Language Major

The Comedian's Funeral and the Twin Towers

2010-01-14T17:45:00.000-08:00

Just watched the Watchmen again. Great comic. OK movie. But he music is fantastic. I just noticed something in the background during the Comedian's funeral scene (Simon and Garfunkel's Sound of Silence playing along with it). Can you see them?

They're just to the right of the priest, over his left shoulder. I'm not sure if it means anything, but the soldiers carrying the coffin are all Captains. If you don't know what a Captain's rank insignia looks like, it looks like 2 silver bars sitting side by side. They're often referred to as railroad tracks. In a way, it looks like they're carrying the towers on their shoulders.

It's not really a hidden reference, but I think the director was also including an homage to 9/11. It takes me a while to pick up on these things. This just makes me angry that there's still a hole in the ground where the mighty towers once stood.

Liveblogging the President's Afghanistan Speech

2009-12-01T16:58:00.001-08:00

I'm a USMA grad - class of 94. I've spent a lot of time in Eisenhower hall. It looks like they covered up the orchestra pit to create the thrust stage. That's my theater geek side showing through.

It's 7:01 CDT, so I'll start my comments here...

7:02 - It really looks like he's got a teleprompter problem.

7:03 - Recalling 9/11. A little history to introduce this as the "right" war.

7:04 - Once again defending Islam. Invoking the Congressional use of force. Also invoked Article V of the NATO treaty.

7:05 - I would guess the shots of cadets are intended to keep him from looking like he's playing teleprompter ping-pong.

7:06 - "Bringing the Iraq War to a responsible end." By the way, cadets don't clap at political points. That single clapper you heard was probably part of the entourage.

7:08 - "a fraction of the troops that were in Iraq" - so he's blaming Bush for not properly resourcing Afghanistan. OK.

7:09 - Objectives: kill Taliban/AQ leaders, have an election. Those aren't strategic objectives.

7:10 - First talk of securing the population.

7:11 - Never had an option in front of him to deploy troops before 2010. But, the longer you wait, the further in the future the deployments have to be made. 18- month deployment. Embrace the suck.

7:13 - I have signed letters, I have read letters, I have visited...stay classy, B.

7:14 - Shinseki, Gates, and Clinton. Shinseki is the king of not lowballing troop levels.

7:15 - Goal: disrupt, defeat AQ and Taliban. And other stuff.

7:16 - Rapid deployment, train Afghans, transfer responsibility, then a miracle happens....poof...world peace!

7:17 - Addressing corruption, addressing agriculture. Why am I thinking that I'm not hearing anything else here. There was only 1 reference to securing the population.

7:18 - He's got a 3rd teleprompter in front of the camera riser.

7:21 - He's addressing Pakistan but not listing many specifics, it seems to me.

7:22 - Dismissing the Afghanistan/Vietnam comparison. 1. Coalition fight, 2. Unpopular insurgency, 3. We were attacked from Afghanistan.

7:24 - He wants the Afghans to have a sense of urgency. Good luck with that. Sit down. Have some chai. We'll get to business sometime next week.

7:25 - "Cannot ignore the price of these wars". He's trying to blame the wars for our inability to recover economically. I don't buy it.

7:28 - Damn you Stephen Green!

7:29 - Another promise to close GTMO.

7:30 - Sounds like the wrap up. Recalling America's past achievements.

7:31 - UN, NATO, and the World Bank in the same breath? Really?

7:32 - Once again, cadets don't clap. You can make them laugh, though.

7:33 - If you're wondering why the cadets look so enthused, they should be doing homework right now. Losing 2 hours of homework time for a guest speaker really disrupts a timeline.

Overall, some tough talk. Not a lot of specifics beyond announcing 30,000 troops and an 18 month timeline. I didn't really hear what his vision was, though. He says our resolve is unwavering....we'll see.

Doing the Math

2008-02-19T19:05:00.000-08:00

With apologies to Glenn Beck: blood is now shooting out of my eyes.

One note: How do higher CAFE standards lower the price of gas? uuuuuuhhhhhh......waiting. Obama said it would.

$4000 education grant to every student. Let me do the math here:

How many new college students are there every year? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 1.6 million new US college students in 2006.

That's another $6.4 billion a year spent on education. If that all goes for college education, Obama just made a $6.4 billion promise to college administrators across the country. Anyone like to guess how much the cost of a college education will increase?

Don't even get me started with his plan to require public service to get the grant. It would no longer be "public service". It would be bribing young Americans to participate. No volunteering necessary.

Watching the Wisconsin Numbers Roll In

2008-02-19T18:12:00.000-08:00

Well, I joined a little late to see John McCain talking about security. It is definitely his strong suit. With less than 1% reporting, he's got 83% of the GOP vote. Not a shocker. WI is a fairly liberal Republican state.

Obama is breaking out on top with 61% (to 38% by Hillary). But, if previous states are any indicator, that will even out. I'm actually interested in this one.

McCain is on a roll, I like the health care talk "without bankrupting our country". I like that. Vouchers too. It's the finding "clean" alternative sources of energy that bugs me. Cap and Trade anyone? I will say this: he needs practice on holding for applause. His timing with the audience is a little off. Hey, speechwriter, can you highlight the applause lines or something?

9:17pm With a grand total of 1500 votes in, Obama has 54%. Oops, just updated. it is interesting that 2500 voters is less than 1% of the precincts. Does that mean that there will ultimately be around 200k votes on the Dem side?

9:19pm Fox calls it for Obama based on the exit polling (55%/43%). Brit Hume gave it a big caveat. It bears watching. But it's also an indicator of Hillary's lack of momentum.

9:25pm Exit polling: Hillary lost all of the demographics that she used to win. It's over. Only chicanery (shenanigans!) will get her the nomination.

9:27pm McCain is down to 56% (with 2% reporting). I bet it will stabilize around there. Obama is holding at 56% (with 3% reporting). It looks like a double-digit win for Obama. As Karl Rove said, that will translate into a 6-7 delegate gain for Obama. He continues to extend his lead.

9:29pm For the Record: I am NOT staying up to see the Hawaii returns. I'll catch up on those tomorrow. Did I just hear Hillary walk in to "9 to 5"? That's no way to make a living.

9:33pm Hillary is in OH. Barack is in TX. I'd bet that TX has more delegates. Also, I'd bet that OH has more black voters. She is so going to lose both states. That's my prediction.

9:35pm She said what?!? "Health care is a right, not a privilege." I don't remember anyone ever actually admitting that before? Am I just naive? To whom does she think the check book belongs? It's not the President's, it's the peoples'.

9:39pm Obama is giving a "shout out". Hey! I guess he is an authentic black after all. He just used "in the house" too. I don't want a President that gives "shout out"s, or wonders who is "in the hizzy". He is a joke.

9:43pm With 10% reporting, Obama is maintaining a 10 point lead. That's a shellacking in a white-bread state.

9:44pm Mike Huckabee is still pulling in about 35% of the vote. Those are the hard-core religious conservatives that have concerns about McCain. I just don't think he can pull everybody in from the base. But, I believe he may be able to steal some Dems. I still don't think that will be enough. As I've said before, if Obama is the nominee, I believe he will be president. And a cold chill just went down my back.

9:45pm Ooooooh. Obama is being substantive: money for people that signed up for loans they couldn't afford, end the war, Patriotic Company act (or whatever it's called) yadda, yadda. How many mothers with blind twins have homes? There's a typical case for you. How about actually asking a soldier that is in Iraq if he feels taken care of? Why are re-enlistment rates at an all time high? Hey, at least Obama and Hillary agree - the election is about "you". Yeah, right. The speech is a pig with lipstick. It still has no substance.

9:53pm With 17% in, Obama is up 56%-43%. When, exactly does it become butt-whippin' territory? At 13 point win would be huge. He's pulling away as the numbers come in.

I'm off to bed. Good, Lord, please deliver us from politicians that want us to "get beyond" our positions. Obama, I'm standing over here for a reason: because I don't like where you're going.

Watching the Virginia Numbers Roll In

2008-02-12T16:08:00.000-08:00

Well, the polls just closed and Fox already called VA for Obama. That was fast.

I really think he will get the nomination. I also think that McCain will not be able to beat him. So, say hello to President Obama, and goodbye to our country as we know it.

7:50pm I'm watching the returns on FoxNews.com. So I'm a little slow. But, Huckabee breaking out on top with 56% in VA? I know it's early, but that does not bode well for McCain.

7:56pm OK, it's getting closer. Huck's only up by 2% in VA. But 11% is in. This lead could hold for a while. Maybe until the big cities start reporting, especially around DC.

8:09pm With 24% reporting, McCain jumps ahead, but only by about 800 votes. The vote totals about doubled, so I guess some cities are reporting now.

8:58pm Well, McCain got VA. With 61%, he's leading by 4. So much for a Huckabee upset.

8:16pm With 32% reporting, McCain is up to about a 1,400 vote lead. The trend line is not good for Huckabee. He's got to hope that there are some rural counties yet to report. Still, I'm not sure if VA is a proportional state or not.

8:34pm McCain leads by only about 2500 votes with 49% of the precincts reporting. It's not a big split, but I don't know if Huck can rebound. I don't know that I want Huckabee to win. I would really just like to see McCain squirm for a while.

An Endorsement That I Noticed

2008-02-11T16:46:00.000-08:00

OK, with apologies to IMAO, the Dems can now Fear the 'Stache. (h/t Power Line) John Bolton, whom I really like an respect, has endorsed John McCain.

I find myself thinking about buying into the "this election is about National Security" argument. But if it is, why do I shudder when "McCain" and "border security" are mentioned in the same sentence?

Put me at 50/50 for voting for McCain.

Super Tuesday Wrap

2008-02-05T20:29:00.001-08:00

The running theme of the night was the surprise at the success of Mike Huckabee tonight. Several times, the commentators mentioned that "maybe Huckabee should suggest that Romney drop out of the race". I don't think it's a given that Huckabee supporters would go to Romney or vice versa.

Campaign Carl Cameron said that the McCain campaign believes anything less than a stellar showing by Romney in CA would be "catastrophic" for his campaign. Unfortunately, I think they're right. But, I'll have to check those results in the morning.

Time for me to head off to bed. McCain won't be the out and out nominee in the morning, but I don't know how Romney (or Huckabee for that matter) would be able to stop him.

Super Tuesday

2008-02-05T16:13:00.000-08:00

OK, so it's 7:14pm and I just got home. I guess Huckabee has already taken 18 delegates from West Virginia, and Obama got 3 from Samoa. A bunch of polls close at 8pm. I'm watching Fox. At this point, I guess the best I can hope for is a no decision. That is, no clear GOP candidate so Mitt Romney still has a chance in later races. I'll post updates as the results flow in.

I had a thought earlier today: if Obama wins the Democrat nomination, you should get used to saying "President Obama". I really don't think either GOP candidate could keep him from a date with history (infamy?).

7:24pm I'm getting up to speed on the WV GOP shenanigans. And that's exactly what they were, shenanigans. It's obviously a double-team job, McCain and Huck vs. Mitt. That's politics, I guess, but it doesn't do much for Huck's "nice guy" image. It's now official: a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. Look for a McCain/Huckabee ticket. Look for a 3rd party to form.

7:28pm Huckabee has broken out on top in the GA race. But he's only 1% over Romney with 1% reporting. Let's see if the McCain/Huckabee manipulation continues here.

7:30pm With 1% reporting, Fox has declared GA for Obama. It's a smackdown 64%/34%. It'll get closer, but Obama opens with the momentum.

7:40pm Why is Huck breaking out with 33% in GA, while McCain is stuck at 1%? Is there more collusion going on here? This doesn't make much sense. Here are the RCP polls for GA. McCain has about 32%. These numbers are going to change.

7:49pm Whoa, with less than 1% in, Fox calls AL for Huck? What the? Is he going to take all of the Southern states? If he can deliver those, he will be the VP.

7:50pm I'm not sure what's wrong with the Fox ticker, but the percentages don't line up with the vote counts. Obama gets AL with 1 vote on the board.

8:00pm Out of 5 states that Fox has called: McCain wins 3 (IL, CT, NJ), Huck wins 1 (AL), McCain wins MA. I don't think any of those are a surprise. But Huck is leading in GA too. Aargh.

8:03pm Hillary takes TN for the Dems. That surprises me. I'm not sure why, but it does.

8:10pm McCain and Huckabee are splitting GA and TN. Romney is being frozen out. I think Romney is going down the tubes, even if he surprises anyone in CA or MO.

8:13pm The Barone take on GA: McCain wins near military bases, Huckabee wins rural areas, Romney is winning in the burbs. These numbers could change.

8:15pm Karl Rove on Fox News. McCain's winner take all strategy is working. Romney gets an "incomplete". Huckabee gets kudos for his Bible Belt strategy.

8:23pm Fox reviews some early reporting, and Romney appears in 3rd place again and again. This doesn't look good. It might have been his strategy, but it sure doesn't build confidence.

8:30pm AK goes for Hillary and Huck. No surprise.

8:33pm Romney is gaining in GA. He's only behind by 6K votes. It'll be worth watching.

8:35pm DE for McCain. Boy, all these calls for McCain are discouraging.

8:38pm Karl Rove says Huckabee won't solve McCain's image problems with conservatives. He's right. But he doesn't pick anyone that would help. Chris Wallace mentions someone from SC. But I didn't catch the name.

8:52pm Fox calls MA for Hillary. So it starts to look like she will win the big states she expected. This is a big stick in the eye for Teddy.

8:54pm Laura Ingraham says she will back the GOP candidate, no matter who. But, she says she is worried about Conservatism. Amen to that. McCain will have to make a hell of a speech at CPAC to win over conservatives.

9:00pm Bunch of polls close, and Fox calls NY for Hillary. Arizona is too close for the GOP. That's a good sign for Romney.

9:04pm Hi, I'm in.....Delaware. And I went for Barack Obama.

9:10pm NJ goes for Hillary. Once again, her big state strategy is continuing. This will lessen the Obama surge today.

9:15pm Mary Katherine Ham is in the background on Fox (heavy sigh). If I was younger (and more talented) I might have a shot.

9:18pm NY for McCain. Not a shocker. But unfortunate.

9:25pm Watching the Montana results is funny. With 26% of precincts reporting, there are about 100 votes in. Now that's turnout!

9:28pm AL for Obama. He's doing well in the Southern states.

Pause for snack break

10:04pm So I come back and OK has gone for McCain. TN is lost to Romney (Huck's in the lead). And Huck is in the lead in GA. Romney needs an upset somewhere (AZ?).

10:08pm Huck is on Fox and....well he sounds so self-righteous that I can't listen. He has a reason to be happy, but damn he reminds me of Billy Jeff.

10:10pm I think after tonight, we may be able to clearly identify the factions in the Republican party: 1. The Northeastern Liberals. 2. Bible Belt Evangelicals, and 3. Western Conservatives.

10:27pm With 2% reporting, Romney takes Utah. There's a shocker.

10:29pm Huckabee still leades in GA. I think he'll take that one too with 78% reporting.

10:30pm Romney takes ND. One for the Western Conservatives. ND for Obama too.

10:33pm AZ breaks big for McCain. 51% with about 20% reporting. What's up with the exit polls that showed a 4% difference with Romney? Don't believe exit polls. Fox calls it for McCain. That really leaves CA, MO, and CO for Romney to make a splash.

10:35pm Good news for Mitt in MN. With 18% in, he leads by about 5%. I hope it keeps going that way. He needs to add a few more states to the tally.

10:37pm TN has gone for Huckabee. Oh, Lord. Will it ever end? I may develop a nervous twitch at this rate.

10:39pm Good speech by Mitt Romney. I like the fire and the emotion. He says he's going to carry on. I hope he finds a way to counter the McHucksters.

10:41pm GA for Huckabee. Argh. Is he the Perot of the primary? It looks like he's going to take MO too. Romney needs a big showing in CA and needs to steal a state. Any state. CO?

10:50pm Not going to listen to Hillary. Too. Painful. Grates. Ears. Seriously, how can anyone think of sending this family back to White House?

10:56pm With 28% in, Romney is leading McCain in MN 36%-28%. This looks like it is going to hold. Romney is winning smaller states, and this could keep him viable in the campaign. But, you basically have to add Huckabee's delegates to McCain's, and that gives McCain a huge advantage.

11:02pm MO is close. McCain just took a 1K vote lead (less than 1%). 78% reporting. Gonna have to watch that one still.

11:05pm Some encouraging news for Romney: He breaks out on top in CO with 5% reporting. And he's up to 30% in GA. He's winning MT too. But that's not going to help much on the delegate count.

11:09pm MT for Romney - with 511 votes. WhooHoo!

11:13pm CO for Obama. He's keeping pace. But he'll need a big state. The proportional split of delegates on the Dem side will keep him close.

11:14pm First report from CA. 1% reporting and Romney has 46%. It would be great if that would hold, but it'll drop.

11:16pm ID for Obama. Well, he's not an Eastern Liberal. So I'm not surprised he's hitting it big out West. It'll be interesting to see how he plays in CA.

11:22pm McCain and Huckabee are neck and neck in MO. Romney is 19K votes back. He lost this one. But is it proportional? I don't have a good resource for that one.

11:25pm With 2% in now, McCain doubles up Romney. I hope that shifts soon. On the other hand, Romney looks solid in CO and MN.

McCain Makes an Assumption

2008-02-03T12:01:00.000-08:00

McCain: "I Assume That I Will Get the Nomination" via Drudge.

We all know what assuming can do.

Dailypundit lines up the facts. I might be deranged. But I have a reason for being that way.

Lee County Florida Gets a Nod

2008-02-03T10:02:00.000-08:00

In Robert Novak's column. I was born in Indiana, but I moved to Lee County (Fort Myers) when I was 10. I graduated from High School in Cape Coral in '87.

Our County Commissioner back then was Porter Goss. He went on to run for Congress from that district (the last 3 reps from the Lee County area have run unopposed, Republicans all).

Granted, the mention is a footnote, but I totally agree:

A footnote: While losing the state, Romney carried heavily Republican Collier and Lee counties in southwest Florida by substantial margins. That represents Republican voters whom McCain will have to win over if nominated.

I am one of the current sufferers of MDS. The only cure is for John McCain to prove to me he won't stab me in the back over the next 4 years. It's on him to win us over. We (sufferers of MDS) are under no obligation to moderate our positions.

Zombies! The New Global Warming Threat

2008-02-02T10:09:00.000-08:00

Here's the story. (via Transterrestrial Musings) According to the Zombie Survival Guide, one of the techniques to get away from a zombie infestation is to retreat to a frozen environment. But you have to be able to survive in that terrain.

Fortunately, the sun may also provide a way out of this mess.

As for me, I'll be preparing for the War.

McCain Derangement Syndrome

2008-02-02T04:20:00.000-08:00

Let's break this down.

de·range \di-ˈrānj\ vt de·ranged; de·rang·ing [French déranger, from Old French desrengier, from des- de- + reng line, row 1769]
1 : to disturb the operation or functions of
2 : disarrange
3 : to make insane
— de·range·ment \-mənt\ noun

Rachel Lucas says I'm off my rocker. I've seen references to McCain Derangement Syndrome. I have it. Flat out. John McCain disturbs me for all of the reasons listed in Rachel's post. When confronted with the possibility (inevitability?) that he will become the GOP nominee, I cease to function in a rational manner.

Why? Let's get to the root causes.

Going back to 2000, President Bush appealed to both social conservatives and business conservatives (I won't say fiscal, because that implies spending restraint). At the time, I didn't understand what "Compassionate Conservative" meant. Now I do. It means "Democrat Lite". It's the failure to overhaul Social Security combined with a Medicare drug benefit. It's NCLB while Democrats whine that there's never enough funding for schools.

I went with the President on the war in Iraq. That I understand. I've been impressed by the judges he's nominated, while staring open-mouthed at his lack of willingness to organize the GOP to fight for more (so much for the New Tone). I've received my tax rebates (2001 and 2003), while watching him make the same mistake Reagan did: not reigning in spending by a money-drunk Congress. And I've watched him stand by while millions of illegals flood into the country, overwhelm the medical system and police forces, and claim that we owe them for their breaking of the law.

Then we watched as the GOP went down in flames in 2006 from scandal and unfulfilled promises. As they turned into Democrats through spending plans and earmarks, it left conservatives wondering which party actually represents their interests. Why do conservatives feel like staying home on election day if McCain is the nominee? There's no one there that represents our interests. And even if he says he does now, John McCain cannot be trusted. I believe he'll ride the Maverick label right into "bi-partisanship" that will serve Democrat interests more than ours. Give them an inch, and they'll expect the mile next Tuesday, or they'll label you a metric hate-monger. One thing McCain can't stand is bad press. He'll do anything to stay in their good graces, including appeasing their Democrat allies.

That's my rationale for being against McCain. Is that deranged?

UPDATE: Mychal Massie at WND says it better than I ever could. via Darth Misha

FredHeads for Mitt

2008-02-02T04:11:00.000-08:00

I just added the link to Mitt Romney's web page. I know I'm not alone as a Fred Thompson supporter that is switching to Romney. He's the only GOP candidate left with some conservative appeal. The only thing John McCain has going for him is his war stance. Based on his actions since losing the 2000 election, I just don't know if I can trust him with the conservative mantle. I am rapidly discovering what people mean when they say "I'm a conservative, not a Republican". I really wouldn't mind if there was a 3rd party forming here. We could join with the GOP against the Dems.

Waaaaaaay back in November 2006 (can you believe the campaign has been going on that long?) I noted that Mitt was the best of the bunch. That was before Fred got in the race. Well, I've learned more about Mitt since then, and Fred is gone. So, I'm with Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and former Sen. Rick Santorum. I'll go with Mitt.

And if you think there's not a clear difference between McCain and Romney. Take a look at this.

Ann Coulter - D?

2008-02-01T04:14:00.000-08:00

Ann has a point.

I will never vote for Hillary. But that doesn't mean I would vote for McCain either. Mitt Romney is the last chance for the GOP to get the conservative vote. Fred (most conservative) and Rudy (fiscal conservative) are out. As I've said before, I'd vote for Ron Paul before I'd vote for McCain. At least he makes some sense on monetary policy (except for the gold standard thing).

Why McCain Makes Me Want to Throw Up

2008-01-31T20:11:00.000-08:00

from Doug Ross via Gateway Pundit

This says it all

Watching the Florida Numbers Roll In

2008-01-29T17:03:00.001-08:00

9:11pm - Fox calls it for McCain. Can I go throw up now?

9:10pm - Gap is up to 52K. 'Nuff said.

9:08pm - I know why Mel Martinez and Charlie Crist endorsed McCain. But Rudy? (via Michelle Malkin) It follows, I guess. McCain is now officially the establishment GOP candidate. And the establishment doesn't speak for me. Good Lord, I guess I'll register as an Independent. Do these people not understand the McCain would endorse the Shamnesty bill?

8:52pm - OK, with 46% reporting, McCain is up by 40K votes. I hate to say it, but it's over. Romney may barely hold on to his popular-vote lead, but with 57 delegates, McCain will leap to the front in the delegate count. Fox Election Tomato, Megan ?, went through the exit polling, and it looks like Romney is losing some key demographics including Men and Seniors. Huckabee's on right now, playing for the VP slot.

8:40pm - The gap is up to 26K. If it goes over 30K, I think that will be an irreversable trend. I feel sorry for the news networks, they won't be able to call this until sometime tomorrow morning.

8:35pm - 37% in and the gap keeps growing, 22K now. Hillary is having a "victory" party in Florida. If those delegates get seated, I believe there will be a giant, rending "crack" in the Democrat party. Almost as big as if McCain gets the nomination.

8:29pm - 35% in and the gap has widened to 20K. I hope this isn't the start of a trend.

8:27pm - A Romney supporter (Kevin Madden) on Fox said that McCain has been an "unreliable Republican". That sums it up for me.

8:25pm - Fox News announced their exit polling: 34% for McCain, 31% for Romney. 1,500+ in the poll that included absentee/early voters. Wint 33% in, Romney is back behind by 18K votes (2%). Like I said, I'm wondering about the pan-handle.

8:12pm - With 29% in - Romney has closed the gap. He's only 8K behind on vote count (1%). I can dare to dream that Romney will pull it out at this point.

8:09pm - I feel like I'm watching the end of the Republican party. Romney is down by 22K in votes or by 3%. It's close, and it'll go down to the end. But, he'll lose the delegate lead. Another "silver" won't do. And it won't give him any momentum going into Super Tuesday. Can you tell I'm a FoF that has shifted to Romney? Giuliani would be my third choice. Damn, after that I'd go super-wacko down to Paul before I'd go for McCain or Huckabee.

8:05pm - Just got home and McCain is up 34% to 31%. He's starting to close the vote number gap, but I'm waiting for the panhandle numbers roll in. That's the area that turned the tide for President Bush in 2000. That's where the conservative Republicans are. I believe they will go for Romney.

Who's to Blame for the Baby Boomlet?

2008-01-15T19:39:00.001-08:00

Instapundit blames Britney for maintaining the 2.1 children per woman birth rate. I blame Bush. Here's the e-mail I sent to Glenn Reynolds:

I'm in the Army and my evidence is entirely anecdotal, but there are several families on my block that have children under 3 (which would make them Iraq War babies). Most of these families also have a soldier that was deployed within the last few years. I live in a military neighborhood of duplexes. My right hand neighbor has 2 kids (teens), my across the street neighbor has 3 kids (2 under 3), my immediate left hand neighbor has 4 children (1 is 3), and the far right neighbor has 3 kids (1 is 1 yr old). The military community has a high birth rate anyway (my ex even had a kid without me while I was deployed) because there's no out-of-pocket expense for the birth (at a military hospital). Even so, if it weren't for all of the deployments, we wouldn't be having nearly as many children as a result of the reunions.

Sure, illegal immigration may account for a bunch of it, but I blame Bush and the Iraq War for giving us a shot at having a sustainable population.

Dem Debate Thread

2008-01-15T18:02:00.000-08:00

9:33pm - The Muslim question. Do we have to go on about this? This is a waste of time and I'm going to bed. I have to work in the morning. There's a lot a talk about what they would do, but no specifics. The first break is here, and I'm out.

9:30pm - A Democrat talking about accountability? How about the thousands of airdropped earmarks, led by the Democratic Congress? Hey Obama, bringing people with different viewpoints together isn't leadership, that's indecision.

9:27pm - If I was drinking tonight, I'd have to take a shot every time Edwards said "fight". I think I'd be halfway through the bottle by now. So far Williams and Russert get a low C- for moderating. This is boring. "Strengths and Weaknesses". Give me a break.

9:23pm - Clinton accuses Bush of "begging" the Saudis to lower the price of oil. Well, what would you do? Use your charming smile and bat your eyelashes? What leverage do you have that the President doesn't? It was a winding answer, but had no substantive points. Says she we have to imagine each of them as Commander in Chief - no thank you. I'd like to be able to sleep tonight.

9:22pm - Edwards says the tax code gives companies tax breaks to companies moving jobs overseas. You're going to have to explain that to me. If another country charges less taxes than we do, and thereby encourages companies to move there (like Puerto Rico), that's not something you can control, except by cutting your own tax rate.
(Heckler alert - but he's got a point - calls Williams and Russert on the race-based questions)

9:21pm - I want to mention this before I forget it...Unless my hearing was off, John Edwards listed his standard list of campaign points including universal health care, and called it giving "opportunity" to people. Universal health care isn't an opportunity - it's mandatory. There's no choice involved, where people can take advantage of the "opportunity" or not. It's command directed.

9:18pm - Is it just me, or does Hillary look like a wax figure when she forces herself to smile at Obama?

9:16pm - And then the Today tomato promptly injects more race and gender in the campaign. "What is a white male candidate to do?" I'll actually blame MSNBC for this. Now Williams talks about who won the "women's vote" where. Can we get to a real issue here? They've wasted 20 min on this tripe.

9:14pm - Clinton invokes the first anecdotal evidence of the economic downturn: a construction worker and a casino worker who had been laid off. But how would you solve that?

9:12pm - They've spent 10 minutes talking about how much they want the campaign to be about issues and not race. I'm not sure who's a fault here, but Williams and Russert won't let the MLK flap go. Obama did a good political turn in answering the question he wanted to answer as opposed to answering the question that was asked.

9:03pm - I turn on MSNBC (and immediately want to wash my hands) and see that there's a tomato from the Today show that will be handling e-mail questions. Didn't these people learn form the youTube debate? Isn't asking questions what you "journalists" get paid for?

Watching the Michigan Numbers Roll In

2008-01-15T17:33:00.000-08:00

9:00pm - Fox calls both races. Clinton and Romney. Fred is about 2300 votes behind Paul. That's a disappointment. I wonder if Clinton is even going to say anything about this race tomorrow? I wonder how media outlets will spin the 1/3 of Dems who voted for "Uncommitted"? Should be interesting.

8:57pm - Thought - If Romney wins, does that mean that Kos ends his streak of backing losers? Brit Hume says that FoxNews is going to call both races at the top of the hour. Clinton is down to 61% and Romney is holding at 37%. I wonder for whom they will call the races?

8:55pm - Drama! With 8% in, FoxNews has called the race for Clinton! It's a shocker! She only has 62% of the vote. Uncommitted could come back. Of course, as I write this, 9% is now in and they removed the check mark from Clinton's name. Controversy!

8:49pm - While I'm not enjoying watching Fred fall further and further behind Paul, I am enjoying watching the Uncommitted vote on the Dem side climb bit by bit. It's up to 33% now. If you add the 4% for Kucinich and 1% for Gravel, 38% of Dems braved the weather and apathy to say "no" to Hillary. That's a statement.

8:44pm - With 4% in, it's a little tighter. 36% for Romney, 32% for McCain. Thompson has fallen 600+ votes behind Paul. It'll end up close, but it looks like Paul will end up 4th (and Rudy will be 6th). On the Democrat side, 1 out of 3 voters turned out to say "no" to Hillary. That's how I see it anyway. Based on the light turnout, and the weather, I don't think that bodes well for her campaign.

8:33 pm - With 1% in, Romney leads 38% to 31% for McCain. I'm really watching Thompson and Paul. I know Fred didn't really campaign in Michigan, but I'd still like to see him finish ahead of the chief Ronulan. I really liked to watch the Fox News guys hold off on reporting any numbers until the polls closed at 8pm. I guess we've finally learned from the 2000 election. They reported some exit polling, but heavily caveated the results.

Republican Debate in South Carolina

2008-01-10T18:01:00.000-08:00

Campaign Carl Cameron in the house! This should be a good one. Fred Thompson's last stand.

9:03 Chris Wallace - question about a possible recession. Do you believe it, and why should you be trusted to deal with it? Romney first: seems like this was right in his wheelhouse. He worked in tax cuts and energy independence (although he may have sounded green on this). Because of Romney's Michigan strategy, he worked that in as well and McCain got to rebut about re-training for the jobs that would be lost. McCain sounded surprised when he got an opportunity to answer.

9:08 How does out-of-control spending relate to interest rates? I'm not sure McCain got that right. Spending has been out of control for years and interest rates are still near all-time lows. Have to admit he sounds good talking about anti-pork and using the veto pen. Still, it seems like a pipe dream with a Democratic congress.

9:09 Recession question goes to Huckabee. Dependence on foreign oil and sub-prime mortgages. Personally, I'm with Michelle Malkin: Suck. It. Up. Huckster was all over the map.

9:12 Question to Giuliani - how does cutting taxes increase revenue? He's not the best at explaining it. What is this, economics class? First Reagan reference.

9:13 Tax question to McCain. McCain actually puts the deficit blame from the 80s where it belongs: the Democratic congress that wouldn't cut spending.

9:15 Ron Paul - "you have to understand the Austrian theory of...." Good Lord....spending is "artificial stimulus"?

9:17 Fred speaks, and takes credit for Rudy's tax plan. Also mentions making tax cuts permanent. So far, McCain, Rudy, and Romney sound the most comfortable in this debate.

9:19 Campaign Carl asks about deconstruction of the Reagan Coalition. Huckabee sums up the conservative movement. But he's for increased spending and increasing taxes. I'm not sure I've heard a more substanceless answer - it kind of sounded like John Edwards.

In fairness, I think Carl could have asked a better question.

McCain covered it well and even threw in the Bridge to Nowhere.

9:22 Romney takes a rough question and puts in a reference to the shining city on the hill. It was actually a fairly inspiring answer.

9:25 Fred goes on the attack and calls Huckabee on his lack of conservative credentials. Fred gets the first ovation (against the rules).

9:27 Huck responds and says he cut taxes 94 times and cut the budget 11%. I'd like to check on those.

9:29 Carl calls Ron Paul about the Troofers. He brushes it off as something he can't control.

9:31 Ron Paul doesn't understand that we are at war. "We're in all these countries." He's got some hard core supporters in the crowd. Deficit is out of control? It's been coming down every quarter for the past 2 years or so (I'll have to check the stats on this). If spending stayed flat (or even was tied to inflation) we'd break even on an annual basis by 2010.

First break: I guess you could call it the McCain 1/2 hour. I have to tell you Huckabee's comment about taking flak when you're over the target didn't impress me. Fred got to speak twice, and ignited the first controversy by going after Huckabee.

9:35 Question about the appropriate response to the incursion by the Iranian gunboats. Mike Huckabee mentions sending our enemies to the "gates of Hell".

9:37 Fred answers the question and gets in a line about "the virgins they were waiting to meet".

9:39 Rudy ties the incident back to the NIE and how we should be focused on not allowing Iran to become a nuclear power. Good move putting it in the big picture.

9:39 McCain praises the commanders and mentions that we should trust their judgement (as did Huck, Fred, and Rudy). Decisions are made by commanders on the ground. That's why they get the big bucks.

9:41 First Paul decries the Troofers....then compares the speed boat incident to the Gulf of Tonkin. I love the look on McCain's face as he answered this. If he could, I bet he'd choke the shit out of Paul. Any of these guys remember that it was a "speedboat" that blew up the USS Cole.

9:45 Wendell Goller (spelling?) asks McCain about Iraq. National Security is his strength. He clearly outlined the differences between Republicans and Democrats with respect to the war. But I still can't forgive him for McCain/Feingold, the Gang of 14, Amnesty, need I go on?

9:49 Rudy and McCain sound very presidential. I'd trust either one on national security. Paul shows his isolationist roots. Just close your ears and eyes and it will all go away. Buffoon. Please, Fox, get him off the stage. I can't believe the idiot has that much support in the audience.

9:53 Thompson is asked about Pakistan. He's definitely better playing to an audience (he holds for applause). Misspoke about the Western mountains of "Afghanistan", but his points were spot on.

9:55 Who is General Kiani (sp?) that Romney is mentioning? I guess I need to read up on my Pakistani current events. Romney is showing is naivite on Islam. The change won't come from the outside, it has to come from inside the religion. And it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

9:57 Boy there's a lot of agreeing going on on the stage tonight. Huck agrees with Mitt and Fred. Fred agrees with Rudy. But I think that everyone agrees that Ron Paul is a boob.

2nd break. There wasn't a clear winner this half hour, but Ron Paul was the clear loser in my mind. He criticizes us for arming Israels enemies - valid point, but he said "giving weapons to Arabs", it's not just Arabs that are the enemies of Israel. I'd be that most of our Arab aid goes to Saudi and Egypt - not exactly two states calling for the dissolution of Israel. The country that's calling for it the loudest: Iran - not Arab.

10:04 Chris Wallace - asks about the "change" theme. Defend your position that the American people want a Washington outsider. Romney sounds inspiring and can run on his record of success.

10:07 Same question to McCain. Goes back to "changing" course in Iraq. That's not the question John. Tell me how you're going to stop entitlement expansion, earmarks, cut off benefits to illegals so they'll be encouraged to go home. Overall a pretty good answer (brought in Abramoff and other stuff), but I can't see him as an agent of change.

10:09 Same question to Huckabee. Talks about education, road systems, and says again that he cut taxes. Can somebody point this out to me? I don't know I've seen a reference to him cutting taxes.

10:13 Some back and forth between Thompson and Huckabee. I think Thompson came out on top, but I'm a little biased. What Huckabee is saying doesn't square with the things I've read about him. I guess I need to do some more research. He still just seems to slick.

10:18 Huckabee questions why it's always OK to ask him the religious question. Huckabee offers a decent defense of religious beliefs and marriage.

10:20 Paul just revealed that he is not intellectually capable of handling foreign policy.

3rd break. Once again, no clear winner. Overall, I'd say McCain is on a roll. But, I don't think we're going to see any major moves in SC because of this debate. McCain and Huckabee will probably pull away from the pack.

I'd trust anybody (except Paul) on the stage with foreign policy. They're all talking a good game about smaller government, lowering taxes, etc...records matter on that one. I'm not sure who's misrepresenting his record.

10:25 Why do I not trust McCain when he talks about securing the borders?

10:27 Romney outlines differences between candidates on immigration. He decries the Z visas.

10:29 Thompson also includes sanctuary cities.

10:30 Ron Paul blames part of the border problem on Iraq. Moron.

10:32 Giuliani gets to confront his policy of not asking informants about immigration status. Tells a story about a balance between enforcement and cooperation. Not a bad answer, but not exactly inspiring if you want to close the border.

Still, I think the whole debate was a wash. I don't think anyone in particular stood out. Thompson sounded more like a VP attack dog than a President. Paul is a lightweight and needs to go. The rest all sounded comfortable and presidential.

Fred seems to have won over the focus group on Fox. I didn't think he made that big of an impression. A bunch of them like Fred's attack on Huckabee. And they voted Ron Paul - The Biggest Loser. I like these guys.

More Drunkblogging New Year's Eve

2007-12-31T21:30:00.000-08:00

Well, I've moved on to Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave. It's a trifle of a movie, but I'm a sucker for zombies. It'll probably get me through. I think I'm done drinking. Otherwise, I may not sleep tonight.

Update: Words of wisdom from Zombieworld - "If you can't trust your drug dealer, who can you trust?" Spread that "Z" man...spread it. Zombies of the world unite!

I have to admit, when the zombies have to explain what they're after ("brains"), it kind of takes away from the plot...did I just say that?

Update 10:18: when you have to chase after Mr. Stinky (a rat that was infected with the zombie virus)...I think you're really done as a movie.

10:39: It got worse - a zombie standing on the side of the road holding a sign saying "Rave or Bust". This movie sucks. But. I'll finish it. Hey, it's zombie violence and some bare breasts. Can't ask for much more.

And at the end of the movie: the zombie shambles off into the sunset. Ahhh...the neverending plot line. Boy this was bad. On to: Angel A, it's a Luc Besson movie of The Professional and Fifth Element fame...I may not make it. I think the Stoli may have taken too much out of me...

Drunkblogging New Year's Eve

2007-12-31T21:00:00.000-08:00

So I've lost a wife and a family this year? So what? I'm working my way through a 5th of Vanilla Stoli. Vodkapundit has nothing on me.

Maybe I'll be able to forget some of the stuff that happened this year and move on...But I doubt it.

It's a movie marathon for me. First up is For Your Consideration. It's pretty funny. I like all of the Christopner Guest directed ensemble movies. More later.

Update: For Your Consideration was pretty funny. If I hadn't have had at least half of a bottle, it probably would have been a little bit mean. Catherine O'Hara was great as the older lead actress (really, why do they insist on being called "actors"?) who was trying to be younger than she was. There was a little anti-Semitism from the Hollywood establishment thrown in. Too serious. But still comically handled. Next up: Reign Over Me. I figure I'll be bawling after the first 30 min or so.

Update at 6pm: Just saw a preview for Vantage Point. If I was less intoxicated, I'd probably be offended at the fact that it depicts the assassination of the President. But, the preview actually was pretty exciting. It was kind of Rashomon-ish with the multiple points of view. On a side note, it's getting harder for me to type and to pour a shot of vodka. This could be a long night....

Update at 6:20pm: OK, so I'll admit, I didn't make it through the opening credits. Have I mentioned that I actually miss my ex-wife and her kids? She may not believe that, but I do...

Update: Less than half a bottle to go...I've got some champagne waiting for midnight..

Update 7:30: "She's crazy with a side of crazy". I think they knew about my ex...

Update: "Love Reign Over Me". I didn't lose my family to 9/11. I could've kept my kids without her. But I couldn't have them without her....does that make sense? Too much vodka, I guess...

Oh...was that the wrong movie to watch...I know how it feels to be looking for ammo for the gun...I'm still waiting for Saffron Burrows to come and rescue me...It's 8pm and I'm pretty sure I'll finish the bottle...

Update: 8:55. OK, I don't think I'm going to finish the bottle. But I'm going to try like hell.

I May be Drunk, But these People are Insane

2007-12-31T17:28:00.000-08:00

Wanting to impeach Cheney? You people are nuts. I'm drunk, but you're crazy. You just don't like what he stands for: actually protecting the United States. Yeah...I said it...

Ticket Predictions

2007-12-30T11:37:00.001-08:00

Oneopinion at the Red State Blue State discussion forum has predicted Clinton/Obama vs. Giuliani/Thompson. Here's what I wrote:

Democrat: Clinton and Dodd. She needs a rock (gravitas?) to backstop her. Dodd is actually a serious, respected candidate that even Peggy Noonan callas "reasonable". I don't think she'd go with Obama because she wouldn't want anyone to upstage her.

Republican: Romney and Hunter. He needs someone serious that will bolster his anti-illegal immigration stance. Thompson is an option for VP, but Hunter has better immigration bona fides. I don't think Giuliani will be able to recover after losing in Iowa, NH, and SC. he's losing big-time momentum. I'd like it to be Thompson and Hunter, but that seems like a pipe dream at this point (I'm still waiting to see how accurate the Novak column was that said Thompson had 1% in Iowa).

Anyone else want to go on record?

Mullings is Advising Fred!?!

2007-12-28T13:09:00.000-08:00

I was just reading an article on cbsnews.com about Fred's campaign, and I came upon this section:

“When you’re going to come up with a military paper, with a tax paper, with a Social Security paper, and all those things, it takes some work to get all those things done, to sit down with the experts and actually work through those," said Rich Galen, a Thompson advisor. "So while those weren't public campaign events, they were certainly campaign activities."

Tell me it's the Rich Galen of Mullings fame. Can I vote for Fred twice? If I'd have known this sooner, I would have been paying more attention.

Vote for Fred

2007-12-28T12:59:00.000-08:00

If you don't hate children and puppies.

Fred on Fox

2007-12-27T19:17:00.000-08:00

Hannity and Colmes gave Rudy, Mitt, and Fred an opportunity to react to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. They all made pretty much the same observations about the damage to the democratic process in Pakistan. Right now it seems like people on the right are looking to support our friends and the people on the left (and Ron Paul) are finding ways to blame America.

Rudy and Mitt looked ready for prime time - properly coiffed and nattily attired. Fred looked like he was fresh off the trail in Iowa. But his message was (as usual) consistent.

It's Different This Christmas part II: the drama continues

2007-12-27T16:34:00.000-08:00

In 1999, I got stationed in Hawaii. It was the first time my ex lived outside of Texas (unless you count 6 months in Oklahoma - I don't, it's a Texas-wannabe county). She was 22 years old and had had her daughter when she was 19, so she had never really had a chance to experience night life. I was a young captain at the time and Hawaii was kind of expensive. She met a female friend, I gave her some money, and she went out. At first it was just Friday nights. Then it was Friday and Saturday. Being in the Army, we get 4 day weekends when there is a Federal holiday (Friday through Monday). Believe me, the Army gets its time back.

By the summer of 99, it got to the point where she would leave on Thursday night and I wouldn't see her again until Tuesday morning when I had to go to formation. I was spending my weekends alone with 2 kids - her daughter and my son. OK, so she was 7 months pregnant with him when I met her. She was going to give him up for adoption until she met me. She even named him after me. I was the only dad those 2 kids ever knew. Around Thanksgiving, she told me that she had been raped during one of her weekends, and that she was pregnant. I knew it wasn't mine because we had stopped having sex in February of 1999 - about the time she started going out.

In her defense, she moved out and got an apartment with a "friend". She lived with him for a year. I would watch the kids at night and on the weekends. She kept them during the day, and prepared for the new kid at night. Her 2nd son was born in May 2000. At the end of 2000, her "friend" had a drunken, violent episode. I offered to let her move back in with me. I told her that I didn't blame her for being raped and I thought we could work things out. She moved back in. What I didn't find out until earlier this year (when cracking her e-mail) was that her "friend" was actually the father of her 2nd son. I had my suspicions. But, she was my wife, she told me she was raped, and I chose to believe her.

My investigating her papers and computer revealed at least 2 more boyfriends by whom she did not get pregnant. Which brings us to May 2007: she's planning to move in with the father of her baby, and take the kids with her. He was going to get everything I had wanted: a child with my wife, a family, MY kids, all wrapped up in a nice, neat little package. It was at this point that I found out about the father of her 2nd son. I also found out that all of her friends already knew. I had been played for a fool for years. I lost it. I had come into town to help her move out of the apartment. Upon my arrival, she immediately turned around and went to her boyfriend's house, leaving me with the kids. I lost it.

I went to his house in a righteous rage. I beat in the door (well, I beat a dent in the door) until they answered. One of the guys in the house actually brought a shotgun to the door. I had a tire iron for protection. I didn't do anything, and left, but managed to embarrass her in front of her new friends. I took the kids with me to my Dad's house in Austin and made the rounds calling my relatives looking for support. I met with a lawyer 2 days later.

I took the boys with me to Kentucky - where I'm now stationed. Later, I went back and picked up her daughter. I was trying to play the nice guy. I had been wronged, but I wanted to do what was best for the kids. I was pretty sure they would be better off with me.

Among other things, my ex has OCD. She pulls out her eyelashes when she gets stressed. The other thing she does is gamble. When I returned from Cuba on leave once, I found 2 garbage bags full of scratch-off tickets in the trunk of her car. I stopped counting one of the bags when I got to $1500. At the time, I had about $30K in credit card debt - mostly spent to keep her happy. Call me dumb, call me naive or undisciplined. It was what I felt I had to do to keep the family together. She had conditioned me early: "well, if you can't afford that, maybe I should take the kids back to Abilene". I'd do anything to keep the family together, including ruining my credit rating.

In June, she came to visit the kids in Kentucky. She was about 4 weeks from her due date. She went into premature labor and ended up having the baby in a hospital in Louisville. Her boyfriend actually came into town to see her and his new daughter. She wasn't sure about going to live with her boyfriend, so she stayed with me for a few weeks. Here's why: I contacted his ex-wife.

Originally, when I contacted his ex, I just wanted to find out if it would be safe for my kids to live with him. As it turns out, he hadn't told his ex about my ex and the baby. She was pissed. It also turns out that he had slept with her after he had found out my ex was pregnant. Enough drama for you? This started a chain of fights that eventually led my ex to decide not to move in with him. Did I intend on that happening? No. But I took a perverse pleasure in watching his happy home life fall apart.

So there she was, in my house, with a new baby, divorce on file (waiting the 60 days for it to be final in Texas), and what did I do? I offered to let her stay. That's me: do anything to keep the family together. She went back to Texas around the 4th of July.

I took her daughter back at the end of the summer. She's 11 and had made some pretty good friends in Abilene and didn't want to leave them. I even co-signed on the apartment my ex is staying in so she'd have her own place. The boys stayed with me. I put them in a school on post, and even coached my son's flag football team.

In September, after some legal problems, the divorce was finally signed and final. I'm paying her $750 in child support for kids that aren't mine. At the time, I was still paying for her storage. She's got one of the cars (I'm still paying). I was still paying over $300 a month for her cell phone and mine. Then came November. She wanted me to pay $50 a month for her daughter's clarinet rental. OK. Then, she said she was behind on bills and would lose the apartment. So, she wanted her daughter to come live with me.

I finally said no. She was upset. I also told her that I wasn't going to pay for her cell phone anymore (you know, the one she used to hook up with her boyfriend). I also happened to mention that I wasn't the father of any of her children...and she hasn't spoken to me since. She text messaged me and threatened to call the cops on me if I didn't bring the boys back to her...so I did. And I miss them. All of them. I admit I especially miss my son. He's got my name. And you may think I'm a heartless bastard, but this time I'm doing something better for me. They need to be with their mother. I need to get away from her. As long as I have the kids, I have to deal with her. Now, I can call the kids on her daughter's cell phone, and I don't have to speak to her. My child support is deducted automatically, so I don't have to worry about coordinating a deposit. And I'm trying to move on. But it's hard.

I'm actually finding out what love really is, and I really did love her. I was willing to sacrifice everything about myself: money, self esteem, pride, convenience, personal comfort, physical gratification...in order to please her. It's only become clear to me over the past few months that I've realized how depraved what she did really was.

I've managed to go a few days without thinking about ways to get her back, but they mostly involve bribes that would just revitalize old habits...or addictions. Doing something to get her back would by like a crack addict that had been clean for a year going back on the pipe. As she fades, and I get on with my life, I can only pray for the serenity to accept the things I can't change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Last year I was married, optimistic, and happy to be home. Now, I'm divorced, alone, and trying to recover. Christmas sure is different this year.

It's Different This Christmas part I

2007-12-27T11:16:00.000-08:00

This is really therapy for me. If you're not interested in some fool's situational drama, some of which will sound like whining, you can go somewhere else. I just need to vent to get my head straight.

Last Christmas, I was only 3 months off of a 12 month deployment to Iraq. I was living in Germany, even though my family was living in Texas. They had left Germany early because my wife was having medical and emotional problems. She needed a support network that wasn't available to her in Germany, so I had the Army send her home. I had spent a month with my family in October - block leave. I took another 3 weeks in December and used Space Available flights to get back to the states (they cost $6.95, if you buy the meal). I had to go through Dover, Delaware, Philadelphia, and Austin, TX to get back. Even then, my Dad picked me up in Austin and drove me half way to Abilene so my wife could pick me up. It was a round-about way, but nothing was more important to me than spending time with my family.

I'm the cook for the major holidays. I've got the system down. I make the pies the night before (pumpkin, apple, peach, and others). I know when to start the Turkey, vegetables (green bean casserole), mashed potatoes, and rolls in order for everything to be ready to eat at noon. My wife's family all came over: her mother, 2 of her brothers, her sister from San Antonio, her niece and nephew, in addition to our 3 kids. I say "our" kids because I'm the only Dad they've ever known. Her daughter was 18 months old when we met. She was pregnant with her 1st son when we met. Her 2nd son was (I was told) the product of a rape that occurred while we were in Hawaii.

It was a good Christmas. The kids got the video games and other stuff they wanted. The meal went off with only a small hitch (forgot the gravy). And it was the best Christmas I had had in three years - I had missed Christmas in 2004 (Cuba) and 2005 (Iraq). My wife and I were even on the best terms we'd been on in a long time. The separation seemed to bring us closer together. I went back to Germany right after New Year's. Things couldn't have been better. I was still in Germany, but I was scheduled to return to the States in April. I could move the family in with me and start making up for lost time.

12 days later, my world fell apart.

The phone rang in my apartment in Germany at about 2:30am. That's late evening in Texas. "I'm pregnant" she said. I knew it wasn't mine because it had been years since we'd had sex. That's another story: "It hurts", "I don't like it", "I can't deal with it"(because of the "rape"), "it's too important to you". OK. I went without it to prove that she and the family were more important to me than sex.

Who was it? "Just some guy". Did you love him? "It was just one time - I was drunk". Hadn't I heard that before? Oh yeah, the first rape when she was drunk. Fool me once...Still the family is the most important. I even offered to pass the kid off as mine. She declined. She even offered to let me out scot free: no child support, uncontested divorce, the works. I said, "No". I still wanted to see if there was a way we could salvage things.

After a few months of torture, I went back to Texas in April. I spent time with the kids, and started packing her stuff up in storage. She was going to move in with the guy. OK. Well, she left her computer logged on....that's when I found the pictures of her and the guy from 9 months before - just about the time I sent her home early from Germany. I saw all of the e-mails claiming mutual love for each other (and mutual hate, it was a turbulent relationship). I also found the half-naked pictures of her that he had taken - in the apartment I was paying for. I also found the e-mail that revealed that he had been sleeping in the apartment with her the night before I came home...in the apartment I was paying for...with our kids in the apartment. That's when I finally decided to file for divorce. There's more...but I'll save that for part II. I will say this, though: Christmas without kids sucks. It just serves to remind you how old and alone you are.

Fred Thompson Blogburst

2007-12-27T10:48:00.000-08:00

OK, I'll be part of it. Of all the candidates for the GOP that I've seen and heard, I like Fred Thompson the best. He is the "Consistent Conservative". Anyone that jumps on the bandwagon at this point can't be accused of backing the popular candidate, unless you pay attention to conservative blog polls. In Michelle Malkin's poll, Fred Thompson even outnumbers the Paulbots.

Full Disclosure: I am now officially a Friend of Fred.

It Must Be Global Warming (part 4,640)

2007-02-26T04:04:00.000-08:00

The Gore Effect strikes on Oscar night. Here's the screenshot of Foxnews.com:

The Definition of Decline: part I

2006-12-01T06:24:00.000-08:00

Decline definition 4.

4 : to tend toward an inferior state or weaker condition

And now, Christianity in the United States is declining. You can't advertise a movie about the birth of Jesus at a Christmas festival. You can't have a nativity scene on public property. Some people (and I use the term loosely) want to remove "In God We Trust" from our money. And now, you can't ring church bells because it violates a noise ordinance.

Back in 2004, Hamtramck, MI gave town muslims a waiver to a noise ordinance so they could sound the call to prayer 5 times a day.

If muslims had requested to perform the call to prayer in Fairfax county, do you think they would have been denied? As long as they didn't go over 50 decibels, I'm sure.

This is a decline into dhimmitude. Yes, I'm paranoid, but it ends with the Islamic States of America.

Red Light Camera Activism

2006-12-01T02:01:00.000-08:00

This puzzles me.

The death of Mark Wandall was tragic. But it was caused by distracted driving.

From the article:

The motorist who hit Mark's vehicle was distracted by talking with a child in the car's back seat.

No amount of red light cameras will prevent people from being distracted while driving. I believe red-light cameras and speeding cameras are a money grab. This is a for-profit service offered to local governments by private companies. I have trouble with the concept of law enforcement for profit. Don't we prosecute police officers for that?

Man Bites Dog! Court Ruling Backs the People!

2006-12-01T01:50:00.000-08:00

The 4th District Court ruled that a Proposition transferring ownership of the Mt. Soledad cross to the Federal Government was proper. This will allow the Federal Parks system to manage the cross and will allow the cross to remain.

After rulings that have removed the Ten Commandments from court rooms, and rulings against nativity scenes on public property, and without a drop of sarcasm, I can say: Thank God.

It Must Be Global Warming (part 4,639)

2006-11-29T03:06:00.000-08:00

Record low temperatures in Calgary.

Al Gore should make a global warming movie every year.

It Must Be Global Warming (part 4,638)

2006-11-27T07:41:00.000-08:00

Did you know there was a remarkably unremarkable tropical storm season this year?

The reporter from the Tampa Tribune had a great line:

Past performance is not an indicator of future results.

Of course, then he follows it with a bit of global warming hysteria:

This year's uneventful season provides no assurance that next year will be as calm.

Right, just like a catastrophic year like 2005 doesn't mean that every year, things will get worse.

It Must Be Global Warming (part 4,637)

2006-11-27T04:55:00.000-08:00

Snow in Florida. Now the ice sheets are growing.

It must be global warming.

Maybe the Republicans Did Learn Something

2006-11-22T06:18:00.000-08:00

3 candidates for the Republican nominee for President in 2008 that have been in the news lately are trying to paint themselves as the Real Conservative:

John McCain (with his Send More Troops to Iraq theme)

Sam Brownback (the Reagan Conservative that supports Open Borders. heh)

and Mitt Romney.

Of the main candidates, only Rudy Giuliani (pro-abortion) and Newt Gingrich (Mr. Contract with America) are missing.

McCain actually has a solid conservative record. But I can't forgive him for the BCRA and the Gang of 14. We lost our chance for President Bush to reshape the courts because of him (one of the big things in which the President has satisfied conservatives).

Any one that supports open borders (Brownback) will lose the primary. Mark that on your calendar. A "Fence First" policy will win conservative support. I'll even go so far as to say that anyone who voted for the Senate's version of the Immigration Bill (you know, the one with the guest worker policy) will not get the nomination. Are you listening Sens. Brownback and McCain?

So far, I like Mitt Romney. Although, I admit that I don't know his position on immigration. I like what I see in this article, though.

Contrary to how the AP writer slants it, you can be anti-gay-marriage and not be anti-homosexual. Being anti-abortion, but vowing to support your state's laws if elected is also not a hypocritical position. Judges do it all the time.

[Side Note: I hope I'm coining a term here: Mormophobia. This article attempts to drive a wedge between Evangelical Christians and Romney by mentioning his Mormon faith. In my experience, Mormons and Evangelical Christians aren't that far apart (anti-abortion, pro-family-values, etc...).]

Each of these stories (except maybe the McCain article) mentions conservative "roots" or "first principles" (Captain's Quarters was where I saw "first principles" used first). Gingrich is only being considered because of his symbol as a victory for conservative principles from the 1994 elections. At least the Republicans have learned that straying from those principles will keep them in the defeat column for years to come. That can only bode well for the discussion Republicans will have during the upcoming election cycle.

It Must Be Global Warming

2006-11-22T03:35:00.000-08:00

via Drudge

Snow in Central Florida - for the first time since....2003! Before that was 1989. Gee, you think that would mean the temperature went up in-between those years, but is now on the way back down.

Global warming alarmists are really taking it on the chin this year, especially with their hurricane record (only 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic this year, none of which made landfall in the US).

Captain Ed has the skinny on the hurricane season this year, and on Time and Newsweek reporting on the coming Ice Age in the 1970s.

This is What We Want People to Do (Updated)

2006-11-22T03:20:00.000-08:00

Report suspicious behavior.

Of course, CAIR blames it on Islamophobia.

Wouldn't you think that 6 Imams (scholars) would realize that Muslim prayers on an airplane would be suspicious?

Couldn't they have prayed in the chapel of the airport (I'm not sure if it has one, and I'm sure the timing of the prayers would be off, but as I understand it, you can make up for missed prayers later).

Couldn't they have prayed to themselves, instead of out loud? I know this is an option.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but 98% of terrorists are Muslims. What was the religion of the 19 hijackers again?

If someone shouts "Allah akhbar" on an airplane, I'm going to report that as suspicious.

The imams may or may not have intended it as such, but this incident will be used to get evil, western airlines to be more "sensitive" to Muslim behavior.

I am frankly appalled that the imams have the arrogance to assume that everyone should know about Muslim prayers. They're here visiting. I'm sure they know what happened on 11 Sep 01. If they don't understand why standing up on a plane and chanting in Arabic would create suspicion, that's the real problem.

I e-mailed Glenn Beck about this one. Hopefully he addresses it on the air.

UPDATE: Nothing on Glenn Beck yesterday (not that I heard - he spent the day ranting about Michael Richards)

A new AP story (via Jihad Watch) says that the imams prayed in the terminal and did not do so on the plane. Still, it doesn't change my opinion that visitors to the US should be more sensitive to American security concerns (who were attacked on 9/11) instead of the other way around.

Shocker: Democrats and Lobbying Group See Eye-to-Eye

2006-11-21T06:18:00.000-08:00

Did you know that the US is the most unfriendly country to visitors?

It is, according to this Reuters report. Out of 16 countries, the US was last. I tried to figure out the internals by going to the RT Strategies home page. But, the site doesn't appear to have been updated since Feb 2006.

The survey was commissioned by the Discover America Partnership. As advertised in the article, they are a group of leaders of tourism-based industries (hotels, rent-a-cars, Disney, and even Anheuser Busch). Here's a list of the leadership.

But check out the link in the upper right hand corner. It's a link For Policymakers. This is a lobbying group for the tourist industry. If you read the story, the point seems to be that a more streamlined, "nicer" customs and visa process at airports would encourage more tourism in the United States.

But, the DAP has a different agenda. Here's a press release (on Hospitality.net, oh joy, what fun!) where they praise the Senate (read: Democrat) version of an immigration bill because it has a a guest worker program. It also criticises the House (read: Republican) version of the bill that does not have a guest worker program. Here's a quote:

“The House bill is unacceptable for the lodging industry because it ignores a crucial element of the problem,” said AH&LA Executive Vice President for Public Policy Marlene Colucci. “It fails to recognize the contributions of foreign-born workers to the U.S. economy and does not resolve the problem of undocumented workers. "

OK, you lost me at "undocumented". They're illegal.

So, back to the original article that says the US is unfriendly to visitors. Reuters has taken a poll sponsored by a lobbying group and reported it as fact in order to make it easier for "visitors" to get visas.

With apologies to Michelle Malkin...here's the checklist:
Bash the US as unfriendly? Check
Promote streamlined visas? Check (No threat to security here, move along)
Forward the open borders agenda? Check
Try to get the "money out of politics" by refusing to accept a lobbying group's press release as news? Well, maybe next time.

The funniest part of this whole thing is that the guest worker program is being supported by the Democrats. Here's an interview with Nancy Pelosi from Mar 2006 that backs the Senate version of the bill. VDARE has more on Pelosi's open-borders record.

So, when you think Democrat, think big business (Marriott, Anheuser-Busch, Loews Hotels, Disney) .

John Kerry is Now a Punchline

2006-11-21T04:04:00.000-08:00

As in:

Why did the Democrats win the election?

John Kerry.

In the words of Michelle Malkin: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I vote in favor of the "Keep John Kerry Hidden" strategy.

vis Instapundit

2006 Election Results = Abu Ghraib

2006-11-09T00:49:00.000-08:00

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

The American people who voted to put the Democrat Party in power apparently have not learned the lessons of Vietnam and Somalia. If you go into a battle, be prepared to win it.

That was the lesson learned from WWI and WWII. Korea was the breaking point - it was the first war where we were prepared to accept anything short of victory.

Are we, as Americans, not prepared to do everything to fight and win and thereby protect our country and our way of life? It would appear not. When the going gets tough, Americans elect to leave.

The election results yesterday will be encouraging to our enemies in the same way that the release of the Abu Ghraib photos were. They will use it as a recruiting tool to show that they are succeeding in weakening the United States. Attacks in Iraq were on their way down until the Abu Ghraib photos were released. The events or Abu Ghraib are still used by terrorists, media outlets, and other enemies of the United States to show that were are the bad guys and must be stopped. The media says that Iraq is "making terrorists". I've got news for you: if you continue to pubblish the AG photos and related stories, you are giving them the tools to make terrorists. I'm not saying don't report the bad news, but the bottom line with Abu Ghraib is that the Army was doing the right thing and prosecuting the offenders before the media was involved. The Army is its own worst critic.

You can add the Spanish elections (following the Madrid train bombings) and the furor over the Mohammed cartoons to the list of events that serve as rallying points for our enemies.

We are committing suicide by handing our enemies the knife to slit our throats. Even if the GOP rebounds by retaking the House or Senate in 2008, and manages to hold on to the Presidency (Tancredo in '08!), our enemies will have learned they can make us weaker. How did they make us weaker? Not by defeating us, but by discouraging us. They have learned the lessons of Osama bin Laden: the US is a paper tiger.

Because of this election, the war that President Bush said will last 10 years, will last a generation or more.

Make Him Watch Team America Next

2006-08-28T21:43:00.000-07:00

Of all the articles to get me back on track:

Saddam's cartoon capers
Monday August 28, 08:11 AM

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is being made to watch his appearance in cult cartoon South Park while he is behind bars.
The deposed leader on trial in Iraq was featured in the movie spin-off as the lover of the devil. South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut featured Hussein and Satan attempting to take over the world together.
Speaking at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said US Marines guarding the former dictator during his trial for genocide were making him watch the movie "repeatedly".
"I have it on pretty good information from the Marines on detail in Iraq that they showed him the movie last year. That's really adding insult to injury. I bet that made him really happy," Stone said.

I think they should make him watch Team America next, followed by the Longest Day.

Of course, they could make him watch Battlefield Earth, but that would really be torture.

Any other suggestions?

A Handful Ruin it for Everyone

2006-07-01T07:01:00.000-07:00

Every time a soldier does something wrong, or even puts himself in a position where his conduct may be questioned, it reflects on the entire organization. Such conduct makes our mission harder and puts other soldiers at risk of retaliation. It's like handing a loaded gun to the enemy and telling him to shoot you in the head.

This is an example. Let the investigation run its course. If warranted, the soldiers should be tried and, if found guilty, subject to the death penalty. If the report is accurate, and one soldier confessed, it doesn't look good.

If true, they will have made our mission longer and more soldiers will die because of what they have done. Worse, they will have given the enemy ammunition to prove that their accusations against us are true. No matter how ridiculous the accusation.

From the 1998 PBS interview with bin Ladin:

I asked bin Laden why he would kill American soldiers whose work was to restore order and allow for the distribution of food.
"Why should we believe that was the true reason America was there?" he replied. "Everywhere else they went where Muslims lived, all they did was kill children and occupy Muslim land."

Even more, it makes it harder for those who support us to continue their support.

To those who are tempted to do things they know are wrong: Stop it! The war is not a blank check for you to exert your power over others.

In defense of my organization: the Army is already investigating this. It didn't take a news report for us to do what was right and seek the truth in this case. I doubt that the organization responsible for torturing and murdering PFC Menchaca and PFC Tucker is doing the same.

Quite the contrary. I'm sure the people that beheaded and tortured them are being lionized as heroes.

Last thought: what purpose on Earth could the "American military official" have had by releasing this information, other than to damage our mission? That's not to say that I'm pushing for a cover up. But, if the Army is already investigating the incident, what other purpose could there be for releasing it to the press?

West Pointers vs. West Coasters

2006-07-01T06:55:00.000-07:00

Bill Syken examines the pedigrees of current NFL coaches and labels the two dominant schools as West Pointers vs. West Coasters. I like it. Bill Parcells was one of the people consulted when Army was looking for a new football coach three years ago (after the Todd Berry disaster). They couldn't have made a better choice.

Go Army. Beat navy.

SMP (USMA '94)

Another Example of a Democrat Taking Talking Points from Osama

2006-06-26T09:02:00.000-07:00

via Drudge and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (I read it for the coverage of the Dolphins).

John Murtha (D-PA) reportedly said the following to a group at Florida International University on 25 Jun:

American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon

Now where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. From a 1998 interview with reporter John Miller, Osama bin Ladin said:

"We believe that the biggest thieves in the world and the terrorists are the Americans."

But Mr. Murtha wasn't done.

He said the more than 100,000 troops in Iraq should be pulled out immediately, and deployed to peripheral countries like Kuwait."We do not want permanent bases in Iraq," Murtha told the audience. "We want as many Americans out of there as possible."

He must have been reviewing the interview:

"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In Mr. Murtha's case, some sooner than others.

UPDATE: Some commenters over at Wizbang are questioning what Mr. Murtha may actually have said because the paragraph is not a direct quote. I wrote the author of the article (Elizabeth Baier) to see if she can clarify exactly what Mr. Murtha said.

I'm not holding my breath for a response or anything.

This is not going to end well...

2006-06-26T08:30:00.000-07:00

From Fox News:

Israel Threatens Palestinian Militants Over Captured Soldier

Anyone want to take bets on the likelihood that the Red Cross or Amnesty International will ask Hamas if they can inspect the conditions in which Cpl Gilad Shalit is being held?

Free Gilad.

The Definition of Atrocity - Part II: The Russians

2006-06-25T23:04:00.000-07:00

Michele Malkin, LGF, and Jihad Watch are covering the beheading of Russian diplomats that were kidnapped in Iraq.

This situation once again depicts the difference between the US and its enemies:

When a US soldier is suspected of committing a crime, we investigate and prosecute if necessary.

When a terrorist commits a crime, they justify it by a) quoting verses from the Koran, and b) blaming the victims.

And, yet, (heh) major (heh) newspapers disclose classified progams and plans that are part of our fight against these bloodthirsty primitives. To them I ask: Which side are you on?

On another topic.

I continue to hold out hope that the quick operations and timely recovery of the bodies of the 2 recently kidnapped American soldiers prevented these barbarians from producing a similar video.

The Definition of Treason: Part III

2006-06-25T01:39:00.000-07:00

Parts I and II are now yesterday's news.

Part III involves, yet again, the revelation of classified material by a (heh) major (heh) newspaper (which shall remain namelss here).

trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Definition #1 might not even fit. At this point, does anyone really trust a major newspaper with anything (other than, perhaps, the New York Sun)?

But is it prosecutable under the Constitutional definition of treason?

Article III.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

This FindLaw entry leads me to say, "No". It appears that Supreme Court precendent has established that there must be 2 elements to the crime (beyone the requirement for witnesses): 1) an overt act , and 2) the intent to overthrow the government. While the revealing of classified information is an overt act, it would appear that the unnamed newspaper's intent was to overthrow the current administration (despite their claims that it was "in the public interest"). I believe this pattern could be easily proven in court. And unless you buy into the fact that the President is the state ("l'etat, cest moi"), then the second element of the crime would be very hard to prove.

However, this would be much easier to prove. From the US Code, Title 50, Chapter 36, Section 1861 on the FBI's request for access to business information:

Section 1861(d): Nondisclosure. No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

And for those who think that this may give the FBI too much freedom, the Congressional Oversight section immediately follows this one.

Football vs. Futbol

2006-06-25T01:05:00.000-07:00

Well, the world cup is over for the US. They went out with a whimper, not a bang. You can criticize the players for not showing energy. You can criticize the referees for some questionable calls. The most criticism, in my book, goes to Bruce Arena who stuck with a lackluster line-up for far too long. Jim Litke of the AP agrees.

I disagree with his analogy, however. He compared the penalty kick to a free throw. It's worse than that. Free throws sometimes account for half of the shots taken in a basketball game. Unless they happen with 1.9 seconds left (think Dwayne Wade in Game 5), they're not going to have a major impact on the flow of the game.

The players for Ghana were flopping all over the field. There were at least 2 occasions when the ref could have given a yellow card for deliberately taking a dive. The penalty on Onyewu that drew the PK is akin to Michael Irvin drawing a pass interference penalty in the end zone. It gives you 4 chances from the 1 yard line, and you are pretty sure to score. It also deflates a defense that may have, up to that point, shut out an offense. It is one game-changing mistake that is hard to overcome.

So, the US will drop out of the top 10 in world rankings (being #5 was a stretch anyway). There will be a big turn-over in players for the next World Cup drive. And it's not even for sure that we'll qualify.

Bruce Arena is a great coach. But, he had his shot. I think it's time to start fresh with a new round of players.

Anyone know if Freddie Adu has become a US citizen yet?

Shameless Plug for the Carnival of the NFL

2006-06-21T01:19:00.000-07:00

Pick me! Pick me!

I have a very large interest in political subjects, but the Carnival of the NFL would allow me to express my NFL fan-dom in an a-political environment.

Pros:
1) Because I'm in the Army and deployed, the NFL has gone beyond an obsession to almost a religion.
2) I've been a Dolphins fan since the David Woodley years. That's dedication. I stayed up until 3AM watching Dolphins games on the Armed Forces Network.
3) I have spent entire weekends watching the NFL Draft.
4) I work in an office with a Redskins fan, a Cowboys fan, a Raiders fan, a Seahawks fan, a "Why, Edgerrin? Why?" Colts fan, and a cousin of the Cheifs' kicker (Tynes). There are no shortages of controversies here, and the NFC and AFC are equally represented.
5) I've already pre-ordered Madden 07.
6) By the time the season rolls around, I'll be back in Germany.

Cons:
1) Yes, I'm new at blogging. But, I'm willing to learn!
2) I'm in the Army and deployed. When all else fails, mission first.
3) I promise I won't only report on the Dolphins (not that the guys in my office would let me). No, really. I promise.

What do you say?

Imagine the windfall for Adidas

2006-06-21T00:45:00.000-07:00

The boys at Power Line posted a photo of John Pantsil - the Ghanaian footballer who put an Israeli flag on display after Ghana scored in their game against the Czech Republic.

They also covered the reaction from the Arab news media.

I guess they've lost some Egyptian fans.

Well, if you have stock in Nike, I'd sell before this picture becomes widely known: (via Drudge)

It's a reference to the English flag. Or, more accurately, the flag of St. George. It's the one that Christians fought under during the Crusades. There was also a local ban on displaying the flag related to the World Cup.

Do you think Nike may have lost some Arab fans?

Looks like a windfall for Adidas in Arab countries.

UPDATED: That didn't take long. The only surprising thing is that it's Christian groups complaining. At least the Daily Mail gets the Crusader reference.

From the article (via Drudge): The MP for Ealing North added: 'He should go out and wear Adidas instead. It's offensive on so many different levels and extremely nasty.'

NBA Champion: Miami Heat

2006-06-21T00:23:00.000-07:00

(via Miami Herald)

Let's Go Heat! (As a Heat fan, I go back to the Rony Seikaly/Glenn Rice days)

It is odd that the definition of Champion doesn't mention winning until the 4th entry:

cham·pi·on
Pronunciation: 'cham-pE-&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin campion-, campio, of West Germanic origin; akin to Old English cempa warrior
1 : WARRIOR, FIGHTER
2 : a militant advocate or defender
3 : one that does battle for another's rights or honor
4 : a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority

Just to spark debate, would you say that they are World Champions?

I would say yes. They are the best in the world at NBA-style basketball (see entry 10 under the definition of world).

I'd love to watch any national team try to defend an NBA team without getting a defensive 3-second call.

One more Rush double-standard: TMQ vs. ESPN

2006-05-08T21:49:00.000-07:00

I love Tuesday Morning Quarterback. Gregg Easterbrook combines an inner geek with a love of football, and adds a splash of haiku.

In 2003, TMQ was a regular feature on Page 2 of espn.com.

Then, this column in The New Republic caused a bit of a blog-storm because of some comments it included about Jewish film producers.

Roger L. Simon was not amused: Racist Garbage in the New Republic. Mr. Easterbrook, showing class, addressed his critics directly and tried to make amends. But, was fired from his ESPN gig.

Shortly thereafter, TMQ was picked up by nfl.com. The archive is here.

This e-mail appeared in my in-box on 24 April:

Date:
Mon Apr 24 09:00:47 2006
From:
Gregg Easterbrook tmqnfl@yahoo.com
Subject: TMQ returns to ESPN
Dear Friends of TMQ,

Ye gods! The NFL was fun, but Tuesday Morning Quarterback is returning to ESPN.

The column re-starts on ESPN.com tomorrow, Tuesday the 25th, with my annual mocking of the mock drafts. The Houston Texans use the first overall pick to select Dick Cheney -- and switch to the shotgun formation.

Thanks for your support of Tuesday Morning Quarterback. Watch ESPN.com, and maybe ESPN TV, for more.

It's like Jiminy Cricket said:

"Like a bolt out of the blue
fate steps in and sees you through.When you wish upon astar
your dreams come true."

Best,
Gregg

Gregg Easterbrook
Tuesday Morning Quarterback
NFL.com

The New Republic article was published 2 weeks after Rush Limbaugh resigned from NFL Sunday Countdown for his comments on Donovan McNabb.

TMQ is now back on ESPN where it belongs. Rush is still on the radio where he belongs.

Will Rush be re-hired by ESPN? Holding breath...Face blue...Passing out...

H/T Michelle Malkin

The Definition of Atrocity: Part I - the Beheading of Atwar Bahjat

2006-05-08T01:22:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Although it may not have been Atwar Bahjat, I think the definition still applies.

atro cious adj [L atroc-, atrox gloomy, atrocious, fr. atrater black + -oc-, -ox (akin to Gk ops eye) - more at EYE] 1: extremely wicked, brutal or cruel: BARBARIC 2: APPALLING, HORRIFYING 3 a: utterly revolting: ABOMINABLE <~ working conditions> b: of very poor quality <~ handwriting> [MW Collegiate - 10th ed.]

I believe this fits. Could it be that one man's atroctiy is another man's salvation? I'm waiting for worldwide protests on this one (but I'm not holding my breath).

I agree with Ms. Malkin and Mr. Spencer that blindly accepting immigrants who may believe this type of behavior is acceptable, is insane.

However, you can take comfort that this type of slaughter is humane, according to Islam Online:

The cut should involve the windpipe (trachea), gullet (esophagus), and the two jugular veins without cutting the spinal cord. This method results in the rapid gush of blood draining most of it from the animal’s body. If the spinal cord is cut, the nerve fibers to the heart might be damaged leading to cardiac arrest thus resulting in stagnation of blood in the blood vessels. The blood must be drained completely before the head is removed. This purifies the meat by removing most of the blood that acts as a medium for microorganisms; meat also remains fresh longer as compared to other methods of slaughtering.

Oh, I'm sorry...those are the instructions for humanely slaughtering animals.

The object used to slaughter the animal should be sharp and used swiftly. The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood to the nerves in the brain responsible for pain. Thus the animal does not feel pain. The movements and withering that happen to the animal after the cut is made are not due to pain, but due to the contraction and relaxation of the muscles deficient in blood. The prophet (peace be upon him) also taught Muslims neither to sharpen the blade of the knife in front of the animal nor to slaughter an animal in front of others of its own kind [what about taking pictures of it on a cell phone? -SMP]

H/T to Michellle Malkin, Mudville Gazette, and Jihad Watch

Disclaimer

2006-04-21T06:00:00.000-07:00

I will attempt to stick to the facts, but much of the works on this blog will be opinion. As such, you should know a few things:

I am a conservative. Everything I write comes from that point of view. However, I will consider other points of view. I enjoy the intellectual process of breaking down an argument and considering the base assumptions. I appreciate constructive criticism, but I reserve the right to agree to disagree.

I am also a Christian. Lutheran, by flavor. Thus far, I have not fully appreciated or contemplated either of those statements. In the interest of "say what you mean, and mean what you say" (See Mission Statement), I will also examine my own offerings.

You have been warned.

Mission Statement

2006-04-21T01:48:00.000-07:00

As a former Army linguist (Polish) and a double-foreign language major (Russian and German) in college, I learned more about the English language than any class in elementary or high school ever taught me. Studying another language helps you learn to break down your own. A language that is associated with a culture can give you clues about its history an societal norms. For example, a German phrase for "It's none of my business" translates as "That is not my beer". In Polish, the same phrase translates to "That is not my vodka". In French, you could say "I surrender my wine"...wait...I never studied French.

I hereby assume the mission to ensure that people use words correctly. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. People choose their words for particular reasons. I will analyze their statements to see if they are consistent, truthful, equivocating, out-right misleading, or worse - made with blatant disregard to their meaning. We are entering an important phase in world history, and I will do my best to make sure both sides are understood.

Where it all started: What is a gospel?

2006-04-21T01:24:00.000-07:00

Here is as good a place as any. Is the so-called Gospel of Judas deserving of the title? What exactly is a "Gospel"? Let's go to the book...no, not that one...the dictionary. From Miriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition):

gospel n 1 a: often cap the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation b cap: one of the first four New Testament books telling the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; also a similar apocryphal book c: an interpretation of the Christian message 2 cap: a lection (sic) from one of the New Testament Gospels 3: the message or teachings of a religious teacher 4: something accepted as infallible truth or guiding principle 5: gospel music

Based on that definition, does the Gospel of Judas qualify to be labeled as such?

I haven't read the gospel (can't read Coptic, sorry), but I did read the National Geographic article that addresses it. Based on that article, the Gospel of Judas does address:

Christ:

The text begins by announcing that it is the "secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover."

and Salvation:

Kasser, the translation-project leader, offers an interpretation: "Jesus says it is necessary for someone to free him finally from his human body, and he prefers that this liberation be done by a friend rather than by an enemy.

Which is very much in line with Gnostic beleif in gnosis.

gno·sis Pronunciation: 'nO-s&s'
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

Oddly enough, it sounds a lot like Scientology too, with their emphasis on the hidden knowledge available at OT III.

However, there is no mention in the article about dealing with the kingdom of God. Not the strongest argument against, I know. But, the definitions that I think most applies is 2b. Especially when it refers to "a similar apocryphal book". What does "apocryphal" mean? Have a look:

apoc·ry·phal
Function: adjective
1: of doubtful authenticity : SPURIOUS
2 often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha synonym see FICTITIOUS- apoc·ry·phal·ly/ adverb- apoc·ry·phal·ness noun

This definition may fit. The gospel (small "g") of Judas was discredited in the 2nd Century by St. Irenaeus.

The surviving copy of the gospel was written in the third or fourth century A.D., but the text was known prior to A.D. 180.
In that year St. Irenaeus—then the bishop of what is now Lyon, France—published Against Heresies, a volume intended to help unify the Christian church.
St. Irenaeus's method was to savage alternative theological views and interpretations—including the Gospel of Judas—which he referred to as "fictitious histories."

At least St. Irenaeus was only savaging views and interpretations.

The only concrete evidence they have so far is that it's very old and written in Coptic. Other than that, I think it is safe to say that the gospel of Judas is definitely "apocryphal".

My very first Hat Tip to the Anchoress for inspiring me to start this blog.