Snark of the Day: Tom Maguire

Found this while trolling at “Just One Minute”

Speaking of scary, let’s just call the Senator from Illinois “He Who Must Not Be Middle-Named”.

(ROFL) IN case you don’t know the reference is to Harry Potter’s nemesis.

It’s the snark of the day.

ABC’s Brian Ross:

With the corruption trial of one of Sen. Barack Obama’s longtime friends and supporters set to begin Monday in Chicago, Ill., reform watchdogs say it will reveal the “cesspool” of Illinois politics in which Obama came of age and has said little about in his campaign for president.

“We have a sick political culture,” said Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, “and that’s the environment that Barack Obama came from.”

Stewart says he does not understand why Obama has lectured others about corruption in Washington and Kenya but “been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians.”

There was no immediate comment from the Obama campaign.

Of COURSE there was no comment, and of COURSe he won’t “dis” the people that brought him to the dance.  As I’ve been saying about Obama and Clinton all along, we’re talking about two Chicago pols. Corruption is endemic to the breed.

McGehee:

Back in the days before the Civil War (according to James Michener), people emigrating to Texas would sometimes paint the letters “GTT” on their wagons: “Gone to Texas.”

Heh. And here, I thought it was because they wanted their neighbors to think they were driving a sports wagon.

Ya learn somethin’ new….

Which is to say, me.

A few of the systems here at Casa de Bit have run out of Norton subscription. Our systems involve removing Norton outright and going with a complete re installation, because of the way the licensing works. So, I’ve gotta deal with that. Whatever else can be said about the process, it is NEVER pain free.

I have backup routines to re-map and re-balance. The desktops (Five of them at the moment, if you don’t count the LINUX boxes) all dump nightly to the backup server, which has some fairly sizable disks in it. The desktops all have 20gb drives, except for Panther, my big desk which has a 30gb disk. Once they all backup to the server, the server then tape backups itself. This usually works well, but I’ve been seeing soem timing issues, where the anti-virus scans at the desktop level tends to slow the backup processes down to a crawl.  And the auto-updates from Microsoft, too, come to think of it; when the systems reboot following an update, the whole thing gets screwy.

Donna has finally decided to use Thunderbird, after spending a half hour wading through spam sucked up greedily by Outlook. Been telling her for years outlook was crap. NOW, she listens. So, I’ve gotta make arrangements for that, now, too.

And I have a power supply to replace on Bear, one of the two file and print servers I have online.  The one that’s in there is getting pretty dust loaded… it’s been running non-stop for six years, give or take.  I may be able to clean it up for re-use, but the fastest way to deal with this stuff is to put the shelf spare online and clean the old one out and revamp it for future use at leisure. Power supplies are cheap, anymore.

I may even have time to deal with a few outstanding issues on the Blog.

Update: As expected, Panther wigged out when I told it to uninstall Norton. It chugged on the thing for an hour and then proceeded to calmly inform me that my INSTALL had failed, it reinstalled all the stuff it spent an hour deleting, and then it advised me that it wanted to have a chat with the folks back and Symantec.. Well, the beep with that.

I killed all the Symantec processes manually, hacked the registry free of all vestiges of Norton, and Symantec, rebooted, and then blew up all the files under those titles and uses. I likely didn’t get all the files, but I was pretty resigned to the automatic process not getting them all, anyway.

I’ve loaded PCTOOLS AV for now. It may not be the best, but it’s free, and it uninstalls itself when I ask it to.

Add-on. Now, I have to go see what’s wrong with Mom’s installation of VISTA. Other than it being Vista, I mean.

First, the premise, at OTB:

America’s top military leader is warning about rapid withdrawal from Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs chairman has a word of warning to Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: A rapid of withdrawal from Iraq would lead to a “chaotic situation” and would “turnaround the gains we have achieved, and struggled to achieve, and turn them around overnight.

Admiral Mullen’s comments came in a response to a question about what the Joint Chiefs are doing to prepare for a new president, given that two of the candidates have called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. “We need to be prepared across the board for what a new president will bring,” Mullen said. “I do worry about a rapid withdrawal. . . [that would] turn around the gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight.” Asked to define a “rapid withdrawal,” Mullen said, “a withdrawal that would be so fast that it would leave us in a chaotic situation and the gains we have achieved would be lost.”

That said, Mullen added: “When a new president comes in, I will get my orders and I will carry them out.”

Obviously.

James writes… correctly, that none of the Democrats wants to get tagged with having lost a war.  It’s a point I’ve made often enough.

Knapp complains:

What gains have we made there with our troop presence, exactly? I’ve been digging into this for a couple of weeks now, and as near as I can tell, the recent declines in violence have been less attributable to increased troops in Iraq and more attributable to:

1) al-Sadr agreeing to a ceasefire for his personal forces and

2) the U.S. bribing Sunni tribesmen into not fighting.

But even with more troops, the Sadr ceasefire, and rampant bribery the “Sunni Awakening”, violence is still at the same levels it was in 2005. In other words, Iraq is still pretty much in chaos right now.

Yeah, right. Of course he hasn’t noticed our successes because the press is refusing to report such, as I pointed out yesterday.

Bithead,I didn’t say that violence hasn’t died down, and it’s nice to see that the Iraqi Parliament might actually complete the laws they were supposed to have passed in 2004.

And why is that problematic, particularly? I mean, have you seen the glacial pce of our own Congress of late? why shuld we expect better performance out of a band of people who are arguably n a more contentious situation than we here in the US are? The point I’m making is that demands of quick action on the part of such a group is likely not realistic.

What I am saying is that violence is still at 2005 levels, which was hardly a time of peace and prosperity in Iraq.

I’m also saying that that the bulk of that decrease in violence doesn’t actually appear to be directly attributable to our increase in forces.

Knapp also complains to another commenter:

…if security gains in Iraq aren’t due to increased levels of U.S. troops, then the argument that we need to maintain troop levels to keep violence down isn’t sustainable.

If, as I suspect, that the largest reason for the decline in violence in Iraq is due to al-Sadr’s ceasefire, then it doesn’t appear that U.S. forces are really needed that much at all.

You’re not suprisingly missing it, Alex…
Even assuming for the moment, that the reduction in violence is the fianl arbiter of success or failure over the short term… AND even assuming it’s a valid arbiter at ALL… AND assuming that our troops are not responsible for the reductions now seen… with all that assumption going on… a stretch to begin with… what positive link do you have to prove that reducing our troop levels there isn’t going to increase the violence? I mean, look, even if we assume that the troop levels didn’t calm things there, what’s to say they won’t ignite once we leave?

The point is you seem to be leaping over a number of unanswered questions, to a pre-determined and politically correct (Democrat approved) course of action.

Of course, Alex will be annoyed by such a charge. But perhaps he can take note that the charge seems to fit so often.

Of course, there’s one additional point to be made here that Alex seems to miss;

The possibility that Sadr’s ‘cease fire” is in place because he can’t get past the US troops without diminishing his own ranks below sustainability.

Mrs. Clinton bomb, bombs, Hotline:

It was, in this reporter’s opinion, the most interesting moment in today’s Clinton campaign phoner with reporters. Responding to the release of HRC’s new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate’s John Dickerson asked the obvious question:

“What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary‘s career where she’s been tested by crisis?” he said.

As Bit might say, hoisted on her own petard. 

Oz, home of real men. 

The whimps at VT and NIU should have done so well. 

Dead Man Ruling:

HAVANA (Reuters) – Fidel Castro may have retired as Cuban president last week after 49 years in power, but he is still calling some shots.

Castro said in an article published on Friday that it was his idea to promote two three-star generals to the country’s top leadership under his younger brother and successor as president, Raul Castro.

The second greediest woman in the world?

[wp_youtube]FzZWqYWhdQw[/wp_youtube]

Charlie Rose: An hour with William F. Buckley, Jr.:

[wp_youtube]9Har3ByGiCI[/wp_youtube]

Enjoy.

Mrs. Clinton has a new campaign ad, or just an old one updated. 

Video:

[wp_youtube]M70emIFxETs[/wp_youtube]

Hat tip:  Allah Pundit, Hot Air.

We really do not want a weak and hysterical person like Mrs. Clinton to be one the one to pick up the phone.    We don’t want a deluded person who only pretends to be able to lead.  We want the real deal.   Erick, Red State.

At three AM all we can expect from Mrs. Clinton is to be throwing hissy fits and ash trays.  We need a leader as president.  Mrs. Clinton does not remotely qualify.

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush said Thursday the country is not recession-bound and, despite expressing concern about slowing economic growth, rejected for now any additional stimulus efforts. “We acted robustly,” he said.

“We’ll see the effects of this pro-growth package,” Bush told reporters at a White House news conference, acknowledging that some lawmakers already are talking about a second stimulus package. “Why don’t we let stimulus package 1, which seemed like a good idea at the time, have a chance to kick in?”

Bush’s view of the economy was decidedly rosier than that of many economists, who say the country is nearing recession territory or may already be there. “I’m concerned about the economy,” he said. “I don’t think we’re headed to recession. But no question, we’re in a slowdown.”

Does “many economists” include such people as Paul Krugman, as an example? (Snort!)

Let’s be honest enough to say that most of the chatter about recession, is being driven by Democrat party need for an issue to run on, since Iraq, given the success of the US there,  has lost it’s lustre as an issue to attack the Republicans with. Think of it this way… assuming a Democrat president, and under exactly the same economic condtions, would we be hearing the Democrats screaming about the supposedly oncoming resession?

You know better, right?

“Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field,”

So complains Hillary Clinton.

Only problem of course is that everything being equal as she claims to prefer, would create a situation where Hillary Clinton is not a candidate for President, not a senator, and in fact, is in jail.

Words, mere words, Barack Obama’s stock in trade.   Obama has been campaigning in Ohio trashing NAFTA, whiile his campaign tells the Canadian government to ignore Obama’s words, CTV News(CA):

Allegations of double talk on NAFTA from the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday.

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Barack Obama’s campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

Jim Geraghty, National Review,  scores this one for the Canucks:

I realize Obama’s campaign can still claim that one of his advisers went rogue in contacting the Canadians about his NAFTA rhetoric, but to me, this is game, set and match to CTV.

So is Obama feeding a line to the people of Ohio or to the Candians?   So such for improving our world standing.

Hat tip:  Ed Morrissey, Hot Air.   Byran who?

Addendum: (Bit)

Given that both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama supported NAFTA in the recent past, there’s only one reason we’re talking about NAFTA now…

Unions.

Their stated objection is that jobs are being lost in Ohio due to NAFTA. In reality, unemployment is down overall in Ohio and elsewhere because of NAFTA. Did you get that part? Read it again, until it sinks in.
The only damage done by NAFTA is on UNION jobs, and since they make up a small percentage indeed of the total workforce, even in the heavily unionised rust-belt.. you get the idea. . Which of course means that the guaranteed jobs for Union officials on the backs of the workers, are no longer guaranteed. You can imagine, perhaps how it is that they oppose NAFTA, inspite of the success it has been. And the Democrats, Obama and Clinton are fighting over Union votes, just now.

But face it, folks…Unions are why we now HAVE a ‘rust belt’.

The facts, run in direct opposition to the  leftist pap being offered.

As usual.

Well, we’re not sure, but Pakistan is saying Adam Gadahn is Tango Uniform, and Rusty Shakleford has the details.

I figure we’ve done him a favor… he’s meeting with Allah, now. It’s our duty to see as many as want to attack the US make the trip as quickly as possible.

The more the US wins in IRaq, the less the news covers it. That’s long been the supposition, and now Rich Noyes at NewsBusters confirms it, saying in part…

…the President’s surge strategy is well on its way to succeeding. The Iraqi parliament has passed several laws meeting required political reconciliation benchmarks. Attacks in Baghdad have fallen up to 80 percent in the past twelve months, Reuters reported February 16. Deaths among Iraqi military forces and civilians have dropped by more than two-thirds, from more than 2,000 per month in early 2007 to fewer than 600 per month since November.

And U.S. military deaths have also declined, falling from 126 in May 2007 to 40 in January 2008 and just 29 so far in February, with two days left in the month. Yet this good news seems to have diminished the media elite’s interest in broadcasting any news from Iraq.

He backs this with facts figures and charts. The object of this lack is clear they’re supporting Democrats:

 This is not neutral news judgment, but a great favor to anti-surge Democrats, since TV’s lack of interest in Iraq spares them the chore of defending their now-discredited opposition to the surge. Does anyone think the media would have let John McCain off the hook had the surge failed as spectacularly as it has succeeded?

Heh. Just so.

Little Green Footballs passes along an Investor’s Business Daily comment about investing in “Muslim Friendly Funds”:

 Shariah-compliant finance involves investments and other transactions that have been structured to conform with the orthodox teachings of Islamic law.

That means they can’t charge or earn interest – the cornerstone of our credit-driven economy. Nor can they take any stake in haram, or forbidden, industries, including meat and beverage producers (if they process any pork or alcohol); entertainment; gaming; and interest-based financing.

Wall Street is jumping into this hot new market oblivious to the risks not just to the bottom line, but to national security. It knows little about Shariah law and is turning to consultants to create “ethical” products to sell.

Lost in the hype over these Muslim-friendly funds is that they must “purify” their returns by transferring at least 3% into Islamic charities, many of which funnel funds to terrorists. So the Street may unwittingly be helping the evildoers launder blood money.

Shariah law obligates that a sizable portion of zakat, or giving – one of the pillars of Islam – go to support jihad. So many of the purification donations generated from Shariah finance could wind up in the hands of our enemy.

“Could”? Hell, I’d call that a lead pipe cinch.

Wall Street also knows little about who’s advising these funds. Each has to hire Muslim scholars to bless the investments.

One such scholar is Yusuf Qaradawi, a member of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, which works for the establishment of a global caliphate, and an open supporter of suicide bombings. Another is Muhammad Usmani, a radical Pakistani cleric who ran a madrassa that trained thousands of Taliban, according to the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

Usmani sits on the Shariah supervisory board of the Dow Jones Islamic Index Fund, which is run by the North American Islamic Trust – a Saudi-tied alleged front for the Muslim Brotherhood that holds title to some of the most radical mosques in America.

The article makes the point that this Dow Jones Islamic fund, should be re-examined by DJ’s new owner… Fox. I tend to agree.

It’s interesting; Day before yesterday, I complained that one thing that had always turned me off about Buckley is he treated flatly disrespectable people with respect anyway,  to the detriment of the truth. I said the same at Q&O, yesterday.

I don’t get Rush Limbaugh’s show, anymore, because the building I work in prevents it… but I see on his site today he’s addressed that issue, too. You should read this before it goes away.

But one passage that made me giggle a bit was this:

 Another little passage from Mr. Sloane and his Katie Couric blog post: “The conservative movement in this country is badly in need of somebody who can make a point without demeaning and demonizing liberals and moderates.” I think what liberals need is somebody who can just make a point.  Instead, they give us feel-good platitudes; they avoid talking specifics; they try to deny that they’re liberals; they mask and camouflage who they are.  If they’d quit trying to turn the country into another Cuba, we would stop criticizing them!  We are talking here about the traditions and institutions that have made the country great that are under assault by the American left.  Why should we sit around and let that happen so that we can be called civil and mild-mannered?  By the way, since when did liberals start making points without demeaning and demonizing people?  Robert Bork anyone?  Do you want me to start listing the names liberal Democrats have sought to destroy, not just defeat?  Because we can do it.  If you want to start discussing who started all this, I’ll be glad to get into that discussion with you, too.

Shorter Limbaugh: The truth is sometimes demeaning. Sorry if you don’t like the truth, liberals.

Like calling Obama by his full name, as an example..

“60 Minutes” disdain for the Republican Party brought you embarrassment when you ran a bogus and fraudulent story in the fall of 2004 about President Bush and his National Guard record, and your organization ultimately admitted to not having followed “basic journalistic principles”. I fear that unless you are able to provide the hard evidence requested, it is apparent that 60 Minutes did not learn anything from that embarrassing event in your history.

Mike Hubbard, Alabama Republican Party, via Gateway Pundit.

Funny, both Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are gone, yet CBS is still inventing, rather than reporting, news.