Friday, October 25, 2002
I really hope the sprit of Flight 93 overtakes the 700 hostages when the moment of truth arrives in a few hours.
Just saw an ad for MSNBC on the Fox News Channel...
Also, during the ad, they call Michael Moore "unpredicable". Huh? He is probably the most predictable person out there: It's the evil corporations who control "President" Bush who are the cause of (insert negative issue of the day here).
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
JUST WHEN I THINK IM OUT, THEY DRAG ME BACK IN!
Congratulations to Rich Haley, who just moved off of blogspot and onto Movable Type. It is definately a step up and a tribute to the effort he has put in - and it is always good to see someone be fulfilled by their writing. I am not planning a similar move because I do not know how much longer I will be able to do this. I would like to stay on and talk about my upcomming military training, but if I end up where I hope, intelligence, I may have to sign off. Stay tuned!
DC SNIPER KILLINGS
There is a guy on Cavuto who is wearing a bullet-proof vest. Should I trust his expertise when he says that the types of bullets the sniper is using travel at 2700 square feet per second?
BTW, I do not agree with calling this killer a sniper. If he were firing from 1000 yards, yes, but without having to calculate for gravity and wind, anyone can pick up a scoped rifle and pop out a kill shot at 50 yards.
Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs is getting a bad rap at MSNBC's Weblog Central due to a smear campaign being led by a blogger named Anil Dash (I choose not to link to him here). I sent a letter to voice my displeasure of his great site being labeled as racist and promoting hate. Just another example of people shouting "racism" and pulling their heads back into their shell when they cannot stand reality any longer. Ignoring the obvious is deadly, and the sooner these people realize that they are only useful idiots for the islamist agenda, the less chance they will be victims when their time comes.
I am honored to be listed on Charles' list of Anti-Idiotarians and thank and welcome you if that is how you arrived here.
NOTE: The updated Weblog Central may remove the "Is this news or hate?" but its other wording makes it known that the author still chooses to walk a tightrobe being held up by hate-mongers such as Anil, lest he be called a racist himself. If he ever took the time to go to Charles' site and maybe read a little, it is obvious that it is only a hate site in that it brings to light the hate that spews forth from Islamists toward the Western world. Which brings to the front a good question: How can the editor of Weblog Central recommend blogs he doesn't read?
I was as outraged as many about VH1's decision to air their program "Music Behind Bars" which featured a band whose guitarist murdered 2 girls in Pennsylvania. Normally, I do not do such things, but I sent an email to voice my displeasure. I would consider myself a libertarian, but freedom of speech does not include the right to an audience and the right to escape criticism of that which you choose to say.
I'm afraid that I deleted their response, but it was what one would expected: "We thank you for writing to express your concern...", "We feel it is important to air controvertial views..." blah blah. Not once did they address concerns that I, or many others, wrote. Basically the letter was a "we're going to do as we want because we know you sheep will soon forget your outrage".
To address that: sorry, but this sheep has good long-term memory. But even worse was the way they handled the response. In the CC: field of their email, were about 2000 other addresses. My main email starts with a "g" and the CC: field contained every "g****" that emailed them. Talk about irresponsible! But then the fun began:
"Please remove me from this list" ...cc'd to the entire list.
"Me too" ...cc'd to the entire list
"If you want to stop receiving emails, just stop responding!" ...cc'd to the entire list
You get the idea. Then there were some that intentionally used the list to help advertise websites advocating boycotts of VH1 and other crap. In the end, I had to set up a filter to weed out any email that contains in the To: or CC: field the address of the person immediately after me in the list. I feel bad for the poor souls who do not understand the difference between "Reply" and "Reply all", "CC" and "BCC" - they certainly will not be able to figure out a way to filter.
GARY TRUDEAU, A LITTLER AND LITTLER MAN EVERY DAY
Gary Trudeau is threatened by bloggers? Apparently so. He has recently been letting his feelings be known about bloggers: he doesn't like them. He views them as unworthy upstarts trying to wedge their way into a niche that he has worked hard for 30 years to secure: political commentary with a pithy wit. Him! A 30-year professional commentator! Why would he be threatened by the blogosphere? I don't know, but the viciousness of his strip for the past few days demonstrates that he is...
In the 2nd panel of today's strip, for example, Trudeau makes his view all but obvious. The Trudeau character, who is obviously the intellectually superior, makes fun of his friend the blogger, who is unaware of the teasing (you see, Trudeau is smarter than the clueless blogger!), says the following:
I mean, you must feel like a god, hurling your thunderbolts across cyberspace, answerable to no one!
Do I sense a little Freudian slip there, Gary? I mean, substitute "printing presses" for "cyberspace" in that line and you could be speaking about yourself. As far as "answerable to noone", I refer you to the fact that most blogs have a comment section. For those that do not, all but the Unablogger, as far as I know, have a contact email address, and most of those will publish letters that disagree with them, even admit when they are wrong if the letter shows them to be. So tell me, Gary, if I send a letter to you through doonesbury.com, will you publish it? Address my concerns? Will you even see it? Or will a staffer scan it and then put it in the trash? Ever run an apology about a strip when it turns out you made a mistake?
PS: Tell Ted Rall that all us self-absorbed, ignorant, irrelavent bloggers say "Hi".
Saturday, October 19, 2002
A car bomb exploded next to a McDonald's in Moscow. I guess I know where I will be eating today.
Friday, October 18, 2002
POT. KETTLE. BLACK.
Terrel Owens accuses NFL officials for being racist in fining him for wearing his shirt untucked. Yet, in the article he seems to be the one going under the racial limbo stick:
"We're (African-Americans) more expressive than the white guys," Owen said. "You look at the skilled players. We're the ones that get into the end zone. We get in the end zone more than they do."
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
Inspired by my post at lgf.
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
WE HAVE BEEN SORELY MISGUIDED
LOOK! OVER HERE!!! An Arab who isnt a terrorist!!! He did something heroic! You have to admit now that not all Arabs are terrorists!!
G-D, when will people writing these stories realize that NOBODY SAID ALL ARABS/MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS. Now, write that on the chalkboard 500 times and maybe it will start to sink in. Then again, probably not. Judging by his name, the author seems to be French. He lets his bias slip out when he describes France's independance day as the day that Americans insist upon calling Bastille Day.
The story itself is a great tribute to a man who did a truly heroic act:
He took his two children, aged 15 and 13 to see the traditional military parade on the Champs Elysées, when a gunman tried to assassinate the French president. As the gunman -- a Frenchman, and a member of an extreme right-wing group -- pulled a rifle out of a guitar case and took aim, Chelali, who was standing only feet away, instantly jumped him. He struggled with the gunman, trying to grab the rifle away. Unable to loosen the man's grip on the rifle, Chelali instead removed the magazine from the weapon, forcing the would-be killer to miss his mark.
But the author has to use this as a reason to bash America and Bush:
Chelali hopes that his actions will help project a more positive image of Arabs around the world. Asked if he had a message for President George W. Bush, what would it be?
"I would tell Mr. Bush that Arabs are not terrorists. We have good people and we have bad people, like everyone else."
Arabs do not have a negative image in America. Terrorists do. We are not stupid. We understand that not all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists, but you what? All the terrorists who are trying to kill us are either Arab or Muslim. So Monsieur Salhani, take your "I told you so" and stick it. Your article absolutely reeks of simplisme.
JUST IN FROM THE 'HUH?' DEPT.
This article from the Knoxville News-Sentinel highlights a local psychiatrist's opinion that the beltway shooter is probably a team of terrorists, at least 2 and possibly different people on different occasions. However, something that caught my eye was this:
Smith also speculated that the investigating police agencies aren't publicly commenting on the possibility that terrorists are behind the shootings because they don't want to hurt the public's morale.
"They're not giving us much information," she said. "They don't want to tell us that because they don't want people to panic ."
So they feel that if it is terrorism, we will all panic, but if it is just a few nutbag kids playing real-life Doom, we will feel safer pumping our gas. Not likely. People are being slaughtered. It doesn't matter who the perpetrators are, morale is going to suck until they are caught. The only reason why they would play down terrorism is that they do not trust the public to not go out and start lynching Arabs. After all, the general public has a long track record of mindless violence against Arabs and Muslims after terrorist attacks, dont we? Please. Give us a little credit.
The political correctness that drives the media is dangerously entrenched and needs to be rooted out. They are literally willing to risk the lives of innocent people before doing anything that someone, somewhere could possibly label them as being "insensitive".
Sunday, October 13, 2002
As well as statements along the lines of "if you feel war is so justified, why arent you there fighting?", Ive been seeing alot of the follwing one as well:
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
Anyone that says this is full of BS. If they really believed that, they would have been at their local military recruiters long before now. After all, the Afghans did not have the right to say anything bad about the Taliban, so where were these people to "defend to the death" an Afghan's right of free speech. Now how about Iraq? Iraqis cannot publicly criticize Hussein so these holier-than-thou types that like this rhetorical device should be at the front of the line wanting to "defend to the death" an Iraqi's right to say he doesn't like their government.
Of course, they are not there because they do not believe that Afghans and Iraqis should have the freedom of speech. To them, Afghans and Iraqis are not educated enough to understand the responsibilities of this right and they might not make the right decisions about issues such as guns, education, abortion, etc. They do not want you or me to have freedom of speech either. Why? Because they are better than us and know what is best. Otherwise, they would celebrating what we recently did for the Afghan people, and looking forward to doing the same in Iraq.
I am sick to my stomache with the news of the bombings in Bali. My stomache is actually chruning because so many people who are critically injured are probably severely burned and will not make it. There is nothing doctors can do but administer drugs to make their long agonizing deaths somewhat more numb. Im sure the anger will come soon.
What has me enraged this morning is that there are some in Australia who are already blaming their Prime Minister for the attack because he has openly supported the US and the war against terrorism. Yep. Blame the victim. She was dressing too provocatively. She was jogging in Central Park at 5am - what did she expect to happen? These same people would never think of blaming the victim in a rape case, so why now?
The appeasers of the world need to wake up and realize that if they dont get their heads out of the sand, they're going to get shot in the ass.
Saturday, October 05, 2002
I'm 30 years old. Why the hell am I enlisting in the Army?
Believe me, this is a question I've asked myself many times before actually signing up and taking the oath a few weeks ago (Sept 12, 2002). Basically, it all comes down to what I saw with my own eyes last Sept 11, and what I think I can contribute to the cause of making this country safer for the people I love.
I took a long time thinking about what I wanted to do. Last winter, I sent in job applications to the CIA, NSA, FBI, and DIA. None of them offered me a position. It was readily apparent that some experience was necessary as they were being flooded with applications. The military seemed the best way of getting that experience. After figuring things out, I decided to take the language diagnostic test and found out I was very well suited for learning foreign languages (I knew this already as I am already fluent in French, and started picking up German very quickly after), but I needed the test to get the goverment to give me a chance. I am not guaranteed to get a specific language, but with my score on the test, I should get my first choice. After I start language school, I will determine which specific job I will persue.
I ran across an "argument" on Vodkapundit which basically said: "If you believe in war so much, why dont you go and join up to fight yourself?" The guy made the argument basically assuming that noone reading would have done such a thing. This "your a hypocrite" argument pisses me off to no end - and not just because I actually *did* enlist. Some people serve the country better by staying at home and doing those things at which they are best suited. War is a depressing thing. Entertainers should stay home and entertain people, hopefully boosting morale. Engineers whose skills do not translate directly into a useful military manner are better off staying home and helping improve technology on the homefront.
Some people may actually contribute more to the fight by not picking up a rifle, but by doing something at which they are better suited.
If you ever hear the "chickenblogger" arguement, point them to me. If you ever hear the "hypocrite" argument, tell them they need to analyze their position and come up with some real points to their stand.