which was entirely about conditions on the border with Mexico. Bloody disgusting, including the fact that a lot of this crap the major medial flat will not cover.
One of the worst was a U.S. Representative from Texas who was talking about how we can trust the president of Mexico and we NEED to give them more than a billion dollars in money and equipment- including surveillance equipment- so they can deal with things on the border, because- among other things- 'there will never be troops sent to the border'. I just found this on the transcript at Beck's site:
SHERIFF: I want to ask the congressman who is he representing, President Calderon or his district here in Laredo, Texas where we haven't received any resources at the local level to be able to combat the problems on the border.
CONGRESSMAN CUELLAR: Well, first of all, let me say this, Mr. Sheriff. What we're looking at is you have got more money than you've ever gotten in the past and we've got to keep in mind that the border will be patrolled by the border patrol and by the federal agencies. We will work with the local law enforcement and we represent, but your job is to be a county sheriff, not a U.S. congressman, which is a big difference. My job is to look at the big picture. Your job is to look at the smaller picture, and I will do my job as long as you do your job.
You'd have to have heard the tone of voice and attitude of the Congressman to understand just how bad this was. I listened to it, and I was so pissed I couldn't even remember the bastards name. Absolutely infuriating. And, it seems, typical of far too many of those clowns in DC.
Either the Emperor's "Lamppost, rope, politician: some assembly required" or my gift box idea. We've got to get the attention of these idiots somehow
Friday, November 09, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Maybe someplace like San Francisco
these clowns would get something like the French response, but most other cities? I don't think so.
If we are not careful, we may see something similar coming from the estimated 13 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, most of them Hispanic, who are increasingly vilified in the media, forced further into the underground by spineless politicians and not given any chance to legalize their status by a pusillanimous U.S. Congress.
A couple of things here. In a few places, like OK, the politicians are doing something; just not what you want. And an awful lot of that 'pusillanimous' Congress tried to kiss up to the illegals; that didn't work because the people back home basically said "You pass this and your ass is on the street." I repeat, in some places that play the 'sanctuary city' game you might get away with the 'intifada' bullshit, but most other places your rock-throwers and arsonists will be in jail. Assuming the people whose cars are being burned don't shoot them.
And if you think people are being nasty and unkind and vilify the illegals now, what the hell do you think will happen if the illegals start rioting and throwing rocks and burning?
Friggin' idiot.
If we are not careful, we may see something similar coming from the estimated 13 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, most of them Hispanic, who are increasingly vilified in the media, forced further into the underground by spineless politicians and not given any chance to legalize their status by a pusillanimous U.S. Congress.
A couple of things here. In a few places, like OK, the politicians are doing something; just not what you want. And an awful lot of that 'pusillanimous' Congress tried to kiss up to the illegals; that didn't work because the people back home basically said "You pass this and your ass is on the street." I repeat, in some places that play the 'sanctuary city' game you might get away with the 'intifada' bullshit, but most other places your rock-throwers and arsonists will be in jail. Assuming the people whose cars are being burned don't shoot them.
And if you think people are being nasty and unkind and vilify the illegals now, what the hell do you think will happen if the illegals start rioting and throwing rocks and burning?
Friggin' idiot.
Jimmy Carter:
The gift that keeps on giving
Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it. It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders & I fired from some distance with bird shot.
There're just too many possibilities, the mind boggles...
Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it. It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders & I fired from some distance with bird shot.
There're just too many possibilities, the mind boggles...
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
So now, not only is the developed west eeevillle,
our enviroweenie screaming for biofuels is starving the pore & hongry around the world. It says so in the Guardian, so it must be true!
To borrow from somebody, "I love the screaming of hippy enviroweenies in the morning. Or any other time."
Get the last paragraph:
If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that of the Iraq war. Millions will be displaced, hundreds of millions more could go hungry. This crime against humanity is a complex one, but that neither lessens nor excuses it. If people starve because of biofuels, Ruth Kelly and her peers will have killed them. Like all such crimes, it is perpetrated by cowards, attacking the weak to avoid confronting the strong.
Hehehehehe. And even better, it's that arch-idiot Monbiot doing the screaming and blaming. "It'll be worse than Iraq!" I'd say 'idiot', but that understates things by a considerable margin.
To borrow from somebody, "I love the screaming of hippy enviroweenies in the morning. Or any other time."
Get the last paragraph:
If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that of the Iraq war. Millions will be displaced, hundreds of millions more could go hungry. This crime against humanity is a complex one, but that neither lessens nor excuses it. If people starve because of biofuels, Ruth Kelly and her peers will have killed them. Like all such crimes, it is perpetrated by cowards, attacking the weak to avoid confronting the strong.
Hehehehehe. And even better, it's that arch-idiot Monbiot doing the screaming and blaming. "It'll be worse than Iraq!" I'd say 'idiot', but that understates things by a considerable margin.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
There's supposed to be a hard freeze tonight
so I just picked some stuff and spread a couple of tarps over part of the garden. Predicted low is 30, with it warming up fairly rapidly after sunrise and then no freezing temps for a few days. So, hopefully, the tarps will protect what's covered and keep those plants going. It's worked before.
To give you an idea of how things have been producing, these are the habaneros I picked today and yesterday, with a few jalapenos thrown in
I'm told the best way to keep them long-term is to seed, slice them up and freeze them, so in the next couple of days I'll do that to most of these. Using the vacuum-sealer should help.
The tomatoes, I'm told, if placed in a paper bag and kept in a cool place will slowly ripen, so I'll give it a try.
To give you an idea of how things have been producing, these are the habaneros I picked today and yesterday, with a few jalapenos thrown in
I'm told the best way to keep them long-term is to seed, slice them up and freeze them, so in the next couple of days I'll do that to most of these. Using the vacuum-sealer should help.
The tomatoes, I'm told, if placed in a paper bag and kept in a cool place will slowly ripen, so I'll give it a try.
"...convicted the Met of breaching health and safety laws..."
for killing an innocent man.
Want your blood pressure spiking? Or depression moving in? Maybe both? Check that article out.
A jury at the Old Bailey convicted the Met of breaching health and safety laws by putting the public at risk on the day Mr de Menezes, an innocent electrician, was mistaken for a suicide bomber.
...
The trial judge, Mr Justice Henriques, said a "corporate failing" was to blame for the tragedy - leading senior MPs to say that as head of the Met Sir Ian should take overall responsibility and step down.
It was Sir Ian's personal decision to contest the case, which has cost the taxpayer £3.5 million, despite "overwhelming" evidence of a series of blunders by his force.
...
Think about that a minute. Not "You effed up and killed an innocent man, and must be held responsible", or "Improper use of deadly force", but "breaching health and safety laws". Damn.
And in a way this sums up some of the socialist garbage we're dealing with, too:
Mr Justice Henriques, who fined the Met £175,000 and ordered it to pay £385,000 costs, said: "There was a serious failure of accurate communication which has not been explained."
He said a heavy fine would have resulted in a loss to the public purse and reduction in essential policing.
Because God forbid the agency actually get some kind of spanking it might pay attention to: it would cost the government money! Sounds a little like the crap we hear after a botched SWAT raid on the wrong home or on a bad tip gets someone injured or killed: "The officers followed department policy in their conduct, so there will be no action taken against them." Because God forbid we actually hold them accountable for screwing up in one or more ways and injuring/killing/destroying the home and life of someone.
I know I'm jumping around a bit here; I'm just so damn sick of crap like this.
Want your blood pressure spiking? Or depression moving in? Maybe both? Check that article out.
A jury at the Old Bailey convicted the Met of breaching health and safety laws by putting the public at risk on the day Mr de Menezes, an innocent electrician, was mistaken for a suicide bomber.
...
The trial judge, Mr Justice Henriques, said a "corporate failing" was to blame for the tragedy - leading senior MPs to say that as head of the Met Sir Ian should take overall responsibility and step down.
It was Sir Ian's personal decision to contest the case, which has cost the taxpayer £3.5 million, despite "overwhelming" evidence of a series of blunders by his force.
...
Think about that a minute. Not "You effed up and killed an innocent man, and must be held responsible", or "Improper use of deadly force", but "breaching health and safety laws". Damn.
And in a way this sums up some of the socialist garbage we're dealing with, too:
Mr Justice Henriques, who fined the Met £175,000 and ordered it to pay £385,000 costs, said: "There was a serious failure of accurate communication which has not been explained."
He said a heavy fine would have resulted in a loss to the public purse and reduction in essential policing.
Because God forbid the agency actually get some kind of spanking it might pay attention to: it would cost the government money! Sounds a little like the crap we hear after a botched SWAT raid on the wrong home or on a bad tip gets someone injured or killed: "The officers followed department policy in their conduct, so there will be no action taken against them." Because God forbid we actually hold them accountable for screwing up in one or more ways and injuring/killing/destroying the home and life of someone.
I know I'm jumping around a bit here; I'm just so damn sick of crap like this.
More on the canaries in the mine
Found a link to this at Insty this morning, I'd suggest anyone who reads this go and read the entire article(and read Kim's take on it, too). It's about the resurgence of Jew hatred in Britain. Which is a flat amazing thing: aside from the usual groups of idiots, it's something I'd never have thought would flourish so over there.
Two places I'd like to quote here. The first:
But a subtler reason exists for Britain’s embrace of the new anti-Semitism. After the Second World War, the radical Left set out to destroy the fundamentals of Western morality, but its campaign played out very differently in America and Britain. In America, it resulted in the culture wars, with conservatives, many churches, and sensible liberals launching a vigorous counterattack in defense of Western moral values—and, as it happened, Israel.
Exhausted by two world wars, shattered by the loss of empire, and hollowed out by the failure of the Church of England or a substantial body of intellectuals and elites to hold the line, Britain was uniquely vulnerable to the predations of the Left. The institutions that underpinned truth and morality—the traditional family and an education system that transmitted the national culture—collapsed. Britain’s monolithic intelligentsia soon embraced postmodernism, multiculturalism, victim culture, and a morally inverted hegemony of ideas in which the values of marginalized or transgressive groups replaced the values of the purportedly racist, oppressive West.
That pretty much covers what a lot of the 'progressive'(i.e., commies without the integrity to say it) types wanted- and want- to do here. Makes me wonder, where would the world be if they'd succeeded?
The second:
Further, people across the political spectrum became increasingly unable to make moral distinctions based on behavior. This erasing of the line between right and wrong produced a tendency to equate, and then invert, the roles of terrorists and of their victims, and to regard self-defense as aggression and the original violence as understandable and even justified. That attitude is, of course, inherently antagonistic to Israel, which was founded on the determination never to allow another genocide of Jews, to defend itself when attacked, and to destroy those who would destroy it. But for the Left, powerlessness is virtue; better for Jews to die than to kill, because only as dead victims can they be moral.
This is EXACTLY what we're facing with the "Don't be judgemental" crap the 'progressives' are constantly trying to shove down our throats(unless you're judging someone/something non-pc, that is). And it covers very well the attitude of so many of the GFW clowns and 'peace at any cost' fools trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment. Long time ago I wrote about people I knew who truly believed that to resist an attack with violence made you morally as wrong as the attacker; as Kevin puts it, they see no difference between 'violent and predatory' and 'violent and protective'. Which, in this case, extends to 'if Israel didn't use violence, Peace would come'. Which is amazingly idiotic. If Israel didn't use violence to protect itself, it would cease to exist in a bloodbath that might make the ghost of Ghengis Khan shake his head in wonder. But that doesn't matter to the PAAC* weenies: what does is that Israel is bad for using violence in self-defense, and that- and the very existence of Israel- justifies terrorism and hatred of Jews in general. It's not moral equivalence: it's giving moral priority to murderers and rapists who destroy lives and attempt to destroy history as well.
To quote Quint, "It's enough to piss of the Good Humor man."
*Peace At Any Cost
Two places I'd like to quote here. The first:
But a subtler reason exists for Britain’s embrace of the new anti-Semitism. After the Second World War, the radical Left set out to destroy the fundamentals of Western morality, but its campaign played out very differently in America and Britain. In America, it resulted in the culture wars, with conservatives, many churches, and sensible liberals launching a vigorous counterattack in defense of Western moral values—and, as it happened, Israel.
Exhausted by two world wars, shattered by the loss of empire, and hollowed out by the failure of the Church of England or a substantial body of intellectuals and elites to hold the line, Britain was uniquely vulnerable to the predations of the Left. The institutions that underpinned truth and morality—the traditional family and an education system that transmitted the national culture—collapsed. Britain’s monolithic intelligentsia soon embraced postmodernism, multiculturalism, victim culture, and a morally inverted hegemony of ideas in which the values of marginalized or transgressive groups replaced the values of the purportedly racist, oppressive West.
That pretty much covers what a lot of the 'progressive'(i.e., commies without the integrity to say it) types wanted- and want- to do here. Makes me wonder, where would the world be if they'd succeeded?
The second:
Further, people across the political spectrum became increasingly unable to make moral distinctions based on behavior. This erasing of the line between right and wrong produced a tendency to equate, and then invert, the roles of terrorists and of their victims, and to regard self-defense as aggression and the original violence as understandable and even justified. That attitude is, of course, inherently antagonistic to Israel, which was founded on the determination never to allow another genocide of Jews, to defend itself when attacked, and to destroy those who would destroy it. But for the Left, powerlessness is virtue; better for Jews to die than to kill, because only as dead victims can they be moral.
This is EXACTLY what we're facing with the "Don't be judgemental" crap the 'progressives' are constantly trying to shove down our throats(unless you're judging someone/something non-pc, that is). And it covers very well the attitude of so many of the GFW clowns and 'peace at any cost' fools trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment. Long time ago I wrote about people I knew who truly believed that to resist an attack with violence made you morally as wrong as the attacker; as Kevin puts it, they see no difference between 'violent and predatory' and 'violent and protective'. Which, in this case, extends to 'if Israel didn't use violence, Peace would come'. Which is amazingly idiotic. If Israel didn't use violence to protect itself, it would cease to exist in a bloodbath that might make the ghost of Ghengis Khan shake his head in wonder. But that doesn't matter to the PAAC* weenies: what does is that Israel is bad for using violence in self-defense, and that- and the very existence of Israel- justifies terrorism and hatred of Jews in general. It's not moral equivalence: it's giving moral priority to murderers and rapists who destroy lives and attempt to destroy history as well.
To quote Quint, "It's enough to piss of the Good Humor man."
*Peace At Any Cost
Monday, November 05, 2007
Also from Huffman, the 'one question'
you can ask the GFW's who want to argue with you:
My "one question" is this:
Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
There are three possible answers to this question.
- "I don't know." In which case my response is, "Come back to the debate when you can answer 'Yes' or 'No'."
- "No." In which case my response is, "Then you should be advocating the repeal of ALL gun control laws and I don't want to hear a single anti-freedom word from you on this topic again."
- "Yes and here is my demonstration."
I have researched this fairly extensively and I can't find the data to support a “Yes“ answer. I have asked a lot of people this question and I haven't yet heard a "Yes" answer demonstrated. In October of 2003 the CDC released a study on this topic and couldn't come up with a "Yes" answer either. I'm not the slightest bit worried someone will be able to come up with a defensible "Yes".
I've been thinking about the Jew-hating peace activists
and I flat do not understand this*. White-supremacists masquerading as something else I would understand, they'll try most anything to get their crap out. But people who are members of longtime 'peace' groups going along with them? Or actually helping them out?
What makes this even more idiotic to me is that lots of people of jewish descent belong to these groups, some of them actively practicing their faith; that they would have one damn thing to do with this garbage is enough to make your brain uncurl.
There's a reason Joe Huffman made it his 'Jews in the attic' test: the saying that Jews are the canaries in the coal mine goes back a ways. So how the hell can supposedly intelligent, tolerant people have a hand in this crap?
*Couple of years ago I read a piece by someone, a rabbi I think, who said he was going to stop using 'anti-semite' or 'anti-semitism' in referring to some groups, they hate Jews and he was going to say it flat out from now on. I think I'll follow his lead.
What makes this even more idiotic to me is that lots of people of jewish descent belong to these groups, some of them actively practicing their faith; that they would have one damn thing to do with this garbage is enough to make your brain uncurl.
There's a reason Joe Huffman made it his 'Jews in the attic' test: the saying that Jews are the canaries in the coal mine goes back a ways. So how the hell can supposedly intelligent, tolerant people have a hand in this crap?
*Couple of years ago I read a piece by someone, a rabbi I think, who said he was going to stop using 'anti-semite' or 'anti-semitism' in referring to some groups, they hate Jews and he was going to say it flat out from now on. I think I'll follow his lead.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
'Peace Activists' my ass,
they're on the other side.
In this case, a University of Oregon peace organization called Pacifica Forum, which was founded and is led by a retired professor and a retired administrator from that university, is marking Kristallnacht with two days of speeches and conferences this weekend conducted by Mark Weber director of the Holocaust denial group Institute for Historical Review. Weber, the former editor of the National Vanguard, the main publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance Party, has spent the past 30 years as a professional advocate of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. His opening lecture on Friday is entitled: "Free Speech vs. Zionist Power". Advertisements for the event feature the image of a snake in the shape of a Star of David with the legend "The Israel Lobby: How Powerful Is It?" November 9 marks the 69th anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is considered by many historians to be the beginning of the Holocaust.
Really shouldn't be surprised by this crap. After all, clowns like 'Queers for Palestine' run around screaming and yelling for the death of everyone in Israel, never mind that the Palestinian Authority is rather, ah, 'harsh' with homosexuals. And they tend to flee to Israel where, while they might be frowned on, nobody has a government plan to kill them. But that doesn't count, the evil Joooos are the cause of it! They're certain!
Other links of interest on this subject here, , here, here. Oh, and Zionists are responsible for Darfur, too!
Found through the Random Nukes man.
In this case, a University of Oregon peace organization called Pacifica Forum, which was founded and is led by a retired professor and a retired administrator from that university, is marking Kristallnacht with two days of speeches and conferences this weekend conducted by Mark Weber director of the Holocaust denial group Institute for Historical Review. Weber, the former editor of the National Vanguard, the main publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance Party, has spent the past 30 years as a professional advocate of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. His opening lecture on Friday is entitled: "Free Speech vs. Zionist Power". Advertisements for the event feature the image of a snake in the shape of a Star of David with the legend "The Israel Lobby: How Powerful Is It?" November 9 marks the 69th anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is considered by many historians to be the beginning of the Holocaust.
Really shouldn't be surprised by this crap. After all, clowns like 'Queers for Palestine' run around screaming and yelling for the death of everyone in Israel, never mind that the Palestinian Authority is rather, ah, 'harsh' with homosexuals. And they tend to flee to Israel where, while they might be frowned on, nobody has a government plan to kill them. But that doesn't count, the evil Joooos are the cause of it! They're certain!
Other links of interest on this subject here, , here, here. Oh, and Zionists are responsible for Darfur, too!
Found through the Random Nukes man.
Reason #379 why the UN should be considered
the enemy:
“20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.“ Emphasis mine.
Found this through this post at Volokh Conspiracy, which concludes with this:
It's rather telling that the UN's American defenders fail to directly address an indisputable fact: U.N. Human Rights Council's subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has endorsed a report denying the existence of a human right of self-defense, and the subcommission, pursuant to the report, has declared that all national governments are required by international human rights law to implement various gun control provisions--provisions which, by the UN's standards, make even the gun control laws of New York City and Washington, DC, into violations of international law because they are insufficiently stringent.
Think of the fact that people are being literally enslaved in Darfur- assuming they survive the rapes and other attacks- and the UN sits around talking. Forever. And has screaming fits when someone suggests sending the people being attacked arms and trainers, because that 'would perpetuate the cycle of violence', as if people defending themselves is on the same level as the actions of the rapists and slavers and murderers.
But we should just hand our affairs over to these people and renounce our sovereignty; after all,(in chorus, now) "It's for the CHILDRENN!"
“20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.“ Emphasis mine.
Found this through this post at Volokh Conspiracy, which concludes with this:
It's rather telling that the UN's American defenders fail to directly address an indisputable fact: U.N. Human Rights Council's subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has endorsed a report denying the existence of a human right of self-defense, and the subcommission, pursuant to the report, has declared that all national governments are required by international human rights law to implement various gun control provisions--provisions which, by the UN's standards, make even the gun control laws of New York City and Washington, DC, into violations of international law because they are insufficiently stringent.
Think of the fact that people are being literally enslaved in Darfur- assuming they survive the rapes and other attacks- and the UN sits around talking. Forever. And has screaming fits when someone suggests sending the people being attacked arms and trainers, because that 'would perpetuate the cycle of violence', as if people defending themselves is on the same level as the actions of the rapists and slavers and murderers.
But we should just hand our affairs over to these people and renounce our sovereignty; after all,(in chorus, now) "It's for the CHILDRENN!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)