I’ve created a new blog where I’ll be writing about the Bible this year. Project:BOY is my attempt to read through the Bible in One Year, and I hope blogging about it will help me keep it up. I’ve added a link at the top of this page, for future reference.

I’ve seen bloggers attempt this before, but they usually abandon it, and most of them are boring reads. I can’t promise my attempt will be any better, but I’ll do my best to spice it up and add as much originality as I can muster. See you there. Or not.

Thanks, A.C., here goes nothing: (more…)

It’s that time of year again, time to round up the best comments, hatemail, discussions and posts of 2007. This was a year of transition, from fishkite.com to this domain. Along with that move came less frequent posts, and significantly less traffic. Still, the blog managed to generate even more (delightfully) vicious comments and reactions from readers. This year I also endeavored to inject more humanity into the blog, so this time I’ve added a category for the year’s “most personal” entries. I enjoyed blogging this year, and that’s the main thing. And I hope you enjoy this look back at The Best of 2007 at MickWright.net. (more…)

I’m taking one of my legendary blogging breaks, which usually means I’ve been too busy to write, and certainly not that I’m out of material. These announcements are typically followed by increased blogging activity, but not always. See you soon, I hope.

It truly frustrates liberals when we take terrorism seriously. That’s why John Edwards considers the war on terrorism a “bumper sticker” and local blogger autoegocrat thinks of terrorists as cavemen or insects and prefers that we pay them no attention.

But if there’s one thing they consider even worse than that, it’s doing anything to actually thwart terrorism.

It’s no surprise, then, that the local liberal bloggers are completely losing it over what they consider Democratic treason (which is essentially the opposite of real treason) on FISA reform.

Just a few months ago, Democrats in Congress agreed to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on a temporary basis, allowing the NSA to intercept terrorist communications routed through the United States.

The Protect America Act of 2007 passed with the support of 41 Democrats in the House and 16 in the Senate. The entire Tennessee delegation voted in favor of the bill, with the exception of Memphis Democrat Steve Cohen.

This reform became necessary after the FISA court ruled that our intelligence services could not monitor foreign communication if it has passed through U.S. networks, which is now common due to advances in technology:

Foreign-to-foreign communications now travel in diffuse packets of digital data through sophisticated networks, which route them not via the shortest route but via the least-congested terminals. Because American networks are the system’s best, a Peshawar-to-Kabul phone call or e-mail may pass through the United States.

Now some Democrats have sponsored a bill called the Restore Act of 2007, which offers some necessary concessions but is nevertheless opposed by the White House and GOP leaders in both chambers.

The liberal bloggers want no part of it. Peskyfly was the first to criticize the Democrats, exclaiming “fuck ‘em” if the party intended to cave in to the administration. Earlier this week, “Bob” of 55-40 chimed in to admit his embarrassment being associated with party leaders who are “soft on GOP terrorists,” and Jeff formulated a conspiracy theory, saying the move only makes sense if Democrats are trying to protect themselves:

Ever since they first got wind of the illegal NSA wiretapping, their main concern has always been what have they got on me? Thus - their silence. Thus - their compromises. Thus - their spinning of the wiretapping story as politically dangerous for Democrats…

We can be pretty sure that the Bush administration isn’t protecting it to keep Al Qaeda from learning the extent of our capabilities. They’re covering up crimes, which most likely means surveillance of political opponents and journalists. Democrats like Steny Hoyer are willing to trade immunity for those crimes in exchange for information that can’t be used to prosecute anyone. Therefore, their only interest in the information must be personal.

I’m glad some Democrats are at least willing to consider allowing us to listen in on terrorist communications. But I feel so bad for the liberal Memphis bloggers that I’d like to dedicate a song to them, embedded below the fold: (more…)

Nashville’s Sean Braisted claims MoveOn.org’s “General Betray-Us” ad was largely condemned and dismissed:

Rewind: Moveon.org, a private political action organization puts out an ad in a NYC newspaper suggesting a General has somehow “betrayed” the American people by his glowing reports from the battlefield. Most Democrats either condemn the ad, or dismiss Moveon as the politically irrelevant group they are…few actually defend their actions.

I guess he missed where the Memphis Flyer called General Petraeus “Bush’s new poodle,” or where Bob accused the General of abandoning his post, or where PeskyFly suggested the alternative insult “General Shill,” or where The Christian Progressive Liberal embraced “ass-kissing, suck-up.”

So, yeah… other than that, MoveOn.org’s message was totally rejected.

Bob and Autoegocrat have an amusing exchange:

AUTO: Let me tell you something about Mick. He says just enough sense mixed with nonsense to make himself seem like an inviting target, but once you actually engage him, you realize that the seemingly rational person you thought you were dealing with is actually a fully indoctrinated GOP stooge.

I wonder who it was that indoctrinated me, and if I had those little metal eyelid holder thingies strapped to my head at the time, like that guy in A Clockwork Orange. The fact that I can’t remember it happening must be proof that it actually did, though. My only regret is that they didn’t coat my bones with adamantium and give me wicked cool claws.

AUTO CONT.: You’re then left with a choice: either walk away, concluding that it’s not worth it, or just take a swipe at him before moving on to something else. If you take his bait, the very next thing he will do no matter what you said is attack you personally. If you get infuriated by his adolescent games and react emotionally, then he will jump up and down like a chimp and point at you, laughing, “Gotcha!”

The only way you’re going to get any satisfaction from him is if you thoroughly crush his ego, and that’s generally not worth the effort.

That parting shot you left in his comments was pretty nice.

I’m obviously not faultless and have occasionally taken the low road; that’s my mistake, and I feel bad about it.

But I have to laugh at how this whole comment is a personal attack on me.

Gotcha!

BOB: Yup. That’s pretty much what I’ve figured out by now. A one-man LGF/SBV operation holding down the fort for the GOP in Memphis, TN.

I guess it doesn’t matter that I don’t link to or even read LGF. The funny part is how I haven’t even attacked Bob personally in this exchange, while he’s accused me of lying and has coined my new favorite: “a troll who lives under his own blog.”

Thanks, Bob. That’ll show up at the year-end awards post for sure!

Bob of 55-40 returns to the plate, after yesterday’s strikeout. On the points:

1. Bob responds by saying he needn’t provide support for his allegations because… I’m unwilling and unable to be satisfied by any such documentation. That’s convenient.

2. Bob argues that General Petraeus forfeited his “immunity from criticism” by testifying before Congress:

Petraeus is on active duty fighting a war. Any minute he spends doing PR for Bushwacker-in-chief is a minute away from his post. Petraeus’s Congressional flackimony was thoroughly debunked before he ever even arrived at the Capitol to give it. In my opinion, leaving your post to be a political flack forfeits your supposed immunity from criticism.

a. Again, Bob provides no support for his allegation that the testimony provided by General Petreaus was “thoroughly debunked.” But as we learned in point 1, Bob doesn’t need to support any of his allegations.

b. Bob alleges that the testimony provided by General Petreaus was “debunked before he ever even arrived at the Capitol to give it.” It’s not clear exactly how this happened, or who exactly is in possession of a flux-capacitor… but I suppose time travel is as immaterial to the supposed debunking as supporting documentation is for proving points. In fact, I bet Bob has already read and debunked this post, prior to my publishing it.

c. Bob alleges that General Petraeus is guilty of “leaving [his] post” and thus deserves criticism. Perhaps Bob was unaware of the fact that General Petraeus was mandated by Congress to testify:

H.R. 2206 — SEC 1314. (b)(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS — Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

3. Bob concedes that he indeed does not understand the Vets vs Kerry / MoveOn.org comparison:

It’s not integral to my point, so I’ll give you that one.

How generous of you, Bob.

Bob, there are three major problems with your post:

1. You allege that General Petraeus “came back… to serve as Bush’s mouthpiece, reading from a script written, embellished, and edited by the White House.” But you fail to provide any evidence, not even so much as a link, to support that allegation.

2. You imply that by giving a news interview General Petraeus “left his post” and “entered the world of politics.” If talking to journalists and reporters is what constitutes leaving your post, it would follow that a large number of our soldiers has deserted. Simply put, that is not the case.

3. You mistakingly assume that a comparison was made between General Petraeus and the Vietnam Veterans who stood up against John Kerry’s Presidential campaign in 2004. In fact, the comparison was actually drawn between that group and MoveOn.org, in terms of their message and how it was treated by news media. Your confusion on that point signals your misconception of the whole.

Three strikes, you’re out, my friend.

UPDATED: Here.

What happens when a soldier from a U.S. Representative’s district dies in Iraq, but his name is not published in any of that district’s major newspapers? Does his death become legitimate fodder for a political gotcha question? Lots and lots and lots of shameless liberals say yes. I say they’re full of crap.

“My heroes are the soldiers that have gone before me and died. And the ones that came home.”

- Jeremy Bohannon

UPDATE: It turns out the soldier mentioned actually wasn’t from the Rep’s district, and the reporter had to apologize. Don’t hold your breath waiting for our liberal friends to do the same.