Confederate Yankee
March 27, 2006
Escape From New York
Didn't blog over the course of the weekend, and probably won't post much during the next few days, either. We have something of a family reunion is going on at my place, with my wife's sister and her kids up from Florida, and my wife's parents down from New York, and we're having a blast.
They're all looking at real estate and thinking about joining us in the area, and if they do, my wife's brother and his family probably won't be too far behind. The crappy schools, over-priced real estate, and high taxes are pushing them out of both upstate New York and West Palm Beach, and they're looking here like so many people have before them.
Based upon people I've met, I think half of Poughkeepsie, NY has relocated to Cary, NC. They didn't jokingly nickname it C.A.R.Y. -the "
Containment
Area for
Relocated
Yankees" - for nothing.
Why are people moving?
Houses are going for over $190 a square foot in the part of NY my wife's family is from for a 40 year-old home, and they're paying outrageous property taxes to support public schools that are both under-performing and increasingly dangerous.
Here is NC, we're building a home for less than $90 dollars a square foot, pay considerably lower taxes, and have our kid attending one of the
top school systems in the nation.
I think that's what they call a "no-brainer," isn't it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:05 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yeah, but Cary is the overpriced area in Wake County, too. When my parents moved to the Triangle, they picked a spot that's almost in Durham County, and only 10 minutes or so from the airport. There weren't any schools nearby when we moved there, but now there's the Leesville schools, which are some of the best in the county. And you get a whole bunch more yard than in Cary. Did I mention it's not part of any city, so you only pay county taxes?
I live in NYC now, but I think that living in the best city in the world is enough to put up with the taxes and real estate issues (as for the schools, we're going the homeschool route -- and the "cultural capital" here makes it a fabulous choice). That's not true for Poughkeepsie, of course.
Posted by: meep at March 27, 2006 05:02 AM (GqHvA)
2
Have a wonderful time enjoying and treasuring family fellowship.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 27, 2006 08:58 AM (X2tAw)
3
I'd heard about the Containment Area before I relocated here from my native California. That's why I live on the western edge of Wake county. When I came here, I did so intending to fit in as much as possible - not a difficult thing for me, really, since NC values are much like the values of the CA where I grew up in the 60s.
Plus, I figure if you're going to relocate to get away from the crappiness of, say, New York, it's best to leave your crappy New York mindset behind... something the majority of yankees seem to have neglected to do. They go to all the trouble of leaving Craptown, and then they try to make this place into a small Craptown. Idiots.
Posted by: Russ at March 27, 2006 10:44 AM (utsLN)
4
"...something the majority of yankees seem to have neglected to do."
Russ, I take exception to your generalization. I am a Yankee who is proud of my heritage. I've lived in the south for many many years and none of my neighbors have ever complained about my attitude. The "attitude" that you refer to seems more appropriately associated with the big cities no matter which region there are in (e.g. NYC, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, LA, SF, etc.) I will say that Nashville and Dallas are two cities without attitudes.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 27, 2006 12:23 PM (X2tAw)
5
I'm also not sure what Russ means by a "crappy New York mindset."
While I left New York for the reasons noted in the article, I've always gotten along well with the folks from upstate New York who seem to be the bulk of New Yorkers moving this way. They're good folks.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 27, 2006 12:58 PM (g5Nba)
6
Indeed. Perhaps "New York City mindset" would have better conveyed my idea.
The crappy mindset is more a function of big cities, regardless of where they are geographically. Having lived in LA, Chicago, and the San Francisco Bay Area, I've seen the attitudes in action up close and personal.
People leave the big cities to go to smaller towns, and then complain because there isn't an opera company or a Zabar's in their new town. Cry me a river.
Posted by: Russ at March 28, 2006 12:04 AM (utsLN)
7
Actually, having moved from Raleigh to NYC, I've gotta say that many of the =residents= here are very nice people. I've talked to more strangers here than I ever did growing up in the South (part of that is a volume situation, and the fact I ride mass transit instead of driving now.)
That said, I couldn't stand the Yankees who invaded the South, bitching about not getting a decent bagel or hating the local minor league ice hockey team (which forthwith got replaced with an overpriced NHL team). If you wanted your Yankee culture, why did you leave NY? Come to NC for the barbecue, not for our ersatz Yankee "culture".
Posted by: meep at March 28, 2006 05:59 AM (GqHvA)
8
As a not so recent transplant from NYC I have to tell you we don't all have this "mindset" a******. I mean f*** heck man.
Just kidding. It is great living down here in NC. Honestly I wish everyone from around had the opportunity to live in NYC for a while. And I wish that those who do have that Yankee attidude, mainly NJ trash, would come down here and live a little.
The NC education system however is a wreck. Wake County and Chapel Hill Carrboro, hae some fo the best schools period. However the rest of the state cannot say the same. I truly realized this after visiting www.donorschoose.org, and seeing on all the areas you can help teachers, NYC, LA, SF, Texas etc., NC & SC are on there as well. Says something.
Posted by: Nick D at March 29, 2006 03:16 PM (Y4d9q)
9
You're from Po-town? Proud graduate of Dutchess County Community College (13th grade) here, transplanted from Marlboro, NY (across the Mid-Hudson bridge...the "poor" side of the river!) to lovely Fairfax, Va.
Go Patriots!
Posted by: Nico the Magnificient at March 30, 2006 04:47 PM (059Fh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 24, 2006
The Results of French Homeschooling
Sometimes it is simply better to shut up and take your lumps. Ben Demonech has not learned that yet:
In his first public comments since resigning earlier today as a blogger for washingtonpost.com, Ben Domenech says his editors there were “fools” for not expecting an onslaught of attacks from the left.
“While I appreciated the opportunity to go and join the Washington Post,” Domenech said, “if they didn't expect the leftists were going to come after me with their sharpened knives, then they were fools.”
Ben, you can't hold the
Washington Post to blame for your serial plagiarism, both
during college, and
afterward.
You don't have an inherent right to work for a major news organization, you don't have a greater level of privilege, and you certainly shouldn't expect a lesser level of accountability.
You don't get a free ride.
Do you think you are
French?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:16 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Going, Going...Gone?
I have a confession to make: I never heard the name "Ben Domenech" until the Washington Post launched the blog Red America several days ago.
Since his
first substantial post hit Tuesday, he has generated an outburst of outrage that I haven't seen on the left since... well, since the last one. True to form, the left has engaged in what they call opposition research, what we call dumpster diving, and what Chuck Schumer's office called an
isolated incident after the plea deal last week.
And they have scored hits.
They've uncovered what David Brock's
Media Matters for America called, "new evidence of Domenech's racially charged rhetoric and homophobic bigotry,” in an effort to have Domenech fired for what they claim are his past views,
including the following:
- In a February 7 post on RedState, Domenech wrote that he believed people should be "pissed" that President Bush attended "the funeral of a Communist" -- referring to the funeral for Coretta Scott King. As you know, labeling the King family "communists" was a favorite tool of the racists who opposed them.
- In another RedState post, Domenech compared "the Judiciary" unfavorably to the Ku Klux Klan.
- In still another RedState comment, Domenech posted without comment an article stating that "[i]t just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime" and that "[w]hite racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership" because black leaders "are overwhelmingly in support" of abortion rights.
- In yet another, Domenech wrote that conservative blogger/journalist Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, "needs a woman to give him some stability."
I'm sure that David Brock, being honest and not the kind of guy to write a hit piece, would certainly encourage us to look into his charges. Surely, nothing he charges would be hyperbolic, would it?
Let's look at Brock's first charge:
In a February 7 post on RedState, Domenech wrote that he believed people should be "pissed" that President Bush attended "the funeral of a Communist" -- referring to the funeral for Coretta Scott King.
Posting under the screen name "Augustine" on Red State Domenech did in fact call
King a communist. As I asked earlier today, whether or not Domenech was right about King's political affiliation,
when did communism become a race?
Brock's second charge is even more volatile.
In another RedState post, Domenech compared "the Judiciary" unfavorably to the Ku Klux Klan.
But what
exactly did Domenech say? Brock doesn't directly link to the comment, or provide it in context, instead burying it in text of another
Media Matters article.
The Red State post and its comments are
here, and Domenech's comment is in response to a charge by James Dobson that men in white robes (the Ku Klux Klan) "did great wrong to civil rights to and to morality" and now we have men in black robes (judges) also doing great wrongs to civil rights and morality.
[Note: the comment below is the wrong comment. This is Domenech's first comment in this thread, not the one Brock cherry-picked that was far less descriptive and inflammatory. My mistake ofr grabbing the wrong comment. See comments of this post for details.]
Domenech's
comment:
Actually, Dobson's soft-pedaling it. The worst black-robed men and women are worse then the KKK, and not just because they have the authority of the state behind them. They don't even use the vile pretense of skin color - they dismiss the value of all unborn lives, not just the lives of ethnic minorities.
Domenech says that the
worst judges, with the authority of the state behind them, are more dangerous than is a specific marginalized extremist group. Does anyone dare to argue the absolute truth of that statement?
Domenech then makes an allusion to the millions of children (of all races) aborted since Roe v. Wade was decided. No one can argue the fact that many more lives have been cut short by abortions than by lynchings.
Domenech is 100% factually correct.
Brock's willful misrepresentation of the meaning and context of Domenech's statements are even more offensive than the charges of racism Brock is peddling because the charges are so obviously contrived.
Next.
In still another RedState comment, Domenech posted without comment an article stating that "[i]t just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime" and that "[w]hite racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership" because black leaders "are overwhelmingly in support" of abortion rights.
The Dowdified quote Brock provides was Swiftian satire written by Richard John Neuhaus (full article
here) about the book "Freakonomics," and the disgusting thought that a high level of minority abortions cuts the crime rate. Domenech himself
states:
Neuhaus, one of the most outspoken, respected and influential pro-life intellectuals in America, finds this logic as morally disgusting as I do. He is putting this logic in its bluntest terms to show the full degree of its inhumanity. A few people have noticed this, but for those who are still having trouble, I highly recommend this.
Once again, Brock is guilty of misrepresenting Domenech.
Last and least of Brock's bulleted list of charges:
In yet another, Domenech wrote that conservative blogger/journalist Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, "needs a woman to give him some stability."
Sullivan, is Domenech's target in
this post, and he does end with the line Brock cites. According to Technorati, there are no less than
239 posts about Andrew Sullivan freaking out. Sullivan needs
something, but the answer is probably not estrogen-based.
In short, Brock presents four bullet-point charges that he states should be reasons for the
Washington Post to fire Ben Domenech. Of those four points, Brock catches Domenech using excessive hyperbole once, and projecting a sexuality-based thought against an erratic writer in another instance.
In between these bookends, Brock intentionally misrepresents Domenech not once, but twice.
In living up to his own high standards of moral clarity, I'm sure we'll see David Brock's resignation letter tomorrow.
* * *
Brock's creativity aside, there seems to be a strong argument for Domenech to resign his Washington Post blog, not for the reasons listed above, but for his lack of creativity... and originality.
Apparently Domenech
plagiarized the work of P.J. O'Rourke, and
maybe others.
Dan Riehl adds:
Frankly, the attack by Media Matters was about as fair, or accurate as the New York Times - not very. However, if any, let alone all, of the charges of alleged plagiarism are deserved, Domenech is an embarrassment to all bloggers, not just conservatives.
Now, even the defense of him I made is in question if he can't produce a link to an original article containing the deficit quote re the above link.
Though apparently a co-founder, I would also encourage RedState to think very seriously about his role as a RedState blogger going forward. If Domenech plagiarized as freely and often as it would appear, there is no excuse for it.
I can forgive someone who runs across a concept and inadvertently "thinks" it at a later date. It can happen. Ripping content, however, word-for-word, line-by-line, post-by-post... if true, that is no mistake.
Hello, Ben. Goodbye.
Update: It Ain't Over, Fat Lady.
John Cole of Balloon Juice, hardly a "Bush loyalist," puts up
a spirited defense of Domenech's character while gutting one of the almost incoherently rabid far left blogger Jane Hamsher:
Hell, half the things in that despicable Hamsher post were not even WRITTEN BY BEN. Even as I grow more and more disgusted and sick of the Republican party, I am still amazed at the gutter antics of the rabid left.
I don't agree with Ben Domenech on nearly any social issue, but I have read thousands of his private emails at Red State (we have an Editor's listserv of sorts), spoken with him (via AOL IM) dozens of times, and I have never seen or heard one shred of racism come from him. I think Ben Domeonech is wrong on a lot of things, but he is no racist, and I think the distortion of what Ben has written by Jane and others is outrageous and disgusting.
Nor is the
Washington Post willing to show Demenech the door
just yet:
Late yesterday, the liberal Web sites Daily Kos and Atrios posted examples of what appeared to be instances of plagiarism from Domenech's writing at the William & Mary student paper. Three sentences of a 1999 Domenech review of a Martin Scorsese film were identical to a review in Salon magazine, and several sentences in Domenech's piece on a James Bond movie closely resembled one in the Internet Movie Database. Domenech said he needed to research the examples but that he never used material without attribution and had complained about a college editor improperly adding language to some of his articles.
The ante has been upped.
Domenech is either going to be proven a serial plagiarist and a liar, or quite a few liberal blogs are going to have to explain to their readers how they were wrong on a very serious charge.
This seems far from over.
Update: What was the last thing I said?
Ben Domenech
has resigned.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:44 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ha ha ha ha ha - wingers. Typical.
Posted by: mkultra at March 24, 2006 03:09 AM (dCXuN)
2
"Honest Conservative" oxymoron?
Posted by: Dustin at March 24, 2006 05:17 AM (XzcmD)
3
Interesting. liberals are willing to pile-on Domenech (who, apparently has that and more coming). Conservative bloggers, including myself, Dan Riehl, Patterico, The Political Pit Bull, etc are calling for accountability for these charges as well.
But liberals won't say one word about David Brock's own offenses of willfully misrepresention, where he is caught selectively quoting ("Dowdifying") things Domenech did say to the point they no longer resemble the original comments.
If the charges against him are true, Domenech deserves to lose hs job. Brock, as shown above, deserves no less. I think we'll learn rather quickly whether or not the liberal quest for "justice" is as one-sided as it seems.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2006 07:14 AM (0fZB6)
4
I see Roger Ailes has put you in your place. Too bad you can't edit the comments on his site like you edit your own, or you could clean up that little mess. Keep straying from your little fenced-in yard and your sense of infallibility will suffer for it.
Posted by: ahab at March 24, 2006 07:44 AM (OurlW)
5
Ben who? Nobody knew him... Ben Domenech is going the way of Jack Abramoff (who, in an odd cosmic coincidence, is great pals with Ben's dad -- he was Jack's point guy in the White House). Brilliant. Truth is stranger than fiction.
Posted by: mike at March 24, 2006 08:34 AM (fpDmN)
6
I'm surprised the New York Times didn't get first dibs on Ben--or should I be? Why do we never see Ben and Jayson Blair in the same room?
Posted by: Bob at March 24, 2006 08:47 AM (QVDwv)
7
Actually, Ahab, If I didn't "edit" anything of yours, I simply deleted your comment in it's entirety for being both off-topic and if I recall properly, profane. I do this pretty consistently. You aren't singled out or special in any way.
Ailes cited a Klan site, proving that the KKK uses claims of communism as grist for their followers. That still does not establish that calling someone a communist is a racist comment. Is calling Cindy Sheehan a communist a racist comment when she makes utterances that sound Marxist to some?
It may not be accurate to call either woman a communist, but it isn't definitively racist, especially when the comment in question has not been presented in any context. You presume that Domenech is racist, because that gives you a nice strawman. I don't know him, and he very well may be, but it is not proven here, in any way, shape, or form.
If you want unmistakable racism, look to Steve Gilliard calling Michael Steele "Simple Sambo," or Ted Rall drawing Condoleeza Rice as a "House Nigga." Those comments are direct. Do you condemn Rall and Gilliard? Why not?
There is plenty of racism in the world, Ahab. Perhaps your ability to see it where it doesn't necessarily exist is simply a matter of reactionary projection.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2006 09:09 AM (g5Nba)
8
The funny thing about the "King was a communist" meme is that Leftists often imply it themselves. I've read more than one article complaining that discussion of King jumps from "I have a dream" to Memphis, skipping the intervening years where (they claim) King espoused views that, if not quite communist, where certainly socialist. I can remember a Norman Solomon column like this and it seems to me that a HuffPo blogger made a similar post around MLK day this year.
I agree that the plagiarism charges seem to have validity (pending investigation into whether permission was granted). But let's remember that the Left did not go after Domenech because he was a plagiarist; that's just the current hammer. They went after him because he is conservative. If the Post fires him, they should promptly hire another conservative blogger.
Posted by: Brainster at March 24, 2006 10:29 AM (pCPyL)
9
Conservatives will defend ANYTHING if it's on their side. I'm still waiting for someone on the right to wonder out loud whether or not billions of dollars in no-bid contracts being given to Halliburton might be slightly off-color. You are the people, remember, who crawled up the Clintons' asses because of a $30,000 bank loan.
Vaya con dios, Ben.
manshake
Posted by: Been done, chem? at March 24, 2006 10:50 AM (6Rmw0)
10
The question to ask is whether or not this whole Ben thing was a set-up job by the WaPo to smear conservative bloggers on behalf of an outraged MSM?
Posted by: Big Bag of Truth at March 24, 2006 12:18 PM (Misdc)
11
The question to ask is whether or not this whole Ben thing was a set-up job by the WaPo to smear conservative bloggers on behalf of an outraged MSM?
I highly doubt it. WPNI (the online Post) would not willingly bring down this amount of criticism on themeselves just to bring down a conservative blogger.
I just think they didn't have a process in place to vet a blogger, and to be honest, I'm not so sure that anyone has such a vetting process that I'm aware of.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2006 12:54 PM (g5Nba)
12
The vetting is not rocket-science, for heavens' sake! Just do the same thing as for opinion columnists.
For me, the greater scandal here is not left vs. right or even plagiarism. It's *nepotism* and *cronyism*. Just on the right, there must be at least one thousand bloggers that on the strength of their writing and influence would have been picked ahead of Ben if not for his father's political connections in the Republican power establishment in Washington, DC. He represents red, heartland America like I represent the people of Vanuatu.
There's something seriously rotten in the Washington, DC elites. You just got a whiff of its stench.
Posted by: mike at March 24, 2006 03:47 PM (ajFJb)
13
I think you are mistaken regarding Brock's second point. Brock's comment:
'In another RedState post, Domenech compared "the Judiciary" unfavorably to the Ku Klux Klan.'
You suggest that Brock is deliberately misstating one of Domenech's comments. But you've posted the wrong comment. Brock was referring to this:
'In the past 30 years, how many innocent lives has the KKK ended?
How about the Judiciary?
Unfortunate that you cannot count.'
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2005/4/11/194515/204/17#17
I agree with Brock: in this comment Domenech is clearly comparing "the Judiciary" unfavorably to the KKK. Whether or not it is "100% factually correct" is not the point.
I partially agree with you re: the Coretta Scott King is a communist remark, although you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Of course communism is not a race. As Brock pointed out, in the 60's KKK/racists used to attack the Kings by calling them communists. (The same way a winger might call someone a 'terrorist' today.) Brock is implying here that Domenech is calling her a communist in that spirit.
There is no way to prove that Domenech meant it that way. So instead I'll just take it at face value: Domenech thinks people should be pissed that Bush attended the funeral of a widely-respected black civil rights leader. You don't have to be a racist to say that -- just an asshole.
What does Brock misrepresent in his third point? Domenech DID post that article without comment, and that is all Brock says. What Brock stated was "100% factually correct".
I do believe that it was originally written as satire, although it's hard to find anything amusing in it. But If Domenech didn't want to be associated with the ideas in the article, maybe he shouldn't have posted it (apparently approvingly).
Posted by: Colin at March 24, 2006 04:10 PM (673ys)
14
Colin,
You are correct, I did post the wrong comment. I apologize for that.
What I posted was Augustine's first post in the thread that more fully explained what he meant, not the brusque shorthand post that Brock cherry-picked and refused to provide context for. I grabbed the wrong quote.
When the context of the thread is explored, it appears that in the comment that Brock presents, Domenech was wondering out loud about the hard numbers of children killed by abortion (the Roe V. Wade "judiciary" reference) versus people lynched by racist groups such as the KKK.
The numbers aren't exact, but the diffrence is staggering:
1,297 whites and 3,446 blacks (4,743 total) were lynched between 1882-1968 according to the Tuskegee Institute. In the United States, well over a million babies a year are aborted.
We're talking a basic difference of 4,743 people lynched and something more than 40 million killed by Domenech's "judiciary."
As for Domenech being ans ass... anyone who falsely represented that much of other people's work as his own has certainly earned the title.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2006 05:38 PM (0fZB6)
15
I know this is off topic but how can anyone take pride in calling himself a "Confederate" anything? The Confederacy was a vile, racist, and traitorous state. How can anyone find that label as worthy of use in 2006?
In the South, there is a movement run by Neo-Confederates, who try to revise history, transforming an evil domain into a sadly gone-by era that should be lamented for its simpler and genteel way of life where Negroes new their place. Ugh! The Confederacy was a grand guignol of terrors for African-Americans. Women were raped freely. Children were forcefully separated from their families.
I find it mindboggling that you would wrap yourself in the imagery of the Confederacy so pridefully. How do you not see the horror of the Confederacy's actions and the brutal legacy of domestic terrorism its sons, like the Klan, have inflicted on innocent Americans? What ethical standard do you use in your life? Would you wrap yourself in the iconic imagery of Nazi Germany? It has an interesting flag. It enslaved people. Separated families. Murdered families.
I live in the United States of America. I am an America. I do not see myself as a Yankee or hold loyalty to my state above my nation. There is only one American flag that matters, Old Glory. The Battle flag of the Confederacy reflects hatred. Not until the Civil Rights Era did the Battle Flag see its rise and use as a state flag.
I could go on, but surely you must no the since of fea, revulsion, and outrage that celebration of the Confederacy inspires. Surely you must know the wrongness of your actions. Surely you must know that for the survival, security, and continued success of America we must be a united people of diverse backgrounds.
Of course, evil knows no bounds of decency. What kind of man are you?
Posted by: noah at March 24, 2006 11:46 PM (qWdSg)
16
What kind of man am I? The kind that provides this link for smug, self-righteous folks such as yourself.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 25, 2006 12:38 AM (0fZB6)
17
From your original post, Brock claimed this:
'In another RedState post, Domenech compared "the Judiciary" unfavorably to the Ku Klux Klan.'
I followed your link into the redstate thread. I think it's clear: Domenech compared "the Judiciary" to the KKK. Brock did not misrepresent what he said.
Now you seem to be arguing that it is reasonable, based on the number of pregnancies ended since roe v. wade and the number of black people lynched by the KKK, for someone to compare "the Judiciary" to the KKK.
OK, that's your opinion. But outside the rw echo chambers a lot of people find that sort of comparison at the very least offensive. (I'd also call it 'deliberately inflammatory' and 'stupid').
Most of the Post's subscribers and advertisers are not right wing nuts who think it makes perfect sense to compare US judges to the KKK. That's why Brock pointed it out to the clowns at the Post.
But based on my reading of the thread, Brock did not misrepresent what was said.
Posted by: Colin at March 25, 2006 04:50 PM (rBctI)
18
No, I am not smug. I simply don't think that in 2006 anyone should think it funny to use the iconic imagery of the Confederacy in any way. Moreover, it's nice that you don't think that racism is a good thing; but why do you think it appropriate to use the Battle Flag of the Confederacy? It's not smugness that brings revulsion to me when I see the Confederate flag anymore than seeing the Swastika-emblazoned flag of Nazi Germany.
Don't you get it? The fact that anyone can think that it is appropriate to use the Confederate flag with any pride is akin to using the Nazi flag. Frankly, I can't think any decent contemporary German conservative would wrap himself in the Nazi flag, which like the Confederate flag, represents evil unbound by decency, brutality and death unleashed on innoncents.
Have you ever had anyone threaten to burn your house down? I have. So, please don't tell me that I am reacting out of smugness. Get it?! This is personal for me.
You can make all the excuses you want, but you won't convince 99% of Americans whose ancestors survived Slavery or Jim Crow. Some Caucasian Americans just don't or refuse to understand how hateful that damned flag is. It's not a questions of anyone's pride in Southern history anymore than German pride in the history of the Third Reich.
Bob, if you want to ignore history and the feelings of the brown folks because you don't intend to harm anyone and think that people like me are overly sensitive, after all what's a little slavery, rape, and murder in the scheme of things....
Hell, you could be married to an African-American woman and a member of your chapter of the NAACP and I would still tell you that what you're doing is repugnant.
Why is it so hard to understand how that for many people the Confederate flag truly represents as much evil as the Nazi flag? Let me put this in perspective for you, besides the murder of Jews, gays, Gypsies, the disabled, dissidents and others, the Nazis targeted the so-called Rheinland Bastards--the biracial children of black French soldiers and their Caucasian German wives. The Nazis gathered the children off the street and forcibly sterilized some of them at first. Others were then kidnapped and sent to the death camps.
I'd like to think that some of what I'm saying would sink in to you, but I think that your pride would overcome reason. It is easier to do nothing than to do the right thing.
Posted by: noah at March 26, 2006 06:51 PM (YqTUK)
19
Noah, this does happen to be a free country, and that includes the right to be offended. You can equate the Confederacy with the Nazis if you like, but it is shallow comparison made by shallow people.
I am as proud of Southerners including the 65,000 African Confederates, 13,000 of which engaged in battle. Thousands of African Confederates served under Stonewall Jackson. Men both black and white, free and slave, served with honor to defend their homes, communities, and states from Union forces.
Perhaps a little eduation is in order for you (from the same link above):
Black Confederate heritage is beginning to receive the attention it deserves. For instance, Terri Williams, a black journalist for the Suffolk "Virginia Pilot" newspaper, writes: "I've had to re-examine my feelings toward the [Confederate] flag started when I read a newspaper article about an elderly black man whose ancestor worked with the Confederate forces. The man spoke with pride about his family member's contribution to the cause, was photographed with the [Confederate] flag draped over his lap that's why I now have no definite stand on just what the flag symbolizes, because it no longer is their history, or my history, but our history."
It is sad that some southern Democrats used that the Confederate Navy Jack (not the flag that I use, by the way, which is the Third Confederate National flag) as a symbol of oppression, after the war, and that some would still misappropriate that symbol for hate.
But I will not let them - or you- bully me into being ashamed of men who fought with honor because of what you think in your ignorance of history.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 26, 2006 08:15 PM (0fZB6)
20
I am not at all a history buff, so this post is going to get me in trouble, but
My understanding is that, as hard for it is for us to believe in modern times, at the time the Civil War touched off slavery was just one of several issues, including fundamental disagreement over states rights versus the role of the federal government, economic policies heavily favoring industry (North) over agriculture (South), and deep-seated cultural conflict for which slavery was seen as something of a proxy. Many Southern whites did not have a direct stake in slavery, since it was only the privledged class, the large plantation-owning gentry, that benefitted from the free labor, and not the white working class that they might otherwise be forced to hire. In fact, many Union states held slaves, and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which only promised the freedom of Confederate slaves, was still somehting of a political gamble. Originally his statements and speeches about the war were about preserving the Union at all cost. I think there's even a quote by him saying he'd preserve the Union if it took freeing all, some, or none of the slaves.
The States were very independent of each other, suspicious and resentful of each other back from the earliest days of the Revolution, and so for the South it was very much like having a foreign country invade, and many proudly defended it on that basis. And there was good reason to defend your farm and home from Union armies whatever your politics were- ask Georgia if U.S. forces were always so soliticious as they are now of territory they conquered and occupied.
All of that is not to defend the Confederacy's policy of slavery, which goes without saying (I hope) is indefensible, but just to say that not everyone automatically equates Confederate history with slavery. As someone who lives in the South, I have seen cars with Confederate flag bumper stickers that say: Heritage, Not Hate. And I have spoken with many who sincerely believe that.
The question then becomes whose views determine the acceptability of an emotional symbol: those of the person who uses it or those of the person who perceives it? I think that this issue has become somewhat of a philosophical dividing point of the left and right, as with the Danish cartoon controversy and the politics of offensive language generally- that is, how P.C. must we be?
You would think that including a disclaimer, as CY does, of exactly what he means by the handle (a family joke, apparently) might settle the issue, but many times it does not, because it assumes that the intentions of the user rather than the reaction of others are what matter. Note noah's focus on the latter in his second post. Of course, here the criticism was originally directly leveled at the intentions of the user, CY, probably because his link isn't easy to find. But just as a more general observation that seems to be what the question boils down to. The blog Protein Wisdom has a lot of wordy posts about the politics of symbols I found interesting, including an unintentionally offensive ice cream symbol.
I would think that the best way to defuse symbols of their power to cause pain is to use them in un-hateful ways, as long as that is made appropriately clear. Some Southerners have been trying to reclaim and redefine Confederate symbols in a broader context: not whitewash history, as has been elsewhere suggested, but to be as the flag of any nation with both good and bad people and both noble and ignoble history, not standing for a particular part of it. To do otherwise is also to offend, to offend those Southerners who were brave and self-sacrificing- yes, there were many!- and their descendents.
That being said, I think that in cases like these there is a certainly responsibility to be prudent and clear with your meaning. Where so many will wonder if bigotry is intended, the link CY provided is necessary. In fact, he might save himself a bit of trouble if he moved it up top, but then again perhaps he relishes these confrontations. There are a lot of people with a very superficial impression of Civil War history, and just because slavery/bigotry is a very clear-cut Evil it doesn't mean that you can reduce the human complexity involved in the war that easily. It, was, literally, not black-and-white.
Now let me be clear about my own intentions to close up. Slavery- bad. Racial oppression- bad. My only intention is to point out that not everyone who uses Confederate symbols is trying to challenge those two no-brainers. I wouldn't hang out at this blog for a moment if I thought otherwise.
Posted by: Amber at March 27, 2006 03:13 PM (9uWiP)
21
WorldSex Daily Updated Free Links to Hardcore Sex Pictures, Movies, Free Porn Videos and XXX Live Sex Cams
Posted by: SEXMENS at April 06, 2006 11:11 PM (WMCQi)
22
What is the most important information I should know about Clonazepam?
• Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities.
• Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure.
• Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam.
What is Clonazepam?
• Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures.
• Clonazepam is used to treat seizures.
• Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
Posted by: CLONAZEPAM at April 08, 2006 11:39 AM (NrsdV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 23, 2006
Shall We Play a Game, Part V
Landfall...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:48 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
An Interview Wth Fred
The Real Ugly American (hey, he said it, not me) scores an interview with Fred Barnes of the "Beltway Boys," author of Rebel in Chief.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:21 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What is the most important information I should know about Clonazepam?
• Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities.
• Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure.
• Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam.
What is Clonazepam?
• Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures.
• Clonazepam is used to treat seizures.
• Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
Posted by: CLONAZEPAM at April 08, 2006 11:39 AM (1p9fm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Beyond the Green Zone
Thoughts on American combat journalists, the lazy and the dead, from Mind in the Qatar.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:17 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Hillary Clinton's Lost Translation of the Bible
You knew she couldn't keep her inner liberal quiet forever, but you would at least hope she wouldn't resort to rewriting the Bible for political gain:
Invoking Biblical themes, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton joined immigration advocates Wednesday to vow and block legislation seeking to criminalize undocumented immigrants.
Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate and relative latecomer to the immigration debate, made her remarks as the Senate prepares to take up the matter next week.
Clinton renewed her pledge to oppose a bill passed in December by the House that would make unlawful presence in the United States _ currently a civil offense _ a felony. The Senate is set to consider a version of that legislation, as well as several other bills seeking to address the seemingly intractable issue of immigration reform.
Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.
"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself." [my bold - ed.]
Senator, I doubt you even know what the Good Book looks like, but please have your campaign researchers at least make a pass at reading the New Testament before you try to rewrite
Luke 10:25-37.
The
Good Samaritan, like the priest and the Levite, was an Israeli, and Samaritans exist to this day inside Holon, Israel, and Nablus in the West Bank. The proposed law would not criminalize the Good Samaritan, because he, too is a native citizen of Israel. Jesus Christ, like the Good Samaritan, is also a native son, and not an illegal immigrant.
Your comments, Senator Clinton, were not just calculated to be inflammatory, they were laughably ignorant. Perhaps the next time you are seen near a Bible for a photo-op, you should consider opening it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:26 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Don't you see, CY, that she's using the general ignorance too many people have of the Holy Scriptures in this ountry? She knows that way over half of those who are Christians do not read the Bible often, and that too many will not know their Samsom from their Goliath.
She's counting on the stupidity and illiteracy of the people to grab power. And that's what makes her even more dangerous.
Posted by: newton at March 23, 2006 04:42 PM (8nSPV)
2
The Holy Spirit's message on the Amazing Miracles Everywhere! blog offers a prayer for Hillary, so she gets it right.
Posted by: Christian Prophet at March 23, 2006 05:38 PM (9WV4U)
3
Hillary Clinton is right on with her comments, I read the bible daily and know that Jesus's message was clear, help your fellow man-especially those that are marginalized and outcasts of society (i.e. the leppers). In today's society these individuals happen to be undocumented immigrants. HR4437 would make it illegal to assist these outcasts of society. Last time I checked Jesus could care less where you came from, he just wanted to help. So get the message right. I dont especially like Hillary and I'm not sure if she reads the Bible but she sure got the message right!
Posted by: Charlie Rose at March 23, 2006 05:54 PM (fDoAr)
4
HR4437 would make it illegal to assist these outcasts of society.
"God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law…" (Gal. 4: 4, 5).
Jesus did not support criminality.
Jesus respected the Law of Moses. Why one asked Jesus "what shall I do to inherit eternal life" Jesus replied, "What is written in the law? How readest thou?" (Lk. 10: 25, 26). When the man correctly answered by alluding to the Ten Commandments, Jesus said "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (vs. 27, 2
. Jesus recognized the resident authority of the Hebrew scriptures when he quoted them to defeat the Tempter (Matt. 4, 7, 10, Deut. 8: 3; Ps. 91: 11, 12; Deut. 6: 16).
Christ recognized the authority of the law.
Every single illegal alien in this country is, without exception, a criminal.
WWJD?
He would have them obey the law.
Posted by: God Fearing at March 23, 2006 06:07 PM (0fZB6)
5
Jesus told us to obey our government. He pointedly told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and that includes the laws as well as taxes. Jesus would forgive the illegal imigrants of their sins, but not their transgressions against man's laws.
Why can't we minister to the needs of the poor in their own country? Why do they have to unlawfully enter our country for help? If you wanted to imigrate to China would you simply cross their border and take up residence? Why should this country of laws be so ready to ignore our own laws?
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 23, 2006 06:19 PM (owAN1)
6
As I listened to Hillary speak those words regarding scripture, a chill ran down my spine. It was as if she were forcing them out - they were empty of Love and Understanding.
I did not believe she believed what she had said.
Sadly, imho - its pure politics. Whats worse tho' would be her "handlers and advisers". Can you hear an 'alleged' conversation (purely fictional speculation):
"Hillary - you have to do this - you have to say it."
"I don't want to - I won't sound sincere."
"We've got to move you midstream - we're running out of time. You know Ms. Rice's background - we've got to move you a bit more - uhm, into the red."
"I don't think so..."
"It's the only way."
"You think so?"
"Yes... Hey - it worked for Bush - and you know how hated he is - yet there he is, still in office - despite everything."
"Okay... alright..."
The issue for Sen. Clinton now is this - the door has been opened and she opened it.
She can no longer avoid discussing her faith with regards to how she votes, campaigns - everything now is Fair Game for the opposition.
Today on Rush a caller made a very good point. He said, paraphrasing, "They've taken a political issue and made it a moral issue. And moral issues, they make political." (In ref. to the Dem. leaders).
Next up - "Senator Clinton - could you explain how you balance your faith in scriptures to your stand on >>>
It may have seemed the 'right' move at the time; but imho this will cause her no end of grief in the months ahead.
Posted by: rich at March 23, 2006 10:23 PM (PRCiD)
7
"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants"-- Hillary 2004.
Now this disgusting attempt to use the name of Jesus to prop up her political agenda?
Could her pandering be any more obvious?
Posted by: Amber at March 23, 2006 11:06 PM (9uWiP)
8
"Senator Clinton, how do you reconcile your Christian stand on aiding illegal immigrants, with your stand on abortion?"
Posted by: Tom TB at March 24, 2006 07:54 AM (y6n8O)
9
CONGRATULATIONS SENATOR CLINTON FOR YOUR COURAGEOUS WORDS WHICH SHOWS THE EVIL INTENTIONS OF MODERN PHARISEES, WHO FORGET THAT THEIR EUROPEAN PARENTS WERE ALSO IMMIGRANTS IN THE LANDS OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN, WITH WHOM THEY CELEBRATED TOGETHER THANKSGIVING. WHY THE EUROPEAN AMERICAN NOW DENY THAT PRIVILIGE TO LATIN AMERICAN CHILDREN, HARD WORKING MEN AND WOMEN AND TREAT THEM AS CRIMINALS. SHAME ON YOU MODERN PHARISEES!
Posted by: David at March 24, 2006 08:27 AM (bbe+1)
10
Hmmm, Well, David,
My Grandparents were LEGAL immigrants, that means they did exactly what they were supposed to do to get into this country.
That means it was LEGAL.
That means it was OK for them to do.
The correct paperwork and everything.
Just like EVERYONE is supposed to do it TODAY's society.
Just like YOU would have to do if you went to another country to live, at least LEGALLY.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 24, 2006 10:05 AM (JYeBJ)
11
As a lifelong liberal democrat eagerly anticipating this coming November, I was dismayed to find that the Democrats did find a way to shoot themselves in the foot by being on the wrong side of this issue. We need to uphold and encourage all of those individuals who are applying legally for residence and punish those who method is simply to shimmy under a fence. Hillary had better get her polling machine engaged before she goes too far down this dead end path!
Posted by: Kevin in Columbus at March 24, 2006 10:22 AM (Pdt2R)
12
Hillary is simply trying to peel off some social conservatives by feeding them the "Jesus as a do-gooder socialist crap" that has been pushed by the lefties the the National Council of Churches and books like people like Ronald Sider.
Everyone know Jesus was a capatilist! Here's the proof.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Posted by: j. blair at March 24, 2006 03:55 PM (FrnwP)
13
Hillary Clinton's reading of the Gospel is absolutely correct. You can justify about any position by selectively picking and choosing from the Bible, but then you're not really a Christian. Christ's teachings, in their fundamentals as laid out in the sermon on the mount and the beatitudes, are a difficult, radical message.
And, by the way, the Clintons go to church every weekend, did so throughout their years in the WH, and were active in the church (including their daughter). The Bushes never go to church, except once every few months for a photo-op. A few minutes with Google or Lexis-Nexis will confirm this for you.
And, regarding illegal immigration, the Native-American tribes didn't exactly issue green cards to the Europeans.
Posted by: mike at March 25, 2006 01:10 AM (tQrLB)
14
Mike,
Hillary was wrong, no doubt about it. She said that:
"...this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
That is not true.
The good Samaritan and Jesus were both natives of Israel, though from different tribes so it could not "literally criminalize them."
There is nothing in this bill that would stop people from helping someone in dire need, and there are in fact "good Samaritan" laws in place around the nation to protect people who would do just that.
Jesus consistently said that legal authority should be respected, and he never said that one should support criminal behavior.
Every single illegal immigrant in this nation is a criminal. That word "illegal" is there for a reason.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 25, 2006 07:57 AM (0fZB6)
15
actually, you have quite a few facts wrong there.
A) Israel was not formed as a country until 1947. It was a people group before then, much like the Quakers or the Amish are a people group in america. However, until 1947, it was impossible to be a "citizen of Israel".
B) Jesus, the Levite, and the Priest were from Palestine.
C) The Samaritan was from Samaria. (hence where the name "Samaritan" came from.)
D) Samaria and Palestine were two distinct areas. They were in absolutely no way "one country". They were both under Roman rule, but so was majority of the known world (greece, spain, italy, etc. were all also under roman rule, but this does not make all these areas "one country).
E) Palestinians refused to even travel through Samaria, and vice versa. They would take long detours around the area when traveling, sometimes adding weeks to their journey.
I would suggest that the next time you plan on criticizing someone else's bible facts, you be more careful with your OWN statements. Why don't you try some of your own advice. Open a bible, and maybe a history book too while you're at it.
Posted by: Kristin at March 25, 2006 11:03 AM (OpjAa)
16
I noticed that the late pope John Paul II went as a Christian to visit and comfort and even forgive his would be assasin -he never demanded that he not pay the price of incarceration for his crimes though. Likewise I don't recall Jesus condemning the horrid practice of crucifixion -nor slavery -his message through Paul was to be good slaves.
Posted by: DL at March 25, 2006 12:08 PM (dvwAO)
17
-Although Israel was officially recognized as a country on May 14,1948 (when The Jewish Community in Israel under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion REESTABLISHED sovereignty over their ancient homeland. Then the Declaration of independence of the modern State of Israel was announced on the day that the last British forces left Israel), Israel was a country LONG before this.
It's all through the old testament. 1300BCE decendants of Abraham come together to become a nation. 1406BCE Joshua led the Jews into Canaan and begins conqering the land, establishing the Jewish nation of Israel for the first time.
-Israel had Judges and kings because like most Countries, they had government.
-1010-970BCE David made Jerusalem capital of Israel. Although, different people ruled at the time, Israel was still a country, and Jesus hung out in Jerusalem, and is an Israelite making him a citizen of Israel.
-So the author of this blog, is in fact correct.
-Yes, we should love our neighbors, but should we allow people to enter our country illegally, and should we allow for the people who help or sneak these illegal immigrants into out country to get off free. NO. Jesus was for following the laws of the land. We have laws, if you want to be a citizen then do it the right way. Further more, what happens when terrorists sneak in, or people trafficking drugs. Or the women who was raped and murdered (a few months ago) by an illegal immigrant, where is her justice.
-funny how most democrats are against the new bill, but are opposed to us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries needing liberation.
-Hillary supports abortion and gay marriage..what would God say about these things? How about "Thou Shalt not Murder" and Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
- CONDI RICE 2008.
Posted by: Jamie at March 25, 2006 01:19 PM (gyrqE)
18
I understood Hillary's analogy more loosely, i.e. I think she meant that the Good Samaritan would have been criminalized for helping someone in need, as American citizens could (according to some people's interpretation of the proposed legislation) be criminalized for helping illegal immigrants in need. Nothing to do with who was a citizen of what two thousand years ago. Not that this is at all clear from the rest of the article, if I am right.
It is, of course, an odd thing to say. She does drop some real doozies. I still have no idea what she meant by that Gandhi thing.
Posted by: Juliet at March 26, 2006 10:26 AM (k9LKh)
19
"According to Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the proposed provision "is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid." Mahoney has instructed the priests of his archdiocese to disobey the law if it is enacted."
Cardinal Mahoney, via the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/opinion/22mahony.html?hp
via ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/26/tancredo-clinton/
Posted by: mike at March 26, 2006 01:44 PM (tQrLB)
20
Hillary was clearly referring to the House bill's criminalizing knowingly providing assistance to an illegal immigrant. The bill would make it a felony to be in the country illegally, and make it illegal to aid such immigrants.
There is a huge difference between operating a network to bring illegals into the country, versus operating a soup kitchen or shelter for the poor. The proposed law would impose a huge burden on relief agencies, and a risk of prosecution. You're basically turning soup kitchens into INS agents.
Hillary's analogy was to the Good Samaritan helping someone regardless of who he was or where he was from, and to Christ ministering to the afflicted, feeding the hungry.
Posted by: Rich at March 27, 2006 05:48 AM (VtVg0)
21
This is not about someones Christianity this is about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. If you are here ILLEGALLY you have broken the law. All Americans that live here must obey the law. Everyone wants to demonize this bill. Most of those who want to condemn this do not live nor have they ever lived in a border state. Most want to jump on the band wagon about the poor illegals well, a lot of illegals come from China and the MiddleEast and other asian countries not just Mexico. What most liberals want is the VOTE of these folks. They must realize that these folks cannot vote due to there status. SOOOOO why do you think they want to change the law? I used to live in a border state and I understand why people want to come to this country, but there is a process by which you can LEGALY Immigrate. My wife is from asia so I understand the process. We have been married for twenty years. But do liberals know what illegals bring with them when they come across the border? Talk to the health care professionals. We are seeing the comeback of such diseases as Tuberculosis, Smallpox, Diptheria. These people bring the AIDS virus sometimes. Guess what they don't have the means to pay for there health care needs so who pays for it? The over taxed AMERICAN WORKER, you know the ones that PAY TAXES. Because our laws requires that they recieve medical services. The soaring cost of medical care in this country is due to the number of ILLEGALS that do not have insurance. If you don't believe me talk with Hospital Administrators in San Diego or L.A. Also consider the ciminal element drugs and Gangs Like MS-13. All that has been on the news is the lack of border & port security mostly by the left but, yet when they want to shut down the borders and kick out the people that don't belong here they are up in arms and envoking Christ's name. There is alot more to this than what I have written here.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 27, 2006 08:57 AM (NmR1a)
22
Faithful Patriot:
Honestly I doubt what you said about your so called asian wife; I don't know why you said "you're familiar with that." Probably you are one of those persons who knows one or two things about something and automatically thinks to now a great deal. Don't show off ignorance please.
Obviosly you don't even know what you're talking about. You sound like another brainless parrot who only repeats what some people say. Do your homework and find out the real numbers. Those aliens pay more into the sytem than what they get. Don't you love at the end of the year (taxing season) you get your income tax return? I bet you do. You know what those folks get? They get the fingers from the IRS.
About the AIDS you said: Probably they just bring back the AIDS that some horny Americans spreaded down there when they go to Tijuana looking for "putas."
About "not having the right to be here": Like I said before, go do your homework this time. If the US is so into "Policing the world" why not put your money where your mouth is. Enforce the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Posted by: Str8 out at March 29, 2006 11:00 AM (EBDuV)
23
So what your saying is, that you know me. My wife is asian from the Philippines, I was stationed there for more than eight years. I have help many friends with the legal immigration process while we were processing hers. Yes I do know the process. Obviously more than you do. As far as the IRS is concerned if you didn't pay why should you get a return. But you already know that correct, something about a Social Security Number perhaps? Oh yes and a right to work permit for those on work visa's. Sounds to me that I struck a chord with you. So let me tell you this. I am an American, my wife is a naturalized American we work and pay taxes. I send my kids to public schools. I am an average joe working guy. Sounds to me that you might be Hispanic with the "putas" reference. I absolutley do not have a problem with folks that come here legaly, but I do have a problem with the one that don't. Latinos by far are hardworking honest folks. I have a lot of Mexican friends and neighbors. But since I do pay taxes I have the right to tell you and everyone else what I think. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder. There are many people that make up this country we are all a bunch of immigrants. When an undocumented illegal walks into an emergency room at the county hospital it cost the taxpayer, when school is full of kids who can't speak english, that takes away from the rest of the students. If you don't believe me come to San Diego, go to a elementary school and talk to the teachers. Talk to the county administrators, on the cost of keeping clinics open. Everyone of them will tell you the same thing. The number of illegals using the system are overwhelming. Those systems are all taxpayer funded. So explain to me how a person who has no Social Security Number, no right to work stamp in a passport, has no taxes taken out of their pay contribute to the social system. So your evaluation of me is totally unqualified.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 30, 2006 11:37 AM (FzhYM)
24
after bush came into office i began thinking about what the anti-christ actually could be. off the bat i realized the anti-christ would not be a man. it would be the opposition of a man. it would have to be a woman. throughout history women have been the bringers of the greatest tyranny. *think bloody mary. anyway, i thought to myself about semiramis in babylon and began to do some research. my personal conclusion was that if hilary clinton began to speak of the good samaritan, it was key to my belief that if she also became president, she would be the one to bring america to its knees. rally against diebold voting machines people. rigged elections will bring forth hell.
Posted by: slum at April 23, 2006 10:59 PM (QDLp3)
25
Im not a christian. Its pretty obvious that passing a law that criminalizes any offer of help to underprivileged / poor people is not in keeping with christian teachings. Your biblical technicalities about legal / nonlegal and jesus wanted you to obey the law are ridiculous. Would jesus have wanted you to obey Nazi Law? The same arguments apply. I think not. Clinton is right on.
Posted by: John at April 28, 2006 01:23 AM (0QCBf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Red, or Black?
The Church of the Perpetually Offended is up in arms again, this time over the "fact" that Ben Domenech of the Washington Post's new blog Red America made the "racist" comment that Coretta Scott King was a communist while blogging under the screen name Augustine at RedState. While I do not know if Domenech is Augustine, let's say that he is for argument's sake.
Predictably, the leftists making this charge said
far more offensive things then Domenech did when leveling their charge against him, but their
hysteria basically boils down to one simple question:
Whether or not Domenech was right about King's politics,
when did communism become a race?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:15 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
No, No, CY ... You don't understand. It makes no difference what one may say that makes it a recist comment. The simple fact that anything negative that is ever directed toward a member of another race or ethnic group is racist. That has been the new politically correct paradigm spouted from the leftie moonbats for some time now. Don't you know nuthin' 'bout them racists?
Posted by: Retired Spy at March 23, 2006 08:24 AM (rhncG)
2
Retired Spy, Right On, Man! I remember watching one of those talk shows in 1970 when they had a leftie and a young Republican. When the latter referred to then Black Panther Party leader Eldridge Cleaver as a rapist, the leftie said "That's a racist statement!", even though the Republican was quoting from Cleaver's own book, "Soul on Ice"!
Posted by: Tom TB at March 23, 2006 09:38 AM (wZLWV)
3
UNLESS the minority member in question is a *gasp* conservative minority. Not that such a thing REALLY exists, because a conservative minority is not a REAL black or whatever. Minorities must think in lockstep with whatever the liberals decide is authentic for their race, and they must agree blindly with hatemongers like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or they lose their protected status as a minority, and indeed as a human being, and are fair games for liberals to attack them with the vilest of racial slurs. See Colin Powell, Condi Rice, a few various conservative black columnists and politicans for prime examples. They are considered heretics and race traitors and must be punished for daring to think for themselves. This also applies to other minorities: Jews, Hispanics, etc. Even Michelle Malkin gets her share of nasty racial slurs from liberals. Minorities are untouchable until they disagree with their liberal "protectors" and then they are gone after more viciously than any conservative would imagine doing.
On the other hand, LIBERAL minorities are sacrosanct, so that anyone who criticizes them, (especially but NOT necessarily a white Christian) for any reason must really, secretly be trying to oppress them and all criticisms are just "code" for attacking their race/nationality/culture/whatever. So you see, this hapless columnist was speaking in code to say to us secretly racist conservatives (that all conservatives are racist, and understand the Code, is a given) that she should shut up and go sit in the back of the bus. Obviously.
Needless to say, this mindset only perpetuates racial divisions. It is liberals who are obsessed with race, and try to put people in categories of behavior and belief according to their race, and then anyone who criticizes any aspect of the invented behavior and belief (including political belief) is REALLY attacking the race. So with "ghetto culture". If you any deplore the violence and degradation in any way, you are are a racist. Not those (liberals) who automatically impute gang violence as authentically black, but you for imploring blacks to rise above it. So also with liberal politics, most notably wealth-redistribution. While not exclusively racial, of course, it is axiomatic among liberals that all (real) minorities go along with this unless they are race-traitors, and that their beliefs are inevitably tied in to what liberal politics can do for their race, and so for attacking the liberal politics of a minority you are attacking their minority identity. And if that logic doesn't make sense to us, well, we are kncukle-dragging conservatives who have been brainwashed by Fox News, what do you expect?
Posted by: Amber at March 23, 2006 11:28 AM (9uWiP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 22, 2006
Battle Math
The war in Iraq is sometimes a numbers game.
Yesterday:
About 100 masked gunmen stormed a prison near the Iranian border Tuesday, cutting phone wires, freeing all the inmates and leaving behind a scene of devastation--20 dead policemen, burned-out cars and a smoldering jailhouse.
At least 10 attackers were killed in the dawn assault on the Muqdadiyah lockup on the eastern fringe of the Sunni Triangle, police said.
33 inmates were released in the attack, roughly half or (according to some reports, more) were insurgents, and the other half were common criminals. Ten insurgents were thought to have died, along with 20 police officers.
Battle result: 20 Iraqi policemen killed, 16 (est.) insurgents escaped from the prison, and ten insurgents were killed. A rough net “gain” of 26 bodies for the insurgency and a palpable P.R. boost that lasted all of 24 hours.
Today:
Insurgents attacked a police station Wednesday for a second day in a row, but U.S. and Iraqi forces captured 50 of them after a two-hour gun battle.
About 60 gunmen attacked the police station in Madain, south of Baghdad, with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles, said police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammadawi. U.S. troops and a special Iraqi police unit responded, catching the insurgents in crossfire, he said.
Four police were killed, including the commander of the special unit, and five were wounded, al-Mohammadawi said. None of the attackers died, and among the captives was a Syrian.
Battle result: 4 Iraqi policemen killed, 0 insurgents escaped from the prison, and 50 insurgents were captured. The result is net “gain” for the day of 46 captured insurgents.
If recent history is any indicator, those captured will provide significant information. Typically, these large-scale captures end up revealing operational details, exposing ammunition caches, and releasing other vital intelligence information that may end up shutting down the insurgency in this area.
The media will more than likely present these two insurgent assaults as being equal, but opposite in effect. This of course is far from true.
The insurgency is much smaller than Iraqi police and military forces, and a two-day net loss of 20 men, especially 20
live men that can threaten the larger network with the information they can reveal, is a far greater loss for the insurgency.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:02 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Great article. The left thinks it's their job to be cheerleaders for terrorists, while making fun of the troops. I'm glad you pointed out the unbalanced reporting. Thank you.
Posted by: Brando at March 22, 2006 11:22 PM (GTNT6)
2
WorldSex Daily Updated Free Links to Hardcore Sex Pictures, Movies, Free Porn Videos and XXX Live Sex Cams
Posted by: SEXMENS at April 06, 2006 11:11 PM (LeGh5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Red America
If a primary goal of newspaper blogging is to attract the attention of readers and start conversations, then WPNI (Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive) knocked it out of the park by launching Ben Domenech's unabashedly conservative political blog, Red America.
The first substantial post,
Pachyderms in the Mist: Red America and the MSM, got a
huge,
on-going, and predictably whiny response from the left side of the blogosphere, who didn't think it was fair having a conservative blogger to balance out
Dan Froomkin and
William Arkin (a former Greenpeace activist/"National and Homeland Security" blogger, protecting us, presumably, from the threat of kamikaze Japanese whalers).
If generating "buzz" (or for that matter,
hysteria) is part of the intent, WPNI has succeeded. The far left are engaging in much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Keep in mind, little liberals, it
could have been worse.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:29 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Trackback link seems messed up, so here is my link:
http://thesins.blogspot.com/2006/03/pride-interview.html
Posted by: Sinner at March 22, 2006 09:42 AM (+eEQo)
2
It indeed could have been worse. The WP could have brought on board someone with half a brain.
The Bible, Carolos Casteneda, Stephen King & Louis L'Amour? Yipes. That explains a lot.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 22, 2006 10:19 AM (iI6rf)
Posted by: nobrakes at March 22, 2006 11:12 AM (wZLWV)
4
You are insane.
And like cherry blossoms denote the start of spring along the tidal basin in Washington, D.C., the random, vapid and illogical personal attacks of moonbats mark another link by the Daou Report on Salon.com...
The Bible, Carolos Casteneda, Stephen King & Louis L'Amour? Yipes. That explains a lot.
Yes Richard, people - the vast majority of people in the United States - read the Bible, at least on ocasion, which probably has something to do with it being the most read, most published book in human history.
Castaneda is quite big hit among the "New Age" set that I discover in a minority literature class focussing on hispanic writers, and Stephen King's record as a fiction writer is perhaps unmatched in modern times.
Louis L'Amour is one of the most succesful writers of western novels, though Zane Grey was no slouch.
Perhaps all of those ignorant people who read these books shouldn't shop at your easily stereotyped Seattle Art Gallery for fear of being derided by you and your "tolerant liberal" sensibilities, but it is, of course, their choice.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 22, 2006 11:33 AM (g5Nba)
5
Thanks for the plug.
I always felt that a right-wing blogger should have a strong background in fantasy and supernatural literature.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 22, 2006 01:30 PM (ijyAZ)
6
Must be the paint fumes in the art gallery.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 22, 2006 02:45 PM (JYeBJ)
7
While I do enjoy some fiction, I never really got into fantasy literature, except for the rare times I visit the Democratic Underground, firedoglake, Taylor Marsh and other “progressive” sites, that engage constant fantasies ranging their ever-present fixation on impeachment (winning elections is apparently an angle they aren’t ready to try), to the theory that Vice President Cheney meant to shoot Harry Whittington, to the Downing Street Memos (two of which, the David Manning Memo and the so-called “Iraqi Options” paper flatly contradict liberal claims), to the “9/11 is an inside job” crowd, to the recent claim that the “right wing blogosphere does not exist,” Democrats engage in a pervasive fantasy life every day.
Is this the reason that progressives say they are part of a “reality-based” community? They are indeed far more correct than they know.
If something it “-based” it means that it is not “X,” but that it merely uses components of “X”. A tomato-based soup is not just tomato soup, but tomato and a whole host of other ingredients, often to the point that it has more of “the other” than it does tomato, and nobody would readily recognize it as tomato soup.
So it is with the progressive “reality-based” community. They do use some elements of reality—9/11 did occur, Cheney did shoot Whittington—but they concoct surreal fantasies to twist the world to their worldview, making events that are reality-based, but decidedly not reality.
Chris “The right wing blogosphere does not exist” Bowers seems to think that you are losing an argument to a figment of your imagination, Richard. This site, as a right wing blog, doesn’t exist.
Which one of you is fantasizing more Richard, Bowers for insisting that I don’t exist, or you for believing that I do and trying to interact with me?
Oh, there is plenty of fantasy going on Richard, I’m just not sure it is healthy to engage in as much as you do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 22, 2006 03:08 PM (g5Nba)
8
I have found the comments regarding the new blog to be sort of whiny. Not as fevered and raging as at KOS, but definitely whiny.
I liked his initial post. Good blogging, I thought!
Posted by: benning at March 22, 2006 03:40 PM (GXvlP)
9
There are plenty of conservatives in the MSM: David Brooks and Bill Safire at NYT, George Will and Charles Krauthammer at WP. Andrew Sullivan is on at Time.
So why are you conservatives are always bitching about the lack of your ideology's reprentation in any so-called liberal publication? Aren't you all supposed to be against reservations and quotas?
Posted by: notnowjohn at March 22, 2006 03:50 PM (tvSua)
10
And why are you liberals always pissing on our shoes and trying to convince us that it's the rain?
Wow! You named five of 'em! Wow!
Hey, ConYank! Liked the interview! I do feel entitled to your opinion. Whenever I vist. LOL
Posted by: benning at March 22, 2006 03:56 PM (GXvlP)
11
notnowjohn,
Andrew Sullivan, only nominally a conservative, is the only one you can find at Time magazine out of many, many writers. David Brooks is the only remaining conservative at the NY Times (Safire retired in January), a news organization with hundreds if not thousands of reporters and stringers. The Washington Post actually has two identifiable conservatives among more than 800 (soon to be 700) employees in their newsroom.
And yet you and your liberal breathern are screaming your fool heads off because the Washington Post added one conservative politcal blogger to their massive staff.
Thomas Sowell's quote on Sister Toldjah's site is apparently accurate:
"It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread a multitude of hypocrites."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 22, 2006 04:19 PM (g5Nba)
12
I hope nobody was composing a response to the two now-deleted responses from the foul-mouthed liberal from San Francisco, notnowjohn.
I tossed 'em.
I suppose I'll never understand why folks like that cannot conduct a conversation supported by facts instead of invective, though I suppose it also explains why the rest of the country virtually ignores them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 23, 2006 01:54 PM (g5Nba)
13
Safire was replaced by Tierney. You don't consider him conservative?
Also, you seem to be confusing the entire staff of the NYT with its opinion writers. It doesn't make sense to say that Brooks and Tierney are the only two conservatives out of thousands of NYT employees.
But your inability/unwillingness to understand that difference isn't really the point. That the post has hired this racist child Domenech is a farce. Your cheerleading is embarassing.
I predict he has resigned or is fired sometime next week. He has way too much obnoxious, hateful, and insipid history around the blogs for even the wapo to ignore.
I'm so confident I'll even wander back by this blog after it happens, so you can congratulate me on my prescience.
Posted by: Colin at March 23, 2006 06:43 PM (673ys)
14
I heard Ben is a plagiarizer. Caught ripping-off P.J. P'Rourke. Oh my. This could be the end for him.
Posted by: Herschel Belitsky at March 23, 2006 07:02 PM (azK6G)
15
He ripped off O'Rourke, did he? That's mighty sad to hear, not to mention pretty stupid.
When did he do this?
I only ask, becuase I heard he was 17 at the time on one of the liberal blogs. Real tough of you guys to beat up on a 17 year-old's bad judgement. I'm sure you were perfect in your teens, never erring, never making mistakes, never doing anything illegal or immoral. It must be tough, having to balance that halo all the time.
I hope you can taste the sarcasm.
I'm having a hard time discerning which is more sad. Being called out for a stupid act of plagiarism you made as a teen, or being so petty that you would dig into the past of a teen to try to destroy a man for a long-ago error in judgement.
I don't have any stake in the matter, but from what I've seen so far, all the fury over Domenech has shown me far more about liberals that it has about Red America.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 23, 2006 07:24 PM (0fZB6)
16
Sorry, but it wasn't just that one. People have now compiled over a dozen instances of plagiarism over many years. This is not ok, even if you're a Republican. Students get kicked out or suspended from college for just one or two of these.
Even more troubling is the AP article that nobody else can find: http://www.bendomenech.com/globe.htm
This one is definitely from after his three-year stint at W&M. I hope someone can dig out the source for this, otherwise he's toast in a way I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Posted by: mike at March 24, 2006 06:51 AM (fpDmN)
17
If these charges of plagiarism are true, he deserves to lose his position not only at the Washington Post, but Red State as well.
Conversation continues here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 24, 2006 07:03 AM (0fZB6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 21, 2006
The Barry Bonds of Bass
Rusty is taking far too much enjoyment from the fact that the new world record* largemouth bass has been caught--well-foul-hooked-- in California:
World record large mouth bass caught yesterday at Dixon Lake, in San Diego County by Mac Weakley. Yes, the world's biggest bass was caught in California. Take that Confederate Yankee. The fish weighed 25 lbs. 1 oz, breaking the previous record of 22 lbs. 4 ozs set by George W. Perry at Montgomery Lake in Georgia in 1932.
Unfortunately, this giant of a fish was "foul-hooked"--which means that it was hooked in a place other than in the mouth. In other words, Weakly's lure snagged the fish on accident. The IGFA rules, though, only disqualify the fish if it was intentionally fould-hooked [sic]. Regardless of its official position in the record books, this is the biggest bass ever caught.
George Perry's record largemouth was (and may still be) the longest running and most coveted of fishing records, but even if Mac Weakley's 25 pound 1 ounce is deemed the new world record* for largemouth bass, it will carry with it an asterisk like that of
Barry Bonds.
Why?
Introduced in 1874 (or 1891, depending on the source) from Midwestern stock, largemouth bass in California are a non-native species. Largemouths from Florida, long considered the thoroughbreds of the species, were introduced in 1959 in an effort to boost the potential size of California bass, which began growing fat on a steady diet of
stocked trout. It remains to be seen if
BALCO was invlvoed.
A record? Maybe, but every bit as engineered as Barry Bonds.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:06 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Fellow fishermen and friends,
I cannot believe no one has said it! Are we looking past the obvious?? It is not a matter of whether this fish should count because of how it was taken. It is not even convincing evidence that this fish was world record size. No one has ever caught, netted, foul hooked or even shocked up a bass bigger than the world record. Let alone 25 pounds. The circumstances surrounding this catch leads me to believe that this bass was not only shy of 25 pounds, but shy of 221/4 also. Foul hooked or not.
Consider this....
In order for a bass to grow to this super size (25 pounds supposedly), it would mean that there were countless bass in this lake that were over 20 pounds. And they keep catching the same one? How magical. Mathimatically, the odds of this are mind-boggling.
I can tell you that there is millions of dollars to gain by saying that this fish is bigger then the record. Is it possible that he foul hook claim is just a smokescreen to getting the reward? Think about it, they had to claim a foul hook, to have a reason to let it go. This gives them a shot at the record book. They cannot claim it was the record and caught legitimately, or else they would have had to keep it for certification, and risk serious inspection of the fish, which would reveal the obvious... it was not the world record bass.
Not to mention... have you ever foul hooked a fish? I have... and when you do, even small ones feel like giants... In other words, you know if a fish is foul hooked before it gets into the net. Supposedly, they did not. There is no way this would be a "five minute" fight. And it is pretty coincidental to foul hook a 25 pound bass. The foul hook claim is excuse for not having the PROOF. The video of it on the scale is not proof. It is easy to film a fish being weighed with added weight in its belly or mouth. Measuring it on film or in photos would be proof... but I guess that just slipped their minds.
Also, If you guys are not familiar with this bass trio... Jed, Mac, and Mike are not amateurs. They fish practically EVERYDAY for the record. If anyone knows what qualifies for it... these guys do. They have all caught and documented huge fish before. They measure, certify, and photograph EVERY big bass. The world record bass is what they LIVE for. Every minute in their lives has been preparing them for the moment they get to see a bass over 22 lb. 4 oz. So, why were they in such a hurry to release it before anyone else could really see it? Don't forget, Jed had his 21 pounder at the docks for HOURS (Scale samples, photos, MEASUREMENTS, certification, etc.) for dozens of people to witness. There is no way that they would catch a bass that eclipsed the world record by almost three pounds and throw it back so fast. Too many people, including themselves would just want to SEE and admire a bass that big, foul hooked or not.
Here is a more likely scenario of what happened that morning...
One of them catches a bass around 19 or 20 pounds. Weary of years of futile efforts to catch the world record, they come up with a plan to claim this fish as the record. Stuff a weight in him, roll tape for a minute for a little evidence. However... they need an excuse to not have the fish for closer examination for fear of revealing the truth... so they come up with the foul hooked story. The claim of it being foul hooked just gives them reason to release it uncertified, leaving the possibility that it might LOOK like a 25 pounder. Then they can claim they released the world record because they thought it wouldn't count.
How convenient. Another world record released again... What a coincidence. They want the glory (and cash) without the proof.
This hoax is getting old. Paul Duclos did it in 1997. And Leah Trew did it two years ago.
Think about it... these boys fish for the record almost for a living. No doubt, they caught a big bass that morning, but my guess is it wasn't foul hooked and it wasn't the record. If they actually caught a bass THAT big (25 lbs), it would not go back in the water within minutes, uncertified, even if they caught it in a throw net.
There is a million dollars to gain from claiming that it was a foul hooked 25 pounder. My guess is it was a legitimately caught 19 or 20. If you know anything about big bass, then you know that every 19 or 20 pounder LOOKS 25 lbs. These boys are just counting on the IGFA to see it that way too. We're looking at another fish story boys. Don't be fooled into biting.
Julian Fritz
Posted by: julian at March 22, 2006 04:13 PM (iFJle)
2
I know these guys, I've seen them fish. They'd never do such a thing. Grow up and stop living your life as a conspiracy theory!
Posted by: jeff at March 22, 2006 06:42 PM (Cz9uo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Civilization vs. Barbarity
In a speech he is to give later this afternoon in London, Tony Blair is correct that the essential nature of the "long war" we continue to fight is an ideological one:
"This is not a clash between civilizations, it is a clash about civilization," Blair will say in a speech this afternoon, according to extracts released by his official spokesman.
"'We' is not the West. 'We' are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. 'We' are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts," he will say.
While there is no indication that Blair had Afghani Christian Abdul Rahman in mind with this speech, those words easily apply to the case of Rahman, a 40-ish Afghani that converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago, and faces the death penalty in Afghanistan for leaving the “religion of peace.”
I wrote about this
last night with some restraint, trying to keep in mind that Afghanis live in a far more primitive, basic culture than our own, one that has not substantially changed in the thousand years since Muslims invaded the Hindu kingdoms of Gandhaar & Vaahic Pradesh. The mountain range which dominates the country was named in honor of one of Islam's greatest genocides; "Hindu Kush" is Persian for "Hindu slaughter." Millions of Hindus were put to the sword or forcibly converted to Islam in Afghanistan, and Islamic bloodlust in Afghanistan seems far from sated.
From the
Chicago Tribune:
Abdul Rahman told his family he was a Christian. He told the neighbors, bringing shame upon his home. But then he told the police, and he could no longer be ignored.
Now, in a major test of Afghanistan's fledgling court system, Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister.
"We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail, as she made a cutting motion with her hands. "There's no need to see him."
Rahman's trial, which started Thursday, is thought to be the first of its kind in Afghanistan. It goes to the heart of the struggle between Islamic reformists and fundamentalists in the country, which is still recovering from 23 years of war and the harsh rule of the Taliban, a radical religious regime that fell in late 2001.
Even under the more moderate government now in power, Islamic law is supposed to be followed, and many believe it requires the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion.
"We are Muslim, our fathers were Muslim, our grandfathers were Muslim," said Abdul Manan, Rahman's father, who is 75. "This is an Islamic country. Imagine if your son told a police commander, also a Muslim, that he is a Christian. How would this affect you? It's very difficult for us."
As Tony Blair's speech states, we are not in a clash
between civilizations, but a clash
about civilization. What Blair has not directly stated is that most Muslim countries have precious little civilization, or practice civilized behavior. They are trapped in a backward culture hundreds of years in the past. While we hoped that bringing democracy to them would be a start, the sadistic nature of fundamentalist Islam bared by the case of Abdul Rahman makes me wonder if a slow conversion to a moremodernized society is the correct course of action after all.
We did not deliver Afghanis from the Taliban to allow Afghanis to perpetrate the same crimes against basic human decency. If this murderous intolerance truly is the essence of fundamentalist Islam, then we need to rethink our basic approach to the "religion of peace."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:27 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If Islam does not moderate its archaic practices, it will find the rest of the world will ban its practice. I truly believe Islam is Satan's greatest success. The attributes of Allah more closely align to Satan than to God. Think about that for a few moments.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 21, 2006 02:51 PM (X2tAw)
2
Old Soldier, I've been thinking about it since Islamists attacked the World Trade Center 2/26/93. They don't care if they murder their own co-religionists, thinking that God and Satan will sort them out, I guess.
Posted by: Tom TB at March 22, 2006 08:20 AM (y6n8O)
3
Islamic civilization would be a good idea.
chsw
Posted by: chsw at March 22, 2006 06:44 PM (WdHqZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"A Religion of Tolerance"
Abdul Rahman is on trial for his life in Afghanistan. His crime (h/t Michelle Malkin, who has the round-up) is converting to Christianity:
Despite the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban government and the presence of 22,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a man who converted to Christianity is being prosecuted in Kabul, and a judge said Sunday that if convicted, he faces the death penalty.
Abdul Rahman, who is in his 40s, says he converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
Relatives denounced him as a convert during a custody battle over his children, and he was arrested last month. The prosecutor says Rahman was found with a Bible.
So Afghans are willing to take our economic aid to develop their battered infrastructure, our medicines to cure their ills, our EOD teams to clear their mines, and our soldiers to hold the Taliban at bay, and yet they are willing to kill a man because he has taken to heart another contribution from us in Christianity.
The "tolerant" judge hopes for a peaceful resolution:
"We will ask him if he has changed his mind about being a Christian," Mawlazezadah says. "If he has, we will forgive him, because Islam is a religion of tolerance."
Afghan is a country with its own laws, and we cannot force them to accept converts to other religions when the most extreme interpretations of their law supposes they have legal "right" to kill Abdul Rahman.
They, however, do not have any claim to economic or military aid from civilized nations. We have no moral obligation to support a government that would allow Abdul Rahman to be killed. It goes without saying that were we to withdraw our support, the "tolerant" judge himself might meet a judgement of his own at the hands of the remaining elements of the Taliban.
Judge Mawlazezadah should be introduced to an American phrase attributed to Ben Franklin at the signing of our Declaration of Independence:
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
The neck Judge Mawlazezadah saves may be his own.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:05 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How can this be a religion of tolerance, when they will not tolerate any other religion. I would like to see Muslim religious leaders speak out about this. I would like to have them explain the meaning of tolerance, love and unity most of all acceptance.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 21, 2006 08:05 AM (y67bA)
2
Islam's tolerant acceptance of others converting to Islam yet demanding the death of those who defect from (or refuse to convert to) Islam exemplifies the fact that Isalm is indeed at war with the rest of the world. It is truly time to acknowledge the reality of the situation.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 21, 2006 10:45 AM (X2tAw)
3
I have made this point before and will do so again. Our war is not with individual terrorist but a clash of civilizations. As I see it it is the religion of Islam against the rest of the world. Our policy here should be shaped accordingly. When I get on an airplane I should not have a problem or hassel in doing so. No wand, no body search, etc. However, a Muslim should not even be allowed to travel and we should consider interrnment as we did for Germans and Japanese in WWII. When Islam decides to enter the 21st century then allow them the freedom we should have but don't!!
Posted by: David Caskey at March 21, 2006 12:06 PM (6wTpy)
4
David has some valid points in his comments...I don't see Southern Baptist Terrorists or Catholic Terrorists driving car bombs and rioting in the streets...and he's right--it's Islam vs. the Western World.
We're losing that fight--and we're doing nothing but helping their cause against us...
Posted by: WB at March 21, 2006 01:14 PM (3FHCN)
5
"Those who deny freedom to others do not deserve it themselves."
--Abraham Lincoln
Posted by: pst314 at March 23, 2006 07:15 PM (7cTig)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 20, 2006
Utter Liars
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals claim to "support the troops but not the war."
What utter liars they are.
Four months ago in the Iraqi city of Haditha, an IED exploded, killing one Marine and wounding two others. After the explosion, the Marines stormed a nearby building and killed 15 people. Three were children. The Pentagon has now launched a criminal investigation.
Those are the facts.
There is the possibility that the Marines did gun down innocent civilians as local Iraqis claim.
But it is equally as possible that one or more people inside the house opened fire upon the Marines in an ambush after the IED went off. It has happened that way frequently, and that
exact scenario left ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously wounded, when the IED attack that wounded them was followed by small arms fire from nearby buildings. The attack was broken when coalition forces counterattacked.
Someone who
truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.
They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.
Steve Clemmons states in his
Washington Note:
Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon Investigating Another U.S. Military Atrocity.
When will Rumsfeld be held accountable and fired? [my bold. - ed]
A crime has
not even been established, and yet Clemmons and his nauseous ilk have already deemed our Marines guilty, and presume to pass sentence.
Steve Soto at the Left Coaster is equally as charitable, asserting:
At a time when Rummy and others say that things in Iraq are better than reported, and that bad news is the result of bloggers and other enemies of the truth, we find out today that if it hadn't been for videotape, the Pentagon would have blamed the deaths of 15 Iraqis including children four months ago on a roadside bomb. In fact, based on a Time magazine article and the inconvenient videotape of the bodies, the Pentagon now confirms they have opened a criminal investigation to see if our own troops gunned down innocent Iraqi civilians and children as a result of that roadside bombing in Haditha. This comes at the same time that Iraqi police are now accusing US soldiers of executing 11 Iraqis last week, including a 75 year-old woman and an infant.
[snip]
Maybe we can call a blogger's ethics conference now on why we are inferior to whatever propaganda is spewed by Rummy. You can bet that if Rummy could have snuffed out that Iraqi journalism student and grabbed that videotape, he would have. [my bold. - ed]
"Support the troops?"
Not ours.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:28 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The liberals are estatic anytime our brave heroes make a mistake and do their damnest to find fault when things go right as well (e.g. Fallujah and the White Phosphorous WMD condemnation). Quite frankly, I'm beyond being sick of hearing the lip service phrase, "I support the troops, but not the war." I've made my feelings about this false logic statement known in the past. I don't know why they can't be honest. Actually, I do know ahy, they're trying to get back into power and not supporting the troops is political suicide. So much for honesty in politics and politicians.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 20, 2006 09:08 PM (owAN1)
2
Poor Rummy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19eaton.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=2bfb75f452afdf54&ex=1143003600
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 20, 2006 10:56 PM (iI6rf)
3
Nice Richard,
You cite a general who failed to get his assigned job done in Iraq (his successor has done a wonderful job), and who seemed to find fault with all the other generals who were able to get things done. It paints a picture of a sad man trying to justify his own failings.
Atleast you were honest enough not to try to say you support the troops. The fact that you constantly argue with them on this site would put that lie to rest rather quickly.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 21, 2006 01:19 AM (0fZB6)
4
What 'troops' have I argued with on this site?
Of course I knew you would trash the general. And without offering a shred of evidence beyond your saying 'he' failed.
'Sad man' 'blaming others'? Nonsense. He shoulders his share of responsbility for what hasn't worked. Pity higher officials can't.
Eaton has been discussing our policy failures in Iraq for a couple of years now. Not exactly news anymore sadly.
Huge improvement in Iraqi self-defense capabilities after Eaton left his post?
I don't think so.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 21, 2006 10:29 AM (iI6rf)
5
Arthur, check out another perspective on MG Eaton...
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2006/03/retired-major-general-is-calling-for.html
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 21, 2006 02:42 PM (X2tAw)
6
Thanks for the link.
'It was Clinton's fault.'
'The general is oldfashioned in his thinking.'
'The general is upset he wasn't 'promoted'.'
I think I'll stick with this:
After that embarrassment, which Eaton said he might have headed off,
Pentagon officials sent Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who had commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion and the early occupation, to review the program and then to take over the training mission after Eaton completed his yearlong tour.
"Paul Eaton and his team did an extraordinary amount for the Iraqi Security Force mission," said Petraeus, now commander of the army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. "They established a solid foundation on which we were able to build as the effort was expanded very substantially and resourced at a much higher level."
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 21, 2006 03:25 PM (ijyAZ)
7
Funny, Richard. You don't get "military-ese."
What is the name of the book used to "code" Army speech, specifically geared at making sub-channel (not exactly the right word) communication in performance appraisals?
The concept follows the "damning with faint praise" school of thought, and Petraeus seems to be making that coded speech. If that is what Patraeus meant, it might translate smeothing like this:
"Paul Eaton and his team did an extraordinary amount" translates to "they generated a tremendous amount of paperwork," where "establishing a solid translation" translates to "he didn't finish the assignment and someone else had to do it."
"the effort was expanded very substantially and resourced at a much higher level" translates into "we had to put a lot more effort into it and use more resources because of his failures."
Those of you who knew your sear from your buttplate feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 21, 2006 04:09 PM (g5Nba)
8
CY-
Besides a rightwing blog or two it's impossible to find anything to suggest, as you do, that Eaton was incompetent or somehow had an axe to grind.
Sorry. I'll need more than Jason or your translation of 'military-ese'. Which branch of the armed forces did you pick up the lingo CY?
On the other hand there is an endless of folks trashed, swiftboated or otherwise lied about after questioning admistration policies during the run up to the invasion and the subsequent occuptation.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 21, 2006 06:21 PM (ijyAZ)
9
Sorry for the late response, CY, but your analysis is spot on the money. It is obvious that Richard was either never in uniform, or, if he was, his ego was stroked by reading a lot of meaningless jibberish about how great a Soldier/Marine/Airman/Sailor he was. Some need that stroking from time to time.
I always found it amazing that nearly 100% of commissioned officers were all in the top 3% of all officers. Major General Paul Eaton was surely in that 3% too, but the narrative is what is aleays telling. Saw lots of O4's get passed over for promotion to O5, and the narrative is what always told the tory very clearly.
Back to your Gallery, Richard. Hopefully you know a bit more about that subject.
Posted by: Retired Spy at March 23, 2006 03:04 PM (rhncG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
FBI Report Shows Evidence of Civil War
Thousands of news stories have been slavishly devoted to a brewing civil war in Iraq.
Acording to
USA Today:
…about 15 Americans and 73 Iraqis are killed or injured each day. A USA TODAY analysis of U.S. military data shows the number of U.S. forces killed during the war has declined steadily since November.
But while preliminary report cites statistics that show a decline in U.S. forces killed, other statistics show an exact opposite trend in another theater of operation far closer to home.
The January-June 2005 murder rate is
up 9.3% in cities with a population of 100,000 to 249,999, and the region "spiraling out of control" isn't the Middle East, but is the Midwest, with a
murder rate jumping 4.9%.
Forget Baghdad, let's pull out of Des Moines.
Update: Ed Driscoll notes this might be an extension of the Cartoon War.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:04 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 20, 2006 01:06 PM (CdK5b)
2
What is the most important information I should know about Clonazepam?
• Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities.
• Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure.
• Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam.
What is Clonazepam?
• Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures.
• Clonazepam is used to treat seizures.
• Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
Posted by: CLONAZEPAM at April 08, 2006 11:39 AM (osTpd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
He's Not Here...
Went to visit with my parents and grandparents this weekend, so weekend posting was virtually nil. I'll be getting back into the swing of things later today...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:17 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Shall We Play a Game, Part IV
...In which the ex-USNS San Diego goes to sea, and plots an intercept course for Hurricane Beryl in the continuing "Salvation Navy" narrative over at Beauchamp Tower Corporation's OES Project blog.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:07 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
March 18, 2006
More Abuse From Iraq
Task Force 6-26 is under the stark, naked bulb of the New York Times crack investigative staff (the one that never makes mistakes), and picked up something from their unhealthy obsession with abuse at Abu Ghraib:
Most of the people interviewed for this article were midlevel civilian and military Defense Department personnel who worked with Task Force 6-26 and said they witnessed abuses, or who were briefed on its operations over the past three years.
Many were initially reluctant to discuss Task Force 6-26 because its missions are classified. But when pressed repeatedly by reporters who contacted them, they agreed to speak about their experiences and observations out of what they said was anger and disgust over the unit's treatment of detainees and the failure of task force commanders to punish misconduct more aggressively. The critics said the harsh interrogations yielded little information to help capture insurgents or save American lives. [my bold - ed.]
Once again, the
Times is unable or unwilling to provide
any direct evidence of their charges, relying on anonymous sources and injuries that could have come from combat against American forces or resisting capture as well as the abuse they allege.
I hope survivors of the overzealous
NY Times interrogations weren't coerced into giving statements under duress that would free insurgents or endanger American lives.
I'd hate to have to drag Bill Keller in front of a tribunal...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:42 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How can the NYTimes get away with this sort of abuse? Hounding these poor people so often that they finally broke down and discussed classified things? Those poor people! Damn the NYTimes' brutality! Somebody should do something!
Posted by: benning at March 18, 2006 10:46 PM (GXvlP)
2
CY wrote:
I'd hate to have to drag Bill Keller in front of a tribunal...
Oh come on. I have to think you'd love to drag Bill Keller in front of a *tribunal*.
Sorry. Not going to happen.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 19, 2006 10:25 AM (iI6rf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 17, 2006
...A Persistent Vegetative State
Let me get this straight:
You cannot believe
documents released by un-named government sources, because you cannot vouch for the credibility of the source,
-BUT-
You must believe
documents released by un-named government sources, because the credibility of the source must be impeccable for them to want to remain anonymous.
"Paging
Dr. Sanity..."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:38 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Interesting piece by Dr. Sanity.
I'd love to read the piece she must have done a few years ago on the *Clinto Haters*.
It would be interesting to learn if it's the same pathology she attributes to the *Bush Haters*.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 17, 2006 06:57 PM (ijyAZ)
2
The difference, Richard, is that no Republican has ever seriously tried to create a mental illness to deal with their disappointments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 17, 2006 07:37 PM (0fZB6)
3
So if you see no real difference between accepting the validity of these new documents and accepting the validity of the memo, then I suppose you accept the validity of the Downing Street Memo.
Or perhaps you have other "proof" that the DSM is a fake and these new documents are real.
Or perhaps everyone believes what they want to believe and analogies don't work.
Either way, by the logic of your analogy these two documents are equally legitimate. So now that you agree that the DSM is valid, I guess you think its pretty bad that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” when this new document proves that there actually was a relationship between SH and OBL all along.
Posted by: Dedulysses at March 17, 2006 08:47 PM (25wfw)
4
dedulysses, this post does not appear to be a validation of either case but an attempt to demonstrate the difference in MSM reporting standards.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 17, 2006 08:51 PM (4joLu)
5
Exactly. Specifically the BIAS of ABC and other MSM outlets. What say you oh Stoned One?
Posted by: Specter at March 17, 2006 10:01 PM (ybfXM)
6
CY-
That's funny.
But it wasn't what my question concerned.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 17, 2006 10:19 PM (iI6rf)
7
"dedulysses, this post does not appear to be a validation of either case but an attempt to demonstrate the difference in MSM reporting standards."
Well it seems like a call for equal treatment, so either both this new document and the DSM deserve a disclaimer or neither deserve it and should be treated as legitimate (or, at least, should be treated as both possibly true).
This argument seems to render them equal.
I'm sure that this blogger would have no problem if the situation were reversed: the media article about the DSM contained a disclaimer and the media article about these new documents did not.
Posted by: Dedulysses at March 17, 2006 11:00 PM (25wfw)
8
I guess the drop in status to 'Former' MSM has effected them more than most people would think. I don't smoke, but i'll have some of what the former MSM types are smoking. That way we can all join the Holy-wood crowd in fantasy land. Maybe there really is a magic rabbit hole in Ks.
Posted by: scrapiron at March 18, 2006 12:32 AM (y6n8O)
9
So now that you agree that the DSM is valid, I guess you think its pretty bad that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”
The problem with this reasoning is that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is not an iron-clad and detailed determination. It's a shorthand summary of the opinions of the British official, "C", to whom they are attributed. The paragraph from which the famous sentence is drawn provides no detail about why C thinks this. And since C is anonymous, we can't really ask him or her.
So, "valid" in what sense? To say that the DSM is "valid" just means it accurately reflects the personal opinion of an unnamed British envoy.
Posted by: Ofc. Krupke at March 18, 2006 11:49 AM (vr6Ye)
10
I think the main substantive difference here is the DSM were retyped while the originals were destroyed, and this was admitted to by the reporter.
Finally, it is amusing that the left wholly & completely ignores this portion of the DSM:
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
Posted by: The Ace at March 18, 2006 12:37 PM (8z3Ks)
11
"Well, if you don't know what the difference is, I'm certainly not going to tell you!"
Sound familiar? Heheheee!
Posted by: benning at March 18, 2006 08:19 PM (GXvlP)
12
What is the most important information I should know about Clonazepam?
• Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities.
• Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure.
• Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam.
What is Clonazepam?
• Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures.
• Clonazepam is used to treat seizures.
• Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
Posted by: CLONAZEPAM at April 08, 2006 11:39 AM (pOhpm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sea Change
By now, the importance of the information provided by bloggers before, during, and after a major disaster such as a hurricane, earthquake or a tsunami is well-established.
Here in America, bloggers provided much of the accurate first-hand information during Hurricanes Katrina and after landfall, and to this day they—we—continue to play an important role in informing the public and providing perspective about the successes and failures in coping with the storm's aftermath.
If everything goes as is planned, during up-coming hurricane seasons selected bloggers will have even more
front-line access:
After a Beauchamp Tower Corporation emergency meeting with state, federal, and local officials, the decision is made to deploy the ex-USNS San Diego at the earliest possible moment of readiness—whether or not the cargo holds have been filled. Food stores onboard will be at less than half capacity, however water and ice supplies are considered more important, therefore the ship will not wait to load all designated supplies before she gets underway.
The announcement that the ex-USNS San Diego is ready to go to sea is made public. Crew members and volunteers are contacted and told to report immediately to the ship. Bloggers and news crews are screened, checked through security, and allowed to board the ex-USNS San Diego. The Bloggers will report from the ship while underway and document the disaster relief efforts of the ex-San Diego and crew for Hurricane Beryl. [my bold -ed.]
This bit of an on-going narrative description from Beauchamp Tower Corporation's
OES Project blog recognizes the importance of bloggers in hurricane response as information providers on par with that of the mainstream media outlets.
Who among us wouldn't like to see someone like hurricane blogger
Brendan Loy on board these ships, blogging in real-time as events unfold, or crisp, riveting post-landfall reporting from someone like
Michael Yon?
The entire premise of Beauchamp's
Operation Enduring Service concept has been based on "thinking outside the box," blending the old-but-serviceable with the cutting edge.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they'd want to apply it to everything they'll touch.
Update: Welcome
Instapundit readers. If you feel you're coming in mid-story, you're right. Start
here with "Shall..We...Play...A...Game? Part 1," or as I like to call it, "
Pimp My 7,000 Ton Ride."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:21 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think one of the reasons why they are doing this is to get their story out better.
The Navy did a great job during Katrina but few people know this. After the newspapers were selling the Federal Government not doing anything story.
Posted by: James Stephenson at March 17, 2006 03:09 PM (03dXc)
2
Now if only the population of New Orleans had a similar option or were located far enough inland so that only rainfall flooding would be a problem. Of course that might require that we actually think about what to do there given its geophysical limits.
Of course in a Republic we leave it up to bureaucrats to figure out, they have done such a wonderful job already... haven't they?
Posted by: ajacksonian at March 17, 2006 03:27 PM (BCKCL)
3
The Navy did a great job during Katrina but few people know this.
Actually, the Coast Guard did a great job, rescuing more than 10,000 people from pretty certain death.
The Navy TRIED to do a good job. The USS Bataan was in the Gulf and steamed in just behind the storm. Unfortunately they sat offshore waiting for orders with hundreds of empty hospital beds and the capacity to make hundreds of thousands of gallons of drinking water.
As with most of the disaster response at all levels of government, there appears to have been a serious breakdown in communications.
I guess the Coast Guard has standing orders or something, or commanders who don't sit around waiting for orders. Or maybe it has something to do with the structure of political/civilian control over DHS assets v. DOD.
Posted by: R. Neal at March 17, 2006 05:00 PM (pVLi+)
4
Yeah, the Coasties really haven't been ever given enough credit for what they did, I saw it when I deployed down there. I guess that is often the case with the USCG, do the work quietly and well, and get ignored.
I have been banging that drum as loud as my puny little blog can. Sigh.
Posted by: Major John at March 17, 2006 05:11 PM (OLrHV)
5
Excellent! Now we'll get a chance to see digital photos of the thousands of dead bodies being cannibalized in near-real time.
I mean, there were thousands dead, right? And lots of cannibals?
Can the last one out of the MSM studio please turn off the lights?
Posted by: K T Cat at March 17, 2006 05:26 PM (BqX4Z)
6
R. Neal
The canard that the USS Bataan sat offshore doing nothing has been debunked 12 ways to sunday.
They were doing search and rescue within minutes of the windspeed being low enough to fly helicopters into the maelstrom. Their hospital beds went empty because the people they picked up were, for the most part, in need of nothing more than dry land, which is where they were delivered, on shore. There was no point in bringing all these healthy, formerly stranded individuals onto the ship.
Posted by: j.pickens at March 17, 2006 11:27 PM (bGelp)
7
The first after Hurricane Katrina on the Mississippi Coast were the Coast Guard, Marines and Seabees at the Gulfport NCBC. Keesler Air Force provided potable water for the population of Biloxi. The Air and National Guard came in and helped provide security for the police.
The military were and remain vital to our recovery. They provided communication assistance to the police when all, and I mean all communication was down on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
The OES ships will be a big help.
Posted by: seawitch at March 18, 2006 08:44 PM (HCnOW)
8
ajacksonian--
"in a republic we leave it to the bureaucrats to figure out.." Wrong. That's not an inherent characteristic of a "republic." It's a characteristic of this generation in this republic. If we were doing it the way the Founders intended, bureaucrats wouldn't have anything to do with it. Individuals and social organizations and businesses would do it.. waaaay more effectively, the same way disasters were always handled in America until after ther mid twentieth century.
Nitro Nora
Posted by: Nora at March 18, 2006 10:37 PM (+iAce)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 209 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1094 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0912 seconds, 148 records returned.
Page size 158 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.