Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2007 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Larry did another set of Christmas skits; the all-inclusive manger scene at the end had me cracking up (someone flat nailed the 'Tom Cruise' character).
#1
A minor point but his reference to the 'provisional wing' (presumably a reference to the IRA) is wrong. The Provos were pragmatists. Unlike the Official IRA who were out there on the left.
The Official IRA lost and it happens I lived on the edge of Officials last stronghold in the Markets area of Belfast.
National Security: After getting little done all year because it was too busy playing politics, Congress' year-end priority is to make fighting the global war on terror as difficult as possible. A jihadist couldn't ask for more.
President Bush promises to veto legislation not containing immunity from lawsuits for telecom firms who cooperate with the U.S. government in terrorist surveillance. Apparently spoiling for a fight, the House passed a bill without such immunity. It also legislated to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other tough interrogation methods on suspected terrorists.
Democrats also want to block 70% percent of the intelligence budget from being spent until the House and Senate intelligence committees get briefed on Israel's September airstrike on an apparent nuclear facility in Syria. And they continue to try to tie war funding to a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq.
The pattern is clear: Over and over again, the ever-more disloyal opposition places obstacles in the way of our fighting al-Qaida and other terrorist enemies.
Whether it be on the Iraq battlefield, over the fiber-optic pathways of the Internet and voice communications, or in the cells of captured guerrillas, the Democratic Congress is against the most aggressive methods to win the new kind of war Western civilization now wages.
Fortunately, it has also, over and over again, run into another pattern: the president's trademark stubbornness. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently displayed her frustration with the commander-in-chief's determination, giving a peak into liberal Democrats' misguided thinking.
"They like this war. They want this war to continue," she told reporters, adding that "the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress." Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., concurred. "It's not just Nancy Pelosi," she said. "I made a mistake. I predicted we would stop the war. We thought President Bush and the Republicans would be more compromising on the war."
That is not quite the complete and unvarnished truth. What Democrats thought was that U.S. forces could not win, and that Iraq would seriously deteriorate this year. Those wearing the uniform soon proved her wrong after Bush applied the new surge strategy with 30,000 new troops and Marines, and a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus. As House Republican leader John Boehner recently noted, "It's clear that Democratic leaders underestimated the stakes, the consequences of failure and the determination of our troops to defeat al-Qaida on the battlefield."
A few years ago it was a different story. In 2002, as we learned last week, none other than Nancy Pelosi, along with other congressional leaders from both parties, were briefed on the waterboarding and other tough practices being employed to extract information about terrorist plots from a limited number of al-Qaida detainees. Somehow, none of them thought it was worth raising a peep back then. So in the wake of 9/11, liberal Democrats were hawks because the polls supported that. Now, with the presidential primary season well under way, they're doves under pressure from the likes of MoveOn.org and others in their political and financial base.
The GOP by comparison has held firm, as Boehner could boast last week. "Republicans have stood on principle to protect current and future generations of Americans, whether it polled well or not, and the success our troops are having in Iraq today is proof positive that our stance was the right one," he said.
Next year, the American people will have a momentous decision before them in choosing George W. Bush's successor. The same enemy will be there, as determined as ever to commit more 9/11-style atrocities.
Whether it's guns or surveillance or interrogation, Congress this year has shown us all that it would take away the tools necessary to protect Americans if only it had a president who would sign on.
#3
not likely. "Disgusting", "shameful" etc. apply, but they are generally exempt from prosecution whilst conducting their usual non-American activities
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2007 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the Democrats were arguing for drug decriminalization - including cocaine - then I could see the problem. Yes, the Clintons play hardball, this is no surprise. And we don't admire Karl Rove for nothing. But it is also true that should B. Hussein Obama win the Democratic nomination his cocaine use will be an issue and should be raised before Democratic primary voters make their decisions. I am not bothered by Obama's cocaine use as I think the whole war on drugs is an evil farce. But this does not change the fact that anyone buying cocaine under the current form of distribution is directly financing the worst low-lifes at home and systemic narco-terrorism abroad. Obama's drug use is and should be an issue.
#2
There are good reasons why I won't be voting for Obama, but his past drug use isn't one of them.
Obama writes in his book that he realized where drugs were taking him, and he cleaned up his act: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man."
To which I say: Good! He changed for the better. That's something to be proud of--not the drug use, but mustering the will and good sense to turn away from it.
What this incident has done is to give the Clintons an opportunity to employ their usual cheap-shot tactics in a way that makes them look cynical, desperate, ruthless, ineffective, and panicky all at once. To which i say: double bonus!
Posted by: Mike ||
12/16/2007 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Even though I won't vote for Obama, this only proves that the Democratic Party per se has become even more debased and undignified. When Bush was running, even though they knew he once battle a problem with alcohol, I don't think they brought that up because he has long been over that issue.
#4
When Bush was running, even though they knew he once battle a problem with alcohol, I don't think they brought that up because he has long been over that issue.
You haven't spent much time talking to liberals lately. The (false) rumor of continued substance abuse is a fixture in liberal BDS circles.
With the Dec. 3 publication of a completely unexpected declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities," a consensus has emerged that war with Iran "now appears to be off the agenda." Indeed, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed the report dealt a "fatal blow" to the country's enemies, while his foreign ministry spokesman called it a "great victory." I disagree with that consensus, believing that military action against Iran is now more likely than before the NIE came out.
The NIE's main point, contained in its first line, famously holds: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Other analysts - John Bolton, Patrick Clawson, Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, Claudia Rossett, and Gerald Steinberg have skillfully dissected and refuted this shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda, so I need not dwell on that here. Further, leading members of Congress are "not convinced" of the NIE's conclusions. French and German leaders snubbed it, as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency believe its American counterparts were hoodwinked, while Israeli intelligence responded with shock and disappointment.
LET US skip ahead then, and ask what are the long-term implications of the 2007 report?
#1
LET US skip ahead then, and ask what are the long-term implications of the 2007 report?
The CIA will be massively re-organized or shut down entirely. This may be more likely under a Democratic president who thinks he/she will get a pass from the media while it is underway.
#2
leading members of Congress are "not convinced" of the NIE's conclusions. French and German leaders snubbed it, as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency believe its American counterparts were hoodwinked, while Israeli intelligence responded with shock and disappointment.
I'll talk this one to death elsewhere, but suffice it to say that the NIE is having an effect, albeit one possibly not-intended by its authors.
It has to do with the willingness of certain groups (like diplomats and foreign relations wonks) to take the written word at full face value.
#4
The only purpose of the report is to stop the cowboy, Bush from starting another war. (period)
Those who authored the report have never been granted the power to stop a president from such an action, and were I the Congress, I would serve all contributing agencies with a swift ten percent reduction in the next budget.
But then, I have both brains and balls, and the Congress has neither.
#5
WX James, the problem is that politics has become such a cesspool, no decent thinking men want to be fouled by the process, so all we get are vile connivers, Honest men need not apply.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2007 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#6
(No, I don't want the job either.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2007 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Compare wid NEWSMAX > NEW IRAN REPORT COULD SPARK WAR. A new anti-Israeli, "YOM KIPPUR" style SURPRISE ATTACK, ONLY NUCLEARIZED/WMD-ized to Israel's detriment = destruction? by Israel's dedic enemies.
* Israel has already indic it may have to adopt PREEMPTIVE policies. A ME/REGIONAL NUKE-WMD ARMS RACE = means ISRAEL in LT will be like TAIWAN, choosing to go down fighting before being de facto defeated iff not absolut destroyed.
#8
The CIA will be massively re-organized or shut down entirely. This may be more likely under a Democratic president who thinks he/she will get a pass from the media while it is underway.
If a Democrat re-orgs the CIA, it'll be worse than it is now.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/16/2007 20:09 Comments ||
Top||
This is the time of year, as Hillary Rodham Clinton once put it, when Christians celebrate "the birth of a homeless child" or, in Al Gore's words, "a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child."
Just for the record, Jesus wasn't "homeless." He had a perfectly nice home back in Nazareth. But he happened to be born in Bethlehem. It was census time, and Joseph was obliged to schlep halfway across the country to register in the town of his birth. Which is such an absurdly bureaucratic overregulatory cockamamie Big Government nightmare that it's surely only a matter of time before Massachusetts or California reintroduce it.
But the point is: The Christmas story isn't about affordable housing. Joseph and Mary couldn't get a hotel room that's the only accommodation aspect of the event.
They couldn't even get a Motel 6 for Christ's sake.
Sen. Clinton and Vice President Gore are overcomplicating things: Dec. 25 is not the celebration of "a homeless child," but a child, period.
Just for a moment, let us accept, as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and the other bestselling atheists insist, that what happened in Bethlehem two millennia is a lot of mumbo-jumbo. As I wrote a year ago, consider it not as an event but as a narrative: You want to launch a big new global movement from scratch. So what do you use?
The birth of a child. On the one hand, what could be more powerless than a newborn babe? On the other, without a newborn babe, man is ultimately powerless. For, without new life, there can be no civilization, no society, no nothing. Even if it's superstitious mumbo-jumbo, the decision to root Christ's divinity in the miracle of His birth expresses a profound and rational truth about "eternal life" here on Earth.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Joseph was obliged to schlep halfway across the country to register in the town of his birth"
#2
The demographics problem (reluctance to reproduce in replacement numbers or greater) is really two problems, as Steyn seems to be saying. One is that there is a growing number of people who consciously choose to not reproduce at all. The other is that those who do are having only one or two children.
The former category isn't all that strange in historical context. Throughout history there have been people like this - soldiers, sailors, herders/drovers/cowboys, professional hunters, religious monks/nuns, etc., who never intended to settle down and raise a family. The problem now is that people who are settled down are opting not to have families either, in a way unprecedented in history.
The other issue, people having one or two kids to "actualize their need to breed" but never any more, is less talked about but just as much a factor, at least in my experience. I think there's a lot of given reasons why this happens - economics, late age that folks start families today vs fifty years ago, etc. - but I also think that the pervasive memes of Ehrlich et al have deeply permeated the consciouness of the West, and in particular the educated West (despite there being no truth to them), and people feel that they are doing something wrong having larger families.
It's a small sample size, I know, but I know of half a dozen women who stopped at one child because that child was a daughter. They all said that if the first was a boy, they would have kept trying to have a daughter and so had more children. All of these women were college educated in the social sciences. It may mean nothing, and I'm sure there are a few women out there who've had 3 or more children who got a psychology or women's studies or education degree in the last thirty years, but I suspect that having a single kid who is a daughter and no male children is a very desired result for dealing with the "clock tick" aspect of biology plus giving homage to the politics and "struggle" of the sisterhood.
What a difference from China, or even our own past, when boys were esteemed. It seems that now (no pun intended) boys are considered by a lot of educated women to be little more than defective girls. How much of the overall demographic problem this might be will be up to the historians to decide, if there are any left to make the decision.
One of the great quandaries of the West going forward is how to continue giving women the respect and freedom they deserve going forward and at the same time creating a milieu in which they breed in sufficient numbers to maintain and grow our population. Government handouts aren't the answer; neither is takeover of health care or other aspects of the family. The proof of this is todays's Europe, a petri dish for this sort of thing. As both (socialism and takeover of the health care/safety net by government) of these have increased in the modern socialist welfare state, fecundity has consistently dropped. Throw in a conscious attempt to obliterate the spiritual thread of the West by the cultural/education elite, and you get demographic collapse.
I've said it here before, the Dems want America to be a society indistinguishable from Europe, and Europe is going to be functionally extinct in three generations and literally extinct in four or five. The Repubs could make this into a killer campaign meme, if only they had the brains to do so.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/16/2007 6:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What a difference from China, or even our own past, when boys were esteemed.
Less than a hundred years ago in this county, most people live in small towns, villages, and in the rural stretches of this nation. It was an agrarian society and culture. Child bearing was still deadly resulting in females having a lower life expectancy than males. Infant mortality was high. There was no social security to help in any way when you body finally gave out. There was only family. Being largely a christian nation that meant that honoring one's father and mother took the form of sustaining them in their old age. Yes, males in most agrarian societies are valued because someone has to do the extended hard labor. You don't see the feminist fighting to get those jobs doing roofing, working the steel furnaces, or blasting at the quarry even today. And thanks to all the ladies who do serve, but the vast number of those shouldering the fight in the front lines are men, carrying around a hundred pounds of armor and equipment, in 120 degree heat, day after day. Today those 'boys' are still esteemed, it just a smaller population that does it. It certainly isn't one reflected in the Euro metroplexes and 'institutions of higher learning' that dot the coast and country. It's Mr. Edwards' two Americas, the Host and the Parasite. When crap happens to a major metro area, like Katrina on New Orleans, the order of things suddenly gets sorted out. No one is depending upon the Womens Studies Department to get their asses out of trouble.
#4
The demographics problem (reluctance to reproduce in replacement numbers or greater) is really two problems, as Steyn seems to be saying. One is that there is a growing number of people who consciously choose to not reproduce at all. The other is that those who do are having only one or two children.
There is another problem: The people who are having lots of children are Muslims. This leads me to believe that in the long run Mormonism may be all that stands between us and the horde.
#5
What seems to be needed in the West is a socially acceptable role for people who are not "up" for the difficult task of reproduction, complimentary to greater support for those who do have children.
In truth, there are people who are designed to have children, but there are many people who are not, as well. But since society encourages both groups to have children, without giving parents the support they need, and condemns those who do not have children, problems arise.
Children are essential to society. But the people who make them need lots of money, time, and especially energy to both make and raise these children well. It is not unreasonable that for the first 16 years of a child's life, their parents should have their income taxes reduced by as much as 50%. They should be remunerated for providing an essential function to society.
But people who for many reasons should not, or are unable to have children, as long as they do not inhibit the "breeders" from reproducing, their not having children should be respected.
In China there has long been the tradition of the "Amah", old maids who would live with a family not their own, in the role of housekeeper, nanny, and treated like a beloved maiden aunt. In exchange for room, board, a stipend, they do not date or marry. This was a societal opportunity for women who didn't get married, but did not wish to become prostitutes.
The acceptance of a "bachelor culture" in America, thus serves a double purpose. Supporting the people who do have children and integrating those who do not.
Importantly, there needs to be a separation in our culture between individuals who want to reproduce, and those that just want to "practice" reproduction. Breeders should not have their time and energy wasted by those who do not wish to breed, using the same logic as the sterile screw-worm fly.
#6
Nothing pleases me more than supporting other peoples youths. A massive tax break is needed for just this reason. I'll also vote to triple my school taxes and promise to look the other way when they mug me.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
12/16/2007 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
boys are considered by a lot of educated women to be little more than defective girls.
Oh really, (Dripping with sarcastic venom)
let's see you do without men, hard to breed that way.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2007 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Two short steps to extinction,
1. Breed all females
2. Females then die of old age-starvation, childless.
(3) Non insane, then prosper, two by two.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/16/2007 17:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This is one of those Darwinian problems that, given time, will just take care of itself.
#10
Lest we fergit. the VOLUNTARY SELF/HUMAN EXTINCTION MOVEMENT, or org name to that effect, as described on the Net. GOOD, DECENT, PATRIOTIC AMERIKANS DEMAND TO BE DESTROYED FOR THE SAKE OF THE WORLD = DITTO FOR DECENT HUMAN BEINGS FOR THE PLANET, THE UNIVERSE, AND .... ROSWELLIAN ALIENS = LOST TIME TOURISTS???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
