Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Razia has been going with a fellow Pakistani for the past couple of years, a handsome guy named Mo. But Mo proved to be too controlling, possessive, suspicious and jealous. In other words, he was a product of the culture he was born into, a traditional Muslim male. Razia felt that she was on a leash and finally broke off the relationship when he became threatening.
Now she has another suitor, one she has known even longer than Mo. This one is Indian and is a Hindu, and for her that is problematic. He is two years younger than she is, is very loving and caring and has a wonderful sense of humor. Oh yes, and he’s a billionaire. Razia told me that the Hindu women in her new beau’s family treated her coolly. I didn’t want to explain to her that the 80 million Hindus killed by Muslims over the centuries might have something to do with it. In any case, I think she wanted my fatherly advice. If she didn’t too bad, since I was going to give it to her anyway.
I told Razia that she should give the new beau a chance. Get to know him and see where it leads. Nice guys who are billionaires don’t grow on banyan trees, after all. When he found out she had become available, he told her, “I’m not stupid. I’m throwing my cards on the table and I’m going for it.” He wants to show her the world and can easily afford to do so.
I looked up Hinduism a few weeks ago on Wikipedia and was surprised at how intelligent it seemed to me. I didn’t tell that to Razia, however.
When lunch was over she hugged me and I told her I love her, which is true in a fatherly sense. She then told me she wanted to buy me an exercise bicycle like the one she works out with. An hour later she showed up at my office door with the bike, newly purchased and still in its box.
I think that was her way of telling me I should lose some weight. Okay, okay, I’ll do some exercise, grump, grump, grump.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Regular readers of this site will, of course, find it spectacularly unsurprising that multiculturalism—in all its various social and policy guises (from “political correctness” to “diversity” initiatives to mandatory “tolerance” training seminars)—is one of the prime conduits for fracturing what progressive transnationalists have always seen as unseemly nationalism, the goal being to create countries composed of “citizens of the world,” a utopian ideal that has always conveniently and obdurately bracketed the harsh reality that much of the world is itself quite unseemly, and that we’d do well not to confuse the delightful commingling of cuisines and customs that have made boutique multiculturalism so popular among self-styled cultural elites with the balkanization of entire countries, wherein cultural identity groups each develop and nurture their own grievance narratives and, as a consequence of vying for limited government largesse, are always eager to assume the role of oppressed victim in order, ironically, to increase their social and policy influence.
In short, the very foundation of multiculturalist philosophy, as I’ve long argued, practically ensures the various social strains that will, if left unchecked, lead inexorably to civil unrest and a potential deconstruction of the free societies that have (blindly and, worse, arrogantly) promoted the project.Read it all here.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Here is the response I left to Mike Stark for his post "Debate" at Calling All Wingnuts.
Mike, you are wilfully uninformed on Leftist hate speech and slander against the Right. I suggest you read "Slander" by Ann Coulter or "Unhinged" by Michelle Malkin. They have lots of quotes uttered with complete sincerity by members of the liberal media and political establishment. When it comes to hate speech and outrageous statements, the Left is unsurpassed.
As for KSFO, you and Spocko have indeed misrepresented the station. I listen to the Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan show every weekday morning on the way to work and to the Brian Sussman show ever weekday evening on the way home. The show is largely satire. There have been no sincere statements that anyone should be executed without due process or whatever other silly and insincere charges you want to make.
Let's have an example. The next time you are upset with some conservative and you say "they should hang him to the highest tree" (a common exaggeration that no one would take seriously), maybe we can quote you and say Mike believes in lynching politicians he disagrees with. We can say, oh look at the hate speech from this man! He should apologize to the world and seek therapy.
The other night I was listening to another host on KSFO, Barbara Simpson, who was filling in for Brian Sussman who was away. She talked about the San Francisco mother, a black woman, who threw her three young children into the freezing waters of San Francisco Bay, killing them. Simpson said, I think they (the authorities) "should throw her in the Bay." So Mike and Spocko could quote her out of context and say "KSFO radio host advocates drowning a mentally impaired black woman." Well didn't she? No, she wasn't serious and only a complete moron would interpret her remarks as such. She was expressing anger at happened to the children.
She also talked about the guy in Missouri who kidnapped two young boys and held one of them for five years. The police caught him and put him in jail. They put him on "suicide watch." Simpson, disgusted with the pedophile's kidnappings, said, "why don't they give him a rope?" NEWSFLASH: "Barbara Simpson advocates lynching prisoners without a trial!" Again, she wasn't being serious.
KSFO radio is largely conversational. The hosts talk like the common citizen does in private conversation. They are sometimes angry (usually for good reason), sometimes frustrated. They joke around a lot. The bit about OV (Officer Vic) creating an audio satire of a NY Times editor being strapped to Old Sparky was about as serious as any skit you will see on "Saturday Night Live."
Once again, you misrepresent the truth for the purpose of slandering conservatives. If you want to sit down and have a serious debate, you will lose. The truth is not on your side.
Here are some must-read articles for Sunday that provide the back story:
Hugh Hewitt posts a letter from an Annapolis grad to Jim Webb, the angry and rude new senator from Virginia. The letter is making waves and is worth a read.
Little Green Footballs posts an article that describes how the surge is already working in Iraq, where many terrorists have fled Baghdad in advance of the arrival of additional US troops. The surge is working?? Yes, and that's why the Democrats, who are heavily invested in a US defeat, oppose it. That's why several US cities were awash in moonbats, war protestors and other vermin this weekend. If the surge works, Bush looks good and they look bad. There goes the 2008 Presidential elections! I mean, what's really important here, world peace (through victory) or having an atmosphere more conducive to Democrat victories at the polls? What are you wingnuts thinking, anyway?
Instapundit links to an article that describes Hollywood's problem with terrorism. Yes, terrorism is a real problem and one that should be documented in drama and film. However, the terrorists happen to be dark-skinned types from Third World countries and Muslims to boot. Let's see, what's more important? Documenting the truth or avoiding any implication of "bigotry" or "racism"? C'mon, are you really suggesting that our own physical survival is more important than liberal sensitivities? I know I'd rather be dead than to have liberals dislike me, wouldn't you?
The Fourth Rail theorizes that the recent attack on US Marines in Baghdad was really carried out by Iran's special forces. The operation, which involved enemy combatants dressed in US uniforms and driving US style vehicles, was far too sophisticated to have been arranged by the ragged insurgents of al-Qaeda. I don't know if it's true or not, but US troops have now been given permission to kill Iranian agents encountered in Iraq. And that's a good thing.
Yesterday I saw an article on MSN.com about CNN and Fox News having a snit fit over the true story of Barack Obama's childhood education. Fox claims he was schooled in a Muslim madrassa in Indonesia and, at sometime in the past, Obama was a Muslim. CNN insists it isn't so. CNN is a house organ for the Democratic Party and Fox is, well, fair and balanced. So why the disagreement?
Debbie Schlussel explains. If Obama is or ever was a Muslim, his chances to be elected President are effectively shredded. The American people will not vote for a Muslim for President.
And as Paul Harvey used to say, that's the rest of the story.....
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Unfortunately, it is also safe from articles and content. Only the forum and the writers' blogs are operating. Those parts of the site that normally contain contributed articles have been turned off, since they were the parts vulnerable to hacker intrusion.
Hacking is a federal crime. It is a felony, and can get the perpetrators a stay in the Gray Bar Hotel. It causes a lot of damage. Chronwatch reports the loss of advertising revenue and advertisers as a result of being hacked, and the number of visitors has dropped precipitously.
Yesterday I ordered three books on hacking from Amazon.com. I intend to become knowledgeable of the subject. My living room wall will look great with the mounted heads of several hackers. Does anyone know a good taxidermist?
By the way, I'd like to give a big THANK YOU to Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs for posting information about this crime on her blog (See "The New Brownshirts") and making many more people aware of it. The folks at Chronwatch have expressed gratitude to the conservative blogosphere for its moral support.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Leftwing hackers have shut down a conservative website in the San Francisco Bay Area. The website, www.chronwatch.com, was created several years ago by Jim Sparkman, a conservative, to monitor and rebut articles in the leftwing San Francisco Chronicle. Chronwatch has been a training ground for several talented conservative writers, the most recent of which is Cinnamon Stillwell.
Over the past few weeks, hacker attacks on Chronwatch have increased. A hacker who calls himself “the Italian Stallion” has hacked the site repeatedly, deleting titles of articles and posting his own threatening messages to Chronwatch’s owner and contributors.
In response to these attacks, Chronwatch deleted the hacker posted articles and changed all of its passwords, but to no avail. Within hours the hackers had cracked the new defenses and posted the threatening messages, saying Chronwatch had better show them respect and leave their messages posted for all to see, or else. Cyber-cretin "Slippyfist" left the following message:
If we wanted, we could destroy this site, but I choose not to, asshole. I go by the motto "Peace Not War"
We'll be in contact. And I better see this up here tomorrow if it is taken down than there will be issues. I want my voice heard and I want my open mind to be spoken now the least you could do is support that.
Note that the above hacker bragged that his band of cyber-thugs had the ability to destroy Chronwatch altogether if they chose to do so, but decided not to. The "Italian Stallion" (aka the Horse's Ass) wrote this:
Note that this cretin has the audacity to call himself "a republican." He can't even spell it.
Apprently you seem a little pissed off at us. You aren't fixing your bugs like you were saying and plus your not the webmaster so please keep your mouth shut. This isn't a debate or anything so don't throw in your pointless political views because honestly... we truly don't care what you have to say. And I'm sure the webmaster can speak for himself. I am a republican and all we were doing was posting interesting points of views.. Hell I thought my little articles about the fairy tales and the liberals was pretty good. There was no need to get all pissy and delete it without atleast leaving a comment or reading it. Now let me define a hacker to you since you have this huge misconception on what a "hacker" is. A hacker doesn't sit at the computer all day and "sniff" as you put it. We find flaws and bring them to attention not only to users and their personal information in which we do have of you now... but to the webmaster to show if they did pay for their website they waisted money that should have been spent on a more secure website. Now you seem tense and we are sorry. We did nothing wrong.
Note: note to the webmaster that changing the passwords to user accounts won't help. Posting popup ads telling them to change the randomly generated passwords won't help either. It's a much greater problem than that. Now we can work out some sort of deal like a little appreciation or respect for helping you out but having guys like Gary talk shit to us when we are actually helping you and doing you a favor now that's disrespectful.
Oh and FYI GARY ... I'm a republican. So I support this site and all your views but when you make a direct comment towards us and think you know everything about who we are and how we run maybe next time you should do a little bit of research... I can tell that your views towards things don't mean shit because obviously you judge too quickly without doing any homework into a matter, you should join the democrats who like to jump to conclusions.
This is the Italian Stallion logging off until next time. And I better see this up here tomorrow if it is taken down than there will be issues. I want my voice heard and I want my open mind to be spoken now the least you could do is support that.
Jim Sparkman made the decision today to shut down the site until better security could be created. How long that will take is anyone’s guess.
Once again, we see the Left’s response to conservative argument is not rebuttal but forced censorship. A couple of weeks ago, KSFO conservative talk radio in San Francisco was unfairly portrayed by liberal media (like Channel 5 in San Francisco, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury) as being “hate radio,” quoting quips out of context and trying to pass off satire as the serious positions of the radio hosts. The effort was no doubt intended to drive away the station’s advertisers, thus effectively censoring the program.
In Congress, Dennis Kucinich and other Democrat legislators are now planning to pass laws to bring back the so-called “fairness” doctrine which would censor all political talk radio and bring an end to shows like that of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Liberalism thrives in a culture of censorship, not free discussion and debate, so this is not surprising.
As for the “Italian Stallion,” the only part of a horse he resembles is its butt. In other words, the “Italian Stallion” is a horse’s ass. He is merely a thug with a computer whose ultimate destination is jail.
This episode has convinced me that I must learn as much about hacking as I can. It fits in well with my profession as a financial security consultant and fraud investigator, and I will begin this learning process as soon as possible – not to hack anyone, certainly, but to learn how to prevent hacking and how to trace the perpetrators so they can be arrested and tried.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Huber has an article in the leftwing Daily Kos, excoriating the planned "surge" in Iraq, which is not surprising. Huber categorically opposes ANY military action or strategy other than retreat and withdrawal. If Huber really was an officer in the Navy, I can only say, thank God he's out of the service. We don't need Quislings like him, or like John Kerry or John Murtha, serving in the armed forces of the United States. What we need are people who believe in their country, their military and the rightness of its causes. Clearly, "Commander" Jeff Huber isn't one of them.
One can only wonder what his motivation was for joining the military in the first place, since he clearly does not like it, trust it or believe in it. In fact, "Jo Fish" had posted the names and addresses of the Swiftboat Vets on his website a year or so back, enabling leftards to contact and harrass them. He took the names off only after I threatened to file a formal complaint with the U.S. Navy.
Huber has his own blog, Pen and Sword. What a laugh. Huber may be willing to use a pen, but he wouldn't touch a sword if his life (or ours) depended on it.
You can read Jeff "cut-and-run" Huber's Daily KOS piece here.
Or you can simply memorize all of his future articles and opinions. They are: the US is the aggressor in Iraq and anywhere else its military may be called to action. The only course of action that the US military should ever employ is withdrawal and retreat, or preferably, complete inaction in the face of hostile external threats.
Yeah we get it Jeff. Now stop posing as a Vet and get a pink dress so you can join "Code Pink." It's so much more your style.
The Enemy at Home is D'Souza's latest and it does not deserve the same acclaim earned by his earlier efforts. The major reasons for this are these: (1) the book is based on a false premise, i.e. that Muslims hate us because of our immorality and tolerance for gays and (2) the book is mere pandering to those Westerners who hold religious values.
D'Souza would have us believe that it is the immorality of liberals and leftists who have made us the target of Islamic rage. However, one modern Muslim radical, Sayyid Qutb, was a student in Colorado during the late 1940's. Qutb was an Egyptian whose fundamentalist texts are still revered in the Muslim world today. He wrote about how disgusted he was with the immorality of the Americans of that time period, of how men and women freely intermixed in social contexts and even danced, their chests pressing against one another. Obviously, we can't merely go back to the 40's to fulfill D'Souza's fantasy, we must go back even further. How about the 18th Century, the time of Thomas Jefferson, who by the way, owned a copy of the Qur'an.
No, that wouldn't work either. In Jefferson's time the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) were attacking American shipping, robbing ships of goods and kidnapping sailors to press into slavery. Besides, they danced the Minuet in those days, where men and women freely mixed in social situations and even touched hands together.
These facts lead unalterably to one conclusion: D'Souza, you're nuts.
Books like this do far more harm than good, because they deny the reality of Islam's implaccable intolerance of other religions - no matter what their beliefs. There is nothing we can do about this fact, short of adopting Sharia law, putting burqas on our women, and worshipping Allah and Mohammed.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The shows are meant to be humorous and fun-filled and a lot of joking goes on. Occasionally, someone gets hot over some controversy and says something intemperate; so what? Brian Sussman has apologized a couple of times for being "overly harsh" on Islam, but the truth is, he is way too lenient of that false and evil religion, believing as some do, that Islam has "been hijacked" by an extremist minority. In reality, the extremism is a central part of Islam and the foundation of the whole religion.
Some leftard with a blog called "Spocko's Brain" has been attacking KSFO conservative talk radio in the San Francisco Bay Area this week. He has been misrepresenting things said on the talk show and sending them, out of context or in some cases, distorted beyond all reality, to the station's sponsors. He asks the sponsors to discontinue their advertising on KSFO.
Local liberal television station Channel Five out of San Francisco joined the fight on the side of the leftards this week as they too weighed in on KSFO, quoting things out of context and especially disparaging their former weather man, Brian Sussman, who has a show of his own on KSFO in the evenings. Channel Five claimed that advertisers were leaving KSFO "in droves." It was a baldfaced lie.
Channel Five never called any of the KSFO pundits to ask them about the charges nor did they offer any chance to respond. In other words, it was a liberal hit piece on conservative radio with no pretense of fairness.
Yesterday KSFO rebutted Channel Five in a special three hour broadcast. You can listen to it at this link.
The blog Newsbusters also weighed in on the side of KSFO. Alas, Michelle Malkin's blog took the side of the leftards, but it wasn't Michelle who was writing -- she's in Iraq. It was a guest blogger who calls himself See-Dubya of the (supposedly) conservative blog, Junkyard Dog, filling in for Michelle while she's away. But with See-Dubya, you don't need enemies with friends like him.
See-Dubya claims that Lee Rodgers should apologize for a largely satirical rant in which he advocates, jokingly, that a criminal with over 200 arrests should be attached to a car battery, testicles first. See-Dubya, in an orgy of moral exhibitionism, states:
As I understand the controversy, it's the single legitimate peg all theDon't take any bets, See-Dubya. Both supporters and sponsors will stick with KSFO, in spite of you and your pal Spocko. As someone who actually listens to the show daily and who actually knows what he's talking about, Lee Rodgers should NOT apologize for satirical remarks. The gross over-sensitivity that political correctness has foisted on society has for too long oppressed free expression and resulted in rigorous self-censorship of anyone who speaks to the public. Personally, I'm sick of it. If Lee apologizes now he will have to apologize over and over or become another bland purveyor of the status quo. I say, hell no. Lee, don't you dare apologize.
rest of this trumped-up stuff hangs on. While the sinistropheric poop-storm
is typically overwrought and more than a little dishonest, KSFO ought to
come up with an apology for that remark. Although at 54 minutes
into the audio stream linked above, they say anyone expecting an apology is
"gonna have a loooong wait". I doubt their sponsors and supporters will be
willing to wait that long.
As for you, See-Dubya, censorship of conservative radio is only the first step in the Left's plans to suppress conservative thought. Blogs are next, and plans are already under way to shut us all up. The definition of a liberal is someone who will not take his own side in a fight, and right now that definition seems to fit you nicely. Stand by your own tribe.
I do hope Michelle Malkin shows better judgment in who she appoints to blog in her place the next time she's absent.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Lately I've taken to avoiding his blog because of his odd positions that put me off. However, tonight I thought I'd check out his take on the Boxer-Rice brouhaha. Just before I clicked on the link button (at right of this page) that links to his site, I just knew he would take Barbara Boxer's side. It came to me in a flash of insight.
Sure enough, I was right. Larry understood the conversation between Boxer and Rice, but didn't understand the underlying message or meaning, what writers sometimes refer to as "the macromessage." And that message was that Rice, having no relatives herself to go in harm's way, should not be making policy that sends other peoples relatives into battle. It was a rather stupid argument. What relatives did FDR put at risk by asking Congress to declare war on Japan following Pearl Harbor? None that I'm aware of. What relatives did Clinton put into harm's way when beginning his war on the Serbs? Or Truman in the Korean War?
Larry has made such a pest of himself to other conservative pundits that he is being treated as something akin to an annoying horsefly. But this isn't the first time Larry "didn't get it." He didn't get it in the Vice Presidential debate between Cheney and Edwards either. When John Edwards disingenuously brought up the topic of Cheney's lesbian daughter, with pretended praise for Cheney's support for her, Edwards was roundly booed by conservatives everywhere. The discussion was off topic and strictly designed to turn off Evangelical Christians who support the Republican ticket. It was dirty and dark and cynical.
Larry, not surprisingly, supported Edwards then just as he supports Boxer now. I link to Larry's website because Larry is right on the money on some topics, like the nature of Islam and what we should do about it. On other topics he is often the contrarian and sometimes a bit obtuse. He is exactly that in the case of Boxer vs. Rice. Get a clue, Larry.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Only Stogie is possessed of the insight, the inside knowledge, the secrets whispered in the darkened corridors of power!
Why is this so? Just because. Why should you believe me? Why not?
Okay, that's enough playing with my graphics programs for one day.
As Governor Terminator recently explained it, "Global Warming is no longer just a theory but a proven fact."
Well Guv, hot air may be the norm in Sacramento but those of us out here in Podunk aren't quite so sure.
Click on image at right to see it full size.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Barbara Boxer today grilled Condi Rice and informed Condi that, since she wasn't married and had no children, she lacked the moral right to make decisions about war. Boxer informed Condi that Condi had nothing at risk in the war and informed her that those who pay the price for her decisions are the American military.
Boxer is, of course, a complete idiot. We all pay the price for decisions made about the war on terror, because we are all at risk. Pulling out of the war abruptly might save American military lives in the short run, but cost many more in the long run. If we just ignore Islamic terrorism, how long will it be to the next 9/11, anthrax attack, dirty bomb or suitcase nuke? Boxer is extremely short-sighted and can't see past her big mouth to the big picture.
Yes, the military are the ones who go in harm's way for the rest of us. Pacifist-appeasers like Boxer are the ones who put them (and us) at risk, by giving hope to our enemies and a reason to be patient while the Democrats labor in their behalf.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Was Saddam's excecution too hasty? Not adequately dignified? Too rude (with people yelling at him)?
Saddam didn't have much concern for niceties himself while executing thousands of his countrymen. According to the U.S. Department of State:
The Iraqi regime...repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992
until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq. The
UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the
sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on
political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."
Saddam Hussein's regime...carried out frequent summary executions,
4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.
The report goes on to say that Saddam executed 40 members of his own family.
Though not mentioned in the report, not all of Saddam's victims died by the noose. Some were shot, some died after being tortured, some were fed alive into plastic shredders, and still others were boiled in oil. At least one victim took a bath in acid. One victim was an eleven year old boy.
The patent idiot Robert Scheer had the audacity to imply that Saddam Hussein was the "terrorized" rather than the terrorist. Considering how many people Saddam executed for trivial reasons and without any due process of law, his hanging was way too good for him.
By the way, Saddam Hussein was not "hung." American Marines are "hung." Saddam Hussein was "hanged." Conservatives are "hung" while liberals should just be "hanged," preferably from light poles throughout every major city (I'm joking! There are litter laws, after all).
It never ceases to amaze me how often the Lame Stream Media gets this wrong.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
1. Weak or ineffective
2. Worthless or irresponsible
Of all the moonbat liberals out there who are spewing misrepresentations and falsehood, there are none I find more reprehensible (or annoying) than Arianna Huffington.
Huffington began her career in political punditry as a conservative. She was a darned good one, and that's when she really was "fearless" (the title of her book is "On Becoming Fearless," but I decided to edit it to something more appropriate for her).
Arianna often debated liberals on television talk shows where she went head to head with opponents like the leftist lawyer Gloria Allred (appropriately named I must say). Arianna kicked Allred's butt in a discussion of Allred's suit against the Boyscouts of America on behalf of a girl who wanted to join.
Sometime after her divorce to Michael Huffington, Arianna suddenly switched sides politically. Seemingly overnight she became a rabid liberal, with all the denunciations, half-truths, spite and anger of most other moonbats. What happened? Did she lose her prescription for thorazine? Or was it some strange mental reaction to her husband declaring his homosexuality and moving for divorce? Ex-hubby Michael may have gone gay, but he was also a conservative and a Republican. What better way to spite him than becoming a rancorous liberal?
I suspect that her move to the left was a business decision. She couldn't really compete with the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the world, so she decided to be a big fish in a smaller pond, that of liberalism. There were fewer leftwing pundits and none who were particularly noteworthy. Besides, weren't all the Hollywood celebrities, both actors and directors, liberals? Yes, by becoming an outspoken liberal, Arianna could join the A-List of Hollywood parties and functions.
To me, Arianna is a sell-out, not someone of principles. She is a political whore, peddling the ideology that she thinks will gain her the most money and attention.
Since Arianna converted to liberalism, I no longer see her on talk shows debating anyone on political questions. I think that's by choice. Liberalism is difficult to defend because it rests on so many false premises and wrong assumptions. The formerly fearless Arianna now steers clear of a fight, and for good reason.
Arianna now runs the ultra-liberal "Huffington Post" online. I signed up for it earlier today and refuted some of the liberals on it. Very soon after I noticed I could no longer log on. Liberals just can't take the heat.
If you want to observe rabid, slobbering moonbattery first hand, read of some of the articles there, including the members' posted responses.
My mom lies at the point of death. We expect her to pass away very soon. It's not a tragedy, it's just life and life has an end for all of us. Nevertheless, when a loved one is gone, they're gone and there are no more memories to make with them. It is sad in any case.
Dag at "No Dhimmitude" has ended his blogging to pursue other projects. Dag is an erudite, Canadian gentleman with a great sense of humor, somewhat understated as is British humor, given to fits of wild expository writing and deconstruction of liberal fallacies, with dashes of madness thrown in (like wishing to hang all environmentalists from light poles). He has been a good friend and an inspiration to me. I will miss his contributions to blogging. I regret not knowing him personally, but do hope to meet him one day.
The holidays are over. It's time to take the lights off the house, take down the Christmas tree, put away the ornaments. January 2nd is like the hangover after a wild party that starts around December 24th and ends January 1st. Now you have a headache, you ate too much, you drank too much, you slept too much and now you feel fat, hung over and worthless. You actually look forward to going back to work. At least I do. I go back tomorrow.
But for my last day of holiday-vacation, I am going to shower, shave and go visit my mom, though she probably won't know I'm there. Right before my father died, he told us to "take care of my old plug," meaning mom. We have done so, but she'll soon be back with you, Pop.
Update: Mom died today.
From the daily forum at Chronwatch.com:
Dennis Miller Stumps for Democrat President in 2008 Posted by Noel Sheppard on December 30, 2006 - 10:02.
Free speech is certainly wonderful to watch when practiced by one in possession of compelling ideas mixed with two doses wit and a splash of sarcasm. Such was the case on Thursday evening when comedian Dennis Miller was given the stage on “Hannity & Colmes” to pontificate anew with nary a discouraging word from the resident liberal antagonist courtesy of our friend at Ms Underestimated: http://msunderestimated.com/MillersRandomThoughts06.wmv
Miller said the following:
Looks like they found evidence of water on Mars, but unfortunately, they
also found a sucker fish in water, so we're not allowed to study it any more. Do
you know why I'm no longer liberal? Because I wanted to stop my sentences one
word short of the word "but." You know, as a liberal, I found myself using the
word "but" more frequently than a proctologist filling out his day planner.
Let's see, maybe it's time for a Democratic president. Stay with me. Because the next step in the inevitable escalation in this war with radical Islam is going to involve us being appreciably more brutal and ruthless than we have been to date. And I think the left's cronyism with the mainstream media will provide cover for someone on that side of things to up the ante.
You know, I'm pretty sure the phrase "life is too short" doesn't exist in Islam. Castro, Castro is one true genius at keeping Cuba so far down that a Category Four hurricane can hit the island head on and they still suffer almost no property damage. You know, the interesting thing about diversity training is that 99.9 percent of the people who are ordered to take it are white.
They say that Wal-Mart will be the death of small town America. If small town America is so great, why is every third person in Hooterville hooked on meth? To all the eco-nuts out there, I can't worry about the earth right now. I'm too worried about the world.
Hillary Clinton can afford to decry rich people at every turn. She's been on the
public's dime since the dawn of man. She's had all the trappings of wealth
without all the messy earnings that it takes. You know, the Saudis are just the
grown up equivalent of your childhood imaginary friend. I'm toying with the idea
of turning all of my money over to the state of California, because theoretically, I'd have more access to it as petitioner than I do as the actual proprietor. Once again, let me proclaim that my main reason for being pro-choice is that I am not a fetus that's about to be aborted. And lastly, just as the Titanic ramming the iceberg led to the obvious practice of having enough life boats for all the passengers, fighting a politically correct war in Iraq will remind us that you only, only fight wars to win.
"Freedom really ain't free. It's just some people take a pass and ride it out on the blood and sacrifice of others." Kimmymac