The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, March 31, 2006

Canada takes the lead on Hamas

Our neighbors to the north have made a bold step in becoming the first country (after Israel) to formally cut funding to Palestine because of the new Hamas leadership voted in. After some surprising world pressure (except for Russia of course) on Hamas to denounce its terrorist past and commit to recognizing Israel's right to exist, Hamas' response was along the same lines as Scalia's Sicilian gesture. Leaders of Hamas made a trip to meet with the man who states he wants to blow Israel off the map; the Iranian kook (who is not worthy of my making the effort to memorize his long, hard name, Iranian kook will suffice). They then met with Russian president Putin, whose mixed signals were designed to undermine the US while not taking too much international heat. While Putin has some good points (love how he handled that theater terrorist situation), he exemplifies the old adage "never trust a Russian".

So Canada has taken the lead in actually making good on the threat to remove funding from Palestine. With new leadership in Canada some good steps have been made and this is a great one. The US should cultivate that by being second to make this official.

Faraj Nakleh, acting president of the Canadian Arab Federation takes this the wrong way:

After decades of Israeli occupation, Palestinians are now effectively being punished for democratically electing a government they believe can help, he said.

“Suddenly we’re saying: `It’s okay to have a democratic vote, but if we don’t like the result then you can’t have that.’

“I’m not defending any Hamas group. All I’m saying is, they were elected.”

Excuse me, but nobody said Palestine did not have the right to vote in who they want. It should be clear to Nakleh that there is a genuine concern that dollars given to a Hamas led government will more likely go toward the destruction of Israel than more productive areas. Of course, Nakleh follows the same logic I was pointing out from illegal immigrants, "We just want it".

Nakleh also states:
“What is at stake is that there’s a population of about 3.5 million people in the West Bank and Gaza that is starving.”
Then I would suggest that the Hamas led Palestine focus on the economy and growth of their people rather than wiping Israel off the map and other distractions. Not holding my breath.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Thank God for the release of Jill Carroll

Like many other Americans (and people in other countries as well) I often pray for those taken hostage in Iraq. When I saw the videos of Jill Carroll after she was taken, I was quite burdened for her. It is very tough to see a woman in that situation, especially one so young (28) with a full life ahead of her.

It was fantastic this morning to read that she was released. I was hoping the hostage takers would realize that world opinion would take a hostile view toward killing a woman. Perhaps that is the reason for her release. I think, though, the main reason is the prayers of those concerned were answered. That makes my day.

Journalists tired of hiding their true colors?

It seems like every time I turn around another journalist is signing onto the Al Jazeera news network. Recent movers are Lucia Newman from CNN and Dave Marash from ABC (Nightline). Where throughout the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Jazeera has proven itself hostile to the US at many turns one wonders how any loyal American could conceive of being employed by them. Well, perhaps that is all that needs to be said. Since most disloyalty speaks for itself I do not usually declare others as unpatriotic. It is funny how those who fall in this category are the first to ask "Are you questioning my patriotism?". Nobody ever does, yet they spit out this mantra as obsessively as MacBeth washing his hands. In this case I would question the loyalty and patriotism of a journalist who chooses to become employed by an entity many consider an enemy during wartime; an enemy aggressively engaged in anti-US propoganda.

I think other factors have driven these cross-overs to this extreme. I am sure they are frustrated over the state of journalism in the US today. The leftist journalists pay a price every time they indulge their anti-conservative, anti-Bush nature. Talk radio and the blogs take them to task answering them point by point and clearly showing their agenda and often foolishness. That must be a very bitter pill for them to swallow. While I think most news decision makers are happy to have a liberal slant, I think the oversight of the alternate media does result in some level of reluctant restraint. Lacking that restraint, the left leaning (almost falling over) media would in essence be an Al Jazeera. The BBC is a perfect example of this. In the UK, there is little to no such restraint and it is tough to tell the difference between them and Al Jazeera. So what is a frustrated journalist to do? Why, what we are now seeing them do by joining the ranks of an organization that has no inhibitions about being anti-American.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Don't look now but national health care not good enough for UK doctors

Linking to a story showing how UK doctors know how bad their socialized medicine is that they take out private health insurance to ensure they have quality care. It is not just a few doctors; the story states:
A survey of 500 consultants, commissioned by Bupa, the health insurer, found that 41% of senior hospital doctors have invested in private health cover.
One doctor tells how she would be dead if she had solely relied on NHS:

Dr Sarah Burnett, a consultant radiologist in London who worked in the NHS for 15 years, said she took out private medical insurance while she was employed in the state service because she was unimpressed with the level of care she witnessed first hand.

“NHS treatment is not a pleasant experience in any way — from the standard of the food, to ward cleanliness and the chance of catching MRSA,” she said.

Last year Burnett was diagnosed with breast cancer, detected during a private medical screening. Within two hours of her annual check she underwent an ultrasound examination that showed multiple small tumours. An hour after that Burnett was seen by a surgeon who arranged a skin-sparing mastectomy. A few days later she was recovering from surgery.

“I was lucky enough to have exceptionally prompt treatment because I choose to pay for insurance. Under the NHS I would not have been screened until 50 for breast cancer and would not have been able to catch my cancer at such an early stage,” said Burnett.

I think the reasons given by the British Medical Association are hilarious in their attempt to minimize the situation:

The British Medical Association (BMA) argues that the consultants’ wish to take out private medical cover does not demonstrate a lack of commitment to the NHS. They want speedy treatment so they can get back to looking after their NHS patients as soon as possible.

Dr Jonathan Fielden, the deputy chairman of the BMA’s consultants’ committee, said: “Consultants may also like the anonymity of private care. One of the problems of being treated in the NHS is that consultants might find they are in a bed next to one of their patients.”

So it is not better health care they are after, it is to more quicky get back to their work and so they don't share a room with their patients. Nice try. Basically, national health care is great for those making minimum wage, but a definite downgrade for those with private health plans. No thanks.

NYT throws out credibility with both hands

I checked the date, I cleared my cache and double-checked to make sure I did not have some very, very old cached version of news. After verifying that, I pinched myself and then cleaned my glasses to make sure I was awake and seeing things right. Wow, I am. This leaves me completely blown away by what I saw in the NYTimes with today's date. Ignoring many news stories already printed months ago, billions of bytes in the blogosphere on the subject ad nauseum, the NYT is printing yet another story on the Downing Street Memo. Worst yet, they are printing it as if it is fresh news with the headline "Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says". I could find nothing in the story that gives the impression how old this news is and is written as if the memo were newly discovered and a smoking gun.

The Headline does not read like any of the following:

- Blowing off dust from old memo to take another fun cheap shot at Bush
- This was so fun the 1st, 2nd and 3rd time around we thought we would try it again
- Company Psychiatrist recommends this to help with psychological trauma to employees over company financially tanking
- Please don't read DOCEX documents showing Bush was right - read this instead
- I know this is old, but we wanted it fresh in everyone's mind for the impeachment trial that we will be covering with fairness and impartiality.

Feel free to submit your own. It looks like the NYT is preparing to put all their eggs in one basket and close their eyes to anything else. Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. The NYT over and over again chooses the path of agenda journalism instead of impartially printing the news. Their circulation drops; their stock takes a tumble and their solution: more of the same. Insanity (and suicide)

As for the Downing Street Memo, I had a post quite some time back (October 22, 2005) showing what a weak document the left is pinning their hopes on. Ironically, 5 months ago I entitled that post "Downing Street Memo - Old News - My Take." I break down the memo in several points showing it is no smoking gun whatsoever. It is not even a gun. You can read my post on the memo here.

It is amazing how the old, tired DS memo is being treated like fresh news and the Docex documents are for the most part being ignored (with the exception of a few brave / truthful sources in the MSM - though couched in editors notes). One can only assume that Docex is throwing them into a panic and they are trying to throw out a stream of old stuff to muddy the waters. It is like in the movies where someone is being chased and they keep stopping to push something over for the chaser to trip over. Usually the chased takes more time doing that than the chaser takes circumventing it. It will be the same here. The Grey Lady will gain nothing from the story and also take a credibility hit for printing old news like it is new. I wonder how many news outlets will pick up on this and make it their lead stories? Follow the leader over the cliff.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

This immigration thing needs a heaping dose of logic

Whenever this illegal immigration issue is discussed, I usually end up with a headache at the complete absence of reason and logic on the side of those supporting illegal immigrants. Sometimes when you are talking with your kids about something as the discussion goes back and forth you begin to realize one thing: they don't have one good point on why you should say 'yes', you have many points on why you should say 'no' but they just WANT IT. You start to go through the process clearly and logically and they begin to get animated, their eyes bug out, they start saying things that make no sense at all. They just want you to accept their side without making the case. It is the exact same thing with the illegal immigration issue. Here are some quotes:
"I think it's just inhumane. ... Everybody deserves the right to a better life," Aloy said of the legislation.
"They're here for the American Dream," said Malissa Greer, 29, who joined a crowd estimated by police to be at least 10,000 strong. "God created all of us. He's not a God of the United States, he's a God of the world."
Just reading that starts my head aching. Notice the words all and everybody. Logically, do they think that we can accept everybody into the US? Whether or not they do, we can't. So here is the logical slo-mo:

- We can't accept all people into the US who want to come
- That means we need to accept only a portion of those who want to come
- That means it is not fair to accept disproportionate numbers from a single country
- That means the only way to ensure that too many people do not come at once and ensure the number of people to come in is fairly distributed will take a regulated and structured mechanism.
- That regulated and structured mechanism is called immigration laws
- If immigration laws are bypassed we cannot meet the goals of limited entry and fair distrubution
- If immigration laws are only on paper and not enforced gain we cannot meet the mentioned goals
- The bottom line is that enforced immigration laws are the only way to attain our goals

The United States of America is without a doubt the greatest country on earth. I am very grateful that I was born here and have been able to avail myself of the opportunities she has to offer. I wish everybody could come, but if they did this country would cease to be what all are wishing they had. I do not blame others for wanting to come here. I don't even blame them for trying to come illegally. I do blame those who are here that do not stand up to this problem. If we do not find a way to stop the flood of illegal immigration, we will cease to be great. The US became great and has continued to be great due to carefully regulated immigration. By bringing in a mixture of people of different origins and ethnicities, we retained the great melting pot. Today, some immigrants are refusing to melt and that challenges the foundations of what made the USA great.

The protesters are wrong because they are simply demanding what they want with no logical arguments to support it. In addition to the undermining of what makes this country great, illegal immigration is a threat to our national security. I think the only solution is a wall or portions of a wall along both borders. The demonstrations are simply a temper tantrum. Will the media call them on it? They have not so far.

I feel compelled to link to this

***Warning: Graphic and Likely Very Offensive Material***
Don't click on this if you are easily offended. It comes from a website of an artist whose work is so direct and offensive that Google makes visitors click on an extra warning screen before entering the site. Lately, his work has involved Islam. The latest work, however, is about abortion. While the artist proclaims being pro-choice, the picture he has created denounces the callous nature that the abortion movement has taken on. The graphic called "My Choice" is mindblowingly powerful and if you want your mind challenged on this issue click here, click continue on the warning screen, view the picture and read the many comments in the post.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Pay close attention world to the reaction of the religion of peace

AFP is reporting that the Christian Afghan Abdul Rahman will likely be released soon. In many Islamic countries it is illegal to convert to another faith and often punishable by death. This was the planned fate of Abdul Rahman. The Bush Administration has gotten heavily involved in attempting to pursuade Afghanistan that this is not what freedom loving countries do. Pressure from around the world has also been added, especially from Australia. Even the new conservative leader of Canada, Stephen Harper, called Afghan President Hamid Karzai to express his concern about the execution.

While talk of a pending release adds hope, recent comments make me fearful that upon release the people will kill him. So before anything happens, the world needs to take a good long look at this situation. If the man is successfully released, then it is a tribute to progress toward true freedom in Afghanistan. If the man is executed or killed by a mob if released, it should paint a clear picture of what the world is up against. While I do not disrespect the tenets of other religions, I do heartily denounce trends that against humanity. The world needs to work with the entire Middle East to bring them into the 21st Century, even if they come kicking and screaming. They will not become more civilized by appeasement, but through strength.

To drive home the point of what we are up against, the following websites provide a vivid picture of the brutal nature of these radicals:
The Voice of the Martyrs

The second site does not deal exclusively with persecution from Islamic sources, but they are a significant portion of them. I have read horrific stories of how Christians are mistreated, abused, wounded, maimed and killed. In most Islamic countries a Muslim can rape a Christian women with impunity. I have read stories of acid being thrown on Christians simply for existing. When the actions shown on these sites is fully absorbed, we see clearly the evil we are up against (in spite Madeline NotAtAllBright's statements today). We clearly see that this butcher mentality is the world challenge of our lifetime. Liberals seem completely blind to this and can only focus on a couple of renegade soldiers humiliating Iraqi prisoners with women's underwear, leashes and barking dogs. They are obsessed with a hatred of one man to the point that they cannot even see what is going on in the rest of the world. They need to wake up!

OK my money is on masterful planning

I posted a few weeks ago on the question of whether Bush's polling was part of a masterful plan or that he had no clue. I stated at the time that when conservatives panic they always move left either in their speech, actions or both. Through weeks of the lowest polling numbers Bush has actually moved right, at least in his speaking. This tells me he is not panicking. In fact we have several indicators to tell us this is under control. Moving to the right like I mentioned, zero shakeup in his cabinet in spite of tremendous pressure and the confidence exhibited during press conferences with McClellan and Bush (and interviews with Dick Cheney).

Remember in Ocean's 12 when Toulour was so confident he had won agains Ocean? He was cocky and full of himself. Then in the face of sureness on the part of Danny and Tess Ocean, he begins to doubt, then crack and then realize that Ocean was assisted by LeMarc and that he had actually won - stealing the real very valuable egg. It reminds me of Dems a few months back cockily claiming they did not need a message or agenda to win big in the next elections. Recently, both the Dems and their media partners are beginning to crack.

Several recent turns of events are giving them pause (and probably heartburn). First, the documents cache recently released and being translated that are showing strong signs that Bush was right about Iraq (about WMD and the Iraq-Al Qaeda links). Second, the very public denounciation of the media's job of covering the good in Iraq along with the bad. Third, the recent great economic news in the job market, manufacturing and growing venture capital even in places like California. What they are seeing is a very real possibility of the entire foundation for hatred of Bush that they have carefully built in danger of crumbling.

While I wish Bush would defend his policies more often, this may also be planned. The liberals rejoice when the polls drop so low, then Bush starts communicating to the people and the numbers rise. It is similar to arm wrestling with your little boy. You relax your arm almost totally and the boy begins to push the arm over. At the last minute, you apply a little pressure and push back to the middle. You do this several times (grunting for effect) and then finally push the child's arm over to win. That is my prediction for this November.

Wish I had time to do something like this

Go to this blog and check out the ASCII art picture. I did not add the post link because when you view it that way it does not look right. Look for Mickey Mouse. Wish I had time to do such fun stuff.

Chris Malott CAIRs

Fellow blogger Chris Malott is posting about CAIR, the Council on Islamic Relations. We have freedom of religion in this country and every faith has the right to organize to make sure they are portrayed as fairly as possible in the media. However, when a faith or group representing that faith wants to portray themselves different from reality; they do not have the right to be believed. Apparently CAIR is pretty cozy with the more radical elements of Islam and has aspirations (more like fantasies) to facilitate the US becoming an Islamic state.

Chris has a few quotes from CAIR representatives that raised my blood pressure reading them. One of those quotes is:
"If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
-Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR
Bold emphasis mine. Of course most people think their religion is correct. (some think their religion is not correct yet still subscribe to it; go figure) The Christian faith, though not always practiced in its history or universally, is based on freedom of choice. Here is what the Bible says; acceptance or rejection is up to you.

The other quotes seem to support or at least grant legitimacy to radical elements such as Hamas and suicide bombers. Check out Chris' full post here.

I was just telling my wife yesterday

I was just telling my wife yesterday that the fire on the cruise ship was likely due to a smoker. Sure enough MyWay reports:
A fire apparently started by a cigarette spread smoke through a cruise ship in the Caribbean early Thursday, killing an American, injuring 11 other people and damaging about 150 cabins, officials said.
Swift move ExLax.

North Korea - the new Eugenics capital of the world

Newsmax is reporting about the Eugenics policies of North Korea to eliminate birth defects. The elimination of birth defects sounds great, but the problem is they implement it by murdering the child shortly after birth when the defects are detected. According to NewsMax:

Ri Kwang-chol, a physician who fled to South Korea last year, told rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread, but said he had no part in it.

"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which aids North Korean refugees.

He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in hospitals or in homes and quickly buried, Reuters reports.

It is my hope that any reading this are still able to see the deep wrong in such a practice. In the US we are moving quickly toward a pattern of thinking where we might be too desensitized to recognize this as evil. In our society we have stood by and watched as:
  • Abortion for any reason became legal resulting in "the inconvenience of pregnancy" as the number one reason for termination. Translation: abortion as a form of birth-control (where often the same woman has multiple abortions for this same reason)
  • A woman loved and cared for by her family starved to death so the husband could move on with his life. Where the courts would not even allow another evaluation in case the first was wrong.
  • Euthanasia is routinely practiced silently across the country to rid us of the inconvenience of a relative who needs care to finish their life with dignity.
We are slowly being desensitized to the wrongness of these practices and are not far from embracing such barbarism as is being claimed of North Korea. Will we move next to giving birth to a child with a birth defect and kill it? Will we then move next to giving birth to a child with brown hair and brown eyes when we wanted blond hair and blue eyes and kill it?

Liberalism wants no boundaries. I was listening to Michael Medved debating with a caller yesterday about how conservatives are considered more successful because they are using conservative values to define success. When Medved asked for an alternative definition to success, the underlying answer was everyone defining success for themselves and achieving it. In other words, there was no other definition for success. No boundaries; just decide what you want to do and do it and that makes you a success. Where it comes to decisions of life and morality, they do not want boundaries either. Hopefully readers are not too far gone to see the evil of North Korea. Hopefully readers will see that we are heading in the same path because of the direction the movers and shakers are pushing us to.

The Iraqi government needs to fight the insurgency with ropes and cameras

While we continue to hear about civilian and troop deaths in the war in Iraq, we also are almost daily hearing about significant captures of insurgents in military sweeps. AP reports:
American and Iraqi troops swept the oil-rich region of Kirkuk for suspected insurgents and captured dozens, while drive-by shootings, roadside bombings and sectarian violence killed at least 29 people in Iraq on Friday
I recall reading the other day of 40 being captured and today it is "dozens". This is great news. My recommendation is that the Iraqi government begin declaring these insurgents as traitors to the country during war time and begin public hangings at dawn after each capture. These hangings should be televised along with a message that the insurgency is doing nothing but rob Iraq of the opportunity to move forward and rebuild their economy.

I realize that my idea will be criticized as replacing one tyrannical government with another. I would argue that my idea is no more tyrannical than the execution of a serial murderer in the US. That is not tyranny, it is a message that the actions of the murderer are wrong and unacceptable to a civilized nation. My recommendation is not based on hatefulness or bloodthirstiness. The fact is that one arm of the insurgency is dedicated to a strong PR campaign designed to demoralize the Iraqi people, the Iraqi and US troops and the US people. Televised hangings linked with the vision of freedom and economic growth would be a strong antidote to the insurgents PR efforts.

An addendum to the idea of televised hangings is to also televise "showcases" of victims of the insurgency. Summarize some key highlights of their life and their contribution to society or their family. Highlight the dream of freedom and how for this one, it was stolen by a power-hungry thuggish organization that needs to be stamped out.

There are other PR messages that the Iraqi government can use. The pen (media) is more powerful than the sword. We all may remember the inspiring video clips the economic growth of the Kurdistan portion of Iraq. We saw the Kurds one after another saying "Thank you" to the coalition for giving them the opportunity to experience this growth. They should also tell Al Jazeera and CNN to quit empathizing with the terrorists or get out of their country. The military sweeps and continued efforts are critical, but careful distribution of a message for the a vision of the future of Iraq is what has the best chance of elimination of the insurgency. Go get the ropes and the cameras.

News stories continue to deceive about global warming

Did you ever notice how in just about every news story that mentions the company Halliburton, that they make sure they stick in the name Dick Cheney as former CEO? This is one of the crowning jewels of "agenda jounalism". It adds nothing to the story since Cheney has not been at the helm of the company for over 5 years now, yet faithfully they add it again and again. The reason I bring that up is to show how the journalist operates and to show how when an important piece of information is left out again and again we are seeing the same mindset: "my agenda is supreme".

We have known for some time now that the sun is having a warming affect overall, not just on earth due to greenhouse gases. I posted a story some time back with this link showing how the ice caps on Mars were "melting" due to recent warming. There is also this story from the Telegraph showing clearly that the most recent studies indicate that recent warming trends are due to the sun.

With enough information in their pocket to show that any global warming happening is most likely due to the sun and not some man-made "greenhouse" journalists could at least once in a while remind us of the sun factor in their global warming stories. The Reuters story I linked to states:
"If we decide to keep on the track we're on now and just keep on warming, because of greenhouse gas pollution, then we could easily cook those ice sheets more rapidly," Overpeck said.
In the same story there is no mention of the sun, only 'greenhouse gas pollution'. So to underscore my point and highlight it in bold: The same media that continuously spews out the unrelated information of Dick Cheney and Halliburton continuously refuses to refer to a highly related point about the sun's complicity in multi-planet warming trends. The indisputable conclusion: agenda journalism.

So what is the agenda? There are several key areas. First, to make the current administration look bad and irresponsible. Second, to pave the way for the platform of the next presidential election to be heavily based on the global warming issue. The basic premise is that the Dems have absolutely zero chance at making much headway in the national security issue, mostly due to the very strong kook base they are straddled with. So the next best thing is "oneupmanship". Where conservatives have stated other items don't matter if you are dead due to unanswered terrorism, the liberals will paint the picture that we will all be dead if global warming is not addressed. (Oh, and it can only be addressed by economy crippling measures that everybody promises but only the US is expected to keep). In all likelihood Al Gore will be running for president again in '08. Gore has recently proclaimed we have 10 years before global warming becomes irreversible and destroys us. Somehow before that time they have to prime the masses so that Gore does not come across as the kook that he really is.

In conclusion I would like to highlight a favorite website of mine that I have linked to before: It is absolutely chock full of good information showning the nutty and agenda side of the global warming issue. Their slogan is "All the junk that's fit to debunk". Check it out.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Mindblowing ingratitude

Our military rescued 3 Christian peace activists held in Iraq. AP describes the rescue:
Without firing a shot, U.S. and British forces stormed a house Thursday and freed three Christian peace activists who were bound but unguarded, ending a four-month hostage ordeal that saw an American in the group killed and dumped along a railroad track.
What an exciting day! How our hearts swell with pride at the success of our military effort and feel relief that these three people are now safe. We all expected to hear word of thanks and praise for those who risked their lives to save the necks of these activists...we were disappointed. No, we were shocked to hear only criticism of the military and "occupation" in Iraq. Not one word of thanks much less praise. The official statement of their group states:
Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been safely released in Baghdad.
Released! They were not released, they were rescued. Like I have said many times, if you have to paint a false picture when making your point, you are probably wrong in your position. Welcome to the liberal mindset.

Shaekespeare said "Blow, blow thou winter wind. Thou art not so unkind as man's ingratitude." These activists were under no compunction to change their view of the war, but the fact that they have no words to offer for their rescuers shows the loathing and disdain they feel for out military.

The group's leader Doug Pritchard states:
We pray that Christians throughout the world will in the same spirit call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being held illegally by US and British forces occupying Iraq.
So nothing good to say about our noble armed forces, and no bad thing to say about the insurgents that captured them. What twisted logic. What warped thinking. I think they would get along just great with Cindy Sheehan.

One of the best parts of this story is how they knew where these activists were. According to AP:
The military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, said the 8 a.m. rescue of the Briton and two Canadians from a "kidnapping cell" was based on information divulged by a man during interrogation only three hours earlier. The man was captured by U.S. forces on Wednesday night.
So by interrogating a recently captured prisoner, our military obtained the information needed to locate and rescue these people. This is a huge success case for interrogation which has been under scrutiny. Will we next hear some questioning if undue force was used to extract this info? Probably. I would suggest that if any ridiculous criticism does come up, that the military immediately offer to return the three activists to their captors to make it right. As warped as their thinking is, they might go for it.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Any lefty blogs affected by Blogger glich?

MichelleMalkin and other blogs are reporting about a conservative blog named Betsy's Page that suddenly disappeared. She is also naming 4 or 5 other blogs also affected. One of the blogs I link to "Generation Why" also was taken out by a Blogger glich. Jason has decided to move his blog off Blogger and I have updated the link if you want to find it. Apparently, with Betsy's Page some new Blogger anti-spam software thought her whole blog was spam and took it out. Then somebody else took her URL while she was down and there was another 5 hour outage while Blogger negotiated with the new owner to yield the URL.

So I was just wondering if this is a Google/Blogger-Conservative thing? Or did any lefty blogs get affected by this glich. Although I have issues with Google and how their politics affects their business decisions (China, child porn protection), I have not criticized them too much. They are hosting my blog for free, so it does not seem like the right thing to do. There has been a lot of spam out there and if Blogger is trying to mitigate that, I applaud them. I am just curious if this anti-spam software is an equal opportunity blog eater.

Maybe some of my lefty readers can let me know if they have come across reports from the left side of blogs being eaten.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Freedom to offend until it is my religion

As we saw with the recent cartoon flap, it is just fine to down and be offensive to any other religion, but when somebody makes a cartoon about yours, it is suddenly worth killing over. Now we see Hollywood in the same boat. In recent years they have been taken over by the religion of scientology. All of the time the chronically offensive show South Park has taken offensive shots at every other religion. Now that their pet religion is in their sights, suddenly freedom of speech and censorship is seen in a different light. I would say shame on Hollywood, but they are a habitual shame. Now they are shown once again to be hypocrites.

Different standards based on bias

Many blogs including are posting about MSM's dual standards. If it bashes Bush, the MSM will take the word of any Joe off the street or notes on found on a napin found on the ground. When it comes to the huge cache of documents taken from the Saddam Hussein and Taliban regimes by our military, suddenly we can't be too careful.

As these documents are being translated and made available, a picture is coming to light that completely contradicts what the liberals and their MSM water carriers have been feverishly working to establish as truth. Some key points they have been trying to establish as gospel that are undermined by these documents are:

- No WMD / weapons program in Iraq (aka Bush lied people died)
- No link between Iraq and Al Qaeda

In fact the MSM has been painting those who link Iraq and Al Qaeda as either misled or liars. Also, in spite of growing evidence that the WMD went to Syria the MSM will have none of it. The documents in question here were finally released after a long uphill battle by Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard, Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Heokstra. There was no way government translators could ever translate all of them, so they were released to the public where an "army of translators" could work on them. The documents can be found here.

According to the ABS News story on these documents the following was claimed:

  • That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
  • That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
  • That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.
Also, there is correspondance giving instructions to avoid, trick and fool the UN weapon's inspectors by:

  • Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.).
  • Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored.
  • Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents.
  • Removing files from computers.
There are documents discussing Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the US invaded including statements and pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi.

What is amazing about the ABC story is the need by ABC to add a disclaiming "Editor's Note" warning people that this is not proof of anything. The editor's note under the Al Qaeda states:
(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)
Limited evidentiary value. When does this ever stop the MSM when the "evidence" will harm Bush or conservatives? It didn't stop CBS with their forged documents. Regarding Bush's decision to go into Iraq, we have pre-war evidence existing and now post-war evidence building:

  • The intelligence of multiple countries coming to the same conclusion that Iraq had WMD.
  • Proof that Iraq had WMD without evidence of their destruction
  • Iraq kicking out UN inspectors during Clinton's presidency with very little response until he needed a distraction from the Lewinsky affair
  • Hans Blix exuding frustration at Iraq's "Cat and Mouse" games avoiding UN inspectors
  • Heavy pre-war activity between the Iraq and Syrian border
  • Recent claims by Iraqi generals and high officials that WMD did indeed get moved to Syria
  • Recent claims by an Iraqi general seeing Osama Bin Ladin in Iraq before 9/11
  • The mountain of documents being translated and released bolstering claims of Al Qaeda, Iraq, WMD

While it is too early to get dogmatic about these recent developments, it appears to have massive significance that the MSM seems very eager to undermine and minimize. After all the effort to paint Bush as a liar and deceiver, they know that proof to the contrary will be a massive blow to both them and the Dems. In that light continue to observe the double standard they apply to this against anything that would harm Bush and other conservatives. It is on the same level and nature of schizophrenia. I am sure there is great fear that their carefully built empire is actually a house of cards.

Dems should call for a reversal of Bush domestic actions if they criticize them

Attempting to make good on his platform of "compassionate conservatism" Bush worked to pass the "No Child Left Behind Act" and the prescription drug bill for seniors. Since passing, education spending has doubled according to some reports and the prescription drug bill will like cost many times what was originally claimed. I thought Bush was wrong to pass these, but I was not blogging at the time. While I understand my position on being against these for reasons of fiscal responsibility, the liberals seem to have merely been following the template of criticism: wait for Bush to do something the criticize it. I say if conservatives do not like it and liberals are claiming not to like it: get rid of it. Why don't the Dems push to reverse these two expensive initiatives? The bottom line is that they only want to score cheap political points and have no desire to advance the US.

I realize the Dems are in the minority and that anything they do can be killed in committee or defeated. This does not prevent them from creating agenda items and trying to sell them to the public. The media is always ready to put a microphone in their face and report favorably on anything they do. They have no excuse not to use this avenue.

However, as I have claimed before they know that if they brought their real agenda to the public it would be rejected. All they have is criticism and opposition. This is why no matter how low Bush's numbers go, they will not be able to capitalize on it.

Why do liberals always give Russia and China a pass

NewsMax has a story about how Russia and China are stalling Security Council action on Iran regarding their nuclear plans. Is there truly anyone who values freedom and life that thinks it a good thing for Iran to possess nuclear capabilities? All who have this mindset should not only be neutral on this issue, but should strongly oppose such a thing. While we may all wish for nuclear weapons to be completely removed from the entire earth, it has been extremely difficult among the largest powers to achieve a level of trust to seriously disarm equally. It is not likely that the US, Russia and China will in the next 50 years to achieve this. While many Pollyanna-minded liberals think the US should just disarm to lead the way, that would be extremely foolish. So the bottom line is that these three countries and their major allies to retain nuclear capability for some time.

The world should be in agreement that smaller countries run by radical dictators or other unstable elements should not be allowed to develop nuclear capabilities. The Security Council and the Clinton administration allowed North Korea to develop nukes. Now it looks like the Security Council is going to allow Iran the same. Russia and China appear to go beyond neutrality and actually encouraging and assisting the process. NewsMax states:

The same two members also have nuclear and military advisers in Iran working on various projects, including a $6 billion nuclear power plant on the Persian Gulf coast nearing completion in the next few months.

As such, both Moscow and Beijing have good cause to keep Washington, London and Paris at bay, especially as it regards any military or economic sanctions.

The compromise is expected to come in the form of a Security Council presidential statement, which amounts to no more than a position paper by the U.N. body.
So not only do we see that the UN has proven itself worthless in matters of world security, we see that Russia and China have been repeatedly complicit in dangerous countries becoming more dangerous: Iraq, North Korea, Iran. Then against all reason we see that in the US and around the world, instead of protesting against the antics of these countries they march in protest against the US for "going it alone". When will this crazy world get its intellectual bearings straight? When will they admit the UN is a failure and that Russia and China are the rogue elements causing discord in the world's hot spots? It is time to stop giving Russia and China a pass!

David Gregory enjoy your 15 minutes of fame

David Gregory is enjoying a few minutes of fame by being an obnoxious buffoon. Some have compared him to Sam Donaldson during the Reagan years. There are two differences: 1) While Sam Donaldson did not fully give the president deserved respect, his direct and probing questions were at least relavent and more intellectual. Donaldson may have been obnoxious, but he was not a buffoon. Gregory's intellect seems to be on the same par as most Hollywood actors. Sam Donaldson and Brit Hume are way out of his league. 2) When Donaldson was at his zenith, liberalism had a complete stranglehold on the media. With talk radio and the internet, it is easy to show what a chump David Gregory is by using his own words.

Newsbusters is showing that David Gregory questioned Scott McClellan about Operation Swarmer implying that it was a political stunt to bolster Bush's approval numbers. To which McClellan answered:
"I can't accept the premise of your question because this was a decision made by our commanders. And it's important that the commanders have the flexibility to make these type of tactical decisions in order to prevail."
If that was not embarrassing enough, Gregory then asks if Bush is going to get "new blood" in his staff. When Mcclellan stated that he had gone through this in detail the previous day, Gregory claimed he was not there and asked to be filled in. This is like being absent from school and asking the teacher next day to reteach the lesson in spite of the fact all of the other students were there. There is such a complete oblivion with these people on how ridiculous they appear. McClellan takes him to the wood shed by telling him to go read the transcripts.

As a side point, isn't it interesting that Reagan and Bush '41 had their Sam Donaldson and Bush has his Gregory. Who did Clinton have to ask the tough and obnoxious questions?

David Gregory should enjoy his few minutes of fame. Each time he opens his mouth he reveals what a fool he is, and I predict the ride will soon be over.

Iran - Speak up now or shut up later

Liberals in the US have followed the same pattern for over 5 years now: wait for Bush to do something then criticize it. It is amazing how they have gotten away with this tactic. I would challenge the liberals to speak out now on Iran before decisions are made or before something happens due to Iran having nuclear capability. Why don't the liberals come up with a solution and offer it? I say speak up now or shut up later.

Monday, March 13, 2006

And now for something a little different

Greetings to all. I continue to lack time to devote to the Logic Lifeline like I should. Perhaps if I did not fritter my time talking about Chinese food or if I gave in to word verification I might have enough time to piece together a good post. Never fear, I have no plans to abandon you all. I just have a few very serious deadlines and in the middle of it have been somewhat sick.

In the meantime, for those who have not seen these sites, I have a treat for you. While I do not intend to add permanent links, if you want to see some very unusually funny stuff here are a couple of recommendations:

The People's Cube


I will throw in something both beautiful and bizarre, too.
All Things Beautiful

I hope you enjoy!


Friday, March 10, 2006

Masterful planning or no clue?

I read a series several years back by Stephen R. Donaldson where the main plot was about a king who was feigning weakness in order to draw out his enemy. I have seen Bush and Rove maneuver their way through the political landscape with dazzling skill. In the end they get their way, regardless of public opinion or which group is offended. They turn around and set it up again, meet resistance, then presto suddenly they are getting their way again.

The current climate surrounding the Bush administration seems to be different. We have some conservative commentators out there that are very concerned that Bush has "lost his way". They wonder if he is tired, run down and needs to shake up his administration. While I admit wondering what exactly is going on, Bush's history leads me to entertain the possibility this is somewhat planned and still in control.

What Bush does next could signal what is going on. When conservatives "panic" they almost always move left. Case in point: Arnold. If Bush moves left by coming out with some liberal initiative we will know the game is likely over. If he comes out with some wild announcement about global warming, or government funded health care we will know he is in panic mode. So what is the next move?

Thursday, March 09, 2006

The amazing decline of American women

When I was born in the '60s, the decline had already begun, but growing up women were still a stabilizing force in society; an anchor for morality, grace, poise and sweetness. It used to be the girl that kept the "wolf" at bay saying no. It used to be when the girl gave in and said 'yes', there was some level of shame. It used to be the girl who had her head on straight being more mature than the boys by years. It used to be that girls had dreams of fairy tales and princes. It used to be that girls were the safe drivers on the road.

While there are still quite a number of good solid girls/women the decline in recent decades has been staggering. Today, more often than not the crazy driver that cuts you off and nearly runs you off the road is a woman. Today, more often than not the driver to flip you the bird for driving safely is a woman. Today, the girls are at least as sexually agressive as the guys. It used to be that the men had the reputation for molesting kids. Now we hear about a woman school teacher having relations with students at least once per week. It is quite rare to see sweetness in a girl, much less grace and poise.

Yesterday the AMA came out with a statement on girls and sprink break. All of the reports I heard were in the form of snickering and yucking it up about the behavior. Some polling data is outright disgusting:
-- 74 percent of respondents said women use drinking as an excuse for outrageous behavior.

-- 57 percent of women agreed that being promiscuous is a way to fit in.

-- 83 percent of women had friends who drank the majority of the nights while on spring break.

-- 59 percent know friends who were sexually active with more than one partner.

-- Nearly three out of five women know friends who had unprotected sex during spring break.

-- One in five respondents regretted the sexual activity they engaged in during spring break, and 12 percent felt forced or pressured into sex.

-- 84 percent of respondents thought images of college girls partying during spring break may contribute to an increase in females' reckless behavior.

-- 86 percent agreed these images may contribute to dangerous behaviors by males toward women.

-- 92 percent said it was easy to get alcohol while on spring break.

-- Two out of five women agreed access to free or cheap alcohol or a drinking age under age 21 were important factors in their decision to go on a spring break trip.
My post is not an intrusion into what people do in their private lives, but a statement on the sheer volume of participants and the direction woman seem to be going. John Wesleys mother either created or made the statement famous "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". The mothers of our children have a great opportunity and influence on our children at such early ages. How many of these new mothers were in the last few years participating in a spring break orgy? Only 1 in 5 had any regrets of this behavior. I remember how as a teenager some friends of mine and I would notice an attractive girl. In the middle of said admiration, she would pull out a cigarette and that would kill it instantly. Today we see girls falling all over the place drunk, passing out, throwing up, throwing themselves on guys, etc. These are the next generation of mothers.

My post is in no way designed to portray woman as trailer trash and men pure as snow. Men have been rogues, crazy drivers, prone to immorality for a long time. The woman had a way, though, of taming the beast and mitigating the worst. It is disheartening to see this decline in woman. It is becoming more difficult to say that "Behind every great man stands a great woman."

Liberals get what they want and what will it accomplish

After years of harping against the Bush administration to close the Abu Ghraib prison, the military is finally going to do it. Abu Ghraib is most famous for sparking a rewrite of the definition of the word "torture". By taking stupid, humiliating, depraved acts of a few soldiers and defining that as torture, the media enflamed the Muslim world in order to score cheap points against the Bush administration and the military.

So the liberals have been asking to close the place down. When the military closes it down, the prisoners there will be moved to other prisons. So we will have a net difference of zero. What will we have accomplished. Yet I am sure the media will view this as some sort of victory, while at the same time scouring for information about the new prisons to find something to be critical about. Or did the media mean to release all of the prisoners when the prison was closed? Now of course they will redouble their efforts to close Gitmo.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Dems show they are not worthy of taking the reins

There is an article in the Washington Post that highlights many of the troubles the GOP has had recently. One would think the Dems would have an opportunity to make a sweeping victory, but so far those sweeping gains are not certain. The crux of the article is the fact that the Dems just don't seem to have a clear message they can ride to victory. According to the article entitled "Democrats Struggle to Seize the Opportunity", the Dems have been working on a 'legislative manifesto'. I don't know if manifesto is a common term on the hill for these things. If not, I think manifesto is a poor word choice for obvious reasons.

The date for the release of this manifesto keeps slipping. They wanted it out in November so voter could have a full year to digest their proposals. Now Pelosi is saying it will be released in "a matter of weeks", but Schumer wants it delayed until summer. I think this delay is very telling of what the core problems that reside within the Democratic Party. I will begin with a short list of these problems and then examine them more carefully.

First, the Dems are very hesitant and indecisive. Second, they are struggling within with a large far left kook base mixed then with liberals and a few moderates. Third, the Dems have never shown themselves in recent years to have any core values. People may criticize some of Bush's decisions, but I think it is obvious to most that the behavior of the Dems in the last few years can be summarized that they have opposed merely to oppose. This does not build confidence in the people that the good of the nation will be put first. Also, while people may forget a bit between elections, they are reminded at election time of the very dangerous world we are living in. The Dems are quick to criticize actions and decisions of Bush in a period where big things happen fast such as Katrina. However, by hesitating and being indecisive in coming up with an agenda, they show that they could never be up to the task themselves.

Regarding core values: if you have them, you know where you stand and what you want to accomplish. The Dems taking so long in finalizing an agenda shows they really have no core values. In a day I could come up with a rough draft of my agenda for the country and polish it in less than a week. The delay in the agenda speaks to many shortcomings on the side of the Dems. It also may hightlight that they know some of these shortcomings and wish to shorten the amount of time for the light of scrutiny to take their agenda apart. After all, it would look very ridiculous to have it torn apart and then have to come out with a new version before the election.

Finally, if the worst happens and the Dems take control of both houses; we will quickly see why they lost control in the first place just in time for the '08 elections. So Dems, be careful what you wish for.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Three sane San Francisco supervisors

San Francisco supervisors have passed a resolution to ask their congressional leaders to impeach President Bush. Exercising what authority the Constitution has granted them in this area, which boils down to the right to express an opinion, they voted 7-3 for the impeachment resolution. I am shocked it was not 10-0! It appears SF has three sane supervisors, which now are probably in danger next election.

I think Boise, Idaho should pass a resolution naming San Francisco as the 2006 laughingstock of the year.

FOX almost makes you feel sorry for CNN

Media Beistro has the 25-54 Demographic numbers for cable news. You can look at the whole document, but here are the top 14:
It takes getting all the way down to #10 to even see a non-FOXN show, and its Larry King. I think CNN excutives must crawl out of their atheistic hole every day and pray that Larry's vitamin supplements he continually hawks keep working. After Larry, you need to skip over 3 more FOXN shows to get down to the elf Anderson Cooper. Cooper's numbers have been consistently lower than his yawn inducing predecessor Aaron Brown. I have been wondering why they still keep him. Hey, after the vitamin popper, he's the best thing CNN has going for them.

I would love to be in the CNN board meeting after this report comes out. What do they claim is the problem? How do they propose to fix it? There are two things they console themselves with. First, Fox numbers year over year have decreased while theirs have increased. They are still getting stomped, but just a wee bit less stomped. Of course when election season hits, you will see Fox numbers go up considerably. Second, CNN has been ignoring FOX's stomping them on total viewers and pointing to demographic. While they may cheer improvement in demo, the list above takes a lot of wind out of those sails.

I have mentioned before that I am rooting on MSNBC to take over the #2 spot. MSNBC has made good strides in the last few years. I think it all started when we invaded Afganistan. They had great coverage at the time. Their shows also are very interesting and do not carry the "I need some prune juice" aura that CNN does. Olbermann and Matthews make no bones about their political leanings and I like that. One thing I do not understand is why Scarborough does not do better. I really like his show. He does an excellent job in interviews. He is #26 on the Demo list.

Another interesting report from the Media Beistro. I really love that website and glad it is there. I think it helps us keep our finger on the pulse of America to determine interest and direction.

More watering down of the word torture

In a BBC report, a man being held at Guantanamo is claiming to being tortured. Of course just using this word in the media conjures up pictures in people's minds where they heard of real torture occurring: bamboo shoots under the finger nails, beating with a rubber hose, creative cutting with a knife, etc. Well, as we look a little deeper we see that the man is claiming that being force-fed constitutes torture. He wanted to go on a hunger strike, and the guards aren't letting him:

Through his lawyer, Mr Odah described his treatment during his hunger strike.

"First they took my comfort items away from me. You know, my blanket, my towel, my long pants, then my shoes. I was put in isolation for 10 days.

"They came in and read out an order. It said if you refuse to eat, we will put you on the chair [for force feeding]."

He told how detainees were given "formulas" to force them to empty their bowels and were strapped to a metal chair three times a day, where a tube was inserted to administer food.

Through his lawyer. That just about explains it all. Well, just about. Another entity has thrown in their two cents:
The UN Human Rights Commission said recently that it regarded force-feeding at Guantanamo as a form of torture
Ah, yes. Our old friends at the United Nations, and more specifically, the infamous human rights commission led recently by Sudan. Well, perhaps we should no longer engage in the "torturous" practice of force-feeding detainees since the United Nations says its bad. When the detainee then dies of hunger we can ship the body to the human rights commission for them to dispose of.

What we see here is that there is a continuous movement in the media to blur the meaning of words so that they can use them to push an agenda. While the media did not initiate the word "torture", they passed it faithfully along in a news story with a straight face when it was only worthy of ridicule. We yet again see that the media has very little regard for the truth. In their never-ending quest to push Bush's job approval ratings down, they simply cannot comprehend the damage they are inflicting on their own credibility and in the end, their existence.