Well boys and girls, it looks like we found us some gen-u-ine Iranians in Iraq, and they're not there to have a bake sale, that's for damn sure. The Bush Administration refers to them as "senior military officials".
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=b28c8833301f969e&hp=&ex=1167022800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Now I'm trying to be objective about this. I have a hard time understanding why Iranians would want to go to Iraq and help with the insurgency considering the vicious attacks on Iran perpetrated by "Sodom" Hussein in the 80's.
The news reports were not too terribly specific as to the details behind the capture and what evidence they had to back up their claims that these Iranians were there to aid in the insurgent attacks. Some people even claim that this was a publicity stunt in order to draw support for the US against Iran contingent.
It is somewhat ironic, assuming the captured Iranians are actually senior military officials that were indeed there for less than honorable reasons, that later that week the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, said he hoped Saddam's hanging would bring stability to Iraq. Rrrrrright. You know, for a brief second, I wondered why Iran didn't send any troops to help with the Iraqi conflict. After all, Saddam was responsible for countless Iranian deaths. But then I realized, it's all a ploy. A clever ruse, if you would. Iran, much like many Democrats nowadays, are hell bent on us failing in Iraq. Regardless of their history with Saddam and Iraq, they still have priorities, and those priorities consist of a few things. Making the Americans look like Warlords, and, well, there was one more. What was it...? Oh yeah, wiping Israel off the face of the map. That's a whole new can of worms
Although, I don't know of alot of Republicans who have a fix for this issue either. But seriously, do we really want politicians making military decisions(based on their vast military strategical training)? I don't.
Lets get some concrete proof that these guys were aiding the insurgency in Iraq and do something about it.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Justice, served cold.
This just in, Saddam must be hanged within the next 30 days. A generous death considering the crime he's to be executed for; ordering the slaughter of 148 Shiites after a botched assassination attempt. He also has another trial pending for January over the chemical attack on Kurds in North Iraq. Hundreds died there...some just wish they did. I guess the Iraqis are trying to save money on the second trial and, as they say, "Get Er Done".
I was never quite so hot on the idea of electing a President in Iraq who's last name contained the word "Taliban". He just added an 'i'. Today I have been proven wrong. Although he didnt seem to directly effect the trial and he hasn't been a supporter of executions, he has, in the past, given authority to sign off on them to his vice president. But, even if the President and the Vice Presidents didn't approve it, the court has vowed to carry out the execution "by the power of the law". F$%k yeah.
Imagine the murders and executions he ordered that we don't know about. He's lucky. He was given the thing his people most deserved, a relatively fair trial...oh yeah, and not to be shot with chemical weapons.
Saddams gulags alone have seen an estimated 200,000 "dissappear". The NY Times said estimates of a million Iraqi's killed during Saddam's reign "may not be far from the mark." Iraq's population is roughly 22 million, give or take 1 or 2 people that got drunk and just sort of wandered off. Anyways, my point is, he killed 5% of the ENTIRE population of Iraq! It's about time a heaping helping of justice was served.
Now I'm going to watch the news for the next few days, and if I see a bunch of panty waisted liberals crying about how horrible it is to be hung, well, they wouldn't know the first thing about being hung. I mean that in a few ways, which I'm sure you can guess.
Let the Iraqis handle their business and move on with their lives.
I was never quite so hot on the idea of electing a President in Iraq who's last name contained the word "Taliban". He just added an 'i'. Today I have been proven wrong. Although he didnt seem to directly effect the trial and he hasn't been a supporter of executions, he has, in the past, given authority to sign off on them to his vice president. But, even if the President and the Vice Presidents didn't approve it, the court has vowed to carry out the execution "by the power of the law". F$%k yeah.
Imagine the murders and executions he ordered that we don't know about. He's lucky. He was given the thing his people most deserved, a relatively fair trial...oh yeah, and not to be shot with chemical weapons.
Saddams gulags alone have seen an estimated 200,000 "dissappear". The NY Times said estimates of a million Iraqi's killed during Saddam's reign "may not be far from the mark." Iraq's population is roughly 22 million, give or take 1 or 2 people that got drunk and just sort of wandered off. Anyways, my point is, he killed 5% of the ENTIRE population of Iraq! It's about time a heaping helping of justice was served.
Now I'm going to watch the news for the next few days, and if I see a bunch of panty waisted liberals crying about how horrible it is to be hung, well, they wouldn't know the first thing about being hung. I mean that in a few ways, which I'm sure you can guess.
Let the Iraqis handle their business and move on with their lives.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Not-so Silent Spring
Fear not, for I am back!
Now we're going to talk about DDT. Now when I say we, I really mean "Me". I do, however, enjoy hearing how retarded you think I am, so feel free to comment. DDT is the worlds first, and best known organic pesticide. It was created in an effort to combat mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases.
In the mid-50's the WHO(World Health Organization) started a campaign to eradicate malaria. Barring some remote locations, this program was a huge success worldwide. Thanks to DDT, the mortality rates for malaria dropped almost 85%. However, efforts to completely rid the world of malaria morphed into a desire to merely control and treat the disease.
In the late 50's-early 60's, doubts began to arise as to the environmental effects of this pesticide. Most people in opposition to the use of DDT claim some maternal connection with a few birds that might not like the smell of the chemical. According to research from the International Development Research Center, malaria kills roughly 8000 Brazilians yearly. With that in mind, do we really value the life of a few birds over 8000 people a year? That's just one country out of the entire world. And besides, they invented the Brazilian Bikini Wax! What guy isn't happy about that? I digress. Just to throw in another stat for ya, WHO claims over 1 million deaths per year from malaria.
A writer named Rachel Carson hears some grumblings about DDT and is urged to write a book about it. And she does. The book toys with the idea of the bird population being drastically reduced to nigh extinction(because of DDT), and chaos ensues. Oh yeah, and it gives people cancer, too.
Evidently, contrary to what everyone thinks, some Democrats read books(besides Mien Kampf by the ever so misunderstood Hitler), and they happened to read this one. After reading the book, somehow, fiction morphed into fact and they took up the cause of getting this horrible doomsday chemical banned. So a group was started called "EDF" or the Environmental Defense Fund, whose first goal was to get DDT banned. They were successful.
Now, more than 40 years after "Silent Spring", the world has come to it's senses. Evidently we realized a few robins dying every once and a while from eating a chunk of DDT wasn't worth MILLIONS of people dying all around the world every year. I wonder how they came to that conclusion?
I know this post wasn't as funny as Barak Obama's ears, but who can compete with them? They're like satellites on the side of his head. I wonder if he can hear in Dolby Digital 5.0 surround sound...
Now we're going to talk about DDT. Now when I say we, I really mean "Me". I do, however, enjoy hearing how retarded you think I am, so feel free to comment. DDT is the worlds first, and best known organic pesticide. It was created in an effort to combat mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases.
In the mid-50's the WHO(World Health Organization) started a campaign to eradicate malaria. Barring some remote locations, this program was a huge success worldwide. Thanks to DDT, the mortality rates for malaria dropped almost 85%. However, efforts to completely rid the world of malaria morphed into a desire to merely control and treat the disease.
In the late 50's-early 60's, doubts began to arise as to the environmental effects of this pesticide. Most people in opposition to the use of DDT claim some maternal connection with a few birds that might not like the smell of the chemical. According to research from the International Development Research Center, malaria kills roughly 8000 Brazilians yearly. With that in mind, do we really value the life of a few birds over 8000 people a year? That's just one country out of the entire world. And besides, they invented the Brazilian Bikini Wax! What guy isn't happy about that? I digress. Just to throw in another stat for ya, WHO claims over 1 million deaths per year from malaria.
A writer named Rachel Carson hears some grumblings about DDT and is urged to write a book about it. And she does. The book toys with the idea of the bird population being drastically reduced to nigh extinction(because of DDT), and chaos ensues. Oh yeah, and it gives people cancer, too.
Evidently, contrary to what everyone thinks, some Democrats read books(besides Mien Kampf by the ever so misunderstood Hitler), and they happened to read this one. After reading the book, somehow, fiction morphed into fact and they took up the cause of getting this horrible doomsday chemical banned. So a group was started called "EDF" or the Environmental Defense Fund, whose first goal was to get DDT banned. They were successful.
Now, more than 40 years after "Silent Spring", the world has come to it's senses. Evidently we realized a few robins dying every once and a while from eating a chunk of DDT wasn't worth MILLIONS of people dying all around the world every year. I wonder how they came to that conclusion?
I know this post wasn't as funny as Barak Obama's ears, but who can compete with them? They're like satellites on the side of his head. I wonder if he can hear in Dolby Digital 5.0 surround sound...
Rosie Palms
Clucking Chickens and The View. What do they have in common? We'll tell you, after this...
Every once in a while, every hundred years or so, there are some people who make us toy with the idea of revoking freedom of speech on a case-by-case basis. Rosie? You're one of them.
The View has made a habit out of making retarded comments. Like this one, from a week or so ago, pertaining to Sen. Tim Johnson's medical issues. Co-Host Joy Behar asked, "Is there such a thing as a man made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him?" Co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck, wife of the NFL quarterback and a conservative, replies "Let me ask you something. Why is everything coming from the liberal perspective a consipiracy?"
Behar then said "I know what this--that party is capable of."
I guess that's why Dick Cheney always insisted on buying Sen. Johnson the Quadruple Meat Triple Cheese w/Double bacon burger. Or maybe she's referring to the ever-so elusive "Stroke Factory" run by conservatives and crazy gun toting Republicans.
I bring this up because of the recent feud between Rosie and Donald Trump. She claimed that he's filed bancruptcy 3 times. She said he had no right to pass judgement on the drunken Miss America. First off, he hasn't claimed bancruptcy. Someone once said that facts are biased, they were joking Rosie. Second, he OWNS the Miss America competition/company. It's his. If he wants to set certain standards for the title holders, it is his right. It is a voluntary contest and he gets to set the rules. Kind of like you when you had your magazine. Although, it's probably not the best comparison considering your magazine got shut down after stiff competition from Under-Water Basket Weavers of the World(UWBWW) Monthly, and Trump's Miss America Pageant is still going strong.
My prediction? The View is doomed unless they get rid of Rosie. Don't get me wrong, I don't watch the show. I can't stand the show. With that being said, I don't see it lasting longer than one more year with her flapping her cornhole. And Rosie? I hope The View is paying you alot, because I can assure you if you don't shut up fast, Trump is going to sue you. Not that he'll get much more than a few pairs of Doc Martins and a couple of flannel shirts, but it's the principle of the thing. Don't know what principles are? No Rosie, not the people in school who kept suspending you because you were beating up all the guys. Try http://www.dictionary.com/.
Every once in a while, every hundred years or so, there are some people who make us toy with the idea of revoking freedom of speech on a case-by-case basis. Rosie? You're one of them.
The View has made a habit out of making retarded comments. Like this one, from a week or so ago, pertaining to Sen. Tim Johnson's medical issues. Co-Host Joy Behar asked, "Is there such a thing as a man made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him?" Co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck, wife of the NFL quarterback and a conservative, replies "Let me ask you something. Why is everything coming from the liberal perspective a consipiracy?"
Behar then said "I know what this--that party is capable of."
I guess that's why Dick Cheney always insisted on buying Sen. Johnson the Quadruple Meat Triple Cheese w/Double bacon burger. Or maybe she's referring to the ever-so elusive "Stroke Factory" run by conservatives and crazy gun toting Republicans.
I bring this up because of the recent feud between Rosie and Donald Trump. She claimed that he's filed bancruptcy 3 times. She said he had no right to pass judgement on the drunken Miss America. First off, he hasn't claimed bancruptcy. Someone once said that facts are biased, they were joking Rosie. Second, he OWNS the Miss America competition/company. It's his. If he wants to set certain standards for the title holders, it is his right. It is a voluntary contest and he gets to set the rules. Kind of like you when you had your magazine. Although, it's probably not the best comparison considering your magazine got shut down after stiff competition from Under-Water Basket Weavers of the World(UWBWW) Monthly, and Trump's Miss America Pageant is still going strong.
My prediction? The View is doomed unless they get rid of Rosie. Don't get me wrong, I don't watch the show. I can't stand the show. With that being said, I don't see it lasting longer than one more year with her flapping her cornhole. And Rosie? I hope The View is paying you alot, because I can assure you if you don't shut up fast, Trump is going to sue you. Not that he'll get much more than a few pairs of Doc Martins and a couple of flannel shirts, but it's the principle of the thing. Don't know what principles are? No Rosie, not the people in school who kept suspending you because you were beating up all the guys. Try http://www.dictionary.com/.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
To Eat, Or Not To Eat...
Well, I'm back. But then again, this is my blog. So it would make sense that I would be back. The question is, "Why are YOU back?" I'll tell you why. Because you are riveted at the thought of my next...thought. Brace yourselves...
Recently my sister said that she thought hot chicks on TV are causing more girls to become bulimic or anorexic(SP?).
To that I say POPPYCOCK! Kind of.
When I'm watching TV and I see that damn Bow Flex commercial come on, I do exactly what every other normal adult male does. I think "Yeah, I'm gonna get one of those and get ripped, then I'll get all the girls." When the next commercial is over I'm thinking "Yeah, I'll get a bunch of double cheeseburgers, then I'll get all the girls." You know what? I don't know anyone who bought the bow flex. I definitely don't know of anyone who has all the girls, except for Heidi Fleiss. She's got most of them.
Walk with me a moment to another dimension... A dimension where TV stars think it's hot to smear jello all over themselves. Does that mean women all over the world would smear jello on themselves to be hot? I don't think so. Although, that would be awesome. But seriously, common sense has to take over at some point.
When do we stop pointing the finger at others and take a look in the mirror for the source of the problem? With anything in life, at some point, we are expected to be able to discern good from bad.
Throwing up? Bad. Doing it 3 times a day? Really bad. Doing it because the TV told you to? Priceless.
Use your brains people. If you want to be gain/lose weight, try regular exercise. Maybe eat healthy? Either way, do it for yourselves, and do it right.
The TV doesn't tell us what to do. Besides, if the TV told us what to do, what would women do all day long?
Alright, I'm done.
Recently my sister said that she thought hot chicks on TV are causing more girls to become bulimic or anorexic(SP?).
To that I say POPPYCOCK! Kind of.
When I'm watching TV and I see that damn Bow Flex commercial come on, I do exactly what every other normal adult male does. I think "Yeah, I'm gonna get one of those and get ripped, then I'll get all the girls." When the next commercial is over I'm thinking "Yeah, I'll get a bunch of double cheeseburgers, then I'll get all the girls." You know what? I don't know anyone who bought the bow flex. I definitely don't know of anyone who has all the girls, except for Heidi Fleiss. She's got most of them.
Walk with me a moment to another dimension... A dimension where TV stars think it's hot to smear jello all over themselves. Does that mean women all over the world would smear jello on themselves to be hot? I don't think so. Although, that would be awesome. But seriously, common sense has to take over at some point.
When do we stop pointing the finger at others and take a look in the mirror for the source of the problem? With anything in life, at some point, we are expected to be able to discern good from bad.
Throwing up? Bad. Doing it 3 times a day? Really bad. Doing it because the TV told you to? Priceless.
Use your brains people. If you want to be gain/lose weight, try regular exercise. Maybe eat healthy? Either way, do it for yourselves, and do it right.
The TV doesn't tell us what to do. Besides, if the TV told us what to do, what would women do all day long?
Alright, I'm done.
Wow.
One word. Wow.
Let me tell you a little story. This story is about a place where everyone does whatever they want. Everyone has their own ideas and everyone is right in their own special/retarded way. You could call it moral relativism. I do.
I'm going somewhere with this, I promise. The definition of moral relativism reads "the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. "
No longer is science the answer. Facts are flexible based on a number of factors. What's right for some may not be right for others. I'm going to take relativism one step further. The Law of Non-Contradiction. Aristotle states "One cannot say of something that it is and it is not in the same respect and at the same time. " In other words, an apple cannot be an apple AND an orange in the same time, in the same situation. Without this rule, much of what we accept as common sense can be thrown out the window. Okay, as I said, going somewhere.
New York City has put forth a proposal to allow people change their sex, legally, without any sort of operation. Yep, that's right. John wants to become Jane, so he goes to his doctor. His doctor laughs a bit, then says "Sure, why not." He has to assume the identity of Jane for 2 years and then it can be official.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/nyregion/07gender.html?ex=1320555600&en=2586a6bc89530f49&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
You smell what I'm stepping in? Anatomy? What's that? Oh it's just a bunch of silly stories about people's bodies.
So questions where obviously raised. Could I "become a woman" and then go into the womens locker room?
"What are you doing in here?"
"Don't worry ladies, I'm with you. I'm a woman!"
"Well if you're a woman, what's that--"
"Don't mind that...it's nothing."
Are you guys serious? How many people in New York City really want to change gender, but without the surgery? Seriously. How many people in New York City don't have enough food to eat? One is more important than the other, and New Yorkers have voiced their opinions as the proposal seems to have been withdrawn, for now.
I must end it here, as it is 3:30 in the morning, and my employer is tired of me snoring at work. Here is a quote that seems to fit this little rant tonight/this morning.
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.” Avicenna, Medieval Philosopher
Let me tell you a little story. This story is about a place where everyone does whatever they want. Everyone has their own ideas and everyone is right in their own special/retarded way. You could call it moral relativism. I do.
I'm going somewhere with this, I promise. The definition of moral relativism reads "the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. "
No longer is science the answer. Facts are flexible based on a number of factors. What's right for some may not be right for others. I'm going to take relativism one step further. The Law of Non-Contradiction. Aristotle states "One cannot say of something that it is and it is not in the same respect and at the same time. " In other words, an apple cannot be an apple AND an orange in the same time, in the same situation. Without this rule, much of what we accept as common sense can be thrown out the window. Okay, as I said, going somewhere.
New York City has put forth a proposal to allow people change their sex, legally, without any sort of operation. Yep, that's right. John wants to become Jane, so he goes to his doctor. His doctor laughs a bit, then says "Sure, why not." He has to assume the identity of Jane for 2 years and then it can be official.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/nyregion/07gender.html?ex=1320555600&en=2586a6bc89530f49&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
You smell what I'm stepping in? Anatomy? What's that? Oh it's just a bunch of silly stories about people's bodies.
So questions where obviously raised. Could I "become a woman" and then go into the womens locker room?
"What are you doing in here?"
"Don't worry ladies, I'm with you. I'm a woman!"
"Well if you're a woman, what's that--"
"Don't mind that...it's nothing."
Are you guys serious? How many people in New York City really want to change gender, but without the surgery? Seriously. How many people in New York City don't have enough food to eat? One is more important than the other, and New Yorkers have voiced their opinions as the proposal seems to have been withdrawn, for now.
I must end it here, as it is 3:30 in the morning, and my employer is tired of me snoring at work. Here is a quote that seems to fit this little rant tonight/this morning.
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.” Avicenna, Medieval Philosopher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
