Friday, November 25, 2005
Lending legitimacy to his undeserved Nobel Prize award, celebrities are lining up to celebrate the achievements of Mohamed ElBaredi. You may remember ElBaredi as the important-sounding International Atomic Energy Agency head who used diplomacy in the vastly "successful" efforts to stop Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Well, maybe not successful in any measurable sense. But in left-wing moonbat terms, he's as successful as they come, largely because he pooh poohs the use of force, unlike cowboy George W. Bush.
Next time you're children are hiding under a desk during a nuclear bomb scare at school, you'll know who to thank.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Dear Democrats and Media Members,
For the eight-gazzillionth time, some of the actions taken in the Iraq War were "mistakes." Number one, we were probably far too nice to the so-called "insurgents," which encouraged them to fight harder because they had no fear of the consequences. If we would have done it right, they would be dead, not rotting away in Abu Grhaib Prison. Number two, we should have watched the CIA closer to make sure that subversive MoveOn.org-contributing political operatives (i.e., Joseph Wilson) were not put on fact-finding missions for the CIA (by their wives) where the facts were found before the mission began. Number three, we probably should have killed Saddam Hussein without a trial. After all, his defense lawyers might be alive if we had, and no one really doubts his guilt anyway (except Ramsey Clark). And finally, we should have built military bases on the Iranian border immediately after the occupation, just to scare the Mullahs in that country and make them realize our non-proliferation threats are credible.
Now it's your turn. How about admitting your military failures to the victims of 9/11, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the 1st World Trade Center bombing, the Embassy workers in Tanzania and Kenya, the fallen soldiers in Somalia (and the people there), and the millions people living in Communist regimes (including Vietnam)? Your weak-kneed policies, always seeking to appease dicators--Castro, Kim Jong Il, the Iraqi "insurgents," Osama, the Somali warlords, et. al--are what provide the short-term solutions and the cause the long-term problems.
Your "solutions" encourage our violent, barbarian-like enemies to attack us again, and again, and again. In every confrontation, from Vietnam to Iraq, your party has sought to "understand" our enemies by capitulating to them. You see this as a solution, but our enemies see this as weakness, and weakness always begets violent challenge. But in any event, you don't want to "win" anyway. You think America is so terrible that us winning in war and instilling our democratic values (like we did in Germany and Japan) is always a loss to the people on the other side--even if those people have NO freedoms at all. If you hate American values and democracy this much, why don't you go live in Cuba, where everyone has their own private doctor and a '57 Chevy (and nothing else, including civil liberties). If that's good enough for them, it's good enough for you.
Now you say that "staying the course" in Iraq should be replaced with a weaker solution, such as a gradual pullout. You say that the Administration should admit its mistakes and chart a different course. Yet you offer no solution that won't embolden our enemies. You want to turn this conflict into another Vietnam by preventing the troops on the ground from winning the war. For your own political gain, you want the troops to fail. No way.
You want an apology? You first.
Monday, November 21, 2005
It's hard to fathom why a Vietnam veteran would join the anti-war forces of Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. After all, Sheehan and Moore are the successors to the hippie protesters that spit on the troops and called them "baby killer!" at the end of the Vietnam War. Anybody with an understanding of history would realize that the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were beaten in the Capitol building, college campuses, and the editorial pages of newspapers--and not on the battlefield. Now Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.), a veteran and former POW, is essentially lending aid and comfort to those seeking to reignite the Vietnam era, as perfectly shown by this "thank you" in the uber-liberal "Progressive" magazine. Maybe it's mind control?
The main reason that Democrats and the media give so much credence to the opinions of people like Murtha and Sheehan is because they've "been there" in terms of sacrifice (and propaganda value) and agree with the liberal ready-to-cave attitude toward Iraq. What the Democrats and media ignore are the people who "are there" today. This was perfectly illustrated by the Democrats' outrage when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) restated the words of a Marine currently in Iraq who dared to criticize the opinions of the vaunted Rep. Murtha, who is, uhh, a veteran after all.
If this keeps up, Bernard Goldberg will fill an encyclopedia before he retires.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Earlier this week, the media and Democrats were dancing in the streets after Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine Colonel, introduced a Bill favoring an expedited pullout from Iraq. According to the always-unbiased Chicago Tribune, Murtha is "one of the House's most respected hawks." And he's also a Democrat. Surely, the media/Democrats thought, his call for withdrawal will carry a great deal of weight, right?
Wrong. Last night, the Republicans in the House called for a vote on a non-binding resolution with similar language. Here is the relevant language:
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
If the Democrats were honest about their anti-war, hippy-like stance on Iraq, they would have voted that their "sense" was that a termination of the Iraq conflict was appropriate. Instead, the Democrats freaked out big-time. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the resolution "a disgrace." Tensions boiled over when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) made the following statement on the floor of the House about an earlier conversation with a Marine colonel:
"He asked me to send Congress a message--stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message--that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
The Democrats started screaming for her words to be taken down, and Schmidt (for no good reason) apologized. But after all the shrill debate, the Democrats were forced into putting their stances on the record. The vote was 403-3 against the resolution, with even Murtha in the majority. Ha ha ha!!!
In voting for the resolution, the Democrats were forced to choose between their base and their kooks. In voting at all, the Democrats would either alienate their base, the Commie kooks (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, et al), or the so-called "moderates," i.e. union liberals, who (stupidly) vote Democrat but generally support the war.
Finally, someone knows what they're doing on Capitol Hill. It's about time.
Friday, November 18, 2005
The whole Hillary Plame affair seems to be winding down. In the beginning, the more optimistic members of the left/media complex anxiously waited for Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to hand out their "Fitzmas" gifts--an indictment of Karl Rove, maybe even Cheney or Bush. Eagerness turned to slight dismay when only the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted, and not even for revealing Plame's identity as an alleged "deep cover" operative. Instead, he was charged with lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters, during which he allegedly leaked her name. At least that gave Chris Matthews something to talk about.
Now Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, a paragon of virtue on the left, has come out and said that Libby may be telling the truth. It turns out that someone else leaked Plame's identity to Woodward, and it wasn't Libby. So what will the media say now?
Now they're turning on Woodward, saying he's gotten too close to the institutions of power and chronicling his fall from the grace since the days of his Watergate reporting. Here's what our buddy Ariana Huffington, speaking for the mainstream left, had to say:
"Hear that hissing noise? That's the sound of the air being let out of Woodward's reputation."
Yeah, he's no Mary Mapes. That's for sure.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
I usually laugh at liberals and their socialist fatwahs against America. Media bias? It's just par for the course. But once in awhile, the mainstream media applies such a double standard that I seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY, wonder whether there is some sort of socialist conspiracy going on underneath our noses.
Today was one of those days. If you haven't heard (and you probably didn't), Hillary Clinton held a birthday party for 88-year-old Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) in the one-time house of Frederick Douglass. And why is that such a big deal? Well, Senator Byrd was a Ku Klux Klan member during the 1940s. But he was more than your average member, he was elected to the office of Kleagle, and then elevated to the office of Grand Cyclops in that venerable organization. What has he done since? He filibustered by speaking for hours on end when the Senate debated the 1964 Civil Rights Act that, despite his (and other Democrats') efforts, eventually passed with wide Republican support. And a few years back, he noted during a TV interview that he's seen a lot of "white niggers" during his time.
No big deal, right? Well, it was a national crisis when Trent Lott, during a birthday party, said that things would have been better had Strom Thurmond been elected President. As you may recall, Strom Thurmond (like Byrd) was a segregationist. Based on this offhand remark alone, made while singing the praises of an equally old Strom Thurmond, the media immediately jumped to the conclusion that Lott wished that segregation would have continued. They demanded that he apologize, on non-segregation-supporting Black Entertainment Television, and he was eventually forced to resign his leadership position in the Senate (in a fit of Republican weakness).
There is a virtual silence in the media today about the Byrd b-day affair at Douglass' house. Objectively speaking, the decision to hold this party at that location was much, much more offensive than Trent Lott's comment ever could be. Not only was Byrd a former segregationist, he was a Klan member and a strident opponent of civil rights. As someone who isn't as "race conscious" as most liberals, even I can see how off-color it is to defile Douglass' house with the presence of such a man.
So what is the non-silent media saying? They're presenting this as an "attack" by Jeanine Pirro, Clinton's future opponent for her annointed NY Senate seat. What a load of s%#@!!!!
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
In a 1980s job application, soon-to-be Justice Alito said that the "right" to abortion is not found in the Constitution. Worse still, he implied that affirmative action is unconstitutional. These wild, extreme beliefs put him much farther on the ideological extreme that Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Or so the Washington Post would have you believe....
Guess which of Ruth's beliefs made her a "consensus nominee":
1. Government should pay for abortions.
2. The age of "consent" for sexual activity should be 12 years old.
3. The right to consensual prostitution can be found in the text of the Constitution.
4. The right to practice polygamy can be found in the text of the Constitution.
5. Mothers' and Fathers' Days are discriminatory and should be outlawed.
Still guessing? Don't worry, the Post assures us that Ruth hasn't made outlawing Mothers' Day her "life's work."
And the mainstream media wonders why its readership is declining.
Monday, November 14, 2005
A nuclear bomb, in a political sense, will detonate tomorrow. The cause of this explosion-to-be was the discovery of a personal statement that accompanied Judge Alito's job application for the US Attorney General's Office during the Reagan Administration. Here are the money quotes:
"Most recently, it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.
"I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values."
Chuck Schumer could not be reached for comment, as he was busy practicing for the Senate confirmation hearings (see picture).
Saturday, November 12, 2005
NY Times: Yale Law Frets Over Court Choices It Knows Best
Great quote from the Federalist Society president at Yale:
"Joshua Hawley, a third-year student and the president of the law school's chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative group, said he hoped the school had learned a lesson from the earlier experiences.
"The faculty was perhaps somewhat chastened," Mr. Hawley said, "by the charge that they had stabbed a colleague in the back and then had stabbed a former student in the back.""
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Tim Kaine and John Corzine may have won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. And both of them may deserve to be in jail, if only for sedition. But this fiesty pol has won an even greater victory--being elected to the school board in Riverside, California from prison. Jim Traficant would be sooooo proud. Click here to read all about it!
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Could you imagine if the Mexican immigrants in the U.S. decided they would torch cars, schools, and government buildings throughout this country because they were "disadvantaged"? What do you think would happen if roving gangs of kids terrorized entire neighborhoods and the police completely lost control? Hopefully it wouldn't be what's happening in France, where the government is holding administrative meetings to decide what to do about a similar problem in Paris and its suburbs. That's right, they're holding meetings, on the 10th day of the riots--to decide what to do. Last time I checked, a violent response got pretty good results. But in "enlightened" France, such a response is unthinkable. Prepare for surrender.
This, my friends, is what happens when you run a government that has pacifism as its foreign and domestic policy. How quickly they've forgotten the lessons of WWII. Better call the UN, hold yet another meeting, and then hope that the violence dies down on its own. Word to the wise: It won't.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Movie downloads could cost Racine man up to $600,000
Retiree faces suit over grandson's home computer file sharing
By BOB PURVIS
Posted: Nov. 1, 2005
A Racine man who says he doesn't even like watching movies, let alone copying them off the Internet, is being sued by the film industry for copyright infringement after his 13-year-old grandson downloaded four movies on their home computer.
The Motion Picture Association of America, on behalf of three major Hollywood studios, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Fred Lawrence, a 67-year-old retiree. The suit seeks as much as $600,000 in damages for downloading four movies over iMesh, an Internet file-sharing service.
The lawsuit comes after Lawrence, a former employee of Snap-on Inc. and seasonal worker for the City of Racine, refused a March offer to settle the matter by paying $4,000.
"First of all, like I say, I guess I'd have to plead being naïve about the whole thing," said Lawrence. He said his grandson, then 12, downloaded "The Incredibles," "I, Robot," "The Grudge," and "The Forgotten" in December, not knowing it was illegal.
Lawrence said his grandson downloaded the movies out of curiosity. The family already owned three of the four titles on DVD, and his grandson deleted the computer files immediately, he said.
"I personally didn't do it, and I wouldn't do it. But I don't think it was anything but an innocent mistake my grandson made," Lawrence said.
He hasn't settled because he doesn't have the money, and a lawyer said the settlement was likely a scare tactic that wouldn't result in a lawsuit. Now he doesn't know what he's going to do.
"I can see where they wouldn't want this to happen, but when you get up around $4,000 . . . I don't have that kind of money," Lawrence said. "I never was and never will be a wealthy person."
The movie industry readily concedes it won't gain public sympathy suing someone like Lawrence, but a spokesperson said that's not the point.
"We're not asking for anyone's sympathy. We are asking for people to understand the consequences of Internet piracy," said Kori Bernards, vice president of corporate communications for MPAA.
Bernards said the problem is the movies Lawrence's grandson downloaded were then available to thousands of other users on the iMesh network.
"Basically what you are doing when you use peer-to-peer software is you are offering someone else's product that they own to thousands of other people for free, and it's not fair," Bernards said. "People need to understand that when they are swapping movies online they are not anonymous, and that they will face consequences like this lawsuit."
Bernards said that illegal downloading costs the movie industry an estimated $5.4 billion a year.
The industry has filed hundreds of lawsuits against users of peer-to-peer file sharing networks, joining the music recording industry in the crackdown on such networks, said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties on the Internet.
Most cases have been settled out of court, he said, and the ones that aren't are moving slowly through the system, where judges have been baffled with how to treat many of the lawsuits.
"Frankly, most of the reaction I have seen from the federal courts has been bewilderment. They aren't used to having hundreds of people who can't afford attorneys coming in not knowing why they are there in the first place," von Lohmann said. Lawrence's case fits the norm in many of the file-sharing suits, where companies go after the parent or grandparent paying for Internet service, although it is often a child doing the downloading.
In some instances, parents have argued they didn't do the downloading and won, only to have the industry sue the child.
"That is not a very pleasant outcome, but if you truly can't afford it, it's probably easier for your child to file for bankruptcy than for you to file for bankruptcy," von Lohmann said.
While the recording industry focuses on people who have downloaded hundreds of songs, it's not uncommon for movie studios to target people with just a few movie downloads, von Lohmann said.
"I think the attitude most of the time is, 'the odds are this wasn't your first one,' and that means sometimes they do hit someone who has downloaded very few movies," von Lohmann said.
Von Lohmann and Bernards said it is unlikely that the studios would seek the maximum penalties of up to $150,000 per movie, but that is of small consolation, said Lawrence, who hasn't even seen the movies cited in the lawsuit.
"To be honest with you, I don't even watch movies very often."
Ok, so stupid kid downloads movies from internet. Fine. But I think the problem was that he allowed them to be uploaded from his computer. That’s the crime, as I understand it. And if I’m wrong, let me know. So the out of touch with reality MPAA decides that suing an old man for $600,000 is the right answer. WRONG! MPAA, please demonstrate the damages you incurred as a result of this kid downloading these four movies, three of which he already owned. So you lost out on $20 because the kid didn’t buy the DVD from Best Buy. Fine, then sue him for $20. Or, maybe the movie industry should learn how to embrace technology and get people on their side instead of making national headlines by suing senior citizens for ungodly amounts of money.
Editorial: A nomination that will divide
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Oct. 31, 2005
In picking Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, President Bush gave his right flank what it wanted: a true-blue conservative. The question now is: Is Bush giving the country what it needs?
The nomination is troubling in that 1) it's liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity and 3) Alito has taken worrisome stands on many issues. Still, Alito deserves the benefit of the doubt until he gets his day in court - or rather before the Senate Judiciary Committee - to make the case for his confirmation.
Bush had chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but many conservatives vigorously objected, questioning whether Miers had the intellectual stamina to stay conservative. The nominee withdrew her name. Now, Bush has picked Alito, a judge who may be in the archconservative mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Prior to Miers, Bush had named Appeals Court Judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor but switched to have him succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in September. A guiding principle for Bush in the two previous nominations seemed to have been candidates with thin paper trails - the less to trip them up at the hearings.
Bush discarded that principle in naming Alito, who boasts a thick portfolio of opinions he's authored, the result of sitting on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia for 15 years. Bush said that Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." That experience, the intelligence he displays and his firm grasp of constitutional law are pluses.
But, regrettably, Bush declined to consult with Senate Democratic leaders in making his choice. A big reason President Clinton had relatively smooth sailing on his high court nominees is that he did consult with GOP leaders beforehand.
Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.
In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.
Finally, many of Alito's opinions, often dissents, are worrisome. He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard a Pennsylvania requirement that women notify thir husbands before getting an abortion as not an undue burden on access to the procedure. The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with his dissent in an opinion written by O'Connor.
In 1996, he was the sole dissenter when the 3rd Circuit upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns. Also that year, he tried - in the end, futilely - to make it harder to bring discrimination complaints to trial.
These and many other issues deserve a thorough airing by the Judiciary Committee.
Charlie Sykes has found and documented the reaction all over the internet to this ridiculous editorial.
So, for future reference, when naming the members of the USSC, please use the following list: CJ John Roberts, Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter,
Stephen Breyer, *, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, (Samuel Alito).
If you think that the New York Times, the newspaper "of record," isn't biased, then read this column exposing the truth. Even if you know that the Times is biased, read it anyway, then memorize this example for your next coctail party.