Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Do people ever look at calendars anymore?

I mean, ok, granted the PR must have gotten sent out a few hours too early, but, still do copy editors ever actually read content for sanity?

"It's a new paradigm where you don't delete your e-mail," said Rosing.

Is that not some sort of a tipoff? What about this part?:

When asked if consumers would perceive the targeted ads to be a violation of their privacy, Rosing said the company's terms-of-service agreement for Gmail "says clearly that the targeting is done by machines" and that they would respect user privacy. "It takes a bit of getting used to," admitted Rosing, "but we don't see that as a problem."

I guess not even the whole concept that it is on Google would make anyone think, "hey, wait a minute...." They should know this is PigeonRank II

Well, wonder how long until the countless newsites that have posted the "Breaking News" with a 3/31 byline come to see the "official" press release on Google's site that has the 4/1/04 date. Will they delete the stories as if they weren't fooled? Or change the date on their story and try to pretend they were in on the joke?

I am sort of sad, though. Web-based email is a joke and I wished it was real. To taunt us more, Google even put up an actual page with "Coming Soon".

Guess it is OK to be un-Islamic to non-Muslims?

Funny how different rules apply depending on the religion of the dead. Incredible uproar last year when the US released photos of Saddam's dead sons. We were told 'Mohamed (PBUH) had repeatedly warned against distorting bodies' and vilified by people everywhere.

Now, what happens in that cesspool of Fallujah is celebrated as 'the graveyard of Americans', while 'people' (if you can call them that) are 'jubilant' while dragging 'the charred corpses' of some poor slaughtered people who were there to help the country.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Monday, March 29, 2004

'Rise above principles'?....

What is that supposed to mean? Two 9/11 commission members want Condoleeza Rice to do exactly that.

So, does that mean they want her to become unprincipled?

Friday, March 26, 2004

What do Saddam and the Democrats Have in Common?

Apparently, their love of walking on Bush...

Thanks to Drudge for the pic of the Democrat HQ doormat.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

MEMRI's Guide to "Non-Painful Wife-beating"....

Religion of Peace issues its latest eLearning module:

"It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs,"

Is this the Sixth's Sheikh of Sixth Sheep fame?

Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam and head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, has advocated non-painful wife-beating.

Maybe these shirts shoudl be renamed 'Islam-ers'

Paradise Lost.....

So, seems like this boy changed his mind about pulling the trigger to unbeleivable happiness:

"A river of honey, a river of wine and 72 virgins. Since I have been studying Quran I know about the sweet life that waits there (in Paradise)," the newspaper quoted the boy as saying

Finding out the whole Paradise thing is crap must be way worse than finding out about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny...

Aznar hits back. The Truth about 3/11.....

Too bad he decided to retire. Maybe the Spanish people would have voted him out also in favor of the Socialists, who knows. But, it is a victory for the terrorists for this man (or his party) to not be in power anymore.

Amazing attempt at revisionist history? .....or convenient typo?

Nice to see that George W. gets the blame for not going after Osama while he was GOVERNOR of Texas. Far be it from the press to expect the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES at the time, Bill Clinton, to do it.

"The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up."

Guess this short-term memory loss (or is it long-term now?) is catching on....(Thanks to Instapundit for these). The New York Daily News needs some chronology lessons while again trying to blame Bush for things that happened while he was Governor of Texas.

"One event that panel members found galling was why there was no retaliation by either administration for the bombing of the destroyer Cole in early 2001."

Early 2001, October 12, 2000, same thing I guess. As long as you don't take into account that it was Clinton who was president then, and therefore not Bush's job to be retaliating. I hate when I get so worked up about accuracy.

This coming from a Democrat...................Go Zell!!

I love this guy.

"John Kerry's spending and tax plan would stifle our economy and stall our recovery at the worst possible time."

Monday, March 22, 2004

Less than Zero.....The name of a cool 80s movie......and

the chances of this actually happening....

Friday, March 19, 2004

Wonderful sentence contrasting now with a year ago in Iraq.....

"Prior to the war, there was only the uniformity of fear -- now it is a mixture of expectations and disappointments."

Almost hard to believe this story came from MSNBC. But, we have to take what we can get.

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

The USA Today busts Kerry as flip-flopper...

From yesterday (3/16/04):

'In a sentence that could become part of attacks on him as a "flip-flopper," Kerry also said that "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." '

Perfect, just perfect.

This is must reading for all. It truly IS us vs. them. Wake up World.

17 words worth a thousand pictures....

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." - Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah

Mark Steyn pegs it when he says:

"You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way."

I do not know why so few people get it. I am fine if you hate Bush for his social leanings. But, that doesn't mean he isn't right when it comes to the War on Terror. The hatred of Bush is blinding people to the patently obvious truth. Everything that Bush has said on done, with regard to things post 9/11, Clinton could have done, and the same Bush-bashers would be all for it. They really DO want to shoot the messenger.

In fact, much of what Bush has said, Clinton DID say. But, no matter, say the Bush-haters. All he wants to do is line the pockets of his croneys, push old people down stairs, and censor everyone. Some of the criticisms of Bush's social leanings are legit and I am all for debating them. But, only AFTER we stomp out terror. Otherwise, we won't be around to debate on those things.

Wake up! This is a stark choice we have in front of us. Fight and try not to die, or sit back and wait to be killed. The 'peace' activists act like the kids in elementary school who try and not provoke the bullies thinking they won't get hurt by them and maybe the bullies will 'like them' eventually. Maybe, they can be part of the 'in crowd'. Didn't those people learn that doesn't work? The bullies STILL hated you and would beat you up anyway, eventually. The bullies were only stopped when someone stood up to them and beat them to a pulp. They speak the language of violence, and that is all they understand....and RESPECT.

In the spirit of multiculturism, we need to speak to the terrorists in THEIR language, not ours...

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Anyone else bothered by this?

Seems not, as this should be big news...France (supposedly Western nation), joining forces in a military exercise with Communist China to essentially intimidate a democracy (Taiwan). Again, note this happens to be just before elections this weekend in Taiwan. Why is this not alarming?

Monday, March 15, 2004

Not sure I could have been any more wrong. So very sad...

Rather than rise up and want to make the murderers pay, it appears Spain has put its tail between its legs and walked away. Their electorate seems to have voted that appeasement is the way to go, and that they are sorry they went w/ the US and took a stand against evil. "Please forgive us" they might as well be saying.

Ironic the supposed non-link of Al-Qaeda and Iraq has made the Spainards think Al-Qaeda is paying them back for Iraq. "We had nothing to do with w/ Saddam and how dare you link us to him!" Was Saddam so evil that Al-Qaeda was mad at being associated with him? That is obviously the more likely scenario to the Spanish voters, than the crazy idea the US pushed that Iraq and Saddam WAS interconnected w/ terrorism.

Anyway, thanks to Little Green Footballs for the following link. You've got a couple days to make it to the next Religion of Peace conference in London.

Thursday, March 11, 2004

I am sure this will go down as simply "3/11" in Spanish history....

If the ETA really did this, I Have to suspect they will be soon renamed DOA. Can't imagine any problems for Aznar going in and flat out annihilating any of those terrorists. I know the more PC terms like "separatists" or "commandos" is preferred, but, I am not PC. ETA is claiming it was not them, who cares, they deserve to go down regardless. They and Al-Qaeda are in bed anyway. If you do the math, Spain w/ about 40M people and the US w/ about 300M, means we have 7.5x as many residents. Well, the current death toll of almost 200 x 7.5 is 1500! That is half the proportionate size of the WTC attack. That is huge. Would the response of the US been any different if only one of the towers had fallen and 'only' 1500 people were killed? No. Aznar has been given the green light now by any legitimate moral standard to slaughter those murderous scum. Get to it, Mr. Prime Minister. Best of luck.

What you WON'T see on mainstream news...

I don't mean to say we should sugarcoat what is going on in Iraq, and imply nothing could be done better. But, how about not making it seem like Iraq is worse off than it was under Saddam? This picture says it all. Who knows what it will look like in 20 years. Does anyone really think in 20 years Iraq will be worse off than it would have been w/ another 20 years of the Hussein family running it? Please...It took Dresden 50 years to rebuild after WWII, and that was only AFTER the Communists were out of power there, when Germany unified. The time horizon expectations of people amazes me. I suspect I will see leftie-pundits on TV soon complain that removing Saddam from power has been a failure since Gay Marriage is not yet allowed in Iraq.

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Next up, unborn babies get 1/32 of a vote!

This is a wacky idea. 16 year olds get 1/2 a vote and 14 year olds get 1/4 vote? Can you imagine the kinds of things they would vote for? Playstation2 to be the Official Language of California! MTV to be granted ownership of all media! Curfews by parents to be made unconstitutional! New minimum allowance wage. All kids must have a 'living allowance'. Forgetting how crazy this is, how would the sponsors plan to handle the part about where a parent has legal rights over their kids until they are 18? Can the parent REQUIRE the child to vote a certain way? Tha sounds like a real good plan. Glad the Democrats in California are using their combined brainpower to think of things like this. Hmm...can't figure out how we got into the budget problem we are in.....

Friday, March 05, 2004

Will GWB regret having lost Howard as a supporter?

Not sure, but, it can't be good for him.

Can we please just remember what is important? Remember that the picture above is of something that no longer exists, except in our memories? Remember that all that truly matters is protecting ourselves from those that want to outright wipe us off the face of the Earth? If we are all dead, does it matter if someone got their way on a social issue? How about making sure we get it our way on THE issue?

I am really nervous about this. He may gain some votes by this, but, I think the amount he may lose over this is far more than what is gained. He could lose ones that would have voted for him, and "gain" phantom ones that would have voted for him anyway. (even if they threatened to stay home). I am not saying GWB is actually supporting this and actively spending time hoping it happens. Actually, on that matter, I doubt he is. But, he certainly could stop it.

As Michael Harrison says in the article at the end: (which I, for the most part, agree with)

"George W. Bush should lie awake at night having lost Howard Stern's support and having Stern as a political enemy. Stern's clout, his influence over adults who vote, professionals, 30-something and 40-something professionals, is enormous."

I really hope this battle is not one that gets fought prior to November. Social issues are worthy of discussion, and in a different time (prior to 9/11/01), it is fine to 'go to the mat' about them when you feel strongly about something. But, not now. Now is the time to worry about something far more important, far more deadly, than any of the 'hot-button' issues. That includes, gay marriage, indecency on the airwaves, or even the damn budget deficit. I don't give a rat's ass about Martha Stewart, Enron, steroids in sports, Janet's boob, super-sized fries, how accurate Mel's the Passion is, or even whether Scott Peterson really killed Laci and Conner. At least not until I know we are going to stay the course on this War on Terror. All other issues are tied for second.

While I certainly lean toward the GOP on many/most issues, fighting terror is the trump card. If the Democrats were to put up someone who was going to be STRONGER (truly stonger) on terror, I would vote for them. As an example, no way would I consider voting for anyone other than Tony Blair if I was in the UK. I loved Margaret Thatcher, but, no one in the Tory party has shown any backbone on the terror issue. Sorry, end of discussion, Tony Blair needs to stay in charge there. I have gone completely 180 on my feelings for that man. He 'gets it' and knows when to put politics aside and do what is necessary. What will be written about in the history books 100 years from now as a turning point. Is taking Howard Stern off the air going to be cared about in 100 years? Of course not, so, why even be associated with it?

In a Machiavellian way, I could see hoping to get rid of Stern behind the scenes if he was spouting us rolling over on the War on Terror and getting the US approval and overall acting like, well, France. But, he is NOT. He rails against the threats our country has in front of us. He is a HUGE advocate of being tough on those that want to harm us. He supported Bush big time even though he would NOT be in favor of most of the social policies Bush might like. Howard knew saving our Country is more important and comes first.

Please, realize how dangerous allowing Bush to lose this election over something as trivial as these kinds of issues. This thing will serve only to play into the hands of those that spout about the dangers of the Patriot Act, the loss of privacy, the police state that we are becoming, etc. There just isn't anything good about it.

Could Colin Powell actually be wanting George Bush to lose, so, he can run against Hillary in 2008? So he is asking his son Michael to do the dirty work? OK, that's it, I need to stop. I am watching too much TV. Where is Jack Bauer when you need him?

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Trying to instill democracy is "cynical nonsense"?!?!

This one makes my blood boil. It starts out with a crazy statement saying the 'human race' would vote for John Kerry. It pines for the day where the whole World could vote for the US President. If they could, it follows way more than 50% would prefer to not have Bush. Well, that is an easy one, of course, count China for a good billion, add all the Islam-dominated countries and you probably have another billion. We know Europe would be another couple hundred million. Thankfully, they don't get to vote.

We in the Unites States have this apparently crazy notion you have to actually be a US Citizen to vote for the US President. Something about being able to choose your own leader I guess is what mucks it up for the author. He appears to feel everyone else should be able to pick OUR leader (in addition, I imagine, to picking their own).

But, the kicker is the part at the end saying if Iraq isn't perfect in the fall, that the:

"White House talk about installing democracy in the Middle East is exposed as cynical nonsense"

Is so ridiculous it boggles the mind. Now, maybe we won't succeed, but, is trying to instill democracy cynical? Does the author know the defnition of the word? It could turn out to be overly 'optimistic', but, it seems to me it would be cynical to have NOT tried it. Perhaps the author should have written "if Iraqi democracy fails, it will prove the Left was correct in being cynical".

Why do so so few feel that this is a struggle worth fighting for?

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

Such a quaint tradition....

I can't understand why some people have a problem accepting Islam.....Well, here's a thousand words worth.

This is the kind of Greenpeace guy I can support!...

Founder becomes traitor? Thanks to the Corner for the heads-up.

Greenpeace founder realizes the tree-huggers have become counter-productive:

"This is where the environmental movement is dangerous," he says. "Environmentalists are against golden rice, which could prevent half a million kids from going blind every year. Taking a daffodil gene and putting it into a rice plant: Is this Armageddon?"