off to wherever they wish when they are in college (but not on my dime) but as long as I have the ability to protect them, I will. I also hope they will be a bit more mature when they do finally go on their own.

When did we get to the point where by the age of 18 our kids have gone in limos everywhere, spent hundreds on dances, and traveled to exotic islands?? This isn't rich kids either, these are middle class kids whose parents sacrifice so they can do the things the other kids are doing. What will these kids expect for college graduation or for a wedding???? This year I made my daughter pay for the hairdos, the nails, and the tanning for all the dances herself. (She worked at afterschool care) Not one of her friends had to do this.

Right now I am dealing with buying my daughter a car. Her friends all have these new sports cars. (Again, not rich kids either) We can afford a new sports car for her, but who in their right mind buys a new expensive car for a 16 yr old that will end up getting it banged up within the year? And what will she ever have to look forward to?

A story about my son. On prom night they have an all night "party' at the high school. It is free and they have all kinds of things set up from poker/gambling (not real money) to games, to lazer tag ect. They lock the doors after the prom and open them at 6 am. No drinking of course. Great idea and most take advantage of it. But the "cool kids" all go to Galveston Island. It is a given. Some idiot parent rents some condos and they all go and get drunk. Well, my son went to the high school overnight thing. He called me Sunday morning around 8:30am saying he was going to sleep for a bit at his friend's house. I called back to his friend's house since my son had called on his cell, to make sure that is where he actually was. He was.

Long story short. They went to Galveston that day. He text messaged me (too scared to call and wouldn't answer either when I called) He said he was fine and that there was a parent at the condos and he would let me know how he was every day. He stayed until Tues. He texted me on Monday saying "hi! I'm safe! Don't worry!" I texted him back and said "you are sooo not safe." From me anyway.

Anyway, when he got back he got his computer taken away for awhile. (a fate worse than death to him) He told me, "you don't seem that mad. You knew I would be careful and not stupid. Why didn't you just let me go?" I told him, "My job is to make the best decisions for you. You will have more than enough opportunities to make mistakes on your own watch."

There is a nice twist here. When he got back I said, "you realize you missed Church on Sunday?" He said, "No I didn't. After I called you Sunday morning and before we left I went to 9:00 mass."

I was truly impressed. This kid had just been to prom, stayed up all night at the after party at the school and still felt he should go to church that morning when I know he must have been worn out.

After that, I wasn't so mad. He got his computer back.

Now here is an idea that could get the entire population of men in the United States in shape. But enforcing it with computers instead of theatres might make it a bit more difficult.

Now where was this guy when I graduated from college??? My whole college paid for??? All those cold showers would have been worth it for sure!!!

I suppose there are many ways to motivate one's sales force. You can have contests with the winner getting a mini vacation. You can give promotions or a bonus......OR you can pretend your Osama Bin Laden and your sales force are terrorists!!! Too Cute!!! Not.

Talk about news of the weird:

MONTREAL (Reuters) - Four sketches by Adolf Hitler and two Christmas cards signed by the Nazi dictator were sold to a single buyer for an undisclosed sum, an auctioneer said on Wednesday, at an auction in Canada that drew protests.

THIS is a Christmas card??? Wow. A festive guy that Hitler. I know when I think of Christmas I always think of brown doors.

Another side of the story in Iraq.

A Soldier's Blog tells us about his birthday. but it wasn't him getting presents. Here is are some excerpts:

"We really don't own anything in this life. Did these acts of kindness representing America really penetrate their souls like it has mine? I am unsure, and can only hope that God works ceasingly in their hearts like He does in mine.
So, I continued my spirit filled morning as we loaded up our hummer with shoes, candy, clothes, beanie babies, and school supplies. My guys were thrilled to get off the fob and help out Iraqis."


"I write a lot about seeing people smile here. Well, its a univeral language in itself, and I can relate to smiling children when they run off with a new pair of shoes, or with an old man who stood patiently till I found a cold weather coat for him. His very tan, wrinkled old face lit up like a Christmas tree when he saw what I was handing him. I will never look and feel the same as I see others smiling. We are simply all entitled to be happy and have the liberties to make life to make life the best it can be for our families. They are no different than a smiling college college student making his or her first new friend, a proud set of parents during a birth, or someone who just got promoted at their job. Other than my genes and faith choice, I am no different than them."

"Once all of the supplies were given out, we headed back to the fob. My boys talked about how much fun they had and that they can't wait to do it again. The enemy still is cowardly and does not show his/her face. IEDs, and car bombs are still the big threat here, so getting out on the roads provides a risk. Even with that risk, my guys still want to help out Iraqis. My platoon's function is maintenance, and most of the time we are working on keeping our fleet running. So, if my guys thought the risk was not worth the reward, they could probably never leave the fob till they get home. My guys think beyond their safety and want to make a difference in building this country. bbb No, despite the news reports, we are not REbuilding here. We are basically building from the ground up. In my region of Iraq, Saddam killed over 5,000 Kurds in two weeks. This was years ago and the scars still run deep. We have a local national who works on and off our fob that I can share about. Saddam's henchmen shot his brothers, his dad, and cut off his tongue. He motions a lot and makes sounds trying to communicate. He is a great guy and an extremely hard worker. He will show the world that he is worth something, just like each Iraqi. Is it worth it for the US to be here in Iraq helping these living breathing people? Yes, it most definitely is.

These are the things we never hear about much. The caring these soldiers give, even at risk for their own lives. What people don't think about is that these Iraqi children will one day be Iraqi adults and they will remember who built their school. They will remember who made the water run again. They will remember the soldiers who cared.

And they will remember who gave them presents and it wasn't even anyone's birthday that they knew of.....

Muslim Messages continued.

Michelle Malkin has all the news on today's bombing in London.

A weird little tidbit here. When I was looking through the Muslim message board last night that I describe in the post below there was a comment about ABC news reporting that there was intelligence reports coming in that there would be a terrorist attack in the next 48 hours and for Muslims to get out of Boston, NY, and the commercial coastline. She had a ABC newslink, but when I clicked on it the ABC News site said there was no such page. So I just thought the woman was just trying to stir things up. If she had said London, I might be freaked out right now.

I just went to the message board again after this attack in London. They seem to think this is contrived.

"ooh...now isnt this a convenient excuse to step up stop and search on all muslim looking people.... maybe even banning rucksacks on the tube ..."

" You believe what the bbc and sky news tell you? Wake up people, smell the coffee You SHOULD know who it is."


"m15 *cough cough* al CIAda"


"just more scaremongering by the government me thinks"


Now, almost everyone on the board was grateful that no one was hurt and didn't show any support for the guy they caught.

Muslim Messages.

I decided to surf around for some Muslim message boards in english. I found an interesting one. Reading through the threads there seem to be some argument about being a true Muslim or giving into the moderate wing. A lot of people answered questions only with quotes from the Koran.

I randomly selected a few that bothered me a bit. The questions were mainly about which clerics were attending a Muslim conference in the UK. They seem to argue against the more moderate ones. I was about to link this message board and suddenly I got a bit nervous. I know that sounds crazy, but I started thinking that I didn't want those on the board to know I linked them or quoted them. It was strange for me because it was the first time I felt a trickle of fear about being known. Most on this board seemed to be from the UK. They sarcastically refer to people thinking everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist, but I have never seen that attitude anywhere. It seemed to me they would rather uses verses than actually "say" what they wanted to. I guess for obvious reasons. Anyway, here they are: The first one is an answer to a Muslim who lives in America and asks what will happen if he dies when being attacked by Muslims. The answer may give us some insight into why the terrorists in Iraq don't seem to care whether they kill their own people in the attacks.


"No worries Raf, if you become collateral damage in a just war carried out in the name of Islam against the west, isn't your assention to Jannah guaranteed? Now, if we could figure a way to claim terrorism as a just Jihad, we are in business."

"So who is really better off, us or the martyrs of Iraq?"

"The martyrs of course. They've made it to where we are all trying to get to."

"here's a little quote that you might find, answers your query, perfectly.
Quote:
... even if some of our brothers die in our actions, it is no matter. If ten Muslims die in a plane that we shoot down that is filled with hundreds of Christians, Hindus and Jews, rejoice, for the brothers are martyrs and will thank us in paradise.Haj Amin al- Husseini"

"Salam Chapter 7:182. Those who reject Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), We shall gradually seize them with punishment in ways they perceive not 183. And I respite them; certainly My Plan is strong."

"Lo! Conspiracy is only of the devil, that he may vex those who believe; but he can harm them not at all unless by Allah's leave. In Allah let believers put their trust. (58:10)
Say: Nothing will afflict us save what Allah has ordained for us; He is our Patron; and on Allah let the believers rely. (9:51)
So let them plot!"

"Surah 9 [9.52] Say: Do you await for us but one of two most excellent things? And we await for you that Allah will afflict you with punishment from Himself or by our hands. So wait; we too will wait with you. It is only a matter of time... "


"However, Jihād is one of the greatest docrtines of Islām and its prescription is one of the pinnacles of Islāmic theology."

"O Muslimeen - stop falling in love with the lusts and desires of this World. Sacrifice all you have for your Lord Allāh, the Glorious and the Exalted, and fight against all other forces which dare to oppose the Revealed Law of Allāh the One, the Only. Do you forget the legacy of Bādr?"


"It is he (Allah) who has sent his Messenger (saw) with guidance and the religion of truth, in order for it to be dominant over all other religions, even though the Mushrikoon (disbelievers) hate it." (EMQ at-Tawbah, 9: 33)


"Chimp Bush said, 'you are either with us (the nonmuslims, US allies) or you are with the terrorists (Muslims). and Sheikh Usama bin Laden also said, "The whole world is divided into two camps, the camp of Imaan and the camp of kufr."


Interesting how this Muslim from the UK uses the derogatory name for Bush that the left uses here.

From reading the more conversational posts you can tell these are not terrorists or supporters, (except for a couple I quoted above) but it did give me a bit of insight in the rigid belief that keeps them from speaking out against the terrorists.

UPDATE: See post above for the next day when the London bombings occurred.

This is why Ann Coulter is wrong on John Roberts.

IOWAHAWK has the funniest take on the John Roberts nomination. Really. Hilarious. via SondraK

Slate Magazine has this at the top of it's page:

"What's Wrong With John Roberts?"- "Emily Bazelon's most troubling case"

What is this "troubling" case? Here is what Slate says:

"But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections.

According to the government, Salim Ahmed Hamdan is the former driver and bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden. He was captured by an Afghan militia in November 2001, during the U.S. invasion, and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. In July 2003, the Bush administration brought charges against Hamdan, as it has done against only three others among the hundreds of suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo. Hamdan was accused of conspiring to commit attacks on civilians, murder, and terrorism, and the Bush administration moved to try him before a special military tribunal." (emphasis mine)

Yes. yes. We all know the rights that are not given to suspected terrorists under these conditions that are given to criminals under the Geneva Conventions. The left uses the usual argument that this could happen to anyone! Yet even with the hundreds of suspected terrorists only three have had these kinds of charges brought against them. I'd say there must be serious evidence against them.

This guy was Osama's driver and bodyguard. I'm thinking he did conspire to commit attacks on civilians.

This is a freakin terrorist! In all probability he conspired with Osama to ram our planes into our buildings. Do we remember the people who were forced to jump from the twin towers instead of burn? Do we remember the heart wrenching cell phone calls from 2 of the doomed planes???? Do we remember the anguished faces of those looking for their loved ones the day after the attacks in New York? Does Slate remember ANY OF THIS?????

And THIS is John Roberts most troubling case????? THIS is what is wrong with John Roberts??? THIS is what bothers them??????????

It boggles the mind.

I became familiar with the Feminists for Life organization years ago. Fredricka Matthews-Green (who I believe started the organization) had written an article I read that described how many times women were coerced into abortion by boyfriends, husbands, parents, and even bosses.

It was so well written and true that I copied it and gave it to anyone I could at the time. It was about the reality of "choice." About how so many times it really is no choice at all. Anyway, I bring this up because I just discovered that Judge John Roberts wife is ex-Executive Vice President of Feminists for Life. I haven't heard anything about this from the left yet. I find that curious since we all know that for them this is all about abortion. Perhaps they are afraid of the "feminist" message in this organization...or they haven't discovered it yet.

If wish to read some heartwrenching tesitimonals from women who felt exploited from abortion. Go here. Bring a tissue, it aint easy reading.

Ok, this looks painful and stupid.

June 17, 2005�"Now, here's a cause some folks can really get behind: On Saturday hundreds of bicyclists in Madrid (pictured) and London staged a nude protest against oil dependency and the overuse of cars.
Pedaling in the World Naked Bike Ride 2005, dozens of Madrid cyclists streaked down main avenues." via national geographic

You know that old lady that drives in front of you at 20 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour speed zone that makes you want to scream and bang your head against the steering wheel?

She might actually be a 20 yr old hottie.

JEEPERS!!!

"Grizzly Bear-Size Catfish Caught in Thailand! Nearly nine feet long (2.7 meters) and as big as a grizzly bear, a huge catfish caught in northern Thailand may be the largest freshwater fish ever recorded." via National Geographic

Judge John Roberts Nominated.

One thing I love about Bush is that he doesn't allow himself to be pressured into doing anything "politically correct" or even expected. Everyone thought the nominee would be a woman and/or a Hispanic. Even Republicans thought a woman or Hispanic would be hard for Democrats to skewer. But Bush did what he wanted and nominated who he thought was the best. That is one of the reasons I love this President.

Schumer is already upset that there is little abortion background decisions from Judge Roberts or when he argued before the Supreme Court. (see biography here that mentions one argument he made)

Like I have said before, nothing is more important to these Democratic leaders than protecting abortion, and frankly, that is just sad.

It will be interesting to see what the left digs up.

The speculation is that the Supreme court nominee will be Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist, but has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."

I am sure there will be an uproar in the Christian community over that. But look at the sentence carefully. Yes, the Supreme Court has held the right of privacy includes the right to abortion and the law is settled. (for now) She is simply stating a fact.

I am not saying she is pro-life or pro-choice. I have no idea. I just feel it will be counter productive for the right to go after her for that sentence. Let's face it. If she had ever said anything that even came close to saying she is leaning pro-life, the left would skewer her. Everyone knows it. Look what they did to Clarence Thomas???? The atmosphere is even worse now. If you read the link you will see that even that statement of Judge Clement is not enough for NARAL.

If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned (and I don't see that happening no matter who Bush appoints) all that will do, as most of you know, is leave it up to the states to legalize or regulate abortions. To me that means more of a real debate. Which is something the people never got to decide. 9 men did.

After 35 yrs of legal abortion, the debate rages on. Isn't it ridiculous that of all the laws the Supreme Court decides, this is the one that basically determines a Supreme Court judge. Perhaps if it were in the hands of the people we could get back to other matters in deciding who is a judge.

UPDATE: All the news organizations are saying it isn't going to be her. We shall see.

Thought ya'll might to see some of my 4th of July pictures. Here are 2 of my Sister-in-Laws!

chair surfing.

playing with mud. Always fun.

Having fun with cousins!

skiing!

Some of my Sister-in-Laws and me!

cousins swimming.

The aging process. Pretty cool and a bit depressing.

NOT PRO-LIFE

Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber gets 2 life sentences, as well he should. He represents all that is NOT pro-life. Violence and killing is certainly not the answer to stopping the destruction of unborn children. He was wrong, immoral, and crazy to boot.

The Corner has this interesting turn of events on the Santorum bashing that is going on everywhere:

ROTTEN STATE OF AFFAIRS [K. J. Lopez]The Philly Inquirer, among others, are reporting today that one of Rick Santorum's top aides is gay. The staffer was "outed" by a gay website. It's a reprehensible thing to do--invade a staffer's personal life like that. And of what relevance is it, say, to any reader of the Philly Inquirer? Santorum has issued a statement praising the staffer, clearly furious that one of his people has been targetted in such a rotten way. Is that the "news" too? Maybe people are shocked Rick Santorum doesn't actually hate gays? Of course, maybe we really are that bad off. Unfortunately we're also so bad off that a man who happens to be gay isn't "allowed" to work for a senator he wants to work for without his personal life being made "news" by some webguy who decides the staffer is a "hypocrite" or shouldn't be able to choose who he wants to work for. Why must legitimate "news" sources follow those marching orders? Posted at 12:38 PM

Gosh, doesn't the left hate it when we don't adhere to their sterotypes? (see post below) Are they really proud of outing people's personal's lives who are not even in public life???

Sad. Sad.

h/t ACE

The Left. Wrong again.

A commenter on a previous thread clued me in that I had been mentioned at Petty Rage who was starting a "Kool Aid Gang" listing for those spouting "talking points" of the right. I didn't realize until I got there that I was the honorary inaugural member!!!!

It seems these guys see a link to my site everywhere!!! (A great thing indeed and something I didn't realize *smile*) I have found it is useless to argue with some of these people (although I do argue and have nice conversations with a few on the left side of the web, so there are exceptions) But since these guys were so wrong about me (surprise!) I did respond there. This was my response:

I considered not responding here since I don't care what anyone thinks, but you were so wrong on so many things I thought it needed pointing out. I am against the death penalty. I am not for prayer in schools,nor have I ever posted on it. I don't think I have ever linked or mentioned Rush or Hannity in any of my posts. I do like them, but I hardly ever get to listen to them so it would be hard for me to "spout their talking points." I think the petition I copied from MoveOn.org on my page now is the first thing I have ever copied from them as well. I have not defended Rove or actually ever even done a post on him other than linking the Rove/Plame story. I have posted my doubts about this war as well. I am most proud of my posts that are non_political and personal... like http://rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com/2004/11/thanksgiving.html or http://rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com/2005/04/my-dream.html
You being "left leaning" I would expect you to be wrong, but I wouldn't expect you to be dishonest. I may be drinking koolaid, but I don't know what you are drinking...;-)

If you look at the other commenters on that blog they say they found no surprises here either. I guess all the rightwing blogs have posted recently on the differences of Afghan women and American women and a conversation with a Michael Jackson Juror, huh?

Update: Here is Lefty's response to my comment and mine back.


RightWingSparkle,
First of all...welcome and I appreciate your moxy in coming here and stating your case!While I am "left leaning" I am actually NEVER wrong and as for dishonest....I'm truthful to a fault.I gave examples of issues in my post about what might make one a "kool aid drinker"...those issues were examples of hot button issues that most party faithful types adhere strictly too.In your case though, I gave specific references to articles that had appeared on your front page as of yesterday when the post was written.
I wrote:They are surprisingly...Anti: MoveOn, Now, fond readers of "Stop the ACLU" , Molly Ivins, the language choices of the BBC, the Left (believes they are anti-troops), Ron Reagan Jr., Kyoto, Gay Tv channels and Johnny Depp's real life persona
Very Pro: RONALD REAGAN, Karl Rove, media that agrees with the President ( against media that does not), Pro-War in Iraq, Pro War in Afghanistan, George Bush and everything a Bush does.
Surprise factor: 0
The only point that you argued with me on was the Karl Rove point but you'll notice that you DO have a link to POWER LINE in which you say : "Breaking down the (yawn) Karl Rove Story...and then your link appears.The story is an anti-left, Rove is innocent, puff piece and your yawn seems to indicate that the story is boring or a non-issue to you at best.My insinuation: you believe it's not a "story" because you believe Rove to have done nothing wrong.Pro-Rove in other words.
I did not accuse you of having posted Hannity/Rush talking points...I mentioned that this is one tactic that you will often see in a KAG member.
When my post was written there was no article about Afghan vs. American women and the Michael Jackson juror post was also not there yet. As a result, they did not figure into the equation.I will be clear and say though that I have visited your site MANY times without recollection of many of the personal pieces that you are so proud of.I have however...seen and continue to see...articles based on Republican party cultural wedge talking points.And I pointed them out.
You are correct in your thinking that you shouldn't care what anyone thinks about you. I personally don't know you well enough to think anything about you except that from your blog tone you seem to be a nice person and as I stated...you're quite a looker...:)I stand firm in my belief though that your site to this point belongs in the "KAG" and the only reason you became the inaugural member is that you are very visible around the blogosphere. Which is testament to the fact that there are many others out there who want to have their beliefs reaffirmed daily by visitng you. KAG fans if you will.Anyway...Ms. Sparkle...being a member of the Kool Aid Gang is not a life sentence...whether you care or not, your site will be reviewed and removed from the list when warranted. Until then though....what's your favorite flavor?
Said by: Lefty Jones at July 18, 2005 09:20 PM

Nice try Lefty Jones, but here is what you said:

"So...if your site is merely your vehicle for regurgitating G.O.P/D.N.C. talking points, giving mega ditto's to Rush and Hannity or cutting and pasting from the MoveOn.Org site....please just stop.You'll be helping clear the clutter.Or..continue and expect to be nominated as part of the Kool Aid Gang."
And especially since I am the inaugural member of the Kool Aid Gang and about "being part of the clutter mentioned above." i.e. Rush and Hannity talking points and death penalty ect. then don't pretend that you didn't mean for that to describe me.
You complain about the Koolaid Gang as:
"It is simply not possible for any thinking human being to agree with over 95% of anybody's platform when the issues range from economic to environmental to diplomacy to military action to "rights" to abortion to the death penalty to prayer in schools to censorship to gay rights to etc. etc. etc."
Since I an the first member you mention it would follow that I would agree with these things. So....come one. Let's be the honest man you say you are.
I'll even give you your assertion that you hadn't read my most recent posts from today but what happen from this week? The one on a solider's thoughts or warning lables on soda or the bombing of children in Iraq or the mud woman picture or the lampooning brit site? All posted just since Thurs and mixed in with the posts you mentioned and NONE POLITICAL.
I make no apologies for my poltical views. I am a proud conservative. I didn't call my blog "wishy-washysparkle" or "notsurewhatIbelievesparkle" You can call it drinking Koolaid all you wish, I just call it believing in the right things.
So Keep me on the Koolaid Gang. I think it is KOOL!!!!..;-)
Said by: Rightwingsparkle at July 18, 2005 10:21 PM

Culture Clash

Watching a documentary on Afghan women the other night got me to thinking how the devout Muslim cultures were the complete opposite end of the spectrum from our culture. I saw a woman the other day at a water park dressed head to toe in black swimming with her children. Her husband, on the other hand, was dressed in a normal bathing suit. It wasn't the outfit on her that bothered me as much as her lack of a smile. Not once in playing with her children did she smile. When she came close to my chair I told her her that her baby was beautiful and she said 'thank you." But still, no smile.

Before we liberated Afghanistan, the devout Muslim woman not only had to wear a burka like a dark curtain over her life, but could not listen to music, dance, sing, be educated, or choose her husband. Can we even imagine that here? No wonder they don't smile.

On the documentary the camera man convinces one woman to drop the part of her outfit that hides her face. With her husband permission, she does. But still, no smile.

And here we are in the U.S. where it is hard to distinguish the dress of a typical teenager from a call girl. Where porn has become mainstream. Where women are sexually exploited on commercials, movies, and TV on a daily basis. Where there are 4000 abortions a day.

Such an extreme difference. Both are wrong.

Where can we find the middle? Where we can have a culture with music and dance and love, but not sexually exploit women? Where we can raise our daughters in a culture where they don't feel they have to give blowjobs on a schoolbus to be popular? Or dress sexually to get boy's attention?

It is so sad to me that one culture hides a woman's life and the other exploits it.

A Sorta Interview With a Michael Jackson Juror.

The internet is a strange place. I got a Instant Message the other day from a guy who said he was on the jury of the Michael Jackson trial. He had found me by googling his name and he didn't appreciate some things I had said. I decided it might be interesting for ya'll to read the conversation. I have edited out his name for privacy. Tell me what ya'll think. It might be a bit hard to follow because you know how you ask a question and then the other person asks a question and you answer it a bit later. But anyway, here it is:

****007 (1:49:45 PM): hello?
Rightwingsparkle (1:50:03 PM): hello
Rightwingsparkle (1:50:07 PM): who is this?
****007 (1:50:46 PM): well, my name is ****
****007 (1:50:50 PM): and i was on the michael jackson jury
Rightwingsparkle (1:50:55 PM): and a dodgers fan obviously *(he had a dodger's icon on his IM)
Rightwingsparkle (1:51:10 PM): sooo....how did you come to IM me?
****007 (1:51:28 PM): cause i found ur lil website that you made that had your IM name on it
Rightwingsparkle (1:51:43 PM): lil??? uhhh...no. BIG...;-)
****007 (1:51:48 PM): whatever
****007 (1:51:52 PM): i found your website
Rightwingsparkle (1:51:55 PM): kewl
****007 (1:52:14 PM): and i really dont appreciate what you said about us laughing after one of the boys testimonies
Rightwingsparkle (1:52:27 PM): so tell me about being on the jury. You know he is really guilty, right? I guess you hear that constantly
****007 (1:52:29 PM): that never happened
Rightwingsparkle (1:52:30 PM): I didn't say that
****007 (1:52:34 PM): yes you did
****007 (1:52:36 PM): i have it right here
Rightwingsparkle (1:52:37 PM): the article in Vanity fair did
Rightwingsparkle (1:52:46 PM): how could I know that?
****007 (1:53:00 PM): vanity fair doesnt know crap
****007 (1:53:17 PM): the only one who tried to break that out was the local columnist idiot named steve corbett
Rightwingsparkle (1:53:22 PM): the author...I think it was Maureen Dowd, wasn't it?
****007 (1:53:25 PM): and vanity fair took that wayyyyyyyyyyyyy out of context
****007 (1:53:31 PM): i dont know who wrote it
Rightwingsparkle (1:53:40 PM): she said yall were talking like nothing happened after the boy testified
Rightwingsparkle (1:53:45 PM): no?
Rightwingsparkle (1:53:48 PM): she lied?
****007 (1:53:52 PM): cmon
****007 (1:53:57 PM): are you really going to believe the media?
Rightwingsparkle (1:54:10 PM): I think she said it was obvious yall didn't believe him
****007 (1:54:28 PM): for one thing, id like to know which boy they were talking about
Rightwingsparkle (1:54:57 PM): 2 testified, right?
Rightwingsparkle (1:55:08 PM): the one with the crazy mom who had had cancer
****007 (1:55:10 PM): see, you dont even know
Rightwingsparkle (1:55:22 PM): so? that is why I am asking
****007 (1:55:35 PM): see, VF got it out of context, cause they said it was the other boy from the 93-94 allegations
Rightwingsparkle (1:55:54 PM): All I know is what I read. They said the boy tearfully recounted his molestation.
Rightwingsparkle (1:56:01 PM): right?
****007 (1:56:03 PM): nope
Rightwingsparkle (1:56:08 PM): what then?
****007 (1:56:16 PM): wait which kid are you talking about
****007 (1:56:24 PM): the one from the 93 allegations?
Rightwingsparkle (1:56:33 PM): No, he didn't testify, did he?
****007 (1:56:42 PM): not the main kid, but another one did
Rightwingsparkle (1:56:44 PM): the 15 yr old
Rightwingsparkle (1:57:11 PM): ok, what does it matter which one? Did one of them do that?
****007 (1:57:17 PM): the one who was stating allegations that happened 2 years ago didnt show any sign of emotion during his recollection of his molestation
Rightwingsparkle (1:57:25 PM): the one with the crazy mom?
****007 (1:57:28 PM): yes
Rightwingsparkle (1:57:39 PM): ok, so...did one of the boys show emotion?
****007 (1:57:42 PM): the only time the one with the crazy mom showed emotion was when he found out that MJ wasnt going to be around him anymore
Rightwingsparkle (1:58:53 PM): ok, obviously yall didn't believe the boy and thought they were just out for money. What I can't understand is how yall discounted the porn and the little boy books showing naked boys. I know you are probably sick of defending yourself. I am just curious.
****007 (1:59:46 PM): look, they did fingerprinting searches on over 15,000 prints
****007 (2:00:07 PM): and they only found 5 or 6 visible prints that had either MJ or the kids prints on them
Rightwingsparkle (2:00:21 PM): oh really. ONLY 5!! only five?? Five is plenty!
****007 (2:00:24 PM): MJs prints were only on maybe 1 or 2
Rightwingsparkle (2:00:26 PM): one would be enough for me
****007 (2:00:29 PM): yes only 5
****007 (2:00:40 PM): look, these kids were street smart
Rightwingsparkle (2:00:42 PM): wait. let me back up
****007 (2:00:45 PM): they were brought up in east la
Rightwingsparkle (2:01:04 PM): a boy from the 93 allegations testified? Not the one who got the money, but another?
****007 (2:01:23 PM): they both got money
Rightwingsparkle (2:01:35 PM): oh, ok, so that one is the one who tearfully testified?
****007 (2:02:00 PM): yes
****007 (2:02:03 PM): but theres something weird about that
****007 (2:03:01 PM): when he was saying this on the stand, he was staring at his wife, and his wife was shaking her head up and down like, its ok go ahead and say it, like making him say it almost
****007 (2:03:17 PM): ill brb
****007 is away at 2:03:23 PM.
****007 returned at 2:27:11 PM.
****007 (2:27:24 PM): ok im back
Rightwingsparkle (2:28:23 PM): Ok, help me out here. I think alot of people feel like I do. Michael had porn, books of naked little boys. He admitted sleeping in the same room with them. He mostly ONLY had boys over. The girls never stayed in his room. And I don't care how "street smart" they are, a grown MAN does not show porn to 12 yr olds, or even have it around when you know kids are there. That is wrong right there. Vanity Fair said there were barbies dressed in S&M costumes. This is typical behavior of pedophiles. Do you honestly believe Jackson never molested any boy?
****007 signed off at 2:30:37 PM. (I think he got a little ticked here and never answered, but when he came back on, I IM'd him.)
Session concluded at 2:31:38 PM

Rightwingsparkle: Sorry about before. I am sure you are sick of talking about it. you are probably getting alot of heat over it. I am curious. What did you google to get my blog?
****007: i googled my name, heh
****007: i typed in juror **** *****
Rightwingsparkle: how did that bring you to me?
****007: it brought me to a blog of some sort that people wrote in
****007: i tried to find peoples email addys or something to talk to them
****007: cause i didnt appreciate them what they had said about me and about the other jurors
****007: here ill showu the link that it came up with
Rightwingsparkle: I understand that. I think people are just mad
****007: well what irritates me is that they werent there,
****007: they werent there to hear the evidence
****007: they werent there to hear testimony
****007: the only thing they go off of is what the media wants them to know
****007: http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18533/#87960
****007: u know what i mean?
Rightwingsparkle: yes
Rightwingsparkle: which is why it should be televised
****007: well i think the reason why it wasnt televised was because there were younger people involved
Rightwingsparkle: to the world out here outside of California it seemed crazy. You understand that?
*****007: yes
Rightwingsparkle: I am reading the Protein Wisdom thing
Rightwingsparkle: I read him alot
****007: ok
Rightwingsparkle: yeah, I remember that post. Are you getting alot of heat?
****007: not really, i read it though and got a lil aggrivated by what i had read
Rightwingsparkle: but not by your friends and family?
****007: no
Rightwingsparkle: jus a sec
Rightwingsparkle: so are getting to be a part of writing a book?
****007: huh?
Rightwingsparkle: I thought the jury might write about it or you not allowed to?
****007: we might
Rightwingsparkle: Did you see the Jon Stewart Show making fun of it?
****007: no
Rightwingsparkle: I think it was pretty telling of how people feel. the guy "reporter" said "If you want to kill anyone or molest anyone just come to California to do it. I'm getting ready to bust up a uncle of mine now." I know that is harsh, but that is how people see it after OJ and Michael.
*****007: alright
Rightwingsparkle: I come from a family of lawyers. I know how the court is
****007: alright
Rightwingsparkle: Let me ask you this. Since the trial have you found out things about Michael you didn';t know before?
****007: not really
****007: ill brb
Rightwingsparkle: k
****007 signed off at 4:08:18 PM.

Weird, huh?

A Soldier's thoughts.

Sometimes when I am surfing through the Milblogs I come across something written by one of our soldiers in Iraq that is so sweet and honest I just have to share it. This is from Blog Machine City talking about missing his new wife:

"She's been extraordinarily considerate and understanding - almost unbelievably so, considering that she said to me that she didn't want to become an Army wife and I made her one anyway. (Muahahaha!) But when I dream at night, I don't dream of her - I dream of nothing but B Company, in every conceivable situation. At parties, in combat, just sitting around - it's a red-letter night if at least one member of this damn unit isn't visiting me in my sleep. As Agent Smith said in The Matrix:

I'm going to be honest with you. I hate this place...this...zoo, this...prison, this...reality...whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer.

It's great that I can chat with her every day from the comfort of my room, but we both often wonder if there's really a person on the other end, or if it isn't just some Turing machine, issuing programmed responses. How would either of us know?

Having my head down for so long, staring at my feet, watching one foot land in front of the other, one day at a time - one day I'm going to look up and Melobi will be there, and the World, and Iraq will be behind me. Or...so I assume, but there's no way of knowing until I get there."

It makes my heart ache. It really does.

I know you probably already saw this on Drudge, but I had to copy it. Too awesome. It shows us the kind of men our soldiers are. But we knew that, didn't we?

Soldier survives attack; captures, medically treats sniper

Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer is a native of Mendon, N.Y.
During a routine patrol in Baghdad June 2, Army Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, was shot in the chest by an enemy sniper, hiding in a van just 75 yards away. The incident was filmed by the insurgents.

Tschiderer, with E Troop, 101st Saber Cavalry Division, attached to 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry Regiment, 256th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, was knocked to the ground from the impact, but he popped right back up, took cover and located the enemy's position.

After tracking down the now-wounded sniper with a team from B Company, 4th Battalion, 1st Iraqi Army Brigade, Tschiderer secured the terrorist with a pair of handcuffs and gave medical aid to the terrorist who'd tried to kill him just minutes before.

See the video on Army Times.

Ok, this is funny. You heard of the website from the Brits regarding the London bombings called We're Not Afraid.com? Well someone is lampooning it with i am f*cking terrified.com . I know this shouldn't be funny. I know I shouldn't be laughing. But just check out the pictures on the second link. OMG!!! Hilarious. via my buddy dave at malungtvnews.

I know the comment section on all my posts say 0, but the comments are still there. I don't know why. Haloscan sucks.

A Different War.

Ah, the culture wars. You just have to love it.

Logo is a new gay TV channel on Viacom basic cable that began on June 30th with sponsorship by companies like Miller Lite, Motorola, and Orbitz. Slate's article on it has the new network's president, Brian Graden, assuring us that the channel will "steer clear of highly sexualized content." In fact the article's author found only one slightly dirty moment when a travel show gave the name of an Amsterdam hotel designed specifically for gay men interested in bondage, then asked naughtily, "How do you say 'ouch' in Dutch?"

I mean come on....when your 8 yr old comes across this flipping channels he won't even know what bondage is. Why worry????

I also love how the article calls Concerned Women For America (a conservative women's organization) who is opposing the channel, "a group." I believe that CWA has 3 or 4 times the membership of NOW. I bet you haven't heard of them though, huh? Such is the media's notion that NOW is the only women's group in the country. I wonder if Slate would call NOW "a group?"

And speaking of women's groups. Did you hear about NARAL's party in Seattle, Washington yesterday? It was called "Screw Abstinence." Isn't that a such a cute lil play on words there???

The NARAL flier reads, “Come laugh, learn, socialize and buck the system.” Partygoers will be treated to "tips on “Sexy Safer Sex” by “purveyors of adult toys,” see a theatre troupe perform a sex-ed class for adults, and sip on “Screw Driver” alcoholic beverages."

A new commenter from Stop the ACLU says that "...Reason writer Charles Oliver was taken aback when he learned from John Powell, the Union’s national legal director, that he considered abortion to be the ACLU’s number one priority; the defense of the First Amendment, the alleged heart and soul of the ACLU’s mission, was listed third, after civil rights." (emphasis mine)


If this is a war, we are losing my friends. Republicans in power or not.

I can't decide whether to take my little boys to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." I was watching some previews and it looks creepy to me. Watching Johnny Depp (who I think is an excellent actor, even though in real life a loon) keeps me thinking that Edward Sissorhands grew up to become Willy Wonka.

Below is the petition that MoveOn.org is asking people to sign and send to their Senators....

FULL TEXT OF THE PETITION TO: (Your senators) FROM: (Your Name and Email) SUBJECT: Protect our rights __________ Dear senator, (Your personal note) The Senate must stand up to President Bush and demand a Supreme Court nominee who will protect the rights and freedoms of the American people.

I don't know about you but I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!!!! How dare they demand someone who will protect the rights and freedoms of the American people!! If Bush doesn't nominate someone who will create a police state and take away my free speech rights, gun ownership rights, private property rights...then I WILL PROTEST!!!! (unless I lose that right with the new Supreme Court Judge that is) I hope the Senators pay NO attention to this outrageous demand!!!!! It is just over the top. I mean really.

"I wish someone would kill me; that way I could hang out in the cemetery ALL the time, instead of just on weekends." via Caption This!

I'm bored.

Excellent article by an Iraqi about the London bombings and Arab leaders reactions.

Warning!!

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is demanding warning labels on the sides of soda cans. CSPI wants the FDA to warn us that drinking soda causes obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, and osteoperosis.

Other demands are:

Warning labels embedded in Oreos to warn us that the little chocolate devils cause fat and mouth watering pleasure.

Warning labels on beds to warn us that sleeping too much can cause laziness AND that laying down on one with your loved one may cause babies.

Warning labels on bathtubs to warn us that taking hot baths may cause us to miss phone calls.

Warning labels on phones to warn us that in talking too much on one may cause us to gossip.

Warning labels on movie stars such as Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt to warn us that watching their movies may cause us to lust.

Warning labels on computers to warn us that blogging may cause one to neglect the laundry.

This must be captioned as well!

It is way past time for a caption. Let's try Harry Reid, shall we?

If you see a bunch of people who look like darker and retarded versions of Inspector Gadget around the White House around 2:30pm today, now you will know why.

Report It My Way Or The Highway!

Oh, this is really good. What happens when Mark Yost, an editor at Knight Ridder is critical of media coverage of the Iraq war (Trust me when I say he is not a conservative) and is blasted by Steve Lovelady, the managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Daily and then Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine e-mails them to see if there can be a discussion about the media coverage? Well, you get a honest look at the "objective" journalism coming out of Columbia, of course. I guess Steve didn't figure Jeff was going to post his e-mails. As Jeff Jarvis points out, you would think the EDITOR of Columbia Journalism Review Daily might enjoy a spirited debate. But....nooooooooo. The liberal fangs come out showing us that there really is no such thing as objective journalism these days.

What made Lovelady so angry? Well, Mark Yost betrayed the media! He had been in lockstep before!! He actually wondered why the media was not covering the good news stories of Iraq.

Steve Lovelady is so angry that he can't seem to stop e-mailing Jeff Jarvis about it! Just read the link. It tells you all you need to know about journalism these days.

Greyhawk reminds us--They kill their own children.

Breaking down the (Yawn) Karl Rove/Valerie Plame story.

We here in Texas are use to the insane rantings of Molly Ivins. At least she apologized this time.

If It Quacks Like A Terrorist.....

The Guardian has this in one of it's stories on the terrorist bombings in London:

"Early reports of the blasts on the BBC's website mentioned possible terrorist involvement but the stories were later changed to describe the perpetrators as "bombers" rather than "terrorists".

Although a spokesman said the word "terrorist" was not banned from the BBC, its language guidelines state that "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments" should be avoided and that "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and should be "avoided"."

Is this just an insane example of political correctness or a deliberate effort to avoid adding support to the war on terror? And who the hell thinks we should try "an aid to understanding?" Oh, we understand alright. We understand that these are fanatics determined to kill innocents. They use terror as their main weapon. That is why we call them TERRORISTS!!! Yeah, this is a value judgment. Call them what they ARE.

The idiots at the BBC should even understand that.

I'm Back!!

It is sooo good to be home. I am just now catching up on the news. It is interesting to hear from family members who don't have the interest in politics that I do. They see these stories like Rove and Durbin and Gitmo as boring and blown out of proportion for political reasons.

My heart goes out to the people of London who lost loved ones in the terrorist bombings. I am amazed that something similar hasn't happened here. I am also convinced that the reason it hasn't happened is because of the Patriot Act and rounding up those who would do us harm and putting them in Gitmo. I have heard that European news focus on America's supposed mistakes. I am curious to see if the bombings will force the media to focus on the real enemy here, the terrorists.

I want to emphasis something that BigDog had in the previous post that I don't think should be missed. The interview between Ron Reagan and Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is a liberal that truly gets it when it comes to terror.

The argument should be read. But here are some key points that Hitchen's made:

"...these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?"

"Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?"

"When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?"

How can America know so little as well? Because they are constantly thrown stories that don't matter (like the Michael Jackson case) and are not given the important information because it isn't "exciting."

Thanks to BigDog for helping me out here!

Just when you thought it was safe.....

Rightwingsparkle Not Blogging, Day 11

Been away. Lets round up some news


Leaked No 10 dossier reveals Al-Qaeda’s British recruits

"AL-QAEDA is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks in this country, leaked Whitehall documents reveal. "

Some folks blather about the "root causes" of terrorism, a few are sincerely trying to figure out the enemy and therefore how best to defeat them. Mostly, imo, the "Root Causes Caucas" are rationalizing their own chickenshit need to appease terrorists in hopes they will go away.

One of the sillier "root causes" notions is that poverty creates terror. Nonsense. Poor people are too busy feeding their families and putting clothes on the backs of their children. No, terrorism germinates among the affluent, people with the leisure to join causes to give some kind of meaning to their lives.

Terrorists operate in impoverished places. Waltz in with cash and armed men - who is going to stop you? Poor people are merely the first victims of terrorist schemes. They set up camps, buy.... er, "marry" some local chief's daughter to insure his compliance... er, loyalty, and use the locals for cover and cannon fodder.
----------

Jihad Is Knocking

"Already the standard narrative is being trotted out: evildoers created by what the New York Times predictably called the “root causes of terrorism”: autocracy, or economic stagnation, or Palestinian suffering, or globalization's dislocations, or Western historical sins, or the war in Iraq (the cause will depend on the political prejudices of the pundit) have “hijacked” Islam and distorted its peaceful message. And now they are using Islam to justify murder in order to further their own ambitions or dysfunctional psychic needs. Given this explanation, so the story goes, we must be careful not to demonize all Muslims and assure them that we respect their religion and culture. The tale is then wrapped up with fierce threats against the terrorists and protestations of admiration for Islam."

"Believing this delusion requires that one ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic jihad against the West, a war of conquest and colonization ratified by centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called “moderates” — those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights — who are the radicals and innovators. The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam."

How to Lose a War

"Autocratic regimes, statist economies, gender apartheid, corruption, the absence of a free press — all that and more retard economic growth from the Gulf to Morocco. In response, theocratic regimes like the Taliban and the Iranian mullocracy blame the West for their own self-inflicted misery and inadequacies. But more often, clever dictators such as a Baathist Saddam, the Saudi Royal family, an Egyptian kleptocracy, or the Pakistani military regime allow Islamicists some rein, if not covert support, to deflect blame from their own failures onto the United States and the "Jews."

"A shamed Islamic street — ill-housed, ill-fed, and ill-informed — is nourished on the mythology that a purer creed and a return to the 8th century alone can reclaim past glories of the caliphate, and stop the decadent intrusion of Western consumerism and popular culture"
----------

The wrong thing to do in the face of terror:

Please Appease Me
---------

Retrieving bodies is nightmare for London rescuers

"Retrieval teams working deep underground to recover bodies after the London bomb attacks are battling ghastly conditions that one expert compared to a "foetid drain."

Uncommon devotion to duty is heroism.
---------

Sauerkraut Wrestling Proposed For Lawmakers

"If New Ulm's mayor gets his way, the governor and legislative leaders will duke out their differences in a wrestling ring filled with sauerkraut."

I believe Arizona settles election ties by cutting cards. More disputes should be settled by some unconventional competition instead of letting it fester. Entertaining too.
-----------

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq
----------

The Left doesn't support the troops and should admit it

"In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win."

" But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

"Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable"
-----------

A leftist who does actually support the troops:
Foreign Service

"The Iraqi civilians were very nice to us again, even though Samarra had a lot of insurgents for much of my time there. And the kids love us, especially the little girls, who seem to feel all this democratic change will be good for them in particular. The whole ‘mission’ is starting to feel like Peace Corps work, albeit you still have to be well armed. I am a political left-winger on most things, but on the Middle East business I think we are doing the right thing, mainly because that’s what all these Iraqi civilians kept telling me. Not sure why you don’t hear that kind of stuff on the media, except that most civilians there would consider it suicide to say good things about Americans on-camera.”
-----------

Homeowner thwarts break-in with handgun - Good man. Give him a medal.
Trotsy's Pick - Dispute over the weapon used to kill Trotsky. Weird
The Right Hates Freedom & America - Ooooo! Ouch.
44-car train abandondoned - Unions.....
Ron Reagan gets spanked
Rescuing the Laws of War - Military academic papers often strike me as more.... objective

Friday....

London:

Victor Davis Hanson: "Anticipate Western leaders condemning the terrorists in the same breadth as they call for “eliminating poverty” and “bringing them to justice” — as if the jihadists and their patrons are mere wayward and impoverished felons.

Wretchard: "The inevitable question then is 'why could Bin Laden not find the means to attack 30 trains?' The answer it seems to me, must be Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and hundred other places where he is engaged without quarter by US forces. Resources, whether Jihadi or no are not infinite. They do not have some magical machine that allows them to be everywhere at once, to sustain losses yet grow. There's no free lunch, not even, and especially not for Bin Laden. If it were true that Islamism would shrivel faster were it pursued more passively, then pre-911 policy should have finished it by now. But what we empirically observe is that ignoring them allowed them to mount 911-scale attack. Hit them continuously and in four years they could scrape together enough to blow up a London bus and some subway trains."

Steyn: "Yesterday, al-Qa'eda hit three Tube trains and one bus. Had they broadened their attentions from the central zone, had they attempted to blow up 30 trains from Uxbridge to Upminster, who can doubt that they too would have been successful? In other words, the scale of the carnage was constrained only by the murderers' ambition and their manpower."

and:

"Of course, many resources had been redeployed to Scotland to cope with Bob Geldof's pathetic call for a million anti-globalist ninnies to descend on the G8 summit. In theory, the anti-glob mob should be furious with al-Qa'eda and its political tin ear for ensuring that their own pitiful narcissist protests - the pâpier-maché Bush and Blair puppets, the ethnic drumming, etc - will be crowded off the news bulletins."

Arab view: 'Enough, enough' "Arabs and Muslims in Britain and across the world expressed outrage at the terrorist attacks in London, with the dominant viewpoint summed up by one person who wrote on a Web site, "Enough ... enough.""

Good. The War on Terror is showing more dividends. Some people wising up.

Incongruent note: "The September 11, 2001 al Qaeda attacks in the United States sparked some anger at Arabs and Muslims, which U.S. leaders and others worked to quickly counteract."

I recall a great deal of hyperbole about a backlash that didn't happen, 'US leaders' or not.

Official warns against Israel using events to 'score points' Israel can't do anything right. I guess.
----------

Oh and BTW Livingstone is a twofaced fickle lying sack of sh*t

Hee hee! Ken Livingstone, socialist mayor of London. Note that his anti-Isreali and anti-American beliefs didn't buy him any real gratitude.

Just a little background:

"Livingstone was in charge of London's transportation policy once before, in the early '80s, when his socialist "Fare's Fair" policy slashed prices on public transport and plunged the industry into financial troubles (which helped lead to the abolition of the Greater London Council of which he was head). "
----------

The Folk Song Army Sings Africa

If people really want to end poverty in Africa, they will support free market capitalism.
----------

North Waziristan refugee camps close: 85 percent choose repatriation

" The UN refugee agency has completed registering Afghans who wish to repatriate because of the closure of refugee camps in troubled North Waziristan, with at least 85 percent of the camp population choosing to return to Afghanistan rather than relocate elsewhere in Pakistan."

Afghanistan...... That wouldn't happen to be another sign of American success?
---------

Martin's effort to sway Bush on climate change gets mixed reviews

"Environmentalists are cheering on Prime Minister Paul Martin as he appeals for U.S. support in fighting climate change, saying Canada can't meet its Kyoto targets unless the United States is onside. "

"Martin said earlier this week he will speak "forcefully" to George W. Bush at the G8 summit to convince him of the scientific evidence that the world is getting warmer and that manmade sources are the cause. "

"Canada's greenhouse emissions are now 24 per cent above 1990 levels, a far cry from the six per cent reduction from 1990 levels called for under the Kyoto treaty."

Okay. Let me get this straight. The Canadian PM, whose country is not anywhere near compliance with Kyoto, is going to make demands on the US take action so that Canada can meet its goals. Would Martin like anything else? A rubdown and a shiatsu? Make his mortgage payments for him? Buyout the Canadian national debt?

Here is an idea. Canada signed the Kyoto Treaty, incidentally making a great deal of noise about how morally superior this made them. Canada, naturally, can meet their own obligations.
---------

Man Sues Mass. for Right to Get Drunk

"A man arrested when police showed up to break up a New Year's Eve party at a friend's house has filed a lawsuit, arguing he had a constitutional right to get drunk on private property as long as he didn't cause a public disturbance. "

A man on private property, not disturbing anyone, not operating any equipment, not breaking any actual laws, is arrested... for being drunk.

"Legal experts said his lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Boston, is the first to challenge a state law allowing police to lock up drunk people against their will for their own protection."

"Laverriere argues that the Massachusetts Protective Custody Law was written to combat public drunkenness and that the police had no right to use it to take him from a private residence. He also says he had planned to spend the night at his friend's and wasn't going to be driving anywhere."

"One thing people should be able to do is drink in their own house," Laverriere told The Boston Globe. "That's the beauty of the land of the free."

Hell, even a despotic regimes lets people get hammered.

"Attorney Leonard Kesten, who has defended police departments in civil-rights cases, said if officers are investigating a crime or responding to an incident and discover that someone is drunk and posing a danger, they are obligated to take that person into protective custody."

"Police have been sued for failing to take people into protective custody who later died from alcohol poisoning or killed others in drunken-driving accidents."

Aha. Tort reform.
----------

Brents' rampage nets 1,300 years

"Brent J. Brents was sentenced to more than 1,300 years in prison Wednesday for crimes a judge said showed "unspeakable cruelty and malignance."
----------

Friday Quote

"The ultimate determinate in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas - a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideas to which we are dedicated" -- Ronald Reagan