Confederate Yankee
June 22, 2010
CNN: McChrystal Submits Resignation
Not confirmed, but not out of line.
Now, if we can get a replacement that actually allows our soldiers and Marines to shoot the enemy...
Via
MediaLizzy on Twitter.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:56 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Obot owns the sit and take it rules. He will just find a bootlicking political officer to do his bidding and sing his praises.
Don't think for one minute this has not been noticed by the real warfighters out there...welcome aboard!
Posted by: Toaster802 at June 22, 2010 04:14 PM (uMZW3)
2
There is no chance that a man of the troops will be selected. Obama and his like believe our armed forces should be supressed. The only leaders in socialism are the dictator politicians.
Posted by: Otis at June 22, 2010 04:35 PM (g/BUt)
3
A fish stinks from the head. Our Organizer-In-Chief is the one responsible. But he will, yet again, look for whose ass to kick. Perhaps he can join OJ on the golf course, in search of the real killers....
Posted by: arb at June 22, 2010 04:59 PM (zAceX)
4
Hmm. Let's not forget the confirmed stories of VP Biden's outrage when he found soldiers in war zones who had the temerity to actually chamber rounds in their weapons! With this kind of thinking in our civilian leadership, it's a miracle any competent commander would last more than a week.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 22, 2010 08:22 PM (dXJzV)
5
If McChrystal leaves its because O will not let him run the war the way he thinks it needs to be run. You can be sure his replacement will be someone who will not go against O, or his "ROEs"
Posted by: Web at June 22, 2010 08:57 PM (Ptvrg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
President Kick-Ass Recalls General For Criticism
Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been recalled to Washington DC by President Barack Obama after McChrystal apologized for an interview that he did with Rolling Stone.
In the interview, McChrystal and his staff rip into his bosses including Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Obama envoy Richard Holbrooke, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden, and then committed the cardinal sin of insulting Barack Obama, calling him "unprepared" for their meeting, which McChrystal dismissed as a ten-minute photo op.
The simple fact of the matter is that McChrystal may be 100% accurate in his criticisms—and he probably is—but I don't think that the role of Commander in Chief can allow such commentary. It isn't insubordination, but it does popularize a rift between military commanders and their civilian boss that takes away from the appearance of a united front. It should end his command... but can Obama afford to let him go, freeing him to become even more open in his criticism of the Administration's ineptitude?
Perhaps McChrystal has simply had it with a bunch of incompetents above him and wants to go out on his own terms,
telling it like it is.
You have to wonder... was this really a mistake, or was it a surgical strike designed to elicit a prescribed response? I'll be watching this story with great interest in hopes of finding out.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:50 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I could be a hatchet job by Rolling Stone.
But if the aritcle is a true reflection of the general's thoughts, then he well knows what happened to McArthur. As such, he may be sacrifacing his carrer for the greater good. Considering that the ROE's are so stupid, he might want to go on record as being completely at odds with the administration before the poop hits the fan.
Posted by: David at June 22, 2010 09:23 AM (dccG2)
2
Perhaps this is nothing more than a gaff, an inadvertent telling of the truth. But as you stated, it is more likely that the General is telling the truth out of frustration, and is setting up the conditions necessary to tell more of the truth. One can only imagine the insane restrictions Obama has placed on our troops through their commanders.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 22, 2010 09:54 AM (dXJzV)
3
Gen. McChrystal is not stupid. I vote for the "Greater good" theory.
Posted by: arb at June 22, 2010 10:54 AM (0CCzA)
4
all offficers of his rank understand completely the position they are in, this reporter was following him for weeks not an hour, so it wasnt an inadvertant brain fart moment, a general is a disciplined man he made a descision for some reason we are not privy to that he was going to go the mccarther route.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at June 22, 2010 11:07 AM (60WiD)
5
One doesn't rise to McChrystal's position in the Army without being both very smart and very savvy politically. The filtering process is brutal. And NO subordinate staff puke would dare to say some of the things reported unless it had been quietly encouraged by the commander.
Since Afghanistan is shaping up to be a major disaster, I suspect that this is McChrystal's way of getting out with his reputation more or less intact. By stating the true (and obvious) characteristics of Obama and the insane clown posse of leftists around him in such an insubordinate way, McChrystal guarenteed that he will be long gone when we are treated to the spectacle of American troops leaving on the last helicopter (again due to Democrat betrayal).
The really clever part is probably that Eikenberry may well have been right all along: no reasonable number of troops would ever make Afghanistan a working state. So McChrystal used those objections as part of his way out of the situation.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 22, 2010 11:13 AM (MZd0C)
6
Eric Bates, the editor of Rolling Stone, claims that all of the quotes used were on the record and that McChrystal had an opportunity to review the piece and did not object. He knowingly pulled the pin on this grenade.
Wow.
Posted by: Pablo at June 22, 2010 05:12 PM (yTndK)
7
I'd rather have McChrystal's at my back than Obama...
Posted by: jcloh at June 22, 2010 10:32 PM (hUi0q)
8
I agree with iconoclast that this is McChrystal getting out with his reputation intact. However, I disagree that the last American troops will be leaving due to Democrat betrayal. It is an unwinnable war, regardless of which party occupies the White House or the majority on either side of the Capitol.
Besides the impossiblity of conquering Afghanistan, we have no business propping up one Islamist regime against another, just because we perceive the one we support to be more favorable to us. I find it offensive that American soliders, many of whom are Christians, are risking and losing their lives for the sake of a government that has made Christianity illegal. Conversion is punishable by death (which Abdul Rahman narrowly avoided due to overwhelming international pressure, even though he had been a Christian for 16 years). Less than a month ago, two Christian aid groups were suspended by the Karzai regime on the suspicion that they were sharing their faith.
I'd like to see the last helicopter out of Kabul sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Sol at June 23, 2010 06:46 PM (0kmDl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 21, 2010
I'll Take Your Worse-Case Scenario, and Raise It To Eleventy
So if this is correct, the pressure from the Deepwater Horizon gusher will defeat all conventional attempts to plug the well, because the walls of the well have been fatally compromised. If we manage to cap the well at or below the seafloor, the pressure will simply blow out the sides of the well below it, finding fissures (or creating them) in the seafloor, before creating countless seeps and blowouts for miles around.
If
these experts are right the well cannot be capped. The best we can hope for is to capture as much of the oil as possible and keep the environmental damage minimized while a deep kill is attempted with the relief well underway. If the relief well fails...
Why you should be pissed off:
If the folks at
The Oil Drum are correct with their hypothesis, the failed blowout preventer (BOP) and casing pipes are collapsing, BP
knows they are collapsing, the government knows about it as well, and they are all conspiring to keep us in the dark.
So what is it that the Obama Administration is trying to hide?
When enough is eroded away the casings will buckle and the BOP will collapse the well. If and when you begin to see oil and gas coming up around the well area from under the BOP? or the area around the well head connection and casing sinking more and more rapidly? ...it won't be too long after that the entire system fails. BP must be aware of this, they are mapping the sea floor sonically and that is not a mere exercise. Our Gov't must be well aware too, they just are not telling us.
All of these things lead to only one place, a fully wide open well bore directly to the oil deposit...after that, it goes into the realm of "the worst things you can think of" The well may come completely apart as the inner liners fail. There is still a very long drill string in the well, that could literally come flying out...as I said...all the worst things you can think of are a possibility, but the very least damaging outcome as bad as it is, is that we are stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more. There isn't any "cap dome" or any other suck fixer device on earth that exists or could be built that will stop it from gushing out and doing more and more damage to the gulf. While at the same time also doing more damage to the well, making the chance of halting it with a kill from the bottom up less and less likely to work, which as it stands now?....is the only real chance we have left to stop it all.
It's a race now...a race to drill the relief wells and take our last chance at killing this monster before the whole weakened, wore out, blown out, leaking and failing system gives up it's last gasp in a horrific crescendo.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:43 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob:
Here's an update on the condition of the well bore. Kinda. It's pretty well acknowledged that the condition of the system down there is a variable rather than a constant. Also, we probably won't ever know what condition it's in unless everything goes to hell. If the relief well works, the whole thing is sealed forever and ever. If it doesn't, and the down hole systems collapses, we're in for a long, long summer down here on the Gulf Coast.
It's also clear that Transocean and BP committed the cardinal sin of drilling. They cut corners down hole.
Posted by: Dave at June 21, 2010 09:09 PM (Kkzqi)
2
Meh.
Typical "engineering disaster" - no engineers involved.
BP demonstrated the ability to put a smaller pipe into the BOP, with the goal of stopping the flow...
"There isn't any "cap dome" or any other suck fixer device on earth that exists or could be built that will stop it from gushing out and doing more and more damage to the gulf."
Why stop the flow? I thought the whole point was to capture it.
"Oil Drum" environmentalists aside - it can be stopped - but we have environmental controls of freon...
... what was that about that shuttle?
Posted by: Druid at June 21, 2010 09:13 PM (Oe01r)
3
CY & You All,
Heard a very interesting interview today of retired Shell President. He said he has been speaking to BP and US Government. Seemed very well informed, and an expert on the subject of off shore drilling. He outlined a number of things being done and could be done. He made a very interesting comment of the LAST RESORT thing to do - Blow up the well!! Remeber, a couple of weeks ago CY blogged on this subject and most everyone scoffed at the idea, myself included on the nuclear option.
It seems that was a very prescient blog. He said it WILL work, but it is the last resort.
OH where oh where is Red Adair when you need him???
Posted by: mixitup at June 21, 2010 09:41 PM (Z21cb)
4
Using a small nuclear device is something which only the Russians/Soviets would come up with. Brute force engineering at the most extreme. However, as they showed, it usually does work. Essentially you compress the sea floor, reducing all the pipes to little more than crushed bits of embedded metal, resetting it to the condition before drilling. Then the roughly two miles of seabed above the oil strata becomes a plug.
Interestingly there was an American experiment done where the device was detonated in a gas well. The idea was to shatter the surrounding rock and increase the flow of oil and gas. It worked fine, except that the output was significantly radioactive.
Posted by: Tregonsee at June 22, 2010 06:12 AM (LF7RW)
5
What Terrence Aym suggests is horrific indeed, and it seems to me that he is in the bis of incendiary articles. In the posted link he suggests that the oil rig was destroyed by a supersonic methane explosion. In this link he suggests that the rig was destroyed by a North Korean mini subs torpedoes. http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=91333
Thus bringing World War 3. It seems he need to decide which doomsday scenario he favors most.
Posted by: Web at June 22, 2010 08:23 AM (b4dK9)
6
I saw a guy in the office a few weeks ago that was headed to the Gulf. His job was to take an existing 12,000 feet of drill stem that was already laid out on the floor and to the surface ship and drill into the well head itself. He seemed fairly confident that it would bappen in hte next few weeks.
Posted by: David at June 22, 2010 09:29 AM (dccG2)
7
Something else to keep in mind is that (at least according to Wikipedia), a pure internal-pressure-driven 'gusher' well typically recovers less than 15% of the oil in the tapped deposit. The deposit that Deepwater Horizon tapped into is estimated at about 50 million barrels. If it behaves like a typical well, then we should see the flow peter out somewhere around 7.5 million barrels. If it really blows out to a 150,000bbl/day flow, it will last only weeks or less before the flow rate starts to drop again, as the internal pressure is reduced.
It will be decades or centuries before the Gulf of Mexico recovers from this disaster. But that particular guy's "worst case scenario" doesn't seem realistic.
OTOH, I am not a petro engineer, and he apparently is. He may know something I don't.
Posted by: wolfwalker at June 22, 2010 10:22 AM (aijDA)
8
I'm still missing something...
Confirm if everything I mention here is right:
1. The oil is coming up from a fairly localized spot.
2. The oil is, obviously, coming out at a higher pressure than the surrounding water.
3. A large bore, flexible pipe, when filled with water or whatever at or above the pressure of the surrounding water, will not collapse.
So... why haven't they retried the original cap-the-whole-thing method with a larger bore pipe - perhaps with a steam line/anti-freeze line running down it so that it won't freeze shut? While it wouldn't shut down the well, it would take what was escaping and guide it to the surface at a fixed point where it could then be piped into some waiting supertankers... who could haul it off to a facility that could actually do something useful with it?
Posted by: Jeff Shultz at June 22, 2010 12:03 PM (zGCLY)
9
As I understand it, Jeff, the seabed around the well is collapsing, not just the well materials themselves. Once the wellhead and the surrounding strata collapse (which seems preordained, as the gusher is eroding the well with every pressured gallon that erupts) it will not seal the well, but encourage the oil to seek fissures and faults in the surrounding seafloor from deep inside the well shaft.
The big question is whether the fissures that the oil exploits will be shallow or deep.
If shallow, there would seem to be an opportunity to still capture some or much of the oil, as it would be fairly localized.
If it finds an outlet deeper down, it could erupt from almost anywhere in dozens or hundreds of places, none of which would be predictable or stable.
If the seafloor becomes extremely fractured and unstable, it then opens the door to the nightmare scenario of the methane blowout/tsunami.
The only real plausible hope we have is that the team drilling the relief well hit their target on time. If they don't it is going to get very, very bad.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 22, 2010 12:24 PM (gAi9Z)
10
It will be decades or centuries before the Gulf of Mexico recovers from this disaster.
A worse leak in 1979 in Mexico took about 2 years for recovery. So I don;t think that it will take centuries to recover.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 22, 2010 07:27 PM (Srqoz)
11
Lot's of folks are pushing lot's of worst case scenarios. There is no evidence at this point of the seabed or BOP collapsing. A logical interpretation of the course of events suggests that they may have a loss of casing integrity downhole (probably in the top 1000') but people are vastly misinterpreting the implications. Erosion of the casing is a concern but you should keep in mind that as you lose casing and drillpipe (which is NOT going to blow out the top of a collapsed BOP!) the wellbore quality DEGRADES. The methane blowout/tsunami is utterly bogus. People are taking things they don't understand far beyond physical limits. The "methane" bubble they are touting is in the form of hydrates - if we could figure out how to make that flow our energy problems would be over FOREVER.............
Posted by: gasmiinder at June 23, 2010 06:15 AM (xnt4J)
12
"It will be decades or centuries before the Gulf of Mexico recovers from this disaster. But that particular guy's "worst case scenario" doesn't seem realistic."
Few people understand that over a million barrels a year of petroleum seep naturally into the Gulf. This spill has a much bigger impact because it is concentrated but natural systems will deal with the hydrocarbons much faster than "decades or centuries".
I'm a huge fan of CY - but folks should keep in mind that the MSM is even more ignorant regarding the technical issues of subsurface dynamics than they are of firearms (yes that is possible). They should also keep in mind that we are starting to see on many sites that I follow some of the weaknesses of the blogosphere - 1) eyeballs come to "the world is ending" posts and 2) cross-fertilization is almost instantaneous even in areas where folks don't have expertise thus driving what appears to be a 'concensus' which in fact may be utterly bogus.
I am in the industry (lots of offshore GOM experience) and have followed the Oil Drum postings. I'd tell you that there are some very good technical people posting there and also some very dubious folks posting the "worst case" imaginable as "the likely".
This is not a half-hour sitcom where the solution magically appears. Time is necessary - the relief wells were always the answer and they are making good progress. If you want to worry - the worry is hurricanes, that will make a bad situation much worse.
Posted by: gasminder at June 23, 2010 06:30 AM (xnt4J)
13
Oh, my gosh! The Derb predicts an utter cataclysm. Dog bites man. July is hot in the Midwest.
Details at eleven. (rolls eyes)
Posted by: Casey at June 24, 2010 01:31 AM (+Fn21)
14
Nuke the oil well? The Nuclear Option
Given that BP is still sitting on both the detailed situational and geological data, it is difficult to tell from a distance what will or will not work to stop the Deepwater Gulf oil spill, therefore everything should be on the table. Here is an interview with a leading U.S. expert on Peaceful Nuclear Explosives, Dr. Milo D. Nordyke, who suggests that it should be carefully considered under the circumstances.
http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=14943
Posted by: Chuck Stevens at June 24, 2010 04:14 PM (MT2Ym)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bad Example
If you are going to write a presumably pro-gun article about open carry, perhaps you shouldn't use the victim of a handgun murder-suicide as your model.
Update: I don't know why on earth Meleanie Hain's picture was used here when Eric Shuford's photo was used in the
linked story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:28 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Moron Alert: Leftists, Islamists Protest Wrong Ship
No one ever said you had to be bright to be a radical.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:30 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"The Economist" (liberal rag) listed the items banned by Israel. The items consisted of fresh vegetables and fruit, wood, and a list of other common items. Sounds horrible. The only problem is that the list is the same that the US bans from coming into our country and in fact you can't move certain of these items across state lines. The reason is they carry disease.
Posted by: David at June 21, 2010 11:13 AM (+7GFk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Free Speech Meets Democratic Arson
Robert Stacey McCain seems to think he figured out why people become Democrats.
I'm not convinced that is the whole truth, but it does help explain why some folks get
so fired up when called out for their delusional beliefs.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:31 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Party First. America Second.
There is no way an intelligent political blogger can write this out of ignorance, so we can only surmise Steve Benen means to defraud his readers:
BARBOUR: MORATORIUM WORSE THAN SPILL.... As part of the federal response to the BP oil spill disaster, the administration imposed a six-month moratorium on drilling new deepwater wells. The point, of course, was to prevent another crisis -- Deepwater Horizon had undermined confidence in the industry and its practices. Before companies start new drilling, it's reasonable to make sure the industry's doing it right.
Conservatives, and some regional Democrats, are less than pleased about the six-month pause. Yesterday on "Meet the Press," Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) went so far as to argue that the moratorium is actually worse than the oil spill and its effects on the region. Seriously.
Benen's been busy practicing for the White House
beer pong team, or is simply a reliable toady. I'm not sure that it matters which. What matters is that he is shoveling pure propaganda.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:05 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well put. Two separate estimates of the economic impact of the moratorium have been done. The first was released by Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association about a week after Teh One announced the moratorium The second was released by Wood MacKenzie just last week.
LMOGA is a trade group; Wood Mac is an internationally respected consulting firm in the natural resources sector. They have both reached similar conclusions, and Jindal called the moratorium the second manmade disaster in the Gulf.
Another point to consider: Foreign oil arrives in this country in tankers. Of all the historically significant accidental oil spills, only three have been from wells: Ixtoc in 1979, the Australian spill last year, and the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well. All others have either been intentional spills or were caused by tanker mishaps. Reducing domestic drilling will result in even higher risk of oil spills.
Posted by: Dave at June 21, 2010 10:34 AM (2n0N8)
2
I live in Louisiana and can assure you that I preferred the aftermath of Katrina to the rule of Obama.
Posted by: David at June 21, 2010 11:16 AM (+7GFk)
3
Obama is also using the disaster as an excuse to revisit allowing ANY offshore drilling to proceed, although the whole reason the deep-water well was needed in the first place is because of the restrictions everywhere else. A leak in an "offshore" well a couple hundred feet down is much easier to deal with than one where even submarines cannot go.
As concerns Benen, he has proven himself a reliable toady, but there is no evidence he can hold a beer, so I vote "toady."
Posted by: Estragon at June 21, 2010 01:55 PM (3hg5M)
4
Someone should ask Benen if the Obama Administration shut down GM and Chrysler after the Toyota brake problem?
Posted by: MtnGote at June 21, 2010 06:00 PM (JO3Pe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 18, 2010
"Violent Bob" Etheridge Has History Of Assaulting Questioners
As so often happens when the media finally decides to stop turning a blind eye, the truth begins to leak out:
In the fall of 1996, when Leslie was a senior at Pinecrest High School, he said he met Etheridge at a Pinecrest football game. Etheridge - then the state superintendent of public instruction - was challenging incumbent Republican David Funderburk for his congressional seat. At the time, Moore County was part of the 2nd District, which Etheridge now represents.
Leslie said he introduced himself to Etheridge and asked him about his stance on a particular education program. He said Etheridge didn't answer his question, so he pressed him two more times.
"And that's when he grabbed me by the shoulders, he shook me, and I'll never forget it, he said, 'Son, you need to learn to respect your elders,'" he said by phone on Wednesday. "I was just so taken aback, I think my jaw just dropped, and he walked off."
It seems Bob Etheridge has felt he was too good to answer questions for a
very long time, and that he is prone to letting his temper get the best of him.
Do we really want or need that kind of representation in the Second Congressional District, when
our other option is a nurse that wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a health care plan that works?
Update: John Hawkins of
Right Wing News scores an interview with Etheridge's opponent, Renee Ellmers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:30 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Somebody should start a rock band and call it The Violent Demmes.
Posted by: pst314 at June 18, 2010 12:34 PM (OA547)
2
someone shoud schedule a boxing match--fight--invite him and all procedes go to the lady running against him---he likes to fight --lets get it on---he is a drunk you know--and I really think he was tripping out--- who are you-- who are you----like the crack heads i see on my watch--if he wins he gets the money---he wont you know
Posted by: ben holt at June 18, 2010 04:43 PM (UHtO/)
3
It's just the contempt our politicians (both political parties) they have for you & me. I think the democrats show it more overtly.
Americans are tired of all the D.C. corruption, deficit spending, Katrinas & BP spills. The govt. is inept & people are losing faith in the whole system. That's not good.
Read that book out that seems to fit the times. A small town in America stands up to federal tyranny & unites the country against the mess. I recommend it.
www.booksbyoliver.com
Posted by: SilverMoon at June 18, 2010 11:04 PM (KJ9nx)
4
It's also worth noting that in both of these instances, Etheridge assaulted someone much younger than he.
Posted by: Don, the Rebel without a Blog at June 20, 2010 07:17 AM (1y4Xv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Good News: Air Force Loses 17 Afghan Airmen on U.S. Soil
The good news? They started "losing" them two years, but they haven't lost any more for a full three months:
A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from a Texas Air Force base where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned.
The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, "Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.]," issued by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas, and obtained by FoxNews.com.
The Afghans were attending the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. The DLI program teaches English to military pilot candidates and other air force prospects from foreign countries allied with the U.S.
17 partially or fully training pilots from the land of the Taliban and al Qaeda have been brought to the United States to further their training, and have been lost by the authorities over the past two years, and we're just now hearing about it? Yeah, that makes sense.
It's not like that has ever ended badly before.
The spin they are trying to cast on this SNAFU is is that they
think the the disappearing Afghans are merely trying to escape to a better way of life, and that they do not have intentions of using their training and military security badges to commit terrorism. I sure hope they are right.
As for why the program has continued without better security since these airmen started going AWOL, there doesn't seem to be an immediate answer, and I don't know if there is one.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:11 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
When we got the NCIS BOLO, I was trying to figure out how to put this on my blog. "Law Enforcement Sensitive", don't you know. No worries, opened up Fox News and there it was.
Posted by: cmblake6 at June 18, 2010 06:44 PM (04buQ)
2
Actually, this is a really hinky story, with implications that there is a lot more going on than is obvious at first glance. Naturally, the fact that they went AWOL in Texas, where I live, also causes me anxiety.
The facts will eventually emerge, and I hope we will all be safe when it does.
These Muslim folks are certainly more trouble than they are worth, if you ask me. But then, I'm a woman, and we all know how they treat women.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at June 19, 2010 12:36 PM (Aaj8s)
3
Maybe if we ear tag 'em when they arrive?
Posted by: Stretch at June 21, 2010 07:02 PM (0D7oJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 17, 2010
Climate Change "Consensus" Faked
Why, this can't be true, can it?
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen experts," he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
So "settled science" of global warming=24 cultists (more or less) desperate for grant money, corrupt governments (including our own Congress and President) angling to use fear to establish more power and control, and a raft of gullible greens willing to buy any fable fed to them.
Did I miss anything?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:07 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The few dozen CAGW cult scientists can be seen as primaries in this thought system. Other scientists trust these cultists (they generally don't have the expertise or time to doubt such a bulwark of deception) and then build upon their work, being especially eager if they are leftists and or greenies. These scientists (from many fields, many of which have nothing to do with climate or meteorology) become the cascading secondaries; thus you get thousands of scientists supporting the claim. So if the work of the primaries is a mass of highly intellectualized and politicized quasi-science, it is easy to see how such a corruption can grow into the dominant meme and sold as consensus science. Once that lens is in place and the money spigot is turned on by governments -- with academics, businesses, and the media jumping on the bandwagon -- you have a tidal wave of hysteria: thus global warming is responsible for everything undesirable and in need of massive government control and remediation.
It is the proverbial house of cards. Expose the facade of consensus and people of integrity start to develop doubt. That's one way to begin to defeat of these deceivers. Once doubt is entertained and scientists from other fields really look at the evidence for themselves, they will more than likely become, at the very least, skeptics.
Posted by: mbabbitt at June 17, 2010 01:16 PM (p/jtE)
2
mbabbitt: I think you are exactly right. I subscribe to several journals of a scientific nature, and am disheartened to see a regular series of articles that discuss what is wrong with people that are skeptical of the climate change science. I was skeptical from the beginning because I have worked at analyzing instrumented data to try to make sense of it and I know how hard it is to figure out what is noise and what is real. They were saying that this very noisy small sample set of data showed a slope of .01 degrees per year. How could they possibly see that in the data? But I who approached it with a scientific (although perhaps mistaken) thought process am called unscientific, while the author who hasn't really seen the data and just trusts that scientists don't make silly mistakes like that is sure that he is being very scientific.
Posted by: John at June 17, 2010 02:39 PM (ivCv1)
3
(gasp) Why who would have thunk it?
Posted by: Mat at June 17, 2010 03:45 PM (d8AS2)
4
And let's not forget the role of the lap-dog media who were/are willing to believe anything that sounds like a crisis and means more government control of our lives.
Posted by: MikeM at June 18, 2010 07:09 AM (6hI0A)
5
Golly! What OTHER lies have we been subjected to? Surely, government health care will be better and cheaper, right? That's not going to change, is it? Billions of stimulus dollars will jump-start the economy and increase employment, won't it? We're still waiting for that, but it WILL work, right? Rising taxes will help the economy and allow better government services, right? It's always worked before, so we KNOW it will work this time, right? Better government oversight of the financial markets will prevent future disasterous market bubbles, right? (OK, enough ...)
Posted by: DoorHold at June 20, 2010 09:42 AM (8IY+R)
6
Actually the "2,500 scientists" fraud was exposed over a dozen years ago by Fred Singer at the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He documented it in a Wall Street Journal editorial on July 25, 1997: http://www.sepp.org/key issues/glwarm/hotair.html
Posted by: Andrew Russell at June 20, 2010 05:12 PM (W49pX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"Language Expert" Tries to Excuse Obama's Sub-Par Address
Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor, says that Barack Obama's Oval office speech that was panned by virtually everyone didn't fail because it lacked substance, direction, or leadership, but because it sounded too "professorial" for us uneducated hicks:
President Obama's speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.
Tuesday night's speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture.
Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said.
He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: "That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."
I would have pointed out that the real problem in that sentence was that President Obama appointed a physicist to handle a problem best addressed by geologists, but then, I'm not looking to excuse the President's abysmal performance in this disaster.
[Of course, you dimwits won't understand
that sentence, either. It has a grade level of 11 on Flesch-Kincaid and uses 41 words, which is far more complex than the President's speech that us public folks just can't understand.]
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:17 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We need to get politicians out of government. They are the same as actors and news anchors. Worse, they mostly come from the attorney pool. Attorneys don't know nearly everything, but think they can. In geology or physics or any real science this is not the case. That also includes climate. (Gore had ONE science course. There is no justice in the world.) Having majored in both engineering and physics, I can say engineering is more difficult. He should have used a petroleum engineer in the case of the oil spill. Oh well. Our politicians, like our citizens, are largely ignorant. I guess the USA got what it deserved.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at June 17, 2010 10:53 AM (brIiu)
2
I don't think Payack is trying to excuse Obama's speech. He's panning it, just like everyone else. Communicating clearly with the American people is a necessary skill for any president, and Payack is saying that Obama failed to do that.
Posted by: Sundog at June 17, 2010 10:55 AM (H+mDv)
3
Sundog
Except for the reason that Payack was attempting to pan the speech on the basis of its presentation, not its content, you might be right. But the nation understood the speech with little problem, they just didn't like it. In other words, content was the issue not presentation.
Very typical of the academic left when faced with their obvious shortcomings: call the citizens ignorant rubes unable to understand the content when what is really being said is that the content is wrong/offensive/counter-productive.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 17, 2010 11:03 AM (MZd0C)
4
Obama needed to (and needs to) assemble a team of cross disciplines: drilling experts, geologists, hydrologists, structural engineers, metallurgists, machinists, demolition experts, etc.
Put them together and figure out how to "plug the damn hole."
Posted by: mockmook at June 17, 2010 11:37 AM (5ssRl)
5
I guess having an MD prevented me from appreciating the crap his was dishing out.
Posted by: David at June 17, 2010 12:21 PM (st2+Q)
6
The TOTUS is in morning ...Among the seven countries surveyed with substantial Muslim populations, the U.S. was seen favorably by just 17 percent in Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan and 21 percent in Jordan. The U.S.'s positive rating was 52 percent in Lebanon, 59 percent in Indonesia and 81 percent in Nigeria, where Muslims comprise about half the population.
None of those figures was an improvement from last year. There were slight dips in Jordan and in Indonesia, where Obama spent several years growing up. Egypt saw a 10-point drop, even though Obama gave a widely promoted June 2009 speech in Cairo aimed at reaching out to the Muslim world.Et tu, AP
Posted by: Neo at June 17, 2010 12:59 PM (tE8FB)
7
Every day I wake up and hope that today is the day that our president presents his thoughts is a way that can be understood by all the people. Then after citizens sees the light, he can get to healing this nation from the horrible damage done by the Constitution, capitalism, people making their own decisions, and of course that horrible horrible George W. Bush.
Why doesn't he??? Does he need better writers? Does he need more practice making speeches? It is a mystery.
Posted by: John at June 17, 2010 12:59 PM (ivCv1)
8
I didn't even hear his speech but I understood it really well.
Posted by: mytralman at June 17, 2010 02:11 PM (CFOzN)
9
This is always - always! - presented as the reason whenever Democrats' speeches and programs and policies fall flat. It is invariably because they overestimated the intelligence of the electorate and failed to dumb down the message enough to be grasped in flyover country.
Well, that and Republican fear mongering.
It never occurs to them that people reject them because they understand them.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 17, 2010 02:23 PM (ujwMm)
10
Steve Skubinna ... What's destroying the Democratic brand right now is the grown-ups out here understand them too dam well. They wear their "I'm smarter and more special than you are" glasses every time they look at the rest of us, and it fatally hinders their understanding of us, and of the problems they've made for us. I swear if I see one more photo of Obama squatting on the sand in Louisiana picking up tarballs I shall indeed barf. Even Hugo Chavez, who is hardly the brightest dictator out there, is too smart to appear in public squatting anywhere. Doing anything. It's just not Presidential.
Stand up, for God's sakes, Barry. And leave the solution of this crisis to the Petroleum engineers, not to theoretical physicists like Mr. Chu. He's no help at all.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at June 17, 2010 05:05 PM (Aaj8s)
11
That pissed me off. Written to a 9.8 level !! And they're still worried that it was too stratospheric for most viewer/listeners (rats, I used a 13 letter word; sorry morons). I was enjoying my evening. Now I'm not. It must be Bush's fault.
Posted by: Robert17 at June 17, 2010 08:38 PM (FN7pa)
12
I wonder if Red Adair had a PhD or a Nobel prize? Whatever he had he sure as hell could tame the wildest oil well. We need some hairy balled oil men to turn this thing around. I heard today from the ex-president of Shell oil and he said that explosives would be the last option.
Posted by: inspectorudy at June 21, 2010 10:55 PM (Vo1wX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Eighth Tarheel Terror Suspect Captured in Kosovo
Still one to go:
Kosovo police on Thursday arrested an ethnic Albanian man suspected of having supported a planned terrorist attack in North Carolina, they said Thursday.
Bajram Asllani, 29, a native of Mitrovico, Kosovo, was arrested following an extradition request from the United States, police said. He faces charges of providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons.
An April 19 criminal complaint unsealed Thursday alleges that Asllani conspired with eight men charged last July with plotting a series of terrorist attacks overseas and securing weapons and training in North Carolina.
Seven suspects – Daniel Patrick Boyd, 39, his sons, Dylan Boyd, 22, and Zakariya "Zak" Boyd, 20, and Hysen Sherifi, 24, Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, 22, Ziyad Yaghi, 21, and Anes Subasic, 33 – are being held in the U.S. An eighth suspect, Jude Kenan Mohammad, 20, is believed to be in Pakistan.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:10 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
El Paso PD Latest to Up-Gun to M4 Carbines
As always, I have mixed feeling about this:
The El Paso Police Department on Wednesday unveiled its new M-4 rifles intended to provide every officer with greater firepower.
The department bought 1,145 after approval by the City Council's 8-0 vote in January.
Training with the M-4 is under way at the Police Academy, and the new weaponry will eventually be issued to every member of the department, from patrol officers up to the chief.
"It's a safety issue," said Sgt. Lawrence Lujan, an instructor at the academy. "The El Paso Police Department is catching up with the rest of the nation."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:38 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Interestingly, rifles are substantially easier for the average person--and the average officer--to shoot accurately. In addition, because they will, for the most part, not be carried on the person, they are more likely to be employed only in circumstances that allow a bit more time for sober reflection and analysis than is possible when there is only time for a handgun to be drawn and fired. Thus, the arming of officers with these rifles should not be feared but lauded.
Another positive aspect of this situation is that the carbines will likely replace shotguns as the long arm of choice. Shotguns, in the hands of police, have many drawbacks. Their proponents reflexively claim that the sound of cycling the slide is very effective in and of itself and that the ammunition available is very versatile. This is true primarily if an officer is being attacked by enraged waterfowl. In reality, shotguns have an effective range roughly the same as the handgun, and while the ammunition is indeed powerful, its effectiveness depends entirely on keeping the shot column close together--striking at very short range--rather than spreading the pellets in an expanding pattern. The weapon also has the problem of substantial recoil, report and muzzle blast, particularly indoors.
Combine this with the fact that most law enforcement agencies train with the shotgun each year by requiring that officers fire only a handful of rounds, if that, and the supplanting of the shotgun with a more effective and accurate arm should not be a source of concern.
I wonder, however if the weapons being issued are actually of M4 configuration--fully automatic weapons--or are the more common semi automatic versions of the shorter barrel, collapsing stock version of the AR-15 family.
In any case, I know that if I was enforcing the law near the border, I would consider such a rifle as merely part of the minimum equipment necessary to give me a fighting chance to return home after my shift.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at June 17, 2010 09:58 AM (dXJzV)
2
I agree. after watching the video of cops outgunned in california a few years ago and having to run to a near by gun store and beg for carbines to get back into the fight against the bank robbers covered in body armor and carying ak's I think it is a needed tool.
and, just a few weeks ago a border agent went up against mexican smugglers who had ak's so im of the mind that for larger spread out rural counties this is a necessity. for dense urban invironments I have doubts because of the over penetration of a 223 round and the high velocity but thier has to be a happy middle ground on this somewhere....
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at June 17, 2010 10:12 AM (60WiD)
3
Fine so far as it goes, but I firmly believe that local law enforcement should be barred from employing weapons forbidden the citizenry. This is not an issue in Texas, but I am thinking specifically of CA and MA here. Local cops in CA should not be allowed to arm themselves with ARs.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 17, 2010 02:26 PM (ujwMm)
4
steve im not following your logic better flesh that out.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at June 17, 2010 06:15 PM (60WiD)
5
Rum - Steve doesn't trust the police, or their political masters. I don't blame him.
Posted by: butch at June 18, 2010 03:27 AM (hpHaN)
6
Frangible ammo would overcome the overpenetration problem, and I agree that the citizenry is guaranteed the same weapons as the police and the military by the 2A. The 2A was NOT written about duck hunting, but the ability to wage war against enemies foreign or domestic.
Posted by: cmblake6 at June 18, 2010 06:50 PM (04buQ)
7
Steve-incidents like Mumbai, Columbine, Bank of America North Hollywood, West Memphis, Tyler Texas court house shooting, Oakland officer slayings, hometown USA and on and on and on. There are no political handlers in policing; just a bunch of dedicated men and women (moms, dads, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents, husbands and wives) who have chosen to serve the public by placing their lives on the line so that we can all live in a safe community. In the middle of night when your door has been kicked in by a felonious thug, and at the mall when you are shopping and someone steals your purse, there are no political handlers determining whether or not an officer will respond to help you. There are just ordinary people in extraordinary situations who hear the call for help and that are willing to risk it all so that evil does not prevail...that is all....hug a cop and say thanks...most if not all agencies have ride-a-long programs that allow you to ride with a police officer to better understand and experience what it is that these public servants do.
Posted by: Lawrence Lujan at June 18, 2010 07:06 PM (B+hIf)
8
Lawrence, if someone kicks in my door in the middle of the night, I'm not grabbing my telephone, I'm grabbing my gun. The police, at best, provide a bubble of deterrence in the line of sight around their car and/or person, and they investigate crimes after they occur. The old saying, never a cop around when you need one is true. Not because cops are lazy or incompetent or bad people, but because criminals do not commit crimes around cops.
CY, you're quite wrong regarding weaponry employed by criminals. Despite Hollywood and TV, there are very very few crimes committed with assault rifles (fully automatic rifles). "Assault weapons" is the term employed by the gun grabbers to denigrate the military type rifles which only fire one semiauto. With the exception of the Mexican border (a military area, not a police one, IMO) there is little need for cops to have a full auto carbine (assuming that M4 here means the actual military weapon).
Fact is, again despite TV, cops on the whole are rather poor shots. This, I argue is due to a few factors. One is that cops must have many different skills, and shooting is just one of many things they might have to do. Since most cops never fire their weapons in a non-practice situation, they tend to be much worse at shooting then say, advanced driving techniques, or evidence collection. Two is that the usual department qualification test is a yearly trip to the range. No kind of real world scenario, or shoot/don't shoot house with live ammo, just paper targets. So I don't think giving street cops a full-up military weapon is a good idea. Police should be police, not soldiers.
Posted by: Britt at June 18, 2010 08:11 PM (tk339)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 16, 2010
Liberal College Professor Collects Another Murder Charge
This time, the murder of her 18-year-old brother in 1986.
Amy Bishop has been charged with murder for the 1986 shotgun slaying of her 18-year-old brother in their Braintree home, according to Norfolk District Attorney William R. Keating.
"The grand jury has indicted Amy Bishop for murder in the first degree,'" Keating told reporters today."Here in Massachusetts, we had evidence of a murder. We proceeded with that, as we should have."
Bishop is the Obama-worshiping fanatic professor that gunned down six of her her fellow professors at the University of Alabama - Huntsville months after she was denied tenure. Three of her victims died.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:49 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's that culture of guns she brought with her from Massachusetts.
Posted by: Tregonsee at June 16, 2010 04:48 PM (dbNXR)
2
Liberal politics at work. Its who you know in MA that determines your guilt or innocence. Rules are for the "small people", not the politically connected or mobsters (but then I repeat myself). Far from the founding fathers approach where all are equally accountable under the law.
Posted by: Mark at June 17, 2010 06:40 AM (3hezO)
3
You really think this has to do with liberalism? Did she kill due to a warped perception of liberal values, the way crazed wingers kill abortion doctors thanks to warped perceptions of conservative values? They say as much. But Bishop - how can you tie her insanity to liberalism?
Posted by: richard at June 17, 2010 09:52 AM (Ty2np)
4
I missed all the coverage of her Obama fanaticism and how this led to her actions.
Posted by: Sol at June 17, 2010 04:24 PM (8y9VA)
5
Yes Liberalism in MA and the accused is the root cause. Liberals are treated differently in MA. Liberals promote relativism in the laws and courts. Liberals treat you different based on who you are and who you know. Think of it this way, had her brother shot her would he have walked? Same contacts within government. Different gender. That makes all the difference in MA.
Posted by: Mark at June 18, 2010 06:55 AM (iXLkL)
6
I'm conservative, but I'm not buying liberalism as the root cause of the shootings. In fact, it's not a conservative answer. She is responsible for her own actions.
Why do conservative people from more conservative states go on shooting rampages? If you have done research to demonstrate that people who go postal like Amy Bishop are mostly from liberal states and espouse liberal values, that would be quite interesting.
Posted by: Sol at June 18, 2010 02:32 PM (UJBLo)
7
Amy Bishop is a psycho with two personalities. One is a carefully planning killer while the other is a brilliant professor and mother. The Bishop family liberal stance is part of Amy Bishop. She led the vote for Obama and other radical causes and is a member of Move-On.Org. Why she kills? Ask a psychologist.
Posted by: Cosmos at June 19, 2010 11:18 PM (GNQ2R)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Beyond Petroleum
Like most of America, I had something better to do with my time last night than watch Barack Obama's flailing Oval Office address.
A few masochists tuned in to watch the President attempt to spin or explain the failure of his administration to provide anything like leadership on day 57 of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It did not go well.
Even his most sycophantic apologists—
Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann—ripped the President. Olbermann said, "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Matthews compared Obama to the most ineffective President of the 20th century, Jimmy Carter. Even faithful toady
Eugene Robinson was forced to admit it was a failure.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:46 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He won't be able to handle the next disaster either.
For any foreign leader, now in fact would be a good time to start something.
Posted by: Jack at June 16, 2010 04:10 PM (bvDV5)
2
I am not one to wish time away for it is a precious commodity, but in this case I have no problem saying that 2012 cannot come fast enough.
Posted by: Mick Kraut at June 16, 2010 04:18 PM (5ap+X)
3
Obama : Beyond Putin
If you are a foreign company don't do business in the US, too risky! If you are a US company doing business overseas, stay safe, watch your step, cos the President has set the precedent....
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at June 16, 2010 04:39 PM (sF0Uw)
4
The bright sun light of the Gulf of Mexico has illuminated his towering incompetence and his complete failure as the leader of the free world. You all may not realize it, but the "cornered rat," "the wounded animal'" or the pathological narcissist are the MOST dangerous at the beginning of their end. Be very wary of Obama - he will now do or say anything to foster his own aggrandizement - he is now more dangerous wounded than he has been for the past 18 months. Think about it!!!
Mike, yes - 2012 can't come soon enough, but 11/2/2010 is now more important than ever.
Posted by: mixitup at June 16, 2010 05:26 PM (Z21cb)
5
I made myself watch the show. It was disgusting. Every statement that he made was a clear lie. He claimed that we did not have any where to drill due to a lack of oil. That was the reason for the deep well. The truth is that the govenment blocks efforts at obtaining known reserves. He then says that he is stopping drilling due to increasing safety hazards. One well blows up and this is a trend. One well out of something like 30,000. What is the failure rate on blow out preventers? Maybe one in 10,000. Especially at 5000 feet. Then we have to study the situation for 6 months. I could study it for 24 hours and come up with the cause and a solution. Why does it take 6 months? He indicated that he has been trying everything to contain the spill when he has done nothing at all and has actively tried to stop all efforts. Then he wants an alternative to oil but has no idea what or how, but he wants a big tax bill to find out.
People say that Bush started a war. Fine, at least he tried to win it. Here we have the enemy in the White House fighting us. Can you imagine being told you can't work because the president wants to study something? He has distroyed the economy of Louisiana in a way that was worse than Katrina. This guy is either 4 plus nuts or intentionally trying his best to inflict as much harm as possible. Do you really think that we can stop him in November? I think not!!
I could go on about his treatment of a legitimate business without proof that they did anything wrong. They site violations of safety rules but don't specify what they are, that could mean too few life preservers or a toilet that flushes more that one gallon.
Posted by: David at June 16, 2010 08:08 PM (st2+Q)
6
Why is it that people fail to realize the president is our representative? This is our government, our system that has put Obama in place. I believe this man is a great leader. In fact he is one of the biggest reasons I have taken a closer look at the inter workings of our world. I don't believe he is screwing things up. But even if he were, it only says something about all of the people that put him into place. All of the senators and congressman working with him and against him, those citizens who voted all of their representatives into place, and those who didn't vote at all.
I know a great leader, and a man with passion when I see one. I know a man with strong ideals, and good values. And I know that we can all look at ourselves when complaining about the way the world is. Stop dumping our world and government on Obama, and take a closer look yourself at all of the history that has led to today. Obama is a man that has inspired some of us to act, and be leaders in our world.
Thank you for being leaders, but I don't believe your movement is very productive, give me solutions with the complaints.
Posted by: Steve at June 20, 2010 10:14 PM (TN+zi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Greatest Headline/Opening Line Combo in News History
Via Caleb Howe on Twitter:
Puppy thrown at German biker gang
A German student "mooned" a group of Hell's Angels and hurled a puppy at them before escaping on a stolen bulldozer, police have said.
I know it will surprise you to find out that this chap was
off his meds.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:23 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He may have been "off his meds", but how does one escape from a motorcycle gang on a bulldozer ???
Posted by: Clayton In Mississippi at June 16, 2010 01:44 PM (tlaeS)
2
Good question, Clayton In Mississippi. Remember A Fish Called Wanda? Michael Palin rode a concrete tamping machine toward Kevin Kline at the end of the movie, shouting "Revenge, revenge." And Kevin Kline, with his feet fixed in the concrete, couldn't do anything but shout 'no, no.'
Maybe something like that. whatever works.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at June 16, 2010 03:05 PM (Aaj8s)
3
Ooooh, maybe he used the "chain the bikes to a fire hydrant" trick!!!!
Posted by: mockmook at June 16, 2010 04:07 PM (5ssRl)
4
These were German Hell's Angles. I wonder how they rate on the bad scale.
Posted by: David at June 16, 2010 08:12 PM (st2+Q)
5
". . . how does one escape from a motorcycle gang on a bulldozer ???"
Presumably the same way the 2000-pound canary escapes from the 14-pound cat. "Here, kitty, kitty, kitty. . ."
In my mispent youth I spent six week at the US Army's camp for boys in Fort Knox Kentucky as an ROTC cadet. Somewhere close to the end of that time we got an afternoon pass one weekend. A friend and I were driving to the gate, when he looks in his rear-view mirror, pulls the car over to the shoulder and shout's "look out!"
Next thing I know an M-60 goes thundering by at easily 45 mph. That disappeared over a hill. Next, an MP jeep, siren blaring appeared, apparently in pursuit. It disappeared over the hill.
I turned to my buddy, and said "What's he going to do if he catches it?" He said "Dunno" and began edging back on to the road. Then we hear the siren approaching again, and he pulled off again. A minute later the jeep appears -- followed by the tank, which is going flat-out in pursuit of the jeep. Both disappeared the other direction, and my friend said, "I guess that answers your question."
I imagine chasing a nut on a bulldozer while you were on a motorcycle would end pretty much the same way.
(Later, in one of the local papers we learned that the tank had been driven by an enlisted man. He apparently had "substance abuse" problems. His girlfriend had broken up with him, and the man had been denied leave, so he "borrowed" the tank for transportation to her place for a discussion. Eventually they blocked the tank and the guy gave up. Not today's army boys and girls.)
Posted by: Mark L at June 17, 2010 07:54 AM (WGbtD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut...
Sometimes, you don't:
Imagine, if you will, that you're a normal person and then one day a quasi-famous mentally ill blogger becomes fixated on you the way Gollum was fixated on the Ring. Even though she hasn't been setting the world on fire lately, she has been on TV, on the Howard Stern show and she's written for the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, & The Washington Times. Most people in the know realize she's off her rocker, but how many people are in the know? How many fans does she have who don't realize what she's really like?
So this person, this quasi-famous mentally ill blogger, starts claiming you support death threats against her. She tells people you're an anti-Semite. She calls your job and tries to get you fired. When she hears of people connected with you, she tries to contact them to lie about you. When people mention your name on the web, she shows up to tell untrue stories about you. Then, she starts going after your friends. She accuses them of supporting death threats against her and being anti-Semitic for being associated with you.
You tried ignoring her. It didn't work. You tried sincerely apologizing for offending her. Not only did it fail, she misrepresented what you apologized for in an effort to try to use it against you. Since she was a lawyer, you even eventually tried filing a complaint with the Michigan Bar, trying to get them to keep her from obsessively harassing/cyber stalking you; it didn't work. You hoped, over time, the obsession with you might fade. However, four years have gone by and it's still going as strong as it was in the beginning.
This, my friends, is not a rhetorical discussion. The victim here is named Emily Zanotti. The quasi-famous mentally ill blogger I'm speaking of is Debbie Schlussel.
John Hawkins goes on to paint a picture of a blogger unable to separate criticism of her blog entries from criticism of her as a person.
When you encounter a person like this and point out errors of logical and substance in
something they write, they take that as personally as if you had personally insulted their intelligence. Combine that with a personality that has an ego that can never admit to failure, and you have the recipe for a very angry person with a huge chip on their shoulder who can never let go of a grudge.
I feel pity for a person so insecure and vindictive that their lives seem to revolve around creating enemies and maintaining vendettas. Harboring that kind of perpetual anger would be exhausting... wouldn't you think?
Debbie Schlussel's bizarre behavior is hardly a secret in the blogosphere but I've typically ignored it, simply because such people are generally better left ignored to rant and wail into the darkness.
That said, I understand John's desire to set the record straight and let the sun shine on hate calculated to hurt and smear others. Debbie Schlussel seems intent on trying to become a bully.
I think she's picked the wrong opponents.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:37 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Schlussel's cart went off the rails a long time ago. Nut is too kind a description.
Posted by: Pablo at June 16, 2010 09:44 AM (yTndK)
2
I am a "Dutch American". Not really. I'm an American of Dutch descent. So,anyway, if anyone whispers a word of criticism against me or the Netherlands ~~ do I get to smear them with the racist attack that they are "anti-Dutch"??
All of this race-baiting against "anti-semites" caused me to take an objective look at Israel. I no longer support Israel. Now,I don't support the Muslim world either. But they are both seeking global domination. The Talmud calls for beheading Christians just as the Koran does. Is
Schussel therefore "anti-Christian" and "anti-Christ"??
The moment she started smearing with "anti-semite" ~~ she lost all her credibility in this. I won't even look it up. I just assume she's being an imperialist personally and racially.
Put me on your list, Debbie. I won't be intimidated into supporting Obama because leftists call me a racist ~~ and neither do I like the Israelite and Jewish assault of calling good meaning people racists (anti-semites) JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T knuckle under to your intimidation to agree with everything you say.
Do you and Obama work together, Debbie?? Really?? Or do you just assume the same tactics as the radical left??
Posted by: laura at June 16, 2010 12:48 PM (qVZNP)
3
'Cuse me there, Laura, the BIG DIFERENCE between the followers of the koran and the followers of the Talmud is that the followers of the Talmud DON'T follow through with that head chopping thing.
Posted by: emdfl at June 16, 2010 06:51 PM (vwRFo)
4
The Talmud calls for cutting off Christian peoples heads?? Really? Laura have you read any Talmud, because I assure you it does not call for cutting off Christian peoples heads, most of the talmud was written during Jewish babylonian exile which predates Christianity by a few hundred years..
You ought to be careful believing everything you read on the internet please. The Talmud refers often to pagans (people who do not believe in GD) Most of the Christians I know worship the same Gd as me, do you consider yourself a pagan?? Further I don't think there is any calls for cutting of Pagan heads either so we are 0 for 2 so far!
Posted by: saus at June 17, 2010 04:53 AM (3d+M6)
5
I hear those darn pesky Jooz bake Palestinian children into cookies, too. MM-MMM-GOOD!
Posted by: Mike at June 19, 2010 06:28 AM (OVl+v)
6
Ask Emperor Misha from nicedoggie.net about Debs. She's been off her rocker (all but the t!ts, anyway) for a loooong time.
Sue me for that Deb. I'm in Michigan too, and out of a job. No payday here.
Posted by: NavyspyII at June 19, 2010 07:27 AM (1jSiQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 15, 2010
Arrest Bob Etheridge
Arrogant, entitled liberal Democrat Bob Etheridge assaulted a man in broad daylight in front of witnesses on a Washington, DC street, in an encounter that was captured on two cell phone cameras and broadcast around the world.
The attack was indefensible, by Etheridge's
own admission.
The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department needs to launch a full and immediate investigation of this incident. Chief of Police Cathy L. Lanier has a responsibility to protect people in her city from all criminal behavior, even that committed by Democratic Congressmen.
Update: A protest against Etheridge by his constituents is
scheduled for tomorrow in Raleigh.
You can also protest Etheridge by contributing to his opponent in November, Renee Ellmers,
here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:51 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
OK...I am now holding my breath until a full blown investigation is launched, and Mr. OBAMA can find whose A$$ to kick.
turning red...turning purple...still waiting...
Posted by: Joe at June 15, 2010 01:26 PM (qo8c2)
2
It's Obama who set the tone... HE is the one with "get in their face", "hit back twice as hard", and gonna "kick ass" while Salazar puts his "boot on their throat". What the HELL is this, the Third Reich?
Now this arrogant clown Etheridge thinks it OK to get violent with an innocent reporter asking a question… and in the most polite fashion imaginable- who cares what his motivations were or weren't.
What a horrible example Team Obama and allied union thugs have set for their minions.. who now feel free to lash out like punks at any who dare question them.
And anyone who still considers Obama some sort of unifier ought to have their head examined-
Posted by: Reaganite Republican at June 15, 2010 03:39 PM (vdbJV)
3
Go, Bob Etheridge! Those were some fine martial arts moves. Two strangers jump at you on a street, get in your personal space and shove an object in your face - that's called self defense, and even congressmen have a right to it. Like Mike Flynn observes, that was lightning quick. It's a training film for the dojo.
Posted by: Storm Christopher at June 15, 2010 09:22 PM (kWGSd)
4
I wish to hell it was my arm he grabbed. He would find his arm up his butt. Then he could scratch his nose.
Posted by: Former Navy SF at June 15, 2010 09:59 PM (Sn+HF)
5
Tell it to Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at June 16, 2010 09:40 AM (brIiu)
6
You should actually watch the video there, Storm. Then you'd be able to describe what happened as opposed to relating some imaginary conflict like the one in your comment.
Posted by: Pablo at June 16, 2010 09:47 AM (yTndK)
7
Being a Democrat does not give anyone the right to assault people just like that. I wonder if the student reporter plans to press charges against Bob Etheridge.
Posted by: no2 monitoring at June 17, 2010 12:56 AM (rFPod)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
McCain Bores Petraeus Unconscious
It's like listening to his campaign speeches, all over again:
Michelle Malkin has what may be a
slightly more accurate depiction of events.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
spot on, Mac bores everyone into a coma, and why all these hearings??? Just so those reps can yak and yak and bla bla bla. I wanted to pass out from this short clip.
Posted by: duncan at June 15, 2010 11:38 AM (lGcPs)
2
Look at it this way. General Petraeus was doing what all good leaders do; looking out for the welfare of their people. They all were at risk of being bored to death so the good General had to act quickly and get them out of the chamber.
What a pompous blowhard McCain is.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at June 15, 2010 11:46 AM (+LRPE)
3
Just a few more months and this idiot, McCain, will go back to AZ to defend the mexican, no the American, no the mexican...just let him go home.
Posted by: joe at June 15, 2010 01:28 PM (qo8c2)
4
That sounds pretty unlikely. It probably was something more mundane like fatigue/jetlag/recovery/low sugar/etc.
Although that's a popular belief, it doesn't pass the smell test.
I'm glad he's OK.
Posted by: brando at June 15, 2010 01:45 PM (IPGju)
5
It's true, the General can take being shot with an M-16 but he cant stand McCain's RINO blather. Hayworth's campaign should use - It would be safer to be shot with an M-16 than have to listen to John McCain for another 6 years.
Posted by: naye255 at June 16, 2010 12:58 AM (WexZn)
6
I shouldn't have to remind you all that Senator McCain served his country with honor, and endured long imprisonment and torture while doing it.
Man up and be respectful of a national hero, for God's sake. If he could endure those years of torture for you, you could at least be polite to him.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at June 16, 2010 12:00 PM (Aaj8s)
7
Marianne, I don't think it's an issue of being polite. They belief that stuff. It's just a totally wacky conspiracy. I've seen this widespread belief on other sites, and it doesn't make sense when liberals scream it either.
It's creepy and deviod of logic. If large swaths of people believe the "Stare At Goats" conspiracy, then who knows what madness and evil they're willing to do in their fake reality.
C'mon. The guy fainted. That's it.
Posted by: brando at June 16, 2010 01:36 PM (IPGju)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Arizona Seeks to Pass Law Denying Citizenship to Illegal's "Anchor Babies"
Quite frankly, it makes perfect sense.
A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.
The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law.
John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.
The proposed law is sure to draw howls of protest from the Mexico and the American left, both of which will ferociously fight the law and claim it is unconstitutional.
But is it? Does the law
really conflict with the intent of the Founders?
I'd be very interested to see any evidence that our Founding Fathers has any intention of giving citizenship to the children of criminals that sneak into our nation to give birth and siphon monies and services that should be providing care for American citizens that are in need.
Critics of the law are certain to point out the text of the 14th Amendment, which reads in part:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Any honest person will be forced to admit that the context of the Amendment was to make sure that slaves freed after the end of the U.S. Civil War and their children could not be denied citizenship. It was never intended to allow criminal aliens to gain a contrived legal foothold to stay in this nation.
While Democrats and other supporters of criminal immigrants like to claim that Arizona's proposed law is unconstitutional, the simply fact is that the specific constitutionality of such a direct and targeted law has never come before the Supreme Court.
If Arizona passes this law, I fully expect that liberals will scream and wail. What will be very interesting to watch is how fast and far they are willing to push with court challenges to test the law.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:03 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The existing language of the Ammendment is clear and straight forward. I agree with the Arizona initiative and its reasoning, but it does conflict with the letter of the law.
What we need is a Constitutional ammendment that clarifies what the original leaves - in Arizona's and your interpretation - ambiguous.
This must be addressed. But since it exists at the federal level, the remedy must also be at the federal level. And remedy we must.
Next up: Chain Migration.
Posted by: Steve Schippert at June 15, 2010 09:22 AM (n7qKT)
2
The wording of the 14th Amendment is clear--if you are born here you are a citizen here. Similarly, my sister was born in Germany at a military base. She had German and US citizenship until she was 18, at which point she had to declare for German or USA.
I think that (1) we should end the practice of dual citizenships, and (2) make policy that just because a child is born here, if the parents lose the right to remain in the USA then the child accompanies them. Those two approaches along with reducing employment opportunities, eliminating social benefits, and active enforcement of immigration laws would drastically reduce the number of illegals in the country without having to wait 10 years for a Constitutional Amendment.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 15, 2010 09:31 AM (MZd0C)
3
the fact is for most of the eighteen hundreds thier was no such thing as illegal immigration. the concept hadnt been born yet.
and it was naturally recognized that birth within a state made you a citizen. we are applying our problems andour understanding to the founders when they had no such problem and probably couldnt have concieved this.
im leary to start tinkering with citizenship by birthright,
im thinking it is a position that will garner more ill will and make conservatives a target.
I would put it under the heading of shooting yourself in the foot politically, ala rand paul.
much better to hammer away at finnally closing the border off physically and demanding the national guard protect the nation by helping the border patrol.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at June 15, 2010 10:07 AM (60WiD)
4
Citizenship is not totally immune from restrictive definition, though it may require a treaty, short of a constitutional amendment. For instance, there is an international treaty which says that the children born in a country are not citizens if their parents are foreign nationals in diplomatic status. Think about the problems that would cause as parents moved from country to country without such an agreement. The US is a signatory to that treaty.
Posted by: Tregonsee at June 15, 2010 10:24 AM (7jlX6)
5
Denying the children of people we don't like their constitutional rights is a slippery slope, i'm just saying.
Next it will be that the second amendment doesn't apply to children of violent criminals.
Posted by: MAModerate at June 15, 2010 09:28 PM (HylkG)
6
what? im not following that logic trail....
its not about like or dislike the argument is about how and why they entered the country.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at June 15, 2010 10:14 PM (60WiD)
7
Those children entered the country by being delivered from their mother's womb into the United States.
The Constitution is clear in stating that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States. To remove a young child citizenship, violating their constitutional rights, because of the crimes of their parents starts a very slippery slope.
If the government is given the power to violate citizens' constitutional rights based on their heritage, do you really think that they will stop at illegal immigrants?
Posted by: MAModerate at June 16, 2010 02:08 PM (HylkG)
8
MAModerate you are making a logical fallacy when you say that the law is removing a young child's citizenship because of the parents crime. The 14th Amendment was enacted to make sure ex-slaves were not denied citizenship, not to give citizenship to every pregnant Latina's baby whose mother was able to evade the border patrol. You can't take away what was never there.
Any country has the right to restrict citizenship however it desires. The United States has that right no less than any other country.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at June 16, 2010 07:55 PM (+xi30)
9
Why are they removing the child's citizenship then?
The Constitution is the Constitution, even if you don't agree with it or ascribe a certain intent to it. It's one thing to kick out an adult criminal, but it is an entirely different paradigm to deport a natural born citizen, according to a literal interpretation of the 14th amendment.
If Arizona tries, it will go straight to the SCOTUS, who will shoot it down.
Posted by: MAModerate at June 17, 2010 04:06 PM (HylkG)
10
The child may then return after reaching 18 and declaring American citizenship. Righteous!
Posted by: cmblake6 at June 18, 2010 06:54 PM (04buQ)
11
As "Native Born" but not "Natural Born". That being the caveat.
Posted by: cmblake6 at June 18, 2010 06:55 PM (04buQ)
12
The key words are "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That is why children of diplomats aren't considered US citizens. It also excluded Native Americans not subject to tax (they were later granted citizenship by an act of Congress). The question is whether children born of illegal immigrants are truly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The case most often cited is Wong Kim Ark in 1898. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants who came here legally. His parents were ineligible for naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act, and later returned to China. Wong visited China and was detained upon trying to re-enter the US. SCOTUS (and the District Court) ruled that because his parents were here legally and "conducting business" (rather than here representing the emperor of China in a diplomatic mission), that Wong was born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. It was a controversial ruling but has held since.
Posted by: KPO'M at June 20, 2010 06:22 AM (piVqw)
13
Many of us were criminals that snuck in here illegally.
Posted by: Bill at June 20, 2010 12:24 PM (jsQWZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 50 >>
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.1557 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1434 seconds, 142 records returned.
Page size 112 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.