December 4th, 2010

  • paft


Judson Phillips, head of Tea Party Nation, describing the idea of taxation without representation for “non-property owners” as “wise:”

The founding fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who got the right to vote. It wasn’t, you were a citizen and you just automatically got to vote. Some of their restrictions were, you obviously would not think about today, but one of them was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense because, if you are a property owner, you actually have a vested stake in the community. And if you’re not a property owner, I’m sorry, but they, property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than non-property owners do.

Judson Phillips, shortly after Talkingpointsmemo publicized his quote:

Watching the left go into hysteria ) (1) over this has been nothing short of amusing (2). Of course, when the left goes spastic (3) over something like this, they either get it wrong (4), or nine times out of ten, they lie (4) about what was said.

Collapse )
Godzilla, default

Lies and the lying liars who tell them:

I don't suppose I should be surprised the Baltic states are doing this:
Collapse )

I suppose like the Finns they kind of have to do this. It wouldn't do to note that the Baltic states were willing to massacre their Jews before the Wehrmacht even reached the big cities there (I know that happened at least in Lithuania) and that the Balts were willing collaborators of massacres of Jews, rivaled only by Ukrainians in terms of willingness to side with evil in the commission of evil.

On the other hand people seldom acknowledge the Baltic states were in fact independent states before 1940 and that it was the Soviets who took them over first. I will say however that given the USA's own problems with this: movement dedicated to rehabilitating a bunch of treasonous racist scumbags there's not much room for me as an American to jeer at the Lithuanians choosing to be cowards rather than face the darker side of their history.

And at least unlike Finland they didn't openly side with a mass murdering regime of their own will and get away with it entirely scott-free.

  • ofbg

DADT-Fly on the Wall Syndrome

I think I can speak for most heterosexual guys when I say, "we'd love to be a fly on the wall in the shower room at Spa Lady or our local Community College ladies shower room". Collapse )

The reason; the object of our lust is there in quantity, in variety and without clothing. We respond to the visual. We like to look!

How does this relate to DADT? When a homosexual guy is in the shower room with a bunch of heterosexual guys, in a barracks or on a Navy ship, he is that fly on the wall. I can't speak for how homosexual guys think but they are guys and I've no reason to think the would react or think any differently and the heterosexuals would react no differently to that cute little number at Spa Lady, if she knew (maybe less screaming and more violence).

On Thursday, there was a hearing in the Senate Armed Forces committee on the subject. In the MSM, I can only find testimony from Gates and McMullen who referred to 'orders from the President', with a minor notation that McCain opposed without any mention of why he opposes.

Therefore I am forced to, because the transcript of the hearings is not yet available on .gov, to quote the evil right-wing media, to wit; World News Daily. Don't cop out by arguing the source, please argue the contents.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pointed out during the first day of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Thursday that according to a survey conducted for the Pentagon, repealing DADT could create an "alarming" troop retention problem at a time when the military is already shorthanded. Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned Do you think that's a good idea to replace 265,000 troops in a time of war?"

Other estimates go over a half a million who will get out ASAP. There are charges that the polls were biased because they polled mostly non-combatants.

"Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos acknowledged Friday that a clear majority of combat Marines oppose permitting open homosexuality in the ranks".

Some of the limited info I found.

From another time in February.

So let the controversy begin----------

Edit for telemann who provided better links.
hat lasso

"training" is the new war

And speaking of democracy...

I been meaning to write about this for weeks now.

Canada's committed mission in Kandahar region of Afghanistan is drawing to a close in 2011. NATO has been begging Canada to stay on. Just like Canada was begging on deaf ears for another country to step up and help out in the region. Nobody did.

Seeing that Canada had very little help, and no clear victory in sight, Canada voted in Parliament to withdraw from Afghanistan 4 years ago. It was put to a timeline rather then trying to meet an impossible goal. The global community knew our plans.

At the November NATO conference Canada was again asked to stay in Afghanistan, if not in a combat role in Kandahar then in "a training role" in Kabul.

If you're not laughing then I guess I'll explain.

When is a war not a war? When it's a police action. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Kargil War were all undeclared wars and were called by the more polite euphanism as police actions. We the public caught on to that pretty quick. So the new euphanism is training. Sounds so academic.

Whem Prime Minister Harper first annmounced the possibility of a training mission in Kabul from 2011 to 2014, the opposition was both concerned and outraged. Especially when he said he didn't think it had to be put to a Parliamenbtary vote because in fell within Prime Ministerial discretion. Then Harper said it would be put to a vote in Parliament if that was demanded.

But the outrage and concern fell to support when it was explained this was simply training and there would be no combat role whatsoever. There has been no vote over this in the House of Commons. The opposition seems supportive. How democratic is that?

The thing is we Canadians have been training Afghan police and military for the better part of a decade. Not to mention the high rate of those switching sides after training to join the Taliban who apparantly pay better.

The real question is why they think the Afghanistanis require more training? Another 4 years worth! I'm sure that 13 years is more training then the average Canadian soldier gets.

I'm wondering how many more Taliban and other enemy will be killed/captured during our new training mission. Because we know that some training means teaching from example. But in this case, perhaps all the training might be example based.

The good news is that the deployment will fall from 2500-2850 Canadians to just 900-950. Plus journalists and other non-military. And 2015 seems to be the D-day for most of NATO.

Why are right wing pundits so OCD about extending Bush tax cuts for the rich? Rep. Grayson's theory.

Alan Grayson makes the obvious connection why right wing pundits are so supportive of extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans. Remember too during the health care reform debate, many Republicans were citing public opinion polls showing there wasn't support for passage, are tellingly silent on this issue since they know most polls consistently show Americans favor extending the tax cut only for the middle class, and not the richest Americans. And margins against the Republican position on the tax cut extension are significantly larger than those against the health care reform bill.

Collapse )

The US Government Vs Wikileaks

Over the days there has been a lot of outcry against Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Many are calling him a traitor that should be prosecuted or executed. The problem with this issue is that Julian Assange cannot be considered a traitor if he is not an US citizen. That would be like North Korea calling President Obama a traitor for releasing nude pictures of Kim Jon Il on the internet (great, now I am going to have nightmares).

The problem is that there are issues regarding the prosecution of Julian Assange for his actions and he is outside the reach of US law. Even if we wanted him dead (and I do not support this idea) it would only result in an International backlash. After all who wants to read "US Government Authorizes Assassination of Foreign Citizen on Foreign Soil" on the headlines? (Besides the fact that it will probably violate international treaties, lets face it, he will become a martyr) Not to mention the last thing President Obama wants is to be tied to an Assassination Squad (probably inherited it from Dick Cheney) that can kill anyone who disrespects him; the last thing he needs is to add more fuel to the fire of conspiracy theories against him. Of course, I am taking these cries of Julian Assange's assassination as more bark than bite.

Joe Lieberman is attempting to introduce a new legislation to be used against Wikileaks, the problem with this move is that it wont punish Wikileaks' past crimes, to do so would be unconstitutional. New laws cant penalize past criminal conducts, the Constitution clearly bans ex post facto laws. This move is either a political attempt to look good (after looking at his poll numbers this shouldnt be a surprise) or an attempt to prevent future "cyber crimes" against individuals who release sensitive information that is harming to the safety of the public (must be nice for Scooter Libby and company to live in the land of hypocrisy, where the real criminals are anyone but the government).

Even if this law were to pass, I just dont see how can they stop Wikileaks:

It is not clear whether WikiLeaks — a confederation of open-government advocates who solicit secret documents for publication — could be subject to a federal subpoena. Federal courts most likely do not have jurisdiction over it or a means to serve it with such a subpoena.

But leaving that issue aside, what is there to stop the government from prosecuting the New York Times or any media organization that "conspired" to release the leaked documents? After all, they also helped Wikileaks in spreading the information to the masses, making them no less different than Wikileaks on their part. And what about bloggers and online media outlets or social networks like facebook? Would they also be prosecuted for spreading the information? Will the government shut down the internet just so they can stop the spread of electronic information? It soon becomes an issue of Freedom of Speech.

The only law that the US can use against Julian Assange is the World War I-era spy law, the Espionage Act of 1917, and this is a law that was created before the internet and the electronic age. The law has several holes that would make it difficult to successfully use against Julian Assange. The Espionage Act of 1917 would successfully prosecute Bradley Manning, the 22 year old private in the US army. Since the law makes it clear regarding the issue of those responsible for providing leaked information. But it becomes murky on Assange's case. It will be the burden of the government to prove that Assange encouraged and conspired with Bradley Manning to produce and pass the documents to Wikileaks.

The fact that the government is more concerned with prosecuting whistle-blowers releasing their dirty secrets for the world to see over the issue that the government has no problem in violating our civil liberties to learn our own private secrets in the name of National Security says a lot about their view of the world and their priorities.

To Tell the Truth

Guest commentary: WikiLeaks Founder Lurks Beyond Reach of U.S. Law

World Debates Ethics, Legality of Latest WikiLeaks Release

Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation

Just who would the Media Shield amendment shield?

After Afghan War Leaks, Revisions in a Shield Bill

NSA enjoys eavesdropping on US soldiers' phone sex calls

Internet 'Kill Switch' Approved By Senate Homeland Security Committee

Scooter Libby hired by WikiLeaks (Joke)
Слушам и не вярвам на очите си!
  • htpcl

Eastern Europe - mud, vodka and chaos? Not any more

Hail, dear comrades curious readers! I recently came across this interesting read which sheds some light on the new Eastern Europe - not the one of 1990, but the one today. The author at The Economist argues that Eastern Europe is no longer a synonym for mud, vodka and organized crime, and the old stereotypes should be put to rest. From a strictly Balkan perspective, I'd tend to disagree, but the Balkans are a bit specific (we're always so special). Eastern Europe is a large and diverse region, and it has surely undergone probably the most drastic changes for the last 2 decades.

That's 20 years after the dust of the crumbling communism had settled. Eastern Europe has reached its maturity, one could say, and seems ready to throw away the old labels that used to be stuck to it like a surname.

Collapse )

Why I prefer English culture

criminal code of RussiaYes, I can agree that all nationalities are equal. They are equal in the court, equal to Criminal Code. Only there. That do not mean they are totally even and equivalent.

If you ask me what do I prefer, Chechen culture or English one, I would certainly choose to read Shakespeare, or Chesterton essays, Kiplings rhymes instead of some ... I cannot say there is a Chechen book, as they do not even have a decent writer.  So, for me nationalities are not equal. 

Besides, their Chechen culture (if there is some) do not teach Chechens how to behave in a decent society.

We can see how Chechen teenagers behave in holiday camp near Tuapse, Russia. But, I'm sorry, there were no teenagers, this were three 20 years wrestlers against a 13 year old girl.  And here is some difference in education. Do adult Englishmen come in three of them to get acquainted with a teenage girl? They surely do not. My respect to their English mothers, who spent enough of time to them. With Chechens we see that only a completed whore could teach her son to rape women. Of cause, the head of the camp had to protect the girl. At cost of his nose and broken leg.

Moreover, here comes a Ramsan Kadyrov and accuses the head of this camp that he attacked those 3 adult wrestlers + trainer !

So, instead of taking all these criminals to the court, Kadyrov took them under his protection, trying to teach all Russians how to love Chechens.  So, absence of culture is evident.

Can you say that it was a normal mother, a decent woman, who educated this Kadyrov or any of these Chechens? And one can see, that when Kadyrov accused all Russians to be intolerant to Chechens - means to keep silence, when Chechens cut ears of Russians, like it was in Kondopoga.

Collapse ) UPD. May be I was not clear enough, I would repeat it here. In my opinion is that. If the guy is criminal and deserve jail, no bastard should call tolerance to me. When President of Chechnya calls Russians intolerant, covering Chechen criminals - he is fashist.
May be I would add a letter, I wrote to Medvedev about this:
Dear Dmitry!

Currently, Mr. Kadyrov began hounding publicly the head of the holiday camp Don where the incident occured with the bad-mannered Chechens, who tried to rape a girl. Mr Kadyrov has remained at his post after a public defense of the Chechen murderers and criminals in Kodopoga, who cut people's ears on the streets. He himself does not consider "embarrassing" to shoot his enemies on the streets of Moscow. Recently, the Chechen thugs murdered on the street the reporter of NTV (TV channel). As a father and a Russian citizen, I demand that Kadyrov immediately cease their anti-social actions. I demand that no more federal funds were sent for "rehabilitation" of the Chechen thugs. If they just do not know how to educate their children - let them keep them in the house. I require that all parents of Chechen hooligans repaid costs of transportation of these young thugs and their living to Federal budget. As the president of Russia, you should demand an immediate apology to the headstuff of the camp from your subordinate Kadyrov.