Reasonably Ascertainable Reality

Thoughts and musings on current events and other random occurrences.

Location: South Jersey, United States

Monday, February 27, 2006

Happy Tears

Try not to cry, I dare you.

Hat tip, ...all over the blogosphere.

Suddenly, peace is bad

Michelle Malkin, in yet another misguided attempt to show liberal bias, highlights the case of two high school students in suburban DC who are trying to get an elective class entitled "Peace Studies" cancelled. She ends her post with the following:

Good luck to Andrew Saraf and Avishek Panth: Fight the power!

"Fight the power" huh? Lets see, an high school offers an ELECTIVE class, not required for graduation, on peace, and the students and Michelle, are complaining that the teacher "is only giving one side of the story. He's only offering facts that fit his point of view."

Myself, I'm assuming that point of view If students are interested in studying peace activism and peace activists, AND they have the capability of taking an elective, they select this course. What a liberal outrage!

Even better, those students who are 'fight(ing) the power' have never taken the class and have only sat in on one lecture. Their information came from the most sacred and trustworthy of sources...other high school students. I'm sure we all know how accurate information travelling from high school student to high school student is.

This is shocking evidence of further liberal bias. Michelle loves to point out stuff like this and she does everyone in this country a wonderful service by doing so, such as her hard hitting piece on Dana Milbank and his humor. Shockingly, especially to this blogger, Michelle never mentioned anything about Scott McLellan and Jeb Bush's ridiculous liberal swipes at Cheney. And Michelle....still nothing on Hannity stumping for Santorum.

Sadly, there are people out there who put stock in Michelle Malkin's opinion. Like a broken clock, she occasionally makes a good point. But I think that happens during random re-booting of her brain and in now way reflects on her actual cognitive abilities.

Monday, February 20, 2006

American Values..

Do you have a good idea as to what they are? I thought I did, before people in this administration started re-defining them.

I had planned a long and thorough posting on the newest revelations regarding torture and detainee abuse, as well as uploading some pictures, just released, of what's being done in our name; but between work, school and moving this just hasn't been possible.

I'll just leave you with this...READ THE WHOLE THING and educate yourselves. Its long, but history will most certainly judge that it's worth the read.

“These were enormously hardworking, patriotic individuals,” he said. “When you put together the pieces, it’s all so sad. To preserve flexibility, they were willing to throw away our values.”

Friday, February 10, 2006

News and Notes

The cartoon controversy continues. Go read Andrew Sullivan for some interesting reader emails and links to some interesting articles. Someone who's opinion I respect also opines (via Ezra), as a Muslim, and I'm not quite sure I agree with him, but I'm also not sure I don't.

Powerline continues its fall from 'informed commentary' to outright hackery.

Jonathan Last at the Daily Standard reports that the U.S. is "quietly" winning the drug war. According to Last:

The supply of all the major drugs is down, but at the same time, drug
interdiction is up. In 1989, 533,533 kilograms of the four major drugs were
seized by U.S. authorities. By 2005, the total had risen to 1.3 million
Moreover, since 2001 "teen drug use is off nearly 19 percent.
Which means that 700,000 fewer teens are using drugs today than just a few years

I wonder whether this progress would be as quiet if it were occurring under a Democratic administration.

Jeez, not everything is a MSM conspiracy against right wingers. People just don't give a flying crap about the drug war...even a lot of Republicans! Give us something besides a non-reported story to justify media bias...there's plenty out there.

Lastly, the Olympics start tonight. I get psyched about the Olympics in a really dorky way. Oh well....GO USA.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Can we at least have an honest discussion?

Comments like this:

One of the most telling moments is when Debra Burlingame points out that prior to the September 11 attacks, the NSA was surveilling an al Qaeda member in Yemen who placed or received more than a dozen phone calls to and from a number in San Diego. Because these calls involved someone in the United States, the NSA didn't listen to them. It turned out that the "Kahlid" who was receiving the calls in San Diego was one of the September 11 hijackers. In fact, he was one of the hijackers who murdered Debra's brother, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77.
This is what Democrats and the news media call "domestic spying." Do the Democrats really want to return us to the days when al Qaeda could call its American operatives with impunity?

and this:

If Badawi has access to a cell phone, and calls an al Qaeda operative here in the U.S. to give the go-ahead on a mass terrorist plot, and that plot is executed killing thousands of innocent people on American soil, who will the NYTimes editors and Democrat leaders blame?

make me so angry its hard to believe so-called intelligent, rational, respected people make them. Is there an ounce of honesty in these statements? Unless I am monumentally uninformed, is there one Congressperson or Senator who has called for an end to this surveillance? Or can we all agree that the arguement, if there is one, is on the legality of WARRANTLESS surveillance. Surveillance by the executive branch with no oversight. We can argue that all day. Fine, legal points pro and con. But to actually pretend as though Democrats (and lest we forget Graham, McCain and other Republicans) actually don't want our intelligence agencies to spy on these people is out and out lies. Its lies and its the tool of the weaker arguement. of the year. Puh-leeze. If they had comments, chimpanzees could have taken apart that post in about 10 seconds.

Friday, February 03, 2006

Right to NOT be offended?

In this world, no one has the right to never be offended. Apparently fundamental Islamists think they do. Many fundamental Christians feel the same way in this country. Granted, there tactics are worlds apart, but the feeling is the same.

When she's right, she's right.

These Islamic fundamentalists feel as though these pictures are insulting. I'll grant them that. However, in a free world, no other person has to refrain from insulting you. Thats life, take it or leave it.

On Sullivans blog, this gem of a quote:

"Mona Omar Attia, Egypt's ambassador to Denmark, said after a meeting with Rasmussen that she was satisfied with the position of the Danish government but noted the prime minister had said he could not interfere with the press. 'This means the whole story will continue and that we are back to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world,' Attia said."

Um, no...they don't.

Malkin has some other choice quotes that everyone should be afraid of:

Early Friday, Palestinian militants threw a bomb at a French cultural center in Gaza City, and many Palestinians began boycotting European goods, especially those from Denmark.
"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

(ed. note--glad that guy isn't important anymore. snark intended)

In mosques throughout Palestinian cities, clerics condemned the cartoons. An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind the drawings should have their heads cut off.
"If they want a war of religions, we are ready," Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon.

About 10,000 demonstrators, including gunmen from the Islamic militant group Hamas firing in the air, marched through Gaza City to the Palestinian legislature, where they climbed on the roof, waving green Hamas banners.
"We are ready to redeem you with our souls and our blood our beloved prophet," they chanted. "Down, Down Denmark."

Fundmentalist Christians in this country also feel they have a right to not be offended. Most recently illustrated by their campaign to get Book of Daniel cancelled. Apparently, they haven't mastered the art of the 'click' yet. You see, you just hit that little button that says 'channel' up or down. It works wonders. As Sullivan points out, their tactics sometimes get worse:

"[I]t would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men's houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy," - a posting on the website of Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary, on the decision to cast an openly gay actor in an evangelical movie, "End of the Spear."

I'm not equating the two at all, but their opinions aren't what differ between them, for now, it is only their actions and that line is becoming thinner and thinner.

I don't normally do this, but I'm ashamed of Bill Clinton, the American press and most recently the State Department for trying to appease these people. A free society in Iraq? Do we even know what that means anymore?

Find an Attorney