CAIR is at it again.....calling Israel "terrorists":

(WASHINGTON, DC, 7/30/06) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today said the Bush administration and the international community must act to stop Israel's campaign of "terror" in Southern Lebanon.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued that call after an Israeli air strike killed at least 57 civilians in the town of Qana, the site of a similar massacre of civilians by Israel a decade ago. (In 1996, an Israeli air strike on a United Nations compound in Qana killed more than 100 civilians who had sought shelter there.) Lebanese officials said the majority of the dead in today's attack were children. Hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed in previous Israeli attacks.

 

 Only one little itty-bitty tiny small problem....CAIR makes no mention of Hezbullah.  Hey, CAIR, shall we talk about the root cause, that Hezbullah causes those civilian casualties by hiding and fighting among them.  Gee, for an "honor" society, they show a lot of cowardice....(H/T: CNSNews)

*****

From Blackfive:

I asked a few of the soldiers how they felt about this war, a war that had begun with an attack on American soil. How did it feel being Canadian leading the fight? The answers were nearly all the same, "It's time that someone else steps up. The United States shouldn't have to carry the fight alone. We may be Canadians, but the attack was an attack on our common values and beliefs. The attack of 9-11 was an attack on all of us."

Thank you. It is much appreciated

 

 

Usually, when a program fails, the private sector pulls the plug.  In the public sector, generally not.  At the UN - Hah!  (H/T: LGF)

UNIFIL Sitting Ducks Not Evacuated

UN observers in Lebanon, who have no authority to actually do anything about the Hizballah terrorists using their positions as shields (even if they wanted to), will be sitting ducks for another month. (Hat tip: Newsbeat1.)

Having examined the Secretary-General’s report on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), including its observations that the Force had been impeded from effectively carrying out its activities, as a result of the continuing hostilities along the Blue Line, the Security Council today decided to extend its mandate until 31 August 2006.

It’s a win-win for Hizballah! They can:

1) continue using UN posts as cover, and

2) score a big propaganda bonus if Israel happens to hit one.

 There is a controversy here in my town of Gilford that may be brewing.  While the idea of a War Memorial is passing muster at the School Board level, the Chairmam seems to be upset that it would contain "a military" weapon - part of the symbol US troops use to honor one of their fallen (a pair of empty boots, an upside rifle with its bayonet stuck into the ground, helmet on the stock).  When my son (just discharged from the Marines) heard this, he remarked "What does he expect we are supposed to do - fight with a pencil?".

My reaction to the above UNIFIL story is the same.  For 28 years, they've done nothing but take up space.  They allowed Hezbullah to set up positions right around their positions, and they aren't allowed to fight.  What the heck good are these PEACEkeepers, if they can't stop the violence leading to WAR?

*****

From the Belmont Club:

That Hezbollah's attack has finally destroyed the land-for-peace formula, upon which all past Roadmaps were founded.  "Israel has no concession that it can make to Hezbollah to end the fighting, and Hezbollah cannot give Israel what it must ultimately have -- acceptance of its existence and the recognition of specific borders -- without destroying its own legitimacy."

 Already noted here....and frankly, it was always a smokescreen to kick the can down the road.  It is, nor has it been, about small strips of land...it is about ALL of the land.  And if they get Israel, where do you think they are going next.  Given that the Islamofacists have a beef about losing Andalusa, watch out Spain...

*****

From our friends at Weekend Pundit - for a chuckle, read the bit about the Grocery Service Desk.

*****

I don't know if Spock (or his writers) is the original author of that observation, but it's so painfully true that it should give pause to those who advocate diplomacy over action -- which is just about every world "leader."

A case can be made that military solutions are more likely to be lasting than negotiated settlements, especially when dealing with those who have no code or constitution that they honour

*****

Peter Worthington at the Toronto Sun seems to agree with me: 

I don't know if Spock (or his writers) is the original author of that observation, but it's so painfully true that it should give pause to those who advocate diplomacy over action -- which is just about every world "leader."

A case can be made that military solutions are more likely to be lasting than negotiated settlements, especially when dealing with those who have no code or constitution that they honour

Again, there is a place for diplomacy....but it is not the end all be all to every type of conflict.  Lately, it seems to be the only hammer in the elite toolbelt...and everything is NOT a nail.

*****

Especially when you read this, as reported by Yahoo News:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif rejected as without legal basis on Monday a Security Council demand that it suspend its nuclear activities by the end of the month or face the threat of sanctions

Hey, UN - All talk and no action gets sand kicked in your face!  And WHY should Iran start worrying?  No credible action has been taken against them for over three years, why should they expect any to happen any time soon?  The leaders of the West are getting stared down, and they are too spineless to even admit that.  What a lesson - act like a petulant (although VERY dangerous) child, and when reprimanded, declare that more reprimands will result in more bad behaviour....and have it work.

Sheesh.... 

 

Posted by Skip at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First the JetBug, then the Jet Scooter, followed by Jet Taxis, and NOW!   

The Jet Pack!

There seems to be a trend here........

(H/T: Engadget) 

 

Posted by Skip at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Perhaps the length of time from my first Post until now (have been doing technical work [such as I can do it] on our new blog, GilfordGrok) has been helpful.

Have we become too civilized for the horrors of war? Have we become too timid and pacifistic to wage war or defend ourselves?

I now listen to and watch the commentary of the political elites over the the conflict of Israel and Hezbullah.  I do not hear calls for winning from those in the West; rather, I hear that only from those that would first destroy Israel, and then, the West.  From the West, I hear calls of an immediate cease fire, of cessation of hostilities, of laying down arms, of engaging only through diplomacy and talk. I do not hear calls for winning the battle and destroying the enemy.

What comes to mind is a episode from the original Star Trek series called "A Taste of Armageddon".   Being still of a young age when this first ran, I only understood the story line -the visited planet conducted war solely by computer simulation and "human" casualties had to report to disintegration chambers to die.  This allowed the infrastructure remained intact and life went on. When Captain Kirk destroyed the simulation computers (the Enterprise had become ensnared in this scheme), horror breaks out among the elite of that planet, decrying that real war will break out with real horror being meted out.  Unless of course, Captain Kirk points out, they really talk about and solve the real problems.

The overall point was that if one civilizes war too much the underlying causes will go unaddressed.  It becomes too easy to sweep things under the rug, keep ignoring the problems that pop up, and try to accept things as "that's the way it is".   It becomes too easy to ignore reality and one will do anything to not upset the status quo.  In other words, settle for stability now and worry about real peace sometime later.  If ever.  Maybe the problems will go away on their own.....uh-huh.

Of the industrialized nations, the US spends more on its military than the next 20 countries combined.  We have capabilities that outshine the rest of the world and that gap is only growing.  While we are the lone superpower of the world, have we assumed the title of "cop of the world" as well?  And if so, why has this happened?  All I have to do is look at what the world is saying in the Israeli / Hezbullah conflict - Hey, US, put a stop to it?

My answer is - Hey, how about your turn?

While we consider ourselves part of the West, one has to look at the EU nations as well.  While much smaller than the US, they have ravaged themselves twice in the last century (and many times before that in history) such that they now instinctively cringe from war.  This aversion to repeat history where millions suffered is noble and has had the desired effect - it has kept the peace between the EU nations - but at what cost?  During the Cold War, they depended on us for their protection. Yes, they all have militaries (some very well trained and no doubt would fight well).  But look, in response to a world wide conflict, the world still depends on the US for at least logistics, if not for the military might, to make a point.

I believe that it is this long lasting umbrella of protection has not been in the best interest of the West long term.  Yes, it helped save Europe from communism.  Yes, it kept the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations at bay.

However, I make the point of comparing this umbrella as being akin to the sinkhole of the welfare state here in the US, where in the interest of good intentions, we gave trillions of dollars to the poor and disadvantaged.  We all know that when folks are incentivised to not work, they won't.  The result was generation upon generation of unproductive citizens, totally dependent on the State for their all.  As seen in Katrina, those that most succumb to the lure of being taken care of by the State become incapable of caring for themselves.  At that point, everything must be supplied by the State, and more is never enough.  These folks have proven to not be able to take care of themselves.  The EU has gone even further in this area - how much more can their citizens be in thrall to their respective States, always expecting more from Government in ways of being taken care of?

Thus, in the large scale, have we done to the EU that was done to our citizens on welfare?  Have we take the spirit right out of them by always being there to take care of them militarily?  Have they abdicated the supreme responsibility from a moral or spiritual sense of protecting their citizens?

Has this dependency attitude has been assimilated by their Government leaders when confronted by enemies and ideologies attacking them?  Have they become unable to defend themselves?  And is this generic among the Western nations?  Have we gotten to the point of being post-pacifistic?

I have to wonder if the fight has gone or is going out of us as a civilization, that we are unwilling or unable to fight for our foundational principles?  While there are many would say that this is a good thing (who needs war, why should innocent people suffer), there is the flip side - a special sense of struggling disappears.  As with an individual's life, one struggles to attain a status followed by a sense of contentment (or in the negative, a sense of "that's about as far as I'm getting). The will to struggle ceases, the fight has all gone out of the individual.

As history has shown, it is the struggle to survive and attain is the spirit of a civilization.  When that a civilization gives up the will to fight for itself, to be satisfied with the status quo instead of  actively defending its principles and extending its sphere of influence, decay sets in.

Face it, I am only a middle aged software engineer and not schooled in the arts of war, politics, history or philosophies.  I only comment on what I see, and I try to do so to the best of my ability, always knowing that there are others out there that are much smarter and much more knowledgeable than I in these things.

Yet, I worry...

And others are worried, too, about the loss of our culture and spirit (and why it is happening):  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and  here.

Posted by Skip at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (2)

Ahmadinejad lauds Chavez as a leader whose word, deed are same

.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Sunday said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is one of the rare world leaders whose word and deed are the same.

He made the remark at a ceremony held at Tehran University, where Iran's highest national badge was submitted to Chavez.

The chief executive named Chavez as his brother as well as that of the Iranian nation and all the world freedom and justice seeking nations.

He said that seeking justice, worshiping God Almighty and campaign against the world hegemony are among the most important features of the Venezuelan president.

"Along with his loyal friends, Chavez stands against the bullying of the world hegemony like a hero and defends justice.

"He has devoted his life to serving his nation and the world freedom-seeking nations. He is one of his people and seeks freedom for all nations," he added.

Underlining that the world requires competent and justice-seeking human beings, the president said, "To overcome colonialism and bullying usurpers, self-relying and justice-oriented men willing to devote themselves to the humanity are required. Chavez is one of such men."

What does the Iranian president mean when he says Chavez is "his brother as well as that of the Iranian nation and all the world freedom and justice seeking nations?" I would contend that it means that Venezuala is "not with us" in the new world, and must therefore be "against us." As I have been saying, the pieces are beginning to fall into place. Sides are being picked. Will the fighting all take place "over there" in the coming war? What will be our response to further cozying up to South American entities by our sworn enemies? You might want to review the Monroe Doctrine here... and the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine here. We may need to pull both out from mothballs in defense of our nation before too long at the rate things are going.

Posted by Doug at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Update 1

Ken responds to a Letter writer in the Concord Monitor here.  Spotting another Letter supporting him here, he continues

Thank you, Ms. Fallon.  You clearly understand the situation far better than Kenneth Joop of Concord.  He writes a letter in the Sunday Monitor that reads, in part:

It is difficult for me to conceive of anyone supporting Israel's devastation of Lebanon. We are often cited various Muslim groups who wish to wipe Israel off the map. Israel is in no danger of being wiped off the map, although this is not necessarily true of Palestine.

Israel is fighting against a deadly terrorist organization whose leader states flatly that his goal is the destruction of the state of Israel, a UN member state.  Arab nations have tried to conquer Israel in conventional war since its establishment.  Now they use terrorist proxies.  Using conventional arms, these groups can not destroy Israel.  But a nuclear-armed Iran will pose a mortal threat.  Does Mr. Joop really believe that the Jewish state could survive a nuclear detonation in Tel Aviv?  Death, destruction, refugees, economic chaos - the land would not be "wiped off the map," but the nation would be. 

And what, exactly, is the "Palestine" to which Mr. Joop refers?  A segment of the old Ottoman Empire? The post World War I British administrative region called the Mandate of Palestine, which included the modern Kingdom of Jordan?  The Palestinian Authority has not earned statehood.

Israel has a right to defend itself, even if that means attacking a terrorist enemy that is interwoven with a civilian population.  The Allies destroyed Germany and Japan to win World War II, killing many civilians, many children.  Such is the nature of war.  If southern Lebanon must be destroyed in order to eradicate Hezbollah, so be it.

 

============================================ 

(Sometimes, people just don't do their homework - both in the historical sense and in the literary sense.  Ken gets a "twofer" with this one  -Skip)

 

Double standard, JULIE LANOCHA , Hopkinton - Letter  to The Concord Monitor  July 23. 2006 10:00AM
 

Despite the sympathies anyone might have for the Jews following the atrocities of World War II, the fact is they had no more right to be in Palestine than the British to be in Northern Ireland.

To put the current hostilities into perspective, if England had responded to the kidnapping of two soldiers by the IRA with the bombing of Irish villages, destroying hospitals, bridges, airports, killing hundreds of civilians, cutting off water and electricity, how would the international community respond?

If I recall correctly, there was a very active IRA sympathizer community in the United States raising money and providing support to this terrorist group. I don't remember an enraged U.S. populace calling for the terrorists to be stopped, for the bloodshed to end, for all means necessary to be put to use to stop the menace.

Why the difference?

JULIE LANOCHA

 

Here's my response:  No Analogy

An effective argument from analogy  must meet two requirements:

 

Posted by Ken at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As promised, here is the update to my Post "The changing nature of war, or is the West just starting to catch up?" 

Of course, timing is everything and as I was typing, FOX News just switched to the Kofi Annan news conference.  They are also showing film from Israel military sources showing Hezbullah shooting off the rockets next to the building that has caused the civilian deaths when an Israel rocket took out the building.  Again, here is Israel taking the heat for when Hezbullah stores and launches munitions from within civilian population centers. 

If course, my question is why Israel isn't showing more of these films?  Why can't we, in the West, fight the media / PR wars as well as our enemies. 

I am watching Kofi Annan conducting a press conference. I am not sure where in the conference that FOX cut in, but he had said a few words and then got this question (paraphrased):

We are used to army on army conflicts and now we are seeing an army vs a terrorist organization.  Boy, did Kofi tap dance!  He deflects the question by dumping on Israel and that they have to be careful how they are attacking and not target civilians.  It was obvious that he was ignoring the fact that Hezbullah is creating the situation.  He then goes on and makes the inference that if any civilians would be hurt, you have to weigh the going after those that have attacked you.  If effect, in my opinion, you should not defend yourself. Hey Israel, go pound sand!  Unbelieveable...

However, because he didn't mention the Hezbullah miltia, he got nailed on a followup question asking about Hezbullah.  He did say that Hezbullah is in the wrong, but said that very quickly, as if he really did not want to get into that quaqmire.  His overall answer is that there is no military answer or solution, that it is has to be a political answer to this situation - a military solution will not work.   Then he did say that the militias must be disbanded.

But doesn't say who would do that, and if it could be done.  Then, he quickly ran off.

Posted by Skip at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's nothing to be done...except what's being done.  The news this morning tells of more Lebanese civilian deaths - women and children - as the result of Israeli bombing.  But because of the way Hezbollah fights and hides, too many civilians will die on both sides of the conflict.  That is not Israel's fault.  The blame for civilian deaths rests with Hezbollah and the Lebanese government that has allowed those terrorists safe haven.  Israel should not be losing the PR war:  They are in the right.

Question: What is the difference between an innocent 9 year-old Lebanese boy and a deadly Hezbollah terrorist? 
Answer:  About 6 years. 

The sad fact is that too many Lebanese families support terror organizations and raise their children to become terrorists/terror sympathizers.  While these civilians should not be deliberately targeted (going even further, Israel forewarns civilians in the area of their bombing missions).  I for one can't generate much compassion for the plight of Lebanese men and women caught in the cross-fire.

Posted by Ken at 7:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

These are the folks many rely on for news and views.  I weep for the future generations....

60 years later, NPR's Schorr is still a 'precious resource'

Contact Peter Johnson at pjohnson@usatoday.com

Daniel Schorr is used to producers popping into his Washington, D.C., office at National Public Radio to ask, on deadline: Which war came first, Korea or Vietnam? (Answer: Korea.)

But when one asked, "You covered the Spanish-American War, didn't you?" Schorr couldn't help but respond, matter-of-factly: "That was 1898."

"Oh, sorry, of course," the younger man said, excusing himself.

Link:  http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2006-07-24-media-mix_x.htm

Spanish-American War, Spanish Civil War...very different wars, and only one was in Spain.  At 90, Shorr could have first-hand knowledge of Spain's civil war, but certainly not the war that made Teddy Roosevelt famous.  Still…it could have been a slip of the tongue, meaning one and saying the other…or it could have been total blind ignorance from a media news producer. 
This is government-supported NPR - our tax dollars at work.  

I'm continually surprised at what people don't know and don't bother to research in this age of information.  Too bad we don't have a system of compulsory education in this country...

 

Oh, wait...we do, right?     

Posted by Ken at 7:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Mathew McGonagle, 36, of Contoocook, who recently resigned as assistant principal at Rundlett Middle school in Concord, pled guilty to one count of felonious sexual assault and two counts of misdemeanor sexual assault in Belknap Superior Court yesterday. The charges followed a lengthy investigation by the Belknap County Sheriff’s Office and Belknap County Attorney’s Office undertaken after a young woman reported that McGonagle sexually assaulted her during the 1999-2000 school year when she was a student at Gilford Middle School.

McGonagle will serve two years in the Belknap County House of Corrections on the misdemeanor charges followed by a suspended sentence of two and a half years at the New Hampshire State Prison on the felony charge. The suspended sentence requires 20 years of good behavior. In addition, he must undergo sexual offender evaluation and treatment and register as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life. McGonagle’s teaching certificate will be revoked and he will be forbidden from contact with children younger than 16, other than his own.

Although Noether did not prosecute the case, she told the court that “it is easy to turn a blind eye to a teacher molesting a child" and that “those folks close to him and associated with the school, some of them here today, need to recognize this happened on their watch.”

More than two dozen of McGonagle's family, friends and former co-workers crowded the courtroom to show their support for McGonagle...

"not to judge McGonagle solely on the allegations but to consider his record as a talented educator and valued member of the community."  McGonagle previously worked in the Gilford and Hopkinton school districts and had until recently served as assistant principal in a large middle school in Concord. During his career, his attorney said, McGonagle has received hundreds of letters of appreciation for his skills as an educator. "You can tell a lot about him by the quality of people around him," the lawyer told the court, gesturing towards the packed seats in the courtroom. By pleading guilty, Rosenberg said his client acknowledges to the state, the court and his victim that he is responsible. In a brief statement to the court, McGonagle expressed "deep apologies to the victim and her family." He conceded that he "did not set clear boundaries with the girl and said as an adult he shouldn't have crossed them."

“solace in knowing McGonagle will never again abuse his position of authority to ensnare other victims in his web.”

Posted by Doug at 1:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, Europe -your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

 

.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass- murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European ppeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our German Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".

.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything. While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

.

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

---God Bless America---

Posted by Doug at 7:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Islamists vowed to execute Muslims who skip prayers as they tightened their religious grip on the Somali capital Mogadishu and again Thursday rejected government calls for foreign peacekeepers. Under an edict issued by a leading Mogadishu cleric, the five-times daily prayer required by the Koran will be enforced under penalty of death, a move that appears to confirm the hard line nature of the city's Sharia courts. ‘He who does not perform prayers will be considered as infidel and Sharia law orders that that person be killed,’ said Sheikh Abdalla Ali, a founder and high-ranking official in the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS).

Posted by Doug at 6:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

-Developers of a proposed windmill project on two western Maine mountains said yesterday that scaling back the project, as suggested by an environmental group, would doom their Redington Wind Farm plan.

• Prevent more than 800,000 pounds of pollution per day from existing power plants — equivalent to taking 26,000 cars off the road.
• Allow Maine customers to be the first to have an opportunity to buy the energy produced.
• Save the equivalent of 50,000 gallons of oil per day.
• Reduce emissions that cause global warming.
• Produce enough power for 40,000 Maine homes.

Maine Mountain Power [primary utility purchaser] says the one-mountain plan would deter investment and effectively kill the project.

Posted by Doug at 5:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

THANK GOD ITS FRIDAY!!!!!

Yup, it's going to be one of those days......must smile, must chuckle...go ahead! (H/T: Karen)

 

Posted by Skip at 4:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Gannon said he has rejected a Nashua Police Department plea deal to reduce the two felony wiretapping charges against him to a misdemeanor wiretapping charge.

Police said Gannon broke the all-party consent provision of the state's wiretapping law. Gannon has argued that the police knew they were being taped because he told them he had a surveillance system in place when they came to investigate his son.

"I'm a card player, and they (police) are trying to tell me they have all the aces when I'm staring at four aces in my hand," Gannon, 39, of 26 Morgan St., said yesterday. "They offered me the deal (before my probable cause hearing), and I know I did nothing wrong so I said, 'No way am I taking that deal.'"

I am glad that this man has chosen to fight for his rights to enjoy his property peaceably and free from unnecessary government intrusion. In the course of doing so, he is taking a stand for all of us.

Read my initial posting for more details here.

Read about what was said by the police officers here.

How confident are the police in their own case? What do the neighbors think of the police conduct in the matter? Click here.

Posted by Doug at 7:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was more than a little disturbed when I read this.  In my opinion, this is nothing more than trying to knuckle down a group that has done far more good "for the children" than not in all its years. (Full Disclosure: I was a Cub Scout for a number of years many years ago, but only stayed a year in the Boy Scouts - just didn't like the guys in the troop).

Here's the headline:

Diaz seeks 'dialogue' with Boy Scouts

The solicitor says his own homosexuality didn't enter into the city's effort to force the local chapter to denounce antigay bias.

City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. said a recent push to force the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scouts Council to denounce the national organization's antigay policy had nothing to do with his own homosexuality.

My problem right off the bat is that I doubt his words that it isn't based on himself.  And I have a hard time with the phrasing of the tag line, where it tries to protray, automatically, that the Boy Scouts are in the wrong.  And, I believe this is certainly a case where he should be recusing himself because of his sexuality for a conflict of interest. Indeed, this phrase would be screamed out if a "traditionalist" with a chip on his shoulder was persuing a more progressive group. Frankly, this is nothing more than a blatant stab at once again forcing a political correctness mind set on a traditional morals based group that doesn't want it.

"My own sexuality, my own sexual orientation, has never been hidden and never played into my decision," Diaz said in an interview yesterday with The Inquirer. "It has, perhaps, made me more sensitive to the issues."

"I'm trying to figure out what their policy means. Do they intend to discriminate against openly gay Boy Scouts?" he said.

Ya think? Just a little?  Again, a little "painting" of the issue going on here?  Contrast "...nothing to do with his own homosexuality..." and "....more sensitive to the issues." to "force the local chapter to denounce antigay bias".

The article goes on to show that Mr. Diaz IS trying to punish the group for sticking to its beliefs.  Shouldn't sensitivity work BOTH ways?

Last week, the Street administration threatened the scouts with eviction from the stately structure at 22d and Winter Streets they have occupied rent-free since 1928 unless they agreed to disavow discrimination against gays - or pay a fair-market rent.

The national organization, Boy Scouts of America, has a strict policy forbidding homosexuals from being scouts or leaders. The policy was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and affirmed by the national council in 2002.

This action shows that even though the Supreme Court has ruled in favor for the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right to assembly, the PC crowd wishes to ignore it and is punishing the group for sticking to its beliefs.

This is very similar to the fight that many Christian groups (again, traditional values) are facing on college campuses where their First Amendment rights are being trampled by college administrations who threaten their campus standing for the sake of being anti-discriminatory (see here at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). 

“As FIRE has said many times, a Muslim organization has a right to be Muslim, a Jewish organization has a right to be Jewish, and a Christian organization has a right to be Christian. It is not tolerance but intolerance to forbid such voluntary associations,” concluded Lukianoff.

Well, if a Christian group (or Hindu, or Islam, or Jewish) is forced to accept members that do not accept their beliefs, or must allow non-believers to ascend to leadership positions, why bother having a creed or group at all? 

Again, Orwellian thought police have reversed the meanings of words in this battle the higher moral ground (double-plus-ungood).

 The last sentence in the Philedelphia Inquirer:

"I think I looked at this from a very balanced perspective," he added

No, the actions belie the words; it seems to be "accept my position, believe what I want you to do, or we put you out".

Please read the entire article and form your own opinion. 

Posted by Skip at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

      

 

 Small jet pix is from Eclipse, larger pix is from Honda (note where the engines are positioned!).

I am recently retired as a Frequent Flyer....not that I dislike business travel (when held to a reasonable level) but because my job focus has changed.  However, I've had my fill of sitting around in airports at odd times of the day or night just because of the airline schedules not jiving with mine.

Thus, these are GREAT news for flying road warriors everywhere!  For the price of a biz or 1st class ticket, the plane will be where I want it and when I want it to be going outbound, and coming home, if my client visit is such that I am earlier or late, the plane will still be there!  No more security hassles (that can make you late at certain airports like John Wayne or O'Hare), no more waiting in uncomfortable seats, unable to get an Internet connection (unless you want to fork over your first born for the first hour....hmmm, interesting swap!).  No more surly passengers who have had more than their fare share of alcohol who then want the rest of us share in their experience.  No problems in storing my stuff!!

And no more rude passengers to deal with.

Since it is a hike to MHT, and always having to go thru O'Hare or Dulles (mostly), I will be glad to have direct flights.....

 
 

Posted by Skip at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

About two-thirds of the 150 attendees at a Television Critics Association’s gathering walked out of the room before Fox News Channel chairman and CEO Roger Ailes took the stage for a news conference. Several critics even openly voiced their scorn for what they view as Fox News’ conservative spin. Ailes then gleefully reminded the critics who did remain that Fox News has led all cable news channels in the Nielsen ratings for the past 55 months and has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined.

 

OUTFOXED! (August, 2004)

            It is amusing to watch the activities of the local Lakes Region Democratic party activists and candidates. They scurry about their business of complaining and letter- writing as if their themes are actually relevant. Their tired slogans include, “Bush lied. Stop the war. The terror threat is exaggerated for political gain, but Kerry will do a better job of protecting us from this nonexistent threat!” And so on. Like some insufferable song that pops into your head and won’t go away, there are the local Democrats.

            The only idea these people ever offer is more government, which actually means “more money.” They’re gonna go to Concord to get more money from “other people” and bring it back here- usually in the form of more and higher-paying public sector jobs. The ongoing expansion of government is never enough for these Democrats. Other than this “idea,” the only other activity they generally engage in is that of constant attack. Oh, they claim to be “tolerant” and “diverse,” but the reality is that they actually have no tolerance for anything BUT their ideas.

            The latest little local Democratic Party shindig will be the airing of what yesterday’s Daily Sun called a “controversial film about Fox News” entitled “OUTFOXED.” This latest “documentary” put forth as the “truth” by a left wing entity makes an attempt to demonstrate the “bias” of the number one cable news channel in America. This “film,” apparently too good for the big screen, is being marketed directly to DVD.

             The local Democratic state senator wannabee is screening this “film” as a fundraiser for her campaign. She sees this “film” (comprised of the questionable use of copyrighted broadcasts, “unbiased” opinions and several disgruntled ex employees of Fox News) as “the beginning of a much needed conversation that all Americans need to have about the media and their responsibility to inform the public.” The Sun article also reported the recurrent losing candidate’s reason for showing “OUTFOXED” as hoping “to create an awareness of bias in the media, and how citizens should inoculate themselves to the impact of that bias.”           

          Perhaps this obviously sheltered candidate should turn on the TV or the Internet and engage in a little “surfing.” I remember a time in the not too distant past when news outlet choices consisted of the big three networks, PBS, and CNN. I remember a time when the AM position on the radio dial was a quaint place to hear outdated songs and occasional news bulletins. I remember when there was no Daily Sun (which is certainly not lacking in coverage of the local Democratic Party scene). I remember life before Drudge. I would contend that the information available for Americans to study and digest is more available, in more forms of media, than at any previous time in our past. I would assert that if the whining liberals actually watched FOX for a period of time, they would see a robust and lively exchange of ideas, coupled with a very modern delivery of news in a format favored by an ever-growing number of viewers.

         The panic-stricken liberals just cannot stand the fact that it is THEIR former monopoly on news bias that is forever gone- thanks in no small part to FOX news. Boohoo. Listen to them cry! I love it when they’ve been…OUTFOXED!

Posted by Doug at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 2: (7/26/06)

Well, since Carl decided to comment, I needed to do a little more homework... see the comments.  However, I decided to look at the Bill a little bit closer, and indeed, I found two things that allow politicians get off scot-free. See if you can spot them:

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of the Fund shall be--

(1) to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy;

(2) to reduce the income gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States; and

(3) to promote economic development in Mexico in the areas of infrastructure, education, technology, and job training.

and

SEC. 7. REPORT.

Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Government of Mexico complies with the criteria described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 5(b), and once every 180 days after such date of compliance and before the finalization of the agreement described in section 2, the President shall submit a report to Congress detailing the progress made by the Government of the United States to establish the Fund in accordance with this Act.

Notice what is missing?  Accountability. 

This is a project - the Fund is supposed to straighten out Mexico (something it doesn't seem to be able to do for itself).  But how is that to be measured?  Any project manager worth their salt knows that in order to be successful, you need deliverables on a milestone basis.

What this is setting up is that it can do anything, or nothing.  Sure, there is reporting - looks good on paper, doesn't it?  The only accountability is setting the stupid thing up in the first place.  

Then what?  If the US gov't, because of its size and special interests,  cannot get things right in a lot of areas, what gives anyone the idea that three countries (one of which is failing) will succeed?  Yes, NATO succeeds only because its mission is singular.  NO if you look at the UN, and the EU ain't such a hot place economically or from a democratic standpoint either (ever notice that most of the EU ministers and minions are, for the most part, unelected?).

 

 

 

UPDATE 1: (7/26/06)

The Senate bill can be found here .

 ====================================

Sorry, I am in a real snarky mood today....and now Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) has the gall to try this: