Sister Toldjah!
12/31/2005 - 1:07 pm

Happy New Year! The Anchoress has a few predictions for next year, and has a lengthy blog roundup of other predictions in the blogosphere.

She also posted the link to NRO’s symposium of predictions … make sure to check it out :)

I haven’t made such a list, because I really don’t have any predictions to make - I have a lot of hopes for 2006, the biggest one is Iraq becoming stable and secure enough that our men and women in the military currently serving there can come home. Same same for those serving in Afghanistan. God bless ‘em all.

It’s already 2006 in Sydney, Australia - Happy New Year to the land down under!

On the looking back at 2005 front, Slate has compiled a list of their most-read stories of 2005.

Time’s best of 2005 list is up.

CNN has a year in review story round-up posted.

Amazon has posted their picks for best books of 2005 as well as their customers’ list of bestsellers for 2005.

Check out the President’s New Year’s message.

Wanna spend New Year’s Eve in Times Square but can’t be there? Check out these live Times Square cameras - lots of different cams that make you feel like you’re there :)

—-
Here’s hoping for the best for all of you in 2006. Thanks for reading this blog and sharing your thoughts with me on the issues of the day. 2005 was a great year for the ST blog - 2006 will be even better :)

Have a fun and safe New Year’s Eve celebration - and HAPPY NEW YEAR!


12/31/2005 - 10:38 am

Dan at Riehl World View has an excellent list of 2005 American War Heroes. Just keep scrolling.

(Hat tip: Glenn)

Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: War on Terror
Comments & Trackbacks (1) | Email This Post | Print This |   

12/31/2005 - 9:13 am

Friday afternoon I was having lunch with my mother and the conversation we had while at lunch inspired me to write this post.

I had driven through one of the less, shall we say “scenic” parts of the city in order to get to an appointment earlier in the day. While we were eating lunch, I brought up the neighborhood I had driven through and commented about how often the neighborhood - a low income housing project - had been rebuilt/revamped: at least three times in the last 40 years because most of the residents there destroyed it. After being chastised for driving through that neighborhood, mom told me that yes, she was amazed too at the number of times the neighborhood had to be rebuilt and blamed it mostly on welfare state mentality - I, of course, agreed. Obviously, I’m my mother’s daughter :grin:

But what struck me about the conversation we had was what she said next. She said that she felt that that was something she couldn’t say to just anyone because there were people she wouldn’t want to offend by making such a statement. I asked her why she worried about speaking her mind and saying what she felt was the truth when so many others wouldn’t hesitate to be critical about the welfare system and how it ‘hadn’t done enough to help the poor’ and she answered: “two wrongs don’t make a right.” I pondered for a second before saying that just because you say something that may be politically incorrect to someone else who may become offended by it doesn’t make the statement in and of itself wrong, nor does it make it wrong to say.

I drove home yesterday thinking more about it and reflected a bit on my own struggles with this over the years. It used to be in my younger days (especially when I was a Democrat) that I tempered quite a bit of what I said in political/social issues discussions based on whether or not I felt I was going to hurt someone’s feelings over what I was saying. Our society has conditioned us over the last several decades to be this way, and it’s no wonder that even conservatives still have a tendency to be that way at times. I’ve gotten better about it and would venture to guess that about 85% of the time I no longer worry about if what I say in discussions on the issues of the day will offend others.

That still leaves 15% of the time I do temper my comments. I don’t like that.

One of my New Year’s resolutions will be to work on that 15% and whittle it down to about 5% - afterall, to a certain extent it’s human nature to not want to offend certain people, like your family, or your sweet elderly neighbor. I don’t think it’s wrong to want to kind of ‘hold back’ at those times.

The larger issue here, though, whether or not people agree with my comments on housing projects is that I know my mother isn’t the only one who feels that she has to modify her comments around people. I think political correctness as pushed over the last 40 years has put a stranglehold on real discussions that our policy makers and other leaders should be having. Having debates about the crime rate, for example, is not always easy because when you assert that a certain segment of society commits more crimes than others, someone always has to throw in “but all segements of society commit crimes, so why are you singling out this one? You should be ashamed.” That’s an attempt at accomplishing two things: 1) stifling legitimate debate by claiming “everyone does it” because if “everyone does it” then we need to come up with a blanket solution for all, rather than zeroing in and focusing on the segment of society most responsible for whatever problem is being discussed and 2) making you feel bad about having the ‘nerve’ to single out one group, even if you have the stats to back up your claim.

Freedom of speech means having the right to say something without worrying about whether or not you are going to offend someone. That’s not to say that you should, for example, tell the waitress at the restaurant you’re eating at that the food “tastes like [insert four letter word here]” - that’s not the type of ‘freedom of speech’ I’m talking about. I’m talking about your right to say what’s on your mind about a political/social issues topic without feeling guilty when someone looks at you like you’ve sprouted two heads for saying something that isn’t politically correct.

Conservatives, in general, tend not to be as politically correct as liberals, but there are, without a doubt, conservatives out there who do worry if certain topics - particularly about racial issues or gay marriage, for example - will offend people and they modify things they say accordingly out of worry they are going to hurt someone’s feelings. If you’re that type of conservative, join me in making a New Year’s resolution to work towards being able to discuss whatever issue is out there without feeling guilt over expressing your feelings. As I said earlier, there are times here and there where I do temper myself - it’s not as much as I used to …. and I’ve found the older I get, the less I do, but I know I still need to work on it.

So if you’re in the same boat, make a little deal with yourself to work beyond worrying about any guilt you may feel over saying something that might not go over well with the masses. If we’re going to work to resolve the issues we face today, we must get beyond worrying about how giving our full (not altered so as to spare feelings) opinions will play on the delicate sensibilities of others.

Related: My friend Cal over at California Conservative has a post up that touches on political correctness as it relates to NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s use of the word “thuggishly” recently to describe some in the city transit workers’ union who were, well, acting like thugs - but it somehow has been spun by the PCr’s as a racist remark.


12/30/2005 - 11:01 pm

… and the USA Today acts like that’s a bad thing.

Is it? Seems just about everyone they quoted for the article thinks so.

Another part of this story I found comment-worthy was this tidbit:

Last month, some Senate Democrats cited the Iran-contra pardons as they asked Bush to rule out a pardon for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff faces trial on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in the CIA leak case.

In a letter to Bush, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and three other senators asked Bush to disclose whether the possibility of a Libby pardon had been discussed in the White House. Reid encouraged Bush to “avoid falling in the footsteps of his father.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but assuming that Libby is acquited on the charges against him re: Plamegate (and I’m not predicting he will be), would he even need a pardon by the President? Maybe it’s because it’s late and I’m on my second glass of wine but I’m not understanding Reid’s request - I thought that someone had to be convicted of a crime before being considered for a pardon. If I’m right, isn’t it rather presumptuous of Reid to make the request in the first place?

I’ll take a look on this page at the requirements in an attempt to answer my own question, but I’d like to read your comments on it as well.

(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)

Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: Media Watch, Politics
Comments & Trackbacks (9) | Email This Post | Print This |   

12/30/2005 - 9:56 pm

…. to see what some of ya’ll are up to ;;)

scmommy isn’t feeling well. Get well soon, lady! Miss you posting here. Cute Christmas pic of the GeeChee Girl!

Kevin’s latest toast post is about an emergency he and his family encountered on their trip home from Texas and how graffiti (of all things) saved the day. Whew! BTW Kevin - did you find out who the winner was of the Iraq the Model banner contest? I’m anxious to find out.

Seth at Hard Astarboard blogs about having to show your ID to vote and why it’s a perfectly good idea, and not racist as some would suggest.

Pam at Right Politics is encouraging Michigan voters to vote Gov. Granholm out next election.

Camojack spent his Christmas in Hawaii (love the photo at the bottom of your post, Jack!). Side note: everytime I hear “Mele Kalikimaka” I think of that scene in my favorite Christmas movie Christmas Vacation where Clark is fantasizing about the pool he wants to get for his family :grin:

Ryan: Update time, amigo! ;)

Jim at bRight and Early has put out two calls for help - don’t worry, it’s not an emergency, but any answers you can give for the questions he’s asked I’m sure he would appreciate.

Brian at Iowa Voice, who I consider one of the most underrated bloggers in the blogosphere, has a new blog design. Please check it out! And make sure to keep scrolling down to read some of the fine content he has there.

Last but certainly not least, CavalierX has posted a list of helpful New Year’s resolutions for the left. Heh.

Enjoy!


12/30/2005 - 8:29 pm

As if the media-fueled faux outrage amongst the usual suspects regarding the NYTimes piece that focused on the President authorizing warrantless wiretapping of foreign communications made on our own soil wasn’t enough, the ‘helpless Senator’ act being portrayed by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) over his knowledge about the warrantless searches is enough to send those of us truly concerned about how this affects our national security rocketing into space out of sheer frustration.

Here’s more on the helpless Senator act Rockefeller pulled, as commented on by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) - via the Washington Times (emphasis added):

Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican and chairman of the normally apolitical committee, said he was “puzzled” by a letter that Mr. Rockefeller, West Virginia Democrat and vice chairman of the committee, said he sent to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 after one such briefing.

“In his letter … Senator Rockefeller asserts that he had lingering concerns about the program designed to protect the American people from another attack, but was prohibited from doing anything about it,” Mr. Roberts said in a statement yesterday. “A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools.”

In his 2003 letter to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rockefeller said the program raised “profound oversight issues” and he regretted that high security of the program prevented him from seeking advice on the matter. Mr. Rockefeller also told Mr. Cheney that he had made a handwritten copy of the letter, which he distributed to the press Monday.

If Mr. Rockefeller had these concerns, Mr. Roberts said, he could have raised them with him or other members of Congress who had been briefed on the program.

“I have no recollection of Senator Rockefeller objecting to the program at the many briefings he and I attended together,” Mr. Roberts said. “In fact, it is my recollection that on many occasions Senator Rockefeller expressed to the vice president his vocal support for the program,” most recently, “two weeks ago.”

So what’s the deal, Mr. Rockefeller? Because it’s come to light on the pages of the NYT, all of a sudden you want to make yourself look like a national security bigshot by (falsely) claiming you ‘had concerns’ about ‘oversight’ but ‘couldn’t say anything’? I guess we’re supposed to believe you really have our best interests at heart, eh?

In two words: bull s–t!

I’d like to know why Senator Rockefeller expects us to take his (as well as the rest of the war underminers in the Senate) supposed concerns about our national security and just ‘how far’ we’ll go to protect ourselves seriously, when last month in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the Senator admitted to visiting three countries in the Middle East back in January 2002 and telling them that he believed the President had already made up his mind to invade Iraq (emphasis added):

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

I’ve asked this before and I will again: as the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, what was Jay Rockefeller doing in January 2002 alerting Middle Eastern countries, most notably Syria who is a strong ally of Iraq, that he thought the President had made up his mind on Iraq? Why were you discussing US foreign policy about a rogue state with one of that rogue state’s biggest allies, Senator? And why should we take your claims regarding your supposed inability to discuss with anyone what you knew about the President’s authorization of warrantless wiretaps when you very openly admitted last month to discussing incredibly sensitive information (but not even verifiable at the time) about potential US plans to invade a sworn enemy of this country with an ally of that country?

His ‘outrage’ about the wiretapping that he knew about all along but now claims he was helpless to stop is nothing more than an attempt at posturing in front of the cameras in an effort to pump up his (also phony) credentials as a protector of our interests both home and abroad. He may think he’s pulled the wool over the eyes of some, but I haven’t been fooled and I hope as more information comes to light about just how these leaks happened in the first place that maybe more people will find out how you flew out to the Middle East to warn three countries in advance that the President was going to attack Iraq. And then we’ll see where he stacks up against those who really are fighting to protect our interests here and overseas.

(Hat tip for the Wash Times link: ST reader Dana R. Pico)

Related Toldjah So posts:

Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: War on Terror
Comments & Trackbacks (3) | Email This Post | Print This |   

12/30/2005 - 11:10 am

(Scroll to the bottom for updates)

Fox is reporting just now … don’t have a link just yet. The Justice Dept. is now conducting an investigation into just who leaked the information about the NSA eavesdropping to the press.

Good. I hope they find out who leaked this. Whether Dem or Republican, the person(s) responsible must be held accountable for a leak that *truly* has the potential of damaging our national security (unlike Lamega .. er, Plamegate).

Update: Here’s a link to the story.

Ok, I’m really logging off now :)

PM UPDATE: Flopping Aces has a must-read post with info from sources who are saying that the identity(ies) of the leaker(s) is/are known. Please read that post.

Also, check out the ‘random thoughts’ section of Michelle Malkin’s post on this story. She’s right on.

PM UPDATE II: The ACLU wants this investigation called off. Jay at Stop the ACLU has the lowdown.


12/30/2005 - 11:02 am

I had just written a semi-lengthy post and it got lost in cyberspace thanks to the site going down for about two minutes. Sigh. I’ll try again.

I’m going to be out and about today running errands. Been trying to get some stuff in order this week in terms of cleaning out old junk in anticipation of hearing that my loan has (hopefully) been approved for the townhome I’m wanting to move into. Once I know for sure, I’ll start packing. Haven’t heard anything definite but all signs look good right now. There’ve been some red tape delays this month, as well as the fact that the process has taken place during the holidays when people typically take vacations. Also, the week that the appraisal was supposed to be done, we had bad weather so it was delayed a few days. Things seem to be pulling together now, though. I hope to know something by the end of the day today or at the latest early next week.

I’ll hopefully be able to catch up on some blogging tonight but in case I don’t, consider this an open thread to discuss whatever you wish :)

FYI: if you attempt to post a comment that doesn’t immediately show up, it’s likely stuck in the moderation queue. As time permits today, I’ll release those non troll/spam comments.


12/30/2005 - 10:12 am

Ok, I know that was a bad take off of the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (nor do I think it’s original, as I have no doubt that title has been used elsewhere) but I couldn’t resist ;)

Seriously, did ya’ll see this story about Farris Hassan? 16 year old guy who’s parents were born in Iraq who wanted to go there and see what was going on for himself. Probably gave his parents heart attacks!

Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: General, International
Comments & Trackbacks (2) | Email This Post | Print This |   

12/29/2005 - 10:16 am

Are any of you getting the feeling that I am that the tide seems to be turning against the naysayer defeatist Dems and RINOs in DC as well as those in our liberal media regarding our national security and overall war on terror?

The President’s ratings, while not great, are no longer in the 30s and have been trending upwards for the last month or so. The Dems/liberal media’s very obvious attempts at turning America against this President via news about him authorizing warrantless wiretaps shortly after 9-11 have not produced the results I’m sure they were hoping for - in fact, just the opposite of what they were hoping would happen has taken place. At least one liberal newspaper has come to the conclusion that there was no ‘conspiracy’ to deceive the American people on the part of the President regarding the threat he (and many others) have long asserted about the threat from Iraq. The Dems are on the defensive regarding their stance on the Iraq war.

In 2004, the Democrats and their pals in the MSM ratcheted up their attacks on the President’s national security credentials - one area where he has (with the rare exception to the rule) generally polled above 50%. It didn’t work. They are doing it again.

And it is not working. Again.

When will they ever learn?