I receive several mass mailings from our GOP leaders every week, begging for more of my hard-earned money. Usually, I douse the letter in gasoline, set fire to it and dance around in my underwear screaming "How you like me now, beeyotch?!". However, Sacred Cow Burgers has convinced me that I should actually donate something, and that something is this:

Link via Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, it's a bit over the top, especially since I've never served(my father did though; does that count?). Anyway, see Captain Ed, Frank J. and Derek for more info.

I support the war on terror. Could some things have been done better? Sure. Then again, hindsight is always 20-20.

And here's the logo, which will be proudly displayed in the sidebar as soon as I can update my template:

more...

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Sometimes, Mike is good. Other times, he's damned good. Excerpt:

f you want our national defense to be supervised by such people, vote Democrat. I know lots of people — Bill Quick and Al Maviva, two people whose opinions I deeply respect and almost always agree with, come immediately to mind, but there are others — who say they’re done with the Republicans. I sympathize greatly; I’m pretty pissed at them myself. Al and I have tossed some e-mails back and forth about all this, and I simply can’t say he’s wrong; I share his frustration, and I think it’s more than clear that the Repubs do indeed need a damned sharp reminder of what they’re supposed to be all about.

But every time IÂ’m just about to the point of joining Al and Bill and tossing off a long goodbye-and-good-riddance letter to the Repubs here, I run across something like this. And the marrow-freezing thought of the Dems running our foreign-policy and national-security strategies stops me dead in my tracks.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

The fact that President Bush, among others, has publicly called for an investigation into the high price of gas pisses me off, because he should know better. Liberals are even more hypocritical on this issue, as Jonah so clearly illustrates:

We are horribly dependent on foreign oil. But we shouldn't develop domestic oil or boost our refining capacity. We need a gas tax to wean Americans from foreign oil, but high gas prices are an outrage. We need alternative forms of energy, but we shouldn't use nuclear power. We need renewable, sustainable energy, unless it spoils the view of rich liberal icons.

Got it?

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Malkin founds "the world's first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network", which goes by the name Hot Air. Bryan Preston and the Maker of Worlds are on board as well. Their purpose? I'll let Michelle give you the scoop:

I formed Hot Air Network, LLC, to bring ideological diversity—because we all love diversity–to the videoblogging world. And because it looked like a lot of fun. Two of the most cutting-edge bloggers on the Right have joined me in my cyberquest: video editing whiz Bryan Preston and the almighty Allah Pundit. Allah likes to think of us as a little Internet garage band. Only we’re playing in three separate home offices and a basement. But you get the idea.

And now my already extensive blogroll expands a wee bit more. Very, very cool.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, well, well. I've received various responses to one of my posts that have, on occasion, been a tad out there. However, I feel that I've finally arrived: I just got my first raving, anti-Semitic, frothing moonbat response. Not to be confused with non-anti-Semitic frothing moonbat. Anyway, I've adjusted the comments to reflect what he/she really meant to say. However, I couldn't resist the temptation to reveal what this oozing pustule on the ass of humanity had to say. Let's examine the comment line by stark raving batshit crazy line:

The comment justifying the stance of Israel is ridiculous. Israelis have become biggest destroyers of humanity..they are repeating Nazis have done to them

What was the comment to which this brain donor referred? Perhaps this one:

1) Israel peacefully coexists with its frothing mad neighbors

2) Said neighbors kill a buttload of Israelis

3) Israel kills the people responsible

4) The world condemns Israel's action as not helping the peace process

5) Repeat ad nauseum

Why yes, I can how the idea that a country that only wants peace might actually take issue with the murder of its citizens could make you mad. And the Nazi reference just gives the whole construct some panache. But let's continue with our peace lover:

When i read about the fucking cruelty which they show to palestinians today, i feel that Nazis should have burned all of them alive at that time itself, so that the world would have been better.

Wow. I wonder if this most civilized of commenters hies from Europe, considering that that is the prevailing opinion over there. I'm certain that if a nuke wiped out Israel, a few of our self-styled betters would wipe a tear from their cheeks before continuing their slide into the abtss. Most, though, would probably celebrate for weeks on end because "that shitty little country" would no longer bother their collective consciences which, of course, are underdeveloped.

Here's an FYI to any other people who feel tempted to post anti-Semitic claptrap on this my blog: don't. I reserve the right to censor you, ban you, fuck with your comment in general. I do not tolerate your kind here. Now go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 07:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

I read with disgust the insane rantings on idiotic moonbats on Michell Malkin's site. However, Frank J. has started a list of blogs that are proud to display the following banner:

I am a proud supporter of Michelle Malkin's right to be a woman and a minority.
Feel free to join in.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's the title of the article: U.S.: Israel Has Right to Defend Itself

And here is some of the text:

Israel has a right to defend itself but should consider the effect on peace prospects as it weighs a response to a deadly suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, the State Department said Tuesday.

Peace prospects? PEACE PROSPECTS?! Are you fucking kidding me? The only peace that Hamas wants is the kind that they'll get when all of those icky Jews are dead. Well excuse me for thinking that Israel should make a new parking lot where the current Palestinian headquarters are located.

It's like Groundhog Day, only without the Andie McDowell sex at the end:

1) Israel peacefully coexists with its frothing mad neighbors

2) Said neighbors kill a buttload of Israelis

3) Israel kills the people responsible

4) The world condemns Israel's action as not helping the peace process

5) Repeat ad nauseum

The freaks out there depend on the fact that the Israelis are civilized people. THere are many times that I wish they were a little less civilized and that they would fucking wipe one of their enemies off the map. Then again, I'm a dick, so your mileage may vary.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

And it's the entire country of England. Excerpt:

When asked about his play on the last day at Augusta, Woods replied: "I putted atrociously today. Once I got on the greens, I was a spaz."

In several countries, "spaz" is an offensive term for people affected with spastic paralysis, a form of cerebral palsy.

Britain-based disability organization Scope, formerly The Spastics Society, said of Woods's comments: "Once again, Tiger Woods demonstrates that we are two nations divided by a common language. "

I submit that Scope is populated by wool-headed wankers whose sole purpose in life is to search for every possible insult-

"Look, he said 'Spaz'!"

"Uh, that was a grunt in Swahili that means 'my penis is a dripping pustule'".

"He insulted me. Make him apologize!!!!"

- that will allow them to run around like monkeys in a zoo, screeching at the top of their lungs and flinging poo at people passing by. Screech away, my little dipshits.

Update: The Emperor puts it a little more succinctly:

Shut up. Just shut. the. fuck. UP!

If the best thing you dickheaded retards can find to occupy your time with is running around demanding apologies because someone, somewhere, might possibly have gotten offended, then weÂ’d appreciate it very much if youÂ’d just get in your cars, run a hose from the exhaust through a window and start playing with the gas pedal.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm giving you the finger, you self-important sphincter muscles. I know that you want an unrestricted flood of people pouring into this country, illegal or not. Come to think of it, you'd probably like to change the term "illegal alien" to "my future gardner". You're certainly entitled to share your opinion as much as you want. But you might want to drop the condescending tone when you're lecturing all the rest of brain-dead yokels, because some of us might be disinclined to pay any attention to you. Just an FYI, in case you care, which you obviously don't.

Ehh, I wasn't going to bother, but here's the excerpt:

The problem is not that 11 million foreigners are here working. The problem is that they're here illegally. Efforts to close off future flows, or deport illegal aliens already here en masse, would do economic harm to all Americans, both low- and high-income. Let's hope the Congress figures that out as well.

Let's hope that Congress doesn't heed your rather ill-considered advice.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

MRC has compiled a list of what it considers good examples of Katie's "leftward tilt" , although I think that Katie has long since fallen onto the ground on her left side, started sinking and has disappeared beneath the surface.

I do think that some of the examples are a bit overblown. I expect Katie's liberal tendencies to make their appearance , um, frequently. However, there are some fairly egregious statements. Check it out for yourself.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

And it's from Jeff Goldstein:

To which I say, listen, honey: I’m really sorry nobody invited you to the prom—which I’m certain is the source of this kind of laughable projection.

But looking back, can you really blame them? I mean, what guy in his right mind would want to spend the wee hours of the morning having some bitter, long-suffering ideologue read Gertrude Stein to him while his rented-tux tucked erection (already dubious, given the company) is folding up tent and trying to make a run for his own asshole?

You have no one to blame but yourself for those lonely lunch table days, Amanda. You are foul, mean, and your commentary is cookie cutter feminist boilerplate. The fact that you mix in a lot of profanity to shock people doesnÂ’t make you edgy. It makes you look pathetic and needy.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

It belongs to a politician

So Virginia and North Carolina legislators have proposed a $5.00 toll on I-95 at the VA/NC border, to be paid while traveling in either direction. Not surprisingly, this news has kind of slid under the radar until recently. It's probably been stuck in the middle of Governor Kaine's new enormous tax hike road development program. Anyway, let me be one of the first in the blogosphere to give Tim Kaine and the state legistlature the finger.

To see what would make a politician propose such a batshit crazy idea, you first have to understand what goes on in his/her mind. Let's take a trip, shall we? ::CREEAAAKKKKK:: Come on in.(apologies to Robin Williams)

Politician's brain, right side(RS): I'm generating more revenue for needed government programs. All voters will love me!

Politician's brain, left side(LS): You fool! You're stealing more money from the taxpayers, making it harder for them to pay for necessities. You see them only as cash cows from whose teats you continually suck. They'll hate you!

RS: But taxpayers will see how much I'm benefitting from these expenditures. They'll be glad to pay when they see how happy I am when I get re-elected.

LS: Don't you understand? People see their taxes go up during good times because, hey, we all have extra. And then they see their taxes go up during bad times because, hey, we all have to pull together. Taxpayers might be sheep, but eventually they catch onto the idea that you're simply buying votes for yourself instead of looking out for them.

RS: But the only reason people have to exist is as a source of revenue for the government, right?

LS: Screw this. I wonder if I can get a job in the brain of someone more sane, like perhaps a psychotic. I am sooo out of here ::SLAM::

Posted by: Physics Geek at 09:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

Well okay, maybe not, since the "Bush sucks!" crowd will never allow facts to sway their firmly held opinions. In truth, since those opinions are the only things solid between their ears, I'm at least sympathetic to their plight.

In any event, I'd like to make my one and only foray into the legality, or lack thereof, of the federal wiretapping programm. Jeff Goldstein has performed a yeoman's effort in wading through the issues and there is no way that I could possibly improve upon his thoughtful posts. Not that his posts changed anyone's minds, of course. The responses ranged from "Bush obviously broke the law" to "Bush obviously didn't break the law". I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that Jeff provided a pretty compelling argument that Bush had good reason to believe that he was on firm legal footing. Well, Byron York, via Betsy's Page, delivers what I believe is a knockout punch. Then again, I don't suffer from BSD and am therefore fully capable of digesting facts, and then using those facts to help form my opinion. Excerpt:

And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today's surveillance controversy. Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the "inherent authority" under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

It was a clear and sweeping statement of executive authority. And what was most likely not known to the Court of Review at the time was that the administration had, in 2002, started a program in which it did exactly what the Court of Review said it had the power to do: order the surveillance of some international communications without a warrant.

Read today, In re: Sealed Case does more than simply outline the president's authority. It also puts the administration's warrantless-surveillance decision in some context. What was going on at the time the president made the decision to go ahead with the surveillance? Well, first Congress passed the Patriot Act, giving the administration new powers. Then the FISA Court refused to recognize those powers and attempted to impose outdated restrictions on the administration. Then the White House, faced with the FISA Court's opposition — and with what administration officials believed were some inherent weaknesses in the FISA law — began to bypass the FISA Court in some cases. And then, in In re: Sealed Case, the administration received irrefutable legal support for its actions.

So legal precedent exists which agrees that the President had the authority to perform warrantless wiretaps. Now I sympathize with the purist civil liberatarians that, legal or no, there is something a bit troubling about the whole activity. However, my rejoinder is that (a), the President needed to take steps to prevent another attack on US soil and (b), he had plenty of evidence that his efforts were on firm legal ground. If you believe that the law should be different than it is, then by all means, make the effort to get it changed. But don't stand around bitching about the "patently obvious illegality" of the surveillance program without first trying to acquaint yourself with those stubborn little things called facts.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 03:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 639 words, total size 4 kb.

Jeff Goldstein takes no prisoners in this post. He offers insight and analysis which, while clearly presented, will be ignored/misinterpreted/misstated by the KOSsacks et al. In fact, the willful ignorance has already begun in the comment section.

I'm not certain how Jeff manages to keep his cool when the drooling idiots start ranting in his comment section. If someone left infantile comments like that on this blog(and let's face it, I have about 3 regular readers), I'd probably start modifying their words to represent what they actually meant to say. Suffice it to say that their names would become closely associated with the phrase "molests baby squirrels" in most search engines.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

The whole Crunchy Con debate strikes me as somewhat, umm, retarded. I've long felt, since reading Dreher's views that there was whiff of self-evident superiority in the attitudes of the people calling themselves "crunchy cons". Turns out that I'm not alone. First up, TKS. Excerpt:

I expected to be done with Crunchy Cons until the book arrived, but there was a bit more positive response to my two cents on the Crunchy debate than I expected, so... here's another thought or two.

A long time ago, a graybeard who had worked at the Washington Post was addressing a group of young journalists, including me, and he said, “It’s not just important to know who you are; it’s important to know who you aren’t. You are not necessarily the common man. Your experiences are not universal. You cannot and should not assume that your readers have had your experiences, and that your worldview is ‘normal.’”

ItÂ’s a good lesson. He pointed out that he had heard colleagues saying that the difficulty in finding a good nanny was the biggest single problem facing America today (this conversation was back in the mid-90s).

Haven’t gotten my copy of Crunchy Cons yet, but throughout his career – the New York Post, NR and NRO, Dallas Morning News - Rod writes with clarity and passion about his experiences – spiritual, career, social. In fact, his fearlessness, honesty, and “writing from the heart” are probably what I admire most about him.

Having said that, Rod seems to have presumed that his experiences, tastes, and worldview are much more common than they are; that he’s not just a guy who likes organic food and traditional values, he’s the voice of a Long-Ignored, Rising Movement (or Sensibility). It would be nice to get a better sense of how many Crunchies are out there –Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions or more?

Anecdotal evidence, even from “ literally hundreds of NRO readers”, does not a social trend make. I’ve heard from probably more than 100 NRO readers sharing their positive experiences with Turkey; this does not necessarily signify the rise of the Turkophilic Cons.

The Crunchblog began with a manifesto that declared, in its very first point, “We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.”

I’m trying to come up with a statement that more directly and arrogantly claims, “I’m just plain better than you,” and it’s just not coming to me.

Russell Wardlow appears to be on the same page here and here. Excerpt:

I agree it's serious, in as much as all of this is another example of soft-headed, emotional types trying to reintroduce sophistry, ignorance and welfare statist impulses in the guise of an atrocious brand name with the letters "con" appended to it. A brand name whose purpose is also to feed its adherents' egos by convincing them they're Hip! and With It!, all the while protecting them from the unpleasantness of having to reason through any of their positions.

Couldn't have said it better myself. No really, I couldnt't. Or hadn't you noticed the Sitemeter numbers for this blog?

Posted by: Physics Geek at 09:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like Gerard is on to something here. Fatwaland has some really cool attractions, including my personal favorite, Splode Mountain.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

It turns out that the city of my birth held a pro-Denmark rally today.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 05:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Ann,

The first time I ever heard of you was back in the day on Politically Incorrect with Bill Mahrer. You earned an enormous number of brownie points back then for repeatedly poking Bill in the eye. Sure, you were a bit snarky, but you were at least funny. Here, I thought, was a great spokesperson for the right. Smart, attractive, witty and more than able to hold her own against the shrill leftists. There were times when I thought you went a tad overboard as a polemicist, but still I defended you. After all: poking Bill Maher in the eye, repeatedly.

I read Slander, which I thought provided great detail on the hypocrisy of the left and its proponents repeated attacks on conservatives. It was funny. Harsh, at times, but rightfully so in most cases. Again, when you appeared to step over the line: poking Bill Mahrer in the eye.

Then you released Treason. That's where you started to lose me. Essentially, you painted all liberals as treasonous bastards. Listen up, Ann: I'm as big a critic of the JFK administration as anyone, but when you use a brush wide enough to paint that president, as flawed as he was, as a traitor, you've gone off the deep end. While you made many valid points in the book, they were pretty much lost in the white noise of the crap. The whole Bill Mahrer eye thing isn't providing the necessary balance anymore. Still, you did, at times, at least seem funny in your criticisms, so I decided to give you another chance.

I guess that we all have to live with our mistakes. Thanks for making mine so painfull:

She referred to Muslims as "ragheads." She went farther than calling for Justice John Paul Stevens to be poisoned. Muhammad is depicted as a historic law-giver on one of the court's frieses. Coulter wanted Muslims informed so they would burn down the Supreme Court. But just before that happened someone would call Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.

Ann, I have to ask you: when did you stop trying to be funny and just become mean? The whole "I hope your daughter is raped to death-JUST KIDDING!" schtick is something that I expect from my political opponents, and then only from the frothing at the mouth crazy ones. Reasonable people simply don't talk that way. If I haven't made myself clear to this point, that means that I've ceased to think of you as reasonable in any way, shape, or form. And I'm willing to bet most of my allies in the center or on the right feel the same way. Face it, Ann: you've lost us. You're now nothing more than the Right's version of the posters at the Daily Kos. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but hey, life is tough.

Here's a little advice that I'm certain you won't follow: apologize. Admit that you screwed up royally and that you've seen the error of your ways. No one would expect you to stop being a smartass. Heck, it's part of your appeal, especially to a smartass like me. But we'd like you to think a little bit more about what you say, before you say it.

I know what you're thinking. Yes, apologizing would give the left a bigger cudgel to beat you around the head and shoulders with. Frankly, though, you deserve it this time. At least being genuinely sorry could bring some of your former supporters like me back around. I have to tell you, though, that you're facing an uphill battle this time. So apologize. Be sincere. Accept the rhetorical beatings to follow. It's what a grownup would do, so of course I don't expect you to listen.

Sincerely,

A former, saddened supporter.

Update: I see that Dean was already at this point long ago. Hey, some of us have to learn the hard way.

Update: Ace thinks that it's time for an intervention.

Update: And it's the last; this topic weries me. Jeff Harrell is spot on in his criticism:

There are those out there who think that controversial speech should be controlled by the government. There are those who think that saying things like what Ann Coulter said -- or publishing editorial cartoons deemed by some to be sacriligious -- should be against the law. These people clearly have the wrong idea. But just because Ann Coulter should be allowed, by law, to say whatever she wants to whichever audience chooses to invite her, so also should she be held responsible for saying things that do more harm than good. And calling people "ragheads" to resounding applause certainly does more harm than good. Harm to the conservative cause, harm to east-west relations and harm to the national discourse.

Ann, seriously. From now on, just stay off our side.

Update: I lied. Michelle Malkin has collection of links to conservatives ragging on Ann.

See how easy that was Ann? I used the word "rag" in a non-pejorative fashion. You idiot.

Really, the final update: John Hawkins has been a huge Coulter fan for a long time. If memory serves, he even had an interview with her once on his blog. And now she's losing his support. Money quote:

But, if she can't tone it down a few notches and stop being so deliberately outrageous (and yes, it's all deliberate), she's going to be written off like Pat Robertson by a lot of conservatives sooner, rather than later (It's worth noting that a lot of conservatives have already said good-bye to Ann).

Posted by: Physics Geek at 01:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 938 words, total size 6 kb.

So Democrats use the Correta Scott King funeral as a platform to bash President Bush. If anyone- and I mean anyone- is surprised by this turn of events, I pity you. Your naivte is endearing in a pathetic sort of way, but it's still pathetic.

My wife is essentially an apolitical person. Add in the fact that she's one of the most sensitive persons I've ever met(no, I don't know how I lucked into her either) and you end up with someone who can't understand how anyone would be a bbig enough dick to do what the Dem's did yesterday. Me? I was expecting it. I'm fairly certain that our current president was, too. The only thing did surprise me was the fact that no one started screaming CHIMPY MCSMIRKY BUSHITLER!!! Then again, maybe I stopped watching too soon.

As you might expect, yesterday's reprehensible grandstanding at the funeral has everyone buzzing. First up, the Anchoress:

My best friend, who was watching the funeral, called me up and said, “exactly when did the Democrats utterly revise history and co-opt the civil rights movement? Why does the world forget that it was Democrat Bull Connor putting the hoses and the dogs on the marchers, and the Republicans standing up for civil rights? Why doesn’t anyone mention that Bobby Kennedy was wiretapping King?”

History got revised because of the US press, and two men - Lyndon Johnson (the Great Society) and Bobby Kennedy, who did indeed wiretap Dr. King in an attempt to ruin him. But Bobby Kennedy went to the poor in Appalachia, and he went to the poor in the South, and he ended every speech with “now, let’s sing the song,” and joined hands and sang “We Shall Overcome,” and it moved people to see a man born into unimaginable privilege find common cause with the under-represented. It made it easy to forget that he’d tried to get dirt on Dr. King. I remember it like it was yesterday. Kennedy then single-handedly and forever put the “Democrats=Civil Rights” equation together when he, upon hearing of the assassination of Martin Luther King, extemporaneously and movingly called for calm and gave tribute to King. You can read or listen to the speech here.

In the issue of Civil Rights, I think itÂ’s pointless to carry on about revised history. ItÂ’s done. The warp of history and the woof of of hype will never be untangled. Let it be. People believe what they want to believe, anyway, as we see daily.

And Glenn Reynolds delivers a total bitchslap, in his usual understated manner:

The problem with today's Democrats is that they try to invest the naked hunger for power with the dignity of the civil rights movement, a dignity that they no longer possess because it was based on a self-discipline that they no longer possess.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.