jawa.mee.nu

September 21, 2006

Ludicrous Lunacy From Across the Pond

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

The things I do for my readers.

Like sitting through the tedious 27 minutes and 53 seconds of "Ludicrous Diversion", which offers conclusive proof that paranoid conspiracy fantasies about terrorist attacks are not limited to imbeciles in the United States. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:04 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The very first I heard of conspiracy theories about 9/11 was from a French book released within a few months of 9/11. That book seems to be where alot of the 9/11 lunacy stems from.

So I've been aware for a long, long time now that happens all around the world.

(Yes, I know this is conspiracy theories about the london bombings but that book jumped into my head immediately and it annoys me so much I had to bitch about it)

Posted by: Rich at September 21, 2006 11:10 PM (89Rw1)

2 Wow...you guys made it through more than I could...

It is good news indeed that the good ol USofA doesn't have a corner on loons....

On the other hand, you just know that there's gotta be a sect of Hindus who (you just know) believe in their hearts that their government must be the ones behind the train bombs in India...

Posted by: mrclark at September 21, 2006 11:27 PM (Kfxvn)

3 Every country has it's Gregs.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 22, 2006 06:26 AM (m9HAJ)

4 MrClark: I'm sure the Hindus version is still in the cutting room.

At least they got the title right - Ludicrous Diversion.

Posted by: Oyster at September 22, 2006 07:07 AM (YudAC)

5 These people make me ashamed of my country! 9/11 was no fake and certainly 7/7 was not either yet they continue with this crap! Is there every going to be a terror attack in the west that dose not get the Your tube "the whole thing was the work of the goverment" crap?

Posted by: steve at September 22, 2006 07:32 AM (Q6Ky6)

6 These people make me ashamed of my country! 9/11 was no fake and certainly 7/7 was not either yet they continue with this crap! Is there every going to be a terror attack in the west that dose not get the Your tube "the whole thing was the work of the goverment" crap?

Posted by: steve at September 22, 2006 07:38 AM (Q6Ky6)

7 These people make me ashamed of my country! 9/11 was no fake and certainly 7/7 was not either yet they continue with this crap! Is there every going to be a terror attack in the west that dose not get the Your tube "the whole thing was the work of the goverment" crap?

Posted by: steve at September 22, 2006 07:39 AM (Q6Ky6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 20, 2006

Venezuelan President Uses Schoolyard Taunts in UN Speech (Updated with Chomsky and hot carl)

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

My God, it must be embarrassing for anyone over the age of ten to be a Venezuelan today after Hugo Chavez's incredibly immature meltdown addressing the UN yesterday.

From the Associated Press:

UNITED NATIONS - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush "the devil."
"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."

Via Stop the ACLU.

UPDATE by Rusty: Video highlights here. What, an Leftist America hater using Noam Chomsky as the basis of his anti-American rant? Can't be! Because Chomsky says he loves America. Because true love, Chomsky love, is really about hating every thing your country does.

Because Chomsky just wants us to have a better country.

It's the kind of love you find between a man and a woman. The kind of man that loves his wife so much that he is forced to beat the bitch up. It's for her own good.

I believe I have a copyright out on calling Noam Chomsky a mass murderer.

Query: Which is worse: The Noam Chomsky or the Hot Carl?

Professor Chaos tells me he'd rather get the hot carl any day.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:33 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And Mo Atta is their savior.

I believe Chavez basically made a formal declaration of war, today. Why don't we reciprocate?

Posted by: Editor at September 20, 2006 12:49 PM (adpJH)

2 So good to see someone stand up to the "wanna" be emperor...How about the Devil's receipt??? NICE!!!!

Posted by: Gigi at September 20, 2006 01:25 PM (04h5m)

3 What a Wild and Crazy guy.......

Posted by: n.a. palm at September 20, 2006 01:29 PM (qsH8R)

4 Whats ranting maniac and leftists extremists and he will have a welcome mat rolled out for him at the UN,CUBA,SAN FRANCISCO and U.C. BERKELEY

Posted by: sandpiper at September 20, 2006 01:40 PM (r8sk+)

5 I think that Hugo is a bit nuts but there's a lot to be said about where he's coming from. From their point of view our country is pretty damn nuts and we do go mess up alot of countries in pursuit of our own interests...

Posted by: Ted at September 20, 2006 02:21 PM (Z6c5x)

6 "...true love, Chomsky love..."

Blast you Randy, I'll never be able to watch The Princess Bride quite the same again.

Posted by: Jeff Shultz at September 20, 2006 02:23 PM (yiMNP)

7 Available now: screensavers featuring Presidents Hugo Chavez and Ah-mad-in-ejad.

Posted by: Neo at September 20, 2006 02:39 PM (Yozw9)

8 An observation:

El Presidente Chavez smells brimstone lingering from the previous day...

Ill Presidente Ahmanutjob doesn't mention anything about any sulfuric odor...

Maybe Iran's President wandered through a peaceful nucular manufacturing site at home before he came to the UN and he forgot to scrape his shoes at the door.

Posted by: orlando at September 20, 2006 02:43 PM (qLdYL)

9 Embarrassed is the least of it!

Posted by: KA at September 20, 2006 02:46 PM (DpPzQ)

10 Aw Ted, you poor pitiful soul. Why don't you get some of your Rosie loving friends and march peacefully down to Vengeance-uela and tell them how sorry you are? And then, make a little camp and stay.

It is despicable that a foreign leader stands in our midst and says such things unchallenged. Hell, he was probably applauded. Of course, many of our citizens say as much or worse every day.

Difference is, as U.S. citizens, they have that right, fought and died for.

God Bless the U.S.A.

Posted by: haywood jablowmi at September 20, 2006 02:47 PM (VUmVc)

11 I am in agreement with Cahvez on one thing and that is why don't they move the UN to Venezuela.

Don't forget to boycott Citgo. Every penny you spend on Citgo goes to his coffers.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 20, 2006 02:53 PM (7teJ9)

12 (sulphur smell) I think chavez was smelling the scent from his own farts. DAMN THAT RICE AND BEANS!

Posted by: steve at September 20, 2006 02:58 PM (Teqg8)

13 Anyone notice how small his hands are?

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 20, 2006 03:05 PM (7teJ9)

14 anyone notice of his use of the term "inshallah", as well...

We know where he stands.

Posted by: EricInTexas at September 20, 2006 03:26 PM (oyaqz)

15 ...and I think I'd pay to see Ammadinnerjacket give this beaner a Dirty Sanchez.

Posted by: EricInTexas at September 20, 2006 03:28 PM (oyaqz)

16 Perhaps, Satan can shoot down his plane on the way home. But, that would not be fair, and compassionate.

Posted by: Leatherneck at September 20, 2006 03:36 PM (D2g/j)

17 ...sorry to everyone about the "beaner" remark.

To make it up, I would gladly, fairly, and compassionately fire off a stinger at Hugo-Bob's plane.

Posted by: EricInTexas at September 20, 2006 04:01 PM (oyaqz)

18 Yes, it is quite disgusting to see these goons come here to the US and spread their filthy propaganda. But I have a feeling old Chavez had better be watching his back when he gets back to Venezuela. The opposition to him is quite strong, although not organized in a way you have to be to deal with a thug like him. And that's all he is, a small-time thug looking for his fifteen minutes of fame. But perhaps there are people in Venezuela who will deal with this punk. Just maybe. I have a very good feeling about this, especially as crude continues to fall. Methinks his mouth has overloaded his asshole.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 20, 2006 04:27 PM (rUyw4)

19 Has the world truly gone mad? do people actually belive what Chavez and Ahmidijead say? this is like a bad dream or a bad movie for the past 5 years. With these statements like this war is on the horizon for sure, maybe not from the US but sane and normal people elsewhere.

Posted by: DAT at September 20, 2006 04:31 PM (8RCv7)

20 Are you sure Hugo's a democrat....he sure did sound like one though.

Posted by: n.a. palm at September 20, 2006 04:39 PM (qsH8R)

21 What people living in a fairy tale should realize is that democracy is not for everyone. As many people who want " freedom " there are as many who prefer the stability of their traditional governments free or not, to the changeability and uncertainty of a " democracy ". Too late to undo what has been done by this short-sighted administration. We are now the clowns of the world.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 20, 2006 05:38 PM (Dd86v)

22 The thing is he has us "literally over an oil barrel". We import a ton of oil from Venezuela as well as Iran. We do anything to either of those countries and we will be paying $10.00 a gallon for gas.

Us gay rich people in the blue states that do very much enjoy our big tax cuts wouldn't be hurt much by this but the pathetic southern states-you know the one's who are the poorest, least educated and feed off the federal government's trough would be having a really tough time.

So I say yes let's bomb them. I wanted to see all of the toothless uninsured red necks from Alabama paying $10.00 a gallon for gas as I head to the Hamptons for the weekend with my fabulous NYC friends.

Posted by: Lee at September 20, 2006 06:15 PM (RJQ9U)

23 I want to see all the uninsured, toothless rednecks from Alabama unleashed against all the worthless, gay boys hiding out in the Hamptons on the weekends. Or better yet, let the Muslims take care of the gay boys! Bwahahahaha!!!!!!! Kinda like killing two jaybirds with one stone. Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 20, 2006 06:47 PM (rUyw4)

24 BOYCOTT CITGO : Make that little turd drown in his oil!

Posted by: Dale Cox at September 20, 2006 06:48 PM (31/hN)

25 Yes for a third time: BOYCOTT Citgo! That should be the mantra.
Hey Rusty, where are you on this? Where are your high power blogger friends on this?

Is it any more cliche' than the reutersgate, or the attempt at the I will not submit campaign?

I do not mention this asshole on my site without a call for a boycott. But my viewers are few. Mostly because I am not a captivating writer. But since you aren't either I suggest an active call for an judeo-christian-fatwa against Citgo. Essentially we do not patronize them, and pray they get better leadership soon. That is quite the improvement over islam.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 20, 2006 09:03 PM (n4VvM)

26 Actually, Lee, we don't import oil from Iran, but the world market price is affected by Ahmadinejad's antics. We import about 12% of our oil from Venezuela - easily replaced by imcreasing production in the Gulf, on the West Coast - and ANWAR.

I live in New York, but, unlike you, I've traveled widely enough, and have a mind open enough to accept differing regional cultures to know that your hatefilled stereotypes about Southerners are simply a display of your ignorance.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 20, 2006 09:13 PM (vBK4C)

27 How many people here are a relative of the 2,698 soldiers killed in Iraq
How people here are a relative of the 17,000 wounded soldier's with missing limbs or brain damaged
How many people realize we have over 20,000 soldiers in Canada, avoiding the war
How many people realize the cost of the war is at 500 billion dollars or 40 cents on every tax dollar.
How many people know who Paris Hilton is sleeping with.....

Posted by: chris at September 20, 2006 11:02 PM (i1jdV)

28 Pat Robertson was right.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 20, 2006 11:04 PM (ILns2)

29 Hey Chris, how many people here realize that you're a piece of shit lefturd who deserves a bullet to the head?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 20, 2006 11:22 PM (v3I+x)

30 As a Venezuelan, I find your opening comment very offensive. I am not embarrassed to be Venezuelan! I didn't vote for Hugo Chavez: in fact, I campaigned against him in the first election, back in 1998. But he won by popular vote and that marked the day I decided I was going to leave my country because I didn't want my family to grow up in an environment like the one that Chavez has created since he came to power.

Your careless remarks make me wonder how would you feel if I made a comparable comment saying how embarrassing it all Americans over ten should, after having heard an outrageous remark from President Bush... and there is no shortage of those. But I won't go there.

I hope you are more thoughtful about making such general remarks in the future. You never know who could read them and, in general, such broad comments tend to be unfair to a large number of people.

In any case, at the end of the day, the sad thing is that Chavez is not doing anything new by calling Bush names. He's been doing it for a while now. Maybe it was just that for some people it was the first time that they saw it...

Posted by: Manny Hernandez at September 21, 2006 12:21 AM (rb8J/)

31 And it must be embarrassing for anyone over the age of ten to be an American today after your president keeps killing children ten years old and younger in Afganistan, Irak and the Middle East. May the Force leaves You!

Posted by: Francisco Arias Cardenas at September 21, 2006 02:18 AM (vkF09)

32 first u should be ashame as a venezuelan,, u are using using the name of arias cardenas that guy is a traitor! what about all the violence in venezuela all the murders all the dying in the street ? chavez is responsible for all that deaths and ppl like u . muere mas gente en venezuela todos los dias q en iraq y aganistan cual es tu punto?

Posted by: jife at September 21, 2006 07:24 AM (mxgSP)

33 Manny and Francisco - the opening remark was intended to be offensive. Venezuelans have earned it by electing and tolerating this dnagerous child.

Go ahead and look through UN transcripts for an address by our President that approaches within a light year the oafishness displayed by Chavez, a man who openly supports Islamist maniacs.

Franciso, you aren't paying attention. The "people" deliberately targeting, as a matter of strategy, children in Iraq and Afghanistan are those supported by Chavez.

Pull your head out of your ass and stick your ignorant moral relativism there in its place.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 21, 2006 08:37 AM (vBK4C)

34 Hey Lee, My boss is a Southerner, and he is gay. He doesn't have problem with the South. Oh by the way asshole, Georgia has a budget surplus this year. I work in Technology as do all of my co-workers. Georgia is a predominantly Republican and conservative state. I am willing to bet there are more people on welfare in New York than in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina combined. I left out Louisianna and Fl purposely. Katrina put half of that state out of work. Florida is not truely a Southern State any longer. Well south Fl is not. Pull your head out of your ass and open your mind.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 21, 2006 08:41 AM (7teJ9)

35 Manny and Franny

I am glad you are proud Venezuelans. Stay there and make it a better place for the rest of us.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 21, 2006 09:24 AM (2HM/d)

36 " electing and tolerating this dnagerous child " . Yeah, there's `a rash of that going around! Fore L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O7

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 21, 2006 09:26 AM (Dd86v)

37 You're right Larry, look at the Fwench, the Palestinians, and the Iranians.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 21, 2006 10:15 AM (vBK4C)

38 20,000 canada? show the stats please before you lie.

Posted by: DAT at September 21, 2006 11:54 AM (efKEU)

39 20,000 canada???

More like 200 you dumbfuck piece of shit.

Posted by: Cooper Harris at September 21, 2006 12:20 PM (R4293)

40 All this anger and projecting but so little understanding. Everyone gets to their place with their opinion from their own input and experience and yet we sit her condoning others so much? In the end there is a lot of problems surrounding both sides of this and the true solution isn't gonig to come from hatred and 'telling it how it is', but rather from actually understanding where others are coming from and reaching a place of action that is grounded in peace.

Posted by: Ted at September 21, 2006 12:45 PM (Z6c5x)

41 Ted: Ground Zero was eerily peaceful after the buildings collapsed. Is that what you mean?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 21, 2006 01:11 PM (vBK4C)

42 Yea Ted. I suppose you would like to hold hands, and sing songs with lovers of Islam, and pray for the 12 Imam to get here.

I'll tell you what Ted old boy. Tell the Muslims, Christ is the only answer, and their boy Mo. brought death by the sword, or convert to Islam. Wait, the Pope is ahead of you.

Pull your head out boy, and clean your weapons. We have turned the other cheek to many times.

Posted by: Leatherneck at September 21, 2006 02:59 PM (D2g/j)

43 Gee Bluto, do the Fwench, the Palestinians, and the Iranians golf too? Fore! L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 21, 2006 03:41 PM (Dd86v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 17, 2006

George Soros Gains a Recruit in the Global War on Bush

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

Becoming the most notable Democratic Party financial supporter: $$billions$$

Unsuccessfully trying to influence American elections: $$billions$$

Comparing the Bush administration to Nazis on CNN: Your immortal soul.

Having a filthy, stoned out hippy be the first to publicly embrace your cause: Priceless.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:20 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Notice he can't speak without waving his hands around like some kind of madman. Not a single word is uttered without an accompanying hand gesture. The sign of a primitive mind.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 17, 2006 12:33 PM (8e/V4)

2 Would the folks who keep trying to compare the Bush Administration to the Nazis please crack open a history book and look up the White Rose movement, and what happened to them?

Oh wait, that might make them feel all pious because they "know" Bush will do that to them any second now. *sigh*

Posted by: Patrick Chester at September 17, 2006 12:37 PM (MKaa5)

3 Now some idiot will tell me that I shouldn't call for the wholesale slaughter of all lefturds.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2006 01:06 PM (v3I+x)

4 I like the part where he talks about "sense of purpose in life...not that there is any purpose to this life, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!".

What a effing moron. Get back to your crack pipe, loser.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 17, 2006 01:19 PM (8e/V4)

5 These guys are just going to get funnier and funnier as we get closer to the election. The best part is, we don't have to do a thing. The left wing idiots do a good enough job on their own making themselves look dumb.

Posted by: Edward Stewart at September 17, 2006 01:54 PM (5c14F)

6 How many Jews has Bush killed? He must be a very bad Nazi, unlikely to attain Hitler's status and fame.

Posted by: ic at September 17, 2006 02:40 PM (1I88p)

7 Didn't you hear, ic, the Muslims are the new Jews. Now, try to wrap your mind around that concept without getting a headache.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 17, 2006 02:44 PM (rUyw4)

8 The Nazis tried to impose their views on other people using deception, half-truths, scaremongering and demonisation. Anyone who tries to impose their views on me using these methods are therefore like the Nazis. Therefore George Soros and Bob Marley here are like the Nazis.

Posted by: Simon at September 17, 2006 02:51 PM (wMZRG)

9 His parents must be so proud.

Posted by: Richard H. at September 17, 2006 04:08 PM (/xUS1)

10 Off to Gitmo, Sorryass, no wait, it's Shitmo for you.

Posted by: n.a. palm at September 17, 2006 04:39 PM (CWQzg)

11 The GWOB! i luv it! It's us (GWOT) versus them.

Posted by: reliapundit at September 17, 2006 06:38 PM (Zg/5V)

12 You're more right than you know JJ; part of islam's strategy is to usurp characteristics of other cultures and claim them as its own. Since mohamhead built his death cult around Abrahamic tradition, he had to supplant the Jews as God's chosen people. The Jews did too good a job of making themselves the eternal martyrs of humanity, and muslims have not missed the value of their lessons, especially in the years since WW2, when Jews used their new ultimate-victim status to extort all sorts of concessions from almost every nation on Earth with cries of anti-Semitism! every time they wanted something. Now the Jews have become too successful and integrated into world society to get much sympathy from anyone, and are even portrayed as the big, bad oppressors against the poor, helpless muslims.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2006 06:39 PM (v3I+x)

13 I just watched the video and have this to say; white people with dreads are a sign of the apocalype. I'd love to douse this piece of shit's hair with lighter fluid and strike a match to it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2006 06:45 PM (v3I+x)

14 I'll donate one gallon of lighter fluid.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 17, 2006 06:48 PM (SPFoM)

15 I got matches, lots of matches!

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 17, 2006 07:10 PM (rUyw4)

16 If he spent as much time combing his hair and cleaning his friggin' house up (what - did he get tired of sweeping and just prop the broom against the nearest piece of furniture?) as he does analyzing world events he might figure out what an idiot he is.

Timothy Leary for President, dude! Oh, he's dead? Okay then Hunter Thompson for Prez! Oh, he's dead too? How about Jerry Garcia? He dead?

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2006 07:15 PM (YudAC)

17 You know what is so sad about this Oyster? There are literally millions of people like this loser in the United States, mostly inhabiting large cities, living in a drug culture, doing nothing but living off the taxpayer. They remind me of nothing so much as the mob in Rome who had to be fed, entertained, and soothed at the expense of the public treasury.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 17, 2006 08:24 PM (rUyw4)

18 You're spot on, JJ, and nothing less than a good, old-fashioned purge will do the trick. It's only a matter of time before war breaks out in our own streets, and shitbirds like this one will start turning up with their skulls smashed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2006 08:50 PM (v3I+x)

19 Finally, I get t be on the side of the general consesus here. Course, I'm sure IM will find something to attack me on.

The instant someone in an argument compares the other side to Nazis they've lost. There's relatively little on this planet that can be genuinely compared to the Nazis and Bush certainly isn't one of them.

It's a disgusting position to take and no better than "OMG!!! You disagree with me?! TERRORIST!!!"

Posted by: Rich at September 17, 2006 09:28 PM (89Rw1)

20 The instant someone in an argument compares the other side to Nazis they've lost.

Only if the intent is to make a valid point in a rational debate. In a propaganda battle, however, it's a potent weapon. Thus, calling someone a Nazi is only useful for the lefturds, because they don't debate rationally, but rather only spew propaganda.

There's relatively little on this planet that can be genuinely compared to the Nazis and Bush certainly isn't one of them.

Actually, I'd say the goose-stepping, Hitler-saluting fanatics of Hamas and Hezballah have a lot in common with the Nazi's, along with all those who have made Mein Kampf the best-selling book in the muslim world. Then there's idiots like greg who are willing to use the JOOOOOOOOoooooozzz as scapegoats for the fact that he's middle-aged and still lives with his mom and can't get laid by any girl who doesn't work outside the bus station. it is true that Bush can't be compared to Hitler, because at least he had his shit together and could communicate effectively.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 18, 2006 07:11 AM (v3I+x)

21
This pathetic p.o.s. is actually financing the terrorists every time he uses...... Soros finances and supports terrorism too ....so there u have it.. ...soul mates. Soros deserves the company he keeps.

Posted by: MOSIAC at September 18, 2006 08:44 AM (rUva7)

22 Why dont that blustering blather whinning idiot go live in place far far away from america then we dont have to listen to his idiotic blabbering we sure dont need this idiot

Posted by: sandpiper at September 18, 2006 01:27 PM (PObDu)

23 Wow! That little clip really instills in me a vast amount of confidence in Mr. Sorryass!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 18, 2006 03:53 PM (Dd86v)

24 There's so much violence and aggression in many of the pro-Bush/Cheney supporters on this site.
I can see that the real power-brokers in the US have prepared well in the fight for the New American Century or whatever they call it now. The sub-Simpsons level of political awareness has been carefully cultured by soundbite media and por education.
The stupidity and lack of humanity in the postings is frightening. I'm glad I don't live in a country that the US intends to bully next.
The only upside is the imminent foreclosure of much of America by foreign creditors, which may stifle the appetite of the masses for further aggression.
PS - similarity between Nazis and Bush - Burning of the ReichStag and 911.

Posted by: Ian at October 01, 2006 02:17 PM (fey4I)

25 Amen, last gasp....makes me sad for humanity reading all this crap posted here.

Posted by: George_J at October 06, 2006 07:48 PM (Ur4yf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 09, 2006

Pig's Head Rolled into Mosque

(Auburn, Maine) In early July, 33-year-old Brent Matthews rolled a frozen pig's head into a mosque frequented by Somali immigrants. Before the incident he asked a police officer what the criminal penalties would be for such an act. He was told that he'd be guilty only of littering or improperly disposing of animal parts.

Unfortunately for Matthews (pic), his act caused considerable outrage and he may be facing much more serious criminal offenses. He was arrested on a charge of desecrating a house of worship and the FBI is pursuing possible hate crime charges. Meanwhile, the Maine Attorney General's office filed a complaint charging Matthews with civil rights violations.

Matthews' attorney, James Howaniec, says it was all a joke and an act of stupidity. Nevertheless, Matthews faces a year in jail, if convicted, and a possible $5,000 fine from the state's civil lawsuit.

Oddly, although the pig's head story is true, the amount of outrage seems small when compared to the reaction to the phony Qu'ran being flushed down a toilet story or the Mohammad cartoon fiasco. Those latter incidents led to widespread rioting and death.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 01:01 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Backlash against muslims = hurt feelings

Backlash BY muslims = mass murder

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 09, 2006 01:06 PM (8e/V4)

2 Desecrating a house of worship eh? So where's the ACLU with Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 09, 2006 01:14 PM (v3I+x)

3 By the way, how about starting a legal defense fund for this guy?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 09, 2006 01:29 PM (v3I+x)

4 Whats the problem with rolling a pigs head into a mosque. It's filed with pigs every week.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 09, 2006 02:14 PM (q2ko6)

5 Federal charges? Civil Rights Violations?

Who was physically hurt by the head?
What property was damaged?
Did the pig's head deny them the right to vote or quarter some soldiers there?

WTF?

Posted by: Spade at August 09, 2006 02:27 PM (NpnyQ)

6 And what is the penalty for desicrating a christian chruch by satainist pagans new agers and the ACLU? and the one who listen to the music of sanatists evils ones like MARILON MANSON?

Posted by: sandpiper at August 09, 2006 02:53 PM (uo3LX)

7 I'm bad. That made me laugh.

Posted by: Hucbald at August 09, 2006 03:18 PM (Q6gPh)

8 "Bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good." - Vincent Vega

Posted by: DarthDilbert at August 09, 2006 04:12 PM (ZuwkH)

9 Pigs head! Run for your lives! Death to the Infidel! Someone call 1-800-I-Want-My-Mommie.

Posted by: Leatherneck at August 09, 2006 04:27 PM (D2g/j)

10 A joke gone bad. Grow up, deal with it.

Frankly, I have more sympathy for the pig.

Ironic that they complain about a disembodied head. Their compatriots have made more than a few of those....

Posted by: Mr Nobody at August 09, 2006 06:54 PM (BV7IP)

11 I was going to check on the list of humans beheaded by radical muslims, because it struck me as odd that Muslim communities would show more indignation at the rolling of a previously-severed pig's head than they did to the predetermined and deliberate severing of more than a few human heads.

I got a bit sidetracked. One of the reports to come up was at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003575.php

I don't know if it's true, but I shall try to find out. If it is - two Syrian guards attempted to help Kenneth Bigley escape, and were summarily executed for their efforts - along with 18 people suspected of complicity.

If this is true, I have to take my hat off. Brave men.

Posted by: Mr Nobody at August 09, 2006 07:19 PM (BV7IP)

12 Your comments show how shallow and fanatical Americans have become.

This was a mosque used by Somali immigrants. Do you know where Somalia is? What have they to do with extremist militants in Iraq? And why offend the religious beliefs of people practicing their faith in a house of worship?

Is it because they are from Somalia that they were an easy target?

Militants in Iraq decapitating kidnapped foreigners has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. These militants use Islam as a cover.

And let us not forget that the role the American presence has played in creating more power struggles and unrest in the Middle East.

I suggest you read more unbiased international news rather than the filtered propoganda you are constantly exposed to that only serves to make you all seem like fanatics.

Posted by: Jewaira at August 09, 2006 07:25 PM (H2B5l)

13 I'm not American. I'm English. If you think I'm horribly biased, read my previous posts.

They were Somalis... So what? So far as that goes - the Somali communities currently moving into my home town are simply awful. I realise they're born into a war-torn, lawless society, and I'm genuinely sorry for their suffering - but that does not mean I want the proliferation of drugs and violence that they have brought to my streets.

I presume you're muslim - if so, good luck to you, and I mean you no personal harm. I would never judge you upon the actions of others. However - if you want to clear Islam's name, which has been blackened by attrocities committed in the name of Islam, you do it. It's your responsibility, not mine.

Posted by: Mr Nobody at August 09, 2006 07:37 PM (BV7IP)

I have a question for you, Mr. Jewaira. Was this man who did this arrested and charged with a crime, or was he left alone and encouraged to do more of the same? Exactly what is your point?

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 09, 2006 07:49 PM (rUyw4)

15 Joe,

To be fair, he said nothing of the events in question. His arguemtns were with the comments.

Posted by: Mr Nobody at August 09, 2006 07:53 PM (BV7IP)

16 Hrm. Ok, not 'nothing'.

I'll rephrase - the majority of his grumblings seem to have been directed at the response to the story, rather than the story itself.

Posted by: Mr Nobody at August 09, 2006 07:56 PM (BV7IP)

17 Mr N.,
We had problems with Somalis here in Canada too.
They rioted and ruined an entire neighbourhood, by reputation if not physically.
This relates to the Muslim pysche. In Muslim countries the people exist to serve those in power; whereas in Commonwealth countries and the U.S. the state exists to serve the people and law enforcement protects everyone the same. Muslims can not understand these truths.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at August 09, 2006 08:57 PM (Bp6wV)

18 Hey Jewaira,

If you do not like freedom of speech, get the bloody hell out of the West. Take the I'm on the sugar tit Skinnys with you. BTW, you are not driving a Jeep are you?

ROPMA

Posted by: Leatherneck at August 09, 2006 09:19 PM (D2g/j)

19 Pretty soon they'll wish it was just pigs' heads getting rolled into their mosques. Not soon enough.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 09, 2006 10:14 PM (v3I+x)

20 Would be equally funny to roll a pig's head into a synagouge?
What about tossing a fake aborted fetus into a church sevice? Would that just be a stupid joke?
Idiots....

Posted by: Quando at August 10, 2006 02:40 AM (0v4Wy)

21 Would it be equally funny to roll a pig's head into a synagouge?
What about tossing a fake aborted fetus into a church sevice? Would that just be a stupid joke?
Idiots....

Posted by: Quando at August 10, 2006 02:40 AM (0v4Wy)

22 Never said I thought it was funny - I just don't particularly care. Perhaps it was in bad taste, but no-one got hurt. My major sympathy remains with the pig.

And yes. When the jews start beheading my countrymen, and the pope starts bombing my airlines, I'll probably start to void them from consideration, too.

Posted by: Mr Nobody at August 10, 2006 04:52 AM (BV7IP)

23 I understand why the man did it. It really was funny when I heard it. But I eat bacon, and love pork bb-q.

Quand here is why I would not do this to a synagouge, Jews are not trying to take over the world in order to spread their belief through violence.

Abortion is an abomination before the eyes of God.

Roll a pigs head in a catholic church, and they will make food from it if it is fresh, and feed it to the needy.

Posted by: Cmunk at August 10, 2006 09:09 AM (7teJ9)

24 Leave it to a lefturd to equate a murdered baby to a pig's head. Can anyone tell me why lefturds deserve to be allowed to live when the shit hits the fan?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 10, 2006 11:36 AM (v3I+x)

25 First of all I'm a registered republican (albeit a civilized one), asswipe.

Secondly, I said a fake aborted fetus, thereby making it a symbolic murdered baby not a real one (and I'm staunchly anti-abortion). it was meant to demonstrate the distastefulness of insulting people's beliefs. You don't have to share or even respect their beliefs to eschew diliberatly insulting them like some low IQ'd teenager.

Thidly, you wouldn't call me a left-trud to my face, I assure you, so stop doing it behind a computer screen, you redneck cousin-f*cker.

Posted by: Quando at August 10, 2006 02:59 PM (0v4Wy)

26 Quando,

I am tired of turning the other cheek. I want to insult them, and look forward to, and hope for physical confrontation with them. They have brought it on themselves.

I think if live pigs were used, that would have been really funny. I would have laughed for hours. Just thinking about those moon god worshippers tripping over themselves trying to get out with those pigs running around is just to much.

Now tell me Quando old chum, how do you feel about all those Muslims in Deerborn, MI. giving aid to Hizballah? How about that nice sweet student with the Jeep, or the six Jews getting shot, one killed, by .... You guessed it. That is just the last few weeks. Shall I go on?

Posted by: Leatherneck at August 10, 2006 04:56 PM (D2g/j)

27 So Quando, you equate the Christian belief in the sanctity of life with the muslims' prohibition of pork?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2006 11:06 AM (v3I+x)

28 Quand must be a real ass kicker. Good thing you didn't call him a left trud.

Posted by: SeeMonk at August 12, 2006 01:05 PM (n4VvM)

29 I think quando is george ram-ass. IP comparison?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 14, 2006 12:58 PM (v3I+x)

30 You're quite right, Walter Pater is the only justification for Mona Lisa.

Posted by: top rape clips at September 29, 2006 07:55 AM (rve2R)

31 Hi makakas. Wellccome rape videos

Posted by: rape videos at October 24, 2006 04:12 AM (D0hNE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 04, 2006

Shahada Means Good-bye

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

In the warped culture of the Palestinians, becoming a "Shahid" means to die for Allah, i.e., commiting suicide in gruesome and spectacular fashion, taking as many Jews and infidels with you as possible.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:56 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Yeah, thats called religious culture. Life is not what you should concentrate on, but death, as your true reward is in the afterlife.

Posted by: MiB at August 04, 2006 02:34 PM (6jwxg)

2 Civilization vs barbarism. Another reason why I support Israel.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 04, 2006 02:41 PM (8e/V4)

3 You go girl. That Yussra has a fine future as a hot air blower. Too bad she's got that natural hot tempered-ness, being Palestinian and not like other children, and all.

Shahada? The words of Fats Dominoe come to mind:

If it's fo' duh kids, I be mo' den glad

Posted by: Haywood Jablowmi at August 04, 2006 03:01 PM (VUmVc)

4 MiB. Any suicide attack on Jews or Christians is bad and they will most likely be in hell. Islam says no to suicide. Martyrdom is different. That's like if you know you're losing a battle or something you go out anyway knowing you're going to die for your cause. The Palestinians think they're winning.

Posted by: Some Dude at August 04, 2006 03:07 PM (WW510)

5 Some dude: lol you're trying to be logical with religion.

Posted by: MiB at August 04, 2006 03:25 PM (6jwxg)

6 I just wish they would blow themselves up a lot faster.

Posted by: Leatherneck at August 04, 2006 03:57 PM (D2g/j)

7 Given the words of the paleo's - that they want martyrdom - we should take them at their word, and kill all of them. I think that's the reason you see so much emoting on TV when a bomb exterminates a bunch of the vermin; they survivors are jealous of the dead. I say give 'em what they want.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 05, 2006 08:25 AM (v3I+x)

8 I found interesting that she says, "Were not like other people, we have a (BAD)temper". I've noticed this about Arab culture in general. When calm they seem intelligent and normal. But something, and I'm not sure what it is, is different. It's like they are emotional overdrive and have no control. They can transform in an instant into a frothing nutcase. It's not just anger it's all thier emotions. I don't get it what puts them in that frame of mind?

Posted by: Darth Odie at August 05, 2006 08:42 AM (D3+20)

9 The answer is simple. Monkey blood!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 05, 2006 10:35 AM (gLMre)

10 Darth,

The Arab nation is descended from the tribe of Ishmael, and here is what the Bible says about them:

"Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael; because The Lord has given heed to your affliction. He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Genesis 16:11-12 RSV).

Ishmael was jealous of his Israelite half-brother Isaac, and that same jealousy is being played out today.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 05, 2006 11:01 AM (8e/V4)

11 Good ccomment Darth Odie. The problem with muslims in general, and arabs in particular, is that they are heavily inbred, so there has never been a moderating, outside genetic or cultural influence in their society; they just keep passing down the same screwed-up genes and ideas from one generation to another, becoming crazier with the passage of time. They're savage throwbacks to an earlier time in human evolution, and they never quite made it to the stage that we did, i.e. where we could learn to live in realative peace, and fight wars by strict rules. I don't think they can be civilized, so they have to be killed off until they no longer pose a threat.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 05, 2006 11:08 AM (v3I+x)

12 Teaching them this is child abuse.

Posted by: Oyster at August 05, 2006 11:16 AM (YudAC)

13 Their culture is twisted, not their genetics.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 05, 2006 12:55 PM (vBK4C)

14 The comments on the bottom the vid make it seem like the palestianians are idiots who try to kill theirselves to go to paradise. No she didnt say I'm going to commit suicide cuz they believe by comitting suicide you'll directly go to hell. The real thing the child wants to say is dying with an honorable death by fighting for your country. Not by attacking innocent people and comitting suicide. You guys need to discard all those stereotypes of Islam. People who find out what Islam is are very suprised.

Posted by: T Rex at August 05, 2006 02:58 PM (g7VQT)

15 Right Dinosaur! People are finding out anew everyday what Islam is really all about! /sarcasm/+10

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 05, 2006 03:46 PM (gLMre)

16 T rex,

when we see them blowing themselves up in pizza parlours, I think we know exactly what she means.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 05, 2006 06:46 PM (8e/V4)

17 "The real thing the child wants to say is dying with an honorable death by fighting for your country."

The entire time I was in Iraq I never once witnessed a derkahideen die honorably. In fact, they were so cowardly that they kidnapped a pregnant girl, strapped a bomb on her, and sent her through an MP checkpoint outside Karbala. Rumor has it her father and two uncles found one of the pigs who did it and killed him and his entire family. Not sure if it is true, since we heard it from one of those FIF guys with us.

Posted by: Fernando Rivera at August 06, 2006 05:27 AM (Lx2mz)

18 So Bluto, you think that umpteen generations of inbreeding won't screw up someone's genes?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 07, 2006 12:16 PM (v3I+x)

19 Mad Hatter Dinner Jacket is living proof!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 07, 2006 09:32 PM (gLMre)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 02, 2006

Today's Nugget

You net-savvy types are no doubt reading a ~~dearth~~ multitude of "global warming" related stories this week because of the (gasp) heat wave hitting the nation at the beginning of August. For the scientifically inclined who refuse to come down to Earth to answer a few basic questions, August is (in layman's terms) known as "the middle of the frieking summer."

How utterly unusual. Heat waves in the middle of the frieking summer.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that when I assert a "global cooling" trend in the fall and winter, I will be met with derision and laughter from the same people advocating the global warming hoax. Why, though? I'm merely using Algorian/CBSNews logic - it is hot outside, therefore, global warming. It is cold outside, therefore, global cooling.

So here lies a challenge to the "environmentally concerned." When the temperature drops as is customary in the fall and winter of each year (beginning in September) then come talk to us about global warming.

Start researching, environuts. You won't be able to walk outside in mid-January and go "see?!!" when it is 25 degrees with a wind chill of 3. And then what?

Nothing. That's what.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 08:00 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't know about the rest of the USofA, but the past two summers in Atlanta were reletively mild. We barely broke 90 last year even during the hottest times.

I also can say with utmost confidence that the summer of 88 was just as hot and muggy as this summer is. Just turn on the AC and stay indoors. Read the Jawa Report and make fun of Greg.

Posted by: Cmunk at August 02, 2006 08:53 AM (7teJ9)

2 I remember the summers of '81 and '88, during which all the grass and many trees died, and the following winters which were much colder and more precipitous than average. Hot summers and cold winter are proof that we're all doomed. Doomed! DOOMED! DOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOOOOoooommmmmmmmed!!!

Oh, and it's da JOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooozzzzzzzzzzzzzzz' fault!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 02, 2006 09:40 AM (v3I+x)

3 Al Gore and the enviromentalists wackos from GREENPEACE should start by keeping their big flapping pieholes shut becuase that their biggist source of HOT AIR from them blabbering fools

Posted by: sandpiper at August 02, 2006 09:59 AM (JyNSh)

4 Maxie, I thought you were better informed than this. The Jews can only be slightly to blame for global warming, the real culprit is the Bush/Chaney/Rove earthquake/tsunami/hurricane machine. And they have been working it overtime, I tell you. The Jews only part was financing the damn thing.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 02, 2006 10:16 AM (rUyw4)

5 With the " avalanche " effect factored in I'll give the life on Earth 15 more years. Continue to look for hotter summers and colder winters. '

_-_--_-

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 02, 2006 10:32 AM (gLMre)

6
Very few scientists flatly deny global warming. The discussion tends to focus more on whether it's a natural or anthropogenic phenomenon.

Oh - and personal recollections of the early 80s are probably less useful than core sample analysis, snail columns, etc.

Global cooling, incidentally, has happened a number of times, and tends to be somewhat worse than your average winter. Check out the Ice Ages (not the animated films - they lack academic merit).

Posted by: dale at August 02, 2006 11:53 AM (BV7IP)

7 "The discussion tends to focus more on whether it's a natural or anthropogenic phenomenon."

Or that the world will end if people don't rush out and vote for Democrats this fall...

Posted by: Good Lt at August 02, 2006 12:07 PM (jWYAe)

8 JJ, don't you know it was da JoooooOOOOOOoooooozzz who caused the dinosaurs to go extinct? They're behind everything, EVERYTHING I TELL YOU!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 02, 2006 12:59 PM (v3I+x)

9 Um, "dearth" means "lack of."

Maybe you mean "plethora," "a great many."

Also, it's hot out. How hot is it?

It's so hot I baked a pizza in the refrigerator.

Posted by: Some Guy at August 02, 2006 01:24 PM (lPxkl)

10 I stand corrected. Thanks.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 02, 2006 01:30 PM (jWYAe)

11 I probably changed thought mid-sentence. Those damn voices again, maybe.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 02, 2006 01:35 PM (jWYAe)

12 FEAR MANBEARPIG!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manbearpig

If Al Gore can save us all from MANBEARPIG then we will all be so stoked on Al Gore, even if we don't know it.

Posted by: QC at August 02, 2006 02:31 PM (PX+vn)

13 Lt--I don't understand your policy of disallowing any posts from me. It seems remarkably cowardly. But whatever.

The global warming deal is not disproved or supported by one hot day, or one cold winter. It begins to look more worrisome when so many of the hottest years ever recorded, globally, occur in the last ten years. A single region or even an entire continent could experience a normal year at the same time that the globe underwent massive heating. It's a big world.

We'll know in at least ten years if this was a lot of hooey. If it is, Al Gore and many enviros will look pretty dumb. If it is real, though, a lot of you are going to look like dangerous ostriches.

We'll see, I guess.

Posted by: you know who at August 02, 2006 02:35 PM (nZnoJ)

14 Staying quite on this one. When you look into this both sides are fairly convincing. But when you realize that one side is political and other scientific its best to be careful.
My question on global warming. If it is getting hotter does anyone out there think that the South American, Asian, African or eastern European countries would co-operate to do anything about it? Bullshit! All they would do is blame in on America, Bush and the Jews.
Hell, we can't even get Brazil to stop cutting down the rain forests and destroying thousands of species of plant and animal life.
Frig global warming. First things first. Bomb the Iranian mudsucking, raghead idiots. Then outlaw Islam.

Posted by: Greyrooster at August 02, 2006 02:56 PM (XqAoh)

15 Staying quite on this one. When you look into this both sides are fairly convincing. But when you realize that one side is political and other scientific its best to be careful.
My question on global warming. If it is getting hotter does anyone out there think that the South American, Asian, African or eastern European countries would co-operate to do anything about it? Bullshit! All they would do is blame in on America, Bush and the Jews.
Hell, we can't even get Brazil to stop cutting down the rain forests and destroying thousands of species of plant and animal life.
Frig global warming. First things first. Bomb the Iranian mudsucking, raghead idiots. Then outlaw Islam.

Posted by: Greyrooster at August 02, 2006 02:56 PM (XqAoh)

16 jd - i don't disallow posts from you,. I didn't ban you - someone else did.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 02, 2006 03:09 PM (jWYAe)

17 Hmm...it's odd, then, Lt--I have no trouble posting on other threads, but yours I do.

Posted by: dj at August 02, 2006 04:00 PM (aqTJB)

18 But not anymore. Whoever is playing games with the off/on switch, thanks for the leniency.
Global warming isn't really a debate, in that almost every legitimate scientist says we are getting warmer, pretty quickly. The question is, are we causing it and to what extent, and can/should anything be done. I would err on the side of cautious caution; ie, if we can make relatively easy changes to our lifestyle, that will reduce carbon emissions, let's do so, fast. Cheney was wrong to say that "conservation is a private virtue" and you'll notice that kind of crap isn't spewing from the White House any more. There are market based solutions to some of this. I for one would like to see a lot of our taxation of income replaced by taxation of utilities generally, and carbon stuff like natural gas and oil specifically. This type of taxation is regressive, and also disproportionately affects lower population areas, but there are ways around both problems. I'm NOT for raising taxes in terms of higher overall revenue, just a simple shift in revenue stream sourcing, which would have a benevolent effect on our economy, our air, and on our dependence on islamofascist countries like Iran. It's killing three birds with one stone.

Posted by: jd at August 02, 2006 04:50 PM (aqTJB)

19 Well, someone banned you for me then. I can't ban people - only alter and delete comments.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 02, 2006 08:07 PM (jWYAe)

20 Banning? Modifying? Deleting? Time to seek out a different blog. Shake the dust from my feet. Hopefully can find a banless/modifyless/deleteless blog somewhere. I kinda think that Michelle Malkin is cute!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 03, 2006 10:09 AM (gLMre)

21 So, then--Good Lt--did you request that I be banned? Or did it just happen? If you did, then you are almost being Clintonian--I didn't ban you...somebody else did. That's like Janet Reno saying I didn't take out Koresh's compound--the FBI did.

Posted by: afamiliarvoice at August 04, 2006 02:21 PM (aqTJB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Who Pays the ACLU's Lawyers?

Why, you do, of course. Every time the ACLU files a suit, by current law, their lawyers are paid from your taxes. Senate hearings to change that begin today.

From Jay at Stop the ACLU:

When the ACLU wins a case against the Boy Scouts, the public display of the Ten Commandments, veterans memorials, and other symbols of American history and heritage guess who pays them? You do! However, there is current legislation going before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, as well as a companion bill going before the House that is designed to put a stop to this...
...The ACLU supports many radical causes, and while they may have every right to do so, it should not be at the expense of taxpayers that do not support such causes. Please contact your Congress critter, and representative, and tell them to support PERA.

Stop the ACLU provides links for you to contact your senators and representatives.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:23 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Who pays the ACLU?
Never thought about it before. Always figured some rich liberals. Hope its not United Way. I already flipped when I descovered some of the reciprients of my money.

Posted by: Greyrooster at August 02, 2006 06:08 AM (XqAoh)

2 Where was the ACLU when Murtha slandered and defamed the Marines involved in the Haditha incident? What are they doing about it now?

Nothing that's what they are doing. But Ssgt Frank Wuterich is not going to just sit back and take it. He is suing Mermaid Man John Murtha for defamation. He could with this one too. There is a precedent.

Posted by: Cmunk at August 02, 2006 07:14 AM (7teJ9)

3 ACLU = american hezballah

Posted by: n.a. palm at August 02, 2006 08:42 AM (KuN5N)

4 Yep, n.a. palm, the American taxpayer is financing both of the cults you mentioned. And it is time we put a stop to it. Now's our chance, peoples, so call the critters in Washington and tell them how you feel about the ACLU.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 02, 2006 10:20 AM (rUyw4)

5 The ACLU sucks. That's all that needs to be said about this organization.

Posted by: Some Dude at August 02, 2006 12:07 PM (WW510)

6 I called both of my senators and my congressman and asked them to vote for this legislation.

Posted by: Fred Goodwin at August 02, 2006 03:41 PM (l7H1O)

7 If the ACLU were to stop being financed, who would fight for our Constitutional rights. The courts depend on the ACLU to bring legislation to stop religion from entering the legal system and prevents tyrany by the majority. Before you bash the ACLU learn a little more about them.

Posted by: John at August 02, 2006 04:01 PM (xGMva)

8 Always figured the ACLU was self-funded with tax-exempt status. I can live with both.

If anyone knows of any fed/state/local funding or institutional (like United Way or other) let me know.

It is possible they receive some funding thru forced contributions with college fees - Several groups here in NY pulled that off (ie. NYPIRG).

Posted by: hondo at August 02, 2006 07:51 PM (MVgHp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 19, 2006

Yup, I Heard It

Listening to the radio today, I heard some sniveling coed whining because she wasn't evacuated from Lebanon in the way that she would have preferred, so to speak.

That doesn't change my other post, however, I firmly believe that any evacuee who expresses anything less than undying gratitude towards the brave military people, and the free nation these whiners are citizens of, should be loaded up on a chopper and flown right back to where they came from.

Posted by: Vinnie at 03:27 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

July 01, 2006

Jack-o In Debt

Michael Jackson is in debt up to his stylishly up-turned nose.

Update: No that is not a Photoshop. See Snopes.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 06:26 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

June 19, 2006

'Like a Bag of Rocks'

Joseph Godfrey, Jr. had only been home from his tour in Iraq for three months when he was stabbed to death on the banks of the Oswego River. His killer bragged to friends that Godfrey "...went down like a bag of rocks."

The only mercy shown to Godfrey's family is that his murderer plead guilty. They will not have to endure a trial. Paul Leary was sentenced today to 17 years to life in Oswego County Court. Here's hoping that his prison guards, who will know about his crime, provide this scumbag with an appropriately enthusiastic cellmate. And privacy.

From Newsday:

Leary killed Joseph Godfrey Jr., a 24-year-old former Army specialist from Mexico, N.Y., by severing his spinal cord with a knife during a late-night fight in an Oswego park in January 2005. Leary, who netted $60, a pack of cigarettes and a lighter in the deadly confrontation, told police he had been drinking with Godfrey at a bar earlier.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

June 15, 2006

YearlyKos Tinfoil Party : A Rovian Conspiracy?

I know we all got a big kick out of the Kossacks and their tinfoil hats this last weekend.

For those who missed it, this pic pretty much sums it up:

It raises the question: with the news media buzzing around all over the place, and the Kossacks straining for credibility in the real world, who could possibly have thought it was a good idea to slip the Kossacks several rolls of tinfoil?

Thanks to our deep cover operatives embedded around the globe, working at great personal risk in the cause of truth, we may be a little bit closer to finding an answer to that burning question: more...

Posted by: Ragnar at 12:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

June 14, 2006

Quitting in Japan

Working in Japan ain't for me. Due to staff shortages and difficulty in finding replacement workers, companies are demanding compensation from resigning employees before allowing them to leave:

Short-staffed companies are requesting that employees who quit pay damages as the resurgence of Japan's economy is placing a strain on labor levels, Tokyo's Labor Consultation Center said...
One of them, a 29-year-old man who works for a computer system development company offered to resign in March. But an official of the firm told him, "We won't allow you to quit until the system development job finishes in September. If you quit now, you have to pay several million yen in compensation."...
A top official of the Rodo Kumiai Network Union Tokyo said since sometime around 2002 the problem of overwork had become serious in some companies. "Those who managed to survive those tough times now want to quit or change jobs. But their employers don't want them to leave," he said.

Now, who in their right mind would accept a job offer from a company that demands compensation from resigning employees? I'm not sure that the HR departments have thought this issue through completely. It smacks of indentured servitude or slavery.

Update: Don't get any ideas, Vinnie.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 06:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

June 01, 2006

ACLU Demands Perverts Get Sporting Chance at Kids

Stop the ACLU reports on the latest ACLU pro-pedophile lawsuit, this one aimed at an Indianapolis city ordinance that requires convicted sex offenders to stay at least 1,000 feet from facilities like playgrounds and swimming pools when children are present.

The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church or going to work, but kiddy molesters are allowed to approach closer if accompanied by a non-molesting adult.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:36 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>>The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church

roflmao! yeah, like the ACLU cares if somebody can't go to church.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 06:04 PM (8e/V4)

2 If you're out of prison, you should be a free man. This kind of ordinance is patently against the spirit of a rational justice system.

Just shoot the bastards, if they can't fix themselves. This half-free/half-not kind of arrangement is not only against any sort of reasonable response to a crime, but letting such people back out only gives them another opportunity to molest kids.

Put it this way: If you have a mental disorder where getting near little old ladies gives you the irresistable urge to mug them, what is the point in letting you out of prison, and then saying you have to stay 1,000 feet from any nursing homes?

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 06:19 PM (RwDCC)

3 Also, technically, if they're so mentally ill that they have to be watched over by the gummit, don't they at least belong in a mental facility?

Not, you know, 1,001 feet from a playground?

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 06:20 PM (RwDCC)

4 Weird - I agree with MiB.

Bluto - you should know that laws like this are virtually identical to ones reference firearms. Believe the NRA is involved in an oddly similar case reference the 1000 ft crap.

Either way - both are a dumb approach to often serious problems.

Posted by: hondo at June 01, 2006 06:45 PM (el7nZ)

5 I too think that MkB has a point, but restrictions on sex offenders aren't the only lifelong penalties that criminals face.

For instance, felons can't vote or legally own firearms. Society never completely forgives some crimes.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 01, 2006 07:37 PM (RHG+K)

6 Bluto as usual your blanket covering statements are not entirely correct. Felons are able to vote, in most states after they have finished their supervised release (parole). In some states they are never able to recover their right to vote, The total in jail or on parole is now just under 4% of the population. I wasn't able to find a figure on the total disenfranchised but it is probably some multiple of that like 2x or4x. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm Oh and Bluto I noticed that AFTER I got banned from posting comments on your site a total of only one comment was posted. Was I the only one who bothered to comment ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 01, 2006 08:44 PM (TcoRJ)

7 I disagree with that stuff, too. Punish them appropriately - and so they don't forget, instead of this namby-pamby prison stuff, where you pay them to loaf, exercise and fraternize with other criminals - and then turn them loose. Once you're done being punished, you should be done being punished.

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 08:45 PM (RwDCC)

8 The ACLU is the best defense that any radical terrorist or pervert could affford and its HQ are in HANOI ON THE BAY right here in california SAN FRANCISCO

Posted by: sandpiper at June 01, 2006 09:50 PM (QagY6)

9 John Ryan is factually correct about felons and voting. In fact, only six backwards states deny felons the right to vote for life. Imagine--you break the law at 18, you get out of prison at 19, you live 60 years without ever breaking the law again, become a minister, serve in the military...whatever--and can never vote again. When I explain this to Europeans, they look at me like I come from an incredibly backwards country.

Also--on the sex offender issue: I'd favor the law over the ACLU, depending on how they define sex offender. If it is very tightly defined to apply to true pedophiles, I'd favor it. But so many of these laws cover people who were caught having sex in the back seat of a car (public indecency, public nudity, sodomy, etc) or streaking (I knew kids who had offical sex offender status from streaking--should they not be able to walk within 1000 feet of a school? Even though their records were expunged within a year, for year they had to report in...crazy) Urinating in public? If anyone on this blog comments section is innocent of outdoor sex, urinating outdoors, streaking, skinnydipping, then fine. I doubt it.

Also--sometimes people get SO status for something that we might think is a mistake, but they are no threat. There was a famous case of a man of 19 who had consensual sex with a 16 year old, then married her two years later. But in the interim, her mom started criminal proceedings for statutory rape. He was clearly guilty. He was convicted. So he has to report as an SO, for what he did with the wife who lives with him.

These laws are far too broad in most states. Narrowly targeted at true pedophiles, I don't think they do any harm, and might do some marginal good.

Posted by: jd at June 01, 2006 09:56 PM (JJJx/)

10 The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church or going to work

Or maybe he'd want to go to a mosque. After all was not Mohammed also a pedophile?

Posted by: dcb at June 01, 2006 10:14 PM (8e/V4)

11 I'm no expert but I don't think these freaks are every "cured" of this stuff. Just because they've done their time doesn't mean they're not still a danger to kids. They need to be kept as far away from kids as possible. If that inconveniences them in any way, well that too fckin bad.

Posted by: Richard at June 01, 2006 10:31 PM (7KF8r)

12 I can go back to many posts on this blog where adult women took sexual advantage of male children. The response from most of the regulars here was something like â€œ wish that had happened to meâ€
The reason these predators feel free to molest OUR kid is that we donâ€™t punish them.
Lock these freaks (male or female) up for life for molesting a child (under 1

. I realize I am in a dream world and this will never happen. Even conservatives get a hard on over a 40 year old woman on a 12 year old kid. Sick bastards.

We get what we deserve, we let these pervs off with a few months and they go out an ruin another kidâ€™s life.
Society really challenges me here. I am a Catholic who does not believe in abortion or the death penalty. But what is a good man to do when a child molester gets off again and again? If my kid male or female were molested by one of these people I think it might be my duty to TCB. Donâ€™t I have an obligation to protect my neighbors and friends from the sub human who molested my kids?
The libs and conservatives (which is shocking to me) in this country seem to insist on the right to prey on kids.
Makes me sick.

Posted by: B rad at June 01, 2006 11:36 PM (BJYNn)

13 only six backwards states deny felons the right to vote for life. Imagine--you break the law at 18, you get out of prison at 19, you live 60 years without ever breaking the law again, become a minister, serve in the military

Did the Military issue them a waiver for that Felony Jd? because the Military doesn't allow Felons to join without one either.

Normally the only people I hear whining about not being able to vote because of a felony, is liberals with their felony possession of Marijuana charge...

You are correct in respect to the SO status that sets restrictions that pertain to proximity to children, should only apply to convicted child molesters.

Posted by: davec at June 01, 2006 11:55 PM (CcXvt)

14 "If you're out of prison, you should be a free man. This kind of ordinance is patently against the spirit of a rational justice system."

The best thing I can do here is to quote Theodore Dalrymple:

"When prisoners are released from prison, they often say that they have paid their debt to society. This is absurd, of course: crime is not a matter of double-entry bookkeeping. You cannot pay a debt by having caused even greater expense, nor can you pay in advance for a bank robbery by offering to serve a prison sentence before you commit it. Perhaps, metaphorically speaking, the slate is wiped clean once a prisoner is released from prison, but the debt is not paid off."

In a way though I agree with some here. Sexual predators and child molesters are never reformed. They just grow to be old offenders and the system is too easy to scam and skip out on. Letting them out never works.

And while we're insisting on not using "blanket statements", states which rescind a felon's right to vote or bear arms also have a process by which they can have their rights restored.

I have a friend much like jd described. A guy I hired to work anyway because he was honest about it and his probation officer confirmed that he told the truth. At 19 he had consentual sex with a 16 year old girl. The girl's parents pressed charges and he spent a year in prison and had to register as a sex offender afterwards. I think that's wrong too. But ... after a few years of a clean life he was able to have that status removed by a judge who used common sense and rationality after reviewing his case. There is always recourse so our system is not totally un-forgiving. It's unfortunate that he had to go through that, but he was able to get it fixed.

Posted by: Oyster at June 02, 2006 05:05 AM (YudAC)

15 dave, good point. It's only a hypothetical not referring to any specific case.

and Oyster, yes, states have processes so people get their voting rights back. But the problem is, some of them are really arcane/difficult. Some require legislation in the state house. Some require governor's action.

A lifetime ban on voting seems absurd.

Posted by: jd at June 02, 2006 07:45 AM (aqTJB)

16 Regarding the 19 year old who had "consensual sex" with the 16 year old. Legally, it's not possible to have "consensual sex" with a minor under the age of consent.

jd, is the guy really reformed, or is he compounding his original crime by continuing a relationship with a girl who was too immature to make the original decision to start a relationship with him?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 02, 2006 09:09 AM (RHG+K)

17 Sorry guys - this is about the 1000 ft. schools/etc approach to to solving a "problem". Its not a solution and serves no purpose except BS for the public.

The reason this upsets me is that this type of approach/solution is being applied and advocated in other areas too - notably municipal gun control laws with some serious potential ramifications.

Posted by: hondo at June 02, 2006 11:02 AM (el7nZ)

18 I stand corrected, DPB, your definition of consensual is correct. I don't know the case personally, so I don't know the answer.

I will say that, as per the other thread here on this, that such marriages were not at all uncommon in our national past. Many a 14 year old girl was married on the American frontier, and in other parts of our country well into the 20th century. Feminists (who got the age raised in a coordinated campaign) argued that this was abusive. I tend to agree, but it's important to acknowledge this is a moving target. I also don't think a 19 year old who has sex with a 16 year old is a "sex offender" in the same way that a 45 year old who has sex with a ten year old (actually, ANYONE who has sex with a ten year old). When I was 19, I certainly would have dated some 16 year olds. Unfortunately, I was too busy getting turned down by women my own age...

Posted by: jd at June 02, 2006 12:05 PM (aqTJB)

19 jd, I'm of the mind that if a felon wants his/her rights back he/she should have to work for it and prove they are a benefit to society rather than the detriment they've been in the past. Serving a prison sentence does not mean they are reformed and prepared to make sound decisions which affect the lives of others. Especially repeat offenders. If the system by which they can regain certain rights is "arcane/difficult" it should be addressed by state legislators and reformed. The answer is not to just say "Well, it's too hard, so let's abolish it." And again, federal entities are trying to wrest states' rights from them with this issue. And incidentally, what of those felons who were convicted of voter fraud? Should they be allowed to vote again?

Posted by: Oyster at June 03, 2006 06:58 AM (YudAC)

20 Actually, that's a good idea--I think people who break election laws should never be allowed to vote again. I'd vote for that law.

It troubles me, though, that most of the remaining ban on felon voting states are Southern states with a history of both racist judicial systems AND clever ways to deny voting rights to blacks. Let me give you one example of how that works against black rights even today. Studies show that black and white youth smoke marijuana at about the same rate. But blacks are about 5 times more likely to be criminally penalized for teenage marijuana use. There are MANY complex reasons for this (greater police surveillance, income inequality, etc.). But the result frequently is a higher rate of felony convictions among blacks than whites for this. Moreover, it helps create a climate of fear, which many unscrupulous republicans (and a few Dems) have exploited in elections going back several decades. They hand out fliers the week of the election "Don't forget to vote on Nov 7th!!! Remember to clear all your parking tickets before voting if you don't want to get arrested!"

I don't think former felon voting is the most important problem in our electoral system (it's partisan gerrymandering in my opinion). But I'd support a federal amendment to take away the right of states to ban felon voting (actually, you wouldn't need that, you could do it by statute for federal elections). I'm a pretty strong federalist (for example, I oppose the gay marriage ban on federalist grounds) but when it comes to federal elections, the feds should make the rules if the states can't handle it. And those six have shown they can't.

Posted by: jd at June 05, 2006 07:12 AM (l5lV5)

21 JD: Because the black teenagers are also selling it.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2006 07:05 AM (PV2nq)

22 The study I saw controlled for users and dealers, but even assuming it didn't, I would be surprised if such a stark difference arose from a single cause. Like most examples of racial disparity, it is probably multi-causal.

Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 09:46 AM (7QCpZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 04, 2006

Mexico Backs Away from Drug Legalization

In a turnaround from what was previously reported, Mexican President Vicente Fox has balked on the drug legalization law.

From WashingtonPost.com:

Mexican President Vicente Fox backed off signing a drug decriminalization bill that the United States warned could result in "drug tourism" and increased availability of narcotics in American border communities.
Fox reversed course Wednesday and said he was sending the bill back to Congress for changes, just one day after his office had said he would sign it into law. The measure would have dropped criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs.
Fox's statement said he will ask for corrections "to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense."

Really? I'm confused. Fox wants the law which drops criminal penalties for possession to clearly state that drug possession is a criminal offense.

It doesn't make sense to me. Of course, I'm a guy who thinks "law-abiding illegal alien" is a contradiction.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 2 kb.

May 02, 2006

Euthanasia Delayed For Now

On April 25, I wrote about a woman who was about to be euthanized by a Houston hospital's ethics committee, over the objections of the woman herself and her family. Good news, at least temporarily.

From the Washington Times:

A Texas hospital has agreed to delay taking a severely ill woman off life support, following a failed plan to transfer her to an Illinois nursing home.
St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital had invoked the state's futile-care law, which allows hospitals to take some patients off life support with 10 days notice to the families, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:49 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

April 30, 2006

Mexican Lawmakers Pass Bill to Legalize Drugs

The federal legislature of Mexico has passed a bill to legalize "small amounts of cocaine, heroin, even ecstasy" for personal use. President Vicente Fox's signature is expected to be forthcoming since his office has voiced support for the measure.

From KFMB.com:

Currently, Mexican law leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they can prove they are drug addicts and if an expert certifies they were caught with "the quantity necessary for personal use."
The new bill drops the "addict" requirement, allows "consumers" to have drugs, and sets out specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.

Specifically, the new law would allow a person to carry the following:

- Marijuana (5 gms),
- Heroin (25 mgms),
- Cocaine (0.5 gm),
- Peyote (2.2 lbs), and
- An array of other drugs, including:
- Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA),
- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Ecstasy (MDMA),
- Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), and
- Amphetamines.

I am stunned! A person could be a legal walking pharmacy. More surprising is the fact that the measure is being pushed while drug addiction among Mexicans is increasing.

To be fair, though, the bill reportedly stiffens some penalties for trafficking and possession by government employees and near schools. In support of the bill, backers say it will free up police to go after major drug traffickers and avoid crowding jails with small-time offenders. Of course, using their logic, Mexico should legalize convenience store robberies to allow police to focus on bank heists. more...

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:16 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 4 kb.

1 A couple of notes:

May 1 is "Labor Day" in the rest of the world. It's primarily in the U.S. that the date was changed, so as to obscure its socialist origin.

And I have to wonder if the illegal border traffic won't start flowing two ways, with certain Americans going down to Mexico to get high.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 30, 2006 06:00 AM (FVbj6)

2 I think the US should legalize some drugs, particularly marijuana. The war on drugs drains enormous amounts of money from the government and has not improved the overall situation. People can still get drugs at a reasonable price. The only thing the war on drugs is doing is filling our prisons with pot heads.

Posted by: Scott at April 30, 2006 07:11 AM (a7tCL)

3 the government admits that it is able to stop only about 10% of the drugs at the border. Take all that money and use it where it will do the most good, on prevention and treatment..

Posted by: john Ryan at April 30, 2006 07:39 AM (TcoRJ)

4 DOPE IS FOR DOPES and mexco is run by dopes

Posted by: sandpiper at April 30, 2006 08:08 AM (b1Fi6)

5 I think that Michael has it right. If a government is willing to unashamedly encourage its citizens to cross into a neighbouring country illegally, just for the revenue it brings, it's highly likely that decriminalising an array of drugs is a strategy to get young Americans to visit in larger numbers and spend more money. Particularly when rampant corruption and strong links to the drug trade are present at all levels of the government.

Posted by: Graeme at April 30, 2006 08:46 AM (IX6/9)

6 Great strategy on the part of Mexico! A country going nowhere plagued by crime, corruption and total lack of hope ... export significant segments of their population and keep much of the poor reminder stoned!

Mexico will never change - build a wall 20' high - with a sufficent number of doors for the best, brightest, ambitious, and decent.

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 11:25 AM (SeBrl)

7 Great opportunity for the tourist trade! A drug haven for affluent Americans and westerners - add an explosion in the sex trade (drugs help) and the Mexican government is gonna make some nice change!

Local Mexican police aren't stupid! This will be a great opportunity for selective drug enforcement with tourists! Think of the blackmail and extortion opportunities! an affluent American will pay 10-20 thou easy to keep their pothead children out of a Mexican prision!

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 11:33 AM (SeBrl)

8
Suppose another country had almost no drug problem. Suppose
that country had less than a small fraction of one percent
of our drug arrests. And suppose that country had almost no
"drug-related crime" and that their robbery rate was a tiny
fraction of our robbery rate.

Do you think is might be wise and prudent to carefully observe
that other country's drug policy and that we should model that
other country's drug policy?

Well, there is such a country: The Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic is the only country in the world where adult
citizens can legally use, possess and grow small quantities of
marijuana. (In the Netherlands, marijuana is quasi-legal - not
officially legal.)

The Czech overall drug arrest rate is 1 per 100,000 population. The
United States' overall drug arrest rate is 585 per 100,000 population.

The Czech robbery rate is 2 per 100,000 population. The United States'
robbery rate is 145.9 per 100,000 population, according to our FBI.

According to our drug war cheerleaders, tolerant marijuana laws cause
people to use other, much more dangerous drugs, like methamphetamine
and heroin. Obviously, this doesn't happen in the Czech Republic.

Why not?

Could it be that when people can legally obtain marijuana at an
affordable price, they tend not to use or desire any other recreational
drugs?

Could it be that marijuana legalization actually creates a roadblock to
hard drug use - not a gateway?

Could it be that the vast majority our so-called "drug-related crime"
is caused by our marijuana prohibition policies?

Could it be that if we keep doing what we have been doing, we will
probably get the same results? Should we throw another trillion
dollars down the drug war rat hole? Or should we do something
different--dramatically different?

Kirk Muse
1741 S. Clearview Ave.
Mesa, 85209
(480) 396-3399

Thank you for considering this letter for publication.

Source for the 145.9 robberies per 100,000 population
statistic is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002 final
statistics.

Source for the Czech Republic's marijuana legalization
policy: "A Czech Toke on Freedom," by Jeffrey Fleishman in the
Los Angeles Times, Jan. 24 2006.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-weed24jan24,0,7449540.story

Source for Czech crime rate statistics:
http://www.notebooktravel.co.uk/travellersguide/travellersguidepages/czechrepublic.htm
(Scroll to bottom of the page).

Posted by: Kirk Muse at April 30, 2006 12:49 PM (/ZDpr)

9 http://profiles.emcdda.eu.int/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.Content&nNodeID=2348&sLanguageISO=EN

If anyone's interested in the detailed realities of Czech/drugs .... which of course ... is totally lacking from the above.

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 01:22 PM (SeBrl)

10 Wow! So cool! Two sources on Czech drug laws!!! One is an article for the LA Times (???) and the other is from a British Travel guide (???). What! No Czech sources????

Crime stats courtesy the FBI (????).

Kirk's been toting the weed too long! Wanna compare/talk about Czech drug laws etc. ...... well ... duh! ... some Czech input would, like, be helpful ... or is that too much to absorb thru the haze?

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 01:33 PM (SeBrl)

11 I was just in Acapulco yesterday, and ten days ago a drug gang decapitated two cops who had participated in a lethal drug raid, and left their bodies on the front steps of a police station, with a sign saying "so that you will learn respect". I don't know about decriminalizing small amounts as a way of getting bigger fish, but it seems worth a try. Hondo, the danger of cops going after tourists with phony charges exists much more under the current law--many tourists say the cops plant a small amount of drugs, then ask for a bribe in return for not arresting them.

It is amazing how instructive travel is. I spoke to a lot of people down there about the upcoming elections, and the working assumption of many is that the PAN will steal the election, just as the PRI did in 88. By comparison, our own electoral system, for all its flaws, seems okay. Of course, they have several things we could learn from--like national voter registration and uniform election laws and a holiday for the election.

Posted by: jd at April 30, 2006 03:25 PM (uT71O)

12 JD:
If decapitated people makes you want to offer criminals amnesty, when do we offer it to the Taliban / Al-Qaeda?

I'm sure there is a lot of things we could learn from Mexico, like how to make a hut out of a sheet of plastic, and three sheets of corrugated steel or how to export poverty.

Posted by: davec at April 30, 2006 04:39 PM (CcXvt)

13 So wait, rather than try to help people overcome a drug addiction, it seems like a good idea to just legalize it so we don't have to chase after the drug dealers and addicts all the time. This will really boost moral in a country. Hey-maybe this will make people stay in Mexico, rather than come over to America...all our immigration problems are solved!

Posted by: crazy cat lady at April 30, 2006 04:45 PM (rjg51)

14 jd

You miss the point friend ... you speak of planting drugs and phony charges ... new senario ... no need for planting and the charges are real ... tailor made for an increase in corruption reference tourists.

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 05:07 PM (SeBrl)

15 When the police ARE the criminals, they're bound to get decapitated every so often.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 30, 2006 06:16 PM (FVbj6)

16 I don't think I was understood. I'm not suggesting the decapitaters should get amnesty. The stated purpose of the law is so the police can focus on the traffickers, the ones who did the decapitating. The decapitations show that the drug problems they are facing in Mexico are simply much larger than the ones we face.

And yes, the Mexican police are badly corrupt. Some of the people I met down there said the attitude of most Mexicans is if your house gets robbed, don't call the police--they'll just case it for another robbery. Hondo, you may be right that as opposed to planting drugs in small amounts, the police can now arrest someone and exaggerate the amount he had. We'll see, I guess.

One thing we ARE learning from Mexico, Dave, is to tolerate increasing gaps between the richest and the poorest. If current trends of exacerbating the share of national income held by the top 1% and top .1% continue, we may have to learn many things that Mexico has known for years about money and class and social rigidity. Hopefully, it won't come to learning about hut creation.

Posted by: jd at April 30, 2006 09:04 PM (uT71O)

17 " Dave's not here man! "
" No, no, no! This is Dave! "
" Dave's not here man! "

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at April 30, 2006 11:32 PM (h4PzP)

18 Ted Carpenter at Cato's new blog thinks criminalization only increases the profit potential of illegal drugs and gives them a more lucrative, coveted place on the market.

Unfortunately, Mexican leaders show no willingness to legalize the manufacture or sale of marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs. Indeed, they have argued that the new law will enable law enforcement agencies to devote more resources to supressing trafficking. That means the huge potential profit in the drug trade will persistâ€”and so will the corruption and violence that is tearing Mexicoâ€™s society apart.

Posted by: Anastasia at May 01, 2006 09:55 AM (lcebH)

19 At least one country has figured out the drug war is a COMPLETE waste of time, money, and resources.

Posted by: craig at May 01, 2006 08:13 PM (CMKoe)

20 As for Mikes "a person can be a legal walking pharmacy" comment, alot of people are walking pharmacys. Ever heard of the ghetto and drug dealers?

Posted by: craig at May 01, 2006 08:17 PM (CMKoe)

21 Thats awesome they should legalize marijuana its all for money

Posted by: josh at May 04, 2006 10:24 AM (2N1xj)

22 Thats awesome they should legalize marijuana a lot of people do it anyway and it would make it easier for everyone... drinking is worse for you so why not?

Posted by: josh at May 04, 2006 10:25 AM (2N1xj)

23 Not a good idea afterall, oh the mood swings ... pass that pipe ...

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 04, 2006 11:41 AM (FCC6c)

24 The drug war has failed. Consumers want drugs. Making drugs illegal only makes them more expensive and inconvienient to obtain. If you want to get drunk, you have to drive 5-10 minutes to the grocery store and spend about $10. If you want to get stoned, you have to drive 15-20 minutes to your buddy's house and spend about $40.

The best solution is to legalize and educate.

Policing, jailing, and court costs are large. Not only would legalization reduce the necessary sizes of our police forces, jails, and court systems; it would also make a very large market available for taxation.

Young people should be educated that drugs are often harmful. Education has been the main influence in the sharp decline in teen tobacco consumption. Should a person find themselves with a problem, the facilities should exist to help them recover.

Posted by: Yummy at May 14, 2006 04:06 PM (r99Fg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 23, 2006

Yale Looking For Face-Saving Way to Oust Talibani Student

Evidently Yale doesn't like the negative publicity it's received since welcoming Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the unreconstructed Taliban knuckle-dragger admitted under their non-traditional student program. Writing in the WSJ Opinion Journal, John Fund reports that Yale plans to toughen up admission standards for non-traditional degree students, which currently accept three quarters of applicants (compared to the 10% of applying high school students).

This will allow Yale to reject Hashemi's application to a degree program without admitting that they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt for admitting him in the first place. Or maybe they're just afraid they'll be beheaded.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:53 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt

They are morally bankrupt. They're only concerned about the bad publicity. That's what relativism does to people.

Take the exact same guy, but with white skin, and suddenly Libs see him as evil. But if he's brown, his deeds are irrelevant. Brown people are like monkeys to Libs. Pets. Monkeys can do no wrong because they don't know any better. That's why a fascist like Rahmatullah Hashemi can be invited to their institutions of higher indoctrination with no moral qualms whatsoever. That's why Arabs are good and Israelis are bad. Monkeys. That's how Libs see their Arab pets.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 11:03 PM (8e/V4)

2 Yep. And I think it also has to do with politcal corretness. People want to be sure to be seen as "tolerant" and "open-minded" above all else. Somehow it's seen as a virtue to be able to say, "Who are we to judge?" It's almost as if the more heinous the act that one is able to tolerate, the more enlightened that person is seen as being. It's absolutely crazy.

Posted by: Richard at April 23, 2006 11:24 PM (7KF8r)

3 I think that the more important question is "How did he get a visa to enter the country ?" I would have thought that he would have been laughed ot of the embassy for even applying for one. It is not Yale that issues student visas.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 23, 2006 11:36 PM (TcoRJ)

4 I hate to be uncharitable, and this probably won't say much about me as a christian, but this problem could be solved with 158 grains of jacketed hollowpoint....

Posted by: Lonevoice at April 24, 2006 12:44 AM (QnxoD)

5 john ryan,

you make a very valid point. Isn't it the job of the State Department and their consuls to issue such visas? State is infested with these Libs.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 01:03 AM (8e/V4)

6 I want to know which Yale alumni or board member pulled what strings at the State Department to get this cretin admitted into our country to even breathe our air let alone take up a space that a more deserving student was refused. This is more than just liberalism. This is a profound debasement.

I found a link in the comments section to this story about Yale at Clint Taylors blog at Townhall.com a while back. Yale is riddled with backstabbing, self-aggrandizing ego-maniacs as well as intellectually bankrupt elitists and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find they have their own dupes in the State Department.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 04:45 AM (YudAC)

7 John Ryan

Yes, State does issue the visas ... but Oyster zeros in on the point. Someone(s) pulled strings and used powerful influence on State to pull this off - and no one's talking on the details. This has become an embarrassment for Yale - and someone(s) else. I am curious who.

Posted by: hondo at April 24, 2006 05:47 AM (gdxQ2)

8 One Yale dumps Hashemi his student visa would no longer be valid and he'll have to leave the country. Hopefully some agency is gearing up to ensure that he does so and that he ends up in Gitmo after all. Or can we expect to see him at the next illegal immigrant rights march?

How Yale ever expected this to go unchallenged is beyond me.

Posted by: Graeme at April 24, 2006 07:00 AM (nCrWY)

9 If it was a mistake by the State Department than his visa should be withdrawn and he should be deported. How this man could not be considered a security risk is incredible, to me. As for the Stae Department being infested with libs I think it is more properly discribed as being infested with idiots. Condoleeza Rice is the Secretary of State she should simply revoke his visa. My sister has been teaching law in Cambodia for 10 years. The only student visas she can get for her students are for 20 or so Fulbright scholars that she has each year.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 24, 2006 07:23 AM (TcoRJ)

10 The State Department is a side issue. I'm more concerned about the culture of contempt for America indicated by Yale's eagerness to accept Hashemi.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 24, 2006 07:59 AM (RHG+K)

11 Greetings, hondo, and it looks like you're going to get your Egg McMuffins after all, but I still have Moon's boy in the runoff. A very small chance, indeed.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Oyster, I am very much interested in the same questions as you, and one would think an enterprising newspaper might seek the truth behind these shenanigans. But most of them are too busy leaking classified information to be concerned about this very much more important story.

What happened here when an enemy of the US and civilization period gained entry to not only the US, but one of the most prestigious institutions of learning in America is symbolic of the problem we have. Who let this guy in? Why? How?

If we do not put a stop to this, in twenty years or less we will be exactly where France is right now. There is a mentality in the State Department that is anti-American, and they are doing everything they can in their little way to Balkinize the US. They see this as being cosmopolitan. Liberalism sees the US as the enemy of the world, and it is doing everything possible to destroy the US, hence its support of illegal immigration.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 24, 2006 08:18 AM (rUyw4)

12 I am more concerned over the security issuses involved in allowing one of our (ex?)sworn enemies entry into the country. I do not financially suport Yale. I have higher expectations for my government than I do forn some private institution. His visa should be withdrawn immediately by the State Departmentr. Wait maybe that is too harsh lol we should perhaps keep him out AT LEAST UNTIL THE WAR AGAINST THE TALIBAN IS OVER l

Posted by: john Ryan at April 24, 2006 08:35 AM (TcoRJ)

13 If you pay taxes, John Ryan, you support Yale, whether you know it or not. It would be interesting to know how much government aid Yale receives in a year, and I include government student loans and grants as being supportive of an institution, whether public or private. The money still goes to the institution and helps support it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 24, 2006 09:48 AM (rUyw4)

14 john ryan: They're not idiots. It's too easy to just write them off as idiots or say, "What were they thinking?" It was not idiocy. They knew what they were doing. And I want to know who it was.

Bluot: You're right, but this "culture of contempt" has bled over into our government by elite college graduates who adopt government careers and those who get in cahoots with government employees through professional connections. We know that some turd out west (I don't have time to look him up) took on this idea of getting Hashemi in on a student visa. So he uses his connections to ask around for help and someone tells him, "Hey, I have a connection at the State Department," and bingo! favors are done and everyone's on the hush-hush.

We've been asleep at the wheel for far too long and now we're seeing the bitter fruits of it.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 10:16 AM (f70+e)

15 Bluot? er... Bluto.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 10:31 AM (f70+e)

16 Not sure if anyone caught this but it seems perfectly inline that the Chinese pres wrapped up his trip with a tour of Yale as well. Yale spreading the love around to terrorist and commies!

Posted by: tomb at April 24, 2006 09:00 PM (FqhsP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 21, 2006

Danish Supermodel Arrested

Danish supermodel May Andersen has been arrested for assaulting a flight attendant. Fox News:

Danish supermodel May Andersen has been arrested for hitting a flight attendant on a flight from Amsterdam to Miami, police said.
Airport police arrested the woman when the flight landed. She continued her unruly behavior with officers, police said.

Obviously, Andersen can be dangerous, but the mug shot below isn't a particularly good likeness. Therefore, as a public service, The Jawa Report has uncovered some other pictures of Andersen to aid concerned citizens in identifying her and taking appropriate precautions.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 04:30 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

April 15, 2006

This One is Truly Unhinged

The Washington Post profiles one of the folks who bring us those shrieking lefty emo blogs:

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

Unfortunately for America, the Democratic party is pandering to loons just like Maryscott O'Connor, who writes for DailyKos (of course) and her own blog, My Left Wing.

Also unfortunately, writer David Finkel can't resist shading the truth (this is, after all, the Washington Post):

Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack.

Translation: now that the liberal mainstream media deathgrip on "the truth" has been loosened by talk radio, Fox News, and the right lobe of the blogosphere, liberals find that they can't handle the truth.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:01 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Isn't it sweet when 2 moonbats are in the same room. The electricity is in the air I tells ya. David Finkel & Maryscott O'Conner are just the cutest things.

If she feels that way about Catholics, how does she feel about Evangelicals? Now that would be a fun read. I love the "IT'S ALL THE CONSERVATIVES FAULT WERE A BUNCH OF HATE FILLED LOONS" tag the WashCompost wrote in there.

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at April 15, 2006 01:39 AM (blNMI)

2 I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton. But hey, the end of his term were my college days so maybe I just missed all of the right-wing protests on university grounds over Conservative pundits giving speeches, military recruiters over a law signed into effect by President Clinton, calling Clinton a liar over intelligence related to one of many military campaigns he waged (Trivia: Clinton sent the U.S. military to more nations than any president since WW II), any program he pushed or any of that other garbage.

I thought the quote of that entire article was when she said she's almost insane. Lady, you've passed that marker long ago. And don't you love how the picture shows here in, what else, her pajamas?

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 02:02 AM (vKISv)

3 "Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite."

Ahem. When the Democrats held the majority there was no where near the anger and petty bickering from their political counterparts. Conservatives didn't crucify their judicial candidates, they didn't go on marches carrying signs saying "Clinton=Hitler", they didn't oppose every piece of legislation that came down the pipe without having an alternative plan, etc. And the left was comparatively polite? hahaha. Polite in the way an animal is if you keep feeding it meat. 40 years of owning the government and then losing it sent them in a tailspin I wonder if they'll ever recover from.

Not that the Republicans aren't heading down the same path of complacency, but let's be honest; these two people wouldn't know the truth if you slapped them with it.

Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 04:19 AM (YudAC)

4 How can anyone be so stupid as to find equivalence between the spirited grumbling from certain quarters during dhimmicrap administrations, and the unhinged lunacy of the leftards at all times?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:53 AM (0yYS2)

5 >>>Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite.

Even back in my Lib days in the early 80s I can recall how we used to call conservatives "fascists". I suppose that is "comparatively polite" compared to some of the things Lefties are saying nowadays.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 07:52 AM (8e/V4)

6 was she smoking that cigarette INSIDE!!!!!

Posted by: Cindy at April 15, 2006 07:53 AM (N22Ci)

7 I hope she keeps smoking...the sooner her brain will be fried completely and then become sooo nonrelevant. Curious though what kind of cigerette? Regular tobacco or some other variety....

Posted by: Debby at April 15, 2006 08:48 AM (j3bQ5)

8 M.A.:

"The fact that the Washington Post could look at the incredible variety and diversity of the left blogsophere, and focus only on the "angry left," just shows how clueless and right-wing the Post has become . . . "

Oh, so you're an idiot too. I get it now. All joking aside, and that was a joke, you make a valid point in that the article is not exactly a puff piece. But to conclude Michelle Malking is as comparatively unhinged in anger as even the bloggers highlighted by the WaPo is right out of left field. Further more, to conclude the WaPo is right-wing . . . I am just speechless really.

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 09:11 AM (vKISv)

9 M.A.

Nice try. The article tried to justify Maryscott's anger. It was not a fluff piece for the Right. It actually "Softened" the truth which is that Maryscott isn't angry but that she is an obsessive hate-filled blogger who wakes up hating GWB - she is pathetic.

As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate?

Posted by: chez diva at April 15, 2006 09:57 AM (zmJNe)

10 As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate?

The answer is yes, all the time -- and not by obscure online people but by people in government and the conservative media. They called him "a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country" and more, every single day. Do a usenet search, or start with this Glenn Greenwald post, or read Byron York's article on the decline of the American Spectator during the Clinton years. Hatred of Bush does not begin to compare to the foam-flecked hatred of Clinton.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:25 AM (Gv+sz)

11 Drinking non-alcohol beer in the morning? That's her real problem.

Posted by: Fred Fry at April 15, 2006 10:39 AM (HJnrm)

12 As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war; it recently ran an editorial defending Bush's leaks against Joe Wilson (an editorial which contradicted the facts in the court filings and in its own news reporting). The Washington Post is a conservative paper now, not surprising considering that its editor is conservative and its publisher is growing more conservative.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:40 AM (Gv+sz)

13 So now we know that when Leftwingers accuse conservatives of being "angry" and filled with "hate", they are just projecting. Same thing when they constantly accuse Bush of "lying." They're looking at themselves in the mirror, for how many times have we busted these Leftwingers in outright lies and distortions, not to mention sheer ignorance of the plain facts.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 10:41 AM (8e/V4)

14 M.A.

I read the article you directed me to and I can't find anything that can be compared to the screams of "Bush Lied, People Died".

I don't doubt that Clinton did have his "haters" but they pale in comparison to the Bush "haters" such as the WaPo and NY Times journalist and editors who have declared open season on Bush.

Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous.

If anything can be learned about the Media with regards to Clinton is that they loved him and protected him. If it wasn't for Drudge breaking the Monica story then "we the people" would never ever have learned about it. The NY Times and other news outlets where mum. They didn't come forward with the story until it was already out and they were embarrassed to have been scooped by some internet guy/journalist.

Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:00 AM (zmJNe)

15 M.A.

You wrote:
"As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war;"

So are you saying that if you support one or more of the items above it is an indication that one leans toward the political "right wing"?

If so then:

President Clinton is "right-wing" he led not one but two "unprovoked wars" in Bosnia and Kosovo - no one attacked us and neither one was sanctioned by the UN. However the Left and the Media didn't question Clinton's motives for an unprovoked war but they are all over Bush for what is a legitimate, legal and provoked war.

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other Democrats supported the Iraq War that Bush prosecuted with UN approval - the Iraq War resulted from Hussein thumbing his nose at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and others dating back to the early 1990's. So does that make Sen. Clinton
and other Democrats who voted for the Iraq War - "right wingers"?

Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:14 AM (zmJNe)

16 Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous.

- Statements made by Republicans during the Kosovo action.

Also, as Jonathan Chait wrote: " The Clinton haters, on the other hand, drew from the highest ranks of the Republican Party and the conservative intelligentsia. Bush's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, was involved with The American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," which used every conceivable method--including paying sources--to dig up dirt from Clinton's past. Mainstream conservative pundits, such as William Safire and Rush Limbaugh, asserted that Vince Foster had been murdered, and GOP Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton attempted to demonstrate this theory forensically by firing a shot into a dummy head in his backyard."

There is simply nothing among mainstream Democrats to compare with the insane, unhinged Clinton hatred of the Republicans in Congress.

As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues, yet the unhinged right attacked him as if he were some sort of left-winger, and the mainstream media followed suit. Because the mainstream media has a conservative bias, and has had one ever since the '80s at least.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 11:41 AM (Gv+sz)

17 MA, you seem like an intelligent sort, but you're coming off as mentally ill, or simply a dishonest propagandist. The WaPo rightwing? Please, this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess, and as someone who, evidently unlike you, is old enough to remember what went on during the Clinton years, comparing the criticism (mostly self-inflicted) that Clinton heard with a BLOGGER BEING MENTIONED IN THE WAPO FOR WISHING CANCER ON BUSH - well, you need therapy, dude. Soon.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 15, 2006 12:45 PM (RHG+K)

18 >>>this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess,

It shows how deranged the Left has become when even an apology for their excesses comes off as an indictment.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 12:58 PM (8e/V4)

19 It shows the Left to be mentally ill, which is where this particular commenter posting under the name M.A. is. The next thing you know, he will accuse dKos of being a flaming neocon. Good grief, M.A., you strained at a gnat, and swollowed a camel.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 01:15 PM (rUyw4)

20 MA is actually correct on many points. There most definitely was an intense Clinton hatred among some on the Right in the 90's but I don't recall it ever being as widespread or as loud. Perhaps if as many folks had access to the internet and blogs, etc. back then...

Today, BDS manifests itself in everything from popular films to television to music. One cannot escape the constant reminders that our President is an unelected warmongering stupid chimp, blah, blah, blah. It really is tiresome.

Clinton hatred, on the other hand, was (with the exception of some talk radio) nowhere near as ubiquitous. Yes, there were the "Arkancide" theorists (Foster, Brown, etc) and copied VHS cassettes passed around that purported to show President Clinton had a private airstrip to smuggle cocaine, etc.

But that anti-Clinton stuff was like really hardcore "prOn"--you had to know where to look and then you had to go get it. Maybe like "prOn", the widespread use of the 'Net today makes it seem like there's more President bashing but I think it's real and it's even worse than the Reagan years when I lived in Ithaca, NY, and Madison, WI, where he was not well liked, to put it mildly. Our profs had us convinced he would blow up the planet.

MA is also right that the piece on the 'blogger is sensationalistic and unfair to the thoughtful Lefties out there. But that's the nature on the MSM.

But MA, there is no way that WaPo is a 'right wing' paper. It maybe more button down preppie than it's bohemian sister, the NYT, but it is still 'center left' on it's most conservative day.

Posted by: JDB at April 15, 2006 01:19 PM (gHLyo)

21 M.A., just pray that I don't find you when the time of retribution comes, because you and your kind, along with the muslims and other anti-American scum, won't last long then.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:49 PM (0yYS2)

22 I don't know whether to laugh or cry at M.A. insuating more than once that A) WaPo is "right-wing" and B) the media is conservative.

And then: "As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues"

Now I'm laughing. Dude! Did you just wake up from a 15 year coma?

Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 05:23 PM (YudAC)

23 Did he wake from a coma? No, he just ate a mushroom that he found growing in his laundry hamper.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:52 PM (0yYS2)

24 IM, I think M.A. ate some of those mushrooms that grow in cow manure. How else can you explain all the BS coming from he/she/it?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 09:23 PM (rUyw4)

25 This is a test - I've tried to post here three times tonight - but can't seem to - just don't want to waste my time writing my thoughts again if it won't post - this seems to be an ongoin g problem with righty sites - must be the VRWC!

Posted by: Zeus at April 16, 2006 01:49 AM (vlreT)

26 Hey Zeus, you should write in Notepad or something, then transfer it, or you could just hit the back button on your browser if you get an error message. I don't know what it is, but this site has lots of comment problems.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:27 AM (0yYS2)

27 I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton.

So did you have your head fully up your ass during the 1990s, or were you just in a persistent vegetative state back then?

Posted by: ned fucking flanders at April 16, 2006 04:16 PM (XEZ3U)

28 I was calling for the lynching of Billary, along with every other leftard moron, and I still am.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:48 AM (0yYS2)

29 I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $11685. Isn't that crazy!

Posted by: Betsy Markum at May 23, 2006 08:03 AM (F1CfC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 03, 2006

Scientist Wants to Kill 90% of People on Earth

(Beaumont, Texas) At the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a University of Texas ecology and lizard expert, was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. Pianka then gave a speech saying people are ruining the planet and advocating the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. A fellow scientist attended and reported. Here's an excerpt.

AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."

I'm thinking that a person named Eric Pianka should not be teaching young impressionable minds about science or anything else. Follow the link. More here.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 10:03 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

1 geez-where's the love and humanity.
If he's such a great scientist why can't he think of a more humane way of limiting the population.
Don't have to have a science degree to know germs and chemicals kill. How about limiting the birth rate-in undeveloped countries. They don't want so many kids anyway-they're just bored and pass the time getting their rocks off.

Posted by: splashtc at April 03, 2006 10:14 AM (zlay8)

2 That makes sense. Just about the percentage of slaves killed by communists. Politbureau in USSR was about 7%.

Posted by: Chief RZ at April 03, 2006 10:19 AM (iNTGz)

3 If you're "young and impressionable" past 16, you're going to be a gullible idiot as an adult.

Don't give the younger generation a pass by saying they're just "young and impressionable." That passed years before college started, and before high school ended. You know, all those years you were sending them to our exemplary public schools. So no, they aren't "young and impressionable," they're just at the tail end of a manufacturing process to make fools. And an unprecidentedly successful process, too. Too bad the vast majority of them are also too stupid to care about voting.

Posted by: MiB at April 03, 2006 10:19 AM (2hPsb)

4 That this man is teaching at a public university in the state of Texas after advocating such a thing as the murder of 5 billion people shows how corrupt our educational system is. Fire the bastard and anyone who supports that kind of genocide. They have no inherent right to work for the public while advocating the murder of over 10 million Texans and 250,000,000 Americans.

And if you see him in person, beat the shit out of his sorry ass.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 03, 2006 10:37 AM (rUyw4)

5 Yup. Human beings as exalted among God's creation is a Biblical and judeo-christian concept. While to Lefties, humans are no higher than cats and dogs-- and worse, a virus on the surface of this planet (see Agent Smith's monologue).

Expect the "man as virus" view to become more and more predominant as society becomes more secularized and sheds its judeo-christian roots.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 10:54 AM (8e/V4)

6 >>>>geez-where's the love and humanity.

It's ironic that the biblical view that places God on a pedestal also serves to raise men's stature in the universe, while the humanist view that raises Man onto a pedestal reduces men's stature in the universe.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 10:58 AM (8e/V4)

7 WOW !! 90% !! Is that more than is called for in the Book of Revelations ? Is this a foretelling of the end times ? He sounds more to me like a Christian doomsdayer than a scientist. Repent Repent the end is near. Check World Net Daily for future warnings http://worldnetdaily.com/

Posted by: john Ryan at April 03, 2006 11:36 AM (TcoRJ)

8 The book of Revelations doesn't "call" for mass extermination-- it merely predicts it. A qualitative difference, no?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 11:45 AM (8e/V4)

9 WOW !! 90% !! Is that more than is called for in the Book of Revelations ?

That kind of distortion--whether willful, or out of pure ignorance--is almost obscene. That's why discussing anything having to do with religion with Leftwingers is such an exercise in futility. In virtually all cases, they simply are too ignorant, or too dishonest (or both).

Posted by: dcb at April 03, 2006 12:01 PM (8e/V4)

10 I know Pianka from U.T. and also because I ran Cattle and he runs Bison on neighboring ranches.
He is an odd one. He struck a friend of mine who had been his graduate student over a minor dispute.
I always heard that the U.N also desires a massive reduction in population.
Can anyone confirm this about the U.N.?

Posted by: Greg at April 03, 2006 12:13 PM (q5wwn)

11 Apparently this idiot doesn't realize Ebola burns out way to quick to be an efficient killer of people on his scale, even with mutations. I think maybe he believes in the Gaia Hypothesis, and hopes his goddess will purge humanity.

Posted by: Thunder Pig at April 03, 2006 12:18 PM (PW/DE)

12 Christianity "raises man up"? Like in the Dark Ages, right?

I think you're trying to steal credit there.

Posted by: MiB at April 03, 2006 12:19 PM (2hPsb)

13 Thunder Pig, like most ignorant people, this guy probably got his information from the movie 'Outbreak'.

Posted by: slug at April 03, 2006 12:21 PM (wYW63)

14 >>>Like in the Dark Ages, right?

Wrong. The fall of the Roman Empire caused the Dark Ages, not christianity. In fact, Christian monasteries were the sole repositories of knowledge during the Dark Ages.

But even with your Dark Ages comment you demonstrate some of that ignorance dcb was referring to. You attempt to adress my statement about christian theology with a lamebrained response about Western history.

But your response actually shows how weak your grasp of history is-- not to mention how nonexistent your knowledge of christian theology is. You Lefties simply aren't equipped for an intelligent dialogue on the subject.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 12:30 PM (8e/V4)

15 mib,

your Dark Ages comment was a non-sequitor response if I've ever heard one (and evidence of either your ignorance or your intellectual dishonesty). The sins of the church (whether real or just imagined) have no little or no relation to christian theology or the judeo christian worldview.

Posted by: dcb at April 03, 2006 12:44 PM (8e/V4)

16 MiB what is your stinking problem? Do you hate your mother?

Scientist that want to kill 90% of the humans on earth would be given a medal by the United Nations.

Posted by: Leatherneck at April 03, 2006 03:39 PM (D2g/j)

17 Pianka was just on an Austin local news channel.
He is going to be on MSNBC tomorrow morning.
He is claiming that an intellectual rival has misquoted him in a smear campaign.

Posted by: Greg at April 03, 2006 05:12 PM (q5wwn)

18 Of the 400 scientist that gave Mr Pianka a standing ovation, do they realise that under his plan only 40 would live? Or were they thinking that they would be in the 10%? Would Mr Pianka be so kind as to lead the way and be the first to contract the "cure"?

Posted by: Reid at April 03, 2006 05:56 PM (Zwsx5)

19 He's probably right. Insane too but correct.

Posted by: Howie at April 03, 2006 07:52 PM (D3+20)

20 MiB, I am 16 and , trust me, you do not want most of the people in my generation voting. Many idiots at my school think that drilling for oil kills animals and global warming will kill us all and that type of BS. It is actually a blessing in disguise that most of the 18-20 year olds do not vote. Many of them believe everything the MSM tells them, they are, for the most part, brainwashed.

Posted by: Craig at April 03, 2006 08:50 PM (b3fZv)

21 Another radical lizard loving eco-freak he and PETER SINGER and PAUL ERLITCH are the same type of zero populationists freaks that are extremists

Posted by: sandpiper at April 03, 2006 09:46 PM (uTBPj)

22 Damn I live in Beaumont and would have went to this if I'd known about it.

Could have really had some fun with this ol boy ... at his expense! He is as bad as the Islamophuqenuts ... just from the other side of the planet. But when I really think about he's worse since he is an American citizen and teaching our children. God save us all ... or at least more than 10% of us!

Posted by: jack at April 03, 2006 10:30 PM (aitZQ)

23 Have you read the TOM CLANCY book RAINBOW SIX? its about radical enviromentalists along with a wealthy eco-freak who want to create a deadly virus to wipe out the entire human race and then watch the rewilding of the earth from their specialy encloser this extremists would fit right in

Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2006 08:14 AM (A09bm)

24 sandpiper,

that isn't the stuff of fiction. Humanism has indeed reduced us to the status of vermin on this planet. Without a religious worldview to give us inherent worth, these nihilists are free to reduce men to the status of meat puppets just taking up space. That's humanism for you.

â€œIf I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.â€

~~Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 04, 2006 08:48 AM (WCwrR)

25 Greg, Yes, the U.N. has a statute (or charter orplan or whatever it's called at the U.N.) that says once the world hits a certain population level it would that they should cut off all support to countries under a certain level of economic and industrial development, reallocating food to the chosen few nations, letting the others starve.

Can't remember what it's called, but a buddy found it one time while searching the U.N.'s site for something else a few years back. We haven't been able to find it since. I'll search for it again.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at April 04, 2006 02:16 PM (GyNTD)

26 MiB, I'm an atheist, and even I'll admit that it was the Church that saved civilization and brought Europe back from the brink of barbarism, despite what many corrupt clerics did. Just because you don't like history doesn't mean that it didn't happen as it did.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 04:42 PM (0yYS2)

27 If by some miracle the Arab/Muslim world is victorious against this secular/atheistic influence of the NWO agenda is reduced to such a level as to allow the Christian West to regain its foothold where it once stood, it will be necessary to credit the religion of Islam and the Arab world for not buckling under in the face of attempted extermination. And it will be we, the Christian West and Western Civilization, who will be the beneficiaries of â€œIslamic Extremism.â€

Posted by: TO improbulus maximus at April 06, 2006 10:17 AM (zqsRN)

28 That's the worst, most stupid attempt at apologetics I've ever heard. I'm going have to stop admitting to being an atheist because almost every other atheist I meet is a complete, raving idiot, and I don't want to be stigmatized by association.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 07, 2006 06:25 AM (0yYS2)

29 LOL, I.M.!

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at April 07, 2006 02:32 PM (tdhAh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 01, 2006

ACLU Sues in Support of 'Creative' 'Non-Threatening' Student Poet

From First Coast News in Brunswick, Georgia:

ROME, GA (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia filed a federal lawsuit Monday against Murray County schools for expelling an eighth-grader for writing a poem on school violence.
The student, whose name was not released, was suspended and expelled last year after he showed a notebook full of poems to his English teacher, according to an ACLU statement.
"Kids are being raised in a society where there are violent images around them, not just in movies but in the news," said ACLU attorney Beth Littrell. "Their writing may reflect that and the school should not be punishing them for their creative expression unless it's truly threatening."

The poem is not included in the story, but Jay at Stop the ACLU received the poem in question in an email: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:11 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but this kind of poetry for a child denotes a psychological problem. He's what, 13 or 14? How will the ACLU plead the case? That he has a right to express himself and leave it at that? He needs help.

Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 07:23 AM (YudAC)

2 As long as he's contributing to the downfall of civilization in some small way, they'll back him. Liberals all need killing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 01, 2006 08:01 AM (0yYS2)

3 And any person who would defend this little creep needs help, too. The ACLU, well, I think IM pointed out the motivation of that organization. Destroy society as we know it and remake it into what? It boggles the mind.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 08:57 AM (rUyw4)

4 in high school i've written some stuff in when I was in a funk or depressed mood.. (and who hasn't gotten depressed a time or two in high school) but NEVER turned it in as an assignment..

I would hope to think that most other students could use disern that too.. if they can't or if that is the tamest poem that kid turned in, then yes, he/she could use help or a 'safe' place to talk..

Posted by: The Other Dave at April 01, 2006 08:58 AM (W0Vif)

5 Since when is school instruction limited to the 3 R's? The teaching of acceptable societal behavior and limits (threats are not acceptable or tolerable)should be supported by legal standards not reproached by them.

Posted by: justa at April 01, 2006 09:41 AM (XU9K/)

6 Imagine what would happen if someone had tried to intervene months prior with that pair in Columbine. Same story I suppose.

"Truly threatening"???? Truly??? How does one quantify that?

Posted by: hondo at April 01, 2006 10:51 AM (StM4D)

7 I taught Jr. High, and I can't imagine any of my students writing something like that. It's simply not age-appropriate "creative expression." I hope the teachers aren't so LLL that they won't oppose this kids' re-admission.

Posted by: amyc at April 01, 2006 02:10 PM (d4MD5)

8 ugh apostrophe fault

Posted by: amyc at April 01, 2006 02:11 PM (d4MD5)

9 Destroy society as we know it and remake it into what?

A feudal, hegemonic, communist dystopia, ran by the party, of course. I've read Marx, Lenin, et al, and the unifying theme in all their works is that Western civilization must be destroyed and replaced with a "workers paradise", wherein the few live in parasitic splendor off of the labor of the many, with no way for one of the many to become one of the few. In short, communism is a twisted form of feudalism. Socialists and muslims are the blood enemies of civilization, and must be killed if we're going to save it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 02, 2006 07:43 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 31, 2006

McKinney Lawyer Plays Race Card

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON (AP) â€” A lawyer for Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, says she was "just a victim of being in Congress while black."

I hate to burst McKinney's bubble, but white folk are not allowed to bypass security checkpoints without showing proper ID and assault police officers when questioned. I think she might be taking that old Eddie Murphy Saturday Night Live skit too seriously.

It seems apparent, however, that it should be legal for Americans to slap any Georgians who admit they voted for this imbecile.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:57 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I thank that great American Gomer Pyle said it best:
â€œSurprise, Surprise, Surpriseâ€

Posted by: Brad at March 31, 2006 05:19 PM (3OPZt)

2 Wow, no one saw that coming!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 31, 2006 06:06 PM (rUyw4)

3 When I was living in DC, I always thought it was amusing when blacks claimed racism. You know, the city IS black. Black Mayor, Black councilmen including drug addict former mayor Marion Barry, Black Chief of Police, Black policemen. Yet somehow racism is really imbedded into the system. So imbedded that even a black Government can't get rid of it.

Well this was not an issue with the city but with the Capital police. So maybe they are not influnced by how black the city they work in is. If so, then how is it she is the ONLY one having problms?

No, not with her hair, with the police.

Next she will probably explain that the pin that she was suppossed to wear to identify her as a member of Congress is somehow racist too.

Posted by: Fred Fry at March 31, 2006 06:16 PM (HJnrm)

4 Exactly, all she had to do was wear the pin. But no, what she really wants is special treatment, not equal treatment. And this is what is at the crux of the problem. She should be censured by the full House, as she is a national disgrace.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 31, 2006 06:39 PM (rUyw4)

5 Don't worry, she'll hang with the liberals, muslims, and illegals when the time comes.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 31, 2006 07:07 PM (0yYS2)

6 I don't think the media mentioned the race of the security guard. They also didn't mention how long the guard has been on the job. If he was only on the job a day, and he's from Washington DC, how is he supposed to know the representative from Georgia? Also, if the security guard was white, there is the issue of cross-race identification. Blacks may not think it is an issue because caucasians have black, red, brown and blonde hair, and brown, green, hazel, and blue eyes, etc., and are easier to tell apart. Blacks, however, all have black hair and brown eyes and are harder to differentiate and recognize. To compound the situation, DC is 90-something percent black, with a mostly black government and education system, so that poor guard has to tell thousands of blacks apart.

Posted by: Mark James at March 31, 2006 07:07 PM (d9zjj)

7 improbulus_maximus@hotmail.com

Posted by: improbulus_maximus@hotmail.com at March 31, 2006 09:10 PM (wiFcj)

8 Please don't blame all Georgians for McKinney, she only represents part of Atlanta, which really isn't Georgia at all.

Posted by: Rob at March 31, 2006 10:17 PM (nbWZD)

9 It is laughable to see a US Congressperson behave in such an uncouth, rude, and unprofessional manner!!! Apparently the job has "gone to her head," and McKinney thinks herself the veritable "Queen of Sheeba"....well, or at least Capitol Hill!!! Ha, ha!

Of course, she already came out in a news conference today saying that "it was a black thing" (and I had thought her a rabid, feminist, white, Democrat, until I saw her picture! LOL!)

And you just know that Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jessy Jackson, and all those other "Welfare Pimp" Irreverents(...Oops! I meant "Reverends") are going to vehemently agree with her, and make of this incedent (caused by her being a "snobbish, entitled, bitch," in any color) a "racial" issue!!!

It would be pathetic if it wasn't so funny!

LOL!

Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 01, 2006 12:18 AM (Ffvoi)

10 I wonder what some idiot liberal thought they were going to accomplish by posting my e-mail address, as if it wasn't already on every post? Jesus H., liberals are stupid. I should post my address as that of the city dump, and listen for news reports of gargabe men being stalked and assaulted by people wearing tin-foil hats.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 01, 2006 06:40 AM (0yYS2)

11 What has she done for her constituents besides introducing controversial legislation for a criminal rapper and make a fuss at entries to governmental buildings? McKinney has a real chip on her shoulder and it didn't just get there recently.

Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 07:20 AM (YudAC)

12 CORRECTION:........"just a victim of being a member of congress while being...........STUPID, MEAN-SPIRITED RACIST, and AMERICA HATING........"

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 01, 2006 07:41 AM (bRzBw)

13 McKinney has been known to be a crackpot for years, and why blacks and liberal whites in Atlanta would elect this idiot is beyond me. Suffice it to say they are getting the representation they deserve.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 09:28 AM (rUyw4)

14 McKinney is a joke - symptomatic of the community that sent her to Congress. She made a fool of herself in the past - lost her seat - then simply changed addresses to win another. Her constituents deserve her.

Posted by: hondo at April 01, 2006 10:58 AM (StM4D)

15 Decisions, decisions. On which side would she have guards error? Is it better to error on the side of caution injuring her fragile ego, or to allow a terrorist who looks vaguely familiar to bypass the checkpoint and give her the special treatment she has richly earned?

Posted by: Dave at April 01, 2006 12:02 PM (RgQmG)

16 That crazy bitch has been good comedy for years. But don't kid yourself. She has an agenda, just not much tact. And as assinine as she appears, she is smart. Me thinks the blacks in congress were looking for a way to take attention away from the mexican protests and bring the focus back to the "black thing". Remember, she was the jackass who was willing to take the money that Rudy G. turned down from the Arabian Sheik (sp)? And, she is a second generation nut case. Her dad is and old scholl racist with a particular distain for jews. He blamed jews for her previous loss in her re-election bid 4 + years ago. Publicly and with a straight face. But facts are, she did not have on her pin, and it is as much her responsability to make sure the gaurds know she is a non-threat, (personally I think she is more dangerous than UBL), She screwed up. Turn her over to the House for discplinary action.

Posted by: Kstumpf at April 01, 2006 01:34 PM (Fvuu/)

17 That crazy bitch has been good comedy for years. But don't kid yourself. She has an agenda, just not much tact. And as assinine as she appears, she is smart. Me thinks the blacks in congress were looking for a way to take attention away from the mexican protests and bring the focus back to the "black thing". Remember, she was the jackass who was willing to take the money that Rudy G. turned down from the Arabian Sheik (sp)? And, she is a second generation nut case. Her dad is and old school racist with a particular distain for jews. He blamed jews for her previous loss in her re-election bid 4 + years ago. Publicly and with a straight face. But facts are, she did not have on her pin, and it is as much her responsability to make sure the gaurds know she is a non-threat, (personally I think she is more dangerous than UBL), She screwed up. Turn her over to the House for discplinary action.

Posted by: Kstumpf at April 01, 2006 01:35 PM (Fvuu/)

18 DC is about 65% black, not 90%.

McKinney is loopy, and her dad is an anti-semite.

On the other hand, many white members do not wear their pins, and don't get hassled. The crossracial identification problem is real, as one poster pointed out.

But let's put this in perspective--the Vice President SHOOTS SOMEONE IN THE FACE accidentally, and no one here thought of charging him with negligence, etc. Despite the admitted presence of alcohol, he kept quiet, avoided an investigation for 14 hours. For all anyone here knows, he was drunk when he shot his friend in broad daylight.

McKinney hit/tapped a cop in the chest with a cellphone.

No blood. No injury. No hospital. No ambulance. No delay in notifying police.

McKinney is, as I said, loopy. But let's keep some perspective in calling for her arrest, expulsion, etc.

JD

Posted by: jd at April 01, 2006 02:23 PM (uT71O)

19 Oh, and one more thing--Cheney was hunting illegally--ie, without a license. If you or I shot someone while hunting wihtout a license...well, we'd have a lot more problems than Cheney did.

I'd say that is at least as bad as not wearing your pin...Cheney apologized, and paid the 10 bucks retroactively. Next time you shoot someone at close range while hunting, see if you can get that kind of treatment. If McKinney is asking for special treatment, she surely is not alone in that.

Posted by: jd at April 01, 2006 02:27 PM (uT71O)

20 QUOTE: CORRECTION:........"just a victim of being a member of congress while being a..........STUPID, MEAN-SPIRITED RACIST, and AMERICA HATING........"

Posted by n.a. palm at April 1, 2006 07:41 AM

Kudos n.a.palm!!! Coudn't have been said better! Of course, as she claims in her conflicting allegations, this is either "a black thing" and or about "police brutality"! Take your pick.

I wonder if perhaps they should require IQ tests of all prospective candidates for Congress and the Senate! LOL

However, I wouldn't be surprised if McKinney would be outraged at such a proposal, alleging it "discriminates blacks"!!!

LOL! What a moron in any color....even "Technicolor"!

Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 01, 2006 04:53 PM (Ffvoi)

21 QUOTE: I'd say that is at least as bad as not wearing your pin...Cheney apologized, and paid the 10 bucks retroactively. Next time you shoot someone at close range while hunting, see if you can get that kind of treatment. If McKinney is asking for special treatment, she surely is not alone in that.

Posted by: jd at April 1, 2006 02:27 PM

LMAO! Another "Bash Bush" McKinney apologist!

Sure, she deserves special treatment too! Next time, let McKinney shoot the Officer in the face, then go register the gun, apologize, and pay the $10 fee on her "Honky Hunting License"... retroactively, like Cheney did. Fair enough?!?! Hah, hah, hah!!!

It just keep getting more ridiculous!

Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 01, 2006 05:06 PM (Ffvoi)

22 jd,

I've never heard of anyone being charged with a crime for a clearly accidental shooting. And no delay in McKinney notifying police, are you a complete idiot? Hell, man, it was a policeman she hit.

And negligence in itself is not a crime. If that were so, we would all be in jail, because we have all been negligent about something in our lives. Geez, man, what the hell?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 07:17 PM (rUyw4)

23 You've never heard of someone being charged with a crime for an accidental shooting? You don't read all that much, do you? Accidental shootings keep a lot of courts really busy. Took me about 2 seconds to find one case online, dozens more were available. Before you say something, try and find out if it is even within a country mile of true.

Also, duh, negligence is a crime in most states--in others, they use a different word, but the same concept applies.
****
Madison man will spend 18 months in prison for the accidental shooting death of a 17-year-old girl.

Tamis Bolden was sentenced Thursday morning in Dane County Court, WISC-TV reported.

Bolden was showing his new gun to Sara Ouk in her west Madison home last July when it went off and she was killed.

Bolden emotionally apologized to Ouk's family in court on Thursday.

"I'm sorry; I'm so sorry," Bolden said. "I see your tears; it hurts my heart."

Thursday the victim's sister, Sarrut Ouk, spoke about the loss.

"The pain is too powerful to try to hold it in or set it to the side," she said. "Sara is gone, and she's not coming back."

Bolden will also serve five years extended supervision

Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 12:09 AM (uT71O)

24 Here's what a law looks like:684.03 Reckless or Careless Use of Guns.

No person shall use, employ or discharge any gun in a reckless or careless manner or so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Let's be clear--I'm not saying that I think Cheney should have been charged. That's beyond my info and expertise. I'm saying that of the two allegations, McKinney's and Cheney's, Cheney's is by FAR the more serious. I'd put it on a continuum--Chappaquiddick way over here, McKinney way over on the other side, and Cheney in the middle.

Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 07:06 AM (uT71O)

25 Here's the criminal negligence law in CT--as I said, almost all states have one. Again, I'm not claiming that Cheney should be charged with criminal negligence--I'm saying it is a common crime, it is worth investigating, and the fact that he didn't report it for hours meant that we will never know if he was inebriated when he shot his friend in the face at close range. Just ask yourself--if this were Al Gore, and it were 1999...wouldn't you be suspicious of a coverup? If you were one of the Vince Foster conspiracy theory enthusiasts--well, I don't see how you could not want an investigation of Cheney with this fact pattern.

''A person acts with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.'' Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive the risk must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable man; thus, it requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant is the doing of something that a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances or omitting to do what a reasonably prudent person would not do under the circumstances.

A gross deviation is a great or substantial deviation, not just a slight or moderate deviation. There must be a great or substantial difference between, on the one hand, the defendant's conduct in failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and, on the other hand, what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. Whether the risk is substantial and unjustifiable is a question of fact for you to determine under the circumstances.

The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person.

Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 11:15 AM (uT71O)

26 Well, now, jd, if you use the Ct. statute you quoted, then the man shot by Cheney might be guilty of that. After all, he walked right up to a guy about to discharge a shotgun.

But again, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. You are trying to equate something that is accidental to something that was clearly intentional and looks to be a criminal assualt. If you can't see the difference, please, you need some help.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 02, 2006 02:03 PM (rUyw4)

27 I agree intentionality separates the two situations. I never suggested otherwise. So does the gravity of the outcomes, and the level of knowledge we have about them. I'll accept that you now realize that accidental shootings ARE, in fact, treated as criminal some of the time? I'll also assume that you now realize that negligence, contra your earlier claim, is in fact a crime?

They are, of course, different situations. And there are principled liberals who said, you know what? this shit is crazy, that McKinney is using the race card (there's an excellent one linked on Andrewsullivan.com). But pretending that tapping someone's chest with a cellphone is more serious than nearly killing someone? Or that one requires charges, and the other does not even require investigation?

Who needs help here, again?

Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 07:02 PM (uT71O)

28 QUOTE: But pretending that tapping someone's chest with a cellphone is more serious than nearly killing someone? Or that one requires charges, and the other does not even require an investigation?

Who needs help here, again?

Posted by jd at April 2, 2006 07:02 PM

Who needs help here??? You do, moron!!!

An "accident," is not an "act of aggression": "battery"!!!

Cheney's hunting accident was investigated by the local authorities when it occurred. And even the victim, who all along said it had been his fault for coming up without announcing himself, was appalled by how this "accident" was being "spinned" by the Media and their Left-wing Democratic demagogue "Masters," and said so publicly!!!

And "assaulting" a police officer, even with a
"little" "weeny," "tiny," "bitty" "tap" on the chest, after being hailed to stop by the officer as she "tip-toed through the tulips" to avoid the Security Checkpoint, is "ASSAULT" and does merit not only an "investigation,"
but that charges should be filed!

You should seek Psychiatric help for those with "Loosing the Election in 2000 Denial Anxiety Syndrome." Apparently you suffer from the malady.

Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 02, 2006 11:57 PM (Ffvoi)

29 JD, as a liberal and an idiot, (but then, I'm being redundant), you can't be expected to understand the intricacies of bird hunting. You see, when you're out in a field after birds, everyone is supposed to stay in line so that nobody steps into someone else's fire, like what happened to Whittington, who said that he was out of position, and that it was his fault. Of course Cheney, being a man of honor and integrity, i.e. a gentleman, (look it up), said it was his own fault because he was the one who pulled the trigger. They're both right, but since they're both men of some years, they can be forgiven their mistakes, even if the consequences were more dire, in the same manner that nobody makes a big deal about people who are too old to be driving around, and who represent a much greater danger to society at large than a couple of men on a quail hunt. It's just too bad they didn't flush Cindy Sheehan out there.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 07:01 AM (0yYS2)

30 I don't think I suffer from the 2000 syndrome, as I didn't vote for Gore that year--I voted libertarian.

I also don't know how IM gleaned that I was a liberal from my post, although idiot may be an easier diagnosis. The immediate association of idiot with liberal is one that troubles me, though. Many, many liberals have been brilliant by any definition of the word. Agree or disagree with them, you end up looking pretty dumb if you can't see the ratiocinative brilliance of, say, Felix Franfurter, John Rawls, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., etc etc. Now, being brilliant does not mean someone is right. After all, Paul Wolfowitz is really smart, but his ideas on Iraq and his predictions have been shown to be quite wrong. I don't think it is helpful to label him an idiot because of that. I'm not a conservative, but there are many brilliant conservatives, who I read with respect and interest. Are you really convinced that liberal equals idiot? On EVERY issue? Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time!

I was aware that the local authorities "looked into" the shooting. My point was that there was a substantial delay between the shooting and the notification of the authorities. If the VP was drinking after lunch (he admitted to drinking at lunch) he had enough time to get it out of his system. That concerns me. And again, next time you are hunting without a license, and you have been drinking, and you almost kill someone...you see if you get that kind of treatment.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 07:27 AM (uT71O)

31 And has it reached the point where we wish that our political enemies get shot? I don't agree with Cindy Sheehan on a lot of things, but I wouldn't cheer if she were shot in the head. I think her family has suffered enough bloodshed, don't you?

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 08:10 AM (uT71O)

32 jd,

You have been suffiently eviserated, I suppose, but your suggestion that a criminal assault is somehow lesser of an offense than an accident gets our brains to going. And to defend such a proven aggressive racist as McKinney sure makes you look like an idiot liberal. Sorry, that's how it appears out here in the trenches. At least you didn't defend Teddy Kennedy, so I guess you can be rehabilitated.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 03, 2006 09:06 AM (rUyw4)

33 Joe--if your abilities at biblical exegesis equal your abilities at blog exegesis, I'm concerned about your immortal soul. Where did you get the idea I'm defending McKinney? I think I said she was loopy and hiding behind the race card. If you missed it, I just said it again. If that's defense, I'd hate to see what attack is. All I'm doing is putting it in perspective. I think the right way way way overreacted to the death of Vince Foster, and made a personal tragedy into a family and political nightmare with incessant disproved conspiracy theories. What I don't understand is how some of the same people can call for Cheney's rapid exoneration, even though the delay in the investigation is highly unusual and gives him a way of avoiding the alcohol test that would be standard if you or I did this. Furthermore--when put into the context of Cheney's accidental shooting, the INTENTIONAL tapping/hitting upon the chest of a police officer becomes much more likely to be seen in the appropriate light.

I think this misunderstanding will be resolved without charges...and probably should be. McKinney is loopy, and in the wrong here. But criminal charges? Please. Get a grip. Just because you hate her is no reason to politicize the law. Down that road lies tyranny.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 12:55 PM (aqTJB)

34 I didn't defend McKinney. I said she was loopy. I also said playing the race card here is wrong. But I argued for perspective. Many on the right took the Vince Foster tragedy and investigated it way beyond the point of sanity, causing extraordinary pain to his family and friends. Yet when Cheney nearly kills someone, after drinking, while hunting without a license, and avoids a breathalyzer that you or I would have faced...no story there! So, compared to your calls for blood with McKinney, your lack of attention to Cheney calls into question your objectivity.

But no, I'm not defending her.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 02:03 PM (aqTJB)

35 Sorry for overlapping comments! I thought I was getting censored when I didn't see the first comment, turns out I was looking at an old copy of the page.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 02:05 PM (aqTJB)

36 jd, c'mon, tell the truth and shame the Devil - you didn't vote for Gore because you weren't old enough to vote in 2000.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 03, 2006 02:49 PM (RHG+K)

37 It is so utterly absurd for anyone to resurrect that "dead horse" of a story of Cheney's hunting accident in order to "spin," and "justify" the latest tantrum of that uncouth, mean-spirited, racist, America-hating moron, McKinney!!!

It is pitiful that such a "compulsive obsession" to bash, defame, and obstruct the Administration and its policies, is the only driving force of most Liberals, and the only "idea" the Democrats and their Left-wing Loony Masters can bring to the table; their only "comprehensive" agenda, in these most difficult times facing the nation!!!

Damn terrorist threats, National Security, being overrun by swarms of illegal immigrants, or the looming nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, "let's bash Bush and Cheney"!!! That's the Democrat's only position, their greatest priority, and their "Contract with America"!!!

Perhaps Vice President Cheney should be "Magnanimous," and setting aside all hard feelings about the vicious and unfair treatment he has often received at the hands of David Gregory; that poor excuse of a "White House Press Corp Piranha" for a journalist, who often scours the sewers of Washington, bottle in hand, for the least whiff of â€œeffluentâ€ coming from the White House, and who made such a stink about â€œnot having been told more promptly,â€ about such a â€œmonumentalâ€ incident of â€œInternational repercussion,â€ in his opinion, as was Cheneyâ€™s unfortunate but meaningless accident, and was responsible for making of it in the Media â€œmuch ado about nothing;â€ have the kindness to invite him, McKinney, and Cindy Sheehan, to go "Quail Hunting" with him one of these days in Texas....sort of â€œkilling three birds with one stoneâ€...and just make sure to carry an elephant gun with him this time, with cartridges packed with much bigger caliber pellets, instead of his usual 12 caliber and birdshot....

To think that if Cheney did this, he could not only do humanity a favor, and our country a great service, but could actually become the â€œPoster Boyâ€ for a new Haliburton venture.... in the â€œpest controlâ€ business: â€œExterminating rabid verminâ€! LOL!!!

LMAO!!!

Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 03, 2006 03:44 PM (y6n8O)

38 Wow, Althor, you really are full of hate, aren't you? You just made a very funny joke (uh...right) about the VP shooting two of his political opponents and a member of the media.

Seriously, calm down there, cowboy. Politics is a dirty enough business without hoping for the violent deaths of people we disagree with. That kind of rhetoric is far more appropriate to nations wracked by death squads, ethnic killings, kidnappings, and incipient civil war...you know, like the liberated paradise of Iraq...

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 07:08 PM (uT71O)

39 Uh, sorry to disappoint, DPB, but I voted libertarian in 2000. First Dem for prez I ever voted for was Kerry.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 07:15 PM (uT71O)

40 You just don't have a sense of humor JD!!!

LOL!

Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 03, 2006 07:31 PM (BJYNn)

41 Besides....it would only be an accident. Ooops!

LMAO!!!

Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 03, 2006 07:36 PM (BJYNn)

42 Oooh that's right jd, the Left isn't really fussy about things like letting 15 year olds vote, are they?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 03, 2006 11:18 PM (RHG+K)

43 Actually, it was Robert A. Heinlein who advocated removing the voting age entirely, and replacing it with a quadratic problem--before you can vote, you have to do some math. As he put it, smart 12 year old girls could vote, but not 45 year old nimrods. (I don't endorse those views--seem pretty elitist to me--but that's what your question reminded me of-and Heinlein was not a man of the left, to put it mildly).

No, I legally voted in 2000, for the libertarians.

Posted by: jd at April 04, 2006 05:40 AM (uT71O)

44 You didn't have any sense in 2000 either, jd.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 05, 2006 07:35 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 28, 2006

TypePad = Bad Gay

Below the fold is a link to my wife's OLD TYPEPAD BLOG, before she moved to mu.nu.

Let me repeat. Her OLD TYPEPAD BLOG

If you are a TypePad customer, take note. If you leave TypePad, this could happen to you.

TypePad refuses to remove the site, although it clearly violates their TOS.

UPDATE: Link removed, that's enough sending it traffic. Just remember, TypePad members, your old URL may be converted into a porn site. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:01 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Sean Penn Has Ann Coulter Voodoo Doll

From Contact Music, via the Drudge Report:

Hollywood activist SEAN PENN has a plastic doll of conservative US columnist ANN COULTER that he likes to abuse when angry. The Oscar-winner actor has hated Coulter ever since she blacklisted his director father LEO PENN in her book TREASON. And he takes out his frustrations with Coulter, who is a best-selling author, lawyer and television pundit, on the Barble-like doll. In an interview with The New Yorker magazine, Penn reveals, "We violate her. There are cigarette burns in some funny places. She's a pure snake-oil salesman. She doesn't believe a word she says."

Pinkie the Sensuous Sailor, special Hollywood correspondent to The Dread Pundit Bluto, has learned that the "torture doll" is actually a specially modified full-size Corinthian leather "Courtney Love 3-Input Receptacle" model, which Penn uses for other purposes besides the symbolic abuse...

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:54 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

March 20, 2006

Arab Styling With a Swastika

He just forgot that Aryan does not include Egyptians.

Posted by: Howie at 09:51 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Actually, there were Arian Egyptians at one point. Arius himself was a presbyter in Alexandria, and he had a large following in Egypt, though he was himself of Libyan anscestry. The Arian movement was eventually supressed, though it has popped up now and again throughout Christian history. So there isn't much of a problem with an Egyptian Arian, though both the Muslims and Copts would likely be pretty upset. I guess there's a problem after all -- but nothing a couple strokes of a knife couldn't solve.

I think you meant "Aryan," which is the source ethnicity for Indians, Iranians (Iran actually MEANS "Land of the Aryans"), and other eastern Indo-European descended nationalities. Ironically enough, Gypsies (who actually ARE Aryan) were being killed by Germans (who are and were not Aryan by any stretch) in the name of "Aryan" blood-purity.

Just another way (among many) that Hitler was wrong.

Of course, the issue Hitler had with the Jews was racially derived, and extended to the closest ethnicities to the Jews -- in other words the Arabs. So any Arab who praises Hitler is a complete moron.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 20, 2006 10:59 AM (Kz30m)

2 It's the same kind of stupidity that leads people in the west to believe that jihadis only hate the Jews, thus it's trendy to drape oneself in a Palestinian flag or that arab head dress that comes in a variety of picnic table styles (whatever the hell that thing's called).

Posted by: Graeme at March 20, 2006 11:09 AM (DTJmx)

3 ATBOLK: Oops can't spell my way out of a wet paper bag some days. Thanks.

Posted by: Howie at March 20, 2006 11:17 AM (D3+20)

4 It's a Keffiya, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who is stuck in a dusty-ass, dry, God-forsaken desert where the camels spend the day either trying to eat your hair or spit in your face. It's also good for intense yard-work in the summer, especially if you wrap the ends around your face splodydope-style to keep the dust and pollen out of your mouth.

Outside of that, it ends up looking pretty stupid.

Too bad the splodies don't understand they don't need help with the whole "looking stupid" thing. That, they've got down solid.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 20, 2006 11:24 AM (Kz30m)

5 Actually ABOLK, all Indo-Europeans are related to the Aryans, even the Germans.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 20, 2006 02:25 PM (0yYS2)

6 Well, yeah, all Aryans are Indo-Europeans, but not all Indo-Europeans are Aryans. It's like saying Californians are Floridians, simply because both are Americans.

And as a Floridian I find that concept deeply insulting.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 20, 2006 10:34 PM (qMYED)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

295kb generated in CPU 0.0747, elapsed 0.1342 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.0845 seconds, 630 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

September 21, 2006

September 20, 2006

September 17, 2006

August 09, 2006

August 04, 2006

August 02, 2006

July 19, 2006

July 01, 2006

June 19, 2006

June 15, 2006

June 14, 2006

June 01, 2006

May 04, 2006

May 02, 2006

April 30, 2006

April 23, 2006

April 21, 2006

April 15, 2006

April 03, 2006

April 01, 2006

March 31, 2006

March 28, 2006

March 20, 2006

Recent Comments