Saturday, May 1, 2004

Yea, me.

Today is my birthday.

Today I had to work all day long. And I am on duty, which means I can't drink, and I can't go anywhere to celebrate. Whee.

posted at 06:06 PM | permalink | Comments (4)

HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY! I hope you got to celebrate at some point! :)

May this year be your best and brightest!

posted by //j on May 3, 2004 10:34 AM

Feel free to envy my youngest, who somehow managed to be born on the 4th of July and therefore usually gets a day off on his birthday.

(Well, yes, I had some, um, input into the matter, but it was hardly what you'd call "planned.")

posted by CGHill on May 3, 2004 01:50 PM

Happy Belated Birthday, and thank you for your service. Though much of the Pac NW may seem unfriendly to those in uniform, there are a lot of us who are SO grateful and will support you always.

posted by seattle reader on May 7, 2004 06:33 AM

Happy belated Birthday. Today is my daughters birthday too. You're a Taurus huh? Just wanted you to know that we are out here believing in you and what you do. I don't know how to thank you enough. Hope you get something special for your Birthday.

posted by stealthy on May 7, 2004 08:56 PM

Friday, April 30, 2004

Scum in uniform

The servicemen thugs who tortured, humilated, and possibly killed Iraqis should be sentenced to the maximum extent (hard labor at Leavenworth), dishonorably discharged from the service, and have their names publicized as widely as possible, to ensure that they can never hold any job of consequence as long as they live. Their actions are unconscionable and inexcusable, and not only reflect poorly on the US military, they reflect poorly on our country as a whole. The Pentagon MUST hold a very public trial (unlike the Yee fiasco), and must make sure that all of the evidence is presented (again, unlike the Yee fiasco). Everyone knows that I am a strong supporter of the military (duh, it's my career), but there is far too much riding on this case to risk a whitewash or a slap on the wrists. The military has had bad apples in the past (the Okinawa rapists, and the whole Tailhook episode), but the stakes are much higher here. We need to excise the cancer before the patient succumbs.

As usual, John Cole (at Balloon Juice has a complete roundup, and the trackbacks provide a pretty thorough view of how the conservative side of the blogosphere has reacted towards the story. I'm not the only one who's seriously pissed off by this.

posted at 09:18 PM | permalink | Comments (1)

Current WAPO story by Bush-Basher Dana Millbank notes that the "Arab world" is reacting with revulsion at the photos of the MP abuses of Iraqi prisoners of war. Not surprising, given the Arab world's reacting with revulsion to the Saddam Hussein's putting people into shredders. Without taking anything away from the full force of justice for the MPs, somehow "Arab rage" doesn't really, truly impress me. Maybe it's that they prefer Arab torturers for Arabs to westerners.

I vent my sarcasm here in the full knowledge that this incident will give much fuel for the moralizing posturers both east and west, none of whose "rage" do I for an instant believe in--unless it simply be rage against America under any circumstances. That, I know, is real.

posted by Michael McCanles on May 1, 2004 03:18 PM

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Oh, please

Now a minority group is trying to get an apology from Peter Coors because of his staff's whimsical response to an appalling gaffe committed by the New York Times.

After the Times ran an article about a convicted killer and KKK member, accidentally accompanied by a picture of US senate candidate Peter Coors (R-CO), his campaign spokeswoman quipped:

It could have been worse. Pete could have been identified as John Kerry.

Now the spokesman of the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance has his skivvies in a bunch over the whole kerfluffle:

"If Peter Coors or Ms. Watson thinks it is funny or lighthearted to compare Sen. Kerry to a convicted KKK murderer, then they are either willfully ignorant of the emotion African-Americans feel about such matters, or they are terribly out of touch and they should be ashamed."

If the New York Times apologizes to Peter Coors, he might consider issuing an apology. (The Times issued a correction, but didn't make a formal apology). Until then, he (and his spokesperson) have nothing for which to apologize. It's rather undignified for a minister to inject himself into politics, as we are constantly reminded by liberals who get all ruffled over stupid pronouncements by the idiotic Pat Robertson or the odious Fred Phelps. Somehow, however, I don't expect Oliver Willis or Kevin Drum to demand Reverend Peters to butt out of the political arena, because he supports their candidate, and therefore is above censure.

posted at 11:59 PM | permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 26, 2004

Kerry's new low

John Kerry resurrected the "Bush AWOL" trope again today, demanding Bush prove his service in the National Guard, after accusing Bush of using others to question whether Kerry deserved the medals he was awarded in Vietnam. Said Kerry:

"If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have," Kerry told NBC News in an interview. "I'm not going to stand around and let them play games."

Okay, Bush doesn't have documentary evidence of where he was 33 years ago. Conversely, everybody knows where Kerry was—he was busy protesting the war and accusing the US of committing "war crimes". What is not clear is whether or not he was in the Navy Reserve at the time. His website and spokespersons keep changing the story on his dates of service. The question I have for Kerry is this:

Were you in the Navy Reserve while you were protesting the war? If so, isn't what you did punishable under the UCMJ?

Bush has his honorable discharge. Kerry's outrageous grandstanding notwithstanding, that is all Bush needs to prove that he fulfilled his obligation. Likewise, Kerry has his three Purple Hearts; he does not need to prove that he "deserved" them, because he was awarded them. Both sides need to dial back their rhetoric, but Kerry needs to recognize that the last four years of rabid-dog attacks on Bush by the loons on the left are coming back to bite him in the ass. Bush is no more responsible for the blogosphere uprising against Kerry than Kerry was for last year's relentless attacks upon Bush by the Indyidiots and the Buried Donks and Terry McAuliffe.

Besides, as Kerry himself has said in the past:

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways.

Of course, he was speaking of Bill Clinton in 1992. I'm sure that the fact that Clinton was a Democrat and Bush is a Republican has absolutely nothing to do with his most recent waffle. And if it doesn't make a difference, why does he continually refer to his status as a decorated veteran when discussing Iraq and the war on terror?

posted at 11:25 PM | permalink | Comments (0)

Back to Horologium