Mad Mikey's Blog

June 03, 2005

Outrage on Aisle Four...

Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000
BAGHDAD, June 2 -- Insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis over the past 18 months, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks.

At least 36 more Iraqi civilians, security force members and officials were killed Thursday in attacks that underscored the ruthlessness and growing randomness of much of the violence. The day's victims included 12 people killed when a suicide attacker drove a vehicle loaded with explosives into a restaurant near the northern city of Kirkuk.

In Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a market area crowded with civilians, killing nine, the Defense Ministry said.

What!? Nothing from Amnesty International!?

What about Iraqi Body Count!? Lights are on but nobody's home...?

Well surely there will be some sort of 'outrage' from those upstanding people from Indy Media....what? Out to lunch!?

Figures....

Posted by Mad Mikey at 04:02 PM | Comments (11)

-->

Posted by Mad Mikey at 04:02 PM | Comments (11)

|| , 04:02 PM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment ||

Comments on Outrage on Aisle Four...

It is because we are there for the OOOIL! I am sure if we pulled out TOMORROW the country would instantly stabilize.

below are my thoughts on the matter.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/yogimus/2935.html

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 3, 2005 07:27 PM ||

OOOOIL is only part of it, and it isn't oil, it is control of the market price of a barrel of OOOOOOIIIL. He who has the most influence over the price of a barrel of OOOOOIIIL influences the development of China, India, Russia and the old Soviet countries as well as any other country that depends on oil for their economy (can you say commerce?). I love how easily some people can dismiss OOOIILLLL'S importance. What do you suppose would happen if oil production was cut in half, but only for the US? Or if the second largest oil reserve was made available to only countries that 'behaved' while others had to get it from the usual, overpriced suspects? Who do you think would have the better economy?People obviously forget the lessons learned in the 70's) Why else do we so blatantly kiss Saudi Arabia's ass?

The other, perhaps bigger reason is to make the middle east safe for our good buddy, back stabbing Israel.

There are many other reasons, some simply Bush's own psychosis, but I can assure you none of them had to do with liberating Iraqis.

As far as the response to this information, we've been saying for months that there is a civil war going on in Iraq, while the Administration and neocons have been saying it's all peachy.
Seems the right wing media is finally figuring out the house is on fire while the flames lap their toes. To me this is one for the "no-shit" hall of fame. I also think it's interesting how 'believable' Interior Minister Bayan Jabr is compared to those waful people at the International Red Cross who had the civillian casualty around 100,000.
Iraq will stabilize no faster with or without us. Problem is that we seem to be able to only think with our guns.

|| Posted by scroff, June 3, 2005 07:55 PM ||

Is that why OOOIIIILLLLL is hitting $55 a barrel? It looks like the U.S. isn't the B-A-D guy where this is concerned....

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 4, 2005 02:07 PM ||

I don't really give a poop about israel one way or the other, but it's mere existence in the region provides stability, if for no other reason than to give the surrounding countries a common enemy.

REGIONAL STABILITY is why we are there.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 4, 2005 05:28 PM ||

Yes, General, Laura Cohn with Business Week Magazine. It sounds like you've made some good progress on the oil fields in the south but that you might have a problem once you get to Baghdad. Could you tell us what your plan is to secure the oil fields?

GEN. RENUART: I don't think there's any oil fields in Baghdad.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 4, 2005 11:08 PM ||

Is that why OOOIIIILLLLL is hitting $55 a barrel

Sure is. You don't get it. It's not so we pay less for a barrel of oil, it's so the price can go up. Once again be reminded that nobody gives a crap what you or I pay for anything, and if oil were to drop to $40 a barrel, it would still be over $2 a gallon. the oil companies are not going to lower the price, let's not all be silly now.

But if it's $55 a barrel here, it's also $55 a barrel in Europe, China, India, Vietnam, South Korea, North Korea, etc etc etc ad nauseam. In the UK gasoline is about $5 a gallon, in Canada it's about $4 a gallon... I wonder how much driving they do in China or Uzbekistan, how much it costs to ship stuff to the ports where those big old diesel ships float them to our shores. OOOOOOIILLL is the one way to level the playing field economically... we can't beat their labor costs, so we'll raise their shipping, production, and transportation costs. It's really simple.

REGIONAL STABILITY is why we are there.

Well, actually, if you go back and look at the reasons we went there, regional stability was not one of the two reasons outlined by Congress for Bush to invade, so, if that is the reason why we're there, that would make the invasion illegal, wouldn't it?

I suppose the bases in Saudi Arabia were there for REGIONAL STABILITY too... fat lot of good they did.

I would love for one person to tell me how, without reverting to vague ideology, our invasion of Iraq will lead to or contribute to REGIONAL STABILITY. Start with telling me what threat Iraq posed to REGIONAL STABILITY.

|| Posted by scroff, June 5, 2005 12:51 AM ||

that would make the invasion illegal, wouldn't it?

- No it wouldn't. The invasion was legal the FIRST time saddam fired on our no fly zone craft.

Then why didn't bush say THAT?

- because he used the BEST of many reasons.

Then why no weapons of mass destruction?

- You mean OTHER than the ones we found?

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 5, 2005 07:18 PM ||

fired on our no fly zone craft

The no fly zones which were installed by who? Can you show me where it says that we are allowed to maintain no-fly zones over a sovereign nation? Please, be specific. And can you show me the UN resolution that said we could invade without the OK of the UN Security Council if he fired on one of our aircraft? Please, I'm so curious. But I suppose you're going by the Bush law that says we don't have to obey any laws that are Inconvenient.

because he used the BEST of many reasons.

If those were the best, the rest must surely suck. Like... REGIONAL STABILITY! But I guess I do have to give you credit for admitting there were unemphasized, shall we say, reasons, like, maybe OOOOOIIIIILLLLL and Israel?

You mean OTHER than the ones we found

Which ones were they? I think smarter men than you or I who were in Iraq looking for those weapons have formally declared that there were no weapons or programs, but I'll bite. Spell it out for me. What weapons? please, do tell...

BTW, you still haven't told how Iraq was a threat to the region or how our invasion will help regional stability...

|| Posted by scroff, June 11, 2005 02:35 AM ||

Which ones were they? I think smarter men than you or I who were in Iraq looking for those weapons have formally declared that there were no weapons or programs

Which they now claim we lost...

Ok, let's list a few:

Long range missiles
Dual purpose equipment forbidden under the sanctions
Chem warheads

BTW, you still haven't told how Iraq was a threat to the region or how our invasion will help regional stability...

Common enemy, Libya, voting in Saudi Arabia, and the ever popular show of overwhelming force.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 11, 2005 04:42 AM ||

Which they now claim we lost...

They? Who are they?

Long range missiles
Dual purpose equipment forbidden under the sanctions
Chem warheads

What long range missles? The ones that were found and declared before the war? What dual purpose equipment, and where in the sanctions were they forbidden? What chemical warheads? You mean the shell they found along the road in one of the earlier IEDs? You have to give me more than that. Those, even if they existed, are not enough reason to invade another country... hence talk of a mushroom cloud and an immediate threat.

Common enemy, Libya, voting in Saudi Arabia, and the ever popular show of overwhelming force

Common enemy? Not sure what you mean by that. Whose common enemy and with whom? Iraq was no threat to anybody, except maybe Israel in the form of payments to Palestinians.

Voting in Saudi Arabia???? Oh yea, they had some municipal elections. So we had to blow up Iraq to obtain that? That's the best we could do? We had to invade a helpless country to persuade Bush's buddies the Sauds to have some local elections??

Libya??? Libya wasn't even in the Axis of Evil

And oh that ever popular show of overwhelming force is working so well isn't it? What it showed is that the US isn't the great war machine everybody thought it was. What did we do? Beat up a nothing army in a basically third world country. Gee, maybe for an encore we can invade Zimbabwe. You know what really sucks? We're a one trick pony, that's all we have now is that good old overwhelming farce... and when you're up against people who believe you're doing them a favor by killing them, it doesn't do much good, and turns out it doesn't do much good when you try to use it to keep everybody else in line, either...

|| Posted by scroff, June 13, 2005 12:58 AM ||

|| Posted by replica watches, August 26, 2009 01:34 AM ||

|| , 04:02 PM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment

Gay Marriage Doomed

I'm guessing that California Democrats don't seem to be the 'party of gay people' after all:

Gay marriage measure doomed by Democrats

Rejection of gay marriage by the California Assembly in tense votes Wednesday and Thursday was due largely to about a dozen Democrats who declined to vote for an issue pushed by their party leader.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, a gay legislator who proposed Assembly Bill 19, described himself as enormously disappointed late Thursday after daylong lobbying fell short.

"At what point are we all considered human beings?" Leno said afterward. "It's frustrating, confounding and exasperating."

Like I've said before - this makes no nevermind to me....meaning I don't give a fig one way or the other. But it's looking like the Dems can't get behind this either.

Gee....wonder why?

Posted by Mad Mikey at 09:30 AM | Comments (13)

-->

Posted by Mad Mikey at 09:30 AM | Comments (13)

|| , 09:30 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment ||

Comments on Gay Marriage Doomed

It would be wonderful if Gay marriage was really doomed in California. But I still think these gays are too loud and obnoxious to be forgotten so easily. Still, its good to see another conservatve online. Come visit our blog sometime www.frustratedphilosophers.blogspot.com thank you and God Bless America
-N Malebranche

|| Posted by Nicolas Malebranche, June 3, 2005 09:58 AM ||

you have to revoke the gov't's authority to GRANT these rights.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 3, 2005 07:29 PM ||

The government isn't GRANTING anything, the 'government', America, is currently denying equal rights to a certain group of Americans based on who they fall in love with. Sounds pretty friggin stupid to me.

As far as the Dems backing down, that's easy... they're as spineless in California as they are in the Senate.

|| Posted by scroff, June 3, 2005 08:06 PM ||

So Scroff, should those "equal rights" be given to a brother and sister who want to marry? How about three people who "love" each other?

|| Posted by Director Mitch, June 3, 2005 09:23 PM ||

I don't know if I've heard of anyone saying they want to marry their sister or two other people. Well, Neal Horsley said his first girlfriend was a mule, but I don't think that's what this is about. More power to him, I guess. But your questions seem pretty irrelevant to me.

But since you brought up the 'slippery slope' argument, let's apply it to something like gun rights. Second amendment says I have the right to bear arms without defining "arms"... by your logic I suppose we should do away with the second amendment because you never know, someone might want to own a nuclear weapon...

Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it...?

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The only reason anyone has cited that I know of is that god hates fags or something to that effect. Gay marriage harms no one, and in the words of Thomas Jefferson...

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."

...nor does it harm me if my neighbor's partner happens to be the same sex. Like it or not, there are gay couples all over the place, living their lives and going about their business and you wouldn't know it unless you knew them personally. They're even raising children, god forbid! All they're asking for is the same rights straight couples have... gay couples are denied over 1000 rights that straight couples have, including, but obviously not limited to...

-The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
-The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
-The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
-The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
-The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
-Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
-The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
-The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

Ford Motor Company has initiated so called "family-friendly policies" that pledge not to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, and provide equal benefits for all its employees. 80% of the Fortune 500 companies have similar policies because they realize that fair is fair and what's right is right (maybe I should have said what's correct is correct). Along comes the American Family Association with a boycott of Ford for their policies. AFA's stated philosophy is...

The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to man through the Bible, and that all men everywhere at all times are subject to the authority of God's Word. Therefore, a culture based on Biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country, in accordance with the vision of our founding fathers.

Never mind our Founding Father's weren't all christians (Jefferson called himself a "Materialist", John Adams, in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, said "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion") nor did they espouse or believe that America should be based on "biblical truth", these folks are against gay marriage simply because it says god hates fags in the bible. While I have read the bible several times and think it's a great book with oodles of wise things to say, as well as oodles of stupid things, I don't believe it's the word of god, nor do I believe it has any place in American government, no more than the Torah or Koran. Neither did our Founding Fathers.

So, to answer your question. No one is asking to marry their sister or have more than one partner. If and when they do, we'll deal with it then. Just like we'll deal with it when the Gun Owners of America start whining for Abrams tanks.

|| Posted by scroff, June 4, 2005 01:16 AM ||

Scroff: Too long of a comment.

You must insert between every other paragraph something that honors Mikey.....;)

(Just messing with ya....blather on)

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 4, 2005 02:15 PM ||

If the gov't isn't granting, how can it deny?

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 4, 2005 05:30 PM ||

Scroff: Too long of a comment

Mikey is great

Scroff: Too long of a comment

Mikey is all um, all uh, all... Mikey!

If the gov't isn't granting, how can it deny

Nice rhetorical device there yogs, and I see your point...

Some folks would say that the right to fall in love and marry is one of those unalienable rights, given by "the creator" rather than man and thus irrevokable by man.

(Mikey rocks!)

Gay couples are being denied the rights granted to straight couples based on their love interests. If you take away the governments power to grant those rights the result would be gay marriage. It would also, most likely, result in partner benefits, where unmarried couples would share the same benefits. It might even lead to complete strangers being able to say what emergency medical procedures are done to you, after all, there would be no laws outlining who would have the responsibility to make sure your needs are met should you become incapacitated, so hell, I could do it. Mikey (mikey is great) and I could sit around and argue about it until you choked on your own vomit while we dickered "live... die live die live die... oops"
I could then take a few weeks off to mourn your passing...

Then again, maybe it's better that there are laws outlining who can do for whom and stuff like that, stuff that gay couples don't get...

(MIkey plays one bitchin bass)

|| Posted by scroff, June 5, 2005 01:10 AM ||

"It might even lead to complete strangers being able to say what emergency medical procedures are done to you, after all, there would be no laws outlining who would have the responsibility to make sure your needs are met should you become incapacitated, so hell, I could do it."

No, I would assign you as that person. Let's say that you and me are living together as a couple. We file for marriage, and the state CAN NOT DENY because they have no right to intervene. They can only maintain record of the union. That would be the beginning and the end of their jurisdiction.

Now any married couple shares the legal authority that spouses have over each other.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 5, 2005 07:23 PM ||

I personally don't give a crap if people are stupid enough to want to marry more than one person. But I think if they do, that only one of thoses spouses should be eligible for any government assistance, such as social security death benefits. As to the brother and sister thing, there are sound genetic reasons to deny such unions, just as there are sound psychological reasons to deny letting people have sex with minors.

|| Posted by Cait, June 6, 2005 08:08 PM ||

Whoa whoa whoa... social security benefits for unions? No, we would hold no distinction over THAT. There would BE no extra benefits.

But that wouldn't fly in the gimmie states, so I guess a reasonable solution would be to have X amount of dollars per person, and when that person dies, his significant others can fight over the benefits.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 6, 2005 10:24 PM ||

...his significant others can fight over the benefits.

Like vultures standing over a gazelle....

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 7, 2005 08:09 AM ||

Replica HandbagsLouis Vuitton Replica Handbags - Designer Handbags- handbag - Wholesale bags Discount Watches, Fashion Watches, Wristwatch, Fake Watch, Wholesale Watches, Jewelry Watches, Replica Jewelry Watches. In 1916 TAG Heuer replicas Chloe created the first Replica HandBags mechanical timekeeping instrument capable of measuring 1/100th of a second. In Replica Handbags 1966 they created the first "compact" electronic device cabable of measuring 1/1000th of Replica Handbags a second.

In 2004 the company s involvement with motorsports resulted in the release of a brand Replica Handbags new movement which replaced replica watches the toothed wheels Replica Handbags in the movement with miniature toothed belts, creating a brand new concept watch - the Monaco V4. Another highly coveted model is the SLR Chronograph Replica Handbags replica watches with its regulator Replica Handbags dial designed Replica handbags after the Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren. Unfortunately, if you want to buy a new SLR Chronograph you will Replica Handbags have to buy the Replica Handbags car first!

|| Posted by replica watches, August 26, 2009 01:28 AM ||

|| , 09:30 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment

June 02, 2005

The FINAL Comparison on Gitmo

Just one last mention of the 'gulag' in Gitmo - I promise.

Here's a stark comparison between the gulags of the Soviet Union and the Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:

AMNESTY'S IDIOCY

May 27, 2005 -- CAN it be? Did Amnesty International, which purports to be the world's leading independent monitor of human rights abuses, describe the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times"?

Yes, it did. So let's do a few comparisons between Gitmo and the Gulag — the network of Soviet prison camps set up by Stalin in the 1920s.

Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600.

Number of prisoners in the Gulag: as many as 25 million, according to the peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum.

Number of camps at Gitmo: 1

Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum.

Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.

Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of airplanes.

Financial purpose of Gulag: Providing totalitarian economy with millions of slave laborers.

Financial purpose of Gitmo: None.

Seizure of Gulag prisoners: From apartments, homes, street corners inside the Soviet Union.

Seizure of Gitmo prisoners: From battlefield sites in Afghanistan in the midst of war.

Okay....I think that just about settles that bag of cricket crap.

Oh wait - there IS one more mention: Fellow Cal Bear League member Rusty Shackleford at My Pet Jawa has a great in-depth comparison between Gitmo and the Soviet 'gulags'. Go check it out.

Posted by Mad Mikey at 02:59 PM | Comments (10)

-->

Posted by Mad Mikey at 02:59 PM | Comments (10)

|| , 02:59 PM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment ||

Comments on The FINAL Comparison on Gitmo

Quite the credible organization. Here’s a short list of where some of there funds are funneled.
Truth be damned!

ARRIAGA, MARIA A, WASHINGTON,DC 20007
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/DIRECTOR 7/29/2004
$1,000 to Kerry, John

ARRIAGA, MARIA A, WASHINGTON,DC 20007
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/DIRECTOR 8/9/2004
$1,000 to Kerry, John

ARRIAGA, MARIA A, WASHINGTON,DC 20007
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/DIRECTOR , 2/4/2004
$250 to Quigley, Lisa

BENESCH, SUSAN, WASHINGTON,DC 20009
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 7/3/2004
$1,000, Kerry, John

BENESCH, SUSAN, WASHINGTON,DC 20009
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/HUMAN RIGHTS, 10/26/2004
$750 Next PAC

BENESCH, SUSAN, WASHINGTON,DC 20009
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/HUMAN RIGHTS, 9/16/2004
$500, Moveon.org

BENESCH, SUSAN, WASHINGTON,DC 20009
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/HUMAN RIGHTS, 10/26/2004
$500 Next PAC

BENESCH, SUSAN, WASHINGTON,DC 20009
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/REFUGEE 8/5/2004
$225 Moveon.org

BOTHNE, NANCY, CHICAGO,IL 60626
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/MANAGEMENT 7/20/2004
$250 Kerry, John

DIXON, HUBERT E MR III BOWIE,MD 20715
AMNESTY INTERNATIONA/CENTER OF COMM 9/29/2004
$225 DNC Services Corp

Rosenthal, Mila Mrs New York,NY 10011
AMNESTY INT. USA 8/6/2004
$333 Kerry, John

Schneider, Karen Bethesda,MD 20817
Amnesty International 7/11/2004
$300 Kerry, John

SCHULTZ, WILLIAM F HALESITE,NY 11743
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 3/28/2003
$250 Leahy, Patrick

SCHULZ, WILLIAM HUNTINGTON,NY 11743
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL/CHAIRMAN 5/27/2004
$2,000 Kerry, John

SCHULZ, WILLIAM F HUNTINGTON,NY 11743
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 5/2/2004
$1,000 Kennedy, Edward M

SHULTZ, WILLIAM HALESITE,NY 11743
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA 9/13/2004
$250 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

SHUTTZ, WILLIAM HUNTINGDON BAY,NY 11743
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 10/21/2004
$200 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

|| Posted by Gordon the Magnificent, June 2, 2005 07:58 PM ||

Uh huh. You'd expect people who have concern about human rights to donate money to the Bush Cartel? Right. That post was like saying "Look! An organization that cares about people is donating to the leftys!" Another one for the no-shit hall of fame.

As far as the report, it said "of our times", not of the 1920's. Interesting how you guys have to go all the way back to the 1920's to find something worse. I would have thought Hitler's concentration camps would have done it.

The Supreme Court, the same one that you all loved when it selected Bush in 2000, became 'activist judges' in June 2004 when they ruled that U.S. Courts had jurisdiction to hear cases in gitmo and that those held by the US must be afforded an opportunity to contest their detention. Of course Rumsfeld came back with the CSRT to assess whether or not each detainee is indeed an 'enemy combatant'. What do you suppose that means? It means that, aside from some assholes opinion, we don't know who is or who isn't an 'enemy combatant'. The CSRT has no basis in any law and is being used by the Bush Cartel to hold onto people that should have been released at the end of hostilities between the US and the Taliban in 2002. Or they should be brought up on formal charges. But fuck it, the law doesn't count for shit anymore in what used to be known as America.

|| Posted by scroff, June 3, 2005 08:27 PM ||

Funny how everyone is ready to talk shit about amnesty Intl., yet rumsfeld was sure busy quoting their findings when it served his purpose. jeez.

|| Posted by ruthie, June 3, 2005 11:20 PM ||

ruthie: my intent for this (and other) posts about the Amnesia Int'l *cough* report was to point out that in issuing this report and asserting the 'gulag' comparison that they've now rendered themselves a clown organization....much like the UN.

In their quest for a huge headline, they missed the point of why they issue such reports.

Now no one will give them much ado about anything and it'll be interesting to see how their fundraising is affected in the next few months....

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 4, 2005 02:18 PM ||

Well, all of this hubbub could be solved by simply not taking prisoners.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 4, 2005 05:32 PM ||

Well, all of this hubbub could be solved by simply not taking prisoners

All of this hubub could be solved by sticking to rule of law, something we tried our best to do for many decades.

I don't think the people who will be offended by Amnesty Int's comments are the same ones who will be donating to them, anyway. Personally, I understood the analogy, and was able to get that they didn't mean gulag as in Soviet gulag. It would be like me saying my 64 corvette really flies and some right winger saying "What an idiot! He thinks he can fly!" No more than I've come to expect, mind you.

Makes me think about watching Dean the other day when Wolf asked him about his I hate Republicans statement. If I was him I would have said "You're damn right I hate republicans." and then gone on about how fucked up some prominent republicans, the religious right and conservative christian agenda are. I mean who cares if republicans get pissed off? They're not going to vote Democratic anyway and maybe if people "in the center" or "undecided" see someone with some balls they might be persuaded to listen.

|| Posted by scroff, June 5, 2005 01:24 AM ||

They're not going to vote Democratic anyway and maybe if people "in the center" or "undecided" see someone with some balls they might be persuaded to listen.

And that will be the next set of nails in the coffin of the Dems in 2006 and 2008.

Even with a massive voter turn out Kerry wasn't elected (let's not talk about the voting machines cause IMO it's a dead issue) and I don't think there will be 4 million new voters by that time and if there were, they're not all gonna vote Democratic.

You're right: Dean's stupid comments - and there's a LOT of them lately - aren't going to sway center voters. But it WILL piss off some Democrats that actually try to view Republicans as merely a different voting block and not rich white men that push old ladies down stairs to steal their walkers.

Just seems to me....that if you're in the business of swaying voters to vote for your candidate (whomever they might be) that instead of merely castigating about what 'morons' Republicans are that you might actually try to show why your candidate is better - not why the Republicans are worse.

But in all let Dean chomp on his feet for a while....2006 will show that more and more (IMHO) people will grown tired of his crap and put more Republicans into Congress....

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 5, 2005 09:34 AM ||

(I do more posting here than at my own site... what's up with that?)

You have some good points, but IMNSHO, people are going to get tired of hearing about Republicans wanting to ban books and provocative cheerleading and the whole christian conservative agenda and vote democrat... if the dems can show they have some backbone to do what they think is right. That is if the liberal media would report on this stuff rather than Deans comments. What's interesting is that what you said about "merely castigating about what 'morons' [Democrats] are that you might actually try to show why your candidate is better - not why the [Democrats] are worse" is exactly how the republicans got elected.

|| Posted by scroff, June 5, 2005 01:01 PM ||

"All of this hubub could be solved by sticking to rule of law, something we tried our best to do for many decades."

Rule of law states that any individual fighting out of uniform is to be shot. Which is what I propose.

As for the republican vs democrat politician debate:

One wants to legislate how you speak, the other wants to legislate how you fuck. BOTH should be chased into the seas. Indian style.

It is truly sad that 99% of the people share 99% political views, and our politicians live to generate animosity over that 1%, because they can't or DON'T want to solve the 99% of issues affecting EVERYONE.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 5, 2005 07:29 PM ||

|| Posted by replica watches, August 26, 2009 01:38 AM ||

|| , 02:59 PM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment

Ted's Meds

Turner: CNN Focuses Too Much on Perverts
"I would like to see us to return to a little more international coverage on the domestic feed and a little more environmental coverage, and, maybe, maybe a little less of the pervert of the day," he said in a speech to CNN employees outside the old Atlanta mansion where the network first aired.

Well, if barking moonbat liberals like Ted would allow us to execute perverts then there would be a lot less news about them....huh, Ted?

And this is the one thing that made me guffaw out loud:

And at one point he claimed partial credit for ending the Cold War.

Amanpour asked his if he honestly thought he had a hand in it.

"I'm absolutely certain I did," he said.

Don't really know how to respond to this one Ted. I do know that you had about as much in ending the Cold War as Barney the Purple Dinosaur though.

Ted - really...take the medication. It's for your own good.

Posted by Mad Mikey at 10:20 AM | Comments (2)

-->

Posted by Mad Mikey at 10:20 AM | Comments (2)

Speako Americano?

I knew this would happen sooner or later:

Lawsuit demands that students be tested in their native language

SAN FRANCISCO ---- Ten school districts statewide and three nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit against the state Wednesday for allegedly testing non-English-speaking students in English and then labeling them and their schools as "failing" under the state's implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The lawsuit, filed in federal Superior Court in San Francisco, demands that the state test its 1.6 million non-English-speaking students in a "language and form" they understand, as mandated in the federal education reform law.

The lawsuit is asking the state to change the way it tests students who do not yet understand English, said Mary Hernandez, an attorney with the Southern California-based law firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen, lawyers for the plaintiffs.

"We are asking that the state comply with federal law by testing students in the language and the form that will most likely yield accurate results on what they know and what they've learned," Hernandez said during a telephone press conference out of Los Angeles on Wednesday.

Two of the plantiff school districts are here in San Diego: Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District. And having the Chula Vista district involved doesn't surprise me one little bit. When my daughter attended those schools a few years back, there was this ever-lasting BIG push to teach bilingually in the classes. And when that wasn't being pushed, the pace of the classes c-r-a-w-l-e-d because half of the class didn't speak much English - at least not enough to rate being in a 2^nd grade class.

I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again: America is a land that has many cultures that are initially bound by a common thread: speaking English. When someone emmigrates to another nation, it is expected that this immigrant should learn the language, the customs, and the culture. When I lived in Saudi Arabia 13 years ago, I made it a point to at least attempt to learn Arabic - didn't get far, but the Saudis that saw me trying were very appreciative of my efforts and that went a long way in defining my working environment there.

If these kids aren't performing at state-required levels, then they need to work a little harder. Oh, and maybe the parents of these kids might want to pitch in a little and actually pay attention to what their kids are (and aren't) doing in school.

This bilingual crap has got to stop and NOW. Californians make a lot of strides in trying to help people integrate into American society, but there has to be some effort on the part of those integrating.

What's even more of a sign that *cough* bilingual education isn't working is that some of the plantiffs are HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS. What the hell is wrong with a school district if teenagers cannot take a test in English!?

It has to stop and it has to stop now. Quite honestly, if you cannot make an attempt to learn English, get the f*ck out.

Posted by Mad Mikey at 07:32 AM | Comments (10)

-->

Posted by Mad Mikey at 07:32 AM | Comments (10)

June 01, 2005

Legislation of Happy Thoughts

Oh joy....I love how the twerps in Sacramento think that they can legislate warm, fuzzy feelings:

Senate passes health care bill

The state Senate passed legislation Tuesday to establish a universal health care system that would replace existing private plans, though Democratic supporters acknowledged that the bill remains a work in progress.

Senate Bill 840 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would create a new state health insurance agency that would be led by a new elected health commissioner. The bill does not include a funding solution. Kuehl asked her colleagues to approve the bill to keep the proposal active.

I love this style of politics - legislate some huge program and then try to figure out how to pay for it.

Higher sales taxes anyone?? I'm betting dollars to donuts that the California sales tax - currently at 7.750% - will get bumped up or Sacramento will attempt to bump it up to pay for this crap.

Again, is it any wonder that both people and companies are leaving California?

Posted by Mad Mikey at 02:55 PM | Comments (2)

-->

Posted by Mad Mikey at 02:55 PM | Comments (2)

I Was FORCED to Join!

Here is part of the reason that Pablo *patooey* Paredes didn't get much sympathy here in San Deigo:

Joining the military for the wrong reasons

Pablo Paredes joined the United States Navy, not for love of country or to defend freedom, but because his college scholarship money ran out. “I ended up signing off six years of my life out of a lack of options,” he said. Was there a problem with the obvious option — a job?

Comments on I Was FORCED to Join!

You maintain your GI bill if with every type of discharge OTHER than dishonorable. NOT GOOD enough I say.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 1, 2005 07:52 PM ||

Pablo Paredes joined the United States Navy, not for love of country or to defend freedom, but because his college scholarship money ran out

Oh fer christ's sake. Right, for love of country or to defend freedom. I wonder how many years this writer spent in the service of her beloved country. With a statement like that I'd bet zip. Another pathetic young POS chickenhawk.

If the only people in the military right now joined out of love for country or to "defend freedom" there would be a draft. What a stupid fucking chickenhawk piece of shit thing to say.

As far as Paredes, there were other options, I'm sure, but like so many others he chose the military. When it came time to go to Iraq he decided he didn't want to take part in it. Hell he's just a sailor, how much combat is he going to see? Zip. It had nothing to do with chickening out. What's the worse that could happen? Is the Iraqi Navy going to sink him? Right. He stood his ground and took his licks, however light they might be. It's interesting how the article fails to mention that the ‘politically correct’ Navy judge at the special court-martial said he saw reason for the war in Iraq to be seen as illegal. Nice big piece to leave out, ignore the reason why paredes got off light.

I think Paredes should have boarded his ship. But I respect his decision, and little chickenhawks like this should shut up or suit up.

|| Posted by scroff, June 3, 2005 08:51 PM ||

Well how about this: *I* say the same thing this writer said. [/growling kitten]

Pablo is now becoming a small footnote in the anti-war notebook and will be relegated to cleaning Navy shitters.

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 4, 2005 02:21 PM ||

For love of country is why I serve.

"I think Paredes should have boarded his ship. But I respect his decision, and little chickenhawks like this should shut up or suit up."

Well, making her shut up would be counterproductive to all those volunteering to fight for her right to speak.

Oh, and pablo didn't "stand his ground and take his licks". He decided to make a political statement on the backs of his shipmates. He acted like a little bitch.

I have SEEN people stand up and take their licks. They never did it around cameras.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 4, 2005 05:44 PM ||

I* say the same thing this writer said

Big difference, Mikey. She is saying that people join the military out of love for country or to defend freedom, which are only two out of dozens of reasons people join and serve honorably, and if she had served she would have known that and wouldn't be dissing those that joined and served honorably to get a decent job with decent benefits for their family, to get out of a small deadend town, to see the world, for the hell of it, for a rush, for some adventure, to get some money for college, for whatever the hell. It would seem to me that she has been able to pay her way through college somehow, so then why isn't she in the military? Doesn't she love her country or want to defend freedom? If not than how does she get off talking shit about someone who joined the military for whatever reason, it's still one better than her. chickenhawk piece of shit.

You joined.. you served, for whatever reason, you put your money where your mouth is, it wasn't just lip service like so many of these chickenhawk fuckheads.

I guess then we must all love our country more than her, since we all served, therefore, since she obviously doesn't love her country or her freedom enough to defend it she needs to shut the fuck up.

What makes her, who sits her ass safe in her apartment, cheerleading from the sidelines, any better than paredes??????

Like I said, I thought he should have boarded his ship, because of his shipmates. He could have boarded, sailed and handed in his ID card to his Captain or whoever he would have handed it to, did his job on the ship so no one else had to carry his load. But here we have Ms. Sweety-safe-at-home, carrying no load at all other than the gritty job of dispensing spewage, just running her yap and getting paid for it... talking shit about something she has no idea about... she has alot of balls.

Paredes did stand his ground and stand before a court martial, he could have just disappeared like so many others. There are thousands of troops awol and no one is even looking for them. He made a huge point that is getting lost in all of this much too quickly. Lost hell, it hasn't even made it to the news.

I don't get it Mikey. You give guys like paredes who at least signed on the line the sole of your boot but give these chickenhawk little leeches a free ride... makes no sense to me at all... they remind me of the kids in high school who used to stand behind the big dumb kid and try to get him to beat somebody up, then run away when the teachers came...

|| Posted by scroff, June 5, 2005 01:57 AM ||

Like Yogi *I* joined and served for love of country.

As for this woman's opinion piece, it's just that: an opinion piece.

I see your point about having more 'gravitas' (first time I've used that term....correctly I hope) to opine about Pablo's *patooey* decision to whimp out, but she is entitled to her opinion - I won't knock her on that regard.

And bottom-line is this: IMO Pablo *patooey* was a idiot for thinking that making a grandstand on the docks would get him out of all trouble and he fell on face - hard.

He thought he'd garner lots of support from the anti-war douche bags here in San Diego and again he fell on his face.

What this writer was stating was that all of his arguments were false, full of crap, and he got what was coming to him....cleaning Navy shitters.

|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 5, 2005 09:44 AM ||

What this writer was stating was that all of his arguments were false, full of crap, and he got what was coming to him....cleaning Navy shitters

This writer needs to sign up or go back to reporting on Penny Socials. You can't sit there, IMNSHO, and spout how good and right and just the war is and not go help out. If you do, and you're physically able and of age to serve, you're a coward and a hypocrite.

As far as what paredes was saying, even Lieutenant Commander Bob Klant had to agree with his arguments, otherwise he might have gotten the big chicken dinner. That's the part she doesn't report and that no one is reporting.

|| Posted by scroff, June 5, 2005 01:17 PM ||

The ONLY thing I have against pablo is that he did what he did in front of cameras.

I have SEEN troops that get orders to Iraq. I have seen a few completey freak out. (Baby on the way) I have ALSO seen the command structure take care of these troops to the point of making sure they stayed in and did not have to go.

I have seen the command grant them a discharge because they requested it. (You don't have to go to Iraq, but you can't stay here) NOT ONE of them did it IN FRONT OF CAMERAS. If pablo was MY troop, he would have been cuffed IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS and thrown his ass into the brig. You want to take a stand, fine. But you do NOT do that on the BACKS OF YOUR FELLOW SOLDIERS.

That pussy.

|| Posted by Yogimus, June 5, 2005 07:38 PM ||

|| Posted by replica watches, August 26, 2009 01:16 AM ||

|| , 11:12 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment

Discrimination!

Yet another reason why Democrats just don't 'get it':

Tax hikes urged for rich

Assembly Democrats on Tuesday called for tax hikes for the state's top earners in order to pour $3 billion more into public schools, laying the groundwork for a summer budget standoff with Republican lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Although polls show California voters favor boosting taxes on upper-income earners to pay for schools, Schwarzenegger has said he will not support it. Republican lawmakers, who hold enough votes in the Legislature to block a tax increase, immediately balked at the plan.

But Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, said Democrats have "looked at every other option" and determined the increases are vital.

"Assembly Democrats are not afraid to cast the hard votes necessary to increase revenues when those revenues will be used to fund public education," Núñez said. "We are not going to shortchange our schools of the resources that they need to educate our children."

As I was sitting here at school reading this, my friend Elly - who's a semi-liberal - instantly blurted out Rich people don't send their kids to public schools....why should they shell out more money? to which I agreed. She also agreed with me about the idiocy of taxing people simply because they make more money....Discrimination!! she says.

And she's right. There is no logical reasoning for taxing people at a higher tax rate simply cause they make more money, other than you're a socialist that believes that everyone is equal....except the rich. And they wonder why companies are relocating OUT of California.....dipsticks.

Posted by Mad Mikey at 10:45 AM | Comments (4)

-->

Posted by Mad Mikey at 10:45 AM | Comments (4)

Jam It Already

There has been much ado about the Amnesty International *cough* report on how the Gitmo detainess are living in a 'gulag'.

Oh please - for the love of God, STFU already.

Those detainees are lucky that they're getting such nice treatment - period. They're certainly getting better treatment then some of those 'hostages' that were beheaded in Iraq, huh?

And if it weren't for the graciousness of Americans these detainess wouldn't have any Korans to flush down a toilet. By the way, I dare you to try and flush a book down a toilet - can't be done.

And while I'm sure there might - might - be a case or two of *cough* abuse, it's nothing to get your panties in a wad over. There will always be a few jerks in every crowd and exhibiting one's actions isn't indicative of the American military as a whole.

The detainees should feel lucky that they weren't dealt with like the military in Chile or Argentina (I forget which) did: throw their asses out of a helicopter 100 miles out over the ocean. Seriously.

There isn't really much of a case for these dorks to rate lawyers to defend them. The U.S. should deal with them as they originally intended: military tribunals. Quick, easy, and the freaking ACLU can't get involved.

So just jam it about the 'gulag' and let's compare the Gitmo 'gulag' to some of the other more interesting 'gulags' in history. They don't compare - not by a long shot.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin's weekly column sums up this 'outrage' over Gitmo and its 'gulag':

Guantanamo Bay will not be the death of this country. The unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting Left is a far greater threat.

Posted by Mad Mikey at 09:28 AM | Comments (2)

-->

Posted by Mad Mikey at 09:28 AM | Comments (2)

Calendar

About Me

Who is Mikey?

Mikey playing with digital camera
Mikey is a forty-something U.S. Navy veteran that is currently taking a break from being a full-time student at UC San Diego studying electrical engineering.

He's also a husband, a father, a former Independent/Democrat and is currently dealing with dialysis and getting on the national kidney transplant list.

The words written here are his opinions and his observations on the stupid things in life. If you do not like them or do not agree with them: tough squishies. In America, you're entitled to Freedom of Speech not Freedom to Not Be Offended.

Help Mikey by not being part of the problem and instead, be part of the solution so that he doesn't have to comment on your sorry actions.

Contact Mikey

mikey-AT-madmikey-DOT-mu-DOT-nu
AIM: madmikeysblog
YIM: madmikey92037
Any/all e-mail sent to Mikey might be published if you get nasty or it's something worthwhile...

Donate

Help Mike deal with his mounting medical bills

What's this all about? Read this to learn more...

Search This Site

Counters and Stuff

Total Entries: 1152
Total Comments: 4248
Comments/Entry: 3.69

Groups & Associations

California Bear League

MuNuviana

Powered By

Design Credit