Senate Accountability In Spite of Byrd and Stevens

Senator Bill Frist notes in his blog today:

"I'm very encouraged to see that all one hundred Senators have now answered the blogosphere's inquiries on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Now is the time to act. In September, I will bring S. 2590 to the floor of the Senate for the vote it deserves."

This bill, if signed into law, would make it possible for American citizens to see just where all that money we give this government goes. It would include all the earmarks that unscrupulous porkmeisters like Dennis "the Menace" Hastert, Robert "Kleagle" Byrd, and Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens have used to suck our economy into the red for their own personal enrichment.

But it could not make it to the floor for debate because someone slapped an anonymous hold on it. Well, it turns out that the guilty parties were none other than Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens. Go figure.

Byrd and Stevens did not place their holds on the bill because it violated anyone's civil rights- it didn't. Nor did they do it because they knew the bill would uncover their insatiable avarice and moral bankruptcy- which it will. But that is not why Byrd and Stevens perpetrated this despicable act against the American people.

Byrd and Stevens stopped this bill for political revenge.

That's right, Spanky. They did it just to get even with the Senators who wrote the bill. It didn't matter that the bill was absolutely critical in restoring the trust of the American people in their elected government. It didn't matter that the American people expect their Senators to act like mature adults and do the right thing. No; all that mattered to Byrd and Stevens was settling their petty and immature little personal grudges- at the expense of the American people.

These are the kinds of stupid, insipid games that our elected Senators and Congressmen are playing in Washington, on our dime, while our rights, our sovereignty, our identity, our security and our international mission get shoved into the outhouse. We put our trust in these schmucks, and this is what they give us in return.

And since both a Democrat and a Republican are responsible for this travesty, we now have conclusive evidence that such pieces of filth like Byrd and Stevens are not exclusive to one party or the other.

Doesn't that make you feel good about our government? I tell you, it just makes me tremble with patriotism...

After this outrage, if I find one of these old-boy cowards on my front porch during an election year, you can bet I will be opening something up for them- and it ain't gonna be my wallet.

Proof that the End Draweth Nigh

In a follow-on to my previous post regarding the manistream media's mass Karr-jacking of the news comes this proof that the end of the world draws nigh: The National Enquirer actually printed this headline about John Mark Karr on their weekly print version of the CBS Evening News:

"HE DIDN'T DO IT!"

Turns out that they actually printed the truth. As my dear mother (God rest her soul) used to say, "Whodathunkit?"

Mainstream Media Found Dead Under Karr

Well, for all us cynics out there, let us raise our glasses of whatever poison suits us in tribute to the late mainstream media.

As we cynics so inerrantly predicted, John Mark Karr is a great big non-story. His version of the JonBenet Ramsey murder- that is, his false confession- was proven to be as dubious as his masculinity. The only thing Karr is guilty of is being a really, really creepy dude. And the mainstream media has once again proven its utter irrelevance by shoving every other important story out of the way so that millions of slathering View-bimbos could get their daily fix of wierdness:

"John Mark Karr was teaching 2nd grade in Thailand! And John Mark Karr had his hair removed and wanted a sex change! Oh my God, this is earth shattering stuff! ...Oh, yeah, and some plane crashed in Kentucky and fifty people are dead... "

And that was just Fox.

It's hard to believe that the media could perpetrate anything more tasteless than Katy Couric shoving a camera up her bung and inviting all of America to take a tour. But I think that this tops it.

So here's to the mainstream media. May it feed many ravens in the ash heap of history.

Al-Reuters Newsie Wounded by IDF

Al-Reuters, the official spokesman of Jihad, informs us that one of their own has been wounded in an airstrike by Israeli Air Force in Gaza.

Dang.

Well, I suppose it's the price one pays for pimping mongrel thugs who have no right to Israeli real estate and have no sense of gratitude at all for what they have managed to extort from Israel already.

But then, that's the thing with radical Moslems: they don't know when to shut up and be grateful for what they have. Of course, if I was stuck in the 14th century and had not contributed a damn thing to world history other than slitting throats and flying crowded airplanes into skyscrapers, I guess I'd be a little jealous too.

As for the Al-Reuters guy, best wishes for a speedy recovery. And stay the hell out of Gaza, if you know what's good for you.

An Answer for Pennsylvania Progressive About the "Found Down" Patient

In my post on August 22 ("A Rough Day in the Sandbox"), I described an elderly female patient who was brought in after being "found down" after spending 8 days on the floor of her home.

One visitor, "Pennsylvania Progressive," responded to my post with this:

"The question I would ask is who the hell would let someone sit in that condition for eight days? Unless she lived alone or no one visited her I don't see how someone could let someone else suffer like that."

First of all, I want to tip my hat to Pennsylvania Progressive for prodding me to answer this difficult question. It must to be addressed. I will try to do so now, as succinctly as possible.

Elderly persons who are able to maintain their independence are generally encouraged to do so for as long as possible by their families, their friends and by their healthcare providers, with certain exceptions. The reason for this encouragement is simply that "if you don't use it, you lose it." It's a quality of life issue. If a person in her 70s or 80s is able to perform the basic activities of daily living as well as remain active in the community, then in my opinion, he or she should be openly encouraged to do so. Our society is all too ready to shunt the elderly off into "retirement communities" where the Baby Boomers and Generation X-ers don't have to deal with them. America is unique among nations in our poor treatment of the elderly. But I'll save the scathing indictment of our selfish society for a later date.

My theory is that an independent person of any age becomes just another commonly-perceived thing in our busy world. That's not really a bad thing; human beings are attuned to exceptions, not norms. So unless one is attuned to watching the elderly (as a nurse or other provider would be), the independent elderly person simply does not draw one's attention. The person's neighbors, children, and friends become accustomed to the person going about his or her daily life and they do not become worried of the person does not call or is not seen for a few days.

But independent or not, an elderly person is at higher risk for injury in the home because his or her body, as high-functioning as it may be, is still old. Reflexes are not as quick. The heart loses its resilience. Arteries lose their flexibility and vascular resistance increases, causing hypertension. Bones lose their inherent toughness due to calcium loss (in men as well as women, but moreso in women). Depth, contrast, and light perception are diminished. Hearing is not as sharp.

So one day, our elderly subject is at home and suffers a transient ischemic attack ("mini-stroke"), or a heart attack, or gets up too fast after taking medication for blood pressure and gets dizzy. Or maybe her bones have become so brittle that the simple act of pivoting shatters her hip. Or maybe she has had a martini or two, or three, with her lunch and is now a little tipsy. But down she goes. And she has no "life-alert" call button around her neck. Or she is in too much pain to drag herself to the phone. Or she has hit her head on the floor and sustained a concussion; or any number of other precipitating factors.

Meanwhile, nobody comes around to see about her, or if somebody calls, when she does not answer they simply assume that she is out and about. She could cry out for help, but may not be heard if she is in a room where her voice will not carry. The days go by, with no help...

But then somebody begins to notice that something is amiss. It takes awhile for us to perceive these things when someone is usually so independent...

"I haven't seen Aunt so-and-so lately. Have you?"
"Now that you mention it, I haven't. But you know her; she's always out doing something."
"Yeah, you're probably right."

So more days go by. But then the neighbors begin to notice something...

The mail keeps piling up in front of her door, or in her mailbox, but her car is still parked out front. Her dog has been outside for days. People have come calling, but she doesn't answer her door.

All the while, the person's body is breaking down under the enormous strain that forced immobility places on it. Skin breaks down and ulcerates as pressure cuts off the blood supply to the surface. The body begins to break down muscle tissue (and not fat) in order to maintain the supply of nutrients and proteins that the body must have to function. The major products of this process are ketones and creatinine kinase- both of which are lethal in high concentrations. The longer a person stays in this predicament, the worse things get for the body as it tries desperately to keep the important functions going. The buildup of ketones makes the blood acidotic. The pH if human blood has a very narrow range (7.35 to 7.45), and to go beyond this range can be fatal. The kidneys will secrete bicarbonate in order to buffer the blood, but when all that creatinine kinase produced from muscle wasting reaches the kidneys, it clogs the glomeruli and the kidneys are no longer able to filter out the mess. From that point, the downward spiral becomes more precipitous. Since the person has not had anything to drink for days, there is no way to flush out this destructive substance that clogs the nephrons. So the kidneys simply shut down. Lethal toxins begin to build up in the body at a more rapid rate. But that's not all by a long, long way. Our subject has more misery to experience before she intersects with my life.

Urine and feces excoriate the skin on contact, and after days without being washed away, whole areas of skin are completely gone. Infection sets in, and within days the person becomes septicemic- that is, the infection reaches the bloodstream and is carried throughout the body; from this point, all major organs are affected except for the brain, thanks to the blood/brain barrier. Septic shock occurs. Acute respiratory distress develops. The major organs begin to shut down, one by one. The kidneys have already failed, and now are utterly ruined.

Finally, a concerned neighbor, or the mailman, or a family member who can't stand it anymore, calls the police. They arrive, talk to whoever called, look in the mailbox, look at the outside of the house, and knock on the door. And knock again, and again, and again. At some point, they decide to go into the house or apartment. And the first thing they notice is the smell. The medics are called, and soon the person is lying in our treatment room.

Could this have been avoided? I don't know. I suppose if our lady was in a nursing home or some other facility, it could have been avoided.

Could something be done to prevent this from happening to this poor lady? I certainly think so! But it requires you and everyone else including me to do something that has fallen out of style in our selfish society. That thing is called being a good neighbor. It involves getting to know the people who live around you. The more you know your neighbors, the more likely you are to notice when something is wrong. Unless you know your neighbors, you will never be able to avert a disaster like this.

Who can be blamed for this? Us. You and me. Why us? What did we do? We allowed the media, the movies, the magazines, the TV shows, and our own selfish "busy-ness" to blind us to the lovely human beings who live right next door. And so our neighborhoods turn against us because we decide not to "get involved". And people like this dear old lady show up in my Emergency Room covered in week-old filth and die long, miserable deaths with tubes shoved into every orifice and even in some that were cut into her.

But that does not mean that it has to stay this way. If you want to change something badly enough, the odds are that you will succeed if you just try to change it.

So I charge you, dear reader, to do something completely opposite to what our society and our media tell us that we ought to do. Don't live unto yourself. Make friends with your neighbors. Get involved. You can be a hero!

The Correlation of Birth Rate and Party Affiliation: An Objective Study, Part One

A recent study reveals that the birth rate among Democrats is 41 percent lower than the birth rate among Republicans. Why is this so? Well, here is some objective data that may shed some light on the mystery.


Here is a picture of two unidentified Democrat women:

And here is a picture of Janine Turner, Republican Woman (sigh...):

While further, ahem, research is warranted, a correlation between birth rate and party affiliation can be reasonably inferred.

The Correlation of Birth Rate and Party Affiliation: An Objective Study, Part Two

In a continuation of my research into the causation of a disparity in birth rate between Democrats and Republicans wherein the birth rate among Democrats is 41 percent less than among Republicans, I have gathered additional objective data.

Here is a picture of Henry Waxman, Democrat congressman:


Here is a picture of Lynn Swann, Republican gubernatorial candidate:
 

While further research is recommended, sufficient data has been collected to establish a correlation between birth rate and party affiliation.

A Rough Day in the Sandbox.

12 myocardial infarctions (heart attacks)- 3 fatal, one of them a mother of three lovely little girls and only 36 years old.

One patient brought in who was "found down" (unconscious and unresponsive) after falling for some mysterious reason and lying on her right side for eight days. Her entire right flank was burned by the chemicals in her own urine. Her right hip looked like a rotten apple, bruised and liquefied to the bone under damaged skin. The wasting of her muscles caused a massive dumping of creatinine into her bloodstream, which in turned completely destroyed her kidneys. Nobody knows who the hell she is. She will almost certainly die tonight from multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), septicemia, complete right pneumothorax, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This was somebody's daughter, best friend, sister(?), mother(?). She must have been somebody to somebody on this earth at some time. And now it is very likely that she will die alone.

And I could not start an IV today to save my life. Veins disappeared, blew out like a cheap tire, or rolled saucily away from the catheter again and again, defying my experience and my confidence. It was just my day "in the box". Some days I'm hot, and some days I just look at all those torturous, valve-infested, ropy veins and can almost hear them mocking me, and so I go get the charge nurse to have a bash at them because I know that today I couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a grand piano.

That was my day at the office. But at least I got to go home and take my wife out to dinner. I got to hug my kids. I got to sit here and drone away my thoughts for you, my dear dear readers. Tomorrow is another day, by the grace of God, and I will do my best to make it better for someone else. I love what I do, and for all the tragic vignettes and collisions with other broken human beings- some grievously and humiliatingly so- into which I step, I wouldn't trade what I do for anything else in the world.

From the "Who Cares?" Department, Vol. 1

In the interest of rounding out my repertoire, I have decided to include some news about people whose livelihoods don't add a damn bit of value to our world in spite of what the media says. (Interestingly enough, these bits of fluff with legs are all prominent within the entertainment industry.)

As the litany is recited, let the audience respond with a solemn, "who cares"...

Nobody can find Suri Cruise.
[audience]: Who cares!?

Brooke Burke might be pregnant.
[audience]: Who cares!?

Kevin Federline, who is alleged by some to have talent, launched the tour promoting his debut album.
[audience]: Who cares!?

Nobody can figure out whether or not Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn are engaged.
[audience]: Who cares!?

Justin Timberlake, who is alleged by some to be have talent, is slamming Taylor Hicks, who is also alleged to have talent.
[audience]: Who cares!?

Kate Hudson dumped her husband and is dating Owen Wilson.
[audience]: Who cares!?

Paris Hilton insists she has talent.
[audience]: Who cares!?

Nicole Ritchie insists she has measurable mass.
[audience]: Who cares!?

Okay. Consider my repertoire rounded thusly. Now back to the stuff that really matters to the rest of the world.

Ron Sims and King County Fail to Defend Scapegoating

Stefan Sharkansky at Sound Politics brings us the news that King County's attempt to scapegoat a key whistleblower has failed.

Nicole Way attempted to bring serious flaws within the elections system in King County, Wshington, to the attention of Bill Huennekens and Dean Logan, who were in charge. But it seems that Huennekens and Logan had the elections system exactly the way they wanted it, and they did not appreciate having someone around who knew too much. So they fired Nicole Way and attempted to pin the mess on her instead, engaging in a vicious smear campaign that would have made CBS blush.

Way filed for arbitration, and she won. Now that Dean Logan is inflicting his incompetence on Los Angeles, King County Executive Ron Sims no longer has anyone left to hide behind. The trail of corruption and incompetence ends where it began: on the desk of Ron Sims.

Doomsday Courtesy of Iran?

Iranian vermin-in-chief Ahmabumminjihadiramalamadingdong has declared that doomsday draweth nigh. Hmmph. Isn't this the same Iran that France defended as a stabilizing influence in the Middle East? Doesn't anyone have access to a sniper rifle? Can't we just carpet bomb this idiot off the planet and get on with our lives? If any lunatic is worthy of having his brains turned into an aerosol spray, it's this moron. That would be a stabilizing influence in the Middle East.

Why John McCain Doesn't Deserve to be President

John McCain is reportedly solidifying his base for a run for the Presidency in 2008.

On the face of it, McCain has everything one could need for a decent shot at it. He's got the war record that John Kerry wishes he had (and tried to convince us that he did). He's got the money and he's got the notoriety. He's surrounded himself with influential friends. He's surrounded himself with press. Yes, it seems that McCain has all the necessary ingredients for a presidential run. But for all that he has, McCain lacks something that America really needs from a president, particularly during such a time as this.

In fact, McCain comes up short on the three commodities that separate ineffective- even horrible- presidents (i.e., Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) from effective and/or noble ones (i.e., Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Ronald Reagan). I would even go so far as to say that President Bush lacks an abundance of the three shining qualitites that enabled the great presidents to lead our country through many defining events- the War between the States, the Spanish American War, the years before WW1, the Great Depression, WW2, and the Cold War.

Three things.

Not that these men were all pillars of moral conduct. And they did not all necessarily have backgrounds that prepared them for their moments of truth. For no young man can prepare himself to lead this nation in time of national danger. Many have aspired to, and some have even pretended to have prepared for it in order to con their way into the American Presidency. But these great Presidents had those three things at their core during their time at the helm that made all the difference, personal flaws notwithstanding.

Three things:
1) Moral courage
2) Inward Resolution
3) Unwavering commitment.

It takes moral courage to identify, uphold and pursue the right path when all others cave in to political pressure for the sake of avoiding conflict or for personal profit. It also takes moral courage to admit being wrong- especially when one swims in an ocean full of sharks. Moral courage is what drives a man (or woman) to do the right thing instead of undermining others who pursue that path and shutting the mouths of those who point out such character flaws.

McCain has demonstrated an appalling deficit of moral courage through his co-authorship of the McCain-Feingold Bill, which abridged the right of Americans to engage in political free speech. McCain also undermined President Bush's nomination of justices who would have upheld and defended the Constitution and neutralized the influence of liberal activist judges. McCain seeks to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, at the expense ot those immigrants who have obeyed the law to come here. And McCain did these things not because they were the right things to do, but for his own political expediency. Because of this, John McCain does not deserve to be President of the United States of America.

It takes inward resolution to get up each morning and lead a nation in time of war. In such crises, America needs a visionary president who can see the ultimate outcome, identify the steps necessary to achieve that outcome, infuse his vision in other key people who can marshall their resources to achieve that outcome, and inspire the American people with that vision. And this is crucial: the vision must edify the foundational attributes of this nation: justice, honor, liberty, self-determination, equality, and righteousness. The president must have the resolve to lead the nation onward toward the realization of those principles.

John McCain does not have the inward resolution to uphold and defend the core American values. He has in fact undermined them. The public record reveals John McCain to be opportunistic, self-serving, and anti-constitutional. He has consistently valued his own political advancement above the preservation of our democracy, our Constitution, and our mission as standard-bearer of freedom and justice around the world. Because he lacks the necessary vision and resolve, John McCain does not deserve to be President of the United States of America.

The great presidents saw America as a great country with a vital mission to carry out. They were committed to America's place and role in history, they were committed to the American people, who ultimately deserve full credit for fulfilling that role. These presidents did not demand our commitment; they instead proved themselves worthy of it by demonstrating their own. It took commitment to lead our nation through a war that pitted brother against brother but in the end created, at long last, a truly united United States. It took commitment to lead America through thher establishment of a modern military in order to project power around the world and finally assume our rightful place and moral obligation in the defense of freedom and democracy around the world. Teddy Roosevelt's personal commitment to America's strength and mission ultimately prepared America for WW1 and WW2. It took commitment to lead America through her darkest hours on two fronts over two oceans, and who in the process of gaining the victory became the most powerful instrument of freedom and democracy in history. (John McCain's father was a key military leader in our drive against Japan. Unfortunately, the younger McCain has not retained the patriotism and honor.) It took commitment to lead America out of the doldrums of self-doubt and self-loathing that Carter inflicted upon us, and to regain our ascendency as the defender of freedom in an unprecedented show of our true strength that finally defeated the most destructive and lethal empire in history. It took commitment (weak thought it may be) to get America back into the fight after eight years of Clinton's selling American security to our enemies. John McCain has no personal commitment to America and to the American people. Thus, John McCain does not deserve to be the President of the United States of America.

Dissenters will argue, "How can you question McCain's patriotism? He served in Vietnam! He was a POW! He served honorably- unlike John Kerry!"

I applaud McCain's service, and I always will. But any investment firm will tell you that past performance does not guarantee future results. And I maintain that whatever John McCain was forty years ago, his most recent actions have proven him to currently be a bum.

Now to be fair, I don't see any of those three vital traits in any other Republican contender, and the Democrat pretenders are dangerously bankrupt in all three categories. Still, John McCain has proven by his own record that he shares his unworthiness of the Presidency with John Kerry, Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton who, incidentally, share one other trait with John McCain: the parasitic opportunism of a hagfish.

A Progress Report for the "Global War on Terror (TM)"

I supported the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, and I still do today. I would support this president over any alternative the DNC tries to foist upon us only because they could not do better and would certainly do a helluva lot worse.
However, I also think this war is being sloppily prosecuted and that our president is not living up to his pledge to lead it. President Bush should be taken to task for his wobbliness. He is not being the president he vowed to be in January '05... he is not tough on nations sponsoring terrorism, and as a result we are no safer than we were in 2001- and we are not being taken seriously when we say that we will take the fight to sponsor nations- because President Bush continues to play tiddlywinks with them. Why the hell is he trying to avoid offending the very people who want us dead?

The Dubya fan club needs to take off the roseate lenses and suck it up. We have a war to fight, and blindly defending an incorrect and misbegotten strategy just gets more of us and our troops killed- as does kissing the asses of nations who supply the people who aspire to kill us.

I contend that if we desire to make progress in this war, and if we desire to bring about a lasting and prosperous democracy in Iraq, then Bush had better stop being diplomatic with terrorists, start cutting off their supply train (Iran and Syria), and start prosecuting this war in a way by which the world will see it and say, "gosh, they really mean it!"

If you don't agree with me, I accept that. I respect the intelligence of my readers enough to be willing to take some flak from you on things with which we disagree. If you think I am wrong in my assessment, by all means tell me so. Maybe I am overlooking something that you can see from your perspective.

But please, do NOT tell me that Americans are safer now than in 2001 when this administration allows twenty radical Moslem Egyptian men to come in and vanish in 2006.

And please, do NOT tell me that this administration is serious about national security when they are unwilling to prosecute persons who leak information from within classified government organizations. (Where the hell is Alberto Gonzales!?)

And please, do NOT tell me that this administration is going all-out when the most significant thing they have done is to create another worthless super-bureaucracy.

And please, do NOT tell me that this administration is giving our military all the tools and support they need when any ragheaded pighumper with an RPG round and a bag of ball bearings can kill our troops with impunity.

And please, do NOT tell me that Iraq is more secure while our commanders over there sit and scratch their heads while the enemy keeps on coming in- because this administration has not committed enough troops to secure the theater from infiltration and did not respond quickly enough to the changing nature of the war.

And please, do NOT tell me that President Bush is tough on nations who sponsor terrorism when he has just inked a sellout of Israel to a terrorist organization, and has done nothing new to neutralize Syria and Iran that any other wobbly president has done in the past, which is to say, nothing.

I still believe the reasons we went into Iraq were good. I understand that prosecuting an effective war takes time. But I maintain that it also requires decisive leadership, a commodity that has been sorely lacking from President Bush with regard to this war against some nebulous concept he calls "terror."

Our president needs to open his eyes and face the fact that nebulous concepts aren't killing Americans- Moslems are killing Americans, and Moslem nations are helping them do it. President Bush's policy of making nice with such nations will not make these lunatics somehow drop their dangerous religious beliefs and decide to sing Kumbahyah with us. That's the Carter doctrine. It failed. Try something else.

I love America and I love our heritage, our call, and our position as the standard-bearer of freedom in a world full of coward-nations. And it royally pisses me off that this president does not seem interested in putting his whole heart into leading this nation in the fight for our survival. His wobbliness on the core issues leads me to believe that he does not take this as seriously as he should. And really, this is just my opinion. Nobody has to like it, and at this point, quite frankly, I don't give a damn if anyone does. I just want my Commander in Chief to do his freakin' job.

But if I am wrong on this issue, I'll adjust my thinking and drive on. It's as simple as that. But the problem is that this president is not doing anything to decrease my confidence that I am correct.

The Iraq War in Perspective

War is hell. But the payoff is immeasurably greater than the initial investment when the cause is just. Iraq is a nascent demonstration of this immutable principle. It's ugly right now. We are losing troops. Iraqi is killing Iraqi. The infant constitutional government is having a hard time establishing order.

We've seen this before, dear readers. Many times. We have just forgotten how expensive the defeat of tyranny and the establishment of democracy can be.

Consider:

We had to fight Britain twice to secure our full independence from her.

We had to fight a dreadful war among and within ourselves to create a truly United States divorced from the despicable practice of slavery.

It took two horrific world wars to secure the world from global domination under the heel of tyranny and barbarism.

We had to fight a four-decade cold war (with isolated "hot spots") to defeat the most destructive and murderous tyranny in world history (much to the regret of the Kumbahyah liberals).

And we have been in Iraq for how long? Three years? How many Americans have lost their lives there in the last three years?

One-third of that number were killed in three days on Betio in Tarawa atoll.

After three years in Iraq, the total of our dead has not even reached the number of those who died on Iwo Jima in six weeks.

How about compared to our own civil war? Well, look at that. Not even close, and we are rapidly approaching the same elapsed time.

What is the connection?

First, that fact that lasting good can be brought about by war, and war is often necessary to change the world for the better, in spite of what Kumbahyah Liberals may scream to the contrary. Ignore them. History proves them to be liars.

Second, that in terms of the price we have paid thus far in this war for the progress made, we have gotten off comparatively cheaply. That's not to say that even one death or casualty is something to be shrugged off. It isn't. But in previous wars we've paid a helluva lot more for a helluva lot less of a return.

Is it still a mess? Oh, most certainly. But don't let the Kumbahyah crowd scream you into insensibility. They are wrong; all is not lost, Iraq is not a failure. Iraq wasn't a failure the last hundred times they swore that it was.

Were mistakes made? I think so. But it could have been a lot worse:

Nearly a thousand soldiers died in one night on Slapton Sands because Allied commanders failed to secure the landing rehearsal area from German E-boats. Never heard of Slapton Sands? That's because Allied (including American) military commanders swept it under the rug.

Are there parallels between the liberal Valhalla of Vietnam and the present conflict in Iraq? Some could be found. But not nearly to the scale and magnitude that Kumbahyah liberals want us to think. Forces are spread thin. Piecemeal commitments are made to counter the flow of men and material into the AO. That much is true. But Uncle Ho is dead, and unlike Vietnam, we will not allow the Kumbahayah liberals to cause the deaths of millions of innocent people as they did when they forced us to abandon Vietnam, causing the slaughter of ten million Southeast Asians. Thank you, Ted Kennedy.

"Kumbahyah, give peace a chance, f*** everybody but meeeeeeeee."

Now, I have been critical of Rumsfeld and Bush. Quite vehemently so, particularly with regard to the overall prosecution of our war on that nebulous enemy they call "terror". But I confess that I am not a commander; I am an amateur naval historian.

However, even amateur naval historians enjoy something of which Kumbahyah liberals and media hacks are pitifully bereft: a sense of proportion and perspective. That's why liberals and the media take an incident of sectarian violence and start screaming "Civil war! Civil war!" like Chicken Little running around screaming, "The sky is falling!"

The only authority with which I can speak on the matter is as one having studied in quite exhaustive depth about the countless transactions that civilized nations have made where the commodity is freedom and meaningful peace, and the currency is always, always, always the blood of a free nation's best and brightest youth.

And in my studies, I began to discern a unalterable pattern that was there all along, if only I was careful not to avoid its truth: that in every instance when the civilized world determined that the advancement and defense of freedom was necessary whatever the cost, the world gained immeasurably from the endeavor, and in looking back, though the cost was frightfully high, found that the change was worth every precious drop of blood.

And nations that shrank back from the task were invariably swallowed up in the maw of hideous and bloodthirsty tyranny or swept away into the dustbin of history.

"Kumbahyah, give peace a chance, F*** BusHitler..."

Civil war in Iraq may not be avoidable. But it need not be the end of the road for freedom that the media and the liberals so fervently wish it to be for the sake of nothing more than their twisted satisfaction in watching a nascent democracy perish.

Kumbahyah.

Is Something Cookin' in Condi's Kitchen?

Okay, let's step back a minute and look the ceasefire in Lebanon from a distance, because we are forgetting a very important factor in this equation: the Israelis.

Israel would have been justified in telling the USA and the UN to shove their resolution without benefit of Surgi-lube, and then continue attending to the long-overdue business of cracking some Islamo-monkey skulls. And considering the fact that international law would actually provide the defense for Israel's right to wage total war against any nation that threatens her safety, the UN would, as usual, look like a bunch of anti-Semitic goathumping idiots- which is of course what they are. But I digress.

Now, the people of Israel are sick of having their hands tied by the UN while the UN allowed terrorists to smack them with impunity forever and ever, amen. So the Knesset and the Israeli population essentially forced Olmert to grow some cajones when all he intended to do was just lob a few token bombs over the border and call it good. Olmert's political days are probably numbered, if for no other reason than that.

But I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye. I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. But bear with me on this one, because I think that I have a plausible idea about what might be going down.

Think about it- If the Israelis would not let Olmert and the Knesset back down, then why would the Israelis suddenly allow their leaders to concede to the UN when they know the UN does not give damn number one for Israel's survival? Did they have a change of heart? Could they no longer stomach the war? Did the troops run out of gefilte fish?

Let's see... No, no, and, uh... no.

Anyone who thinks the Israelis have no stomach for fighting does not know the Israelis. The same goes for anyone who thinks the Israelis will stake their survival on a piece of paper with the Turd-Hill Bay Debate Club letterhead. It just ain't so.

My father-in-law, who is a tank driver in the IDF reserve, shed some light on the mentality of the street-level Israeli for me. These people are completely used to violence. It's an everyday thing. They get up, eat their breakfasts, grab their briefcases, and run a zig-zag pattern to their cars. They have been literally fighting for their survival for sixty years. These are people whose wardrobes coordinate with their sidearms. They are tired of giving their land away to their murderers. They are tired of having their hands tied by the UN -and by the United States. And they aren't going to simply stop defending themselves from Islamic animals because we or the UN say so.

So what is the proverbial deal? Well, here is what I think "The Deal" is. It's just my opinion, but then, that's all anyone else's opinions are, too, so nyah.

I spy a thing that I shall call "Something," and the place that "Something" is, I shall call "Up."

I am not convinced that we are seeing a sudden case of pandemic catastrophic stupidity. The suddenness with which Israel has decided to stop throwing rocks and jump on the Kumbahyah train with the USA and the UN- when the whole nation was eager to knock hell out of the Hezbollah goathumpers- has set my antennae twitching.

Furthermore, Condi Rice may have us all puzzled right now, but I feel fairly confident in saying that the criminal stupidity of Madeline Albright has not found another host in our current SoS. No, I definitely smell something cooking in Condi's kitchen.

Digress with me for a moment...

Consider one Muhammed Ali, former heavyweight cham-peen of the world. I loved to watch him box. He had a way of tricking his opponent into thinking he had Ali beat and thus dropping his guard. Then when his opponent got cocky and reckless, Ali would proceed to beat the everlovin' dookie out of his hapless opponent.

Armed with this imagery, let's look at Israel/Hezbollah situation again:

1) A month into the conflict, when Israelis are knee-deep in the hoopla, the Knesset gets together and says "Lookit. This ain't no six-day war. These pighumpers are more firmly entrenched than we thought, and Lebanon ain't helping, Cedar Revolution or not. CNN is telling the world that Hezzies are the good guys, and the morons are believing it because the pighumpers hide in hospitals and we gotta blow 'em up to get to the dudes. This ain't workin'. We need a plan B."

2) Pres. Bush gets a friendly phone call. Then Condi's phone rings. A plan is hatched.

3) Hezbollah states that they will not honor any ceasefire proposal. Condi, Dubya, and Ehud know that in order for the plan to work, Hezbollah has to somehow be coaxed to sign on. But how?

4) Chirac's phone rings: Condi explains that Israel is out of her depth and needs a way to back off, but Hezbollah won't let it happen. Somebody needs to talk to Hezbollah and get them to stop swearing to continue the fighting so Israel can go home. Can Jacques please talk some sense into his friends in Beirut? He can? Great!

5) Condi and Dubya announce that in cooperation with France, a cease-fire resolution has been crafted for submission to the UNSC- much to the surprise of the rest of the world and to the dismay of Americans, who were salivating over the possibility of a Bush foreign policy with some actual teeth in it- myself included.

6) UNSC ratifies the resolution (After all, any resolution involving France is good for global stability, right...?)

7) Hezbollah and Israel sign on (although Hezbollah still chooses to toss a few more rocks at Israel after the ceasefire goes into effect).

8) Hezbollah claims victory. France claims moral superiority. The UN congratulates itself. Israel and our Administration look like powerless, slack-jawed fools. Everybody's happy, right? The world is back on its axis and the sun shines its happy face once again.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon...

The Lebanese PM is forced to put together an actual military force, man up, police southern Lebanon, and oh, by the way... umm... disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah, of course, tells the Lebanese PM, "You ain't disarming nobody, hombre." (One can imagine the PM looking at the UN, looking at Hezbollah, and then going pale.) And Lebanon's own slapdash, Hezbollah-infested military has to do the policing until a multinational force jumps into the sandbox, which could take awhile, and will produce results that are the diplomatic equivalent of polishing a turd.

Also meanwhile, Israel officially takes the high road, does not shoot back at Hezbollah when they violate the ceasefire a mere 48 hours into it, and draws back toward home, apparently licking its wounds and with its own cabinet in disarray.

Fast forward...

Katyushas come sailing into Israeli airspace from southern Lebanon once again, possibly less than a month from now, because if Hezbollah lacks anything, it is self control and coherent thought. Israel can now point to the UN resolution, cite international law, and proceed to wage total war against Lebanon/Hezbollah with the assured confidence of a nation that has international law- and a UN resolution- on its side. And this time, there will be no chance for Hezbollah to infest hospitals and cry foul.

Does anyone know the Yiddish word for "Lope-a-dope"?

A Word of Caution to the Republican Party

There's a word for the prevailing attitude among the Republican Party: Hubris. That is, overbearing pride, blind complacency, and arrogant presumptuousness.

The Mehlmanites watch the meltdown at "Jackass Central" with no small measure of satisfaction. They pat themselves on the back for their self-perceived savvy and laugh at the utter confusion and autoimmune dysfunction that has beset the Democratic National Committee. At The DNC, self is no longer able to distinguish from nonself. The body is being devoured from within by the metastatic cancer of radical socialism. With no direction, no vision, no plan for the conduct of this nation's affairs, and no unity except for their hatred of Bush, Karl Rove, and America, Democrat now feverishly hacks away at the political career of fellow Democrat in an effort to advance one's personal agenda and vision of "How America Ought To Be"(TM).

But as they watch the carnage with smug satisfaction, the Mehlmanites fail to note that their party is also sailing through torpedo water.

It's going to take more than laughing complacently at the Democrats for Republicans to maintain the majority come Election Day. The GOP must also find a way out of the pit it has dug for itself through ignoring the demands from tens of millions of angry voters for accountability and fidelity. The GOP has a character and credibility problem that had better be addressed quickly, and to the satisfaction of millions of disillusioned voters. For even if the Democrats don't have a plan or a platform, the Republican Party's own institutional dissolution and moral cowardice may be a sufficient agent for their undoing in November.

The Republican Party has tried hard to ignore the great big hairy 800-pound gorilla sitting at the dinner table in the form of tens of millions of very angry Americans who voted Republican in 2004 and who now feel as if they have been suckered by the Republican Party- which is clearly the case, looking back over the last two years. The Republican Party owes these Americans an explanation. For instance:

The Republicans have yet to explain their support of this President's decision, in time of war, to make nice with nations who sponsor the terrorists who want us dead.

The Republicans have yet to explain why they squandered all that hard-won 'political capital' by way of a massive capitulation to the Democrat minority in the first months of 2005- a capitulation so utterly wholesale and shameful that it makes Jacques Chirac look like a pillar of resolve.

The Republicans have yet to explain their arrogant refusal to cut billions of frivolous and self-enriching pork projects, particularly those of Republican House Speaker Dennis "Porky Pig" Hastert, who is on record for his vitriolic outbursts against those who dared hold him accountable for it.

The Republicans have yet to explain why, after six years of Republican majority and in spite of a massive outcry from Americans, our borders are still dangerously wide-open, and why Republican incumbents want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens at the expense of those who came here legally.

The Republicans have yet to explain this Administration's failure to find and prosecute people within our own government who continue to leak classified information with impunity.

The Republicans have yet to explain to tens of millions of angry Americans why they should again trust candidates and incumbents who have failed to do anything other than perpetuate the same damned old problem that Americans elected them to fix two years ago.

Hubris. Blind, dangerous arrogance.

I would respectfully advise those in the GOP who see this situation through roseate lenses not to get cocky. There are a lot more problems facing the GOP this go-around than they think. A few dozen million problems, in fact, all with an axe to grind against the "electables" who have weakened our nation. And while the Electability Wing of the GOP may have forgotten about all those angry voters, you can bet that the angry voters will not have forgotten about them.

Arizona Wins Election Reform; Washington Languishes

Washington State "voters" should take note of this.

Federal Courts have upheld the voter-identity requirement contained in Arizona's Proposition 200, which stipulates that voters must prove American citizenship before being allowed to register to vote.

Democrat grassroots organizations challenged proposition 200, arguing that Arizona violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The Federal Court answered that the prohibition of states from enacting their own voting requirements was not contained anywhere in the Act, and that the requirements in the Act were a minimum standard and not a maximum. Thus, Arizona had the right to take precautions beyond those stipulated in the Act to ensure the security of their elections.

This is a great victory for Arizona citizens, who have taken away the primary tool employed by Democrats for gaining enough votes for their party to win. But in the Socialist Republic of Washington State, voters still languish under the tyranny of corrupt elections officials, County Executives, and painfully corruptible election systems.

The state's last gubernatorial election was decided in favor of the Democrat challenger through the inclusion of illegal votes, the number of which was well over the margin of victory between the two candidates. A Democrat judge upheld the election. (Who would have guessed?) Christine Gregoire, the erstwhile Democrat "governor," declared Washington State's election a "model of precision and accuracy." Ron Sims, the spectacularly incompetent and corrupt King County Executive, crowed of an accuracy in counting that "any bank would envy." When he said this, he was laughed out of the building. (Incidentally, many banks in the area pointed out that if they allowed the inaccuracies in their counting that King County had, they would be in jail for embezzlement.)

Democrats in this state have violently opposed any measure that would essentially make it harder for people to vote illegally, on the flimsy grounds that such measures would "disenfranchise" persons who for some reason could not show proof.

So the citizens of Washington State continue to be held hostage to illegal aliens, convicts, transients, the criminally insane, leftist thugs, union pimps, and their second-rate whores who pose as a Governor, an Attorney General, a County Executive, and a Mayor in the most heavily-populated Democrat enclave in the state.

Washington State is in a dark age indeed. Will Washingtonians take up the challenge and unify to take back their own corrupted elections system? Only time will tell. But the citizens of Arizona have thrown down the gauntlet for other states whose citizens are burdened with a government that relies on illegal votes to keep them in power. Reform can be accomplished, and fair elections can be enforced- but only if the people are willing to fight for them.

Well, That Didn't Last Long.

Fox News reports that Hezbollah has launched ten Katyusha rockets into Israeli positions today. So let's see... less than two days into a cease fire. That's got to be a record.

And the United States brokered this cease fire for what reasons...?

Lebanese Cabinet Folds to Hezbollah Intimidation

Well, the cease fire in Lebanon is officially in effect, with no Lebanese troops anywhere to be seen in southern Lebanon. An international force of French, Italian, Spanish, and Turkish troops is slated to come in and wipe the Lebanese PM's nose for him. Hezbollah has told the world who really controls Lebanon. The Dissociated Press tells us that refugees are streaming back into southern Lebanon as Israel begins their pullout.

Seems like Israel is the only party who is actually honoring their part of the cease-fire agreement. The Lebanese government has collapsed under the weight of its own cowardice. We now know without a doubt just who is running Lebanon.

I give the cease fire a week, maybe two, before Hezbollah starts lobbing rockets again. Maybe this time, the rockets will be pointed toward Beirut. The champions of the Cedar Revolution will soon have to defend themselves from themselves.

UPDATE: Seems that even my conservative estimate on how long the cease-fire would last was off by a mile. Hezbollah didn't even wait two days before they resumed lobbing their rockets. Can I say, "I told you so?"

Human Rights Watch Produces Dubious Report, Part Two

In Part One of my critical review of the Human Rights Watch report on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, I explained the credibility problem that HRW has in their pro-Hezbollah biased report based on the Summary section alone. This time around, we shall focus on what I found in the Methodology section, which provides a clearer picture of exactly how research should not be carried out if an organization wishes to maintain credibility. Interestingly, enough objective data is provided by the writers themselves to create serious doubts about the reliability and accuracy of the collection process, the veracity of the findings, and the credibility and integrity of the organization that produced it. I again recommend going to the link and following along. Please remember that I am focusing only on the "Methodology" section at this time.

First of all, there are glaring omissions in the objective details necessary to support a charge against Israel of crimes against humanity. Strangely, HRW does not include any objective findings and does not claim to have any. Why would HRW choose not to include a list of objective data that would undoubtedly support their accusations against Israel, and instead build their case against Israel on the basis of exclusively subjective (hearsay) evidence?

"In the many cases" is a spurious figure. Exactly how many cases did HRW investigate? Two? Three? Seven? One hundred? Doesn't anyone at HRW keep track of such important objective data?

How can HRW say authoritatively that Hezbollah was not in those areas before or during the attack when HRW admits that no observers were even on the scene until they were cleared by Lebanese "officials" to enter? Did HRW conduct a door-ro-door census? Were they allowed to go through an entire neighborhood or town without interference, or were they led to only the immediate area surrounding the blast scene? According to HRW, they were not even allowed to examine "many" of the scenes: "Security conditions did not permit on-site visits to many of the villages or other sites where civilian casualties are documented in this report."

That statement alone should cast a pall of doubt over the veracity of the HRW report.

Granted, HRW states that they looked for signs of military activity in the blast area and found none- but they were not present to observe the scenes before, during, and immediately after the attacks. And during the period that they were barred from entering the area, it is entirely possible that Hezbollah was hastily clearing the place of evidence of their presence while the HRW observers were kept a "safe" distance from the "hazard". Come on. That's the oldest trick in the book!

Did HRW expand their search in a pattern extending outward from the area? Nope. They were escorted to the scenes by Lebanese guides for "security." So how did they gather this damning evidence against Israel? They interviewed 'inhabitants' of the area (likely Hezbollah supporters or troops) and took the word of these people as gospel.

That's like asking a thug if the cop used brutality after said thug is shot for pulling a gun on the officer. What do you think the thug will say? "No, he was only using that level of force necessary to ensure his own safety"?

True, HRW mentions in passing that they also used information from the IDF, but their opening abstract makes it clear that they disregarded the IDF information and have chosen instead to use hearsay as the basis of their report with regard to Israel's conduct. Having looked at the whole document, I can say with great certainty that the formal demand for HRW to produce the complete inventory of the evidence gathered for this report would be justified.

And the second paragraph of the Methodology section contains a most intriguing statement:

"Security conditions did not permit on-site visits to many of the villages or other sites where civilian casualties are documented in this report, but in all cases Human Rights Watch located eyewitnesses to attacks."

This begs the question: if HRW was not there, how the hell do they know if these people were there? The obvious answer is, they cannot verify such a thing. HRW took the testimonies of these "eyewitnesses" simply because they claimed to have been there. Incidentally, that kind of sloppiness in vetting one's data is what got Dan Rather and Reuters in trouble.

How much of southern Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah? Pretty much all of it. So what do you think these "eyewitness" are going to tell HRW about the attack- particularly the ones living in Hezbollah-run camps?

HRW seeks to undergird their defense of these witnesses by stating, "International and local journalists, rescue workers, and international observers also did not produce evidence to contradict the statements of witnesses interviewed for this report."

Yippee. So what? Were any of those people allowed to enter the sites during and immediately after the attack when HRW was not? HRW does not provide any evidence that would lead the reader to reach such a conclusion, but leaves plenty of room for the reader to assume that such was the case.

In conlusion for the critique of the Methodology section: Hezbollah thinks they can win this war if they can just turn world opinion against Israel. If they can convince organizations like the UN and HRW that Israel is indiscriminately killing innocent civilians regardless of the presence of absence of Hezbollah, the gullible world will force Israel to stop. That's the only way that Hezbollah can prevent Israel from hunting them down and wiping them out. They use doctored pictures, staged "massacres," a biased, gullible, anti-semitic media and impressionable lazy people to spread their stories.

This tactic is older than buckskin skivvies. Yet amazingly, some people are intellectually lazy enough to buy it at face value without thinking carefully about what things were not done by HRW in their 'quest for truth.'

But any person who can think critically can see that Human Rights Watch does not include specific, objective evidence because it probably doesn't exist. If such evidence did exist, then one would think that HRW would be more than happy to provide it in full detail in order to establish and support the veracity of their accusations. No such attempt has been made.

Ah, but then at the end of the story, HRW tacks on this disclaimer: "Although Human Rights Watch’s research has been extensive, it is, as noted, not comprehensive."

Hmm. Why then are they accusing Israel of war crimes when they have not even conducted a comprehensive investigation and base their report solely on hearsay from eyewitness whose presence at the scene during the attack is itself only as good as the word of those whom HRW interviewed?

In a court of law, that would be thrown out like yesterday's 5-alarm chili.

But then again, there are enough gullible laypersons and media types around to allow HRW to be sloppy with their details. Besides- nobody checks these things out for themselves, right?

Hillary's Breasts- Fake but Accurate?

The Dissociated Press, having found no other worthwhile world events to cover, has released a story that will have far-reaching impact on foreign policy: An artist with unsufficient time on his hands has chosen to occupy his hands and his mind with something other than taking pictures of tortured children or urinating on a cross: Hillary Clinton's breasts.

Well, not really her breasts... But what he conceptualizes her breasts to look like. Oh, Heck. Just read the story .

What gets me here is how the artist describes his creation:

"Artist Daniel Edwards said he wanted to depict the 58-year-old Clinton "with her head held high, a youthful spirit and a face matured by wisdom..."

...And the perky breasts of a twenty-year old hottie.

Human Rights Watch Produces Dubious Report, Part One

Human Rights Watch, an organization known for their "objective" investigations into human rights violations (yeah right), has released a 50-page paper on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict that will be sure to provide Israel-haters worldwide with enough slop to fill their troughs for weeks.

In a purely one-sided "investigation" into human rights violations, HRW levels a charge of war crimes against Israel based purely on hearsay, while stating directly that it gave almost no attention to Hezbollah's outrages during the data collection process, yet used exclusively anecdotal evidence to condemn Israel.

Read along with the Summary section of the paper as you read this critical review.

Paragraph 2: "Since the start of the conflict, Israeli forces have consistently launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost." How the hell would HRW know whether or not the IDF's military gains were dubious? In a report that claims to be authoritative, they are certainly injecting a lot of unqualified and biased speculation right out of the gate.

"In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians." Again, this is idle speculation based solely on hearsay collected from Lebanese "witnesses." And as far as the "absence of a military target" is concerned, HRW investigators were not even in the area at any time before, during and immediately after the strikes, as the reader will discover in the "Methodology" section. So how would they know if a military target was there or not? Again, by whose testimony? The testimony of select Lebanese "witnesses".

Paragraph 3: "Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF's extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives." Again, HRW downplays Hezbollah's violations and glosses over the UN's apparent willingness to let their troops act as a shield for Hezbollah. Who here has not seen the pictures of Hezbollah terrorists hitching rides in UN vehicles? HRW jumps right to the accusation that Israel is the bad guy here, not Hezbollah- and yet again, based solely on anecdotal data.

"In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack." Well, what do you think the selected "witnesses" would say?

The report goes on to list instances where IAF airstrikes targeted relief vehicles and such. Again, has anyone not seen the pictures of Hezbollah fighters riding in UN vehicles and ambulances? This is comical. Of all the papers I have ever read, this is arguably of the most appalling examples of writer bias and malicious intent to deceive the public that I have ever laid eyes on. And the Summary section is only a microcosm of the whole.

Already the evidence is clear that the HRW paper is a spectacular assembly of willful deception and fantasy. Human Rights Watch should be embarrassed with the utter intellectual sloppiness of this pathetic excuse for a "research paper." If I had tried to pass work as crappy as HRW's through my nursing instructors, I would have been laughed out the door.

Read the rest of the summary yourself. Ask yourself, "how reliable is this?" Then consider HRW's methods of data collection, which will be discussed in my next installment. For more on Rather's Delirium, read my post on the subject in preparation for the next episode.

Nine Illegal Aliens Die in Rollover During Border Patrol Chase

Arthur Rotstein of the Dissociated Press reports that a Chevrolet Suburban carrying twenty-one illegal aliens rolled over as the illegals were attempting to evade Border Patrol agents. Nine illegal aliens were killed. Apparently, the spectacularly overloaded SUV did its Lassie impersonation as the driver swerved to avoid running over a spike strip set down by the Border Patrol.

How much does someone want to bet that the survivors hire ACLU attorneys to a) sue Firestone; b) sue Chevrolet and other makers of SUVs; c) sue the owner of the stolen SUV for not supplying them with three safer, smaller cars instead of forcing them to steal a large top-heavy model; or d) sue the Border Patrol for putting down the spike strip?

Look. I can't blame the folks for wanting to come to America. Their own government is filthy with corruption and their economy is in the toilet. Life is so much better in El Norte. Free medical and dental, housing assistance, education, a college degree, and the Gringo pays for everything. Just get your Senora pregnant, sneak her across when she becomes 5cm dilated, a couple of pushes and Ola, Easy Street! Thanks to the Democrats and moderate Republicans, Jose can even have the power to influence the American political process and paralyze city infrastructures by marching at rush hour! Is this a great country, or what?

Our government should be ashamed of itself for so many allowances for illegal aliens to come over that so many are now willing to sneak across by any means available, no matter how dangerous. Liberals would "solve" the problem by opening the border completely. That's no solution. And in time of war, the security of our borders should be of paramount concern to our elected government. It is not. And now Democrats are promising illegal aliens that they will soon be voting in America. Not that they have not used that resource in previous elections; they are just being more overt about it because they think they can get away with it.

If any blame should be cast in this issue, it should all land squarely at the feet of our government at every level for making this problem so huge in the first place, and for refusing to respond to the demands of American citizens to close our borders and punish those who employ and assist illegal aliens.

Rather's Delirium Strikes Another Victim

Al-Reuters, one of the Official Spokes-agencies of Islamic Jihad (TM), has been caught quite literally red-handed. Or that is to say, Al-Reuters has been caught being intellectually and editorially lazy, which has done no small amount of damage to its credibility thanks to a jihadist fool with a camera and Photoshop named Adnan Hajj. And incredibly, Al-Reuters still offers no explanation.

They have lost their grip on reality at Al-Reuters. They are no longer in command of their sensorium. They are another victim of a dread neurosensory disorder that strikes exclusively at the Old Media. Just as our elderly are slowly felled by the long goodbye of Alzheimer's Dementia, the Old Media is slowly losing its place in reality due to its own inexorable, merciless, incurable disease.

That disease is Rather's Delirium. Its progress is insidious but predictable.

The first symptom is gullibility, which afflicts the aspiring journalist while in college. The area of the brain affected has been identified as the Sulci of Franken.

The second symptom is hyperidealism, characterized by the budding reporter's uncontrollable urge to change the world into that which his professor envisioned with just one story. The region of the brain affected is the Foramen of Woodward.

Then third symptom is known as egocentris media. In this stage of illness, the victim becomes delusional, believing that he or she is a lone crusader for the improvement of mankind. The victim firmly believes that since he or she sees a topic as important, the rest of the world must also see it as important. The region of the brain affected at this stage is the Sphincter of Couric.

The fourth stage of this irreversible disease is apneditorialism. This stage is characterized by the complete loss of editorial function. By this stage, the victim will pass anything placed in front of him/her to their audience as pure, hard fact. This stage affects the region of the brain called Cerebellum Reuterii.

The end stage of the disease is the point classically known as Rather's Delirium. All semblance of reality has been lost by this point, and the victim will begin to construct his/her own reality and fabricate props that support his/her delusions, agressively sharing them with everyone within broadcast range. Sadly, when confronted with the object's true identity, the victim will begin to chant repeatedly a distorted defense of his/her delusions. The area of the brain affected is the Hemisphere of Mapes

In a case study performed by L.G. Football (2004), 1,000 journalists affected with End-Stage Rather's Delirium had a bowl of fresh-cut hyacinths placed in front of them and were told that it was a recording of Karl Rove instructing the President to say "nuke-yuh-ler" as a means of throwing off his detracters. The journalists immediately became agitated and expressed the uncontrollable compulsion to break in on Oprah to broadcast the story. In a control group, the same bowl of hyacinths was placed in front of 1,000 bloggers who were then provided with identical Karl Rove-centered stimuli. Significantly, every one of the bloggers replied, "What the hell is wrong with you? Those are hyacinths, you dolt!"

Sadly, when the affected journalists were informed of the true character of the control object, they began screaming, "They are Hyacinths, but they are Karl Rove! Hyacinths but Karl Rove!" One sad case is still roaming the countryside stopping any who will listen, grabbing the poor fellow by the collar and shoving his face into a bowl of hyacinths while screaming, "See!? They're hyacinths, but they're Karl Rove!

Yes, Rather's Delirium continues to claim thousands of formerly sharp and socially-productive minds. There is no cure but prevention.

A Stirring Essay by Billy Shore

The New York Times, on painfully rare occasions, has its moments of reason. This touching essay published in the NYT's op-ed section (of course) represents one of those moments.

Take a moment as you read this and reflect on the sacrifice that so many of our nation's best men and women have made so that terrorism would not reach our shores again. God bless our troops!

Moonshine Country, Here I Come!

Having been raised in West Virginia, I can proudly claim hillbilly status. But you don't have to sell your Lincoln Navigator and move to the Appalachians to become a hillbilly. Just skeedaddle on over to Lemuel Calhoon's excellent blog, set a spell, and sign up to become part of The Hillbilly Ecosystem. Political incorrectness is spoken there, and Lemuel jumps on leftist stupidity like a chicken on a june bug. A good time is sure to be had by all.

Let's Get Something Straight

Readers of my previous post may have been led to believe that because of my disagreement with the direction our current Administration is taking that I have become a knee-jerk opponent of America's Global War on Terror (TM). Let me assert here that such is not the case at all.

I am for any operation that results in dead terrorists. I am against any diplomatic overture that results in terrorists continuing to breathe. I am bloody well against any diplomatic overture that allows terrorists the opportunity to rearm and renew their attack on a soveriegn democracy. And I am fangs-out furiously against any American-led diplomatic overture that gives terrorists a right to determine their destinies and clears a place for them at the table of civilized nations. What the hell is this President thinking?

Look, Mr. President. This is very simple. We are either at war or we are not at war. Which is it? You won't fight a war against terrorists by giving them the opportunity to keep striking you and your key allies. Stop trying to avoid hurting their feelings and get on with the business of knocking hell out of them before they get the wherewithal to kill more of us! We voted for a man who promised to prosecute this war full-on. Instead, we got Neville Chamberlain with a Texas drawl. He has committed this nation to a war for our survival, and now he's playing tiddlywinks with the people who are trying to destroy us. And he's doing it with France, of all nations. Exactly how is this supposed to contribute to our victory over terrorism?

Ahem.

To summarize: I love America. I love our heritage, our call, and our historical role in the defense of freedom and justice. I hate the thought of appeasing terrorists and tyrants. And I am supremely dismayed by our Commander-in-Chief's apparent lapse of reason as evidenced by his push for a cease fire at Israel's expense and Hezbollah's benefit.

You ask: How will it harm Israel and benefit Hezbollah?

Thanks for asking. It harms Israel and benefits Hezbollah because it allows Hezbollah to live. What America should be doing is supplying everything Israel needs to utterly annihilate Hezbollah and then link arms to destroy the common enemy nations who support Hezbollah.

Do I support peace? Sure I do. Peace through dead terrorists.

Bush Changes Mind, Decides to Interfere with Israel's Self-Defense

A week ago, President Bush declared his support of Israel's right to defend herself against nations who threaten her existence. He voiced his belief that a premature cease fire would only allow Israel's enemies to rearm and redeploy, and thus would not do any good.

Apparently, the President has changed his mind about the importance of Israel's safety.

In a concerted effort with France (a nation that knows better than any other how to capitulate), President Bush has hammered out a proposal to submit to the United Nations (a body that knows better than any other how to run interference for genocidal butchers). The President pontificated, "we all recognize that the violence must stop."

Well, almost all. History indicates that whenever a terrorist group declares a cease fire with Israel, it is generally broken within days if not hours. But at long last, Israel has decided to reject the voices of appeasement from the Knesset, the UN and the United States, and start hitting back at her attackers. It's about bloody time. In a world overpopulated by nations who are all too eager to draft stupid surrender-happy resolutions and sing "peace in our time, kumbahyah," Israel is at last facing reality.

Apparently, the resonation of America's own experience with a fanatical Japanese enemy in World War 2 has faded to the point where we no longer heed one of its bloodiest lessons:

In a war against a fanatical enemy who will die before surrendering, the only time a cease fire should be called is when a) you either have to reload; b) when you run out of live targets; c) when you have completely smashed the capacity of the enemy to continue fighting; or d) all of the above.

The only terms contained in a cease fire resolution with which Israel should feel compelled to comply must allow for her to destroy Hezbollah and ensure their inability to commit future outrages against Israelis. Unfortunately, such does not appear to be the case since Madame Secretary Rice touted the cease fire terms as being agreeable to both sides.

Both sides? Why should we care if Hezbollah agrees to it? Israel is the one we should be protecting, and we should be rejoicing over the news of more dead terrorists, not helping them to buy time to recruit more meat puppets and renew their campaign for Israel's extinction!

I am beginning to suspect that this administration has taken full leave of its senses.