Sunday, December 24, 2006

Stupid news item of the week

And my how stupid it is. This from MSNBC.

Making a movie in which evil teddy bears attack a teacher got two budding filmmakers expelled from their high school, but a federal judge says it was the school that was wrong.

Is my commenting on this passage even necessary? EXPELLED? How much money do you want to bet that their teacher is a whiney liberal fem-nazi?

The boys worked on the movie “The Teddy Bear Master” from fall 2005 through summer 2006. It depicts a “teddy bear master” ordering stuffed animals to kill a teacher who had embarrassed him, but students battle the toy beasts, according to documents filed in court.

I may not pay 8 bucks to see it in theaters, but it'd be worth a rental.

School officials had argued that the film was disruptive and that a teacher whose name was used in the movie found it threatening.

I agree. There seems a very real possibilty that the teddy bears could animate and come after the teacher in question. How exactly does one defend oneself from a gibbering horde of stuffed cuteness anyway? No doubt the same teacher will soon be suing for emotional damages.


Saturday, December 23, 2006

Merry Christmas

Good news for the season from Reuters.

U.S. forces said on Saturday they had killed the Taliban's military chief in southern Afghanistan, who had close links to Osama bin Laden and was heir to the rebel leadership.

See you in Hell, you bastard.

"Mullah Osmani is the highest ranking Taliban leader that we've ever killed," he said. "His death is very significant and will hit the Taliban's operations."

Chalk up one more villain blown off the face of this earth. I remain unconvinced, however, that his death will impact the Taliban in any significant way for very long. If our enemies are anything they are resourceful and flexible. They will adapt before long.
Of course, according to the Taliban the guy isn't even dead...

The Taliban said Osmani, anointed by the group's leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, as his heir in 2001, was alive.
"We strongly deny this. He is not present in the area where American forces are claiming to have killed him," commander Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by telephone.

In other words, they haven't recovered a body? Hmm. Well let's look at the way in which we annihilated Osmani.

Osmani and two other guerillas were killed in an air strike on their car on an isolated desert road on Tuesday, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition force, Colonel Tom Collins, said in Kabul.

Airstrike means ordnance. Ordnance means no remains. End of story. The U.S. military elaborates on the point.

Collins said Osmani's car was destroyed in the attack in Helmand and the U.S. coalition had taken four days to check intelligence and other sources to confirm his identity.
"We're sure that we killed Osmani," he said. "It's a big loss for the Taliban. But the Taliban is also fairly adaptive. There is no doubt that they will put somebody else in that position and we will go after that person too," he said.

Good enough for me. Another one bites the dust.


Thursday, December 21, 2006

You wouldn't believe me

Unless I showed you firsthand. Not only is this the caliber of modern reporting, but its absolutely hilarious at the 2 minute mark. Give it a chance and you'll see what I mean.


Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Not getting the point

Christian Science Monitor brings us this.

Expanding the size of US armed forces could be an expensive and lengthy task - in essence, a redoubling of the national effort to grapple with the challenge posed by Islamic extremism.
The move would be irrelevant in the Iraq war, say some critics, because by the time more troops are recruited, trained, and deployed, the conflict there will probably be set in its course.
But in calling for such an increase, President Bush said the US military must be positioned to deal with terrorists for a generation to come.

I never think more military is a bad thing, being a militant nationalist conservative myself. However, I don't think increasing troops is really what we need. What good is an extra garrison of troops going to do us if they still have a seven step Rules of Engagement code at military checkpoints and a ban on going after al-Sadr? Then we simply have more men over there in danger because the politicians are rendering their warrior spirit impotent.

Instead, Bush billed a larger US military as essential for the security of today's children and their children.

That is patently true. Now we simply have to change our doctrine and subordinate the will of the Iraqi government to our own military strategy. We have to win before they can govern anything at all.

Democrats remain wary, however, that Bush's call for a larger military is a means to make more politically palatable a separate decision to increase troop strength in Iraq. That is a move many of them oppose.
"More troops would get us in deeper and is a military response to a political problem," said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, incoming Senate Armed Services chairman, in a statement.

The Dems just don't understand a damn thing. We're already in deep, and the reason we have political problems, is because of POLITICIANS like Senator Levin looking over our soldiers' shoulders. They are trained to be vote whores, not to conquer.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Why is he still breathing?

CNN blows our mind. Can you imagine a college professor doing such a thing?

A Florida professor admitted Tuesday he had been a Cuban spy for nearly 30 years, and his wife -- also a professor -- admitted she knew of his conduct, authorities said.

That should be the end of discussion. Death by firing squad for spies and traitors. Throw his wife in jail for being an accomplice to espionage.

But of course, where are our balls? Nowhere to be found it seems.

The couple entered their pleas as part of a deal to avoid a jury trial on previous charges of being Cuban agents who failed to register with the U.S. government, the Miami Herald reported Tuesday.
So not only are we not going to execute the traitor, but we're pleaing him down to a lesser sentance. Now he faces a mere five years? Wait, wait, wait! Stand by! Ironic statement incoming!

In Washington, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein said the plea "demonstrates our firm commitment to protect our country and our citizens against the agents of foreign powers."

Yes! And that demonstration says the following: Spies beware! Here there be minor prison sentances! Dare to enact espionage on our great country, and you shall be forced to wait five years until you may return to your native country.


Monday, December 18, 2006

Gates sworn in

And everyone talks of a new direction.

I couldn't be more in agreement. So far, the basic building blocks seem to be there. The man knows what a dirty word retreat is, and seems to have his head in a realistic place as concerns the consequences of such cowardice.

What concerns me, however, is whether or not he has the balls to execute this war like a war, and not a police action. Are we going to aggressively go after these desert rats or are we simply going to use the Vietnamesque tactic of containment and defensive, reactionary fighting. As far as Robert Gates is concerned, he hasn't let on one way or the other. With all his talk of change, there hasn't been a very concrete definition of what that's going to be.

Further, the word from Tony Snow is that the White House will not be releasing any sort of new plan until the new year. So will it indeed be a new plan, or the same strategy repackaged complete with stacks of bullshit recommendations passed forth by the Iraq Study Group?

What we need is a good old-fashioned, unadulterated American show of power. Our military functions best as a lean, fit fighting machine. We're adaptable, highly specialized in a variety of tasks and able to tackle any situation using the best technology on earth. What were are not is a wall designed to keep out the hun. If we are to win, we must kill. Men who oppose our establishment of Iraq's government must be brought immediately to the table or they must die. If you are not with us, you are against us. More importantly, if we do not win, we lose.

Though any sort of realistic, workable solution to the Iraq problem wil be crippled by constant media coverage and moral grandstanding.

Labels: ,

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Yes but...what does he DO?

MSNBC giggles over Barack Obama with all the excitement of a 14 year old feeling his first female breast.

The hype about Barack Obama’s potential presidential candidacy is less about the freshman Democratic senator than it is about the public’s desire for a change from the polarization and paralyzation of American politics.

Right. So how is he any different? A glance at his voting record shows you he's from the left. Are we expected to believe that just because he hasn't had a chance to be a polarizing force yet (being a 1st term junior senator) that he's truly any different? With him we just don't know anything.

Nobody, not even the unusually self-aware Obama, knows what would happen if he entered the presidential race. But you can bet on this: Americans won’t settle for status quo, and if the two major parties don’t produce an authentic, optimistic change agent, voters will look beyond the Democrats and Republicans. They might even look beyond politics in 2008.

You heard it here first baby. We'll be looking beyond politics, and focussing instead on who makes the meanest omlette. What an assinine passage. When Americans get disenfranchised with the system, they don't vote AT ALL. They don't vote third party.

Republican strategist Joe Gaylord, an adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said there is a big opening for a “can-do centrist” in 2008. “If there is a person who can not be from the left or the right, who has a track recover of solving problems and making things work, he or she would have a huge market for a third-party bid,” Gaylord said.

In other words, a candidate who can lie to the widest range of people simultaneously and still come across as believable will be elected. I also like the subtle implication that Obama is indeed a centrist. Again I refer you to his voting record.

“I definitely think that we need to think literally about who might run outside of politics and the traditional spheres, someone with a sense of leadership and public service,” said Washington consultant Nicco Mele, a senior strategist for Dean in 2004.

Alright, now this is perhaps my favorite quote today, in terms of sheer ridiculous hilarity. Read her quote, and then read what she did in '04. Oh me, that's a knee-slapper. I love irony.