Could we start the bombing NOW?!

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.

While the New York Times reported that as many as 2,000 Iraqi militia fighters had received training in Lebanon, one of the senior officials said he believed the number was "closer to 1,000." Officials say a much smaller number of Hezbollah fighters have also traveled through Syria and into Iraq to provide training.

...

-more-

We've long wondered why Iran and Syria have been allowed to grubstake the Iraq "insurgents" with impunity.

If the Iraq Project is to succeed, it will necessarily entail not "talking to" these lunatics, as some would have us do, but dropping a few JDAMs on their terrorist training and weapons producing facilities.

Do it. Now.

Sonata Arctica to headline at ProgPower VIII!

Headliner Announcement



This is one of the bands we love that we've yet to see live ... We were out of town on an extended "Happy 40th Birthday" bender when they played the shit hole a mile from The Ponderosa.

If this set approaches their performance on For the Sake of Revenge we're in for one helluva Friday at PP VIII!

Hopefully we can share some "wodka" with the boys at the Grenada Suites!

Another installment of "You Can't Make This Stuff Up"

Pastor-cop pairing plan outlined today

November 30, 2006 11:02 am — Rochester Police Chief David Moore, members of the city's faith community and City Councilman Adam McFadden today announced details of a plan to pair pastors with foot patrol officers throughout the city.
Moore said earlier this week that he had hoped residents unwilling to call police officers with information would call the clergy instead.

Moore met with several ministers Tuesday and said the goal was so start the team patrols this week in southwest Rochester. He said the effort would bolster an already intensified focus on Jefferson and Chili avenues, Thurston Road and Genesee Street from Frost Avenue to Melrose Street.

...

-more-

This should be about as effective as those quixotic anti-crime marches:

"Oooh, people marching with signs. That's it, I'm going straight."

"Hey, isn't that Reverend Johnson in that cop car? Dudes, let's turn in our Glocks."

On second thought, this could be just what we need to quell terrorism in Iraq: Ride Along Imans!

On third thought, that might exacerbate the violence.

Rangel: SS benefit cuts, retirement age hikes necessary

We must alter Soc Sec, Rangel says

Raising retirement age or reducing benefits can't be ruled out if the Social Security system is to be saved from going bust, Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday.

"All of these things are on the table to find some way to make certain that Social Security is solvent," said Rangel, who is poised to take control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel (D-Harlem) discussed the fate of Social Security - which some have estimated will have a cash-flow problem as soon as 2017 and run out of money by 2040 - during a Manhattan breakfast talk sponsored by Crain's New York.

Any solution will cause some pain, according to Rangel. "If you call tax increases pain - and I do - that'll be a part of the mix, too," he said. "There's no easy way to do it, but it has to be done."

But the congressman also swore Social Security and Medicare health benefits would not be scrapped entirely. "If you're talking about getting rid of entitlements, forget about it," he said.

-more-

Whoa! Suddenly this government created Ponzi Scheme is in crisis?

But ... but ... two years ago Gramma Pelosi and Paul Krugman assured America that this notion was a concoction of the evil dumbass genius Bush.

At the time, the "imbecile" Bush was promulgating the idea that Americans would be better off if they had a say in how their payroll taxes were invested. Yes -- GULP -- the lumpen masses would have some control over their lives.

No go for the party of Government, the folks who pay lip service to the "middle class" but clearly do not trust them to plan for their own Golden Years.

Ladies and Gentlemen and other, we give you Charles Rangel, your next Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Gonna be a long two years.

UK slipping away?

Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.

A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate their victim. "All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."

Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.

However, the spokesman said cases of domestic violence, including rape, might go to trial regardless of the victim's wishes.

Mr Yusuf told the programme he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country. "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious — it's just a cultural thing."

Sharia's great strength was the effectiveness of its penalties, he said. Those who appeared before religious courts would avoid re-offending so as not to bring shame on their families.

Some lawyers welcomed the advance of what has become known as "legal pluralism".

Dr Prakash Shah, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such tribunals "could be more effective than the formal legal system".

In his book Islam in Britain, Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, says there is an "alternative parallel unofficial legal system" that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis.

"Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their traditions," he says. These are based on sharia councils, set up in Britain to help Muslims solve family and personal problems.

Sharia councils may grant divorces under religious law to a woman whose husband refuses to complete a civil divorce by declaring his marriage over. There is evidence that these councils are evolving into courts of arbitration.

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. "It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it's less awesome an environment than the English courts," he said.

Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.

"I was speaking to a police officer who said we no longer have the bobby on the beat who will give somebody a slap on the wrist.

"So I think there is a case to be made under which the elders sit together and reprimand people, trying to get them to change."

...

-more-

Going ... going ... going ... gone?.

Air Jihad?

How the imams terrorized an airliner

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 28, 2006


Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."
A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.

[The Ponderosa: To the best of our knowledge, no black driver ever plowed his car into a top floor of the WTC. ]

The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.[The Ponderosa: Now there's sound thinking. Should do wonders for Amtrak. ] ... According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."

...

-more-

Congrats to the passengers and airline/airport personnel for this act of common sense.

We look forward to an extensive media investigation into the backgrounds of these men of the sword -- er, cloth.

It is now official travel policy of The Ponderosa: All other things being equal, we fly U.S. Air!

Um, what?!

Pelosi 'sad' over Bush's Iraq representation

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday she feels "sad" President Bush blamed insurgent violence on al Qaeda while he dismissed notions Iraq is in a civil war.

"My thoughts on the president's representations are well-known," Pelosi told reporters while meeting with Deputy Italian Minister Francesco Rutelli. "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again."

Astounding that a body that made certain to issue its final -- and horrifyingly flawed -- report in plenty of time to defeat Bush in 2004 could foresee the causes of "insurgent" terror in 2006!

Remember, Bush is the dumb one!

Your next Speaker of the House, folks!

Score one for Compassionate Conservatism?

Success of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats

Medicare Benefit's Cost Beat Estimates

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 26, 2006; Page A01

It sounded simple enough on the campaign trail: Free the government to negotiate lower drug prices and use the savings to plug a big gap in Medicare's new prescription-drug benefit. But as Democrats prepare to take control of Congress, they are struggling to keep that promise without wrecking a program that has proven cheaper and more popular than anyone imagined.

House Democrats have vowed to act quickly after taking power in January to lift a ban on Medicare negotiations with drugmakers, which they hope will save as much as $190 billion over a decade. But House leaders have yet to settle on a strategy and acknowledge that negotiation is, in any case, unlikely to generate sufficient savings to fill the "doughnut hole," the much-criticized gap in coverage that forces millions of seniors to pay 100 percent of drug costs for a few weeks or months each year.

Drug-company lobbyists, Bush administration officials and many congressional Republicans are preparing to block any effort to increase federal control over drug prices, saying the Medicare benefit is working well. They contend that instead of saving money, government negotiations could raise drug prices for all consumers while limiting choices for people on Medicare.

"This is going to be much more of a morass than people think," said Marilyn Moon, director of the health program at the American Institutes for Research and a former trustee of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Negotiating drug prices is "a feel-good kind of answer, but it's not one that is easy to imagine how you put into practice."

The Medicare drug benefit, one of the Bush administration's signature domestic programs, was created in 2003 and took effect in January. It has enrolled 22.5 million seniors, some of whom had no previous drug coverage.

Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied, even though nearly half chose plans with no coverage in the doughnut hole, a gap that opens when a senior's drug costs reach $2,250 and closes when out-of-pocket expenses reach $3,600. By the latest estimates, 3 million to 4 million seniors will hit the doughnut hole this year and pay full price for drugs while also paying drug-plan premiums.

The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month.

...
-more-

It should come as no shock that we've opposed this new entitlement since it was a mere glint in candidate Bush's eye.

But, if ya have ta give away free stuff, this giveaway seems to be fairly effective.

Costs are down and the customers are happy.

The alternative offered by the new majority typically flies in the face of sound economics: Monopsonies are just as bad as monopolies.

Swallow your pride, Nance.

Tinker around the edges, if you must, but reject the impulse to meddle in an area -- the market for ANYTHING -- about which you have no clue.

Charity begins at (a Red State) home

Charitable Explanation (subscription required)

'Tis the season to give. Our mailboxes are filling with appeals from fine organizations and worthy causes, competing for our holiday spirit and tax-deductible dollars. Millions of Americans will answer the call, donating in December as much as a third of the quarter-trillion dollars we give away each year. Per capita, Americans give more in this single month than most nations give all year long.

Before congratulating ourselves too heartily, however, note that charity is not a virtue shared by all. While 85 million American households give away money each year to nonprofit organizations, another 30 million do not. And this distinction goes beyond "formal" giving. Recent survey data reveal that people who fail to donate money to charities are only a third as likely as donors to give money to friends and strangers. Non-donors are half as likely as donors to give blood. They even are less honest: Non-donors are much less likely than donors to return change mistakenly given to them by a cashier. When it comes to charity, we are two nations.

...

Nowhere is the divide in values more on display than in religion, the frontline in our so-called "culture war." And the relationship between religion and charity is nothing short of extraordinary. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey indicates that Americans who weekly attend a house of worship are 25 percentage points more likely to give than people who go to church rarely or never. These religious folks also give nearly four times more dollars per year than secularists, on average, and volunteer more than twice as frequently.

It is not the case that these enormous differences are due simply to religious people giving to their churches. Religious people are more charitable with all sorts of nonreligious causes as well. They are 10 percentage points likelier than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities like the United Way, and 25 points more likely to volunteer for secular groups such as the PTA. Churchgoers were far likelier in 2001 to give to 9/11-related causes. On average, people of faith give more than 50% more money each year to non-church social welfare organizations than secularists do.

A second core value affecting charity shows up in the belief citizens have about the government's role in their lives. Some Americans (about a third) believe the government should do more to reduce income differences between the rich and poor -- largely through higher taxation and social spending. Others (about 40%) do not favor greater forced income redistribution. This is a major difference in worldview -- not just about taxation, but also about the perceived duty of individuals to take personal responsibility for themselves and others. This difference affects people's likelihood of voluntarily giving to charity. The General Social Survey shows that people who oppose government income redistribution donate four times as much money each year as do redistribution supporters. (emphasis ours)

Note that the charity gap is not due to anything the government is actually doing; rather, to what people think the government should be doing -- in other words, nothing more than a political opinion. This fact throws a wrench into the traditional stereotype that conservatives in America are hardhearted while liberals are the compassionate ones. In the words of one common 2004 campaign yard sign in my town, "Bush Must Go! Human need, not corporate greed." However, the General Social Survey indicates that people who opine that government is "spending too little money on welfare" -- not a viewpoint typically associated with George W. Bush's supposedly venal supporters -- are less likely to give food or money to a homeless person than people who oppose greater welfare spending. Regardless of which view on welfare is superior, ask yourself this: Who will personally do more for a poor person today?

...

As you probably noticed, the values predicting private charity in America tend to smile on the political right. Conservatives are twice as likely as liberals to attend a house of worship regularly; conservatives are one third as likely as liberals to say the government should "do more" to reduce income inequality; conservatives also have about 40% more children than liberals. Furthermore, there is a fringe on today's political left that goes beyond simple neglect of charity, and openly condemns it, claiming it lets governments off the hook from having to pay for services. So while there may be nothing inherently charitable about political conservatism, today's conservatives do outperform liberals on most measures of private giving.

...


But an even greater moral test is personal, not political. Left or right, secular or religious, single or married, the cultural forces of giving and non-giving are not destiny for any of us. Private charity is a choice: a choice to express our values in a private and singularly humane way. This is worth remembering as we hold requests for charitable support in our hands this month -- and make the right choice.

Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," published this week by Basic Books.

-more-

Suprised by this revelation? We aren't.

We've long been amused by the Left's definition of "compassion": Compelling others to cough up their income at the point of a gun in order to fund useless -- even deleterious -- government programs.

In the mean time, they strive to tear down and minimize the civic participation of religious institutions that imbue their members with a sense of moral responsibility for the plight of "the least of their brothers".

We give to charities we deem effective in addressing the needs of the poor and victims of public education because it is the right thing to do, not because some self-satisfied "liberal" politician compels us to.

And unlike those "compassionate" libs, we don't sit around congratulating ourselves for our sacrifice.

We do it because it is right and it works, not because we expect any plaudits.

True compassion comes from the heart, not from the legislature.

To brag of personal "compassion" simply because you voted to expropriate the wealth of OTHERS is laughable.

Mannnnnnn ... Professor Brooks is in for a heap of abuse from his "tolerant" and "open-minded" colleagues.

Wal-Mart Rules!

Wal-Mart expands $4 prescription drug sale

BENTONVILLE, Ark., Nov. 16 (UPI) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. began selling its $4 generic prescription program Thursday in 11 more states and added 17 medicines to the program.

With the announcement, the expanded $4 generic prescription program will now be available in an additional 502 stores throughout Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Washington and West Virginia, the discounter said in a news release.

The program kicked off in Florida in September, and is now available in 3,009 pharmacies in 38 states.

The $4 generics program now includes 331 generic prescriptions available for up to a 30-day supply at commonly prescribed dosages. According to rxlist.com, the list also includes 14 of the top 20 prescribed medications in the United States. The list is made up of as many as 143 compounds in 26 therapeutic categories.

-more-

Why does the Left despise Wal-Mart so? Perhaps because Wal-Mart can actually DELIVER what the Econoramus (thanks Gary!) Left cannot: Low cost products -- now including prescription drugs -- quality service and JOBS!

Oh, they're not the jobs the Left respects: hack lawyers, useless professors -- particularly in Economics -- and Hollywood stars. But they are jobs people at the bottom rung -- those the Left proclaims such concern for -- want. Apparently, these trailer-dwellers don't read enough Krugman.

Microsoft was the villain of the 1990's, even as it drove the economy that the Clintons -- neither of whom have a productive bone in their lumpy bodies -- took credit for.

Wal-Mart is the new black-hatted bad guy for those who have no clue as to how our economy works.

Schumer: Sane judges need not apply

Bush renominates judges blocked before Provocative move a signal to Congress as Dems take over

President Bush renominated six previously blocked candidates for federal appeals courts Wednesday, triggering the first real battle with ascendant Democrats since the midterm elections and signaling what could be the start of a fierce two-year struggle over the shape of the federal judiciary.

The move heartened conservatives who worried that Bush would scale back his ambition to move courts to the right and outraged liberals who called it a violation of the spirit of bipartisanship promised since Democrats captured Congress. Both sides saw it as a possible harbinger for the remainder of the Bush presidency, particularly if a Supreme Court vacancy opens.

The decision to send back the six nominees, along with four new candidates for the bench, was a provocative maneuver intended to send a signal that Bush does not plan to cower in the face of an opposition Congress because the Senate almost certainly will not act on them in the lame-duck session that adjourns next month. If Bush wants to keep pushing for these nominations, he will have to submit them again in January, when the Senate reconvenes with Democrats in control.

"We are hopeful that the days of judicial obstruction are behind us," said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore. Noting that a Republican Senate confirmed 15 of former President Bill Clinton's nominees to the federal appeals bench in his last two years, she added: "We are hopeful that President Bush's nominees will receive a fair up or down vote."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said none of the six will be confirmed. "It's a real slap in the face," he said by telephone. "It basically makes you think the talk of bipartisanship is just talk." (emphasis ours)

...

-more-

So, judges who defer to the Constitution and refuse to legislate from the bench are DOA.

Great.

In the run-up to the elections, the GOP made the perfectly reasonable claim that defeating the admittedly flawed Republican majority would empower those who would treat terrorists as they would jaywalkers, rescind the economic policies that helped fuel the current expansion and embrace the same weak-kneed multiculturalism that has been so prominent in emasculating Old Europe.

Unbelievably -- mystifyingly -- the subject of judicial appointments was virtually ignored by the GOP's message makers.

So, we now have the great legal minds Schumer, Leahy and Kennedy in position to thwart their juridical superiors.

Our hope is that, under a Democratic president, the GOP will be similarly obdurate when the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg is appointed.

Yeah ... right.

Happy Thanksgiving from The Ponderosa and ...

... WKRP ...

Back Friday

If you're blessed to be an American, drop to your knees and thank God for that amazing gift.

If you're not an American, drop to your knees and thank God for the gift of America.

Land of the free home of the crappy music

American Music Awards on tap Tuesday

LOS ANGELES - Call it the night of multiple nominations. More than a dozen artists headed into the 2006 American Music Awards on Tuesday with at least two chances to win, including Kanye West, Kelly Clarkson, Eminem, Carrie Underwood and Mary J. Blige.

Songbird Mariah Carey, hip-hoppers the Black Eyed Peas and rockers Red Hot Chili Peppers and Nickelback had even better chances with three nominations each.

Talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel was set to emcee the three-hour ceremony at the Shrine Auditorium, to be televised live on ABC. The show boasted a star-studded lineup of performers, including Beyonce, the Pussycat Dolls, Nelly Furtado, Rascal Flatts, Jamie Foxx and John Mayer. Jay-Z and Gwen Stefani were also set to perform new singles from their forthcoming albums.

...

-more-

Gangsters, slatterns and lame ass "rockers".

First in war, first in peace, last in music.

It's not that there aren't great bands in the U.S., just that they have no place in their own country. Recently, we rocked to Kamelot at the filthy, disgusting Penny Arcade out here in Charlotte, NY, even as inferior local acts played to larger crowds nearby.

Canada may be in the process of succumbing to Eurosclerosis, but at least you can find a place to bang your head most Saturday nights.

We travel regularly to Toronto to see amazing bands who have given up on the U.S. -- hell, even Iron Frigging Maiden who are selling out everywhere else in the world.

We live in a city where Uncle Plum is king. Here, as in most of America, Pussy Rock rules.

It's true: You'll never go broke appealing to bimbos.

We can't pinpoint exactly when it became anathema to actually be able to play your instrument with virtuosity, but it was undoubtedly sometime in the early '90's when the excesses of the hair bands gave way to the self-indulgent sloppiness of the grunge moaners and kvetchers. True rockers were thrown out with the sequined bathwater.

Not that we're complaining. We are after all, conservatives, and thus realize that life is unfair and that Supply responds to Demand. We are oft heard to exclaim "There is no justice in music."

But couldn't there at least be a little more CHOPS flashed in American popular music? Stop whining/bellowing/cursing/ho f**king and put both hands on the fricking fretboard and SHRED!

Kamelot, U.S. and Norway


Gamma Ray, Germany


Angra, Brazil


Edguy, Germany


Iron Maiden, UK


Labyrinth, Italy


Evergrey, Sweden


Heavenly, France


Primal Fear, Germany


Symphony X, U.S. of fricking A.!


Sonata Arctica, Finland

Trying to coin a new word

As many of you know, we are wont to refer to the "economically illiterate".

You know who they are -- folks like Boy Clinton, John Heinz and Paul Krugman -- over-educated fools who've got even more book learnin' than Jethro Bodine but have far less common sense than the Buffoon from Buggtussel.

The folks who believe that marginal tax rates have no effect on the behaviours of the people who make our economy go, that hikes in the minimun wage will be absorbed by employers with no negative effects and that gas prices are determined by a nefarious cabal of oil company execs.

In short, people who have less understanding of how our economy works than the 8-year old kid who opens a lemonade stand in front of his house on the 4th of July and the teenaged bimbo who works the drive thru at Burger King.

It recently occured to us that "economic illiterate" is incorrect. Technically, it probably means "unable to read about economics."

So, we recently endeavoured to kern (an homage to Art Carney) a word that properly encapsulates the inability to understand how a free economy works. After dissecting "illiterate" and "innumerate" we came up with ineconomate.

Now, we're no linguists -- nor are we four men, living all together but all alone.

So, please, suggest a better term for the concept of complete economic ignorance and we will consider it as the Ponderosa's house term for "economic illiteracy"!

Do enough of us get it?

It's a War, Stupid!

Amir Taheri

Until not long ago, Americans made fun of the French for their alleged love of finding solutions before they knew what the problem was. It now seems that the habit has crossed the Atlantic to affect the American political and media elite.

The focus of this French-style quest for "elegant solutions" is Iraq that, so we are told, was the key issue in mid-term elections earlier this month.

The common assumption is that a majority of voters were unhappy about Iraq, and thus voted against President George W Bush's Republican Party. But we are not told why they were unhappy. Nor are we told what alternative policies they voted for, because none was offered.

This double ambiguity has opened the floodgates for all sorts of ideas, some fanciful, others derelict. Peddlers of these ideas project them into the space created for speculation by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by elder statesman James Baker III.

Two such ideas appear to be the talk of the town in Washington.

The first is to cut-and-run, at times presented in a more palatable version as whistle-and-walk-away. Supporters of that idea are not interested in what might happen to Iraq or the Middle East as a whole. They want to settle scores with Bush, even open impeachment proceedings against him. In Britain, the cut-and-run coalition is interested in humiliating Prime Minister Tony Blair rather than finding a more effective policy on Iraq. For most members of the cut-and-run coalition, the toppling of Saddam Hussein was tantamount to a secular version of "The Original Sin" which nothing short of the political destruction of Bush and Blair could expiate.

The trouble is that cut-and-run is easier said than done.

It is always easier to send an army in than bring it out.

In 1968, Richard Nixon, campaigning for the presidency, claimed that he had a "secret plan" to take the American forces out of Vietnam. No one ever found out whether or not such a plan existed. But it took the United States six more years, to get that last helicopter out of Saigon. By then, Nixon, driven out of office by the Watergate scandal, was sulking on the sidelines.

Cut-and-run was easier in Vietnam then than it would be in Iraq.

In Vietnam, the Americans had a negotiating partner in the shape of the Communist regime in Hanoi. They knew who to give the keys to, so to speak. In Iraq, there is no such negotiating partner. Even if Saddam Hussein were brought back, he no longer has the murderous machine he would need to gain power and provide the Americans with cover while they run away. Handing the keys to Al Qaeda would be equally problematic if only because the self-styled Jihadists, although able to kill defenseless civilians,, do not have the clout to cover the American retreat against other enemies the US has in Iraq.

Some may not be interested in such complications. They might want to throw the keys in the midst of the melee, much like a bone to fighting dogs, and let the various armed groups in Iraq fight over it.

But even that is easier said than done. When you run away, you need somewhere to run to on your way home. The US-led coalition has some 160,000 troops in Iraq backed by a vast network of logistics and a string of bases that cannot be dismantled overnight. Even with the expositional abilities of the US military, it took General Tommy Frank almost eight months to build up the force that invaded Iraq in March 2003. Most military analysts agree that it would take at least three times longer to wind down the coalition's military presence in Iraq, provided Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey agree to help.

But why should they when it is obvious that if the Americans run away before new Iraq can stand on its feet , Iraq will either plunge into civil war or fall under a Baath-Al Qaeda regime that would be deadly for all its neighbors?

All in all, therefore, the cut-and-run option and its whistle-and-walk-away variation are non-starters if only because there is no one to whom the US can surrender. And, if there was going to be a regime capable of holding Iraq together, then why not try and make sure it is a friend of the US?

The second a la mode solution circulating in Washington is the "talk- to- the- mullahs" scenario that also comes in different versions.

There is nothing wrong in talking to the mullahs or anyone else for that matter. But the fact is that Tehran today cannot give the US what it needs in Iraq. The most that the mullahs can is to stop making mischief in the Shiite provinces, by curbing Muqtada Al Sadr, their wild card in Iraq. However, the mullahs have no control over either the Saddamite bitter-enders or Al Qaeda terrorists.

Some advocates of the "talk –to-the-mullahs" option hope that the Islamic Republic might send troops to defeat the Saddamites and Al Qaeda once the Americans begin to leave. But imagine a Persian army entering Iraq! Would it be pouring water on fire or adding fuel? One reason why some Iraqi Arab Sunnis, and many of their brethren throughout the Middle East, are not prepared to back the US coalition is their fear that Washington might have a secret plan to hand Iraq over to the mullahs through pro-Iranian Shi'ite politicians in Baghdad.

With the American election over, it may be possible to have a genuine debate about Iraq, starting by a definition of the problem before "elegant solutions" are offered.

Speaking in London last Monday, Blair defined the problem clearly:

"In Iraq, terrorism has changed the nature of the battle. Its purpose is now plain: to provoke civil war. The "violence is not therefore an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists - al-Qaeda with the Sunni insurgents, Iranian backed Shiaa militia - to foment hatred and thus throttle at birth the possibility of non-sectarian democracy. These external elements are, of course, the same elements driving extremism the world over. This is crucial to our understanding of the right strategy to combat it. The majority of Iraqis don't want this extremism - they showed that when they voted for an explicitly non-sectarian Government. But the terrorists are trying to propel them towards it."

What all this means is that the struggle in Iraq is part of the broader war against global terrorism. It is also clear that a majority of Iraqis do not support the various terrorist groups operating there and, thus, it would be treacherous to abandon them before they can defend themselves.

Although numerous terms are used to describe Iraq, only one reflects the reality of the situation: war. The US-led coalition didn't go to Iraq for a picnic. It went there to fight to dismantle one of the most vicious regimes in recent history and to replace it with a regime chosen by the Iraqi peoples. Those objectives have been achieved but are challenged by the elements that Blair talked about.


The message to those in search of "elegant solutions" is simple: this is a war, stupid!

And what are the options in a war?

One can fight to win. One can surrender to the enemy. One can panic and run away.

These are the options in Iraq. So, let the debate begin.



-more-

Do "we" -- and by "we" we mean America as a whole, not the Men of The Ponderosa -- have the stomach to ever again win a war outright?

Imagine you're the president, and you know the right thing to do is to loose the hounds of war on the "insurgents", but that innocents will die in the process.

After 7 years of slander heaped upon you, you can just imagine the headlines in the NY Times: "War Crime: The American Siege of Sadr City".

Pictures of dead children would surely accompany such screeds.

CNN would find a dozen burqa-ed new widows to interview.

Folks, we slaughtered hundreds of thousands of pretty much innocent Japanese and German civilians 65 years ago, and while no one felt good about that, no one was calling for the heads of FDR, Truman and MacArthur.

People understood that life is sometimes necessarily ugly.

People "got" that for Civilization to survive, the U.S. and her allies needed to win.

We are certain our fighting men and women could finish this job forthwith were the P.C. rules of engagement repealed.

Sadly, we see a Disloyal Opposition here at home more focused upon defeating President Bush than in defending our way of life from savages who would probably come for them FIRST!

Today, there are millions in the U.S. that would deliver the president and his men to the Hague in leg irons were the latter to order the actions that would vanquish this vicious but outmatched opponent.

The Death of the West can only occur via suicide, and voters have just empowered the Kevorkians.

Related: Democrats demand CIA detainee documents

We give these a-holes -- er, the terrorists, not the Dems -- Korans, prayer rugs and Islamic-ly correct meals.

They toss their feces at our personnel.

These are the vermin Patrick Leahy worries will have water dumped on their faces as we attempt to glean plans for the next 9/11.

Funny stuff.

Michelle Malkin responds to Olbermoonbat

One of the things we love about Michelle, Ann and Laura: They possess more balls than these effete pantywaists.

We'd take our chances in a foxhole with any of these gals over nancy boy Olbermoonbat and his daft guest.

FTC Chieftesse: Don't do it!

Congress Seen Passing Price-Gouging Law

WASHINGTON Nov 16, 2006 (AP)— The head of the Federal Trade Commission predicted Thursday that Congress would pass a gasoline price-gouging law despite her warnings that the country doesn't need one and it might cause fuel shortages.

FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said she has warned Congress publicly and privately about the dangers of such a law.

"We looked vary carefully but didn't see any new legislation needed to protect consumers," Majoras said at an antitrust conference Thursday. "Will new legislation be passed? I think we will see a price-gouging statute pass, perhaps at the end of this (incoming) Congress."

With gas prices rising to over $3 per gallon this spring, the House passed a bill permitting large fines and jail time for price gougers. The Senate has not acted on it and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the incoming Finance Committee chairman, said Thursday, "There's a lot more that has a higher priority."

Majoras said she understood the public's frustration and concern but said an upcoming FTC report on the price spikes found that consumer demand was up at the time.

"There is a distinction between a market determination you don't like and a market failure," she said.

...

-more-

We, of course, concur with Ms. Majoras vis-a-vis the silliness of such laws, which fly in the face of the inescapable, immutable laws of Price, Supply and Demand.

Did these people sleep through the '70's?

Actually, if they were waiting in line for gas, they probably did!

Americans will be better served if the temporary majority eschews the silliness of Paul Krugman in favor of the wisdom of Milton Friedman.

Markets work.

Bureaucracies do not.

Professor Friedman, RIP

Nobel winner Milton Friedman dies at 94

SAN FRANCISCO -- Milton Friedman, a brilliant champion of free-market economics and individual freedom who almost single-handedly altered the boundaries of public debate on an array of national issues, died today in San Francisco. He was 94.

The circumstances of his death were not immediately available.

"America has lost a true visionary and advocate for human freedom," said Gordon St. Angelo, president and CEO of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.

"Milton's passion for freedom and liberty has influenced more lives than he ever could possibly know. His writings and ideas have transformed the minds of U.S. presidents, world leaders, entrepreneurs and freshmen economic majors alike."

Friedman was considered a leading economic thinker of the 20th century. His many prescriptions for policy, notably on managing the nation's money supply and curbing the welfare state, influenced presidents and presidential candidates dating back to the 1960s. His sweeping, pro-capitalist ideas earned him legions of followers domestically and overseas, while also sparking dissent and controversy.

Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976 for a body of "original and weighty work," including his money supply research, which jurors said had influenced fellow scholars as well as the U.S. Federal Reserve and the central banks of other nations.

Friedman's influence extended far beyond the ivory tower. He became an economist-celebrity, promoting his passionate beliefs in books, magazines and television appearances. With confidence and a professor's logic, he sought to demolish the conventional wisdom after World War II that government must play a sweeping role in people's lives.

Taxes, he said, should be cut and simplified. Society benefits when personal choice reigns supreme.

"My world will not be the same," said former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in a statement today. "He had been a fixture in my life both professionally and personally for half a century."

Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute, commented today on Friedman's life and legacy: "Here's a guy who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in monetary theory and he was a great Chicagoan, a great empiricist and theoretician of economics. But ultimately, what Milton believed in was human liberty and he took great joy in trying to promote that concept.... Milton would say, 'Maybe I did well and maybe I led the battle, but nobody ever said we were going to win this thing at any point in time. Eternal vigilance is required and there have to be people who step up to the plate, who believe in liberty and who are willing to fight for it.' "

Friedman had an uncanny ability to discern issues before most others, framing political battles decades before they flared publicly.

In the 1960s, he argued that personal retirement accounts made more sense than a mandatory system of Social Security, helping set the stage for the recent national debate. Similarly, he contended that parents should be allowed to choose what schools their children attend, laying the foundation for ongoing arguments about school choice.

"Why do America's universities have a greater reputation around the world than its public schools?" he once asked aloud. "You have choice. That makes all the difference in the world."

...

-more-

America -- the World -- has lost one of its best minds.

Friedman, like Hayek before him, influenced generations of policymakers -- Reagan and Thatcher spring to mind -- who veered their automobiles of state away from the toll road to serfdom.

His Free to Choose was integral in our taking up permanent residence in the laissez-faire camp.

Friedman cannot properly be called a "conservative". Rather, he espoused the ideals of "classical liberalism" first enunciated by Locke, Smith and Bastiat.

Here's hoping that this generation can complete his impressive legacy by codifying Friedman's ideas on personal retirement accounts and school choice.

Thank you and Godspeed, Professor Friedman.

Lipless Wonder Schumer: Anti-semites vote GOP

Chuck Schumer: Anti-Semites Are Republican [John Podhoretz]

On Bill Maher's Real Time: "There are some, you know there are some anti-Semites in this country, but most of them would vote Republican anyway." You can watch it here.


Yeah, because, you know, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Keith Ellison, Michael Moore and other leading lights of American anti-Semitism are Republicans.

Not to mention surveys demonstrating without question that Democrats are more likely to have unsympathetic views of Israel than Republicans. (No, I'm not saying you can't be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic. But it's a signpost.)

This was Chuck Schumer attempting to be jocular. Hardy-har-har.

Very peculiar inasmuch as the narrative heretofore was that we are all in thrall to some Zionist cabal -- damn, how they love that word!.

You Moonbats need to make up what's left of your minds: Are we puppets of Israel or haters of Her?

For our own part, we believe ourselves to be more committed to the survival of Israel than our "friends" in the other party, even the Jewish ones.

Madman blasts two remaining manly nations

Australia and US 'Bonnie and Clyde' of global warming: Gore

Former United States vice-president Al Gore described the US and Australia as the "Bonnie and Clyde" of the global climate crisis for failing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
Gore, now an environmental activist, likened the two countries to the notorious American bank robbers during a visit to Australia to promote his film on global warming -- "An inconvenient truth".

The Kyoto Protocol aims to restrict the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, and the US and Australia are the only two developed countries that haven't ratified the pact.

"I sincerely believe if Australia joined the rest of the world community in the Kyoto process, then the pressure on (US President George W.) Bush would be enormous, just enormous," Gore told reporters in Sydney.

He said he was grateful Australian Prime Minister John Howard had been to see his film, even though Howard said it smacked of a "peeved politician" sniping at the Bush administration.

Gore, who narrowly lost the race for the presidency to Bush in 2000 [The Ponderosa: Thank you Allah for the functionally illiterate! ], said he would not expect Howard to "immediately praise it to the skies, given the history of his opposition to what I have been saying".

"But I appreciate him seeing it. I like him, I really do, even if he doesn't like my movie. If some of the information in it got through, I'm very happy about that."

...

-more-

The Ponderosa: Al Gore is the Mr. Martini of American politics

Take your meds, Albert.

Olmert praises Bush, Disloyal Opposition mewls

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush, speaking after a meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, called Monday for the world to unite in isolating Iran until it "gives up its nuclear ambitions." In addition, Olmert publicly praised the American operation in Iraq, which he said brought stability to the Middle East.

Politicians from the Democratic Party said they wanted to speak to Olmert about his comments on the Iraq war before responding publicly, but said they were uncomfortable with the comments. If Olmert planned his remarks and intended them to come out as they did, a Democratic official said, then they are not acceptable and can be seen as an attempt to influence the American political dispute.

...

-more-

Yeah, this Olmert guy, what the Hell does he know? ... Fricking neocon! Prob'ly a Jew!

Gonna be a long two years.

About that Michael Moore "letter" to real Americans ...

Who gives a rat's ass?

Who the Hell is Michael Moore? Some corpulent, 3rd rate propagandist. Bad American, bad groomer, shitty filmmaker.

Conservatives don't need comforting from an intellectual lightweight -- nor, for that matter, from intellectual giants, for our happiness and success do not depend on who wins elections.

We thrive regardless.

Whereas Moore profits from the blood of others and by tearing down America, we thrive by creating GDP.

Did Moore plagiarize the list from an Internet loon at DU? Inasmuch as Leftists have no regard for property rights, intellectual or otherwise, we don't give a damn.

Hey, Mikey, WE will protect YOU. Under an Islamic Republic of America YOU and your nihilist pals would be the first to go, even given the Jihadists' revulsion to pork.

Fret not, though, for the time being, at least, the grown ups are still on the case.

Flashback: Newt's "honeymoon"

Oh, then there was Newsweek's cover that had Newt as the Grinch.

We anticipate similar treatment of the presumptive Speaker in waiting.

Who are we kidding, she'll probably be portrayed as Bambi!

Damn "corporate media" ...

Update: That Grinch cover


Special thanks to Freeper lowbridge!

Related: WaPo gives socialist, terrorist-coddling Botox gal the sweet ol' granny treatment.

Architect of a miracle honored

Brooks, Roy lead Hockey Hall of Fame induction class

Former NHL player Tom Laidlaw said that he disliked Herb Brooks when he played for him. But when Laidlaw didn't play for him anymore, he realized "Herb probably did as much to make me a better player than anyone had."
"Some of the things he brought to the NHL about conditioning and offense were considered strange, or at least different," said Laidlaw, who played for Brooks on the New York Rangers. "Now everyone does them. He was years ahead of the game."

Although the late Brooks is most remembered for coaching the U.S. team to a gold medal at the 1980 Olympics in Lake Placid, it will also be his unique personality and progressive, colorful coaching style that will be celebrated tonight when he is inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in the Builder's Category.

Brooks is being inducted Monday night in Toronto along with goaltender Patrick Roy and left wing Dick Duff in the player's category and Calgary Flames owner Harley Hotchkiss in the builder's category.

...

Brooks, who was killed in a 2003 car accident, coached the Rangers, New Jersey Devils, Minnesota North Stars and Pittsburgh Penguins during his NHL career. He was known as a complicated man and a taskmaster, particularly when he coached the U.S. Olympic team.

He often motivated his players with memorable quotes, which became known to players as "Herbisms".

"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone," he often said.

Brooks, cut as a player from the 1960 U.S. team, told players at Lake Placid in 1980 that it was their "destiny" to beat the Soviets.

Explaining his personality, Brooks once explained that when people ask him what time it is, he always has to tell them "how to build a watch."



-more-

Anyone alive and cognizant in 1980 remembers the depressing state of affairs in America at that time. Vietnam, Watergate and stagflation had sapped our national confidence.

The USSR was on the march, taking Afghanistan and making inroa