I hear this again and again ''We (America) have to 'save' ''iraq'', and Afghanistan, and Bosnia, and Somalia, and ''the palistinians'' and Rwanda, and ''Darfur'', and Zimbabwe and the rest of the world so they won't attack us''.
But you know what? WE CAN'T 'SAVE' THEM!!!
America is NOT ''the world's superhero''. We can't 'save' them from themselves. Yes, I KNOW ''iraq'' is a disaster. And to put it bluntly, we made it that way. But ''iraq'' is a Moslim land (dar-al-islam) and nothing we can do will change that.
The only time we had a sensible foreign policy in recent history was Rwanda. We left them alone to settle their issues as they saw fit. We didn't involve America in their problems.
The reason was Black Hawk Down, we went to Somalia with the noblest of intentions, ''Stop the violence, stop the bloodshed and feed the starving people''. What happened? American Marines that went there to ''feed the starving people'' were slaughtered and their bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. If we'd interfered in Rwanda it would have been the same result, Americans would have died needlessly and the fighting would have happened anyway.
Recently in the park in ''Pleasant Valley'' there were a handful of liberals (scroll down for the entry) who had a ''sing-in'' to ''help the starving people of Zimbabwe''. NO, they weren't ''moonbats'', they had their gathering, sang some folk songs, collected some donations, and even cleaned up after themselves.
It was peaceable, good-natured, good intentioned, and ultimately a waste of time. Let's say for the sake of argument, most if not all of that cash raised (as a courtesy, I gave 'em a dollar) makes it to Zimbabwe or buys food to be shipped there. Money will wind up in some Zimbabwean government official's bank account or the food will wind up in the bellies of Mugabe's cronies (or sold for quick cash).
I can hear the liberals now; ''but, but, those poor people are hurting, they're starving'' and understand that but I know there's not a damn thing we can do about it!
WHAT, do we invade Zimbabwe, capture Mugabe, put him on trial and hang him for ''crimes against humanity''? Stop me if you've heard that story before.
I'm sick and tired of being seen as ''the world's social worker''. Even Jesus didn't feed the whole world with the loaves and fishes and he was doing an actual miracle!
In my opinion the only thing that can be done with ''iraq'' is to tell them ''we gave you a chance, now you're on your own. Welcome your newcomers all of CAIR, 'the flying imams' and your fellow Moslims that won't touch plastic-wrapped bacon with gloves''. And if you want to be ''refugees'' there is Saudi Arabia to the south and Iran to the east. NOT America...
But you know what? WE CAN'T 'SAVE' THEM!!!
America is NOT ''the world's superhero''. We can't 'save' them from themselves. Yes, I KNOW ''iraq'' is a disaster. And to put it bluntly, we made it that way. But ''iraq'' is a Moslim land (dar-al-islam) and nothing we can do will change that.
The only time we had a sensible foreign policy in recent history was Rwanda. We left them alone to settle their issues as they saw fit. We didn't involve America in their problems.
The reason was Black Hawk Down, we went to Somalia with the noblest of intentions, ''Stop the violence, stop the bloodshed and feed the starving people''. What happened? American Marines that went there to ''feed the starving people'' were slaughtered and their bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. If we'd interfered in Rwanda it would have been the same result, Americans would have died needlessly and the fighting would have happened anyway.
Recently in the park in ''Pleasant Valley'' there were a handful of liberals (scroll down for the entry) who had a ''sing-in'' to ''help the starving people of Zimbabwe''. NO, they weren't ''moonbats'', they had their gathering, sang some folk songs, collected some donations, and even cleaned up after themselves.
It was peaceable, good-natured, good intentioned, and ultimately a waste of time. Let's say for the sake of argument, most if not all of that cash raised (as a courtesy, I gave 'em a dollar) makes it to Zimbabwe or buys food to be shipped there. Money will wind up in some Zimbabwean government official's bank account or the food will wind up in the bellies of Mugabe's cronies (or sold for quick cash).
I can hear the liberals now; ''but, but, those poor people are hurting, they're starving'' and understand that but I know there's not a damn thing we can do about it!
WHAT, do we invade Zimbabwe, capture Mugabe, put him on trial and hang him for ''crimes against humanity''? Stop me if you've heard that story before.
I'm sick and tired of being seen as ''the world's social worker''. Even Jesus didn't feed the whole world with the loaves and fishes and he was doing an actual miracle!
In my opinion the only thing that can be done with ''iraq'' is to tell them ''we gave you a chance, now you're on your own. Welcome your newcomers all of CAIR, 'the flying imams' and your fellow Moslims that won't touch plastic-wrapped bacon with gloves''. And if you want to be ''refugees'' there is Saudi Arabia to the south and Iran to the east. NOT America...
Labels: Reality World
posted by YIH @ 5:13 PM on Friday, March 30, 2007 :
I came across a comment on a blog that asked the rhetorical question ''Is Tony Blair a wimp?'' (in regards to those British soldiers who were taken hostage by Iran).
My response is ''And you thought he wasn't?''. When the Bush administration began pushing 'Get Saddam' (as if Saddam were actively working with al-quida to commit 9/11) they needed another reason to get other nations to join in.
So the strategy became: Not ONLY are we doing this because the world is under dire imminent threat from ''Saddam's WMD's'' but we are also ''freeing the iraqi people from Saddam's vicious, tyrannical rule''.
And THAT is what brought Labor Party (the British equivalent of the US Democratic Party) PM Blair ''on board'' with 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
To refresh your memory of March 20, 2003:
After it was made undeniable (to other than some whiny talk radio hacks) that ''iraq'' DID NOT present any threat to America it became the whining ''but they're poor and helpless so we gotta help them so they don't attack us''.
What does that actually mean? WELFARE for ''iraq'' FOREVER. We've attached ''iraq'' to the US Government teat until at least January 20, 2009. When ''W'' is finally a former President.
At THAT is what has really produced MY hatred for the President. ''The Surge'' is to tamp down criticizim of how badly 'Operation Iraq Freedom' has gone.
At best, ''the surge'' can be maintained for 24 months. Which is all Bush needs, keep it under the rug until 1/21/09.
''Make the NEXT President take the blame''. Bill Clinton taught him well.
UPDATE: What do I think of the Democratic House and Senate ''attaching timetables and benchmarks to spending''? It's all they have, and I doubt Bush will veto anything that makes it to his desk (If you think I'm wrong, see that link to 'comments' below? TELL ME WHY).
There should be no warning of our exit from ''iraq''. In fact, those American soldiers who have not been assigned passage on board airliners leaving Baghdad MUST BE ORDERED to tell ''iraqis''; ''Not to worry, there will more Americans replacing those who are leaving''.
Would that be Americans using taquyya against Moslims? GOOD.
Meanwhile, those Moslim cashiers employed by Target that won't even touch plastic-wrapped pork with gloves should be given a new home in ''iraq''. As should ''the flying imams''...
My response is ''And you thought he wasn't?''. When the Bush administration began pushing 'Get Saddam' (as if Saddam were actively working with al-quida to commit 9/11) they needed another reason to get other nations to join in.
So the strategy became: Not ONLY are we doing this because the world is under dire imminent threat from ''Saddam's WMD's'' but we are also ''freeing the iraqi people from Saddam's vicious, tyrannical rule''.
And THAT is what brought Labor Party (the British equivalent of the US Democratic Party) PM Blair ''on board'' with 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
To refresh your memory of March 20, 2003:
President Bush Addresses the NationThose words above in italics IS HOW AND WHY 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' played out as it did. That is what we sold to the British, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Polish, the Danish, and even the Japanese. The post-WWII Japanese Constitution explicitly forbid the deployment of Japanese Military outside of Japan. We encouraged them to change it ''for humanitarian missions'' which is what and why they did.
The Oval Office
10:16 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
After it was made undeniable (to other than some whiny talk radio hacks) that ''iraq'' DID NOT present any threat to America it became the whining ''but they're poor and helpless so we gotta help them so they don't attack us''.
What does that actually mean? WELFARE for ''iraq'' FOREVER. We've attached ''iraq'' to the US Government teat until at least January 20, 2009. When ''W'' is finally a former President.
At THAT is what has really produced MY hatred for the President. ''The Surge'' is to tamp down criticizim of how badly 'Operation Iraq Freedom' has gone.
At best, ''the surge'' can be maintained for 24 months. Which is all Bush needs, keep it under the rug until 1/21/09.
''Make the NEXT President take the blame''. Bill Clinton taught him well.
UPDATE: What do I think of the Democratic House and Senate ''attaching timetables and benchmarks to spending''? It's all they have, and I doubt Bush will veto anything that makes it to his desk (If you think I'm wrong, see that link to 'comments' below? TELL ME WHY).
There should be no warning of our exit from ''iraq''. In fact, those American soldiers who have not been assigned passage on board airliners leaving Baghdad MUST BE ORDERED to tell ''iraqis''; ''Not to worry, there will more Americans replacing those who are leaving''.
Would that be Americans using taquyya against Moslims? GOOD.
Meanwhile, those Moslim cashiers employed by Target that won't even touch plastic-wrapped pork with gloves should be given a new home in ''iraq''. As should ''the flying imams''...
Labels: ''iraq''
posted by YIH @ 5:44 PM on Thursday, March 29, 2007 :
In the ASK Show chatroom I mentioned those on Blogger could replace that orange 'B' Blogger icon (you know, this one:
) with something that for many would be much more preferable.
Like this one:
. It sat comfortably next to the 'http://' on the address bar on non-micro and $oft browsers like Firefox or Opera for a year.
It doesn't work on any version of IE, but that's micro and $oft's problem, not mine. I recently replaced with an icon I made specifically for this blog; 
.
When I mentioned that I was ditching Old Glory for I asked if anyone using Blogger would like to adopt it for their blog. I said I'd post a 'how-to' to install it to their blog. Well I tend to keep my word so here it is:
Sign into Blogger and in the Dashboard click on 'Template' to open the template editor. At the top of the editor window you should see something like this:
{!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"}
{html}
{head}
{meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" equiv="Content-Type"}
Good, you're right where you wanna be. (I changed the greater and less than characters to { and } to keep your browser from acting upon the HTML code above). And here is the HTML code to cut and paste to make the flag appear:
<link rel="bookmark" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">
<link rel="home" title="Home" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">
<!-- ************ As you can see, changing the browser icon is also quite simple:**********************-->
Highlight the above text then hit Ctrl-C to Copy it. Then in the window on your Template editor move the cursor to just after the {HEAD} tag. Hit Ctrl-V to Paste this in. Go down and hit Save Template.
After you see the message 'Settings Were Saved Successfully' click on View Blog and look at the Address Bar.
UPDATE: Just tested the above on my other blog QWIK HITZ! It worked.
Then I went ahead and put it's icon back.
UPDATE II: As part of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) I modified the source code of to demonstrate that the above HTML does indeed work. On your browser hit ''View Source'' to see where to place it. But I'm asking nicely, DON'T STEAL MY ICON!!! PLEASE.
UPDATE III: Where did this come from? http://www.dioforamerica.com. A now defunct website (that's why I didn't bother to make it a link). Back when it was up (I think it went dead in 2004) I saw that icon and thought ''Hmm, I doubt Ronnie James Dio created this, he or his webmaster likely stumbled across this and helped himself to it''. So yes, I did the same. If ''Dio'' did © this it's up to him to defend it. Unlikely for an icon from a now 'dead' website. Considering that I openly used it for a year without any complaints, it's likely ''Public Domain'', not copywrited or copywriteable...
Like this one:
It doesn't work on any version of IE, but that's micro and $oft's problem, not mine. I recently replaced
When I mentioned that I was ditching Old Glory for
Sign into Blogger and in the Dashboard click on 'Template' to open the template editor. At the top of the editor window you should see something like this:
{!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"}
{html}
{head}
{meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" equiv="Content-Type"}
Good, you're right where you wanna be. (I changed the greater and less than characters to { and } to keep your browser from acting upon the HTML code above). And here is the HTML code to cut and paste to make the flag appear:
<link rel="bookmark" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">
<link rel="home" title="Home" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">
<!-- ************ As you can see, changing the browser icon is also quite simple:**********************-->
Highlight the above text then hit Ctrl-C to Copy it. Then in the window on your Template editor move the cursor to just after the {HEAD} tag. Hit Ctrl-V to Paste this in. Go down and hit Save Template.
After you see the message 'Settings Were Saved Successfully' click on View Blog and look at the Address Bar.
UPDATE: Just tested the above on my other blog QWIK HITZ! It worked.
Then I went ahead and put it's icon back.
UPDATE II: As part of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) I modified the source code of
UPDATE III: Where did this
Labels: changing the icon
posted by YIH @ 2:00 PM on Saturday, March 24, 2007 :
Spring has officially sprung and it's time to freshen up 
. The changes seem a bit minor now but they soon won't be!!!
It began as a bit of repair to Your Image Here. And it turned into a full-fledged overhaul.
I'm tiring...
. The changes seem a bit minor now but they soon won't be!!!It began as a bit of repair to Your Image Here. And it turned into a full-fledged overhaul.
I'm tiring...
Labels: blogging
posted by YIH @ 7:01 AM on Friday, March 23, 2007 :
And guess what? I AGREE WITH THEM!!! Why? Simple:
Calderon Tells Bush Mexico Needs More:
To refresh your memory, Bush on the campaign trail in 2000:
Notice the flag.
Let's see, the borders are still wide-open, CAIR is still allowed to stay here and run roughshod over America, and ''the flying imams'' are suing and not being shipped back to the Middle East in plain pine boxes.
Reasons #1,#2 and #3 why over 3,200 of America's finest died in ''iraq'' in vain.
I'd like to see Congressman Tancredo initiate Articles of Impeachment right away...
Calderon Tells Bush Mexico Needs More:
President Bush, working to rebuild strained U.S.-Mexico relations, promised Tuesday he would do his best to get a deeply divided U.S. Congress to change American immigration policies that are hated south of the border. "My pledge to you and your government, but more important to the people of Mexico, is I'll work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform,"Looks like it'll take ''comprehensive impeachment reform'' to stop ''comprehensive immigration reform''.
To refresh your memory, Bush on the campaign trail in 2000:
Notice the flag.
Let's see, the borders are still wide-open, CAIR is still allowed to stay here and run roughshod over America, and ''the flying imams'' are suing and not being shipped back to the Middle East in plain pine boxes.
Reasons #1,#2 and #3 why over 3,200 of America's finest died in ''iraq'' in vain.
I'd like to see Congressman Tancredo initiate Articles of Impeachment right away...
Labels: ''iraq'', Immigration
posted by YIH @ 3:37 PM on Sunday, March 18, 2007 :
Over at QWIK HITZ! I began bashing ''Whackypedia''. As that post developed I went on to bash St. Cloud's ''CyberSpot''.
Why? Because I live right in the center of St. Cloud about 300 feet from City Hall.
And I have a blog. And I have another blog. And I am more than happy to bash CyberSpot on both.
When CyberSpot was introduced, it was touted as being able to do everything. It was promised that you could open a WI-FI enabled laptop anywhere in the city, log in to CyberSpot (it requires a username and password) and be able to enjoy ''a program which gives all residents free high-speed wireless Internet access.''. (from Whackypedia).
To put it bluntly, a year later it still just barely works at all!!!
I gave CyberSpot a fair chance and in every way it failed to give me any reason to ditch the DSL connection that I spent over a grand for this past year.
It can just barely be called ''high speed''. When it works, it's not much faster than dialup, about 64kB (dialup tops out at 52kB) and it's not exactly reliable (about a 50-50 chance that the system will be ''up'' and functional at any given time).
If you are a Bitorrent user, stay away from CyberSpot!!! You'll be frustrated with re-logins and restarts of the share. I tested it with the '68 version of Night of the Living Dead. I picked that flick because there's nothing the MPAA can do about it!!! George Romero screwed up and let his chance to © the film expire! You have 25 years to declare a © on something you create, if you don't, too bad, so sad. IT'S PUBLIC DOMAIN (and a good horror flick) so I am free to upload it, download it, burn it to disc, buy it, sell it, or share it freely.
NOTE: The color remake IS ©1990 George Romero. Keep that in mind.
What I (or anyone else) cannot do is own it. Here, test it out yourself:
On ''CyberSpot'' I can't even maintain the connection for 10 minutes. It's also too slow to 'stream' without dropped frames or ''rebuffering'' pauses.
UPDATE:Quite clever of YouTube, they don't put the {/embed} tag in the HTML code they provide. So Google (Blogger) chokes on a straight HTML 'cut and paste'.
Gotta admit it does keep the n00bs from posting YouTube to Blogger.
UPDATE II: I thought it was YouTube that failed to provide the {/embed} tag. I was wrong. Google (Blogger) STRIPS IT OFF!!! I have to go to ''Edit Html'' to put the {/embed} tag back where Google (Blogger) expects it to be!!!
Here's the ironic part of it; Guess who owns YouTube? To post this update I had to go to ''Edit Html'' and replace again the {/embed} tag. THIS IS ANNOYING!!!
Just because I can DO HTML does not nessesarily mean I WANT TO!!! SHEESH, I perfer ''Compose'' to ''Edit Html''...
Why? Because I live right in the center of St. Cloud about 300 feet from City Hall.
And I have a blog. And I have another blog. And I am more than happy to bash CyberSpot on both.
When CyberSpot was introduced, it was touted as being able to do everything. It was promised that you could open a WI-FI enabled laptop anywhere in the city, log in to CyberSpot (it requires a username and password) and be able to enjoy ''a program which gives all residents free high-speed wireless Internet access.''. (from Whackypedia).
To put it bluntly, a year later it still just barely works at all!!!
I gave CyberSpot a fair chance and in every way it failed to give me any reason to ditch the DSL connection that I spent over a grand for this past year.
It can just barely be called ''high speed''. When it works, it's not much faster than dialup, about 64kB (dialup tops out at 52kB) and it's not exactly reliable (about a 50-50 chance that the system will be ''up'' and functional at any given time).
If you are a Bitorrent user, stay away from CyberSpot!!! You'll be frustrated with re-logins and restarts of the share. I tested it with the '68 version of Night of the Living Dead. I picked that flick because there's nothing the MPAA can do about it!!! George Romero screwed up and let his chance to © the film expire! You have 25 years to declare a © on something you create, if you don't, too bad, so sad. IT'S PUBLIC DOMAIN (and a good horror flick) so I am free to upload it, download it, burn it to disc, buy it, sell it, or share it freely.
NOTE: The color remake IS ©1990 George Romero. Keep that in mind.
What I (or anyone else) cannot do is own it. Here, test it out yourself:
On ''CyberSpot'' I can't even maintain the connection for 10 minutes. It's also too slow to 'stream' without dropped frames or ''rebuffering'' pauses.
UPDATE:
Gotta admit it does keep the n00bs from posting YouTube to Blogger.
UPDATE II: I thought it was YouTube that failed to provide the {/embed} tag. I was wrong. Google (Blogger) STRIPS IT OFF!!! I have to go to ''Edit Html'' to put the {/embed} tag back where Google (Blogger) expects it to be!!!
Here's the ironic part of it; Guess who owns YouTube? To post this update I had to go to ''Edit Html'' and replace again the {/embed} tag. THIS IS ANNOYING!!!
Just because I can DO HTML does not nessesarily mean I WANT TO!!! SHEESH, I perfer ''Compose'' to ''Edit Html''...
Labels: CyberSpot, Googlebashing
posted by YIH @ 9:47 PM on Saturday, March 17, 2007 :
And I appreciate Vanishing American for doing so. This is not the first time I've began to reply to a post of his and then thought ''Now wait a minute, why am I writing this as a comment to VA's blog?'' I have a blog of my own, that's where my outburst of verbosity belongs. So:
Considering that the R's are offering not one but a collection of 'Bob Doles' as a possible future President the concept of an openly D retaking the White House is more than realistic
With the so-called 'conservitive media' apparently aligning itself with the most liberal one of the bunch.
Interesting, and I understand your differences with Mr. Auster on Obama.
A while ago I was debating with Mr. Auster about Sean Hannity. I said Sean Hannity has 'charisma' (A natural likeability) that is also present in both Bill Clinton and the late Ronald Reagan.
That ''force of personality'' alone could indeed propel Obama ahead of Hillary (and she and her staff are sweating bullets about that).
Considering that the R's are offering not one but a collection of 'Bob Doles' as a possible future President the concept of an openly D retaking the White House is more than realistic
Where the so-called 'conservitive media' is apparently aligning itself with the most liberal one of the bunch. Get used to the joyous celebration of President Hillary Clinton.
A reason is ''President Hillary Clinton'' will eagerly continue President Bush's foolishness in ''iraq''.
The IDIOT-in chief seeks to remake the world in America's image. As did his father posted by YIH @ 5:37 AM on :
Considering that the R's are offering not one but a collection of 'Bob Doles' as a possible future President the concept of an openly D retaking the White House is more than realistic
With the so-called 'conservitive media' apparently aligning itself with the most liberal one of the bunch.
Interesting, and I understand your differences with Mr. Auster on Obama.
A while ago I was debating with Mr. Auster about Sean Hannity. I said Sean Hannity has 'charisma' (A natural likeability) that is also present in both Bill Clinton and the late Ronald Reagan.
That ''force of personality'' alone could indeed propel Obama ahead of Hillary (and she and her staff are sweating bullets about that).
Considering that the R's are offering not one but a collection of 'Bob Doles' as a possible future President the concept of an openly D retaking the White House is more than realistic
Where the so-called 'conservitive media' is apparently aligning itself with the most liberal one of the bunch. Get used to the joyous celebration of President Hillary Clinton.
A reason is ''President Hillary Clinton'' will eagerly continue President Bush's foolishness in ''iraq''.
The IDIOT-in chief seeks to remake the world in America's image. As did his father posted by YIH @ 5:37 AM on :
I AM NOT A ''RACIST''.
At first glance you might look at the phrase above and think ''Ok, so you are merely spouting the standard PC BS''. And you'd be right. And also wrong.
According to The Dictionary, I am NOT a ''racist'':
What influenced my opinion on this were a pair of sisters who are by race Mestizo Mexican but by culture were raised as WASP. They were adopted by a White couple as a toddler and a newborn and raised them as if they gave birth to them.
The older sister had to learn Spanish on her own. And did so after she became an adult. Her younger sister has NO knowlege of Spanish. I learned this because her older sister said the word chocha and had to explain to her sister the English version of the word (vagina).
If either of these ''mexicans'' spoke to you over the phone you would never know they are Mestizo mexicans. In fact, the older sister has a very noticable accent when she speaks Spanish!
THAT is one of the reasons why I'm NOT a ''racist''.
What am I therefore? A ''Culturalist''. There are superior and inferior CULTURES.
We see the effects of ''gimme whatever we want'' cultures on productive ones. Islam is a completely parasitic culture. It doesn't MAKE, it just TAKES. That is why leftists adore it so much...
At first glance you might look at the phrase above and think ''Ok, so you are merely spouting the standard PC BS''. And you'd be right. And also wrong.
According to The Dictionary, I am NOT a ''racist'':
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n.Am I denying that there are different races of humans? No, of course not. I just don't belive there is nessessarily any 'superior' or 'inferior' race of human being.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
What influenced my opinion on this were a pair of sisters who are by race Mestizo Mexican but by culture were raised as WASP. They were adopted by a White couple as a toddler and a newborn and raised them as if they gave birth to them.
The older sister had to learn Spanish on her own. And did so after she became an adult. Her younger sister has NO knowlege of Spanish. I learned this because her older sister said the word chocha and had to explain to her sister the English version of the word (vagina).
If either of these ''mexicans'' spoke to you over the phone you would never know they are Mestizo mexicans. In fact, the older sister has a very noticable accent when she speaks Spanish!
THAT is one of the reasons why I'm NOT a ''racist''.
What am I therefore? A ''Culturalist''. There are superior and inferior CULTURES.
We see the effects of ''gimme whatever we want'' cultures on productive ones. Islam is a completely parasitic culture. It doesn't MAKE, it just TAKES. That is why leftists adore it so much...
Labels: ''Culturalism''
posted by YIH @ 7:29 PM on Friday, March 16, 2007 :
Captain America has been killed. And the President and his cheerleaders are seeking to do the same to America itself.
posted by YIH @ 7:34 AM on Saturday, March 10, 2007
:
Now multi-catting. As in dos gatos (pronouced 'dose gattos', translates as two [male]cats).
Haven't snapped a .jpg of Whitey yet, but this'll do in a pinch:
Not an actual pic of Whitey, but it matches. He naturally wears 'snow camo'. If I were to put him out in the snow, he'd vanish. Luckily for him he lives in Central Florida where snow is quite rare.
He's about 6 months old so it's possible that snow has occured in his lifetime (we had light flurries just before Thanksgiving '06).
Sam is less than happy about the new member of the family, but they've not fought each other.
But I've got a small bucket of water handy if nessesary. Trust me, it'll stop a catfight immediatly, and it will quickly teach them not to fight. So far, I've not had to resort to ''the water option'' and so far I've not needed to.
Julie (who also loves cats) said in the online chatroom that we both participate in ''You don't adopt cats, cats adopt you''. Pretty much describes how Whitey became ''not homeless''.
The house I live in is up for sale. Yes, I'm looking into buying it but Real Estate transactions are a very complicated process that I will not discuss futher at this point.
My Landlord ran a tour of the property (it annoys me, but he has every right to do so) and apparently Whitey came in with the prospective buyers of this piece of Real Estate. After the tour of my home ended Whitey stayed. Whitey had been hanging around here for months and apparently came in with those who were touring my home and fooled my Landlord and his prospective buyers into thinking that HE's the cat that lives here.
Although if push comes to shove (ONE cat is allowed on the Lease) Sam stays, Whitey goes.
Whitey is the newcomer. If it becomes nessessary, he's ''the last hired, the first fired''.
Reality sucks, but you have to deal with it anyway.
But that won't stop Whitey from becoming the official cat of QWIK HITZ! 2 blogs, 2 cats, I can deal with this...
Haven't snapped a .jpg of Whitey yet, but this'll do in a pinch:
Not an actual pic of Whitey, but it matches. He naturally wears 'snow camo'. If I were to put him out in the snow, he'd vanish. Luckily for him he lives in Central Florida where snow is quite rare.
He's about 6 months old so it's possible that snow has occured in his lifetime (we had light flurries just before Thanksgiving '06).
Sam is less than happy about the new member of the family, but they've not fought each other.
But I've got a small bucket of water handy if nessesary. Trust me, it'll stop a catfight immediatly, and it will quickly teach them not to fight. So far, I've not had to resort to ''the water option'' and so far I've not needed to.
Julie (who also loves cats) said in the online chatroom that we both participate in ''You don't adopt cats, cats adopt you''. Pretty much describes how Whitey became ''not homeless''.
The house I live in is up for sale. Yes, I'm looking into buying it but Real Estate transactions are a very complicated process that I will not discuss futher at this point.
My Landlord ran a tour of the property (it annoys me, but he has every right to do so) and apparently Whitey came in with the prospective buyers of this piece of Real Estate. After the tour of my home ended Whitey stayed. Whitey had been hanging around here for months and apparently came in with those who were touring my home and fooled my Landlord and his prospective buyers into thinking that HE's the cat that lives here.
Although if push comes to shove (ONE cat is allowed on the Lease) Sam stays, Whitey goes.
Whitey is the newcomer. If it becomes nessessary, he's ''the last hired, the first fired''.
Reality sucks, but you have to deal with it anyway.
But that won't stop Whitey from becoming the official cat of QWIK HITZ! 2 blogs, 2 cats, I can deal with this...
Labels: blogging, multi-blogging, multi-catting
posted by YIH @ 3:03 AM on :
In discussion with Vanishing American over the latest Ann Coulter idiocy:
I tend to side with Mr. Auster. I see her as the 'conservitive' version of a radio ''shock jock'' who is only interested in seeing how sleazy she can be or what verbal stunt she can get away with next.
A while ago there were various complaints about Brittany Spears exiting a car wearing a miniskirt and no underwear (obviously just to get ANY kind of attention).
Considering Coulter had pulled the same stunt earlier and on TV no less while promoting her book Godless what does that say about OUR standards?
How do you suggest rejecting the vulgarity of pop culture (especially to young people) when 'right-wing' celebrities are mimicking it (or in the example cited above, seeming to encourage it)?
He replied:
While the example I cited above was my own 'jump the shark' moment in regards to Coulter, the issue of her whole presentation is cumulative.
I can't help but wonder what stunt she will pull next? And where will the point come that ''she's FINALLY gone over the top this time''?
I used 'shock radio' as an example where various 'jocks' seemed to doing a limbo dance of vulgarity to the point where the FCC finally got off their lazy butts and cracked down.
My opinion is this needs to be that point for Ann Coulter.
There is another reason, let's say a liberal says something along the lines of ''Ann Coulter is just a tired old [insert lesbian slur here]''.
Any objection would naturally be seen as hypocritical.
AND RIGHTLY SO! She herself brought it to that level.
I tend to side with Mr. Auster. I see her as the 'conservitive' version of a radio ''shock jock'' who is only interested in seeing how sleazy she can be or what verbal stunt she can get away with next.
A while ago there were various complaints about Brittany Spears exiting a car wearing a miniskirt and no underwear (obviously just to get ANY kind of attention).
Considering Coulter had pulled the same stunt earlier and on TV no less while promoting her book Godless what does that say about OUR standards?
How do you suggest rejecting the vulgarity of pop culture (especially to young people) when 'right-wing' celebrities are mimicking it (or in the example cited above, seeming to encourage it)?
He replied:
YIH, I'm not sure I answered your questions or objections.Although it was MSNBC it could have just as easily been Fox News.
I didn't see the Fox News incident you referred to, with Ann Coulter; I only read about it. But Coulter has cultivated the sexy image all along, and her trademark is her outrageous, in-your-face outspokenness. So has she just 'gone too far' this time, per Lawrence Auster's 'unprincipled exception'?
I agree that the whole vulgarity trend is a bad example for the younger generations in particular. But that has been going on for some time, and the GOP I think wants to promote it to draw in the younger people; they seem to need to prove conservatives are not stodgy and starchy and prudish. So now we have pinup 'pundits' like Coulter and the South Park brand of conservatism. The whole culture is going that way. We're losing the culture war; in fact we're surrendering, by the looks of it.
We should stand against it, but I just can't get worked up about Coulter being Coulter. I don't see her as being a representative of conservatism, especially traditionalism. She's a neocon or a South Park Republican, so whatever she does, I don't see it as representing me.
While the example I cited above was my own 'jump the shark' moment in regards to Coulter, the issue of her whole presentation is cumulative.
I can't help but wonder what stunt she will pull next? And where will the point come that ''she's FINALLY gone over the top this time''?
I used 'shock radio' as an example where various 'jocks' seemed to doing a limbo dance of vulgarity to the point where the FCC finally got off their lazy butts and cracked down.
My opinion is this needs to be that point for Ann Coulter.
There is another reason, let's say a liberal says something along the lines of ''Ann Coulter is just a tired old [insert lesbian slur here]''.
Any objection would naturally be seen as hypocritical.
AND RIGHTLY SO! She herself brought it to that level.
Labels: ''Junk food conservitisim'', Coulter
posted by YIH @ 6:16 AM on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 :
My Blogger Profile
Living on the cutting edge...
__
__
RECALL MEL MARTINEZ!!!
__RECALL MEL MARTINEZ!!!
&The Knights of the Blogging roundtable™
- A Rose By Any Other Name
- Hakkiri Shinasai -
Please Make It Clear - A Comet in the sky
- The Radio Patriots
- Lone Star Pundit
- ThirdWaveDave
Brainster's blog- SCEagle's blog
- Jihadaphobic
- mabel.org
- Gawfer
REGULARLY VISITING
- View From The Right
- Right Wing Nuthouse
- Vanishing American
- The Inverted World
- politburo diktat 2.0
- Western Survival
- Baghdad Burning
- News With Views
- National Review
- nine-sixteenths
- Gates of Vienna
- Your Lying Eyes
- Reflecting Light
- ThoughtsOnline
- The Long View
- JoshuaPundit
- Ilana Mercer
- Jihad Watch
- Steve Sailer
- WIKIPEDIA
- ParaPundit
- Neil Boortz
- Vox Populi
- VDARE
- ''Junk Food Conservitism''
