Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Tom Jumps the Shark from Oprah's Couch
Paramount Pictures has severed ties with Tom Cruise, citing creative differences with Tom's Thetans Cruise's erratic behavior.
It Worked!
I managed to goad Smallholder into another post on Immigration.
Unfortunately, I don't trust the comments over there to work yet, so I'll just respond here.
Smallholder writes:
(Self-congratulatory note to self: Bush and Congress did exactly what I predicted. Absolutely nothing of substance. Sure, we might have sent a few thousand guardsman to the border and generated a few headlines for the November election, but Congressmen are smart enough to know that illegal immigrants are good for the economy, regardless of what they tell their innumerate constituents during campaigns.)
Congratulations. You were right about Bush. Sadly, so was I. Please note that I never expressed support for the President's position on the issue. We may disagree about what should be done, but we did agree on what would be done under the current administration. Why do you think I have been so angry about it the whole time?
For the record, I think Memento is misguided, not racist. Characterizing the opposition to illegals as boiling down to "brown people are icky" was too broad of a stroke in the same way as "liberals hate America" is too broad of a stroke.
And yet, it is exactly the stroke YOU painted in an earlier post. Just holding you to your own words.
Seriously, Brian, I consifder you to be one of those exceptions: I don't think you are a racist. Can we bury the hatchet, please?
Only if you'll make me a promise: When addressing Illegal Immigration in direct response to any post of mine, can you please try not to bring that canard up at all? If it doesn't apply to me, it's not germain to rebuttals of my arguments.
Dealing with a) first. I guess Brian is still trying to fight the FBI. You see, when everyone was jabbering about the crime caused by illegals, I linked to the official government report by the FBI. Law enforcement data shows that illegal aliens are slightly less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
Ah-HA! I was hoping you'd trot this argument out again. PLEASE go back and read that FBI study to which you linked again. As I've pointed out before, and as you've NEVER addressed. the study addresses crime rates among immigrants, it never addresses Illegal immigrants. Now, repeat after me: Immigration and Illegal Immigration are not the same issue.
There are a few hardened narco-trafficers, but there are also native-born narco-trafficers.
Please don't tell me that you honestly believe that the only criminal element sneaking across our borders is "hardened narco-trafficers". I know you're not stupid, but you certainly are accepting that assumption uncritically.
Despite what law enforcement says
Most law enforcement sources I have read contradict YOU, Mark, including the LAPD and most agencies on the West Coast and in Texas, where II's are the most prevalent. And the one source you rely on is irrelevant, since it addresses Immigrants, not illegal immigrants. The FBI, which SH quotes, seems reluctant to make the distinction and single out illegals. But others have offered some thoughts you might want to consider -- see the links in the comment by Lurch, where he is responding to this post.
the answer from the anti-illegal side is "nuh-uh."
I find it highly ironic that Smallholder would use this particular criticism of his opponents. In earlier discussions of the issue, when he was provided with evidence, either by me or by Naked Villainy readers like Polymath, that most economists who study the issue have concluded that even taking into consideration positive benefits of illegal immigration like lower prices on goods produced by II's and the (somewhat suspect) claim that they contribute to tax revenues on an equal level with legals, that illegal immigrants constitute an economic burden on the U.S. economy, Smallholder's response has been that these economists must not really be counting all the benefits (as if people become well-respected economists by practicing bad math), and that their findings are wrong -- in other words, "Nuh-uh" -- the very criticism he has of us for not kowtowing to his claims because of one (misquoted) FBI study. Sauce for the goose, my friend.
Others go back to the old canard: If they are willing to break one law, they will be automatically break another law.
Um, no. You've done this before in this debate -- taking an actual argument used by his opposition, exaggerating it, and then refuting the exaggeration. While I'm of a belief that this particular argument, while valid, is the weakest of the crime-related arguments in favor of tougher border and immigration enforcement, I'll address it nonetheless. The REAL argument, not Smallholder's strawman facsimile of it, is "If they are willing to break one law, and find that they can do so with impunity, many will be more incline to break another law." That's quite different from "all will automatically". Furthermore, I'd argue, that the truly evil criminal element in other countries, when they observe how easy it is for anyone to cross the border into the US illegally, avail themselves of that easy opportunity and use the porous border to prey both on the US and on their weaker, less violent fellow illegals.
This belief conflicts with reality - the government's own statistics show this.
NO, no they don't. The only government statistics you've referenced address immigrants in general, not illegals.
I'd like to take a moment to address more specifically the point made in that FBI study, and why I think in reality it comes closer to supporting my position than Mark's:
The report points out that statistically, immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native born US citizens. Quite frankly, not only do I not refute this claim, I am unsurprised by it. In a moment I'll explain why that conclusion seems not only plausible, but intuitive.
But first, I'd like to repeat and belabor the point that the study addresses immigrants, and that at no point does it make the claim that these statistics are for illegal immigrants. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the crime rates among legal immigrants is even lower than the rate listed in the study, and the rates among illegals higher, and that the rates listed in the study either apply to only legal immigrants, or if they apply to both, are an average of two. I'd argue that not only is it unreasonable to think that the same rates of crime apply to both sets of immigrants, it is unfair to legal immigrants to suppose that they are only as law-abiding as their illegal immigrant counterparts. Here's why:
Legal immigrants to the US, whether temporary or permanent immigrants working towards citizenship, have, by the very act of going through the immigration process, submitted themselves to a very rigorous process of application, and must jump through some very strenuous hoops to get and to stay here. This tells me that they are people who are willing to play by the rules, no matter how hard and unfair those rules may (or may not) be. This speaks volumes as to their propensity for law abidingness. Furthermore, for the entirety of the time they are here as an immigrant, whether that be until they attain citizenship or until their visa expires, they are under the scrutiny of the INS. They do not have the same level of privacy and freedom of movement that a US citizen has, and they are not shadow entities like illegal immigrants. They know that if they break the law, they will most likely be deported and all of the effort they have gone to will be in vain. For this reason, it is logical and unsurprising that immigrants in general are more law-abiding than even native citizens.
Ilegal immigrants don't live under the same constraints. They are hiding from the government to begin with, and quite successfully, so it is easier to hide other crimes as well. Furthermore, they have snuck in once, they know they can do it again, so while they desire to avoid deportation, it doesn't hold the same level of loss and risk that it does for someone who has been working for years to stay here legally.
Of course, the study doesn't support or refute my assertions about illegals vs. legals, but then, neither does it support nor refute Smallholder's -- it merely states that immigrants in general have a lower crime rate. Good news for those of us who support legal immigrants, but useless for sorting out the illegal immigration debate.
As for the rest of the paragraph in question:
In addition, the "illegals are more lawless and will steal your car" types are also blind to their own hypocrisy. I would wager that the vast majority of our readers (yes, you!) have, at one time or another, committed a victimless crime. This does not make us all more likely to commit armed robbery. The Minister of Propaganda, for instance, has violated 43 states' restrictions on extra-marital hanky-panky. Yet he has not, to my knowledge, been knocking over liquor stores in his spare time. Absolutists who demand law enforcement and harsh punishment for every violation of law - "down with illegal border crossers for illegally crossing the borders" have yet to explain their plan for prosecuting the Minister of Propaganda's sluttishness. Or, for that matter, prosecuting Polymath and my "experimentation" with alternative fuels.
A couple points:
A) Illegal Immigration is not a victimless crime. Smallholder wants to believe it is, but he has yet to provide satisfactory proof of his claim that ILLEGAL immigrants (not immigrants in general) provide a net gain to the economy, and his argument that any American jobs lost to illegals are lst because American workers are lazy smacks of "The victim(s) had it coming, so it's as good as victimless".
B) Just because All A are B does not mean all B are A. While it is certainly true that not everyone who has at some point committed some minor offense goes on to become Babyface Nelson, I'd be willing to wager that most hardened criminals started out with much less extreme offenses -- very few people who've never commited any crime wake up one day and say "I think I'll knock over a 7-Eleven today". Furthermore, we're not talking about people who have committed an occasional criminal act, however minor. We're talking about people who are intentionally and actively pursuing a lifestyle that is in violation of the law. And while many may stop at that, the fact that they are allowed to do so means that they and we are developing a subculture that neither respects our laws nor fears the consequences of breaking them. It should come as no surprise that many decide to break other laws besides those pertaining to immigration.
Memento Moron, who refuses to accept the validity of the government statistics
I accept their validity, I refuse to accept, and believe I've quite ably refuted, their relevancy. Again, the statistics you used spoke of immigrants in general, not illegals.
using a weak piece of datum to reinforce his own (erroneous) belief in the lawlessness of illegals reminds me of a quote I heard from Joel Salatin this weekend:
"Science can never convince. We only believe science when it agrees with our heart."
True words.
Sort of like... refusing to accept the analyses of experts regarding hte economic impact?
Pot... Kettle...
As for statistic, again, find me some that address illegals specifically, then get back to me.
But let me try one more time to lift the veil from Memento's eyes. (I know that it is pointless, but hell, I'm a teacher.
Oh, a personal insult, nice. So much for burying the hatchet.
When the San Bernadino policemen, trained officers of the law, suspect someone is an illegal alien, they check to see if they are. Surprise, surprise, 500 of 600 suspected illegals are indeed illegal. Is this the whole sample of criminals?
Actually, yes. Sorry if I stated it poorly, but the report seemed to indicate that all incoming inmates pass by these screeners, and that 500 out of 600 was the ratio of illegals to all incoming inmates. If I misunderstood, and this is not the case, then I retract the point.
As for part "b," I'm gobsmacked that Memento would even bring this weak crap.
Correlation, my friend, does not imply causation.
Again, my fault for not presenting the report properly. The report did go onto say that the CDC had reason to believe there was causation. I'm not sure what that reason or reasons were, but the report made it clear that the CDC did believe that illegal immigrants were the primary source of the higher levels of the disease.
Didja miss me?
Until you decided to add personal insults and condescension to the mix, yes.
I still think you mean well. But you insist on repeating certain tropes that I have refuted, and then either acknowledge my point, but go on with the same error (such as your tendency to use Immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably), or ignore my counterpoint altogether (I pointed out months ago that the FBI report only addresses the general immigrant population). You've used Ad hominems (the "icky" argument), non sequiturs (Using data on immigrants in general to support your claims about illegal immigrants), and straw men (misrepresenting or exaggerating the position taken or argument made by my side of the argument and then refuting that exaggeration). You know, you call yourself a "squishy centrist", but with that debating style, you'd fit right in amongst the "hard left" at DU.
Unfortunately, I don't trust the comments over there to work yet, so I'll just respond here.
Smallholder writes:
(Self-congratulatory note to self: Bush and Congress did exactly what I predicted. Absolutely nothing of substance. Sure, we might have sent a few thousand guardsman to the border and generated a few headlines for the November election, but Congressmen are smart enough to know that illegal immigrants are good for the economy, regardless of what they tell their innumerate constituents during campaigns.)
Congratulations. You were right about Bush. Sadly, so was I. Please note that I never expressed support for the President's position on the issue. We may disagree about what should be done, but we did agree on what would be done under the current administration. Why do you think I have been so angry about it the whole time?
For the record, I think Memento is misguided, not racist. Characterizing the opposition to illegals as boiling down to "brown people are icky" was too broad of a stroke in the same way as "liberals hate America" is too broad of a stroke.
And yet, it is exactly the stroke YOU painted in an earlier post. Just holding you to your own words.
Seriously, Brian, I consifder you to be one of those exceptions: I don't think you are a racist. Can we bury the hatchet, please?
Only if you'll make me a promise: When addressing Illegal Immigration in direct response to any post of mine, can you please try not to bring that canard up at all? If it doesn't apply to me, it's not germain to rebuttals of my arguments.
Dealing with a) first. I guess Brian is still trying to fight the FBI. You see, when everyone was jabbering about the crime caused by illegals, I linked to the official government report by the FBI. Law enforcement data shows that illegal aliens are slightly less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
Ah-HA! I was hoping you'd trot this argument out again. PLEASE go back and read that FBI study to which you linked again. As I've pointed out before, and as you've NEVER addressed. the study addresses crime rates among immigrants, it never addresses Illegal immigrants. Now, repeat after me: Immigration and Illegal Immigration are not the same issue.
There are a few hardened narco-trafficers, but there are also native-born narco-trafficers.
Please don't tell me that you honestly believe that the only criminal element sneaking across our borders is "hardened narco-trafficers". I know you're not stupid, but you certainly are accepting that assumption uncritically.
Despite what law enforcement says
Most law enforcement sources I have read contradict YOU, Mark, including the LAPD and most agencies on the West Coast and in Texas, where II's are the most prevalent. And the one source you rely on is irrelevant, since it addresses Immigrants, not illegal immigrants. The FBI, which SH quotes, seems reluctant to make the distinction and single out illegals. But others have offered some thoughts you might want to consider -- see the links in the comment by Lurch, where he is responding to this post.
the answer from the anti-illegal side is "nuh-uh."
I find it highly ironic that Smallholder would use this particular criticism of his opponents. In earlier discussions of the issue, when he was provided with evidence, either by me or by Naked Villainy readers like Polymath, that most economists who study the issue have concluded that even taking into consideration positive benefits of illegal immigration like lower prices on goods produced by II's and the (somewhat suspect) claim that they contribute to tax revenues on an equal level with legals, that illegal immigrants constitute an economic burden on the U.S. economy, Smallholder's response has been that these economists must not really be counting all the benefits (as if people become well-respected economists by practicing bad math), and that their findings are wrong -- in other words, "Nuh-uh" -- the very criticism he has of us for not kowtowing to his claims because of one (misquoted) FBI study. Sauce for the goose, my friend.
Others go back to the old canard: If they are willing to break one law, they will be automatically break another law.
Um, no. You've done this before in this debate -- taking an actual argument used by his opposition, exaggerating it, and then refuting the exaggeration. While I'm of a belief that this particular argument, while valid, is the weakest of the crime-related arguments in favor of tougher border and immigration enforcement, I'll address it nonetheless. The REAL argument, not Smallholder's strawman facsimile of it, is "If they are willing to break one law, and find that they can do so with impunity, many will be more incline to break another law." That's quite different from "all will automatically". Furthermore, I'd argue, that the truly evil criminal element in other countries, when they observe how easy it is for anyone to cross the border into the US illegally, avail themselves of that easy opportunity and use the porous border to prey both on the US and on their weaker, less violent fellow illegals.
This belief conflicts with reality - the government's own statistics show this.
NO, no they don't. The only government statistics you've referenced address immigrants in general, not illegals.
I'd like to take a moment to address more specifically the point made in that FBI study, and why I think in reality it comes closer to supporting my position than Mark's:
The report points out that statistically, immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native born US citizens. Quite frankly, not only do I not refute this claim, I am unsurprised by it. In a moment I'll explain why that conclusion seems not only plausible, but intuitive.
But first, I'd like to repeat and belabor the point that the study addresses immigrants, and that at no point does it make the claim that these statistics are for illegal immigrants. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the crime rates among legal immigrants is even lower than the rate listed in the study, and the rates among illegals higher, and that the rates listed in the study either apply to only legal immigrants, or if they apply to both, are an average of two. I'd argue that not only is it unreasonable to think that the same rates of crime apply to both sets of immigrants, it is unfair to legal immigrants to suppose that they are only as law-abiding as their illegal immigrant counterparts. Here's why:
Legal immigrants to the US, whether temporary or permanent immigrants working towards citizenship, have, by the very act of going through the immigration process, submitted themselves to a very rigorous process of application, and must jump through some very strenuous hoops to get and to stay here. This tells me that they are people who are willing to play by the rules, no matter how hard and unfair those rules may (or may not) be. This speaks volumes as to their propensity for law abidingness. Furthermore, for the entirety of the time they are here as an immigrant, whether that be until they attain citizenship or until their visa expires, they are under the scrutiny of the INS. They do not have the same level of privacy and freedom of movement that a US citizen has, and they are not shadow entities like illegal immigrants. They know that if they break the law, they will most likely be deported and all of the effort they have gone to will be in vain. For this reason, it is logical and unsurprising that immigrants in general are more law-abiding than even native citizens.
Ilegal immigrants don't live under the same constraints. They are hiding from the government to begin with, and quite successfully, so it is easier to hide other crimes as well. Furthermore, they have snuck in once, they know they can do it again, so while they desire to avoid deportation, it doesn't hold the same level of loss and risk that it does for someone who has been working for years to stay here legally.
Of course, the study doesn't support or refute my assertions about illegals vs. legals, but then, neither does it support nor refute Smallholder's -- it merely states that immigrants in general have a lower crime rate. Good news for those of us who support legal immigrants, but useless for sorting out the illegal immigration debate.
As for the rest of the paragraph in question:
In addition, the "illegals are more lawless and will steal your car" types are also blind to their own hypocrisy. I would wager that the vast majority of our readers (yes, you!) have, at one time or another, committed a victimless crime. This does not make us all more likely to commit armed robbery. The Minister of Propaganda, for instance, has violated 43 states' restrictions on extra-marital hanky-panky. Yet he has not, to my knowledge, been knocking over liquor stores in his spare time. Absolutists who demand law enforcement and harsh punishment for every violation of law - "down with illegal border crossers for illegally crossing the borders" have yet to explain their plan for prosecuting the Minister of Propaganda's sluttishness. Or, for that matter, prosecuting Polymath and my "experimentation" with alternative fuels.
A couple points:
A) Illegal Immigration is not a victimless crime. Smallholder wants to believe it is, but he has yet to provide satisfactory proof of his claim that ILLEGAL immigrants (not immigrants in general) provide a net gain to the economy, and his argument that any American jobs lost to illegals are lst because American workers are lazy smacks of "The victim(s) had it coming, so it's as good as victimless".
B) Just because All A are B does not mean all B are A. While it is certainly true that not everyone who has at some point committed some minor offense goes on to become Babyface Nelson, I'd be willing to wager that most hardened criminals started out with much less extreme offenses -- very few people who've never commited any crime wake up one day and say "I think I'll knock over a 7-Eleven today". Furthermore, we're not talking about people who have committed an occasional criminal act, however minor. We're talking about people who are intentionally and actively pursuing a lifestyle that is in violation of the law. And while many may stop at that, the fact that they are allowed to do so means that they and we are developing a subculture that neither respects our laws nor fears the consequences of breaking them. It should come as no surprise that many decide to break other laws besides those pertaining to immigration.
Memento Moron, who refuses to accept the validity of the government statistics
I accept their validity, I refuse to accept, and believe I've quite ably refuted, their relevancy. Again, the statistics you used spoke of immigrants in general, not illegals.
using a weak piece of datum to reinforce his own (erroneous) belief in the lawlessness of illegals reminds me of a quote I heard from Joel Salatin this weekend:
"Science can never convince. We only believe science when it agrees with our heart."
True words.
Sort of like... refusing to accept the analyses of experts regarding hte economic impact?
Pot... Kettle...
As for statistic, again, find me some that address illegals specifically, then get back to me.
But let me try one more time to lift the veil from Memento's eyes. (I know that it is pointless, but hell, I'm a teacher.
Oh, a personal insult, nice. So much for burying the hatchet.
When the San Bernadino policemen, trained officers of the law, suspect someone is an illegal alien, they check to see if they are. Surprise, surprise, 500 of 600 suspected illegals are indeed illegal. Is this the whole sample of criminals?
Actually, yes. Sorry if I stated it poorly, but the report seemed to indicate that all incoming inmates pass by these screeners, and that 500 out of 600 was the ratio of illegals to all incoming inmates. If I misunderstood, and this is not the case, then I retract the point.
As for part "b," I'm gobsmacked that Memento would even bring this weak crap.
Correlation, my friend, does not imply causation.
Again, my fault for not presenting the report properly. The report did go onto say that the CDC had reason to believe there was causation. I'm not sure what that reason or reasons were, but the report made it clear that the CDC did believe that illegal immigrants were the primary source of the higher levels of the disease.
Didja miss me?
Until you decided to add personal insults and condescension to the mix, yes.
I still think you mean well. But you insist on repeating certain tropes that I have refuted, and then either acknowledge my point, but go on with the same error (such as your tendency to use Immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably), or ignore my counterpoint altogether (I pointed out months ago that the FBI report only addresses the general immigrant population). You've used Ad hominems (the "icky" argument), non sequiturs (Using data on immigrants in general to support your claims about illegal immigrants), and straw men (misrepresenting or exaggerating the position taken or argument made by my side of the argument and then refuting that exaggeration). You know, you call yourself a "squishy centrist", but with that debating style, you'd fit right in amongst the "hard left" at DU.
Musical Geography Question of the Day
Where are there people who care a little about me and won't let the poor boy down?
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Blog Etiquette Question
When does a concept or entity merely merit the definitive article "the", and when does it attain "teh" status?
When Geeks Marry Non-Geeks
A while back(hell, long before The Lad came along), TFR and I were at a local restaurant having drinks and appetizers. I ordered calamari, and when I noticed that the rings included tentacles, I held a tentacled ring to my mouth and said to her, "I'm Cthulhu!" She didn't get it.
Maybe an Admiral Ackbar reference would have worked better.
Maybe an Admiral Ackbar reference would have worked better.
A Milestone Passed and Missed
Sometime within the past da or so, I passed 50,000 visitors. Hell, I know of bloggers who get that much traffic in a week, but... well, you guys make me feel pretty....
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Win/Win
If you're a pro-American, pro-defense conservative who doesn't give a crap about party labels as long as America wins, this article by Saleena Zito should cheer you up.
UPDATE:
Salena, not Saleena. Sorry, Ma'am.
UPDATE:
Salena, not Saleena. Sorry, Ma'am.
TV Viewing Musings
1. The Feared Redhead insists on watching AFV AMW (Thanks for pointing out the error, Lurch), which insists on highlighting crimes against women and children. All I can say is, it's a good thing there's no such thing as superpowers, because if I were a hero, I wouldn't emulate Spiderman, I'd be The Punisher. Some of these people don't need prison, they need baseball a la "The Untouchables", IfYouKnowWhatIMeanAndIThinkYouDo....
2. Just watched a local news station roundup of the week in news, and the focus was on immigration. It highlighted two interesting developments:
a) San Bernadino County, CA, in response to jail overcrowding, has instituted a new program where sherriff's deputies are trained to interview incoming inmates and screen for illegal immigrants and turn them over to the INS. Since the program was instituted, the county has interviewed 600 inmates, 500 of whom turned out to be Illegals.
b) The Center For Disease Control reports that juvenile hepatitis cases are far higher in the western and border states, which have higher illegal populations than the rest of the U.S.
I guess those two articles, and my decision to blog on them, proves that I, the San Bernadino County Sherriff, and the CDC are latent racists who think brown people are.. um, what's the word? Oh, yeah, "Icky".
2. Just watched a local news station roundup of the week in news, and the focus was on immigration. It highlighted two interesting developments:
a) San Bernadino County, CA, in response to jail overcrowding, has instituted a new program where sherriff's deputies are trained to interview incoming inmates and screen for illegal immigrants and turn them over to the INS. Since the program was instituted, the county has interviewed 600 inmates, 500 of whom turned out to be Illegals.
b) The Center For Disease Control reports that juvenile hepatitis cases are far higher in the western and border states, which have higher illegal populations than the rest of the U.S.
I guess those two articles, and my decision to blog on them, proves that I, the San Bernadino County Sherriff, and the CDC are latent racists who think brown people are.. um, what's the word? Oh, yeah, "Icky".
Musical Geography Question of the Day
Special rule: Vic of Darth Apathy and Bob of Eugene Rants must sit this round out. NO COMMENTS FROM THE TWO OF YOU!!!!!
If you waved a diesel down outside a cafe, how far was he goin'?
If no one gets this one, I have another reference to the same place from another song that will make it easier.
If you waved a diesel down outside a cafe, how far was he goin'?
If no one gets this one, I have another reference to the same place from another song that will make it easier.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Straight From the Horse's Mouth...
Right to the Old Gray Mare Lady.
Thanks for the Memory to Fox News.
An American soldier who has been serving in Iraq has written a letter to the editors of the New York Times, criticizing them for the effect heir reporting has on our troops in the field. I don't think I could say it better or with more authority, so I'll let him speak for himself:
Well said, Sgt. Boggs. Thanks for speaking out, and thank you for serving. Keep your head down, and go with our prayers.
Thanks for the Memory to Fox News.
An American soldier who has been serving in Iraq has written a letter to the editors of the New York Times, criticizing them for the effect heir reporting has on our troops in the field. I don't think I could say it better or with more authority, so I'll let him speak for himself:
Mr. Keller,
What ceases to amaze me about your paper is the lengths you are willing to go to make headlines and sell papers. Who cares if those headlines help the enemies of America, you guys are making money and that is what it is all about in the end right?
Your recent decision to publish information about a classified program intended to track the banking transactions of possible terrorists is not only detrimental to America but also to its fighting men and women overseas. I know because I am a sergeant in the army on my second tour to Iraq. As I am sure you don’t know because you aren’t in Iraq, and I am sure never will be, terrorism happens here everyday because there are rich men out there willing to support the everyday terrorist who plants bombs and shoots soldiers just to make a living. Without money terrorism in Iraq would die because there would no longer be supplies for IEDs, no mortars or RPGs, and no motivation for people to abandon regular work in hopes of striking it rich after killing a soldier.
Throughout your article you mention that, "the banking program is a closely held secret," but the cat is out of the bag now isn’t it. Terrorists the world over can now change their practices because of your article. For some reason I think that last sentence will bring you guys pleasure. You have done something great in your own eyes-you think you have hurt the current administration while at the same time encouraging "freedom fighters" resisting the imperialism of the United States. However, I foresee a backlash coming your way. I wish I had a subscription to your paper so I could cancel it as soon as possible. But alas, that would prove a little tough right now since I am in Iraq dealing with terrorists financed by the very men you are helping.
Thank you for continually contributing to the deaths of my fellow soldiers. You guys definitely provide a valuable service with your paper. Why without you how would terrorists stay one step ahead of us? I would love to hear a response as to why you deemed revealing this program a necessity, but that will probably come as soon as the government decides to finally put you guys behind bars where you belong.
Tim Boggs
http://www.boredsoldier.blogspot.com/
Well said, Sgt. Boggs. Thanks for speaking out, and thank you for serving. Keep your head down, and go with our prayers.
Diverted Flight: Conflicting Information
Fox News is reporting that different sources are reporting different information regarding the United flight 923 from London to D.C. that has been diverted to Logan International in Boston: One source says that an FBI agent has told them the incident involved a female passenger becoming frantic from claustrophobia. Another source says the woman was confronted because she was carrying banned and suspicious items, including a screwdriver, matches, a jar of Vaseline, and a note referencing Al Quaeda.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
R.I.P.
Bruno Kirby, a veteran character actor known for playing the best friend in two of Billy Crystal's biggest comedies "When Harry Met Sally" and "City Slickers," has died. He was 57.
Kirby died Monday in Los Angeles from complications related to leukemia, his wife Lynn Sellers said in a statement Tuesday. He had been recently diagnosed with the disease.
I always liked Kirby and his characters. He did a good job of playing The Nice Who Tries Too Hard, a role that struck home for me. He will be missed.
Musical Geography Question of the Day
If Joy was just a thing that you were raised on, and love was just a way to live and die, in what state were you raised?
Putting Lipstick on a Pig
Thanks for the Memory to the Diva via Cassandra at Villainous Company.
Cosmetics may be intended to make people beautiful, but the latest rant by MAC Cosmetic's spokesthing Sandra Bernhard is one of the ugliest, nastiest pieces of hate to come from the Left yet.
That's a GREAT marketing campaign, there, MAC: "Buy our products or become a "little freaked out, intimidated, frightened, right-wing Republican thin-lipped bitch"! Because, you know, alienating women sells makeup.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the Left tell me that conservatives are hate-mongers, then from the other side of the same mouth, spew this kind of bitter putrescence at us.
What really sucks for me is that TFR works at a spa that uses and sells only Aveda products. Aveda is a division of Estee Lauder, who also owns, you guessed it, MAC. A list of their other product lines is here. We may boycott them personally, but she has no choice but to keep using them at work.
Cosmetics may be intended to make people beautiful, but the latest rant by MAC Cosmetic's spokesthing Sandra Bernhard is one of the ugliest, nastiest pieces of hate to come from the Left yet.
That's a GREAT marketing campaign, there, MAC: "Buy our products or become a "little freaked out, intimidated, frightened, right-wing Republican thin-lipped bitch"! Because, you know, alienating women sells makeup.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the Left tell me that conservatives are hate-mongers, then from the other side of the same mouth, spew this kind of bitter putrescence at us.
What really sucks for me is that TFR works at a spa that uses and sells only Aveda products. Aveda is a division of Estee Lauder, who also owns, you guessed it, MAC. A list of their other product lines is here. We may boycott them personally, but she has no choice but to keep using them at work.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Mom's Cooking
The last four days have been wonderful, with my mother here visiting on her way from San Diego (where she helped settle my late grandmother's estate) to Michigan (where she'll stay with my sister for the winter). We've had a wonderful time. My aunt and uncle (my father's older brother) marked their 50th wedding anniversary Saturday, and we surprised them with a surprise party/picnic/potluck. All of their kids were there, even their daughter who lives in Athens, Greece. Sunday we went back out to their house for the day, and had dinner together. The main course was a brisket that I smoked and took with us -- more on that later. Today, we took her to Lone Pine, a local farm stand that also has a petting barn on the premeses (pictures of The Lad feeding the goats to follow as soon as Qwest fixes my camera mail). For dinner we had nachos made from leftover brisket, and for dessert we had blackberry cobbler made by my mother from berries purchased at Lone Pine.
It's been good to see The Lad bond with his Nana B., and she's had a blastspoiling being with him. It's also good to see her without the weight of my grandmother's illness and death on her shoulders.
The food has been amazing. When I made the brisket, I used a new, simpler variation on my old marinade recipe:
1/2 cup soy sauce
1/2 cup worchestershire Sauce
1/2 cup apple cider vinegar
1/2 cup Coca-Cola
1 bottle red wine
6 bottles porter
2 yellow onions, sliced thin
1 head garlic, separated and peeled
I started marinating in Thursday, so it was in the marinade for around 68 hours. I also used all of the marinade in the drip pan during the smoking. In addition, I managed to maintain the heat better this time. It hit the smoker at 4 AM Sunday, and was done at 2 PM, at which time we packed it up and drove it the 30 minutes to my aunt's and uncle's. The entire drive, the smell of that brisket cooped up in our little car drove us freaking NUTS. The smoke ring on it was about a quarter of an inch thick, and I swear, it was the best brisket I've made yet.
Tonight, my mom fixed her blackberry cobbler, which is made from her own variation on the standard Betty Crocker cobbler recipe:
Preheat oven to 400 degrees.
Filling:
In a saucepan, combine:
3/4 cup sugar
2 tbsp corn starch
4 cups blackberries
1/2 tsp lemon juice
Bring to a boil over medium high heat, stirring constantly. allow to boil for one minute and remove from heat. Place in the oven to keep warm while mixing the cobbler dough.
Dough:
1 cup flower
2 tbsp sugar
1 1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
3 tbsp butter
1/2 cup milk
Mix together dry ingredients. Cut in butter until the size of peas. Mix in milk (do not overstir). Drop dough by teaspoons full onto filling, distributing over top to form crust. Bake for 25 minutes or until crust is golden brown. Remove from oven and cool.
One of the things I missed most about Oregon when I lived in San Diego was the blackberries, and I especially missed blackberry cobbler. So when we served it tonight, I was in heaven. sadly, I could not eat all of my second helping, so I reluctantly covered it in plastic wrap, placed it in the fridge, and told my beloved wife, "touch it and draw back a bloody stump!"
Sadly, my mom leaves tomorrow morning. Her first stopover is in Twin Falls, Idaho, where she'll visit old family friends, then Cheyenne, then Des Moines before reaching Michigan on Saturday evening. Please pray for a safe journey for her.
It's been good to see The Lad bond with his Nana B., and she's had a blast
The food has been amazing. When I made the brisket, I used a new, simpler variation on my old marinade recipe:
1/2 cup soy sauce
1/2 cup worchestershire Sauce
1/2 cup apple cider vinegar
1/2 cup Coca-Cola
1 bottle red wine
6 bottles porter
2 yellow onions, sliced thin
1 head garlic, separated and peeled
I started marinating in Thursday, so it was in the marinade for around 68 hours. I also used all of the marinade in the drip pan during the smoking. In addition, I managed to maintain the heat better this time. It hit the smoker at 4 AM Sunday, and was done at 2 PM, at which time we packed it up and drove it the 30 minutes to my aunt's and uncle's. The entire drive, the smell of that brisket cooped up in our little car drove us freaking NUTS. The smoke ring on it was about a quarter of an inch thick, and I swear, it was the best brisket I've made yet.
Tonight, my mom fixed her blackberry cobbler, which is made from her own variation on the standard Betty Crocker cobbler recipe:
Preheat oven to 400 degrees.
Filling:
In a saucepan, combine:
3/4 cup sugar
2 tbsp corn starch
4 cups blackberries
1/2 tsp lemon juice
Bring to a boil over medium high heat, stirring constantly. allow to boil for one minute and remove from heat. Place in the oven to keep warm while mixing the cobbler dough.
Dough:
1 cup flower
2 tbsp sugar
1 1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
3 tbsp butter
1/2 cup milk
Mix together dry ingredients. Cut in butter until the size of peas. Mix in milk (do not overstir). Drop dough by teaspoons full onto filling, distributing over top to form crust. Bake for 25 minutes or until crust is golden brown. Remove from oven and cool.
One of the things I missed most about Oregon when I lived in San Diego was the blackberries, and I especially missed blackberry cobbler. So when we served it tonight, I was in heaven. sadly, I could not eat all of my second helping, so I reluctantly covered it in plastic wrap, placed it in the fridge, and told my beloved wife, "touch it and draw back a bloody stump!"
Sadly, my mom leaves tomorrow morning. Her first stopover is in Twin Falls, Idaho, where she'll visit old family friends, then Cheyenne, then Des Moines before reaching Michigan on Saturday evening. Please pray for a safe journey for her.
Top This for Weirdness
My whole life I've had a birthmark on my left chest, just below the nipple. The other day, something about it dawned on me:
It's shaped exactly like Puerto Rico.
It's shaped exactly like Puerto Rico.
Musical Geography Question of the Day
A question for everyone EXCEPT VIC:
Where can you talk to God and listen to his casual reply?
Where can you talk to God and listen to his casual reply?
Quote of the Day
"America-bashing is in fashion as it has not been since Ronald Reagan accurately described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire". Anti-Americanism is not confined to the usual radical chic suspects of the Left; here in Britain, it infects the High Tory Establishment, "good Europeans" and little Englanders alike. So why are we all anti-Americans now?
American stumbling on the rough road since 2001 has played some part. Yet had there, inconceivably, been no wrong steps, had America been positively obsequious in courting international support (and it has done more on that score than it critics admit), anti-Americanism would still be on the rise. The US is never less popular than when it is aroused and determined in defence of democratic freedoms, never less trusted than when the world is most reliant on its unmatched ability to project power.
Democracies are psychologically ill-adapted to open-ended confrontations where there can be no decisive victory, the essence of the effort to subdue global terrorism. Eternal vigilance is a wearisome business. The more vulnerable that Europeans feel, the more liable they are to shift blame across the Atlantic.
The strength of disdain is a measure of Europe's weakness. Smugness is one of Europe's great contemporary exports. We may all think that we know America, its music, its culture, its self-confident exceptionalism. We tend to forget that Americans fight only with extreme reluctance. We overlook their penchant for agonised self-criticism; everything bad we know about the US, we know because Americans inexhaustibly rehearse their society's shortcomings. There has never been greater transparency, whether than on the battlefield or the boondocks, and there has never been more open debate about the country's virtues and vices - the internet has transformed the quantity and, at times, the quality of the conversation.
Better than most, Muslims understand why Islamist terrorism is war at its unholiest, an existential threat to societies. Iraqis may resent occupation, but they fear a weakening of US resolve. Their fears should be ours. Were it to become politically impossible for a president to keep America's forces engaged from its shores, then the backbone of international security would be broken. America-bashing may be a popular sport, but its adherents prefer not to contemplate its consequences."
- Adam, a commenter at The Jawa Report
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Musical Geography Question of the Day
If one hundred ten miles sure do make a difference, where did she get on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)