Go figger that eh?

Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:10 AM | Comments (2)

January 24, 2006

'Chocolate City' Sprinkled With Nuts

'Chocolate City' Sprinkled With Nuts

"First of all: Think about what a weird coincidence it is that Hillary would have made these remarks in a black church in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day. What are the odds? Did she even know it was a holiday? Bravely spoken, Senator. I haven't been this surprised since finding out Hollywood likes a movie about gay cowboys."

I don’t agree with her usually but this is hilarious. And largely true.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 09:56 AM | Comments (0)

Uncle Sam's Gestapo

Among many truly horrific provisions of the PATRIOT Act and its reauthorization, Paul Craig Roberts today highlights a particularly scary one: Uncle Sam's very own Gestapo. Writes Roberts, quoting from the act:

"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ’United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’."

The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

But, of course, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Right?

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:52 AM | Comments (0)

January 23, 2006

Conservative Intern Issues

WarNutDaily columnist Craig R. Smith, described as one who "instantly engages audiences with his common-sense analyses of local, national and global trends," declares that it's time to start locking up people who challenge Dubya's claim to absolute power:

In the shadow of 9-11, perhaps we should reconsider internment camps again for anyone compelling Americans to divulge sensitive NSA or other military secrets for the public record [by bringing lawsuits against the president for wiretapping and other violations], which also will be widely read by our enemy, as Osama bin Laden proved last week. Then, after terrorism is finally defeated we can allow the internees back into society.

Of course, "terrorism" can never be "finally defeated," which means that Smith wants to lock up dissenters and throw away the key.

I wonder if Fidel Castro could use someone to edit the Cuban state newspaper. I have a perfect candidate for him.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:16 PM | Comments (1)

It Takes a Liberal to Catch a Neocon

James Wolcott nails the cult of Bush in a few brief sentences:

[I]t's clear that there's a homoerotic ardor for Bush by neonconservatives that bypasses reason and reduces them to hero-worshipping mush. By any rational measure and traditional conservative standard, Bush has been a disaster: exploding the budget, burdening future generations with back-breaking debt, packing the government with imcompetent cronies (so much for meritocracy), committing the nation to an aggressive, fiction-based war in Iraq that it can't win and will weaken the country in the region, alienating traditional allies (to the point where Spain tells to bug off re its air transport sales to Venezuela), and inflating the powers of an imperial presidency to an arrogant degree that would have horrified the original editors of National Review. The Bush mystique is a cult of manhood based upon the fantasy belief that America still stands tall, proud, brave, and unopposed in the world, basking in God's love and the Western sun. Even Clint Eastwood, whose movies have gotten progressively darker, doesn't buy that masculinist myth anymore. Only warmongering pundits and bloggers do. And Peggy Noonan, still searching for the perfect Dad.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:10 PM | Comments (1)

January 22, 2006

Does Karl Rove Have Secret Agents in Hollywood?

“Entertainer Harry Belafonte,” reports the Washington Post, “one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, compared the Homeland Security Department to the Nazi Gestapo on Saturday and attacked the president as a liar.”

In the same way that Pat Robertson hurts the religious right in public opinion polls with his nutso remarks on current events the Hollywood crowd's spouting off all the time with the “Bush is an idiot” or “a Nazi”, or whatever other ad hominum attack actually helps Bush out enormously with his red state base.

Who the aging ex-Calypso singer with the ruined voice thinks he’s influencing with his comments is hard to see objectively speaking. Belafonte doesn’t have the chops to be taken that seriously on this or any other issue (not that he’s wrong by the way, just hyperbolic).

However if you are witness to the buzz in the “Red”, (i.e. socially conservative and Republican leaning) areas in American society like I am you could readily see that each time Belafonte, Madonna, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Whoopi Goldberg, and the rest spout off like this, it pushes those that are peeved, outraged, or doubtful about Bush and GOP policies right back into the fold. Whatever doubts they have about Bush are more than offset by their dislike and contempt for the snarky and hypocritical Hollywood types when they of all people call the kettle black.

Hmmmm…? If I didn’t know better I’d almost suspect that Karl Rove is influencing the Hollywood crowd somehow to do all this just to help out the GOP in the upcoming elections this fall. People can vote against Bush or they can vote against Hollywood depending on whom they dislike more. That is a situation that Rove & Co. would no doubt prefer to have too, eh?

Posted by Ali Massoud at 09:06 AM | Comments (1)

January 18, 2006

Grim Fairy Tales from the White House

The latest word on the lies of the Bush administration to get us into war is as follows:

A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

However, we are supposed to believe that all the WMD stories were the result merely of "faulty intelligence," no data was manipulated by the White House, and no one is responsible for any of the lies. We are also, at a certain age, supposed to believe in Santa Claus, too; but we're expected to mature beyond the point of believing such absurdities. A large number of Americans, unfortunately, still believes in Santa Bush and his fairy tales.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:15 PM | Comments (0)

January 17, 2006

The Dollars they Confiscate won't be Make-Believe

Will the IRS soon be shaking you down for a cut of your booty after you plunder the hoard of Firespittle the red dragon or after you find the wand of whispers in the castle of Morgoroth the evil wizard? Well, today's whimsical farce is tomorrow's dreary reality (think smoking, seatbelts and thought-crime). Julian Dibbell kick starts the question at legal affairs magazine, exploring just what are the tax implications of the swirl of monetary transactions that play an increasing role in multi-player online gaming.

Today, individuals are selling "Runic Hammers" and "Ethereal Mounts" on e-bay for sums totaling thousands of dollars. Do these "virtual relics" have real-world value? What if no money changes hands between gamers, but instead the items are bartered?

Perhaps it becomes a moot point when the cashless economy finally comes to pass.

Posted by Robert Jackson at 07:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

God is Mad at America!

Pat Robertson makes a lot of stupid comments that do more to discredit him and his beliefs than all of his secular humanist and religious-left opponents combined. However many people, while they dismiss his remarks, often give ‘ol Reverend Pat a pass given his grandfatherly appearance and his obvious senescence.

But how to explain some damn stupid remarks along the same lines by New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin recently? Hmmm, I wonder if Nagin is in for the same round of idiot jokes from Letterman, Leno, the Daily Show, and the rest?

You don’t suppose his race will cause most critics to restrain themselves lest they be thought racist or insensitive? Nah that’d never happen in modern America would it?

Posted by Ali Massoud at 12:31 PM | Comments (2)

January 16, 2006

Making the World Safe From Democracy

Making the world safe from democracy is a more realistic option than the reverse. President Woodrow Wilson tried this approach back in 1919 and it didn’t work then either. Now the Bush administration is claiming this failed legacy as window dressing to cover up the faulty assumptions behind taking America to war. A recent LA Times op-ed column exposes the failed history of trying to make the world safe by promoting democracy which while 20-20 hindsight, may be useful to future historians assuming that the world doesn’t end in a radioactive cloud or a biological warfare induced epidemic before Bush leaves office. But I digress.

The idea that democratically elected governments are somehow more wholesome, legitimate, and peaceful is hogwash that only a politically blind & historically deaf fool such as George W. Bush would believe. Examples of hostile, totalitarian, and warlike regimes that gained power through the ballot box abound in modern history, but let me name just a few that bedevil the world currently anyhow: Iran, Venezuela, and well… the United States, England, and Russia.

To paraphrase H.L. Mencken the "people know what they want and deserve to get it too, and good and hard".

Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:17 AM | Comments (0)

A Prescription for Disaster

Here's proof that Republicans can create wasteful, expensive, bureaucratic, and thoroughly screwed up government programs just as well as Democrats can:

With tens of thousands of people unable to get medicines promised by Medicare, the Bush administration has told insurers that they must provide a 30-day supply of any drug that a beneficiary was previously taking, and it said that poor people must not be charged more than $5 for a covered drug.

In addition, it said insurers must cover a 30-day emergency supply of drugs that beneficiaries were taking prior to the start of the new program.

Did anyone outside of the Bush administration really expect anything good to come of this program? Well, it got Bush re-elected so he could do all those "conservative" things he really wanted to do in his first term but couldn't because of the election hanging over his head, so his supporters will tell us.

The article also says that Medicare is already paying for "one million prescriptions a day," a number sure to increase rapidly. Whatever the average cost per prescription is, we're talking some major bucks here, almost certainly more than even the White House's own estimate that it kept from Congress.

Thank goodness we have the Republicans to protect us from big government!

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:15 AM | Comments (0)

January 13, 2006

Conservative Partisanship on Parade

The conservatives at CNSNews.com are busy defending Republicans and, as usual, betraying their supposed conservative principles in the process.

First, Frank Salvato rips Nancy Pelosi for her criticism of the Ted Kennedy-drafted and George W. Bush-signed No Child Left Behind Act, which increased federal control over public schools and federal spending on education.

Salvato is upset that Pelosi charged that the law had imposed unfunded mandates on states, caused a reduction in Pell Grant spending, and is a "Republican [attack] on our country's education system."

Salvato's defense is as follows: (1) The GOP has increased federal education spending faster than the states can spend it; (2) the maximum Pell Grant award has increased by 64 percent under the Republican Congress; and (3) having the federal government establish rules for local schools is a way to improve the system, not attack it.

So when a liberal attacks Republicans either for not growing government enough or for growing it too much, the conservative defense is that, first, they've grown it even more than the liberal wants and, second, when the GOP makes the government bigger, it's a good thing.

Second among conservative defenses today is Alan Caruba's column, in which he argues that Howard Dean and anyone else who dares to go outside the bounds of "responsible" war debate (apparently Caruba defines it the same way President Bush does) ought to be arrested for sedition. If convicted, the evil traitor could get a fine or imprisonment for up to 20 years.

Caruba almost certainly considers himself a defender of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which protects everyone's right to free speech. Who, then, is the real enemy of our freedom: Howard Dean or Alan Caruba? (Actually, they both are, but Caruba is the one calling for the punishment of speech he doesn't like.)

Partisanship, as usual, trumps principles on both sides of the aisle.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:46 AM | Comments (0)

Creeping Economic Fascism in Maryland

Reports the New York Times:

The Maryland legislature passed a law Thursday that would require Wal-Mart Stores to increase spending on employee health insurance, a measure that is expected to be a model for other states. . . .

Under the Maryland law, employers with 10,000 or more workers in the state must spend at least 8 percent of their payrolls on health insurance, or else pay the difference into a state Medicaid fund.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, in the "land of the free," the government can tell a private company how much it must spend on health care for its employees.

"You're going to see similar legislation being introduced," said Ronald Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit [leftist] health advocacy organization, "and debated in at least three dozen more states, and at least some of those states will end up also requiring large employers to provide health care coverage."

"Those employers should welcome the fact that the companies that do not offer coverage now will be forced to step up to the plate," he said. (Emphasis mine.)

And that, my friends, is the essence of the whole thing: force.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)

Does A Fallen Judge Ponder Redemption?

So you’d think anyhow. But after reading the NY Times story about him the only thing the ex-lawn’order appeals court judge is really sorry for is himself. If the late ex-gangsta Tookie Williams has a white counterpart, ex-judge Amundsen is it; Arrogant, self-pitying, and still trying to manipulate and otherwise game the system for his own benefit. A system of laws he [says] he dedicated his life to and swore an oath to uphold.

Oh, and bye the bye, what did ex-judge Amundsen do with the half million dollars he stole from the retarded adults trust & maintenance accounts he was entrusted with? He bought marble floors for his home, an antique grand piano, and other baubles and trinkets for himself on eBay.

Wadda guy.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:21 AM | Comments (0)

January 12, 2006

Tortured Reasoning

Everyone--and I mean everyone--knows that torturing human beings is wrong. That does not mean, however, that some won't attempt to rationalize the practice when their government, run by their favored political party, engages in it. We've all seen and heard plenty of "conservatives" defend our government's torture of suspected terrorists or of whomever else the government decides is a traitor. (They've pretty much given up on the facade of "the United States government doesn't torture people" now that it has become clear that it does so now and desires to do so even more in the future, regardless of the law.) How, one wonders, would these defenders of torture respond to this exchange, as detailed by William Norman Grigg?

"John Yoo [the 'chief architect of the "Bush Doctrine",' according to Grigg] publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles. This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel."

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

In short, the president can order the torture, in any fashion, of anyone he chooses.

Let's see the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reillys of the world defend this one. Then let's see them tell us how the U.S. is defending civilization from the barbarity of "Islamofascism."

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)

Information Just Wants to Be Free

As was mentioned on yesterday’s STR front page the big-shot corporate types don’t get especially worried if they lose the personal data of their customer base. (“Fook ‘em! There’s plenty more where they came from.”)

Why do I say this with such conviction and authority? Well, in the news today yet again is another announcement along those lines:

A “computer tape from a Connecticut bank containing personal data on 90,000 customers was lost in transit recently, the bank reported today.” Ho hum. “Sorry about that folks. We’ll give ya a free year of Credit Watch (TM) and our heartfelt apologies.” And that is about all the banks ever have to say about it too. Warms your heart their concern, eh?

Meanwhile a few gigabytes worth of customer data such as social security numbers, account numbers, balances, lines-of-credit, DOBs, home address, telephone numbers, place of employment, and basically everything else you’d need to do some truly damaging identity theft scams is likely bouncing around on the Internet as we speak.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:50 AM | Comments (0)

January 11, 2006

Bush Explains "Responsible" War Debate

President Bush, speaking to the VFW on Tuesday:

"We face an added challenge in the months ahead: The campaign season will soon be upon us -- and that means our nation must carry on this war in an election year. There is a vigorous debate about the war in Iraq today, and we should not fear the debate. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even in times of war. Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas."

Now you may be asking yourself, "Just what is 'responsible' debate, and what is 'irresponsible' debate?" The president went on to explicate the difference:

"The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

Aha! Now I see: "Responsible" critics say, "The war in Iraq is a good thing. Perhaps there have been a few tactical mistakes here and there, but they don't detract from the goodness and wonderfulness of this war of liberation. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" Meanwhile, "irresponsible" critics are the ones who have the audacity to question the war itself, the motives of its backers, or the veracity of the president. The "loyal opposition" is the other wing of the War Party, which questions the war effort only around the edges but never considers the fundamental justice of the war itself, while "defeatists" are those who actually think that the war was a bad idea from the start and that we ought to get out now before it gets even worse.

The president also advised Americans to vote for one wing or the other of the War Party, and not to vote for any of those "irresponsible" "defeatists", who obviously are traitors who give aid and comfort to the enemy:

"We also have an opportunity this year to show the Iraqi people what responsible debate in a democracy looks like. In a free society, there is only one check on political speech -- and that's the judgment of the people. So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries."

Finally, there's this gem from earlier in the speech:

"Dictatorships seem orderly -- when one man makes all the decisions, there is no need for negotiation or compromise. Democracies are sometimes messy and seemingly chaotic, as different parties advance competing agendas and seek their share of political power."

I guess the president prefers the semblance of order. He, after all, is the one who signed the bill prohibiting torture and then turned around and said he wouldn't abide by it--a move applauded by that staunch defender of strict constructionism, Rush Limbaugh:

"Bush issued a signing statement -- which is the president's interpretation of every bill he signs -- and the president said, basically, 'Screw this! I have to protect the country. I'll do what it takes to protect the country.' The Democrats and McCain are in a tizzy over this because Bush was essentially saying, 'If I have to I'll ignore this law using my inherent constitutional authority.'"

Yes, according to Limbaugh, the president has the "inherent constitutional authority" to ignore a law that Congress passed and he signed if he just doesn't feel like abiding by it. Rush Limbaugh needs to apply for a name change to Joseph Goebbels.

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)

The United Nations Own Private Gulag (Oh yes, they have one folks!)

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has all their defendants, material witnesses, and such locked up in a UN run gulag in Netherlands. While you would think given the high-minded rhetoric coming from the UN and its membership in re prisons and prisoners that this place would be a penologist’s version of utopia, according to the inmates you’d be wrong. However reading about it does offer some interesting insights on how the blue helmets run their show when it comes to imprisonment.

Who knows. Maybe in few years, (when and if they do end up running the show, eh?), we can see what we are all gonna be in for.

“Wrenched away from everything they know,” the Slate.com article says”, “these inmates have been dropped in someone else's country, surrounded by someone else's language, and forced to confront the massed resources of a thousand-person tribunal that they believe exists solely to railroad them into guilty verdicts. Under these alienating circumstances, bunking next door to people who share the same language, who enjoy the same food, who have overlapping traditions and pop-culture touchstones, and who share the same enemy in the tribunal's head prosecutor—all of this can overwhelm whatever ideologies seemed so important when Yugoslavia was ablaze with ethnic passion.”

Well shucks. Why couldn’t these thugs show such cultural unity in their homeland? Prison planet indeed.

And this:

“Seselj's [an ex-Serbian military officer & defendant] rage and contempt were saved entirely for his fellow Serbs who had proved to be ‘really rotten’ not because of the unarmed prisoners they had killed, but because they had turned on their erstwhile comrades and copped a deal with the tribunal prosecution.”

Jeez. I could hear the same kind of outrage and pain from anyone currently locked up in their local county jail’s gang unit too. Thugs are thugs I guess.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:46 AM | Comments (0)

January 10, 2006

Communist Economic Sanctions

The Swedish communist party, Vänsterpartiet, recently had its national convention. The party is and has been very influential in Swedish politics, being supported by 8.6 % of voters in the general elections in 2002 and 12 % in 1998. The party also, together with the environmental maniacs in Miljöpartiet, enjoys a special position in parliament as support “troops” for the minority social democrat party government.

The communist party is thus very influential. What they decide to do is something Swedes have to consider—it might be part of government policy in a couple of years. So what goes on at the convention is important, even though it is a real freak show (both people and their ideas being freaks).

I wish to attract your attention to an individual member’s bill in addition to the usual communist party bills to abolish capitalism, enforce “democratic influence” in private corporations, heavily increase taxes for everybody, make public transport free of charge at taxpayers’ expense, “invest” in social security, significantly raise minimum wages, etc.

This may sound funny or bizarre, but one member moved for the communist party convention to decide to work for the Swedish government to impose economic sanctions on the United States! [Bill is available here in Swedish.]

In the bill he moved for the party to work actively in parliament to:
- make the Swedish government to immediately cancel all economic and military agreements with the US
- impose economic sanctions towards the US
- cancel all cooperation with NATO
- prohibit all American corporations and other organizations from operating in Sweden
- deny American citizens admission to Swedish territory and deport all American citizens already in Sweden (unless they relinquish their American citizenship)
- not revoke sanctions until the US government has apologized to the United Nations, stopped “acting world police,” and revoked sanctions towards Cuba

Sure, one crazy sucker does not have enough influence to change government policy, but since the parties ruling the Swedish government are all a bunch of crazy people we simply cannot be sure. The ones who live will see. But on the other hand, if these people get their hands on government I will surely be one of the first to get shot through the back of the head...

Posted by Per Bylund at 09:42 AM | Comments (2)

January 09, 2006

Conservatives: Invade the World!

Jim Quinn, ostensibly conservative host of the "Quinn in the Morning" show on Pittsburgh station WPGB and a few other stations in the area: "The United States of America, as the most powerful free state in the world, has an obligation to go around the world removing dictators." (Emphasis mine.)

Quinn went on to state his desire that the U.S. remove Hugo Chavez from Venezuela, Fidel Castro from Cuba, and (by implication) the mullahs of Iran. No doubt he would invade Syria, too. (His co-host this morning reiterated her belief that Saddam shipped his alleged WMDs off to Syria prior to the U.S. invasion--rather than, for example, using them to repel the invasion--an opinion she believes ought to be shared by any rational adult.) He also bluntly stated that "isolationism" wouldn't cut it. I wonder how he thinks we're going to pay for all this military adventurism and how we can accomplish it without the government's growing bigger and bigger.

I suspect that I could find, if I could get hold of Quinn's archives from 2000, comments of his supporting George W. Bush's "humbler" foreign policy as opposed to Al Gore's "world's policeman" approach. Then again, Quinn, like most "conservatives," can be counted on to support whatever Bush does, no matter how anti-freedom, especially since "9/11 changed everything."

Tellingly, his website is called The War Room, which tells you everything you need to know about his brand of "conservatism." (Murray Rothbard had these people pegged over a decade ago.)

Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:11 AM | Comments (1)

January 08, 2006

Hang Up and Drive Moron!

“Cell phones tied to family tension”screams the headline at CNN.com Technology.

The problem the University of Wisconsin study featured in the article says is “spillover”.

“Spillover”, says the article, “essentially means that the line between work and home begins to blur. Work life may invade home life -- when a parent is taking job-related calls at home, for instance -- or household issues may start to take up work time.

In the latter scenario, a child may call mom at work, not to say that he aced his English test but that the "microwave exploded," explained Noelle Chesley, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the author of the study.”

Oh please. Shut the damn thing off if you don’t wanna hear this stuff. Or screen your calls and texts better. Phones aren’t surgically attached to your body, unless you’re a borg or something, eh. Hang up the phone and live your life.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)

January 06, 2006

Good for Kate!

Apparently supermodel Kate Moss has told the London Metro Police (UK) that she’ll report back to them in England when she’s damn good and ready to talk about her recreational coke use. And good for her too.

“Kate Moss” said the news story today, “will defy police demands to return to Britain to face allegations of drug-taking, insisting she is too busy working.”

And since when is it necessary to be an exemplar of bourgeois morality in order to model clothes and cosmetics anyhow? I thought the creative branding experts liked the edginess of the pop culture elite’s lifestyle? Maybe they’d not desire it for themselves or their families but it probably does help with the sales of products to the trendy and the wannabes, eh? So one would think based on past experience anyhow.

And as to the cops then? Moss’ spokesman said this:

“ 'The police know who her lawyers are and if they want to force her to come back they will have to speak to them rather than the newspapers.' "

And

" 'You do have to ask yourself why, when there are so many terrible crimes out there, they seem to be concentrating on Kate Moss.’ ”

Indeed.

Which is really the issue here. In the UK crime is trending rather high these days not to mention the terror attacks last summer. So don’t the Metro PD have better and more helpful work to do? You’d think so anyhow.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:14 AM | Comments (0)

Sorry, Wrong House Number

Oops! The "precision-guided" bomb that killed up to 14 people in Iraq the other day--you know, the one that was dropped by U.S. forces in an attempt to kill 3 men who had allegedly planted a roadside bomb some distance away--"missed its target by 65 feet (20 meters) and hit the wrong home, military officials said."

Oh, well. These things happen in war, and 65 feet off is close enough for government work.

Besides, as the military statement put it, the bomb had "successful effects against the insurgents," so who can argue with murdering a bunch of innocent people when the end is justified?

Let us not forget also that, as Scott McClellan said, the military "goes out of the way to avoid civilian casualties" (except when it doesn't) and that this was all done with the best of intentions: "They target the enemy, they target terrorists and the Saddam loyalists who are seeking to kill innocent civilians and disrupt the transition to democracy." (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, he actually pointed out that "the enemy . . . seek[s] to kill innocent civilians." I guess it's bad when "the enemy" does it but justifiable when "we" do it.

Anyway, as long as the intentions are good, we can safely ignore the results. Right, conservatives?

Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:50 AM | Comments (0)

January 05, 2006

The Law Is the Law . . . Unless You're George Bush

Why doesn't George W. Bush simply declare himself Fuhrer and be done with it?

According to this article, he signed the bill that supposedly prohibits the federal government from torturing people and in the next breath issued a statement saying that he would comply with the law only whenever and wherever he felt like it.

Why bother having legislative and judicial branches then? Let's just make the president dictator and get it over with. You can be sure the red-state fascists would cheer it on with all their might--as long as they could be sure no Democrat would ever become president again.

(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)

Posted by Mike Tennant at 01:07 PM | Comments (0)

The Clay Feet of Liberal Saints

The clay feet of liberal saints is exposed for what it is (i.e.- myth making, wishful thinking, hero worship, and of course cynical propaganda), in this piece from the LA Times. Which is all kind of surprising given that it is the fookn’ LA Times, but whatever, that’s another issue for another day.

The author starts by deconstructing some nonsensical verbiage by left-wing liberal actor/director George Clooney and expands on this theme giving examples from recent history. From the article:

“ 'But then, 'what is history,’ asked Napoleon, ‘but a fable agreed upon?’ Which returns us to [George] Clooney, a decent-seeming fellow and certainly brighter than the dim-bulb stereotype of many Hollywood liberals. Still, he too is in the fable business: He has unilaterally beatified Edward R. Murrow as another hero of liberalism. The truth is that Murrow was just another journalist, better than average but flawed like all of them, who arrived late to the anti-McCarthy bandwagon. Never mind. Clooney's fans, like Sinclair's, always order the usual. And always seem to get it.”

Pretty good stuff. Even if the author, an ex-National Review On-Line editor, is the one saying it. I just hope ol’ Jonah remembers that the neo-cons do this same kinda thing all the time too. They certainly aren’t any more honest about history, just more careful because they get called on it more often by the msm and academics who tend to be overwhelmingly of the left side of the philosophical street.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)

January 04, 2006

Privatized Statism Is Still Statism

"When city leaders talk about privatization," says the Reason article, "that is almost invariably what they mean: a government contract, not an open marketplace. If you aren't satisfied with the way the local trash collection agency does its job—or if you are reasonably satisfied, but still think you could get a better deal from someone else; or if you have no plans to switch yourself, but would like the company to face the spine-tickling prospect that you might —then you have no more recourse than you would if your garbagemen worked directly for the city."

It reminds me of when my former co-workers used to bitch about their employer provided health benefits. Their complaints and customer service inquiries often fell on the deaf ears of a Pakistani call center. Why? Because the health care provider’s customer was the company not the individual client. As long as the cost was low the company didn’t really care that much about the individual client being happy. See the customer was the company not us clients. That is whom they had the contract with and whom they got their check from.

So if you think municipal workers with their unions and their civil service protection makes for obnoxious and uncaring employees, what about privatization would make this case any better? Where is the sanction for poor service or reward for good service that a free market naturally provides? I don’t see it working that way here, but I am going to keep an eye on this situation.

Posted by Ali Massoud at 08:53 AM | Comments (0)

January 03, 2006

More "Collateral Damage"

Three men are spotted, engaged in suspicious, potentially murderous activity. They are followed to a house, which they enter. What should government agents do?

If they are agents of the U.S. government in Iraq, they bomb the house, killing as many as 14 people, including at least 2 children--all this to catch 3 men who may or may not have planted a roadside bomb.

The story says that the men were spotted by a reconnaissance drone, "apparently digging a hole . . . 'following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacements.'" It further says that the military has not confirmed that a roadside bomb was found, which probably means that one wasn't.

Take note, too, that bombers followed the men from the alleged bomb planting to the house, and only then did they proceed to blast everyone to smithereens. Killing the men somewhere along the way would have been more justifiable than murdering everyone in a house that they happened to enter and letting Allah sort them out.

Killing 11 possibly innocent people in order to get 3 possibly (but by no means certainly) guilty ones: That's about par for the course when one works for the world's largest organized crime ring, the United States government.

(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)

Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:47 AM | Comments (1)