June 10, 2009
WELL SAID, CASSY
I read this yesterday and can't stop thinking about it. Cassy Fiano did a great job of addressing the inanity.
Abducted Dutch Journalist: I was repeatedly raped by the Taliban, but it’s OK because they respected me
Posted by: Sarah at
07:37 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This reminds me a little of the situation with the kidnapped Italian journalist in Iraq. I remember reading an article written by an American journalist who was flying in on the same plane as her to Baghdad, and when he mentioned to her that he was going to be embedded with American soldiers, she was pretty uppity about it to him, saying that he was going to be totally biased (as if she weren't in her comment/response), and his reply was basically: well, perhaps, but it sure will be a darn sight safer...and she totally puh-puhed him....acting like she was going to be totally safe. She was woefully under-prepared for the realities.
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at June 10, 2009 12:09 PM (irIko)
2
I'm also reminded of the Northrup Grumman employees who were held by the FARC along with a bitchy woman who would rat on them when they had an escape planned and do other things to try and gain the favor of her kidnappers (at the expense of the other hostages).
Which reminds me - I need to read that book (Out of Captivity).
I'm seeing WAY too many cases of this. It makes me feel like vomiting.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 10, 2009 02:04 PM (NqbuI)
3
Hmmm…rape and respect…rape AND respect… I have to ponder that one for a bit.
OK, I’m done. WTF is wrong with this woman?
Something makes me doubt that if it was American soldiers who had done this instead she wouldn’t be so understanding or forgiving. Just a thought.
Yup, Islam is a religion of peace… a few rapes, some hangings, stonings, floggings, beheadings, flying planes into buildings…What’s not to love?
Posted by: tim at June 10, 2009 02:53 PM (nno0f)
4
*Snort* I am totally laughing at Tim's comments about if this had been American soldiers...SO TRUE.
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at June 10, 2009 03:51 PM (irIko)
5
When I first heard about this, I wasn't surprised at all. This woman is not the aberration she should be. No, she is one of many in the West who have a double standard when it comes to the Other.
As a member of this alleged Other, I am greatly offended at the notion that we can't help ourselves, that we are chemically driven animals unlike white liberals who think they're the only beings with free will ... the only 'real' people.
So when they say "everybody is angry with Wilders", they really mean
themselves, the only ones who matter to them. They look down upon the rest as nonpeople: either exotic animals from abroad or embarrassing domestic throwbacks.
They fear animals and will say anything to avoid being eaten. They share our instinct for survival, but they express it in absurd ways. They have one eye on their lives and another on the 'real' people.
What will everybody think? is the question that permeates their brains. Of course,
everybody excludes us and the Other. They have to say the small-r right thing if they want to maintain their place among the Western elite. If De Rijke started going Wilders, would she ever be able to work for
P Magazine again? The survival instinct intersects with Leftism once more. Say nonsense, stay employed. Truth, morality ... all these things are secondary, maybe even unnecessary to them.
Perhaps these elites are the real 'animals'. They've given up what distinguishes men from beasts. They want life ... preferably a luxurious life ... without the tools needed to sustain life. The ends without the means. The yucky details. Let the throwbacks take care of it. Defend their country, do their plumbing, and all that other ugly stuff.
The elites need us. But do we need them?
Posted by: Amritas at June 10, 2009 04:16 PM (+nV09)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 03, 2009
EXACTLY
(via
CG)
Jonah Goldberg:
Obama and the Democratic Party indisputably share the broad outlines of
her approach to racial issues. But rather than calmly defend [Sotomayor], they
hide behind the robes of the first Latina Supreme Court pick and shout
"bigot" at anyone who fails to throw rose petals at her feet.
And
that is pretty much what liberals always do when it comes to race. They
invite everyone to a big, open-minded conversation, but the moment
anyone disagrees with them, they shout "racist" and force the
dissenters to figuratively don dunce caps and renounce their
reactionary views. Then, when the furor dies down, they again offer up
grave lamentations about the lack of "honest dialogue." It's a mixture
of Kabuki dance and whack-a-mole.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
May 15, 2009
SCARY
Want to have a heart attack about what's in our future? Check out
McQ's charts (via
CG).
Posted by: Sarah at
07:50 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
I've been thinking of that quote quite a lot lately.
Posted by: airforcewife at May 15, 2009 09:57 AM (NqbuI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 12, 2009
LINKS
Via
Conservative Grapevine:
Melissa Clouthier's
Poor, Poor Put-Upon ModeratesThis is the problem right now. Being a Republican means nothing. Well,
according to the Left and the disgruntled moderates, it means
closed-mindedness. What is especially galling is that moderates
continue to attack what they say is their own side when it’s impossible
to differentiate them from the Left.
Fred Barnes'
Be the Party of No Improving the party's image is a worthy cause, but it isn't what
Republicans ought to be emphasizing right now. They have a more
important mission: to be the party of no. And not just a party that
bucks Obama and Democrats on easy issues like releasing Gitmo
terrorists in this country, but one committed to aggressive,
attention-grabbing opposition to the entire Obama agenda.
Mark Steyn's
ClimbConsider this cooing profile of Secretary Powell from Todd Purdum in the New York Times
back in 2002: “Mr. Powell’s approach to almost all issues — foreign or
domestic — is pragmatic and nonideological. He is internationalist,
multilateralist and moderate. He has supported abortion rights and
affirmative action.â€
So supporting “internationalism,†“multilateralism,†abortion, and racial quotas means you’re “moderate†and “nonideological� And anyone who feels differently is an extreme ideologue?
Posted by: Sarah at
07:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.
May 07, 2009
THEY DRINK OUR MILKSHAKE
Looks like I'm not the only one who's annoyed about
granting the Democrats their premises...
(Via
CG) Dr. Melissa Clouthier asks
who owns the Republican brand:
I’ve got bad news: The opposition owns the Republican brand. Oh yes,
they do. Democrats define Republicans and the Republicans accept the
definition by operating from their false premises.
How do I know Republicans are owned by the Left? Because the
Republican message is consistently negative and defensive: "I’m not
mean." "We don’t believe that." "I’m not extremist like them".
And by them, Republicans are defining themselves against the
press-Obama-grassroots caricature of Republicans. In doing so, the
Republicans with a national voice diminish their own party.
The Republicans will never be strong until they stop operating from a defensive position.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:48 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
1
*removing metal jewelry* ;-)
A-frickin'-MEN.
Posted by: kannie at May 07, 2009 02:45 PM (S6srO)
2
"I'm not mean" We also have to stop apologizing for being who we are. Do I agree with every single conservative policy? Hell. No. But the only way we can take back any political ground is by being a united voting block.
I grew up in the Reagan era, I used to think Republicans were mean people too. Now I am one. Technically anyway, I would rather call myself Republican than Conservative anyway. Less chance of starting an argument where I live.
Our whole political situation reminds me of that anti-Bush bumper sticker I used to see all the time: If you are not outraged you are not paying attention.
Posted by: Mare at May 08, 2009 05:31 AM (y9A8i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 30, 2009
April 28, 2009
LINK
AirForceWife expounds on one of her answers this weekend on her Milblog Conference panel:
My Explanation.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
April 22, 2009
LINK
Powerline:
The Occult Meaning of "Controversial"
Posted by: Sarah at
03:06 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.
1
While in law school, I developed an unhealthy relationship with Perez Hilton's blog. In the past two years, it has degenerated (who knew that was possible?!) to the point I don't even log on anymore. It went from being about celebrity dish to his personal take on how great he is and how stupid/bigoted/whatever everyone else is. He can keep it. As for Miss CA, she did the best she could with what was handed her and that's that. Of course, if it weren't for the media's megaphone on this story, I would have never known it b/c I probably haven't watched a beauty pageant since the early 80's.
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 22, 2009 03:36 AM (jXFDI)
2
I had known there was some "controversial" response to a question, but had thought it was along the lines of "people need maps and stuff" which was last year's beauty pageant viral. It's interesting, because I belong to that camp of people who doesn't think the government should be telling someone who they can marry or not, to paraphrase Cheney: equal rights means equal rights for everyone. However, I also think that the states have the right to choose whatever they want, and if Californians feel that's not something they support...so be it. And it makes me fume, because she was treated in such a way for expressing her personal opinion...which apparently isn't really popular in pageant circles...go figure.
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 22, 2009 05:22 AM (irIko)
3
She should have said, "Well I think it's great that Americans can choose one or the other. A man should be able to choose to marry a woman, or a man. A woman should be able to choose to marry a man, or a woman, or two men, or two women. Or three women should be able to marry each other, or three men. Or three dogs, as long as the three dogs agree, of course. Or three children. But then they should be put in jail, and when they get out they should wear dog collars, and put on a leash."
Posted by: Perez Hilton at April 22, 2009 05:34 AM (oDS9E)
4
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.
Posted by: buy phentermine adipex at July 22, 2009 08:28 AM (2gHxr)
5
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.
Posted by: internetresults adipex at July 31, 2009 03:12 PM (K3q1u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 20, 2009
WELL SAID
Here's a
nice, simple post about the Tea Parties and why they oughtn't be ridiculed.
Funny, I don't remember the media talking heads ridiculing the anti-war protests.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:37 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: wifeunit at April 20, 2009 07:00 AM (t5K2U)
2
Comment7,
Kinky Gay Fetish Porn, yZ3di,
Blonde, 6A9Qm,
Hot Black Porn Action, iBA4Z,
Hardcore, YrfzL,
Gay, VZi9G,
Free Nude Brunettes Here, CaADtm.
Posted by: Blonde at October 14, 2009 02:44 PM (M39IH)
Posted by: qqwjvqkpxl at November 07, 2009 10:41 AM (CZrX+)
Posted by: tvxgqsn at November 11, 2009 10:44 AM (JQSlG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 17, 2009
LINK
Yummy new
Krauthammer: "Obama has the magic to make words mean almost anything. Numbers are more resistant to his charms."
Posted by: Sarah at
02:02 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You want yummy?
Please tell me you saw him tonight on Special Report. He was wearing a black turtleneck and gray blazer...soooo very yummy! I heart him. I want to take him to dinner. And then put him in my pocket and bring him home and make him talk to me.
Posted by: Guard Wife at April 17, 2009 06:42 PM (Bfea2)
2
GW -- I heard Rush Limbaugh say the other day that if he could choose any brain on the planet to have besides his own, he'd choose to have Krauthammer's brain.
Posted by: Sarah at April 18, 2009 03:36 AM (TWet1)
3
Great. Now i can say thank you!
Posted by: tramadol hcl-acetaminophen par at July 22, 2009 05:46 PM (ryvBO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SHUT UP AND LISTEN
A cool quote via an article by
Instapundit:
When Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele asked to speak at the Chicago tea party, his request was politely refused by the organizers: "With regards to stage time, we respectfully must inform Chairman Steele that RNC officials are welcome to participate in the rally itself, but we prefer to limit stage time to those who are not elected officials, both in Government as well as political parties. This is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around."
Posted by: Sarah at
01:45 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
April 16, 2009
April 14, 2009
April 13, 2009
LINKS
Surviving in a post-American world
ObamaÂ’s Potemkin Military Reception=No Scandal; Troops Plan Who Will Take What Questions From Bush=Huge Scandal
(via Boxenhorn and Amritas, respectively)
My husband left this morning for a week of training (marksmanship camp...no fair!) and my mother leaves Wednesday. I will be back online like my normal self after that.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:11 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I doubt Obama's reception is the first one I would consider 'staged'. One
commenter wrote,
Since he is their CIC, I don’t think the Armed Forces want any bad PR and am not surprised if the military had a hand in screening soldiers. And to be “fair” to President Obama, I’ve heard it said that a similar screening process happened during President Bush’s troop visit(s). I can’t substantiate it, but it came from a blue star mom whose son told her (they are politically to the left, but I don’t really have reason to doubt her on it). Why risk a politically embarrassing “shoe moment” if you can take measures to avoid it? These are politicians, after all, and I doubt this is anything unique in the annals of American politics.
As John Lennon wrote, "Nothing is real" ... especially on TV.
Many watching the chat with Bush would have assumed the whole thing was spontaneous without any divvying up of the questions behind the scenes. I think the distinction between the two involves a matter of degree. Where would the readers of this site draw the line?
What offends me most about the Obama reception is the allegation of handOuts - cameras given to those who said they voted for Obama. Did any Bush reception have such gifts reserved for W-supporters?
Posted by: Amritas at April 13, 2009 12:17 PM (+nV09)
2
Amritas -- I don't really care if they stage the things, because that commenter is right that the Pres wants to avoid a 'shoe moment' at all costs, but my beef is with the media's reporting of the events. Remember the huge dustup that George Bush held up a fake turkey? He's a huge faker! Only it was a real turkey...a correction which never got made as forcefully. Obama stages his trip to the troops, and the reporters eat it up. Bush gives a list of questions to his group ahead of time, and he's forcefeeding the troops canned answers to make himself look good. THAT's the part I have a problem with.
Posted by: Sarah at April 14, 2009 06:35 AM (TWet1)
3
Sarah,
What do you think the media should have reported in all three cases? Would it be OK if the media pointed out all these things are staged? That's what I'd want the media to do. I want to know what is and isn't real.
Suppose you were a reporter and your sources told you the turkey was fake. Would you report that? What if it was Obama holding up the allegedly fake turkey? I bet the Rightosphere would behave exactly the way the lamestream media did when the turkey turned out to be real.
I take media bias as a given, so I focus on the staging itself instead of the reporters hiding or distorting it. How much staging is too much?
I have no interest in dog and pony shows. This is why I almost never watch TV 'news'. I hate propaganda.
Posted by: Amritas at April 14, 2009 11:24 AM (+nV09)
4
I guess it depends on the definition of "staged." Picking out people who won't throw a shoe at you is one thing; handing them all cameras is another, I think.
I bet you can guess
how I feel about wanting to know the questions ahead of time! I don't think it's out of line to set up a panel of soldiers and then let them know what questions might be coming. Or to have them decide "SGT A is most knowledgeable about X, so he should answer that, and SGT B should answer Y" etc.
If Bush OR Obama had held up a fake turkey and *pretended* to serve the soldiers, and it got reported as real, that would be bogus. (Like the Sean Penn photos of him "rescuing people" from Katrina...with a cameraman in his boat.) But in the Bush case, it was a real turkey and he really did serve the soldiers. That story got all twisted around and made him look bad. But Obama picks out the people who love him, gives them all cameras, and then goes "Gosh, they all love me!" And the reporters report, "Gosh, they all love him." Ugh.
Posted by: Sarah at April 14, 2009 02:14 PM (TWet1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 02, 2009
ALL I HAVE TIME FOR TODAY IS A LINK
Beth's Contradictory Brain:
Getting It Out
Posted by: Sarah at
06:55 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Beth at April 02, 2009 07:48 AM (qkeSl)
2
Wow. Never thought I'd get directed to a gay military couple's website. Out, at least on the web. Odd. It takes a very big risk with DADT.
I'm not passing any judgment, but wow. Risky. Especially since a brief perusal of the page gave me the name of her "spouse", the fact that she's going to BOLC with a report date of this week, she's part Chinese, born on 25 March, and branched MI. That could get narrowed down REALLY fast.
Posted by: Chuck at April 02, 2009 10:33 AM (WyO71)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 01, 2009
LINKS
An inspired line from
Mark Steyn:
You can live as free men, with all the rights and responsibilities and vicissitudes of fate that that entails. Or you can watch your society decay and die before your eyes — as England, once the crucible of freedom, dies a little with every day.
And an awesome article about my favorite.
In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”
You know, every time I swoon over Netanyahu, I think about the funny exchange on South Park when Cartman tries to get the girls to scream and squeal over his new boy band:
CARTMAN: Let's go crazier than that! I mean, you have to act like it's freakin' Leonardo Di Caprio!
BEBE: We wouldn't give a rat's ass if Leonardo Di Caprio came walking past us.
THE OTHER GIRLS: Yeah.
CARTMAN: Fine! Who would you go crazy for?
THE GIRLS: ...Matt Lauer.
Heh.
[Both via Boxenhorn]
Posted by: Sarah at
02:13 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Paul Reynaud--who became Prime Minister of France just prior to the German invasion--said in 1940:
"People think Hitler is like Kaiser Wilhelm. The old gentleman only wanted to take Alsace-Lorraine from us. But Hitler is Genghis Khan."
In 2006, Ralph Peters--the writer and former army intelligence officer--said:
"One of the most consistently disheartening experiences an adult can have today is to listen to the endless attempts by our intellectuals and intelligence professionals to explain religious terrorism in clinical terms, assigning rational motives to men who have moved irrevocably beyond reason. We suffer under layers of intellectual asymmetries that hinder us from an intuititive recognition of our enemies."
See my post
the face of the enemy.
Posted by: david foster at April 01, 2009 02:30 PM (ke+yX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 22, 2009
AIG
Two Powerline posts about AIG,
one that provides even more details about the bonuses, making it obvious that they shouldn't be taken away, and
the other that lays out some hypotheticals using abortion and homosexuality to show how unconstitutional the tax is. (via Amritas)
Posted by: Sarah at
04:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
March 15, 2009
March 13, 2009
86kb generated in CPU 0.0297, elapsed 0.1127 seconds.
57 queries taking 0.097 seconds, 239 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
