Right Wing Nut House

Looks like the spooks may have finally broken through and scored one for the home team. Not a “slam dunk” but, at this point, we’ll take it:

In a surprising admission, North Korea’s hard-line Communist government declared publicly for the first time today that it has nuclear weapons. It also said that it will boycott United States-sponsored regional talks designed to end its nuclear program, according to a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement transmitted today by the reclusive nation’s wire service.

Pyongyang said it has “manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s undisguised policy to isolate and stifle” North Korea, and that it will “bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal.”

Intelligence regarding whether or not the loons currently in power in North Korea had developed nukes was challenged by several sources, most notably China. Now that the North Koreans themselves have let the cat out of the bag, the Chinese are having a wee bit of trouble deciding how to deal with the news:

Two state-run services, the China News Agency and the New China News Agency, each sent out articles late this afternoon describing North Korea’s decision to suspend indefinitely its participation in the six-country talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States over Pyongyang’s nuclear program. But neither article highlighted North Korea’s mention of having nuclear weapons - even though the New China News Agency article quoted the North Korean statement at length and included portions citing the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

The CIA has leaked intelligence reports since 2002 showing that North Korea was nuclear player. While it’s unclear exactly when the DPRK acquired its nuclear capability one fact cannot be overlooked.

They cheated.

The history of the so-called “Agreed Framework” with North Korea reads like a Buster Keaton/Keystone cops movie script where the US and the UN race around town chasing a car driven by Kim Jung Il trying to catch the “Great Leader” circumventing North Korean obligations under the treaty. Basically, the agreement called for the North suspending its nuclear ambitions in exchange for economic concessions, heavy fuel oil deliveries, and the construction (with western help) of 2 light water nuclear reactors.

The US and South Korea basically lived up to their part of the bargain while Kim and his crazies played a shell game with plutonium enrichment programs. Part of the problem had to do with the breathtaking myopia of former Secretary of State under Clinton Madeline Albright.

In an interview with PBS “Frontline” Albright reveals an almost childlike faith in her new found friend. Asked point blank whether Kim is a nutball, Albright hedges a bit:

Frontline: Is he delusional?

So I can’t imagine what it is like to be raised in a society where their only statues that exist are to you and your father.

After saying she’s surprised he isn’t delusional, Albright then calmly lays out the reasons why he is delusional.

Yikes!

I’ve had conversations with someone who is firmly convinced that Elvis Presely is alive and well and living somewhere in rural Michigan. He sounds totally reasonable and rational-until you remember that Elvis has been dead for thirty years. The fact that the former Secretary of State took the position that this murderous, meglomaniacal thug was “reasonable” should tell you why North Korea was able to thumb their noses at the world and continue on with their nuke program-despite all the “safeguards” Albright had negotiated.

In 2002, President Bush tired of Kim’s games and requested international inspection of sites that were suspected by the spooks of enriching uranium illegally. Since no such inspection was scheduled until 2005, Kim used this reasonable request for early inspection to cancel the agreement.

During the recent campaign, Kerry laughably tried to blame North Korea’s imminent acquisition of nukes on Bush. What Senator Flip-Flop failed to mention was that North Korea could not have possibly constructed any nuclear weapons between 2002 and today; that only repeated and deliberate violations of the agreement during the Clinton Administration would have allowed the North to construct its weapons program.

Albright’s trip to North Korea in 2000 was also notable for the not so subtle warning Kim imparted to our clueless Secretary of State. Asked to describe her trip, Albright had this to say:

Well, what happened was that he was the host, and so it was a little hard always to say, “I’m not going to do whatever you’re suggesting.”

And then there was one, and they were so good at it that they could make a rocket go up by moving the cards. At that point he turned to me, and it was a Taepodong missile. …

The leader of this rogue regime uses 200,000 people with flash cards to drive the point home about his weapons of mass destruction-that he has no hesitation when the time comes to use them- and the significance of it goes right over her head.

I can’t think of anything more revealing of the mindset of the Clinton Administration. They turned a blind eye while this hooligan violated an agreement designed to keep him “in a box.”

Turns out that the box had a false bottom.

Ah, Virginia!

Known as “The Cradle of Presidents” (no less than 8 Chief Executives were born there), Virginia has more history per square mile than any other place in the union. The first successful English colony in the new world is located in Jamestown, one of the nicest, quaintest tourist traps you’ll ever find. Roanoke, the first unsuccessful British colony in North America is equally interesting though not as quaint. It seems the inhabitants up and disappeared with no note, no trace, and hardly a bye your leave (Maryland residents joke they ran off to go crabbing on the Eastern Shore).

Then there are the Revolutionary war sites, the “Washington Slept Here” sites, Civil War battlefields galore, and finally Alexandria. Located directly across the Potomac River from Washington, historic Alexandria is a cornucopia of living, breathing history with houses and shops from the 17th century still being used as, well, houses and shops unlike the better known Williamsburg that uses re-enactors and living history buffs to separate you from your money. At least in Alexandria, they sell you stuff you can actually use like power tools and video games. What do they sell in Williamsburg? I mean, who the hell needs a replica of a 17th century chamber pot?

All of this history gives Virginia a veneer of something akin to Disneyland. A land of knights and chivalry. A place of genteel gentlemen and ladylike ladies.

Judging from this story, it’s also a place of certifiable loons.

RICHMOND — Virginia lawmakers to the state’s youth: Pull up your pants or pay the price.

Delegate Algie T. Howell Jr. doesn’t want to see underwear hanging out of the back of your pants, and most lawmakers yesterday agreed with him. The House voted 60-34 for his bill, which would impose a $50 fine on anyone whose boxers, briefs or thongs peek above their pants or skirts.

This from the first democratically elected legislature in the New World. The very first stab at representative government in the English colonies. They used to call themselves “The House of Burgesses”. I think they stopped when ole’ Smokey Burgess retired back in the 1960’s.

Be that as it may, one would think that these guys would have more important things to do; like perhaps solving the state’s budget crisis or beefing up local police and fire departments, or funding decent schools.

Nope.

“It’s not an attack on baggy pants,” said Mr. Howell, Norfolk Democrat. “To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country.”

First of all nitwit, leave me out of it. If you want to “uplift your community” I suggest you refrain from running for re-election. Don’t include me in your all- encompassing rationale for this ridiculous assault on personal expression.

Then there’s the “crack factor.” No, not the drug. This is what I mean:

It’s not clear if the fine would apply to plumbers, carpenters or other laborers who have problems with low-riding pants. The bill states the fine would apply to those who display their below-the-waist underwear in a “lewd or indecent manner.”

When a legislative body that fairly drips with tradition and oozes history starts debating whether or not they should fine a plumber who, after crawling around on his hands and knees all day up to his elbows in human waste, may have his pants slip below the…what? Let’s call it “The Howell Line”…it’s time to start worrying about the mental health of the Republic.

All of this would be bad enough. But then…there are the moonbats.

Several lawmakers and civil rights groups said the legislation — sometimes referred to as the “droopy drawers” bill — is excessive and would encourage racial profiling, arguing that exposed underwear is simply a fashion statement by mostly black youths.

“This is a foolish bill because it will hurt so many,” said Mr. Spruill, who is black. “This will be a bill that will target blacks.”

I can see it now. Thousands of young black men being led away in irons for making a fashion statement. Hey! This sounds like an issue tailor-made for the ACLU:

However, Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, said the bill “clearly targets” black men.

“Another concern is that legislators may have started a trend where they are designating themselves the arbiters of taste for Virginia, maybe even the fashion police,” the ACLU director said. “This is simply not the kind of detail legislators should be addressing.”

Nor the ACLU, come to think of it. Beware the slippery slope! First, droopy drawers and before ya know it, they’ll be banning loud ties, or lime green golf pants, or even cardigan sweaters!

Tending towards the gut myself, there have been occasions recently when my briefs have made an unwelcome appearance, much to my chagrin and Significant Otherhawk’s amusement.

I’ll just have to make sure to do some “belt tightening” before I visit Virginia again.

Kiefer_Sutherland_108504a
Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

“I don’t want to get caught up in it. I’m staying out of it”.
Tony Almeida

Jyah, shure!

Life’s been a bitch for the former federal prisoner turned unemployed self-pitier Toni. I mean how would you feel if you threw your life and career away for a woman only to have her leave you when things got a little rough? Not only that, you’re now shacked up with the number one piece of slutty trailer trash in all of Orange County, bartender Jen. Top it off with a gun battle where you killed two terrorists before lunch and you have the makings of a real bad day. (Note: Doesn’t anybody ever eat anything on this show? Haven’t these people ever heard of hypoglycemia?)

SUMMARY

After escaping from the terrorist trap at the security firm thanks to Toni’s intervention (and apparently undimmed marksmanship), Jack and Secretary Heller lay a trap for the mole at CTU.

Maryann, on instructions from Powell, “stings the stingers” by setting up Sarah to take the fall. It works. Sarah is arrested and brought to the infamous CTU “Holding Room” where they ought to put a sign up outside the door that reads “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”

That room has an interesting history over the last few years. Not only did Jack just up and off a terrorist two years ago, this year he kneecapped a guy. Nina was brought there to be browbeaten by Jack, and innumerable traitors, snitches, suspects, terrorists, and moles have graced that gray, empty, forlorn room. And let’s not forget the ordeal of Heller’s now estranged son Richard who went through a “sensory deprivation” experience (somehow, I think it would have been more painful if they had strapped Richard down and made him listen to the soundtrack from “Sound of Music”).

Fat geek Edgar starts to put two and two together and suspects Maryann. He hacks her workstation (what a great co-worker) and finds the message that she sent to Powell. He finally stands up to the witch and goes to Driscoll with the evidence.

Maryann, realizing the jig is up (she has a great sense of self-preservation) tries to escape but is caught by Curtis, who must feel an enormous sense of satisfaction as he nabs her. He orders CTU security to “turn the car inside out.” Security has some help when a bomb goes off and indeed, turns the car inside out and backwards. Maryann hits her head as a result of the explosion and it’s unclear how badly injured she is.

Meanwhile, Audrey is safely returned to CTU headquarters into the loving arms of her father where she’ll probably be safe for oh…say 15 minutes or so. It will also give her estranged husband Paul a chance to work on her while Jack is out saving the country. (Prediction: Paul will suggest that they “go someplace and talk” where Audrey will be kidnapped and once again find herself in the clutches of the merciless terrorists.)

After identifying the man at the Heritage Club party as one Henry Powell who works for McGlennon-Forster, the company that made the override device, CTU discovers that Powell is about ready to flee. Jack gets off the best line of the night in his conversation with Erin about going after Powell:

Erin: Jack, do you need any help?
Jack: No. I want to maintain a low profile.

Heh.

As Jack readies to go after Powell, Tony realizes what he’s been missing and joins him. I think he just wanted to get away from trailer trash Jen. Can you blame him? She looks like the type of woman who would nag a guy just because he wanted to sit around all day, watch TV, and drink beer while letting her work like a slave to support him. Some women just don’t have a sense of humor about those kind of things.

As Jack and Tony arrive at the helipad and discover Powell about ready to take off, Jack drives his car down an embankment and races towards the copter with guns drawn screaming at the pilot to stop.

So much for the low profile.

Powell turns out to be a squirming, sniveling, cowardly wretch. He looks at Tony and Jack’s hackneyed appearance and asks the obvious question:

Powell: Who are you guys? Police? FBI?
Tony: Actually, I’m unemployed.

That turns out to be the last laugh for Powell as he’s subsequently gunned down by a sharpshooter dressed like a SWAT guy (helmet, vest, uniform). Back to square one.

BODY COUNT

A light night for the grim reaper. Two dead; one from the car bomb and Powell. Here’s the running total:

JACK: 18 dead, 1 gratuitous wounding, 1 viscous pistol whipping.
Show: 90 dead total

LOOSE END:

This is a minor point but Heller’s beard changed from scene to scene. When he talked with Jack on the phone, his stubble was quite pronounced. Later when talking to Erin, it was barely visible. Finally, when Audrey got back to CTU, it was different again.

This is a question of continuity and it’s why they have a Continuity Director. Because scenes are shot “out of sequence,” it becomes vital for the Continuity staff to check little details like this.

Bad production values.

That’s it for this week. I’d like to thank all the great people over at “24 Forums” who make it a point to visit every week. I enjoy reading your speculation…keep ‘em coming!

Super Bowl XXXCICIXXXIVIVVIXXXL is over and…

What’s that you say??? The Roman numerals are incorrect?

First, I ain’t Roman. Second, football ain’t a gladiatorial sport. When they talk about lions and Christians in the coliseum, they aren’t talking about a playoff between the western part of the empire versus the eastern; although a match between the Thracians and Abyssinians may have been more entertaining than the yawner that played itself out in Jacksonville last night.

The whole concept of numbering Super Bowls using Roman Numerals is un-American and should be abolished. In fact, why use numbers for the game at all? When we watch the Rose Bowl, an arguably more entertaining game albeit with less entertaining commercials, we don’t have to try and remember “Now…is this the 103rd or 104th game in the history of the Rose Bowl?” To find out, you have to go to the official Tournament of Roses web site:

In 1902, the Tournament of Roses® Association decided to enhance the day’s festivities by adding a football game. Stanford University accepted the invitation to take on the powerhouse University of Michigan, but the west coast team was flattened 49-0 and gave up in the third quarter. The lopsided score prompted the Tournament to give up football in favor of Roman-style chariot races.

Maybe the Super Bowl could have those chariot races as halftime entertainment next year. I mean, don’t get me wrong. It was swell to see Paul McCartney lead us in a sing-a-long of “Hey Jude,” and all but, c’mon! WTF! Does it bother anyone else to see a 60+ year old man prancing around on stage and gyrating like a teenager? I love the Beatles and Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger and all the ancient rockers who to this day sell out arenas at $75 bucks a pop so that we can wallow in nostalgia, but there comes a time when we should “become a man and put away childish things” as the good book says.

God! We baby boomers are a horrid lot.

As for the game, let’s get serious. The first half was forgettable and proved the point that the extra week between the league championship games and the Super Bowl should be abolished. Both QB’s looked nervous and rusty. New England especially looked out of sync on offense. McNabb looked a little lost.

The second half was better. Philly especially seemed to find a rhythm. McNabb stepped up big time. Both teams moved the ball more consistently.

The difference was turnovers and coaching.

To me, the turning point of the game occurred at the end of the third quarter when, with the scored tied at 14, Belichick took New England RB Corey Dillon out and put in Kevin Faulk. The brilliant move paid immediate dividends on the next three plays as the fresh legs of Faulk rushed for 8 yards, 13 yards, and then took a swing pass and raced to the Philly two yard line setting up a first and goal. The Pats went in 2 plays later for the go ahead score.

As for turnovers, McNabb had a lot of problems reading the Pat’s coverage. Two of those interceptions were killers-including one at the goaline-with the last pick the result of a poor route run by the Philly receiver.

Philly time management is the talk of the sports pages and talk radio. I’m not so sure that criticism here is justified (I’d probably feel different if I were a Philly fan). It looks to me like Coach Reid decided that they would have to try an onside kick anyway to win the ballgame and they might as well take their time moving down the field and make sure they got at least one score. Was he right? He’s certainly getting a lot of criticism for the decision.

One note on the commercials; evidently godaddy.com’s hilarious commercial featuring a busty young lady whose spaghetti strap on her t-shirt breaks in the middle of a Congressional hearing on indecency was too much for the NFL. They demanded that Fox pull the second airing of the ad. C’Mon people! We’ve got to learn to relax a little! While its true the media may have gone too far occasionally in the past, this swing of the pendulum is way too much to the other side. Let’s all take a deep breath and pull back a little so that we can examine what’s going on without hyperventillating everytime some bible-thumping nitwit like Dobson opens his fat yap.

I’m all for standards…but NOT at the expense of free expression. What’s going on now is having a deadening affect on that expression. And I don’t like it.

All in all, an enjoyable evening of football, pageantry, and hype. All American fun in an all American venue.

Couldn’t ask for anything more.

A 20 year old Iraqi has claimed responsibility for the toy soldier brouhaha that erupted last week when both the AP and MSNBC ran with the story of an American soldier taken hostage by terrorists only to discover later that the “soldier” was in fact, an action figure doll.

This from the SITE Institute:

A message is currently in circulation on Jihadist message boards in which an Iraqi by the nickname of “al-Iraqi4” admits to being behind the hoax of the US soldier’s capture by the Mujahideen [using a toy soldier that he named John Adam]. While some message board members prayed for the hoaxter’s guidance toward righteousness and resorted to God for judgment, others were furious at him for “demoralizing” the members.

Follow the link for a hilarious photo.

Here’s the kid’s “confession.”

In the name of God, the Most Merciful and Most Compassionate,

My apologies to everyone.

The poor kid is scared witless. He should be. Somehow, I don’t think those gimlet- eyed al Qaida roughnecks like being made to look like clowns.

Time for the kid and his family to skeddadle.

Apology: I would have given a “Hat Tip” to the blog that led me to the Site Institute except, like an idiot, I lost track of where I was. The site I got the link from was linked by another site that listed about a dozen sites posting on the story. I was about 3 links removed from the original blog when I found this.

Anyone who knows where this link was posted, please leave a comment with the URL…I’ll update the post with a HT to both the original site and you.

The piece of human excrement that is Ward Churchill has received an enormous amount of coverage by the MSM over the last week. I’m sure he’s loving it, eating it up, accepting speaking engagements, getting an agent for his book and maybe even trying to sell the rights of his life story to Hollywood.

The question of Mr. Churchill continuing with his tenured position at the University of Colorado has enabled both the thoughtful and the clueless to weigh in on whether or not “Professor” Churchill deserves to be fired for his insensitive, idiotic, and nauseating remarks following the September 11 attacks.

I posted on his specific remarks here so I won’t stink up the pages of this site any more with his rhetorical vomit.

The question is now one of freedom of speech…even speech that is so full of lies, distortions, exaggerations, hyperbole, and hate that decent people everywhere have condemned it and even leftist radicals have questioned the “timing” of the remarks.

It is also a question of academic freedom; the idea that professors and students should be free to express their opinions without fear of being fired or expelled. Academic freedom is essential to maintaining the free flow of ideas that makes our University system so valuable in a free society.

In this vein, Evan Coyne Maloney writes in Academic Bias.com that Professor Churchill’s job should be protected:

We find these comments reprehensible. But we also believe that the best way to combat Professor Churchill is by opposing him with more speech. Creating an environment where tenured professors can be fired for controversial remarks is a dangerous precedent to set. Academic freedom provides a wide berth, and that’s by design. Sometimes, controversy is merely the result of childish, mean-spirited remarks, but it’s also true that many of mankind’s most brilliant thinkers aroused controversy in their day. If they’d been silenced because others were upset by what they had to say, then we’d all be poorer for it. To ensure that professors can safely pursue the most innovative thinking, academic freedom should be respected.

Shoddy scholarship–not a knack for generating controversy–is the primary reason Professor Churchill shouldn’t be holding his professor position. Still, the University of Colorado should have noticed that and acted when Churchill initially came up for tenure. Instead, low standards on the part of the university allowed him to gain tenure and even to chair a department. By giving Churchill tenure, the university made a tacit promise to stand behind him in the face of controversy. The university should respect that promise and protect his job. (Hat Tip: Instapundit)

Maloney points to the University’s incompetence for giving this Jacobinical lickspittle tenure in the first place.

BUT ONCE THAT TENURE IS GRANTED, THE UNIVERSITY HAS A DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND CHURCHILL REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES.

Tenure, according to the Rocket at Powerline, may have outlived its purpose and reform is in order:

HINDROCKET: I think the whole tenure system needs to be rethought. It doesn’t make any sense to cover all misdeeds with the blanket of “controversy,” and say that because a professor is “controversial”–regardless of whether that means he’s a Republican or a pederast–he is protected. The taxpayers of Colorado are paying Professor Churchill’s salary, and they and others pay tuition so that their children can be competently educated. Churchill is obviously not a competent educator. There is no reason in the world why taxpayers and parents should be compelled to pay his salary in perpetuity, no matter how much of an idiot he is. If it requires a change in the tenure system to inject a modicum of common sense into our universities, let’s reform the tenure system.

Some will say: but that will leave our universities susceptible to currents of politics or fashion. To which I answer: Really? You think? As opposed to what–the situation we have now, in which any scholar who admits to conservative or Republican tendencies is less likely to be hired as a professor than I am to play in the NBA? Cry me a river.

While Hinderaker makes a point of sorts, I must take strong issue with it. Just because the left is myopic and biased in their hiring practices shouldn’t mean that as conservatives we should advocate joining them in their hypocrisy. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” is simplistic but, I believe, apt in this case. We should rise above that sort of intellectual arrogance and continue to press for the hiring and tenuring professors with bona fide conservative credentials. This, I believe is the way to counter moron’s like Churchill; through thoughtful and reasoned debate rather than suppression of his lunacies.

Mark Noonan has a little different take:

All speech is not protected, and no one has a right to suffer no penalty for what they say. I’m with Samuel Johnson on the matter: “I have got no further than this: Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test.” You may say whatever you wish, but before you open your mouth, think carefully; are you fully prepared to accept the consequences of what you say?

Mark is at least half right. While the statement “All speech is not protected” is true up to a point, (the famous free speech test that one cannot holler “fire” in a crowded theater being one of the exceptions) I would hope that any court in the country would uphold Mr. Churchill’s right to spew his anti-American fantasies to his heart’s content. Where Mark hits the nail on the head is enduring the consequences of your speech.

Recently, we’ve seen celebrities like Linda Rhondstadt, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and her husband Tim Robbins complain about being “blacklisted” for their anti-American statements. What these egotistical lightweights can’t seem to grasp is that there are people like me who will never watch another movie with any of those actors again based entirely on their politics. This, of course, is not censorship. It’s me exercising my right of choice. I choose not to watch them because the thought that any of my money going into their pockets makes me physically ill. The fact that they can’t accept that their loony ideas and hateful speech about America has real-world consequences shows how out of touch they are with the their fans and with the people who hire them to make movies; the studio heads and producers in Hollywood.

So Churchill’s outburst should be seen in this light. And he shouldn’t be fired for speaking his mind (that mind being devoid of rationality though it may be).

He should be fired for this:

The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.

Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement.

Churchill is listed in his bio as a Keetoowah Band Cherokee, Coordinator of American Indian Studies at CSU, and a Native American Activist. If what AIM says is true (and they may have a bone to pick with Churchill for some past criticism of the radical Native American organization) the good Professor has been passing himself off as something he isn’t. In short, he has committed a fraud upon the University which would be ample grounds to yank his tenure and give his ass the boot it so richly deserves.

Don’t fire Churchill for his political views…fire him because he’s a lying piece of floating flotsam, not worthy of respect, title, or notice.

The jerk has had his 15 minutes. Let’s all move along now. There’s nothing more to see.

UPDATE: A “TEACHER’S TEACHER” RESPONDS

I’ve featured my brother Jim’s thoughts before on this site and I thought that since he’s a lifelong teacher, it would be valuable to hear his take on the issue of tenure and academic freedom.

Your response to Churchill’s words is characterized as always by that light touch for which you are so justly famous (!)

But if they and we want a truly democratic republic, something that we can proudly point to as a model in contrast to jihadist theocracy, then we have to acknowledge the right of the Shockleys and Churchills to vent their prejudices openly and without penalty except our rejection of them - our turning away from their hate and stupidity in disgust.

I had forgotten about that nutball Shockley. He didn’t seem to grasp the consequences of what he was saying. His appearance on Charlie Rose shortly before his death was memorable for the way that Rose, a truly remarkable raconteur with a gift for getting people to open up, made the Professor look like the racist idiot he was.

And the Brother makes an excellent point…political correctness can be just as damaging when it’s used by conservatives as by liberals. I hope my friends on the right keep that in mind while they continue to call for Professor Feces’ resignation or firing.

Lt. General James Mattis got himself into some hot water the other day by…well, acting like a Marine.

“Actually it’s quite fun to fight ‘em, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you, I like brawling,” said Mattis.

It probably wouldn’t have gotten much attention except General Mattis didn’t stop there:

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said during a panel discussion. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

In what could only be termed “damage control,” the Pentagon scolded General Mattis for…what? Being Honest? Doing his job?

On Thursday, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement saying, “I have counseled him concerning his remarks, and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully.” General Hagee added, “While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war.”

Reactions from moonbats and the MSM were predictable.

“We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life.”

Awad urged that “appropriate disciplinary action” be taken against Mattis.

Okay, so the terrorist supporters (CAIR) don’t like it when an American General says he likes killing terrorists. But what about this “indifference to human life?”

Last year, on his second tour in Iraq, Mattis said he embraced a “hearts and minds” posture, lecturing troops to make friends with Iraqis. He laid down strict rules for when troops could fire and required commanders to seek his permission before using artillery.

He also led an overhaul of procedures for handling prisoners to avoid mistreatment.

What all this boils down to is something we civilians are very uncomfortable in trying to deal with. And that is, very simply, we need whole bunches of people like General Mattis if we’re going to win.

Every society needs warriors. These are the people who, during peacetime are abject failures, or worse, menaces to the society that needs them during combat.

When war breaks out, they’re suddenly transformed into great leaders of men who, through acts of personal courage, earn the respect and admiration of the peoples they protect.

A couple of examples that come to mind are “Lighthorse” Harry Lee and Ulysses Grant.

A daring, hell-for-leather- calvalryman, Lee was George Washington’s favorite Calvary officer during the Revolutionary War. Known for his lightening guerilla strikes on British positions, he once captured a British Garrison, took 150 prisoners, while losing only a single man. He did this by threatening that he would kill any man who made a sound while approaching the enemy.

Washington also chose Lee to confront one of the gravest threats to the new Republic, the Whiskey Rebellion. Frontier farmers, who both grew grain and turned their crop into the easily transportable commodity of whiskey, refused to pay a tax on their distilled beverages. The farmers attacked a few tax collectors and took over some courts. Washington responded by sending Harry Lee with 12,000 hardened regulars to confront the farmers.

One look at Lee and the farmers knew he meant business. The “rebellion” died then and there.

During peacetime however, Lee was a total failure. He met and married two rich women and went through both their estates in less than 15 years (his first wife died of fever). He gambled, he speculated in land, he ran up huge debts, and would have died in debtors prison if not bailed out by friends. He deserted his family (including his young son Robert who would go on to his own spectacular military career) and died penniless in Jamaica still looking for his fortune.

Grant was a different story. After being asked to resign his commission in the army for drunkenness, Grant lived in Illinois and worked at his fathers store. Not able to hold that job, he moved to St. Louis where he tried his hand at a variety of trades, failing miserably in all of them.

Then came the civil war and within a year of being commissioned, he was a general leading troops against the south. After several tremendous victories, he was made General in Chief where he subsequently led the North to victory.

After the war, he dabbled in stocks and became wealthy. When the call came from Republicans to run for President in 1868, he accepted and won in a landslide.

Grant’s Presidency will be remembered for being the most corrupt in American history. Although Grant himself was never tainted with wrongdoing, most of his cabinet was taking payoffs in one form or another.

When he left the Presidency, Grant had the misfortune of waking up one day and finding his fortune gone. His trusted partner had bilked Grant and hundreds of others out of their life savings. Penniless and sick from cancer, Grant then wrote what is considered one the finest autobiographies in American letters

He died shortly after completion of the book, a broken man.

The point is the chances are pretty good that the United States would not be what it is today if not for the efforts of both Lee and Grant. And while General Mattis may be a blunt, outspoken man, he represents quite simply the finest force of shock troops this planet has ever seen.

Today’s Marine Corps defines lethality. They are trained killers. They are also, to a man, the finest group of US citizens that I know of. They serve selflessly and with tremendous pride in their professionalism. They have a code of honor that should make us civilians cringe in shame for the lack of one.

We couldn’t survive as a nation without them. So to General Mattis, I say thanks. And don’t listen to the moonbats barking. They’ll “move on” to something else soon enough.

This being Friday, it’s time for my neighbor Marvin Moonbat to give his take on the events of the last week.

HEARING WHAT ISN’T SAID (By Marvin Moonbat)

When listening to Bushitler, it’s extremely important to ignore the words our Chimp-in-Chief is saying and instead listen to what you know in your heart of hearts he really means.

Admittedly, this takes a little practice. And a little imagination. And a little reefer mixed with my own concoction of special K and ground up XTC. (Note: Don’t try this combination if, within 48 hours you have to A) See your parents. B) Take a test; or C) Perform any task that requires manual dexterity, mental acuity, or color differentiation).

Let me give you an example. Anytime the Smirking Chimp says “Freedom,” what he really means is “Neo-cons.” So when the Liar-in-Chief says “Freedom is on the march” what he’s really saying is “Neo-cons, in their efforts to undermine the constitution, impose a Nazi-like state on America, and conquer the world, are getting ready to invade Iran.”

See how simple that is?

Another example is “Social Security Reform.” Whenever your hear the Chimp mention social security, think “dog food.” As in “I want to destroy social security and impoverish old people so that they’re reduced to eating dog food and sleeping in garbage cans.”

Getting the hang of it?

Try this one…”Iraq.” Give up? This one’s easy. When shrub says “Iraq” he really means “Vote Rigging in Ohio.” As in “We went to war in Iraq to create a false climate of fear so that no one would notice that we rigged the voting machines in Ohio to steal the election.”

That one was too easy.

This one’s a little tougher…”The War on Terror.” What F**kface really means is “Kill all the Homos.” As in “The sham war on terror is a political ploy to garner support for the construction of concentration camps so that we can round up and eventually kill all the homos, blacks, progressives, and environmentalists.”

Don’t believe me? Haliburton got the contracts to build the camps. I read it at the Democratic Underground.

My favorite has to be “God.” Whenever Bushie talks about “God” what he really means is “I’m a lying sack of Sh*t.” As in, “Whenever I talk about God, I’m really talking about me, which makes me a smirking, walking, talking, nazi douchebag, lying sack of sh*t.”

It’s easy once you get the hang of it.

Well, I gotta go to bed now. Hope the XTC wears off before the test tomorrow in my “America’s Evil Influence on the Rest of the World” class. Guess I’ll have to bone up by reading the DU forums for a while.

.

We’ve linked to John Hawkins excellent site Right Wing News many a time here at the House. And for good reason. John’s posts on topics from the looniness of the Democratic Underground to his legendary Q & A Friday which is both informative and hilarious make RWN a daily stop for me and thousands of other loyal readers.

That’s why it’s going to be particularly painful for me to fisk Mr. Hawkins right smartly.

In a move designed to challenge Star Trek Fans worldwide, Mr. Hawkins has made the incredible blunder of actually ranking “The Ten Greatest Star Trek Characters of all Time.”

What folly! What hubris! WTF John? Bad enough that you include that simpering, swishy, sorry excuse for a Captain Jonathan Archer in your top ten but then you had to go and diss Captain Janeway by calling her “the Worst. Captain. Ever. Ever.” (one “ever” would have been enough…it was the second one that set me off.)

Here’s Mr. Hawkins Top Ten:

1. James Kirk
2. Spock
3. Jean Luc Picard
4. Data
5. Jonathan Archer
6. Worf
7. 7 of 9
8. T’Pol
9. Odo
10. Deanna Troi

This list is a travesty. Odo? Aforementioned namby-pamby Archer? T’Pol?

First, its obvious Mr. Hawkins has a bias against Star Trek Voyager. By only including 7 of 9 from that excellent show, as well as his dismissal of Janeway, Mr. Hawkins has demonstrated an unwarranted animus towards what is, in my opinion, the second best Star Trek series bested only by Nextgen . Before I rank the various Star Trek series, here are my Top Ten Star Trek Characters:

1. Picard.
2. Spock
3. Data
4. Kirk
5. Janeway
6. Troi
7. 7 of 9
8. Tuvak
9. Worf
10. Leonard McCoy

I ranked Kirk farther down because, frankly, I always thought him pretty much of a one dimensional character (although a brave and clever Captain).

I always liked the humanity of Janeway as well as her iron will.

Tuvak is probably the closest to what Gene Roddenbery had in mind when he invented the Vulcans; dispassionate, truly unemotional (T’Pol is hot, John, but sometimes she looks like she’s about ready to explode) and a total slave to logic.

And McCoy, who not only was the most complete character in the original series but along with Kirk and Spock gave the show a special chemistry that carried over very well into the feature films.

Honorable Mentions:

Odo
Scotty
T’Pol
Guinan

If you’ve read John’s “Bonuses,” you’ll notice in my Honorable Mentions I have two characters that Mr. Hawkins listed as his most “annoying.” The only reason I included Odo was that someone had to represent the excerable Deep Space Nine. Scotty will probably be on many top ten lists. To me, he barely missed because he, like Ohura, seemed to be outside the circle of major characters on the series. As for T’Pol…John is right, she’s HOT! And Guinan’s relationship with Picard was IMO the most fascinating part of Nextgen .

Now, to carry this “Best of” theme a little further, how about ranking the series?

1. Next Generation
2. Voyager
3. Star Trek (original)
4. Enterprise
5. DS9

I know it’s considered heresy by some to not list the original series as one’s favorite and maybe it’s because I’ve seen every episode 500 times, but I just don’t think the show has worn very well down through the years. Cheesy sets, overly simplistic plots, and cardboard characters make the series dated and sometimes unwatchable. Yes there are several classic episodes-”Trouble with Tribbles” comes to mind-written by some first class sci-fi authors, but not enough to compensate for the rest.

While we’re on a roll here, why not rank the movies?

1. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
3. Star Trek: First Contact
4. Star Trek: The Movie
5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
6. Star Trek: Generations
7. Star Trek: Nemesis
8: Star Trek: Insurrection
9. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
10. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

I actually enjoyed watching all of the more recent ones with the Nextgen cast but I believe the first four were better made, with incredible production values and better plots.

One last word on Mr. Hawkins’ brave but foolish effort. In the words of Mr. Spock:

“Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected. In this case, I should think ‘interesting’ would suffice.”
The Squire of Gothos

Media reaction to President Bush’s State of the Union Speech was surprisingly mild. The afterglow from the Iraqi elections may have had something to do with that. More than that, it was the President’s use of one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite SOTUS ploys; draw broad pictures and let Congress fill in the details. That way, something gets done about the issue, Congress gets some credit, and the President doesn’t make too many enemies; win, win, win all the way around.

In the case of social security, however, that dog ain’t gonna hunt. Bush’s primary job will be to convince Republican lawmakers to get on board the reform bandwagon. Democrats have made clear (and in no uncertain terms) that their job will be to obstruct the President’s proposals, even to the point of a Senate filibuster. The Dems think they have a club to beat the president over the head with come midterms in 2006. If they stay united and play their cards right, they’re absolutely correct.

The fact is, there’s no easy way to get from here to there on social security. Any reform will mean soaring deficits and, for people like me, cutting benefits. Over the next few months you’re going to hear a lot of numbers bandied about by both sides. No matter what anybody says, a transition to private accounts will cost the government at least $1 trillion dollars. There’s no getting around it and both Bush and the Democrats know this.

Everyone also knows something must be done. The Democrats will content themselves with being naysayers, sitting on the sidelines allowing Republicans to do the heavy political lifting, and garnering the political windfall when it becomes clear that there’s real pain involved in the transition.

Good strategy. Irresponsible governance.

Here’s some media reaction to the President’s speech.

The New York Times was less vitriolic than usual:

The State of the Union speech has come in recent years to be a laundry list of everything the president would do if he had the power to do everything. Bill Clinton was a particular fan of that approach, and polls have always shown that Americans like it. Last night, George W. Bush delivered a modified version, with a raft of initiatives that included some things new but a great deal that was very familiar. We were pleased to hear the call for better defense in death-penalty cases and more community health centers in poor areas, and the mention of $350 million in aid for Palestinians to promote the peace process with Israel. But we were disheartened by the renewed call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and the failure to mention development aid to Africa or virtually any other country that is not identified as a prime source of terrorism.

The Times was also “heartened” by the Iraqi elections but dubious of SS reform.

The Washington Post was encouraged by the President’s SS proposals but sees the devil in the numbers ($754 billion) put out recently by the Bush White House:

The personal accounts Mr. Bush advocated are intelligently structured in many ways. The requirement that workers, on retirement, use at least part of their money to buy annuities to keep them above the poverty level; the prohibition on workers withdrawing money before retiring; the default investment plan of a “lifestyle account” that would shift workers, as they age, into less risky investment blends — all of these are sensible approaches.

Because the accounts would be phased in beginning in 2009, that number is misleading. And Mr. Bush made private accounts look like a no-lose proposition, saying, “Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver.” That may be true for many account holders, but Mr. Bush didn’t address what would happen to those who do not fare as well.

David Frum of NRO Online was predictably ebullient:

The speech was long, but not wordy: Its power came not from poetic flourishes, but from the clarity of its message and the firmness of its purpose. And yet the speech was not uncompromising or harsh. Without trimming his conservative principles, the president reaffirmed his commitment to a compassionate approach to AIDS, poverty, and gang violence, and he affirmed a renewed national commitment to defendants in death penalty cases.

The Los Angeles Times, one of the President’s most persistent and vocal critics, was impressed…up to a point:

It was a triumphant moment for Bush, but also a reminder that the rationale for the war has changed. If the Iraqi people’s freedom was once seen as merely a bonus from an unavoidable war, that freedom has moved to center stage as the war’s primary justification. That’s because contrary to what Bush said in a previous State of the Union speech, we now know the threat posed by Hussein was not imminent.

Given that history, Bush was wise in Wednesday’s address to restrain himself in discussing Iran and North Korea, nations he memorably described as part of a three-country “axis of evil” three years ago.

The Nation seems a little miffed:

He did not shy away from the freedom-is-our-mission rhetoric of his inaugural speech, which was widely criticized for being cynically unrealistic. Bush declared, “America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” And he named names, calling upon Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two autocracies long supported by Washington, to move toward democracy. Certainly, he–or Condoleezza Rice–might be on the phone tomorrow to Cairo and Riyadh, explaining that Bush does not expect immediate action. Nevertheless, such words probably will provide encouragement to democracy activists in those countries and in others. These people, though, should keep in mind that Bush’s father–who clearly is no role model for his son–egged on the Shiites in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War and then did not come to their rescue when they were slaughtered.

And here’s a laughable bit from the BBC Online:

But one of the moments that many will take away was of a mother whose son was killed in Iraq emotionally embracing an Iraqi human-rights campaigner.

Janet Norwood’s marine son, Sgt Byron Norwood, was killed in the assault on Falluja, and Mr Bush acknowledged her and in doing so, publicly acknowledged that troops are dying in Iraq.

I took a chance and googled up “Bush acknowledges deaths Iraq” and got 557 pages. The fact is, every time the President speaks of Iraq he speaks of the sacrifices of the soldiers and their families. Everyone with half a brain (excluding, I guess the BBC reporter) knows what he’s talking about when he says “sacrifices.” Only the deliberately myopic would say otherwise.