to Main Page

Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Profile
Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge



to Main Page
Opposing Views Heinlein Centennial web site This site is Gunny Approved
Heard the
Word of Blog?

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Open Trackback Alliance

Check out our Frappr!

Patterico's Pledge

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues,

I will not obey those rules.

« June 2005 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30

View blog reactions

Who Links Here

Free counter and web stats

eXTReMe Tracker

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

Listed on BlogShares

Monday, 27 June 2005
Wood's fellow hostage hires bounty hunters
Topic: Iraq War
I LIKE this guy's attitude!

Hat tip to Buster Blocker InMuscatine
June 26, 2005 - 7:18PM

A hostage held alongside Australian Douglas Wood in Iraq has hired bounty hunters to track down his former captors, promising to eliminate them one by one.

Swede Ulf Hjertstrom, who was held for several weeks with Mr Wood in Baghdad, was released by his kidnappers on May 30.

Mr Hjertstrom has since claimed he shared information with US and Iraqi troops about Mr Wood which led to the release of the 63-year-old Australian engineers two weeks ago, after 47 days in captivity.

Now, he wants to find those responsible.

"I have now put some people to work to find these bastards," he told the Ten Network today.

"I invested about $50,000 so far and we will get them one by one."


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 10:39 AM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 5:58 AM CDT
Tuesday, 24 May 2005
Americans Anonymous
Topic: Eurabia


Keep Your Hopes Up, Overseas Americans, Help Is Available!

"Hello, my name is Eric, and I'm an American."


"I used to be embarrassed to admit I carried a U.S. passport, and ashamed in turn to be embarrassed about that. These dark secrets led to feelings of guilt and to an evil circle from which I couldn 't escape. That's when I discovered AA (Americans Anonymous)?

"Thanks to this 12-step group, and to the fellowship of like-minded people, I have learned true humility. I have had to face up to the truth. The sad and uncomfortable truth. I now realize that as Americans, we cannot, and never will, measure up to Europeans (among others) in the areas of honesty, generosity, tolerance, solidarite (en francais dans le texte), clear-mindedness, humanitarianism, infinite wisdom, true democracy, world peace, and the love of one's fellow man.

"Yes, unfortunately, I must confess the truth, there's no use denying it: I'm an American. That means I am not intelligent enough to realize the gravest dangers threatening mankind today are Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and a rodent named Mickey. It means I am too simple-minded to realize that modern European society represents the pinnacle of brotherhood (or is on the path thereto). It means I am too myopic to realize that referring to regimes such as Saddam's or Kim Jong-Il's or Brezhnev's as 'evil' is hopelessly retrograde, not to mention preposterous. (And I hope that one day Iraqis, North Koreans, and citizens of former Warsaw Pact countries who think the same will be able to make a pilgrimage to Western Europe, where the powers that be will, in their infinite wisdom, sober them up by telling them to shut up and by otherwise correcting all such reactionary beliefs.)

"It means I am too stupid to see what is obvious to Europeans (and others): that the US of A is a 'false democracy' and that I and my fellow countrymen are incapable of seeing when we are being manipulated. It means I am too naive to see that respect and dialogue are necessary, nay vital, in international relations. And if the leaders we show this respect and tolerance to don't show the same respect and tolerance to their own citizens (because of, say, mass imprisonment, torture, rape, beheadings, and things of that order), I'm too stupid to understand that just a little more of European-type dialogue would convince said autocrats to see the light, do away with their uncouth ways, and install a democratic system in their lands (the fraternal European kind, bien sur, not the 'false' American kind)?

"Thank goodness there is a Higher Power to which to turn. And that is the vastly superior European system of brotherhood. These wise, visionary beings are here to set us straight. All we need do is turn our power over to them, and an era of world peace will ensue?"

AA: Aid and Assistance to Americans Abroad

Dear Guest to this website,

As the founder of Americans Anonymous ? an organization for expatriates who are ashamed to admit that they are U.S. citizens when in the company of a group of smug, self-righteous foreigners ? I would like to welcome you to an open meeting of the group, in which we discuss our basic principles. (Foreign sympathizers and Americans stateside are welcome at meetings in our sister organization, Am-Anon.)

The most common frequently-asked question newcomers ask is: How do I respond to a group of smug foreigners submitting me to a barrage of irony-laden questions, asinine comments, and demented accusations concerning my government, my country, and/or the type of society I live in? Our main precept is this: Do your homework (i.e., know your facts, this being something you obviously prepare beforehand), and? agree with them. Agree with them wholeheartedly!

After years of trying to deal with this problem, I now know it doesn't pay to argue or defend yourself. Certainly you should never lose your temper. It is useless to try to defend, say, the policies of Washington (or the benefits of capitalism, or the content of Hollywood films, or the character of the American people) with this type of foreigner because their true purpose is not to have a real debate, nor is it for you ? or they! ? to try to gain more understanding about a particular subject. The point is to prove ? as much to their interlocutors, American or other, as to themselves ? the "obvious" fact (in their point of view): that in the final analysis they are ever and always more superior and more advanced than those hopeless Yanks.

Insofar as this is true, AA's advice to Americans is: agree with them! Do not bother to argue. Do not waste your time. You simply admit "the truth" to everybody, fellow Americans and foreigners alike, pro-Washington and anti-Washington people alike. Here's how it goes:

The Forrest Gump Treatment

If a Euro-weenie asks, say, "Why did you Yanks choose war?", you agree with them wholeheartedly, and then you go a step further. Reply as follows: "It's because we are stupid, myopic, greedy, arrogant, treacherous, war-mongering, and wholeheartedly without a single ounce of love for our fellow man." Then go "above and beyond the call of duty": "?And if only we were as wise, as generous, as peace-loving, as respectful, as tolerant, as solidaires, as visionary, as clear-headed (lucides), as you (so obviously) are, then naturally, an era of encompassing and lasting peace would ensue on the entire planet. Why do you ask?"

Ideally, all this should be said entirely innocently, in a matter-of-fact manner, without the slightest hint of irony in the tone of voice or the facial expression. Somewhat like Tom Hanks in the movie Forrest Gump. Because when you speak in this manner, of course, all you are doing is ape the self-serving litany that most foreigners are parroting in the first place. They are not as knowledgeable of the issues as they like to believe, they are not as objective as they like to claim, and they certainly don't really have any way of knowing that their choice of action (or absence thereof) would really have offered a better alternative to the event(s) which took place (or of knowing, alternatively, that Uncle Sam invariably chooses the worst alternative). All they are doing is extolling their societies' (supposed) "fraternal" virtues while condemning the (supposed) sins of American society, policies, and/or values.

Americans of All Stripes, Unite!

Americans abroad have said they have felt compelled to defend George W Bush's policies, even if they don't agree with them (in fact, some are diametrically opposed to them and would never vote for him). Please trust me: all this doesn't matter. Well, it may matter to the American in question, obviously, but it doesn't matter to those who attack Uncle Sam. Again, their main purpose, consciously or not, is simply to make their own society look good and U.S. society look bad, and it doesn't matter who is president or what party is in power. (If ever there is any truth in the charge that Americans are simplistic, it is in the fact that they are too honest; they are so honest they take these remarks literally and at face value.)

Of course, you will hear some say "Clinton (or Carter), now there was a president we liked" or "Oh the Democrats, they are smart"; please don't believe in this (self-)deception ? an honest look (instead of a rosy one) back at the times will show that if they weren't tearing into Carter for being an imperialist, they were mocking him for being a simpleton (as well as a peanut farmer); if they weren't criticizing Clinton for being arrogant, they were either criticizing him for not standing up (enough) to the forces of reaction (the real enemy!), or criticizing the American public for not standing up (enough) for Clinton. (To put the alleged popularity of, and respect for, Democratic presidents into perspective ? as well as their alleged ability to work harmoniously with the rest of the world ? consider that when NATO representatives rose to toast Warren Christopher after Clinton's first secretary of state decided to leave the government in December 1996, the French foreign minister stood up and walked out while Chirac's ambassador to the organisation turned his back and kept talking to an aide.) And if they weren't attacking a particular president or his administration, they were lambasting another aspect of U.S. society. The point is for America to stand out as guilty of the worst crimes, and any type of proof will do, no matter how small, and that whether it involves a particular president or another part of Americana. (Then again, it is true that that simplistic message is the main point of many American citizens protesting within the United States.)

Of course, what some Europeans say are the same charges that some Americans bring against their own society, notably in the opposition. And that is fine. It is fine for there to be an oppisition in a country, in any country. Please note, however, that this does not mean the type of anti-American foreigner who make these comments are in any way your allies and friends. Why? Because they invariably use double standards. The people who are always concluding that American society is a criminally inept one rarely if ever apply the same standards ? and certainly not the same level of fury, the rantings and the ravings ? to China, to Iraq, to Zimbabwe, to Ethiopia, to Cuba, not to mention to their own societies. (Well, some do, sometimes, but never with the same energy, and you often feel they're doing so for either of two reasons; either so they can claim that they cannot be accused of being anti-American since this is allegedly proof that they also promote "humanistic" policies elsewhere ; or else they do so reluctantly, because you can almost hear them muttering, "Wouldn't those people (Russians in Chechnya, Chinese in Tibet, etc) know better than to act in such retrograde ways, when they ought to be clear-headed (as clear-headed as we are) and join forces against the real enemy ? the U.S. and American capitalism!")

So the point here is not (for Americans) to stop criticizing (or fighting to defeat) a given president, a given party, and/or a given policy. Not at all. By all means, keep it up. The point is to be aware that for many of the foreigners issuing what they claim to be "simply constructive criticism", the evidence shows that criticizing America is all they do, criticizing America is all they ever have done, and criticizing America is all they ever will do. In other words, when you hear someone say "Oh, it's your policies we are against", be wary before you say, "Oh, if I make an effort to get our (Washington) leadership to wake up and change its policies in a way they like, the atmosphere will improve", hesitate before you believe them, because they have never used this standard about any other country to the extent they do about the United States, if at all.

This is where it should be said: "Nous sommes tous americains".

Some Specific Examples

Answering anti-Americans in the way prescribed usually brings a hush (at least a temporary one) to their ranting monologs. Alas, the silence doesn't usually last long, as they strive to bring up "evidence" of their (self-serving) "opinions." (Notice that, for people who like nothing better than to excoriate Americans for speaking of good and evil in a simple-minded manner, this usually takes the form of black-and-white, such as "We are incredibly humanistic, while you are hopelessly clueless.") I hate to make this sound aggressive, but besides "Do not lose your temper" and "You must learn to read between the lines", AA's precept is: "Have no pity and make them wiggle."

Let's take some specific examples: "Did you support the intervention in Iraq?" or "What do you think about the death penalty?". These are not real questions of debate, rather the comments serve as camouflage for the real question: "Are you a simplistic war-monger/a retarded reactionary or do you belong in the same hallowed circle of humanistic, clear-minded, and visionary beings as myself?" In fact, more than a question, the point of the remark is obviously nothing more than to make this subtle point: "Either you agree with my wise view that this is/was wrong, even criminally wrong, or you are stupid, blinded, arrogant, etc, etc, etc?" (This from people who love nothing more than to claim that in America, there is one, and only one, opinion!)

If the debate carries you this far, you simply go along with them and, as before, take a step further. Note: You should not fail to do this as it invariably turns the tables on them (but it does require a basic knowledge of current events as well as history) [I will write why this is invariable in a coming article]. "Of course! Of course I am! I'm against all forms of war. That's why I condemn the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and/or the war involving half a dozen nations in the Congo." If they ask you what you think about the Iraq war, say, "yes, it's tragic that a couple of thousand people were killed, always is", then simply ask them why they have never demonstrated against any of the above conflicts, which have killed many more people (respectively 100,000 to 200,000 and 3 million, with the Congo accounting for a total of deaths similar to those of World War I). And, please: do so however you feel about Bush's policies in Iraq; because, remember, their "opinion", again, has little to do with a particular policy or person and everything to do, at its core, with self-serving self-satisfaction.

Or "Of course I'm against death being applied by people in power against defenceless citizens. That's why I condemn (always have) the death penalty in Saudi Arabia and Japan. Not to mention horrors like the mass murders in Nazi Germany, communist Russia, and Idi Amin's Uganda." Then ask them, innocently, why you've never heard them, or seen them, demonstrate against the blood-letting in Zimbabwe. Be sure to bring up the death penalty in China, which accounts for up to three times more deaths in a single year than those in the US over a quarter century.

Watching for the "Fool-Proof" Cards

Beware of their whipping out their "fool-proof" cards. You can just feel that the word has gone around on what to respond on certain matters because the remarks are invariably the same. These take the form of smug attitudes that are supposed to be the final word on a certain subject and, by a very strange coincidence, they somehow, just as invariably, end up painting Uncle Sam as being by far the worst villain in the matter, whatever it is.

Some common cards are those referring to the atomic bombs against Japan and the coup d'etat in Chile. If they say, "America forced everyone to observe a minute of silence for the victims of September 11, why don't we observe one for the victims of Hiroshima?", answer the truth: "Nobody prevents you or me or anybody else from paying our respects to the 80,000 victims of Hiroshima, and in fact the entire Japanese nation has been doing so methodically on a yearly basis for, oh, about the past 60 years; you were asked (not forced) to observe a minute of silence for the Manhattan and Pentagon victims only once ? exactly 24 hours later, at 8:48 a.m. in the morning of September 12, 2001 ? and you never have been (and never will be) asked to do so again." Then add, "While we're at it, shouldn't we observe a minute of silence for the victims of the rape of Nanjing?" Chances being pretty high that they don't know what you're talking about (their minds and lives are too busy making a list of all the "sins" with which to lambaste America and anyway, for some reason, Tokyo doesn't make as big a fuss about this as it does the atomic bombs), you add that you're speaking of the massacre of some 300,000 Chinese nationals ? men, women (some of them pregnant), and children ? which the Japanese imperial army embarked enthusiastically upon in late 1937.

If looking down their noses, they ask "Do you know what other event occurred on September 11?", answer "Yes, a terrible tragedy." Pause while they nod approvingly, then add "George Washington lost the battle of Brandywine" (in 1777) or even "Brian De Palma was born on that date" (so was Ferdinand Marcos, by the way), although I'm not sure to what extent that counts as a tragedy. If they object that they are referring to something more recent and more tragic than that, agree and say "you must be talking of Hitler ordering reinforcements to Romania" (1940) or "FDR ordering any Axis ships in U.S. waters shot on sight" (1941) or even "wasn't it the first TV broadcast of a Miss America beauty contest?" (1954).

If they mention Pinochet's coup d'etat and the 3,000 Chileans killed under his subsequent reign, agree that this was a tragedy (it certainly was) and ask them what they think of Castro and the 20,000 Cubans shot under el Comandante's reign. Oh, and by the way, why don't they get revolted about that? And why do so few of them march against el Jefe Maximo in Europe's streets? If they insist upon the Cuban revolution being necessary or about Fidel having good intentions, ask them how a Lopez family whose father was killed in Cuba is supposed to be better off than a Lopez family whose son was killed in Chile.

If they tick off the list of the dictators that America has supported since World War II, ask them why dictators Washington has opposed (such as Castro and Saddam) invariably brings condemnation from them against? Uncle Sam?! (Of course, when you're used to saying everything is America's fault, the answer will be easy.) Then ask them why they never rant and rave against the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century (the USSR and China), either at the time those regimes existed or in retrospect. (Oh, those leaders had good intentions. I see.) While you're at it, ask why, in listing the dictators the U.S. has supported, they invariably forgot to mention the bloodiest dictator ever supported by Washington in all history. A man who killed tens of millions of people in his country was supported by Uncle Sam in the early '40s. The bloke's name was Joseph Stalin, and he received a massive amount of cash and war materiel through 1945. If they say, "Well, that's something different, they shared a common enemy, one who was more bloody and more dangerous", answer that that may be the exact reason that, rightly or wrongly, Washington supported Batista and his ilk. But don't let up: ask them again why they never include Mao Zedong among the mass-killer dictators who brings up such an amount of anger in them.

Another rabbit they like pulling out is the "live in the present" precept: the past is something one shouldn't bring up. Funny thing, they always bring this out of the hat when referring to themselves (or the people(s) and societies with whom they, for whatever reason, feel close to). Where America is concerned, on the other hand, it's always fair game, strangely enough, to bring up events from September 11, 1973, and the Enola Gay to black slavery and the fate of the Indians.

If they insist, you should bring up your ace: the continent on which the U.S. enjoys relatively little presence. "Yes, it is such a pity that we (or our leaders) have not shown our (them) selves as generous as you so obviously are, but hopefully we can learn from your experience in Africa. What a shame it is that we are blinded to the happy and bountiful effects of your intrinsically wise, generous, fraternal, clear-minded, and forward-looking policies in such places as Congo, Uganda, Cote d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Rwanda."

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:48 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 5:57 AM CDT
Saturday, 16 April 2005
Unitarian Jihad Name

My Unitarian Jihad Name is:

Sibling Nail Gun of Enlightenment.

Get yours.

The following is the first communique from a group calling itself Unitarian Jihad

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 8:25 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Wednesday, 13 July 2005 1:51 AM CDT
Wednesday, 17 November 2004
1000 Americans have died
Topic: Iraq War
At the hands of terrorists.
Maybe we should just go home?

Oh maybe I should mention, the date is
June 1946
and the place is Germany.

Like reading articles in the New York times about how we Won the War but were losing the Peace? We had no plan for after the major combat was over and how Americas Image had never been lower?

The NYT of almost 60 years ago had plenty of them.

You can read some of them On this site

Want to read about the terrorists, the ones who tied us down in the quagmire that was the European Occupation? Go here

Nothing is really new, almost everything has happened before.

Maybe we SHOULD have just pulled up stakes after the end of WW2 and gone home and left Europe to put its own house in order.
After all it worked out so well the time before didn't it?

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:00 AM CST
| Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 5:55 AM CDT
Tuesday, 9 November 2004
The Left's Self Correcting Limit
The good news is that as thought progresses towards the left, there is a limit after which it falls into a Cultural Black Hole and ceases to exist.

One example of this is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement whose moto is

"May we live long and die out"

Their Goal? Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

You know you just cannot make up things this crazy it takes Real Leftist Loons to conceive of them.

There is another organization that is even more extreme if that is possible?

The Church of Euthanasia Their motto is


The One Commandment:

"Thou shalt not procreate"

The Four Pillars:
suicide ? abortion
cannibalism ? sodomy

I could not resist adding this.

Every time someone accesses your page, they'll see one of 30 different Euthanasian bumper stickers. The sticker can also be a link to the Church's web site. The sticker images are 2-color 252 x 76 GIFs, and they're each approximately 1k, so they won't slow down your page. To include a random sticker on your page, add the following HTML:

The Church of Euthanasia

We can safely leave those two groups to their own pursuits, they are after all self correcting.

However! The Gaia Liberation Front (GLF), is a different story, they don't think Human Extinction has to be Voluntary.

Les: How does the GLF differ from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

Geophilus: While we support all voluntary efforts to make the humans extinct, we do not exclude the involuntary route. At the rate that the humans are killing the Earth - and for all we know she may have already passed the point of no return - a decision to not reproduce, by itself, even if adopted immediately by every new human - as a result, say, of a new Gaia-worshipping religious movement - would be just too damn slow.

Les: What involuntary methods do you have in mind?

Geophilus: We support, for example, involuntary sterilisation, but we would also welcome the escape of any new anti-human viruses - such as the airborne version of AIDS that might result from AIDS research on mice. (Science, 16 February, 1991, page 809.)

Les: So, why don't you just commit suicide?

Geophilus:The good I'm doing by promoting the idea of human extinction outweighs the harm I'm doing by staying alive.'

Why does that last statement not surprise me?

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 2:00 AM CST
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Tuesday, 9 November 2004 2:08 AM CST
Monday, 8 November 2004
Where the big money came from and where it went to
Top Individual Contributors to 527

Out of the top 5 individual contributions #5 was 5 million for Conservative groups #s 1 through 4 added up to 67.9 million for groups like ACT etc Not too hard to see who the Big Money in Politics backed. The total picture of contributions for this election will not be known until after this years taxes are filled but historical data can be found here

Campaign Contributions, 2001-2002 (Hard and Soft Money)

What you will see is that the Republicans get more of the smaller contributions the Democrats share goes up as the size of the money goe up until at contributions of 1 million dollars or more the Democrats get 92%. Now WHO exactly is the Party of BIG MONEY?

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 3:39 PM CST
| Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Monday, 8 November 2004 3:50 PM CST
Sunday, 7 November 2004
Black Watch Move Ahead of US Fallujah Assault
Topic: Iraq War

Who SAYS we are in this ALONE?

He Lies

"Black Watch troops have move into position ahead of the imminent US and Iraqi assault on the rebel stronghold of Fallujah, it was reported today.

The British troops have taken up a ?forward operating position? on the east bank of the Euphrates river.

It came at the ?urgent request? of American Marine forces, according to a Sky News reporter in Iraq.

He said the move, supported by 40 Warrior armoured personnel carriers, was to control routes to and from the city west of Baghdad which has been bombarded by American air and artillery strikes.

They will stop reinforcements moving north and block the way of insurgents leaving the city, he said.

The reporter said it fuelled speculation that the main assault on Fallujah will start soon.

He said the move came at the ?specific request? of American commanders and the US was providing air cover.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who claimed responsibility for the death of kidnapped Briton Ken Bigley, has been thought to be holed up in the city.

Elsewhere, rebel resistence against police stations continued today north of Baghdad.

At least 22 people were killed when militants set off explosions at police stations in Haditha and Haqlaniyah.

Yesterday, in neighbouring Samarra, north of Baghdad, four suicide car bombs and attacks on police stations left at least 34 people dead, many of them Iraqi policemen."

I dedicate the following music as fitting for these brave men. all the rest of our Allies and Our Troops who stand in harm's way. These words are as true today as they were a thousand years ago, only the faces marching to battle have changed.

Short the sleep the foe is taking,

Men of Harlech

Modern Words used by Regimental Band

Tongues of fire on Idris flaring,
news of foe-men near declaring,
to heroic deeds of daring,
call you Harlech men

Groans of wounded peasants drying,
wails of wives and children flying,
for the distant succour crying,
call you Harlech men.

Shall the voice of wailing,
now be unavailing,
You to rouse who never yet
in battles hour were failing,

His our answer crowds down pouring
swift as winter torrents roaring,
Not in vain the voice imploring,
call on Harlech men

Loud the martial pipes are sounding
every manly heart is bounding
As our trusted chief surrounding,
march we Harlech men.

Short the sleep the foe is taking,
ere the morrows morn is breaking,
They shall have a rude awakening,
roused by Harlech men.

Mothers cease your weeping,
calm may be your sleeping,
you and yours in safety now
the Harlech men are keeping,

ere the sun is high in heaven
they you fear by panic riven
shall like frightened sheep be driven,
far by Harlech men

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 8:29 AM CST
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 5:51 AM CDT
Now Smackwater Jack He Went to Fallujah
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Iraq War
Cause he was in the mood for a Little Confrontation
He just let it all hang loose
He didn't need any lame excuse
He wouldn't take any more abuse

So he shot down the Congregation!

You can't talk to a Man when he don't want to understand

News from the front via

The Green Side

"Dear Dad -

As you have no doubt been watching, we have had our hands full around Fallujah. It would seem as if the final reckoning is coming. The city has been on a consistent down hill spiral since we were ordered out in April. It's siren call for extremists and criminals has only increased steadily and the instability and violence that radiates out of the town has expanded exponentially. If there is another city in the world that contains more terrorists, I would be surprised. From the last two years, I just don't see a way that we can succeed in Iraq without reducing this threat. The cost of continuing on without taking decisive action is too high to dwell on. The enemy inside the town have come to fight and kill Americans. Nothing will sate their bloodlust and hatred other than to kill everyone of us or at least die trying. It is hard to fathom as a Westerner as rational thought would dictate that we will only be here for a relatively short blip in their history and while we are here, billions of dollars in investments will pour in and opportunity that is beyond comprehension will open up for anyone willing to work. This is not Kansas and this enemy does not think like that."

You hear all the time words like "I support the troops"

Want to? REALLY want to do something more than blow hot air?

Give to the USO!

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:10 AM CST
| Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 5:52 AM CDT
Saturday, 6 November 2004
Florida Hurricanes are a Bush/Rove PLOT!
Topic: Global Warming
You can NOT make up things like this. Many thanks to Donald Sensing at

One Hand Clapping

for putting me on the track of this diabolical Neo-Con Conspiracy.

"Hurricanes were Bush's jobs-creation program You may recall that George W. Bush was blamed by the "Scientists and Engineers for Change and Environment2004" and the NAACP National Voter Fund for the hurricanes that devastated Florida this year.

No, really, he was.

Now we learn that bringing hurricanes to Florida was part of his devilishly clever pre-election economic program"

Talk about Power in just a few short years the Neo-Cons have managed a complete climatic change in order to achieve political dominance.

Folks I ask you? Can we trust anyone to hold the reins of Power who actually believes such bilge?

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:38 PM CST
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Saturday, 7 April 2007 7:09 PM CDT
The unteachable ignorance of the red states
When I read this essay

The unteachable ignorance of the red states
By Jane Smiley and came to the part where she says, "The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable." "Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to?"

I thought a long time on how best to answer her and decided this way would be good.

The lines "oh You're So Condescending your Gall Is Never Ending we Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You"

I found to be particularly fitting. ;-)

We're Not Gonna Take It

Oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we've Got The Right To Choose And
there Ain't No Way We'll Lose It
this Is Our Life, This Is Our Song
we'll Fight The Powers That Be Just
don't Pick Our Destiny 'cause
you Don't Know Us, You Don't Belong

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh You're So Condescending
your Gall Is Never Ending
we Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You
your Life Is Trite And Jaded
boring And Confiscated
if That's Your Best, Your Best Won't Do

we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
no Way

Wow! I got LINKED by Buster Block over at I even got a comment COOL!

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 5:01 AM CST
| Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 7 November 2004 12:04 AM CST

Newer | Latest | Older