- 15 Sep 2011
- 1:40am EST
- War & Peace
Turns out the LSU Tigers were not named for the large cat.
The Tigers were just a small subset of the 12,000 Louisiana soldiers in Virginia in 1861. Most were decent, God-fearing men who served their state honorably. But there were enough criminals and drunkards mixed in to give the entire state’s contribution a bad reputation. The good were lumped together with the bad, and because Wheat’s Tiger Battalion was the most infamous, all became known as the Louisiana Tigers.
The Tigers’ name lives on today. Contrary to popular belief, the Louisiana State University Tigers are not named for a ferocious feline but for Louisiana’s most famous Civil War soldiers. In the early 1900s, Dr. Charles E. Coates of Louisiana State University was trying to decide on a name for the football team. When he was told that the Louisiana Tigers were the toughest set of men who ever lived, he chose them as his mascot.
The whole article is worth a read. Their story needs to be a movie.
I’m thinking about making this a continuing series. The Indian Communists have killed over 200 innocent civilians after they sabatoged a rail line in eastern India, causing a derailment Friday.
Neo-Marxist Arundhati Roy seems to think that war against these Communist insurgents, who have bullied, tortured, and killed the very rural villagers they claim to be saving, is “war on the poorest people in the country.” (c.f.: “Minutemen and freedom fighters.”) So exactly what is it when the Communists kill these civilians?
It’s important, the Israelis are told, not to damage Palestinian confidence in the “peace process,” though it is difficult to see how such a process, which is to peace as Velveeta is to cheese, could be further damaged by hard men who have never kept any agreement they’ve made. The Israelis are told to restrain their response to rocket attacks and drive-by shootings, since, with no West Point nor Sandhurst nor even a St. Cyr to teach military tactics and instill soldierly discipline, the Palestinians must send out women and girl children to defend men cowering at home.
–Washington Times Editor Emeritus Wesley Pruden, writing on the impact of today’s elections.
(via Karol at Alarming News)
- 11 Jan 2009
- 6:05am EST
- War & Peace
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani opened his pus-filled noise hole and made some defensive grunting noises in the continuing saga in which India points a finger at Pakistan over the November 26th Mumbai attacks, and Pakistan points to “that thing over there in the tree.”
Drawing a parallel with the Israeli strikes in Gaza, Gilani accused the international community of double standards saying that it was more concerned about the Mumbai attacks than the killings in Palestine. “We have to see that the world does not have double standards. See how many innocent women and children have been killed in Palestine. Why is nobody talking about that? Why is the world silent on that?” said Gilani during a function in Karachi, adding that there was no need for the world to make so much noise over just one incident — the Mumbai attacks.
An old Bene Israel joke says that the definition of chutzpah is when an orphan helps kill dozens of innocent civilians, and then pleads an unrelated foreign policy matter as his defense while still having the gall to call himself a head of state.
I’m not normally one of the more jingoist, anti-Pakistan fellows out there, but Gilani is a giant plastic bag of choleric diarrhea who makes Clay “plastic bag of choleric diarrhea” Bennett look like a sweet-smelling rose bush.
Ever in adherence to tradition, India’s government fails to make the distinction between “peace” and “rolling over and taking it”, just as each successive government has done since about the reign of Ashoka:
“The Government of India urges utmost restraint so as to give peace a chance as the peace process may well get derailed irreversibly by Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip and continued violence,” [Indian External Affairs Minister Vishnu] Prakash said.
I believe it’s called “protecting your citizens,” you inept windbags. Perhaps External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee might know something about it if he didn’t hail from a state that—while once the most industrialized in India—has led the nation in failing to provide its citizens with a basic level of governance at every level.
When I got knocked down by guys bigger than me, she sent me back out and demanded that I bloody their nose so I could walk down that street the next day.
Really, Joe? She didn’t tell you to invite the guys over to discuss a multilateral disarmament? She didn’t tell you to call your classmates together so they could give you permission to possibly shove them out of your way? She didn’t want you to bring some extra lunch, since they’re probably just hungry? She didn’t blame you for invading their sidewalk?
Man, your mom sounds like a unilateralist neocon.
By now, most have probably heard at least something about the terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Ahmedabad and Bangalore. Indian bloggers pretty much have the tragedy covered, but I’ve a few thoughts on the matter:
First, where are those Islamic groups trying to convince us that theirs is a religion of peace? While CAIR is extracting sand from its birth canal over laptop searches, people are busy killing unarmed civilians—at hospitals, no less—in their name. If you want to convince me that you’re not simply the Imam of the Holy Shrine of Douchestan, mayyyybe you’d like to speak up and convince your followers to stop being homicidal maniacs.
Second, one will note that India is not occupying any Muslim lands (quite the opposite, in fact), let alone holy ones. India was not terribly supportive of the establishment of Israel until after three wars with her neighbor (and Islamic homeland). India did not supply arms to the Mujahedeen. India’s crime is not being a willing addition to the global Islamic caliphate, and this is reason enough to be attacked.
So children, why do we go fight terrorists overseas? So they don’t have time to kill our civilians at home. Because this is what happens when we treat terror as a civilian police case:
n.b.—the gentleman at about :45 is Opposition Leader Lal Krishna Advani.
He even managed to find himself giving solace to foreign opponents of the last Democratic administration, as Richard Holbrooke–President Clinton’s chief negotiator at Dayton, attests:
Karadzic responded emotionally that he would call former president Carter, with whom he said he was in touch, and started to leave the table. For the only time that long night, I addressed Karadzic directly, telling him that we worked only for President Bill Clinton and that he could call President Carter if he wished but that we would leave and that the bombing would intensify.
It’s like all the spoilt brats of the world threaten to run to Grampa Jimmy if they don’t get their way. Thank God no one actually listens to crazy Grampa Jimmy, except for a group of crazed Norwegians.
9/11 Commissioners Jamie Gorelick (a deputy AG under Clinton) and former Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) penned an op-ed in the Times on reducing the transition process in major government departments. They have a good point: it takes forever to change a working bureaucracy (are you listening, Obamaniacs?), and that’s not good for national security. But one of their recommendations gave me pause:
The president-elect should be in a position to name his national security cabinet right after the election. To do so, he needs to be able to vet candidates now. We need to give the candidates the full resources — including F.B.I. background checks — they would otherwise get after the election to make their selections before November.
Great. So we can subsidize opposition research now? Does anyone honestly think it will take a campaign researcher more than 10 minutes to find a way to cleanly abuse the available background check?