Kevin McCullugh and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. Public execution is not one of them. More and more of late I've been rethinking my stance on the death penalty. I'm for it in theory, but in practice, I'm not so sure.

Perhaps it's all the Taliban beheading videos I've been watching lately. The most recent one I watched features crowds of people being escorted by the mutilated bodies. They seem to enjoy it. There is something sickening about a culture that would find pleasure in the death of another human being--even when those human beings are disgusting criminals.

However, on another level, I find myself yearning to personally execute the human excriment who did this. WND:

The men and women who this week were arrested in association with the child porn sting carried out by the Justice Department should experience true justice. They should be dragged to Times Square in New York City, hands tied behind their backs, and their crimes should be announced to the packed square and an international TV audience. They should be given no more than two minutes to sort out their business with God.

And then ... they should go meet Him!

They should have their necks stretched, a bullet placed in the back of their heads, or a dozen bowling balls tied to their necks and dropped into the ocean. Or all three.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:11 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I see nothing wrong with publicly executing filth like this. That story so turns my stomache I would be more then glad to send them to their maker and face my time in court. But what I would do would not be quick, nor painless. To rape your own toddler and to broadcast it to others, he deserves more pain then I could inflict on him. If any one disagrees with me fine, welcome to the US, the land of open debate. An animal like that needs to be used as a lesson to others of it's kind, and no, 15 years in prison will not send a good enough message.

Semper Fi
Sean

Posted by: SPO at March 17, 2006 08:27 AM (OZn2O)

2 There are people that are just not fit to live. Public executions I think might be a real incentive NOT to be doing heinous things. There's always going to be people who enjoy watching, but I'm all for it. Take the scum that murdered Carlie Burcia. These kinds of murders seem to happen all the time. As a society, we need to make a statement that this will NOT be tolerated.

Posted by: Richard at March 17, 2006 09:00 AM (7KF8r)

3 I could agree with abolishing the death penalty, in exchange for a complete abortion ban. Stop killing the unborn, then we can stop killing the born.......

Posted by: n.a. palm at March 17, 2006 09:09 AM (UBf/U)

4 Hang 'em High.

They deserve it.

Posted by: Palm Boy at March 17, 2006 09:28 AM (fcFPZ)

5 Child molsters should be removed far away from any kids very far away

Posted by: sandpiper at March 17, 2006 09:45 AM (D9h75)

6 As much as I believe the death penalty to be the strongest deterent to crime, for some death is too kind. As in this case. Don't kill them, then "they won't learn nothin'."
Let their trial be "to the pain" (Inigo, you should know this one.) Put them in the nastiest prison in the country, in general population, and make sure everyone knows what they did to get there. Cause, cons hate a child molester as much as we do. Let them spend the rest of their days being utilized in the same fashion as they did their own child. They will surely die there, let their death be excruciatingly long and painful.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 17, 2006 10:18 AM (UADHi)

7 I've come around to the idea that no one should have the type of control over a person's life that abortion and the death penalty have. BUT there must always be exceptions. Regarding abortion, if the mother's life is in danger, a choice has to be made. Regarding the death penalty, there are those people that are no more than rabid dogs, that are so obviously guilty, that have committed deeds so beyond forgiveness, that are so entrenched in their murderous philosophy that only the ground itself can rehabilitate them into something useful. Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Milosevic all fit that category, as I'm sure do others.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at March 17, 2006 10:28 AM (/lpvu)

8 Wow. I would be totally against a public showing of brutality regardless of the crime. I'm a cautious supporter of capital punishment, but no where near to the degree of doing it publicly. It's exactly that sort of barbarity we fight against. While we may privately entertain the literal idea of an eye for an eye thinking that it simply rewards people with justice, in effect what we're doing is sacrificing one more part of what humanity we as civilized people have left. The execution of another person is a solemn occasion, not a sport.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 10:48 AM (g9UJq)

9 Likewise Oyster,
I agree with the death penalty, but public executions have always been valuable tools of the totalitarian Government to exercise control by fear, or a tool of religious authorities to exercise compliance, like the executions in Afghanistan soccer stadiums, beheadings in Saudi Arabia, hangings in Iran.

It's a road I would not like to see opened.

Posted by: davec at March 17, 2006 11:06 AM (CcXvt)

10 'Zactly, Dave. I was thinking about this last night, but having been drunk, I can't remember if I commented on it ;-)

A good friend of mine is in Kuwait City right now and last I spoke to him he said everyone was talking about the public hanging that was to occur in a few days time. Regardless of what it was for (in his case it was for possession of alcohol!) people were cheerful and planning for the day's outing to the execution. UGH!

Does that give any idea of what kind of slippery slope this is?

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 11:58 AM (g9UJq)

11 It just makes me shake my head.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 12:30 PM (aFawc)

12 Tough subject. On the one hand I endorse the death penalty yet have no desire to see an execution so I suppose that makes me a hypocrite. I could and would witness one if the condemned had murdered a loved one though. I suppose if we have jury duty we should have hangman's duty as well, though the feeble and otherwise infirm would rightfully have to be excused. We wouldn't want Granny falling down the steps of the gallows now would we? On the other hand, I doubt the Public would flinch no more over a hanging or gassing or the chair or lethal injection than they would a violent, graphic movie. We shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking stoning or beheading is less humane because it takes longer. A good old fashioned firing squad is darn hard to beat in my books, though I don't think the family of the victim should be billed for the cost of bullets like is done in China.

Posted by: goesh at March 17, 2006 01:04 PM (vX0fY)

13 trial first ?

Posted by: john ryan at March 17, 2006 01:05 PM (TcoRJ)

14 I'm with Sly on this one. Let the scum spend the rest of their days picking up the soap that their new best friend Bubba dropped in the prison shower.

Just before they slipped and hit their heads on the toilet.

17 times.

Posted by: CUS at March 17, 2006 01:34 PM (bbXZq)

15 (I hate these damn errors and my comment goes poof!)

Goesh, I think you're trying to equate two very different things. There's a vast difference between Hollywood fantasy and and a public, real life execution. I'd even say there's a big difference between seeing a real execution on TV, or a Hollywood movie or actually attending. Three levels of immersion there.

You know we have to think too about innocent family members and the damage it would do to them.
--------------------------
And John Ryan, yes, of course - a trial first.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 02:09 PM (g9UJq)

16 Dude, they frack children! I call for executions on pay per view, with a running man format, and Ann Coulter as host. Unless Richard Dawson wants the gig. Gawd, that would be sweet!

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at March 17, 2006 02:45 PM (9xjdU)

17 Not only execute these filthy humans, you must torture and execute their entire families as retribution. Thier mothers, fathers, children, cousins, everyone.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 17, 2006 03:01 PM (p74Yq)

18 I give up.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 04:11 PM (g9UJq)

19 Not only execute these filthy humans, you must torture and execute their entire families as retribution. Thier mothers, fathers, children, cousins, everyone.

How far removed would you have to be to not get whacked, Leatherneck?

As for the method of execution, the James Bond movies provide a ton of creatively gruesome possibilities. My favorites: Getting sliced in half by a high-powered laser, starting at the nuts (Goldfinger), getting dropped into a shark tank (The Spy Who Loved Me) or out of an airborne vehicle without a parachute (A View To A Kill), getting locked in a car that is then crushed into a cube (Goldfinger again, although in that case the guy was already dead), or, well, just about any actual or attempted offing done in Licence To Kill.

Posted by: Joshua at March 17, 2006 04:17 PM (2c7xL)

20
I think we all need to go back to hangings myself.. done right, it is quick and painless.. I'm guessing

not cruel and unusual.. maybe to someone watching..

charles manson would be one to hang,
and any other child molesters who are guilty...

Posted by: The Other Dave at March 17, 2006 05:19 PM (o03mE)

21 Oyster:

Slippery slope? Slippery slope?!?!

There USED to be public executions in America and Europe, and I know of no accounts from those days of businesses involved in the rape of infants and children as entertainment for live audiences.

The REAL slippery slope is that which makes it progressively less risky to engage in felonious activity, and I think we as a nation are nearing its bottom.

My ideal punishment for these wastes of skin? Place them in small cages with their hands tied above their heads. Then allow the public to pay for the privilege of reaching in, metal spoon in hand, and ripping a chunk of flesh from their bodies.

An eyelid. An eye. A flap of scalp wrapped in blood-matted hair. A lip. A scrotum, or a penis, or a testicle. A prostate extracted transrectally. And just to be equal opportunity, a labia majora, labia minora, or clitoris. A nipple. A length of intestine pulled out through the belly button. A set of vocal cords. A tongue pulled out through the hole where the vocal cords used to be. A heart, with double your money back if it's still beating. A chunk of lung pulled out from between the ribs. A length of muscle peeled from the bone. Hell, just a blob of belly fat. Anything anyone can imagine.

And just for good measure, IV fluids will be administered to prolong life, and bleeding wounds cauterized with a blowtorch. There are some people whose existence ought not be tolerated by a civilized society, and child molesters are at the very top of that list.

Posted by: Guncrazy at March 17, 2006 08:48 PM (xtzF2)

22 Guncrazy:
Are you seriously suggesting that 'public' executions would be much more of a deterrent than the ones they have now?

'oh no! someone might be mocking me and having a picnic while they're killing me'

Posted by: davec at March 17, 2006 10:58 PM (CcXvt)

23 "There USED to be public executions in America and Europe, and I know of no accounts from those days of businesses involved in the rape of infants and children as entertainment for live audiences."

Don't put words in my mouth. And take note of the words "used to be". There's a reason for that. It's called civilization. You don't like "slippery slope"? Okay, how about "backslide"?

Posted by: Oyster at March 18, 2006 06:22 AM (YudAC)

24 McCullough twists the truth on the execution of Lincoln's assasins to make his point. If you have to lie to make an argument what does that say for the argument?

The biggest problem that I have with executing criminals is the fact that the government does it. Every day blogs just like this one are filled with items about how badly government does things. I don't think a government that steals money from our pockets to fund a $255 bridge to nowhere is trustworthy.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at March 18, 2006 01:49 PM (oF7U/)

25 Right or wrong, my opinion is that these animals do not deserve to live among humans. Furthermore, although her physical wounds may heal, that child's soul has been shattered, irreparably. Long into her adult life (IF she allows herself to live, some victims do not!) she will have vague shadows of memory, or perhaps vivid memories of the pain, not to mention the loss of innocence, the absolute abandonment of trusting anyone to keep her safe. I don't have the answer, only my opinion, but I DO KNOW THIS - this is NOT what God had in mind for this child. I hope that she does not have to grow up in a world so sick that it allowed her father to get away with HIS life intact after this horrific act. As the mother of a victim of a sick tortured mind, I watched my daughter suffer every day for the rest of her life, even though she tried and tried to "understand" and "get past it". Violently molested at the age of 23 months, she took her own life at the age of 13. In her own words, "I know this is a permanent solution to a 'temporary' situation, but I'm just too damned tired to try even one more day." It was the day that her molester was paroled from prison, free as a bird... the end of any freedom she may have ever known. I say "hang the bastards!'

Posted by: Sandy at March 18, 2006 10:35 PM (f5Luo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

After all is said and done, John McCain is still my candidate of choice. Why? Because he will do whatever is necessary to win the war on terror. That's the impression that I get, at least. While not my only concern, it is my greatest. If you look at John McCain's voting record, he's not nearly as 'liberal' as many on the Right seem to believe. And since I'm not really a Republican, it doesn't really bother me if he's 'loyal' or not. John Hawkins has a different take.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:05 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

Radical abortion rights activists help the students at Greenvill Tech celebrate 'herstory'--- which I hear is a lot like 'history', only with an all female prison run by a bull-dyke prison matron.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:16 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Karol at Alarming News calls her the ultimate security mom. Sweet.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Kevin Aylward reports that the author of the AP report which alleges that President Bush was warned about the possibility of a levy breach used to work at CBS's 60 Minutes II.

Now, Rob at Say Anything notices that the video was selectively edited to exclude footage of Dan Brown being asked whether more resources would be needed by Michael Chertoff. The transcripts show that Brown said no.

So, a major story breaks claiming Bush was warned but fails to mention the fact that the person warning Bush declined additional resources?

Dan Rather, eat your heart out. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:18 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 2 kb.

That's funny. For some reason the election of Bill Clinton didn't make the list.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Great. It's not bad enough that we won't do enough to discourage illegal immigration, we have to subsidize it as well. Brilliant.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

An independent student newspaper at Clemson University that last week published Danish cartoons of Muhammad is sponsoring a drawing this week for an AK-47 assault rifle, stirring some student and faculty protests. Bwahahahaaa!!

Posted by: Rusty at 11:43 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Here is a copy of the original affidavits relating to Vice President Dick Cheney's shooting accident. They come via USA Today and the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

They are .pdf copies of the original affidavits filed by the Kenedy County Sheriff's Department. Click here to see them.

You'll notice that all involved agree this was an accident. No quantities of alcohol were consumed. That the Sheriff's department was notified almost immediately, etc. So much for the conspiracy theories and tirades about a 'cover up'.

For his part, Harry Whittington is apologetic about all the fuss that has been caused by being shot and looks forward to hunting with Cheney again in the future. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Personally, I don't think the Veep was involved. It was someone behind a grassy knoll. P

Posted by: Vonski at February 17, 2006 01:10 PM (Srmrz)

2 Right. The Cuban mafia. Oh, and LBJ.

Posted by: Rusty at February 17, 2006 01:21 PM (JQjhA)

3 It could have been worse! Cheney could have struck him while backing out of the driveway in an SUV!

Just imagine what would be said and talked about then!

Posted by: hondo at February 17, 2006 01:44 PM (fyKFC)

4 No, no, no. It was the Louisiana mafia that had ties in Dallas.

Have you ever even been to the Grassy Knoll Rusty? I have and let me tell you, there are still members of the Louisiana mafia there just in case the ghost of JFK comes strolling by oh Commerce Street.

Posted by: Chad Evans at February 17, 2006 01:48 PM (+DXHJ)

5 You mean the "alien" angle on this has been debunked? Dang.

Posted by: Oyster at February 17, 2006 02:31 PM (YudAC)

6 The liberal media sharks smell blood and its afeeding frenzie

Posted by: sandpiper at February 18, 2006 09:24 AM (162Hn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

To the tinfoil crowd, lack of evidence is always proof of a coverup. And, FYI: there is a major difference between reporting a crime to the police (eg, CHAPPAQUIDDICK) and notifying the media of an accident. The media, despite what many on the Left believe, are not the nation's police force.

Decision '08: Smearing Dick Cheney

Dan Riehl: Lawrence O'Donnell Is Scum

Radio Equalizer: Fact free zone.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

It's just like those Quakers, babies, and nuns to make international phone calls to suspected al Qaeda terrorists. And all this time I've been dialing Osama bin Laden for my two year old! Do you think Julie Aigner-Clark will come out with a Baby Einstein video to help my apparently retarded kid learn to first dial 0-1-1?

Hat tip: Confederate Yankee.

UPDATE: Related ACLU propaganda and a guide to this week's NSA hearings.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:42 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Strictly Speaking this sort of thing doesn't bother me all that much. I mean, it's true that western media are kind of bending over backwards, matrix-style, to placate muslin sentiment, but the backdrop is that we're more afraid of what we might do, than what they might do. Consider that human beings, as a rule, are not really that different from one another in spite of modest differences in local and regional culture. We basically all have the same sense of fairness and usually recognize the same constraints against the First Commandment. And the thrust of history that substantiates the reform and progressive movements in Western Culture (individual freedom, anti-slavery, anti-totalitarianism) are not merely "Western" but human, in a sense that's vastly larger than the regional appeal of a Seventh Century Prophet who "shall not be disobeyed." And while the world of Islam has been offended, yet again, by our iconoclasm, we have yet to see the awakened offense of Western Culture to the affront of being challenged and blasphemed by the regional superstition of "low Islam," before it has even awakened itself to a righteous indignation about chattel slavery: a conflict that cost the United States in excess of a million untimely deaths. (And in my own case, almost 50% of the progeny of our Arkansas hillbilly family.) If the sense of Jacksonian offense at being taken for granted by a lesser cultural light is ever genuinely awakened, the modest threats tossed out by the Islamic world as a thin figleaf against its own shameful past will seem anemic and pale by comparison to the wrath that will be loosed on that poor excuse for "progress."

Do not get me started...

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:13 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

By 'threats' I don't mean the problems associated with an open border. I mean actual threats...against police officers along our borders...by the Mexican military.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Is that pronounced "boner"?

Posted by: Rusty at 03:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Man, that was a classic episode of South Park last night, wasn't it? And, call me a geek if you will, but the history of lumber mills is wicked cool. And no, I regret not watching that other show about as much as I regret not watching Desperate Housewives.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Did I ever tell you that my guardian angel always appears to me in the form of Colonel Klink? It's true. So if you're going to be compared to a Nazi prison guard, you could do no worse than Klink.

Okay, maybe Schultz would be better. But Klink is a close second.

Colonel Klink, why hast thou forsaken me!

Posted by: Rusty at 09:16 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

THIS is how it happened in Nazi Germany, Its over.

More.

UPDATE: I'm registering Independent tomorrow. You're welcome to join me.

Even more.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:03 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

An excerpt from my soon te be released autobiography:

My life as the son of a sharecropper was no picnic. In town there was always the worry that Boss Hogg and the powers that be would take some offense and confiscate what little we had to themselves under the perversity that was Jim Crow.

And home was no better. Emasculated by a system that drained by father of all that was manly dignity, he found his only solace was the bottle. And when my father drank, he was mean. Real mean.

And if Timothy P. Barrus, a white guy from Lansing, Michigan, can win awards for writing about growing up on the Navajo Reservation, why can't I shoot for the same? He's pretty much my new hero, anyhow. Except for the gay porn thing. Can't say that I know enough about that to make up a true sounding story.

Hat tip to Confederate Yankee for the e-mail.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:47 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Life imitating Chappelle.

Belch has the details:

He said police had heard for some time that Williams had been selling drugs in the area. “Then we heard that he was handing out business cards,” the officer said. “In the course of our investigation we were fortunate to come up with one, and we gave him a call.”

Kitchens said the business card had an image of what appeared to be an alarm clock being hit by a boxing glove and said: “For a quick hit on time call the boss.”

“When he answered, we agreed to buy some crack from him, we went up there, and we arrested him,” Kitchens said.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:01 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Q: Where do Mexican Generals keep their armies?

A1: In their sleavies

A2: No, you dimwit, in our sleavies. In addition to constantly violating the border, it looks like they are helping smuggle drugs in too.

UPDATE BY SEE-DUBYA: Much more info in this Ontario (CA) Daily Bulletin article that made the rounds last week. There have been 216 documented incursions by the Mexican military since 1996.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:51 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

1 And what could possibly be wrong with that, Rusty?

Posted by: See-Dubya at January 24, 2006 03:12 PM (IDj0S)

2 But their our sleavies, that's what!

Posted by: Rusty at January 24, 2006 03:14 PM (JQjhA)

3 Competition for the gringo/cartel dollars is heating up, some units now seem willing "to go the extra mile" in servicing their favored clients.

Posted by: john Ryan at January 24, 2006 03:19 PM (TcoRJ)

4 Lets be honest - this is not the actions of the Mexican Govt - if they are military - then they're rogues and criminals within its ranks (which is not a shocker).

This is not good for Mexico - it makes them look like a 3rd rate banana republic. These guys are criminal gangs - if they assist in smuggling here, imagine what other criminal activity they engage in Mexico!

The biggest threat they pose is to Mexico itself.

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 03:27 PM (3aakz)

5 This is not good for Mexico - it makes them look like a 3rd rate banana republic.

Quack quack....

Posted by: Brian B at January 24, 2006 03:32 PM (rGfpg)

6 So when did they stop smuggling tequila?

Posted by: Howie at January 24, 2006 03:58 PM (D3+20)

7 Sorry hondo, but you're dead wrong. Not only is this old news to some of us, but it is well known that Mexican Generals and politicians directly control, and profit from, drug smuggling. The entire Mexican government is nothing but a criminal organization, and for some reason, our government is trying to pretend nothing is happening. It kinda makes me wonder who's getting a cut on this side of the border.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 04:02 PM (0yYS2)

8 Actually, these incursions have been going on for quite some time. Reports from So. Texas and Arizona tell of Mexicans in military uniforms providing protection and riding shotgun for drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. The Mexican government is bound to be aware of what is going on, but to tell you the truth, both the drug smuggling and illegal crossings of the border are beneficial to the Mexican government. Both of these illegal activities provide Mexico with dollars, and prop up a government that might otherwise fail. Why do you think the Mexican government so forcibly opposes border security on the part of the US?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 24, 2006 04:03 PM (rUyw4)

9 Don't doubt higher ups have knowledge/involvement. Mexican Govt is in sad shape - a never ending cycle of going nowhere on the richest continent on the planet. I'm just sympathetic for the average Mexican - if this is bad for us - its a nightmare for them.

Pity - there never was any real reason (other that their own failings) why Mexico never matched the achievements and status of the US and Canada.

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 04:10 PM (3aakz)

10 Only poor government and stupid economic policies kept Mexicans from succeeding. I know many Mexicans who have come to the US and become very successful, and great citizens. I truly feel sorry for the average Mexican who is forced to live in the present circumstances in Mexico.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 24, 2006 04:57 PM (rUyw4)

11 Mexico used to be ruled by France and Spain, two nations which never even managed well at home, much less abroad. In fact, the only post-colonial nations that ever truly succeeded are the ones that the British had. Any nation which was ever ruled or even partly ruled by France or Spain during its formative years is a de facto basket case today.
The only hope for Mexico is that enough Mexicans will learn proper civics in El Norte, and return home to eventually straighten things out. This should happen right about the time Osama bin Laden converts to Judaism I should say.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 07:51 PM (0yYS2)

12 Gee, Maxi, you're confidence level is real high on a turnaround in Mexico. Lol!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 24, 2006 07:54 PM (rUyw4)

13 Well, we pessimists are rarely disappointed, but often pleasantly surprised. We must not forget that Americans have a long relationship with the ideals that are at the very heart of Western civilization, whereas the people of the rest of our hemisphere still mostly live in some state of post-colonialism, in which societies are stratified, and there is no hope for liberty for the masses. To make things worse, almost every other nation in our hemisphere, including Canada, is infected with the disease of Marxism, and so given these two factors, it will take much longer than anyone can imagine to spread Enlightenment ideals to every corner of the globe.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 08:14 PM (0yYS2)

14 Why has the President let this go on for so long? Has he forgot that 19 of the 21 Fasists 911 attackers were illegal aliens?
Most if no all snuck in via Mexico in 2001. What is he waiting for? Another attack?

Posted by: Jo macDougal at January 26, 2006 03:30 PM (xcy9v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rusty and Howie have already commented on the latest communique from Dr. Demento (or his stand in) but I thought I'd like to make a further observation about the lack of political acumen that this proposal suggests. It reveals someone who doesn't have the slightest idea how alliances and factions work within a democracy. The "truce proposal" makes the critical mistake of simply adopting all of the MOVEON/KOS talking points:

1. The US effort in Iraq is a "disaster" for the US, and only serves to antagonize the locals.
2. US troop morale is terrible, as exemplified by idiosyncratic and out-of-context evidence that runs counter to what the troops actually say in milblogs, during interviews, and in polls of military personnel. We (Al Qaeda) get stronger as you (the US and pro-democracy Arabs) get weaker. [Actually the evidence says the opposite, and the primary negative influence on troop morale appears to be the defeatist attitude and rhetoric of our own fifth column left.]
3. If the US leaves, abandoning its imperialistic ways, the turmoil in the Islamic world will eventually resolve itself. It's only our intervention that keeps things stirred up.
4. The Bush administration is lying to Americans, both about the condition of the war and about their own intentions. The majority of Americans now agree with this assessment and want to skedaddle. [Note: Since the polls no longer suggest this, the tape may well have been produced some time ago, as Howie, Rusty and a number of others suggest.]
5. The US has split its resources, allowing Al Qaeda to become stronger in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.
6. The primary beneficiaries of the US war in the Middle East are the Halliburtonesque war profiteers and the oil capitalists.

Even though he makes all these points without attribution to Moore, Galloway, or Zuniga the effect cannot be viewed as beneficial to the cause of our domestic masochists, because it makes the task of distinguishing their positions from those of the Islamofascists nearly impossible. The association delegitimizes them in ways that none of their political opponents could possibly manage on their own. This makes the following offer startlingly ironic:

We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war.

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:27 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh my G*d, they killed Kenny. And they let him vote. In Tennessee. You bastards!

Posted by: Rusty at 01:36 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Seriously*. Kevin McCullogh gets censored for suggesting Kennedy deserves a beating. Buckley F. Williams has the top nine statements that would make Ted cry.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:17 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

The final word on the Alito hearings.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't get the Abramoff "scandall". Seriously.

I've been on vacation for a few weeks, so the only news I've been paying attention to is a bit here and there from TV and radio. Because of this, I'm assuming that I'm about as informed as the average American on the Abramoff scandal right now. That is, I know that there is this guy named Jack Abramoff, that he has been indicted for some reason or another, that he has admitted to guilt, and that he has been a major contributor to the Republican party and a minor contributor to the Democratic party.

From this, the MSM has been running story after story raising 'questions' about those associated with Abramoff. The 'questions' mainly revolve around those who received campaign contributions from Abramoff and his Native American backers. The stories seem to focus on the 'fall out' from the Abramoff scandal rather than the scandal itself. In fact, I know next to nothing about the scandal itself, but I know an awful lot about the 'fall out' from it.

Can somebody please refer me to a good story that will explain the actual crimes committed rather than the 'fall out' from the crimes? I've been way out of the loop, so an MSM story or a blog post would be good. Seriously, I haven't seen a single news story on TV or heard one on the radio that actually explains what crimes Abramoff committed. None.

Editors at MSM outlets have been derelict in their duties--or worse. Imagine if CNN had done weeks and weeks of stories on the "fall out" from the 9/11 attacks, but ran nothing on the attacks themselves. Tonight on Anderson Cooper 360, a roundtable discussion on the Bush Administration's reaction to the al Qaeda attacks. What does this mean to the electoral prospects of the Republican Party?

The only thing I know about the Abramoff case is that he seems to have pled guilty to crimes that are in no way connected with illegal campaign contributions. I only know that because the only substantive discussion of the actual crimes came in a 15 second blurb by Tom DeLay in which he mentioned this. Of course, the news story on Fox in which I saw the bulrb wasn't about the substance of what DeLay mentioned, but about whether or not DeLay would be forced to step down because he had taken free trips paid by Abramoff. DeLay claimed that Abramoff had pled guilty to some scam completely unrelated to campaign finance. Is this tru?

If Abramoff's crimes were unrelated to illegal campaign finance contributions, then what, exactly, is the scandal? Seriously? Is this a simple guilt-by-association type of scandal? So large campaign-donors that turns out to be fellons taints all of those who they give money to? If so, I wonder if Martha Stewart gave money to any politician?

There seems to be some kind of 'scandal' going on here, but for the likes of me I don't seem to see one. The only scandal I see here is poor reporting, coupled with overblown headlines, poured on top of shallow interviews with politicians masquerading as 'tough questions'. I don't get it.

--------

I'm going to spend the afternoon going through e-mail and checking out recent blog posts here and elsewhere. I'll addend this post as I find interersting or relevant articles/posts.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:16 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Well, it turns out that I get a Comment Submission Error and the Alterne+ dot org site with the summary is questionable. I have tried to post this message several times but have been rejected. Try searching the .org site for ...story/29827.... I hope this helps you.

Posted by: Dale at January 08, 2006 05:52 PM (Dujiz)

2 Well, he admitted to BRIBING the Chairman of the House Administration Committee, Bob Ney (Republican-Ohio).

There's a lot more that's going to come out--he's now a cooperating witness.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at January 08, 2006 06:47 PM (oNxRU)

3 I'm in the same boat as you. I read the initial indictment about SunCruz and couldn't detect the underlying crime. Mail and Wire fraud are nebulous crimes. The actual transmissions don't even have to be fraudulent.

The Information about the Indian Casino deal seems to be, in part, about Abramoff overcharging the tribe. Given the amount of money that the tribes saved--or made--as a result of Abramoff, I don't see a crime.

Geek, where in the plea deal does it say he admitted to bribing Ney? http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abramoff/abr10406plea.pdf

The job of a lobbyist is to gain influence with legislators and to persuade them that their client's position is the right one. I don't see how it can be proved that Ney was bribed.

I also don't trust Federal Prosecutors.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 08, 2006 07:13 PM (cskP4)

4 Please don't quote me, but I seem to remember hearing something about the creation of fake Corporations, and using them for fraudulent billing.

Posted by: dave at January 08, 2006 08:11 PM (CcXvt)

5 I guess Libs are under the impression this makes any difference.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 08, 2006 08:24 PM (8e/V4)

6 Corruption seems to be the new cornerstone of the Republican Party. Abramoff is hardly the only corrupt republican to get caught or caught up in corruption/ethics scandals, or investigations lately - google - cunningham, pombo, ney, noe, scanlon, delay, doolittle, rove, libby, this list could go on for pages and it will.
Tha's the Republican Culture of Corruption and Cronyism.

Posted by: steve at January 08, 2006 08:57 PM (6hT/C)

7 Hope you get up to speed soon. It's breathtaking. I've been blogging Abramoff for over a year now. Where've you been?

Check out Mohammad Atta being on Abramoff's Sun Cruz gambling boat, and check out the murder of Abramoff's partner, Gus Boulis. For sure the Florida prosecutor will be questioning Abramoff and the other surviving partner Kidan soon.

Posted by: Maezeppa at January 08, 2006 09:15 PM (AsrJM)

8 Mohammed Atta and his crew went to strip joints too. What does this have to do with the charges against Abramoff? Isn't that what is called a red herring or some other fallacy?

I read the Weekly Standard article about the murder of Gus Boulis. There is circumstantial evidence connecting the SunCruz deal to the murder. But, it mainly touches upon Kidan, not Abramoff or Waldman.

The wire fraud charge regarding SunCruz centers on a wire transfer of "funds" from Kidan's already closed account. From what I've read, it had Kidan's signature on it, not Abramoff's.

Dave, here is the Information for the Indian Casino issue: http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/01/03/abramoff.pdf

I don't see any allegations that the corporations, to which you refer, were fake. I see allegations that his clients asked him whether or not he had connections to these corporations and he denied it. Thus, we have a "he said, she said" situation. Moreover, I'm not convinced that using different corporations for different functions is illegal or unethical--or that he was faking billing. It is possible that these different corporations were formed to conform with election laws. (But I don't know for sure--it's just something I would look at if I had the time)

Regardless, the actual statutes cited in the Information seem pretty vague to me.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 08, 2006 10:07 PM (cskP4)

9 Three federal counts: Conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud stemming from Capitol Hill influence peddling on behalf of Indian gaming clients.

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 10:53 PM (oxMjD)

10 I saw the McLaughlin Report this morning and it convinced me that there's something pretty rotten here. For one thing, there was apparently a murder involving people that Abramoff had hired to protect from from the person murdered. Maybe there's an explanation, but it looks dark indeed.

But more to the point, the speed with which the Republican leadership has managed to produce this level of corruption is staggering, since it took the Dems roughly 50 years to achieve the same level of corruption. My point isn't that Republicans are more vulnerable to corruption, but that something is seriously wrong with "the system." I have no doubt that Dems will succumb just as quickly (or even more quickly) if they come to power. It may simply be that Qutb was right, that there's a "horrible schizophrenia" at the core of western liberalism. It may also be that we can overcome it. (I think we can.) But so far, we haven't even begun.

The "ownership society" is, I think, the "way out." But someone had better start taking that seriously pretty soon, or we're really screwed. I feel almost transcendentally angry, and it's not about Michael Moore. Abramoff was one of the people that I'd have trusted implicitly. I was simply gullible, and kind of stupid. His ilk ought never to have been trusted.

Posted by: Demosophist at January 08, 2006 11:42 PM (iObV6)

11 So, do the Indians get their money back or what? How much money are we talking about here?

With all this influence peddlin' - did the Indians get their money's worth? - or did they simply get screwed again?

Posted by: hondo at January 09, 2006 12:05 AM (3aakz)

12 indeed, that is why I said not to quote me
I was half listening while reading, and I thought they had said something in regards to him setting up Corporations, and using those Corporations to bill clients for services that he did not perform [fake billing?].

My bad.

Posted by: dave at January 09, 2006 12:15 AM (CcXvt)

13 It appears in the plea agreement that he only pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and wire fraud. That's not the same thing as being convicted of influence peddling.

The Government hasn't proven bribery or cheating the Indians and they have dismissed all such charges. Wire and mail fraud are pretty malleable charges. The actual transmissions don't actually have to be fraudulant. They just have to be tied to transactions the government says are fraudulent. This is another instance of a man being convicted (albeit through a plea) without the underlying crime being proved.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 09, 2006 07:49 AM (cskP4)

14 Demophist,

What I read in the Weekly Standard article I linked above, was that at a meeting between Kidan and Boulis (Abramoff was not there), Boulis became angry and allegedly stabbed Kidan in the neck with a pen or pencil. Kidan is the person who hired people to protect him from Boulis, not Abramoff.

I'm just trying to parse through all this to see exactly what Abramoff is actually tied to. The MSM is terrible at that.

Posted by: Sue Bob at January 09, 2006 08:42 AM (cskP4)

15 US News & World Report had an informing article on this late last year. Not sure of the exact date but I honestly hadn't heard of any of it till I read their article. Personally I tired of the Dems complaining when you look at their rolls of who took money and how much. Both sides are dirty, period. I'm all for term limits, no long term benefits, and make it where they have to come home and go to work thru the year. It would stream-line the gov't, save tons of money and cut out much of the corruption that is rampant today with the current system.

Posted by: Debby at January 09, 2006 08:43 AM (DbBZu)

16 The scandal is that every sonofabitch in Congress is bought and paid for, regardless of party affiliation, and always have been, always will be. It's really a shame that the plane that crashed in Shanksville didn't make it to the Capitol building, and find every lowlife crapweasel Congrescritter inside; the damned jihadis trying to do us a favor by taking out Congress, though they thought they were hurting us. Just think, no more Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, et al. They almost saved us that day, but the passengers stopped them in an act of bravery that in retrospect was misguided.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 09:32 AM (0yYS2)

17 Doh! Typo alert:"the damned jihadis trying to do us a favor" should read "the damned jihadis tried to do us a favor"

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 10:25 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment