I have been gone the past few days on a birthday jaunt, squired into another state by my beauteous fiance. She ensconced me into a pricey suite at the 8,000 foot level in Nevada, at The Ridge, where she also acquired for me a 90-minute deep tissue massage and various other birthday “gifts.” We enjoyed two indoor and outdoor hot tubs on our own floor, with a generous and breath-taking view of the Carson Valley some 5,000 feet below (see above). She took me to a teppan-yaki restaurant where the chefs slice, dice, and create massive fireballs at your table.

It was simply overwhelming. I am so in debt to her kindness.

In the meantime, of course, politics occurred unassailed by the BZ. Please forgive my absence.

It is apparent that Lynne Cheney managed to take apart the CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer, he of the white and clearly senior beard and glasses, following his attempt to back-door her when the point of the interview was to review her children’s book. Remarkably, however, Wolf managed to immediately detour the interview from her book to her husband to the Bush Regime and Iraq.

Perhaps a lesser woman would have melted; Dr. Cheney, instead, took Blitzer’s Insurgent Propaganda and managed to ram that large pike directly into his own tight heterosexual rectum:

WB: Democrats are now complaining bitterly in this Virginia race. George Allen using novels, novels that Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger, has written, in which there are sexual references. And they’re making a big deal out of this. I want you to listen to what Jim Webb said today in responding to this very sharp attack from George Allen.
LC: Now do you promise, Wolf, that we’re going to talk about my book?
WB: I do promise.
LC: Because this seems to me a mighty long trip around the merry-go-round
WB: I want you to respond. This is in the news today, and your name has come up, so that’s why we’re talking about it. But listen to this:
James Webb: There’s nothing that’s been in any of my novels that in my view, hasn’t been either illuminating the surroundings, or defining a character, or moving a plot. I’m a serious writer. I mean, we can go and read Lynne Cheney’s lesbian love scenes if you want to, you know, get graphic on stuff.
LC: You know, Jim Webb is full of baloney. I have never written anything sexually explicit. His novels are full of sexually explicit references to incest, sexually explicit references…well, you know, I just don’t want my grandchildren to turn on the television set. This morning, Imus was reading from the novels, and it’s triple X rated.
WB: Here’s what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional Senatorial Campaign Committee. Lynne Cheney’s book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne, wrote a book called Sisters, which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels, and attempted rapes. In 1988, Lynne Cheney wrote about a Republican Vice President who dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress. Is that true?
LC: Nothing explicit. And actually, that is full of lies. It’s not…it’s just absolutely not true.
WB: But you did write a book entitled Sisters.
LC: I did write a book entitled Sisters. This description…
WB: And it did have lesbian characters.
LC: No, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I’ll stand on that.
WB: There is nothing in there about rapes and brothels?
LC: Wolf, Wolf, could we talk about a children’s book for a minute?
WB: We can talk about the children’s book. But I just wanted to…
LC: I think our segment is like 15 minutes long, and we’ve now done ten minutes, so…
WB: I just wanted to clarify what’s in the news today, give you a…
LC: Sex, lies and distortion. That’s what it is.
WB: This is an opportunity for you to explain on these sensitive issues.
LC: Wolf, I have nothing to explain. Jim Webb has a lot to explain.

Lynne Cheney started right off the bat and so did Wolf:

LC: You made a point last night of a man who had a bookstore in London, where radical Islamists gathered, who was in Afghanistan when the Taliban were there, who went to Pakistan. I think that you might be a little careful before you declare this as a person with clean hands.
WB: You’re referring to the CNN Broken Government special…
LC: I certainly am.
WB: This was the one that John King reported on last night.
LC: You know, right there, right there, Wolf. Broken Government. Now what kind of stance is that? Here we are, we’re a country where we have been mightily challenged over the past six years. We’ve been through 9/11. We’ve been through Katrina. The President and the Vice President inherited a recession. We’re a country where the economy is healthy. That’s not broken. This government has acted very well. We’ve had tax cuts that are responsible for our healthy economy. We’re a country that was attacked five years ago. We haven’t been attacked since. What this government has done is effective. That’s not broken government. So you know, I shouldn’t let media bias surprise me, but I worked at CNN once. I watched the program last night…
WB: You were a co-host of Crossfire.
LC: …and I was troubled.
WB: All right. Well, that was probably the purpose, to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues, because there are a lot of conservatives…
LC: All right, all right, Wolf. I’m here to talk about my book. But if you want to talk about distortion…
WB: We’ll talk about your book.
LC: Right. But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?
WB: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?
LC: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?
WB: With all due respect, with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.
LC: Oh, Wolf…
WB: This is reporting the news, which is what we do. We’re not partisan…
LC: Where did you get the film?
WB: We got the film…look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed, this is an issue that we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that. And I think, and I think, of your…
LC: Well, I think it’s shocking.
WB: If you’re a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn’t so good.
LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?

And not being a blogger or a radio host, she didn’t press Wolf Blitzer when she should have:

WHERE DID YOU GET THE TAPE, WOLF?

WHERE DID YOU GET THE TAPE, WOLF?

WHERE DID YOU GET THE TAPE, WOLF?

He never answered.

And that should bespeak volumes.

A “little innocent woman” took his ass apart.

Wolf Blitzer wasn’t even Man enough to say that “we got the film from the terrorists.” LC has more balls than most all the collected men on the Democrats in the House.

BZ

I went to go see the film “Flags of our Fathers” today and found myself deeply moved. Some persons have quantified this film as “anti-American.” I would completely disagree with that conclusion. I found it refreshingly realistic.

Clint Eastwood, still a major, major force in filmdom, directed the cinematic interpretation of the 2000 James Bradley book of the same name. In interviews the 76-year-old Eastwood has said:

As a young man I started out in a lot of action movies, but now I have reached that stage of life where I just felt it is time to address a lot of different things that are more important to me than fantasy characters.”

“It is important to realize that war is a futile exercise at best. It doesn’t speak so well for mankind that we keep on having wars, but we have had wars since the beginning of mankind. I don’t have the answer.”

And keep on having wars shall we do. Despite this, Eastwood has created an emotional, jarring, realistic and factual film about a different time, a different age, a different generation whose power brokers, in my opinion, did the right things for the right reasons. That is to say, “considering the alternatives.”

The film focuses on three of the raisers of the second flag over Iwo Jima: Ira Hayes, Rene Gagnon and John “Doc” Bradley (father of the author of the book). Photographer Joe Rosenthal happened to be in the right place at the right time in order to snap “the” photo of World War II.

The movie, more than the book, attempts to make something of the propaganda war effort behind taking these three men back from the Japanese theatre and placing them smack dab into a massive war bond effort — an effort to raise more money from the civlian populace to produce more bombs, bullets, ships and aircraft for the war.

But this, in truth, should come as no shock to anyone familiar with history; the Germans were Masters of Propaganda (Joseph Goebbels sound familiar?) as were the Russians and certainly every country these days.

In fact, Goebbels had the title of Reichsminister for Propaganda and National Enlightenment. He wrote of his Principles of Propaganda:

1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.
b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.
c. It must oversee other agencies’ activities which have propaganda consequences

3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

4. Propaganda must affect the enemy’s policy and action.
a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence
b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions
c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself
d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy’s prestige or lends support to the propagandist’s own objective.

11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.
b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment
c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations
d. They must be boomerang-proof

15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat
b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated
b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

In America this was nothing new; following their successful completion of a 25-mission series, the crew of the Memphis Belle found themselves likewise returned to the US to make a public tour of the nation and a 1944 documentary. The US needed conspicuous heroes and the crew exemplified heroism.

The movie was effective and factual; for those unaware of the effort behind the effort and the personal toll that war takes, it will be relevatory. For me, it was decent storytelling and wonderful cinematography — the producers being not only Clint Eastwood but Steven Spielberg as well — many of the beach and land scenes reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan.

Despite this, I do not feel Eastwood’s effort is an anti-American film.

It is simply a story that can be told and is being told — but something that should come as no shock to those familiar with history.

In war, there is always a toll. War is Hell. Make no mistake. But I still feel that, in the overall context, we did what we needed to do, in WWII, because we needed to do it when we needed to do it. And that includes the dropping of two atomic bombs. Truman made the right decision. Sacrifice two cities in Japan, or commit hundreds and hundreds of thousands of American and allied troops to death by making a beachhead and air assault on the nation of Japan.

In retrospect, having years and years to think of alternatives I conclude: there was no alternative. And no right thinking American can believe there was any alternative. Without that sole decision I submit we’d be speaking German or Japanese to this day.

Easy Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

BZ

P.S.
We would do well to read Goebbels. Our enemies certainly are.

Lucky that Islam, the religion of peace and, moreover, understanding, has decided that women who are raped absent a hajib (see immediate left) are asking this act to be committed upon them. From The Bangkok Post:

Al-Hilali likened unveiled women to “uncovered meat” in a fasting month sermon in Arabic to 500 worshippers at Sydney’s biggest mosque.

“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem,” he said.

Al-Hilali told the congregation he leads that a woman who stayed home and was veiled would be safe from sexual assault. “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hajib (veil), no problem would have occurred.”

This comment has become an issue because a number of teenage Australian girls were subjected to hours of sexual degradation during a spate of gang rapes in Sydney that occurred between 1998 and 2002. The suspects in these assaults framed their rationale in ethnic terms, the young victims being informed that they were “sluts” and “Aussie pigs” while they were being hunted down and raped.

As a result of the above comments by Al-Hilali, Australians and Prime Minister John Howard have reacted strongly:

“They are appalling and reprehensible comments,” Prime Minister John Howard said. “The idea that women are to blame for rapes is preposterous.”

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward accused Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali of inciting sexual assault by excusing the perpetrators while blaming the victims. She said the Egyptian-born Mufti of Australia should be deported. “It’s time we stopped just saying he should apologise,” Goward said of the leader of Australia’s 350,000 Muslims. “I think it’s time he left.”

From FrontPage magazine:

In Australia’s New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf.

And earlier this year Australians were outraged when Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed gave a lecture in Sydney where he informed his audience that rape victims had no one to blame but themselves. Women, he said, who wore skimpy clothing, invited men to rape them.

But these ideas didn’t begin in Australia.

Fjordman, in his “Blog about Islam, Scandanavian Affairs and Global Politics writes:

Numbers released in January 2005 indicate a sharp rise in the number of rape charges in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city:

Alarmed at last week’s police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte told in a recent interview that in Holland, you can now see examples of young, unveiled Moroccan women with a so-called “smiley”. It means that the girl gets one side of her face cut up from mouth to ear, serving as a warning to other Muslim girls who should refuse to wear the veil. In the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France, 77 per cent of the veiled women carry veils reportedly because of fear of being harassed or molested by Islamic moral patrols.

Clearly, Muslims seem to perceive that many Western Cultures dress and portray themselves precisely as the above illustration to the left — making them, naturally, subject to whatever resulting “justice” and “incidents” occur.

Do the Logical Extension.

By deciding that you will, for example, vote Democratic and embrace the overturning of the Patriot Act, the abandonment of Iraq, the gutting of call and internet monitoring, the elimination of waterboarding (which I shall freely admit I believe occurs) — well, you have or you will ensure that Islam comes closer and closer to guiding your life in America. That is, if you happen to survive the CBN event that will result.

It stuns me to think that the very persons who speak of “understanding Islam” and according an attorney to every Islamist captured are those who would first be eliminated under Sharia law. What part of “the United States is a corrupt and secular society and should be completely destroyed” don’t you get? How many times do Militant Islamists have to tell this to your face — literally?

For certainly American women deserve to be raped, do they not? And American women deserve to be the recipients of “smileys,” do they not?

A “smiley.” Holy Mother of God.

How ignorant can you be?

BZ

My ass has been up past my shoulders in alligators, anacondas and reticulated pythons at work. Ever have one of those weeks? This is mine.

In the meantime, the race is on and the Republicans are losing, the Democrats are winning, the Democrats are kicking our butts, no they’re not, yes they are, look at this poll, look at that poll. And the economy, Omigod, the economy is absolutely crashing and has been crashing under the Evil Dictator Bush.

Actually, no it’s not.

Many people, and certainly most Demoncats, er, Democrats, agree readily that the finest economy ever experienced by this nation was under the Clinton Administration — finer than at any time in American history (do you see where my tongue is placed?).

And yet, despite that, please compare the finest economy ever in the history of the United States with that of the Evil Dictator Bush.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an average of roughly 3.7% under Clinton. Anything over 3% is considered good, and anything 4% or above is considered excellent. Under EDB, the economy is just about where it was during the best of the Clinton years. And that despite two massive events: first, the bursting of the stock market when most every “dot.com” you can think of tanked. Then, of course, 9/11/2001. That one day was responsible for almost the near-collapse of our entire domestic commercial air industry. Everything took a hit; many people curled into the fetal position and spending came to a lurching halt.

What about unemployment? What about that most heinous of accusations: “It’s a jobless economy!” Really? Look above.

Note the hit right around — you guessed it, 9/11. Things peaked at around 6.0 in 2003, and the unemployment rate now is just above 4%. That’s a hair above the finest unemployment level during the president with the most ethical administration ever.

What about inflation? During the most stellar administration ever, inflation got down to around 1.6% in 1998. Frankly, darned decent. But also recall that President Bush stepped into a recession that he acquired from — guess who?

So, I would posit: it IS terrorism; it IS immigration. But it is ALSO the economy and, clearly, it’s NOTHING like what is portrayed in the DEM: the Defeatist, Elitist Media.

In Fornicalia, what’s the first thing the Democratic candidate, Phil Angelides, would do? Raise billions of dollars in taxes. Our onerous registrations fees would reoccur. And more. He’s said precisely that; it’s no secret.

What do you think will occur under a Democratic House, Senate and Presidency? Will they continue tax cuts? Or will taxes increase? Will the military increase, or will it be cut? Will the mantra of “either we attack Islamists on their shores or we’ll fight on our shores” continue? Or will we abandon Iran and encourage another Khmer Rouge where millions more will die?

Is it the economy? It is; and more.

BZ

My five-year-old father, in 1925, sits with his brother Jim in front of their home at 5509 Holmes Street in Kansas City, Missouri.

Here, my eight-year-old father, Richard, stands with his younger brother Jim in front of their 1928 Dallas, Texas home.

Memories from another time.

I sit in reflection of my last two posts and I couldn’t help but think of some of the more memorable points when I was a child. Here will follow some of my favorite memories.

I would ask that you, in the comments section, reminisce and write about some of your favorite times as a child.

What are YOUR favorite memories?

My father, in the military, was frequently gone on trips to WPAFB and to the Pentagon when I was younger. Mom and Dad would leave me with my grandparents in downtown Sacratomato.

My most memorable times were at my Grandparents’ house. They had a two story home at 2526 27th Street. How simple does that address get if you’re a child? My grandfather (on my mother’s side) originally owned many acres around his home, which was originally built by his wife’s father. I never met Little Grandma; but my older brothers did.

Wait. Do you recall the original phone numbers? Grandma’s phone number was GL55483. That meant Gladstone 55483. My original number was Ivy95253. Does this resonate with anyone?

My favorite memories are these:

Going to Grandma’s house; having her cook lamb; getting actual butter; sleeping in the upstairs bedroom in a bed twice as big as my own; having stairs to climb; having a fig tree in the back yard to climb and fall from; having next door neighbors like Glenn and Cecil and seeing their DeSoto in the garage; climbing the huge redwood in Grandma’s yard and getting past the vast amounts of sap so that I could see over the downtown area; riding my pushy-cart up and down the sidewalks (which we never had in the county) and exploring some distance past Grandma’s house; watching Grandma have a dish of peaches and some cottage cheese for lunch; having the entire family over to watch the yearly Wizard of Oz on Grandma’s TV and then, even better, realizing that The Wizard of Oz (when she upgraded) wasn’t just in black and white; it had some color parts too!

There are so many, so many, many more memories than these when I was a child.

I am comforted by these movies in my mind.

What are your memories on a Sunday when YOU were a child?

BZ