lots of fish hang around those

offshore drilling rigs.  huh huh huh.

• Why would Palin do this? sm - Sharon
  • liberal media = hates Palin = would love to skewer her for perceived missteps.... - go figure why they're not invited. nm
    • doesnt matter who hates or who - andromedica
      • You really think all govt officials have the media in attendance at all their...sm - good grief
        • pity card. nm - andromedica
          • Go Fish! nm - This is fun
            • Col. Mustard in the library with the candlestick!!! - I win
            • lots of fish hang around those - McClain
  • gee, I don't know, think she - andromedica

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Some of you don't like Glenn Beck, but this video is really funny.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22798848/show-and-tell.htm

DELTA DISASTER: HANG TOGETHER By JOHN PODHORETZ FOR the second time in four years, the United States has been changed utterly by a previously unthinkable event. And just as was the case after 9/11, how this nation responds to the deluge that is sweeping New Orleans away will help define the nature of its character for decades. Just as Rudy Giuliani said that the death toll from 9/11 would be more than any of us can bear, the same is already true of Katrina. Who can begin to take in the notion that in the United States in the 21st century, a storm could kill in staggering numbers? At the beginning of the 20th century, something like 8,000 people perished when Galveston, Texas — unprotected from storm swells at the time — was hit by a hurricane. But when Hurricane Andrew leveled the entire town of Homestead, Fla., 13 years ago and became the most financially deadly storm in American history, it took only 15 lives. Now we're talking about several hundred times that number in the literal swamping of one of the world's great cities. There can be no doubt that the immediate response will be one of breathtaking generosity — financial, spiritual and personal. That's what we saw in the wake of 9/11, it's what happened after the tsunami in December, and it's what we will begin to see as the next few days pass. But what we don't yet know is this: Are we going to try to look forward, to figure out how to save New Orleans and prevent another calamity of this sort there and elsewhere? Or are we going to begin finger-pointing, searching for villains among the debris? Some of that villain-hunting has already begun, in the typically vulgar, unwisely speedy efforts made by overly assured ideologues certain that they can connect a cataclysm to a pet issue — whether it be the American failure to pass the Kyoto global warming treaty or making the claim that spending on the war in Iraq squeezed out the possibility of shoring up the New Orleans levees. Here we see the stirrings of a spiritual divisiveness taking hold — in the form of a know-nothing populism that sweeps everything in its wake and brings everything into the courtroom. What happened here was a natural disaster. But there will be the temptation to turn it into a human conspiracy of greed and selfishness on the part of oil companies, concrete companies, politicians, insurers, re-insurers, goonish cops and the like. If the recriminations become the story of the next months, everybody will simply go to the usual battle stations. The tort reformers will take on the trial lawyers. The global-warming crowd will face off against American business. The politicians will scream at each other, scoff at each other, and try to find some cheap advantage that will turn the tide against one party or the other. The good that will be done —person by person, donation by donation, community by community — will be in danger of getting swamped by the bitterness and divisiveness that characterizes contemporary elite politics. Rather than finding common ground, there will be ugly partisanship and a cold standoff. The horror of a flood is literally, very nearly the oldest story in the Book. There have always been times that the water will rise higher than the walls men can build to contain it. The New Orleans system survived the battering of nature for more than 200 years — but it met its match and was overwhelmed by it. The best we can do is comfort the afflicted, mourn the lost, and try to rebuild. The worst we can do is turn on each other. So what shall it be? E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com

Especially Reagan, but nothing new. 

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

Bill Whittle wrote that. He's a real live veteran and I happen to agree with him.

My son-in-law emailed me this, and this is what I sent him in response:

Thanks, Mr. Bush.