My home was recently broken into and burglerized.
What did that thief take? A dull laptop that I no longer have any use for. 
The B&E ticked me off, not the item stolen.
Why? Because that dull laptop would have punished the burgler all by itself:

SNICKER...  posted by YIH @ 5:53 AM on Monday, July 31, 2006  : 

Never thought I'd own a Compaq. Although these days all that means is a HP sold in Wal-Marts. I'd been looking to upgrade my current machine (it was starting to show it's age) for a while. The specs impressed me:
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (my previous one has an 'old school' Athlon XP and is unupgradeable without a new mobo).
DVD RW, DL, +,-, can even do LightScribe. (the old one has a CD burner, can't even PLAY a DVD let alone burn one).
120 GB hard drive (the old one has a 40 GB HD. 40 GB is adaquate, UNTIL you use your DSL connection to download video. THEN you learn that more HD space is something worth having).
Built-in 'Media Reader' (no longer have to link the camera to the 'puter, Just take the chip out of the camera, stick it in the 'puter and the chip has a drive letter).
Why did I buy it? Simple, I paid $750 (including sales tax) for a bunch of upgrades that would have cost me MORE to do on the old machine.
And it came with bonuses!!!
XP Windows Media Center Edition: Can't buy that by itself, you can ONLY get it if you ALSO purchase a piece of hardware. Saves me the trouble of say, buying a hard drive WITH a copy of XP MCE and trying to install it on an exisiting machine.
From everything I've heard and read, you WANT it preinstalled, YOU DON'T WANT to try a DIY installation.
A ''Free'' 19-inch (HP) LCD monitor. Already have that, I bought was is likely the same thing to replace my CRT a.k.a. 'picture tube' monitor already.
My CURRENT 19-inch (HP) LCD monitor works just fine (I bought that as an upgrade to my old machine). Now I have another one that I can either sell or give as a very nice Christmas gift.
I wanted to upgrade and it was an unbeatable deal. Could'nt pass it up.
Does my new 'puter work? If you can read this post, the answer is YES, it does...
UPDATE: So how long did it take? Purchased 9:41AM, 7/29/6. As I write this; 3:47AM 7/30/6.
Getttting the new hardware 'up' took about an hour. Setting up the DSL connection (had to call ''tech support'', hated doing so. BUT he helped me to get my new 'puter online.
And did so quickly and courteously.
GOTTA GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE!!! I called ''The ONLY phone company in town. THE phone company'' , my DSL provider. I recived EXCELLENT service!!! Please keep up the good work.
After getting my new machine online I started getting my basic software package downloaded and installed. Everything was fine untill I installed AVG. As soon as I installed AVG I could not accsess the Internet. I discoverd Norton Internet Security was preinstalled as well.
NOTE: If you buy a new computer, it may likely include a ''free'' installation of Norton or McAfee security software. Once Norton Internet Security WAS COMPLETELY UNINSTALLED and replaced with ZoneAlarm, AVG and Spybot S&D ''the sheilds are up''. I am now able to use the whole Internet...
posted by YIH @ 2:17 AM on Sunday, July 30, 2006  : 

We keep hearing about ''a unified iraq''. OK, explain this very professionally done website:
Kurdistan - The other Iraq.
BTW, I agree, let ''Kurdistan'' free itself from ''Iraq''. Let the rest of ''Iraq'' become ''martyrs'' on their way to muslim ''paradise''... posted by YIH @ 8:30 AM on Friday, July 28, 2006  : 

In a chat room that I visit weekly, I called sean hannity ''a phony conservitive''. Here is why:
1. ANY caller that calls sean ''A Great American'' he responds with ''And you're a Great American too''.
So, all I have to do TO BE ''A Great American'' is to call his radio show, get ''on the air'' and proclaim ''Sean, you're a Great American!!!'' and suddenly I'm ''A Great American'' as well.
Maybe I'll get the title of ''Great American'' in Aug. '06. Or maybe not.
2. When howard stern was being interviewed by sean (TWICE), sean hannity was LITERALLY FAWNING over howard stern. When confronted by callers and emailers on this his EXCUSE is ''I respect his success in radio''. HOW howard stern got successful in radio is irrelevant, the only thing that matters to sean hannity is the fact that howard stern is successful in radio.
3. Where I lost all respect for sean hannity: That was the day michael jackson was turning itself in to be arrested for the charge of child molestaion.
Sean was doing ''the play-by-play'' of what he saw on the faux news coverage of this. After the half-hour break, (jackson was in custody then) sean used his NATIONAL radio show to describe (IN VERY EXPLICIT DETAIL) what michael jackson supposedly did to a 14-year old boy. I was DISGUSTED by sean's description of what supposedly took place!!!
When he finally took callers, the very first caller (a woman) said to him: ''Sean, WHAT ARE YOU DOING!!! I HAVE KIDS IN THE CAR!!!''. She THOUGHT sean hannity was trustworthy (NOT a so-called ''shock jock'') and he violated her trust in him.
I have NO RESPECT for rebecca hagelin either:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37699
She thinks ''sean hannity IS SO CUTE'', she sees him and her heart and brain just melt away to nothing. As A Man I've been accused of thinking ''below my shoulders'' many times.
I'm not offended by that, in fact it's quite true.
If a married woman PUBLICLY DECLARES her attraction to a married man that is not her husband, she IS ''thinking below the shoulders'' as well... posted by YIH @ 11:24 PM on Sunday, July 23, 2006  : 

''Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside.''
Just another dog-and-pony show:
''gay marriage'', ''flag burning'' are just dog-and-pony shows.
Cutting spending? NOPE, CAN'T DO THAT.
Defending the USA? That is why 130,000+ troops are in iraq.
Fighting our enemies?
We'll do politically correct clinton-style nation building AND JUST CALL IT ''fighting the war on terror''.
Of course THAT will work.
Meanwhile a TSA screener IS DEMANDING that the diaper be taken off a baby ''to make sure there is nothing dangerous there'' while Ahmed Mohammed calmly walks past and stifles a chuckle at ''the stupid infidels''.
Meanwhile, sean hannity is calling his call-in guest ann coulter ''a great american'' even if I (NOT ''a great american'') DO INDEED WEAR underwear!!!
In fact, if I even THOUGHT I might appear on TV, I'D MAKE IT A POINT TO WEAR UNDERWEAR!!! It appears ann ''just forgot about that''.
If THAT is supposed to be ''conservitism'' today, I have no interest in being ''a conservitive''...
I've seen the video, see it for yourself, judge for yourself... posted by YIH @ 1:05 AM on  : 

There are times when I read John Hawkins's blog and think ''Y'know, is Hawkins CLUELESS or just not serious at all?'' And this is one of those times:

Hamas and Hezbollah could just shrug their shoulders and let someone else clean up their mess. Now, since they're both in politics, they're going to have constituents to deal with.

"When is the bridge getting fixed? When will the power be back on? How are we going to pay for all this? What exactly did we, the people who voted for you, get out of this attack?"

The hamas/hezbollah (and all other muslim) leaders have set themselves up as COMPLETELY BLAMELESS no matter what happens!!!

I'll ''fisk'' Hawkins to demonstrate:
"When is the bridge getting fixed? [muslim answer: When the Jews/Americans/UN/EU fix the bridge they destroyed] When will the power be back on? [muslim answer: When the Jews/Americans/UN/EU fix the the power facilities they destroyed] How are we going to pay for all this? [muslim answer: When the Jews/Americans/UN/EU provide ALL the aid money they promised us] What exactly did we, the people who voted for you, get out of this attack? [muslim answer: We are working night and day to make the Jews/Americans/UN/EU restore what they have destroyed]".

And if anyone pipes up and says ''But we brought this hell upon ourselves'' they would be dealt with swiftly (and VERY gruesomely) as ''an Israeli/Zionist collaborator'' who ''opposes the muslims right to defend themselves against Israeli/Zionist/American opression''.
That is the muslim mindset; Whatever they do IS DEFENDING muslims AGAINST the genocide/opression of non-muslims.
THEY (the muslims) can do no wrong because WE (the non-muslims) can do no right (as far as the muslims are concerned).

That is the problem I have with Hawkins (and talk radio) is the FANTASY ''THAT WE CAN BRING THESE PEOPLE FREEDOM'' while failing to understand that what WE consider ''freedom'' IS COMPLETELY OPPOSED to what THEY consider ''freedom''.
Another example from John Hawkins's blog: The Guinea Worm & African Culture. While I advise you to READ THE WHOLE THING, I'll get to the important part now:

These people are crippled by their culture and all the well meaning Westerners in the world aren't going to fix that. Until more African nations accept Democracy, the rule of law, capitalism, freedom of the press, and the other things that go along with a successful society, they're doomed to wallow in poverty in misery, no matter how much money or help we try to give them.

Here is how I interpret this: ''all the well meaning Westerners'' (SOUNDS LIBERAL TO ME)
CAN GET THEM TO ''accept Democracy, the rule of law, capitalism, freedom of the press, and the other things that go along with a successful society''.
For three years now we have TRIED to ''Westernize'' Iraq. It has been an abject failure.
HEY!!! LIBERAL REPUBLICAN, Before you ''flame'' me do YOU have a way ''to calm Iraq down''?
OK, HOTSHOT Hawkins, ''the Iraqi people'' ARE BUTCHERING EACH OTHER at roughly the same pace saddam was.
We now have 130,000+ U.S. troops there sitting on their hands, worried that if they engage the enemy in combat (or even joke about doing so) there are LIBERAL REPUBLICANS who are EAGER to ''throw them under the bus'' (and put them in chains in Camp Pendelton) if they DO engage the enemy.
Now I'll don the elephant mask. Well, John Kerry Hawkins it seems to fit. If a PHONY ''conservitive'' (who really likes Pr0n staars) can try to hide his LIBERAL inclinations behind A PHONY elephant mask, I can do the same.
I'm a LIBERTARIAN. If I WANT to wear an elephant mask I'll do so.
But at least I'll tell you I'm a LIBERTARIAN wearing an elephant mask.
I won't try to tell you ''I'M JOHN KERRY HAWKINS AND I'M REPORTING FOR DUTY''... posted by YIH @ 4:49 AM on Saturday, July 22, 2006  : 

If your eyes follow the movement of the rotating pink dot, you will only see one color, pink. If you stare at the black + in the center, the moving dot turns to green. Now, concentrate on the black + in the center of the picture:

After a short period of time, all the pink dots will slowly disappear, and you will only see a green dot rotating if you're lucky! It's amazing how our brain works.










There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don't disappear.
This should be proof enough, that we don't always see what we think we see.
Illusionism again !
Hat tips to The Inquirer and BAD HARDWARE WEEK for this mind-blowing optical illusion... posted by YIH @ 5:18 AM on Tuesday, July 18, 2006  : 

The 2008 ''race for The White House'' has begun. Who threw his hat in the ring?
Rudolph Guliani. If you bop over to NRO you can see his ad. Now it does not explicitly say ''Rudy for Prez''. But it's a quite professionally done ad renderd in Macromedia Flash. Most people have to pay someone to produce one. Even someone who knows their way around HTML can't knock one of those out quickly or easily. Also getting it placed prominently on a site like NRO cost quite a bit of coin as well.
Very nicely done ad BTW, It fades in and out a series of words:
Leadership.
Security.
Solutions.
America.
(Note that ''Cross-Dressing.'' has been conveniently left off that list.)
Then goes to the ''Click Here: SolutionsAmerica.com''. Go ahead, click the link. The site is OBVIOUSLY a pro job. Makes this site look shabby.
My budget doesn't allow for a professional site designer.
THAT quality of site design DOESN'T COME CHEAP!!!
Let's see, it appears he's already spent a couple hundred grand to set up a website and buy advertising for it. Did I mention he hired someone just to pay the bills?
Not kidding: ''Paid for by Solutions America, John Gross Treasurer''
I actually feel sorry for Rudy, $20 says he'll quit during the primaries. And by that point it's safe to say he'll have BLOWN at least $100 million!!!
The Republican Nomination? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
I CAN ''be bought''. And I AM allowed to sell ad space here:

16. PARTICIPATION IN PROMOTIONS OF ADVERTISERS Member may enter into correspondence with or participate in promotions of the Advertisers showing their products on the Service. Any such correspondence or promotions, including the delivery of and the payment for goods and services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties or representations associated with such correspondence or promotions, are solely between the corresponding Member and the Advertiser. Pyra assumes no liability, obligation or responsibility for any part of any such correspondence or promotion.

That's right, ad space is available for sale here. In fact, Google even encourages it!!!
Placement, price, all open for negotiation.
Here's how it works: Contact me, state your terms in your email.
If I accept them I will respond with a ''Snail mail'' address for the check to be sent to.
When the check ''clears'' the ad goes up.
I do not accept ''online payment''.
WARNING: If I recive a ''cashier's check'' or ''certified check'' as payment the deal is automatically null and void. I already know about that scam... posted by YIH @ 6:09 PM on Sunday, July 16, 2006  : 

Pick the item here that I've owned and have used for 20 years:

If you know me, it's ''a no-brainer''... posted by YIH @ 4:39 AM on  : 

Words by Neil Peart (Drums), music by Geddy Lee (Vocals) and Alex Lifeson (Guitar):

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(and theyre quite convinced theyre right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks cant help their feelings
If they like the way theyre made
And they wonder why the maples
Cant be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream `oppression!`
And the oaks, just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
the oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light
Now theres no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw ... posted by YIH @ 10:04 PM on Saturday, July 15, 2006  : 

Stoner-to-English translation: ''Hey, You're getting SCREWWWWWWED''.
I really can't blame ''Steven'';

I'll add my own tale of woe later, but here are five good reasons NOT to buy a dell laptop:
1. Dell ''tech support''.
2. Dell ''tech support''.
3. Dell ''tech support''.
4. Jeff Jarvis and I will call you a moron.
5. And it JUST might EXPLODE:

And burn:

These pics inspired a kool music video: ''My PC is on fire'' you gotta click on the link... posted by YIH @ 4:20 AM on Friday, July 14, 2006  : 

How about a link? Here is all I ask:
Link my blog on yours. Respond in the Comments and include the URL to your blog.
I'll add you to my Blogroll... posted by YIH @ 6:18 PM on Saturday, July 08, 2006  : 

This pic courtesy of Neil Boortz's ''Redneck Scrapbook'':

The text ''Redneck Boat 2'' and ''Redneck Express'' were ''photoshopped'' onto it.
The pic itself IS real. And the story behind it is even funnier than the pic itself... posted by YIH @ 1:57 PM on  : 

They're creepy and they're kooky, Mysterious and spooky, They're all together ooky;
THE DARWIN FAMILY! (with a tip of the hat to Vic Mizzy).


I first saw this pic about two years ago. It was part of an ad for ''Passing Wind Estates''.
Yeah, more St. Cloud (FL) stuff, it's a rapidly growing FL city. It's likely the reason it became a test subject for city-wide WI-FI.
At least two different ''housing developments'' (budding suburbs) have used this pic in their ads to suggest you ought to ''Enjoy 'the carefree lifestyle' of Passing Wind Estates''.
I'm a regular cyclist myself, and when I saw that pic in the paper the first thing I thought was ''OH!!! There's a trip to The Emergency Room just waiting to happen!'' either from a car suddenly pulling out of a driveway or one of those kids accidently swings a foot into the spokes of that bike. Then all three of them will go (as my late Mother liked to put it) ''@$$ over teacup''.
Will they become ''the official mascots'' of my blog? YOU BETCHA!!!
These Darwin Award nominees now have a home here.
Who are these people? Don't know, don't care. I use this pic as a way to make fun of these MORONS. One thing I was raised to understand is ''don't carry passengers on a bike not intended for it'' (and having someone sitting on the handlebars makes it hard to control anyway).
So if anything goes wrong likely all three of ''this happy family'' will suddenly become very UNhappy. Pavement is unforgiving, and moving automobiles are even LESS forgiving...
posted by YIH @ 5:27 AM on Friday, July 07, 2006  : 

Discovery went off without a hitch. LOVED the external tank cam! Considering the stress of liftoff it worked quite well.
The only thing that would have made it better would have been a night launch (much more spectatcular).
Yes, I saw the acending vapor trail (as was possible due to cloud cover).
If you are wondering KSC is about 100 miles NNE of me. BTW, here is your link for STS-121; http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/sts-121_front/index.html
In fact, for the time being I'm going to replace OUR FLAG as the icon with NASA's... posted by YIH @ 6:00 PM on Tuesday, July 04, 2006  : 

I read Vox Day's World Net Daily column: ''In defense of the New York Times''.
In the first two paragraphs he makes it quite clear that defending the NYT is not his point at all. It's the firestorm created over their revealment of the ''top secret'' SWIFT financial-tracking program. The meaty quote here is:

''the SWIFT program will do nothing to protect national security, despite all of the posturing and ignorant howling on the part of the administration's defendants in the supposedly conservative commentariat''

All you had to do was listen to ''conservative'' talk radio the last week of June 2006 to get that impression.
The reason I agree with Vox is something I saw last year on Little Green Footballs:
Saudi Account 98. Click the link and then click on the pic to watch the video.
The administration's attitude about it seems to be; ''The Saudis tell us Account 98 no longer exists. That's good enough for us, case closed''.
A primary argument by the administration for 'Get Saddam' was ''he was sending money to 'the palistinians' to reward and encourage terrorism''.
I see this double standard on saudi arabia where they take everything the saudis say at face value (It would not suprise me that 'Account 98' is still open and fully functional to this very day) as they continue to do what the administration used as an excuse for 'Get Saddam'.
An even more damning part of this video is the CSPAN-3 portion. Where Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for Terrorist Financing Daniel Glazer is plainly lying about 'Account 98' and the saudis.
And that is why I consider ''the war on terrorism'' A SHAM. We put 130,000+ U.S. Army and Marines in harm's way ''to fight terrorism'' and yet when the saudis are caught doing the same thing it becomes ''we asked the saudis nicely to stop doing that and they promised us they would''.
The SWIFT program didn't ''sniff out'' the existance of 'Account 98', MEMRI TV and the blog ''Little Green Footballs'' did. The saudis have no fear of us, the iranians have no fear of us, AND EVEN THE NORTH KOREANS have no fear of us. Looks like we blew it... posted by YIH @ 5:16 PM on Monday, July 03, 2006  : 

Not at all true. I left a reply at ParaPundit stating such:
Personally, I can't stand NY Senator chucky scummer either.
That said, I have no choice but to agree with him:
''Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer of New York claim that the Republicans are at fault for the collapse in immigration law enforcement.''
The problem is he's correct.
Mind you, I'm not saying he or any other democrat could or would do any better than the republicans when it comes to immigration but I CAN'T DISAGREE with his statement either.
THE LIBERAL scummer or THE LIBERAL Bush what is the difference? I can't see one.
That is what makes it so tragic.
Very few of us will be immune from this LIBERAL republican train wreck coming at us.
Conservitive=Republican? Only those whose employment depends on that piece of fiction can support THAT anymore...
P.S. I have a blog of my own, and this will be a post there...

I AM A ''conservitive'' and that is why I am no longer ''a republican''.
Ronald Reagan said it best: ''I didn't leave the Democratic Party, IT LEFT ME''.
That pretty much describes me and the Republican Party. I didn't leave it, IT LEFT ME.
There are those such as John Hawkins who are trapped in the Republican Party. They can't leave it no matter how LIBERAL it becomes! In fact their JOB (how they make their living) is to defend it no matter how LIBERAL it becomes.
They are forced to accept the rampaging LIBERALISM that now dominates the Republican Party and to lamely defend it.
I am NOT saying Hawkins and others ARE EMPLOYEES of the Republican Party, NOT AT ALL. The relationship between Hawkins and others and the Republican Party is parasitic. They NEED the Republican Party to survive because they parasitcally derive an income from it. A parasite has a lot of trouble surviving without it's host organism.
If that means that they will attempt to even defend their ''host organisim'' they will indeed attempt to do just that.
It matters little to them that the Republican Party has achived a merger with the Democratic Party. They will only briefly complain when Howard Dean is named Chairman of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties.
As they continue to accept THE LIBERALISM of George Herbert Walker Bush, they will also accept Howard Dean being named GOP Chairman.
People like Hawkins don't care that it's ''a donkey wearing an elephant mask'' (as I described it in a reply on his blog) as long as he can pretend it's not a donkey he's just fine with that.
Let him pretend Hewlett-Packard and Compaq are separate and independent companies.
Let him pretend AOL and Time-Warner are separate and independent companies.
Let him pretend Sears and Kmart are separate and independent companies.
Let him pretend that the Republican and Democratic parties are separate and independent political parties.
Now you know why I'm no longer a Republican.
The way I see it, the Republican Party HAS INDEED merged with the Democratic Party. With no more ''conspiricy'' than Kmart merging with Sears.
It APPEARS that Kmart and Sears and independent of one another and even competing with one another. But actually they are not.
The same can be said of the Republican and Democratic political parties.
Reagan was correct: ''I didn't leave them, they left me''... posted by YIH @ 6:15 AM on Sunday, July 02, 2006  : 

Ilana Mercer has also entered this debate with A BLISTERING post to World Net Daily that I agree with.
Hawkins (and those like him) can fling ''put-downs'' at me to their heart's content. They can call me ''a moonbat'', ''stupid'', ''nutty'', ect. ect. IN FACT, I ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO.
They had better be ready to explain WHY ''The Commander-in-Chief'' belives it is nessessary to provide U.S. Marines IN A COMBAT ZONE with 'sensitivity training'.
Go ahead Hawkins, Malkin, and others DEFEND THAT. They know ''The Commander-in-Chief'' can bring 'sensitivity training' to our forces in Iraq to a screeching halt right now. All the President has to do is issue the order ''No more 'sensitivity training' for ANY U.S. Military, PERIOD''.
Will he issue that order? Tell me, Hawkins, Malkin, and other defenders of our esteemed President WILL HE ISSUE THAT ORDER?
The Consitution is perfectly clear on this. ONLY President Bush can do this. NO ONE ELSE.
By defending President Bush they are also defending his decision TO FORCE BY ORDER of the Commander-in-Chief 'sensitivity training' for ''our troops''.
GO FOR IT! Call me names, I encourage you to do so.
As you 'flame' me would you also please explain why ''our troops'' IN A COMBAT ZONE are required to undergo 'sensitivity training'? TRY to defend THAT... posted by YIH @ 4:11 AM on  : 

BUSH IS NOT PART OF ''the right-wing'' of American political thought.
No more than his IDEOLOGICAL 'father' Lyndon Baines Johnson was.
I'll admit it, I'm quickly losing my respect for John Hawkins to the point that I am considering removing the link to his blog from my own.
On ''The Right Angle'' I brought myself into this debate:

Face it, Hawkins is arguing from a position OF WEAKNESS.
All he can do is LAMELY defend HIMSELF and the president from LEGITIMATE CRITIQUE.
In HIS IMAGINATION there is ''a vast right-wing conspiricy to merge the Democrat and Republican parties''.
There is NO CONSPIRICY for that to happen. What we have in the White House IS NOT 'the second coming of Ronald Wilson Reagan' it IS 'the second coming of Lyndon Baines Johnson'.
That is why Hawkins's arguments are so limp, he is PRETENDING TO DEFEND Ronald Reagan when HE IS ACTUALLY DEFENDING Lyndon Johnson. He KNOWS he is trying to defend Lyndon Johnson against supporters of Reagan, and that's WHY 'his heart isn't in it'.
I think he'll lose this debate, he can't WHOLEHEARTEDLY support the president and our president's agenda because
John Hawkins KNOWS our president is WRONG.
He even acknowleged it. I do respect John Hawkins for at least admitting that our president IS WRONG.
As ''a modern Republican'' he can't ADMIT our president HAS NO USE for Conservitism beyond getting himself elected.
If Hawkins wishes TO CONTINUE TO DEFEND L.B.J. he has every right as an American to do so.
And I have every right to tell him that HE IS SERIOUSLY WRONG...

Not ONLY did I post that as a reply I'm posting it here as well. He is an example of a so-called ''Conservitive'' that seems to belive critizing our Government and it's duly elected officials is somehow ''treason''.
This ''defend the president at all costs'' is VERY UNHEALTHY.
Those (such as Hawkins) think we are ''racist'' for wanting to protect our country. In fact, he has openly called VDARE.com a ''racist'' website:

After reading this bigoted garbage, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on Sailer or Vdare (where this was published), beyond saying that I think this is disgusting, ridiculous, & beyond the pale.

I wonder if Hawkins thinks 'Michelle Malkin' is a ''racist''? Not likely, a link to 'Michelle Malkin's' blog is a regular feature on Hawkins's blog.
I made ''her'' blog a point for a reason. Hawkins calls VDARE ''racist'' yet it has a special agreement with ''her'' (Malkin) to be the first place ''her'' columns appear.
OK, Hawkins, EXPLAIN THAT.
Hawkins is going to deal with me the same way he deals with Jerome Corsi (if HIS HIGHNESS even deems it nessessary to even respond to this). His ROYAL attitude is ''he is correct and you are wrong, and you need to accept that''.
My statement to Hawkins is: ''You make a living from the fees advertisers pay to put thier ads on your blog, fine with me''.
And I think of Clark Howard. From what I've been told, he is a multi-millionare.
Much more wealthy than either YOU or I (or Hawkins or 'Malkin') COMBINED.
I LIKE his attitude. Clark Howard has made IT QUITE CLEAR you can't ''buy him''. THAT I respect. Unlike Hawkins, if our president ''causes The United States of America to crash and burn'' HE WILL COMFORTABLY SURVIVE.
When our country ''crashes and burns'' as Bush and Hawkins ARE OBSCESSED with seeing happen, I seek self-defence.
If Hawkins thinks that means I will not link his site ever again that is PROOF of his stupidity. Personally, I think Hawkins makes his living from the income generated from his blog. ''Nice work if you can get it''.
It's also ''a double-edged sword''. He is not free. His need to be ''on the right'' and his need to defend Bush at all costs is his undoing.
Here is an excellent example of the thought process of Hawkins:
The Guinea Worm & African Culture
In that post to ''Right Wing News'' he admires the heroic efforts to try to eradicate a disease IN SPITE of the culture of that african village. He then makes the fatal leap that we CAN ''heal'' this backward culture:

These people are crippled by their culture and all the well meaning Westerners in the world aren't going to fix that. Until more African nations accept Democracy, the rule of law, capitalism, freedom of the press, and the other things that go along with a successful society,(italics mine) they're doomed to wallow in poverty in misery, no matter how much money or help we try to give them.

That is the fatal flaw in Hawkins's thought process. He actually thinks we can GIVE them ''Democracy, the rule of law, capitalism, freedom of the press, and the other things that go along with a successful society''. He actually thinks that a backward culture can be ''fixed'' by ''Democracy, the rule of law, capitalism, freedom of the press, and the other things that go along with a successful society''.
A good example of how flawed that thinking is can be summed up with one word: Nigeria. IT HAS a ''westernized'' government and legal system and yet as anyone with an email address in America can attest to, Nigeria is throughly corrupt. ''The Nigerian scam email'' has become a feature of all our email activity.
When I recived a ''Nigerian scam email'' I LAUGHED AT IT. Such a pathetic attempt to scam money out of me struck me as downright FUNNY.
Yet Hawkins actually belives that ''Democracy, the rule of law, capitalism, freedom of the press, and the other things that go along with a successful society'' can repair and ''heal'' a stubbornly backward, tribal culture.
I can understand why he belives that, because that is exactly what we are attempting to do in Iraq.
I'll state it right here, WE CAN'T. I have come to realize that such an endeavor is IMPOSSIBLE and FUTILE. And I'm not the only one, William F. Buckley agrees with that point of view.
I wonder if Hawkins even realizes who William F. Buckley is. I suspect he does not... posted by YIH @ 5:46 PM on Saturday, July 01, 2006  : 

I see Vox Day on his blog just tossed out the ''allowed it (9/11) to happen'' meme.
Now I'm not going to call him or anyone else ''names'' for doing so, but I will use my own blog as a forum to disagree with that concept.
I belive the president had three missions he sought to accomplish from day one. (i.e. the day he was sworn in as President of The United States):
1. Reverse Clinton's '94 tax hikes (quickly accomplished)
2. ''finish daddy's job'' in regards to Iraq (prior to launching my own blog I reffered to it as ''Get Saddam'')
3. Quickly accomplish another '86-style ''amnesty for illegals''.
My opinion is had the events of Sept.11^th NOT occured, what is today being disparaged as ''the Senate Bill'' would have flown through Congress with Tom Tancredo being the sole source of resistance to it there. The Senate would have ''rubber stamped'' it and by roughly late November or early December of 2001 the President would have been gleefully signing it into law.
He would have indeed delivered the Christmas present he promised Mexican President Vincente Fox on Friday, Sept. the 7^th 2001. As I spelled out in ''Wal-Mart ticked me off Part II''.
As to goal #2, starting likely in January 2002 (and after getting accomplishment #3 signed, sealed and delivered) the ''Iraq is a major threat to America'' campaign would have begun in ernest.
I do indeed belive ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' has no connection whatsoever to the events of Sept. the 11^th. NONE AT ALL.
Afganistan? Had 9/11 not occured, the ''Taliban'' would still be ruling it with an iron fist today. Bin Laden would have been free to roam Afganistan (and Pakistan) at will, and most Americans would not have even heard of ''Al-Quida'' until they began to stage attacks on our forces in Iraq.
And yes, we would indeed have 130,000+ troops in Iraq today.
That's right, the events regarding Iraq would have unfolded just as they actually have done. My opinion has always been that the current President Bush saw Iraq (and Saddam) as ''daddy's unfinished business'' that HE intended to ''complete''.
The so-called PATRIOT Act? That (or something quite like it) likely would have been implemented sometime in 2002 as a response to the problems created by the 2001 Amnesty Act or sometime in 2003 as a response to the anti-war protests that began around the fall of 2002. 9/11 was not nessesary for that to occur either.
That massive ''Embassy Complex'' in Iraq would still be under contruction today.
That's correct, I'm QUITE CONVINCED that with the exception of our actions in Afganistan, events would have unfolded exactly as they have actually done.
9/11 was responsible for our involvment in Afganistan. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's quite likely Pat Tillman would still be alive and playing pro football. Just not for the Arizona Cardinals, he would have left that sad sack team the first chance he got.
Nor would there have been much opposition to ''the Dubai Ports Deal''. In fact it would have been barely noticed at all.
As in regards to the Blogosphere the blog ''Little Green Footballs'' would exist, but other than Cycling and Apple Computer fans few people would have even heard of it. Nor likley would Pajamas Media exist now.
The reason I belive as I do (that Bush would have perferred that the events of Sept. 11 NOT occured) is well-put by Steve Sailer:
The Bush Betrayal: Maybe He’s Not Thinking But Feeling—Family Feeling, Mexican Style. As I noted the first time I posted this link, this article has nothing to do with Iraq, but I think it explains the 'why' of ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' quite well. Even if you have read it before, read it. As far as I'm concerned this one paragraph states the 'why' of ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'':

"The Bushes have always been ultra-ambitious and ultra-competitive, including with each other in their nonstop sports. Constant competition comes with costs, though. The great psychological burden of George W. Bush's life has been his consciousness of his inferiority compared to his father."

That quote alone explains a lot to me, but here is a quote from Bush himself in 2002 that supports the above: "After all, this (Saddam Hussein) is the guy who tried to kill my dad.". That is why I'm quite convinced that our involvement in Iraq today is personal to him and in fact unrelated to 9/11.
The (Iraqi) WMD's.
Many on the right now positively bristle with anger at the mere mention of the acronym. Because even considering what has been found to date of them is unconvincing that Iraq either posed a threat to The United States of America or that they were ready ''to give (those WMD's) to terrorists'' to use against us.
Which explains WHY the right bristles with anger at the mere mention of the acronym ''WMD''. They realize if the perception of Iraq being a serious threat to The United States falls apart the (American) public support for ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' falls apart with it.
And with it Bush, the Republican Party AND THEMSELVES become PARIAHS for the death of over 2500 and the permanent maiming of many, many more.
They have a vested interest in ''Operation Iraqi Freedom''. Right-wing bloggers such as Charles Johnson, John Hawkins and 'Michelle Malkin' (the reason I think that name is a 'pen name' is rather obvious on her blog) as well as most talk radio hosts HAVE A LOT TO LOSE if things don't turn out well in Iraq.
That is why they are so ferocious is their defence of ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' and President Bush. If it (and he) sinks, they sink with it (and him). And it's why they so strongly push ''happy talk'' when it comes to Iraq. A local talk radio host goes so far as devoting an hour for ''Good News From Iraq'' and his station heavily promotes it.
To put it very bluntly, I don't want ANY Americans in Iraq anymore. As in today.
I know I'll hear and read ''but you don't support the troops'', in fact I DO SUPPORT THE TROOPS and that is why I want them OUT of Iraq!!!
Right-wing whiner; ''BUT, BUT, WHY?!?!?''. Because we have put them in harm's way where they cannot possibly succeed. ''Sensitivity Training'' for U.S. MARINES?
''Sensitivity Training'' for MARINES IN A COMBAT ZONE?
WHAT IS THAT?!?!
WOULD YOU CARE TO EXPLAIN THAT?!?! posted by YIH @ 1:31 PM on  :