Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Rep. Woolsey (D-CA) invited her. You have to know that she knew that Cindy would show herself to be the embarassment, she is.
Kerry, Kennedy, et al. stole the show with the comedic performance of the ages, by trying to mount an effort to filibuster and thus stall (and eventually prevent) the the new Justice from raising his right hand. But, they did far more damage to their own credibility, than to Justice Alito or the President. They once again looked like the partisan hacks that they are.
How can they not see how ridiculous, they make themselves look? How can they not see that the majority of the electorate sees right through their facades, and their ulterior motives?
Let's all understand one thing here, the Democrats are seriously in trouble, and they don't see it. At least the leftist Deaniac wing doesn't. But what do you want to bet that Howard will soon be forced out, by a coup? It's going to be hard to win any seats, if you are broke.
Anyway, heres the story from MSNBC, if you haven't read it.
Monday, January 30, 2006
GM Roper of GM's Corner has drawn this lousy card, but is determined to fight this disease process with every ounce of strength, he has. I am not what you call a close inner circle friend of Mr. Roper. But in the days I have been reading his blog, I have noticed an extremely wise and intelligent person; one that is an astute observer, deep thinker, and just an all-around quality human being.
Please remember GM and his family in your prayers and visit his post telling of this great misfortune, to wish him a speedy recovery. He'd do the same for any of us. That much, I am certain of.
This post will remain on top until I think everyone that reads PYY has seen it and had a chance to go wish GM well. So, be sure to scroll down further for awhile, for new posts. Thanks.
Well now, Drudge is reporting this and links to this article from that fine objective news source al-Jazeera.
I wonder just how far CAIR will go with this one. And while I do not condone people making light of other's deaths, I do not have trouble with laughing at the ignorance that causes these kinds of deaths.
Radical Islamists whip these people up into such frenzies that these people are willing to risk life and limb to detonate bombs attached to themselves. So, it comes as no big surprise that they are willing to risk life or injury to throw rocks at a statue, because it represents the devil. If that's not idolatry, please tell me what is.
Update: Along the way I have picked up the following links to other posts on this story:
Just my Opinion
UGA College Republicans
Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean’s management of the Democratic National Committee and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee’s cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle, ROLL CALL reports.
Yeah, they are privately bristling. Because they do not want the GOP or the American people to know what a loser they have running the DNC. Even after this man has displayed numerous traits that indicate that he is a loose cannon, even after he has said about every stupid thing that an American political leader could possibly say to denigrate this great nation, and even after he has repeatedly embarassed himself and his party; the final act that may get him removed, may very well be the fact that he spends other people's money like a drunken sailor.
And Democrats want us to trust them, next time around?
Sunday, January 29, 2006
First of all, this is a good thing. But first, let me say a few things about Sen. Feinstein.
I usually disagree with her stances on issues and her overall ideology. If I had to quantify it, I would call it somewhere around the 80-85% range. But with that said, I have never found her to be anywhere near the same category of a liberal as Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry. (et al.) While I have listened to her many times using poor logic and weak/faulty data to justify her wrong positions, I have never seen her act in the same indignant, immature, hateful, and disrespectful manner as those I just named. In short, I believe she is a lady and deserves respect, as such.
But back to the article and the story behind it.
So now, we have an exploited tool of the hard left visiting an openly hostile leader of a Latin American country, that espouses hard leftist socialist beliefs (a la Castro). But that isn't enough news for one day, the article goes on to report that Ms. Sheehan is now considering a run for Sen, Feinstein's seat. Why? Because she is not advocating the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Isn't that always her one issue agenda?
But let's think about this a second, she visits Hugo and announces she may run for the Senate, in conjunction with that visit. Do you think that Hugo cut her a check for a campaign contribution?
So, just why is this a good thing? Two reasons immediately come to mind.
1. It will be a referendum once and for all on these hard leftists. The primary battle that this would be, would be a microcosm of the overall battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic party, that will most certainly take place during the presidential primary process, in 08.
2. It will put Sen. Feinstein into a position to be on the defense for a change. As far to the left as she is on most issues, she will look very moderate compared to the radical Sheehan . She will be forced to go on the record defending why she has not called for the immediate withdrawal of troops, as well as other issues that Sheehan may be delusional enough, to believe that she can challenge the Senator on.
Clearly, Mrs. Sheehan will be in way over her head. That's how it will become more apparent to more rational and sensible Democrats (the minority that they are) that the moonbat strategy of campaigning against Bush just for the sake of it, is not good strategy. And, it will lead to another defeat in 08, if they do not come up with some ideas as alternatives to what the GOP has to offer.
So get ready for the 2006 Midterm Election season. Get ready for one more last dying gasp from the Bush is Satan groups like Move On, Code Pink and others. Get ready for one more referendum on President Bush. Expect to hear many promises to impeach Bush, if Dems win a majority. And realize that Cindy Sheehan may get her clock cleaned in the primary, so bad, she may finally realize that her message does not resonate well, with those that have common sense. Not even with mainstream liberal California Democrats.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Gindy has extensive coverage of the Hamas election victory at his site. A lot of links. Check it out.
I am not sure what is different, except for the fact that you can see what is coming at you. Fatah hates Israel, Hamas hates Israel. Hamas provides a lot charity to the people, Fatah screws the people.
Although I question the numbers, the CFR puts the amount of expenditures on charity by Hamas at 90 percent. A lot of that money comes from Iran, that much is certain. But even if that number is correct ( like I said, I have my doubts), it means that 10 percent is spent on killing innocent Israelis. I think that negates whatever good they do for their people.
At least I think so.
Update: I have found some others that have some thoughts on this event.
The Logic Lifeline
Liberty And Culture
Friday, January 27, 2006
Take Ann Coulter's recent remarks, for instance. Keeping in mind that they were made in jest, I still have trouble with the fact that she has displayed reckless verbal disregard for a Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America. I seem to remember some time ago when many in the GOP were raising a major fuss, about the Randi Rhodes Air America radio piece. That was done in jest, but in very poor taste and in my opinion, totally inappropriate and objectionable. But honestly, I can't find a lot of difference in that deplorable display of sick humor and the remarks made by Ms. Coulter.
Before I go any further, let me say that I agree with Ms. Coulter's observations a great deal of the time; and on many occasions have found her to be quite humorous. And I would add, I believe that Justice Stevens is not a very good Justice. In fact, he may even be the worst. But he is a Justice, nonetheless; and in my opinion deserves a certain degree of respect accorded to anyone that holds that title.
Do I wonder what the hell goes on in his head sometimes and how he arrives at some of his opinions? Yes. Do I want him dead? No. Do I want to joke about him being dead? No. Do feel political and ideological disdain for guys like Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry? You betcha. But despite how wrong I think they are and how utterly ignorant they can act sometimes, I wouldn't wish any tragedy of any kind, on them or their families, ever. And I don't like to joke about either.
But no matter how immature and distasteful her comments were, the important thing to note in all of this is: it defeats the purpose to call out these people (that so highly deserve to be called out), when we act as they do. How can we set any kind of standard, how can we earn any respect, and how can we ever be taken seriously, if we make stupid remarks like many of them do?
When we become hypocrites, we kill our influence, compromise our standards, and tarnish our reputations of being honest and objective. When we become hypocrites, we become partisans no less guilty than the hacks, we expose. When we become hypocrites, we share a commonality with people like Michael Moore (who publicly slams Halliburton, yet owns stock in it) and Teresa Heinz-Kerry ( for blaming Bush for jobs leaving the country, while the majority of her company's work force is outside the U.S.).
Thursday, January 26, 2006
The Indianapolis Star has the story.
I don't know exactly what to think of all of this. First of all, the guy is a nut. He acted as his own attorney, he changed his name numerous times, he maintained to the end that he was working for the CIA, and acted like a such crazy fool that he was removed from the courtroom once.
Anyway, check it out for yourself. Then file it under bizarro for the unanswered questions, this whole thing poses.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Elections Canada has the numbers.
Blogosphere giant Captain's Quarters has been covering the election too.
(Hat Tip to Real Clear Politics for those three links.)
Reuters always has a way of casting a negative light, in its headline. But that's to be expected of a news organization that refuses to call terrorists what they are, terrorists. Instead of saying something like "Conservatives win narrow victory" or "Conservatives Edge Liberals", they choose to cast seeds of doubt, at the very outset because they didn't particularly like the results.
But beyond all of the partisan punditry that will fill the airwaves today, there are a couple of points to note that should not go unnoticed.
First of all, it's not a mandate. It's not even a majority.
Like the U.S. elections in 2004 and the German elections of last year, there are still some very bitter divisions remaining here in the U.S., in Germany, and as we now see, in Canada. While American elections were a slight majority for Bush and the GOP, Merkel did not win a majority, in fact, after it was determined that her party could not form a government with the other conservative party, she was forced to form a coalition with rival socialists. That seriously watered down her potency as the new Prime Minister. The same principle applies to the new Canadian Prime Minister.
But the most important point to note is, although the tables were not completely turned on the Liberals, the momentum gained by the left in the 90s has stalled out and even started teetering back to the right, just enough to show some signs of encouragement. Balance is the key here. And while I tend to be more conservative on national security issues than other moderates, and while I voted for Bush over John Kerry (for that very reason), I still like to see checks and balances. Even conservatives, when left in power too long, have the potential to become corrupt, lazy, and inefficient.
Monday, January 23, 2006
When President George W. Bush met with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in the Oval Office this month, the talk turned to Merkel's childhood under Communism, then wandered into the subject of Bush's latest bedtime reading: "Mao: The Unknown Story," an 814-page biography that presents the Chinese dictator as another Hitler or Stalin.
There's the title of the book. I wonder if the publisher will now have to order a reprint. Even if the article is written with the intention of casting a negative light on Mr. Bush, just that paragraph alone makes you want to rush out and buy it; not because Bush is reading it, but because it sounds like a damned good book (and accurate, as well).
Emperor worship is something that Mao wanted to eliminate, but the Chinese people ended up trading one form of emperor worship for another and one form of tyranny for another. (That is usually the case when a leftist revolution takes place. See: Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela et al.)
Mao became a god and was revered even when he layed on his deathbed too incapacitated to run the country, like other Chinese leaders afterward. No one dared make a move until they were dead. There was no doubt some backroom jockeying going on, but nothing overt. Nothing that would show the slightest disrespect to a perceived elder statesman, would have been tolerated. (Confucianism still plays a strong philosophical role in the value system of the Chinese people and the Communists certainly exploited it, when it was in their interests to do so.)
Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said last week that Laura Bush had given the book to her husband as a gift and that the president had just finished reading it. Asked why Bush liked the book, McClellan said he would find out, then reported back on Friday that Bush had told him that it "really shows how brutal a tyrant he was" and that "he was much more brutal than people assumed."
Sounds like a resounding endorsement, at least to me anyway.
One expert, Andrew Nathan from Columbia University is skeptical that it helps us understand today's leadership:
But they still allow their leadership to stay in power until they die. Many times no one is really in charge of the most populous country in the world, when their leader decides to be leader for life. I call that a dictatorship by committee, which was the the old Soviet system. They can claim they have overthrown the Maoist agrarian socialist economic system in favor of free markets and capitalism, but their government is still patterned after the Stalin's model.
"Today's Communist Party is a highly developed bureaucracy like IBM or General Motors," Nathan said. "It's not the Communist Party of Mao's time."
At least one historian said that perhaps people were reading too much into Bush's choice of reading, and that sometimes a book on Mao is just a book on Mao.
They got that part right. A book on Mao is a book on Mao. And since Mao was a tyrant, it's a safe bet that it is a book about a tyrant. Get it at your local bookstore, I plan to.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
John Lewis Gaddis, author of a half-dozen books on the topic, is the nation's foremost historian of the Cold War. So when in the 1980s he dismissed Ronald Reagan's goal of ending the Cold War, arguing instead that the American-Soviet competition had settled into a stable ''long peace,'' it would have been natural to conclude that Gaddis, the august expert, was right.
He was wrong, of course. Gaddis explains why in his crackling-good, recently published book, The Cold War: A New History. It holds lessons for today in its reminder of how inspired people, armed with truth and morality, can force epochal historical changes.
In short, a former skeptic of Ronald Reagan's perspective on how to best deal with the Cold War, has the guts to say that he was wrong. That's not very prevalent, in the cynical and skeptical world of today's leftists.
Today when a leftist is openly proven wrong, they usually do one of three things:
1. They dig their heels in deeper refusing to acknowledge they are wrong.
2. They change the subject altogether (usually back to WMDs).
3. They get get quiet and wait until the next critical issue arises, one that they can jump on and exploit it to the hilt (just like the one you proved them wrong on).
Rarely do they say anything close to:
1. Oh, I guess I was wrong.
2. Well, I see your point.
3. You make some good points, but I will have to study the matter a lttle further.
I think the the one thing that stands out about this essay, is the statement Mr. Gaddis quotes by Margaret Thatcher:
''I had long understood that detente had been ruthlessly used by the Soviets to exploit western weakness and disarray. I knew the beast.''
Which is the same tactic used by the islamofascists hell bent on destroying western civilization, today. The mere fact that, for a while it appeared that the U.S. and Europe were divided on this issue, speaks volumes about how well these thugs have studied the Soviet techniques used against the west, in the Cold War. Manipulating the leftist elements in the western countries into believing that Islam is by nature a peaceful ideology is the same tactic used by the Soviets.
Who can forget Samantha Smith, the little girl that wrote a troubling letter to the then Soviet leader Andropov asking him why his government sought after world domination, only to get invited to the USSR to tour the nation and see for herself that the Soviets were peace-loving people? Today, we see groups like CAIR and the ISNA lobbying the left with the same kind of subtle manipulations, trying to convince just how benign their ideology is, with the specific intent of softening up the average American.
They say that history is a great teacher. And if that is so, I cannot help but wonder, why the left misses such great lessons. And if that within itself isn't enough, they want to rewrite those lessons to fit their narrow-minded agendas. Why can't they just say they were/are wrong and be done with it (just like Mr. Gaddis did)?
Saturday, January 21, 2006
I had ideas on how to put together a grand celebration post. One of them was, I thought about linking up to some of (what I considered to be) my better posts. But as you may already know, I have some of the smartest readers in the world. Some of them may not think of themselves as such, but I can say it completely without a doubt. (I can say it, because it is true.) And smart people already know how to use the archives, they do not need me to parade posts that I have already posted for them to read.
So instead of that, I thought I'd share some thoughts about PYY and some goals I had when I started, and whether or not I met them.
Before I blogged, I posted a lot on the political and sports message boards on AOL, as LASunsett. Public boards can be ruthless, the people you encounter through your posts can be brutal when the person replying to your message disagrees with you. People harass other people, name call, and just generally take their miserable days and lives out on people they do not know, for no good reason other than to blow steam at someone/anyone.
The purpose of having a forum for discussions, is to discuss and debate whatever the subject happens to be. At least I thought it was. Some others did too, but too many people were out of control; putting filters on was difficult because they would change screen names regularly.
So I said to hell with it.
I started PYY up with the idea that I could create a forum where intelligent people could come and share their opinions and ideas, without having to get insulted. Today I look at it and can say, goal met.
I wanted a place where people could feel free to disagree, as long as it is done respectfully. Attack the arguments, not the people. Anyone that disagrees with the views and opinions expressed here and intelligently makes their case, is as welcome here, as those that usually agree. Again, I have to say, goal met.
Do you see a pattern developing?
Goals like hits, traffic, etc. do not mean nearly as much to me, as the goals that ensure quality. It has never been my goal to convert people to my way of thinking. And I do not seek fame and fortune from it. But what I have tried to do is, post thoughts that will make you, the reader, think; something that will in turn, cause you to say something that will make me think. I love to learn. And I don't mind saying, I learn a lot from the faithful group that comment here, on a regular and semi-regular basis.
So, many thanks to all of you that come here and participate. I can never say it enough, I appreciate all of you very much. Without you, I'd be talking to a wall. Walls have no intellect, they cannot teach, they cannot learn. Most of all, they cannot respond. But many of you have responded and done it with class and style. I am proud to be associated with all of you.
And to those of you that have your own blogs, I love them all. Keep up the good work. You have an excellent opportunity at your fingertips. It is an opportunity to bring your best ideas to the forefront and share them, with whoever will read them. It is a right (that many have fought and died for) to make your voice heard. You have the freedom, you have the power, to speak freely about all issues and matters that are important and you have a golden platform, from which to speak.
Keep using it. Break when you need to for more important things (or to rest). But always keep that avenue open. You may not think that one voice, one blog makes much of a difference. But it really does, if it has truth and sincerity in its words. A speck of truth will make a greater impact, than an ounce of lies.
Here's to another good year at PYY and for all of you as well. May God bless us all.
Friday, January 20, 2006
BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.
Is this an epiphany or is this posturing as strategy in another issue? I would hope that Europe is really starting to understand the gravity of the world situation, right now. But let's read on:
Deflecting criticism of France's costly nuclear arms program, President Jacques Chirac said security came at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act."
Can anyone see why I am so skeptical of anything that comes out of that man's mouth?
As it does everywhere, the left in France is always on the attack about military expenditures and their nuclear program. That money could be used to give laborers in France, more time off, more money, and so on. Blah, blah. Feed starving people. Blah, blah.
So, is he just trying to deflect some criticism or is he really trying to get a grip on the situation? Because, I sure can't tell.
Is he coming to the conclusion that an enemy exists and they would have no qualms about hitting France?
I sincerely hope so. But there is always that seed of doubt and that ray of skepticism. With the exception of the brave men and women of the French Resistance in WWII, France does not have a good track record of showing any reasonable amount of courage over anything.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Friday, January 20 will mark the silver anniversary of the "Great Communicator's" swearing in, to the highest office in the land. And although in many ways it seems like just like yesterday, when I pause and think about it, I realize just how long ago it really was and just how much things have really changed since that day.
On that day in 1981, there we were, not even a decade out of Vietnam and trying to grope our way through the Carter malaise. This nation had been forced to endure Nixon's falling, Ford's stumblings, and Carter's failings. And at the moment he raised his right hand, I remember a mix of optimism and uncertainty, filling the air.
The optimism was a result of the feeling that anything, was better than what we had been getting. Those that are old enough to remember the days of double-digit inflation can remember the collective sense of hopelessness and despair that permeated this nation, at that time. Apathy, lethargy, false guilt and shame, all were normal emotions we felt, as we watched and experienced a four-year series of domestic and foreign policy failures. This nation had no self-esteem, no self-worth, and it had no self-confidence.
The uncertainty came from the questions we all quietly were asking ourselves.
At this point in time, I was about to be discharged from the Army (honorably, of course). I had served four years, my time was about up. The morale was low under Carter and like many before me, I wanted out of that man's Army. My post-service plans were already set up, and a new President with hopes, dreams, and a sales campaign was not going to dissuade me.
But to many that remained, the anxiety was widespread. Rumors of Reagan being a warmonger were circulated, many times daily during the course of casual conversation.
One guy in our unit wasn't the brightest star in the sky, but was a nice guy that could take a joke, even if it was on him. The day after the inauguration, I couldn't resist telling him that Reagan was calling a national alert of all American forces later in the day. If you could have seen the look in his eyes for a moment, at least until I smiled and let him know that it was just a joke ( a poor one, but a joke nonetheless). He laughed it off and continued on to the mess hall. But in his mind, and the minds of others, there was an element of anxiety about what this man Reagan was all about.
Can you blame them?
The Soviet threat factory was in full swing and emboldened by the unchallenged invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet military. Islamofascism was being further merged with the Palestinians' terror campaign against Israel. And Carter was daily demonstrating his ineptitude in dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis. In short, we believed that there was nothing we could do about any of it, except react in weak fashion like we had been overly conditioned to do. Yet in the midst of all of this, here came Ronald Reagan verbally challenging our weak reactions to all of this madness.
People had to ask, was he serious or was he just blowing smoke to get elected?
Now let me be the first to say, he made mistakes. He was, afterall, human. He knew it. The liberals knew it. And they made damned sure that everyone else knew it too. But Reagan being Reagan always let it blow off of him. He never let the left rattle him.
One situation that was described in a Reagan biography (one that I don't know the name of right now, because my son has swiped it from me and hasn't given it back yet) involved one particular moment during his administration, when the liberal leaning media was just hammering him relentlessly, daily. I believe it was Donald Regan (but I could be wrong) that came into the Oval Office one morning and saw him reading one of the morning newspapers. When the President saw him, he started on a what appeared to be an angry rant. He said something to the effect of:
Have you read the paper this morning? I can't believe what they are saying. O'Malley is selling the Dodgers.
Despite the pressure of the job and the bad press he received throughout most of his administration, he never lost his sense of humor. Unlike many that came before him and many after him, this man had a deep sense of peace about him. He knew what his goals were. And he had a deep sense of conviction that what he wanted to accomplish, was the right thing to do. He was a visionary.
We could list the accomplishments and elaborate endlessly. So, I will leave that to others.
But what he will best remembered for (at least by me) is a speech he made in Berlin, six and a half years after taking office. The following excerpt from that speech does more to define who Ronald Reagan was and what he was about than anything he had ever said, before or after. This particular passage answered any question that was asked on that January day, in 1981:
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
And, in just two and a half short years after that famous speech, part of his dream was realized. After many wrote his words off, as nothing more than the usual anti-Soviet rhetoric, it came down. And with it an empire, all without firing a shot.
Although it occurred after he left office, I am sure that even his successor would agree that this significant historical event would never have been possible, unless the man that occupied the White House before him, hadn't had a clear sound vision of what freedom meant. Unless the man before him hadn't had a vision and the courage to pursue it (despite the naysayers and the skeptics), it may very well have taken many years for that symbol (that divided a continent) to come down, if ever at all.
So, before we knew it, anxiety, fear, and doubt all turned to confidence and pride. It was no longer an embarassment to be an American. Once again we could all hold our heads high, as a nation and as individuals of that nation.
Long live the memory of Ronald Wilson Reagan and may his dream live on.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Over at Mike's America the 25th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's inauguration is being remembered with some posts about the late President. Check it out there and later in the week, I will post my tribute.
Then be sure to check back for my first blogoversary post here at PYY. It's hard to believe but it has been one year later this week.
This is all provided I don't have anymore technical glitches from my internet provider. As you can see, my posting has been weak the past few days and that is why. It appears to be fixed now, but alas, I will be busy with other commitments the next couple of days. So posting may be a bit light until Wednesday evening or so.
Anyway, thanks again for reading. I cannot say that enough. I really do appreciate your participation.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
WASHINGTON at SEATTLE
Joe Gibbs has proven he is one of the best coaches in the game, this season. He has taken a bunch of underachievers and motivated them to play hard and smart. It evidently has paid off well, they made the playoffs. His knowledge of the game has rubbed off on his players and they have responded to Gibbs' system.
But does he have the horses to beat Seattle? I doubt it. Add to that Mike Holmgren is no slouch as a coach either. If Washington were to pull off an upset, it would have to be a coaching coup by Gibbs that would most likely result in Holmgren's firing. And after the Skins' lackluster performance last weekend against Tampa Bay, I just do not see that happening with Seattle's personnel.
NEW ENGLAND at DENVER
New England is the champ, at least until someone else says they are not. Denver has surprised many this year by winning the second seed in the AFC, but the experience factor favors NE. Tom Brady is a winner, Bill Bellichek is a winner. They will be prepared. And although I was not impressed with NE's running attack against Jacksonville and even though they still have key players either out or not at 100%, NE will be prepared.
Pick: New England
PITTSBURGH at INDIANAPOLIS
Pittsburgh looked good at Cincinnati last weekend and they have one of the premier running games in the NFL, that's for sure. But one has to ask some questions about the Steelers.
With all of the Colts' defensive front line back anchored by big guy Corey Simon at DT, will the running game have the same sting as last week?
Will the Steelers' defense be able to contain the weapons that the Colts have?
I have my doubts that Pittsburgh would have won last week had Carson Palmer not gone down on his second snap. Add to that, the Colts have the ability to get up in the score, fast and early. A running game usually does not work well, when a team is behind. The key to the Steeler having any chance in this one, will be how well Roethlisberger plays.
CAROLINA at CHICAGO
Two premier defenses with both very hard to score on, will highlight this game. The team that wins will have the big plays at the right times and will control the ball, and the line of scrimmage. Bears won this one earlier in the season, but this is the playoffs. Carolina is looking good, but my question is can Jake Delhomme find a way to put enough points on the board, to outscore the Bears? The Bears aren't known as an offensive powerhouse, either. But they are at home.
Well, these are my picks for this weekend. Now, as always, you are free to pick your own. What do you think?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
BERLIN-Saying that negotiations had reached a dead end, France, Germany and Britain announced Thursday that they wanted Iran's nuclear development activities to be taken to the United Nations Security Council, adding new pressure on Iran to reverse its decision to do research that could develop the technology to create nuclear weapons.
"From our point of view, the time has come for the UN Security Council to become involved," Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany said at a press conference after meeting here with his French and British counterparts and the European foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. They were reacting to Iran's decision to resume experiments at a nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz.
1. What is the UN going to do?
I mean let's be realistic here, I would be hard-pressed to believe that the UNSC would authorize anything too harsh, even if found to be in violation.
2. What about China?
Will they side with Iran or the EU and US? Or will they support economic sanctions, for the sole purpose of running their goods through the backdoor, a la Oil for Food?
3. Are Europeans truly ready to up the ante?
Are they truly willing to risk the potential consequences, in exchange for doing what is right? Or, will they back down when the backlash finally hits? Because there will most certainly, be a backlash.
These are some serious questions that must be asked. And answered.
The Indiana truck driver charged with trying to sell secrets to Iraq in late 2002 is finding out that serving as his own lawyer isn't easy.
Federal prosecutors on Wednesday repeatedly objected to the way Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban questioned a key Iraqi witness against him. Nearly every time, U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder sided with the government, shutting down Shaaban's lines of questioning.
"I would be stronger in Arabic," Shaaban said, shuffling papers on the defense table before him.
Things aren't going well for this guy, are they? For the government, it's almost like shooting fish in a barrel. That's what he gets for not getting a lawyer, since there are many that would love to get exposure defending a guy like this.
I don't think this guy is quite right, unless it's part of some grander plan to get it thrown out on appeal. In which case, he would be a genius for using our own system against us. With groups like the ACLU around, it isn't hard to do.
Who knows? Maybe there is a home ACLU defense kit available and he sent away for it. And, it tells how to get off on an insanity defense by ACTING crazy. Just act nuts, then hire a hotshot lawyer to appeal for not getting proper psychiatric care, while incarcerated.
Here is part of the action involving the senator and the committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA); followed by some of the reactions produced by that immature tantrum:
(The following is courtesy of Witnit and the Washington Post.)
Background: Senator Kennedy claimed he sent a letter to Chairman Specter in his closing diatribe, prior to this exchange.
KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could have your attention, I think we ought to vote on issuing a subpoena to the custodian of those CAP records.
KENNEDY: And I want to do that at an appropriate time. I'd move that the committee go into executive session for the purpose of voting on the issuancing of -- the sole purpose for issuing the subpoena of those records.
SPECTER: Well, we'll consider that, Senator Kennedy. There are many, many requests which are coming to me and many quarters. And, quite candidly, I view the request -- if it's really a matter of importance, you and I see each other all the time and you have never mentioned it to me. And I do not ascribe a great deal of weight -- we actually didn't get a letter, but...
KENNEDY: You did get a letter. Are you saying...
SPECTER: Well, now wait a minute; you don't know what I got. I'm about to...
KENNEDY: Yes I do, Senator, since I sent it.
SPECTER: Well, the sender does not necessarily know what the recipient gets, Senator Kennedy. You are not in a position to say what I receive. If you'll bear with me for one minute.
KENNEDY: But I am in a position to say what I sent to you on December 22.
SPECTER: You're in a position to tell me what you sent.
KENNEDY: I renew my request, Senator. And if I'm going to be denied, then I'd appeal the decision of the chair.
I think we are entitled to this information. It deals with the fundamental issues of equality and discrimination.
This nominee has indicated he has no objection to seeing us these issues. We've gone over the questions and we are entitled to get that kind of information. And if you're going to rule it out of order, I want to have a vote on that here on our committee.
SPECTER: Well, don't be premature, Senator Kennedy. I'm not about to make a ruling on this state of the record.
I hope you won't mind if I consider it, and I hope you won't mind if I give you the specifics that there was no letter which I received.
I take umbrage at your telling me what I received. I don't mind your telling me what you mailed. But there's a big difference between what's mailed and what's received. And you know that.
We're going to move on now.
Sen. Specter appears to be irritated. But, let's continue, shall we?
KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I'd appeal the ruling of the chair on this.
SPECTER: There has been no ruling of the chair, Senator Kennedy.
KENNEDY: Well what is the -- my request is that we go into the executive session for the sole purpose of voting on a subpoena for these records that are held over at the Library of Congress --that purpose and that purpose only.
And if I'm going to be denied that, I'd want to give notice to the chair that you're going to hear it again and again and again and we're going to have votes of this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution.
I think it's...
SPECTER: Well, Senator Kennedy, I'm not concerned about your threats to have votes again, again and again. And I'm the chairman of this committee and I have heard your request and I will consider it. And I'm not going to have you run this committee and decide when we're going to go into executive session.
We are in the middle of a round of hearings. This is the first time you have personally called it to my attention, and this is the first time that I have focused on it. And I will consider in due course.
Now we'll move to Senator Grassley for 20 minutes.
Now he has moved from irritation to full-fledged pissed off.
One word, desperation.
And now for the reactions:
Here is a piece entitled, Senate’s Liberal Lion Defanged, by Tom Bevan (Co-founder and Executive Editor of Real Clear Politics). Tom seems to have a good grasp on the situation in this excerpt:
Since 1969, when his presidential hopes drowned alongside Mary Jo Kopechne, it has always been a pathetic peculiarity of modern American politics to watch Senator Kennedy indignantly lecture others about ethics and morality – especially on the occasions when he has simultaneously engaged in distorting records and smearing reputations.
This is the point in time where Teddy's bitterness and overall unhappiness with life began.
Here is a commentary entitled, Shooting Blanks at Alito from Robert Novak.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Edward M. Kennedy, the 73-year-old liberal lion of the Senate, did not so much roar as huff and puff Tuesday, as he faced Judge Samuel Alito. He and other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who had spent weeks preparing for Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearing seemed to be shooting blanks at President Bush's nominee.
In other words, he has lost his edge. Maybe this means it's high time the senior senator from Massachusetts retired?
Here is an another reaction, entitled Judging the Judge's Judges by Debra Saunders.
While Kennedy seems to consider himself a champion for the little guy, he is a walking tribute to a system that, in its low moments, allows the rich and powerful to get away with crimes that would put others behind bars. He is a discredit to the system.
Here the NY Post weighs in: Shame Of The Senate.
And finally, from Town Hall comes a piece entitled, Liberal Former Alito Clerk: Don't "F" Alito written by a former Alito law clerk, Susan Sullivan, who happens to be a liberal.
I was one of Judge Alito's law clerks from 1990-1991, the year the Casey decision was decided. I consider myself a social progressive. I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a liberal pro-choice advocate who supports abortion rights. I favor gun control, support gay marriage and oppose the death penalty. I also don't have a problem if you want to take "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. In short, no one is likely to mistake me for a conservative any time soon. Yet, I support the nomination of Judge Alito, because I know from having worked closely with him, that he is not a political ideologue and is not intent on advancing a conservative political agenda.
Here you have someone that pretty much agrees with most (if not all) of the stances of Kennedy (and the others that have acted like fools in this hearing), singing the judge's praises.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
And now, the much anticipated update on the beginning of the trial. He reportedly read his opening statements in Arabic.
This could get very interesting as the evidence is presented. The trial could last 2 - 3 weeks, but PYY will be there. So, stay tuned.
Monday, January 09, 2006
During the Roberts hearings I personally heard and remember very well, the sound bite of Charles Schumer (in a press conference, not in the hearing) referring to the Court as an entity that "made law". Nice to see that Charles was wanting to share something, but most high school government students know that the SC interprets law and they have their hands full with that.. Maybe it was a Freudian slip, maybe that's what the Dems want, because they sure cannot win elections.
With that and today's display of ignorance by Teddy (et.al), it's a wonder that anyone wants to be a part of this process, at all. If a person that wants to serve as a SC Justice has to go through a drunken, murderous senator that isn't able to articulate the function of the SC in the first place, it says a lot about the state of our union. It certainly says a lot about the voters that live in Massachusetts.
WitNit has linked to the complete transcripts of today's proceedings.
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 11,000 Monday for the first time since before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, lifted by a five-day rally that has sent stocks soaring so far in 2006.
According to preliminary calculations, the average of 30 blue-chip stocks ended the day up 52.59, or 0.48 percent, at 11,011.90, its first finish above 11,000 since June 7, 2001, when it closed at 11,090.74.
I would like to take a moment to remind the leftists that troll this site, of their use of the Dow's plunge in the days immediately following 9/11 for political purposes, in spite of the fact that politics played no part of it. The market decided what the Dow was then and today the market decided that it should go back up, above the 11,000 mark. Once again, Bush had nothing to do with either event.
But how well we all remember, your attempts to attach that responsibility to him during the past election. How well we all remember, the Democrats comparing the Dow when Bush took office and the Dow at the time of the 2004 election. How well we all remember, you claiming that if Bush was re-elected, the Dow would plunge even further.
Do you remember?
NEW YORK - Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."
How nice. A Portuguese Water Dog named Splash has a certain irony to it. Because that is precisely the sound that the car made, right before he got out and left Mary Jo Kopechne to die.
Like Tookie, it sounds as if Sen. Kennedy wants to atone for something. Unfortunately for Tookie, writing children's books was not enough to make people forget about his heinous crimes. And, I seriously doubt this will make people forget about the fact that Sen. Kennedy is a murderer.
Nice try, Teddy.
UPDATE: Who knows? Maybe this can become a series of books by the Senator. Enlightment Reactionary has some ideas for some other titles.
CARACAS, Venezuela - The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday. Some in the group attended Chavez's television and radio broadcast Sunday.
"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell
you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast.
Let's see if we can get this straight. A man that found fame by singing a damned "banana" song, is speaking for you and me?
You know, I try to respect everyone's right to an opinion, even if it is different than mine. This is America. Many have fought and died for them to have that right.
But what I resent is, people that disagree with me, speaking for me, having never met me. It is a sign of the worst kind of ignorance, which is also known as arrogance. Mr. Belafonte does not speak for me. And as I suspect, he is being either ignorant or is outright lying, when he states that millions in this country are supportive of the revolution in Venezuela.
Harry, the ignorant masses may believe you. But do not make the embarassing mistake of thinking that you speak for free-thinking, intelligent people. We see the folly in your belief system, even if you are too blind to see yourself. If you want to be stupid, stand by your stupidness alone and do not involve me or other fine Amercans, when voicing your delusional material. I respect your right to your opinions, but when you use your star status to make the kind of statements you make like this, it forces me to lose respect for YOU.
I recommend reading the entire article, but here are some short excerpts, worthy of note:
Churchill had a very valid point in rejecting such nonsense. To win against a ruthless enemy, you have to be ruthless yourself.
Translation: Fight fire with fire.
Moreover, you cannot impose on yourself the burden of moral and legal constraints if you seriously want to win against an enemy who has no principles at all; you will earn endless accolades and honours for doing so, but you will not win.
One area this administration deserves criticism is, they have tried to fight a politically correct war. There is no such thing.
And if your enemy thrives on vitriol and hatred, the last thing you are obliged to do is give him a platform at a show trial to go on spreading more of his poison.
Which is precisely what the left desperately wants to do, give them a voice. They don't want a voice, they want to kill. But if you give them that voice, they just further proclaim the weak and lame reasons, they want to kill.
Most people would agree that Winston Churchill was one the greatest leaders Britain has ever had. Yet, it amazes me how very little they are willing to follow his example and heed his words, today.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
ANKARA (Reuters) - Mehmet Ali Agca, the man who shot and seriously wounded Pope John Paul II in 1981, will be freed from prison this month, the Anatolian state news agency said on Sunday.
Agca served 19 years in Italy for the assassination attempt before being pardoned at the Pope's behest in 2000. He was then extradited to Turkey to serve a separate sentence in an Istanbul jail for robbery and murder.
"Agca is expected to be released between January 10 and January 15," Anatolian said, adding that he may then be required, like all Turkish men, to perform his military service.
Only nineteen years for robbery, attempted murder, and murder? Then he goes into the military? Turkey sure has got the European philosophy of justice downpat.
But now the Telegraph is reporting that he is gone.
Thirty years after Rinka-gate tore the Liberals to pieces, the third party is reeling from Drinker-gate. In 1976, Jeremy Thorpe was forced to resign over allegations that he had conspired to murder his homosexual lover, Norman Scott, and was behind the shooting of Scott's Great Dane, Rinka, on Exmoor. Yesterday, Charles Kennedy stepped down, less than 48 hours after his declaration on Thursday that he has an alcohol problem.
Now, if we could only get OUR "drunken Kennedy" to step down from HIS post.
Democrats accused Republican congressional leaders of corrupting the government, claiming on Saturday that their party has higher ethical standards.
"Under Republican guidance, America has truly been put up for sale to the highest bidder," Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said in her party's weekly radio address.
If you find the AP an unbiased source of news and information, you will no doubt have no trouble blocking the Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright affairs, from your selective memory.
In some ways it's funny and and in some ways it's insulting.
Funny in the sense that the Dems really expect us to take them seriously, when they make charges like this. They have had a long history of expecting free-thinking, intelligent people, to buy into the (weak and faulty) notion that only the GOP is capable of ruining the Congress, because they are in power. And now, they seriously expect us to believe that only Republicans are capable being corrupt.
It's insulting in the sense that they really believe some of us are that gullible and naive. But then again what do you expect from a party that has Howard Dean, as its national chairman, expecting us to take him seriously? No doubt, most all (that care) have seen the list that Abramoff gave money to, by now. A large number of Dems were on that list.
One thing that is conspicuously missing from this short article, is a GOP rebuttal. But none of you are really surprised, are you?
An article published today in the Indianapolis Star has the scoop.
With all the intrigue of a spy thriller, a federal trial that begins Monday might include a former high-ranking Iraqi intelligence official, a Russian native named Svetlana and an Arabic speaking undercover FBI agent.
All could be among witnesses called to testify at an Indiana truck driver's trial in Indianapolis on allegations he offered to sell names of U.S. covert operatives to Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government.
This allegedly occurred just prior to the U.S. invasion to topple Saddam.
I don't know about you, but it looks like business as usual at the Bundestag, to me.
Friday, January 06, 2006
If you are reading this blog and are not reading the Wide Awakes, you have to ask yourself something:
Do I want Hamburger A, a fresh hot burger on a fresh bun, with crisp fresh lettuce, fresh-sliced red ripe tomatoes, and the condiment(s) of my choice? Or, do I want Hamburger B, a burger that that has been sitting for two hours, under a heat lamp, with melted denatured cheese, wilted lettuce, and liquid mush tomatoes, because that's the one I always have?
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Mr. Corn served as a political analyst at the U.S. embassies in Bucharest, Moscow, and Paris, and in public diplomacy at the U.S. Missions to the EU and to NATO in Brussels. He is currently the Course Chair of Latin Europe Area Studies at the U.S. Foreign Service Institute.
It is a lengthy, but in-depth and thorough examination of the structural components of this theo-political phenomonen, known as jihad. It is not for those that have Attention Deficit Disorder.
The essay speaks for itself, but I would like to call attention to these two excerpts:
...precisely because this insurgency within Islam is an insurgency, the terrorism paradigm — with its traditional focus on the criminal nature of the act and its exclusion of the political dimension — is largely irrelevant, save at the tactical level. The West is no more at war with terrorism today than it was at war with blitzkrieg in World War II or revolution during the Cold War. The West is at war with a new totalitarianism for which terrorism is one technique or tactic among many.
Whoa! Read that carefully.
This is not just a war on terror. It is an ideological war that uses terror, as one method of meeting its objectives. The enemy would love nothing more than to have all of us believe that this is merely, a war on terror.
From the point of view of threat assessment, the much-discussed theological distinction between a greater (spiritual) and lesser (physical) jihad is utterly irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is the praxeological distinction between three modalities of jihad as practiced: jihad of the sword, of the hand, and of the tongue.
Today, the most effective jihadist networks are precisely those that — from Hamas to Hizbullah — have combined these three modalities in the form of urban warfare, relief work, and hate media.
1. Urban Warfare = Terrorists
2. Relief Work = Muslim Charities
3. Hate Media = al-Jazeera, CAIR, and even the MSM
All three have the same goals and objectives. Only the methods are different. Until these things are properly recognized, the war cannot be fully won.
I highly recommend reading the rest of this article.
It amazes me just how many elitists still glamorize this guy and give him credibility, as a leader.
Take a look at the modern day "Eden" that exists today in Cuba. You leftists that wear Che shirts and regard him (and Fidel) as some kind of folk hero will want to peruse this link, very well. See the Cuba that Fidel has fooled the Ted Turner types into believing exists. Then, look at the real Cuba. See the poverty, the deterioration, and the despair. Gaze at the horrid conditions that exist today.
Baghdad looks better than Havana.
After you do that, be real sure to come back and tell me how Castro was misunderstood by the Americans and how well socialism works for the people.
Hat Tip to Les at Living In The Surreal World for posting this Cuba link, way back in May.