In very important American Idol news, Corey Clark has been booted off the show for failing to disclose the fact that he was arrested for beating up his sister and resisting arrest. I’m glad Fox is doing the right thing — but it’s definitely not as great a loss as Frenchie the porn star.
Mar 312003
Mar 312003
… a Marine at war with a sense of humor:
Umm Qasr is essentially a void now in the daily briefings of the Iraqi disinformation minister. His last mention of Umm Qasr was a vow that it would never fall into the hands of the “pirates” (arrrrrrrgh) and “gangsters” (mama mia!) of the coalition. This is essentially true, in that the coalition is devoid of either. American and British troops did take the city, though, and are in the process of… doing nefarious things like public works projects.
There has to be as many aid workers and civil engineers running around the coalition-occupied territory of Southern Iraq as there are fighting troops now. And the last I checked, the pirates of the Caribbean were not especially concerned with the welfare of those they invaded.
And I’m short a parrot, damn it.
Or how about this tidbit?
Can we stop the postmortems already? Peter Arnett is already declaring this thing a failure on Iraqi television. And that’s a damn shame, because I live my life in constant need of approval from Peter Arnett.
Look, I can understand Pete’s need to switch over to a network with more viewership than MSNBC, but come on, I thought the journalist’s credo was “objective,” not “aid and comfort.”
The firing of Peter Arnett from multiple jobs was sweet justice indeed. Given his history, I doubt he’ll ever work as a TV journalist ever again.
Mar 312003
I’m down to 20 messages in my inbox! Hooray!
I’ve been hovering around 100 for months now, despite my weekly clean ups, so this is a real victory. Perhaps I’ll get down below 10 next week. That would be astonishing. More likely I’ll be up to at least 50.
Just remember folks: The best kind of e-mail is good news to which I need not respond. :-)
Mar 312003
A few days ago, Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice sent me a copy of his and Dana Berliner’s op-ed on the Lawrence vs. Texas sodomy case. It’s excellent, as expected. They write:
Conservatives, especially, ought to be wary of casting their lot with the states on this issue. If the states can ban purely private conduct between consenting adults, what is to keep them from banning home schooling, for instance, or instituting mandatory preschool, or requiring parents to follow certain nutritional guidelines for their children? Conservatives who condone a process that leads us down this path need to start asking themselves what exactly it is they are trying to conserve.
Unfortunately, the left’s approach is no better. Where conservatives extol the virtue of state government power when it comes to certain moral or lifestyle issues, the left extols the virtues of government power when it comes to regulations of property and economic affairs. Both sides love government power when it suits their immediate agenda, but both ought to realize that this approach is only as good as one’s ability to control a particular legislature. The left ought to recognize that it cannot pick and choose which aspects of individual liberty are beyond government power. Privacy is worth very little if one has no property on which to practice it.
The cool part is that Steve described NoodleFood as “one of [his] morning staples.” For all I know, he’s just buttering me up for the sake of the onslaught of publicity that a mention on NoodleFood inevitably brings. But who cares!?! My blog adores flattery! :-)
Mar 312003
Take a deep breath. Put down all food and beverages. Sit down securely in your chair. “But why?”, you might ask Because I do not want you to hurt yourself or damage your property upon reading this hysterical story on the dangers of indoor radio-controlled blimps.
Mar 302003
Sometimes, I must admit, life is just too good. Stories of exposing commies just don’t get much better than this one.
Mar 302003
This commentary was found at the end of an otherwise normal review of the documentary Uncle Saddam:
However, Americans, who were led to believe by President George Bush that Iraq would be a cakewalk with ‘liberated’ Iraqis dancing in the streets to welcome the Anglo-Americans axis troops, are looking askance at reports that the Iraqis are actually holding out. It is evident that the Iraqi people, in their time of crisis, have proven to like Saddam and are now rallying behind him against the US-British aggression.
The heroic resistance of the Iraqi people has stunned the West and the Arab world, and all those who believed the battle would end quickly for the benefit of the US and British armies. It is clear that the Iraqi people, whom they wished to liberate, refuse to accept freedom brought to them by the tanks of the occupation forces. Western policy makers miscalculated their strategy and admitted that the time was ripe for Britain and the US to seek an “honorable” solution in the United Nations.
I must have missed the “Aggression Against Iraq” banner at the top of the page on my first reading. In any case, perhaps these folks should read Arab News more often, where this startling report appeared:
When we finally made it to Safwan, Iraq, what we saw was utter chaos. Iraqi men, women and children were playing it up for the TV cameras, chanting: “With our blood, with our souls, we will die for you Saddam.”
I took a young Iraqi man, 19, away from the cameras and asked him why they were all chanting that particular slogan, especially when humanitarian aid trucks marked with the insignia of the Kuwaiti Red Crescent Society, were distributing some much-needed food.
His answer shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did.
He said: “There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else.”
Different versions of that very quote, but with a common theme, I would come to hear several times over the next three days I spent in Iraq.
The people of Iraq are terrified of Saddam Hussein.
I certainly didn’t expect so much resistance and so little uprising by the Iraqi people in this war. But in hindsight, the present situation makes perfect sense. In 1991, we encouraged rebellion… and then allowed Saddam to slaughter and brutalize those who did so. (Wisely I think, we are actively discouraging such rebellion this time around.) And Saddam clearly learned his lesson from 1991, given his present use of the Fedayeen to terrorize the locals into submission — and into fighting. The Iraqi people are — and should be — wary of our invasion until they know we have eliminated the threat from Saddam. Let’s hope they need not be wary for long.
Mar 292003
I just read the most revolting OWL post ever from Mike Rael. Mike has been around a long time. He should know better. Anyway, here it is:
Hi friends:)
I’ve begun looking for Saddam’s actual uncensored speeches. So far, I have found the following link, that involves his talk with Dan Rather:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542173.shtml
Saddam sounds like a conman, mixing truth and lies. But, in all fairness, he sounds far more dignified than we could have imagined from the soundbytes we have heard on TV.
One thought stands out: Saddam proposed a debate with the President of the United States. This was immediately rejected by the White House as “unserious.” As I read what Saddam had to say, and factoring in that Rather avoided the tough questions about Saddam’s rule, whatever else it was, that question of a debate sounded awfully serious to these virgin ears.
One thought stands out: Saddam proposed a debate with the President of the United States. This was immediately rejected by the White House as “unserious.” As I read what Saddam had to say, and factoring in that Rather avoided the tough questions about Saddam’s rule, whatever else it was, that question of a debate sounded awfully serious to these virgin ears.
best wishes all,
Mike
I didn’t bother posting the following response on the list; I just sent it to him privately.
Mike,
I must admit your OWL post to be one of the most revolting proposals I’ve ever heard. Should FDR have debated Hitler about the proper response to the “Jewish problem”? Saddam is a brutal dictator who does not deserve the pretense of being treated as a respectable or rational person. The only debate ought to be over the mode of his speedy demise.
Go read this article on what his son is allowed to do:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/.
Sheesh, even Sports Illustrated is writing on the brutality of his regime. Do you pay no attention? Do you notice nothing more than the facade?
No self-respecting, moral person would ever even consider standing up in debate with a known liar, let alone a man who routinely uses torture, rape, and murder as means of securing his domination over others. I’m truly amazed that you would regard the proposal of debate as “serious” or at all worthy of consideration. The mind boggles.
diana.
I think I need to go take a shower or something. Ick.
Mar 292003
Steven also has this sober and insightful analysis of the progress of the war from a friend and a retired military officer.
And more… Steven offers a delightful description of France’s recent mangled olive branch. To take it, “all we have to do is apologize and repent, and France won’t hold our misbehavior against us.” That reminds me of a former friend’s attempt at reconciliation after a rather serious break. There too, acceptance would have required me to grovel in apology and repentance — but I had little hope of wiping the slate clean of my allegedly horrible crimes. (I won’t name her, but surely my friends — often former friends of hers as well — know exactly who I’m talking about.)
Oh hell, forget this piecemeal stuff. Just start at the top and read down.
Mar 292003
A question: If Iraq is using state-run television to commit war crimes (by showing American dead and POWs) and to urge terrorists attacks (by urging civilians to suicide bomb US military forces), how can bombing it be the “war crime” that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? Do brutal dictatorships have a right to spread propaganda, to commit war crimes, and encourage terrorism?
Steven Den Beste has the real round-up on the sell-out of these organizations to leftist ideology, first in this post and then in this one.
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 … 5 6 Older Entries
