Mamamontezz's Mental Rumpus Room

Shout, Shout...Let It All Out

I woke up in a pretty foul mood today...until I read Howard Dean's latest screed...

...and now I'm giggling like Homer Simpson when he hears the word titmouse. Tee Hee.

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization," the failed presidential hopeful told the crowd at the Roosevelt Hotel, where he and six other candidates spoke at the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman.

***yeaaaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrgggggggg!!***

Wow...that's some gen-u-wine liberal tolerance for ya...Heh, discipline and liberalism aren't things I would normally associate with each other...

But Dean said the Democrats should not change their beliefs to be "Republican lite."

***yeaaaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrgggggggg!!***

Um...deanie...just some friendly advice. The only way most democrats can win an election is to seem "Republican." Just ask Slick Willy...his duplicity got him eight years of free room and board.

"We can talk about our faith, but we cannot change our faith," he said, echoing themes he sounded in his presidential bid. "We need to be people of conviction."

***yeaaaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrgggggggg!!***

I'm not sure how to respond to this one...I can't imagine liberals having any faith OR conviction in anything other than themselves.

Later, he said that what "95% of Americans are really concerned about" is national security. But he said Americans also do not want to sacrifice the nation's values. "They want America to be the moral leader of the world again," he said.

***yeaaaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrgggggggg!!***

Deanie Weenie...who are you foolin'? You know damn good and well you have NO idea what America is concerned about...if you did, you'd be a republican. (shudder the thought)

Wonkette Donkette

Was this post supposed to be funny?

Wonkette is proof that recurring yeast infections rot the brain...if she had a brain to begin with...

Oh wait, I apologize...Jews aren't one of the Liberals "protected" groups, so it was perfectly ok for her to make an insanely tasteless joke.

Link via Jonah at The Corner

"Your belief might be insulting..."

I received this comment today, and felt the need to respond to it:

"Thanks for sharing.

"I admire, in a way, your belief that all the things that we need will come to us, if the need is great, and we "shut our mouths, and open our hearts, minds, souls," etc.

"But can't you see that your belief might be insulting to people who have unmet needs?

"Think of all the millions who died in the Holocaust -- in your estimation, they were in some way responsible for their own demise. Surely their need was great, and surely some of the millions who were killed were able, as you advise, to open thier hearts, minds, and souls. What about them? What about those who died on 9/11? Or their relatives -- they may need their dead relatives back, no?

"Can't good people die poor, say, or with their needs unanswered?"

How can we presume that even the needs of the condemned are not met merely because they were unable to prevent their deaths? If death were the indicator, than none of those who have passed before us have had their spiritual needs met. And all of us dies, one way or another, by the hand of another or through the ravages of time or disease.

By your statement, taken at its most literal, all of us will die with our needs unmet purely because we have died. Life and living are the great needs.

This just isn't so. Merely being alive and living a life are not the greatest needs of a life. Living a life as well as we can, touching in a positive manner as many lives as we can during this life, and leaving a legacy though your children by teaching them to do the same are the greatest needs of a life.

Can any of us know that at some point during the internment of a Holocaust victim, on what may have seemed to them at the time the darkest day, that some small need was not met? Can we know that at a moment of absolute degradation or humiliation or even death, that a kindness wasn't
extended?

Is there any way for us to know who was not actually there? None of us can, as we were not deep within the psyche of any person or persons involved. To presume we know, or to claim we know is vain.

I can only speak from my own experience of how an affirmation has been experienced. This particular situation was life affecting, but there have been others, smaller and more humble, throughout the last several years:

A smile from my daughter when I was sick at heart,
A kind word from a person I had never spoken to,
An unexpected hug, or touch, or even a pat on the head,
An unanticipated "Thank you."

There have been affirmations much greater and very humbling in recent months. There have also been unmet needs, great and small, most of which will never be met. It is a part of the human condition, and it always will be. But a major difference between me in my situation, and many of the others who would trumpet and display their own unmet needs is perhaps the difference in how we interpret the word "needs" in our day to day lives.

I would like for my elderly parents to live for another 20 years, to be there for me and my family whenever I want to talk, or when my daughter needs some guidance or a warm soft shoulder on which to cry. I may feel now, that if anything were to happen to them that I needed them to stay with me forever, but deep down, I know this not to be true. I want them to be with me forever, but I recognize this as a selfish want, not a need, and certainly not one which considers their needs.

I would someday like a new car. I don't need a new car. I only need for my old car to work adequately. I would someday like to sing the National Anthem at a sporting event here in Indianapolis. I don't need to do this. I merely would like to do that one time.

Most of all, I would like to have a lovely, gentle life with no disappointments or difficulties, with a job where my talents and knowledge are appreciated and sought after, surrounded by all of the people I love, constantly pampered, entertained and cherished by those who love me. Who would not want these things? But to believe that anyone needs all of these things in constant supply is to be deluded and self-centered, nothing more or less than an ego-driven child.

It is the same sad mindset that would look at what was a life changing and spiritually affirming event, and declare that what the event gave me and taught me was in any way insulting to anyone who has not found their needs met in a similar manner. But let us look at this from the other side.

Many are the survivors of the Holocaust who found their beliefs stronger and their souls not only healed but enriched, and not merely because they survived but because of how they survived. The same can be said of the greatest number of 9/11 victims and/or their families. Some were shattered, some believed it to be irreparably. But many sought and received that which was needed to mend the tatters that were all that they believed remained of their lives.

"But can't you see that your belief might be insulting to people who have unmet needs?"

Can't you also see that your statements above might be equally insulting to people who have needs which have not been met, as well as those who find their needs met in times of despair or grief, in some small or profound way?

So NOW they're Mages!

OoooKay...Seems that Karl Rove is an Mage and a member of the Illuminati, at least according to some thinking over at the Pagan Live Journal and all of the votes for Bush were a result of Psi tampering.....
(scroll down to magical tampering)

DAMN Kerry

Well, as I write this, I believe that President Bush has won a second term, but of course, since it wasn't a blow-out, Kerry isn't admitting defeat yet, and the Idiotarians over at DU are plotting mayhem, their battle cry:

All I have to say is: BRING. IT. ON! weapons are locked and loaded, fields of fire mapped out; all that is required are the moving targets.

Yeah, I know, thats hyperbole (heh heh), but judging from the tone at DU; they don't know the meaning of that word. I would link to them, but for two things, for one, I don't want a bunch of raving moonbats from there invading Mama's site, and two, they've closed their threads to anyone but their partisan loyalists,seems they want privacy to plan their uprising against the Eeevil Republicans Masters.

I had stated in a prior post that if the election was close; there would be trouble, the next few days will tell the tale.

At least Nixon had the grace to put the country ahead of his own ambitions in 1960 when there were a number of disputable results, too bad the DemoncRats don't have the same class and grace, for them, it's all about THEIR power and their seeming thought that they deserve said power as a natural fact, regardless of the will of the electorate.

Election v. Revolution

After having read Delftsman's post below on the potential for revolution, I clicked over to Lucianne.com and found a disturbing editorial.

Dan Sernoffsky, writing for the Lebanon Daily News, asks an important question in his editorial, Left ready to derail election process.

Is Kristallnacht coming to America?

If, after reading Delfts' post you believe he was overstating the situation, this should at least give you additional pause for thought. The parallels are obvious and frightening, and it deserves your attention.

The web site MoveOn.org, funded by Soros, made news earlier this year by comparing President Bush to Hitler and attempting to link Bush's family to the rise of the Third Reich. An overlooked irony about that link was that the American left has a much closer tie to the Third Reich. Joseph Kennedy, father of Democrat icon Ted Kennedy, was recalled as the ambassador to England prior to the start of World War II because of his blatant public admiration for Hitler and his unconcealed anti-Semitism.

I know that each of you understands this, but how many of those who vandalize campaign offices or attempt to exercise political speech by driving over a candidate in a Caddy has any understanding of how their actions are a precise mirror image of the events of 1939 Germany?

Even the wife of John Edwards has implied by her answer to a question at a recent rally that there will be riots if his bid for office is thwarted by voters. Today, the wife of John Kerry has proclaimed that any thought contrary to supporting her husband or his ideas is "Neaderthal."

I'm the Brownshirt. I'm the idiot. I'm the Nazi.

But they will be the ones instigating America's Kristallnacht.

Birds of a Feather...

It doesn't get any better than this:

Jessie Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat congressman Mel
Reynolds to Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll.

Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton's
last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his
six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud,
bank fraud and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more
notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping
with an underage campaign volunteer.

This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex
with a subordinate...won clemency from a president who had sex with a
subordinate...then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a
subordinate.

His new job? Youth counselor.

IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?

Kerry's Gaffe?

If you don't read Tech Central Station at least once a week, you're missing some of the most intelligent commentary on the web. No, it's not just scientific articles and tech pieces, but includes great, thought provoking pieces like this one:

Who, or What, Grants Us Our Rights?

To quote James K. Glassman,

Kerry believes that the United States government, through the Constitution, "affords" rights to Americans. My dictionary defines "afford," in this context as "give, grant, confer." In other words, we fortunate, benighted Americans have a country, a government that grants us rights.

That's an utterly inaccurate reading of the great documents of the founding of this nation. Our government does not grant us any rights at all. On the contrary, Americans start off with rights, and it is we who grant the government certain limited powers to protect those rights.

Frightening prospect, isn't it?

Bullets Fired into Campaign Headquarters

This is an example of the mentality encouraged by the rhetoric of the Kerry Kamp.

Sure, it could have been a diversion for a robbery that took place directly across the street from the headquarters, but please, if you're going to draw the police to another place for a moment of opportunity, wouldn't you do it across town?

No Longer our allies

Note: I have been giving this topic a lot of thought as of late, generally every time I hear some Kerry apologist claiming that the war was illegal or ill-conceived or worse. Finally today I sat down and thrashed out my thoughts in MSWord so I could post them.

No, I have no Whittle-ian pretenses here. Sometimes it just takes 1,300 words to get my point across.
* * * * * * * *
Much has been said by the opposition before and during this election cycle about the apparent failure of the current administration to reach out to our international allies and seek their approval for and cooperation in the multilateral action against Saddam Hussain in Iraq.

Looking at the timeline leading up to the war, it is not difficult to see that this is false argument based more on rhetoric than on actual events. Members of the current administration endured months of meetings with the UN, fended off of numerous attempts at extortion by many UN members in exchange for their assistance or approval, and subsequently postponed the already much delayed enforcement of UN Resolution 1441. These points are not even arguable, except by persons who refuse for political reasons to acknowledge clearly documented facts as reported in media sources usually found to be acceptable to them.

Let us instead address the fallacy of the complaint involving the administration's unwillingness to gain the approval and subsequent involvement of our allies in the action in Iraq, and the apparent unilateralism of the action in Iraq.

In addressing the unilateral argument, one need only look at the list of nations, large and small, powerful or relatively weak, which participated in the actions. Small nations like Tonga sent a significant percentage of their armed forces to aid in the security and rebuilding of Iraq for the Iraqi people. It may only look like a handful of personnel, but when you look at the population of Tonga and the size of their military, their contribution is among the greatest of the coalition.

Poland has provided an elite team of personnel that has performed in an honorable and heroic manner, bringing both prestige and respect to their entire nation. Italian members of the coalition forces have also given exemplary service, and their government has supported us in the face of withering disapproval from other EU member nation-states and specific threats from Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations. One amazing member of the Salvadoran contingent has shown the world what a real hero is.

Yet there are those who refuse to acknowledge the contributions of these nations and of these brave men and women with the lock-step misrepresentation of the war as a unilateral exercise in self-enrichment and colonialism. This insistence by members of the opposition, both in this country and abroad, cheapens the contributions of all of the nations involved and denigrates the status of all of the brave personnel serving under savage conditions to nothing more than corporate mercenaries.

To espouse and then continuously engage in such rhetoric when its claims have been repeatedly disproved with facts is irresponsible at best, and dangerous in the long term. By devaluing the actions of our military personnel, this mindset devalues their very humanity. To see the effect of this, one need only put on a set of BDUs with appropriate boots and unit markings and walk across the commons area of most college campuses. Dress in this manner and go to a neighborhood or enclave where the more sensitive and artistic element of any city lives and watch the reactions of the residents.

But I digress.

It is painfully obvious to all who will avail themselves of recent historical evidence and documented facts that the current administration went to great pains to build a multilateral force for an action that was required by UN Resolution 1441 for Saddam’s and Iraq’s failure to comply with countless prior and subsequent resolutions with regard to weapon systems, human rights, and respect for the sovereignty of neighboring nations.

However people point out that our traditional allies, France, Germany and Russia not only withheld support from the multilateral coalition, they actively worked against the coalition for the purposes of preempting any actions against Saddam. We find through documents found after the beginning of action in Iraq that these three nations did not speak out against aggression for any other reason than the preservation of far reaching and immensely lucrative contracts with Saddam.

These “allies” had no interest in the suffering of civilians caught in the crossfire between factions of foreign Islamists intent on subverting any attempts by the Iraqi people in developing democracy. Nor did they have any interest in stopping the far reaching and blatant violations of basic human rights against huge segments of the Iraqi population for no other reasons than their particular denomination within Islam, their sex, or ethnicity. Their sole interest was in improving their place on the stage of rapidly evolving world politics, vainly attempting to become a “World Power” instead of the declining and decadent governments they had become.

It has become increasingly apparent that the same evolutionary process which is reshaping world politics is also realigning allegiances in very profound ways. Nations have realigned as many political differences have been resolved and others have been inflamed. Friendly alliances have degraded into antagonism, and former members of enemy blocs have developed into respectable and sought-after allies.

France, Germany, and Russia have developed one of these allegiances, and through which they have attempted to further subjugate an already oppressed nation for their false gods: Greed, Avarice, and Power. By doing so, they have effectively dissolved all or part of their former allegiance with the United States and the other members of the coalition. No longer can we count them as allies, as they have made their intentions to become a super-power quite obvious by their actions and their pronouncements. They have made it abundantly clear that the idea of a single large world power is a dangerous and unacceptable one, and that new allegiances must be developed to act as a foil against that power, even if doing so means crawling into bed with known despotic and evil nations.

France, Germany and Russia, by their actions and their rhetoric, have only proven what has been obvious to some people for a great many years: they are not our allies, now or since the cold war ended. In the case of France, their capacity as an ally was compromised during the 60’s and 70’s when they actively engaged in espionage against our businesses as they tried to do business in Europe. Diplomatic circles continued to woo them and entice them with ever increasing foreign aid, hoping this period of national petulance would end and all would be made right.

As long as the threat of the Soviet Union loomed over them, they at least made the appearance of wanting to be under the protective umbrellas of NATO and the United States. But now the neighborhood bully has been weakened, the sidewalk is safe to walk, and France and Germany have no further need of the Big Kid to fend him off. They choose instead to point at their former protector and accuse him of being the new bully for no other reason than that he is still the biggest kid on the block.

Still there are vast factions within the United States who insist on maintaining this false alliance, of deferring to former allies on matters where we are at cross-purposes. They seek the approval of these crumbling former powers with the same enthusiasm shown by dysfunctional women with drunken abusive husbands. No amount of logic will sway them from their belief that they love and are loved by these dissolute brutes, and they continue to swear their loyalty even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Eventually the abuse becomes so great that someone ends up in the emergency room or worse.

The problem of playing this household drama out on a world scale is that it isn’t just one person paying the price of misplaced loyalty. The price has been and will continue to be paid with the blood of thousands and potentially of millions of innocents.

Are you a member of the Pajamahadeen?

Much has been said lately by the Mainstream Media about being called to task by the great, unschooled masses who dare to question their integrity, the veracity of their reporting, and their motives as Journalists. The media and their minions have cast dispersions on those bloggers who dare to fact-check, source-check, or call "BullSh*t" when they deem it appropriate.

Now they have resorted to the old, fourth grade school-yard tactic of hurling insulting names at these intrepid Internet Warriors. They call them Pajamahadeen.

These simple clues will tell you if you are, in fact, a dreaded member of the Pajamahadeen, unabashed fact-checker and online militant on the side of fair and unbiased reporting:

-You an avowed member of a outlaw political sect, such as the Republicans or the Conservative Libertarians, and consider yourself a member of the VRWC.

-You not only know what a URL is, you actually have one.

-When Al Gore spoke of "Digital Brownshirts" you felt that he was talking about you. And to commemorate being noticed, you have one prominently displayed on your blog.

-You do your best work in either your sleepware, skivvies, or nekkid.

-Instapundit, Lucianne, IMAO, The Rottweiler, Blackfive, Michelle Malkin, INDC, Lileks, the Commissar, and Drudgereport are bookmarked as "Daily Reads" on both your browser and on your site.

-You have been trained in the building and proper deployment of Google-bombs.

-You are a member of one of the following web-rings or alliances: Milbloggers, Blogs for Bush, or Alliance of Free Bloggers.

-You know what a "Puppy Blender" is.

-The words "What is the frequency, Kenneth" are somewhere on your blog, either displayed in the gutter or in a recent post. Each "th" is in superscript for dramatic effect.

-When you check a news site, it tends to be Fox New, the Washington Times, Newsmax, World Net Daily, or the New York Post.

-You not only understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, you are able to explain it by use of the Cluebat without leaving lasting marks.

If you find that you are truly Pajamahadeen, wear the title proudly and remember, as the great Media Ice Age progresses, it is the little, adaptable creatures who survived the past Ice Ages. It was the behemoths that did not.

As always, Mama I was happy to post for you.

SlagleRock Out!

As always, Blogson Extraordinaire, you bring the heat! Thanks again, Handsome.

It's the end of the world as we know it.

Send the kids to the next room. You're not going to want them to see this.

Found via the DrudgeReport, we find this example of what passes for legitimate political discourse these days.

I'm sick and tired of being accused of dirty politics or of participating in the Politics of Hate when all I do is find legitimate examples of why a candidate is not worthy of my vote. And by legitimate examples, I mean things that are in the public record like, oh, say a voting record in the Senate, perfomance in public office regardless of the position held, or questions about personal integrity based on "view of the day" behaviors.

The differences between my political discourse and what I see increasingly every day is much like the difference between the Physicians Desk Referrence and High Times. There is no legitimate comparison.

Yet I am accused of HateSpeech, and this nonsense gets published as acceptable discourse.

Please.

NYT Discounts Current Terror Preps

The New York Times seems to have a problem with the fact that some of the information used to determine the current elevated risk status was years old, some of it from before September 11, 2001.

What tweaks my yayas on this is the very notion that the numbskulls at the NYT are openly trying to politicize the latest threat preparations/precautions because the "info was 3 years old" and in our possession but not acted on for that long.

These people have got to realize that a lot of this data was incomplete or inconclusive until they got the hard-drive from computer in Afghanistan/Pakistan last week. I guess that drive was like the mother-lode of corroborative information. Not to mention the common knowledge that Al Quaida is a very patient and methodical enemy.

Al Quaida and their affiliated groups do nothing without intense preparation, regardless of the amount of time it takes. Look at the time-frame involved in the multi-pronged attack that brought down the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon, and took the lives of the passengers and crew in that open field in Pennsylvania. That wasn't something cooked up overnight. Those people were actively involved in planning, preparation, and execution for years.

The fact that this information is three years old says nothing except that it is more immanent now than it was when we first received it. It is like a poisonous fruit that ripens over years, and it is reasonable to believe that it is ripening now.

The very thought that someone, anyone, at the NYT doesn't realize that or is trying to cast such blatant dispersion for purely political reasons is truly appalling. It's irresponsible journalism, and an egregious abuse of the public trust. Millions of people in the potentially affected area use that paper as their main source of information. Thousand, no, tens of thousands of people could be directly affected by any attack on the New York City proper, Newark, or DC, and the NYT owes it to these people to relegate its politics to the Editorial Page, not Page One.

Yeah, it was leaked, alright.

Yes, we've all seen the photos of the man who would be president, Kerry clad in a green clean-suit, crawling from the depths of a tube, huge SEG on his face. We've seen the way he hammed it up for the camera, fully aware of it's presence, and probably familiar with the cameraman.

We've seen them all day. And they're a hoot. Hell, my 76 yr old Dad told me "you should put on that blog thing you do that he looks like he's trying to crawl out of the tight end of a used condom." (He's right, if you think about it.)

What else has he been compared to? Hmmm...

The newest Teletubbie.

A green sperm, a la Woody Allen.

An Oompah Loompah.

And now the leavings of sex trying to escape it's latex prison. Thanks, Dad. Great visual.

Well, it's all so embarassing to the DNC and the Kerry handlers that they've worked themselves into a right proper frenzy of Self Defense and Accusation. Cries of "They Were Leaked!" and "These were never intended for release" fill the airwaves and will doubtless also fill the column inches above the fold tomorrow.

Please, spare us. We know they were leaked. We knew that from the moment they hit Yahoo and the AP wire, Drudge Report and the local news. Of course they were leaked.

You can claim it was NASA. And they may have been the ones to send them initially. But I doubt for one moment that this collection of humorous photography was leaked without the implicit approval of, and was quite likely at the direction of some operative of the DNC or a sympathetic splinter group.

Leaked photographs never intended for release? Spare me.

Did Holiday Inn sponsor this?

Beck and our friends at Incite bring this tidbit to our attention: California wants to prohibit the idling of trucks and busses for more than five minutes at a time.

Obviously these are people who have absolutely no clue as to why this is done, and is just one more attempt to force those big evil rigs off the highways. Yes, they wrap it all up in shiney Green paper, but that's not what these ludites want. Not realy.

Well, then its time to ban the use of huge diesel generators in government buildings. They kick on every time a blackout occurs, and can run for hours, even days. Not any More! Ban'em!

And those huge skyscrapers? They have them too, so there's enough power to keep a building operational and provide for elevators during an outage. They, too, can run for hours at a time. Ban them, too! Damned poluters.

Oh, what about the huge banks of these things that are on-site at every hospital, large or small, in California. Hell, according to the French, air condition isn't necessary and is quite probably unhealthy, so why do we need these generators at hospitals? If the power goes down, just open a window. The patients are all dying anyway. And we don't need to idle those generators for something as mundane as a neo-natal ICU or a trauma unit, or even a surgery. Ban those generators too. Pull them from their concrete pads and truck them into some less enlightened state in Fly-Over country.

But you can't, can you. No trucks left to haul them. They're all parked in huge lots in Arizona and Nevada with trailers full of rotting produce and decomposing meats because they can't idle in California to keep their loads fresh, and no one in California can get to them for the products they need.

But I digress. Never happen. Or will it?

Looks like a well thought out plan there, California Legislature.

Linda Ronstadt

As Laura Ingraham stated in the title to her book, Shut Up and Sing, perhaps it's time for some faded old singers to rethink using the stage as their forum. Perhaps it would have been different if she had been paying for the stage, and not merely an employee of a casino in Las Vegas.

Linda, don't even try to say they infringed on your right to free speech. Any place I've ever earned a paycheck had the right to can me if I had spoken out to the customers they way you did.

So George Turner, wielder of the Imperial Bastard Sword, it is in your honor that I attempt that which you do so well. Just sing along to the tune of Desperado:

Linda Ronstadt, why don't you come to your senses?
You've been praising offenses for so long now
You're not a smart one
Sounds like you're hitting the squeezin's
that just must be the reason you
have lost your mind now.

Don't care about your politics, girl
Cause you're voting for a fable.
You really should believe those swift-boat vets.

It seems to me prosperity
has been laid upon your table
but you always want to take the sucker-bet.

Linda Ronstadt, you ain't getting no younger.
Your childish delusions are growning quite old
And freedom? You're freedom was bought by brave men and women
not the chattering masses, or sheep in the fold.

Don't the stage get cold when you start to whine?
the crowds won't clap, and the lights don't shine
It's hard to turn around and walk away.
You're loosing your old audience
Ain't it sad to see careers just fade away?

Linda Ronstadt, why don't you come to your senses?
Your half-assed defenses are just second rate.
There are no mind-beams, but there's a tin-hat above you
You'd better shut-up, just sing your songs,
before it's too late

Cover that Tit, you cow.

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Chanting "Got milk," 50 mothers staged a protest "nurse-in" at a Houston shopping mall after one of them said security guards asked her to cover herself or move on while breast-feeding her 4-month-old son.

Women, we are our own worst enemy. We scream about perceived slights and insults, and we react in such ways that we cause reasonable people to discount us when we truly do have a legitimate point.

What, What, What in the world was that woman thinking? What is the big issue surrounding being a little discrete? What was so out of line about being asked to put a towel or a thin receiving blanket over your shoulder to cover your crusty, swollen, lactating tit in the middle of a shopping mall populated with people who not only don't want to see it, but see no reason why they should be forced to see it?

Instigator of the action was Julie Doyle-Madrid, who said that a few days before a female security guard admonished her to cover up while she was feeding son Will and another said the mall preferred that nursing be done in more private places like the rest room.

All you "Kids" who hang your breasts out for the world to see don't have a clue about what it was like for mothers who chose to breast feed back when you were children. They arrested women for breastfeeding. Period. It took strong women with the common sense to breastfeed discretely to change both public opinion and the laws at the time. And what they accomplished was a good thing.

If people do not want to see women nursing their children, "Don't look," Doyle-Madrid told the Chronicle.

No, don't hang out your tit! Most women have a modicum of modesty and either pump and bottle for the mall, or sit in the lounge/sitting area most large department stores provide for woman shoppers. But by demanding your perceived right to be exhibitionists, you do nothing but show yourselves as spoiled children and dishonor those who have given you the right to breastfeed, and you should be ashamed.

And all you LaLeche Leaguers who back this shit, get real. This nonsense might work on your communes or in your little ladies group meetings, but this doesn't play in the real world.

Oh, for crying out loud.

The Minnesota Twins organization wants to have a give-away for the kids that has the collective panties of the area's Peaceniks in a bunch.

Seems these ardent activists feel that giving away GI Joe dolls at the game is sending the wrong message to these young, impressionable, potential followers of Appeasement.

"It's not a credible way to honor those who've suffered the inhumanity of war," said Phil Steger, executive director of Friends for a Non-Violent World, a St. Paul-based group with about 4,000 members in Minnesota.

No, it's not right to give little soldiers to little kids to remind them of the brave men and women who unjustly liberated several million people who had suffered the inhumanity of a thirty year dictatorship. Lord only knows we don't want the kids to know anything about that!

"We're sorry that a small number of Minnesotans are offended by the doll and don't see it as the tribute that it really is," said Col. Denny Shields, a spokesman for the Guard.

Well, we're sorry too, Col. Shields. I am just tickled pink that the Twins organization is going to stand up to these people.

Waffles for Everyone

To this point, I had not gotten in on the entire Waffle meme, but this one was just too good to let go.

On Lucianne today, just a few posts apart, we find these:

Kerry Opposes Driver's Licenses for Illegal Immigrants

Amnesty Eyed for Illegal Aliens

Seriously. Not more than a dozen posts apart.

I love this country.

What does she expect?

What part of "We're at war" don't some people get?

What part of "We need to defend ourselves" is so difficult to understand?

If your home is being attacked by some thugs who live next door, and suddenly a known friend and supporter of that thug shows up at your front door demanding entry, do you really think for a minute that you'd entertain the thought of opening the door and offering him tea? You would be irresponsible and idiotic to do something like that.

But this fool expects Israel to do that just because she says she's no threat.

I imagine that she also believes that someone stating that they are a member of Al Qaida should not preclude their open-armed welcome into the US.

Israel, keep her in your airport. We don't need her here. Better yet, hand her over to her political buddies and those who hold their leashes.

Haiku Perversion

I
Helen Thomas moans,
Ecstatic in Passion's throes.
Inflatable Love.

II
Madeline Albright
screams in fevered fantasy
clutching sweat-drenched sheets.

The day after the day after...

The Copenhagen Consensus report should be required reading for the eight world leaders gathered this week in Georgia. It's time for the Europeans, especially, to admit that, on the critical question of global welfare, George Bush has got it right.

James Glassman's TechCentralStation post, "What to Do First to Save the World" is something the media will completely ignore, and what a sham shame that is.

Activists, Globalists, self-appointed saviors of the weak and oppressed have either fogotten or never learned that resources are finite, even monitary resources in economies as large as the one we enjoy. It is this denial of limits, coupled with unfettered envy that cripples what should be successful and noble campaigns to better living conditions, eradicate hunger and disease, and abolish the enslavement of humans by each other, by political movements, and by fear.

Ah, but that doesn't fit the agenda. And so rather than abandon the false deities of Greenpeace, Kyoto, and the UN, they allow millions to suffer needless hunger, pain, and ultimately, death.

Christian Place Names and the ACLU

In a move that surprised nobody, the ACLU announced today that they have submitted letters to all 50 state legislatures demanding that all city, town, village and berg names taken from biblical sources be changed immediately or face lawsuits.

"The constitution is very clear on this," stated ACLU attorney Walter Loopey. "No state can endorse or imply an endorsement of any organized religion based on the perceptions of a majority of people. Clearly, place names like Salem, Ninevah, Shilo, and Santa Monica are in violation of our constitution."

"When you inflict Judeo-Christian placenames on a population, you alienate all the Wicans, Muslims, Druids and Atheists who call those places home. No one should be made uncomfortable in their chosen community."

Also attached to each letter was a list of suggested new place names which the ACLU decided were less offensive. Sure to be popular choices are such new town names as Smartybum, Rottweiler, Earwax, Pooflinger, and Sithmonkey.

Also, several large corporations have stepped up to help fund any of the expenses incurred in making these name changes by offering endorsement contracts to any cities willing to change their names to Pepsi, Nike, Viagra, Kotex, and Marlboro.

"We are looking at this as an opportunity," said town councilman Mitch Methusela of Saint Joseph, Maine. "Hell, with all the Canadian potatoes being dumped on the U.S. market, this town's economy was in the crapper. We're in negotiations now with Ron Popeil."

"If everything works out, our new town name of Pocket-Fisherman might just help bring in a few tourist dollars. Of course, we'll have to dig a pond for all these tourists to fish in, but that shouldn't cost too much."

Well, don't kid yourselves. It could happen.

Trollage, redux

Mr. McClelland last night left a huge blog post, cut and pasted, in my comments. This same comment has been left, I am sure, on countless other blogs, and in every single case is probably as completely off-thread as it was here.

It's abundantly apparent, at least to me, that having his own blog is not enough. He must blog everywhere, whether welcome or not.

Well, let's do a little summary of what is not welcome:

Long winded off-thread comments=Not welcome.
Cut and paste blog posts in the comments=Not welcome.
Pictures of crap (literally) in the comments=Not welcome.
Personal attacks based on political thought=Not welcome.
Blog Spam of any sort=Not welcome.

Now let us do a little summary of what is welcome:

Brief off-thread comments for clarification=Welcome within limits.
Brief off-thread comments as greetings=Welcome.
Well thought out arguments=Welcome.
Civil dissent that is on-thread=Welcome.
Fawning, groveling, and bribery=Welcome, but send it in a personal email for my private enjoyment.

Not a lot there that isn't common sense. And other than one sickening white supremacist months ago, everyone but Mr. McClelland has known these things innately. Some people were just raised to know what is acceptable and what is not when you speak with people. Some people, sadly, either were not, or "overcame" all the social essentials their families and teachers worked so hard to impart upon them.

Other bloggers may allow him to clutter up their comments with his off-thread, expanded ramblings and nonsense, but I don't have to, and at this point I won't. I will not play host to the electronic parasite that is Mr. McClelland.

So now, unless yet another "impersonator" has been sullying his Good Name, he is gone. He can say what he wants. I would give a Damn but honestly I don't. That would be the waste of a perfectly good Damn.

Hyssie-fit? Perhaps. But you know what? Too bad.

Update: The IP's keep rolling in. There are now three, and they all are linked to this "imposter" who "impersonates" the faultless Canadian. And since I can never truly be sure which is the real and which is the usurper, they all must be treated the same.

That is what "zero tolerance" is all about, you know, where a Rolaid is the equivalent of a Quaalude. We've all seen how well that works.

Well, the precedent has been set. If this is offensive to the victim of the "impersonator" then he is cordially invited to return the favor and add my IP to his lenghty list of the banned. I'm sure I'll have good company. But of course that will require my IP, and as I never visit there (can't vouch for my readers), I'd be interested in how that would be accomplished.

Three IP's banned, several more to go, I'm sure.

Ghastly

It has been extremely difficult to write the last few days. The events have been so horrifying, and the reaction so stupifying that even the thought of putting anything down had done little but raise my blood pressure and make me heartsick. I'm going to try to get something down today, to vent some of the frustration and preserve my well-being if nothing else.

Let us start with the idiotic situation at Abu Gharib. If I hear one more time that these fools were only following orders and had no choice I am going to scream. I will be easily heard by canines all the way to Texas. The howl may actually take out Castro's radio jammers.

Whatever happened to the concept of a legal vs. illegal order? Isn't there some provision in the UCMJ regarding an illegal order and the responsibility of all military personnel NOT to follow illegal orders? Aren't there protections and safeguards for individuals who recognize an order as illegal and take appropriate steps?

Where were these people's minds?

Moving right along now, let's look at just how the country reacted to these moronic acts. Let's start with the general public. Overall, the people on the street have looked at this situation and have put it in perspective. They see these photos and hear the stories and they know that a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth is contrived and politically motivated. They look at the press reports and know that some of what they are seeing is fake, some of it was overblown, and what portion of it that is true is an abberation. For the largest part, people have enough sense to see beyond the sensational and grasp what is really happening.

Which leads us to the source of all the information they have seen: the Media. What a lot of screaching from the high minded and principled keepers of Truth! I haven't seen such seething, vitriol and agenda promotion since I studied that US history chapter on Yellow Journalism and the Penny Press. Pundits passing for Journalists, editorials for news, conjecture for fact, rhetoric for reporting, propoganda for information, and most of it sickening. Actually, to call it merely "sickening" is to be either too kind, or to be one of the minority of the population who actually agrees with their detrius.

These upholders of free speech, these guardians of the rights of the first ammendment are far from even handed with this however, which brings us to the murder of Nick Berg.

The video of the murder of Nick Berg is the electronic equivelent of a well placed terrorist bomb. But where media outlets scrambled over each other to air the photos from Abu Gharib, none of them to my knowledge has aired this sadistic, unnecessary, and religio-racist motivated murder. Fox hasn't, citing a belief that they didn't feel it was necessary to air it in it's entirety. They did, however, air a portion of the audio which included the final screams of an innocent man. The other outlets? At this point, I have yet to see the complete video shown on television, either on regular broadcast television or on the cable outlets.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see it. I have no need to see it. I remember the images of September 11, 2001 and do not need any reminder of what terror is. I do not need to see it in the eyes of a young man who must have known that he was about to die at the hands of Islamofacists.

These murderers are sorry shadows of men. They are men who's predecesors, who's fathers aligned themselves with Hitler, who see the murder of Jews, Christians, Animists, Budists, Druids, well face it, everyone but Muslims, as their pre-ordained mission from God. They even murder each other in the name of God if the sect isn't deemed "pure enough" in the eyes of other sects.

Islamists and apologists claim that we, as Christians, have the blood of countless non-Christians on our hands, victims of an out of control Church from five centuries ago. They claim that we are as tainted as these murderers, but with the blood of those who would not convert during the era of Imperialism during the 16th through 18th centuries.

I beg to differ on that point. With relatively few exceptions, interdenominational warfare within the family of Christians has ceased. Christianity grew out of this Heresy-Obsession with the period after the Reformation. No longer do missionaries burst into villages to desecrate and destroy, choosing instead to convert by example, to gently lead people to Christ, not drag them kicking, screaming, or at knife-point.

There is no Christian equivelent to the Madrassahs. Waco was an abberation. What we are seeing now in the Middle East is not. It is rapidly becoming the norm, the accepted mode of behavior, and is the accepted method of warfare.

Let me ask you a simple math question. When was Nick Berg taken hostage by these sons of monkeys? Why, Regis, that would be April 9th. Good, good. Now, when were the photos of prisoner abuse released by CBS and flashed all over the internet? Uh, was it before April 9th? Nope. It was after. Not one week, not even two weeks. Nick Berg was taken hostage, presumably for the reason of execution, by members of an Islamofascist group a full three weeks prior to any release of photos or allegations regarding that group of morons in Cellblock 1A and Cellblock 1B.

It is time. It is time to winnow the grain from the chaf.

Update: Please avail yourself of Misha's thoughts today. Also, please follow the trackback below and go to Sneakeasy's for his Link-O-Rama on a great many thoughts regarding the events of recent days. A humble "Thank you" to Kiril for inclusion in his post.

More appeasement?

It seems St. James the Moor Slayer has been relegated to the relative obscurity of a dusty old museum. He has been taken from his place within a church bearing his name because his presence might upset the "sensitivities of other ethnic groups".

The statue is being replaced by one of St. James the Pilgrim, one of the other titles by which this saint is known. Apparently a saint who's apparition spurred on the Spanish troops and assisted in the overthrow of the Moors after an 800 year occupation is not as PC as the counter-image of the same saint as the man who entered Spain and converted the population to Christianity. Rather like the Spanish equivalent of St. Patrick.

"The Baroque image of a sword-wielding St James cutting the heads off Moors is not a very sensitive or evangelical image that fits the teachings of Christ, he added."

Perhaps, but then neither is the accepted portrayal of St. Lucy with her eyeballs on a plate and I certainly don't see that being removed from churches. Self mutilation has never been big in Church circles. I suppose she'll be next.

Or perhaps St. George, who legend tells was seen spuring on British soldiers fighting the Nazis in WWII. No pictures or statures of St. George the Nazi Vanquisher can be allowed now, can they?

Here's the question of the day on this bit: Why are they concerned about what a Muslim sees in a Catholic Church in a predominantly Catholic country? Just how many Muslims tour churches, and this one in particular?

Alejandro Barral, president of the cultural commission for the cathedral council, told BBC News Online: "This is not an opportunistic decision. This is not through fear of fanatics of any kind and nothing to do with 11 March or 11 September."

He said the decision was taken a few years ago, but simply had not yet been implemented.

Cut the crap, Alejandro.

Your Fifteen Minutes are up, Rene Gonzales

Rene Gonzales, the UMass grad student who's scathing attack on a U.S.Army soldier killed in action in Afghanistan drew national attention, has issued an apology to the family of the deceased.

In his opinion piece from the Daily Collegian, Gonzales stated that the dead Ranger was "not a hero" and had gotten "what he asked for" by enlisting to serve in the military. He went on to call him a Rambo, a G.I. Joe, an idiot, and a "Pendejo", Spanish for idiot.

A link to the article was placed on the website Lucianne Dot Com during the evening on Wednesday, prompting a frenzy among conservative bloggers and bringing it to the attention of media outlets in the U.S. and abroad. Thursday the president of UMass responded, chastising Gonzales and calling the piece "a disgusting, arrogant and intellectually immature attack."

In today's apology, Gonzales called his article "insensitive."

Interesting, isn't it? I would dearly love to see what this "disgusting, arrogant, and intellectually immature" grad student had to say to a grieving family that could in any way absolve him of what he did.

But what of his apology to this young man's brothers and sisters in BDU who passed before him? Or his apology to the families of the rest of the fallen? For surely, by his denigration of this one dead man, this Hero, he spits on the graves of all of the fallen of this war and of all the wars before it.

Rene Gonzales is an extremely privileged young man to live in a place where a person can say the vile and extreme kinds of things he did with no more repercussions than he has suffered. There is no jail cell waiting for him, no chains or hooks or electrical wires to be attached to various parts of his body, no rubber hoses or leather truncheons.

No man with a badge will show up at his door with or without a warrant to arrest him or hustle him into the back of an unmarked van. No law enforcement person will burst through his door to punitively ransack his home in the guise of a search. There will be no action against him by agents of the government for his words.

The private sector however, filled with men and women who have served, their families, their survivors, their friends, may be quite another matter. We all may be only Chicken-hawks, Rambo's, G.I. Joes, and Pendejos to him, but any of these trumps a Chicken-shit.

Perhaps it is a good thing for Rene Gonzales that no member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that has "blogged him to filth" will stand in judgement of him right now, particularly this woman. I have but one punishment that I would mete: that he would "enlist," train, and attempt to qualify for the same unit as the man who's life he attacked, who's honor he smeared, and who's death he ridiculed.

No, not some quickie, week-long, total immersion fantasy boot-camp for wealthy, type-A, Soldier of Fortune wannabe's. Not the remake of that Boot Camp reality television show. I mean weeks of PT and fear and humiliation and sleep deprivation, followed by months of Ranger Training with a whole new round of PT and fear and humiliation and sleep deprivation in even worse locales with less food and considerably more pain.

Make a man of him? Doubt it.

Koppel's Abuse of the Dead

Tomorrow night, Ted Koppel will host an edition of Nightline which will feature a reading of the names of the Iraqi war dead, accompanied by a photo of each warrior and his or her rank.

This show is being aired during one of the fiercest engagements of the war to date. Also, and by no small coincidence, it is but two days after President Bush and Vice President Cheney's meeting with what is popularly known as the 9/11 Commission.

By ABC's admission this information was gotten from a government database through a government website which expressly forbids the use of the information on the site for commercial gain. ABC, a commercial network, will be producing this show and has made no announcement concerning whether or not the show will be commercial-free, leading this writer to believe that it will not.

During Sweeps Week, commercial time is sold at a premium to advertisers eager to present their ads to the largest audience possible. Much money is exchanged during Sweeps week, which benefits both the advertisers and the networks which use data collected during this week to determine advertising rates for the following fiscal cycle.

With this in mind, one has to ask some questions about this show:

-Why is this show being broadcast now, during some of the most intense fighting of the entire conflict?

-Why is a commercial enterprise, the ABC network, being allowed to use information from a government website for commercial gain?

-Will there be repercussions for the illegal use of this information by ABC and by Ted Koppel as their agent?

-Will any of the revenues collected from advertisers during this show be given to the families of those who's deaths are being exploited by this show?

-Ted Koppel is on the record as being completely against both the war and against President Bush. Will anyone of note, anyone with a large audience, call Koppel and ABC out for using the 700+ war dead to further their political agenda?

I, for one, will not be watching this exercise in demonization. I am sickened by those who maintain their extreme agendas and disguise them as normal dissent.

This is far from "normal dissent."

Moonbat™ Collegian.

I was cruising through the lucious bounty of links at Lucianne.com when I found one that just sickened me.

At the Daily Collegian, an online news site from UMass, graduate student Rene Gonzales takes the position that "Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him." Go ahead. Take some time and go read that. Keep your wastebasket handy. Medication is also recommended. I'll wait.

You done? Okay. Now contrary to popular belief, I was brought up by my parents to be a lady. Sure, sometimes I lapse and succumb to my baser instincts, instincts like cursing, vengeful thinking, inciting unrest, and simple acts of incivility. But even at my worst, I could not muster the amount of well harnessed rage necessary to respond to this man's published opinion.

There are, however, others who can respond in the manner this piece so richly deserves. A great many of them are in the comment thread at the bottom of the Daily Collegian's page. Another is at Beaker's Corner. Yet another, calmer one is at Another Moron with an Opinion.

In how many places in the world would any citizen be allowed to voice such an opinion in a public forum? In how many others would a foreign student be allowed the same right? And of this plethora of places, how many of the places even exist if not as the result, either directly or indirectly, of the intercession of the American Fighting Forces?

I'd cast shame upon the person who expresses this vile lack of compassion and respect, except I believe that shame is quite likely a foreign concept.

Why won't the left admit this?

Am I the only one who's sick to death of the left claiming repeatedly that there is no evidence of WMD's in Iraq, and that there never was any evidence?

I hear it daily, generally from people who have enough grey matter to know better. And I imagine they would know better if they weren't like so many "Doubting Thomases" demanding absolute evidence from "mainstream" media sources, the very sources who's agendas are furthered by the public's ignorance in this matter.

Well, if you know one of these people, one of these blissfully ignorant folks who prefer to flail about and cast accusations against the administration, the war, the abilities of current inspectors, just send them this little piece of information.

And if that's just not conclusive enough, point them over here, too.

Yes, it's just a bit heavy. Most thoughtful pieces written by conservative commentators tend to be. But if you help them with the big words and the difficult concepts, perhaps they may finally see the light.

Or maybe not. Sometimes it's just a blatent refusal to admit when one is wrong. Sadly, I see way too much of that anymore.

That's quite enough.

In ranging about the 'sphere over the weekend I've taken note of a vicious trend that was discussed on both the Rottie and on the Mudville Gazette. There is a behavior being engaged in on predominantly military blogs that is disturbing and of great concern to me on many levels.

It has become great sport for certain readers of blogs to single out military personnel who are currently deployed, and subject them to all manner of harassment in their comments. Some of it has been obscene, some merely idiotic, but more distressing is the use of comments as a means to belittle, castigate, and "spit" on a soldier electronically.

Most of these commenters use nonexistent email addresses or misdirected email addresses to protect themselves and their mailboxes, and appear savvy enough to work around attempts at banning when IP banning is even an option. Sadly, the majority of active military bloggers use "free blogging hosts" which do not allow for IP banning, forcing them to either endure this abuse, turn off their comments, or quit blogging altogether.

In all honesty, I have never understood the strange compunction some people exhibit for "trolling" in the first place, or for frequenting the blogs of persons who's ideological bent or philosophy is in complete opposition to their own. It's great "sport" to drop one's spoor in comments, and I've witnessed it from bloggers from every part of the spectrum. I just don't see the entertainment value of it, nor do I see where such behavior has ever served either side by convincing a reader or blogger to change or modify their political, religious, or philosophical viewpoint.

I have inadvertently followed links before that have taken me into blogs I would never read of my own volition, much less frequent on a regular basis, and been shocked at the ideas being promoted on them. But I never feel compelled to leave comments unless something particularly inaccurate is stated. I'll sometimes leave a correction, backed by fact and not bravado, and my email and URL. And I'm rarely trolled. Perhaps because when they come into my blog they decide that there is little entertainment value in trolling "little old ladies" who blog.

Granted, there are blogs by people who thrive on the drama and fury of rant-filled comment threads, and they encourage that by the subject and tone of their posts. They rant, they instigate, they are provocative, and some are largely entertaining. They write posts that are the blog equivalent of peanut butter on a mousetrap, then sit back and wait for the trolls to infest their comments so that they can "Troll-bash" with wild and merry abandon.

This is fine and good. It's what they like, and they encourage it. But that does not generally seem to be the case with a goodly number of these military bloggers. They set up their blogs to give family and friends a contact point, to keep in touch with others in similar duty situations, and to provide an alternative source of information on the conflict, the conditions, and the people of Iraq or Iran.

These personnel know that at any time their blogs can be read by persons of higher rank who can hold them accountable for their behavior on these blogs. They know what can happen if they allow one of these trolls to get the better of them and provoke a response. And the trolls know this as well.

This group of men and women should not have their voices silences by trolls, malcontents and bullies for no other reason than their current service to the United States or their deployment in a war which has been politicized for the personal gain of power-hungry senators and would-be office holders.

I have only one thing to say to those who behave with such thuggish snarkiness on one of these blogs: If you feel the need to spit on a "baby-killer" or "rapist" or "murderer," then at least have the courage of your convictions and do it in person. Otherwise, quit "crapping on the carpet" in the blogs of people who's boot soles you aren't fit to lick.

Just an observation

The people who keep crying out that Israel "murdered" a helpless old paralyzed man in a wheelchair are the same people who would feel sorry for Hitler were he alive today because mentally ill people need to be understood and accepted, and not held accountable for their actions.

Where Are These Peoples' Brains?

Exactly where are the repositories of the so-called Brains of the Appeal Court that did this?

Think about this, folks. This is a precedent now. How many other monsters will now use this as case law for their appeals? How many other monsters will be released onto a meek, sheep-like public to prey on "the weak and the unsuspecting" among us?

You know, had this teen died of injuries suffered at the hands of this freak before the trial, the charge would have been raised to include his death. Who can say with any certainty that his suicide wasn't as a direct result of this molestation. What fatal injury was done to his mind? Or his soul?

None of us will ever know. What we do know, however, is something that many of us have know for a long time: The courts have ceased to be a body to be counted upon for protection from the fiends and demons that walk among us in human form.

Sound a little strong? Just a little "Un-PC" to call a human being a Demon? Too damned bad.

Thanks to Jack for the link on this. Good find.

Woulda, Coulda, but Still Shouldn't

After September 11, 2001, for reasons of public safety and the protection of a national treasure, Liberty Island was closed to the public. The only way a tourist or native New Yorker could see the old lady was from shore or from the deck of a ferry or tour boat in the harbor.

And this was both necessary and good policy in the immediate aftermath of the terrorism that had taken down the two tallest buildings in NYC, damaged the symbol of the American military, and caused another jet to be brought down impotently in a farm field in Pennsylvania, albiet not without a horrible loss of life.

Eventually, the island was reopened, and tourists could walk about below the base of Lady Liberty. With increased security, it was determined that a limit number of persons could have access, and people began visiting her again.

We do not know how many people would have tried to destroy her, to desecrate a national symbol. We need not know. But we have to at least acknowledge that there have very probably been plans and plots to do so, and that restricting access to her contributed to her safety.

But is seems that this is not a good thing. There are complaints, via the Associate Press and the New York Times, that somehow because the Statue of Liberty could have been made open and available before now, it should have been.

They also complain that because the nonprofit foundation which supports and maintains the island and statue had a sizeable general fund and an endowment in the many millions of dollars, they should have spent it now to expidite her opening instead of setting it aside for the many more years she will stand and require maintenance and upkeep.

Yes, spend every nickel you have, throw open the entire island, and open a monument, irreplaceable, to the very real threat of terror for no other reason than you think it should be, and it possibly could have been.

How arrogant is that? For some editorialist at the oh so reputable New York Times to demand the opening of a monument that belongs not to New York City, but to all Americans, purely because their personal timetable says it could be is nothing short of egotism.

The children and grandchildren and even great-grandchildren of the millions of school children who saved their pennies and collected them together by classroom and school to build the massive base on which she stands are the people you insult with your vain and pandering drivel, not the United States Parks Service or the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation who maintain it for us. And to think you have any voice in this matter is ludicrous.