1
All of this can easily be explained by a simple typo; she is obviously from Brainfree, Virginia...
Posted by: will at August 17, 2006 01:09 PM (h7Ciu)
2
Nope she's from Vermont, a haven for mental instability of all sorts. Clearly there is a connection between mental illness, and being a liberal fucktard.
Posted by: Casca at August 17, 2006 03:20 PM (2gORp)
"Firecrotch" Explained
For those who don't follow news about the famous and semi-famous, here's the May 16, 2006, origin of Lindsay Logan's "firecrotch" nickname. It's one of the funniest things I've seen on YouTube in a long time.
So there you have it. "It's orange and it fuckin' stinks like diarrhea . . . she has freckles coming out of her vagina, and her clitoris is seven feet long."
That was spoiled rich kid Brandon Davis, who later apologized to Lindsay, saying:
What started out as a joke got completely carried away and I am horrified at the words that came out of my mouth. I consider Lindsay a friend and I hope she accepts my sincere apology for my reprehensible actions last week.
If he considers Lindsay a friend, what must he say about people he don't like? Apperently, Brandon is now in rehab for alcohol and coke. Big surprise there. When he gets out, he ought to consider stand-up comedy.
1
Much to my shame, I used that firecrotch term in HS (1989) to humiliate an ex-girlfriend. Ah, boys will be boys, right?
Anyway, check out these pictures of Lohan.
http://www.perezhilton.com/topics/exclusives/what_exactly_is_going_on_here_20060816.php#comments
Posted by: Blake at August 17, 2006 09:31 AM (1B44J)
2
I think I deserve reparations for all the firecrotch/red-headed-step-child jokes I've had to endure growing up. That and being left handed have truly made me an outcast...
...but in defense of my fellow carrot tops, not necessarily the skank Lohan, I'd like to note that Red heads have more sex than the rest of you. As I'm a scorpio, this goes doubly for me, so "firecrotch" all you want, because I know y'all want it. bitches.
Posted by: Scof at August 17, 2006 01:47 PM (a3fqn)
3
That woman is scary skinny, her pelvic bones scare me more than her cootchie.
Posted by: kyle8 at August 17, 2006 04:13 PM (mLCGt)
1
FAN FREAKIN TASTIC. World war one aces has always been one of my favorite things to study in history.
Any of the good movies done about it were so long ago the special effects were crap.
Posted by: kyle8 at August 17, 2006 04:15 PM (mLCGt)
1
"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."
Common sense statements like this are going to get her uninvited to the Left-wing Hollywood cocktail circuit.
Posted by: Blu at August 16, 2006 10:44 PM (K0h0f)
2
The partial list of those signing this shocked the hell out of me. I'd like to see the complete list.
Posted by: TBinSTL at August 17, 2006 02:19 AM (bYmT0)
3
You think this could get any one of these airheads to say something nice about George Bush and his steadfast support of Israel?
Nah.
Posted by: shelly at August 17, 2006 04:21 AM (ZGpMS)
Posted by: Rob at August 17, 2006 05:30 AM (9DumO)
5
In related news, the ACLU managed to handpick some federal judge that ruled that Wiretapping Progam "unconstitutional."
"At all costs" except,however, when it offends the sensibilities of liberals who think all Americans should be able to have contact with AQ and other terrorist organizations.
Liberals are hazardous to our health and will get people killed.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 09:47 AM (j8oa6)
6
More on the judge who made this silly ruling.
Her name is Anna Diggs Taylor. Yeah, you guessed it: A Carter appointee, which is almost enough said. It gets better; she an affirmative action selection. Diggs Taylor is a black female, who also is part of the "Gender and Racial Ethnic Fairness Task Forces for the Sixth Circuit." Well, isn't that nice. What-fucking-ever. Hopefully, the Bushies will appeal, and this will get to the Supreme Court where hopefully the adults can rule correctly - that is if Kennedy can manage to find his cajones.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 10:04 AM (j8oa6)
7
Actually, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will review this priro to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 11:33 AM (j8oa6)
8
They pick them by filing a bunch of cases and then dismissing the ones that go to tough judges...old trick, but it keeps working.
Posted by: shelly at August 17, 2006 01:35 PM (vFS/o)
9
If the ACLU didn't do something that I liked once or twice every decade, I might actually dislike them more than the NAA(L)CP.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 01:57 PM (j8oa6)
10
HH has a great post on this topic: http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/4ed4fdfe-7b5b-444c-9f92-06b57e5e9eeb
He also rightly points out what an embarrassment Jimmy Carter (past and present) is.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 05:42 PM (K0h0f)
11
Maybe this will make it popular to be patriotic again??? Wouldn't that be nice! ha!
Posted by: beth at August 17, 2006 08:16 PM (X6tm3)
12
Blu,
All they have to do is get a warrant from some hand picked reactioary ignorant slug of a affirmative action (RW style) Bush appointee so what's the fucking problem? To call those who oppose what may be unconstitutional behavior soft on "Terror" is puerile pandering. Blu, unlike you, there are fine people in this country who don't bow to the god of "expediency and the consequences be damned if you save my sorry as from those who hate me and envy my freedoms!". Your moment in history Blu, mine as well, is but a fleeting gnat crap of time.
Posted by: strawman at August 18, 2006 07:57 AM (tuy00)
13
Straw,
All that you said may be true, but she is just wrong on the law. Read the post that I linked. It definitely editorilizes, but it also goes into the case law relevant to this issue. (I think that we've had this specific discussion before.) This judge (like many liberals judges)ignores precedent and the Constitution. Her opinion is basically...well her opinion...sans Constitutional justification or precedent.
I can see where you are coming from - this is one of those issues where I don't think the people who disagree with me are totally crazy. I just think they are wrong.
Now, the issue of affirmative action judges....ahh fuck it. That's along discussion....
Posted by: Blu at August 18, 2006 10:54 AM (K0h0f)
14
Blu,
Even if the case law supports it, it is wrong. Its like free speech; protects almost all that you can utter but there is still plenty you should never say. (others have said this with more grace but you get the gist.)
Posted by: strawman at August 18, 2006 01:28 PM (tuy00)
Annika's Jeopardy, Round 23
D-Rod is in the lead with $1500; Leif has $1400; Tuning Spork has $1200; Shelly and Victor are tied with $700 each; Law Fairy has $500; Maximum Leader and KG have $300 each; Matt of Overtaken By Events and Trint have $200 each; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each.
And the final clue in the category "American Skankwomen," for $300, izzzz...
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 16, 2006 09:45 PM (dzyCi)
3
Assuming that's right, I'll have Vexatious Vexillology for $100.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 16, 2006 10:54 PM (dzyCi)
4
.....
apparently I have a doppleganger....
Well, whoever you are, I highly recommend the whole getting-your-own-name-and-email thing. It's pretty spiffy, having your own identity.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 17, 2006 04:18 AM (XUsiG)
5
Ka-Pow!!!
Who is Paris Hilton, and why is Matt Leinart even staying within a football field of her?
On the other hand, I saw her movie. She is, indeed, a firecrotch, not ot mention the chrome and bumper hitch thing...
Posted by: shelly at August 17, 2006 04:26 AM (ZGpMS)
Example Of Pro-Terrorist Media Bias #95,788
[part of a continuing series]
I know it's like beating a dead dog over and over again, but I feel like if I don't blog about these things when I see them, people might forget.
Check this article from AP, with the headline: "Iran leader praises Hezbollah resistance."
You will note that nowhere in the article does the word "resistance" appear, which leads one to believe that the editors who wrote the headline chose that word because they think it properly describes what Hezbollah is up to.
1
Nice point, Annika: They went beyond biased a long time ago. I have no doubt they are on the side of the enemy. The MSM proves this on a daily basis. The examples are too numerous and too easy to cite. You could spend hours each day finding headlines like this and stories that are obviously biased.
Posted by: Blu at August 16, 2006 03:16 PM (K0h0f)
2
This phrasing is particularly obscene, because the word "resistance" has strong associations with the French Resistance and the other courageous anti-Nazi movements in occupied Europe.
As even an AP editor probably knows, so it's pretty clear that they are doing this consciously.
Posted by: David Foster at August 16, 2006 04:01 PM (/Z304)
3
And what were they resisting? Since Israel pulled out of Lebanon five years ago!
Posted by: annika at August 16, 2006 06:03 PM (qQD4Q)
Posted by: Leif at August 16, 2006 07:40 PM (CPQ57)
5
Another example of media bias is this current CNN story, the headline is:
Judge rules against Big Tobacco
Far as I know, the only folks I've ever heard use the term "Big Tobacco" are Democratic politicians. Might seem small, but it really does show how they just echo the Dems' talkin point, trying to induce them into our conciousness through editorial slight-of-hand. I mean seriously, "Big" tobacco? A professional editor thought of this headline? Fucking ridiculous.
Posted by: Scof at August 17, 2006 02:48 PM (a3fqn)
6
Just once I want to see the term "Big Labor" used in a headline.
Just once.
Posted by: Blu at August 17, 2006 02:55 PM (j8oa6)
Jeopardy With Annika, Round 22
D-Rod is in the lead with $1500; Tuning Spork has $1200; Leif has $1100; Shelly and Victor are tied with $700 each; Law Fairy has $500; Maximum Leader and KG have $300 each; Matt of Overtaken By Events and Trint have $200 each; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each.
Somewhere LBJ Is Groaning, Or Laughing, Or Something...
You all remember the story about LBJ, after he saw Walter Cronkite declare the Vietnam War "unwinnable." He switched off the tv and said, famously:
If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.
Well, I wonder what an appropriate George W. Bush quote might be, after reading Michael Yon, or Rich Lowry?
Is this a sign that some kind of critical mass has been reached?
Well, at least he's still got Annika.
Update: I think it's important to note that neither Michael, nor Rich have given up on Iraq. I am concerned, though, that Michael Yon has not been able to return to the war zone as he has requested. When Rich Lowry starts to get worried, it's even more important that we have the benefit of Yon's reportage, with his uniquely objective voice. Otherwise the real story will continue to be held captive by a biased or disinterested mainstream media.
1
Lowry understands that this war and all the events in the ME must be looked at as a larger war against Islamo-Nazism - regardless whether it is of a Shite or Sunni variety. It is a world war that we must win. It will require changing hearts and minds but also killing a lot of people because our enemy is not sane. Lowry also understands that Iran is the key player. The Bush administration has not handled Iran well in my opinion. In fact, Iran just kicked its butt in the Israel pullout fiasco. It is also a huge factor in Iraq where we know they are arming the militants. Part of me thinks that the Bushies are beginning to give into the endless assault of lies from the MSM and the world-wide Left. (And to a lesser extent the very far, black-helicopter-fearing Right.)
Posted by: Blu at August 16, 2006 10:18 AM (j8oa6)
2
There are really two big culprits here, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. As long as the Saudi's continue to fund the radical Wahabist cult and its terror schools all around the world we can have no peace.
Posted by: kyle8 at August 16, 2006 01:35 PM (am+zj)
3
When we kick our addiction to oil, we can create a world that will respond to our ideas, as there will be no funding for the crazies; until them we either need to diplomatically change regimes in the other oil rich countries (i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia and others not as important, but still contributors), or go in and kick their asses as well.
This is a fifty year war if I ever saw one. Glad I don't have to live to see the end of it, either way.
Posted by: shelly at August 17, 2006 05:51 AM (ZGpMS)
[British Airways] has hit back at reports that more than 5,000 items of passenger luggage had gone missing since security measures were implemented at Heathrow airport.
There had been suggestions that up to 10,000 bags had been mislaid at the UK's busiest airport, and while a spokeswoman for the airline admitted that bags had been separated from their owners, they had definitely not been lost.
Isn't that a bit like saying, "She's not pregnant, She's just been separated from her virginity."
1
How the hell do you "mislay" 10,000 bags? Somewhere, there has to be a huge mountain of luggage that someone HAS to have noticed, if just to drive around...
Posted by: BobG at August 15, 2006 12:32 PM (uzQ5f)
2
You must be ovulating. Being pregnant is quite different from being separated from one's virginity.
Posted by: Casca at August 15, 2006 01:19 PM (Z2ndo)
3
Speaking of airlines. Have any of you noticed that every major airline now oversells their seats and then if you do not register ahead of time for a boarding pass you cannot fly, even if you bought your ticket months ahead.
You know, as a small government conservative I have a big thing to admit. I think deregulation of the Airline industry was a mistake.
Usually regulations are not good, but sometimes, and in some industries they make sense.
I say bring back strict government oversight.
Raise the prices some, (we have way too many asstards and fatasses flying now)
and FORCE the airlines to give good service and find your goddam luggage.
Posted by: kyle8 at August 15, 2006 03:27 PM (DyPio)
4
Kyle,
I feel your pain. (Visualize me biting my lower lip and perhaps shedding a small tear.)Airline service is not great. Although, I have to say that I had a great experience flying Hawaiian Airlines. So, I don't know, maybe try taking a trip to Maui...
Posted by: Blu at August 15, 2006 03:38 PM (j8oa6)
5
Careful Kyle, they were deregulated, not unregulated. You're on the slippery slope of totalitarianism. Frankly, my gut tells me that the ugly, stupid, and obese should be kept in camps in Iowa, but one must restrain one's inner demons. Instead, they search our luggage before we board.
Posted by: Casca at August 15, 2006 04:59 PM (2gORp)
6
kyle,
I've actually been kicked off flights for which I purchased tickets well in advance. As in, I was sitting in the waiting area and no one took the free stuff to fly later, so those of us who randomly hadn't gotten seating assignments were shit out of luck. This was around the holidays too.
If the government is going to take over the airports, really what's the big deal with them taking over the planes too (note the sarcasm here)? Actually, the way it is now, it's backwards: I would rather have the government make airlines charge double for people who weigh over three hundred pounds, than have it paw through my dangerous terrorist sanitary products at the security checkpoint.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 15, 2006 05:13 PM (XUsiG)
7
Huh... pawing through your sanitary products... the mind reels. No wonder they always vandalize my laptop.
Posted by: Casca at August 15, 2006 07:22 PM (2gORp)
8
If you whiners would spend less time blogging and wagging your weenies, you could just go online and check in and get your boarding passes like the rest of us.
As for your complaints about your fellow passengers, be happy they aren't wearing towels on their heads or burkhas.
Posted by: shelly at August 17, 2006 05:59 AM (ZGpMS)
Jeopardy Round 21 Hint
Okay, since nobody has a clue about the clue in Round 21, here's the full album cover with the letters blocked out.
You people are mostly older than me, I'm surprised you're not up on your 80's bands.
If Nobody gets it, D-Rod will retain control of the board. I probably won't post anything this weekend, since my brother's in town and I'm going to hang out with him. But you never know.
Posted by: Victor at August 11, 2006 09:29 AM (1oGDT)
7
Annika, if you don't post this weekend, you'll be missing out on the latest from your favorite American Skankwoman. Drudge currently links to an online article that also includes a hilarious YouTube video of her. Intellectually, this girl's from the same sheep farm as Anna Nicole Smith.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at August 11, 2006 11:13 AM (1PcL3)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 11, 2006 12:29 PM (IQjm9)
9
"Who are X?"
Why, none other than John Doe, Xcene Cervenka, DJ Bonebreak and Billy Zoom.
Posted by: Dan-O at August 11, 2006 01:11 PM (yMnY4)
10
Bzzzt. Wasn't that "White Wedding" guy in a band named X?
Bzzzt.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2006 02:51 PM (++0ve)
11
some interesting questions of rules interpretation presented by the latest responses. i'll have to consult with the judges for a ruling.
Posted by: annika at August 11, 2006 03:06 PM (Uzok0)
12
Kevin, Billy Idol was in "Generation X". A very different band.
Annie, the clue requests the name of the band, not the album.
And I can't believe I didn't recognize it right off the bat. The world "detail" threw me off. I assumed it was a small part of the cover. (I looked at that entire wheel on Led Zeppelin III, mwheh.)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 11, 2006 04:03 PM (IQjm9)
13
That's not the controversy. The questions for the judges are:
Can D-Rod guess again, even though a) he already responded, and b) there was a time limit which applied to him alone, which expired.
The controversy is that a hint was given, so does that a) reset the whole clue, or b) just reset the whole thing as to those people who were not subject to a time limit.
What is fair? I realize D-Rod and T-Spork are the only ones with dogs in this fight.
Posted by: annika at August 11, 2006 04:33 PM (C8Oer)
14
I never play this game but always keep up. So, if Annika is asking an opinion of the audience, this member votes for "a) reset the whole clue." It seems to be the most fair because the clue was given to all participants without reference to whether time limits or second guesses were allowed.
Posted by: Blu at August 11, 2006 04:38 PM (LXOfu)
15
The word "detail" threw me off too, but if I were a judge i'd rule to start over with a new $500 question instead of a Daily Dbl.
Anal for Five, please.
Posted by: d-rod at August 11, 2006 06:11 PM (+b4FD)
16
Welp, the way I read it is that, once d-rod missed the deadline, you threw it open to all comers. Since you made no indication that a brand new time limit for d-rod was in place, it's an open call.
Then again, this is d-rod's Daily Double and perhaps he should benefit from the revised clue in the same way as the original clue.
But, shoulda woulda coulda. Since d-rod didn't answer by 9:00pm PDT, it was up for grabs. Unfortunately, no one had a clue apparantly, so you posted the hint, noting:
If Nobody gets it, D-Rod will retain control of the board.
The question was then answered (...er, the answer was then questioned...) according to the rules. The only controversy is that you are second-guessing yourself. You could have left well-enough alone and just announced "no answer" and let d-rod pick another category. But you didn't and are now wondering if you are screwing d-rod by not extending the time limit to the updated clue.
I feel your pain. I don't think any of us expected a "hint" to follow and, really now, it shouldn't have. So, in the interests of commity, I would like to lift this burden from your shoulders and suggest that you give another, different clue for d-rod's choice of anal bum covers for $500. Even make it a Daily Double if ya like!
Would that settle it for ya?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 11, 2006 07:01 PM (IQjm9)
17
Just do what all the other Judges do; declare a mistrial and start over (leaving the defendant in custody, of course).
Posted by: shelly at August 12, 2006 02:06 AM (BJYNn)
18
The judges ruling is in. D-Rod gets credit. For his next category he has stated his preference for anal.
unnh that didn't sound right.
Posted by: annika at August 15, 2006 10:58 AM (zAOEU)
The prime impetus for modern American liberalism is the opposition to any restrictions on abortion. The prime impetus for European liberalism is anti-semitism.
1
At a high level, I find this to be true. However, anti-semitism is creeping into the American Left as well. Were any of you privy to the outburst by Cynthia McKinney's staffer? It was a disgusting anti-semitic outburst. Can you imagine the feigned outrage had this been a white, Christian conservative? But, as we all know, there is a different standard applied in the media for liberals and conservatives and whites and non-whites.
Posted by: Blu at August 10, 2006 10:54 AM (j8oa6)
Posted by: john at August 10, 2006 11:12 AM (SpkYG)
3
Maybe. I think it may have to do with the symbolism of power. The ultimate symbol of power, as with kings & queens, has always been the right to kill. Liberals don't approve of killing in the form of capital punishment or warfare, so they are passionate about euthanasia and abortion as a substitute. These things are the female form of the power of life & death; they are the sceptre of the feminist liberal.
I don't think this is always true; some liberals support abortion or euthanasia for reasons which are less dark. But I do suspect that it's pretty common.
Posted by: john at August 10, 2006 11:16 AM (SpkYG)
4
Nope. Euro liberalism is based on laziness. Hatred of the Jews is just something to talk about while not working.
Posted by: Bram at August 10, 2006 11:53 AM (x82LV)
5
Bram, LOL. That's fucking hilarious. Hope you don't mind if I plagerize at some later date while trying to appear both conservative and witty.
Posted by: Blu at August 10, 2006 12:50 PM (j8oa6)
6
There's a germ of truth in there, but the real answer is more complicated. Euro's have a more pronounced Jew-hatred because they're more homogeneous nationally, and probably more susceptable to group-think. Part of our national faith is the blending of many cultures into one, thus not wanting to culturally stand apart from others, and being suspicious of those who do.
Posted by: Casca at August 10, 2006 03:00 PM (2gORp)
7
"These things are the female form of the power of life & death; they are the sceptre of the feminist liberal."
Huh? Whatever happened to "money is power"? This sounds awfully close to might makes right. From whence the notion that power is about the right to kill? Power is about whatever it happens to be about. For modern politicians, that's generally a frighteningly disgusting level of greed. Killing people is just a means of getting money, not the other way around.
Feminism and liberalism are far from one and the same. And the notion that anything is a "female form of" anything else is ridiculous. Anything that seems "feminine" about certain causes is only the result of your socialization and bias.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 10, 2006 03:31 PM (XUsiG)
8
"These things are the female form of the power of life & death; they are the sceptre of the feminist liberal."
Huh? Whatever happened to "money is power"? This sounds awfully close to might makes right. From whence the notion that power is about the right to kill? Power is about money. For modern politicians, there's generally a frighteningly disgustingly high level of greed. Killing people is just a means of getting money, not the other way around.
Feminism and liberalism are far from one and the same. And the notion that anything is a "female form of" anything else is ridiculous. Anything that seems "feminine" about certain causes is only the result of one's socialization and bias.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 10, 2006 03:33 PM (XUsiG)
9
Gah, sorry for the double post. Munu was accusing me of spam so I had to try twice. Damn you , Munu!
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 10, 2006 03:33 PM (XUsiG)
Posted by: Blu at August 10, 2006 03:51 PM (LXOfu)
11
One major impetus to modern "progressivism" (as its advocates call it) is the emergence of the class I refer to as The Intellectual Lumpenproletariat. These are people who drank the academic kool-aid and got advanced degrees in subjects with poor career prospects. Now they're working in Borders (or equivalent) and they are furious--not at the academics who lured them into making their choices, which might be understandable, but at society as a whole.
Posted by: david foster at August 10, 2006 04:21 PM (/Z304)
12
Don't try to apologize your way out of it. That's the fem form of posting.
Posted by: Casca at August 10, 2006 04:22 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: Bram at August 11, 2006 05:30 AM (x82LV)
14
I can't comment on Europe, but I can comment on modern liberalism: annika, I think you're being too specific. I think the impetus for modern American liberalism is to not be held accountable for one's own actions. Abortion slides neatly into that definition.
Posted by: Victor at August 11, 2006 06:05 AM (1oGDT)
15
You're partly right Victor. The general impetus for modern American liberalism is sexual libertinism. Abortion and contraception are the pillars of the sexual revolution. Without them, personal responsibility become a concrete and necessary thing, not just something to talk about that has no relevance to most people anymore. George Orwell said it way back in... whenever he was writing. I wish I could find the quote. Anyways, he said something like: "the real reason we all joined 'the movement' was sex."
I know it sounds crazy, but it's my theory.
Posted by: annika at August 11, 2006 07:00 AM (qQD4Q)
16
The prime drivers for the European left are (listed in order of importance):
1. Anti-Americanism
2. Anti-Semitism
3. Passivity towards external threats
Mix those together and you have the left taking some very weird stands.
Posted by: Jake at August 11, 2006 07:39 AM (r/5D/)
17
Regarding Europe and anti-Semitism...throughout the early part of the 20th century, in most of Europe anti-Semitism tended to be associated with the Right (cf the Dreyfus affair)...but no question that it has now become a left-wing phenomenon. It would be interesting for someone to trace this evolution.
One operative factor is that the European right tended to be opposed to social mobility across class lines in a way that has rarely been associated with the American right.
Posted by: david foster at August 11, 2006 08:39 AM (/Z304)
18
Hmmmm....annika, tossing our two ideas back and forth, I think it might be a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing.
Posted by: Victor at August 11, 2006 09:31 AM (1oGDT)
19
Annika,
I think the impetus for zoos or rather the movement that become known as zooism is the tendency all amimals have toward exhibitionism, fish included of course otherwise why would aquariums have been invented.
MAkes about as much sense as your therory of "liberalism"
Posted by: Strawman at August 11, 2006 05:58 PM (G2Zzw)
20
actually, i think that zoo theory has a lot of merit!
Posted by: annika at August 11, 2006 06:04 PM (C8Oer)
21
I don't believe she posited a "theory." Rather, she suggested an impetus or driving force behind the modern movement of American liberalism. It doesn't explain the movement itself. As a charter moonbat, perhaps you can provide some insight, Straw.
Posted by: Blu at August 11, 2006 07:41 PM (LXOfu)
22
bLU,
Modern American Liberalism (MAL) is a position on the political spectrum that was cleared for it by KArl Rove and Co. It only exists as a figment of his and your imagination. THe boys cooked it up as a strawman for what ever ailes America. They made liberal = democrat. It was a clever strategy that had little trouble confusing the essentially uneducated, well maybe they are somewhat educated but easily confused, American electorate. SO, in the RW scheme permissiveness (like thinking it is OK to get blown by interns) became a liberal position since the "liberals" while loathing his behavior, were still defending Clinton sinsce they didn't think sex rose to an impeachable offense but no matter:
LIBERAL=Blowjob lovers (actually not a bad motto but it stood for a denigration of the PRESIDENCY and American decency!)
THey did it again last week when they set up the bougus minimum wage bill they knew could not pass because of the estate tax attachment, but dems voted against the min wage so:
Liberal=no friend of the working man.
They did it with the first vote on Iraq. They had just finished hammering home the nuke card (a lie of course) so the dems would have to vote for the appropriation or
Liberal=welcomes nuclear attack on our nation
The second vote the dems voted against.
liberals=flip flop on security
The RW has this strategy down pat and the dems have been floundering on the deck developing a counter to it.
They say tax cuts spur growth, the schmucks on the plains belive it, dems oppose the estate tax repeal so;
Liberals=no economic growth
ANd on and on.
There is MAL as defined by the R nothing more. A useful tool to construct fallacious positions and then paint you opponants with the belief set and then lob the bullshit. I actually thihk it started with that numb brain Reagan. "There you go again" (being a liberal and btw have you stopped beating your wife Jimmy?)
Posted by: Strawman at August 12, 2006 03:24 PM (G2Zzw)
23
Here's a macro econ lesson for ya, Straw: Tax cuts do spur economic growth. I know the truth hurts, but the sooner you accept it, the easier it will be to stomach.
Anyway, pretty inventive post. Bullshit of course, but still well done.
Posted by: Blu at August 12, 2006 06:09 PM (LXOfu)
24
Gee Blu,
If this kind of high praise becomes a regular thing I better don knee pads to protect my tired old joints as I genuflect.
Posted by: Strawman at August 13, 2006 11:22 AM (G2Zzw)
25
Straw - Arthur Schlesinger Jr used the term "modern american liberalism" in the late 1950s. He stated the ideological roots for "mal" came from Dewey-Veblen:
"a liberal ideology did begin to crystallize, deriving its main tenets from the philosophy of John Dewey and from the economics of Thorstein Veblen. Dewey, with his faith in human rationality and in the power of the creative intelligence, gave this ideological liberalism a strong belief in the efficacy of overhead social planning; and this bent was reinforced by Veblen, who detested the price system and the free market and thought that the economy could be far more efficiently and sensibly operated by a junta or soviet of engineers."
Schlesinger went on to say the New Dealers (Roosevelt democrats) turned the ideological basis to more of a Niebuhr-Keynes basis. You can debate whether Schlesinger's (and others) ideas about Kennedy/LBJ "identity politics" contributed to the liberalism = democrat label, but if you want a boogeyman, try Lee Atwater who effectively turned Dukakis' "I'm a proud liberal" statement against him and the party..
Posted by: Col Steve at August 14, 2006 10:33 AM (pj2h7)
26
Col Steve,
I have no doubt that the dem use ruthless and hypocrital tactics to win elections and Atwater's swipe at Dukakis was an attempt to run Duk a bit to teh left of where he wanted his guy to be. All this is in response to the various polls that they get. The true political philosophy of Liberalism, like all rational(or not) but none the less thoughtfull discourses that higher level thinkers put out about how best to goven is really moot when you get into the swamp of electoneering. Phrases and philosophy's are tossed around like popcorn with little or no regard as to the true meaning but only how it plays to the base they are trying to reach.
I stand by all I said about the one dimentionalizing of LIBERAL by the right in an attempt to make the dems squirm under a word that the R has made nearly as corrosive as radical or soclialist was in the 60's or 70's. The politcal philosophies of the right and the middle and the dems and the liberals are far less profound than any one of these groups would have the world believe. I always thought the wise Mr Vidal said it best when he said "America has one political party with two wings." I personally think they all have their heads up their asses but the Republicans always think they see the light at the end of the tunnel and the dems smell it but are happy they didn't step in it.
Posted by: Strawman at August 15, 2006 10:23 AM (G2Zzw)
27
"the wise Mr Vidal."
The fact that you used the word "wise" in the same sentence with that idiot would inform even those that have never read one of your posts how far out in Left field you are. Gore Vidal is the "intellectual" version of Michael Moore. Two truly vile people.
Posted by: Blu at August 15, 2006 06:07 PM (K0h0f)
Terror Plot Foiled
What is it with these terrorists and the 11th?
I was on a lot of planes during my vacation, and I didn't see a single muslim. Not that that means anything, but I remember noticing it at the time. Usually there's one or two waiting at the gate whenever I fly and I go through the usual mental gyration. You know the one, like this: "oh there's some muslims... I wonder if I should get on the plane... oh no then I'd look like a total racist... I guess they look okay... gee I hope they're not terrorists." Then you get on the plane, nothing happens and you realize you were nervous about nothing. But of course, then something like today's arrests happen.
People are saying this was supposed to be bigger than 9-11. If the plan was to blow up a dozen planes over the ocean, it would have been big. On a scale with 9-11, but it wouldn't have been worse than 9-11. Which makes me think that maybe they were planning to wait until the planes were over the U.S., and detonate the explosives over populated areas. Just a theory.
Or maybe not. Thinking about the whole "fourth generation warfare" thing, it's probably not in the terrorists' interest to "top" 9-11's horror. Ten or twenty planes blowing up over the ocean is evil enough to demonstrate that the terrorists are still there, and that they can still pull shit. It would have been terrible for the victims and their families. People would have been shocked and there would have been political repercussions for sure. But I still don't think it would have been big enough to change certain attitudes which need changing before we can really take care of the problem.
Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an "Al Qaeda footprint." Ooh, are you scared yet? What that really means is that they found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda, but the plot simply made them think "gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do." That's what a footprint means. Nice, but no cigar.
Were these guys totally innocent? Probably not. But there's no reason to believe they were any more Osama's right-hand than Jose Padilla, the famed dirty-bomber who I think is now only being charged with jay-walking or something...
That was from a "brilliant" left wing blogger, quoted at Townhall.com, who apparently thinks that "red alert" is only appropriate if there's an al Qaeda plot. I suppose deadly plots by anyone else do not deserve a "red alert," This idiot thinks its a Republican plot to distract from Lieberman's loss. Yes, Lieberman the Democrat. In other words, if Lieberman the Democrat had not lost two days ago, then the Homeland Security Department would not have taken any steps to tighten airline security after the discovery of a plot to blow up airplanes.
You know what, after three plus years of blogging I've learned that I can't argue against such an idiotic theory. People who believe that shit will never be silent, but people will stop listening to them someday.
1
I am reading a book called "Menace in Europe." It rates the European countries most likely to create terrorists:
1. United Kingdom
2. Netherlands
3. France
The rating is based up the governments tolerance towards Islamic fascism, Moslem crime rate and Moslem assimilation.
It looks like the book hit the nail on the head this time.
Posted by: Jake at August 10, 2006 09:44 AM (r/5D/)
2
First of all, I'll go on record as saying I would love to end all immigration to this country from Muslim countries. Period. I don't care if it sounds racist. I'm past caring about that PC crap. The less of them that are here, the less they can reproduce themselves and their vile religion.
Secondly, the quote falls in line perfectly with the George Soros Left. Each terror plot should be looked at as an individual crime rather than as part of a larger war on Western Civilization. (Ergo, the War on Terror is misguided because there is no larger cultural war going on between the West and Islamo-fascism.) This is the idiocy of the Left and why they must never have control of government. To put it simply, if the Left gains control people will die as a consequence because terrorism simply isn't taken seriously by these people.
Posted by: Blu at August 10, 2006 11:02 AM (j8oa6)
3
Ok, the latest from the Lefty blogs and talk shows is that this was all....you guessed it - a hoax. You see, after the Leiberman loss, the Republicans want to really push the idea that the Dems aren't serious about terrorism. (As if they haven't already secured this in the minds of most sane and serious people.) So, with Tony Blair and Pakistan, the Republicans came up with this elaborate hoax that will ultimately reek havoc on the British and American travel industry for days to come and require the promulgation and implementation of new procedures throughout the US and the UK in a very short amount of time. Sure - it makes perfect fucking nonsense. Conspiracy at a global level. What a bunch of idiots.
And if the Reps/Bush really cared so much about whether Lieberman won or lost - (he's going to win the general anyway) - wouldn't they have planned this "hoax" a day before the Lieberman election? These people will say anything because they Left has gone totally nuts. But don't take my word for it, just go check out the Lefty blogs. The moonbats are coming up with more kooky conspiracies at even as you read this post.
Posted by: Blu at August 10, 2006 01:14 PM (j8oa6)
4
Keith Olbermann is already trying to lay the foundation for an exaggeration of the plot. He claims on his show that he is going to do a "smell test" as to whether what is alleged is even possible. He also made reference to the Brits having a "horrible" year related to terror. Of course, his goal is to get the viewer to go "hmmm, I wonder if the Brits are just making this up to look good?" And every time the alert level goes up in this country Olbermann insists that Bush only did it to help his approval numbers. The guy is fucking nut-ball. I wonder how many ratings points he lost when I switched over to FOX?
Posted by: Blu at August 10, 2006 05:12 PM (LXOfu)
5
Olbermann's ratings are probably equivalent to Air America's.
It might be comparing apples & oranges, but they are both still rotten.
Posted by: reagan80 at August 10, 2006 05:40 PM (dFOlH)
6
Don't know where to post this comment - this seemed as good as any.
I'm sickened by the news of the truce. How do you all spell surrender? Since when do terror groups get treated like nations at the UN? Oops, I forgot that I was talking about the UN - where Israel is a terroist group and semi-humans like Hamas and Hez are treated like civilized nations.
I NEVER have been this disapointed by the Bush Administration. How cowardly has the West become?
Posted by: Blu at August 12, 2006 07:24 PM (K0h0f)
7
oH bLU,
I'm sorry you are feeling so glum. It is truely a sad day when the nations of the earth attempt to put an end to violence and murder. So terribly sad. It breaks my heart to see the Lebanese people going back to their towns. And I am grief stricken over the Israeli's leaving their bomb shelters. SUch cowardice from our stalwart leader. So much good could have been accomplished if the Lebanese civilians could have been left outside when winter arrived. Then they would know just what Hezbollah could do for them. I will miss seeing those Beriut apartment blocks demolished each morning as I rise and those emotional Jews rocking back and forth while their dead 20 year old sons and daughters are lowered into the earth. That's some good stuff and it will surely be missed.
I'm with you Blu: some quasi-governmental group steals two of my guys to arrange a prisoner exchange, like they have before, fuck'em this time. Blow their, oh I guess it isn't their country, but blow it up anyway. Dams, bridges, water pumping facilities, airports, apartment buildings, gas stations, all of it! OUR CITIZENS ARE PRECIOUS! They must understand!
Ya, know blu, it reminds me of the situation with Japan at the end of the war. If we had five or seven A bombs I bet we could have doubled the number of GI's we saved by not invading. In fact we might have caused the resurrection of a few thousand sailors from Pearl. If the Israeli's could have continued bombing and invaded Lebanon with an occupying force I'll bet in the next ten years at least 1000 fewer than the unknown number of Jews that terrorists would kill, won't be killed by terrorists. That's the kind of math that wins Fields Medals, fuck that Russian (Jew) nut and the frog conjecture. I think GB should get the Fields for the "metrics" he calculated for the Iraqi's that would have been killed by Saddam since 91 and the number killed to save them. I think by now the ratio is about 10 killed to save one who might have been killed. That's some fine Texas calculating if you ask me. Who cares about reducing space and surface to a point and whether it is a sphere, too ethereal for me. I want to know the height of two piles of Iraqi dead. The actual ones we have buried and the pile of those Saddam might have killed. maybe we could divide it by the height of the pile of the ballots cast in the election or better yet we could divide by the height of the pile of hundred dollar bills that were allocated for reconstruction but only lined peoples pockets. We could arrive at a number with the units: graft dollars per dead Iraqi/saved Iraqi. I am sure there is a Fields Medal for George in here somewhere!
Blu I sympathize with your exasperation, I really do.
Posted by: stawman at August 15, 2006 04:48 PM (G2Zzw)
8
Strawman, I get your argument, but I don't believe this cease fire will hold. It's already crumbling, and not from the Israeli side.
Posted by: annika at August 16, 2006 07:14 AM (qQD4Q)
9
From the AP: "'After the Holocaust was questioned by the president, now I have real doubts about it,' said Maryam Zadkani, a 23-year-old graphic artist as she wandered around the exhibition."
This is what you don't get, Straw. Your side has never understood human nature or evil and that is why you are wrong about this and nearly all the big questions regarding foreign policy.
"...nations of the earth attempt to put an end to violence and murder."
What a joke. I laughed when I read that inane BS. Yeah, you end violence and murder by ensuring the instigators of violence and murder are in control and can claim victory. Only a Left-wing whack job could see this as "putting an end to violence and murder." In case you didnÂ’t' get the memo, Straw, Hez now has more control of S. Lebanon than before the war. This is their country - or I should say that it is now Iran and Syria's country. And thank goodness those "peacekeepers" will be there to keep things safe for Iran and Syria.
Hez will not disarm. They have already broken the truce agreement in their refusal. What a big fucking surprise - Muslims don't keep their word. And the U.N. et al will pretend it never happened. (Kinda like the great oversight with "Oil for Food.") You think the cowards that make up the governments of France and Lebanon are going to insist that their armies disarm Hez? How soon, Straw, before your friends from Syria and Iran begin rearming them. (I say friends because I'm certain that any friend of Chavez is a friend of yours. And we all know how he loves his fellow Western-hating fanatics.)
And it's not about kidnapping "two of my guys to arrange a prisoner exchange.” Is that really the range of your moral compass? It IS about an endless stream of violence from these semi-humans. It never ends. Israel abides by “world opinion” and gets out of Lebanon and what does it get? Hez kidnapping its people (really it was Iran but Hez did their bidding.) It's the same story over and over again no matter the location. Israel had every right to carpet bomb Lebanon. Lebanon allowed all this to happen because it was too cowardly to run Hez out of the South. What don't you get, Straw? Is Israel just supposed to sit their and say "yeah, come kidnap my citizens, send over your suicide bombers, and while you are at it, send some rockets our way too and make certain you aim at civilians if possible. We'll just sit here and play with our collective Johnson while you guys try to wipe us off the map."
Straw, you are a moral adolescent. You consistently manage to take the wrong side on all the important battles. Whether you are standing with the barbarians of Islam or the barbarians of Communism, you always manage to pick the side that hates America, the West, and the side that wants to end our way of life. More importantly, however, you choose the side that consistently devalues individual, political, and economic freedom. You seem to prefer those that would enslave people. What does that tell us about you?
I must respectfully disagree with Annika: You have no argument. Or the one your present is a pathetic joke provided by a moral relativist with no sense for the distinction between right and wrong and good and evil. Not all deaths are equally tragic, Straw. Not all human “civilizations” are equally as valuable. Pick a side, Straw. (Actually, you already have.)
Regarding your comment about Japan: Are you really too stupid or historically ignorant to figure out that the bombs we dropped on Japan saved more of their people than ours? Again, you misunderstand the enemy.
And regarding the “piles” of Iraqi dead: Hmmm, let me see if I get this: In Straw's world, we equate the Hussein death squads to the deaths of people fighting for their freedom and to ensure a democratically elected government is able to withstand an Iranian-backed insurgency? Yeah, Straw, I want to live in your world. We could all carry around our little red books - that is while we are not kneeling towards Mecca to pray.
p.s. Hey, Staw, here's a research assignment: Find out how much money your favorite boogeyman, Halliburton, received from the government under Clinton and Carter. I'm sure it was $0 because Halliburton only starting making money during the Bush administration, right?
Posted by: Blu at August 16, 2006 09:46 AM (j8oa6)
10
Blu,
I think you should relax, and notice that the forces of Islam are not in fact who would be killed if they carpet bombed Leb. Truely, more young men would as a result, take up arms and willingly give their life to avenge the assult.
I am not actualy on their side, never have been and have only expressed sympathy for the deaths of non combatants. I know you see acquiescing as tacit support and therefore deserving of death. I just can't make that equation but it does not mean that I support the goals of HEz. Whatever has given you that idea? Just because I don't think carpet bombing Lebanon into dust is a nice idea?
WE disagree on tactics not goals. I am not as sure as you that the solution to this threat is an outright assult. Too many moslems in the world, not all of them are sympathetic to the Islamists and being more brutal and crueler than you ememy does not get you a place at the table where a good life is being laddled out.
Posted by: strawman at August 16, 2006 05:18 PM (G2Zzw)
11
If our differences are only tactical, then I clearly have not read you well. I'll take you at your word.
Posted by: Blu at August 16, 2006 05:51 PM (K0h0f)
Annika's Jeopardy, Round 21
D-Rod gets the last Daily Double!
Let's go over the Daily Double rules once again.
The rules for Daily Double are almost the same as on tv, with an important exception. In my game everybody gets to play the Daily Double.
Every response must have a wager in it. The lowest you can wager is $100 and the highest you can wager is either $500 or however much money you have earned already, whichever is higher. Or you can wager any amount in between.
Since D-Rod picked the Daily Double, his response gets priority. If you guess before him you run the risk of tipping him off to the correct response. If D-Rod either guesses wrong or does not respond by the expiration of his time limit (9:00 p.m. Pacific time on Thursday) the rest of the responses will count in order of their posting.
Here are the official standings. Tuning Spork is ahead with $1200; Leif is second with $1100; D-Rod has $900; Shelly and Victor are tied with $700 each; Law Fairy has $500; Maximum Leader and KG have $300 each; Matt of Overtaken By Events and Trint have $200 each; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each.
The category is "Anal Bum Covers." I'll post the clue after I eat some dinner.
Okay, here's the video clue. I'm certain it's google proof!
Reminder: Just in case it wasn't clear. The time limit applies only to D-Rod. If he doesn't respond by 9:00 p.m. Pacific Time tonight, the clue is still open to anyone who wants to try.
1
OK, Annie, yuo finally have one I know that is google proof, thus Spork cannot jump out and wag his weenie in front of all of us.
But damn, I have to go to the Hollywood Bowl tonight and I won't be back until @11:30 P.M.
Oh, well, google away, dum-dums...
Posted by: shelly at August 10, 2006 08:20 AM (BJYNn)
2pssst... Shelly... It's "The Fairy Chimneys". Sssshhhhh....
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 10, 2006 11:19 AM (swb3M)
Posted by: d-rod at August 10, 2006 08:53 PM (+b4FD)
4
OK, for my whole stake, all $700 of it. And, if I am wrong, at least Spork, Dork, Kevin and D-Rod can wag their weenies without me having to watch, because I will be out of here:
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!!
Who the Hell are the Butthole Surfers?
Yeah, there is such a group, see:
http://www.buttholesurfers.com
Posted by: shelly at August 11, 2006 05:50 AM (BJYNn)
Slate Pans WTC
Although I saw United 93 the day it came out, I haven't made up my mind whether to see World Trade Center by Oliver Stone. Slate's review, which points out some glaring inaccuracies (what a surprise in an Oliver Stone film) makes me lean towards waiting for the DVD.
Since the filmmakers have repeatedly stated their desire to "chronicle what happened as truthfully as we could," World Trade Center will likely go down in the minds of many as a historical and factual account. But Sereika recently told me that he felt the entire rescue, as portrayed in the film, is "fiction"—the facts are so distorted that he didn't recognize what he was seeing as what he lived through.
. . .
This is a case where Hollywood can't be accused of hyping reality—the real rescue was much more amazing and harrowing, especially when you hear the men tell it themselves.
Part of me wants to go, just so I can yell "too soon.. too soon" during the credits. Why is it nobody is pushing the "too soon" meme when a famous nutcase liberal is the director? Oh, I just answered my own question.
Posted by: annika at
07:34 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.
Fourth Generation Warfare
There's an excellent article in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle regarding a subject I tried to write about here. The subject is "fourth generation warfare."
The question I asked, and which the Chronicle article addresses, is this: How does a state fight against a non-state in a new era of warfare in which non-states seem to have the advantage?
Look at Hezbollah. It used to be that the side with the most casualties was the loser. It used to be that the side who was forced to give up ground to an opponent was the loser. But as we've seen in the Israeli-Hezbollah war, the world has entered a new era of warfare in which every casualty suffered on the side of the non-state combatant becomes a weapon to be used against the state combatant.
In this new type of warfare, it behooves Hezbollah (and those particular Iraqi insurgents whose goal it is to end the U.S. "occupation") to maximize casualties on their own side of the fence. What we have is a war of attrition in which one side sacrifices its own citizens in order to obtain a strategic goal by non-military means, i.e. by propaganda.
Chronicle staff writer Matthew Stannard provides a more detailed description of "fourth generation warfare:"
A use of all available networks -- political, economic, social and military -- to convince enemy political leaders that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly to achieve.
A lack of clearly defined conditions, including beginning and end, victory or defeat, peace or war, civilian and combatant. Modern wars of this type tend to last for years as conflict surges and ebbs and moves between political, military and other battlegrounds.
Antagonists are organized more as sprawling, "leaderless" networks than as tight-knit hierarchies.
At least one side is something other than a military force organized and operating under the control of a national government -- a force that appears widely dispersed and largely undefined, lacking bases, centers of power and other traditional points of assault. These groups tend to seek to use their opponents' size, power and legitimacy against them.
An emphasis on high technology that allows small organizations to asymmetrically attack larger ones -- for example, availability of weapons of mass destruction, tools of electronic warfare or easy access to global media for purposes of propaganda.
Fascinating stuff. I'm reminded of the revolution in warfare brought about by the invention of the "minie" ball around the time of the American Civil War. Military tacticians did not catch up with that sea change until the end of the First World War. And by then there was a whole third dimension to battle that needed to be understood: air power.
What we've seen with "fourth dimensional warfare" is a completely new way for weak opponents to attack and beat strong opponents. I would say this is one of the lessons of Vietnam, and like the "minie" ball revolution, military planners are slow to recognize that the rug has been pulled out from under them. It is especially important that we get a handle on this problem now, because the Cold War is over and we are going to be fighting Hezbollahs and al Qaedas for the forseeable future.
What concerns me is that, in the battle of civilizations called the "War On Terror," the thing that makes us civilized is the thing that makes us weak -- our compassion. When your enemy is uncivilized, and has no concept of compassion, it's hard to win if you're swayed by world opinion.
My thesis is that we cannot win under these new rules. Only a return to the more brutal methods of World War II can beat these non-state actors and their principals (Iran, Syria). But we can't resort to those older methods unless we abandon our aversion to civilian casualties. And I don't see that happening absent a horrific über-9-11 as a catalyst.
Which is why I ended my last post on the subject with that cryptic and ominous final sentence.
1
I was all ready to beotchslap u, until you reached your conclusion. Well done grasshopper. It's gonna be ugly when we take the gloves off, and that day be a'commin.
Posted by: Casca at August 09, 2006 02:42 PM (2gORp)
2
You are right, Annika. Unfortunately, 50% of America and more than 50% of Europe live in Fantasy Land, where if you just "talk," or "negotiate," or "understand" the enemy, all will be good. This idiocy is going to get a lot of civilized people killed while the barbarians continue to storm the gates.
Today is the 61st Anniversary of the bombing Nagasaki. Lives were saved and a way of life ensured because we had the courage necessary to make the price too high for our enemies. I hope we don't have to lose another 3,000 citizens before we understand the reality of today and our enemy.
Posted by: Blu at August 09, 2006 02:54 PM (j8oa6)
3
The Chronicle and you forget one important element, Annika. That warfare cannot work without the cooperation, collusion and encouragement of Western media,
No one stages a propaganda event unless the media is willing to cover it the way the propagandist desires. If the media ignores the event or critically reports on the event, the events soon disappear.
The way to end this type of warfare is to convince the media to develop some ethics and put an end to their bloodlust.
Posted by: Jake at August 09, 2006 03:28 PM (r/5D/)
4
Jake,
Excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up. Michelle Malkin has done an amazing job of late cataloging examples of MSM distortion (e.g. Reuters photo manipulation). It is tough to win a war when your own media is clearly cheerleading for the jihadists.
Posted by: Blu at August 09, 2006 03:44 PM (LXOfu)
5
Jake, that's not going to happen. We have to assume that the mainstream media is lost for the forseeable future.
Posted by: annika at August 09, 2006 03:45 PM (zAOEU)
6
Annika:
I guess I agree with you. Media ethics is an oxymoron.
Posted by: Jake at August 09, 2006 04:47 PM (r/5D/)
7
You are right, we have to get savage to win this type of war.
In fact I believe the following; War should be "nasty, Brutish, and short." Immigrants should be "safe, legal, and rare" and Liberals should be "Stopped, dropped, and rolled".
Posted by: kyle8 at August 09, 2006 05:12 PM (bYW7A)
Posted by: annika at August 09, 2006 06:00 PM (qQD4Q)
9
Ain't it a shame that while we drop th e bomb on Iran (OK, Israel will do it for us) and level Iran and Syria to parking lots, we can't assemble the entire maintream media to cover it, and send them a love package as well?
Casca, the gloves are coming off, and soon. The next attack by the IslamoFascists will turn the tide, and the Bushies will use it to clean house.
Hell, they've got my vote now. Why wait?
Posted by: shelly at August 10, 2006 01:11 AM (BJYNn)
10
We're just waiting for the baptism of Carlo & Connie's baby.
Posted by: Casca at August 10, 2006 06:17 AM (rEC2k)
11
Do you guys really think another terror-attack like 9/11 will wake up the Liberals, the MSM, the rest of the free-world?
I think they're committed to their warped view of the world where the U.S. and President Bush are to blame for everything, and the solution to all of the world's ills are negotiations, cease-fires, and humanitarian aid.
You underestimate just how stupid liberals are, like they underestimate just how dangerous Islamofacism is.
Posted by: Rob at August 10, 2006 07:08 AM (9DumO)
12
Maybe the word "stupid" was too harsh.
Let me change that to "misguided."
Posted by: Rob at August 10, 2006 07:10 AM (9DumO)
13
Annie - Don't buy into this 4GW theory. First, there is a substantial difference between a theory of wafare (like 4GW) and tactics in conducting warfare.
The generational model is an ineffective way to depict changes in warfare. Simple displacement rarely takes place and significant developments typically occur in parallel. 4GW type tactics as a way of waging war dates back to ancient history, and thus predates the so-called 2d and 3rd generations as described by 4GW theorists. Insurgents, guerrillas, and resistance fighters (pick your term du jour) figured large in many of the wars fought during the age of classical warfare. (The author briefly acknowledges this point and then lets all the other people in the article speak as if somehow today is different)
Increased dispersion and availability of technology, information, and finance brought about by globalization has given terrorist groups greater range of capabilities and access worldwide. Globalization seems to aid the
nonstate actor more than the state, but states still play a central role in the support or defeat of terrorist groups or insurgencies. Could AQ have grown without protection and support from the Taliban government? How effective is Hezbollah without a weak Lebanese government and Syrian/Iranian support? Hamas without a variety of Arab states?
Hamas, Hezbollah, and (to a lesser extent) Al Qaeda actually have integrated themselves into the social and political fabric of mainly Muslim societies worldwide. Hamas and Hezbollah have addressed the every day problems of the people because the existing State has not. Each has also become a powerful political party within their
respective governments. Hamas and Hezbollah
have turned their constituencies into effective weapons by creating strong social, political, and religious ties with them; in short, they
have become communal activists for their constituencies, which have, in turn, facilitated the construction and maintenance of substantial
financial and logistical networks and safe houses. This support then aids in the regeneration of the terrorist groups and allows states to network with them.
The one point Hammes has right is these conflicts are proxy wars due to larger state issues. Credible threats to take out the Syrian and Iranian regimes and credible assurances to bolster the Lebanese government would do far more to reduce Hezbollah than unfortunately what Israel can do at the moment.
Posted by: Col Steve at August 10, 2006 09:00 AM (pj2h7)
14
Seen in that light, Col. Steve, then one of the most criticized statements of President Bush "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" becomes one of the wisest things he's ever said.
Posted by: annika at August 10, 2006 02:14 PM (zAOEU)
15
"Credible threats to take out the Syrian and Iranian regimes and credible assurances to bolster the Lebanese government would do far more to reduce Hezbollah than unfortunately what Israel can do at the moment."
Yeah, what Col Steve said!
Posted by: Blu at August 16, 2006 11:15 AM (j8oa6)
Annie's Jeopardy, Round 20
Tuning Spork edges ahead with $1200; Leif is second with $1100; Shelly and Victor are tied with $700 each; D-Rod and Law Fairy have $500 each; Maximum Leader and KG have $300 each; Matt of Overtaken By Events and Trint have $200 each; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each. There is one Daily Double left.
The category is "Canadians You've Never Heard Of," for $400.
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
This skeptical piece is by Iraqi poetess, Amal al-Jubouri; written in 2002.
Veil Of Religions
If you are One
and your teachings are One
why did you inscribe our infancy in the Torah
and adorn our youth in the Gospels
only to erase all that in your final Book?
Why did you draw those of us who acknowledge your oneness into disagreement?
Why did you multiply in us, when you are the one and only One?
1
wat does url mean any ways? but i like to do poetry day so does my sister she used to but not anymore but i do annila!
Posted by: ashley at August 09, 2006 09:23 AM (AmqzF)
2
what did i do to make your sister not like it anymore?
URL is the website address of your blog, if you have one. for instance, my url is http://annika.mu.nu/
Posted by: annika at August 09, 2006 09:39 AM (zAOEU)
3
Shit, that's not bad, but I find it better not to question, but to seek understanding. Clearly, our existance is to bring Him pleasure and pain, and that is the substance of existance.
Posted by: Casca at August 09, 2006 02:48 PM (2gORp)
4
But it's free verse Casca?! (At least it is in translation.)
Posted by: annika at August 09, 2006 06:06 PM (qQD4Q)
And I can't believe I didn't recognize it right off the bat. The world "detail" threw me off. I assumed it was a small part of the cover. (I looked at that entire wheel on Led Zeppelin III, mwheh.)
