Responding to mainstream media bias --
interspersed with moderate views,
frequent spews and *masticulated* chews.






Perish the Thought!


If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

I'm much more attractive online.
You were expecting someone svelte and cutsie behind all this insight and wit? Perish THAT thought!

Well, the svelte part, anyway.

From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.

We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....


~~~~~~~~



The Soros' Straw Man

-- Socialist Dreams
-- One World Order
-- Illinois Senate Years
-- U.S. Senate Days
-- Hidden Agenda(s)
-- Oblamanomics
-- Energy Plan(s)
-- Issues & Topics
-- Terrorism/Iraq
-- Questionable Associates
-- O's Communities
-- ACORN $$
-- Obamamobile
-- BARRACUDA!
-- BO Owns Wall Street
-- Wall Street Owns BO


~~~~~~~~~~



Because we said we are.
Now mind your elders.



News-Views-Spews



GATHERING OF EAGLES
WHY DO EAGLES GATHER?
Why They Gathered 3/17/07


~~~~~~~~~~

Mitt Romney:
Class and Competence

... this blog is proud to have said:



[categories]








Standing With
Standing with Israel
Israel




SUPPORTING C.A.I.I. MEMBERS




WAKE UP, AMERICA!

I AM JOHN DOE.

THE RIGHT WORDS




STOP THE ACLU



Blogs Against the NYT



Reject the UN




American Flag League



TEXAS CONNECTION



VICTORY CAUCUS COALITION






Blog Visitors

The Old North State -- from Manteo to Murphy -- and ahhhhh, The Blue Ridge Mountains .... I love calling North Carolina home!"



Atom Feed
RSS Feed






CROSSING BALSAM
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 4
Chapter 6
Chapter 8

T-P
B-P





<< December 2005 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31






rss feed

© 2001-2009 Perish the Thought Associates. Contents are the property of contributors. If you steal anything, we WILL hunt you down and hurt you.

 
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Reporting the Truth & the Right to Know
 
Remember when news stories contained the who-where-what-why-when early on in the article?  If you actually read the New York Opine's entire year-old "breaking"  story alleging that President Bush authorizied illegal wiretaps in the war against terrorist, you may have missed the 5-w's.  They were buried several paragraphs deep into the article ....
 
Unless you want to accept opinion and innuendo as "fact."
 
"What the [National Security] agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.

In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said."

Did the "special collections program" save lives and stave planned terrorist attacks within the US? 
 
You better believe it did.  
 
Check out Iyman Faris' 20 year imprisonment and his al Qaeda role in planned terrorist attacks, for instance.  Or ask someone who drives through the NYC tunnels on a regular basis.  Ask a family or canvass a community for whom a terrorist plot has been thwarted.
 
Go ahead.  Investigate; draw your own conclusions; make your own decision.  The right to know about national security is also one of your liberties.
 
 

Posted at 04:05 am by Rhet
Make a comment  




The MSM Agenda
 
Gimme a break, Bush-baiters.  I, for one, am NOT falling for another line of MSM hype, innuendo or mis-speak.  I don't care what you think of Bush.  Or Republicans.  Or conservatives.  Or unaffiliated voters like me.  I do care about national security.
 
Get thee to the federal archives, moonbats.  Communications that occur/originate outside the US and which involve a threat to national security are NOT held to the same standards as communications which occur or originate in the United States by US citizens.
 
It may not matter to Bush-bashers and the desperate-to-distract democrats that several post-9/11 planned terrorist attacks on the US and it's allies were disrupted --- but it sure matters to me. 
 
Is there some correlation with the Senate nonauthorization of certain sections of the Patriot Act to the release of The New York Times story alleging the President authorized the CIA to monitor "domestic communications?" 
 
You gotta be kidding. 
 
The New York Times conspiring with politicians?  The New York Opines?  The famed revenue-losing, egg-on-its-journalistic-face New York Times?  The Notorious Yack Tack? God-faulter of the MSM?  Feeding the blame-Bush frenzy?   Perish the thought.
 
Yet ....  Why did the NYT wait one year before releasing their misleading story and headline RE: the President authorizing the CIA to monitor "domestic  communications?"    And why was it released NOW?
 
Let's see .....
 
The vote in Iraq seems to be going well (credit President GW Bush -- perish the thought that MSM would ever credit GWB with anything "going well"). 
 
The ACLU -- gag alert -- that self-propelled <flapflapflapflap> guardian of constitutionality and social justice needs some good press following another anti-Christmas flop.
 
And voila! The Senate concurrently delays (no politics there, I'm sure) reauthorization of the Patriot Act to ensure that our civil liberties are protected (uh huh) just in time to give -- you got it -- aspiring Republicats, vengeful democrats, dummer-than-doorknob mootbats and anti-government tin-hats a ready-made politically expedient topic for the holiday circuit of talking-head shows and soapbox-blows.
 
Is it a coincidence that one of the writers of this "breaking" story just released a new anti-Bush book?             Why would you think that?
 
And what if NONE of the politicos who so desperately seek self-promotion didn't have the venue? 
 
Or better still .... in keeping with a holiday tradition which offers public appearances and audiences of millions -- invite these politicians to speak during half-time at each bowl game. 
 
And give the audience yellow flags, instant replays of past votes and whistles.  Oh yeah -- and some newsprint for making those paper airplanes.
 
 
 

Posted at 03:26 am by Rhet
Make a comment  




How they voted 2001 & 2005

 

Hummmmmmm .... Someone begin cataloging the holiday comments.  Don't make me have to reprint the entire 2001 Patriot Act debate in this blog. 
 
 
Here's how they voted for the Patriot Act October 2001.   
 
YEAs ---98
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---1
Feingold (D-WI)
Not Voting - 1
Landrieu (D-LA)
 
Here's how they voted today, Dec. 16, 2005. 
 
The 52-47 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject reauthorization of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to overcome a filibuster of the bill.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to end the filibuster and a "no" vote was a vote to continue a filibuster.

Voting "yes" were 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 41 Democrats, 5 Republicans and one independent.

Democrats Yes

Johnson, S.D.; Nelson, Neb.

Democrats No

Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Dodd, Conn.

Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chafee, R.I.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No

Craig, Idaho; Frist, Tenn.; Hagel, Neb.; Murkowski, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.

Others No

Jeffords, Vt. 
 
 
OK.  I've found the link to the 200l Congressional Record.  I wonder if those who have changed their minds (again) need cue cards?
 
 

Posted at 03:16 am by Rhet
Make a comment  




National Security vs Civil Liberties
 
Surely -- even if you believe the New York Opines hype  --  you aren't going to suggest that what the President is alleged to have done presents a legitimate conflict between MY civil liberties and OUR national security, are you????  
 
Perish the thought.  
 
So other than stopping a few terrorist attacks on Americans (for which I'm grateful -- by the way), if I "believe" in civil liberties, I gotta hop on the ACLU-bandwagon because the President of the United States of America had the unmitigated audacity to authorize tapping/tracing international terrorist phone calls to some of my fellow Americans???? 
 
Even though the President has (as did his predecessors, coincidentally) the constitutional authority to do so? 
 
Sounds like a smoke screen to me. 
 
So now we gotta spend umpteen zillion tax dollars on another investigation AND hear talking heads and politicos expound on the proclivities of civil liberties vs national security?  Again?
 
 
Didn't they do that after 9/11 when the Patriot Act was approved with only one dissenting vote? 
 
Please.  No.
 
If there really IS a Santa -- let Arlen, Teddy, Barbra, Hilliary, John, Nancy, Chuckie, Charles and Joe et al, including Jesse and Pat and Jerry just keep a sock in it during the holiday.
 
Or at least limit them to local, closed circuit pay-per-view TV.
 
Thanks, Santa. 
 
Santa?
 

Posted at 03:03 am by Rhet
Make a comment  




MSM & Politics as Usual


  Why do I feel there just HAD to be something to detract from recognizing the achievements of the Iraqi people.  Better still -- something --anything-- to detract from writing or referencing success and GWB in the same sentence.
 
Maybe I'm missing something .... Let's see .....
 
The Senate -- in an end-of-session stand-off, featuring the usual squeaking wheels (i.e., aspiring Republicats, disgruntled democrats, squawking moonbats, ACLU-twiddletats and anti-government tin-hats) -- are now calling for a(nother) investigation to challenge the credibility and/or authority of the President on the basis of an article in the New York Opines? 
 
All in the name of civil liberties? 
 
Right?  As in correct
 
And on the basis of this "breaking" year old story -- a few provisions of the Patriot Act are now "compromised" by allegations made in a revenue-losing biased bastion of truth?
 
May I ask a simple question?  
 
Where were all those "outspoken" Senate committee members who knew about these "illegal" Presidential authorizations BEFORE this year-old "breaking" story????  
 
Why have they waited so long to speak out????
 
They're right.  There should be an investigation.  The American people deserve better than a political stand-off while politicians jockey for their turn on the soapbox.   
Maybe we deserve this.  Maybe we didn't learn anything post-9/11. 
 
Makes me wonder what story would have "broken" if the Iraqi elections had NOT been successful ....



Posted at 02:23 am by Rhet
Make a comment  




The Patriot Act and the New York Opines -- I mean, Times


Meanwhile, back to the Senate vote not to reauthorize the Patriot Act and the affiliated (how convenient) bait-gate NYT story on how President Bush is allegedly authorizing the NSA to "spy" on American citizens ....
 
Let me see if I understand this.  (You legal-beagles feel free to chip in when you feel the urge.)
 
The Patriot Act is like a bureaucratic umbrella which includes several stand-alone laws which contiguously and continuously maintain our guard against terrorist attacks on US soil <and elsewhere>, but which is portrayed symbolically as a program enacted by GWB, and thereby, open to criticism by any and every Bush-basher, aspiring Republicat, disgruntled democrat, squawking moonbat, ACLU-twiddletat and anti-government tin-hat. 
 
How's that? 
 
The failure to re-authorize the Patriot Act will have minimal (like less than 5%) effect on ongoing security provisions -- unless some terrorist plot slips through that 5% loophole.  And if some plot does God-forbid-materialize -- let the senators who voted NOT to reauthorize the Patriot Act forever bear the burden of their vote.  Forever.  Amen.
 
While it may be "politics as usual" for democrats, self-serving Republicats and Bush-bashers to assume that voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act would be to "rubber stamp" a lame-duck White House policy -- defending a "NO" vote as a pretense to protecting civil liberties may just backfire on several fronts. 
 
I pray this backfire is only on THEIR front.
 
Didn't these folks debate this issue back in 2001?
 
<Repeat the preceding sentence.>  And perish that thought, too.
 

Posted at 02:15 am by Rhet
Make a comment  




 
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Time Out for a Common Birthday

Wouldn't it be nice if we put aside our differences for one day to celebrate a common birthday?

It was on this day in 1791 that the Bill of Rights was adopted by the United States. It was the lack of a bill of rights that made the Constitution so controversial a few years before. Many people feared that the adoption of a strong central government could lead to tyranny unless certain rights were guaranteed to the people in writing. Patrick Henry refused to endorse the Constitution for that reason. Thomas Jefferson supported the new constitution, but when he read the first draft in France, he wrote a letter to James Madison saying, "Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."

It was James Madison who finally realized that bill of rights was essential to passage of the Constitution, and he promised all the states that a Bill of Rights would be immediately adopted upon the Constitution's ratification. Madison introduced the bill of rights into the first session of congress in 1789, and he used George Mason's Virginia Bill of Rights as the model for the new federal Bill of Rights. Madison originally supported the adoption of seventeen amendments, which was eventually trimmed to twelve, of which ten were adopted.

The rights that were included in the Bill of Rights were directly related to the recent experiences of the colonists. Many colonists had come to this country to get away from religions oppression, so the Bill of Rights protected the free exercise of religion. During the Revolutionary War, colonists had seen printers and journalists jailed and executed when they had opposed the British king, so the Bill of Rights protected the freedom of speech and the press.

The colonists had seen what ordinary citizens with guns could do when they had to fight a revolution against an oppressive government, and so the Bill of Rights protected the right to bear arms and raise militias. Many colonists had been forced to take British soldiers in their houses during the Revolutionary War, and they had also been subject to random searches and seizures by British police. So the Bill of Rights protected citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the quartering of soldiers. Colonists had seen people thrown into dungeons for no reason, had seen people tortured into giving confessions, had seen inquisitions go on for months, during which the accused were worn down by lengthy interrogations. And so the Bill of Rights gave citizens the right to due process of law, a speedy trial, the right to call witnesses, and the right to use a lawyer in one's own defense.

Happy Birthday ....

source:  Garrison Keillor Newsletter

 


Posted at 08:45 am by Rhet
Make a comment  




 
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
GET REEL --

 

  Tammy Bruce has been on my fav reading (and bloglines) list for a long time.  She's bright, articulate and has no fear of Hollywood's lemo... errr ... limo libs when suggesting what they should leave on the cutting room floor.

And Hollywood Wonders Why They're Failing

Why, oh why, has Hollywood seen its worst boxoffice receipts in 15 years? The Golden Globe nominees for 2005 Best Picture say it all. Thought to be the precursor for the Oscar, here's what Hollywood thinks is their best of the year, and consequently what they think our culture should look like:

1) A love story between two gay sheepherders (erroneously labeled 'cowboys' by the media, I suppose because they wear hats).*

2) A film portraying as noble the efforts of journalists to demonize and "take down" a US Senator whose anti-communist policies they did not like.*

3) A film about, as one movie-going reviewer noted, "...the horrors of big business and the way they are willing to experiment on the poor to achieve their goals..."*

4) The demonization of the average mid-western American man as someone who is no hero, but a cold-blooded killer at heart.*

5) And lastly, a Woody Allen film about infidelity. Well, he should know.*

Hollywood honchos continue to wring their hands over why you've stopped going to the movies. They blame ticket prices and DVD availability. They had better start considering the fact that filmmakers are so disconnected, so nihilistic, that the hopelessness and hostility they feel toward the world now permeates their work. Americans will no longer go see movies which are nothing more than the manifestation of the backwash of malignant narcissists. We're also sick and tired of listening toactors lecture us about how awful the US is, and more recently, why a cold-blooded mass murdering gang founder should have been given clemency. Enough is enough.

Not only will we not go see films which insult us, we refuse to support an existential worldview. We happen to think life does matters, that decency is a good thing, and that people are inherently good, not bad. We also have stopped believing the lie that Americans are bad people. We looked away for 4 decades as that lie was spread, but that time is over.

So you can take your gay sheepherder, noble communist supporting reporters, big-business is evil, Americans are hopelessly and inherently corrupt and violent and unfaithful movies and go to Cannes where at least the Parisian set will love you. But that won't exactly pay the bills, will it?

It used to be whichever movie won the top awards guaranteed boffo box office. Not any longer. The Golden Globe (the 'foreign' press contingent) and the Oscar people are going to find that their nights of orgiastic self-congratulation won't get them much, if anything, any more.

In the meantime, I'll be adding some of the old classics to my Netflix queue.

Ditto, Tammy. 

For the same reason AND season -- I suggest ordering two all-time favorites:  Start with the Lockharts in the 1938 version and alternate weekly with Alastair Sim (1951): A Christmas Carol,  of course!

So what's on your favorite holiday and general movie list?


 


Posted at 12:41 pm by Rhet
Make a comment  




 
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Awaiting An Execution


If I were to oppose the death penalty, it would be for one reason:  it has no apparent effect on the crime rate. 
 
Do I feel (based on what I have read, i.e., testimonies and court accounts) that Stanley "Tookie" Williams is guilty of at least four (if not associated with countless other) murders?  Yes.
 
Has he has "atoned" for his crimes?  No idea.  That's between him and a higher power, and has nothing to do with his conviction.
 
Has he redeemed himself?  No idea. But what effect would his redemption have on the fact that he was convicted of murdering four people? 
 
He and a co-writer have written a series of children's' books on anti-gang mentality, donating proceeds from approx. 300 books to anti-gang prevention.  Nice.  While I don't have a valid reference on his conduct as a prisoner, general consensus is that it has not been ideal: he planned (but failed to execute) a violent escape and has not been a model prisoner.
 
Jesse Jackson, death penalty critics and activist celebrities are protesting his pending execution.  So?  Let them invite a murderer or gang member to live in their guest cottages. 
 
Jackson (AKA, man-who-speaks-with-marbles-in-mouth) has been begging Tookie for a pass to witness the execution .... Other than possibly victims' families or the media -- I question the motives of any human who "begs" to watch another die.
 
He's been on death row for what -- 30 years?  So?  He has the right to appeal.  And appeal.  And appeal.  But time's up.  Does the argument that he's a "different" person from the one who committed murder 30 years ago mean anything?  Not to me.  It was his right to appeal.  And, by appealing, the inevitable was subsequently delayed. 
 
Is "waiting" on death row 30 years cruel and unusual punishment?  Not to me.  He chose to murder; he chose to appeal his conviction.  He's certainly lived 30 years longer than Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee-Chen Lin.
 
Do I anticipate riots and protests at 3:02 am PT, about the time Tookie takes a deep sleep?  I hope not.  But if any protest-prone idiot takes the MSM hint, there could be chaos in the streets.  
 
And if there are riots -- I hope law enforcement agencies are ready with water cannons, rubber bullets, tear gas and paddy wagons. 
 
I also anticipate that potential victims of Tookie's merciless mentality will now be prepared to defend themselves against wanton chaos.


Posted at 12:11 am by Rhet
Comments (2)  




 
Monday, December 12, 2005
A Special Holiday Greeting ...

 

  It's not really Christmas online without a Jacquie Lawson ecard .... Enjoy!

http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=LD30214631

Merrry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

 

Note also, our corrected snydication (atom) feed at the top of the sidebar -- if you blog those thingies ....

 


Posted at 12:47 pm by Rhet
Comment (1)  




Next Page
Perish the Thought!
Perish the Thought! Perish the Thought! Perish the Thought!