And it's not because of the ear pain.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Moonbattery at its FINEST:

I knew in that moment that this was what the future of teaching about justice would include: teaching war criminals who sit glaring at me with hatred for daring to speak the truth of their atrocities and who, if paid to, would disappear, torture and kill me. I wondered that night how long I really have in this so called "free" country to teach my students and to be with my children and grandchildren.

These military and mercenary terrorist-students are trained in terrorist training camps all under the USA, funded by American taxpayers. In fact, people under the USA are "sacrificing" their healthcare and their children's educations while donating their tax dollars to these terrorist training camps. These terrorist camps train money hungry working class stiffs to murder, steal and plunder for the power
hungry US corporate war lords.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:01 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

This is why.

This is the SECOND rotavirus vaccine to cause these problems in young children and infants.  In 1999, the Rotashield vaccine caused the same problems.

Until we know FOR SURE that the Gardasil vaccine is safe, it is entirely irresponsible to mandate it for every female child.

Furthermore, Rachel makes a good point here:

"We (the collective) do not want the government to pass laws about our right to murder our unborn children, but we're not up in arms about the government forcing us to inject foreign matter into our little girls' bodies?"

Posted by: caltechgirl at 06:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been on record for years saying that I'd cross party lines to vote for him for President, but the left seems to be too stupid to realize that UNITING this country means appealing to all facets of the political spectrum, something Joe seems to do almost universally.  Sure, the wingnuts hate him because he's a socially liberal demotard, and the moonbats hate him because he's a hawk and anti-abortion.

But his is the only consistent voice of conscience on the Hill, and for that, I respect him.  For this statement made to the Senate on Feb. 5, I respect him even more:

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.

But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America's security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.

...

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America's will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

...

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.

Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they clashed directly with the Executive Branch over their execution. But in doing so they accepted the consequences of their convictions.

This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq.

But again, I ask you: what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? And what will it say to our enemies?

We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution "by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake" confirms our enemies' belief in American weakness.

This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. I agree that we must hold the Iraqi government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I have offered would do. But I ask you: Imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end, and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution will affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Every day, you are threatened by enemies who want nothing but to inflict the most brutal imaginable horrors on you and your loved ones. Will this resolution empower you, or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer, or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave the country?

And finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops, but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1126 words, total size 7 kb.

The words of a REAL CLIMATOLOGIST, which has nothing to do with inventing the internet.....

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

-- Thirty years ago many of the same scientists raising a ruckus today were DEAD SURE we were headed for a man-made ice age FROM THE SAME CAUSES (greenhouse gasses, etc.)

--Consensus is different from fact: 95% of 4 year olds believe in Santa, but this doesn't make him REAL, does it?  So why should we believe something just because a majority of pinheads with PhDs do?

And yes, for the record I too have a PhD.  So what?  But I'm not a pinhead.  Doesn't make me a sheep, either.

Please read all of Dr. Bell's article (yes, there is more. A lot more.),  It is a fascinating look at how popular politics colors even the most rigorous of disciplines.

h/t Q and O via RWV

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:19 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Excellent post.

Posted by: Ith at February 05, 2007 12:24 PM (1ZrPC)

2 wait... what do you mean Santa isn't real?

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at February 05, 2007 12:42 PM (+MvHD)

3 You take that back, Santa is real. I've writen him a letter each year for the past 27 years. He hasn't responded yet because he's very busy keeping those elves in line, trying to keep things warm at the north pole. It's hard to relax with a lemonade when they drink freezes immediately.

Posted by: Bill at February 05, 2007 02:43 PM (bpbQx)

4 Exactly... I remember the global cooling (they called it "nuclear winter") phase very well. It was as idiotic then as this is now. As to the "why do these people all jump on the bandwagon without tangible facts?" well, that's easy... always follow the money. There's money in the global warming scare - lots and lots of lovely cash. Facts be damned - it's who gets the paid the most and has the most money to lose... they fight the hardest for their position.

Posted by: Teresa at February 05, 2007 04:10 PM (gsbs5)

5 good one CTG

Posted by: Jane at February 06, 2007 05:25 AM (YadGF)

6 LOL at Beth!! This is a great article. "As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention. Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information." True scientists must be appalled by what's going on. From what I understand, the sun's temperature has increased too (not that you'd know it in the northeast right now). I'm no scientist, but who are we to think that our tiny little speck in the galaxy is experiencing climate change thanks to us? Aren't there at least a gazillion other variables to consider? Why does that idea seem to be rocket science? (Snarky aside: Oh, and did you see the IMDB rating on Gore's film? 8.2/10 Ooooh. Peace-prize worthy, huh?)

Posted by: Marie at February 06, 2007 07:06 AM (keaCm)

7 I don't know, that global cooling sure would explain about the local temps of late.

Posted by: Contagion at February 06, 2007 03:38 PM (72Ov0)

8 Thanks for the "ammo" for my debates.

Posted by: Crassus at February 07, 2007 05:40 AM (8RyYg)

9 When you pull your collective heads out of the sand, you'll be baked at just the right temperature. You're all idiots.

Posted by: googoodolly at February 09, 2007 10:44 PM (B4coE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From a former diplomat specializing in the area.  The writer begins:

"Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, "I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war."

· We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.

· Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.

· Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.

· Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives every day to defeat the forces of terrorism. They can't win without us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in Iraq should explain how we win the war on terrorism once we've scared all of our allies away....

· Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn't compute.

You can not negotiate with Terrorists unless you speak their language: senseless violence and unwavering resolve.  Read the rest of this fabulous piece here.

The author of this piece?  Liz Cheney, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.  And yes, that Cheney.

h/t Dafydd

Posted by: caltechgirl at 08:45 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 644 words, total size 4 kb.

PETA kills animals.com

Check back early and often for updates!
h/t Malkin

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

WTF with Pelosi blinking all the time?  Damn distracting.

Best line "You did not vote to lose"  NICE

Nice summary of what is going on in Iraq.

What did you notice?

Posted by: caltechgirl at 07:19 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I didn't see it... sadly I have no interest in the SOTU speech. I've watched only a few of them - they do nothing for me. I do love the live blogging though - especially Vodka Pundit. *grin* Now he's worth the read. I'll read the rest tomorrow and by the time I'm done I'll have a pretty good all around view of what was said without having to watch Pelosi do her jumping jacks - see Instapundit's bit of live blogging for details. LOL (or watch her blink for that matter)

Posted by: Teresa at January 23, 2007 09:43 PM (gsbs5)

2 I missed the first half, but when I tuned in I noticed the same thing about the blinking -- it was distracting! I was wondering if her contact lenses were getting dry under the lights. And did you see that b-ball player towering over Laura Bush? Holy Moly!!!

Posted by: Marie at January 24, 2007 07:05 AM (keaCm)

3 "Damn distracting." I'll try not to point out the irony of you saying that after having added the Snap plug-in to your site. (Ooops! Too late!

Posted by: zonker at January 24, 2007 03:23 PM (PrUNH)

4 IF Pelosi has one more facelift, she is going to have a very nice goatee..

Posted by: r_mate_e at January 24, 2007 06:38 PM (MxGwp)

5 I didn't watch either. The thought of Pelosi. Too much blinking sounds like something an android (Stepford Wife) would do. Or it could be a power supply issue.

Posted by: dogette at January 26, 2007 05:51 AM (wN2Jx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Well  not yet, but holy sh*t Pelosi looks scary.  My reaction and a round up later.  Maybe.

Also: The Good Cap'n is liveblogging the speech, there's an open discussion thread at LGF, and Aaron gives us his version of what the President WISHES he could say tonight!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 05:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

How to get through the SOTU.

h/t Emily

Posted by: caltechgirl at 03:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Many people have asked why we don't have kids and aren't planning on them for a while.

Other than "It's none of your business," which most people don't appreciate, try this on for size:

California would become the first state to explicitly ban spanking for children younger than 4 under legislation to be introduced next week.

Slapping, smacking, whacking or kicking also would be outlawed.

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, a Mountain View Democrat who is crafting the measure, said corporal punishment victimizes helpless children and contributes to a society "addicted to violence."

[...]

"To my mind, there's no amount of physical force that's appropriate on a child 3 years old or younger," Lieber said.

h/t Darleen

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:31 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

This is just wrong on so many levels:

A group of Methodist ministers from across the nation launched an online petition drive Thursday urging Southern Methodist University to stop trying to land George W. Bush's presidential library.

The petition, on a newly created Web site, http://www.protectsmu.org, says that "as United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate." [emphasis mine -Ed.]

I guess it only applies to liberals.  F*cking hypocrites.

I am done with the United Methodist church.  DONE.  Period.

See, I grew up in the UM church.  My Dad is a lay minister in the church.  We were married in a UM church.  But no more.  I stopped going to church a long time ago, for a variety of reasons, but I always loved the UM church for its very laissez faire approach.  Gay?  No problem.  Divorced?  No problem.  Female?  Who cares?

I would agree with these "pastors" if they were excluding him on the grounds that he had done something famously immoral.  A church (or church-sponsored school) shouldn't associate itself with someone immoral.  But because you don't like his politics?

Give me a f*cking break.

It's a church, people.  CHURCH.  Politics stops at the f*cking door.  Not to mention that it is located in central Texas, Mrs. Bush went there, and the Bushes are IN FACT Methodists.

You never would have heard a PEEP from them if it was Clinton's library.  And we all know the things HE did that ministers are supposed to frown upon.....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

After the Spanish specialist made them look silly (or was paid to say that it wasn't intestinal cancer) the Cuban doctors treating el barbudo have finally come up with a suitable explanation for his condition without mentioning the C word:

"Cuban leader Fidel Castro is in serious condition after a series of three failed operations on his large intestine for diverticulitis complicated by infection, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported on Monday.

Castro, 80, suffered a serious infection that worsened to peritonitis, the newspaper's Tuesday edition said, citing two medical sources at the Madrid hospital where a surgeon who visited Castro in December works. The report was posted on the newspaper's Web site on Monday.

Castro's prognosis is "very serious" and he is being fed intravenously, the paper said."

Posted by: caltechgirl at 07:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Click.  Click now.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 08:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

It was emanating from the NJ statehouse...

"For World War II veteran Sam Stia, a legislative proposal that would cease requiring New Jersey schools to teach about Veterans Day and Memorial Day can be summed up in two words.

"That's wrong," Stia, 83, said Thursday from his Hamilton home, where he flies an American flag at half-staff to honor fallen soldiers. "We're just giving our flag away and our patriotism away."

Stia and other veterans are steamed about the proposal, which the state lawmakers unanimously passed last month and now awaits action by the governor. It was included as part of a larger measure designed to help control property taxes, mostly by abolishing some laws on school purchasing and public hearings.

Other holidays about which schools no longer would be required to teach include Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, Arbor Day and Commodore Barry Day, which commemorates Revolutionary War hero John Barry.

New Jersey schools must observe the holidays under a 1967 law designed to promote "the development of a higher spirit of patriotism." Florida, Nebraska and Washington are among states with similar laws."

If you're a Jersey taxpayer (Jimbo, Kate, et. al.) maybe you should let your reps know how unacceptable this is.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 02:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Barbara Boxer and her ilk have gotten where they are by pushing a simple mantra:  Women are Equal to men.  Women should push through the glass ceiling.  Women have the right to have a successful career.

Evidently this is no longer good enough: in attacking Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice yesterday, Senator Boxer said,

"Who pays the price?" Boxer repeatedly demanded. "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Posted by: caltechgirl at 07:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

* but were afraid to ask...
Dean Barnett has a great FAQ about the new Iraq strategy posted at Hugh Hewitt.

Here's a brief sample:

1) How in the hell are an additional 20,000 troops going to make such a big difference when we already have about 140,000 troops in Iraq? It makes no sense! Cut and run!!

First, calm down. We're going to walk through this analytically, not sprint through it hysterically. The current troop level in Baghdad is only 13,000. Most of the 20,000 new troops are going to be headed to Baghdad. That means we're going to increase our troop complement in Baghdad by roughly 150%. In other words, as regards the Battle of Baghdad, this is an enormous tactical adjustment, not a symbolic gesture.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:17 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

14 members of the Carter Center Board of Councilors resigned today in protest of Jimmy Carter's recent views on Israel.  In response to Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.", the 14 councilors wrote:

"We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position," the letter to Carter said. "This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."

"We are deeply troubled by the president's comments and writings and are submitting the following letter of resignation to the Carter Center,"

"[abandoning his] historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side." and "[confusing] opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity and force for change with partisan advocacy,"

Kenneth Stein, the first Executive Director of the Carter Center resigned a month ago over this same book.

Perhaps Mr. Carter should re-think his strategy here.  Continuing to be "relevant" will do far less for his legacy than returning to his roots in fair-dealing. 

Or maybe he's tired of hiding his true colors.

Update: This brings to 16 the number of advisors that Carter's book has alienated. Professsor Melvin Konner declined the honor even before joining the committee, saying in part:

"I am now carefully rereading parts of this very puzzling and problematic book, having read it through once quickly. I am not going to point out again here all the mistakes and misrepresentations pointed out by others (to take just one example, his flat contradiction of the accounts by President Clinton and Dennis Ross of events at Camp David at which they were present and he was not)˜none of which he has answered—nor explain the grotesque distortion caused by his almost completely ignoring Jewish history between ancient times and 1947 (he devotes five lines on page 64 to that millennial tragic story and mentions the Holocaust twice; his "Historical Chronology" at the outset contains nothing˜nothing˜between 1939 and 1947). However, I will call your attention to a sentence on p. 213 that had not stood out for me the first time I read it: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

As someone who has lived his life as a professional reader and writer, I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. This sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger. "-- Emphasis mine, Ed.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

In anticipation of today's Friday F*ck Off, here's a list of people I'd like to tell to F*ck off:

LA Drivers
Leftards who let power go to their heads
Feminists
People who pick on the weak
assholes who don't pay their child support
People who slam their siblings in public
People who don't pick up their dog poo
Egomaniacs
Incompetents
Cashiers who don't know how to use their registers
Target
jackass house guests who complain for a week.  About EVERYTHING
Litterbugs
Fucktards who drive SLLLLLOW in the left lane.  Especially on the Arroyo Parkway.
cagastro and pals
that little ronery North Korean fuck, too
TV network executives
Sales tax
Stuffed shirt bureaucrats
telemarketers
the replacement mailman
idiots who wash their sidewalks.  Talk about wasting water. Fuckers.  This is CA.
dook basketball
Nick Saban
Dan LeBatard.  Where the Fuck is Wilbon, goddammit??
the NIH study section who told me that they love my science and acknowledge that I have the expertise to do the work, but they don't think I have enough experience.
Ads on the delete screen on the TiVo.  WTF is that about?  I pay enough for the fucking service as it is.
Sorority Chicklets
The Girls Gone Wild guy.  And all the little sluts on those videos too.  Cheap much?
vegan evangelists
enviroNazis
Clueless fucks who think that if they keep those Kerry/ Edwards bumper stickers on, that they can live in denial that the election is over.
John Kerry
John Edwards
sheeple who actually believe the media in all instances without question
and did I mention fucking stupid LA drivers?

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:54 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

1 A little tense? (BTW, I went through journalism school and worked on the school newspaper with Dan LeBatard. Super nice guy and very talented as a writer. I have no beef with him.)

Posted by: rSM at January 05, 2007 04:12 AM (IyNwh)

2 Wow. Glad you didn't add people who ask for the same thing 2 or 3 times... or is that included under 'incompetents'? GRIN. Hope your year is starting to look better now.

Posted by: vw bug at January 05, 2007 05:54 AM (5wNak)

3 **chuckling softly to myself, hoping CTG doesn't overhear and tell me to eff off!**

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at January 05, 2007 06:14 AM (MwQOF)

4 Excellent list - just excellent. I love this one best: "that little ronery North Korean fuck, too" Well put ROFLMAO.

Posted by: Teresa at January 05, 2007 07:38 AM (gsbs5)

5 This list is great. I'll throw in my hat to L.A. drivers as well. For all the time people in this city have to actually spend driving, you'd think they'd eventually get good at it, let alone just plain competent. Nope. It's amazing. L.A. drivers when it rains? Forget about it. That's a f@#$ off long enough to fill a book.

Posted by: Emily at January 05, 2007 08:01 AM (lXDk3)

6 Dayum good list! ; )

Posted by: Christina at January 05, 2007 10:36 AM (NUhQR)

7 I like your style. :-) I actually feel better just having read that... Thanks.

Posted by: Richmond at January 05, 2007 02:28 PM (e8QFP)

8 Impressive list! Wash the sidewalks?! Some people have waaaay too much time on their hands.

Posted by: Marie at January 05, 2007 07:03 PM (keaCm)

9 LA Drivers - I don't live there... Leftards who let power go to their heads - who? Feminists - no comment People who pick on the weak - but they're so much fun... assholes who don't pay their child support - I do, so I'm safe People who slam their siblings in public - they're idiots, and deserve to be outed People who don't pick up their dog poo - one more reason to NOT have pets Egomaniacs - such as me? Incompetents - such as my family? Cashiers who don't know how to use their registers - ha! that's classic Target - I just shopped there today, but only because I got a gift card from my boss jackass house guests who complain for a week About EVERYTHING - kick them out and don't allow them to call a taxi... Litterbugs - damn straight Fucktards who drive SLLLLLOW in the left lane, Especially on the Arroyo Parkway. - slow drivers should have their license revoked cagastro and pals - who? that little ronery North Korean fuck, too - um... TV network executives - I don't watch television, so.... Sales tax - agreed Stuffed shirt bureaucrats - hell yeah! telemarketers - click the replacement mailman - going postal rocks! idiots who wash their sidewalks. Talk about wasting water. Fuckers. This is CA. - I live in the middle of nowhere... no sidewalks (I miss the city) dook basketball - what? Nick Saban - who? Dan LeBatard. Where the Fuck is Wilbon, goddammit?? - who and who? the NIH study section who told me that they love my science and acknowledge that I have the expertise to do the work, but they don't think I have enough experience. - can't get experience without getting a job, but can't get a job without experience; catch 22, the chicken and the egg Ads on the delete screen on the TiVo. WTF is that about? I pay enough for the fucking service as it is. - no clue what you're talking about Sorority Chicklets - never met one The Girls Gone Wild guy. And all the little sluts on those videos too. Cheap much? - never saw the videos vegan evangelists - that's a new one on me enviroNazis - tree~huggers? Clueless fucks who think that if they keep those Kerry/ Edwards bumper stickers on, that they can live in denial that the election is over. - who cares? Junior won... John Kerry - I know the name, and the face, but the only thing I really know about him is that he's married to the steak sauce chick and was an idiot... second- or third-hand knowledge, at best John Edwards - I assume from the above statement that this guy ran with Kerry.... I don't watch the news, so... sheeple who actually believe the media in all instances without question - I know a lot of those... and did I mention fucking stupid LA drivers? - see first answer

Posted by: Thomas Warlock at January 05, 2007 08:20 PM (kTf66)

10 *smirk* Yeah, my day went kinda like that, too.

Posted by: Mia at January 05, 2007 08:50 PM (Dlq0g)

11 I have to tell you, it was very cathartic to read your list!

Posted by: Bou at January 06, 2007 06:37 AM (PQFHD)

12 LA drivers?! Heh... try navigating your way through the rush-hour circus in Midtown Manhattan. It's common for NY drivers/cabbies to be plastered (so to speak) on the front pages of our three dailies for plowing into showroom windows and mowing pedestrians in greenmarkets down.

Posted by: Erica at January 06, 2007 03:59 PM (n1ABe)

13 Those Tivo ads drive me nuts!

Posted by: Sissy at January 08, 2007 08:48 AM (3lsFM)

14 Did we get it all out of our system?? *S* I'm like you, sometimes once I get started it just keeps rolling and rolling,,,

Posted by: Michele at January 08, 2007 10:27 AM (DqxwU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Tick tock, tick tock......

Posted by: caltechgirl at 04:50 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Ban Ki-moon was sworn in today as the 8th Secretary General of the United Nations, officially ending the decade-long term of his predecessor, Kofi Annan.

Today, Mr Ban pledged to "be mindful of... loyalty, discretion, and conscience" and to "set the highest ethical standards..."

Even if all he does is remind people that taking bribes is a bad thing, he'll already be miles ahead of Mr. Annan's repugnant term at the helm.

The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal reminds us of the words and deeds of the UN under Annan's direction:

...When Mr. Annan was named Secretary General 10 years ago, he did so as the U.S.-backed candidate of reform. Jesse Helms, then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Mr. Annan that "if you choose to be an agent of real and deep-seated change, you will find many supporters--and even allies--here in the U.S. Congress."

Senator Helms's expectations were not met. Seven years later--thanks to U.S. military action that Mr. Annan did everything in his power to prevent--we learned that he had presided over the greatest bribery scheme in history, known as Oil for Food. We learned that Benon Sevan, Mr. Annan's trusted confidant in charge of administering the program, had himself been a beneficiary of Iraqi kickbacks to the tune of $160,000. We learned that Mr. Annan's chief of staff, Iqbal Riza, had ordered potentially incriminating documents to be destroyed. We learned that Mr. Annan and his deputy, Louise Frechette, were both aware of the kickback scheme but failed to report it to the Security Council, as their fiduciary duties required. However, we haven't yet learned whether the senior Annan illegally helped his son Kojo obtain a discounted Mercedes, an issue on which the Secretary General has stonewalled reporters.

Earlier this year, Mr. Annan was also forced to place eight senior U.N. procurement officials on leave pending investigations on bribery and other charges. Vladimir Kuznetsov, the head of the U.N. budget-oversight committee, was indicted this year on money-laundering charges. Alexander Yakovlev, another procurement official, pled guilty to skimming nearly $1 million off U.N. contracts. The U.N.'s own office of Internal Oversight found that U.N. peacekeeping operations had mismanaged some $300 million in expenditures.

...

Mr. Annan came to office after a stint as head of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The period corresponded with the massacre in Srebenica of 7,000 Bosnians and the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda, both of which were facilitated by the nonfeasance of peacekeepers on the ground. It was later revealed that Mr. Annan's office explicitly forbade peacekeepers from raiding Hutu arms caches in Rwanda just four months before the genocide.

The world's worst man-made humanitarian catastrophes have since taken place in Zimbabwe, North Korea, Congo and Darfur. Mr. Annan has been mostly silent about the first two, perhaps on the time-honored U.N. principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states other than the U.S. In the Congo, U.N. peacekeepers haven't stopped the bloodshed, but they have made themselves notorious as sexual predators.

These are the facts, folks.  Under Annan's "leadership" the UN has failed.  In Darfur, in Congo, in Somalia.  In Kosovo and Rwanda and the middle east.  And these failures can all be traced to one person: Kofi Annan.

In a global community the objective SHOULD be the protection of human rights and promotion of tolerance and communication.  Under Annan, the UN's objective appeared to be "anything that makes the US look bad". 

By default, that attitude prevents the neediest among us (like the Darfuris) from receiving the help that would otherwise be freely offered.

Ask the Kosovars.

Mr Annan has singlehandedly brought the UN from an organization of hope, that had the possibility of effecting real global change to a mockery of its former self.

Opinion Journal says it more eloquently than I can:

Mr. Annan came to power at a moment when it was at least plausible to believe that a properly reformed U.N. could serve the purposes it was originally meant to serve: to be a guarantor of collective security and a moral compass in global affairs. Mr. Annan's legacy is that nobody can entertain those hopes today.

h/t Lex

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 761 words, total size 5 kb.