Exhibit #1,345,987 why you should not trust Leftists

Under pressure from the French, the government of Columbia released FARC leader Rodrigo Granda after he promised to call for peace and a demobilization of the narcoterrorist group.

Long story short, the little commie bastard went back on his word and promised to "never demobilize or call for an end to armed struggle until our objectives are met."

Which gets to my point, you can not trust Communists. Reagan was right about them, they have no morality past what furthers their political ambitions.

For those of you not up to speed, FARC is a Marxist rebel group in Colombia which follows the teachings of Che Guevara and finances their terror tactics with drug trafficking, kidnappings, and petty brigandry.

But I thought the media was Right wing

Surprising absolutely no one, a new report shows that journalists tend to give money to Dimocrats and Left wing causes.

The libs now a days like to assert that the media is really right wing. This is refuted by the article above. Their evidence for this is that the majority of editorial pages in the last couple of decades have endorsed Republican presidents. This is idiotic. Sure they may endorse Republicans, but they also run scathing anti-right editorials more often than they criticise libs. All that piece of evidence does is confirm that there is a severe strain of schizophrenia running through the media. It also gives them a convenient way out of criticism for left wing bias. Sort of like calling for the confiscation of guns one day, but giving to the NRA the next.

What really irks me is when media figures get in front of the camera and, with a straight face, tell us that they report the news without bias. This is absurd and impossible. We all have built in unspoken prejudices that work at an unconscious level. It is evident in the words we use and the manner in which we process information. Journalist's bias creeps into every story, even if they mean well.

I tend to agree with Bernard Goldberg. He claims that journalist are telling the truth when they claim they are not bias. His position is that they do not even realize that they are bias. They live in such an isolated little world that they rarely encounter a thought that is different from theirs. Their heuristics are confirmed by those around them so often that they can not seriously consider that anyone else thinks any other way. Perhaps this is true.

Fox News is not "Fair and Balanced" but it does give the opposite sides of each debate a pretty good chance to air their views. On most of the shows you get people from both sides arguing. On the other hand, when I watch CNN or MSNBC, you get less of that and more of a single host talking to a partisan.

Here is the point of all of this: Journalists report the news in a bias way. They may not purposefully try to color the news in a certain light, but they are human and therefore can not report in a way that is completely devoid of prejudices and unspoken assumptions. If they would just admit that, it would help to restore a little bit of trust in their work.

Jimmy Carter: Stop favoring religious extremists over ultra-religious extremists

Carter, the greatest idiot America ever put into office, claims that the US refusing to support Hamas, noted terrorist group and front for Iranian megalomania, is "criminal."


How does one man come to hate his own country and all that is good and decent? Then again, why would anyone listen to Carter. This was the man who did not understand Soviet brutality till the invasion of Afghanistan. He apparently was not paying attention when the Soviets crushed the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968.


Carter is a madman and a traitor to boot. If he had his way, leaders like Washington and Jefferson would be replaced in the pantheon of good men with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Jimmy Carter is a true American traitor. He has a knee jerk anti-American streak that he just can not control. He is bitter because it is obvious the American people made the right choice when they sent him packing. I hope he lives a long life in his obscurity and irrelevance.

Christian by day, Muslim by night.

A female Episcopal is also a practicing Muslim.

This story is truly a marvel at the idiocy of some people. She defends her contradiction by claiming that even Christians can not work out all of the details. Listen Christians may argue over the details, but she does not even get the big picture. This is obvious in her professed beliefs:

"She has never believed in the Christian doctrine of original sin, and for years she struggled with the nature of Jesus' divinity, the Times said, concluding Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans. "

This is ludicrous. If Christ was not the Son of God, then he was a mad man. How can you even call yourself a Christian if you hold these beliefs? If I am as much a son of God as Christ then even calling my religion Christianity is absurd. It could just as well be Joeanity or Timanity because my beliefs have as much validity as those of Christ.

This woman is obviously nuts. She has tried to merge two religions that can not be reconciled. The interesting thing is that Christianity and Christian societies allow her to hold such heretical views and flaunt her own apostasy. In a Muslim society she would have been stoned to death long ago.

This woman is no Christian. To her assertions and beliefs and claims I have this statement, which I hold as dear to my heart as any words ever written:

" I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation, He came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, He became incarnate from the virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried. On the third day, He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the Father and Son, He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Amen."

If one disagrees with these statements, fine, but you are not a Christian. She can call herself whatever she wants, but calling yourself a doctor does not mean you can prescribe medicine. If you are a Christian you must believe that the path to salvation was laid out by Christ and not Muhammad.

This lady needs to go back to her mosque, put on her burka, and stop trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Opinions are like buttholes...

...they all end up on my blog.

Here are a few interesting articles all of you, the astute Ring of Gyges fans, should read.

1. VDH (one om favs, big man crush) analyzes the immigration debacle.

Long story short, he gets it right.

This bill is the worst of both worlds. It brings together the greediest and worst of the business world with the pimps and race baiting panderers of the radical Left. It is an unholy alliance akin to the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression pact.

2. Jay Nordlinger's Wednesday Impromptus was worth the read.

3. Nice editorial at Opinion Journal about fatherhood.

It is nice to see that the old manly virtues are once again being investigated. I find the continued feminization of boys in the modern age quite troubling.

Jonah Goldberg on Education

Jonah Goldberg hits the nail right on the head.

I have always agreed with the proposition that the government should provide funding for the schools, but not the schools themselves.

Listen, most of the money that goes to public schools gets spent on worthless administrators and do nothing teachers. What needs to be done is provide a certain amount of money for each student and let private entities run the schools. The government should also allow them to have the right to hire and fire teachers at will.

Education is a commodity like everything else. Teaching is not a higher calling it is just another job among many. We need to demystify the public schools and its employees in order to have realistic reform. It is time to decide between what is good for the education establishment and what is good for the kids. They are not the same things.

Real education reform probably will not happen because in many places the school districts have become nothing more than job providers. Where I grew up the schools were the biggest employers in the town. It was a common thing for people to leave after graduation, go to one of the big cities, and if they failed, end up back at home working at one of the schools.

Liberal absurdity

Hat tip to the NR on this one.

90% of this article is mindless bullshit, but the rest is pretty interesting.

The author recognizes the absurdity of the American Left, but then lapses into the same old class warfare tripe that motivates the whole thing.

He praises the New Deal, which was an unmitigated failure that left millions in poverty to this day. He blames free trade for the ills of American society, but in attacking Big Business, why do we never question the input of Big Labor? Why doesn't he discuss the depression of wages caused by illegal immigrants.

This is one problem I have with the Left and people like this. They worry about all the people working at Wal-Mart, decry the loss of manufacturing jobs, and basically make it sound like the vast majority of Americans are just blue collar rednecks working substandard jobs. This is not ever remotely true. Just thirty years ago people like him were decrying the fact that so many of us worked in factories that polluted the air, discriminated against women, and pushed consumerism. You cannot decry the loss of factory jobs without demanding a rise in consumerism.

He does correctly identify part of the problem, that most of the liberals do not understand the middle class, middle America electorate, but he does not offer a plausible solution. I think that people like him would be very disappointed if they followed their own advice and talked to these people.

They would not find young waiters and house cleaners waiting for the "Progressive" in shining armor to ride in, raise their pay, vanquish their bosses, and give them free health care. They would find people who distrust the idea that the government can help them at all. They look around and see crime in the streets, illegal immigrants slowly taking their jobs, and bureaucrats that care more about protecting their jobs than helping the people they are tasked to assist. All they can deduce from this is that the government is at best ineffective, and at the worst indifferent. How are these people going to have faith that the new spending programs and welfare benefits will get to them effectively?

Additionally, he credits the New Deal with creating the industrial middle class. The industrial middle class existed before Roosevelt's horrid New Deal. All Roosevelt did was set the grounds for a welfare state that has failed to provide what it promised.

Most Liberals misunderstand Conservatives. They think that they are indifferent to the poor and all for business. Let me met some of these objections: (These are all things actual libs have said to me, I am not constructing strawmen here.)

A Lib might say:

1. Conservatives are either hostile to the poor or indifferent to their suffering.
Answer: Conservatives are neither of these things. Conservatives tend to come from middle America which is poorer than the rest of the country. I would put money on the fact that more Conservatives grew up poor than liberals or "Progressives." Conservatives understand that lots of people have it hard in America, but also understand that there is little the government can do about it. Poverty can not be legislated away. We are human beings, there will be winners and losers in every economic system. Demanding "more equal distribution of wealth" is just positing an unfounded value judgment onto the economic system. There is only so much you can do for people.

2. Conservatives use social issues like gay marriage to drive voters away from voting for their economic interests.
Answer: This argument is founded on the idea that there are distinct classes that have a common undivided economic interest. The idea of classes is an abstraction. Just because two people have the same or similar incomes does not mean that they have the same interests. Helping steel workers in Pittsburgh does nothing for the autoworker in Detroit. The fact that the farmer in Texas gets government subsidies does not mean that the construction worker in Seattle will be better off tomorrow. This view also operates under the assumption that some how economic issues should always trump social.

Libs do not give credence to the idea that social issue and economic issues are intertwined. They also do not account for the fact that social issues are often more important to the average person than economic. I will explain. You can not address economic issues and give a free pass to social issues.

Libs complain about poverty, but they never ask about the real issues underlying poverty in America: teen pregnancy and single parenthood. They can not touch these issues in a real way. It would undermine the sexual revolution and the women's liberation movement. Culture plays a bigger hand in poverty than all the greedy business men on the planet. A woman who has a baby before she is 18 is almost certain to fall into poverty. If you give her government help, you are just exacerbating the problem by subsidizing it. In situations like this the libs never ask several important questions: "Why did the woman even get pregnant in the first place? What pushed her to have sex at this young age before she was married? Why is she not marrying the father?" All of these questions are social questions. Society has a wink wink policy toward underage sex these days. The loosing of moral and social standards has led us here.

The libs also do not understand that many people hold social views because of deep seated religious or ethical conviction. People in America really do live by the "Teach a man to fish..." mentality. They want people to succeed without the help of the government.

In a nutshell I can sum up a lot of what Conservatives think on issues like these with this:
"Yes there are many poor people in America, but there are also a lot of people who succeed every day and pull themselves out of poverty through industriousness and hard work. Yes there are people suffering in America, but that is true of all nations everywhere at all times. Suffering is part of the human condition. Just because someone is richer or more prosperous than someone else does not mean that their life is better or more worthwhile. Giving people subsidies and programs does not make them happier or more secure. They are still dependant on charity and the largess of others. They have not been liberated or helped in anyway. They are jsut like slaves who change masters. There is only so much that we as flawed creatures can do for our fellow man. We can not perfect the world, we must learn to make improvements where we can, and accept our limitations. No political ideology can fix the problems of man. There are those that can do more to alleviate some, but there must always be trade offs and a final solution is impossible. Be happy with what you have, because someone is always worse off than you. In this world it is better to be content with your blessings and failures and not worry about what others have."

The shame of Ireland

The W.H.O. has released the numbers on global alcohol consumption.

Luxembourg has the highest rate of consumption. No surprise, the Irish are number two. In fact, I take that back. What the hell is wrong with the Irish? Come on butch up. What would the world be without the drunken Irishman? How could you let a country no bigger than a postage stamp defeat you at your own national sport?

Of course the article does allude to the fact that people tend to cross into Luxembourg to buy cheap alcohol. Maybe Ireland is number one. They should get a recount.

The US came in at number 40 by the way. The Japanese and Mexicans had lower consumption than we did. I wonder if they counted sake as an alcoholic beverage? I wouldn't because the stuff is sort of weak.

Well anyway, it is a slow news day.

Modern schoolyard activities: Merry-Go-Round, soccer, vicious rape...wait what

Sex offenders are getting younger and more violent.

Experts are blaming it on "a society saturated in sex and violence." I'm sure there is a lot of truth to this. You can not turn on a television without seeing something that is totally unsuitable for children. Porno pop ups are all over every computer. Kids today see more sexual images in a year than adults in 1904 saw their entire lives.

The break down of society has reached its acceleration point. A lot of blame can be put on sexual abuse, but is that also not linked in some way with the modern obsession with sex? We are taught to treat other people as objects, just there for our own enjoyment. Go to any frat party and you will see what I mean.

I also like how this article tries to place the blame for the rise in child sex offenders on the fact that there are laws against it. One expert placed the blame on "fairly draconian laws with very harsh sanctions that apply to juveniles."

Yeah that is the ticket, the sure way to have less rapes is to make the laws less draconian. Hey lets try that with murder too. Soon we can have a crime rate of zero. All you need to do is act.

Listen, the laws are there because there is a genuine problem. Some people want it to look like there is an overreaction to sexualized children. This is nonsense. Any fool can see that exposing a child to sex, someone unprepared to understand the ramifications of the act both spiritually, physically, and morally, is going to lead to some really dangerous consequences.

Beautiful, simply perfect.

Defeat's Killing Fields

This op/ed from the NY Times (I know I know I know) is simply divine.

The authors truly understand what defeat in Iraq means for the US and for the world at large. Listen, Libs love to draw comparisons with Vietnam every time a story about Iraq breaks. This is perfectly natural for them because their efforts were a big part of America's eventual abandonment of the Vietnamese people.

Yet even they can not ignore the price that the people of Southeast Asia paid for their victory over a non-existent "military industrial complex."

I hear all the Dim presidential candidates pledge that they will "end the war in Iraq." Of course their only proposal is the withdraw and leave the people of Iraq at the mercy of the mullahs and beheaders.

If we were to leave tomorrow the war would not be over. There would still be car bombings in Baghdad, riots in Najaf, and murders in Anbar.

Whenever I hear someone suggest that we need to get out I just think about this and this.

The victims of Lib defeatism and hatred are still roting in the soils of Asia, Africa, and South America. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Dick Cheney Definitions: Cheneypedia

We all love, or at least fear, Dick Cheney. Cheney has dabbled in many things. Here are some definitions:

1. Cheney Colostomy: The detonation of a 20 megaton warhead in the anus of a Muslim.

2. Cheney Long Division: When a judge cuts a disputed piece of personal property in half, eats one half, urinates on the other, then burns anyone who objects with a cigar.

3. Cheney Home video: snuff film.

4. Dick Cheney Snapple: The blood of the proletariat.

5. Cheney Promotion: Being the first person Dick Cheney eats on Passover.

6. Cheney Alka Seltzer: Molotov Cocktail

7. Cheney Toothpick: A Trident ICBM

8. Cheney E-mail: EMP

9. Dick Cheney Bar Mitzvah: Like a regular Bar Mitzvah, but with more blood, weeping, and sodomy.

10. Cheney Hole Punch: Chaingun.

Are the kids shy or just stupid?

Apparently asking students to raise their hands if they think they know the answer to a question in class is a bad thing.

Ok I will admit it, I was, and still am, one of those little Hermione Grangers. I answered at least two-thirds of the questions asked by my teacher in 8th grade U.S. History. I still answer as many questions as I can in law school.

I also know a lot of kids hide in the back of class and try to stay off the radar. I do like the suggestion that the teacher pick a child at random to answer the question. In law school they do this. Some professors even make you stand. I think this is a good system. It keeps the kids on their toes and requires them to do the work if they do not want to look like an idiot in front of the class.

The other ideas, asking the question then giving kids 30 seconds of "thinking time" or telling them to discuss it in small groups for a short period are both asinine.

Number one, both take too much time. It is better to try to get an answer and move on. If the kid in the front wants to answer the question let them. I doubt that the kid who is in the back trying to avoid the teacher's gaze even knows the answer.

The small groups thing is a recipe for disaster. Once you let a bunch of giggling ten and eleven year olds freely interact, getting control back will take a Herculean effort.

The one thing that I dislike about this article is that it never blames any poor student performance on teachers. It places all of the blame on parents. While parents do deserve a lot of it, so do teachers. It is their job to make sure our kids are learning.

The reason I bring this is up is because teachers do not get their fair share of the blame when it comes to poor student performance. They are the proverbial "Sacred Cow." I cannot remember the last time I heard anyone suggest that perhaps the teachers are somewhat culpable in the death of education.

Lets face it folks, here in America, we do not send our best and brightest in to the teaching profession. This is not meant to offend, but most of the public school teachers I have dealt with in my life have been intellectually unimpressive. In fact, I myself have little to no respect for public school teachers. I see them as little more than glorified babysitters. This assessment is bore out by the fact that the Education departments of major universities contain the students with the lowest IQ's, the lowest test scores, and the worst GPAs.

Yet, in America you rarely hear any real criticism of teachers. All you hear is the blatant falsehood that they are "under paid and under appreciated." More money is always the answer and the bureaucracy grows.

Sakozy to French workers: "Surrender to productivity"

The new president of France is seeking to reform the economy of Gaul.

Apparently it is a French tradition to take long lunches, kiss your co-workers good morning, and stand around on breaks smoking a cigarette while wearing a beret and striped shirt. Ok I made that last one up.

Sarkozy wants French workers to be paid for their overtime. Currently all they receive are extra days off.

Recent studies have also confirmed that French workers are the biggest whiners in the world. I always thought that title should go to Congressional Dims.

Of course, there could not be a story on CNN that does not take a swipe at the US.

Some dumbass American babe that works in France said "I did think I would have had a more humane life than if I was working in New York."

Yeah because France is just a great place to live once you get past the race riots, high taxes, and car burnings.

Listen I am sure that France has the potential to reform. I hope that Sarkozy has the power to get things done because Europe needs to regain its economic vitality. Still I fear that an entrenched socialistic mindset will prevent the French from reviving their once flourishing economy.

Miss USA jeered by Mexican audience...

...for not speaking Spanish in Mexico.

Sorry can not comment, my Irony Meter just exploded and I need to put it out.

Isn't God the Alpha?

Well, for the perhaps one hundredth time since the "Sensitive Male" craze of the 1970's, the media is declaring the Alpha male dead.

According to Jennie Yabroff at Newsweek, what women really want is an unambitious man who spends all his time on the couch playing video games and not worried about competing in the real world. Of course this is news to all the ladies I know. That sort of behavior is cute when the guy is 24, but when he turns 30 without a meaningful direction, they tend to leave. It promotes the irresponsible man as the answer to a ladies dreams. So what women now want is a man to sit around, spend her money, and use her for sex. Great, we sure have reached an enlightened age haven't we folks.

Yabroff blames this "new" attraction to the beta male (she never accounts for the long term popularity of Woody Allen) on the fact that we are losing in Iraq. Hey Jennie, maybe we are losing in Iraq because Feminists have so emasculated the American man that we can no longer fight and win. We are fighting the ultimate Alpha males in Iraq. They have their ideology and are not afraid to spread it with fire and sword.

I can not see why anyone would idolize a vacillating, weak, follower. Are we so far from John Wayne, Leonidas, and William T. Sherman that we can not see the virtue of the man who takes charge, defeats enemies, and does what needs to be done?

Let me tell you where this article really gets it wrong: It equates the Alpha Male with with what everyone would define as the "asshole." It describes Alpha males as "abrasive" and not "amenable to consensus." Of course we all know that consensus is the total absence of leadership.

The point I wish to make is that this article sets up a straw man. It paints the Alpha male as an ego-centric, aggressive, pompous, self-righteous know it all. This misconstrues reality. The stereotypical alpha male of yesteryear was a quiet self-assured man who others instinctively followed. He got things done because he was a leader and everyone could sense his inner strength. Being an alpha male is like being a lady, if you are one no one needs to tell you so. A man can be sensitive and still be a leader.

The examples she gives as successful Beta males are noted adulterer Bill Clinton and Al Gore, noted liar and loser. Are these the men women really want? A cheater and a Chicken Little?

This article is just another attempt to promote the morally relativist agenda. It attacks the idea that men should be masculine, which is not synonymous with being jerk, and promotes the notion that men should be weak and petty.

The article is right: we are in the twilight of our nation, but it is not because of the failure of the alpha male, it is because the modern age has killed him.

Long live the Dyspublic

A Kansas City bookstore owner is burning the books he can not give away.

I have to admit, I sympathise with the guy. The written word is pretty much dead these days. Most adults and children do not care for books, and the ones they do enjoy are a far cry from what anyone would call "literature."

I blame teachers and modern society as a whole. It just is not fashionable to read anymore. When I was in school they had idiotic programs that were intended to trick kids in to wanting to read. These programs were stupid and the prizes were lame.

I believe Neil Postman best described the state we are in when he contrasted the novels 1984 and A Brave New World:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. "

Kids do not feel that the written word can have any relevance to them. A teacher friend of mine put it quite succinctly: "The kids are bored with the books." The answer to this seems to be: "Give them trivial non-sense to read that in no way helps them realize the truth about their souls."

I know the kids are bored with the books. That is no reason to write off their value.

We are slouching toward a dystopia full of brain dead children who can sing every word of the latest pop princess's ode to rebellious-conformist onanism, but who can not read a single line of Plato without falling into fits of apathy.

The Republic is dead. Long live the Dyspublic.

Article Roundup

After my long absence, your humble WordBearer has returned to the shores of blogdom to minister to the sick and faint of heart.

Couple of tidbits:

1. See Spiderman 3. It is really good despite all the complaints. As a true blue Spiderman fan, I got what I expected from the movie. All the complaints are coming from Comic Book Guy "Worst Movie Ever" types who basically want a complete retelling of the comic book frame by frame. While I am sympathetic with that point of view, I understand that you must make changes to make the story accessible to the general public.

2. Law school is damn hard.


Now to some of my patented opinions.

-----------------------------------------

Afghans might be starting to get it.

It seems that many Afghans are starting to place the blame for civilian deaths from NATO strikes on the fact that the Taliban are using civilians are shields. All I can say is: About Damn Time.

Of course there still is a disconnect between what the Afghans want and what NATO is willing to do. Local Afghans are attacking Taliban positions in their area and are not afraid to ask them not to lay mines near their villages. Meanwhile NATO forces are engaging in "public relations."

NATO hopes to win over the local farmers that support the Taliban by contrasting the life lived under the Taliban with that lived under the new Afghan government. This will fail.

This strategy will fail because it misses the mark on what the Afghans want. NATO promises these second tier Taliban development. What they should promise them is security. If they were interested in development they would have turned to the West long ago. The Taliban can provided them with what they want: security. NATO can militarily offer them security, but we are not able to because of politics. In the West we must agonize over every civilian casualty and we constantly ask "Is the price too high?" Our enemies never ask this question. We need to show them that lawlessness will be punished.

NATO seems to think that people will forget the roving death squads in their village if they have a flush toilet and running water. That thinking is absurd. Development must follow peace...not the other way around.

The simple fact is this: The Islamofacists love killing infidels and waging jihad more than we love our civilization and heritage. The West must either renew itself spiritually or be prepared for ossification and Islamization.

Here in the West we think that flashy commercials and promises of Coke and smiles will win over the world's poor and downtrodden. This is untrue. We need to offer them them security, ordered liberty, and reject our own "do as you please/get rich get high get off" mentality. Our enemies are the opposite side of the same coin.

We can win this war, but it will not be done with words. The sword must accompany the word.

The return of the WordBearer

Howdy friends, well wishers, and not so well wishers. Your friendly neighborhood WordBearer is back on the block.

I know I have not posted since March, but I have been busy. I had a big appellate brief due and then hurled headlong into finals. Well finals are over this week.

Additionally, I have a new girlfriend. She is really special and perfect for me.

I promise I will get back to some of my usual color commentary after my Property Law final of Saturday.

- WordBearer: Back in Black

With Libby in jail, it is now safe for Sandy to stuff his pants with more secrets

Charles Krauthammer points out that fun little fact.

Libby has to go to jail for the simple reason that he could not remember the exact moment he heard Valarie Plame's name. Meanwhile, Sandy Berger still gets to attend the best parties and be an expert on CNN.

The injustice of the whole Libby trial is apparent to anyone with the slightest bit of sense. Fitzgerald was tasked with finding out who leaked Valarie Plame's name. Libby did not do it.
Richard Armitage did. Rich is fiercely anti-Cheney, but he was never charged. Probably because it was not a crime to begin with.

Libby was the fall guy. But he was the fall guy for Richard Armitage.

Global warming killed my father, then raped my mother

It seems like every day more and more stories surface about global warming. So far it has been claimed that global warming will kill off the polar bears, cause a thousand more Hurricane Katrina's, and give us all hepatitis.

Well now brothel owners in Bulgaria are claiming that is has hurt their business.

According to the spokesman for the pimps, whore mongers, and Democrats, all their "elite" girls are off working in the ski resorts because of global warming. They claim that the lack of snow means tourists have to find other ways to enjoy themselves.

Wow, so the choice is that stark. Apparently, the next best thing to shooting down the slopes dressed like a tool is sexually abusing poor Eastern European women.

The brothel owners claims they are being forced to use "temps" to take up the slack. Wait a minute, there are temp agencies for hookers? Where was I when this happened?