Thursday, November 29, 2007

Gov. Blunt Deeply Troubled: Another Victory In The War On Christmas?

Governor Blunt: "I am deeply troubled".
The battle lines have formed and the war picks up right from where it left off a year ago. Today was the first victory in the the War On Christmas!From this day hence, it shall be known as the "Great Christmas Tree Take Down and Put Back Up Again".
MSU University bureaucrats nearly ruined the Governor's Christmas. Not only is it outrageous, but he is deeply troubled!

Taking away kid's access to healthcare? Not troubling.

Ruining a man's reputation because he told you you were breaking the law? Not troubling.

Signing bills into law without knowing what you are signing? That's no big deal and it's not troubling.

But taking down a holiday tree, I mean, Christmas tree....NOW THAT IS TROUBLING!

(The toad has absolutely nothing to do with this story, I just had a neat picture of a toad and no place to use it. Incidentally, Constant Reader, were you aware toad sucking is illegal in Missouri? That sorta puts a damper on our plans to take the bus to this par-tay!)

© 2007, Springfield News-Leader
JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement about Missouri State University’s decision to remove its campus Christmas Tree from Strong Hall, and its reversal of the Christmas Tree take down plan:

“I was deeply troubled by MSU’s decision to take down a campus Christmas tree. President Nietzel’s reversal of this outrageous decision by University bureaucrats was the only proper decision and I thank him for it. The historical underpinnings and meaning of Christmas cannot be ignored because some university office received a complaint.

“Today, I issued a directive to state agencies that no state employee will be reprimanded, cautioned or disciplined for saying ‘Merry Christmas’ to others. I strongly recommend that MSU as well as all other taxpayer supported institutions adopt my policy.”
Fortunately, the governor is not deeply troubled by women who dress up like those cute furry little white Easter bunnies you see each year. If you are confused, that is my intent.*In his mind's eye, Governor Matt Blunt (R-MO), also known as the "Mattster", sees himself taking down the taker down of the Christmas tree.

"Wait a minute," says the boy governor, "Nietzel---that don't sound like no American name like Plastered or Jetsoned!

"Wait a sec, was he the one who took the tree down or was he the one who put it up agin? I can't remember, Ed, help me Ed, where are you? (oh, I remember, nevermind.)

"Anyhow, I bet there's some foreign blood in his family tree? Yeah, that's why he took the tree down, it's a full frontal assault on Missouri values!

"Why I bet his bible only has one testament and it ain't the new, if you get my drift!

"I better get old Dee-W in here to attorney this and put the happy back in holidays...or is it the merry back in Christmas?

"Oh gosh, I hope this makes Drudge and Mitt sees it!

"Mitt, Mitt, see, I can be decisive, I can take on the serious issues without blinking. I got enuf grit to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Gee, Mitt, I can do it, I promise I can. Please, Please. pick me, pretty please with sugar on it, pick me.

"Hey, maybe I'll give him some Missouri wine, that'll show him I'm a regular guy...

"Wait a minute, Mormons don't drink. I know, I'll give him some Missouri voters.

"Rod, Oh Rod, could you get Plastered and bring us some villagers to fill the ballot box for Mitt? Mitt and Matt, Mitt and Matt. What a great campaign slogan!

"Mitt and Matt, tit and tat, gosh, ain't life swell! Gee Mitt, I laughed at all your jokes, please pick me! My Dad can help us get elected, maybe.

*Everything in this post, except for the things that are not, is purely a figment of imagination, and in no way an attempt to disparage or mock the severity of the crisis that precipitated the news release.

Miscommunication Leading to Misunderstanding

Yesterday, driving back from Rockaway Beach (I winterized the cabins), I heard a report on NPR telling how the Chinese did not allow a US aircraft carrier to dock in Hong Kong. The reporter said the white house said it was a misunderstanding by the Chinese and they (the Chinese) were seeking to remedy the situation.

The report told of how some people had flown to Hong Kong to have thanksgiving day dinner with their naval relatives. Since the ship was not able to make port, these people were unable to celebrate thanksgiving with their relatives.

I would have thought that a big boat like an aircraft carrier would know where it could dock and where it couldn't. I would have assumed that docking plans were made before the ship left port.

This report just came over the wire: China: Navy spat not a misunderstanding.

A White House spokeswoman said she was surprised by the explanation.

"That was not the president's understanding from the meeting he had yesterday (with Yang). We are seeking clarification," press secretary Dana Perino said.

"The president was told was there was a miscommunication that could lead to a misunderstanding. I was told there was a misunderstanding. ... The linkage was not made (with the Dalai Lama)," she said.

Who told the president there was a miscommunication? Who told the spokeswoman there was a misunderstanding? Remember the fuss over the Scott McClellan quote? This is deja vu all over again.

A degree in Bible Studies from Ouachita Baptist University of Arkadelphia, Arkansas.

Huckabee gives a crowd pleasing answer to the death penalty question.

He has achieved the Rove vision: Secular politics is out and religion is in. Then he trivializes his answer by making a flip comment about Jesus.

Huck---a degree in Bible Studies from Ouchita Baptist University ....

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The Conspiracy Freaks Were Right: We're In Iraq Forever

Bush and Al-Maliki Do the Deal
The Conspiracy Freaks Were Right: We're In Iraq Forever.
Shaun Mullen writes:

I feel like the last guy in the room to get a bad joke this morning in the wake of announcements in Baghdad and Iraq that there is a quid pro quo deal in which the U.S. will babysit the Shiite-dominated Al-Maliki regime indefinitely in return for giving U.S. entrepreneurs first crack at Iraq’s riches, which lest there be any doubt are its vast untapped oil reserves and not figs or palm-frond chachkes.

The arrangement carries the weighty title of a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America.” It is described as a work in progress but in reality is an all-but-done deal.

As an early if reluctant supporter of the war who became a vocal anti when it became obvious that the Bush administration’s serial rationales were cooked, I still clung to the notion that once there was a modicum of stability in Iraq the U.S. would up and leave, closing out a sad chapter in American history.

But as knowledgeable as I have been about the ebb and flow of the military campaign, the growth of the insurgency and civil war, the eventual success of the Surge strategy in the absence of any effort by Prime Minister Al-Maliki and his American helpmates to get serious about trying to attain that stability, I did not want to believe that this was merely a 21st century version of American imperialism in Latin America, which included nearly 20 invasions in the Dominican Republican, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and elsewhere to protect and advance American commercial interests.

The underwhelming response in the mainstream media and from the Democratic presidential campaigns is further evidence that I’ve allowed myself to be played for a sap.

The New York Times, for one, was slow to post anything on the deal, and when it finally did its irony-free story read like a business section piece on two major Wall Street firms dealing with an accounting error, in this case the U.S. and Iraq greasing the skids to get out from under a cumbersome U.N. resolution which has been the legal justification for the invasion and occupation. Now, according to The Times, the two nations will be able to have “a far more durable political, economic and security relationship.”

And so we can say aloha to planting the seeds of democracy, benchmarks, standing down when the Iraqis stand up and all of the other red, white and blue bushwah of the past four and a half years. The Decider and the conspiracy theorists were both right. Mission Accomplished! (Just don’t mention Afghanistan, where the situation grows more dire by the day, okay?)

Meanwhile, I’m asking my broker to by me some ExxonMobil stock. Then I’m going to get my prescriptions changed.

Posted on November 27th, 2007 | Permalink |

How Bizarre! Abducted By Satan Worshippers 30 Years Ago, Arkansas Mayor Resigns

The mayor of an Arkansas town resigned last Wednesday, claiming he was abducted and brainwashed by Satan worshippers nearly three decades ago.

Centerton Mayor Ken Williams said he has been living under an assumed name for nearly 30 years. He had been mayor since 2001. Centerton is just west of Bentonville, home of Wal-Mart.

The information went public, Williams said, because he runs a Web site about Don LaRose, an Indiana preacher who disappeared about 30 years ago. LaRose's family found the Web site and started inquiring about its author. They found the site registered to a Ken Williams and went from there.

Here is the website. Guess who Ken Williams was before he was Ken Williams. You get three guesses and the first two don't count! Something is fishy here. The website has been updated since this story broke.

Here is newspaper account. I had to read it several times, it is complicated. How Bizarre. Here is Ken Williams' website. How bizarre!

Those of you who can made sense of this, please post comments explaining it all, cause it sure don't make sense to me. What are the chances of running a website about the disappearance of a person when, unbeknownst to you, you ARE that person? How bizarre!

Sunday, November 25, 2007

More Men With Hats

Men With Hats

Why I Love The Ozarks

click here to make larger
Nothing beats sitting on the deck of the cabin with friends drinking a nice cold glass of beer after a fun day at the lake.

Another Reason Why I Love The Ozarks

click here for larger image This was stuck in an old book I bought .....From An Ozark Holler, Stories of Ozark Mountain Folk, by Vance Randolph. Inscribed on the inside cover is "For Lucille Morris, with all good wishes-Vance Randolph"

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Dollar Drops To Record Low

Dollar Drops To Record Low. Read about it here.

The dollar is getting so low, that drug dealers are wanting their money in Euros.

Automobile Thrill Shows

This is the cover photo of the definative book on Lucky Lee Lott. The book can be purchased here.

To that commenter who continues to leave comments on this post. Please tell me which photos are your and I will gladly remove them. Most of these came from youtube or I am sorry is I used some of your photos. A lot of the photos that are on this post can be found in several different places on the web (the car jumping over the truck,for example). Some were obtained from ephemera dealers. Please tell me what website you think the photos were originally posted. There are several thrill show sites and, as a matter of fact, my wife's father often booked thrill shows in the midwest in the forties, he owned a carnival and booked in attractions. Most of his contemporaries would, I am sure, appreciate the publicity of being posted on several blogs. Regardless, let me know which photos are yours and I will gladly remove them.

If applicable, the following applies:

All content appearing on this Web site is the property of Stunt World Copyright © 1990-2007. All rights reserved. As a user, you are authorized only to view, copy, print, and distribute documents on this Web site so long as (1) the document is used for informational purposes only, and (2) any copy of the document (or portion thereof) includes the following copyright notice:Stunt World Copyright ®1920 to 2007 All rights reserved.

Hell of Hell Man from Hell has been called has left a new comment on your post "Automobile Thrill Shows":
The info in this blog is all stollen from other webpages
Where working on locating this induvidual who is stilling our hell drivers info and posting it here on this blog.
received 12.25.2007.
Your has unreal as it gets, Dont you have your own stuff to post from your wife's days
Stop using our stuff to make yourself look big,were watching you.
I'll talk to the others about charging you a fee for posting any of our Helldrivers stuff with-out permission.
Who the hell do you think you are.
You best just move on and take your bullshit want a be show out of my face.
Now please kindly find some other suckers to build you name with.
Because knowning on this blog of yours belong's to you.
Dont you have you own stuff to post.
You wasted my time to this point
Have a nice life.
received 12.26.2007

Update 12.26.2007
I have received two more emails from the anonymous commentator. Here is a copy of an email I sent to the stuntworld or stuntdriver website:
My wife's father used to own a carnival and often booked Aut Swenson's Thrill Show with his carnival. In the late 1980s, we traveled the same circuit as Joie Chitwood. Last November I posted some old pictures of thrill shows that I had gotten off the web and from and some of my father-in-law's pictures.

The day before Christmas I received an anonymous email telling me that I had to take all the pictures that didn't belong to me down. There were misspellings and a general threatening tone. The text of the email:
Hell of Hell Man from Hell has been called has left a new comment on your post "Automobile Thrill Shows":

The info in this blog is all stollen from other webpages
Where working on locating this induvidual who is stilling our hell drivers info and posting it here on this blog.

Since the poster was anonymous, I had no way of knowing who it was. I was able to tell from my blog feed that someone from Canada had visited that particular page about the time the comment was received.

I googled Thrillshow Canada and came up with your site. I took down all the pictures that were unique to your site. I did leave up some pictures that were generic (Lucky Lee Lott's book cover and the Joie Chitwood ford crossover, and one photo of Lucky Teter jumping a truck).

I asked the sender via my website which photos were causing him discomfort. I also found a clause on your website saying the photos can be used as long as they are not commercial uses. I pasted that on my website.

I received another email:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Automobile Thrill Shows":

Your has unreal as it gets, Dont you have your own stuff to post from your wife's days
Stop using our stuff to make yourself look big,were watching you.
I'll talk to the others about charging you a fee for posting any of our Helldrivers stuff with-out permission.
Who the hell do you think you are.
You best just move on and take your bullshit want a be show out of my face.
Now please kindly find some other suckers to build you name with.
Because knowning on this blog of yours belong's to you.
Dont you have you own stuff to post.
You wasted my time to this point

Have a nice life

This afternoon I received two more emails: Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Automobile Thrill Shows":

My name is Tim and Evel Knievel is my best choice for Daredavil Motorcycle acts.
StuntWorld1 have done a great joy Perserving the Automotive Thrill Show History & Business.
Repect give to that Website.
I say that this bloger got smart.
Yes for given credit for using material from there Website Service.
Massage to this Bloger is give credit were credit is due and you will earn credit were it is due. is voted # 1 for Thrill Show Productions.
From Tim Smith of New Mexico

I have never met this Tim Smith from New Mexico, but if he is representing you and your website, you are not getting a fair value for your consideration.

It might be appropriate for you to address this issue with Tim Smith. As it is, he reflects poorly on your organization.

What Mr. Smith attempted to paste on my website: Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Automobile Thrill Shows":

All content appearing on this Web site is the property of Stunt World Copyright © 1920-2008. All rights reserved. As a user, you are authorized only to view, copy, print, and distribute documents on this Web site so long as (1) the document is used for informational purposes only, and (2) any copy of the document (or portion thereof) includes the following copyright notice:Stunt World


By attempting to paste the above statement he is reserving rights on MY website.

I enjoyed looking at your website and am dismayed by actions taken by Tim Smith of New Mexico in your name.

Here is a link to the website that Tim Smith from New Mexico had problems with:


Jim Lee
Springfield, MO

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Bush Was Duped or He Does A Damn Good John Banner Imitation


Yesterday, Peter Onus, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing Scott McClellan's book, What Happened, in April, released 151 words that set off a firestorm across the internet.

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

Many were outraged for this tidbit of information confirmed what we had long suspected about the Bush White House. Some were even calling McClellan Bush's John Dean (There is a cancer on the presidency).

Then today, Osnos quickly backed away from his author's statement, telling MSNBC news that McClellan "did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him."

Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what "he thought to be the case." But, he says, McClellan believes, "the president didn't know it was not true."

Remember, we are not being told this by the principals involved, but by a third party. Osnos is telling us what McClellan was thinking which appears to be contrary to what McClellan was writing.

This all begs the question: If Bush told McClellan what he thought to be the truth, not knowing the information he was telling McClellan was not true, where did Bush get his information? Someone had to tell Bush that Rove and Libby were NOT involved. We know from the grand jury that Rove and Libby were involved at this time. We know that Cheney was involved, as well as Andy Card. In fact, everyone seemed to know except Bush. Someone LIED to the president. Cheney, Rove, Libby, or Card were in the place to do it.

Either someone lied to President Bush or he is second only to John Banner in his mastery of the wegschauen: "I saw nothing, nothing!"

Godwin's law.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Man, I thought Ron Davis' blog was meaningless...

More meaningless data


Would I Lie To You?
It is just the briefest of excerpts, but oh so tantalizing.... these two paragraphs from Scott McClellan's book:
"I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
"There was one problem. It was not true."

McClellan wrote that he "unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself."

Bad news for the administration always comes out before a holiday.

Basically what this excerpt has done is confirm everything I thought evil about the Bush administration. He deliberately lied to us. OUR PRESIDENT LIED TO US.

All Bush defenders out there: tell me why did the president lie?.


You Know That Term: LMAO?, Well I'm ROTFLMAO!

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:09:10 -0800 (PST)
From: "Anonymous" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: busplunge
Subject: [busplunge] New comment on Son Of A Preacher Man.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Son Of A Preacher Man":

Man, I thought Ron Davis' blog was meaningless...

Monday, November 19, 2007

Son Of A Preacher Man

Earl Paulk and Dottie Rambo
......and this just in from the AP wire:

The 80-year-old leader of a suburban Atlanta megachurch is at the center of a sex scandal of biblical dimensions: He slept with his brother's wife and fathered a child by her.

Members of Archbishop Earl Paulk's family stood at the pulpit of the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill Harvester Church a few Sundays ago and revealed the secret exposed by a recent court-ordered paternity test.

"I am so very sorry for the collateral damage it's caused our family and the families hurt by the removing of the veil that hid our humanity and our sinfulness," said D.E. Paulk, who received the mantle of head pastor a year and a half ago.

D.E. Paulk said he did not learn the secret of his parentage until the paternity test. "I was disappointed, and I was surprised," he said.

Earl Paulk, his brother, Don, and his sister-in-law, Clariece, did not return calls for comment.

D.E. Paulk is Donnie Earl Paulk..

It appears the par tay was reeling right along!

Check Cashing Business For Sale $1,400,000

This is a verbatim advertisement from the Sunday News-Leader:

Furniture Store with solid "Rent to Own" & "Check Cashing" businesses. 2 locations. $1,400,000

A furniture store with solid rent to own and a check cashing business. A million four.

Wonder if that includes inventory?

No wonder Representative Cunningham thinks these guys are ok.
They prey on the un-informed.

Matt Blunt and Robert Novak

Remember Robert Novak? He's the guy who outed Valerie Plame and also played a role in the Scooter Libby fiasco. Now, he is running this blind article abouts "agents" and Obama. What a loaded word that is: agents. Why would anyone believe what this guy is saying, we all know he is a mouthpiece for the Dirty Dick Cheney, who is probably behind this little article.

But what is more interesting, on the page of this column is an advertisement for Matt Blunt!!!!! I am sure he anticipates that those who read this article about Clinton and bounce for joy will also be inclined to contribute to his cause.

Hillary vs. Obama
by Robert Novak

Posted: 11/17/2007

Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's now discarded plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

Experienced Democratic political operatives believe Clinton wants to avoid a repetition of 2004, when attacks on each other by presidential candidates Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt were mutually destructive and facilitated John Kerry's nomination.Continued
Sponsored Links:
Stop Poisoning Yourself! This sweetener can kill... Ann Coulter: Get Ann's scathing commentary by email every week! Newt Gingrich Weekly: Winning the Future In-depth political analysis from Bob Novak REVEALED: The Hidden Truths about American History

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Chicken Hawks

Chickenhawk (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk; sometimes designated after a person's name by [c.h.]) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age.

The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.

The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War. In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe ardent supporters of the Iraq War who have themselves never been in combat; it is seldom if ever used with respect to supporters of the (more broadly supported) war in Afghanistan as such. Those who use the term are generally but not always on the anti war political left; political right in favor of military action are generally but not always on the receiving end of the insult. The label is not usually applied to women (who were historically, in most countries, barred by law from serving in combat). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat.

Critics argue that the term represents an ad hominem argument, that it is historically unsound, that it is inconsistently applied, and/or that it suggests ideas that are contrary to fundamental American principles, such as the ability for people to state an opinion supporting the use of military force without needing to have served in the military themselves.

Origin of the term
Although also a name for a type of bird, in political usage chickenhawk is a compound of chicken (meaning coward) and hawk (meaning someone who advocates war, first used to describe "War Hawks" in the War of 1812). The earliest known print citation of chickenhawk in this sense was in the June 16, 1986 issue of The New Republic. (The magazine referenced the term in a way that suggests it was already in usage.) An association between the word chickenhawk and war was popularized several years earlier in the 1983 bestselling book Chickenhawk, a memoir by Robert Mason about his service in the Vietnam War, in which he was a helicopter pilot. Mason used the word as a compound oxymoron to describe both his fear of combat ("chicken") and his attraction to it ("hawk"), a slightly different use of the term which nonetheless might have inspired the current usage.

Previously, the term war wimp was sometimes used, coined during the Vietnam War by Congressman Andrew Jacobs (Democrat–Indiana), a Marine veteran of the Korean War. Jacobs defined a war wimp as "someone who is all too willing to send others to war, but never got 'round to going himself". This example has often been attached to current Vice President Richard Cheney, who in his youth received five draft notices but sought deferment to all of them claiming he had "more important business". Another term used in military circles, also occasionally referring to out-of-touch generals, is "armchair warrior".

A much lesser used term is "eagle dove", implying someone who has been in the military who later advocated a dovish position. This may not necessarily mean someone is an absolute pacifist, but one who may state that war is not always the answer, despite the fact they personally have a service record.

Another related term sometimes used is "chickendove" which is used to describe someone who is opposed to military action but is said to lack the convictions to take action on it, such as serve as a human shield, or take their complaints to the enemy.

History of the term's usage
The use of the term chickenhawk to describe a "hawk" who has never been in combat became more popular when members of the "Baby Boom" generation who had not served in the Vietnam War began entering national politics. Dan Quayle, a "hawkish" conservative Republican, was George H. W. Bush's running mate in the 1988 presidential election. In the campaign, Quayle was criticized for having used family connections to get into the Indiana National Guard in 1969, allegedly in order to avoid going to Vietnam. As Vice President, Quayle became the object of frequent ridicule in popular media; references describing him as a "chicken hawk" can be found in newsgroup archives from 1990. One popular joke from this time, playing on the fact that "Quayle" and "quail" are homophones, was:

Question: what do you get when you combine a chicken with a hawk?
Answer: a Quayle.

In the 1992 presidential campaign, conservative critics of Democratic candidate Bill Clinton questioned the way in which he had avoided service in the Vietnam War. They charged that while Quayle had at least served honorably in uniform, they argued that Clinton had been a "draft dodger" and was thus not suitable to become commander-in-chief. This criticism continued throughout Clinton's presidency, particularly on right-wing talk radio. Liberals countered with the argument that many of Clinton's conservative critics were "chickenhawks" who had themselves avoided being sent to fight in Vietnam. A few Clinton supporters did point out that Clinton had also been in uniform, because as a college student he studied Army ROTC and received training in basic soldier skills.

A notable example of this response was liberal satirist Al Franken's 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, which included a chapter called "Operation Chickenhawk." The story details the exploits of a fictional Vietnam War squad made up of Quayle, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Clarence Thomas, and George Will—all conservative Republicans who were of draft age during the Vietnam era yet did not serve in the conflict. In the story, the cowardly and incompetent squad bungles a surprise attack on a North Vietnamese Army company and ultimately extricates itself from the battle by fragging its gung-ho lieutenant, Oliver North (a conservative Republican veteran of the war).

Usage of the term continued into the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. Vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney, who avoided the Vietnam War through the use of college and marriage deferments, was often labeled a chickenhawk. Presidential candidate George W. Bush, who had served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War but did not go overseas, was also called a chickenhawk. It is incorrect, however, to make the accusation that Bush the Younger "never wore a uniform in his entire life", as National Guard forces are uniformed and considered part of the US military. For example, in a November 15, 2000 article in the Chicago Sun-Times, liberal columnist Richard Roeper criticized what he regarded as Bush's "chickenhawk stance on the Vietnam War."

Subsequently, in the 2004 campaign, Vice President Cheney criticized the voting record of Democratic nominee John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, suggesting that Kerry's positions on national defense made him unsuitable to be commander-in-chief. Democrats responded by highlighting Cheney's comment that he himself had not served in the military because he had had "other priorities," with Senator Frank Lautenberg calling Cheney "the lead chickenhawk" in criticizing Kerry.

Since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, numerous conservative and neoconservative supporters of the war have been labeled "chickenhawks" by liberal opponents of the war. For example, the online edition of the alternative, liberal newspaper The New Hampshire Gazette maintains a "Chickenhawk Database", which they describe as "detailing the means by which various right-wing politicians and personalities avoided military service." The database accuses numerous supporters of the war (all or almost all Republicans) of being "chickenhawks," including conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly and William Kristol.

In May 2006, a group of pro-war bloggers began using the "chickenhawk" label in an ironic (and positive) fashion, describing themselves as the "101st Fighting Keyboardists" with the motto "We Eat Chickens for Lunch".

In July 2006, blogger Glenn Greenwald used a narrower definition of the term:

“ Something more than mere support for a war without fighting in it is required to earn the "chicken hawk" label. Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. A "chicken hawk" is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require. ”

U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms

Read it and weep.

Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.

The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.

A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.

While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used.

That is because the Pakistanis do not want to reveal the locations of their weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel the country is now producing.

"Among the places in the world that we have to make sure we have done the maximum we can do, Pakistan is at the top of the list,” said John E. McLaughlin, who served as deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, and played a crucial role in the intelligence collection that led to Mr. Khan’s downfall.

“I am confident of two things,” he added. “That the Pakistanis are very serious about securing this material, but also that someone in Pakistan is very intent on getting their hands on it.”

Future Blog Posts: Playing in the Dirt

The wife is off this weekend, so we have been working around the house on this beautiful day. It was wonderful watching kids playing in the dirt.

Been busy working in the attic running wire and doing my twice yearly stint driving a truck for the St. Vincent DePaul Society picking up groceries for distribution. I got a 92 GMC/Volvo twin screw without Power Steering. Rough ride.

Especially when I swung wide pulling out of Smiley's to Head east on Bennett to make a right on Glenstone. I had my right blinker on, and got in the left lane ...actually the cab was in the left lane and the trailer was still in the right lane,,,,I pull up, get the green and swing wide to swing right when out of the corner of my eye, in the mirror, I see a little green car come up fast on my right side and head across Glenstone. I almost took you out guy, pay attention to blinkers and ain't nothing worth beating the light.


An interesting idea on why Jetton helped Plaster and Deniston and Woods are in on it.

Why is Blunt spending state money to do a federal job? Fox News on Immigration.

Romney, Rudy and John....Watch Out, Here comes Huckabee!

High desertion rate in the army and the state department won't force you to Iraq.

Remember Colin Powell and the Pottery Barn rule: look at Iraq.

Chicken hawks.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Veteran's Day

I am proud to be a veteran.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Two People Who Still Believe In Adam And Eve: Mitt Romney and A Liberal's Mom

Does Mitt Romney think the pictures posted below look promiscuous?(The picture posted below is obviously not a true representation of Adam and Eve. Leave a comment if you know why!) Meanwhile,
New Hampshire voters are getting a faceful of Mitt Romney. Campaigning door to door, Romney pushed his Iraq message, saying that it's "going right" and "there's more good news on the Iraq front than people have yet internalized."
He meets a former Marine who is "really concerned" about the troops overseas and he wants a change. Romney disagreed with him, saying, "I'm a little more encouraged than you are," and encouraged him to "take a close look."

Then, this gem:

Stopping by one young couple's house, he remarked at the large leaves on their tree, quipping, "Adam and Eve would not have looked as promiscuous if they had had leaves this big.
umm, somebody still believes in the story of Adam and Eve and he's running for president.

Which brings us to this blog dialog over on "The Daily Dish". Andrew Sullivan is saying that his "primary feeling with respect to the Democratic party remains contempt."

A reader responds:
I know. I feel the same way, and I'm a full-speed-ahead liberal.

But both of us have to realize what they're up against: a nation of voters just mom. She's a lovely woman, Andrew. I love her to death. Sweet, kind, generous--she's got it all. But whenever I try to talk to her about torture, warrantless wiretapping, the Military Commissions Act, and the rest she just tunes out. Not only has she never heard of any of this stuff, but when I bring it to her attention it's as if she simply cannot believe any of it. She doesn't get angry or anything--she's not a "my country right or wrong" type. It's more of a "these go to eleven" sort of thing: she just can't get it into her head that these awful things are happening.

There are millions and millions and millions of voters just like her in this respect.
They have no clue about the things that so rile you and me, and when these matters are brought to their attention they find it easier to believe that the person who's bringing them up is crazy than that they might actually be a problem. Moreover, the issues that do get her attention are of the Obama's flag lapel pin type.

Now let's put ourselves in the Democrats' shoes. How do you deal with a nation of voters like my mom, a nation of people who don't know what the Military Commissions Act is, who are inclined to think you're a little touched if you go on and on about it, but who are easily upset by news that a candidate doesn't wear a flag lapel pin? How do you do it?

Yes, the Democrats need to grow balls. But the fault also lies with the media and, though it pains me to say it, with the moms--or the ones like mine, anyway.
Sullivan adds this paragraph:
If leading Democrats actually spoke up against torture without Clintonian defensiveness, many moms like my reader's might actually take notice. But the Democrats are in a vicious cycle: too scared to raise the real issues, those issues get obscured so that when they are subsequently raised, it appears as if only the fringe cares about them. And so the actual scandal of Abu Ghraib - that it was a result of official policies set loose, that the images represent in many cases the interrogation techniques approved by Bush and Cheney, that it resulted in one actual murder-by-torture (see photo below) - might actually be transmitted.
In a later post, a reader asks Sullivan, "What single word would you use to denote your primary feeling with respect to the Republican party? On the general principle that evil itself is worse than the failure to resist evil, it seems to me that this word should be stronger than 'contempt.' But what is it? Loathing? Detestation? Revulsion? None of these seem quite right to me."

Something that combines enormous frustration, disappointment, and shock. Rage?

Friday, November 09, 2007

Retirement plan? Why Yes, I'm glad you asked...

Two Kids Jumping In A Hole

Putting The Tip In Perspective

Reached at her home in Iowa, the waitress, Anita Esterday, said that neither she nor a colleague who helped serve Mrs. Clinton recalled seeing any tip.

She said a local staff member of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was in the restaurant on Thursday to tell them that the campaign had left a tip.

She said that when she and her colleague said they had not seen a tip, the staff member gave each of them $20.

Ms. Esterday said she did not understand what all the commotion was about.

“You people are really nuts,” she told a reporter during a phone interview. “There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip."

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Piling On

Hilary Clinton goes to a Maid-Rite restaurant in Iowa. She glad hands, eats a sangwich, glad hands some more, chats with the waitress, and leaves. NPR reports she doesn't leave a tip.
Then, ABC News picked up on the story.
**Clinton campaign official: 'The campaign spent $157 and left a $100 tip at the Maid-Rite Restaurant' The Maid-Rite manager, Brad Crawford, caught in the political mixer, said the senator's staff did pay a tip but "it might have not been disbursed properly."
Then the Drudge Report pulls up a story from February, 2000.
Meanwhile, back in reality, The Huffington Post reports that corrections to the story now run at NPR, ABC News, and MSNBC. All of them carry statements both from the Clinton campaign and the manager of the restaurant. Drudge has a correction of sorts: a linkless sentence carrying the campaign's statement on the matter. In lieu of the widely available exculpatory statement from the Maid-Rite manager, Drudge has recycled a story on a similar incident that transpired eight years ago, reported by the no-doubt entirely non-critical Washington Times.

There are some pretty vile websites out there featuring Hilary Clinton. Some of the stuff is pretty vicious, reminds me of what the Swift Boat lies did to Kerry. I was going to post some of the links, but I decided against it. If you want to read that drivel, you are going to have to find it for yourself.

Cow Tipping

Chatter has a funny posting about a cow that fell off a cliff and landed on a minivan. I guess it isn't funny if it is your minivan that the cow fell onto. The German's have a word for it: schadenfreude.

Somewhere in my internet surfing, I came across this road sign:
If fits with Chatter's post.
In other news, the hole in the backyard is slowing getting filled up. The neighbor and I put dirt and rocks and rubble from a rock pile in it. The two cement trucks cleaned out the cement hoppers and dumped the leftovers in the hole. I am so glad the septic tank wasn't in use and was empty! I wonder how many people have septic tanks in their backyards and don't know it. I knew there were some dogs buried in our backyard by a tree, but I never dreamed there was a septic tank back there! I was more worried about the cement truck crushing a sewer line that falling into a septic tank.