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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've said it from the start

CNN can't believe it. Japan daring to have DIGNITY?!?

Japan's conservative government chipped away at two pillars of the country's postwar pacifism, requiring schools to teach patriotism and upgrading the Defense Agency to a full ministry for the first time since World War II.

Note the not so subtle dropping of the word "conservative" when describing this horrid practice of teaching patriotism at schools in Japan. What a primitive concept - being proud of one's nation. Everyone knows this only leads to the subjugation and oppression of gays, muslims, vegetarians, feminists, hippies, communists and other "intellectuals" and minorities worldwide. We cannot abide this!

The upgrading of the Defense Agency under the Cabinet Office to a full ministry passed Parliament without significant opposition, propelled by deep concern in Japan over North Korean missile and nuclear weapons development.

Excellant! The Japanese have balls, and now as one of our staunchest allies, it will be nice to spread the weight of keeping the psychotics of the world at bay.

Critics, however, attacked the move as harkening back to Japan's war-era education system, in which children were instructed to support the country's imperialist military and sacrifice themselves for the emperor and nation.

Critics, meaning mother-whoring liberals no doubt. They see supporting their country as signing up for the kamikaze squadrons. The distinction is significant, if you have a brain.

That is a big if.

Anyone up for Waterboarding?

I'd lay down money that the real thing is equally as funny.

Mushroon clouds a'bloomin'

This from CSM.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasts that world powers are getting weak knees about stopping his country's nuclear program.
Is the fiery leader right?

Unfortunately, probably so.

The United Nations Security Council is considering a watered-down resolution of sanctions aimed at punishing Iran for pursuing its uranium- enrichment program - a process that could lead to development of a nuclear weapon. But with the United States seemingly occupied with Iraq, and with Russia and China still balking at any action that would suggest "humiliation" of a valued trade partner, doubts are rising over how much the Europe-sponsored resolution will be worth.

Resolutions don't mean a goddamn thing and Iraq proved that. They're nothing but a symbolic and dismissive gesture of disapproval that inevitably results in a larger problem further down the road.

On a side note, Russia and China aren't trustworthy anyway. Russia is led by a criminal and China smiles at us through dragon teeth.

Noting that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries announced over the weekend their interest in developing a cooperative nuclear-energy program, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross said, "Who is that message for? Let me tell you, it's not for Iran. It was for us."
Ambassador Ross, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also said at an event Tuesday that the Saudis are telling the US, "Stop them - or that [nuclear power] is the way we go, too."

That's a comforting thought. The most backwards cultures in the world (yes I said it) arming themselves with the most destructive weapons humanity has ever devised. I'm starting to get heartburn over here.

Others note that while the US goes along with diplomatic efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear progress, President Bush continues to insist that "no options are off the table" in terms of guaranteeing that Iran never develops the bomb. They speculate that if Iran continues its nuclear march, the US could take military action to at least seriously damage its program before the end of Mr. Bush's term, claiming it had favored diplomatic action until the risk dictated another course.

I don't much care for Bush, but I have to admit I find such strong words comforting. Let's hope he lives up to it. No doubt the U.N. will stand on the sidelines and wag their reproachful fingers at us. The U.N. is the most utterly useless and destructive bureaucratic body in existence today. Period. Their negligence borders on the criminal.

Well worth your attention

Straight from the mouth of an American soldier, and exactly what I've been lamenting for three months on this blog now.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/12/roe_rules_of_en.html

I stand by everything said. A military is designed to kill, not police actions and not "winning hearts and minds".

Na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!

Fox brings us the tragic news that Kofi Annan plans to...wait for it...criticize us on his way out! I know, I know, can you believe it?

Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan plans to offer a blistering criticism of the Bush administration's foreign policy in a farewell speech Monday to a crowd in Independence, Mo.
A copy of the speech obtained by FOX News, shows Annan is expected to accuse the U.S. administration of committing human rights abuses in the name of fighting terrorism, and of taking military action without broad international support.

Yes. Human rights abuses such as following the tenants of the Geneva Convention to the letter by NOT extending Geneva Convention rights to those who do not extend it themselves, or even meet the requirements set forth therein. And by the way, we didn't have international support because YOU did not give it to us. And now you want to lecture us on our actions, you who had no hand in the fighting?

"As President Truman said, 'The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world,"' Annan said.

Was that before or after he dropped two atomic bombs and annihilated two cities?

When "military force is used, the world at large will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose … in accordance with broadly accepted norms," the speech says in reference to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Unless of course you are Hezbollah and you are killing Jewish civilians, in which case you are simply a victim of your own tragic circumstance. In such cases, the UN will demand that you disperse and will slap you on the wrist. Not lightly either, we're talking a UN slap.

Goodbye Kofi. It's just too bad the UN isn't retiring as well.

Why bother?

MSNBC carries this from Tehran:

Iran will only hold direct talks with the United States on Iraq if Washington announces plans to pull its troops out, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday.
Mottaki was responding to this week’s Iraq Study Group report, which recommended Washington should directly engage with Iran and Syria to try to stabilize Iraq.

Color me unmoved. The Iraq Study Group is a document that offers fluffy suggestions and tells us what we already know. A genuine waste of our time. Iran is using political opportunism to advance an agenda.

An agenda, mind you, to get us out of Iraq. I wonder why they want us out? Can anyone say power vacuum?

Washington blames Iran and Syria for stirring up conflict in Iraq nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.
“The biggest help Iran can make is to stop what they’re doing in Iraq right now,” a senior U.S. military official, who did not want to be named, told Reuters.

Exactly, which is why talking is also a waste of time. Unfortunately, much else isn't much an option, as our military is stretched perilously thin. If only the UN was worth a damn, they could have this crisis resolved in a matter of months.

Bomb the nuclear labs into the stone age. Better yet, let Israel do it. They know how to get a job done.

We live in an age in which we are trying to negotiate with a psycopathic Hitler wannabe. What could he possibly have to offer us if we were to withdraw? Mahmoud would have the upper hand and we'd be in no position to negotiate anything. Meanwhile he'd unfurl his wings and spread his oppressive regime into Iraq and turn it into another Syria. Sounds appealing yes?

We need to step on this roach fast.

But on the bright side...

CNN shares some tragic news with us. Tragic, at least from their perpective.

Coalition forces killed 20 people they identified as insurgents, destroyed weapons caches and arrested seven suspected terrorists in two security sweeps in Iraq on Friday, the U.S. military said.

Yikes. Let's see now, how can CNN spin this story to make it one more cog in the machine of negativity coming forth from Iraq?

The identities of those killed were in dispute, according to wire reports. The mayor and police in al-Ishaqi village, where one raid took place, said that civilians were killed -- including women and children, according to The Associated Press. Reuters also reported that police said 17 civilians were killed.

See, these are what I call "but" stories. "Yes yes, this went well but..." Never underestimate the tag-team champions of liberal bullshit, the AP and Reuters. When you look at the news story in context, this paragraph occurs directly after the one quoted above. So, though the headline is that our boys are making headway, let's take a nice long look at how the tone of the rest of this article goes.

Three U.S. soldiers were killed Thursday, all by roadside bombs, the U.S. military said. Two were part of a Multi-National Division -- Baghdad patrol that was responding to a report of a bomb south of Baghdad. A roadside bomb exploded, killing them and wounding two others, the military said. The military had earlier reported another U.S. soldier's death, when a roadside bomb exploded near his patrol in the capital.
Since the start of the war, 2,926 U.S. military members and personnel have died in Iraq -- 36 so far in December.

To be interpreted as "Reminder! We're losing, our soldiers are dying!" Hopeless, these journalists.

This is why we need unions!

And the subject line is sarcasm.

This from Fox News.

About 1,000 nonunion workers, mostly Hispanics upset with the recent firing of immigrants for allegedly providing false documents, walked off their jobs at a Smithfield Foods Inc. slaughtering plant, a union spokeswoman said.

Good. Non-union. Fire them too. Then go down to the local unemployment offices and give the jobs to people who want to work.

About 600 workers were found to have unverifiable information. The company fired about 75 people for providing false information, he said.

And they should have been arrested to boot.

Smithfield spokesman Dennis Pittman said the company was only complying with a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "This walkout — which apparently was instigated by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union — is totally unjustified," Pittman said. "If Smithfield were to do what the union is calling for, we would be breaking federal law by knowingly employing undocumented workers. The union should stop trying to pressure Smithfield to break the law."

Agreed. Rule of law must be maintained. If you are not properly documented, no job. Comprende? You go through the proper channels, or you simply do not work. End of story, turn out the lights.

And by the way...if all the able bodied people on welfare would get a damn job, we wouldn't have a need to hire those who stream across the border and rape our nation by violating its laws. Think about that.

There's something about Gates

CNN gushes over him.

President Bush's nomination of Robert Gates as defense secretary headed to the full Senate Wednesday for approval, a day after it sailed through the Armed Services Committee.
Gates was confirmed by the committee 24-0.

Wow. Why migh this be?

When asked by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, incoming chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, if he thought the U.S. was winning the war, Gates replied, "No, sir."

Oh. Yes I imagine Levin might have liked that answer. The funny thing now is that Iraq now has the Democrats' name on it, and they also have to take a bite of the sandwich if it's later found to contain shit.

Later, he clarified his remark, saying the United States wasn't losing either and that his comment pertained to Iraq as a whole, not just as a military endeavor.
"Our military forces win the battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq, and I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost," he said.

If you are not winning, you are losing. There is no third direction. We are not losing militarily whatsoever. As Gates points out, we've never given ground to those bastards. What we are losing is our nerve as a public, but that's a rant found elsewhere.

Iran concerns Gates because "their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror -- in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country -- is very real," he said.
But, the nominee said, while the Islamic republic is working against U.S. interests, "I think they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq."

Every time I start to get on the same page with this guy, he goes and craps out a stupid comment like that. Iran could be doing worse, so why bother with them? Wake up Gates! Read some of Churchill's letters! The same goes for our entire government, that Islamofascist government is invested in our failure and demise, and the extinction of the Jews. Accept the fact that we must go for their jugular in some way very soon.

For sake of comparison

Conservatives have been attacked for calling the more liberal among us unpatriotic. After watching the above video, I'd like to paste the comments that followed on youtube.com. I'm sure you'll find them intellectually stunning in their brilliance.

1) Who needs America? they only helped the UK in WW2 after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour. Till then they were happy to sit on their arse's and help no-one. They shouldnt be in Iraq in the first place, they only invaded for the oil, not to help the Iraq people. The Iraq's are kicking their arse, even with the yanks having all the high tec gear.Americans....who needs them?

2)AMERIKANS ARE GOING TO "CUT AND RUN" - pussysIF ONLY THEY COULD "STAY THE COURSE" - $500 billion wont do itTHEIR ALLY SADAAM HUSSIEN IS NOW MORE POPULAR POWERFUL THAN BUSHTHEIR OTHER CREATION ALQAEEDA IS NOW LEGITIMATE RESISTANCE + FREEDOM IN IRAQ + THE GLOBE MEHDI ARMY + IRAN ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN EVER- when SHIA speak the world shuts up and listens (+ bows down)ISRAEL the fuken whites who invaded and occupied North Afrika In 1948 are soon coming to their demise

3) UR LEADERS ARE JUST SERVING CORPORATIONS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERIKAN PEOPLE U FUKERY DO PEOPLE LOVE TO SUPPORT CORPORATIONS WHO STEAL THEIR LAND / MONEYTHEN OVERCHARGE THEM FOR GOOD AND SERVICESTHEN THEIR GOVERNMENT THEY PLACED IN POWER OVER TAXES U WORSE THAN SLAVERYTHEN U SUPPORT THEM LIKE U SUK THEIR COCKS.. WISE UP FREE WORLDARABS/ASIANS/AFRIKANS = freedom slavesWESTERNERS= tax slaves

4) IMAGINE LIVING ON OCCUPIED LAND & BEING DECENDANTS OF COLONIAL SLAVE MASTERSHow EMBARRASSING & DISGUSTINGISRAEL(white Europeans)occupying NORTH AFRIKA SINCE 1948 (living embarrassments)AMERIKAN WHITES (export of BRITAIN IRELAND living on INDIAN land) trash & genocidal slave mastering cuntsAUSTRALIA & NEWZEALAND - (fukers are Britiain & Irelands old Prisoners - disgusting mentality they haveCANADA -- R European genocidal dikfaces living on Indians LandDown with ZIONISTS

You see? Take Marxism, add a healthy dose of anti-nationalism, a further dose of intellectual vanity and just a dash of typo, and you get this sort of thing. I rest my case.

Stupid news item of the week

MSNBC shows why Kofi Annan is the unequivocal master of the obvious:

The level of violence in Iraq is "much worse" than that of Lebanon's civil war, outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in an interview aired Monday.

How illuminating.

Last week, when asked by reporters whether the fighting in Iraq could be considered a civil war, Annan said "almost."
"I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there," he said last week.

Please tell me when precisely the U.N. has attempted something "drastic" that has had a positive result? Let's see, how about when they made the drastic move to chastise Israel and castrate them in the midst of a purge against Hezbollah? Yes that was quite drastic. How about when they made the impulsive decision to intervene in the Rwandan genocide? Oh wait, they didn't do a damn thing.

In the BBC interview, Annan agreed when it was suggested that some Iraqis believe life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein's regime.

Let me spell out the subtext that the BBC reporter was trying to get across: Iraq is worse, and its because of the evil United States. Sure, in alot of ways things are more bloody and violent, but it is because of bureaucrats and the media tying our hands so we can't obliterate the murdering filth that festers in the Iraqi swamps. That's what so many of these liberals morons can't seem to get through their skulls.

Peace, but always through strength.

Analyzing the draft nonsense

This from CSM.

Would reinstituting the military draft even things out, spreading the responsibility while influencing politicians to think twice before sending men and women into harm's way?

I think the way this question was posed goes beyond the simple issue of draft or no draft. Here's what I mean:

"I do think we need a draft," says Charles Moskos, military sociologist and professor emeritus at Northwestern University. "Our country is experiencing what I call 'patriotism lite.' Nobody's willing to sacrifice anything. We don't even have gas rationing. Congress votes to go to war, but won't send its own children. We don't have enough troops. We've used reservists and the National Guard in an unprecedented manner."

The fascinating subtext of what Moskos is saying is that we need a draft because of an absence of responsibility. No one is willing to die for what they believe in anymore, or even adhere to smaller sacrifices. A glance at the small sacrifices made by every American during WWII will demonstrate the contrast.

Now instead we sit back from a confortable distance and criticize and condemn. We bitch and complain about paying too much for gasoline. We watch the war unfold through the lenses of the media and act as though its outcome will have no effect on us.

We are comfortable. We are sanguine. We are weak, and we feel entitled.

How did this happen? Who is to blame? I could point fingers all day long. The 1960's seemed to have a large effect on the matter, as people started focussing more and more on a Millsean sense of individual entitlement and less and less on interfacing their wants and needs with the good of the American people. It is my estimation that we are no longer the lean and fit nation we once were in the early to mid twentieth century. We are as a bloated fat ass spread over too little barstool. We gorge ourselves on American Idol and shamelessly, SHAMELESSLY, vomit the problems of today onto our children. We allow the madmen of today to become the monsters of tommorrow, and we wash our hands of it all.

We do it so we can keep drinking our fill, and pushing the responsibility onto later generations. Our politics reflect it. We'd rather endure uneasy peace than suffer a war that secures our safety. Why? Because its easy.

I don't even mean to suggest that military service is the only way to purge ourselves of our apathy. I insist that still another way lies in our determination to put aside our intellectual vanity and self-guilt to instead embrace the old notions. What is good for America, is good for Americans. What hurts America, inevitably hurt Americans.

We need to awaken from our apathy. Wake up and smell the evil festering around you.

Race wars!

First Michael Richards and now this? Is no black man safe?

The city's fire chief announced his retirement Friday amid a racially charged furor involving a black firefighter who was served spaghetti mixed with dog food.

You know, aside from the fact that I find that prank absolutely hilarious, I find myself asking what is racially charged about this particular prank?

The firefighter who was fed the spaghetti claimed that it was racial discrimination and that he was harassed after reporting it. But other firefighters insisted it was an ordinary firehouse prank with no racist intent. A department investigation suggested the prank was prompted by the way firefighter Tennie Pierce called himself the "Big Dog" during a volleyball game.

I'm still waiting for an instance of a racial slur, maybe a burning cross or something. So far none of this seems outside the realm of a bunch of guys bullshitting around and one guy taking things too seriously. Maybe it did go too far. After all, maybe this Pierce guy (Mr Victim) had been minding his own business and was unfairly targetted.

The council approved the settlement on advice of the city attorney before photos surfaced showing that Pierce himself engaged in crude firehouse hazing, smearing mustard and dumping water on colleagues.

Oh. So evidently Pierce is filled with blinding racial hatred that must be vindicated by the smearing of mustard and the dumping of copious amounts of water. We may have a race war brewing in our fire departments, ladies and gentlemen. I don't mean to alarm you, but it appears the racial wound created by Michael Richards is deep indeed, and is now festering even amongst our dearest institutions.

God help us all.

Like vermin

Back to your holes.