Wednesday, August 31, 2005

4GW Part 2: The End of History

Last time, we talked about the general meaning of Fourth Generation Warfare and how the line between war and peace has been essentially removed. Probably because if, say, North Korea was to openly attack us we'd use all our power, and, if we had to, we'd nuke them. The Atomic Age kind of has the same effect firearms had on duels or samurai warfare. Arguably, Vietnam was the first 4GW war--a proxy battle between the two-superpowers, only this time there was no "front line" and the Media was the real battleground. A lot of people now suffer from VMS: Vietnam Movie Syndrome. They endure under the idea of what Vietnam was--not what it actually was, which is debatable, but the image of that war in the Media. So the talk in the language of Vietnam, they think about not repeating those mistakes, and they compare current images to those images. This is fundamentally flawed since Vietnam was at least an unconventional war, if not 4GW, that people fought and examined and analyzed with conventional war tools. If we can't win in Vietnam, we can't win the Cold War the Media screamed. But you need new metrics for new conflicts, and Francis Fukuyama was the guy with the ruler. He argued famously that America would win the Cold War and Democracy would flourish because democracy satisfied the human soul and the spread of technology would slowly usher in the End of History (think Star Trek's future Earth). He was just as right as he was shouted down. So, I was a little sad to see his attack on the Iraq War in the Grey Lady today. His general point seems to be that redneck nationalist and ideological zealots have banded together to push a war that wasn't inevitable. He doesn't really say what we should have done instead, but does make some assertions which I'm not sure if I can agree with. (If you say the troops have morale problems--are you reporting a morale problem or creating one?) But Fukuyama is a smart, smart, smart man; so I assume he's got his facts. Thing is Fukuyama is a Reaganite; heck, he signed onto the overly-feared PNAC. What's the divide? Well, if you ask me its that Fukuyama argued that freedom would just slowly take over on its own, and Bush says, no, people have to stand up for it. It's kind of the whole point of these 4GW posts. You see you can't "win" a 4th Generation War; in fact, in a world of WMD there is no build up or "imminent attack" just a mushroom cloud one day. Well, maybe that's a little dramatic, but how can you stop an international organization of spies and killers and such that don't care if you have nukes? Its like trying to fist fight a virus. The answer is democracy. As Fukuyama himself has pointed out, democracies rarely fight each other, and free people don't blow themselves up. If we want to win a war on terror we have to win a war on tyranny. Fukuyama, perhaps suffering from VMS, believes stability is the watch word. We just have to keep everything quiet and human nature will take us there. Stability got us 9/11, in my opinion (I'm not going even address the full-retreat Liberal view that we should have been rolling over even more). I think its weird to say its a bad move to fight the bad guys (yes, Saddam was a bad guy). Maybe how you fight them is up for debate, but I think after you lose 3,000 people--you need to think about getting aggressive.

[Ed. Note- Read genie junkie's other Fourth-Generation Warfare posts:

4GW Part 1: What is Peace?
4GW Part 2: The End of History
4GW Part 3: Losing Iraq, "non-war" war in home-front politics
4GW Part 4: Is There a There?
4GW Part 5: Pros and Neo-cons of Fighting 4GW]

Hurricane, What Hurricane?

Garm and I have been watching the coverage from our respective command bunkers. But Garm missed a wierd moment where, FOX News reporter and all-around blow hard, Shep Smith asked--after a intro question--a simple question. "What are you doing? Do you know about the hurricane?" To which the man, standing on Burbon St. walking his dog like there wasn't a killer storm bearing down on his below sea-level burg, replied, "What am I doing? None of your [f-bomb]-ing business!" .... Yeah. Let that sink in. A man with a mic and camera asks you a question and you act like he's retarded--it's like he's trying to interview you or something! But wait this national TV; no delay, no bleep. He's got a hurricane that looks to be close to the size of Texas coming at him like a cruise missle and he's got the grapes to act like its just another day in the Big Easy. Shep probably had a "last sane man on Earth" moment when he looked around and saw few people were fleeing like Tom Cruise in War of the Worlds. Garm and I talked about blogging on the idiocy of some of these people, but we thought it a tad insensitive. Well, this guy didn't. Somehow this is a going to turn into a blame game: Gobal Warming, dirverted resources in Iraq, upperclass lives while leaving the poor to die--something. But I don't think I'd have blamed Shep Smith if he'd put that smart ass in a headlock planted his mug in the camera and said, "This, America, is the face of a moron."

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Catch the Red Eye

Hello, kiddies! Just watched Wes Craven's Red Eye. Implausible? Yes. Stylized? Sure. Predictable? Well, maybe, but I'm seen a thousand thrillers. This here's a good solid B movie. Tense, funny, violent, but not obscene. The two stars, Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy, do a great job of selling the Hobbesian choice premise. Basically, it's the "gun to your head/choose who dies" thing. Not exactly, the most reasonable way to go about criminal activity, but who can complain? I mean, at least global warming isn't the bad guy. The villain is smart and so is the hero, and the minor characters aren't useless bed-wetters. McAdams was in the Hot Chick, which, believe it or not, was not horrible. Murphy is fresh off of being a kind of effeminate bad guy in the utterly cool Batman Begins, and here he gets to be a bit more of a tough guy. If you can sallow the plot Red Eye will keep you in your seat and in the upright position.

The Real Reefer Madness

I hate the so-called "medical marijuana" debate. Mostly because I don't think there is anything "medical" about the debate at all. Oh, sure maybe the could be applications for THC, but I remain completely unconvinced that the whole medical marijuana movement is merely a covert legalization push. So first off, just come out and admit it, and, second, the legalization push is fueled by a point of view which I cannot stand. Namely, the idea that getting "high" is recreation--that it is okay to use chemicals purely for fun. "But genie!" You cry, "what about drinking and smoking?" Well, drinking has some food qualities, and you don't drink purely to get buzzed, but, yes, maybe most people do use alcohol to get high. That being said why would you want to unleash another blight on our society? Smoking does not impair you but is does give many, many citizen's cancer. So, let's combine the cancer and the substance abuse of both! I could sit here and go round and round with the "its okay to smoke" crowd. But the fact is 1) it is illegal (as in against the law--you know the laws you're suppose at least try to follow) and 2) you want marijuana to get high, which is juvenile, and I'm just busy with the whole Iraq, the WoT, Abortion debate, and etc. So, we have to listen over and over and over to the Medical Marijuana debate, because you going to want to dress up a little what amounts to a minor front in the Culture wars. Last time, in front of SCOTUS, it was federalism. And I'm sorry to say that the NRO and others dropped the ball. I read the case. The court was correct IHMO, but moreover: I read the case. I actually listened to what nine of the smartest legal people in America had to say. It boils down to this: If the federal government can't regulate drugs and/or contraband under the commerce clause, then words have ceased to have meaning in this universe. You can't say that medical marijuana--why am I still calling it that--wouldn't effect the policing of illegal marijuana and/or have an effect of the drug industry. Congress can regulate that...sorry. Of course, that is just opinion, an I'm kind of a jerk about this because I've had to listen to hippies and frat boys attempt to match wits with me or put me down for not being part of the cool crowd. Now, this guy is pushing the AIDS angle. I know a lot of conservative think this is no big deal, and, heck, I'm just provoking debate, but as a conservative I can't get behind this. Sure, marijuana probably makes some people hungry, or makes some people feel less pain--you might say the same thing about alcohol--but is marijuana going to really save anybody's life (other than Montel Williams?). I know, I know, I'm misinformed and uncaring and all that doesn't change the fact that the real deal is that people just don't think marijuana is a big deal.

Great. Call your senator.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Act of Allah

I wonder how long it will take for a Muslim Cleric to claim that the hurricane is punishment from God for American's "great satan" ways. If it's less than a month you owe me a Coke. Not that this isn't Biblical. One FOX fan wrote in to tell Angle that after the flood the high-ground will be swarmed with thousands of snakes trying to escape the salt-water. (Snakes, why'd it have to be snakes?) First reader (if such a thing exists) to post a link wins... umm... a garden weasel or something.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Words, Words, Words

I just got done perusing the Iraqi draft constitution. Man, they really spelled it out, but that doesn't matter. Basically, unlike the American Constitution, they went into some real detail over what the government can and cannot do. Of course, that doesn't matter at all. Most of us here in the Land o' Freedom don't have a clue what the law really says, and that makes sense because no law "abridging the freedom of speech" isn't the most in depth discussion of speech rights. No, we got two hundred years of case law, and even more centuries of tradition coming from across the pond--that's where you find the real freedom of speech. The Iraqi Constitution says Iraqis have the "freedom" of speech unless it violates "public order or morality." Of course, alarm bells probably go off for some of you! What's a violation of public order or morality? Seems like that could be twisted, huh? Well, that's pretty much what the case law says in America, too. You think we rolled out of the Revolutionary War with people reading Playboy on the street?

It's going to be rough going in Iraq. Their constitution is just words, it going to be the meaning that people will have to fight for--and in their case literally fight for. The weird part is that the draft has all these leftist rights: right to health care, right to social insurance, right to a clean environment, right to work, but, then again it does have spelled-out something our constitution only implies: the right to property. All in all, its a boring but enlightening read, and when you finish you realize that almost no wording would rule out failure--just as no words can insure freedom. Commitment, ya know?


Friday, August 26, 2005

The Red-State Filter

Hello, kiddies! You know, it's hard to be a red stater--you work hard, you come home, you want to watch something and veg out. So, you start watching your shows, and WHAM! Some commie sticks a sickening liberal public-service message right in the middle of your program. I recently mentioned this in reference to Buffy. Its when your mind filters out the crap and only excepts the good stuff. For example, I was watching the commentaries on Return of the Jedi with Garm the other day. Lucas, who thinks he's smarter than he really is (but what can I really take after from a man that has made that much money?) compared the Ewoks to the Viet Cong! He said that it was like Vietnam, where a primitive culture defeated a imperial superpower. I just let it go. It didn't happen for me. I just ignored the political commentary in Episode III. Heck, when I watch Stargate, all the anti-religious science stuff just flies right by me. I just ignore the fact that the premise that all supernatural powers are really just higher forms of technology. They go to new cultures every week and try to free them from their false gods. Its like an atheist's fantasy! But you have to pace yourself. You can't ignore some things! Like the unbelievably-forced lesbian storyline in the Buffy series. How brave of them to make the mousy, Thelma-eqse, bookworm wicca into a homosexual. It's a side story, so, I let it go. But for a while there it was dangerously close to screwing up like Ellen. Ellen (who is darn funny) didn't fail because us evil conservatives can't stand a homosexual character that doesn't have our viewpoints. It failed because it broke the red-state filter! It spiked its propaganda right in our faces (here's a gay blogger's criticism of the Ellen Show's unfunniness). Now, she's back on TV--just it's not lesbian this and lesbian that all the time. Now, before you tell me that there's no such thing as radicalism in TV because its just TV I have a message for you--shut it. Even if you don't realize that everything is used to push the left's agenda, they do. Like this jackass that wants to push leftist ideas with sports. I caught him on Book TV complaining that servicemen were being sworn in at a Nationals game along with a recruiting message with the kind of fake shock that protesters give you when you tell them you're just not so sure they really "support the troops." I still love "They Live" but when one of your alien master-race is giving Reagan's “Morning in America” speech, yeah, you've pushed the filter to its limit. Your filter is your friend, keep it clean and it will keep you clean.

Gates of Fire

Michael Yon's latest piece, "Gates of Fire" is up. As usual, it should be required reading for everyone. No qualifications. Everyone. Yet again, Yon describes the human drama, the individual, heroic, professional personalities of our soldiers in Iraq. Every paragraph is more than worthy to be a teaser quote (although if you're familiar with Yon's work, you won't need a teaser), but here's an excerpt anyway:
When a soldier is killed or wounded, the Department of Army calls the loved ones, and despite their attempts to be sympathetic, the nature of the calls has a way of shocking the families. There is just no easy way to say, "Your son got shot today." And so, according to men here, the calls sound something like this: "We are sorry to inform you that your son has been shot in Mosul. He's stable, but that's all we know at this time."

LTC Kurilla likes to call before the Army gets a chance, to tell parents and loved ones the true circumstances.
Kurilla was running when he was shot, but he didn't seem to miss a stride; he did a crazy judo roll and came up shooting.

BamBamBamBam! Bullets were hitting all around Kurilla. The young 2nd lieutenant and specialist were the only two soldiers near. Neither had real combat experience. AH had no weapon. I had a camera.

Seconds count.

I agree with Michelle Malkin often, about many things, but I've never agreed with her more than when she writes:

If there were Pulitzers for Blog Reporting, Michael Yon would win hands down for Gates of Fire.

Not only are the writing and the story amazing, but Yon's pictures of the actual action described elevate the drama and humanity of the soldiers to new heights. Read the whole thing. And then read it again.

(btw, the
book that the article's title refers to, "Gates of Fire," by Steven Pressfield, is a GREAT book, and is well worth reading)

Update: I was *this* close to writing about how much I can't stand the 5.56mm NATO as a combat round (it's great for, you know, ummmmm....woodchucks or something, I guess), and how part of Yon's article gives an example of WHY I'm not fond of it, but Kim du Toit beat me to it, and with fouler, though entirely appropriate, language.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

A+ B Movies

Hello, kiddies! Well, I want to tell you about another odd, little known B-movie. Innocent Blood is a movie that, like the Prophecy, has a little bit of everything: vampires, mafia, undercover cops, an extremely explicit sex scene, 'polsions, "mood eyes," slapstick, a human torch, and one petite french-chick with an weird accent. Basically, there's this hot vampire that feeds on criminals, but she screws up and vampifies a mob boss--a mob boss that the undercover cop is after. So, they team-up and hilarity ensues. The tagline, believe it or not, slaps the "comedy" label on this story, which, put aside that I think all horror films are inherently funny, is a big stretch. Here's what's really funny, the show has tons of famous people in little roles: Angela Bassett, Don Rickles, Chazz Palminteri, and even a cameo from Frank Oz--and SAM RAIMI. You gotta love any guy that take a short 8mm film and turn it into a career that gives us Spider-Man. Landis, of American Werewolf in London fame, directed this movie, which means that it is probably a good thing there aren't any commentaries.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Sui Juris

"The justifications advanced for their public policies and actions show little appreciation for values I (and many other Democrats) hold dear: that the merit of a government should be judged, not by how effectively it adds to the abundance of those who already enjoy abundance, but by how effectively it relieves the misery and suffering of those less fortunate; and that it is one of government's most important responsibilities to ensure that future generations will have clean air and water, habitable land, and a sustainable, viable ecosystem."

Auntie Pinko is an interesting read, but the point I want to make is about "helping out the little guy." See, many on the left (and beyond) think that government is about protecting the weak, leveling the field, and other oblique phrases. You see this thread in a lot of their policies: Affirmative Action, Drop the Debt, Tax the Rich, the Welfare State, and I'm fairly sure they would argue that this philosophy has a rational connection to scores of what the left insists on calling "ideas" (like environmentalism). Most commonly, and most clearly, I hear this about the SCOTUS. The Court, according to the blue-staters, is there to protect the democratic minority's rights. Not, as I tend to think, to protect everyone's rights equally under the law. Usually this degrades into a vague conspiracy theory about the "power elite" buffering the "status quo" to keep in power. I'm not saying that all that fair deal stuff doesn't have a place, but let's talk about the extreme logical end. If one believes in "defending the weak" one has to know whom the weak are. And liberals know. They know that all African-Americans need a hand up, all big businesses need a beat down, and no one is capable of any act of freewill. History dictates your place, your class, your power--genetics and politics and the WTO control your every move. Now, I'm not saying that these aren't factors, but people are not that weak. They don't need to government to make everybody equal, they just need an opportunity, a shot at greatness--they don't even need an equal opportunity, just a chance. America is the land of opportunity. But that means something, that means a chance to fail, an unsure outcome, the possibility of being swatted down by forces just and unjust.

This why the left is radical.

They want to fundamentally alter human nature and/or reality itself to make everyone equal. Oh, not completely equal, but just pretty much the same with an Animal Farm exception for the erudite guardians of this utopia. It all starts with them wanting to protect people they see as victims. In fact, victimization is a common mind set for your leftist--and justification for horrible behavior! I'm not going to the list the crazy generational guilt that the left unloads on America, but I will say that its all based on the idea that people can't change--that blacks are victims, and whites are racists, and men are sexists, and women are weak, and your religious-types are blood-lusting prudes. This is why black-republicans are considered uncle toms. When you see the world in classes, you see race; you see gender; you see the classification, not the person. You likely see the world in classes if you want to be a "defender of the weak." Classes mean a general dismissal of freewill, and when you eliminate freewill you eliminate good and evil and right or wrong. You replace them with cultural norms and counter-productive behavior. Death is the ultimate evil, and being judgmental is the worst sin. Because to perfect equality one must make humans less than human. We're all "equal" if we all are bi-pedal primates full of sound and fury. We're all the same if we're all nothing.

And if we're all nothing--If it all means nothing--Then shouldn't equality be brought to the masses by any means necessary?

Later, I'm going to talk little bit about how one goes about changing human nature to make people except this crap. Above is a blueprint of the Nanny State.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Geeking Out...pleasant taste. Some spoilerism.

Hello, kiddies! Last time it was Wonder Woman and the Superfriends drinking game. This time I wanted you know I took a bullet for you. Yes, I watched Blade: Trinity. A movie some thought wasn't very good. I saw it in the theater and I got the DVD--here's why: 1) I strongly believe in supporting all comic movies. 2) Also, David Goyer, writer/director of Blade 3, is all over the comic movie scene. (Batman Begins, the Flash, the Crow, Ghost Rider, etc.) 3) Finally, I wanted to know if they would do a Blade 4 or even a Nightstalkers movie. Well, Goyer, Biel, and Renyolds said some stuff about maybe doing it, and the alternate-ending definitely suggests Goyer was hoping for more Nightstalkers. Hell, the whole movie is a passing of the torch--Goyer even flat out says that Blade has become a mythic character now, meaning... No more Blade? Goyer wrote all the great lines for Hannibal King. If you watch the animatics from Blade 1 you'll see that Goyer just reversed the original ending for Blade 3. Particles intermingle--blood and a bio or chemical-weapon. Then all the vampires are wiped out (instead of all the humans like Goyer really wanted to do). Plus, Goyers might be doing the Flash with Reynolds, so, hey, they might get the band back together. Blade was good, if only for the line right before Deacon Frost is dispatched; now Blade 3 ain't great, but Parker Posey is great (whose apparently is going to be Superman Returns), and the back story on Biel's gun belt will change the way you look at that character. It would be nice to listen to one of Goyer's commentaries without him describing the bad guys as "fascist" or the good guys as "grass roots." But with all the six degrees of separation going on in the comic book land maybe we can get them to finally do what I've always been saying (mostly saying to Garm while he pretends to care). They need to start seeing each movie as part of a larger franchise. A Blade universe, or dare I dream a Marvel movie universe. Ultimate Marvel is basically spearheading this with its genetically persons of mass destruction general theme and... no, no, must stop self. Just breathe...where's my Spider-Man plush doll?

I Liked It Better When He Hit Cameras

Hello, kiddies! Sean Penn is "reporting" from Iraq (h/t: drudgereport). Let's just take a guided tour of crazy shall we?
It is a nation of nuclear power, where the lobbies of the religious right effectively blur the lines between church and state. But it is also a country of good and hospitable people. And when the local team wins a big match, there is dancing, kissing, drinking and drugs in the streets. Women are graduating the campuses in higher and higher numbers, occupying government in higher and higher numbers. Sound familiar? But wait. The women. Look at the women. All is not well. I'm thinking about the women. This is Iran.

Holy Mother of GOD!! This is one of those things were I hope that I'm too stupid to understand. First off, "It is a nation of nuclear power, where the lobbies of the religious right effectively blur the lines..." on what planet does those two clauses have anything to do with each other? Furthermore, I want to thank Sean Penn for bringing to my attention that the lobbyists of the "religious right" (not be confused with the Iranian atheist lobby) are blurring lines between church and state in a ... wait for it... in a flippin' THEOCRACY!!! Cause I thought it was the whole rule by the Ayatollah? Thank you, Mr. Penn, thank you for opening mine eyes! I love how kissing and hugging and a sports win are right in there drugs in the street. Drugs in the street? Well, that's fantastic! Mom, baseball, and apple pie--and drugs in the street; the Iranians are obviously on the verge of American style democracy! Now I can't figure out if the "Sound familiar?" refers to the Iranian women or the whole article, but assuming its the women, yeah, I kind of think that the situation of Iranian women and that of Western women is only similar in the mind of Mr. Penn. "But wait. The women. Look at the women. All is not well. I'm thinking about the women. This is Iran. " But wait, this is what San Francisco Chronicle thinks is writing? That's how he wraps up the first part of his reporting from Iran? I think... I think I'm going to have to go with [censored]. I think [censored] is the word for this [censored]. To the bottom right is a picture of Mr. Penn and crowd of people behind him which absolutely none of which are government minders. Top right is a X-ray of Garm after reading the tripe while in an unsafe proximity to a nail gun that promised to end the searing pain in his logic centers.

Every Slayer Has A Death Wish

Hello, Kiddies! Yes, I'm a big Buffy/Angel fan (although Garm had to clue me in that Loren was atleast symbolically gay--red state filter I guess) any way there's this episode where Spike tells Buffy that "every Slayer has a death wish," that they secretly long for it. That could apply to lot of things, here's one.

I've been considering this post for a while now. I talk to Dems and Libs all the time and they're always amazed when I tell them that the Democrats ruled America for like 60 years of the 2oth-century. Why? Well, they thought that all evil flowed from the right, that Vietnam and segeration were Republican ideas. Being in power meant that dems actually had to be part of the middle and the left, but then the whole New Left in the 60s ripped everything apart. Thus cometh Bill Clinton and the gang. Political whores that, while leftist, were really about winning elections. Now, the Democrats have been handed some huge losses, and they sputter about, raving about how core American values are under attack. No, core leftist values are under attack--your the ones that took your party to Hollywood and Cuba and Europe. But then come the Republicans asking, "why are they going with Howard Dean! Did they not learn their lesson? Don't they want to win an election?" The answer is yes and no, but mostly no. Let's listen to one of their bigger hacks:

Here's a dirty little secret. The Republicans know this. Nothing scares them more than us returning to our simple answers. Here's Bill Kristol, in a famous 1993 memo I'm sure you're all familiar with: "Health care is not, in fact, just another Democratic initiative . . . the plan should not be amended; it should be erased. . . . It will revive the reputation of the . . . Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests." I'd say this memo is the skeleton key to understanding modern American politics, if it didn't make me yawn. There's nothing here that's unfamiliar to historians who've read Republican secrets going back 25, 35, even 70 years. You can sum them up in 10 words: "If the Democrats succeed in redistributing economic power, we're screwed."
They have reason to fear.

You see. He's happy. There is no more fighting to straddle the middle. Now the left can be what it wants to be: radicals. Grassroot, from the street, revolutionaries. I don't want this because it is true that an ideologically consistent oppontent is much more dangerous, and, jeez, communistic democrats as a major American party--yuck! But that is the thing, they want to be radicals because they want to be the little guy! Maybe they'll come back later and win, but right now they want to be angry geniuses of social reform that shake their fists at the plastic, corporate world and talk about how dreamy "Che" was (before he was executed like a commie dog). Now they're counter-culture, now they are the cool kids. They were the ruling party, but just as Whedon teaches us, everyone that's on top wonders what it would be like to fall, to lose. Losing an election was very liberating, they wanted to let go; to go back to when conservatives were evil and liberals were good. To say out loud: Socialism! And we shall overcome! And its the gulag for you, comrade!

Saddam's found the Lord?

According to this article, he sure has, saying "Life is meaningless without the considerations of faith, love and inherited history in our nation." The article itself says, "[Hussein] spends much of his time reading the Koran and has become a devout Muslim in captivity." Of course, having learned at least one iota, and hopefully more, of the history of Iraq with Hussein as it's dictator, I tend not to believe that Hussein has become anything close to being a person strong in his faith in Islam. In fact, I feel that Saddam attempting to do one or both of two things:

1) Attempting to display piousness in the face of overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses and crimes against humanity and his own people, in an attempt to gain some sort of leniency.

2) Become a martyr for jihadists/Arabs/Iraqi insurgents/et. al.

Now, both options are perfectly understandable from his point of view, but the second one is the only one that really matters. After all, he is also quoted as saying, "My brother, love your people, love Palestine, love your nation, long live Palestine." I'm not an Islamic scholar, but his hatred of Israel, in my mind, does not automatically make him a devout Muslim, especially considering his own behavior in regard to his barbarous rule of Iraq. What I'm afraid of though is that by putting on a show in front of the world that he IS a devout Muslim who hates everything American, Israeli, etc. will endear him to Islamic terrorists across the world. The extended, and probably unavoidable, nature of his impending trial are NOT helping his possible attempt at becoming a martyr to the groups mentioned above. Hopefully the trial will emphasize his crimes, rather than give him a platform for one last fist-shake against the Great Satan.

But I'm not going to hold my breath; we'll see in six weeks or so.

The Fatalistic Four

Check out Brainster's Blog to see what would happen to the Fantastic Four if they were peaceniks. mmmm...Politics, the War on Terror, and Comics. Good stuff. Add this to the list of Things-I-wish-I'd-thought-of-myself-but-didn't.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Michael Yon

Michael Yon's latest post, Proximity Delays, is up. Consistantly, IMO, the best reporting coming out of Iraq. A true must-read.

Steven Seagal Watch #8

Hello, kiddies! Seagal's not done. In fact, he's just getting his second wind. Black Dawn is a new movie, apparently a sequel to the 2003 film, The Foreigner, in which, I kid you not, the lead character is named "Jonathan Cold." In other Seagal "movie" news, there are rumors of an Under Siege 3, know, he's got to the third one, and then go back and do the prequels! If you're looking to see the Mumbling Master in the flesh, you could go to the Burton Festival and catch him playing the guitar, with, like, rock 'n' roll hall of farmers ... Until the next direct to DVD action title, you can swing on over to Atom Films and watch these three "Seagal Shows," which are pretty fantastic and something mmanndmii:.:.:...;.... ... (What did you say?) Apparently, the juveniles over at the Toliet are responsible (some anti-Bush content, not recommended for the faint of politics). In a tie in with the question of profaning icons/trademark from the Boy Wonder post, just remember this is nowhere near the Newgrounds hosted "Snarly Brown" which was basically Charlie Brown as the Bad Lieutenant, something that was so sued off the web I could only find this cached mention of it. These cartoons are might anger Seagal, but I'd say they fall within satire.

Until next time: WWSSD

Friday, August 19, 2005

Swear To YOUR God

Muslims are complaining they can't swear on the Koran in court in North Carolina. Only they can; that is, they can hold the Koran and promise to tell the truth, they just can't force the court to provide the Koran and endorse the whole idea that the Koran is worth swearing on. Will this get swatted down? Maybe, but in reality it makes sense that people can't force the state, via lawsuit, to change the what kind of oaths it will recognize. Does a satanist swear on the Satanic Bible? If I was NC, I'd change the law, so that the libs couldn't take the issue to federal court. Besides, is it really so great to tell a jury you're a devout Muslim these days? Think they'll assume you're peaceful and rational? I can see the terror defendant's cross-examination now: “Soooo, you swore on this book, didn't you? And this is the Koran, isn't it? And you believe in the Koran, don't you? You strive to do as it commands? Well, that's interesting, the Koran has these passages in it doesn't it?”

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-) "It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-) "Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73) "Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)

Hey, I wouldn't be so low as to do it, but we are talking about lawyers here.

Even Watergate Wasn't Watergate

Recently, Vanity Fair writer Michael Wolff said "I think [the Plame/Rove leak story] certainly is one of the biggest stories of our age..." Age. Not year, not decade, not generation, but Age; as in the Space Age. Wolff went on: "If the guy closest to the President has potentially committed a felony ... If Karl Rove were out of business, that's a f-ing big story." His comments did not go unchallenged. "You guess, and then you write!" Richard Cohen of the Washington Post blasted Wolff. "This is a crappy little crime, and it may not be a crime at all." Well, there's a harsh retort, but I'm still caught up on the whole "biggest stories of our AGE" thing! I'm not going to suggest the Media is bias, but blind. The Media is not just a watchdog the government; the Media should be about telling truth. Finding, arguing about it, explaining it, but some people just can't wait to have Robert Redford render them on the silver-screen. Yes, Rove getting sacked would be a big story, but the story of our age? Here's a headline: Media's Myopic View Obscures the Historic Event of Our Age!

Boy Wonder (Sooo wrong. On so many levels!)

This is a water-color done by a guy named Mark Chamberlain. The BBC reports that DC Comics is suing to have it taken down, taken off the web, and have the artist hand over all the unsold work. It's just another example of art being screwed up beyond all comprehension. What was it Nietzsche said? "If you stare into the Abyss long enough the Abyss stares back at you." Well, chalk this up with "Piss Christ" and that feces covered Virgin Mary--not that Batman is our lord and savior--but look we live in this crazy world where junk like this is art. In fact, if one was to paint a Dante-esqe image of gays being sent to hell it would be hate speech, or an anti-abortion novel would "threaten reproductive rights, or, God forbid, display the Ten Commandments. Now, I don't want to go off like Tom Wolfe here but perhaps the difference between Art and Obscenity is that Art actually has something other than a visceral effect. Art reveals a truth, even if that truth is disturbing, whereas obscenity plays only to our basic impulses on violence, sex, power, and fear. Here we got a twisted image, but the twist is provided by the Genius of DC and Bob Kane. They created the icon, and this guy just transposed it onto an obscene image (this pic was the least of it). Is it art? Dunno, but if it is, I'm pretty sure it ain't good art. Check out BoingBoing for more images (if you can stomach it; it gets a bit more graphic) and some interesting background. (h/t: drudge)

(ed. Note- in genie junkie's unspoken opinion, Batman is WAY too close to Christ on the “coolness” scale -Garm)

4GW Part 1: What is Peace?

No war for oil. Anti-war, pro-peace. Peace Activist. Language is a funny thing. Funny ha-ha and funny strange. What do people mean when they say peace? Do they mean nobody's out there trying to kill us? Or that we aren't militarily mobilized? What is war? Seems like a stupid question, but, come on, were we ever at war with the USSR? Like all conflicts the War on Terror is an evolution of the previous war, namely the cold war and it's most famous battleground: Vietnam. Now, if you think we were at peace during the Cold War you might or might not be a liberal, but you are definitely a retard. Thousands of people died so you could sit around and talk about how great it is to be at "peace." Ben Franklin said, "There never was a good war or a bad peace." Well, maybe so, but Franklin did help launch a war, and would he consider what some morons call peace? I'll never understand this: Saddam invades Kuwait (heading towards the Kingdom), we kick him out and sign a ceasefire, he tries to kill Bush I, he shoots at our planes, he murders his people, he has children raped in front of their parents, he kicks out the inspectors, we shoot cruise missiles at him, and on, and on.... And then peace activist want to stop the war for oil. Well, when exactly did the war end? Maybe you just had the TV on mute? There are people and nations out there and they are at war with us--maybe not open war--but has the Cold War should teach us, war need not be open to be real. We do not live in Franklin's fallacy of the "bad peace," but instead live in a world where people are ready to accept the fallacy of the "good war" as long as they can ignore it. Fourth-generation Warfare is the theory that we've moved into a world where peace-time and war-time blur. Combatants may be the proverbial fish swimming in a sea of people. The political movements are fronts in their struggle, the media and scholarship are battlefields. Is this true? Well, I'm going to be exploring the idea little here on the blog, let me know what you think...

[Ed. Note- Read genie junkie's other Fourth-Generation Warfare posts:
4GW Part 1: What is Peace?
4GW Part 2: The End of History
4GW Part 3: Losing Iraq, "non-war" war in home-front politics
4GW Part 4: Is There a There?
4GW Part 5: Pros and Neo-cons of Fighting 4GW]

Saudi Spring Break

Well, I'm not sure if they have a Spring Break or not, but now I know why so many spring break-er's in the U.S. go to Daytona instead of Riyadh.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

The Toughest Job

Whether you agree with the Gaza withdrawal or not, you have to respect the professionalism of the Israeli Army. On FOX News they had one clip with a settler saying, "Isn't there any sympathy in the whole world?!" Boy, that pretty much sums up how "somtimes it be's like that" (to quote Pink). One solider was trying to cut barbed wire off a barricade and this settler kept poking at the pliers with a long stick. Reports are that they were throwing acid and sand and trash. The settlers would scream at the soldiers that they were like the Nazis. These Israeli soldiers did a heck of a job – after all, Garm can barely keep from killing people who chew too loud. Then you got the peace loving, multi-cultural, democrat Palestinians on the sidelines claiming that they won this "victory" through terror. One Palestinian said something on NPR about how the Jews should not being upset over leaving there homes because it was never their land. (I'll just mark him down for ending the entire peace process in genocide) On the other hand, I'm sure it is upsetting when a foreign religious and ethnic group comes into your lands and take control of your holy sites--like say when the Muslims conquered the Byzantines' land? I'll never understand why academics and such that visit the Muslim countries always have to apologize for the Crusades when it seems pretty clear to me that many in the Muslim world are just as ready to murder in the name of God? Anyway, nobody, not even the terrorists, can claim this as a win. It's a compromise. A painful first-step that if the Palestinians have one bit of wit will embrace in the name of peace--if that is indeed what they want. Bush pushed for this move, and frankly, quietly, the entire mid-east peace process has turned around on his watch. Nobody talks about that... But in the end, you got to give it up to the soldiers that made it happen, the guys with the toughest job.

Somewhere, Cartman Is Laughing

When the Mexican President Vinicente Fox said that Mexicans take jobs even Blacks in the States won't take he got criticized as being racist. The argument, as I understand it, is Fox is implying Blacks are almost the lowest social class in America by suggesting any job they wouldn't do is really low. However, Fox spoke in support of immigration, which, generally, has some associated with semi-racist immigrant hating (see Gangs of New York). So, your racist is all conflicted when he or she hears this, right?

But then Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, says that Fox is right! He says Blacks don't want those jobs because in his words they already "picked enough cotton." So, what Farrakhan is saying is that Fox is right that Mexicans do take jobs that even Blacks won't take. And that such jobs carry with them a stigma of slavery? Mexican workers do slave work? Farrakhan who hates white-people, if one can construe that from all the "blonde, blue-eyed devil" remarks, is making racist comments about Mexicans. And pro-immigration Fox is bagging on Blacks. So, if you're a racist your whole world has been knocked into a cocked hat! Confused? Me too. That's why I just hate people one at a time.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Are They Tough Enough

The BBC has this article about the class of Iraqi military instructors that the British just graduated. My first thought was, jeez, is it so smart to be telling everyone who these guys are and what they look like. But they came off to as good soldiers. The looked determined--well, all but this guy on the left who looked like he was going to sell me a lemon of a car. The question is: can they do the job? Here's a quote:
Staff Major Maad Drajy also was a member of the Republican Guard - despite being a member of the Shia majority, which had little power under Saddam Hussein. "For well-educated people, there is no difference between Shia, Sunni and Kurd," he says. "It is the Americans who are making the difference." He has no doubt that things are better in Iraq now than they were before: "Nowadays there are no restrictions. There is freedom."

Monday, August 15, 2005

Bochco's Botched and Biased "Over There"

I was *this* close to writing about the failings of "Over There," the new FX series based on the ongoing Iraq war, created by Steven Bochco. Now, I loved Bochco's "Hill Street Blues" and "NYPD Blue;" they were great, well-acted, well-written, gritty cop dramas. Of course, he's also the guy who created "Doogie Howser, M.D." So his "guy-who-created-some-great-shows" factor is decreased exponentially. If you don't know about "Over There" yet, it's supposed to be a gritty, real-life exposition on the war in Iraq. Like I said, I was going to pontificate on the failings I've seen thus far in the show, but then I ran across the article written on the same subject by Michael Fumento, who was actually embedded with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq this year. He basically says everything I was about to say, but with more credibility:

Particularly appalling to me was a slam against Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD). It simply fails to show up to disarm a vehicle packed with enough explosives to blow up Rhode Island. I was embedded with the EOD unit of the 8th Engineer Support Battalion at Camp Fallujah. They react to calls with the speed of firefighters (or Domino's pizza) and coolly and professionally carry out some of the most dangerous jobs of the war.

Read the whole thing.

For a great round-up of stories from Iraq by people who are actually there, here's Mudville Gazette's latest Dawn Patrol; one of my personal favorites is Michael Yon, who is currently embedded near Mosul.

Put Up Your Dukes!

I saw the Dukes of Hazzard the other day. Yeah, I know-lame-but it wasn't wasn't good either. It was more like the Blue-state attempt at making a Red-state movie. Hence, the Dukes came off as hellraising, mindless rednecks, and every female in the movie was a sex-crazy cowgirl whose clothes couldn't keep a tick mouse warm. But that's not what I wanted to talk about. They had the guts to put the flag on the roof of the General Lee. Sure, it wasn't the Dukes' idea to put it on the car, and, yes, they quake stereotypically at some black men's threats,--but I was amazed they even put it in. I thought it would be like a mini-version of what we all, while gritting our teeth, misleadingly call "the Flag Debate."

But it was part of the history!

Yes, but it was racist then and now--Wait--are we talking about the General Lee or the Georgia Flag?

In the South there is no debate. Everybody's afraid to talk about it. They change the subject, they feign disinterest. You might as well try to whip up a debate about proper table-manners for cannibals. There is hate on both sides. See, one thing that a lot of people don't get is that many feel the Confederate Flag is the same as the Swastika. If that were true we need to tear down the memorials, redo Stone Mountain, and kick over the graves. But it isn't true. Look, slavery is evil, but not everyone that ever owned a slave is Hitler. I'm sure that it is useless to point out that slavery, in history, has been the rule, not the exception. Regardless of fact of life that slavery presented, not everyone that lived in the Old South owned a slave. Most of the poor SOB's that fought in the Civil War didn't own crap--much less other human being. So was the war about slavery? And do we remember evil when we display the Confederate Flag?


The Civil war was about slavery, though it wasn't that the end of slavery was going to free blacks. The big thing was the money, right? The loss of a practice in which the entire regional economy was based? However, that can't possibly excuse the practice. Slavery is a scar on America. Brother enslaving brother led to brother killing brother. Shouldn't everyone that calls themselves American remember the evil that nearly destroyed the dream? Shouldn't it be a tragedy? Something not easy. Not good guys versus bad guys, but an impossible situation that swept up people doing what they thought they had to do? Is the CSA soldier defending his home pure evil, is the Union Soldier burning his way through a defeated country pure good? The Georgia Flag included the stars and bars in the 50's for segregationist reasons; its not like the people that raise the flag are all enlightened historians of American History. Yet, when a great grand-child puts a confederate battle flag on a grave of a fallen soldier is that great grand-child "worse than Hitler?" I really don't think such a sentiment is solely about "sticking it to the blacks."

I've lived up North. Up there it's easy. They're the good guys, we're the bad. Carpetbaggers were northern schoolteachers that came to teach blacks how to read. Anyone that would even entertain the idea of looking at a Confederate Flag is evil beyond all comprehension. Walter Williams might disagree with that (and also maybe--since support for the flag from Kerry is not overwhelming--the obviously conflicted fellow who created this election display on the right)

I really don't care what's on the flag. I'm bored by any so-called "debate" where it's just race-baiting and score settling. You know a flag is a symbol. And we can change the symbol, but if the symbolism is the same what have we really changed? A lot of people want to forget about it; some believe that by tearing down the flag we'll strike a blow against the evil people. I think both those paths lead to ignoring the humanity of the story. You shouldn't forget the flag, and you shouldn't hate the flag. Like our all American History we have to live with it. I'm not sure if we can. Hell, maybe I'm wrong and we could just hide it behind the boxes and old picture-frames. Maybe we should blast old Jackson's face right off the mountain. I always wondered if we could change the flag. Change the colors. Change the symbols. Change the meaning. What if the bars were black for the stain of slavery, the horror and evil of our past? What if the background was blood-red for the losses on all sides. And what if there was one star, the star of hope, to lead us to the future that we all share? I don't care what happens with the flag, but it seems like hating anybody that disagrees with you just leads to division and fear. What do you think? Oh, wait, wait--I know, I know...I am worse than Hitler!

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Courtney Love Lives

Contrary to recent Internet rumors of a suicide Courtney Love is actually alive. And indeed, she was part of the Comedy Central Roast of Pam Anderson. How was it? It was the hardest of the hardcore, the harshest, funniest roast I've seen. It'd be funnier than the Drew Carey Roast if the subject of the roast had a some dignity. Pam was a good sport, but Courtney insisted on speaking, and standing, and throwing stuff. On a side note, Andy Dick must be gay or they probably wouldn't have let him sexually assault Pam on TV, and, man, that was the most Tommy Lee "size" jokes I've ever heard! Courtney Love actually was funny. She strung together some understandable sentences. I use to kind of like Love, just because...I don't know, she's kind of sad. But, good for her. She alive. She can speak. She sounded drunk, but then she always did. She swears she's clean for a year! Wow. A year later and that's what you look like--stay off drugs kids! Stay off drugs. She claims rocker status, which frankly wasn't meant to be funny, but when you haven't been on a stage since before Jon Stewart took over the Daily Show...Come on! Anyway, big ups for her for admitting she's not not a punchline. SATAN!

Rights vs. Entitlements

You know, it's really sad the conditions that some people live in. What's more sad is the crazy Nanny-state way that the socialistic Europeans and others go about crying to mama about every little problem. Look, conservatives sometimes get too hardcore with people, the whole Compassionate-Conservative thing is the right idea to keep the balance. But people, we have to stop this whole "I want it so its a fundamental right" junk! Fundamental rights are rights that all people have and need to be treated with human dignity. Sounds pretty big, and the rights are, but the right to drinking water? Come on! I suspect deeply that the whole UN human rights thing is being used as a cloak to push socialism comes not only from the weak-whining Europeans, but also from the whole rights not being "natural rights." Or more to the point "God given rights." Something about just thinking up rights that you want to believe are great for everyone, without any concern for tradition or divine law or Hobbes, reeks of opportunism. I read one article where the right to free speech became the right to communicate, and then, the right to a phone and a television! Above is an actual cave painting from when God revealed to Man that he had a fundamental right to price-controlled consumer goods!

Saturday, August 13, 2005

NO YOU SUCK! (angry post, genie smash!)

This kind of thing really, really gets my goat. Bush says in this article:

"'All options are on the table,' Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday. Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: 'As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country.'

To which the German pansies replied:

"'Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work,' Mr Schroeder told Social Democrats at the rally in Hanover, to rapturous applause from the crowd. "

Oh, really? Cause I thought it only didn't work when your weaselly, chicken-gut allies wave the white flag before you even get a chance to bow up on somebody! Talk about a new record! The French better watch out, because now apparently the world is going to suffer from pacifist lessons from flippin' GERMANY!!! Let me try this one on: We should take going to the UN off the table, making Iran one step closer to a foot-to-ass scenario, because "we have seen it doesn't work." I hope the Iraqis sign that motherlovin' constitution so we "shock" the world again like we did when all the talking heads got schooled after the Iraqi election!

A+ B Movies

Hello, kiddies! Here's a riddle: what movie has Nick Nolte, Melanie Griffith, Chazz Palminteri, Treat Williams, Jennifer Connelly, Daniel Baldwin, and John Malkovich? Why, Mulholland Falls, of course! What you never heard of it? No surprise, a lot of people haven't--I guess. This movie is a bare-knuckled pin-up in a gray fedora! Violent as Gaza, obscene as Heffer's infamous Grotto, and smooth as Coltrane; Mulholland Falls is one of those movies that is so harsh and beautiful you're not sure what to make of it. In the 1950s, an elite hat-squad of the LAPD takes on a murder that goes all the way to the top of the Atomic Energy Commission. It's a tale of adultery, 8mm film, government secrets, heart-break, and murder, murder, and more murder. If you want to watch bad cops beat the stuffing out of even-badder bad guys, then saddle up this doggie and ride. Oh, and did I mention that a Baldwin gets his clock cleaned? This movie won a Razzie, so some people didn't like it. But for the rest of us immoral, pulp detective-story loving, violence junkies it's worth a shot. Do not watch this with kids, parents, or girlfriends; watch it with a buddy like a tough war-flick. Or considering the the still on the right you might just want to watch it alone.

Friday, August 12, 2005

An Iraq the Model Must-Read

Mohammed at IRAQ THE MODEL has posted an open letter to Cindy Sheehan, and it's probably the best response to her questions I've yet heard or read. An excerpt:

Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.
. . .
Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.
. . .
You are free to go and leave us alone but what am I going to tell your million sisters in Iraq? Should I ask them to leave Iraq too? Should I leave too? And what about the eight millions who walked through bombs to practice their freedom and vote? Should they leave this land too?
. . .
Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause…No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom.

Mohammed expresses his sentiment and explains the reasons for the war and for continuing the war perfectly and profoundly. A true must-read.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Mandatory Cindy Sheehan post - - - UPDATED

For those who aren't familiar, Sheehan is the woman whose son Casey died fighting in Iraq. She is now camped out down in Crawford, outside President Bush's ranch, drawing the attention of the Left, the Right, and the media. I don't want to spend too much time on this, for two reasons: 1) The rest of the blogosphere is already picking through the details 2) It's not too hard to see that she's using her son's death to further her political agenda. For example

"All we're asking is that he [Bush} sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us, before the next mother loses her son in Iraq."

First of all, Sheehan already met (see update below) with President Bush, saying "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." Secondly, Bush is out of The White House and on his own property, but c'mon . . . does any logical person really think he's just hanging out watching baseball all day? I'm not exactly an insider, but I have a feeling he's able to handle his daily workload with his advisers (who are for the most part in Crawford as well), the amazing feat of little-known technology called "telephones" and "computers." Besides. . . Congress is on a break right now.

Some of my (pro-war, conservative) friends have said that Bush should spend a few minutes out of his day to meet with her, and her alone, in order to deflate the sails of Sheehan and her supporters. My rebuttal to them is that that might set a dangerous precedent. He's already met with her, and many other family members of soldiers and Marines who've lost their lives. She says she wants to meet with Bush, and Bush has already met with her. But now she has cameras trained upon her.

Her family has now separated
themselves from her and her political motives:

Cindy Sheehan "now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

Her agenda is not to question the President about the war, rather, it's to become a rallying point of anti-war activists everywhere. She's attracting the attention of Che Moore, the MoveOn Moonbats, etc. After all, she described the Bush Administration as "the biggest terrorist outfit in the world." How could the Left not rally around her? To them, she's nothing but a good sound bite; even better, she's the perfect poster to wave around at rallies. If her OWN FAMILY, who also loves and grieves for Casey Sheehan, is separating themselves from her, what does that tell you? How about I quote Instapunk real quick:

She has contrived to turn her son's death and the whole Iraq War into her own personal soap opera. This was all something done to her. By the President of the United States, no less. Let us take all our cameras to Texas and watch her bleed from her hands and feet.

Exactly. She was anti-war and anti-Bush before the war, and now that her unarguably courageous son has been killed in Iraq, she has a way to become the darling of the anti-war and anti-Bush folks on the Left, complete with a national media spotlight.

Cindy Sheehan has turned her and her family's personal tragedy into a circus-like farce.

P.S.- I recommend that you check out
Malkin's coverage (not surprising, according to genie junkie); she has a good roundup of both blogger and MSM reactions.

For all those people that think that the Drudge Report is just part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, here's a link to the Washington Post citing the same information. I guess the Post is now part of the VRWC too, eh? Stupid right-wingers. . . all those facts just ruin our day!

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

"I have 1000 years of Power."

Watch the comments for this post, because genie junkie will agree that this is high on the list of "ways Garm might be brought down." From the story:
He donned a chain mail armored vest and leather gauntlets to protect his arms. He also added a giant wooden mallet to his arsenal and beckoned officers to come downstairs and get him.

It's too bad those cool medieval weapons are no match for a Taser. But I am. Or at least I'd wear something less conductive than chain mail. Of course, then the cops would just shoot me. Sooooo. . . I'll try to avoid this scenario altogether.

Sidebar: Had there not been a picture of the guy included in the report, I would have pictured him looking exactly like he does.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Stop Believing in Stuff!

I hate the idea of moderates. Not moderates, but the idea of being a moderate. I hate having to listen to how wonderfully learned they are, how they have weigh both sides and have come up with a third way, how it would all be so easy if people would just compromise their principled views. They need to listen to people who totally disagree with them and just want them to give enough ground so that their stance becomes hollow and meaningless. I love Mort. I watch his shows on FOX News. I love how he rattles off a list of "extremist" views that the messianic Moderates should save us from ourselves on in this article, and while I might not agree with each of these positions allow me to defend the evil goose-stepping "extremists." Mort believes political moderates predominate in the U.S. electorate, and must rise up and assert themselves. Mort suggests:

  1. In the Republican Party, they ought to defend Frist over embryonic stem-cell research. Even though the research's promising promise of promisingness can never justify murdering what could easily be a life form according to the pro-lifers.

  2. Republican moderates also ought to start speaking up for "emergency contraception" before the right makes banning it a litmus test of party loyalty. Yes, because there are no pro-choice Republicans out there, and, of course, that whole life begins at conception thing is just a silly superstition that can be easily side-stepped. Let's not forget that the GOP should be for contraception because the other side has been sooo understanding of the abstinence push.

  3. Someone in the GOP ought to tell Bush that "intelligent design" is not a true scientific theory on a par with evolution. And moderates need to fight at the state level to prevent "ID" from being required teaching in biology classes. Bush didn't say that really, and ID is a theory only because it cannot be proved affirmatively--but regardless of what class its in evolution and scientific thinking is not endangered by giving evolution political context. Besides should we be crossing the scientific line when we ask questions like where did this world come from?

  4. Except for Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition, does anyone in the GOP dare to come out for civil unions for homosexuals and to resist the party's reliance on gay-bashing to win elections? There's still no difference between civil unions and marriages in the sense of endorsement, and once you create a "marriage-lite" that is less in line with traditional values you're undermining marriage and encouraging the Mormons.

  5. It's almost impossible for a pro-choice candidate to get the GOP presidential nomination, but anti-abortion mania could be the undoing of the party in the long run if Bush installs a U.S. Supreme Court that actually overturns the Roe v. Wade decision, as the religious right expects him to do. If current nominee John Roberts proves to be a vote against Roe, it will take only one more rightist appointee to ignite struggles in every state to ban abortion. Polls show that two-thirds of the electorate wants Roe to remain the law of the land. 1) They still think it's murder, Mort. 2) Bush, if you hold him to his word, will install a Justice that sticks to the Constitution and stifles the "whiffs and smells" method of finding fundamental rights--so, if the Justice says abortion isn't a right, it isn't because Bush told him or her to do it. Hell, we should all hope that the Justice goes in their and looks at abortion, Justices are suppose to tell us what the law is, not pussy-foot around a tough issue like some wimpy Moderate!

Fire in a Theatre (Updated)

Ms. Manji is an interesting Islamic writer, if I can indeed call her that, but like Salman Rushdie one wonders if she is too far from the majority of the Islamic world to have any real impact. In this article we find her defending Blair's crackdown on "extremist speech" from what I assume would be her regular political allies.

As Westerners bow down before multiculturalism, we anesthetize ourselves into believing that anything goes. We see our readiness to accommodate as a strength- even a form of cultural superiority (though few will admit that). Radical Muslims, on the other hand, see our inclusive instincts as a form of corruption that makes us soft and rudderless. They believe the weak deserve to be vanquished.

Not exactly the line you expect from a kanuck lib. But if she can cross the border, allow me to as well. In America, under our laws and case law, Blair's crackdown would never stand. It's "clear and present danger" here, meaning that

  1. you have to directly incite unlawfulness; (i.e.: shoot that drunken potato-eater!)

  2. your audience actually has to be willing and able (i.e.: it won't work if you say the former to a large crowd in Boston on St. Patrick's Day).

Is that a good rule? No clue. Like Ms. Manji writes, let's all sit down and talk about it. But here America free speech is not to be questioned--ever. The one limitation people might remember is the infamous you can't shout "fire in a theatre." Only it is really, "you can't shout fire falsely in a crowded theatre," which kind of shows how little people know about limitations on speech and how actually narrow the limitations are in the law. Allow me to continue playing devil's advocate, for in truth I never cease, and point out that if Britain bans all calls for violent enforcement of Sharia or applauding of terrorism it may run into a problem we had in the past. If an extremist Islamic candidate runs for office can one under this law jail him (or her, though that seems unlikely due to the candidacy) for his "extremist speech?" We did it to the commies. Personally, I'm hard pressed to shed a tear for the Reds, but in these days--where the words "Iron Curtain" have been white-washed from people's memories--many scoff at the idea of sedition and dangerous speech. If this is an important limitation on speech then let us discuss a rationale for it that is deeper than common sense (not that I'm knocking ol' CS). That way after all this is said and done people supporting such a limitation won't be scoffed by the enlightened few.

UPDATE: Lebanon.Profile has an interesting post on this topic discussing how the Lebanese deal with "terror speech."

POW! The first shot in the Borking of Roberts

I'm watching O'Reilly right now. And wow! Roberts wants to kill "reproductive health care providers." He said that the feds couldn't use an anti-KKK law to keep people from sitting down in front of abortion clinics. Man, it is just amazing that abortion is so untouchable! You can't take a case saying which government has jurisdiction! Above is an example of a process slightly less painful than being a SCOTUS nominee.

Quite possibly . . .

the funniest bar story I've ever read. An excerpt:

In brief, I had a large friendly animal with horns, that thought I was it's mother, could probably escape from a sealed lead box, and was on the verge of alcoholism living in the back garden.
Woo and hoo...

You've got to read the whole thing. . .

PETA Post. . . Ugh, I said PETA

"Won't someone PLEASE think about the poor baby cows?"

Via Michelle Malkin: PETA's up to their old tricks. This time they're comparing the plight of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis, the plight of Black Americans in this country, the plight of Native Americans, etc. to, wait for it. . . animals being "abused." By abused, they mean being kept as pets, used as food, used for medical experiments, etc. You know, if I wasn't surprised by PETA's stupidity, I would have choked on my hamburger (mmmm. . . medium rare). Even my dog started laughing, and I didn't know he could read. In fact, he snorted his meat-based dog food across my kitchen floor with a huge guffaw. In their display, lovingly titled "Are Animals the New Slaves?" the ethically-pure (sarcasm) PETA-ites include pictures "of butchered livestock hung next to the photo of two lynched black men dangling before a white mob. " And then there's the "photo showing a concentration camp inmate with a number tattooed across his emaciated chest [which] was juxtaposed against a shot of a monkey in a laboratory with a number branded across its chest."


And how did the local Black Americans and Jewish-Americans react. Well . . . let's just say it was obvious:

"I am a black man! I can’t compare the suffering of these black human beings to the suffering of this cow," said Michael Perkins, 47, of New Haven.
. . .
"You can’t compare me to a freaking cow," shouted John Darryl Thompson, 46, of New Haven.
. . .
"I think he’s right," said Tomaselli, who is white, in support of Thompson. "To compare people to animals is an unfairness to people."
. . .
"I have relatives who were in concentration camps," said Alex Reznikoff, 47, of Newtown. "I think this detracts from PETA’s message. It doesn’t make me think about animals at all."

My favorite quote, courtesy of Dawn Carr, PETA’s director of special projects:

We realize these images are hurtful. It’s hard for me to imagine the hurt the animals go through. We should be treating animals according to their own best interests, not to the best interests of people.

Uh, yeah. So, you're saying a hamster is more important than the Jews who were burned in ovens? Or slaves? Here's hoping that this insanity will do nothing more than increase the backlash against PETA. Thankfully, the local chapters of the NAACP is getting involved, like the Anti-Defamation League has in the past. Not to mention the less-organized protests that I'm sure will follow this horrid display everywhere they go. I never thought I would agree with something coming out of a Blue State. See, all we needed to unite us is PETA. I'd thank them, but I need to go fire up the grill; I'm having steak tonight.

Animals aren't people.

Nope, animals still aren't people.

OMG, MY DOG JUST STOOD UP AND TURNED INTO A . . . nope, nope, still a dog.

More PETA killings
The other white meat

Man, I hope this isn't fake

Because it's hilarious. I'm such a news geek.

Too Late..For Your Career

Adam Corolla was on Loveline and The Man Show. Now, while his co-hosts go on to bigger things, he's back on Comedy Central after The Daily Show. The Daily Show is lib, but at least it's fairly funny (don't get me started on Jon Stewart! Hulk smash!) This was fairly boring. It was a call in show (like Loveline) where Corolla makes a bunch of crude jokes (like the Man Show). Corolla is a funny guy, but this opener didn't do it for me. Maybe he'll pull it out of the fire, but he's got a ways to go to make up for Comedy Central pulling Tough Crowd. Now there was show! I'm going to give Too Late another shot, but if my hopes are not high.

When they help, nobody reports

Check this out (courtesy of the wonderful Girl on the Right): Bell Mobility, which, as we all know, is a big scary business (probably run by Republicans, since they control all big business and all money) did a REALLY nice thing after the AirFrance crash in Toronto last week. Just minutes after the crash, members of the local Bell Mobility office were handing out free cell phones and calling cards to enable the survivors to call family and friends. In fact they "put 50 cell phones and 500 calling cards into the hands of passengers, crew and emergency workers within three and a half hours of the crash." That's pretty good work.

And yet I find out about it not from the 10 news channels on my TV, nor did I find it on my many-times-daily stroll the "real" news sites. Now, I know it's not a "big" story, and I know that there was plenty of good news out of the crash (like everyone surviving), but would it have been so hard for one of the news agencies to mention a feel-good story?