American Castrati
Striking new images of Mars have raised hopes life could be found on the Red Planet after all. Scientists say they have photographic evidence that suggests liquid water may have been on the planet as little as five years ago. Expert Bruce Jakosky said the study “underscores the importance of searching for life on Mars, either present or past.” (It must be getting close to budget talks for NASA.)
For several years relationship guru John Gray has been selling books and making gobs of money from his message that “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.” I always thought that the Lama men were from Mars, starting with Grandpa John and my father Sam who resembled Ghengis Khan and Attila the Hun, respectively. The rest of the boys were warriors. But the Venus part doesn’t fit the five Lama women, from Aunt Frances, the Bronx bombshell, through the baby Maybelle, a former pro ballerina and tough cookie. Aunt Marie is still kicking butt at age 96.
It is unfortunate, but I think that Grey’s thesis is no longer applicable to the majority of American men who are being infantilized and converted into Venusians.
At Starbucks this morning a good female friend was happily recounting the news from New York. It is becoming the first city in the country to ban all restaurants from using artificial trans fats, while requiring hundreds of eateries to post food calorie counts right on their menus. City health commissioner, Thomas Frieden, said the changes will help fight the twin epidemics of obesity and heart disease.
Isn’t New York the home of the 9/11 heroes, of Mayor Rudy and Mayor Koch? What’s the matter with those men on the health commission? They need to go renew their red blood levels at Ruth's Chris Steak House.
But maybe it’s just New York. After all, this is the city that recently separated anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman. Under the NYC Board of Health rule, people would be able to change the sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional stating why they should be considered members of the opposite sex. “Surgery versus non-surgery can be arbitrary,” said Thomas R. Frieden (him again). “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It's the permanence of the transition that matters most.”
Michael Silverman, executive director of the TLDEF said many Transgender people can't afford sex-change surgery and often don't consider it necessary. Would a woman who becomes a legal man be able to fight in combat, or join the Boy Scouts?
My Starbucks friend gushed over the algore appearance on the Oprah show and ordered a copy of his global warming docudrama on NetFlix. Apparently Oprah devoted a whole hour to algore’s whining and closed with these words: “Thank you, algore, for being our Noah.” I realize that only women watch Oprah, but algore is a man, or he used to be. Maybe he went to NYC for a gender change; he’s become a Venusian.
At least we’re not European. Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, launched his “green revolution” with a stark warning that we are all “living on borrowed time” if we don't stop eating up the world's resources. Charley is determined to reduce his carbon footprint on the world. The Prince launched his “Costing the Earth: Accounting for Sustainability” project at a forum attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury and former US vice president algore. The Queen has already gone green at Windsor Castle with a plan to use hydroelectric power. Algore and the Prince: Nice.
But, enough of this fooling around. The serious side of America’s castration is that it is imperiling our national security. Did you listen to the Senate confirmation hearings on SecDef Robert Gates? Bobby Byrd asked the questions:
“Are we losing the war, Dr. Gates?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Does the President have the authority to attack Syria or Iran?”
“No, sir, I do not think so.”
“What would happen if we were to attack Iran?”
“Well, Senator, the Iranians don’t have the capability to attack America, but they could supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who could hit America, and they are interfering in Iraq, but they could do more, and they could attack Israel, and allow Syria to take over Lebanon. So any attack on Iran would have to be the very, very last resort.”
As Chris Hitchens said of the entire Gates performance, it would have been a fine speech by the SecDef designee of Belgium or Luxemburg. But America is supposed to be the world’s only superpower. Never did Gates mention that if we attacked Iran’s nuclear bomb facilities that the result would be a cessation of those bomb-making activities. Oh no, the result would be that they would get mad at us and do more of what they are already doing. What a pathetic performance by a SecDef.
Then the report of the Iraq Study Group came out today. Note this is not the War group, or the “How we will win” group, but rather the study group. It was like study hall, frivolous and a waste of time that could be better spent on baseball.
So notable war strategists like Sandra Day O’Connor and Vernon Jordan, James Baker and a number of other senior citizens told the President what he was doing wrong and how we could best extricate ourselves from Iraq. Nowhere in the report is the word victory mentioned.
The ISG recommendations start with a conference dubbed Madrid-2 to contain U.S. adversaries Iran and Syria. Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but would actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.
So our friends in the Middle East, notably Israel, but also Lebanon and the Kurds, are to be hung out to dry waiting for the Americans to redeploy to Texas and North Carolina. What a pathetic performance by a group of so-called men.
Hugh Hewitt called the ISG report “a wonder, this bit of appeasement virtuosity, and I think it will gain for its authors all the lasting fame that has attached itself to the name Samuel Hoare, and his brainchild, the Hoare-Laval Agreement.” Hoare and Laval: the British and French castrati of the pre-WWII era.
posted by Bill Lama at
7:50 PM
17 Comments:
Bill says Never did Gates mention that if we attacked Iran’s nuclear bomb facilities that the result would be a cessation of those bomb-making activities
That is because he knows it would not stop them. Anyone that has listened would have heard by now that we do not know where all the sites are and even if we knew where every single site was some are so deep we could not get to with an air strike.
Maybe we should invade and then we can go look around. It worked out OK in Iraq. I know Iraq is bigger and better armed but I here we would be greeted as liberators.
It is sad that people such as yourself will not admit when you are wrong. The President has this same problem.
Just before the Gates Hearings and the ISG report Yolo Cowboy had the same feeling as this exchange shows.
Just a little so read it at the link
T C...
Mistake after mistake after mistake.
While it was huge mistake to invade and occupy Iraq we still could have prevailed in creating a stable Iraq. Instead we put in to few troops, disbanded the Iraqi army and went with debathification instead of integrating Sunni(Bath party) and Shia.
Simply talking with Iran would not make everything OK and I never said as much. But ignoring them will make a bad situation worse. Ignoring North Korea resulted in more nuclear weapons and a test of one. Keep your enemies close and talking gives them nothing.
There is no magic bullet or even any good options to deal with the mess bush has made in Iraq. Our leadership has put us in a position that all options are bad and with the same decider that created the mess still making decisions what are the odds of a good outcome? Zero. So pick the least horrible choice we have been left with.
TC..
YC you must really hate the Iraq Study group and the incoming Defense Secretary Gates.
Both want the U.S. to talk to Iraq and Syria. Gates in his testimony yesterday he said we are not winning in Iraq, past mistakes include not enough u.S. troops, disbanding the Iraqi army and debathification.
Where have I heard this before?
A little bit of common sense is coming back to Washington. I hope the decider listens.
So tell me Bill what is the way forward in Iraq besides criticizing people and groups that point out the obvious?
The sarcastic portion should have read---I know Iran is bigger and better armed----
TC
Finally some sense from the congress:
Sen. John McCain told Hamilton and Baker that he does not believe their approach will work. The panel called for a phase-out of the U.S. combat role by 2008 and rejected the idea of a short-term increase in the number of combat troops in Iraq.
"There's only one thing worse than an over-stressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps," said McCain. "I believe this is a recipe that will lead to our defeat sooner or later in Iraq."
Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins both said they are skeptical about another of the commission's key recommendations: that the administration approach Iran in search of help in stabilizing Iraq, as part of a regional diplomatic initiative.
"I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq," Lieberman said.
Baker said he saw no harm in approaching Iran anyway, and if it declines to help, "then we will hold them up to public scrutiny as the rejectionist state they have proven to be." What a MORON!!!
Senator Rick Santorum said the U.S. needs to confront Iran rather than “engaging someone who is at war with us.”
Senator Jim Bunning said he didn't view Gates as the best person to handle the Pentagon post at a time of war. "Mr. Gates has repeatedly criticized our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without providing any viable solutions to the problems our troops currently face," Bunning said.
"I am concerned with the message he is sending to our troops and our allies around the world. We need a secretary of defense to think forward with solutions and not backward on history we cannot change."
Meanwhile the Democratic castrati say we can only make peace with our enemies - interesting that they are admitting that Iran and Syria are enemies - failing to understand the lessons of history. Peace comes after victory, when your enemy is utterly defeated. If we leave Iraq without achieving victory we will never have peace with the Islamo-fascists. And the enemy will be here among us, as the 9/11 Commission rightly stated. Heaven help our leaders to show some spine.
TC,
You are delusional to think that US air power could not eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. Nuclear weapons would clearly do the job.
But I don't propse that. Just use enough bunker busters to destroy a lot of the program and bomb all the above ground facilities. All the politicians agree that would set them back ten years or more.
A ground invasion would be a wasted effort. We do need to support the masses of Iranian people who hate their mullahs.
The way forward in Uraq is to be realistic. First admit the truth. The war against Iraq was won in spectacular fashion. The rebuilding and formation of a government has been a success. The continuing violence is a problem that the Iraqi government needs to deal with. We can only train, advise and help. That is exactly what we are doing and should keep doing.
As the President has said, the only way to lose is to give up. Unfortunately, many Americans want to do just that. They are the castrati.
Wow. I am just simply blown away by all of Bill's blather and false assertions....It's almost pointless to argue with this moron. Unfortunately, it's all too apparent that there are people in this country who just cannot or will not face the facts. To assert that our adventure in Iraq has been a spectacular success, but the violence and disorder is the fault of the Iraqis belies an ignorance of a scale that is truly scary. Bill, do your dimwit friends all believe the same crap you spew? Gosh, I hope not. You know Bill, here's your problem. You're not humble. You will never admit your wrong even in the face of catastrophe. That, my friend, is a fatal character flaw. And when that flaw is present in people who send young people to war, many needless lives are lost. You need to get a grip my friend.
The Castrati can't spell or use correct punctuation either.
Typical responses Bill... lots of name calling, no suggestions, no alternatives, no plan. Typical.
They always remind me of the punk kid on the playground who is losing the game, so in a huff he takes his ball and goes home.
Anony last,
I'm letting your rant remain because it allows me to make a few points.
If you could read you would know that I said the war against Iraq was a spectacular success and the government building has worked. Witness the turnout at the Iraqi elections. I did not say the "adventure" has been a success.
The violence is largely Iraqi on Iraqi, so that is why they must end it. If we gave the Iraq military the go ahead they would end it in a few months. The Baath party Sunnis would be dead but it would become peaceful.
Baker would think of that as success, much like he cozied up to Sadaam and the rest of the Muslim tyrants.
This is the last time you will call any of my readers dimwits. From now on all such posts will be deleted. Try to argue like an adult.
Just when I thought this statement was misguided
Bill -All the politicians agree that would set them back ten years or more.
I read this-
Bill-The rebuilding and formation of a government has been a success. The continuing violence is a problem that the Iraqi government needs to deal with. We can only train, advise and help. That is exactly what we are doing and should keep doing.
I am speechless. Even the decider has dropped the cheer leading stay the course bull. Do you honestly not know what is happening in Iraq?
The right was singing praises to Baker when he helped put Bush in the White house but if he does not toe the line and walk in lock step he is
"Jim Baker is always an honest broker," says former White House Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein. "If he can help the family and help other families, I think he really strikes a twofer."
It isn't the first time Baker has extended his hand to this president. Six years ago in Florida, he managed the legal strategy that delivered the White House for George W. Bush.
Baker has been White House Chief of Staff for two presidents, as well as Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State. He helped put together the coalition that joined the U.S. in the Gulf War — and knew enough then to anticipate the dangers of marching to Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
"Jim Baker is one of these rare people that comes along once in a while who's smart — smart not only intellectually and from experience, but street smart," says former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Michael Deaver.
Back in 1990, Baker convinced Syria to join the Gulf War coalition against Saddam Hussein. Now, he wants this George Bush to talk to Syria ... and Iran, too.
"It has to be hard-nosed, it has to be determined," Baker said in a television interview in October. "You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."
But this president may not be in much of a hurry to accept Baker's ideas about that — or much else. Asked if Baker would help implement the report, a spokesman for Mr. Bush said, "Jim Baker can go back to his day job."
There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq so we are left with choosing the least horrible option that bush has left us with.
The Iraq Study Group Report
Bill-Nuclear weapons would clearly do the job.
You are right. If we shot a few nukes at Iran then it would slow them down. Millions of innocents die but it may work.
Bill-If we gave the Iraq military the go ahead they would end it in a few months. The Baath party Sunnis would be dead but it would become peaceful.
The Iraqi army is divided itself not nearly as much as the police and security forces (Shia & tied to Iran) but divided non the less.
But I do get your point if we let a genocide on the Sunni's go forward then when they are wiped out there will be peace. OH wait the countries around Iraq are Sunni Muslim with the exception of Iran, but I don't foresee any problem with that.
DO YOU?
Prepared Statement of
James A. Baker, III and Lee H. Hamilton
The situation in Iraq today is grave and deteriorating. Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. Attacks on U.S. forces – and U.S. casualties – continue at an alarming rate.
The Iraqi people are suffering great hardship. The democratically elected
government that replaced Saddam Hussein is not adequately advancing the key issues: national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. Economic development is hampered. The current approach is not working, and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.
The U.S. has committed staggering resources. Our country has lost 2,900 Americans. 21,000 more have been wounded. The United States has spent $400 billion in Iraq. Costs could rise well over $1 trillion. Many Americans are understandably dissatisfied. Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward.
No course of action in Iraq is guaranteed to stop a slide toward chaos.
It is sad indeed that instead of taking these words to heart and thinking of what is in the best interest of our country Bill, Jen and their type would rather stick their head in the sand and deny any problem just so they do not have to say they are wrong and have been following a decider that decided wrong.
Wow, that's a first Anon... accusing the realists (conservatives) of sticking OUR heads in the sand. I'm still laughing. The cut and run crowd is the group that has heads stuck in the sand, denying the need for defending America and our interests abroad. And if you and yours ever bothered to get your news from anything other than NPR, Air America and the NYTimes you might learn what amazing progress we have made in Iraq... voting, rebuilding, medical care, education, etc... Only three of the 18 "counties" in Iraq have control issues with insurgents. And it's Iraq vs. Iraq.
While liberals had their heads buried in the sand during the 90's, Islamo Fascist terrorists built themselve up to the point of successfully attacking America on 9/11. What's unclear about the threat?
I know denial is powerful, so i suggest counseling for liberals to learn how to deal with we realists. you may not like our realism, but it's people like us and our families who keep you libs alive.
Bill, "brilliant" Einstein visited my last blog post. Come on over and read what he wrote. I suggested he change his blog name to Daffy.
fj
sorry... it was my post on Liberal Madness... fj
Here's another Republican Senator coming to his senses at last. Another one for Bill to cross off his list as his "Daddy" party folds.....
Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, a Republican who voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2002 and has supported it ever since, now says the current U.S. war effort is "absurd" and "may even be criminal."
In an emotional speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Smith called for changes in U.S. policy that could include rapid pullouts of U.S. troops from Iraq. He said he never would have voted for the conflict if he had known the intelligence that President Bush gave the American people was inaccurate.
"I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day," Smith said. "That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore. ... So either we clear and hold and build, or let's go home."
A spokesman said Friday that Smith did not mean to call the war criminal in a legal sense.
Smith is up for re-election in 2008. His comments come a month after Republicans lost control of Congress - in large part because of voter unhappiness with the Iraq war - and shortly after the Iraq Study Group issued a blistering criticism of the administration's handling of the war.
Smith said he is "tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So let's cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way."
Our trans fats fats that are changing gender? then NYC liberals should be giving trans fats all the rights of other fats.
FJ a realist. That is funny.
FJ- you might learn what amazing progress we have made in Iraq. voting, rebuilding, medical care, education, etc.
Show me a link an article or anything about this progress you have made up. Things have really crashed rebuilding, medical care, education are all worse since the vote so lets see any progress since the vote. Also show me anyone in congress or government that agrees with you.
You wont be able to find this amazing progress you speak of so I will take the fact that you have nothing to back up your statements as proof you do not know what you are talking about.
Most of Iraq is controlled by local militias not the govt. Most violence is Iraqi on Iraqi that is called a civil war, different factions fighting for control.
Like you I just do not understand why 80% of the Iraqi population wants us to leave. The only ones that want us to stay are the ones we put in power wonder why?
I am surprised 9% of the public is that uninformed.
WASHINGTON - Americans see no easy exit from
Iraq: Just 9 percent expect the war to end in clear-cut victory, compared with 87 percent who expect some sort of compromise settlement, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll.
The numbers evoke parallels to public opinion about the war in Vietnam four decades ago. In December 1965, when the American side of the war still had eight years to run, a Gallup survey found just 7 percent believed it would end in victory....
...David Gergen, a former White House adviser who served in the administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, said the bipartisan report, with its account of the grave situation in Iraq, could help motivate political leaders to resolve the Iraq situation more quickly than Vietnam.
"If we had had a commission like this, of heavyweights, who had spoken up so publicly and forcefully, when Lyndon Johnson was president ... the Vietnam War would have ended much earlier," Gergen said this week. "The policy in Iraq is failing. The policy in the Middle East is failing. The president cannot walk away from those conclusions."
Bill,
You could (should) be publishing, beyond the blog variety. Prestige and money aside, you deserve a bigger audience.
Meanwhile, a practical question. If John decides to become Jane, and changes his birth certificate accordingly, what if he later gets buyer's remorse? Can Jane become John again? Is sex to be determined not only by desire, but also by whim?
Speaking of whim, Dennis Prager poses the (semi) whimsical question: If people may change their sex based on a sincere desire, why not change their race as well? Dennis says he has always identified with Native Americans, and wishes he had a little Cherokee in his blood line. Well, why not just change his birth certificate? It's not his fault that God gave him to Jewish parents. As for me, I would like to have been an Alute, as there are never enough of them to fill the desired diversity quotas for practically anything. Think of the colleges I might have attended, the Small Business loans, the cocktail invitations from the politically correct set... Alas, I was born too soon, as I am reminded every time I see pictures of today's swim wear.
Keep writing.
Greg
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home