My arrogant opinions about politics, culture, science fiction, and whatever else I feel like talking about.

Stuck On Stupid

        In case you missed the memo, John Kerry is seeking the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, and the MSM are on his side.  Towards the end of promoting his upcoming candidacy, the New York Times published a story about how Kerry is supposedly defending himself against the charges the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth made during the 2004 campaign.   But Kerry and his flacks in the MSM still don't get the point.  It isn't enough to claim that your accusers are liars.  You actually have to repond to the substance of their accusations.  It would appear that Kerry still isn't doing this.

        For instance, the story starts out with Kerry showing the Times an entry in what is alleged to be his boat commander's log from Vietnam: "Feb 12: 0800 run to Cambodia."

        Well, Johnny, that's a start, but the issue wasn't whether you went to the border with Cambodia, the issue was whether it was physically possible for your boat to cross the border into Cambodian waters, and whether you actually did enter Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, and whether you did so on a secret mission ordered by your superiors.  Would Sen. Kerry and the Times care to show us the evidence that Kerry's boat actually was in Cambodia on Dec. 24th, 1968?

        No, they wouldn't.  The closest we get is a sidebar paragraph, and this sentence near the end of the article:

        But Mr. Kerry's researcher, using Vietnam-era military maps and spot reports from the naval archives showing coordinates for his boat, traced his path from Ha Tien toward Cambodia on a mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals.

        The sidebar paragraph is in a graphic of Kerry's "new evidence," and what it says on this issue is that the Swifties accused Kerry of never getting closer to Cambodia than Sa Dec, 55 miles from the Cambodian border.  (No source for the Swifties supposed accusation is given, and no mention is made of John Kerry's 1986 speech on the floor of the Senate, where he said his recollection of being inside Cambodia was "seared — seared — in" his memory.  The graphic then says that "coordinates" (not given) show that Kerry's swift boat was "closer to Cambodia than Sa Dec."  Supposedly, the coordinates (which we peasants aren't allowed to view) show . . . ("Wait for it") . . . Kerry's swift boat in Vietnamese waters on Christmas Eve of '68, only 35 miles away from the Cambodian border!  Not only that, but records for February of 1969 show Kerry's boat "along" the Cambodian border, although apparently the coordinates, not given, still show the boat in Vietnam.  We're also told that Kerry has pictures of his swift boat in Vietnamese waters, of a SEAL boat Kerry was supposedly ferrying in Feb. '69, and that Kerry showed the reporter his famous hat the SEALs allegedly gave him.  Of evidence Kerry took his swift boat into Cambodia, either on Christmas Eve of 1968 or any other time, we get none.  (UPDATE: The reason a source isn't given for the Swift Vets accusation is because it stems back to the adoring biography by David Brinkley, who placed Kerry at Sa Dec that Christmas Eve because that's what Kerry's contemporary diary showed.)

        If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't have believed it.  In fact, Kerry's "new evidence" is so lame, the Swifities could use it against him.  I can see the ad now:

        "On March 27, 1986, John Kerry gave a speach to the Senate, in which he said:

        I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia.  I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.  I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.

        But we have proof, from official Navy records produced by John Kerry himself, that he was still in Vietnam and 35 miles from Cambodia that night.

        How do YOU spell 'liar?'  We spell it 'K-E-R-R-Y.'

        Update: By the way, the claim about Kerry being at Sa Dec apparently came from his own contemporary diary, which mentioned "visions of sugarplums" dancing through his head.  And the famous hat, supposedly given to him by SEALs in the latest story, was originally supposed to have been from "a CIA guy."  You'd think John Boy could keep his own story straight, but it appears not.  (Hat tip on these two points, Instapundit (follow the "background" links)).

        Now, I realize that members of the MSM frequently seem like they were lobotomized as a condition of employment, but this is a bit much, even for the The New York Times (motto: "All the news that advances our political agenda.")  It reads like a Saturday Night Live parody, or one of the more exaggerated passages of Atlas Shrugged.  Does the Times really take this stuff seriously?  Does it really think that no one will go check out the original controversy?  Frankly, I'm boggled.  I don't know whether to believe:

a) The New York Times is run by idiots.

b) The New York Times is run by cynics who think their readers are idiots.

c) Both of the above.

        The rest of the "new evidence" is equally lame.  To refute the claim that Kerry's arm was never "wounded or bleeding" on March 13th of 1969, they show a photograph allegedly taken four days later, showing what appears to be a bandage on his arm.  This doesn't address the real issue: that Kerry wounded himself, accidently, with a grenade early on March 13th; that later, he slipped and bruised his arm when the boat lurched; that he conflated the grenade wound and the bruise to get himself a Purple Heart.  Concerning the incident for which he was awarded the Silver Star, the Times distorts what the Swifties said, then mocks the distortion.  (The Swifties pointed out that Kerry's claims about the incident seemed to vary in different accounts, that the award citation seemed to conflate two different incidents on the same day to make Kerry look braver than he was, and that Kerry shot a wounded, fleeing opponent.  None of the "new evidence" even bears on these issues.)  And concerning the claim that Kerry wrote the official reports that supposedly show him justified in receiving medals, the Times says that Kerry's says that his researcher says that the reports were written by a "Lieutenant Gibson."  Just which reports on what incidents is not specified, the reports are not reproduced, and we don't have any information on whom "Lieutenant Gibson" might be, or statements from Gibson that he wrote the reports, or how he got the information in them.

        In short, it all comes down to 'Hey, my initials are JFK too!' Kerry saying 'Trust me.'  This didn't work in 2004, but for some reason we're supposed to believe it will work now.  Stuck on Stupid.

        There's also the claim that:

        His supporters are compiling a dossier that they say will expose every one of the Swift boat group's charges as a lie and put to rest any question about Mr. Kerry's valor in combat.

        Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is absence of evidence.  A claim that something will eventually be presented proving Kerry told the truth, and the Swift Vets lied just doesn't cut it — especially with the irrelevance of what Kerry and the Times did offer.

        The student of press bias will note some glaring favoritism in the story.  Kerry supporters are said to be the "only" people who have gathered new evidence to support his claims (of course, if the Swifties were looking for 'new evidence' to support their claims, it would be used against them; the charge would be that they made claims they couldn't support when they originally made them).  Kerry is given lots of space to present his side.  A pro-Kerry group is mentioned, the "Patriot Project," although it has nothing to do with the questions at issue.  "Naval records and accounts from other sailors" supposedly "contradicted almost every claim" the Swifties made, but no examination of the evidence is presented.  O'Neill and the Swifies are linked to "Republican donors and consultants," and to Richard Nixon in 1971, without any mention of Kerry's links to the anti-war Democrats of the times, or any comments on Kerry's 2004 supporters politics.  A guy who supposedly was a Swifite, Steve Hayes, is presented accusing the Swifties of lying, but without the bother of evidence to suppport this charge.  We're told that Kerry has signed forms releasing his military records, "something he resisted during the campaign," without mentioning that they still aren't available to the public, just reporters Kerry had prior agreements with on how they would be handled.

        Above all, Kerry's statements, and his supporters' statements, are presented baldly, without question, even in the face of blatant contradiction.  The Times alternately states that "Mr. Kerry has fully engaged in the fight" to clear his name, and gave them a two-hour interview, while noting that Kerry also said:

        . . . that he does not want to dwell on the accusations or the mistakes of his 2004 campaign.  "I'm moving on," he says several times.

        An honest journalist would have called him on that, then and there: 'What do you mean, you're "moving on?"  Why are we having this interview?  Why are you showing me this stuff that supposedly proves you were telling the truth?  If you were really "moving on," I wouldn't be here.  That's a flat-out lie.'  But honest reporters no longer work for the Times.

        While handling Kerry and his partisans with kid gloves, and determinedly avoiding the tough questions, O'Neill and the Swifities are called liars.  In the typical, dishonest journalistic fig leaf, the claims are in the form of Kerry quotes, but the other side has little opportunity to respond, or defend their honor.  Editing as lying continues unabated.  O'Neill gets three sentences, none of which go to the accusations of dishonesty against him and his group.  William Schachte gets two sentences, repeating his claim that he was in the boat the Dec. '68 night Kerry got his arm scratched, for which he was awarded a Purple Heart.  The reasons why this might be important aren't mentioned, although the story itself says most people have probably forgotten them.  The Times also conveniently fails to mention that then Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, Schachte's and Kerry's commanding officer in December of 1968, "has consistently confirmed Schachte's account of the mission," according to a story this month in the Charleston Post and Courier — a story the Times mentions, without telling you the paper's name, or the story's date, or giving any link to the online version.  (The Times does provide links to its recent coverage of Kerry and Rep. John Murtha, though.)

        Kerry's critics are judged as seeming "unwilling to cede much."  Why should they cede anything, when, as the story notes, they haven't seen any of this alleged new evidence?  But then, we haven't really seen any new evidence either, and neither, it would appear, has the Times.

        I won't continue.  Tom Maguire has lots more here, noting several other contradictions in Kerry's story then, and the Times's story now.  Read it all.

        Once, The New York Times was accounted a great national institution, an example to other newspapers of how journalism was done.  A real newspaper, doing a story on this subject, would have addressed such questions.  Today, we can't even be sure the Times even knows what the questions are.  The Times has sold its soul for the hope of a Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential election.  Disgusting, but also sad.

        Further Update: For even more mockery of Kerry, see Ed Driscoll's links.

        Technorati tags: 2008 Presidential Campaign, bias, John Forbes Kerry, MSM, New York Times, John O'Neill, William Schachte , Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

Posted by: saintonge at 04:26 | link | comments (1)
politics, weirdness, msm, bias, inaccuracy, incompetence, illogic, stupidity springs eternal, incomprehension

Weird Amusement Time

        There's been a spike in Sexually Transmitted Diseases in retirement homes.  (Hat tip: Instapundit).

        Technorati tags: .

Posted by: saintonge at 22:31 | link | comments

Guys at Work

        Doing guy stuff and getting encouraging results.  (Hat tip: The World's Greatest Reporter® and my Close Personal Friend™).

        Technorati tag: medical progress.

Posted by: saintonge at 09:55 | link | comments
the worlds greatest reporter and, medical science

A Very Interesting Thought

        From an interview with Bruce Bawer at Frontpage magazine.

        The most successful immigrant group in the history of the world is American Jews.  Why?  Because they integrated enthusiastically into the mainstream of American society.  They rejected the ghetto and embraced American pluralism. In Europe, this same eagerness to belong, to contribute, and to thrive – and not remain segregated and ghettoized – led to the Jews’ near-extermination.  It seems to me that part of the reason why anti-Semitism is so widespread in Europe while Islam is often treated with kid gloves is that the European elite has a reflexive contempt for a group that blends in and a reflexive respect for a group that holds itself proudly apart and resists assimilation.  That’s a formula for disaster.

        I don't think that Europeans feel respect for Muslims because they're remain aloof.  I think they feel relief, because they won't have to deal with dirty members of the lower classes.  So far as I can see, Europe has never gotten over aristocracy, and myths about 'blood.'  The Jews were hated for not 'knowing their place,' and sticking to it.  Besides, there was the nagging thought that the Jews really were superior.

        Still, a very good interview, read it all.

        Technorati tags: Jew Hatred, Bruce Bawer, Frontpage Magazine.

                 

Posted by: saintonge at 09:19 | link | comments

Make Up Your Minds, Already

        Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have Newsmax column (originally here) on Hillary's chance to be President?  The idea of President Hillary seems to leave them ambivalent:

        The former first lady's unique brand of transparently phony moderation, heartfelt inner socialism, Nixonian disregard for the norms of civilized politics and governance, and her well-documented tin ear on ethical issues make her the most dangerous aspirant for president since George Wallace (and he never had a chance of winning).

        C'mon, guys, make up your minds what you think of her.

        What I think is, I'll vote for Hill before I'll vote for McCain.

        Technorati tags: 2008 Presidential Campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Eileen McGann, Dick Morris.

Posted by: saintonge at 03:37 | link | comments

Ralph Peters Grades the War on Terror

        His latest column is here, (original source The New York Post) and it's as insightful as I've come to expect from him.  The grades:

        Our global report card right now?  A for effort.  B for results.  C for consistency.  D for media integrity.  And F for domestic political responsibility.

        Read it all.

        Technorati tags: Afghanistan, Iraq, MSM, Pakistan, Ralph Peters, al-Qaida, Taliban, terrorism.

Posted by: saintonge at 01:14 | link | comments

Oh, Good Shot Sir!

        Vodkapundit on New Orleans:

        (Just an aside here.)

        (We've all read and heard innumerable complaints about how long it took the Guard to get in and start cleaning up.  Let's set aside the physical realities of mobilizing troops or traveling on shattered highways, and just assume for the moment, that oh, say 24 hours before Katrina had hit, George W. Bush had issued the following statement:)

        ("My fellow Americans, a category-five hurricane is bearing down on New Orleans.  Because of the high likelyhood of looting and violence, and because the local authorities are not competent enough to conduct an evacuation or to adequately shelter those who cannot evacuate, I am sending in the National Guard immediately to preserve order and public safety.")

        (Can you even imagine what the reaction to that statement would have been?  But I digress.)

        Technorati tags: New Orleans, VodkaPundit.

Posted by: saintonge at 14:09 | link | comments

Rich Galen on Bicyclists

        From here: "If the regular police will not make them obey traffic laws, perhaps we should employ the fashion police to demand that they not be permitted to wear a spandex outfit which was designed for Lance Armstrong around a body which was designed for Ethel Merman."

Posted by: saintonge at 13:36 | link | comments
satire

Another Reason to Refrain From Using Google

        Google News, according to has apparently decided toNoel Sheppard and James Joyner, has decided it won't news-link sites that have the wrong attitude towards the Jihadi movement.

        Can this be the company that helps the Chinese Secret Police surpress dissent?

        Technorati tags: Google, Islam, terrorism.

Posted by: saintonge at 13:34 | link | comments
terrorism, hypocrisy, war with jihadism

Poor Babies!

        The Washington Post had an in-print snit fit, to which Curiouser & Curiouser responds with appropriately acid commentary.  The Post can hardly contain its dismay at the thought that the Iraqis might get the hang of the "democracy" thing.  ( Hat tip: Glenn ).

        Technorati tags: Iraq, The Washington Post.

Posted by: saintonge at 13:08 | link | comments
politics, msm, annoyance

Why DOES _The Da Vinci Code_ Drive Them So Crazy?

        SPOILER WARNING!  IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN OR READ _THE DA VINCE CODE_, AND YOU INTEND TO, YOU DON'T WANT TO PURSUE THIS POST.

        But if you have seen or read it, or you know you don't care if you find out the surprises, then click here for my effable wisdom about the current idiotic "controversy."

        Technorati tags: The Da Vinci Code.

Posted by: saintonge at 12:25 | link | comments

Things I'll Never Understand: Politicians' Choices

        Mexican Presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador says illegal immigration is “Mexico's disgrace,” caused by the government's failure to create enough jobs.

        OK, so Lopez Obrador will adopt the policies that led to economic growth in the U.S., right?  Wrong.  If elected, he'll put policies into practice that have never worked anywhere.

        Sometimes, I think the entire species is insane.

        Technorati tags:

Posted by: saintonge at 10:29 | link | comments
mexico, illegal immigration

Stupidity of the Day, II: Friday, May 19th, 2006

        Senate Minority Leader Reid insulted most of the nation's voters on Thursday.   For a bonus, he showed he still doesn't know what NEXIS is, and what it means for politicians.

        Technorati tags: Harry Reid.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:45 | link | comments
stupidity springs eternal

Stupidity of the Day, I: Friday, May 19th, 2006

        Over at TCS Daily, James Pinkerton wonders why Hollywood made a movie of The DaVinci Code?

        <sarcasm>I'm puzzled too.  Gee, the book only sold 40 million copies at $15 a pop and up, and is only still an Amazon Bestseller, three years after publication.  Doesn't sound like much commercial potential there.</sarcasm>

        The proof of course is in the box office.  Up against such current and potential big films as Mission: Impossible III, Over the Hedge, RV, and X-Men: The Last Stand, the preliminary report on The Da Vinci Code is #1, beating studio's expectations, near record box office in Catholic countries, audiencies like it a lot.

        Hollyweird does some stupid things, but it doesn't always get it wrong.  As the world's foremost movie critic puts it, "I'm surprised I have to point this out."

        Technorati tags: the world's foremost movie critic, box office gross, Da Vinci Code, Hollyweird, James Pinkerton, TCS Daily.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:37 | link | comments
movies, sarcasm, stupidity springs eternal, worlds foremost movie critic

Just in Case You Missed It

        The Senate is lying to us again:

        Bill backers on Tuesday defeated two amendments that would have gutted the Senate bill.  In votes that crossed party lines, the Senate rejected 55-40 a requirement that the border be secured before other immigration changes are made.  They also voted 69-28 to scuttle a Democratic amendment to exclude foreigners and recent illegal immigrants from a new guest-worker program.

        In plain English: 'Illegal immigration today, illegal immigration tomorrow, illegal immigration forever!'

        And Norm Coleman was one of the ones who voted against it.  Crap, that means I'll probably have to vote Democratic this November.

        Technorati tags: Norm Coleman, illegal immigration, U.S. Senate.

Posted by: saintonge at 06:28 | link | comments (1)

Truly Weird Coincidence Department

        United 93, which features extensive jerky camera work, has made only $25 million worldwide, and is not yet in the black.

        Mission Impossible III, which features extensive jerky camera work, has made only $219 million worldwide, and is not yet in the black.

        You'd almost think that, instead of it just being me, large numbers of people didn't like jerky camera work, were made physically ill by it, and avoided movies featuring it.

        <sarcasm>Nah!  We all know that Hollywood never allows the director's artistic pretensions to override box-office considerations.</sarcasm>

        Technorati tags: movies, United 93.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:34 | link | comments (2)

JPod Misses the Point

        In a post at the corner, he writes:

        The immigration debate is a very heated and passionate one, and the heat and passion on the part of those on the restrictionist side have been useful tools for pushing the conversation in your direction.  But there's a difference between heated disagreement and the insistence on lock-step uniformity.  Suddenly, immigration restriction has become one of those issues about which one is not permitted to disagree, because to disagree is to join with the forces of Evil.

        You can probably find people who think that way, but most of us are just fed up with being lied to.  We get told how immigration laws need to be enforced, how assimilation needs to be pushed, how the border needs to be secured, how we should only let in people when it's advantageous to the U.S. as a nation, and doesn't harm those already here, how amnesty for law breakers would be a bad thing, how illegal immigration has to be discouraged — and then we get proposals whose effects, predictably, are the exact opposite opposite of that.

        If you believe that the entire population of the earth should be allowed to move into the U.S. tomorrow if the can scrape up air fare, be a man and say so.  If you believe that there is a small class of people who should be excluded, but the vase majority should be allowed to settle freely in the U.S. at will, say so — and explain your plan for identifying and keeping out the undesirables.  But stop with the B.S. about "immigration reform," in which we're assured that will secure the border and enforce the law REAL SOON NOW, but first, we have to do something else.  There is no logical or moral requirement to do anything before securing the borders.

        And stop pretending you intend to "reform immigration," enforce the law, and secure the border at the same time.  If you really intended that, then the bills to "reform immigration" wouldn't go into effect until every dollar needed to secure the border and enforce the laws had been appropriated, till every pre-requisite for securing the border and enforcing the laws was taken care of ('You want to build fences here?  Where's your enviornmental impact statement, complete list of construction permits, and order from the Supremes permanently enjoing any local court from interfering with border security and law enforcement?' Because without that, there will be suits in court to stop the border/security and enforcement provisions, and there will be injunctions freezing the security/enforcement programs).  If you were serious about securing the border, enforcing the laws, and "reforming immigration" simultaneously, then you'd pass laws that automatically repealed the "immigration reform," and threw out anyone admitted under it, if the border wasn't secured and the laws weren't enforced.

        For decades, majorities in the neighborhood of two-thirds of the public have wanted illegal immigration cracked down on, legal immigration controlled, laws against hiring illegals enforced, the expulsion of anyone arrested who's here illegally, and similar measures.  For decades, the we've told it will happen any day now.  And for decades, the people who claim this have made certain it doesn't happen.  I'm fed up with this transparent con job, and so are a lot of others.  Your disagreement with us on immigration doesn't make you evil.  But your lying about what you propose, and your determination to make sure that the people of this country can't have the immigration policy they want that is evil that is evil.

        It's our country, and we the people have the right to pass effective laws that determine who gets in, and who stays out.  And we retain that right even if you disagree with us.

        It may be, Mr. Podhoretz, that I wrong you.  You may be quite sincere.  But after all the lies from others we've experienced, I would like an earnest of good faith.  So, please tell us exactly what you want the government to DO about immigration.  Tell us exactly what goals these actions are supposed to achieve.  Tell us what measurements we make to determine if the goals are being accomplished.  Let us know what happens automatically if said goals are not accomplished.  Tell us exactly what is to be done with those already here legally, laying out clear rules that determine in every case how the illegal is to be treated.

        ABOVE ALL ELSE, tell us what you'd do about the border, and when.  Tell us what you wouldn't do.  Tell us what your goal for the border is, and to measue it's attainment, or lack of same.  And tell us what happens if the goal isn't met.

        Because so far, all I've seen from you is empty rhetoric, with no straight forward answers to a single question.

        Technorati tags: illegal immigration, lies, National Review Online, John Podhoretz.

         

Posted by: saintonge at 17:38 | link | comments

How Much is Jew Hatred, How Much is Imbecility?

        There are times when I get particularly annoyed, and this is one.  The Washington Post has published an opinion piece that is particularly moronic and stomach-turning, even for one accustomed to the fatuousness of liberalism.

        Robert Malley, of the Clinton Administration, and Aaron David Miller, formerly of the State Department, opine:

        The formation of new governments in Palestine and Israel has produced the oddest of marriages -- one between mortal enemies who are also dependent on one another and who have more in common these days than either would care to admit.

        And how are the two governments "dependent on one another?"  Well, Israel's government would have allegedly fail in it's efforts to withdraw from most of the West Bank if Hamas continually attacks it, and Hamas will have trouble surviving if Israel doesn't help it.

        But that's just the warm-up.  Let's get to some real stupidity:

       

        Hamas, which heads the Palestinian Authority, is sworn to Israel's destruction, its charter replete with anti-Semitism, its outlook tethered to the use of violence.  For this Israeli government — or any other, for that matter — the Islamist movement represents an existential threat, the Palestinian Authority has become the equivalent of a terrorist entity and the ultimate goal remains Hamas's demise.

        The mind boggles, then vomits.  Hamas has said it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and has thus "become the equivalent" of a terrorist organization.  What Hamas has done goes unmentioned.  After all, the people Hamas has murdered are only Jews, and their lives are unimportant.  The only important people in the mid-East are the Palestinians, whose wishes must be accommodated:

        Hamas's priority today is to ensure that its government survives, which means ensuring that it delivers.  It needs the space and time to restore law and order, curb corruption, meet basic economic needs and devise some way of paying its civil servants when most of the world balks at funding its budget.

        It is our moral obligation to face certain realities:

        First, Hamas will not accept the three conditions put forward by the international community (recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence, acceptance of past agreements), certainly not now and certainly not under threat.

        Yes, it would be utterly WRONG to expect Hamas to acknowledge the Jews right to live in Israel.  But Israel must acknowledge Hamas's right to exist, and the Palestinian's right to a state, now, and under threat.  Jews, after all, have no rights that Muslims need respect.

        Second, U.S. efforts to starve the Palestinian government of funds may be a principled position, but they are certainly not a workable policy.  The result would be humanitarian catastrophe, political chaos and domestic mayhem among Palestinians — as well as resumption of full-scale violence.

        No, no, we mustn't let Palestinians suffer.  Humanitarian disaster is something for Jews to experience.  Hamas must be allowed breathing room to strengthen itself, at the expense of European and U.S. taxpayers, till the time to once again attempt the murder of the entire population of Israel is right.  And if they fail, the war must end before they're hurt too badly.  The Jews must allow their enemies endless chances to exterminate them.

        I'd continue dissecting this disgusting filth, but my blood-pressure won't stand it.  But at times like this, I sincerely regret not being a subscriber to the Post.  It would give me great pleasure to cancel them.

        As it is, I'll just have to make do with saying that the Washington Post is run by Nazi swine, and wish them all lingering, painful deaths.

        Technorati tags: Hamas, Israel, Jew hatred, Nazis,terrorism, War with Jihadism, The Washington Post.

Posted by: saintonge at 08:54 | link | comments

Tuesday, 16 May 2006

Ouch!

Posted by: saintonge at 09:34 | link | comments

Great Minds Sarcasm Alike

        Stuart Buck, Patrick Frey, and Mark Steyn reflect on the data the government keeps on us without anyone worrying.

     

        Technorati tags: Stuart Buck, Patrick Frey, NSA intercepts, privacy, Mark Steyn.

Posted by: saintonge at 07:57 | link | comments
sarcasm, hypocrisy, government policy, war with jihadism

Another Reason I Won't Vote For John McCain

        Here.

     

        Technorati tags: 2008 Presidential Campaign, Senator John McCain.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:56 | link | comments
politics, idiots, blowhards

Lots More on Immigration

        At the latest Kausfiles.

        Technorati tags: border control, President Bush, Bush Administration, illegal immigration, Mickey Kaus, Kausfiles.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:48 | link | comments

Mania

        Hugh Hewitt has embraced a belief magic impenetrable barriers which will end all illegal immigration forever.  This led to a pathetic cross-purpose conversation after the immigration speach with Julie Meyers, assistant secretary for immigration and customs enforcement.

        Hugh, let me tell you something you apparently don't want to hear: I'm getting old, I'm out of shape, I'm overweight, and I guarantee you, if you build a fence along the border and WALK AWAY FROM IT, LEAVING IT UNGUARDED, I WILL BE ABLE TO PENETRATE IT.  I'll wager any sum of money on that which you please.

        Fences only slow people down.  If you want to keep them out, you need to back things up with armed guards.  And given the length of our border, that's impossibly expensive unless you use high-tech surveillance.

        And, with enough surveillance and fast-moving border patrolmen, a physical barrier becomes unimportant.  People crossing the border illegally get picked up before they get anywhere.

        Let's beat the dead horse a little more: Yes, there places and situations where a physical barrier is absolutely necessary.  There are even rare situations where a physical barrier can be made so tough, you don't need to observe it, because any breach will be obvious.  But in the vast majority of cases, surveillance and armed patrols will be necessary.  In many cases, they will be sufficient.

        Fantasizing about impenetrable border fences as the answer to our problems is right on the edge of insanity.  And I'm not sure which side of that edge its on.

        Technorati tags: border control, health care, illegal immigration, Julie Meyers.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:25 | link | comments
illegal immigration, bush administration, illogic, border security

Strange Coincidence

        Gee, after the tax cuts, the economy got better.

        It must be completely unconnected of course.  The idea that the Administration's economic policies worked is unthinkable.

        And in another weird coincidence, tax revenue is up sharply.  What could be causing all this?

        Technorati tags: Bush Administration, President Bush, economic growth, tax rates, tax revenue.

Posted by: saintonge at 04:41 | link | comments

SOME Sense From Republicans

        Some realize that we need to secure the borders first, some don't.  Statements from the Republican Congresscritters tagged below are here.

        Technorati tags: Gresham Barrett, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, President Bush, Larry Craig, Jeff Flake, Bill Frist, Representative Steve King, Jack Kingston, Patrick McHenry, Mike Pence, Deborah Pryce, Representative Joe Wilson.

Posted by: saintonge at 03:18 | link | comments
illegal immigration, bush administration, george w bush, border security

Sense on the

        John Derbyshire writes:

        Temporary Worker [John Derbyshire]

        I'm baffled as to why anyone would want to hire these temporary workers.
        The entire point of illegal immigrant labor is that it's cheap *B*E*C*A*U*S*E***I*T*S***I*L*L*E*G*A*L*.  If you legalize it, it ain't cheap any more.  You've got minimum wage laws, workmen's comp, benefits regulations, etc., etc. to comply with, and all sorts of litigation possibilities (harassment, discrimination, etc.) to hedge against.
        You might as well hire Americans.
        Unless you think that Americans are crappy workers—lazy, shiftless, ignorant, ill-motivated, and unreliable.  If our politicians actually do think this, will one of them please say it out loud?

        Well, there are some immigrants that will do hard jobs (like picking crops) at minimum wage, where U.S. citizens won't.  But mostly, Derbyshire is right.  A "guest worker" program will mostly be an end run around immigration restrictions.  It won't have any other real effect.

                Technorati tags: 2006 elections, border control, President Bush, John Derbyshire, guest workers, illegal immigration.

Posted by: saintonge at 02:33 | link | comments
illegal immigration, george w bush, illogic, border security, government policy

Third Thoughts on the Speech

        I'm beginning to wonder if the ground won't shift under our feet?

        People in the U.S. talk a lot about third parties, and I yawn.  In the U.S., the only times a third party has been really successful is when one of the major parties split apart, such as the Federalists in the 1820s, the Whigs in the 1850s, and the Democrats in 1860.  I'm beginning to wonder if this couldn't split one or both parties.

        I listened to a little of Hugh Hewitt's radio show after the speech, and even Democrats were calling in saying 'I'm disgusted with this, we have to get control of the border.'  Yet there's a large part of the Republican Party that wants open immigration because illegal immigration is cheap, and large parts of both parties that want open immigration because they're alienated from the country.

        Could immigration be the issue that splits the parties down the middle?

        Technorati tags: 2006 elections, border control, President Bush, Democrats, illegal immigration, politics, Republicans.

Posted by: saintonge at 01:59 | link | comments
politics, illegal immigration, government policy

The Democratic Response to the Speech

        Some of their reactions here.

        Bottom line?  The only one that isn't stupid is — nah, they're all stupid.  A lot of politicians in both parties will suffer on this one, but I think it will hurt the Democrats worse.

        Technorati tags: Democrats, Richard Durbin, Edward M. Kennedy, Ted Kulongoski, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Silvestre Reyes.

Posted by: saintonge at 01:46 | link | comments

Second Thoughts on Tonight's Immigration Speech

        It was a failure, because the policy is wrong.

        What the President needed to say was:

        'I've realized I've been wrong about immigration.  There's a lot that needs fixing, but most of it not only can wait, it has to wait.

        'We can't solve these problems till we regain control of the border.  We'll never be 100% impermeable, but here's my plan to cut illegal immigration by at least 99%. . . .

        Once that's accomplished, I'll have proposals on other aspects of the situation.  But we need to concentrate on closing the border before doing anything else.

        Thank you, and good night.

        Instead, we got the same ol' same ol', as Tapscott points out.  It just won't do.

        OOPS!  John Hindraker was there before me, five days ago.

        Fellow citizens, we got a job to do.  Let the incumbants know that if they don't vote to close the border first, and leave everything else till later, you'll work to defeat them.  Let the challengers know that if they don't run on a platform of closing the border first, everything else later, you won't support them either.

        Technorati tags: 2006 elections, border control, President Bush, illegal immigration.

Posted by: saintonge at 00:22 | link | comments
politics, illegal immigration, george w bush

Things I Will Never Understand

        Have you ever heard anyone say something like 'I used to not watch the "Such&Such Show," but then they started pausing it randomly.  Now, you're watching some important dialogue, and in the middle of a word, everything freezes for an unpredictable interval.  And you never know how long the show will last.  That's so cool.  I can't get enough.  Every TV show should be like that.'

        Nope, I haven't either.  But every day, people put up vblogs that do just that.  Why?

        What, you say it's not their fault?  You say they can't control how fast the web feeds you their image?  SO WHAT?  They could let us download the entire thing first, and then replay it.

        <sarcasm>Oh, wait, that wouldn't work.  We'd steal their precious intellectual property.  As it is, the greatest hackers in the world couldn't record the packets and store them without permission.  And we know there's this huge aftermarket for old vblogs, one that generated (hold on, let me get the exact figures) ZERO dollars last month.  They wouldn't want to lose the big bucks, would they?</sarcasm>

        Or is the idea to keep people like me from watching?  If so, you've succeeded.  But since I thought the idea was to communicate, I still don't understand it.

        Technorati tags: video blogging.

Posted by: saintonge at 23:39 | link | comments
annoyance, incomprehension