Why is it that every time I leave Texas, some calamity follows me. I don't want to go down the list of relatives that have died shortly after I visited ... 9/11 happened on my first trip outside the US, and I was supposed to fly back on 9/11 ... Every trip I have made to Britain has accompanied some calamity, including 9/11, the July 7 bombings, a train derailment at a station I passed through not five minutes before ... and now this ...
Some psycho named Omed Aziz Popal decided that during my trip to San Francisco it would be a good time to go on a rampage and run-down people in San Francisco, mere blocks from where my wife and I were enjoying Chinatown. I sent Michelle Malkin some info I gathered during a news broadcast we watched here, which she posted and gave me a h/t. (Thanks Michelle!) More coverage over at Wizbang! and Pajamas Media.
I'm not going to play the "call it islamic terrorism" game quite yet, until I hear some kind of info that tends to point me in that direction. As far as I can tell, the guy is just bat-shit crazy, and you can get bat-shit crazy whether you're muslim or an infidel. For now, I'm putting him in the bat-shit crazy column. At least the SFPD stopped him before he killed anyone else. The news story we heard on the news said the first victim flew over 75 feet through the air, before landing in the grass on the side of the road. Thank Allah only one person died. If he had tried that in Texas, I wonder how many CHL holders would have shot at his dumb-ass self before he stopped. Too bad it's near impossible in CA to get a CHL ...
I'll post some of the 300 pics we've taken so far once I can manage to squeeze all 1.2GB of them out of the sad excuse for an Internet connection here at the Wingate Inn hotel I'm staying at. Looks like I have 180 more to go ...
A blog post over at Wizbang! reminded me of an article I read last July at the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal site about a phenomenon the author called "The Roe Effect" brought on by the Roe v. Wade decision. The author opines:
Compounding the GOP advantage is what I call the Roe effect. It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost--surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.
That's a rather chilling thought. We are talking about human lives here, and it is a scientific fact that since the decision in 1973, there are fewer people on the planet than there -*would*- have been if the decision had gone the other way. Think about that for a second. That's not a maybe, or a could have been, that's a hard fact. One supreme court decision resulted in the loss of 40 million human lives. That's a hard thing to think about, regardless of which way you feel about abortion.
The article goes on to show how this has affected minorities harder than Whites. If you think about how it could play out in the long-run, with pro-Abortion people having fewer and fewer children, the country will eventually become less liberal simply through atrition. The evidence of this is already evident in the numbers shown in this OpinionJournal article on the fertility gap between liberals and conservatives.
Still no new word on the missing Fox News reporter and cameraman kidnapped in Gaza by Hamas thugs. I heard a quick mention and plea for their release last night on Fox on the drive home. I didn't hear anything on Fox & Friends, but it was time for the "good news" when I was listening, so they get a pass from me. I can't imagine what their families are going through, not knowing what happened, and not hearing any new information. My only hope is that Fox is negotiating with the thugs, and is keeping a tight lid on things as part of the bargain.
Michelle Malkin has called for a blogburst to give their story the attention it deserves. Time to pile on people.
I was reading a blog post from Michelle Malkin today which gave me a great idea. According to the Plaintiffs in the TSP lawsuit against the US Gov., the Plaintiffs who had previously been able to freely contact numerous known terrorists are no longer able to contact those people because the TSP is now public news. I think we should use that to our advantage.
Since these people have now admitted in court depositions to be known associates of terrorists, I think we have a case to go to FISA for full wire-tap warrants on the Plaintiffs. We can use the legal pleadings filed in court as evidence that should provide more than reasonable cause for a basically limitless wire-tap warrant against these journalists, and maybe even anyone they work with. All we have to do then is to "let it leak" that the TSP has been stopped dead in it's tracks by the Bush administration as a result of the recent ruling.
Problem solved. The terrorists start colaborating with the NYT, and others, and we get a new source of intelligence that even the staunchest of moonbats can't take away. Brilliant!
Over at Michelle Malkin's blog, there seems to be a little pissing contest
between Karol Sheinin and Andrew Sullivan all started over this post where Karol makes the argument that torture should be used to extract information regarding an imminent terrorist attack.
Ya know ... I'm all for taking on the wacko left that has no clue how to fight terror, protect America, or even bathe ... but that's not what I go to Michelle Malkin's blog for. I'm seeing this crap more and more on the blogs I read, and quite frankly, I could not care less. It all just reminds me of juvenille pissing contests with two kids screaming "oh yeh?" "Yeh!" ... Say your piece, back it up with sound logic, and if someone calls you a 'deranged' for it, either post an update in the original post under the fold, or duke it out in the comments. I mean ... who really wants to read that crap anyways?
Update: I can't spell today ...
Just in case you are interested, I do agree with Karol that some form of torture is acceptable under the right circumstances. It's a judgement call that should be made on a case-by-case basis, and not in a general blanket choice to be applied to all cases. I think that such unadaptable thinking makes you weak, and unable to change your defense tactics as the enemy changes the offense.
While they do mention "torture" in the article, they don't say exactly what method of "torture" torture was used. Did they deny him free Pepsi and only give him water? Did they make him wait to go to the bathroom? Did they send in Jack Bauer to shoot him in the leg and scream "Tell us what you know!" As far as I can tell, everything in the Guardian article is purely speculation, with no evidence of torture other than the implied meaning of the word 'broken.'
If you've read the Guardian much, their idea of tortue would be denying the suspect a gold-leaf Koran or not pointing in the correct position of Mecca for afternoon prayer ... Until I see any evidence of real torture, and the associated circumstances, I withold judgement in this case. Without that information, how can you really judge anything about it?
Check out beneath the fold to see our friend Rachel in a commercial for Samuels Jewelers. Enjoy!
An article in Wired News today has confirmed my idea that what America needs today is a personal responsibility law. The Wired article talks about a case that was overturned today where a family was awarded $135M to be paid by a company named Aramark that served alcohol at a 1999 Giants football game. The Plaintiff's argue that Aramark was at fault for continuing to serve beer to Daniel Lanzaro, after which he continued to drink at two more bars before crashing into a car which 2-year-old Antonia Verni was riding in, paralyzing her from the neck down for life.
Don't get me wrong here ... I'm not defending the actions of a drunk driver ... quite the opposite. I think the drunk driver is the person at fault here, and Lanzaro should be held accountable, not the company that sold him the beer. Lanzaro is the one who continued to drink. Lanzaro is the one who got behind the wheel and almost killed that little girl. What about Lanzaro's friends? Was he alone at the game? Why not sue the friends? What about the car manufacturer? Shouldn't they have put safeguards into the car to prevent Lanzaro from driving drunk? What about the police? Shouldn't they have setup a roadblock outside of the game to screen for drunks? Where does it end? If you ask me, it ends where it started. With the drunk asshole who almost killed a girl, paralyzing her for life. It ends with him.
I think that instead of turning America into a euro-weenie nanny state, we should go the opposite way. We need to bring back responsibility, and I think America needs a personal responsibility law. You kill someone driving drunk, you pay the price, not the bar. You build a bomb and blow it up, you pay the price, not Home Depot. You go postal with a gun and kill people, you pay the price, not Winchester. It's very simple folks. You're reponsible for your own actions, and you alone are responsible for making restitution to society. Period. You fold your baby up in a baby stroller, it's not the companies fault for not putting a warning label on the stroller. You're an idiot, and you're responsible. It's that simple.
A reader of mine sent me the screen capture you see below taken from this page over at msnbc.com. Sometimes those automated ad placement systems don't place ads that are in the best taste ... Last time I checked, the offensive "Luxury Hotels" ad was still in place, right below the happy little slideshow.