Intellectual honesty will get you in trouble sometimes. Sort of like the old saw, "no good deed goes unpunished". In Washington, DC, radio host Michael Graham is off the air for now, for saying Islam is a "terrorist organization". In reality he took a pretty good analogy and went for the knockout punch when the velvet glove would have worked better. His analogy, as reported by the Washington Post, is well reasoned:
"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 Scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder -- and the scoutmasters responded by saying 'Could be' -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago."
Now, if I'd have been making that point, I think I might have followed it up with something like:
So if you look at what's happening to the Islamic faith, as it has been hijacked by a relatively small group of extremists, one could make the case that Islam is a terrorist organization. The fact that far too many Muslim leaders have failed to condemn the actions of the extremists in the name of Islam goes a long way toward discrediting the claim that Islam is a "religion of peace".
Not Graham -- and that's what landed him on the beach. He, as he sometimes does, threw gasoline on a fire by following his analogy up with:
"Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not."
Not too surprisingly, CAIR has jumped all over Michael Graham and ABC/Disney (which owns WMAL -- Graham's employer), which may have pressed the company into suspending him without pay. Ironically, though, the pounding of ABC/Disney happened on the very day CAIR itself issued a fatwa against terrorism.
Meanwhile, in the very same city, Washington Times Edtior-in-Chief, Wesley Pruden is no doubt just as excercised about Islamic extremists as Michael Graham, however, because he choses his words much more carefully, he makes a related point without the negative ramifications. Here's an exerpt:
"Many of the Muslims in Britain were put out this week when the cops in the West Midlands raided a block of apartments in Birmingham just before dawn and arrested several suspects in the latest London terror bombings.
"The raids showed "insensitivity" toward Islam, and the authorities, ever eager to improve "community relations"... invited the "moderate" chairman of the Central Birmingham Mosque to participate in a press conference to discuss the raids.
"The session had hardly begun before one Dr. Mohammed Naseem began a denunciation of the West, of Britain, of the police and other assorted infidels who had libeled Islam by suggesting that Muslims were in any way responsible for the bombing campaign in London...
" The superintendent of police said Mohammed... was probably suffering from shock brought on by "the unusual events of the last few hours."
"Remarked the London Daily Telegraph yesterday: "When senior police officers go to great lengths to make such prim and dubious politically correct statements, then it is not surprising that Muslim leaders such as [Dr. Mohammed Naseem] end up believing them, and expect to be taken seriously..."
"Public opinion in Britain, in fact, appears to be saying enough, already... The discovery that the suicide bombers of July 7 were homegrown, second-generation Englishmen, first bewildered many, then angered most. The diversity that everyone was encouraged to celebrate turns out to be fatuous, fraudulent and sometimes fatal."
Pruden goes on to make yet another interesting distinction:
"The real phenomenon of the age of terror is how the "infidels" -- the Christians, the Jews and the unbelievers -- have kept their cool and their ideals intact in the wake of a rich provocation to retaliate."
Boy, isn't that the truth!
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Just Wondering (UPDATE)
Apparently there's a new wrinkle to the Judith Miller story, which is the REAL story in "Plamegate". [Just who was Judith Miller's source or sources? -- see "Just Wondering" post from Monday 7/25, below (scroll down). Ariana Huffington proposes a new twist -- that Judith Miller cannot reveal her source, because SHE is it!
"Not everyone in the Times building is on the same page when it comes to Judy Miller. The official story the paper is sticking to is that Miller is a heroic martyr, sacrificing her freedom in the name of journalistic integrity.
"But a very different scenario is being floated in the halls. Here it is: It's July 6, 2003, and Joe Wilson's now famous op-ed piece appears in the Times, raising the idea that the Bush administration has "manipulate[d]" and "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Miller, who has been pushing this manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times for months, goes ballistic. Someone is using the pages of her own paper to call into question the justification for the war -- and, indirectly, much of her reporting. The idea that intelligence was being fixed goes to the heart of Miller's credibility. So she calls her friends in the intelligence community and asks, Who is this guy? She finds out he's married to a CIA agent. She then passes on the info about Mrs. Wilson to Scooter Libby (Newsday has identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 in Washington with an "unnamed government official"). Maybe Miller tells Rove too -- or Libby does. The White House hatchet men turn around and tell Novak and Cooper. The story gets out.
"This is why Miller doesn't want to reveal her "source" at the White House -- because she was the source." [See the whole story via the Link below.]
"Not everyone in the Times building is on the same page when it comes to Judy Miller. The official story the paper is sticking to is that Miller is a heroic martyr, sacrificing her freedom in the name of journalistic integrity.
"But a very different scenario is being floated in the halls. Here it is: It's July 6, 2003, and Joe Wilson's now famous op-ed piece appears in the Times, raising the idea that the Bush administration has "manipulate[d]" and "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Miller, who has been pushing this manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times for months, goes ballistic. Someone is using the pages of her own paper to call into question the justification for the war -- and, indirectly, much of her reporting. The idea that intelligence was being fixed goes to the heart of Miller's credibility. So she calls her friends in the intelligence community and asks, Who is this guy? She finds out he's married to a CIA agent. She then passes on the info about Mrs. Wilson to Scooter Libby (Newsday has identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 in Washington with an "unnamed government official"). Maybe Miller tells Rove too -- or Libby does. The White House hatchet men turn around and tell Novak and Cooper. The story gets out.
"This is why Miller doesn't want to reveal her "source" at the White House -- because she was the source." [See the whole story via the Link below.]
Oh, NO!!! it's Oh-ZONE!!!
The past several days in the Carolinas, there have been record and near-record temperatures... and along with the usual banter from the media about staying cool, keeping kids and pets out of hot cars and looking after the elderly, we're being warned of ORANGE and RED OZONE ALERTS!!! The discussion is being framed in such a way that one might think if you venture outside, DON'T STAY LONG, because THE AIR COULD CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY!!!
But wait, isn't the air actually CLEANER now than even 25 years ago? And, what's with this OZONE stuff, anyway? It must be some BIG THREAT TO MANKIND, right? Is it a Republican plot to starve our kids and put grandma on the street? In fact, you just KNOW that dastardly Karl Rove must have something to do with the EEEEEVIL ozone!
Well, time for a reality check. It's much simpler than that. To quote the EPA from its own material (see link for full report):
"In 2003, ozone levels nationwide were the lowest they have been since 1980.
"Since 1970, the VOC and NOx emissions that cause the formation of ground-level ozone have decreased 54 and 25%, respectively, despite significant increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and energy consumption. These emissions declined during the 1980s and 1990s and showed significant continued reductions in 2003...
"Since 1980, significant improvements in ozone levels have been measured across the country. One-hour levels have been reduced by 29%. Between 1990 and now we have seen a 16% improvement."
IN SUMMARY, our cars are more efficient, are better to the environment and the cities are cleaner over-all by far than just 25 years ago. So what's the problem?
The problem is that by reporting factually and congratulating everyone for doing a good job (so far), the environmental movement would lose power with governmental decision making, within popular perception, and the environmentalist organizations would not be able to scare people into forking over near as many billions in the name of "saving" the environment. With positive progress, the environmental movement has had to move into crisis mode to maintain their status quo. The main stream media is only too happy to go along with them.
Want proof? Here in North Carolina, Charlotte has been under RED ALERT the past three days (Raleigh/Durham and Greensboro were ORANGE). But according to the same EPA report cited above, Charlotte had 90% fewer days that exceeded the national air quality standards in 2003 than it did in 1980. At the same time, the population of the Charlotte Metro has increased by about 2/3rds (971,000 to 1,613,000), according to US Census estimates. No doubt motor vehicles have increased by even more during that same time, so what gives?
If the air is "bad" NOW, Charlotteans should have been dropping like flies in 1980, but they did not.
Less hysteria and more reasoned reporting would be welcome. Let's hear the REAL story -- that significant progress has already been made and that the air is much cleaner than it used to be, but even more can be done -- up to an economically infeasable point.
As it is presented now, however, the eco-freaks and their willing accomplices in the main stream media make it out as if al Qaeda doesn't get us, the Ozone will. But there is real danger in that philosophy.
If all of these warnings -- made to seem so dire -- are seen by the average person as just so much "crying wolf" (in that there's virtually no REAL discernable problem), then an unintended consequence could be that health warnings (such as those for ozone, and similar ones) may be shrugged off as meaningless. And THAT could prove to be a REAL problem down the road.
But wait, isn't the air actually CLEANER now than even 25 years ago? And, what's with this OZONE stuff, anyway? It must be some BIG THREAT TO MANKIND, right? Is it a Republican plot to starve our kids and put grandma on the street? In fact, you just KNOW that dastardly Karl Rove must have something to do with the EEEEEVIL ozone!
Well, time for a reality check. It's much simpler than that. To quote the EPA from its own material (see link for full report):
"In 2003, ozone levels nationwide were the lowest they have been since 1980.
"Since 1970, the VOC and NOx emissions that cause the formation of ground-level ozone have decreased 54 and 25%, respectively, despite significant increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and energy consumption. These emissions declined during the 1980s and 1990s and showed significant continued reductions in 2003...
"Since 1980, significant improvements in ozone levels have been measured across the country. One-hour levels have been reduced by 29%. Between 1990 and now we have seen a 16% improvement."
IN SUMMARY, our cars are more efficient, are better to the environment and the cities are cleaner over-all by far than just 25 years ago. So what's the problem?
The problem is that by reporting factually and congratulating everyone for doing a good job (so far), the environmental movement would lose power with governmental decision making, within popular perception, and the environmentalist organizations would not be able to scare people into forking over near as many billions in the name of "saving" the environment. With positive progress, the environmental movement has had to move into crisis mode to maintain their status quo. The main stream media is only too happy to go along with them.
Want proof? Here in North Carolina, Charlotte has been under RED ALERT the past three days (Raleigh/Durham and Greensboro were ORANGE). But according to the same EPA report cited above, Charlotte had 90% fewer days that exceeded the national air quality standards in 2003 than it did in 1980. At the same time, the population of the Charlotte Metro has increased by about 2/3rds (971,000 to 1,613,000), according to US Census estimates. No doubt motor vehicles have increased by even more during that same time, so what gives?
If the air is "bad" NOW, Charlotteans should have been dropping like flies in 1980, but they did not.
Less hysteria and more reasoned reporting would be welcome. Let's hear the REAL story -- that significant progress has already been made and that the air is much cleaner than it used to be, but even more can be done -- up to an economically infeasable point.
As it is presented now, however, the eco-freaks and their willing accomplices in the main stream media make it out as if al Qaeda doesn't get us, the Ozone will. But there is real danger in that philosophy.
If all of these warnings -- made to seem so dire -- are seen by the average person as just so much "crying wolf" (in that there's virtually no REAL discernable problem), then an unintended consequence could be that health warnings (such as those for ozone, and similar ones) may be shrugged off as meaningless. And THAT could prove to be a REAL problem down the road.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Freedom or Tyranny?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [First Amendment, US Constitution, 1787.]
"I, ________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." [Oath of office, Congress of the United States]
"[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." [Article Six, US Constitution]
Would the grilling of a Supreme Court Nominee by a member of Congress on that Nominee's religious beliefs fall under the category of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, or bearing true faith and allegiance to the same? Certainly not. It clearly seems to me to be an example of prohibition of the free excercise of religion. It also flies in the face of Article Six.
But urged on by the MoveOn crowd, other extreme leftist organizations/contributors, and their own sense of the Senate's "advise and consent" requirements, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and New York Senator Chuck Schumer may try to do just that to Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts -- attempt to discredit the nominee for his religious beliefs. Just because Roberts is a Catholic. Just because he is a Conservative. Must be an extremist religious nut case.
Easy, Senators, you complain tirelessly about those you disagree with "shredding the Constitution", or "trampling on our rights". Well if you go there, you're about to do just what you claim to deplore. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, I hope the general public will see this sort of tactic for what it is.
UPDATE: [10:51am July 27] Added link to today's NEW YORK SUN editorial, "The Religious Test". For further background.
UPDATE: [12:01am July 28] Added references to Article 6, US Constitution.
"I, ________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." [Oath of office, Congress of the United States]
"[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." [Article Six, US Constitution]
Would the grilling of a Supreme Court Nominee by a member of Congress on that Nominee's religious beliefs fall under the category of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, or bearing true faith and allegiance to the same? Certainly not. It clearly seems to me to be an example of prohibition of the free excercise of religion. It also flies in the face of Article Six.
But urged on by the MoveOn crowd, other extreme leftist organizations/contributors, and their own sense of the Senate's "advise and consent" requirements, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and New York Senator Chuck Schumer may try to do just that to Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts -- attempt to discredit the nominee for his religious beliefs. Just because Roberts is a Catholic. Just because he is a Conservative. Must be an extremist religious nut case.
Easy, Senators, you complain tirelessly about those you disagree with "shredding the Constitution", or "trampling on our rights". Well if you go there, you're about to do just what you claim to deplore. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, I hope the general public will see this sort of tactic for what it is.
UPDATE: [10:51am July 27] Added link to today's NEW YORK SUN editorial, "The Religious Test". For further background.
UPDATE: [12:01am July 28] Added references to Article 6, US Constitution.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Just Wondering
While the MSM continues to over-inflate "Plamegate" in its reporting -- while having marginalized it in court briefings -- the real burning question (for which there must be no simple answer)is still: Just who is Judith Miller protecting?
The New York Times columnist has been sitting in jail for a couple of weeks, continuing to disobey Judge Hogan's order that she name her source(s) for an unpublished article. I presume she must have passed Plame information on to someone else in the news media or administration, else who would know she had a source for that kind of information. Why would she be in trouble for knowing something and not passing it on? Did her source rat her out? There is still something odd about that aspect of this case.
The heck with Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Karl Rove, Matthew Cooper, Time Magazine, and on and on. The real mystery is the Miller Affair. But neither Judith nor the NY Times are speaking.
The New York Times columnist has been sitting in jail for a couple of weeks, continuing to disobey Judge Hogan's order that she name her source(s) for an unpublished article. I presume she must have passed Plame information on to someone else in the news media or administration, else who would know she had a source for that kind of information. Why would she be in trouble for knowing something and not passing it on? Did her source rat her out? There is still something odd about that aspect of this case.
The heck with Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Karl Rove, Matthew Cooper, Time Magazine, and on and on. The real mystery is the Miller Affair. But neither Judith nor the NY Times are speaking.
Unbelievable
Captain Ed this morning points out an example of the ratcheting-up of hate coming from the left toward mainstream america and mainstream values. He says:
"The family of a soldier killed in Iraq and just buried less than 24 hours earlier awoke the next morning to a fire in their driveway, which totaled the car of the soldier's sister-in-law. The arsonist(s) set the fire with 20 American flags that the family displayed yard, given to them by mourners at the soldier's funeral."
A vile example of what's wrong with the fringe left in this country. The hate they have is all-consuming. My question is this:
Just what do they find so repulsive about the grieving family of an American hero?
To paraphrase from "A Few Good Men", they should be thankful Pfc Timothy Hines was doing the things these folks wouldn't dare do in order to protect them and allow them "freedom" back home." Instead, this is the thanks he gets. Pathetic. Let's hope the authorities find who did this quickly and that justice is swift and complete.
"The family of a soldier killed in Iraq and just buried less than 24 hours earlier awoke the next morning to a fire in their driveway, which totaled the car of the soldier's sister-in-law. The arsonist(s) set the fire with 20 American flags that the family displayed yard, given to them by mourners at the soldier's funeral."
A vile example of what's wrong with the fringe left in this country. The hate they have is all-consuming. My question is this:
Just what do they find so repulsive about the grieving family of an American hero?
To paraphrase from "A Few Good Men", they should be thankful Pfc Timothy Hines was doing the things these folks wouldn't dare do in order to protect them and allow them "freedom" back home." Instead, this is the thanks he gets. Pathetic. Let's hope the authorities find who did this quickly and that justice is swift and complete.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
One For The Books
In sports history, it ranks right up there with Secretariat's 31-length victory in the Belmont Stakes to win the 1973 Triple Crown and with Team USA Hockey winning the Gold Medal in the 1980 Winter Olympics. It may last as long as Ted Williams' since-unmatched .406 batting average in 1941, the Miami Dolphins' since-unmatched perfect NFL Championship season in 1972 and Indiana's since-unmatched perfect NCAA Championship season in 1976...
7. In. A. Row.
Viva, Lance Armstrong! What a way to go out... You are, for all times, "MR. Tour de France".
7. In. A. Row.
Viva, Lance Armstrong! What a way to go out... You are, for all times, "MR. Tour de France".
THE University of Diversity (or something)
Help! Liberal do-gooderism is running amok (again) on campus (not surprising)... Now it's creeping into continuing education! Of course THE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is well known for being a liberal hotbed... so I guess it was just a matter of time before this would rear its ugly head outside the undergraduate arena... [The following excerpts are from an e-mail making the rounds at campus last week -- for faculty and staff. It's about upcoming Continuing Education offerings for professionals...]
"The Training & Development Department would like to highlight two of its many course offerings from our Program Guide. Spaces are available in these programs and there is still time to register:
======================================
Fiber: What is it? What do you do with it?
======================================
This course is an elective for the Wellness certificate track."
Okay, we'll give them that one, even though it's presented as if the reader would have no clue as to fiber's benefits, but it's probably not a bad idea for health care professionals.
But check this one out:
================================
You're not from 'round here, are you?
================================
"This course is a core requirement for the Diversity certificate track.
"Cultural differences based on region-of-birth within the United States create distinctive speech communities whose vocabulary and interactive-style may lead to misunderstanding or ill-will in communities and among work colleagues. This workshop will help supervisors and employees to identify how regional differences influence assumptions, values and beliefs as well as communication patterns that can interfere with effective job performance, supervision and promotion. Differences in work group culture and style will also be examined for cultural influences such as profit vs. non-profit organizations, small vs. large companies, etc.
"In this session, participants will learn to do the following:
-- recognize the impact of region-of-birth on personal identity and development of speech community patterns (north-south, east coast-west coast, urban-rural, etc.)
"-- understand the differences between direct/instrumental and indirect/expressive communication styles and their affect
"-- explore how assumptions and lack of information sustain negative stereotypes about regional traits that may create inhospitable work environments in which people feel excluded and not valued
"-- examine cultural dominance and how it limits relationships and work performance in diverse work settings (profit/non-profit; academic/corporate, large/small companies, etc.)"
Gee, I honestly didn't know there was such a thing as a "diversity" certificate. Come to think of it, it may also be a prerequisite for the "Two Americas" course... Must check with the Law School on that -- don't they have some ex-Senator on the dole supposedly looking into poverty or something?
[As an aside, John Edwards was searching the midwest last week hoping to raise money (although I doubt it was to ward off poverty!). Come to think of it, I hope it wasn't paid time off... he hasn't been at UNC long enough to have earned more than a few hours.]
So let me get this straight: we're spending taxpayer dollars to teach supposedly educated people that folks from different parts of the country speak differently and (because of that) may be (unfairly) associated with certain stereotypes???
Are the "educrats" so thoroughly convinced they alone, just by pointing this out, can make everyone instantly get along better? Oh no, must not offend!
Hmmm... "Can't we all just get along?" Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from Professor Rodney King! From the University of Hard Knocks (Literally) at LA.
Truly amazing. We have folks in this world wanting to kill all of us just for being Americans and the Ivory Tower elite folks want to make us all into politically correct inoffensive dweebs.
They really have no clue at all, do they?
"The Training & Development Department would like to highlight two of its many course offerings from our Program Guide. Spaces are available in these programs and there is still time to register:
======================================
Fiber: What is it? What do you do with it?
======================================
This course is an elective for the Wellness certificate track."
Okay, we'll give them that one, even though it's presented as if the reader would have no clue as to fiber's benefits, but it's probably not a bad idea for health care professionals.
But check this one out:
================================
You're not from 'round here, are you?
================================
"This course is a core requirement for the Diversity certificate track.
"Cultural differences based on region-of-birth within the United States create distinctive speech communities whose vocabulary and interactive-style may lead to misunderstanding or ill-will in communities and among work colleagues. This workshop will help supervisors and employees to identify how regional differences influence assumptions, values and beliefs as well as communication patterns that can interfere with effective job performance, supervision and promotion. Differences in work group culture and style will also be examined for cultural influences such as profit vs. non-profit organizations, small vs. large companies, etc.
"In this session, participants will learn to do the following:
-- recognize the impact of region-of-birth on personal identity and development of speech community patterns (north-south, east coast-west coast, urban-rural, etc.)
"-- understand the differences between direct/instrumental and indirect/expressive communication styles and their affect
"-- explore how assumptions and lack of information sustain negative stereotypes about regional traits that may create inhospitable work environments in which people feel excluded and not valued
"-- examine cultural dominance and how it limits relationships and work performance in diverse work settings (profit/non-profit; academic/corporate, large/small companies, etc.)"
Gee, I honestly didn't know there was such a thing as a "diversity" certificate. Come to think of it, it may also be a prerequisite for the "Two Americas" course... Must check with the Law School on that -- don't they have some ex-Senator on the dole supposedly looking into poverty or something?
[As an aside, John Edwards was searching the midwest last week hoping to raise money (although I doubt it was to ward off poverty!). Come to think of it, I hope it wasn't paid time off... he hasn't been at UNC long enough to have earned more than a few hours.]
So let me get this straight: we're spending taxpayer dollars to teach supposedly educated people that folks from different parts of the country speak differently and (because of that) may be (unfairly) associated with certain stereotypes???
Are the "educrats" so thoroughly convinced they alone, just by pointing this out, can make everyone instantly get along better? Oh no, must not offend!
Hmmm... "Can't we all just get along?" Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from Professor Rodney King! From the University of Hard Knocks (Literally) at LA.
Truly amazing. We have folks in this world wanting to kill all of us just for being Americans and the Ivory Tower elite folks want to make us all into politically correct inoffensive dweebs.
They really have no clue at all, do they?
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Sharm-el-Sheikh is no London
Now that terrorists have blown away at least 88 in the Egyptian resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh, a few pressing questions for those left-of-center (seems like oh, about 85 percent or more around here in the Southeastern Capital of Academic free-from-thought)...
1 - If terrorism is being driven by the changes in Iraq, then tell me please just how many troops does Egypt have in the Coalition of the coerced, bribed, etc.? They don't have any? Well... how can that be?
2 - If terrorism is aimed at the West and the Judeo-Christian world, then explain why it was mostly Arabs and Muslims who bore the brunt of the attack in Egypt? Were they just "collateral damage"? Innocent bystanders? Eh? Bad planning? I don't think so.
and 3 - This is the third terrorist act along the Sinai in the last year, following attacks at the resorts of Ras Shitan and Taba last October which killed 34. Why were these downplayed in the MSM? Too close to November and the US Election? No room to report on this? Might make the G-W-O-T look more serious? Hmmm?
One other thing. Can we ditch the phony 'root causes' diatribes we always hear? The ones about the causes being "poverty", the West, etc.? The people committing these acts care nothing about any of that. They don't care who they take out. They are fanatic extremists with absolutely no regard for anyone or anything. They are intent on bombing the rest of the world back to the dark ages. They. Must. Be. Stopped.
1 - If terrorism is being driven by the changes in Iraq, then tell me please just how many troops does Egypt have in the Coalition of the coerced, bribed, etc.? They don't have any? Well... how can that be?
2 - If terrorism is aimed at the West and the Judeo-Christian world, then explain why it was mostly Arabs and Muslims who bore the brunt of the attack in Egypt? Were they just "collateral damage"? Innocent bystanders? Eh? Bad planning? I don't think so.
and 3 - This is the third terrorist act along the Sinai in the last year, following attacks at the resorts of Ras Shitan and Taba last October which killed 34. Why were these downplayed in the MSM? Too close to November and the US Election? No room to report on this? Might make the G-W-O-T look more serious? Hmmm?
One other thing. Can we ditch the phony 'root causes' diatribes we always hear? The ones about the causes being "poverty", the West, etc.? The people committing these acts care nothing about any of that. They don't care who they take out. They are fanatic extremists with absolutely no regard for anyone or anything. They are intent on bombing the rest of the world back to the dark ages. They. Must. Be. Stopped.
Just A Minor Thing
Didn't want too much time to pass without referencing the fun side of my interests, and commenting on something that happened recently...
On Tuesday (July 19th), our old coach, the "Ol' Trench Fighter", Bill Dooley -- now the Triangle Chapter President of the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame -- hosted the groups' third annual Kickoff Luncheon. The special guests were the four Triangle area head coaches, Duke's Ted Roof, NC Central's Rod Broadway, NC State's Chuck Amato and UNC's John Bunting. It was a great time for all who attended the festivities. Thanks, coach for such a great event!
After lunch, each current coach was asked by the emcee, Don Shea, some questions about the upcoming season, football memories and just plain off-the-cuff stuff. It was a real blast hearing their responses, including quite a few verbal jabs between Bunting and Amato!
It was also fun catching up with some of the ol' Tar Heel teammates from before, during and after my time! John Bunting (of course), Ted Elkins, Rod Broadway (good luck on this coming season, coach!), Tim Kirkpatrick, John Anderson (thanks for getting the table, John), Walter Sturdivant, Paul Miller, Ricky Packard, Andy Chacos, Ken Huff, Don McCauley, Moyer Smith, Joel Bradshaw and many more were all in attendance. It gave the place a distinct Carolina Blue feel. Great to see Coach Dooley again after so many years, too! Pretty neat having the Doolz and two of his former players, Bunting and Broadway on the dais!
For a more in-depth look at the event with some audio, check out Andy Britt's write-up on InsideCarolina.com.
On Tuesday (July 19th), our old coach, the "Ol' Trench Fighter", Bill Dooley -- now the Triangle Chapter President of the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame -- hosted the groups' third annual Kickoff Luncheon. The special guests were the four Triangle area head coaches, Duke's Ted Roof, NC Central's Rod Broadway, NC State's Chuck Amato and UNC's John Bunting. It was a great time for all who attended the festivities. Thanks, coach for such a great event!
After lunch, each current coach was asked by the emcee, Don Shea, some questions about the upcoming season, football memories and just plain off-the-cuff stuff. It was a real blast hearing their responses, including quite a few verbal jabs between Bunting and Amato!
It was also fun catching up with some of the ol' Tar Heel teammates from before, during and after my time! John Bunting (of course), Ted Elkins, Rod Broadway (good luck on this coming season, coach!), Tim Kirkpatrick, John Anderson (thanks for getting the table, John), Walter Sturdivant, Paul Miller, Ricky Packard, Andy Chacos, Ken Huff, Don McCauley, Moyer Smith, Joel Bradshaw and many more were all in attendance. It gave the place a distinct Carolina Blue feel. Great to see Coach Dooley again after so many years, too! Pretty neat having the Doolz and two of his former players, Bunting and Broadway on the dais!
For a more in-depth look at the event with some audio, check out Andy Britt's write-up on InsideCarolina.com.
What the !#$@ ???
Did I read this correctly? Yet another connection has been found between Saddam Hussein and al Quaeda? Its name is Ansar al Islam. You're kidding me, right? I thought those two were only mildly interested in each other -- fighting the great Satan and all that -- and were never really linked-up. Isn't that what the MSM is trying to make us think? Still? Apparently they were jointly interested in AaI as it regarded the Kurds -- Saddam wanting to bust on the Kurds, while al Qaeda was looking for a new location. Read the whole thing from Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard.
Hello!
Welcome to my weblog. I'm the G-man, a 50 year old Carolinian, who loves to talk about lots of things. My favorite subjects are politics, society, sports, aviation, and current events. I am first and foremost a conservative with libertarian leanings, meaning: I believe in small government, individual freedom and liberty. My favorite sports are football and basketball. I do also follow NASCAR and golf. Tennis is fun to play but boring to watch! Ditto golf, for that matter. I'm a fan of the North Carolina Tar Heels, where I went to school for 4 years (and was a member of the varsity football team for 3), the Carolina Panthers and the South Carolina Gamecocks, where our daughter is a current student! Feel free to comment on any and all postings, just remember to be polite and don't curse!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)