Never forget

Just added an awesome "never forget" graphic to my blog page. Gotta come online to check it out, though.

Murphy's law of day before vacation

It never fails. Last day before a holiday, and a client's SQL server loses a drive. All the databases are suspect, and even the services used for diagnosis and recovery are sketchy.

While I'm waiting for a callback, I feel inspired to offer up this hastily-created adaptation of the Partridge Family classic "Breaking Up Is Hard To Do," with apologies to Neil Sedaka and Howard Greenfield.

Down, doobie doo down down
Come-up, come-up
Down, doobie doo down down
Come-up, come-up
Down, doobie doo down down
Come-up, come-up
Down, doobie doo down down
Come-up, come-up
Down, doobie doo down

Don't hold your data back from me,
Don't you leave the web in misery,
If you go we'll all be blue,
Cause booting up is hard to do.

Remember when you ran so fast
The registrations were a blast
Think of all that we've been through
Now booting up is hard to do.

They say that booting up is hard to do,
Now I know, I know that it's true
Don't say that this is the end
Instead of backing up I wish that
We were booting up again
I beg of you, don't say goodbye.
Can't we give SQL another try?
Come on, server, let's start anew,
Cause booting up is hard to do.

They say that booting up is hard to do,
Now I know, I know that it's true
Don't say that this is the end
Instead of backing up I wish that
We were booting up again
I beg of you, don't say goodbye.
Can't we give your drives another try?
Come on, Windows, let's start anew,
Cause booting up is hard to do

Doobie doo down down,
Come-up, come-up
Down doobie doo down down
Come-up, come-up
Down doobie doo down down
Come-up, come-up
Down doobie doo down down
Come-up, come-up
Down doobie doo down down (Booting up is hard to do)
Come-up, come-up
Down doobie doo down down (Booting up is hard to do)

[Repeat and fade]

Encouraging words from Powerline

Two great posts from Powerline yesterday.

First, a widespread critique of the flipfloppers in Washington.

I know what Bush believes: He thought Saddam should go in 2002 and today he's glad he's gone, as am I. I know what, say, Michael Moore believes: He wanted to leave Saddam in power in 2002, and today he thinks the "insurgents" are the Iraqi version of America's Minutemen. But what do Rockefeller and Reid and Kerry believe deep down? That voting for the war seemed the politically expedient thing to do in 2002 but that they've since done the math and figured that pandering to the moveon.org crowd is where the big bucks are? If Bush is the new Hitler, these small hollow men are the equivalent of those grubby little Nazis whose whining defense was, "I was only obeying orders. I didn't really mean all that strutting tough-guy stuff." And, before they huff, "How dare you question my patriotism?", well, yes, I am questioning your patriotism -- because you're failing to meet the challenge of the times. Thanks to you, Iraq is a quagmire -- not in the Sunni Triangle, where U.S. armed forces are confident and effective, but on the home front, where soft-spined national legislators have turned the war into one almighty Linguini Triangle.

Well over half this article highlights the flipflopping of former Sen. Graham. Sen. Graham has a piece in today's Washington Post where he claims he voted "no" on the Iraq resolution because he questioned, "whether the WH was telling the truth--or even had an interest in knowing the truth".

What he actually said at the time of the vote was much different:

"But tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism.

"Now, there are good reasons for considering attacking today's Italy, meaning Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack this era's Italy, and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?"

The other encouraging article cuts through all the noise and declares we are winning the war in Iraq, as measured not by our press, but by witnessing his family dropping him like fresh camel dung.

The family of al-Zarqawi, whose real name is Ahmed Fadheel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, reiterated their strong allegiance to Jordan's King Abdullah II in half-page advertisements in the kingdom's three main newspapers. Al-Zarqawi threatened to kill the king in an audiotape released Friday.

"A Jordanian doesn't stab himself with his own spear," said the statement by 57 members of the al-Khalayleh family, including al-Zarqawi's brother and cousin. "We sever links with him until doomsday."

The statement is a serious blow to al-Zarqawi, who no longer will enjoy the protection of his tribe and whose family members may seek to kill him.

GOP playing hardball

It looks like the Republican majority in the house is finally starting to flex some muscle. Despite the rhetoric about how we need to pull out of Iraq, when presented with a bill to do just that, only three Democrats voted in favor, and six abstained (total vote: 3-403-6).

Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) wrote a resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq according to the comments of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) which had attracted so much news recently. It's pretty clear this resolution was written to call the Democrats' bluff.

Though even many Democrats think Murtha's immediate withdrawal plan is impractical, it struck a chord in a party where frustration with the war and the Bush administration's open-ended commitment is mounting fast. Murtha galvanized the debate as few others could have. He is a 33-year House veteran and former Marine colonel who received medals for his wounds and valor in Vietnam, and he has traditionally been a leading Democratic hawk and advocate of military spending.
Murtha's resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such as "the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress" toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable date," although Murtha said in statements and interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.

For those keeping score, the three Democrats who went on record voting to leave Iraq are Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) and Cynthia McKinney (Ga.). If you have the opportunity to vote in these states, or influence those who do, make sure they know how they voted on this issue.

Along the way, a very junior Republican (Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), elected only in August of this year) called a spade a spade and raised a few tempers on the other side of the aisle.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

No, Rep. Meehan, what is pathetic is saying anything and everything to undermine the President and the effectiveness of our troops in time of war when you don't really mean it. When the chips were down all but nine Democrats — including you, Rep. Murtha — voted to stay in Iraq.

[from The Washington Post via Scrappleface]

McDonalds chocolate chip cookies!

...

Whoops, an experiment in pix-to-blog messaging didn't work out right. As soon as I can get the picture from Trish, I'll update this item.

Humor: bin Laden in heaven

When Osama bin Laden died, he was met at the Pearly Gates by George Washington, who slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."

James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"

Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Osama with a long cane and snarled, "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."

The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the terrorist leader.

As Osama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Bin Laden wept and said, "This is not what you promised me."

The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"

Sick as a dog because of cats.

Not fun. Missed a trip to California today because I was throwing-up-sick, but I think Trish has it the worst.

It's been going around. On Friday, Ethan and Emma played outside at Grandma Barnes' house. (We were in Ohio for a welcome home party for Tricia's sister-in-law's dad, who had been stationed in Iraq). They got into the leaves, and we think the stray cats had been there previously.

Late Saturday night, Ethan threw up, then again Sunday morning. We ditched church and also the party to get an early start home. Good thing, because Emma let loose in the car. We all seemed to stabilize for Monday, but early this morning, Emma and then Trish both had trouble in short sequence. Just after I had called off the trip, my stomach joined the party.

Amazingly, Ethan has stayed well enough to go to school both days. He's been a trooper, bringing cold water to his parents when they whine. Emma keeps telling us she's all better, and so far, so good. I made regular visits throughout the morning, now tapering off, but still no appetite. Trish is still flat on her back - could only take a few bites of Chicken Rice soup, and feeling like it's going to come back again.

Now it's timesheet day, and I have to remain vertical long enough to enter my time... which is why I'm blogging, of course.

GWB: Veterans Day 2005

I don't have time right now to write up an analysis, but you should really have a look at the President's Veterans Day speech today. In my opinion, he's laid down the case for war stronger than ever before — something we have needed for a while.

The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century. They hit us, and they expect us to run. Last month the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number-two man, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq, the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents is noteworthy."
The terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks of (sic) American troops in Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again, only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
...
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send to them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that when -- whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

Some have also argued that extremists have been strengthened by our actions in Iraq claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more then 150 Russian school children in Beslan. Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: the Israeli presence on the West Bank, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, the defeat of the Taliban or the Crusades of a thousand years ago.
In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of killers, and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. On the contrary, they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response -- we will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory!

We all need to make sure these points are heard, because the MSM is not likely to emphasize these points, or even give them any more time than they must.

Offensive!

I thought I was done for today, but this is really offensive, and it needs to receive the derision it deserves.

A photographer who goes by the name "Zombie" took photos of a rally "commemorating" the 2000th death of an American soldier in the Iraq war. (Note: the rest of her website has quite a bit of nudity from her other photo shoots. You Have Been Warned.)

What she observed was not a candlelight vigil, prayers for their families, weeping and sorrow, but a party. People smiling, laughing and having a good time.

Some commemoration.

New York Times and sins of omission

Missing no opportunity to weaken our moral resolve to win the war on terror, the New York Times published an article (free login required) about reaching the 2000-dead mark in the war in Iraq. They described Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr (Fifth Marine Regiment, First Battalion) with these words:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''

While this seems like not a big deal on the face of it, a letter from Cpl. Starr's uncle paints a different picture.

Yesterday's New York Times on-line edition carried the story of the 2000 Iraq US military death[s]. It grabbed my attention as the picture they used with the headline was that of my nephew, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.
Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey's story. Jeffrey believed in what he was doing. He [was] willing put his life on the line for this cause. Just before he left for his third tour of duty in Iraq I asked him what he thought about going back the third time. He said: "If we (Americans) don't do this (free the Iraqi people from tyranny) who will? No one else can."
Several months after Jeffrey was killed his laptop computer was returned to his parents who found a letter in it that was addressed to his girlfriend and was intended to be found only if he did not return alive. It is a most poignant letter and filled with personal feelings he had for his girlfriend. But of importance to the rest of us was his expression of how he felt about putting his life at risk for this cause. He said it with grace and maturity.
He wrote: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
What Jeffrey said is important. Americans need to understand that most of those who are or have been there understand what's going on. It would honor Jeffrey's memory if you would publish the rest of his story.

When people contacted the New York Times to question the bias, the ombudsman's office responded that the article as a whole was not biased, because it included other points of view from all over the spectrum. I really like this person's response:

Thank you and Mr. Borders for the thoughtful reply.
I still don't get it, though. Is the editorial policy at the NY Times such that you may misrepresent the last letters home of any individual KIA, and dishonor their memory by making them look like whiners and cynics, if only you raise a different argument somewhere else, under another dead soldier's name.
This is somehow acceptable?

Clearly it is not. Reporting is to be accurate regardless of how you feel about the facts. Clearly, the NYT did not need to print every word of every letter from every soldier, but to extract one sentence from Cpl. Starr's letter out of context in a way which portrayed his attitude different than reality? That is out of line. Even if they had swapped the tone of two soldiers (made a negative sound positive while making another positive sound negative), it would be wrong. They may believe the overall "balance" of the article was representive of the facts (probably not, but that's my opinion), but to portray any one person in a way which knowingly misrepresents the facts is dishonest.

Another reader said it better than I can:

All of this "we can't print the whole letter" business is a farce. What the NY Times aplogists are missing is this: Those 11 words written by the deceased Cpl Starr are his thesis for the letter. And to exclude it is creative journalism at best, but most likely journalistic malpractice. This would be akin for modern day liberal historians to exclude Lou Gehrig's famous "Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth" line from his famous speech, simply to make him appear as a weak and sympathetic figure. If space were an issue they could have simply reprinted those 11 words. Period.

The NYT author, James Dao, had the gall to scold one of his critics for lack of perspective:

"There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr. Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"

My favorite bit of this whole story is this reply to Dao from a soldier.

A quick response back to James Dao's whine about no one being able to criticize him unless they have been to war.
James, yes, I've been to war. Twice now, already in OIF, and I'm heading back to war within the month. Since you do not even have the courage to acknowledge that you used selected quotes from a dead soldier's last letter home to further your (and your paper's) agenda, you are not worthy of even writing about a Marine like Corporal Starr, never mind trying to psychoanalyze what he was feeling about being back in the war. You are a coward when only your reputation is on the line. Corporal Starr was courageous, when even his life was on the line.
Should I die in Iraq, on this, my third tour, my wife will have in her possesion, a letter from me to be released to the press, should some slimy dirtbag like you try to make it look like I served in anything other than an honorable manner. I'm proud of what I do, I do it knowingly and with full knowledge of what the background on this war is. And likely better knowledge of what the outcome can be. I'm not some poor schlep who needs a NYT reporter to "interpret" my thoughts. I've live in the Middle East longer than Juan Cole, I've met more common Iraqis than has George Galloway, and I know more about the military soldiers I serve with than you will ever know in a lifetime of mis-reporting on soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

I'm very thankful for those who are not only willing to put their lives in harm's way, but will stand up to newspapers like the New York Times and hold them accountable for their lies.

[via Michelle Malkin, also here]

Humor: Teamwork

NASA was interviewing applicants from a company to be sent to Jupiter. Only one could go, and he couldn't return to Earth.

The first applicant, from HR, was asked how much he wanted to be paid for going. "One million dollars," he answered, "because I want to donate it to Harvard."

The next applicant, from operations, was asked the same question. He asked for two million dollars. "I want to give a million to my family," he explained, "and leave the other million for the advancement of medical research."

The last applicant was from marketing. When asked how much money he wanted, he whispered in the interviewer's ear, "Three million dollars." "Why so much more than the others?" the interviewer asked. The marketeer replied, "If you give me $3 million, I'll give you $1 million, I'll keep $1 million, and we'll send the guy from HR.

[via Pentacle virtual business school website]