head shaking...

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.

The whole thing is insane.  This paragraph in particular, is a MASTERPIECE:

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.

The author of this quasi intelligible twaddle is June Scorza Terpstra, Professor of Social Justice at Loyola University in Chicago.

Read the whole thing.  No really, I'll wait.

People like this woman give all academics a bad name.The same free speech and social justice that she worships for the poor, the downtrodden, and the left, she refuses to extend to the very ones who allow to keep those freedoms.  The irony drips.  How naive do you really have to be to think that what our troops are doing in the Middle East is all about Greed and Power and Neocon ego-stroking???

I have just one question for this so-called social justice proponent:  Which is better, social justice-wise: To live in the US as it is today, with Freedoms of Speech, Press, Religion, etc; where women are free to wear as many or as few clothes as they like, drive, speak their minds (including YOU, lady), and vote; where you can walk about (in the daylight at least) in most cities without fear of imminent death; etc, etc?  Or would you like to live under sharia law as it is practiced in much of the Muslim world?  Would you like to wear a burqa or hajib, have NO rights under the law, be vulnerable to rape and murder on a whim, be uneducated, and unable to drive, choose your husband (or not), or go anywhere alone?  Do you want to live in fear of terrorism or the secret police who come after you just because they don't like you?

These "war criminals" allow you to keep you job, your lifestyle, your right to vote.  In case you forgot, 20 of those fuckers came over here and told us in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS 5 years ago that they mean business, and they don't care.  If the terrorists out there are willing to sacrifice themselves, their children and old people, and everything they have to end our way of life, then we must be EQUALLY DETERMINED to keep it.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists.  You cannot use diplomacy in the face of nuclear weapons. Or even IEDs.

The lesson of Vietnam is NOT that we walked away.  The lesson is that walking away leaves chaos in its wake.  And we cannot afford to do that this time around.

h/t Smash

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

My nappy time pillow is calling

So I am off to try to get some sleep, or else finish watching the Poirot movie I fell asleep to...

But I want to leave you with this:

God Bless you Bert Brady, and all the others who take a moment from their day to say a simple "Thanks". And kudos to ABC for telling their story.

Happy VD everybody!

h/t Sparkle via email.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Joe Lieberman is my hero

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.

Read the Senator's entire statement here. 

Thank you Senator, for having the courage of your convictions to stand up and remind your colleagues that politics and personal pettiness should always be secondary to the support of the men and women who defend our freedoms.

h/t SMASH

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

That stench in NYC the other day?

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."

Observe the holiday without understanding why, eh?

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.

Everything you ever wanted to know about The Surge*

* 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.

Now go read the rest!

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

Good News For A Change

Laughing Wolf (at Blackfive) posts an update on JR Salzman's condition, including a way you can help, if you are so inclined.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 05:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Lumberjack Down

J.R. Salzman, the blogger behind Lumberjack in a Desert has been wounded in Iraq by an IED.

"it is hard for me to tell you all this but i was hurt by an ied here. my right arm has been amputated below the elbow, my left has four working fingers. my legs are fine so l can still logroll! i am on my way to the hospital in germany, then back to the states for more care. i am in high spirits. i am going to be ok, but i will have a long road to recovery. please remember me in your prayers, as well as those who were injured with me. i will let you know more as time passes."

I never read J.R.'s blog before today, in fact I never knew about it, but I'm a big fan of his from the Great Outdoor Games.  I knew he looked familiar.


The Good news is that J.R. is already at Walter Reed, doing the every-other-day surgery thing until the doctors can get his wounds healing appropriately.  His wife and parents are with him.

The Better news is that The Usual Suspects are already at work getting JR a Valour-IT laptop so that he can continue to communicate with the world at large.

Please keep J.R. and his family, and all the men who were wounded with him and their families in your thoughts and prayers

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Gerald Ford Dead Today....

President Ford died today at age 93.

Of course, this means that yet another of my favorite jokes goes by the wayside.....

Rest in Peace, Mr. President. You were always loved for your grace under fire, your candor, and your humility.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Light a Candle for Hope

Hanukkah is a time to light candles and celebrate victories of the past, but it's also a time to remember those lost or left behind.

Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were abducted more 5 months ago.This Hanukkah - the holiday of lights, Ynetnews, in coordination with the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, invite you to light a Hanukkah candle in their honor.
As individuals our light is weak, but together we will shine brightly and light a huge flame to express our common concern and hope that Gilad, Ehud and Eldad return safely home.

Remember Gilad, Ehud and Eldad. Help bring them home


Clicking either of the pictures will take you to the Candle Site. More than 10,000 have been lit so far. Let their families know how many people out there remember and care.
h/t Linda SoG

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:10 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Two in a row

PBS gets it right this time with a great story about Project Valour-IT on their MediaShift blog:

...While most of the bloggers who supported Valour-IT have been on the conservative side of the political spectrum, FbL notes that the project cuts across ideology by focusing on helping out wounded veterans.

"Doing a program like this is so beyond politics," FbL said. "You have someone here who is hurt, and you have the ability to make their lives better, why wouldn't you do that? That's part of our success with this. How do you say no to this without looking like a total jerk? [laughs] You can say, "It's all George Bush's fault." Yes, it is, but how are you going to help? It's beyond politics and it's so human. It's a winning concept and I am lucky enough to know brilliant people who have made this project work."

Valour-IT is another result of average folks banding together online to make a difference, getting beyond petty politics and government bureacracy to get something done and do it right. It's one of those classic holiday stories of people giving of their time, their money and even the bully-pulpit space of their blogs to help others in need.

Go read the whole thing, and maybe leave a comment telling PBS how much you appreciate the story.

h/t BethD

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

British Soldier wins Gulf War Syndrome case

Even though he never served in the Gulf:

"Alex Izett, a former lance corporal in the Royal Engineers, won a case at the War Pensions Tribunal in Manchester, northwest England, in 2003 attesting that his ailments developed after vaccinations he received in 1991.

That ruling allowed him to to receive a pension for individual conditions such as the brittle bone disease osteoporosis that developed after army medics innoculated him against chemical and biological agents.

More importantly, though, the UK court ruling in effect declares that Gulf War syndrome is real and that soldiers SHOULD be compensated and treated for the after effects of vaccinations, other medications, and environmental exposures during their service in the Gulf and pre-service staging.

This stands in stark contrast to the "official" US view that there is no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome, based on a VA-funded study conducted on soldiers returning from the Gulf since 1990.  In the US, veterans may only claim special disability benefits if they suffer from an UNDIAGNOSED illness that can be directly related to their Gulf War service.

Do you know how hard it is to get NO diagnosis?  You must have at least a preliminary diagnosis in order to treat a patient appropriately.  Sure, you can treat symptoms individually, but you must be able to draw some conclusions in order to avoid iatrogenic injury or disease.

Maybe our sick vets should go to Britain to get sicker be treated for their illnesses.  At least they'll be appreciated and not belittled.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

An honorable tribute

Read John D's account of the tribute to Cpl. David Unger at Ft. Leavenworth today.  I dare you not to cry.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:41 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Strong

More catching up.

This one got to me.  Can't wait to see it on TV.

<
h/t Blackfive

Posted by: caltechgirl at 03:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

So this is supporting the troops, huh? Try actually speaking to them

SMASH has the definitive, straight from the horses' mouths.  Including Code Pink's reaction to ACTUAL soldiers.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Funny how football season and the 9/11 anniversary coincide....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

9/11/01

10:29 am:

Cox and Forkum Sum it Up (with a good link round up, below, as well)

This post stays on top today. Scroll down for more content.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

This is why I chose not to participate

I could NEVER pay tribute to anyone as well as they deserve, and certainly not this well.

Never Forget. Never.  Check out the 2,996 project.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy 20th Birthday

May you have many more, and may this be the only one you ever spend in pain at the hands of terrorists.

Don't know who this good looking kid is? Try here, here , or here.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

A lack of Education on your part.....

The always interesting Dafydd ab Hugh brings us the tale of MA Gov. Mitt Romney, who recently described the Big Dig fiasco as a "tar baby".  Correctly, too, I might add.

Now, in this day and age, as you would expect, certain groups got their panties in a collective twist over THEIR interpretation of the phrase, which they incorrectly assumed was a negative term referring to black people.  And made him apologize.

If these asshats would stop banning GOOD literature and movies because of their PC BULLSHIT, and had actually read Uncle Remus or seen Disney's "Song of the South", instead of mindlessly chucking them for the invocation of an unfortunate sterotype or two, they would know that the phrase "Tar Baby" refers to an inanimate object, covered in a sticky substance, that serves no other purpose than the trap the person unlucky enough to touch it.

A "Tar Baby" therefore, is really just a big, sticky, messy problem that will not go away.  Sounds like the Big Dig, no?

So let's call a spade a spade, and drop this whole pretended affrontery, ok?  As Dafydd says:

"I reckon with some people, God was a bit niggardly in passing out brains."

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:12 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

Love those Milbloggers

Two posts of special note today:

First, Cpt. Chuck Z posts your guide to the semantics of the War on Terror, based on the work of leading Islamic scholars

Second, Smash posts on his encounter with the leaders of the Code Pinkos.... and their demonstrations of bizarre willful ignorance.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.