Some may ask "Steve, why are you posting a sports story in a anti-terrorist blog?" One, because sometimes we need a little fun in our lives. Two, because of lines like this Before this current playoff run, the Spurs had already been living with the tag of being "boring" and "dull," a team of talented and nice guys who folks outside of San Antonio were indifferent about. But along came the Western Conference semifinals and the Suns hit the fan. In an instant, Bowen, Ginobili and Horry had earned reps equal to those of al-Qaida's leadership, and the entire team was transformed into a terrorist brigade out to destroy Western basketball as we know it.
Witness this, Cleveland!
Careful you, I grew up in Cleveland. LeBron is going to win four straight.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/14/2007 08:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is it over yet? Pre-season NBA starts when, August?
Harry Reid, the Senate's majority leader and resident Uriah Heep, affected 'umble and syrupy sadness about the Senate's inability to pass the immigration bill that he pulled from the floor last Thursday evening for a transparently meretricious reason. Saying the Senate's time was too precious to expend on what would have been limited debate on a limited number of Republican amendments to the bill, Reid vowed: "Everyone that's been home, there are two issues that are foremost in their minds: Number one is the Iraq war and number two are gas prices. We're going to deal with that as soon as we finish with this immigration legislation."
So the Senate took Friday off, wasted Monday in the predictable futility of failing to pass a nonbinding nullity, a resolution expressing constitutionally irrelevant lack of confidence in the attorney general, then debated lowering gasoline prices -- or cooling the planet, or something -- by spending taxpayers' money to raise food prices. It took up legislation to quintuple the mandated use of mostly corn-based ethanol, which already has increased Americans' food bills $14 billion in the past 12 months. For such silliness, Reid scuttled the bipartisan attempt to improve the eminently improvable immigration status quo.
Senators from both parties who are trying to resuscitate the bill surely read last weekend's Rasmussen poll recording public approval of Reid ( 19 percent) far below the president's pathetic 36 percent. Democrats who control this floundering and roundly disapproved Congress are paying a painful price for the pleasure of defeating everything that could be construed in any way as an achievement by the president.
Granted, Reid is just one reason for the immigration legislation's parlous condition. Another reason is that lessons from 14 years ago have been forgotten.
In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, " A Woman in Charge," Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present "comprehensive" health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton's purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.
Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:
"No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would 'demonize' members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration's plan or otherwise stand in its way."
Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, "with disgust and distrust." Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.
Like her plan, the recent immigration legislation had three handicaps. First, it was drafted in secret -- and unlike her bill, the immigration bill was not the subject of hearings that could have clarified such fundamental matters as whether immigrants are net drains on, or contributors to, the fiscal health of federal, state and local governments. Second, like many comprehensive "solutions" to large, intricate problems that are susceptible to incremental ameliorations, the immigration bill, like the Clintons' health-care bill, was presented as a package so finely calibrated and exquisitely balanced that any significant change would, as Shakespeare said:
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark! what discord follows.
Third, people skeptical about the legislation were, if not demonized, cast as bigots or, at best, people uninterested in doing "the right thing for America" (President Bush).
Perhaps Reid, in his rush to truncate debate, was being chivalrous toward Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Suppose Senate Republicans agree to expedited handling of the legislation so the Senate can get on with whatever folly Reid next considers urgent business. And suppose 60 senators can force a final vote on a bill that retains the most important provisions -- increased border security and electronic identity verification. Many businesses, which profit from being magnets for illegal immigration, think being part of law enforcement is an intolerable nuisance, which is heartening evidence that workplace enforcement might work.
If the Senate passes a bill, immigration then becomes a hot potato for the House, where 61 of Pelosi's Democrats represent Republican-leaning districts (Bush carried them). Hark! what discord will follow. What fun.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/14/2007 14:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oops. Please move to Opinion. I'm still so steamed at Harry!
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/14/2007 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Reid is the most despicable legislator and poorest excuse for a human I have ever seen or heard from. It is beyond me why he was ever elected.
It's that time of year again. Summer is here, the temperature outside is rising, and Israel's irresponsible critics are busy turning up the heat.
Deploying a potent mix of selective amnesia combined with some good ol' fashioned obfuscation, these "amnesiacs," as I call them, would have us all believe that nothing good ever came from the 1967 Six Day War.
Seizing upon this month's 40th anniversary of that heroic triumph, they are trying to rewrite the historical narrative, injecting as much gloom and doom as possible in order to push Israel into making still more concessions to the Arabs.
Occupation, occupation, occupation - that is all the "amnesiacs" seem capable of talking about. How bad it is, how damaging it has been, and how we must bring it all to an end.
What a bunch of hogwash.
Harping on Israel's myriad alleged sins, and repeating them ad nauseam, does not make them so, and we cannot allow those who distort history, or who choose to forget it, to cloud our perspective any longer.
The truth of the matter is that the core of the Middle East conflict is not the Israeli "occupation" of territory, but the Palestinian [Arab] "preoccupation" with destroying the Jewish state.
It is that, and that alone, which has fueled this conflict since the start.
As the late Golda Meir once put it, "When Arab statesmen insist that Israel withdraw to the pre-June 1967 lines, one can only ask: if those lines are so sacred to the Arabs, why was the Six Day War launched to destroy them?"
Israel's survival was a miracle, and the Six Day War was a blessing from Heaven. Its outcome made this country safer, stronger and more secure, and we should be celebrating it effusively with each passing year.
Al Gore may disagree, but I am convinced that if there is global warming in the world today, it is because of all the hot air being released into the atmosphere by the media pundits and left-wing activists who bash the Jewish state with unrelenting ferocity. rest at the link
#1
And yet the Israelis made the dreadful error of not ejecting their treacherous enemies from the battlefield. What kind of victory can you ever have if you just disarm your enemy for the time being, yet let them live among you?
But the Israelis steadfastly not only refuse to deport their enemies, but to give greater and greater autonomy to the enemies in their midst, who have never for even a moment stopped their campaign of violence and destruction.
Germany tried to deport many Jews, but other nations refused to accept them. But had they been successful, would Germany have been condemned at all today for this persecution, or would it have just been a footnote to the war?
Likewise, if 40 years ago, Israel had booted out those who had tried to destroy it, can you imagine how peaceful that part of the world might be?
The Palestinians, who are not an ethnic group, but a mongrel collective, would live in Egypt and Jordan like many of them do right now.
"Palestine" would be as fleeting a memory as the Caliphate is today.
#2
nothing good ever came from the 1967 Six Day War
This is absolutely true, but only from the Arab perspective. After all, they didnt come up with that word nakba for nothing.
"40 bad years" is how he summed up in a recent article the intervening period since Israel was saved from annihilation.
And how the hell would he [Uri Avnery] have phrased it if Israel had lost? Crikey, its like this guy wants to go up the chimney without any outside help.
In the five years following the conflict, Israel's per capita GDP soared by more than 50 percent, exports nearly tripled, unemployment fell and the economy emerged from the painful recession of the mid-1960s. We surged past our neighbors, and Israel now finds itself on a par economically with various European countries.
Yes, but at whose cost? Those who follow the Zero Sum Equation cult shrill out that question whenever they are confronted with undeniable success.
If you really want to end the dispute with our neighbors, then tackle the Palestinian preoccupation with destroying Israel, and peace may just eventually come to pass.
Perish the thought that Arab Muslims might have to forego their visions of genocide. They cling to it like like it was their only hope. So it may well be. Should Islam ever be forced to abandon its quest for dominance, what then would it amount to? Answer: Much like the many failed Muslim majority nations, it would be just another failed ideology. Islam has pinned its entire justification for existing and raison d'etre upon annihilation of the Jews.
Aside from terrorism and abject gender apartheid, one of the single greatest stumbling blocks to Islam's continued existence is its fixation upon genocide. I dread to think about just what sort of catastrophe will be required to, once and for all, divert Muslim attention away from this ghoulish fixation. There seems little doubt that it will involve the death of untold millions of Islam's faithful. So be it.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/14/2007 11:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's really sad to see such a venerable and unique institution closing . . . I mean, it must be sad when something so dear to the hearts of many fails . . . aw, to hell with politeness: LOOOSERS! WELCOME TO CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY, YOU LONG-HAIRED FREAKY PEOPLE! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry. Couldn't control myself there.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2007 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Feels great though, doesn't it?
Posted by: Jonathan ||
06/14/2007 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Named after a Crusader Kingdom. Was it a religious college?
#4
For the last four years, at least, when my colleges call for alumni donations (which I used to make regularly), I check my list of PC idiocies they perpetrated the preceding year and tell them "no", and why. Instead I pick a school that has done something 'right' and send them an unsolicited donation (and tell them why.) It feels good, and I highly recommend the practice. Maybe eventually even moronic Ph.D.'s (I are one) like those running the colleges will figure it out.
This thought occurred to me last night, on the way home. I did the rough math in my head, and confirmed my original hypothesis this morning: Illegal aliens in America kill more innocent men, women, and children in accidents than the Jihadis kill troops in Iraq.
Heres the math:
Troops killed in four years: about 4,000 (a few hundred, more or less, will not matter for this comparison youll see).
Americans killed in automobile accidents in four years: About 160,000 (more or less, like above). It might be as few as 140,000; you can recompute, if youd like.
Number of illegal aliens assumed: 12 million, or four percent of the country. Yes, it could be higher, but Im trying for the center of the range.
Number of vehicular deaths attributed to illegal aliens in four years: four percent of 160,000 = 6,400. This is 1.6 times the number of troops killed in Iraq in four years. More or less.
Hazard to the American way of life (Heres the headline for the Washington Post): Illegal aliens are 1.6 times as deadly as the war in Iraq.
True, there are more Americans in America than soldiers in Iraq. But soldiers are volunteers, while highway victims are not. If the number of aliens is closer to 20 million, the kill ratio of 1.6 increases to 2.67 9,333 killed on the highways by illegal aliens. Some will claim the number is higher, because illegal aliens dont drive as well as the average American driver.
Im not so sure. One could also argue they drive more carefully, since they have more to lose if stopped for a ticket. In theory, anyway.
So why cant we have a daily report in the media on the number of innocent victims of illegal alien drivers? How many today, CBS? How many this year, New York Times? How many in LA, LA Times? Where's your perspective?
No link. Analysis by Bobby
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/14/2007 06:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And today is Flag Day! How appropriate!
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/14/2007 6:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So why cant we have a daily report in the media on the number of innocent victims of illegal alien drivers?
Erem ... Because their heads would explode? Just guessing here.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
