August 31, 2006
Guardsman Beat Up By Crazy Liberals
Near Tacoma, Washington...
The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is searching for five people who allegedly attacked a uniformed National Guardsmen walking along 138th Street in Parkland Tuesday afternoon.
The soldier was walking to a convenience store when a sport utility vehicle pulled up alongside him and the driver asked if he was in the military and if he had been in any action.
The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at the victim. Four other suspects exited the vehicle and knocked the soldier down, punching and kicking him.
“And during the assault the suspects called him a baby killer. At that point they got into the car and drove off and left him on the side of the road,” Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News.
The suspects were driving a black Chevy Suburban-type SUV.
“This is something new for us, we have not had military people assaulted because they were in the military or somebody's opposition to a war or whatever,” Troyer said.
The driver is described as a white male, 25-30 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, heavy build, short blond hair, wearing a black T-shirt and jeans, and armed with a handgun.
The vehicle's passengers are described as white males, 20-25 years old. Some of the suspects wore red baseball hats and red sweatshirts during the attack.
The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and charging of the individuals involved. Informants can call 253-591-5959, and callers will remain anonymous.
That is just sick. Every time some terrorist cell gets busted we hear no end of public service announcements intended to prevent "hate crimes" against muslims. They must be very effective, since I haven't heard of a single such "hate crime" since 9/11. Maybe we should be doing the same thing to protect our military in certain sections of the country.
h/t Beth at She Who Will Be Obeyed
Posted by: annika at
08:31 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.
1
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at September 01, 2006 05:45 AM (xHyDY)
2
Well of course, Kipling's is the classic response. It's hard to beat
Tommy Atkins. I, however, came to borrow from McMurtry. The gratitude of the American public is a mighty weak vessel to put much hope in.
Posted by: Casca at September 01, 2006 05:59 AM (Z2ndo)
3
Ummm...maybe not.
"Authorities are continuing to investigate a National Guardsman's claim that he was attacked earlier this week in Parkland and called "a baby killer."
A witness who came forward after the incident told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News a different story about what happened on Tuesday morning, but deputies said the witness later changed that story when they interviewed him.
The witness told police he saw several men in uniform beat a man in civilian clothes, but later changed his account to back the guardsman.
Investigators said the witness's stories were inconsistent with the guardsman's, and they are back to "square one" in the investigation."
Posted by: Hesiod at September 01, 2006 12:22 PM (pOIx0)
4
Annuka,
I don't know how the same, sane woman who wrote that heartfelt commerative piece could also pen the headline of this piece. (Although I do not see the parallel with apeasement of Adolf)
It sounds as if it is awfully early in the investigation to be jumping to conclusions. Seriously, ANnie, Liberals don't jump out of pickups and beat anything up. SOme weatherman left over from 1970 might but not those that followed the wing of the party led by HH and others. A group of PETA types might if he had his winter furs on or some Earth FIrsters might if he had a 36" Stihl in his hand but not Liberals of the CIndy SHehan ilk. THis guardsman might be muddying the waters and doing a bit of agit prop to rally the Right to go on a witch hunt or some other nonsence. Or maybe DOnald Segrity paid these guys 50 bucks to do the deed and cast aspersions as we run up to the midterms. The Republicans are running scared and losing control of the H & S and so forth is going to make for some real dirty tricks. Poll taxes are starting to flourish; I notice MO just got into the game (All passed by Republican state houses arguing protection against non-existant voter fraud) and there will be more to come. However, if all goes as it seems it will, We could see articles of impeachment by January.
Posted by: strawman at September 01, 2006 02:43 PM (tuy00)
5
"Poll taxes are starting to flourish."
Proof please. Nice race card, Straw. Sorry, it won't work in 2006 - especially because they only people that can still be legally discriminated against are white men.
"Non-existent voter fraud." You betchya. The only person you are fooling is yourself, Straw. Your party invented voter fraud and engages in it every single election.
BTW, the Dems have no chane of winning the Senate. They have a 50/50 chance of the House because the MSM will start really cranking up the anti-Bush machine. (Notice that the MSM had absolutely nothing to say about the Wilson - Plame fraud that they brought upon the nation?)
Posted by: Blu at September 01, 2006 03:55 PM (Wc+84)
6
Blu,
You don't think the placing of these document barrriers is a poll tax? Is there some constitutional requirement that you must drive or be able to lay hands on your birth certificate or that you have the bus fare to go to the county seat and then pay for the search or the copy? These are blantant impediments to voting that aim squarely at non-republican voters? There is no evidence of a single vote cast fraudantly in Georgia in the last twenty years. These programs are pure politics. Justice reviewed these laws, wrote a memo stating flatly that they are "likely to be descriminatory against African-Americans" and, of course, a Bush appointee said, "Nah, couldn't be".
All these photo ID laws will eventually be struck down, and that is understood by all, but the ONLY concern is that the mid terms take place first. It has nothing to do with voter fraud and you, my good man, know that.
Posted by: strawman at September 01, 2006 05:54 PM (tuy00)
7
Hi everyone, I am blogging on my neice's dell from Grand Isle La. about to head out on a fishing trip tomorrow.
Straw, you goddam left wing ass, yes of course left wingers do crap like that. The primary motivation of the left, since the time of Marx has always been hate. Hatred of the bourgeois, hatred of capitalism, hatred of religion etc.
Well I will drink another margarita to the spirit of freedom which does not inhabit your sorry ass at all.
Posted by: Kyle N at September 01, 2006 06:28 PM (0+QM1)
8
"You don't think the placing of these document barrriers is a poll tax?"
No, it is common sense. We have a right to vote. But there is nothing radical about asking people to prove who they are when we know that voter fraud occurs constantly - especially on the Left.
"Justice reviewed these laws, wrote a memo stating flatly that they are "likely to be descriminatory against African-Americans" and, of course, a Bush appointee said, 'Nah, couldn't be'."
How? We all have equal access to birth certificates and a driver license (provided it hasn't been taken from you or you have not ever tried to get one - in which you can easily obtain a State ID.) Basically, your and the Left's problem with these laws has absolutely nothing tp do with your supposed empathy for these poor minority people - it is all about political power. The Left has always been willing to usurp power no matter the cost. You all know damn well that there is rampant voter fraud on your side. The thing is that you don't care.
Posted by: Blu at September 01, 2006 09:30 PM (Wc+84)
9
Again I must concur totally with Blu on this. As a Georgia voter in perhaps one of the lily whitest counties in the state I can tell you that for years I have been asked to show I.D. at the polls. Whether this was actually required or simply helped expedite the process, I don't know.
I do know it takes far more to rent a movie at Blockbuster.
Posted by: Mike C. at September 02, 2006 06:56 AM (vFS/o)
10
Mike,
Blockbuster. Cashing a check. Using a credit card anyplace. The list goes on and on.
The arguments against showing a vaild ID are ALL ludicrous. Of course, the Left will never admit that they want as many people voting regardless of citizenship status. I believe that many of these people don't believe in the sovreignty of the U.S. and, futhermore, that "citizenship" should be bestowed on anybody that manages to sneak across our border. So, legal or illegal it makes no difference to these people. Heck, some of these idiots think that the murderers and rapists sitting in our jails should have the right to vote as well. We need not get into how many dead people manage somehow to vote Democrat each year.
Posted by: Blu at September 02, 2006 11:31 AM (Wc+84)
11
Blu,
SOmetimes you are an insufferable ass. None of what you argue is true. And don't confuse presenting ID with the NEw laws. What you present at Blockbuster, or the bank, or the supermarket will not work anymore at the poling station. They have made it harder and with only one purpose in mind;Reduce democratic voters. It is all about poverty and hardship. You and Kyle and Mike are completely dissengenuous when you say stuoid shit like "we all have equall access to our records". We don't and you fucking well know it. As for dead people voting in Georgia:Apocrahphyl! According to the Republican sec. of state. Just bad record keeping. But the R lives on lies and just keeps telling them until they forget the truth. Explain the FL felon list to me Blu?
Yup, Kyle, thanks for the history lesson, I think you've been drinkin margarita's non stop since birth.
Posted by: strawman at September 02, 2006 12:06 PM (tuy00)
12
So, just for the record, Straw. You oppose the idea of proving that you are who you say you are, a registered voter and a US citizen, when going to vote. It is a simple question. The only reason to oppose this is because you want people to vote who should not be voting. Period.
Posted by: Blu at September 02, 2006 01:26 PM (Wc+84)
13
Blu,
What does "period" mean? You make the most assine inference from what I wrote and then you say "Period'? I don't get it.
If I believed you thought for a moment that the difference between the R and the Dem's is that one only wishes to see fairness in elections and and the other strives for the right to let dogs and meerkats vote I would have stopped talking to you months ago. You don't believe it yet the words still come. Try a little honesty once and a while.
Posted by: strawman at September 03, 2006 11:12 AM (tuy00)
14
Honesty: I believe that Reps don't want people voting who ought not be voting due to their citizenship status - this is partly due to ethics and partly due to the fact that fradulent voting is more likley to benefit Democrats. Democrats want people to vote without the benefit of ID because they know that fradulent votes will likely benefit them. There those like you - I'll take you at your word - that feel like showing an ID is some sort of undue burden that unequally falls on minorities. So, not requiring an ID soothes your conscience by (1) lifting that "burden" and (2)erasing any ethical consequences related to fradulent voting because if nobody has to prove who they are then nobody knows for certain who is or is not a legal voter.
More honesty: Reps prefer a lower turnout because that usually benefits our side as our voters are generally more reliable than yours.
Personally, I believe there should be no situation where a person can vote without legal photo ID.
All of this I honestly believe.
Posted by: Blu at September 03, 2006 12:12 PM (Wc+84)
15
Let's see, I'm trying to remember what the Strawman wanted from the Wizard of Oz.
Oh, yeah. Well, it's clear he never got it.
Posted by: shelly at September 03, 2006 02:22 PM (ZGpMS)
16
Blu,
(Shelly, what I wanted and have had in recent times is not to have unctuous selfsatisified smelts like yourself nipping at my heels.)
Not lets get this straight Blu, because I think there is a large flaw in all of this and that is your assumption that the dem's wish people to vote without showing some form of ID. This is the strawman of this argument that you seem to have swallowed. NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY is suggesting that showing an ID is intrusive and some sort of civil liberties violation nor is anybody suggesting that a situation should be advanced where the possiblity of those not permitted to vote should be enhanced. NOBODY.
What is at stake is that people who HAVE the right to vote are having impediments put in their path. This is ALL that THIS IS ABOUT. Impediments to LEGAL voters who also are to a greater extent likely to vote democrtatic because they are african-americans or are poor.
Blu, get a grip.
There are many forms of ID. 40 some states are using them without a problem. People who may not drive may have credit cards, picture ID.s from their supermarket chain or video store, or their place of employment (lockeed martin, the Post office, McDonalds,) These people cannot register with this ID BECAUSE the new law prohibits registering unless you have a DL or this NEWLY created ID issued by the state at a few locations. Bus fare, gas for your car, the 10.00 fee for the ID and having access to a prima facia form of ID are all required for this new ID to be issued. Blu, do birth certificates have a picture on them? So what the fuck good is the new ID if it is based on bullshit? IT is no good is the point but it will cause thousands in many states to be disenfranchised and is part of a cynical and most likely illegal political strategy.
Your honesty is somewhat refreshing as far as it goes. You know that in this country the prevalence of people voting who shold not be is completely insignificant and that, especially in the SOuth the disenfranchisement of significant numbers is and has historically been significant.
Posted by: strawman at September 03, 2006 03:17 PM (tuy00)
17
strawman,
If someone has a store card from Sears and they didn't need to produce a legitimate ID in order to obtain it, then what good is it for positive ID at the polling place?
"Um, yeah... I'd like a library card, please? My name... and no ID required? Uh... Joey Joe-Joe Junior Shabadoo. Yeah, that's the ticket..."
And this ID is good enough, in your estimation, for vote casting? So any shmoe can collect various cheesy IDs for his friends and relatives and vote all day long. And, even if he's caught, there's no way to undo the damage since votes are cast anonymously.
A valid state photo ID is a common sense requirement. Will it prevent me -- with my Right to vote -- from casting a ballot if I show up without my wallet? Yep. So what? I have a Right to vote, but not a Right to commit vote fraud.
Would it allay your fear of a "poll tax" if all eligible voters who do not currently have a state-issued photo ID were issued one F.O.C.?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 03, 2006 06:58 PM (3ENL4)
18
Respectfully Straw I must take issue regarding the typical reference to the 'south' in your comments. I'm not a southerner by birth and when I moved to the Atlanta area in the early seventies you could justifiably make the case that discrimination still prevailed. If I'm not mistaken even the great Carter ran first on a segregationist platform even if no one came right out and said it. (back in his statewide days)
Now Atlanta is a great city run by minorities, some of whom would likely take offense at the notion that they aren't smart or wealthy enough to aquire the requisite I.D. for voting. Granted the rest of the state is now largely Republican but there's more to this than just politics. (When the Dems were in power they had their own
tricks like gerimandered districts that crisscrossed the state following black population)
If there were no other reason the illegal imigrant
situation would be enough in my opinion. And this conflicts with my setiment that illegals should have driver's lisenses so that they are insured, in which case I'd be happy to get a new voter I.D.
I will admit I am not purely democratic by any stretch. I would prefer it if state assemblies still elected U.S. senators and I've even entertained the idea (not too seriously) that
only property owners should vote, but please- let's keep that our little secret.
Posted by: Mike C. at September 03, 2006 07:09 PM (vFS/o)
19
In keeping with this topic, I'm certain you will all be excited to hear that liberals in TN and MD are doing their best to make certain that ex-Felons - yes, murderers and rapist - are allowed to vote immediately upon release. The forces behind this push are the usual suspects:
The NAA(L)CP and the very un-American ACLU. Well, at least they are correct about one thing: The odds are that most ex-felons are Democrats.
Posted by: Blu at September 05, 2006 09:39 AM (j8oa6)
20
Blu,
How clever.
But, those who think black leaders or just plain folk will be offended that part of the augment against State issued ID's is poverty are nuts. They know better than anyone how their people have systematically been coerced away from the polling booth. They see the Georgia law for what it is-more of the same white bullshit fucking with their rights. Show mw a black legislator in Georgia that voted for the bill, please?
I don't deny dem's have gerrymandered and I hate it. It is a process that can, not always, lead to the dimishment of representative government. What is the statistic about the actual number of seats in congress that are really ever in play? 10% 15%?
Furthermore, all you fraud advocates: what would have stopped anybody in the past, legal or illegal from getting multiple id's and voting all day long? Everybody on your side keeps spouting this horse shit about multiple voting yet there is NO, I repeat NO documentation to support the argument that it is currently (last 25 years) a problem. (Please don't cite an isolated case in Idaho; we are talking about numbers that have even the slightest significance)
What about my previous argument that possession of a birth certificate is also meaningless if you want to identify someone? It has no picture, fingerprints, nothing linking it to the person in possession of the doc with the person identified on the document.
So I still maintain that the whole thing is bullshit. Just another attempt by the R to separate voters who do not support their candidates from the booth.
As for felons voting, Blu, that is a decision of State legislators. If a person has done the time presumably society is content and the punishment for their crime is complete. Why give them drivers licenses or let them collect social security, or use a public library, or ride a bus? Why do you pick on voting as the punishment that endures the test of time? Why let them out of prison at all?
Posted by: strawman at September 05, 2006 12:31 PM (tuy00)
21
"They see the Georgia law for what it is-more of the same white bullshit fucking with their rights. Show mw a black legislator in Georgia that voted for the bill, please?"
I don't give two shits what any black legislator thinks about this issue. The majority of black Dem legislators I see on C-SPAN or cable sound like racists and would like us to believe that "the man" is out to get them 24/7. (Or how about listening to the bile that comes from Julian Bond's lips any day of the week.) You see, Straw, that's how they keep their jobs. God forbid any of these race-baiters would have to work for a living. You see the "black leaders" go after Cosby for daring the speak truth? Or how about the absolute beating Juan Williams is taking for suggesting that, oh I don't know, black kids learn to speak English?
Straw, did you come of age in that Golden Era of the 60's? I have no clue of your age, but just in case you've forgotten the year is 2006. Nobody is getting lynched -well, except of course for the high tech lynchings that occur to any black conservative who speaks truth to Black Power -; the fire hoses are not being turned on anybody; and the KKK is likened to dog excrement by 99.999% of Americans. I'm sick of whiny fucking minorities; but, I'm infinitely more sick and tired of their white, guilt-trippin', forever livin' in the 60's colleagues. Get over it. But, mostly, get over yourselves and your annoying self-righteousness. The problems of the black community are their own and won't be solved by guilty white liberals and black race baiters.
"Whitey" ain't keeping nobody down, yo.
Posted by: Blu at September 05, 2006 03:40 PM (TVuWZ)
22
p.s.
"Why do you pick on voting as the punishment that endures the test of time? Why let them out of prison at all?"
I actually agree with you on this, Straw. As much as the idea of a violent felon voting disturbs me, I do think that a person who has done his time should be free to exercise his right to vote. I just think it is interesting how transparent and frankly ironic it is. The ACLU and the NAACP don't care about these people. They are just peasants and pawns in their eyes. It's all about political power - that is what always drives the Left. They know two things: most felons are black and most blacks are Democrats. It's that simple. If most of these felons were white, let me assure you that these two groups would not be pounding the pavement making sure these guys (and gals) could vote.
Posted by: Blu at September 05, 2006 03:59 PM (TVuWZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 48
Peter's vacation hits a snag...
Posted by: annika at
08:09 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This is scary. That scene looked familiar. I think I will go have another beer.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 31, 2006 09:07 PM (rUyw4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jeopardy With Annika, Round 30
The penultimate round. (I love using using the word penultimate in a sentence. There, I did it twice.) This means that after this round, we move on to Final Jeopardy!
Leif is leading the pack with $1900; D-Rod and Tuning Spork are tied with $1500; Shelly has $1000; Victor has $700; Law Fairy has $500; Maximum Leader, KG, Blu and Kevin Kim have $300 each; Matt of Overtaken By Events and Trint have $200 each; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each.
The category is "Dicks," for $100.
Posted by: annika at
07:24 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Bzzzzz.
Who is Hugo Chavez.
Posted by: d-rod at August 31, 2006 07:31 AM (hCh7a)
2
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt.......!
Who is his brother, Raul Castro?
And, what, no Double Jeopardy round?!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 31, 2006 07:46 AM (dAxz/)
3
Dang!
Spork, I think she's getting sick of this shit.
Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2006 08:05 AM (L3qPK)
4
BOOM! Shake-shake da ROOM!
(That was my buzzer.)
WHO IS JANET RENO (and her clitoris)?
Now that I've correctly answered the question, I'll take 'Care of Your Persistent Yeast Problem' for $1000.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at August 31, 2006 10:43 AM (1PcL3)
5
BAHH! I KNEW that one! And there doesn't appear to be any technicality on which I can steal it away this time.
Posted by: Trint at August 31, 2006 11:28 AM (SlSdA)
6
That's funny Kev. It doesn't look like any kind of clitoris that I've ever seen. It looks like a... oh yeah. Kinda removes all doubt.
Posted by: Casca at August 31, 2006 04:31 PM (2gORp)
7
I think Kev was insinuating something.... :#
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 31, 2006 05:12 PM (dAxz/)
8
Kevin:
Only a certified weirdo, off his meds, would think of Janet Reno's clitoris in any kind of a sexual discussion.
You need some serious help. Take your meds.
Posted by: shelly at August 31, 2006 06:10 PM (ZGpMS)
Posted by: annika at August 31, 2006 07:23 PM (qQD4Q)
10
Kevin, I got the joke, and it was freakin' HILARIOUS.
The point is that's her "clitoris." As in, her clitoris is actually a penis. As in, she's not really a woman.
shelly, I don't think Kevin's the one who insinuated anything sexual about it...
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 31, 2006 07:59 PM (954g7)
11
So, I guess it's true about you guys always sticking together.
Posted by: shelly at August 31, 2006 08:05 PM (ZGpMS)
12
Well, I thought it was a trick question. I was convinced that the mystery man was Che, and he was giving Castro this sage advice, "Walk softly and carry a big dick." That would be "concealed carry" in Cuba.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 31, 2006 08:54 PM (rUyw4)
13
Thanks for clearing that up LF. And a pox on any who'd dispute your unrivaled expertise on genitalia.
Posted by: Casca at August 31, 2006 08:55 PM (2gORp)
14
Ahhh, casca, I see the tales of my expertise have reached all the way to... wherever you are.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 31, 2006 09:09 PM (954g7)
15
Law Fairy's correct interpretation of my humor earns her control of the board.
At least SOMEbody has their finger on the frenulum of the Zeitgeist.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 01, 2006 05:34 AM (TDwc6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 30, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 47
Posted by: annika at
09:49 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Peter Pumpkin scores some serious babes, except for Whoopi Goldberg.
*shudder*
Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2006 08:07 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SOCOM - Combined Asault
Here's
a preview of the upcoming Playstation 2 release, SOCOM - Combined Asault. It looks pretty cool, except for the annoying music track.
I'm so glad I don't have a video game console. Of course, if my boyfriend happens to read this, I do accept early Christmas gifts.
Posted by: annika at
09:05 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So this boyfriend knows about the blog?
Must be serious.
Posted by: Matt at August 31, 2006 01:48 PM (10G2T)
2
I used to own the first SOCOM, but I thought the single-player (off-line) campaign was dull.
I'm sure the sequels are probably better, but those games are best played online against multiple human players.
Posted by: reagan80 at September 01, 2006 08:07 AM (LmFgs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ahmadi-Nejad Kisses German Butt
Unless you're reading
Darleen's Place or
Dr. Sanity and a select few other sources of important information, you probably haven't heard about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad's recent letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. That's okay, I understand that there are
far more critical events taking place in the world.
Let me break it down for you.
Ahmadi-Nejad tried to kiss up to the German Chancellor with an appeal to her religious convictions (Chancellor Merkel, unlike 49% of her countrymen and women, believes in God); flattery over Germany's achievements in the arts and sciences; and by patronizing her as a woman with a woman's unique gifts.
The purpose of the letter? To enlist Germany as an ally against the evil U.S.-Zionist worldwide conspiracy. You don't have to read between the lines to realize that Ahmadi-Nejad's impression of the German zeitgeist was probably formed by a close reading of Mein Kampf. He still thinks they're Nazis at heart, and therefore potential friends of Islamofascism.
If you take the middle third of the rambling missive (containing the most anti-semitic passages) and replace the universally accepted euphemism "zionist" with the word he really meant, "jew," it looks like the letter could have been written by Adolf himself.
Sixty years have passed since the end of the war. But, regrettably the entire world and some nations in particular are still facing its consequences. Even now the conduct of some bullying powers and power-seeking and aggressive groups is the conduct of victors with the vanquished.
The extortion and blackmail continue, and people are not allowed to think about or even question the source of this extortion, otherwise they face imprisonment. When will this situation end? Sixty years, one hundred years or one thousand years, when? I am sorry to remind you that today the perpetual claimants against the great people of Germany are the bullying powers and the [jew]s that founded the Al-Qods Occupying Regime [i.e. Israel] with the force of bayonets in the Middle East.
The Honorable Chancellor
I have no intention of arguing about the Holocaust. But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them. Their purpose has been to weaken their morale and their inspiration in order to obstruct their progress and power. In addition to the people of Germany, the peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress. The collective conscience of the world is indignant over the daily atrocities by the [jew] occupiers, destruction of homes and farms, killing of children, assassinations and bombardments.
Excellency, you have seen that the [jew] government does not even tolerate a government elected by the Palestinian people, and over and over again has demonstrated that it recognizes no limit in attacking the neighboring countries.
The question is why did the victors of the war, especially England that had apparently such a strong sense of responsibility toward the survivors of the Holocaust not allow them to settle in their territory. Why did they force them to migrate to other people's land by launching a wave of anti-Semitism? Using the excuse for the settlement of the survivors of the Holocaust, they encouraged the Jews worldwide to migrate and today a large part of the inhabitants of the occupied territories are non-European Jews. If tyranny and killing is condemned in one part of the world, can we acquiesce and go along with tyranny, killing, occupation and assassinations in another part of the world simply in order to redress the past wrongs?
Excellency
We need to ask ourselves that for what purposes the millions of dollars that the [jew]s receive from the treasury of some Western countries are spent for. Are they used for the promotion of peace and the well-being of the people? Or are they used for waging war against Palestinians and the neighboring countries. Are the nuclear arsenals of Israel intended to be used in defense of the survivors of the Holocaust or as a permanent thereat against nations of the region and as an instrument of coercion, and possibly to defend the interests of certain circles of power in the Western countries.
Regrettably, the influence of the [jew]s in the economy, media and some centers of political power has endangered interests of the European nations and has robbed them of many opportunities. The main alibi for this approach is the extortion they exact from the Holocaust.
One can imagine what standing some European countries could have had and what global role they could have played, if it had not been for this sixty-year old imposition.
I believe we both share the view that the flourishing of nations and their role are directly related to freedom and sense of pride.
Fortunately, with all the pressures and limitations, the great nation of Germany has been able to take great strides toward advancement and has become a major economic powerhouse in Europe that also seeks to play a more effective role in international interactions. But just imagine where Germany would be today in terms of its eminence among the freedom-loving nations, Muslims of the world and peoples of Europe, if such a situation did not exist and the governments in power in Germany had said no to the extortions by the [jew]s and had not supported the greatest enemy of mankind.
"The greatest enemy of mankind." That is just scary.
The man is so clueless about the progress of history, that he actually believes he can win Germany to his side by appealing to a wounded national pride that he imagines the Germans still feel. Germany has changed since 1945, not always for the better. But if it retains any nationalistic tendencies, it's people like Ahmadi-Nejad who need to worry. No, if Germany ends up aligning itself with Iran, it will be the pacifists and appeasers who'll be responsible for that decision.
I recommend reading the entire letter. Ahmadi-Nejad tries so hard to sound worldly and intellectual, but he just comes off as a poseur trying too hard to make friends. He and Hugo Chavez could form their own Axis of Smarmy.
Posted by: annika at
07:14 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1082 words, total size 7 kb.
1
This is what comes with lacking the will to lead in this world. Time was when we would squeeze third world midgits, and make them go away. Now we have to sweat the hand-wringing of the weak-kneed amongst us.
Posted by: Casca at August 30, 2006 10:32 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
What do you think about when you go for a walk? How does the mind work? It wanders along with your feet. The things you see along the path prompt your thoughts and vice versa. The transitions are invisible, unless you're paying attention, like today's poet. When you are ready, sometime today, take a walk with A.R. Ammons around Corsons Inlet. The poem is from 1965.
more...
Posted by: annika at
09:12 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 7 kb.
1
I admire his work. It is a pity A.R. Ammons died (in 2001, it seems).
Posted by: Brenda at August 30, 2006 11:22 AM (vcUSw)
2
I like:
broken down, transferred through membranes
to strengthen larger orders: but in the large view, no
lines or changeless shapes: the working in and out, together
and against, of millions of events: this,
so that I make
no form of
formlessness:
Posted by: Scof at August 30, 2006 12:14 PM (a3fqn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 29, 2006
Annika's Jeopardy, Round 29
Leif is leading the pack with $1900; D-Rod and Tuning Spork are tied with $1500; Shelly has $1000; Victor has $700; Law Fairy has $500; Maximum Leader, KG and Blu 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," for $300.
Posted by: annika at
09:13 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Fssssssssssssssssttt
(oh, yeah-- BZZZT)
Who is Spinal Tap (assuming the question has to refer to the "they" in your clue)?
or--
What is "The Black Album" (in reference to the alternative to the original concept for "Smell the Glove")?
Harry Enos
Posted by: Kevin Kim at August 30, 2006 09:27 AM (1PcL3)
2
Bzzt!
What is a naked, greased woman on all fours with a leash around her neck with a man pressing a black glove into her face to smell?
Posted by: Leif at August 30, 2006 09:54 AM (M5Jcv)
3
An awesome answer would've really been, "None. None more black."
Posted by: Leif at August 30, 2006 10:06 AM (M5Jcv)
4
Leif, and to think I once argued that modernity has killed romance...
lol
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 30, 2006 10:52 AM (XUsiG)
5
Bzzzzzzzzzt.....!
What is "Smell The Glove" by Spinal Tap?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 30, 2006 04:45 PM (5M9zF)
6
Big Hominid makes an appearance, yay! i guess it must have been the category title which drew you out of hiding!
; )
Kevin has the correct response. Since there's only one clue left, control of the board is not applicable. the last clue will be in the category "Dicks" for $100.
Posted by: annika at August 30, 2006 08:35 PM (qQD4Q)
7
Kevin, you weirdo.
You are still weird, aren't you?
Posted by: shelly at August 30, 2006 09:02 PM (ZGpMS)
8
It's a good thing I don't have to choose: I wouldn't have wanted to declare, in my best Peter O'Toole voice:
"Annika, I shall take 'dicks' for one hundred dollars, please!"
It's the singular talent of all beautiful women that they can make a man beg for what he already has.
This game moves on into Double Jeopardy now, right?
I'm not planning on competing; I simply wandered in and saw a question I could answer. I might stick around if I see categories like "Theologies of Religious Pluralism" or "Hua-yen Metaphysics," along with clues like:
1. He's the patriarch who claimed there was no mirror, and nothing on which the dust could settle.
2. His 2002 book described a holographic model of religious pluralism.
3. She's the world-famous Islam expert who sounds suspiciously like Julia Child.
4. He is the most famous proponent of the "convergent" model of religious pluralism.
5. A Sankskrit word that translates roughly as "skillful/appropriate/expedient means."
6. The cosmic law to which, according to Buddhists and many Hindus, even the Judeo-Christian God is subject.
7. The logical principle which, according to thinkers like Aquinas and countless theistic analytical philosophers, even the Judeo-Christian God cannot defy.
8. In Chinese Buddhism, "enlightenment" is referred to as "attaining the Tao," a decidedly different concept from this, the original Sanksrit/Pali term.
Shelly, I'm still weird.
And while I'm weirding, let me throw out some possible category names for Double Jeopardy.
Women and Multiples
Why We Love Pigeons
Spit or Swallow
Sex in the Middle Ages
Cock Rings of Feudal Japan
Churchill's Blood Alcohol Content
Giuliani in '08
Fundamentalist Bloopers
Condi's Suitors
Democrats and Star Trek
Republicans and Lord of the Rings
Sikh and Twisted
Bush or No Bush?
The Mystery of Bruce Campbell
Awesome Fight Scenes
Random Suburban Shit
Hoffa's Legacy
Proper English
Bukowski vs. Carlin
Tom Cruise's Brain and Katie Holmes's Uterus
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at August 31, 2006 03:16 AM (TDwc6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fake But Accurate
The professor takes a break from his endless "Porkbuster" updates to link to this bit of
CBS photoshoppery.
I guess Adnan Hajj found a new job. That was quick.
Posted by: annika at
02:02 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I will be forever baffled by the fact that somebody so obviously stupid and nescient - think Barbara Boxer dumb - is the face of a network.
Posted by: Blu at August 29, 2006 02:42 PM (8M2kt)
2
lol, I wonder which pic she has on myspace? No wonder we've become a nation of cynics.
Posted by: Casca at August 29, 2006 04:50 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: annika at August 29, 2006 05:29 PM (qQD4Q)
4
She may have no friends, but someone is feeding her, day and night.
What a porker!
Posted by: shelly at August 29, 2006 06:52 PM (ZGpMS)
5
Aw, come on! She may have been Photoshopped by CBS and is a liberal moron, but she's still pretty attractive for 49 years old. I doubt she scours the internets for her pictures and demands they be modified to make her look better.
Posted by: Blake at August 29, 2006 09:38 PM (1B44J)
6
I'm going on the photoshop diet starting tomorrow!
Posted by: TBinSTL at August 29, 2006 10:33 PM (bYmT0)
7
HEE HEE Perky, or is that Porky Katie Couric?
Well they say that TV does add about 30 lbs.
Posted by: k at August 30, 2006 02:54 AM (cdHJ6)
8
Here you go:
http://tinyurl.com/ggxpz
Posted by: Blake at August 30, 2006 12:19 PM (1B44J)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Katherine Harris
I don't really know much about the Florida Senate race, beyond the widely reported comments of Katherine Harris. And you all know how I feel about the so-called "separation" of church and state. But I just got done listening to Medved's interview with Harris on the radio, and even Medved, a sympathetic questioner, couldn't prevent her from coming off as a complete idiot.
Well hell, she's an embarassment, but why should the Democrats have a monopoly on bubbleheads in Congress?
Posted by: annika at
01:24 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This woman is a train wreck. If she had any brains or stones in 2000, she'd have stepped on the Dade County Board of Elections, and kept the SCOTUS out of it. She was the fucking Sec of State, and arbiter of election law in FL!
That she is the Rep Candidate for Senate says alot about the party down there. Worst of all, she's going to end up a tragic, broke, loser, and cost us the seat.
Posted by: Casca at August 29, 2006 01:46 PM (Z2ndo)
2
Yup she is everything you said she is, but that ole gal got a nice set of cans.
Posted by: kyle8 at August 29, 2006 02:02 PM (ZkbfM)
3
She's a total wackjob. Given the lack of a primary runnoff here in Florida, I still believe there's an outside possibility one of her relatively unknown primary opponents could beat her: it would probably require Charlie Crist, the likely gubernatorial nominee, to endorse one of them so that anti-Harris votes don't split three ways.
Posted by: Dave J at August 29, 2006 03:11 PM (SKqxt)
4
When is the primary?
As for her cans, at least she won't go hungry.
Posted by: Casca at August 29, 2006 04:52 PM (2gORp)
5
The primary's Tuesday which, yes, I know means what I wrote above is pretty much just wishful thinking.
Posted by: Dave J at August 29, 2006 05:02 PM (SKqxt)
6
I listened to her primary opponent on Medved's show earlier in the week. He certainly wasn't an idiot, but he didn't blow me away either. We're gonna lose that seat.
And, yeah, she's got great tits.
Posted by: Blu at August 29, 2006 06:03 PM (8M2kt)
7
Bush's Gift Horse has Hoof in Mouth, again!
Hello Annika and all,
This gets to the root of the problem of deluded and greedy politicians who seek to impose their own ignorance on millions of others. Because of our reliance on money, politics, and religion, we are teetering on the verge of worldwide disaster. Idiots like Ms. Harris couldn't care less about everyone else as long as they get their hands on wealth and power, even if it means
pretending to serve the Creator. It is long past time that people stand up for truth and justice and give these scoundrels their due.
Read the rest here...
Peace...
Posted by: Seven Star Hand at August 30, 2006 09:31 AM (jZx3j)
8
Katherine Harris may be foolish... you sir are industriously so.
Posted by: Casca at August 30, 2006 11:46 AM (Z2ndo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
This Time The Paparazzi Have Gone Too Far!
Barbie's honeymoon pictures. [NSFW]
Which begs the question, if Barbie and Ken broke up, what was she doing with Ken on her honeymoon? And where was G.I. Joe?
Posted by: annika at
07:32 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
1
She must use a tanning bed.
Posted by: Casca at August 29, 2006 10:43 AM (Z2ndo)
2
Yeah but... They got no pole and no hole!
Posted by: kyle8 at August 29, 2006 02:04 PM (ZkbfM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 28, 2006
Jeopardy With Annika, Round 28
D-Rod, Tuning Spork, and Leif are tied for the lead with $1500; Shelly has $1000; Victor has $700; Law Fairy has $500; Maximum Leader, KG and Blu have $300 each; Matt of Overtaken By Events and Trint have $200 each; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each.
The category is "Vexatious Vexillology," for $400.
Posted by: annika at
08:57 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Bzzt!
What is seven rows of gold fleurs-de-lis, alternating seven and six fleurs long, on a white background?
Posted by: Leif at August 28, 2006 09:07 PM (M5Jcv)
2
Bzzzzzzzzzzt.....!
What is the royal white flag?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 28, 2006 09:59 PM (wcXuw)
3
Bzz!
What is three vertical stripes of solid color, red, white and blue, in that order, with red on the left?
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 28, 2006 11:21 PM (954g7)
4
Since others have already got it, I won't bother with guessing the Bourbon white standard again; instead, I'll just be pedantic and point out that the tricolor in Law Fairy's answer, the flag of the French Republic in continuous use since Louis-Phillipe's July Revolution of 1830, actually has the blue stripe on the hoist, not the other way other way around.
Posted by: Dave J at August 28, 2006 11:31 PM (SKqxt)
5
But, that wasn't Law Fairy. That was The Law Fairy.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 28, 2006 11:41 PM (wcXuw)
6
Now, if the question had been "Which flag flies most in France?" the answer could have been shortened by leaving off the fleurs de lys.
Wait until they surrender to Hizbollah. That'll teach 'em.
Posted by: shelly at August 29, 2006 04:02 AM (ZGpMS)
7
Dave, yes, but from 1790 to 1794 they were reversed. I was just throwing it out there as a random guess. I figured the way it is now was too obvious/easy.
Spork, you mock, but we'll see how you feel when one of annika's commenters starts pretending to be *you*...
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 29, 2006 05:51 AM (954g7)
8
Yeah, Spork! Take THAT!!!
Posted by: The Law Fairie at August 29, 2006 06:56 AM (ZGpMS)
Posted by: annika at August 29, 2006 07:20 AM (qQD4Q)
10
Sweet! Worthless knowledge comes out on top again.
Let's finish Anal Bum Covers.
Posted by: Leif at August 29, 2006 07:52 AM (M5Jcv)
11
Yes, The Law Fairy, but the Restoration wasn't 1790-94. It was 1814-15 and then after the Hundred Days from 1815-1830.
The Count of Chambord, as the legitmist pretender, only failed to become King Charles XI in 1871 because he refused to accept the tricolor. And France has been a republic (of sorts) ever since.
Posted by: Dave J at August 29, 2006 08:09 AM (SKqxt)
12
Henri V, I mean. Charles, Phillipe, Louis, whatever. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at August 29, 2006 08:24 AM (SKqxt)
13
I know that wasn't the restoration... but the clue said "La Restauration" which may have been a coy way of saying... I dunno, something.
Hey, just trying to think creatively...
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 29, 2006 10:01 AM (XUsiG)
14
your are confusing restorations. there was the one in england, and there was the one in france, called the bourbon restoration, after Napoleon's abdication from roughly 1814 to 1830, (with a short interruption during napoleon's 100 days.)
Posted by: annika at August 29, 2006 10:52 AM (zAOEU)
15
oops, sorry, i see Dave J already gave the history lesson, plus the english restoration was in the 1600s
Posted by: annika at August 29, 2006 10:56 AM (zAOEU)
16
Allez, ma petit. L'heuruse attende.
Posted by: shelly at August 29, 2006 06:48 PM (ZGpMS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hurricane Katrina Anniversary
Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall on the Gulf Coast. Lots of bloggers are remembering the event, and I just want to point to two ways it touched my life.
The first was definitely the proudest moment for me as a blogger. This whole exercise in semi-regular public writing is pretty ridiculous most of the time. But last September I can honestly say we made a difference. By we, I mean you, the very generous visitors to annika's journal who pledged $2,250 for hurricane relief.
You folks really deserve congratulations, because you showed how beautiful you are. We outdid some real big time blogs,* as you can see from the final list. Special thanks to Shelly who added a lot of cheerleading and cajoling to his characteristic generosity last year.
The second thing was that I bought a gun and started a disaster preparedness kit. Even though some of the horror stories turned out to be exagerrated, what did happen was still pretty horrible. And it could happen anywhere. I grew up in Oakland and have witnessed my share of natural disasters, so I have no excuse not to be prepared. The one lesson we should all take from Katrina is that each one if us is responsible for his or her own safety. Don't ever count on the government to do it for you, it's your job, and they're not very good at it.
_______________
* I didn't mention it at the time, because I thought it in bad taste (and maybe it still is) but I was really amazed at the sharp political division between the bloggers who joined in the fundraising and those who stood on the sidelines.
I did some informal research during the drive. I checked the biggies, like Kos etc, and they were on the ball. But I was curious about the smaller fish, so I started going down the list of the blogs listed as members of the League of Liberals. I actually went through the whole blogroll. Of those blogs that were still active, I was disappointed to see that the vast majority had absolutely no link to any charitable organization. That was despite the fact that most were not shy in hurling criticism at the administration (deserved) or at conservatives in general (undeserved). I seem to remember that there were only two blogs that had any charity hyperlinks. One of them put it up only after I left a scathing comment. And then it was to PETA or some sort of animal rescue org.
I acknowledge that my point is probably unfair. How do I know what these people donated in private? But the contrast between the left and right sides of the blogosphere back then really surprised me, and I think of it as kind of a watershed moment.
Posted by: annika at
08:11 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Zack at August 29, 2006 01:54 AM (50VFA)
2
IIRC, about one-fifth of N.O. cops walked off the job right after Katrina hit. Some of them were even looting.
Yeah, it would be a good idea to prepare for anarchy and arm oneself.
Posted by: reagan80 at August 29, 2006 09:17 AM (iyq/M)
3
Just wondering how much water can any gun bail?
The devestation of Katrina was/is much greater than 9/11..
My wife and I went to NOLA in June to visit her neice...
Ya know how traffic slows on our commute because drivers want to see some fender bender? That delay bothers us more than this entire nation turning our back on what happend a year ago.
Our initial response as a nation to 9/11 was my proudest moment as an American. Our response to Katrina made me ashamed.
Posted by: nogo postal at August 29, 2006 02:27 PM (9KUOP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And Greta Van Susternerneren Wept
So big surprise here . . .
John Mark Karr's DNA did not match. I guess it's back to Aruba for Greta.
And I suppose the only mystery left in the JBR case is why Boulder's DA didn't just wait until the tests came back before they spent all that money - only to find out what everybody with a brain and two ears already knew.
Posted by: annika at
01:57 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Can we give this creep the death penalty for making us relive all the Jon Benet hype all over again?
Posted by: kyle8 at August 28, 2006 03:09 PM (jJ1x8)
2
Seems she was out to "Save The Children". Now who amongst us has not had a pervert teacher?
Posted by: Casca at August 28, 2006 03:34 PM (2gORp)
3
Methinks she was hoping for the cushy 'on location' trial assignment in Boulder just in time for that 30 inches of fresh powder. Heck, she and Nancy Grace could rent a condo.
stik
Posted by: stiknstein at August 28, 2006 05:56 PM (NJIPi)
Posted by: Mike C. at August 28, 2006 07:21 PM (vFS/o)
5
Methinks it be a year for public suicide by D.A.'s. First that Yahoo at Duke, and now this bumpkin.
Whatever happened to just plain old law and order?
Posted by: shelly at August 28, 2006 07:33 PM (ZGpMS)
6
Well, just look at that weirdo. He is definitely guilty of soemthing.
Ship him back to Northern California and he can serve his sentence there while we dig up some other shit that will stick.
Posted by: shelly at August 28, 2006 07:36 PM (ZGpMS)
7
"Well, just look at that weirdo. He is definitely guilty of soemthing."
Shit Shelly, that's what the cops always say.
Then again, in my life I've crossed paths with a handful of fellows who go abroad to teach. I wouldn't let one of them out of my sight in any circumstance.
Posted by: Casca at August 28, 2006 08:27 PM (2gORp)
8
Yep. And, they are always right. Their best tool is JDLQR. The courts disapprove, but they use it anyway.
Me, I'm for protecting my ass. Profile aways, guys.
Posted by: shelly at August 29, 2006 05:50 AM (ZGpMS)
9
I think you might be a touch unfair to the DA and police, annika. It was a false lead--obviously false, in hindsight--but they had to "honor the threat" as it were.
Besides his (false) confession, I believe it was reported he had some information about the murder that wasn't widely known. If I'm right, that plus a confession makes him a credible suspect and his story should be investigated. It wasn't until further investigation that his story fell apart, and he was not charged with the crime.
Taking a wider view, the system worked the way it's supposed to. At least, to my layman's mind it did.
Posted by: Victor at August 29, 2006 05:51 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 26, 2006
It's Time For Jeopardy, Round 27
D-Rod, Tuning Spork, and Leif are tied for the lead with $1500; Shelly has $1000; Victor has $700; Law Fairy has $500; Maximum Leader and KG have $300 each; Matt of Overtaken By Events and Trint have $200 each; Drake Steel, TBinSTL, SkippyStalin and Blu have $100 each.
The category is "Ronald Reagan," for $200.
Posted by: annika at
05:27 PM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Bzzzzzzzzzt.....!
Who is Shirley Temple Black?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 26, 2006 06:23 PM (hcgbs)
2
Good guess Spork but Shirley was never a great actress; she was a star. There's a difference. Besides, she was not the ambassador then.
Braaack!!
Who was Kate Hepburn?
Posted by: shelly at August 26, 2006 08:04 PM (ZGpMS)
3
Buuurp!
Who is Linda Lovelace?
Posted by: Spooning Torque at August 26, 2006 08:07 PM (ZGpMS)
4
Well, it could've been Virginia Mayo then, could it?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 26, 2006 08:21 PM (hcgbs)
5
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt!
Who is Bonzo?
Rumor has it that Bonzo was a female 'cuz the a male chimp would never have willingly played second bananana to Reagan.
I got nuthin'...
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 26, 2006 08:24 PM (hcgbs)
6
And when did Hepburn ever co-star with Reagan?????
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 26, 2006 08:25 PM (hcgbs)
7
Well, if it wasn't Temple than somebody say Ginger Rogers and tell 'em Sporky sent ya.
Mmmmmm....Ginger Rogers......
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 26, 2006 08:34 PM (hcgbs)
8
Ding
Who is Audrey Hepburn?
Posted by: Law Fairy at August 26, 2006 09:57 PM (2gORp)
9
I stand by my Shirley Temple guess, dag nabbit...!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 26, 2006 10:33 PM (hcgbs)
10
Ding Dong:
Who was Ann Sheridan?
Posted by: shelly at August 27, 2006 04:33 AM (ZGpMS)
11
Bzzt! Who is Sergeant Murphy?
Posted by: Leif at August 27, 2006 08:32 AM (CPQ57)
12
BZZZT... Who was Ginger Rogers
Posted by: Col Steve at August 27, 2006 09:38 AM (PiYoY)
Posted by: Casca at August 27, 2006 05:17 PM (2gORp)
14
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Who is Jodie Foster?
Posted by: d-rod at August 27, 2006 10:04 PM (hCh7a)
Posted by: annika at August 27, 2006 11:02 PM (qQD4Q)
16
It's a trick question. The "one was his wife" is Nancy Reagan (nee' Davis) and the "great actress" is Jane Wyman (who also was his wife). Eh?
Posted by: G. Hod at August 28, 2006 01:40 AM (yRrbn)
17
So, like, do we get a hint and second buzz-in now?
Huh? Huh? Huh?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 28, 2006 04:11 AM (w6sl8)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 28, 2006 04:24 AM (w6sl8)
19
Drat. Can't post pictures in the comments. Clicky
here.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 28, 2006 04:28 AM (w6sl8)
20
Burrrp:
Who was Bette Davis?
Posted by: shelly at August 28, 2006 08:02 AM (ZGpMS)
21
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
who is Jane Wyman?
I know it is not likely but as good a guess as any. After all, she was a co-star and a really good actress.
Posted by: Blu at August 28, 2006 08:11 AM (8M2kt)
22
Just saw that G. Hod beat me to the Wyman answer. Good job G. Hod if we are correct.(Technically speaking, though, you didn't respond appropriately:-)
Posted by: Blu at August 28, 2006 09:12 AM (j8oa6)
23
zap!
Who is Lucille Ball?
Just throwing it out there...
I though of Jane Wyman too, but that would make the question deceptive, perhaps even untrue... it says "one" of the women was his wife, and it doesn't say *when* she was his wife...
Oh, and the earlier Law Fairy (surprise, surprise) was just what's-his-face again. I suppose I should be flattered by his apparent obsession with me...
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 28, 2006 09:27 AM (XUsiG)
24
Nobody has it yet. I wont give out a clue, since by process of elimination, somebody new should be able to get it. there are only so many former co-stars who fit the "great actress" criteria, IMHO.
Posted by: annika at August 28, 2006 02:02 PM (zAOEU)
25
bzzzzzzzz
who is bette davis?
Posted by: Blu at August 28, 2006 02:05 PM (8M2kt)
26
Haarrrump!
Who is Barbara Stanwyck???
Posted by: shelly at August 28, 2006 02:11 PM (ZGpMS)
27
Bzzt..
Who was Doris Day?
Posted by: Col Steve at August 28, 2006 02:21 PM (pj2h7)
28
If i gave you a hint and you still couldn't get it, would you hate me for my wicked wicked ways?
Posted by: annika at August 28, 2006 02:37 PM (zAOEU)
29
bzzzz
who is angie dickenson?
although, i gotta say, she's not a "great actress." but what the heck, i'm just tossing shit out now.
Posted by: Blu at August 28, 2006 02:49 PM (8M2kt)
30
BBBBZZZING
Who is Rhonda Fleming?
Posted by: kyle8 at August 28, 2006 03:16 PM (jJ1x8)
31
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
who is Olivia de Havilland?
Posted by: Blu at August 28, 2006 03:20 PM (8M2kt)
32
Bzzzzzzzzzzt......!
Who is Rhonda Fleming?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 28, 2006 03:25 PM (wcXuw)
33
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt.....!
Who is Patricia Neal?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 28, 2006 03:28 PM (wcXuw)
34
The actress was Olivia De Havilland. She and Reagan were members at one time in a left leaning Hollywood group. FDR's son James was also a member. It was Roosevelt's idea to get the group to issue a statement denouncing communism, since they had already denounced fascism many times. Reagan and De Havilland joined in the motion. This ignited a brouhaha as the more pinko members of the group shouted them down. Reagan and his friends resigned after that.
So, the story goes, at this party in 1982, Reagan and De Havilland were reminiscing about the old days, and he said to her(paraphrasing), "I thought you were one of them," and she said, "I thought you were one too."
Anyways, Blu is correct and gets to pick the next category.
Posted by: annika at August 28, 2006 06:31 PM (qQD4Q)
35
She and B. Davis were the co-stars who seemed to have the most attachment to France - that's what led me to toss out her name.
Where did you get the bio info associated to her and the Gipper?
Posted by: Blu at August 28, 2006 06:40 PM (8M2kt)
36
oh, and I'll take Vexatious Vexillology for $400.
Posted by: Blu at August 28, 2006 06:41 PM (8M2kt)
37
A little tidbit; her cousin designed the de Havilland airplanes and her younger sister was Joan Fontaine. But, in my humble opinion, she was not a "great" actress.
But WTF, I don't agree with Annie's judges anyway. They all smoke too much stuff.
Posted by: shelly at August 28, 2006 07:29 PM (ZGpMS)
38
the bio info is from Reagan's War. highly recommended. and any actress who stands up against the commies is a great actress in my book. i did not know about the aircraft connection, interesting.
Posted by: annika at August 28, 2006 08:32 PM (qQD4Q)
39
I wish I had waited for your comment Annie -
would you hate me for my wicked wicked ways?
I might have been "in like flynn"...
Posted by: Col Steve at September 01, 2006 08:02 AM (pj2h7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episodes 45 and 46
Peter's summer vacation.
On a tropical paradise.
Posted by: annika at
11:05 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Poor Peter. Stuck on an island with nothing but a bowling ball tree.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 26, 2006 11:35 AM (hcgbs)
2
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Posted by: Casca at August 26, 2006 12:08 PM (2gORp)
3
I love you honey, but you are one sick chick. Is this pumpkin your male alter ego? I think so.
Posted by: kyle8 at August 26, 2006 04:29 PM (Fdrki)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 25, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 44
Posted by: annika at
09:11 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: reagan80 at August 26, 2006 05:05 AM (JnE5q)
2
Somebody set us up the bomb!
Posted by: Dave J at August 26, 2006 07:18 AM (SKqxt)
3
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at August 26, 2006 08:23 AM (954g7)
4
No pants = on the way to destruction?
Posted by: Leif at August 27, 2006 08:36 AM (CPQ57)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
All Your CTOTIOTD Are Belong To Us
OMG
this is the most ROTFL thing I've heard in fucking ever.
More versions here. The Doors one made me cry it was so funny.
This video is pretty good too.
Posted by: annika at
08:20 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Annie, you have set up us the bomb!
Posted by: kyle8 at August 26, 2006 04:54 AM (Lk6j3)
2
Absolutely brilliant. ROFL, indeed.
The Nirvana one is probably the one that actually sounds most like it could have been a real song by them.
Posted by: Dave J at August 26, 2006 07:10 AM (SKqxt)
3
You've GOT to quit the drunk/stoned posting. I know, me too.
Posted by: Casca at August 26, 2006 12:17 PM (2gORp)
4
Ouch, my stomach actually hurts from the laughing.
Posted by: Gordon at August 28, 2006 06:45 PM (YrwYk)
5
Those are absolutely the funniest things I have seen or heard this month.
Posted by: Swap Blog at August 29, 2006 06:15 PM (bSPrB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 24, 2006
Iran's War Against Women
I just read
Photon Courier's excellent post about the murder of Atefeh Sahaleh by the Iranian government. I call it a murder because I learned in my first year criminal law course that the term is defined as "the unjustified killing of a human being by another." What was Atefeh Sahaleh's crime? Having sex.
Oh, she was 16 years old.
[Still think the Iranians are basically nice guys who can be reasoned with?]
So, that led me to Amnesty International's excessively neutral post about the execution. You've heard of Amnesty International. They're the organization that's always criticizing the United States because we still have capital punishment.
So then I decided to compare stats. Without looking, can you guess which country killed more women last year?
If you guessed Iran, you'd be correct. In 2005, only one woman was executed in the United States.
[Her name was Frances Newton, and she was executed by lethal injection on September 14, 2005, by the State of Texas. When she was 24 years old, she shot her husband Adrian, her 7 year old son Alton, and her 21 month old daughter Farrah with a .25 caliber pistol to collect life insurance money. Frances Newton was 40 by the time she was finally executed for the crimes.]
Then I went over to a site called Women's Forum Against Fundamentalism In Iran. It's worth bookmarking if you're curious at all about the type of society our enemy would like to impose upon us.
Just looking at the left sidebar, which contains links to various news stories, is pretty enlightening. Here's a selection of headlines:
Amnesty International: Young woman, Delara Darabi, 19, facing imminent execution
A Kurdish woman sentenced to stoning
More crackdown on women
Women-only buses another government run, gender-apartheid program
Iran’s police stop 10-year-old girl for “mal-veiling”
Women ejected by force from Iran stadium
300,000 homeless women in Iran capital
Iran police prevent women from watching football match
Iran's Islamist rulers want sex segregation on pavements
Iran to hang another teenage girl attacked by rapists
Iran to execute two other women
An Iranian woman in the town of Varamin is sentenced to death by stoning
Iran sentences a woman to death by hanging
Another woman is sentenced to death by stoning in Iran
Female workers are ordered to get home by dusk to serve their families
Senior Iran cleric: Prostitutes must be hanged
Iran to execute two other women
Iran to hang 19-year old mother
Sixty Iranian women activists made a public appeal on Thursday for the release of a Kurdish feminist campaigner
Fundamentalists recruit Women for Martyrdom Seeker Movement in Iran.
Post-election, A New Wave of Crackdown on Women.
Thousands join womenÂ’s anti-government demonstration in Tehran.
Crackdown on Women.
Defeating misogyny in Iran .
Save the Women, Save Ourselves.
UN women's rights official raps Iran over abuses.
Four Iranian Women were executed in 2004 by public hanging or stoning. There are 14 women to be hanged or stoned to death in coming days, weeks or months.
A woman is facing stoning in next five days
A 19 year old mentally ill girl is facing imminent execution in Iran
Another woman facing stoning in Iran
13 year old, Jila, facing death by stoning flogged 55 times
Iranian Student protest forced veiling
Imminent execution of a 33-year-old Iranian women, Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh...
Iran moves to roll back rights won by women...
Violence, poverty and abuse led girl, 16, to gallows...
Amnesty International outraged at the reported execution of a 16 year old girl in Iran...
'Painful' day as mother's death recalled. Zahra Kazemi's son still seeks answers. He has no faith in upcoming Iranian trial.
Iran's government has launched a crackdown on women who flout the strict Islamic dress codes during the hot summer months.
One of the links contains
a story that is enough to make you want to cry. Here it is:
An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.
Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girlsÂ’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.
She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.
As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.
The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.
Instead of telling us how attractive he thinks Ahmadi-Nejad is, perhaps Mike Wallace should have spent an hour letting the world know about the above, completely barbaric death sentence against an innocent child.
You know, fuck Mike Wallace, fuck Ahmadi-Nejad, and fuck the fucking mullahs. These people are so completely evil, I can't even finish what I was going to write.
Update: Thanks to Beth of MVRWC, I've been alerted to this update regarding the Nazanin case.
On 3 January, 18-year-old Nazanin was sentenced to death for murder by a criminal court, after she reportedly admitted stabbing to death one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece in a park in Karaj in March 2005. She was 17 at the time. (See Iran: Amnesty International calls for end to death penalty for child offenders, MDE 13/005/2006, 16 January 2006). At the end of May the Supreme Court rejected the death sentence against Nazanin, reportedly on the instructions of the Head of the Judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi. The case will reportedly be retried in August and sent to a lower court for further investigation.
One more thing. The
Wikipedia article on Nazanin points out that Iran's death penalty can be applied to males as young as fifteen,
and females as young as nine!
The Iranian government really is waging a war against women!
Posted by: annika at
07:06 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1028 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Thanks, Annika. In case you missed it, see also the first paragraph of
this post.
Posted by: david foster at August 24, 2006 07:19 PM (/Z304)
2
How terrible. And good for you Annika . . . for your mind, your passion, your commitment to justice.
I'll keep this girl in my prayers. May God see her decency and courage.
Posted by: Roach at August 24, 2006 08:17 PM (TY/gr)
3
Yeesh, shades of the Inquisition. Thanks for bringing these topics to light here. Keep this up and you'll become a blog center of gravity for Iranian news and analysis.
I was puzzled by your Mike Wallace reference, as I didn't see a link provided; he spent an hour talking about how good she looked??
Posted by: will at August 25, 2006 08:51 AM (h7Ciu)
4
Annika,
This is among many, the serious and frightful aspects of the unrelenting will of Islam to be a government as well as a religion. The devout practitioners of this religion are not at peace unless the divide between religious and civil law is erased. I am constantly saddened by the plight of women in the Islamic world.
Posted by: strawman at August 25, 2006 08:56 AM (tuy00)
5
Wallace did an interview afer his interview with the Mad Man in which he among other things talked about what an attractive man he (the Mad Man) is -not just physically. Apparently, according to Wallace, the guy has "presence." To which I say, so fucking what: so did Hitler and so does Castro. (I suspect one doesn't become a successful tyrant without a pretty compelling personality.)
Wallace discredited himself in both interviews - the one he conducted and the one he gave.
Posted by: Blu at August 25, 2006 09:56 AM (8M2kt)
6
Excellent post, you would think this is an issue the MSM would pick up on, considering all the factors are memes they like to harp on, but hey, its too much to have Mike Wallace ask about that. Or CNN. There is no fucking perspective in the news we are given and its making this country stupider by the day. The War on Terror will be lost if such mass misinformation continues. There is no venue for a sustained discussion of these matters, just people talking past each other waiting for the next election, and then they'll do it all again.
Posted by: Scof at August 25, 2006 10:53 AM (a3fqn)
7
Scof-
America, baby! When has it ever been different? The venal leading the confused
Posted by: strawman at August 25, 2006 12:23 PM (tuy00)
8
I agree completely Annika- fuck 'em, fuck all of the ragheaded a**holes. I'm glad you tell it like it is, unlike the supposedly-mainsteam media.
Really enjoy your blog, btw!
Posted by: zman at August 25, 2006 02:14 PM (w2MUu)
9
I was amused once when I heard the old historian Author Schlesinger debating with one of those multi-cultural wonders who were arguing about the worth of Ideologies like Islam.
Now Art was an old time big lefty. But he didn't buy into the new trends. When the arrogant little wannabe said "But we have so much to learn from the great cultures of the third world" Arthur asked him
"And what things would those be? Cannibalism, polygamy, slavery, Sutee, genital mutilation, foot binding?"
Posted by: kyle8 at August 25, 2006 02:31 PM (EdUDv)
10
zman,
i say if you are willing to write "fuck" then, what the heck, go for it and write "ass" as well. nobody around here gets too worked up over profanity.
Posted by: Blu at August 25, 2006 02:33 PM (8M2kt)
11
Nice quote Kyle. Schlesinger was one of the good minds on the Left. Wrong on a lot of issues but often correct on some larger issues - espcially multi-culturalism and political correctness. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was another guy on the Left that often got some of the bigger issues right. He understood early on the legacy that welfare would leave on the poor - especially the Black poor. Hard to imagine a time when the Left wasn't completely nuts, isn't it?
Posted by: Blu at August 25, 2006 02:40 PM (8M2kt)
12
Blu wrote: "Wallace did an interview afer his interview with the Mad Man in which he among other things talked about what an attractive man he (the Mad Man) is -not just physically. Apparently, according to Wallace, the guy has 'presence.'"
Thanks for the info, Blu. I'll have to track it down.
And oddly enough, Mike could have been talking about GWB during the 2000 election, though it would have been more down home presence.
Posted by: will at August 25, 2006 02:48 PM (h7Ciu)
13
I know sweety, this is really bad. There are some who are watching it all. Those in charge over there will be held acountable. Be patient.
Peace, take care now.
Posted by: Patrick at August 25, 2006 10:44 PM (DtkPs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iran Already Has The Bomb
Is the
big surprise, which the Iranians are planning within the next few days, an announcement that they already have the bomb?
Read this chilling interview with former Danish agent Regnar Rasmussen in Front Page Mag. He says the Iranians already got three warheads from Kazakhstan back in the nineties.
In autumn 1991 Nursultan Nazarbayev, the president of Khazakhstan, sold three nuclear warheads to the Iranians. The Iranians wanted to use them as a prototype for their own bomb manufacturing. The price was said to have been 7.5 billion USD. Whether this amount is true or just the fantasies of a less paid government official, I cannot verify. The amount was to cover all bribes and kick-offs and military protection during transport. Every country involved had demanded their fair share of the deal.
Anyway, the warheads were removed from a military depot somewhere in Kazakhstan and transported by train down to Makhachkala in Daghestan. Here they were reloaded onto huge trucks and then taken through the Caucasian region and into Turkey. In the city of Dogubeyazit the Iranians met the convoy and took over. The three vehicles were then driven by Iranian drivers down to the border post Bazargan, where they entered Iranian territory.
The warheads were brought down to Teheran and parked in the military campus Lavizan. Here they were seen by a soldier who later defected to Israel and told the story to the Israeli intelligence services who at that time were unable to verify the matter further. Various rumours have been circulating ever since. Some stories say two bombs, some say four. The correct number, however, is three.
He also speculated whether Pakistan's recent nuclear test was actually a proxy for the Iranians. I think Rasmussen's story is plausible, and he's not the only guy who's been whispering it.
The Wall Street Journal again reminds us that a nuclear Iran would be a bad thing.
“A nuclear-armed Iran would likely embolden the leadership in Tehran to advance its aggressive ambitions in and outside of the region, both directly and through the terrorists it supports—ambitions that gravely threaten the stability and the security of U.S. friends and allies,” says the House Intelligence report. With a nuclear arsenal that they felt protected them from retaliation, the mullahs would also be more likely to use conventional military force in the Middle East. The domino effect as Turkey, Egypt and the Saudis sought their own nuclear deterrent would also not be “stabilizing,” to cite the highest value of our Middle Eastern “realists.” And don’t forget President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vow that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”
As if any thinking person needs such a reminder. Yet, incredibly, some people are still in denial. And it's funny that those are often the same people who think we need to get out of Iraq immediately. As I've said before, one often overlooked result of a nuclear Iran will be that the United States will be forced to stay in Iraq indefinitely --
and to deploy intermediate range nuclear missiles there for the purpose of deterrence. I promise you, I'm not wrong about this.
h/t Regime Change Iran & Protein Wisdom
Posted by: annika at
10:44 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 534 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Nukes in Iraq, interesting...today I feel like we should give Europe alot of shit. I mean it is their continent which'll likely get hit, besides Israel, from an Iranian missle. Yet these fucks can't even put troops on the groun to help out in Lebanon. I don't understand why Leftist politicians want to die.
Posted by: Scof at August 24, 2006 11:07 AM (a3fqn)
2
"I don't understand why Leftist politicians want to die."
I do.
They feel guilty for having lived an easy life and reaping the benefits of a civilized and free culture without having to work too hard.
Instead of blaming terrorists and their like for their own circumstances, they blame themselves (the west). If punishment is death by nuclear incineration, so be it. We "deserve" it.
They're that stupid.
Posted by: Rob at August 24, 2006 12:04 PM (9DumO)
3
There are an awful lot of people determined to ignore the true nature of Iran, Hezbollah, and our other enemies. The psychology was captured by Arthur Koestler in a chilling metaphor which I excerped
here.
Posted by: david foster at August 24, 2006 01:21 PM (/Z304)
4
You make an excellent point about cold war deterrence in your post, David. We
did come close to nuclear war with the Russians on multiple occasions. When those breakdowns in MAD occurred, we were able to avert disaster precisely because our opponents, at the very least, still wanted to live. We were able to talk to each other.
What if our nuclear opponents in the next war don't care about dying? What if they actually want martyrdom? It's a completely different situation.
Iran CAN NOT be allowed to go nuclear.
Posted by: annika at August 24, 2006 05:59 PM (qQD4Q)
5
That dave foster dude is one smart brainiac. The Photon Courier is kewl.
As for MAD working, and being on the brink of nuclear exchange... you must be thinking about movies, because it never happened in the real world. Please point out the error of my ways.
Your conclusion however is correct. We must defeat the forces of evil.
Posted by: Casca at August 24, 2006 06:34 PM (2gORp)
6
Why thank you, Casca.
I can think of at least two cases where we came far too close to nuclear war. (1)A Soviet warning system picked up the sun reflecting off various structures in the American Midwest, and interpreted it as a large number of simultaneous Minuteman launches. Apparently, it was only one cool-headed Soviet officer who kept things from getting out of hand. (2)Shortly after the American BMEWS (radar+computer) system was installed, it picked up the moon, and reported it as Soviet incoming missiles. (Apparently, the extreme range of the radar system had not been understood.) This wasn't as serious as incident (1), since the computer part of BMEWS noted velocities not consistent with missiles, but still, Cheyenne Mountain went on alert while the situation was sorted out.
Of course, there was also the Cuban missile crisis.
Posted by: david foster at August 24, 2006 07:16 PM (/Z304)
7
I saw a profile (on 20/20 i think) of that Russian officer. It was apparently "this is not a drill" time, and it was up to him to turn the key, but luckily he saved the world on a hunch! He lives in obscurity now, by the way.
Posted by: annika at August 24, 2006 07:21 PM (qQD4Q)
8
Mythology, particularly the "Cuban Missle Crisis".
Only the President has the authority to launch/use special weapons. I'm sure that the Soviets has a similar system. No mere Colonel is going to "launch".
The Cuban situation was entirely a question of Maritime Power Projection. Read Mahan, the Soviets didn't have a blue water navy.
Posted by: Casca at August 24, 2006 09:15 PM (2gORp)
9
Iran is never going to admit they have the bomb, unless some great sea-change in political affairs occurs. Their whole public stance, both domestically and internationally, is that they want to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, that this is their right under the NNPT, that the "forces of world arrogance" want to stop the technological development of the Iranian nation in order to maintain hegemony, that the supreme leader has issued a fatwa banning WMDs, etc., etc.
Posted by: mitchell porter at August 24, 2006 09:24 PM (shx+O)
10
The bomb is useless unless, A) people know you have it so it can affect their behavior towards you (c.f. Israel), or B) you use it on somebody (c.f. USA).
Posted by: annika at August 24, 2006 09:41 PM (qQD4Q)
11
Israel's public policy is neither to confirm nor deny that they have nukes, but everyone presumes that Israel has them, perhaps several hundred, and so they have a deterrent. Iran's public policy is to deny that they even want nukes, but clearly they are not very far from having them if they want them, and so a similar potential for deterrence from ambiguity exists. I don't know what their actual strategic thinking is, but meanwhile, the Iranian government is accumulating domestic political capital from nuclear nationalism, framed as an issue of energy, technology, and sovereignty. Also recall that their tactics against Israel are political as well as military. They will neither abandon enrichment, nor do anything to deliberately indicate that they are actually building a bomb; they have way too many other tactical options to want to play that card in the foreseeable future.
Posted by: mitchell porter at August 24, 2006 10:48 PM (shx+O)
12
Presumably, the Soviets had a system in which political leadership had to approve any launch; however, given the very short time windows for making the decision, the manner in which the situation was framed by the military, and their recommendation, would likely have a determining effect. If the message is "the Americans have launched dozens of Minutemen and we need to respond" the outcome is likely to be very different from "we're seeing strange patterns from America and think it is probably a technical problem."
Posted by: david foster at August 25, 2006 07:17 AM (/Z304)
13
Casca,
My understanding of the situation in Cuba was that the local commander had the authority to use field nukes if we invaded. McNamara attested to this in his book and admitted that at the time of the decision nobody on our side was aware of fact that the field nukes were even in Cuba. I'd rather not say who but i have had conversations with a player at that table.
Posted by: strawman at August 25, 2006 12:36 PM (tuy00)
14
Having spent a little time inside Cheyenne Mountain, I need to correct Casca a bit. That is, unless things have changed in the last five years or so.
When a launch is detected anywhere in the world, there is a short period (just a few minutes)in which they can determine from the ballistics exactly where the weapon is headed. A Bird or equivalent is on site at all times
There is a Four Star within minutes of Cheyenne who heads into the command center and within yet a few minutes more they have the President and the Prime Minister of Canada on the telephone.
It's been a while, but I think the whole sequence is @20 or 21 minutes. Then, I believe it takes both the President and the Prime Minister to jointly approve retalitory launches.
I always wondered what the Four Star would do if the President ordered the attack and the Prime Minister didn't agree.
Posted by: shelly at August 26, 2006 07:34 AM (ZGpMS)
15
"Having spent a little time inside Cheyenne Mountain." Was that Cheyenne Mountain the porn star? I assure you Shelly, as you know, most 4-stars know who they work for.
As for McNamara, the man is a fucking liar whose every utterance is a defense of his craven incompetent behavior as SecDef. He's got a lot of blood on his hands, and he knows it.
A lot of the cold war nuclear hand-wringing was based on cultural misunderstanding on both sides. Once Stalin was out of the picture, the Soviets entered the world of modern bureaucracy, and while they had an interest on playing on the world stage, like all professional militarys, they had no interest in actually turning the cold war hot in a big way.
Posted by: Casca at August 26, 2006 12:39 PM (2gORp)
16
Casca,
Are you talkingto me?
I agree he is a man of perfidy and deceit ( I would also venture that were you and I to have the opportunity to hang him it would be for two completely different bills) but the facts of the Cuban situation I mentioned were not put into evidence by him. He was responding to recent documents that the russians released and Bill was only cementing your opinion of himself by admitting "I had no idea....." the field nukes were there and that they were to be used.
Posted by: strawman at August 27, 2006 09:57 AM (tuy00)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
144kb generated in CPU 0.0382, elapsed 0.1093 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.0812 seconds, 375 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
