Yes, it is not the secret that the Manolo has many times in the past been so poor that he has had to fashion his own super fantastic shoes out of the recycled and repurposed objects. And so he could perhaps be considered the expert in such matters, which it is why he is qualified to say that these shoes they are frightening.
These they are the sort of thing that would be worn the ranting homeless lady who lives in the culvert behind the Ralph’s Super Saver. You know, the one who wears the dirty grey poncho and shouts at you as you leave your car, “Whore of Babylon! You’ll burn in the sulphurous pits of Hell!”
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Manolo has your back: don't get the Garbage for the feets!
Saturday, June 24, 2006
So when Kerry isn't flip-flopping for the sake of politics, he's serving the purposes of our adversaries — from Vietnam to the War on Terror. Whether it's poor judgment, or something more sinister that animates John Kerry, it's remarkable that someone so dangerous could have come so close to occupying the Oval Office.I happen to think Kerry is simply unserious, and says whatever pops into his pea brain.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Read this, and then read this. What possible purpose, other than to inform terrorist organization of our anti-terrorism tactics, does the article serve?
Yet again, the New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda.
Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda. Once again, members of the American intelligence community had a simple choice: remain faithful to their oath — the solemn promise the nation requires before entrusting them with the secrets on which our safety depends — or violate that oath and place themselves and their subjective notions of propriety above the law.
Once again, honor was cast aside.
For the second time in seven months, the Times has exposed classified information about a program aimed at protecting the American people against a repeat of the September 11 attacks. On this occasion, it has company in the effort: The Los Angeles Times runs a similar, sensational story. Together, the newspapers disclose the fact that the United States has covertly developed a capability to monitor the nerve center of the international financial network in order to track the movement of funds between terrorists and their facilitators.
The effort, which the government calls the “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Nobody's taking them seriously, poor things. Well, one reason might be that the Dixie Chicks are much better at song singin' than they are at giving interviews:
That really got the mouthy Maines going. Through “gritted teeth” she declared, “The entire country may disagree with me but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country…I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”Read the whole thing. This is sad.
How can we take seriously a singer who doesn’t seem to be so smart about music history, let alone American history? Maines apparently isn’t aware that the lyric “this land is my land, this land is your land” was written by Woody Guthrie, also a critic of our country, but one who not only talked the talk but truly walked the long painful walk across Depression-era America.
What is really upsetting — and what these three may share with too many others today — is their tone deafness when it comes to realizing the enormous opportunities that being an America has given them. Rather, they sulk and complain, and feel oh-so-badly-done-by. Maines seems to think that living in a place she likes and having a life she likes is her right, and is completely unrelated to our country’s past, our system of government, and the sacrifices others have made (and continue to make today) for her well-being.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Lileks has the scoop:
Thanks to my man Drew.
Our attempts to win the hearts and minds of impoverished Iraqis are not helped when you buy the extended warranty on a car you intend to explode.Laser-guided Danes, frowning from great distances. Excellent.
Finally, patience is our ally. We need not defeat the Americans, only outlast them. Have they not abandoned every battlefield they ever entered? Besides Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo and Afghanistan, of course. But just as they left Somalia when their “Democrats” took power, so will they leave Iraq when the criminal Zionist Bush regime is replaced by a slightly less criminal, albeit equally Zionist, Democratic regime. The Democrats wish to quit the war and return to their important issues, such as permitting men to marry, have a child with the cloning of cells, and then abort it. Such a people cannot fight; they can only beseech the United Nations to send Danes to frown from great distances. And I need not remind you that no one was ever killed by a 226 kilogram laser-guided Dane.
Thanks to my man Drew.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Just read it.
In my view, targeting terrorist leaders is not only defensible, but actually more ethical than going after rank and file terrorists or trying to combat terrorism through purely defensive security measures. The rank and file have far less culpability for terrorist attacks than do their leaders, and killing them is less likely to impair terrorist operations. Purely defensive measures, meanwhile, often impose substantial costs on innocent people and may imperil civil liberties. Despite the possibility of collateral damage inflicted on civilians whom the terrorist leaders use as human shields, targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is less likely to harm innocents than most other strategies for combatting terror and more likely to disrupt future terrorist operations.Via Instapundit.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
In case you live under a rock--The World Cup started yesterday. It's being played in Deutschland, so our Irish friend at Blogh an Seanchi has posted a useful guide for non-German speaking tourists:
German made easy:
Officer, would you mind taking your arm from around my neck as I am having some trouble catching my breath...
Lass los, du idiot.
Can I have four large jugs of your strongest beer over here please, landlord. And a glass of white wine for the lovely lady...
Vier Bier hier bitte, und eine Liebfrauenmilch für die liebe Frau.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
My neighbor has a book coming out in January 2007, all about the influence of southern women and their exercising their right to vote:
After the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, hundreds of thousands of southern women went to the polls for the first time. In The Weight of Their Votes Lorraine Gates Schuyler examines the consequences this had in states across the South. She shows that from polling places to the halls of state legislatures, women altered the political landscape in ways both symbolic and substantive. Schuyler challenges popular scholarly opinion that women failed to wield their ballots effectively in the 1920s, arguing instead that in state and local politics, women made the most of their votes.I'll be reading it sometime soon.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Or maybe not.
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.Read the whole thing. I don't have any idea who's right and who's wrong in this debate, but there should be a debate, don't you think? Plus, as an added bonus, we get to blame baby boomers and yuppies for mucking up the works!
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
Friday, June 02, 2006
I don't generally like this Mike Adams' writing, but his treatment of the 46-page "diversity plan" from the University of Oregon is worth reading. My favorite is the "definition" of diversity, which had to have been written over days and weeks of agonizing meetings of the Faculty Committee on Diversity and Underrepresented Groups:
We recognize the difficulty of using a term like diversity that is subject to multiple interpretations. We intend to be inclusive when we use this term. The risk of listing examples of diversity is that no list can be all inclusive. In defining diversity for use in this document, we do not intend to leave out any group. In this document when we discuss persons "of diverse backgrounds or experiences" we mean by that description to refer to the broad range of diversity intended by our definition here. Further, when we discuss "underrepresented groups" we intend to refer again to the broad definition of diversity.That's a direct quote from the "diversity plan." Apparently, "diverse and underrepresented" folks at the University of Oregon include those that don't know the rule we all learned in elementary school: you can't define something by referring to the thing itself.