“Shouldn’t we stop for that checkpoint?”

Would someone please set this liar’s pants on fire?


Here’s the car that Italian commie “journalist” Giuliana Sgrena claims had “300 and 400 bullets [fired] at if from an armoured vehicle” (quoting her lying mouth in an article in Il Manifesto). As one wag noted, great marksmanship to fit all those bullets into 3-4 holes… Posted by Hello

Pic from The Jawa Report. See more at the link. (Thx to Glenn Reynolds for the link to The Jawa Report)

Oh, and a h.t. to The Jawa Report for the link to Jeff Goldstien’s droll take on Giuliana Sgrena.

Addendum: Austin Bay, writing at Strategy Page, has a trenchant observation (read the whole thing, would you?):

“…one rule never changes at a roadblock: Even escorted military convoys slow down as they approach a roadblock. As for a single civilian auto approaching at high speed? If a driver doesn’t hit the brakes, the troops will shoot.”

Of course. Nearly everyone is bemoaning the “tragic mistake” that led to the death of the security agent Nicola Calipari. But one has to ask, who made the mistake of approaching, without even slowing, a military checkpoint? The expert security agent in the car (said Nicola Calipari) had been in Iraq before, delivering another ranson in the Italian terrorist funding program. he knew the rules of engagement and the rules ofthe road. The barriers and checkpoints are not only clearly marked, they are, by now, well-known traffic choke points.

Sounds like the expert security agent, as noble as his act of throwing himself on top of the commie journalist he was there to take back to Italy, also provided a wee lesson in evolution in action.

Sometimes you just have to laugh

It’s that, or run around in a mad rage breaking things…

Sometimes it’s good to break things. Frank J. at IMAO has another sardonic editorial up. This one mocks the Dems push to give convicted felons the vote. An excerpt for flavor:

…conservatives have been making statement against the effectiveness gun control for a while in the form of “If someone is planning on killing someone, he won’t have any compunction about breaking gun laws.” Democrats must have finally taken that to heart and expanded the logic to “If someone is capable of murder, he probably won’t have any compunction about voting for a Democrat.”

Indeed.

Analyze This

A Visit to the Weird World of Dreamland

OK, get this. I was dreaming this morning (yes, it was in color, and yes, I remember—some of—my dreams) and in my dream, I met my wife for the first time in a Chinese restaurant (not where we really met, of course). From that point on, fate took a hand (it was a dream). We continued to meet at the Chinese restaurant, fell in love and became engaged—all in that Chinese restaurant.

Mama-san (how I knew her name is a mystery, of course), the owner, was delighted and counseled us on which day was most fortuitous for us to tie the knot. She, of course, was not only a J.P but also a Methodist minister and would perform the ceremony. (Why Methodist? I dunno. Analyze that.)

Came the day and I’m waiting for my bride to appear. Naturally, I notice at the very last instant that I do not have on the socks my lovely bride chose for me. Oops. Not a good omen. I find them in my coat pocket and change in the blink of an eye. (Did I mention that I’m Superman—in my dreams… )

Another oops: pants have a spot. Another Supernman moment and I’m still waiting for my bride to walk down the aisle (in the Chinese restaurant).

It was a wonderful ceremony. The honeymoon was just starting when… “Time to get up, sweetheart.”

*sigh* Sleep over.

At least I woke to see my bride.

Happy thought, that.

John McCain’s Heart of Darkness—”Rights? You ain’t got no stinking rights!”

The hallmark of tyranny

The central characteristic of tyrannical rule is this: the citizen is replaced by the subject and rights are replaced by priviledges allowed by the tyrant. And so we see the tyrant displayed in McCain-Feingold, where a right once specifically ennumerated by the Constitution (free political speech) has now become a regulated priviledge. The blogstorm this last week over the proposal to apply McCain-Feingold to blogs by re-defining political speech on a blog as a “contribution in kind” to some politician/political party or other political entity so that it can be regulated (controlled, stiffled, etc.) by our political masters indicates that the pols’ goal of complete subjugation of what was once the American citizenry is not quite yet complete (except in airports, where the Thousands Standing Around can command complete servility from us all).

Despite (or perhaps in part because) of his lapse into vulgarity, Kim du Toit sums up a very proper response to such action here.

I suspect that attempting to enforce “consequences” for practicing what the First Amendment guarantees against such as Kim might well carry consequences of its own for those petty tyrants stupid enough to try it.

Good.

More (and a bump): Since all most people hear about the First Amendment to the Constitution is what the Mass Medua Podpeople choose to represent, I think that every time I discuss a First Amendment issue in any way, I ought to post the thing. Heck, any time I mention anything regarding the Constitution, I suppose I ought to include whatever relevant clause applies. Of course, if I happen to be commenting on any recent Supreme Court decisions, I might just have to post a blank, since so many seem to have revolved recently around ruminations over goat entrails rather than the Constitution…

Herewith, Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There. It’s written in plain language in a vocabulary easily accessible to sixth-graders of my generation (which means most college graduates today can grasp its plain text. Most. I do not count people with advanced degrees in English majoring in textual criticism. Those so blessed generally can’t parse their way out of an oatmeal carton.)

Now, tell me: what part of “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” did our congresscritters, President Bush (he signed the damned thing—and I’m speaking theologically when I say “damned”—and the Supreme Idiots not understand when McCain-Feingold was passed, signed and affirmed? (The one dishonorable thing Bush did in his first term was sign thisabortion of a bill, thinking the Supreme idiots would surely knock the pins out from under it. Shoulda vetoed the thing… It’s one honest answer he could have given when asked what mistakes he has made, apart from trusting apointees to be honorable, that is.)

Party of the Living Dead

In more ways than just in the voting booth

Still over at Reihl World View… Dan notes that Chris Matthews, apparently reporting from the SciFi channel, breaks the astonishing “news” that Algore won’t be running in ’08 with all the breathless wonder that one might “break” the story that Arafat no longer heads the P-L-O.

Chris Matthews/Algore: a perfect match. One has all the flaming, empty emotion necessary to animate the other’s cold, dead corpse (though someone really ought to have pried the potential keys to public office from the cold dead hands of Algore long ago. You know, back when it was first noted that his natural constituency, those of his own “kind” populated only B-movie “Night of the Living Dead” horror flicks. He’s still as cold and dead as ever, but apparently no one has the nerve to nail his coffin shut. You do have to kinda wonder when/how Tipper decided that necrophilia wasn’t as bad as rock and rap… I still have nightmares every now and then featuring the corpse and tongue play at the 2000 Democon… scary stuff, that.).

Madeline Kahn time, again…

(Shades of Blazing Saddles) “I’m tired…”

Getting just a wee tad tired of Blogger problems. Check, double-check and triple-check html and… blogger keeps inserting its own errors and insisting I fix them!

*sigh* It’s getting a wee tad old.

Oh. Dear.

Can it be true???

Read Riehl World View‘s shocking exposé:

“Dean Survives [Brain] Transplant”

(Of course we know this is a spoof. Dean can’t have a brain transplant. It’d have to be an implant. And of course, Hillarystein is too well-endowed, umm, mentally, to attempt a brain transplant on Algore. The Collective would assimilate any such transplanted brain… )

Seen in passing…

And I do mean passing…

Sign on the back of an Amish vehicle:

“Energy efficient vehicle: Runs on oats and grass.Caution: Do Not Step in Exhaust.”

(Actually, I find horse manure to have a pleasant aroma, and dry horse manure can be particularly sweet-smelling. BS, however, stinks in all its forms?though especially in the ecclesiastical and political forms.)

Public (and other) Servants

Words that lie

So much of language today is comprised of words that carry little or nothing of their once common sense. Faith, truth, love—even so once-innocuous a word as “gay”—have all been virtually stripped of once meaningful content, or even turned on their heads entirely!

This is not a new phenomenon, of course, but post-modern relativism still holds sway in the heads of those committed to sub-literate stupidity, so it seems more common today for many to co-opt words with virtuous content and, it seems, deliberately corrupt them in attempts to legitimize unvirtuous conduct (“truth” stands out in the list above as one such; it seems that whenever pseudo-intellectuals talk about truth it is either from the perspective that truth is individual and relative or that their lies are true; “gay” used in referring to homosexual behavior is one such lie presented as true, of course).

A word much corrupted today is “servant.” Many who proclaim themselves to be servants of others seem to do so with the deliberate intention of decieving. We have all known such. I’ll reserve this space for those in the political class who refer to themselves as public servants.

What liars!

Kipling, in the lil ditty I referred to a couple of days ago, rightly pegged these people as one—he claimed chief!—evil facing mankind in all ages. Since you may not have read that poem recently (not meven as recently as when I posted a link to it *LOL*), here it is in its entirety. Notice Kipling consciously invokes Solomon’s wisdom via typical Proverbial form.

“A Servant When He Reigneth”

Three things make earth unquiet
And four she cannot brook
The godly Agur counted them
And put them in a book —
Those Four Tremendous Curses
With which mankind is cursed;
But a Servant when He Reigneth
Old Agur entered first.
An Handmaid that is Mistress
We need not call upon.
A Fool when he is full of Meat
Will fall asleep anon.
An Odious Woman Married
May bear a babe and mend;
But a Servant when He Reigneth
Is Confusion to the end.

His feet are swift to tumult,
His hands are slow to toil,
His ears are deaf to reason,
His lips are loud in broil.
He knows no use for power
Except to show his might.
He gives no heed to judgment
Unless it prove him right.

Because he served a master
Before his Kingship came,
And hid in all disaster
Behind his master’s name,
So, when his Folly opens
The unnecessary hells,
A Servant when He Reigneth
Throws the blame on some one else.

His vows are lightly spoken,
His faith is hard to bind,
His trust is easy boken,
He fears his fellow-kind.
The nearest mob will move him
To break the pledge he gave —
Oh, a Servant when he Reigneth
Is more than ever slave!

Rudyard Kipling

Kipling may well be right in labeling soi-dissant “public servants” (as well as the civil “servants” who carry out their dicta) who cling to their office, commit crime after crime against society via harmful, inctrusive, tyrannical legislation as the vilest affliction of mankind. Oh, that we could have an electorate that kept track of every single abuse of power by the political class and their minions in various civil service “work” and hold the political—and their minions in the civil service—class responsible for the abuses of power they create and actively support and engage in on a day-to-day basis! If every time a citizen is subjected to harrassment by some so-called servant for committing the “crime” of “maiastas, loosely defined as ‘insufficient groveling before the agents of the state…” [*]

Such “servants” would better serve, IMO, after an intimate consultation with Dr. Tarr and Mr. Fether, after which it could be determined whether they make a better submarine or torch… (Less harsh, I might add, than Arnold Amorie’s famous prescription for the citizens of Bezier in 1209, viz**., “Kill them all. God will know His own.” *heh*)

*sigh*

But that will not do in a society of sheep eager to be shorn… as long as their neighbor’s grass is made available by their shepherds. (IOW, We have the servants we have because of our own greed, laziness and stupidity. Ain’t cosmic justice weird that way?)

“Remember Martha!” is the true battle cry that is heir to “Live Free or Die!” and sums up nicely many of the charges laid at King George’s door by the Declaration of Independence (charges I dare say less than 1% of the electorate have any knowledge of).

****************************************
“The power of the state ought to be reserved for indictable crimes — at least in a republic. In an Empire the main crime is maiastas, loosely defined as ‘insufficient groveling before the agents of the state.'” J.E.P. (Speaking about Martha Stewart’s indictment and conviction for “lying”—NOT under oath—about not having committed a crime that the feds tacitly admit was not a crime. I say “admit” because they did not indict her or seek to pursue her for the “crime” she said she did not commit. Remember Martha: you too can be charged with any damned thing these “servants” want if you do not sufficiently grovel at their feet whenever and wherever you come into contact with them.)

Vocabulary Irritation

Watch your mouth, you…

Please don’t take me amiss. I like words. Some would say I like them too much. I’ve been accused of obscurantism in my word choices, though not specifically in, umm, those words. Some have dubbed me “Mr. Dictionary”—less in approbation than in opprobrium, to be sure.

But really, now: some words are used just in exhibitionistic ostentation. Take “quotidian”—please! What more pretentious or conspicuous flaunting of one’s vocabuary can there be than to use the word “quotidian” in place of “everyday” or “ordinary”?

A pox on the word, I say!

Update: in response to some offline queries about this post, this:

“Quotidian” is a curious, almost conspicuously bizarre word to use when referring to something as “commonplace”—especially since “commonplace” is an antonym of “curious,” “conspicuous,” and “bizarre.” And, of course, nothing so bizarre as the word “quotidian” is at all commonplace. It’s use to refer to commplace events or circumstances is hardly a usual, everyday or commplace event in and of itself.

Queer (“anti-quotidian” indeed!) word, quotidian. And queerer still those who would use it to refer to the pedestrian events of everyday, commonplace life.

To those who cry, “Ah! That I could escape my quotidian existance!” My answer: ” Here’s the rope, jerk. Have enough to hang yourself with?”

*sheesh!*