Thursday, May 28, 2009

Biden Stains Air Force Academy Graduation with His Antics

"5 Deferment Joe" avoided military service with the same assiduous cowardice that his predecessor Dick Cheney displayed, but the DEEPEST-throat Drive-Bys never mention that when the

Remember, this clown said that Hezbollah had been "kicked out" of Lebanon during his laughable campaign---the doofus actually made fun of Alaska's small population during his attacks on Palin---the drive-by DNC arm called the media neglected to notice that Delaware itself is two senators representing a population the size of an average Congressional District.

Laughingly, a commenter named izi seriously maintains the Biden was adroitly making fun of himself when he made one of his trademark gafferoos concerning a teleprompter. If anyone thinks the BozoVeep was making a reference to anything approaching subtle humor, I have some well-watered land about 20 miles west of Boca I'd like to sell them.

Another commenter named Pom Pom Girl makes some very direct points outlining just what a dishonest coward this jerk actually is:
Since Joe Biden has been selected by Obama to oversee the implementation of the Stimulus plan, I thought it would be good to refresh our collective memories on Joe Biden.

In September 1987, Joe Biden's Presidential campaign ran into problems when he plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, who was then-leader of the British Labour Party.

It was also discovered that, when he was a law student at Syracuse Law School, he had plagiarized a law review article. While the then-dean of the law school, as well as Biden's former professor, played down the seriousness of the incident, they did find Biden drew "chunks of heavy legal prose directly from" the article in question. Biden said it was unintentional due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, (after 4 years of college one should know the rules of citation) and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was later dropped from his record.

When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school, Biden had inaccurately recalled graduating in the "top half" of his class when he actually graduated 76th from a class of 85, and he also falsely stated that he had received a full scholarship, and had earned three degrees. The truth is that he had received two majors, History and Political Science, and a single B.A degree, as well as a half scholarship based on financial need, not academic achievement .

When he was confronted with these truths, Biden withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by "the exaggerated shadow" of his past mistakes.

He has since revealed his own bunker hideaways location, made racist remarks on Indian 7eleven owners in his distrect and even called Obama clean cut articulate etc..
When you get to know him you'll know why those in his district less than kindly refer to him as slow joe.

Another instance on when this moral leper BS-ed about his exploits [in the Oval Office, brave boyo!] is recounted on a good summary of just how incredibly stupid is the enfeebled brain of this moron-in-chief who was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Cte without learning any foreign policy.

P.S., for all you people wondering about Lebanon, Hezbollah was not "kicked out" of that country, but is assassinating itself into the dominant power in Beirut---not that Joe Squarepants would notice.

Monday, May 25, 2009

NBA: Refs Mean Cleveland Plays 8 Against Orlando's Five?

Joey Crawford appears to be following the Tim Donaghy rules when it comes to calls in Game 3 of the Orlando/Cav game, in which Dwight Howard was given no leeway at all [and called for a couple of Ben Wallace flops plus a LeBron drive which grazed the King's hip as DH tried to get out of the way]. LeBron can charge, but get a blocking foul on the Magic almost at will. OTOH, Dwight is being short-sheeted on playing time by refs who call him for no-foul flops by the likes of Williams and Wallace [and don't forget the time Williams threw a ball at Howard with no technical call].

I'll bet Magic fan Tiger Woods is glad he is his own ref more or less in PGA rules USGA golf. And watching good-friend Dywane Wade see Dwight get a ridiculous lack of respect from crooked refs must make him cringe.

It's crushingly obvious that the NBA's "hidden" agenda is becoming glaringly visible---the big Vitamin Water and other Corporate Masters want their puppet Stern to dance the Finals into a LeBron/Kobe confrontation. There's a lot of ad money riding on it.

When Coach Van Gundy says that the NBA Finals aren't like College Football voting for top game, he must have had his tongue in his cheek. And when a reporter asked him about the reffing, which makes any fan gag, he told the guy to write about what he himself couldn't say without a $25K fine! "Just write about what you saw." I'll bet Stern and his Gang of Deputy Commishes are wondering how to punish Van Gundy for excessive candor....!

And if it takes technicals like the one Joey Crawford called on Dwight to scare the Defensive Player of the Year into mediocrity, and dozens of loony calls like the perfect block of LeBron's three-point attempt at the end of the Fourth Quarter being called a foul on Dwight, well then that's what it takes. Damn the spectators and their lyin' eyes! Looks like the zebras are following the orders of Stern, who obviously takes his cues from former car-salesman Baseball Commish Selig [who sold my dad a '59 Fairland in Milwaukee a century ago] who IN TURN takes HIS cues from Larry King.

A bunch of old geezers who probably admire Bernie ["Made-Off"] Madoff.

Bring back Donaghy, he can't do worse than Crawford & Co. pushing the Cavs toward the Finals.
UPDATE A blog by Matt Yglesias was brought to my attention and this commenter seems to have voiced my thoughts on Commissioner Stern much better than I did above:
As with just about everything he does, Stern is acting like a high-handed, venal little shit. The NBA could have let this pass under the radar, but by protesting too loudly, all it does is once again place attention to the fact that to many fans the NBA is barely more credible than the WWE..
Agreed. I saw this on display during an interview with Stern regarding the suspension of a player (I believe it was Pierce's "menacing gesture"). The sideline reporter asked Stern about the player's appeal, and Stern smirked and said something like, "he can appeal all he wants, but I am the one deciding his appeal, so..." The announcers got a good chuckle out of his answer.
The obvious implication was that the appeal process was meaningless and that Stern is the final word on such matters, period. In my opinion, Stern is arrogant enough to think he can "correct" problems with officiating in the playoffs by making sure refs know what would please or displease him in a given series. To Stern, this wouldn't be him "fixing a game" - it would be him "improving the product."
When you put someone who believes he knows best in charge of an organization with no checks or balances, bad things tend to happen.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

NYT Reporter's Foreclosure Book Leaves Out a "few details"

Megan McArdle of The Atlantic [h/t: Mangan's Miscellany] has discovered that the widely touted [on PBS Evening News & NYTimes Magazine] author who wrote a sob story about his home being foreclosed has a couple of bankruptcy skeletons in his marital closet. Seems his second wife is a serial filer and the seamy details reveal once again that the NYT is the least reliable source of news for honest and sincere factual analysis in the USA, if not the entire planet. Sort of like Pravda when Stalin was its Managing Editor [who was succeeded by Molotov, I believe, whom Pinch Sulzberger uses as his beau ideal of an overall redactor----hence Bill Keller.]

TPM Compassion for Failed Terrorists

The Treason Left is well represented by this specimen of hard-left human garbage named Roth who empathizes with the four arrested terrorist wannabes and detests the FBI for having used some undercover techniques to entice the group into doing what they wanted to do---like Rev. Wright and his acolyte for 20 years---hate America and destroy it and its values.

Pelosi and Sphincter and a creepy ex-Senator from FL named Graham all hate the CIA. I guess the left is now targeting the FBI for its zeal in protecting America from the left's terrorist allies.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Why Newspapers are Going Out of Business

Doug Ross is up with the original editorial the Sac-ofS**t Bee had up after the voters roundly trounced the Five Propositions the Elitist Faineants at the Bee had supported:
Sacramento Bee: "You did it! Uh, so what now?"

Good morning, California voters. Do you feel better, now that you've gotten that out of your system?

You wanted to show the state's politicians just how mad you are at them. And you did. Boy, did you ever.

Proposition 1A with its taxes and its spending limit? Too much of one and not enough of the other, you said (or was it the other way around), and voted it down. Never mind that the taxes go into effect anyway. You showed 'em.

Proposition 1B? That was a tougher call.

Proposition 1C? No way. You like the lottery just like it is. And all they were going to do with that extra $5 billion was spend it.

Propositions 1D and 1E? Forget it. You had already voted to put money into preschool and mental health programs. You're not taking it out now.

And 1F? Heck, yeah! Let's not pay our legislators if they can't pass a budget on time. So what if it likely won't have any effect, or that this year they actually passed a budget months earlier than they needed to? That's not the point.

The point is that you're sick and tired of all this political mumbo-jumbo. So you showed those politicians who's in charge. You. You're now officially in charge of a state that will be something like $25 billion in the hole for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

So, now that you've put those irksome politicians in their place, maybe it's time to think about this: Since you're in charge, exactly what do you intend to do about that pesky $25 billion hole in the budget?

Lay off some state workers? Which ones? And how many? Remember, the entire state payroll is about $25 billion. You could lay off every last one of them every Highway Patrol officer, every prison guard, every state firefighter, every health inspector, every professor in the UC and CSU systems, every DMV employee and every nameless, faceless paper-shuffling bureaucrat and the state would only be barely in the black. But if you want to do that, go ahead. You're in charge, remember.

Wait, how about taking money back from the counties? Great idea. Not that it will be easy. Most of them are already in the red and getting ready to lay off cops, prosecutors, probation officers and clinic staff.

Let's see. What about laying off more teachers? Shortening the school year? Releasing prisoners? Selling some of the state's real estate holdings? Borrow billions to tide the state over until the economy improves

What's that? Few of these ideas sound like what you want to do? Well, that's OK. You really don't have to do these things yourself. You just have to figure out what you want done and tell the Legislature to do it.

They'll surely hop right on it, now that you're in charge. Just keep in mind that your suggestions have to keep the state solvent and able to meet all its legal obligations. And you know how complicated things get when the lawyers get involved.
You say it'll take you awhile to figure this stuff out, that you'll need a little time to get up to speed on the details? No problem. You've got until June 30 to get it all straight.

That sounds a lot like work, you say? Sorry, no whining allowed. You asked for this job. Now you've got it, so get on it. Oh, and remember. The entire nation is watching to see how you do now that you're in charge.

No pressure or anything. Just thought you'd want to know.

The comments from readers rightly expressed disgust and dismay at a newspaper that eviscerated taxpayers who dared to turn down an out-of-control government bureaucracy run amok. Here's the replacement op-ed.

ditorial: Time for reform - not for blame


Good morning, members of the California Legislature. Good morning, Governor.

Feeling bruised and abused this morning? Well, you can't say you didn't see it coming. The polls have been saying for weeks that voters were going to do just what they did on Tuesday: Conclusively reject your slate on the ballot, Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E.

Today, on the morning after voters kicked around your best effort at fixing the state budget as if it were a deflated soccer ball, you face a decision.

You can blame the voters for reacting with uninformed and misplaced anger.

Or you can look in the mirror and admit you had it coming. And you know you did.

Over the last couple of decades you and your predecessors in both parties created an environment of cynicism that poisoned Californians' faith in democracy. You have insulated yourselves from the electorate. You have rigged elections by drawing noncompetitive districts. You have discouraged turnout with negative campaigning. You have catered to special interests across the political spectrum.

As the state's fiscal situation grew more and more dire, you responded with years of gimmicks and stalling followed, finally, by secret negotiations to produce what turned out to be (at least in our estimation) an acceptable compromise.

But by then, the problem was too big to be solved so easily. And it was too late to make your case to the voters, who were tuned out and disengaged, which is exactly how most of you wanted them.

There is no simple recovery from this disastrous state of affairs. First, there is that huge budget deficit - $20 billion? $23 billion? $25 billion? - to deal with, and quickly, before the state runs up on the rocks of insolvency.

But after that, a much harder task awaits: Restoring citizens' faith - not just in government, but in the possibility that they can trust their elected representatives to act responsibly and honorably to solve common problems.

There is only one way to do that: Work to reform California politics. Not just simple reforms, such as requiring only a majority vote to pass a budget, but larger ones, too: more transparency in the Legislature and the Governor's Office; less ballot-box budgeting; more accountable schools, cities, counties and special districts; modernized and more efficient government, including pay and benefits for the reality of life in the 21st century. In other words, make Californians feel they are getting their money's worth from the governments they pay for.

If that sounds difficult, well, it will be. You're starting from a deep hole, one that you've dug yourselves.

The first step is to stop digging. Don't blame voters, no matter how much you may want to. Accept their verdict with good grace. Acknowledge that even if they don't have a mastery of all the details of the state budget, their judgment about your performance is not subject to your approval.

And at bottom, that was what this election was about: Not the fine points of governing, but the judgment of the public on your performance. You have been judged and have been found wanting.

For the sake of California's future, here's hoping you respond with a commitment to regain the voters' trust and restore their faith in representative democracy. If you can't do that, this state has a problem too big to be measured in mere billions.

If ever an editorial board could execute a one-hundred-and-eighty-degree midair turn, that was it.

The original op-ed was up from early morning (12:30AM PST?) to around 10:00AM, at which time the response convinced editors to (*ahem*) edit the content. The stated rationale?

Note to our readers: Many of the comments below refer to an article that was posted in error. That article was a draft prepared for internal discussion among members of The Bee's editorial board. Such discussions are a routine part of our work, and frequently lead to editorials that are considerably different from writers' first drafts.

That's what happened in this case. After discussion, we decided that our initial editorial about the special election should take a different tack. The result was the editorial that now appears on this page. This editorial is the only editorial about the special election that appeared in Wednesday's editions of The Bee.

David Holwerk, Editorial Page Editor, The Sacramento Bee

Once again proving that the only way to separate the mainstream media from big government Democrats is with a crowbar."

I would add Bertholdt Brecht's famous observation after the German "Democratic" Republic complained after the 1953 Berlin Riots that the German People were undeserving of the delights of worker-paradise Communism. Brecht is supposed to have remarked, "Then why doesn't the GDR choose a new people?"

California voters have the right to vote in a new collection of rascals, but given the gerrymandered collection of CDs, and other electoral districts in CA, perhaps a Constitutional Convention, a la 1878-9 would be in order.

Things You Just Can't Make Up

THE FLUMMERY DIGEST is a delightful collection of the absurdities the mindlessness pervasive in the MSM seems to produce on an hourly basis. The wonderful dude in Beantown who started this gallery of nitwittery must have been inspired by the "stupid criminal" videos that are on TRU TV and other cable networks for our late night entertainment.

Now we can understand how a freak like Joe Klein can emerge from the woodwork and, like the proverbial termite, consider himself the lord of the manor he is eating into long-term mulch. Some precious masterpieces:
In March, British artist Tracey Emin—whose depiction of her own unmade bed sold for £150,000 and was shortlisted for the 1999 Turner Prize—offered a reward for the return of her missing cat. However, all of the reward flyers she posted on London streets were quickly removed by art lovers eager to possess one of her original works, and the flyers were soon valued at £500 each. A spokesman for Ms. Emin offered a clarification in the London Times: "It's simply a notice to alert neighbors. It's not a conceptual piece of work and it has nothing to do with her art."

The site is an adornment to any blogroll, but one can't resist citing Joe Klein's Godfather in the absurdity business, a true gift from journalism that decade after decade, keeps on giving. I present, the inimitable Fox Butterfield:
[6/4/02]Reporting on crime statistics once again in the New York Times, Fox Butterfield writes that "the increased number of criminals put behind bars has not been an effective deterrent to crime." Instead, a Justice Department study shows "the rate at which inmates released from prison committed new crimes actually rose from 1983 to 1994." Butterfield explains the distinction as follows: "Criminologists generally agree that the prison binge of the last 25 years ... has helped reduce the crime rate, but largely by simply keeping criminals off the streets."

Fox should be displayed in The Smithsonian alongside John Dillinger's pickled penis and other strange sports of nature.....

I'm sure Fox has a deep and thoughtful take on what The Won should do with Gitmo... Perhaps he and Frank Rich should team up for an Off-Off Broadway presentation on "political vaudeville." Paula Abdul could do the commentary offstage....

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Herbert Meyer Understands History and the Democrats

This pretty much sums up a lot of what is going on in the hidden agenda the Democrats are trying to soft-sell the average American into buying into. Herbert Meyer is a distinguished student of history who understands that countries lose their liberties by frittering away the rights of individuals vis-a-vis the central government. Schwartenegger has just given California's debt to Washington and as he did with the banks, Obama will take it. Let's see the lotus-eaters get back their rights, if they even care about them any more...

Like the banks trying to give back the TARP money, the conditions attached will cripple them.

The Three Stooges: Reid Now Competing with Pelosi & Biden for Gaffer-in-Chief of the Democrats

Harry Reid may have Barack-O coming to Nevada to help him drum up a mountain of cashfor his Senate race in 2010, but BHusseinO didn't help Dingy Harry much with an offhand remark about keeping high-rollers out of Vegas recently. Now Harry has displayed the sort of cavalier carelessness that the puffed-up overconfident Democrats demonstrate whenever they have both houses of Congress under their thumb [plus a POTUS in the White House].

Reid went far beyond his brief on Guantanamo after routinely flubbing a couple of ground balls about the health of Sens. Kennedy and Byrd,
[manglingl his party's position on the congressional news of the day, that Senate Democrats would join their House counterparts in withholding the money President Barack Obama needs to close the Guantanamo Bay prison until Obama comes up with a plan for relocating its prisoners.
But Reid went further than saying he wanted to see a plan for the money before Congress approves it. "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States," he said.
No one, of course, was talking about releasing terrorism suspects among the American populace. Imprisoning them, perhaps, but not releasing them.
"Part of what we don't want is them be put in prisons in the United States," Reid clarified but digging himself into a bigger hole by departing significantly from some of his colleagues and administration officials. "We don't want them around the United States."
Did the administration put Democrats in an awkward position, asking for the money before setting out how it would be spent?
"Not at all," said Reid.
"Yes," his deputy, Sen. Dick Durbin replied to the same question.
Even the post-gaffe handling of Reid's remarks was awkward. Spokesman Jim Manley, who previously worked for Kennedy for years, swept through the press gallery to clean up after his boss. He retracted Reid's assessment of Kennedy's condition. He clarified Reid's comments about the Guantanamo Bay prison.

The Three Stooges atop the Dem Party hierarchy may be joined soon by the Alpha-"Mutt" [by his own description] if Barack keeps his own teleprompter mishaps continuing the way they have recently.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Busted: Jon Meacham Brings Newsweak out of Closet As DNC Satellite!

John Podhoretz recalls the halcyon days when Time paid him a nice salary with many perks under Henry Grunwald's imperial rule. Those days as a profitable publication are long gone.

But Newsweak is finally announcing itself as an op-ed partisan rag as if its [poorly-hidden] agenda under the sheets had previously gone unnoticed. Although occasionally Eleanor Clift will reveal Joe Biden as a true clueless buffoon [again, as if we didn't know], Newsweak will now confine itself mainly to singing hosanna to the highest, the Chosen Won. The pseudo-religious Meacham [I read his shabby book on American religious beliefs and politics] gets a Pulitzer for a bio of Jackson [which should have been won by true scholar H.W. Brands Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times ], but nobody is fooled by this bantamweight who succeeds welterweight Evan Thomas. Thomas occasionally lurched into relevance or clarity, but Meacham is Best Boy in a B-List movie shoot.

Podhoretz delivers a good thrashing, though without my utter contempt at how far Newsweak has fallen.

Canadian Fascism's Struggle to Suppress Free Speech Thwarted

"The Internet Saved My Tongue" is an intriguing and gutsy story about how Canada's only conservative magazine survived attacks by a Fascist Brownshirt Squad named the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Islamist terrorists whined and the Brownshirts kowtowed in fear of their lives, gutless losers that they and their fellow countrymen seem to be. And the Brownshirts, as the following demonstrates, made a pre-emptive capitulation in deference to their Islamic masters:
The cartoons were published in September 2005, but they didn’t make international news until the next year, when a group of Danish imams went on a world tour to drum up Muslim anger against Denmark. The imams brought three additional cartoons along with the original dozen. Those three additions, which hadn’t been published in Denmark or anywhere else, were grotesque, including one showing Muhammad having sex with a dog. They were the imams’ own handiwork, added to the bundle in case the Jyllands-Posten efforts didn’t achieve the desired response. Up until that moment, the phrase cartoon violence had summoned to mind images no more harmful than Wile E. Coyote fighting the Road Runner. But after the imam tour in the spring of 2006, more than 100 people died in purportedly spontaneous riots against the cartoons. Half a dozen terrorist plots to avenge the artwork were uncovered across Europe. Demagogic governments from Tehran to Damascus seized the opportunity to deflect attention away from their own problems.

Every newspaper and TV station in the Western world covered the story of the riots, but almost none of them showed the original cartoons themselves. The media’s self-censorship was based on the same fear exhibited by Denmark’s illustrators. As a journalist, I was appalled by this cowardice masquerading as sensitivity. Western Standard editor Kevin Libin and I knew our readers would be interested in this story and would want to see for themselves what all the fuss was about.

As our publication date drew nearer, we couldn’t help noticing that no other mainstream publication in Canada was planning to reprint the cartoons. We’d be the first, and possibly only, one. We sent the magazine to our printers on Friday, February 10, for printing over the weekend. The next day, word of the deed somehow leaked. By Sunday our decision had become national news, even though no one except our staff and our printers had seen the spread.

If you think Obama's deep curtsey to King Abdullah was a disgusting display, catch the surrender-monkey Canadian version of how Liberal Fascism is eroding that country's right to call itself a democracy by reading the rest of the Reason article linked above.

Hitchens Notes Sykes and "Over-ripe" MSM Relationship to the Won

Sykes' second-rate performance at the WH Correspondents' Affair is roundly sent up by Hitchens. He notes:
When comedians flatter the president, they become court jesters, and the country becomes a banana republic. There are probably even people who would wish to misconstrue that last phrase of mine if they felt "sensitive" enough. In which case they can take a number, get on line, and ask to suck my thumb
And also the bare-faced truth:
Still, the president did intermittently grasp the main point of the evening, which is that any humor must in some way be at the expense of the guest of honor: namely and on this occasion, himself. He showed he understood this when he opened with a gag about his famous reliance on teleprompters and when he told his audience, deadpan, "Many of you cover me. All of you voted for me." The whole point of self-deprecation is that it disarms: You do not have to be a masochist to know how to practice it.

But the most interesting insight CH has concerning the POTUS:
President Bush used to tell jokes about his weaknesses, the most salient of these being his tragic struggle with grammar, itself quite possibly rooted in dyslexia. Many of President Obama's jokes, his speechwriters should take note, were at the expense of his strengths—"I might lose my cool"—and were thus bordering on the narcissistic. (If I have a fault, and I'm the first to admit it, it's probably this: I am too sweet and too patient and too tolerant of the mistakes of others.)

Sykes sucks, in the end. But Obama is dangerously taken with himself. And that is much more dangerous than a second-rate comics' egregious suck-ups.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Pakistan and its Nukes: The More the Merrier?

Michael van der Galien has a response to Adm. Mike Mullen's response to Sen. Webb [with whom I had a conversation in a urinal at the Washington Times HQ eons ago before Webb went over to the dark side] concerning Pakistan's multiplying its nuclear arsenal. Michael had some points [in quotes] as to the reason for the Paki weapon expansion program to which I am responding below:

Back in the ’80s, I was working for Denis Neal [who figures prominently behind the scenes in Charlie Wilson’s War, the book,] as a Pakistan lobbyist and had occasion to visit the country and meet high-ranking Pakistani govt. & military officials. My friend Arnie Raphel was Ambassador and as an ex-FSO I had a lot of chances to get behind the stated policies of Pakistan by conversations with US Embassy personnel and other in-country assets. Michael's points are well-taken:
“1. [Pakistan] still fears a major war with India, and believes that you cannot possibly have ‘enough’ weapons of mass destruction”
This is true, but since India’s rapid economic development, there is less fear of an Indian pre-emptive attack and from my several visits to India, the Indians have an extremely high opinion of Paki fighting prowess (”one Paki is worth 5 Indians” was how an Indian put it
). And even in the '80s, the DepMinDefense of Pakistan told me that Paki and Indian generals would meet and fraternize in London as they were "batch-mates" at Sandhurst and other British military schools back in the day. The two countries have gone in different directions, largely because the Pakistani Army was used as the bricks and mortar of the new state in '47 and usurped power in the aftermath. India had the Gandhian legacy and used the vast railway system and other engineering and educational institutions as well as adopting an above-it-all stance in foreign policy.
“2. It fears Iran’s rise and nuclear program”
Yes and No. The Pakis have a significant Shi’ite minority and Benazir Bhutto’s mother was Iranian. Also many Pakis told me that eventually Pakistan might break up into its constituent parts, some of which would orient toward Iran. Back in the seventies, there was a Turkish/Iranian/Paki “Mutual Defense Pact” which disappeared after the fall of the Shah, but which might be partially revived as a bulwark against the Taliban [who hate the Iranian Shi'ites as much or more than Christian or Jewish infidels]

“3. It wants to give / sell some of these bombs to other, befriended states”
J.Q. Khan has already sold N. Korea & Iran the formulae and other construction secrets, and my guess is that an anti-American government might try to sell the finished product, though the US would do a lot to prevent that. The US did construct one of the nuclear reactors which produces the enriched uranium, I believe, [to counter Soviet influence in the sixties], and has a lot of intelligence & presumably some sort of a failsafe plan in place.

“[The US is] aware of every single nuclear weapon in Pakistan and it is therefore developing more so as to confuse the U.S. / make it virtually impossible for Washington to keep track of every single one of these weapons”
Not really feasible as the ISI is so completely penetrated by the US CIA as well as other foreign agencies who “trade baseball cards” and the Pakis notoriously are unable to keep secrets.

“5. Scary idea: something with Taliban and nuclear weapons”
This would be when Israel and India would finally have to make some sort of reconciliation. The US might even be a second-tier player if the Taliban got hold of nukes, and would have trouble restraining Netanyahu.

Of course, there is an overwhelming sense to the Pakis that India has now become more important to the USA than they themselves are. Intangibles like the unlikely popularity of "Slumdog Millionaire" and Manohman Singh's impressive recent election victory make Zardari's tawdry little political machine based on his late wife's legacy appear almost as incompetent and feckless as it really is. His democratic opponents, though anti-Taliban, dislike him almost as much as they do the Islamists, whose real political power in the countryside is almost nil, being based almost exclusively on intimidation and coercion [though, like Mussolini, they do make local utilities and transportation run on time and have cleaned out a lot of corrupt political appointees in the judicial system]. But the downside is no school for girls, acid in the faces of females not wearing purdah, a police composed of religious vigilantes and the other appurtenances of a brutal male machismo even including Iranian-style hanging judges. The population is fleeing the Taliban just as the Afghanis flooded Peshawar in the '80s before the Soviet onslaught [I visited the refugee camps run by relief agencies and the numbers were overwhelming their capabilities.]

India has its problems, and the main reason Obama wisely elected to remain in Afghanistan while changing the modus operandi with the installation of Gen. McChrystal was because of the threat a resurgent Afghani Taliban poses to Pakistan. I once spent most of a night talking with the Agricultural Minister of NWFP in Peshawar who frankly believed that his wild and wooly province would eventually become part of a Pushtun Afghanistan or a great Persia sometime in the future.

I wouldn't be too afraid of the Taliban filching a bomb unless they got the codes and the personnel from the Paki nuke facilities to make it work. Even then, they would have to get it to Iran or other customer or even some enemy target in a delivery protocol which wouldn't be intercepted.

All the makings of a James Bond movie. Wasn't "Octopussy" something along these lines?

"US Intelligence Sources" reveal that contingency plans to remove nukes are in place, though the news item notes that "rogue elements in the military and intelligence services" might try to deliver said nukes or some of them to the insurgents. McChrystal's appointment was largely due to his heading the JSOC combined operations out of Fort Bragg which would protect the nukes from enemy [yes, "enemy"] hands.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Odormann Ready For Clinical Committment---Outpatient or Long-Term?

Ben Affleck was on sport-of-nature Maddow's show and Keith-O the Recessive-Trait SuperStar of [P]MSNBC reacted in his accustomed calm and sober manner. Tonight, BOR mentioned that FOX in the Morning now gets better ratings than obnoxious oaf Odormann in his 8PM slot. Could it be the unkind words Alec Baldwin recently voiced about his being hurt by Odormann's intemperate froth-at-the-mouth Adolf imitations?

Ben did a great send-up of the Odorous One on SNL a while back---even the ultra-lefties are beginning to tire of this hatefest ranter night after night.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

What did Nancy Know and When did She Know It?

The Hindenburg approaching that New Jersey landing strip is what Nancy Pelosi appears to resemble. She keeps pouring gasoline on a fire that she's trying to put out and pretty soon the entire episode what is left of her credibility as a political actor with any real suasion on the Hill.

Her strong-arm Queen Bee-nery assault on Jane Harman, her much more competent successor as Ranking Member on the Intelligence Cte, a job which she herself is now revealing that she fouled up, as her increasingly flustered interpretations of what she was told, when she was told it, and so on are suddenly turned into accusations that the CIA "lied" to her.

Only a serious case of PMS can account for this woman's increasing ineptitude, or perhaps it derives from a big-city hack being put in a sensitive position with international responsibilities. Jane Harman should have been the Chair of the Intel Cte in 2006, but the B-List mind of Pelosi couldn't handle having a much smarter female in a job she herself flubbed up. So a barely literate ESL hack named Reyes was named, and Silvestre couldn't even tell what a Sunni or a Shia was despite many years on the Intel Cte.

Maybe Steny Hoyer should take over. The Speaker's job isn't one for amateur second-raters.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

"Religion of Peace" and Stoning Women

The Stoning of Soraya M opens in 10 cities in June and my bet is that froth-at-the-mouth jihadists will righteously make death threats that will cow many theater owners into thinking twice about showing such a graphic film.

The article linked above describes the film and more recent stonings, including one of a 13-year old Somali girl just last year.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Clockwork Orange as the Droogs Take Over England's Streets

Claire Berlinski has a column on British crime that should serve as an admonitory signal to the US as it slouches toward Socialism. The British Ministry of Justice trumpets that statistically crime is decreasing in England and Wales, while the media and the public report anecdotally that British streets are not safe, especially in the public housing tracts that spawned The Droogs in Clockwork Orange, the famous novel and movie about post-socialist England written in the '70s and immortalized by Stanley Kubrick's stunning film classic starring Malcolm McDowell as a very convincing juvenile delinquent gangsta leader.

Berlinski compares today's London to 1980's New York City, which I visited on a monthly basis for weeks at a time during the period and well remember the lawless grunge that Democrat administrations had permitted ever since Kitty Genovese famously bled to death in Kew Gardens because fifty-odd neighbors refused to call the police. Rudy Giuliani was elected, busted subway and broken window cheats and suddenly found that most crimes were committed by very young hooligans who never before were challenged by flaccid, soft-on-crime Democrat administrations since Lindsay in the sixties. Berlinski takes the feckless Jacqui Smith, the fatuous Minister of Justice and her criminal-pampering colleagues in law enforcement to task in the article attached. First, CB proves the old adage, "lies, damned lies, and statistics," is particularly true with crime stats.
To understand why the dark figure of crime escapes exact measurement, realize that for a crime to be officially recorded, three things must happen: someone must be aware that a crime has been committed; someone must report that crime; and the police must accept that a law has been violated. But each link in the chain is easily broken. People may be unaware that a crime has been committed because they view it as normal or trivial behavior: in some neighborhoods, it would seem perfectly natural to settle a dispute with a good brawl, while in others, this would be seen as assault. Other crimes may go unrecognized because the victims are unaware that they have been victimized—either because of the nature of the crime, such as fraud, or because the victims are drunk, mentally ill, or otherwise incapable of understanding what has happened.

But that is only the beginning of the cascade of conditions which prevent crimes from being reported. CB ticks off a long list of reasons that even when victims recognize a crime has been committed, crime goes unreported.
immigrants who don’t speak the language well enough to explain what happened to them. Rapes can go unreported because the victims are ashamed. So-called victimless crimes involving sex and drugs also go unreported, of course, because the criminals have no motivation to inform the police that they are hiring prostitutes or shooting up. Crimes can also go unreported because victims fear reprisals. Above all, crimes can go unreported because victims feel no confidence in the police and see reporting a crime as pointless. Even if a crime is reported, it will not necessarily be added to the official statistics. The police may conclude, for example, that there is insufficient evidence to believe the report. Moreover, poorly performing police departments have an incentive to stop recording crimes: it makes them look more successful than they are. For these reasons and many more, criminologists commonly posit that the dark figure of crime is far larger than the official figure—perhaps by as much as an order of magnitude. And there is good reason to believe that in Britain, the dark figure is unusually high.

Berlinski points out the silliness behind the rosy stats Jacqui advances to justify her competence, which most observers believe is lacking in all sorts of areas due to her loony Janet-from-another-Planet Napolitano stance toward political dissidents. [Patriots are a threat because they wish to defend the country from Islamist terrorists---ala Napolitano.] Smith's MoJ policy of not prosecuting serial offenders or letting them off with token "fines" which are never paid has resulted in a great leap of violent crime and a reluctance to report petty crime by Londoners and others due to slack enforcement practices:
[Note] the even grimmer picture painted by police records of violent crime. Sure enough, when the rules changed in 1998, the total number of violent crimes recorded jumped from 231,000 to 503,000. But then, even after the switch, it continued to rise sharply, hitting a peak of 1.06 million in 2006. That number has since declined only slightly: in 2008, the number of police-recorded violent crimes stood at 961,000. When it comes to violence, in other words, Police Recorded Crime actually confirms the public’s general view.

Further, the recent decline to 4.95 million total crimes recorded could well mean that the public has lost faith in the criminal-justice system and no longer believes that reporting crimes will result in the punishment of the perpetrators. Support for this hypothesis comes from a British Federation of Small Businesses poll indicating that 60 percent of businesses in London had been victims of crime in the past year. But proprietors reported to the police only half of the burglaries, vehicle thefts, and assaults that they suffered—and not a single case of arson. They didn’t think that the offenders would be caught and punished, they explained. Going to the police just wasn’t worth their time.

And the methodology of the British Crime Survey is severely flawed in that respondents are selected from among homeowners, and not renters, skewing the statistical base away from poorer neighborhoods where crimes usually take place. One of the designers of the BCS, a "criminologist" named Hough, exemplifies the unaccountable nature of the small-time bureaucrats who shrug their shoulders at the fact that the BCS overlooks the vast majority [only 5 million of 26 million crimes are reported] by the classic rejoinder of "triviality," suely the time-honored favorite dodge of the bureaucrat.
"Are the revised crime estimates significant? It is “true but trivial,” says Mike Hough, a criminologist at King’s College London who has helped design the BCS since it began in 1981, that if you include all crimes, “an astronomical amount of crime is committed.” Surely nobody is really in a panic about petty crimes, he adds."

But this may be false logic, or a sort of deliberate avoidance of the basic problems facing enforcement---a feeling among petty criminals that even if they get caught, they get off with a slap on the wrist.
But not all the repeat crime is petty: according to Farrell and Pease’s study, if calculated correctly, violent crime would be 82 percent higher. The BCS figures, on their own terms, show substantial drops since 1995 in “acquaintance” and “domestic” violence, but “stranger” violence and muggings—the kind of violent crime that really terrifies people—remain at their extraordinarily high mid-nineties levels.

The limp-wristed excuses of the smug petty functionaries in the MoJ and their academic co-conspirators contradict the incessant complaints of law enforcement police on the beat:
Officials at every level of the British criminal-justice system—detectives, judges, prison officials, probation officers—complain that too few criminals are caught and that those who are caught rarely receive sentences that will function as a deterrent. Lack of resources and a massive bureaucracy hamper police efforts: the average time to process an arrest in London is over ten hours, and the number of forms that must be filled out averages about 35, according to various analyses. Home Office figures released in 2007 show that police officers in England and Wales spend only about 13 percent of their time on patrol—and 20 percent on paperwork.

One London cop in the Criminal Investigation Division blames the police’s ineffectiveness on the unintended effects of community policing. “There was a perception that there weren’t enough beat cops—people who knew the local area,” he remembers, which led to sending extra cops to problem spots. “But in practice, they ended up going to community meetings and liaison. They’re not actually dealing with minor crimes. If they were answering emergency calls and dealing with minor crimes instead of doing community liaison, that would indeed take a huge load off the system, but they’re not. So in practice, what this means is that when I started working as a police officer, there were 25 people on staff answering 999 calls”—the British equivalent of 911. “Now there are 15.”

Perhaps as a consequence, more than two-thirds of burglaries reported to the London police are never investigated, according to police figures released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by the Daily Telegraph. Under 10 percent result in an arrest. And even if an arrest leads to a conviction, it’s unlikely to include real punishment. The London policeman adds that it’s common for a burglar to be arrested 30 times a year, taken to court 20 times a year, and punished with nothing more than a fine—“which is meaningless, because they can’t pay. There’s no chance that with minor-level crimes you’ll go to prison.” A London magistrate clarifies: “It’s not that they can’t pay, it’s that they won’t—and the system doesn’t push the point.” Theodore Dalrymple, a contributing editor of City Journal and a former prison doctor, tells me that he recently met a burglar on his 57th conviction. The burglar was fined 50 pounds, to be paid in five-pound installments—considerably less than someone in a legitimate business, making a comparable amount of money, would pay in taxes.

Dalrymple is a medical doctor who has served in the British Public Health Service and in WHO around the world. He has written a number of books on the seedy underworld of the socialist nightmare infested by criminals and politicians who tax the rich to in effect subsidize and aid/abet the crimes of the poor. As Berlinski notes, the habitual underreporting of crime, the lackadaisical policework following a crime and the general hopelessness concerning less-than-serious crimes has produced a clone of New York City before Giuliani applied tough love to clean up the streets:
The situation in Britain, then, resembles that of 1980s New York, whose crime problems were routinely called insoluble. What the British government fails to understand is that the majority of serious crimes are committed by a small cadre of criminals, who are also, disproportionately, the authors of minor crimes. If you lock these criminals up—reliably, and for a long time—crime will drop precipitously. The reason Broken Windows policing works is not that it is inherently important to jail every petty thug who breaks a window; it is that the window-breakers tend to be muggers, rapists, burglars, and murderers as well. If you get them off the streets, the rate of serious crime will fall. To dismiss as “true but trivial” the finding that “an astronomical amount of crime is committed” in Britain is only half right. The British people know this full well, even if their government does not.

The rise in hooliganism and violent crime might be obscured by statistical hocus pocus wielded by self-serving functionaries wishing to obscure colossal failure of a social model for political reasons. But hopefully, the historic common sense of the British people will overcome the preposterous rubbish their government attempts to peddle in order to re-elect a Labour Party gone seriously off the rails.

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Holbrooke and Haqqani, a Matched Pair?

The NYT's "Saturday Profile" of Pakistan's Ambassador Haqqani gives a glimpse into the weird and bizarre world of Pakistan, a country which I worked on as a registered foreign agent in the '80s, even getting an anonymous nod in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War." Back then I was familiar with Jamshid Marker, another Pak ambassador fluent in English, though with a toney British accent and rather elegant continental style.

Haqqani has the distinction of being kidnapped by his own country's intelligence agency [or, rather, agents thereof, who could have been working for anyone!]

But the NYT's vapid journalism reveals its underside when the source of the article, the NYT's own paladin Richard Holbrooke, makes the front page for the umpteenth time in a laudatory mode.
[Haqqani] speaks several times a week with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who calls him “one of the most skilled ambassadors I have ever seen.” He figures he has met with 90 members of Congress. And he is a fixture on CNN, the op-ed pages of newspapers and at research groups around Washington.

But critics say Mr. Haqqani is a quick-change artist who cozies up to whoever is in power. Before he left Pakistan in 2002, after falling out with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, he had worked for both his country’s leading political figures — Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto — switching from one to the other with dispatch, depending on whose fortunes were rising.

Which reminds me of the funniest Holbrooke story I've ever heard. Seems that staunch Democrat Holbrooke was seen in Henry Kissinger's parlor up in NYC skulking and slinking about when Henry the K was John Connally's chief foreign policy honcho [and Connally was a "shoo-in" for the Republican nomination that Reagan finally won] and Kissinger was left to pursue his private sector goals while Richard, "a quick-change artist who cozies up to whoever is in power," had an unsuccessful attempt to switch parties go awry.

Holbrooke was still parking his motorcycle in the guest quarters of Averill Harriman in the '80s on N St., N.W. in Georgetown, perhaps servicing nympho Pamela while the old Crocodile, Stalin's nickname for the US Amb to the USSR during WWII, was dozing in senectitude in his sumptuous living quarters nearby. Pam was working a scam called "Democrats for the Eighties" while Ronald Reagan was winning over the hapless Carter. RH also had visitors Diane Sawyer and WSJ Editor Karen Elliot House tiptoeing over to Holbrooke's N Street pad to "strap their thighs around his engine." Among other groupies.... [I admit I'm jealous!]

But if Holbrooke can pull off a Paki rescue mission, he does deserve a great deal of kudos. His goal of becoming the second FSO [Larry Eagleburger was first] to attain the cabinet post of Sec'y of State might be attainable were Hillary to ever make it to the White House or something happen to Obama. Holbrooke has legions of enemies [myself the very least among them, dating back to a couple of lunches in Lyon France while I was Vice Consul under Peter Tarnoff & Holbrooke Moroccan Peace Corps chief in the midst of a messy marriage break-up].

My own half-dozen stays in Pakistan date to the eighties and the country is simply almost impossible to not rend itself asunder due to what are always called "fissiparous tendencies" in the jargon of diplomats. In other words, half the Pakis hate the other half, or various slices of the demographic pie are wanting to peel off into Iran [Benazir Bhutto's mother was Iranian and the Baluchis consider themselves Iranian rather than Pakis] or in the Punjab, get away from Sindhi influences like the PPP of Bhutto and Zardari. Singh's ardent opposition is as much Punjabi localism as anything else. Lahore is more part of India than many Moghul fort cities elsewhere.

And Pakistan's American allies, including Chris Dodd and John Kerry, both of whom voted with the Republicans for a huge arms increase to Pakistan in the '80s [re: Charlie Wilson's War], prodded by Denis Neal's donations to the Democratic Senate Campaign Cte,, will dutifully remain watching which way the wind blows, with their palms outward for more baksheesh.

Friday, May 08, 2009

Human Louse Rudd gets book reviewed in NYTimes

The NYT Sunday Book Review won't give bestsellers like O'Reilly and Mark Levin reviews even though they have been best sellers for weeks. Mark Rudd's effort is destined for the remainder bin, but gets a full-fledged summary in the zampolit broadsheet telling Upper West Side halfwits what to read. Here is a piece I wrote a while back about the former Columbia BS artist [I wonder who ghosted the book?]:
I had the dishonor of hosting one of the miscreants, a fellow named Mark Rudd, back in 1969 in my apartment in Ann Arbor, where he smoked all my ganga while dropping nuggets like "No fault on the left," and "Dare to cheat, Dare to win." Later, I went to Cornell at the invitation of Chip Marshall to organize for SDS & was there for two weeks before I realized that these dudes were total cons whose reason for inviting me was to get possession of my VW microbus. They wanted me to work in a factory in Syracuse while they cavorted around the state of New York. But I digress.
The Columbia protests were led by Mark Rudd, whose idea of a bon mot was "Up against the wall, motherf-----!" From Columbia's relationship to a Pentagon-affiliated think tank and its plan to build a gym on a city park, Rudd's compatriots concluded that the school was irredeemably militaristic and racist. They occupied university buildings and took a dean hostage before being cleared out (none too gently) by the cops.

Elsewhere, university officials gave in to their tormenters, most notoriously at Cornell a year later. When black students occupied a university building - ostentatiously arming themselves - and demanded that disciplinary action against three black students be dropped, the faculty initially stood its ground. When the students escalated their threats, the faculty reversed itself in a signal act of cowardice.

The parents against which the students rebelled - as represented by the college administrations - buckled. College presidents who were the finest flowering of post-World War II liberalism gave in to the radicalism, politicizing American higher education and trashing its standards. "The maturation of the student protest movement turned out to be part of the infantilization of the American intelligentsia," Kimball writes.

The freedoms fought for in the student revolt soon curdled into the opposite: free speech became speech codes; sexual liberation became the regime of sexual harassment; civil rights became quotas. Meanwhile, Mark Rudd and a fringe of the New Left spun off into the Weather Underground, which took the destructive spirit of the campus protests to its logical conclusion in a campaign of terrorist bombings. Jonah Goldberg reminds us in his book "Liberal Fascism" that the radical left committed roughly 250 attacks from September 1969 to May 1970.

The victims of academicide pile up year after year and matriculate bearing delusions indoctinated into their uncritical minds by spurious purveyors of academentia. But after the mayhem not reported by the compliant leftist electronic and print media, there was and remains a happy ending:
If the academics gave in, another segment of the parents resisted. They were the Nixon voters, reacting against the disorder and cultural radicalism with which liberalism became identified. Republicans held the White House for 28 of the next 40 years, and the alternative history of the 1960s is the rise of the right. Even now, with Barack Obama dogged by his association with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, the Democratic Party's challenge is to free itself from the taint of 1968.

And while I dabbled in SDS, I also met Ayers and his beautiful consort Diana Oughton, who shortly thereafter immolated herself in a Greenwich Village basement making a bomb to attack Fort Dix across the Hudson. He was a dork-wad, she didn't deserve a wretch like him who now prospers purveying academicide nostrums to unsuspecting victims at UofIllinois Chicago. My friend Rashid Khalidi got me an Academic Associate Card at the University of Chicago, a respectable institution. But whether they are genuine humanists like Rashid or loathsome loo-zer parasites like Ayers, the left remains slouching toward Bethlehem.

Rudd and Ayers survive because the Left, though wrong throughout the twentieth century, does not have any principles except as cheap slogans such as "No Fault on the Left" and "Dare to Cheat, Dare to Win."

A gangsta culture for middle-class sissies.

"Moderate" Taliban

The NYT Op-Ed today has an interesting article on the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's hard nowadays to remember way back in the fifties and sixties when Afghanistan was developing in a rapid manner in modernizing the country, giving equal rights and education to women. Almost fifty years later, it seems like the country has moved five centuries backwards.

The Op-Ed piece by Hassina Sherjan notes Obama's fatuous search for "moderate" Taliban thusly:
shortly after Mr. Obama raised the subject of reconciliation, the Taliban rejected his proposal, stating there were no extremists or moderate groups within their ranks. On this point at least, the Taliban are right. Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, put it very clearly: “The Taliban were united under the leadership of Mullah Muhammad Omar. All the fighters follow and obey orders of one central command. The existence of moderates and extremist elements within the rank and file of Taliban is wishful thinking of the West and the Afghan government.”

What can be the purpose of talks with the Taliban? These men deprive women of their rights, throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, reject religious freedom and oppose constitutional democracy. They also threaten to kill any Afghans who have worked with Western militaries and nongovernmental groups or had other contact with foreigners.

Is it possible, as some have said, that the Taliban have mellowed since being toppled in 2001? Muhammad Ibrahim Hanafi, a top Taliban commander, answered that question in an interview in March with CNN: “Our law is still the same old law which was in place during our rule in Afghanistan.”

This attitude also holds true, mutatis mutandis, for neighboring Pakistan and Pres. Zardari's sad attempts to meet the Taliban halfway in the Swat Valley, which will simply be regarded as a sign of weakness and engender further pushes toward Islamabad. The Taliban know that if they keep pushing and using local terror tactics, the old New York bargaining mode of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" will deliver more chunks of territory into their hands. Pattycake diplomacy will not work, and Richard Holbrooke may not be tough enough to get the Paki government to do the necessary.

The naive, childlike projection by Obama of his own good intentions onto the vicious, medieval mindset of the Taliban would be laughable, were it not so pitiful. These are the criminals who aided and abetted Osama bin Laden in his attacks on the WTC and Washington, DC, which the liberal intelligentsia are trying to erase from our national memory. The Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan & Pakistan find a western echo in Hamas in the Gaza Strip and their Shi'ite counterparts in Hezbollah and Iran are just as remorseless, relentless, and single-minded.

Ms. Sherfan raises her voice, but it is unlikely that the Upper West Side readership of the NYT will find her admonitions welcome. They are ostrich-like in avoiding any confrontation with evil and the wishful thinking of the liberal mindset simply does not operate in the Islamic World. Her final plea is heartfelt, but likely to be ignored:
The only “reconciliation” strategy that is going to work is one between the Kabul government and the Afghan people. The key is making changes at the community level. Many local mullahs and citizens who have tolerated the Taliban in the past are open to working with a government that can protect them and help them find livelihoods. The government and its allies can best weaken the insurgency by better protecting the population, organizing local citizens’ groups to cooperate on economic development, and hiring more people from every part of the country into the growing Afghan Army and police force.

This is the only way that the reconcilables will be separated from the irreconcilables. We need to understand where Afghanistan’s true moderates are to be found, and not look for them in leadership positions of one of the most repressive organizations on earth.

Ditto for the Taliban in Pakistan, and their Shi'ite counterparts in Iran.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Gallup Chief Notes Gore's AGW Hoax Sinking into the Ooze of Quicksand

Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport notes the mega-hoax of Anthropogenic Global Warming is simply losing any credibility among the public:
Newport says that some 41 percent believe global warming claims are exaggerated, and "that's the highest we've seen." Ask people to name their biggest concerns, and just 1 percent to 2 percent cite the environment. "The environment doesn't show up at all," says Newport.

Although the Chicken Little Crowd will froth at their howling mouths, the fact is that despite a bunch of UN Political Commissars' attempt to impose ecological and environmental caps on HIGHLY ADVANCED WESTERN ECONOMIES to give the General Assembly and its sweltering hellhole denizens some sort of "comparative advantage," the political common sense residing in the sucker countries who would be fleeced in this gigantic con is far higher than the "beggar thy neighbor" jeolousies of retarded socialist entities like Nicaragua and Venezuela, who wouldn't be penalized for the silly sanctions imposed by the UN. Nor would the two largest polluters on the planet, China and India.

Now, the new SCOTUS nominee might support international law over US legalities on this issue, but she would still remain in the minority. And also, Richard Feynman's Cargo Cult Science will remain one of the wisest Nobel Prize winners' admonitions. And of course, so will Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," a book demonstrating that Victorian common sense is still stronger than fuzzy-wuzzy mumbo jumbo.