Archive for August, 2005
You knew Robert Kennedy Jr. was a nutjob…what Kennedy isn’t? But, this is the mother of all insanities…RFK Jr. is blaming hurricane Katrina on Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour!!! Why? Because Barbour wasn’t too keen on killing the US economy with the bogus Kyoto treaty. Ya know, the global warming treaty that would have derailed the entire US economy, costing all of us trillions of dollars, while the biggest pollution culprits (read China and India) got away without having to make the same costly changes!
You can google the treaty and find a reasonable source that will explain fully why it was a horrible idea that no one in Congress went for, which is why they all voted to not take part in it. Anyhow, RFK Jr. is blaming the governor of Mississippi for the hurricane due to global warming. Of course, the hurricane wasn’t caused by any supposed global warming (it wasn’t too long ago that scientists were warning of us of the huge dangers of “global cooling”!!!), and the Kyoto treaty would not have prevented global warming, nor would it have worked to curb emissions in any significant way…and none of this has anything to do with Katrina.
This is yet another example of hateful nonsensical rhetoric spewing forth from the left wing nutjobs like Kennedy and his ilk.
Too bad Kennedy, the fringe liberal, didn’t consult the fringe liberal newspaper of record, The NY Times which did a story where the scientists they talked to pointed out that hurricanes and seasons of hurricanes being less and more severe come in cycles and have little if anything to do with any possible global warming.
I love how Kennedy uses one MIT scientist who backs his claim that global warming (if it’s even happening- not even all scientists will agree on that) will make hurricanes worse, yet he ignores the scientists in the NY Times who point out this isn’t the case and that it’s all a big cycle. Then again, I wouldn’t trust either scientist. I’d trust common sense. Like I mentioned earlier in another post, I’m tired of scientists who think they know it all making proclaiming they know ANYTHING, especially since you can’t get 2 scientists to agree on ANYTHING, let alone the detailed information about anything. And,Kennedy, and those like him, would be wise to take that into consideration before announcing- this is true because some scientist said so, thus it’s automatically true. Remember Newtonian physics?
You know what I’m sick of? I’m sick of psychologists coming out with these bonehead studies that tell us what ALL humans think of beauty. They say that men like women who look more child like, whose features or closely related to that of a childs (which just sounds all sick for so many reasons!), but why do they make this claim?
Well, it’s because subconciously, these women will be better suited to have children, and men really want to spread their seed. It’s evolution, don’t ya know! The same fools that claim that life arose from non-life (brilliant scientists can’t even create the proteins needed for life, let alone the simplest life, and all the honest ones agree that they never will), that men came from apes (STILL looking for that common ancestor after 100 years, that darn missing link keeps going, well, “missing”!) are trying to tell us that, in reality- we have sex only to spread our seed. Our brains have been evolved into thinking it’s for pleasure, but deep down, their is a need for your selfish genes to replicate more and more and more (one day, genes will take over the world, if these dunderheads are right!), and you need to plant your seed in more and more women to do that.
It’s all nonsense. I looked at one study that German scientists did, and the fact is- the computer generated face of the “perfect” woman- she’s just plain ugly. Same goes for the guy, I don’t play on that team, but the guy isn’t attractive in his feature, despite the fact that these psychologists are certain that his face is the perfect face. The story I read was nice enough to point out that the faces used were computer generated, had NO wrinkles, had no lines in their skin, had airbrushed everything, and people like that don’t exist in the real world, so it sends a negative message of perfection that doesn’t even exist.
Memo to scientists- some guys truly look big women. Some guys like women who are so think they look anorexic! Some men like curves, some men don’t. Same goes for women. Some women love muscle bound men, and some love guys with a little extra. They’re not lying, they’re not making these attractive attributes up, they’re not just saying the opposite of what your “Research” tells you is the truth just to piss you off.
It’s so silly to have this sort of research at all. It’s also time that scientists stop claiming that subconciously I want to spread my seed and have kids and that all women want to have kids. It’s just not true. Some women NEVER have kids and are perfectly happy. Why would birth control be such a big business if people truly want to have kids? I have no desire whatsoever to have kids, and I don’t need some arrogant guy in a lab coat telling me that I actually DO want to have kids but that it’s just a subconcious desire. It’s not! I’ve zero desire to have a child right now, I’ve zero desire to spread my seed ANYWHERE, thank you very much. I’m not sure if I ever want to have kids, and if I were sexually active, I’d do everything possible to make sure I didn’t have kids!
So, let’s stop with the know-it-all science crap, and let’s change the language of these research topics. Let’s start using the words “we think” “we predict” “it our opinion”, etc. Instead, what you usually hear is some scientist or psychologist sitting there telling us that he knows this is true and that this is how things are, it’s face, it’s science afterall, science is what we can use to tell us EVERYTHING (cough, cough…bullshit), and that’s that.
All people are different, all people like different things…all people find various different things attractive, living life should tell us that. Common sense is enough for me to know that no way you can pin beauty down to a set of features that can be added together on one imaginary face and that it will equal “immaculate beauty” to all or even most human beings. This notion that human beings aren’t special, that we’re just animals driven by normal animal instincts, and that these insticts are generall the same in all of us, needs to go…it’s nonsense, and it’s totally bogus. It defies common sense, yet some scientists need a lab and some government grants to screw up the facts when we all already know the truth via common sense! It’s maddening to listen to smug know-it-alls who think that simply throwing in the word “science” makes anything they say anymore of a fact than anything anyone else on the street says about any given topic.
On one of the networks the other day- I think it might have been Discovery Channel or National Geographic, they had a show on about sex and humans and what is beautiful. (Funny thing, everytime you see these shows, the faces they use, whether they be real people or computer generated faces, they’re ALWAYS white- I assume this means that science has “prove” that the face of true beauty is some thin white chick with a tiny waist! It’d be funny if these scientists weren’t serious!)…anyhow, during this show, they claimed that the faces that were the most symetrical were the most beautiful. And they ranked each face on a scale of 1-10 or something…the lower the score, the more beautiful the face. Check out one of the celebrities the scientists said that human beings fine most beautiful.
I kid you not, this woman who, in my opinion, looks like a beast, has the features that nearly “all humans” consider to be the most attractive. She is an example of pure beauty as dictated by the human mind, in general. Yeah. She’s gorgeous. Uh huh. Scientists…you’ve gotta love ‘em. Just smile at them and nod, that way they’ll think their big government grants are actually accomplishing great things.
Message to people who stayed in their homes and “rode” out the hurricane. YOU ARE COMPLETE IDIOTS.
I’m tired of reading stories of people who have been seriously injured or died because they were too stupid to obey evacuation orders and decided- ‘hey, I’m sure if I stay here at home when the hurricane comes through, I’ll be okay.’ Yeah, if you thought that, then you’re dumber than I thought!
I’m not understanding why they’ve taken 10, 000+ people to the superdome (which is right in the path of the storm) and there are holes in the roof now, and it’s starting to flood to some degree. How about taking people AWAY from the storm? I mean, that’s a genius idea, and thank God I thought of it- wait, no, I guess it’s just a matter of common sense.
It’s especially odd, considering hurriances move fairly slowly, which means these people have had days and days to turn their brains on and make plans that actually make sense. I wonder what some of these idiots would do during a tornado. ‘Honey, go outside and stand in the field. Ride the tornado up and see where it drops ya! Yeeeeeehaw!’
You also have to wonder why cities like New Orleans, a city that is right there half underwater to begin with! wouldn’t have come up with better, more detailed plans and built walls and pump systems to get rid of the water bigger. Did city officials not think that a hurricane of this size would ever come thru the city? I’m reading now that water pumps used to keep the water out of the city are overflowing and worthless and that walls keeping water out are worthless as well, since the water is going right over it…a levee in the area is about to bust open and flood the city even more than it already is, and there might not be much they can do to stop it. You’d think in the year 2005 we’d have figured these problems out by now.
Sorry, but if I run a city sitting in so much water, and right on the coast where storms hit, I’d have an elaborate system of underground and above-ground water storage tanks, and a complete pump system in the drainage and sewage system. Water falls as rain, goes into sewage, is pumped into various storage tanks underground and above ground, the water is stored there until those tanks get full, then the pumps start pumping water in other empty storage tanks. This would mean many VERY large underground tanks, and we could place some above ground on the outskirts of the city, but this cannot be an impossible task.
Someone will say that it cannot be done, and that this is just the way things work, you have to deal with flooding and such, but that’s nonsense. If they can run thousands of miles of fiber optic cable on the ocean floor and connect every continent with high speed communications, they can transplant organs from one person to another, they can do intricate brain surgery without messing you up, and on and on. If they can do all of that, they can better prevent massive flooding. I’ve no doubt about that. Why it’s not being done, I’ve no idea. I’m voting on laziness, apathy, and stupidity, or a combination of all 3.
And hell, I didn’t even mention the idiots who have taken this opportunity to loot every store in sight…not only do natural disasters like this expose the idiots, the crooks without morals are exposed as well.
This show started airing here in the US on BBC America a month ago…have the first 4 episodes on my DVR and just watched the first episode (on put it onto DVD) tonight. Really funny show…nowhere near as good as the hilarious Green Wing that aired on Thursday nights before this show started, but it’s entertaining nonetheless. Not very funny, a few moments were comical- but the episodes definitely have more of a story than shows like Green Wing. Each scene is really short- some of them are almost too short and the editing is a bit fast paced, maybe too fast. Not so much the editing, I guess, but the overall fell of the show and the way each story is told.
Some interesting characters, some tensions already starting between two of the main characters, some secondary characters that add some nice flavor- it looks to be a really good show. Will have to find time to check out the other 3 episodes I have recorded.
Not a country fan, but I like Sara Evans. Well, I should say, I think she’s really pretty, not that I like her music. I saw her video for her new song, A Real Fine Place to Start the other day on one of those country video stations while flipping thru the channels, and I was like- wow…cute girl, who is it? Looks like Sara Evans, but then again it sort of doesn’t. She DOES indeed look a bit different, her skin is a different tone than usual. Looks like she’s wearing a lot of makeup, who knows. Anyway, I got screenshots from the video here-
And, you can watch the video itself on Launch. Just go to launch.com and search for “Sara Evans” and click on videos.
I just thought of something. I have a 64MB Lexar jump drive sitting here…but, I don’t have any USB cables with both male and female connectors on them which means I can’t hook it up to my PSP. Was thinking that might be a decent idea, but in the end- you’d really have to go find an extension cable, but the shortest you’d find would be 3 feet, and who wants to carry around 3 feet of cord with them. Just a thought since I happened to notice the jump drive sitting here. Got that 64MB drive for like 5 bucks at Big Lots. Used it to transfer files from my old computer to the new one, since I had trouble finding a crossover cable a couple of months ago.
Off to bed…
Insider weekly newsletter to The Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance http://www.moralmajority.us
Date: August 25, 2005
From: Jerry Falwell
ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS SHOW THEIR TRUE NATURE
We’ve watched for several days now as the media have followed adoringly the endeavors of Cindy Sheehan and her anti-war minions near President Bush’s Crawford, Texas, ranch.
Ms. Sheehan’s son Casey was killed in action in Iraq. I cringe to think of the emotional anguish that she must continue to go through as a result of her boy’s death. I cannot imagine how heartrending it must be to lose a son to war. In that regard, my heart truly goes out to her.
However, as much as I sympathize with her terrible loss, I fear that Ms. Sheehan has initiated a protest that could hamper our national resolve in the war on terror.
The key problem, as I see it, is that Ms. Sheehan has turned her distress into an anti-Bush tirade that can have no positive conclusion.
She has called for President Bush to be impeached and jailed, claimed that her son died defending Israel instead of America (which garnered her praise from David Duke), won the support of leftists from Michael Moore to Joan Baez and has defied President Bush to try to make her pay her taxes.
Ms. Sheehan has even gained the admiration of the Socialist Worker online (a pro-Marxist site) which noted that her efforts are precursor for a vast antiwar protest in Washington, D.C., on September 24.
Ms. Sheehan’s efforts have also fed the anti-war (many I would describe more as anti-American) organizers in recent days. Daily blogs are filled with those who have cast Ms. Sheehan as a near flawless saint in their cause.
But these anti-war efforts have grown very troubling.
CNSNews.com reported today that protesters have been situated outside the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq are now recovering. The protesters actually flaunt signs reading “Maimed for Lies” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.”
Can you imagine the insolence of these protesters? They have the audacity to disparage and demean these courageous soldiers who are enduring great physical and emotional trauma because they believed in the effort to bring freedom to Iraq.
This is possibly the most cowardly action I have ever seen.
What’s more, CNSNews.com noted that these despicable protesters have “been ignored by the establishment media.”
The so-called mainstream media’s refusal to cover these protests is almost as despicable as the actual protests. Their head-in-the-sand approach is certainly not surprising.
The media have a widely-held agenda (that doesn’t include support of President Bush) and they are not about to tarnish the image of anti-war protesters by showing them for what they actually are.
With this tyrannical approach to the news, it’s really no wonder so many Americans don’t take the networks seriously anymore. And it’s no wonder that conservative Internet news sites have grown by leaps and bounds.
You know, it’s one thing not to support the War in Iraq. People who believe it to be misguided have the absolute right to hold those sentiments and express them. But when that attitude turns to bitter outbursts in the faces of our injured soldiers, something is terribly wrong.
Here’s the only good thing that can come out of this extremist anti-war effort: The American people will see the contemptible nature of the people involved who are on their hate-Bush, hate-America, hate-Capitalism campaign and they will not want any part of it. As a result, we will see the election of men and women across this nation who want to preserve standards of freedom and decency.
Below is a new article from Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe on the error of those comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and a message to “journalists” like NBC’s Matt Lauer who tried his best to coax a military captain he was interviewing into saying that troop morale was low, even tho that’s not really the case.
I have to say that Matt Lauer truly made a total ass of himself with this interview. He solidified what so many of us already know. Lauer and “journalists” like him aren’t interested in finding the facts or getting to the truth. They’re just interested in pushing their own personal agenda and ideology to the point where they try to put words in the mouths of the people they interview, while trying to imply that their interview subjects aren’t being totally honest, and just by asking the dumbest questions they could ever think of.
He has to even go out of his way to imply the Captain is lying and preface it with, “Don’t get me wrong, I think you guys are probably telling me the truth, but…”
So, I’m going to keep hammering away at the same question until you give me the answer I WANT you to give me, then I’m going to keep doing so in a way that makes it seem as tho you’re not being honest, but to cover my ass, I’m going to make sure I add that I’m not exactly calling you a liar. And, you’ll notice he says “I think you guys are probably telling the truth, but…
He thinks the Captain is PROBABLY telling the truth?! And he finishes that thought with a “but”?? Lauer is a fool, and his liberal agenda shines right through this interview. I might try to find a transcript of any interview with Cindy Sheehan (I’m sure he’s interviewed her by now), and I guarantee you he never once tried to put words in her mouth, nor are you likely to see him ask the same question 10 different times trying to get the answer he wants as opposed to the truth, which, as a supposed journalist, is his job to get!
Americans are tired of liberals comparing Iraq to Vietnam, when there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever. We’re also tired of hearing claims that troop morale is low and the men in women in uniform are upset in any way, when all the reports from the troops themselves tell us a completely different story. Lauer and those who share his liberal bent on life can try to force words into the mouths of our troops, but it’s just not going to work. Lauer asks the question, why does the captain think that so many people get the impression that troop morale is low and things are bad with the men and women in uniform- but, he unintentionally answers his own question with his push to drive the captain to say things he didn’t really think were true. Lauer and those like him are the reason why many Americans get this false impression, and I’m sure he’s quite aware of this fact. As long as he can continue to push his agenda on the American people, what does he care?
Outside of Matt Lauer and really bad pseudo-journalists like him, it’s a real shame that leaders like Chuck Hagel play into the stupidity by foolishly claiming that Iraq looks even remotely like Vietnam. I don’t care how many purple hearts Hagel received in Vietnam…medals don’t excuse blatant stupidity.
IS IRAQ VIETNAM? ASK THE TROOPS
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Iraq war skeptics and critics have been invoking Vietnam almost from the day the fighting began. So Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska was hardly breaking new ground when he joined the invokers on Sunday. “We are locked into a bogged-down problem,” he said on ABC’s “The Week,” “not … dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam.”
Run-of-the-mill stuff on the Democratic left, but since Hagel is a Republican and a decorated Vietnam vet, his words instantly leaped to the top of the news cycle. “GOP Senator Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam,” was the headline on AP’s widely reprinted story.
Yet in so many ways, Iraq doesn’t look like Vietnam at all. Vietnam was never the central battleground of the Cold War, while Iraq has become the focal point of the war on terrorism. Americans had no reason to feel that their own security was at risk in Vietnam, whereas 9/11 made it clear that the enemy we face today in the Middle East poses a lethal threat here at home as well. The jihadis in Iraq don’t have the backing of superpowers; North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were armed to the teeth by China and the Soviet Union. In South Vietnam, the United States was allied to an unpopular and incompetent regime; in Iraq, the United States toppled a brutal tyranny and is trying to nurture a democracy in its place.
But of all the ways in which the Iraq war is not like Vietnam, perhaps the most telling is the attitude of the troops.
“When I was in Vietnam,” retired Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, a 1969 Medal of Honor recipient who had just returned from a fact-finding trip to the Sunni Triangle, told NBC News in May, “if you asked anybody what he wanted more than anything else in the world, he’d say: to go home. We asked … hundreds of soldiers, low-ranking soldiers, in both Afghanistan and Iraq … the same question. And the response, to a man and a woman, was, ‘To kill bad guys.’ … The morale is just over the top — just really, really enthused about what they’re doing. And I think the reason is they perceive that they’re making progress. Success will do a lot to morale.”
Indeed it will, as the “Today” show’s Matt Lauer discovered when he visited Baghdad last week. He tried valiantly to coax some Vietnam-style disillusionment out of the soldiers he met, but as NBC’s transcript makes clear, the troops weren’t having any of that:
Lauer: Talk to me a little bit about morale here. We’ve heard so much about the insurgent attacks, so much about the uncertainty as to when you folks are going to get to go home. How would you describe morale?
Chief Warrant Officer Randy Kergiss: My unit morale’s pretty good. . . . People are ready to execute their missions, and they’re pretty excited to be here.
Lauer: How much does that uncertainty of knowing how long you’re going to be here impact morale?
Sergeant Jamie Wells: Morale’s always high. Soldiers know they have a mission, they like taking on the new objectives and taking on the new challenges. . . . They’re motivated, ready to go.
Lauer: Don’t get me wrong, I think you guys are probably telling me the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you’re facing and with the insurgent attacks. . . .What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale can be that high?
Captain Sherman Powell: Well, sir, I tell you — if I got my news from the newspapers also, I’d be pretty depressed as well.
Lauer: What don’t you think is being correctly portrayed?
Powell: Sir, I know it’s hard to get out and get on the ground and report the news. . . . But for of those who’ve actually had a chance to get out and go on patrols . . . we are very satisfied with the way things are going here. And we are confident that if we’re allowed to finish the job we started we’ll be very proud of it and our country will be proud of us for doing it. . . .
Lauer: How would you feel about US forces being withdrawn before — you’re shaking your head — before the insurgency is defeated?
Powell: Well, sir, I would just tell you . . . as long as we continue to have confidence that we are supported and people have our back, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.
Lauer: So you would rather stay here longer and defeat the insurgency then be pulled out earlier …?
Kergiss: Yes, sir.
Things have gone wrong in Iraq as they go wrong in every war. President Bush’s strategy of defeating Islamist terrorism by draining the swamps of dictatorship and fanaticism in which it breeds carries a high price tag. Nearly 1,900 US soldiers have been killed and more than 14,000 wounded in Iraq so far. There are more casualties to come.
But another Vietnam? No — not when such strong support for the war comes from the very soldiers who are in harm’s way. Their high morale, their faith in their mission, their conviction that they are doing the right thing for both America and Iraq — those are the signals to heed, not the counsels of despair on the TV talk shows. It will be time to give up on Iraq when the troops give up on Iraq. So far, there’s no sign they will.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
Like I said before (Press Wouldn’t Attack Liberal), liberals can get away with saying things that conservatives get hammered for saying. In 1997, George Stephanopoulos urged the US govt to target and assassinate Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. As Newsmax.com points out, most agreed that Hussein was “in a box” at the time and posed no big threat, but he still urged the action, saying:
“We’ve exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians.”
“If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it.”
George gets a pass by the media for doing what Robertson did, yet barely anyone makes any mention of the double standard. No liberal bias in the media? Give me a break…the writing is ALL over the wall, friends.
Fact is, the idea of assassinating Chavez might not be such a bad idea. At least a few different CIA and military men agree with Robertson’s idea. As Newsmax.com reports:
Former CIA operative Wayne Simmons agreed, telling Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes,” that Chavez has “threatened not only the United States and the west, but [has]armed himself with the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia, which is the oldest, most well-trained terrorist organization in Latin America.”
“He should have been killed a long time ago,” Simmons said.
Like I said before- the double standard is out there and it’s real. Liberals can get away with all sorts of things that no conservative could ever imagine getting away with, yet people want to pretend that all is fair and level. It’s nonsense. Why is the double standard there to begin with? The reason that has been mentioned several thousands of times by many in the media, the internet, etc. The mainstream press in this country isn’t at all balanced and sways liberal in a big way. When the press is so liberal, why should they be balanced and fair when it comes to conservatives? Thank God for conservatives like Sean Hannity, Rush, websites like Newsmax, National Review Online, and many others who point out these glaring omissions from the MSM.
Check out the radical liberal groups who are actually financing Cindy Sheehan.
Those are just some of the backers of Sheehan and her constant lies and attacks, her constant attacks on the military, the lies about her son (shame on this disgusting woman for using her son in this dishonest way), and her other anti-American, anti-common sense activities. She hates America and says that this nation is basically evil and that we’ve spent hundreds of years killing everyone we can and bringing terrorism to the world- she can say that all she wants, I love it personally. It just further exposes her and her cronies backing her for the nuts they truly are.