Welcome to Medary.com Sunday, November 24 2024 @ 08:06 PM CST

Immigration, Again

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 1,121
For those twelve people still wrapped around the axle about immigration policy, let's review:

Laws:  good
Breaking laws:  bad
Changing laws through the democratic process when needed:  good
Legal immigrants:  good
Current immigration bureaucracy:  very bad
Immigration reform:  good
Illegal immigrants:  bad
Changing laws to put the current illegal immigrants in the line (at the back of the line) to become legal immigrants:  good
Current border security:  very bad
Walls at the border to keep illegal immigrants out:  good
Border crossings to allow legal immigrants in:  good
Criminals driving panel trucks containing illegal immigrants stacked like cordwood through border crossings:  very bad
National Guard guarding the nation's borders:  good
Thousands of well-intentioned dupes lead by Marxists and socialists marching in Washington, DC waving Mexican flags:  silly

Hope that clears things up.

I Got Nuthin'

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 1,092
OK, so I wake up early this morning, thinking I might do some current-affairs posting.  So I browse around for a while, looking here, looking there.  Nothing grabs me.

Maybe I'm still in the warm and fuzzy post-cruise zone, where I just can't get too excited about anything. 

Immigration reform?  Nah. 

Iraq?  Eh.

Hayden/CIA hearings?   Yawn.

Iran?  Whatever.

Apathy?  Maybe, I dunno.

And Then There Were Seven

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 2,007
Valparaiso leaves the Mid-Continent Conference for the Horizon League.

The Horizon League will now have ten members.  But what happens to the Mid-Con?  Down to seven members, the minimum number to keep their NCAA basketball tournament automatic bid, the Mid-Con has to pick up members.  Top candidates are Indiana-Purdue Ft. Wayne, North Dakota State, and my alm mater South Dakota State.

Stay tuned . . .

Back In The Saddle Again!

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 3,276
Tanned, rested, and ready to rock!

Much more coming soon (as soon as we get a neighborhood garage sale this weekend out of the way . . . )

How To Be Like Mahmoud

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 1,292
If you respect and admire the Iranian President, Mark Steyn points out a perfectly reasonable and legitimate way to emulate your idol:

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."
If it makes sense on an airplane, it must make sense in the United Nations, right?

Urban Combat Skateboard

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 1,149
Beware, World!  Marine Sk8rboyz rolling into your 'hood!

Defensetech.org is on the story, passing along this caption from the DOD's Defense Visual Information Center:

LCPL Chad Codwell, from Baltimore, Maryland, with Charlie Company 1st Battalion 5th Marines, carries an experimental urban combat skateboard which is being used for maneuvering inside buildings in order to detect tripwires and sniper fire. This mission is in direct support of Urban Warrior '99.
And if this doesn't work by itself, a combined-arms assault using both skateboards and Avril Lavigne would be unstoppable.

Hat tip Fark.com.


Can We Put The "Bush Lied" Lie Behind Us Now?

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 1,126
John Hughes, writing in the Christian Science Monitor (Jill Carroll's newspaper):
In retrospect it is clear that the weapons did not exist, although they had in the past, and Hussein had used them against his enemies. But what is also clear from captured documents now coming to light is that Mr. Bush had every reason to believe they still existed at the time he launched the military campaign in Iraq. Not only did US and allied intelligence agencies assert that the weapons were there, but Hussein himself played a dangerous game of convincing enemies such as Iran, and even his own generals, that he had such weapons, while protesting to United Nations inspectors that he did not.

While Bush may have been badly misled by his own intelligence and other sources, he did not lie. He believed, and had good reason to believe, that the weapons existed.
If you continue to believe "Bush Lied" then you, my friend, are either being misled in exactly the same way Bush was, with "inaccurate intelligence from trusted sources" or you are yourself a willful liar. There is no other option--dupe? or liar? What are you?

As described in Hughes' article, captured Iraqi documents show that even Saddam's military believed until December, 2002 that Iraq had a flourishing WMD program. Hussein was brought down in early April of 2003.
But within Hussein's war council, the story was very different. In December 2002, Hussein called his generals together for a surprising announcement: Iraq did not possess WMD. The generals were stunned. They had long assumed that they could count on a hidden cache of chemical or biological weapons. Iraq had used such weapons in the war with Iran. Hussein had convinced his generals that it was the threat of WMD that had enabled him to stop the Americans moving on Baghdad after the 1991 war.

If someone points a gun at you and tells you it's loaded, it's usually a good idea to believe them.

When Science Isn't Convenient

  • Contributed by:
  • Views: 1,152
In OpinionJournal, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard Lindzen, wonders . . .

how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
When somebody tells you that no serious scientist in the field has doubts about Mankind's negative impact on global warning, they are, to be blunt, lying.

Unless you don't consider a full professor at an endowed chair at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a list of publications as long as your arm to be a serious scientist in the field.

Informed debate is what science is all about.  Too bad one side of this argument wants to shut the other side down.  Take a guess as to which side is which.