An Ignorant American's Blog of American Arrogance

A Little Post Before my July 4th Vacation

2007-07-02T18:26:00.000-04:00

Before I leave today to take a brief July 4th vacation, I would like to share a video for everyone to think about while I'm gone. I think the lesson of it is very important.

Penn and Teller do a brilliant, albeit controversial act during their stage show in Las Vegas. I think the point of it is the essence of what July 4th should be about. It's more than fireworks. It's about ideals of freedom birthed in 1776 as detailed in The Declaration of Independence. One thing that makes America great is the importance of choice. Millions of men and women have died for choice. Many are still dying. Others in other parts of the world are still fighting and dying for choice in places around the world. Without making this into another sappy screed, I would like to call all Americans and her friends around the world to let us celebrate choice today, this July 4th, as well as the ideals of our country. It isn't the wealth of America, nor its might that make us great, but our values. All other positive attributes are secondary, and come from these values. We are free people. We will not bend to the will of tyrants.

On a Related Note...

2007-06-27T02:28:00.000-04:00

On a related note, due to the recent protests, I recently bought a copy of Sir Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses in defiance of the religious fascists who desire that I do not. I suggest anyone reading this blog do the same.

Rushdie Redux

2007-06-26T23:13:00.000-04:00

Since 1998, many had assumed that a Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989 had died out, including the author himself, supposedly. His recent knighting had, predictably with the current events being what they are, made the intolerant army of Allah angry, calling for his death for his blasphemy towards Islam, etc., etc., and all that.

Thankfully, this continued vocal Fatwa has led to a backlash against the intolerance of the Slaves to Allah from so many intellectuals. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former MP of Holland's Parliament, and now a US citizen, likened the new "outcry" by the fundamentalist mobs to "...a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags" and making a bonfire, throwing "...the items one at a time into that fire screaming 'Long Live the Queen!' each time the flames shot up." Ayaan has had to deal with the Islamic hatred of competing belief systems, as detailed in her two books, the manifesto, The Caged Virgin and her memior, Infidel, which I am currently reading.

Daniel Pipes, going against the popular belief that the knighting is a sign of "British Backbone", correctly points out that the Fatwa wasn't over in 1998, when a false sense of security fell over the Rushdie's backers after an Iranian official claimed the death sentence was over. Now with his knighting, we see the security that was imagined quickly disappear with each chant of "Death to the Queen". What Pipes gets wrong, however, is that he criticises the British government for not thinking of the "implications" of their honoring him, a sentiment echoed by the British Conservative Party MP Stewart Jackson. Instead, perhaps we shouldn't worry about the "implications" of what people thousands of miles away think about how we use our freedoms to honor those who we find to be of value to literature and society. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the "implications" of our continuing to be free and exercising our freedoms. In fact, we shouldn't worry about the feelings of fascists who hate free societies that don't bow to their idea of law. Such thinking is bowing to their belief system, giving them veto power over our every action.

Christopher Hitchens, close friend of Sir Rushdie has been a constant defender of him in this whole charade. In his latest Slate column states that we should disregard the anger of perpetually outraged religious fanatics and let them be angry while we freely exercise our freedoms. All attempts to please these people are pointless, he says.

I agree with Mr. Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali that we shouldn't live at the mercy of their delicate, impoverished egos. In fact, I think it's time that we relish their miserable rage and let them threaten us with death. We already have a Fatwa on all of us right now who don't follow such disgusting practices as "female circumcision" and "honor killings". I wish more people would see that. If we cease to be a free society because we let these thugs have veto power over how we use our freedoms, then we are no longer a free society. We might as well convert right now, if that is the case.

Note to the Right: Concentrate on Something Important

2006-12-22T23:00:00.000-05:00

To see the spectacle of countless right-wing pundits upset over Keith Ellison's swearing in being planned using a Qu'ran instead of a Bible is something that nearly crushes my belief that the Conservatives are the people we need to fight this threat. It saddens me when I see Dennis Prager become the opposite extreme of Multi-culturalism and say that the Bible should be the only book of which our public officeholders swear upon. The more I read Mr. Prager's November 28th column, the more I find his justification for this to be more and more vacuous. According to Prager:

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Okay... sounds like a stretch of the imagination, but let's give him a chance to explain.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

His first assertion is that this is all the work of the multiculturalists. Sorry Dennis, I am hardly what you would call a "multiculturalist". I do in fact believe that Secular Western Culture is superior to the rest of the world. I also believe that the Koran does not hold any divine influence behind it and that it, like the Bible has warm and fuzzy quotations, as well as parts that encourage intolerace, hate, and bigotry. And I don't believe in cultural relativism. However, if the cultural relativists say that what is important in using as a book or other object for the swearing in should be what the individual being sworn in deems important, then I have no problems with the multiculturalists there.

Mr. Prager also fails to make a decent point in his statement that "America is interested in only one book..." Swearing on something that other people believe in but you do not is ultimately meaningless. Ellison, as a Muslim, believes that the Koran is the divine word of God, or Allah, if you like, not the Bible. If those who see the Bible as the divine, inspired word of God were to swear upon a Koran in a Muslim majority society, it would be just as silly.

To illustrate this, imagine this fictional and a little out-there example of an alternate Earth. In this Earth, the politicians in the United States swear upon the Sacred Rubber Chicken of the Church of Chickenology, the majority religion of the United States. However, a member of another religion has been elected to political office. He decides that instead of swearing to uphold the Constitution on the Sacred Rubber Chicken, he instead will swear upon the Divine Plastic Cheeseburger, as he is a member of the Church of Beefology and that is the sacred object of which his religion is based. The Right, however, furious that this one individual wants to break a tradition, they furiously demand "This tradition has never been broken! For centuries, we have sworn on the Chicken, even some of us who didn't believe in it because that is what America thinks matters." The stupidity of these statement is of the same stupidity of what Mr. Prager is stating. Like the Sacred Rubber Chicken in my ridiculous fantasy universe, the Bible is not believed by all, even if the majority supposedly does. And even so, Ellison, like the fictional politician from the fictional universe, does not believe in the Bible as the most sacred object or word of God or whatever. To him, the Koran is what is most important. Swearing upon that thing is what is important to him and carries more weight.

Of course, Mr. Prager isn't finished, and neither am I:

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

This supposed precedent is unimportant and of no consequence. The deference to tradition in performing a serious oath is unimportant. Whether Jews and other practitioners of different religions have sworn with the Bible before is unimportant as well. In fact, it shows a lack of honesty in deference to a Judeo-Christian traditon in a secular and increasingly religiously-diverse country. Isn't it better to ask them to swear to uphold our Constitution on something THEY believe in, or should we continue a supposedly written-in-stone tradition where the person doing the swearing-in is swearing upon something which the majority of the country believes is extremely or the most meaningful, while the elected office-holder deems it to be of lesser or of no importance?

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

I only agree to a very small extent. I do believe much of this ado-over-nothing is over the fact that Mr. Ellison is a Muslim and that this is a leftist publicity stunt. But, it goes both ways. There is as much evidence that this is also a concern of the Right for the very same reasons. What better way for the Republican party to get supporters back from the great Election loss of '06 than to create a tempest in a teacup that is the use of a different book for a swearing-in? Ultimately, this is a publicity stunt for both groups. The Left is using this as bait to capture their opponents and distract them. Like an all too eager catfish catching a minnow on a fisherman's hook, they have let the ravenous appetite of the Religious Right blind the Republican Party from uniting the country against the shark that is Jihadist Islam, among other issues that matter (one can make a parallel between the Right in this issue and the plethora of Secularists who are more concerned with getting rid of Christmas trees than Islamic Terrorism). And of course, the Left and the Saudi-sponsored CAIR organization and their ilk are using it to show how intolerant the right and America is to Muslims. For the Right, this is a battle not worth fighting, as it is unwinnable and has nothing to gain.

While I believe that the Politically Correct Leftist crowd has ridiculously bent over backwards to avoid offense of Muslims or Islam itself, I don't think that this is primarily a case of that attitude here. In fact, imagine if Mr. Ellison's plans for his swearing-in are implemented. What is there to lose or gain? There are only three losers I would see in this scenario. The first are, of course, some of the misguided Right-wingers who decided to march alongside Mr. Prager in this issue. The second, are the multi-culturalist left-wingers who constantly hammer the insane idea that America is an intolerant country, afraid of social progress, change, and tolerance, especially to Muslims. To have a Muslim elected and use his holy book for the swearing-in would be a slap in the face to that narrative. And most importantly, we have the the ones we really want to lose, the corrupt holy leaders who are constantly searching for gullible Muslims to die for their 72 virgins. One of their most important places of recruitment are within the borders of the United States, in the Islamic communities. How can the extremists be taken seriously when they claim that the United States is hostile to Muslims and there are people in the communities that know of, or even voted for a Muslim candidate who won and had a swearing-in ceremony. What would even make it harder for the Jihadist leaders is that this Muslim was allowed to swear upon his holy book! This will obviously not "embolden" them when their recruitment numbers begin to dwindle. Chances are, they will not see this as a victory for their sick cause, as their cause demands the destruction of the United States, not integration into and cooperation with it, as Mr. Ellison has done so far. The fear of the "Islamification of America" coming from this is so absurd, it almost exactly matches the hue that the Anti-War Multiculturalist Left wants to paint all of us who are serious about fighting terrorism with one swift stroke. The Right should go back to fighting the real enemies of our civilization, instead of making up new imaginary ones.

Add to del.icio.us

And Now... A Time for Civil Disobedience in Response to McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform

2006-10-26T11:15:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip goes to Misha, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.)

I believe that whatever the traffic that goes to my blog, I have to participate in an act of Civil Disobedience that is taking the blogosphere by storm. In this post, all you have to do is promote whatever candidate for any political office. Why am I allowing this? Because the McCain-Feingold bill is opposed to allowing supporters of candidates for a federal office from using soft money donations to fund ads 60 days before the general election. In essence, I believe this is an attack on the First Amendment rights of our citizens, as these so-called "soft money" groups are actually a way for less wealthy and politically active individuals to equalize their influence on candidates versus the more wealthy individual donors.

Also, the law is now being broadly interpreted as meaning that even posting a link to a preferred candidate may in fact be a violation. Just read this and see what I mean.

If this is considered a law, then I, as a free individual who chooses whether or not to consent to the laws, must refuse to recognize this one. It is a violation of Free Speech, and I will not let this stand any longer.

All are free to comment in the comments section of this particular post, and endorse any candidate regardless of political views or affiliation. No endorsement will be moderated or censored in any way. This is what America SHOULD be, and it may take many citizens of this country to disobey this law, shouting in one voice that no law in conflict with our Bill of Rights is a law worth obeying.

Zucker's New GOP Ad Should Be Put Up

2006-10-11T00:19:00.000-04:00

(Hat-tip goes to Drudge)

David Zucker, Producer and Director of such films as Airplane!, Scary Movie 3 and 4, and my personal favorite, the Naked Gun films, has recently finished an ad for the GOP that he is hoping to get circulated on TV stations. Unfortunately, this video is seen as "over-the-top" by GOP strategists, and is currently not being distributed. What a shame.

Here is the video:

According to one GOP Strategist:

"Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad. It makes a point, but it's way over the top."

Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

What a pity. The truth is that this video, while showing the over-the-top comedy that made Zucker so famous in Hollywood, shows the intellectual and moral failing of the Democratic Party in dealing with terrorism as seen by so many Republicans and Conservatives. What these GOP strategists fail to see, either due to not understanding comedy, being spineless, or both, is that the over-the-top nature of this video is the very point of the film. One of the many weapons in Comedy is to show a flawed idea is to take it to its extreme logical conclusion and thus show the sillyness of the other side in doing so. This film shows EXACTLY what I see as wrong in the "Peace and Stability" crowd that infects the halls of Academia, the Democratic Party, and countless blowhard political talking-heads. And that is the reason, that despite the Foley scandal that's been shown on our TV screens on endless repeat, I will NOT choose to vote for Democrats in this coming election, and perhaps many elections to come. The GOP does indeed have its flaws, and I believe there is a desperate need for a change within the party with bringing less fire-and-brimstone religious Conservatives and RINOs who are for big government in the economic sector out of office. Despite that, their one strength is that they back this War for Civilization we are now fighting when so many are unwilling. Defense of our country of our civilization is the most important issue. It is a damn pity that whether or not to do so has become a heated debate, as opposed to debating on how to accomplish victory. Thankfully, people like Zucker, through their intellectual and artistic skill, show how the ultimate failure of those who made this unnecessary debate occur.

My Thoughts on the Axis of Evil Summit at the UN Headquarters

2006-09-21T04:46:00.000-04:00

Much coverage has been made about the recent speeches by ~~presidents~~ Dictators Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the press and commentators. What is important is that we, while approving or disapproving of their words, understand exactly WHO they are. Leftists most likely will strongly agree with their statements against "American Imperialism". But, to paraphrase the oft-quoted statment, "The enemy of my enemy is not my friend." In Lou Minatti: The Chavez-Chomsky-Ahmadinejad Asshat Triad, Lou points out an obvious question: Do you hate George Bush and/or the United States so much that you want to side with these individuals?

This is exactly the thought that went through my head when I visited a local bookstore in Raleigh, The Reader's Corner, had one of Ahmadinejad's idiotic "letters" to President Bush. While one can merely debate the the merits or lack thereof concerning the arguments in the letter, one must at some point "Consider the Source", and possibly find the myriad of more decent people critical of the Bush Administration saying the exact same thing.

So, what makes these individuals so unsavory for those with some knowledge of who they are? Plenty. For instance, the beloved Ahmadinejad is well-known to have stated that the Holocaust was a myth and even was a major force in starting a cartoon contest whose focus was on the Holocaust being a hoax. That, included with his well-known mention of a desire to "wipe Israel off the map", makes many look behind the "Moderate", "Anti-Imperialist" facade and see a raging anti-Semite. While the left gives Mel "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?" Gibson hell for the things he said while drunk, it's amazing that they won't criticise what the Iranian Dictator said while sober. Wouldn't Ahmadinejad be more important, given that between him and Mr. Gibson, he has an army and nuclear weapons at his disposal to implement his sick dream and Mr. Gibson doesn't? As an aside note on Mr. Gibson, does it not surprise you that the two men also have the same opinion on the Iraq war now?

As for Hugo Chavez, it should be obvious. Under his populist mask, you see a conniving, slithering snake. He gives goodies like lower oil prices to Native American reservations and now Harlem, both places where the population is prone to bwe critical of the United States. But while the short-sighted will praise his kindness to these people, they will fail to see the political strategery behind it. More frighteningly, they will also fail to see his restructuring the Venezuelan government to gaurantee his victory in every election and make sure that any opposition to him on any political move is futile(Bugmenot Login). In fact, it can be said that he is the living example of the Left-Wing characature of George W. Bush. Such an observation is quite ironic, given that Casey Sheehan's mother, who blames Bush for her son's death and makes the same accusations towards Bush that Chavez is known to have in fact done, visited him to rally against US Imperialism.

The image of Mr. Chavez holding the book by Noam Chomsky is almost emblematic of the Left today. The political groups that used to stand for Universal Suffrage, Freedom of Speech without question, and Equal Opportunity have now been transformed to the groups that make excuses for, nay, back up Dictators, Terrorists, and other assorted thugs. It is sad to see behind almost every evil occuring in the world today, the Left is not far behind in their support or excuse-making of it. Mr. Rangel and Ms. Pelosi's half-hearted denunciations of what Mr. Chavez said may have softened the blow, but the point remains. Chomsky has many followers who will undoubtedly vote for and support Mr. Rangel and Ms. Pelosi when given the chance, and will also doubtlessly regard Mr. Chavez highly for the things he said last week. There is an important lesson to be learned in all of this. The company one keeps doesn reflect one's character. Like the Right and it's sad excuse-making for "anti-Communist" dictatorships that were no different than the enemy we were facing in the Cold War, the Left stands behind and makes excuses for some of the worst monsters of our time. Like I said earlier in this post, The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

The Islamic Community Needs to Wake Up

2006-08-11T22:26:00.000-04:00

I was looking over the BBC News website and came across this article, which shows a continuing trend of willed ignorance on the part of Muslims towards American attitudes towards Islam, which has been brought back into the spotlight due to Bush's recent comments in the wake of Islamic Fascist extremists' failed attack on the United Kingdom and the United States. Let us now look at this BBC article point-by-point:

Bush's language angers US Muslims
By Richard Allen Greene
BBC News, Washington

In the days after the horror of the 11 September attacks, President George W Bush made a point of saying Muslims per se were not America's enemy.

But in the five years since then, he has taken less care to emphasise that message, US Muslim leaders are saying.

They are upset about his use of terms like "Islamic fascists", which he used this week both for Hezbollah and the suspected bomb plotters held in the UK.

"It offends the vast majority of moderate Muslims," Ahmed Younis said.

"The use of the term casts a shadow upon Islam and bolsters the argument that there is a clash of civilisations between Islam and the West," Mr Younis, the national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (Mpac), told the BBC.

He said it was wrong to link the actions of violent Muslims to their religion.

"There is nothing Islamic about their fascism. The Prophet [Muhammad] and the Koran clearly articulate that this type of activity is outside of bounds for Muslims."

First, the term "Islamic Fascism" is a perfect term to describe these violent theocrats. For example, Dictionary.com's definition of Fascism is "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." So far, I don't see any difference between this word and the ideals and methods of the Islamic Fascists. And, of course, Islam in the Dictionary.com definition is "A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God." So far, I have yet to see any difference between these definitions and the people that follow that murderous belief system. There are Christian Fascists, Left and Right-wing Fascists. Does that mean that Christians and people who are Left or Right-wing are all Fascists? And what about the claim that the Koran is against violence and terrorism? A few quotes from the source should alleviate any curiousities -

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)
-Quran 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
-Quran 4:89

Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve.
-Quran 9:3

Any questions?

Regular refrain

Mr Bush used the term on at least two separate occasions this week.

On Monday, during a press conference from his ranch in Texas, he said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism".

A moment later, he said "Islamo-fascism" was an "ideology that is real and profound".

Then, on Thursday after the arrest in Britain of two dozen people suspected of plotting of bomb planes travelling to the US, he said "Islamic fascists... will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom".

That day, the Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote to him to complain.

Its chairman Parvez Ahmed condemned his "use of ill-defined hot-button terms", which, he said, "feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam".

The council had not had a reply from the White House as of Friday afternoon, its legal director Arsalan Iftikhar told the BBC.

Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to BBC requests for clarification of the term.

Mr Younis of Mpac said he believed the president's use of the term was "a mistake" and that Mr Bush's speechwriters would drop it in the future.

He added that the idea that "there is a school of thought called Islamic fascism is a misnomer".

'Different breed'

Security expert Daniel Benjamin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agreed that the term was meaningless.

"There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term," he said.

"This is an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one's opponent, but it doesn't tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.

"The people who are trying to kill us, Sunni jihadist terrorists, are a very, very different breed."

Most thinking people will know that this is not what Bush meant by the term. But the Saudi-backed Council on American-Islamic Relations obviously has no faith in the intelligence of Muslims. What I believe the real fear from CAIR is, is the possibility of the moderate Muslims whom they claim to speak for while being funded by the extremists will differentiate between the Islamic Fascists who blindly accept the extreme literal interpretation of the Quran and those who follow a more moderate Islam, that respects plurality and a diversity of religions and other belief systems living in peace, such as the Free Muslims Coalition. As for the term "Islamic Fascism" being a misnomer, that is untrue. While the Islamic Fascists don't call themselves by that term, their beliefs and practices certainly apply.

Zanab Chami, a Muslim community activist in Dearborn, Michigan - home to one of the largest Arab communities in the US - said the administration had seized upon a new term to frighten people.

"I think the word terrorism has lost its edge. They are looking for something with a little more oomph."

And she is afraid that such language does have an effect on how Americans view Muslims.

"In the post-9/11 era, people are apt to fear Islam. These terms get thrown around so easily and it builds upon a foundation of fear that has already been instilled."

In fact, a Gallup poll released the day of the arrests in Britain showed that two out of five Americans admit to feeling prejudice against Muslims.

While the concept of the word "terrorism" losing it's "oomph" as Zanab Chami so eloquently put it is correct, there is also another cause for the redefinition. The term "terrorism" is ill-defined in light of who the Western World is fighting. This war isn't against terrorism in general, but in fact a war on Islamic terrorism, which after 9/11 has been deemed the most pressing terrorist threat to the United States and the West.

As for prejudice, it is a sad thing, but this prejudice was most likely due to the actions of Islamic radicals in the past coupled with a lack of contact with more moderate Muslims on the part of these people who partook in the polls, not Bush's rhetoric.

In Washington, Mr Younis said the president's linking of Islam with fascism would alienate "moderate Muslims who are needed at the front line of any effort to counter terrorism or extremism by Muslims".

But in Michigan, Ms Chami said it was already too late to worry about indelicate phrases.

"Members of the Muslim community here do not believe in the administration. They rightfully discount much of what President Bush says. People have closed their ears to him."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
americas/4785065.stm

And the Muslim community will continue this PR slump at their own peril for not listening to the President's statements. Instead of decrying his words, they should show some actual proof, not rhetoric, that the majority of Muslims support putting an end to the Islamic extremism. It's pathetic that the poor definition of these terms mixed with the willed ignorance of Muslim leaders has led to this debacle.

Israel May be on the Way to a Huge Mistake

2006-08-11T21:13:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip goes to Drudge)

Israeli PM Has Accepted Cease-Fire Deal

Israeli Prime Minister Accepts U.N. Cease-Fire Deal, Officials Say

By KARIN LAUB

JERUSALEM Aug 11, 2006 (AP)— Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has accepted an emerging Mideast cease-fire deal and informed the United States of his decision, Israeli officials said Friday.

Olmert will recommend that his government approve the deal in its meeting on Sunday, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to brief journalists on the internal discussions.

It was not immediately clear whether Israel's expanded ground offensive would be frozen. Defense officials said it appeared the campaign would be halted.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/
wireStory?id=2303062

Sadly, pressure from the international defeatists may have caused Olmert to weaken his stance on fighting Hezbollah. It's a pathetic spectacle unraveling if what I believe that this "cease-fire" will turn out to be when revealed to the press. What people fail to realize, either through ignorance or a weak hope for no conflict, is that terrorists and tyrants bent on domination of a part of the world or the whole world will NOT by any stretch of the imagination respect truces, treaties, nor cease-fires. If they do obey for some time, it will only be temporary, as a permanent agreement to such binding international agreements are inconsistent with their beliefs. And fervent believers as a whole will NEVER change their ways. The wiser option for Israel or any nation facing such a threat is to disregard the entities calling for a treaty, safe in their part of the world not affected by the enemy's attacks. If Israel is participating in a cease-fire like a fear, they will only delay the war, not end it. And the cost may indeed by greater when the time comes again where action is the only choice.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Acts like a 'Tard

2006-07-23T19:03:00.000-04:00

I'm sorry. At least retards have an excuse because they were born that way. He's just stupid.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann used a Saturday morning breakfast session at the Television Critics Association press tour to fire yet another shot at Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, holding up an O’Reilly mask while raising his right arm in a Nazi salute to mock his on-air rival.

“It’s just so much fun,” said the host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann when questioned about why he pursues his on-air rivalry with O’Reilly.

Olbermann also told the story of seeing O’Reilly at a celebrity fundraiser in New York, but said O’Reilly “never got within 20 feet of me. Every time I looked at him, he looked down.”

Olbermann did, however, note that his show and network have to “take more chances” in the race to compete with CNN and Fox News Channel, which he called an “ingenuously-placed political product.”

Source:http://www.broadcastingcable.com/
article/CA6355563.html

Cute, real cute. Just like that shrill bitch Janeane Garoffalo (who accounts for 99% of Tampon company profits), we have here a stunning advertisement of a space for rent inside Olbermann's skull. I'm no fan of O'Reilly, but despite O'Reilly's chickening out in confronting Olbermann (assuming the man with diahhrea of the mouth's account is true), O'Reilly ends up looking like the bigger person not due to any virtue of bravery of his own, but by the blatant stupidity of the mediocre mind of his obsessed opponent. This action seems more like the actions of an out of control 12-year-old, not a thinking adult. Sure, people do silly things in criticizing their foes, but comparing people with no Nazi ties to the Nazis just doesn't have much truth and merely shows a lack of intelligence.

And MSNBC wonders why their ratings are so low in comparison to Fox News and CNN. Truly pathetic.

**UPDATE!** I just came across an excellent blog on The Madness of Keith Olbermann, and thus I've decided that it should enjoy an esteemed place on my Mile-Long List of Links (TM). Congrats guys, and good work... now welcome to my nightmare! MWAHAHAHAHA!

Gore's Fallacious Rhetoric Frightens Me

2006-06-21T17:25:00.000-04:00

I was reading a story on Al Gore's recent TV appearances, and I can't help but feel a sense of dread that I couldn't put a finger on until today, when I read this example of his recurring statement on Global Warming:

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/
archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml

"That's strange", I would say to Mr. Gore, since many prominent Climate scientists who study the CAUSES AND EFFECTS of climate change through observation of the actual phenomena say that Gore's arguments are rooted in weak argumentation and even weaker science. Now, these are scientists who study the causes and effects of climate rather than those who merely the effects in flawed computer simulations, whom Gore has marching behind him in his vain crusade.

So, basically, Mr. Gore states that he hasn't met any scientists who dispute his assertions and anyone who denies it is merely being illogical like a person claiming the moon landing didn't happen. Why? Because "The debate is over."

Such thinking troubles me. This is merely a childish way to tell you "YOU'RE WRONG, SO SHUT UP!" If people fall for this, then it creates orthodoxy and stifles debate, therefore creating a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. The problem creates an atmosphere in which people use ad hominem attacks on those who make assertions otherwise not even for unrelated character flaws, but for the assertions themselves. What makes the attacks ad hominem? Because the person simply asserted a different idea that was different from orthodoxy, and that is the only reason they are being attacked, as if their very assertion is a character flaw. Instead, in the world of debate, both sides should counter each other with the truth and NEVER declare the debate to be over. This doesn't mean one shouldn't take sides and become a relativist. However, it does mean that debate should continue and there should be no attacks on a person for an assertion that isn't an undeserved attack or threat. Gore's temper tantrum indicates a lack of a desire for dialogue. Instead, it indicates a man wanting a world where no-one with an opinion or even information contrary to his assertions would be given a chance to speak up. And that, perhaps, is the sign of a closed-minded, dogmatic individual, afraid of the possibility that he is wrong.

Okay, I'm back this time... Honest!

2006-06-07T04:49:00.000-04:00

Well, it seems that college, studying, and other activities were very time and energy consuming for me, so it was rather difficult to find the time to read up on the news AND write on it. Of course, after recuperation in the Bahamas, along with some moving from college and helping my parents move, I finally found the time to re-enter the website, especially with my commentary on the current state of events.

So, newbies, welcome. And to all my frequent readers that may (or may not) be out there, sorry and welcome back!

Good Reads (2/22/06)

2006-02-22T23:01:00.000-05:00

"Appeasement 101" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/
hanson022206.html
"Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?" - David Horowitz
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/
ReadArticle.asp?ID=21370
"Punishing Silly Sentiments" - Klaus Rohrich
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/
klaus022206.htm
"Indoctrination of our youth" - Walter E. Williams
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/
walterwilliams/2006/02/22/187189.html

Good Reads (2/21/06)

2006-02-21T22:48:00.000-05:00

"Think Again: Islamist Terrorism" - Christine Fair,
Husain Haqqani
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3359
"What Will Europe Really Do?" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021906.html
"Climate of Uncertainty" - Stephen F. Hayward
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23912/
pub_detail.asp
"Stand Up for Denmark!" - Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2136714/
"Those Danish Cartoons and Me" - Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3405

Return from Hiatus and Spouting the Obvious

2006-02-20T01:39:00.000-05:00

Sorry about not updating the blog lately. I happened to have classes and wanted to get a better academic footing than my previous semesters, so I dedicated a lot more energy than usual to get better grades. Thankfully, it paid off. Now that I'm having a new semester that's going okay, and recent events have become the hottest in a long time, I decided I'll throw in my opinions of the major issues of the day.

First... The Dick Cheney hunting accident - What Cheney did was tragic, although based on a mistaken action. I am no expert on guns, nor am I possessing any experience or skill with guns. That being said, Cheney's actions should be taken as a mistake that should be punished through the extents granted by the local, state, and federal laws. No more. Democrats, predictably, are trying to look for a scandal. Recently, I overheard a local Liberal talk-radio host saying that there was a "cloak of secrecy" involving Dick Cheney's not informing the media until a day later of the incident. This, however, does not indicate a conspiracy. Instead, it indicates that perhaps Mr. Cheney did not want a huge alarm to sound before he informed Mr. Whittington's family of the horrific mistake. Cheney's action was unfortunate, but the policking of Administration critics making an issue out of a non-issue is approaching to be just as tragic.

Second... The "Protests" of Danish Cartoons - I'll repeat what countless bloggers and talk radio hosts have to say about this issue: The cartoons in the Danish newspaper are not a reason for the recent violence on the part of some in the Muslim community, it is an excuse. The Wahabbi-dominated Muslim communities of Europe have openly declared their enmity time and again towards Western values, even before all this foolishness with cartoons. Much like many Academics today, they are against Democracy and free speech. They wish to smash the very table from which they dine. What is the objective of these violent actions? The objective of any form of violence and terrorism: intimidation with the intention of submission. See how quickly Europe has caved in to these individuals. Even the United States, the supposed haven for freedom of speech has succumbed to an extent to this travesty. Christopher Hitchens, responding to a statement by Sean McCormack of the US State Department calling the cartoons and any criticism of religious figures "unacceptable", says:

What does he mean "unacceptable"? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/

The following will be shocking to many PC Leftists and the "America is a Christian Nation" Conservatives: Due to freedom of speech rights, no figure, religious or secular is beyond criticism. Even bigoted statements are protected under freedom of speech. What recent events having to do with this leads me to believe with more certainty that this Muslim "protest" is merely another act of Jihadist terrorism, creating a sort of de facto Islamic law against criticism of their religious figures. The sad thing is that the buckling under because of this controversy will only make the Wahabbi community only increase their "outrage" in order to get more political weakness to exploit from the West.

Both of these two issues seem to show a sad pattern in modern Democratic society. And that is this: Perpetual outrage brings political points. The Left tries to make up conspiracies to do with the current Administration being "power-hungry" and can seemingly do nothing right. The Right often gets upset over the actions of the Left, sometimes to the point where they have compensated by verbally attacking anyone even with a VALID criticism of the Administration or even questions a certain action. And, as I've just said before with the Islamists, the act of being outraged about actions of private individuals in different countries criticising their religion and blaming the entire government and populace of a country for it, and doing it in the most violent way possible. This strategy, whether new or as old as politics itself leads to a system of political bullying for political capital. And political discourse and freedom, along with those who cherish them are those who suffer for this travesty.

Good Reads (8/19)

2005-08-20T18:07:00.000-04:00

"The Biteback Effect" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081905.html
"What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants" - Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/
"Canada Blames Us" - John R. Lott, Jr.
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23041/
pub_detail.asp
"The End of Treason" = Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2865
"FOIA Exposes Clinton Anti-Terror Blunders"
- Mark Tapscott
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marktapscott/
mt20050820.shtml

My Last Say on Casey Sheehan's Mother (I Hope)

2005-08-19T01:53:00.000-04:00

I never, EVER thought I'd ever have anything to do with the Huffinton Post. But, I did. It seems Casey Sheehan's mother finally responded to all the accusations against her with a retort that was not very convincing to say the least. Saying it was not about her is very strange coming from a person who's had cameras surrounding her 24/7. Anyways, here is my comment, which I hope they'll allow to be posted:

"The issue is a disastrous war that's killing our sons and daughters and making our country less secure."

This issue is more than the war, Casey, as we have seen. We have you making statements that Israel must leave "Palestine" or even that our country "isn't worth fighting for". Also, you have done little to prevent the people in the news media from pointing the cameras at you and basically making it about you and having so many left-wing commentators like Maureen Dowd and Bill Press from making you into a celebrity.

Anyways, what really irritates me about what you have done is basically this:

Your son makes a decision based on his beliefs. They contradicted your own beliefs and you didn't want him to fight this "illegal war" in which he RE-enlisted to fight in. Then he dies, and I have my sincere condolences to you and your family. For a year after his death, you got to meet President Bush and you praised him, saying you felt happy again. Now, you claim that Bush "killed" your son, not focusing on the fact that it wasn't Bush who killed your son, but Terrorists. So, by your way of thinking, you believe that your son, a grown adult with his own values was not intelligent enough to know the risks. It seems to me that you are primarily upset merely not that your son died, even if it was something he believed in, but that he died for something you didn't.

That being said, I extend my wishes that your mother gets well.

Having Fun With MoveOn.org

2005-08-17T00:18:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip goes to Right Thoughts)

It seems MoveOn.org, the most popular political failure of a PAC wants to hear our opinions. Let's do something they don't want the average common-sense American to do: GIVE IT TO THEM!

Click here to take the survey

Cindy Sheehan Performs Seppuku with Her Image

2005-08-14T13:45:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip Goes to Drudge) Hey, this guy's good, alright?

Cindy Sheehan has just shot herself in the foot, big-time:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX AUG 14, 2005 08:02:39 ET XXXXX

BUSH PROTESTING MOM CALLS FOR 'ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE'; VOWS NOT TO PAY TAXES

Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.

Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

"And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."

The 48-year-old California mom remains tented up in a ditch along the one-lane road that leads to Bush's Texas ranch.

As her protest entered its second week, hundreds of people with conflicting opinions about the war in Iraq descended on the area.

TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."

Developing...

Sorry, Miss, but your statement that getting the US out of Iraq and Israel out of "Palestine" will not exactly solve anything. Hell, it's so stupid and ridiculous that my normally open-minded self can't help but sneer at. In fact, most Americans do. In case you didn't notice, ma'am, Israel IS pulling out of "Palestine" and the Jihadists are still determined to attack Israel. In case you haven't heard, "Palestinian" terror groups still say that they will continue their attacks. And as for the US in Iraq? Well, unless my memory is going away early, 9/11 happened before the US went to Iraq. Americans may disagree on how exactly to deal with terrorism, but her arrogant demands are believed by most to bring only defeat for the US. Watch her fame disappear better than Houdini. And her promise not to pay Taxes ought to piss off some Democrats...

Your 15 minutes are over, darling. Go back to the mental institution from which you came.

Cindy Sheehan's family

2005-08-13T13:21:00.000-04:00

(Yet again, hat-tip goes to Drudge)

Now it seems Cindy Sheehan's family is not exactly pleased with her actions. God knows the pain she's caused by dancing on her son's corpse and yelling "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!". Here's their statement, which is largely ignored by the mainstream media:

FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!
Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Developing...

Perhaps Bush should meet with them instead of this Michael Moore parrot in love with herself.

Cindy Sheehan, Mother of a Fallen Soldier in Iraq Who Wants to See Bush, is a Liar And an Opportunist

2005-08-08T13:10:00.000-04:00

(Hat-tip goes to Drudge)

It seems Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq that wants to speak with Bush seems to be playing a different tune than she did one year ago:

PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH
Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

CINDY 2005

Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.

She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"

In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.

"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

END

On her current media tour, Sheehan has not been asked to explain her twist on Bush; from praise to damnation!

Developing...

Hmm... Until I read this news flash, I believed that this woman was a poor, miguided, bereaved mother being used as a tool by the left to try to stir outrage at Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. Not anymore. I now strongly believe that Mrs. Sheehan has decided to crusade against Bush this year and float with public opinion on the ocean made of her family's tears and her son's blood. What could have changed her mind? Very likely the celebrity she recieved and the gratification of seeing the President after her seeing him last year. Now, even having had the President see her isn't enough. Now, she wants the approval of the world back, and with the lower approval for the Iraq War and President Bush, and the respect Americans have for military families, she basically made a deal with leftist groups to back up her BS quest to see Bush and basically flood him with abuse. The desire for fame has corrupted her tortured soul and now that soul is next to nonexistant. Reading what she has said, it seems she has more problems with how Bush reacted to her during the 2004 meeting with him which from her own lips then sounded like it went rather well than the war itself.

Her obvious ignorance on this whole war is obvious, blaming Bush for the death of her son, and not those who actually killed him, whom her now-despised President is dedicated to fighting. How many more opportunistic wenches like Cindy Sheehan will come out, I don't know. But I do know this: the more that come out, morale will be threatened and will most likely cause more Casey Sheehans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps people like Cindy Sheehan should think about that before spouting their ignorant filth. The Leftists of America have created a partnership with these bereaved families, parading and showing them off like an elderly millionaire celebrity shows off his young trophy wife. And like the millionaire and his wife, there is no real love between them or motivating their partnership.

Hiroshima in a More Perfect World

2005-08-06T19:10:00.000-04:00

Scott Ott shows what the people of Hiroshima would be doing if they hadn't been so emotionally affected by the attacks:

Hiroshima Survivors Celebrate Life-Saving Atomic Bomb
by Scott Ott

(2005-08-06) -- Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima marked the 60th anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons in war by celebrating the end of the totalitarian rule of Emperor Hirohito, whose blind ambition caused 1.5 million Japanese military casualities and some 672,000 civilian casualities.

If you want to see more of the article, check out this post on Scott's site, Scrappleface. If only this were true...

Hiroshima's Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba Speaks of Matters He Obviously Knows Nothing About.

2005-08-06T12:43:00.000-04:00

It seems the Mayor of Hiroshima can't keep his mouth shut at a somber memorial ceremony before using it as a pedestal to spout his ignorant filth:

In a "Peace Declaration," Hiroshima's outspoken Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba vowed to never allow a repeat of the tragedy and gave an impassioned plea for the abolition of nuclear weapons, saying the United States, Russia and other members of the nuclear club are "jeopardizing human survival."

"Many people around the world have succumbed to the feeling that there is nothing we can do," he said. "Within the United Nations, nuclear club members use their veto power to override the global majority and pursue their selfish objectives."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/
wireStory?id=1014484&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Selfish objectives? It seems Mr. Akiba doesn't realize that these "selfish objectives" are actually legitimate. If we simply try to disarm all our nuclear weapons like so many pie-in-the-sky nuclear disarmament utopians desire, then there are many risks that all these "selfish" nations would have to take.

For one, they will have to perform the impossible task of making sure that all are cooperating, which would be impossible in a realistic world where nuclear powers are at each other's throats. If one nation is fully compliant and assured that their fellow nations are eliminating nuclear weapons and disarms its arsenal, it may later find out that one nation actually has nuclear weapons hidden. Thus, it wouldn't change anything and instead would lead to merely fewer nations with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, if all nations cooperate in such a plan, even then it would be redundant in terms of preventing nuclear exchanges between nations, as the MAD policy mixed with a desire to stay alive keeps most of the nuclear powered nations (with the possible exception of North Korea) from using such weapons on each other. The real nuclear threat today is in fact from terrorists and their supporting states. They have no fear of death and no country of origin. Also, nuclear weapons today are also able to be BUILT and smuggled. Dismantling conventional nuclear arsenals of non-rogue states will not help in any way, shape, or form with this issue.

It seems to me that Mr. Akiba is using emotionalism to push forth a very ignorant policy idea that is ineffective at best, and suicidal at worst. Unfortunately, what makes him dangerous is how easily people fall for it due to the emotional connection between his location's having been attacked by an atomic weapon and his stance on such similar weaponry. However, that does not make him an expert on how to deal with such issues. He is the mayor of a city, nothing more.

Mr. Akiba, you are better off keeping your mouth shut on such matters during somber ceremonies such as these instead of mouthing off to gain political points with your people. You obviously are a political cretin of the worst kind, preying on people's emotions to advance your political agenda. Be quiet and try to respectfully honor those who died and stick to the issues and the functions of your elected office. Those whose families and friends died on that fateful day deserve no less.

Perhaps my post about Hiroshima was a bit early...

2005-08-06T12:03:00.000-04:00

Today marks the anniversary of the Atomic Bomb attacks on Hiroshima. I guess I should have waited for today to have done this post. Impatience has claimed another victim, it seems. Anyways, click the link to see the post, or perhaps you can scroll down. That helps, too.

R.I.P. Stephen Vincent

2005-08-03T10:50:00.000-04:00

(Thanks to LGF for bringing this to my attention)

I would like to extend my condolences to the friend and family of writer Stephen Vincent after his unfortunate demise. I must confess that I had not found out about his work until now, and I greatly regret it. His most recent column, published just hours before his death really caught my interest. He truly was a symbol of an ideal journalist, putting one's life on the line to get the story to those far away and wouldn't dare take such a risk. Not to mention, he was also had a blog, as well. I am definitely adding his book, In the Red Zone, to my wish list.

I hope the people that did this are found and brought to justice. And once again, my prayers to his friends and family. They should be proud of him.