Raging Right Wing Republican

For those of us who are politically informed, and therefore Republican.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Environmentalists Exploit Tragedy

Environmentalists in certain cases tend to react to natural disasters in ways that would seem disturbing in a normal man, because it allows them an opportunity to highlight their doomsday scenarios. The human catastrophe wrought by Katrina is no different:
Tragedies happen, and my daughter and her family are happy just to be alive. Their losses and those of hundreds of thousands of other innocents deserve mourning, prayer and respect.

That is why the response of environmental extremists fills me with what only can be called disgust. They have decided to exploit the death and devastation to win support for the failed Kyoto Protocol, which requires massive cutbacks in energy use to reduce, by a few tenths of a degree, surface warming projected 100 years from now.

Katrina has nothing to do with global warming. Nothing. It has everything to do with the immense forces of nature that have been unleashed many, many times before and the inability of humans, even the most brilliant engineers, to tame these forces.
Apparently they not only lack class, but are scientifically illiterate.

Hurricane Katrina: Now It's Reagan's Fault

These people really live in their own world. Russell Shaw, a "technology and politics author, journalist, blogger and consultant in Portland, Oregon, and author of seven books" writes the following at the Huffington Post, the clearinghouse for kook thought:
Still I am wondering if those voters in Louisiana and Mississippi who helped polluter-allied Reagan win in 1980 would have found themselves fated differently under a second Carter term. If Carter came in, we could have had an alternative fuels program and tighter auto emission standards in effect by now.
Oh well. At least they're adding some variety to it.

Breaking News: Starbucks Is A Liberal Corporation

A Christian women's group is upset that most of the quotes on Starbucks' coffee cups are liberal pleasing ones, including a pro-gay quote from Amistad Maupin, but come on already.

Starbucks is largely an affectation of liberals. By liberals, of liberals, for liberals. Who the hell else gets all excited over the idea of a European patterned, mall-ish coffee house?

Liberals are allowed to have their own spaces, their own companies, their own creature comforts, their own nine dollar cups of coffee.

The idea that a national standard for corporate, political, and social ethos be imposed on the country should make conservatives concerned. By and large, it's liberals who control or at least most strongly influence our biggest institutions. Without the right to choose one's own way, conservatives will quickly find that they're forced into a way of liberals' choosing.

Where Is The "International Community"?

When disaster strikes across the globe, America is usually the first to offer help. But when disaster strikes America, who helps us out?

So far, hardly anyone.

Israel is offering to help assess the structural damage, and Canada is offering medical help.

Anyone else? Anyone?

UPDATE: Offers of help now come from around the world. Perhaps liberals were wrong that the "entire world" hated us, after all.

Looting in New Orleans

Anarchy reigns in the streets of New Orleans. If anything demonstrates the despicable nature of the unchained human being, it's the widespread mayhem wrought by looters as they descend on the weak, preying on those struggling to survive through the catastrophe. They're even going so far as to sack a Children's Hospital. (That situation may be one of the best arguments for gun ownership I've seen.)

One man was so bold as to walk in plain sight of the cameras and demand a family to leave their home so his gang of thugs could pillage it. Some have called for the President to institute martial law until order can be regained, and I say it should be done if that's what it takes to reinstitute sanity in the region.

The Grapple In The Big Apple

Hitchens v. Galloway! An all out brawl! WEDNESDAY WEDNESDAY WEDNESDAY!

In any case, this should be amusing, with hints of "I came for an argument, this is just a contradiction" and "Oh, well this is abuse, argument is down the hall" will no doubt arise.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Those Inventive French!

Horrifying:
Brigitte Bardot, the 1950s and 1960s film star turned animal rights campaigner, has called on the French government to halt the reported use by fishermen on the island of Reunion of live puppies and kittens as shark bait.

"It is imperative that the government does something to end this practice," she said in a letter to the minister for French overseas territories, Francois Baroin, a copy of which was given to AFP Thursday.

According to Clicanoo, a newspaper in Reunion, a French island located in the Indian Ocean, a six-month-old puppy was found last month with hooks implanted in its snout and one of its legs.

The French Society for the Protection of Animals (SPA) told the daily the dog was the victim of cruel fishermen who attract sharks by throwing puppies or kittens into the water, tied to fishing lines, and wait for the predators to swallow the thrashing animals.
Using puppies and kittens as shark bait? That's low, even for the French. Well, okay, they went lower - and never let them forget that - but we're in 2005. Puppies and kittens... Sickening.

Scalia Gets It Right

As usual...
"I am questioning the propriety -- indeed, the sanity -- of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society ... by unelected judges," he said.

Scalia also railed against the principle of the "living Constitution," saying it has led the Senate to try to appoint so-called politically "moderate" judges instead of focusing on professional credentials and ability.

"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" he said, to laughter and applause.
The only true interpretation of the Constitution is the originalist one. Nothing else can possibly make sense or suffice in the least to gaurantee our rights.

Monday, August 29, 2005

Hurrican Katrina: All Bush's Fault

Well, that didn't take long:
For more than a few lefty bloggers, Pres. Bush bears a lot of responsibility for the suffering that is expected. Diarist Patricia Taylor at Daily Kos: "Historically, it is the National Guard, along with other emergency personnel, who attempt to provide emergency services to the community in disaster relief situations like Katrina. And where are these National Guard right now? Iraq."

Wampum calls it "A Bush-made catastrophe in the making..."

Skippy the Bush Kangaroo and Swing State Project make similar points.

So does Steve Gilliard, who writes: "The next closest thing to this is a nuclear explosion."

Another Protest Crushed, Nothing New In Venezeula


This is how the Castro loving "democratically elected" socialist tyrant Hugo Chavez runs his country:
Another opposition march repressed. A small march, mostly women, had permission from the police and the municipalities to go all the way to the National Assembly to hand in a document about political prisoners. The police blocked the path of the march, pro-Chavez groups attacked and there are six injured two critical.

Once again, the opposition has no possibility of exercising its rights.
Lucky for Chavez he has Jesse Jackson riding over to cover his back...

Dutch Treats

Here’s the latest socialist welfare state success! It seems that poverty is growing at an alarming rate in The Netherlands.
Soup kitchens and bread lines seem out of place in this affluent country long known for its generous welfare system, administered until recently by generations of socialist-leaning governments.

But the growing dependency on private charity by thousands of people reflects how Holland - long admired for its fast-paced growth, high employment and prosperity - is increasingly falling on hard times.

After years of strong growth, the economy has ground to a near standstill and since April 2004, the number of people receiving free food packages at the Dutch Food Bank has jumped from 600 per week to nearly 5,000. Thousands more go without.
But… but… where’s the compassion?
The conservative government has been trying to bring under control vast costs for welfare, by limiting the number of recipients, and healthcare, expected to balloon in coming years due to aging population.

“It’s a serious problem,” said Henk Faling, acting head of the Food Bank. “A lot of people might not think so, but help is needed in the Netherlands. Poverty is just around the corner.”

The most recent preliminary figures from the government’s Bureau for Social and Cultural Planning indicate that at least 11% of the Dutch population, or between 700,000 and 800,000 households, lived in poverty in 2004, after the figure had declined steadily in the late 1990s to a low of 10.1% in 2000.

The poverty threshold in the Netherlands is annual income of less than $12,770 for a single adult, or $23,930 for a family with two children.
Interesting. According to the US Census Bureau the poverty rate in the US for 2003 was 12.5%. The poverty threshholds for that year were $9,393 for a single adult, or $14,810 for a family of three. In other words, you have to make more money to avoid poverty in the Dutch welfare state than you do here in free market, evil capitalist America. Sad, isn’t it?
Immigrant families - largely isolated from the employment market because they don’t speak Dutch and sometimes face discrimination - account for 33% of the country’s poor although they make up less than a fifth of the population, according to SCP figures.
These are the same immigrants that were brought in to account for Europe’s low birth rate. The country needed immigrant labor to support the tax base, and now those same immigrants are becoming a blight on the social welfare system. (Sound familiar?)
Demand for assistance from the Dutch Food Bank is growing so quickly that the not-for-profit organization can’t keep up, Faling said, and many distribution points have been forced to introduce waiting lists.
Hmmm, waiting lists to get free food. Where have I heard of this before? Oh yeah, it’s the same type of waiting list that you get in other European countries like France and Germany that practice their own brand of socialism. (Not to mention the mounting unemployment in those countries...) Call me crazy, but I think I notice a trend: When you give away something for free, eventually demand will outpace supply.

Name That President!

Mister Snitch looks at bad press for the President:
Accused of changing the rationale for 'his' war, and hounded for mismanaging it. Derided as an uninspiring public speaker. Belittled as an idiot. Blamed for dividing the nation. Charged with incompetence in his administration. Accused of trampling on the Constitution. Engaged in censorship and manipulation of the press. Mockingly compared with lower primates. Pressured for a key Cabinet Advisor's resignation.
So who are we talking about?

What Media Bias?


One of the most common but innocently unnoticed aspects of liberal bias in the media is their tendency to label groups differently according to their ideological background. If they were truly adhering to their journalistic principles, then they would apply these political labels such as "conservative activist" equally to all sides. Despite this, conservatives are the only people who are labeled as having a partisan interest in whatever they are discussing, a kind of warning sign which other liberal groups do not have, lending an air of objectivity to their pronouncements.

Why does the media do this?

Most of the media is filled up by liberal journalists bursting with idealism aiming to change the face of the world by shining a spotlight on the problems facing us. As such, the job of the journalist itself is naturally attractive to activist liberals agitating for change. Time and time again and poll after poll has showed the liberal and Democrat leanings of the press corps. There is no conspiracy; it's simply a situation where most of the fellows in the media are of like mind, and a situation is created where a mob mentality develops. Unlike the rest of the country, which consists of a diverse spread of varied beliefs between different people, the journalists in the media operate in an ideologically sheltered environment, shielded from outside viewpoints and exposed only to those which they already agree with. Their political positions are not regarded as controversial by one another. Eventually, after such an arrangement, one begins to believe that these beliefs which are never disagreed with are only natural; even mainstream. Nobody contests that the sky is blue. (This is the same situation which ails other establishments, such as the American university, the long hailed bastion of liberalism.)

What occurs is a lack of perspective, and as the opinion polls taken among journalists shows, those in the press believe they are in the political mainstream when in reality their actual positions skew to the left of most of the country. Thus, somebody who is a liberal is much closer to what the media erroneously assumes is the "center", and consequently doesn't need to be labeled as such because normality isn't what makes the headlines. This lack of touch with the rest of the country was most famously illustrated upon Nixon's landslide re-election, when a confused reporter remarked, "How could he have won? Nobody I know voted for him." Conservatives, on the other hand, are regarded as an anomaly in many cases, and are viewed as farther to the right than they actually are, because of the distance the press corps' beliefs are from the actual center. When you think you're the center, everyone who's closer to the true center looks like an extremist. (This is also, I believe, how far leftists can say with a straight face that the media is in the hands of a corporate conservative conspiracy.)

Here's an example from CNN. Can you spot the bias in this story?
Some women's groups say Roberts should also face questions on issues related to them. Several groups scheduled briefings this week to highlight areas in Roberts' record they say are particularly troubling to women.

They cited memos from his years as a lawyer in the Reagan administration showing skepticism toward the right to privacy and affirmative action -- areas in which retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a swing vote.

"Just as John Roberts deserves a full hearing, so do the concerns about women," said Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women, which represents about 100 women's research and policy centers at universities.

Linda Chavez, president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, said the recent attacks on Roberts on women's issues were unfair.
Did you see it? Let's take a closer look:
Linda Chavez, president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, said the recent attacks on Roberts on women's issues were unfair.
All of these women and women's groups have political affilations; most of them are staunch feminist strongholds, kowtowing to the latest liberal Democrat line, and yet the only person that gets labeled as having a political affiliation that could possibly influence their answer is the conservative. The other women simply have no bias at all, and make enlightened pronouncements from their observing perch - but the conservative woman? Well, she's just a hack for the White Male Power Structure - so when she says the attacks are unfair, you know it's just because she's a mouthpiece for the knuckle dragging advocates of "barefoot and pregnant" conservative ideals...

Fat & Filthy Rich


Here are the details of the luxury fat farm that Michael Moore has just hauled himself off to. I'm curious, would this kind of treatment be covered under Canada's healthcare system? If not, does Moore feel guilty at getting the luxury treatment while people in places like Flint, Michigan have to lose weight using their own willpower?

Socialized healthcare for everyone, except for the rich, right, Mikey? Going down to Jenny Craig like the common man, well, that's just beneath you, isn't it?

Disarming The Innocent

America, awash in a sea of guns, is continually portrayed as a Mecca of violence. Truly enlightened nations like the UK and Australia all tout oppressive gun control measures and state that they are necessary to avoid their country "becoming like America." Well, in many ways they have been remarkably successful. Their gun control policies have indeed made their countries a lot different than America. And by different, I mean more violent:
The experiences in the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers some pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.


The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey completed, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate of that in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out later this year, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35 percent, while those in the U.S. have declined 6 percent.

Australia has also seen its violent-crime rates soar immediately after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32-percent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did in 1995. The same comparisons for armed-robbery rates showed increases of 74 percent.

During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals’ abilities to carry firearms. Thirty seven of the fifty states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns after passing a criminal background check and paying a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murders and other violent crimes.
Keep passing those laws, folks. Hopefully your sense of smug moral superiority is enough to drown out the screams of the victims of criminal violence.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Doctor Sued For Diagnosing Fat Woman As Fat

A fat woman sues her doctor for diagnosing her as fat. Unbelievable, yet somehow inevitable. It must not be her eating habits but McDonalds' slick marketing that made her fat.

Some people just don't want to take personal responsibility for their actions... At least Michael Moore is trying.

In The Wrong Hands

Wesley J. Smith highlights what he calls "intellectual stalinism" in the scientific community.

Comfortably Numb?

There's a controversy brewing over when human beings develop the capacity to feel pain. Of course, this is driven by abortion politics. Some legislators have proposed regulations that would, as the New York Times explains, "compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus."

The study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association behind this controversy asserts that "nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks." Other scientists beg to differ, and David Grimes, a physician who formerly headed "abortion surveillance" for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says, "This is an unknowable question."

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that just because a fetus does not have the same cerebral structure as an adult , he has no capacity to feel pain. Developing organisms go through stages similar to the process of evolution; so it is likely that earlier stage fetuses have the capacity to feel pain in some more primitive, temporary nerve connections which have developed at the time.

In any case, the question this study attempts to answer is irrelevant to the abortion debate. If I slowly ease you into a painless death by overdosing you on morphine, am I any less guilty of murdering you? Of course not.

Myth Debunking Fun

"Today, there are few areas in the world where there is more of a swirl of misinformation, exaggeration, and stereotyping than in the area we have termed the "Middle East" as well as the half billion people living, fighting, and dying there. As a nation, our history is intimately involved with this area. It was the birthplace of the U.S. Marine Corps and one of the most critical "fronts" in the Cold War against the Communist bloc. An army of self-declared experts, peddling their opinions to the public in books as well as to the best paying news channel or thinktank, has sprung up on both sides of the political spectrum. In the blink of an eye, they now claim to have authority on this delicate and often misunderstood subject."

Written by a friend, here's a four part series centered around common myths pertaining to the Middle East. ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )

I like the liberal ones. Naturally.

I must take issue with the characterization of the myth of the non-changing status of the Middle East as a conservative one. The idea that the Middle East can never be changed by us and that we should just let our cultures live side by side as if they were morally equal has always been advanced, in my experience, by the other side, primarily the anti-war side as proof that any attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East is a doomed effort. (The Right has some anti-war fellows in a minority of a minority like Pat Buchanan who use this line of reasoning as well, but it's dominant in leftist circles.) Why would any conservative want to try and change the political dynamics of the region if we thought nothing could change it?

Likewise, the same goes for the idea that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Sharia is definitely something we don't want, but Islam itself can work, and the idea of removing religious influence from a society is an impossible and foolish task. The development of our own society, laws, thought, and culture have been shaped by centuries of Christian thought and continues to be impacted by it today. Naturally, the developments spurred from another religion such as Islam, with its own doctrines and commandments, will produce a democratic establishment which is a bit different than ours. But this is, again, something I see commonly advanced by anti-war types to try and insinuate that the attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East will be in vain, since anything we create will inevitably end up as an Iranian style theocracy. As the linked piece points out, reality disproves this as Turkey demonstrates.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Monumental Mistake

War Troubles

According to this poll, 61% of Americans believe the war is being handled poorly by President Bush. I wonder how many people are not satisfied with how the war is run because we're going too soft on the terrorists, instead of the other way around? There's a lot more we could do to take the kiddy gloves off, after all. The decrease in support for the war is less representative of the actual situation on the ground in Iraq and more of the coverage and way the information is being presented. The President, for one, needs to be clear and lay out our plan for how we're going to win the fight and so on to rally the country around the war. Most of us understand the goals - what we need now is how we're going to achieve them. Unfortunately, he's never been the gifted speaker that Reagan was, and many of his speeches are filled with repeats from older speeches.

The Greatest Movie Line Ever?

Well, it certainly could be it.

Troop Levels

Ralph Peters on Iraq coverage:
What should have made headlines? It would've been nice to see more attention devoted to the complexity and importance of drafting a new constitution for Iraq. But my nomination for the "Greatest Story Never Told" is a quieter one: Locked in a difficult war, the U.S. Army is exceeding its re-enlistment and first-time enlistment goals. Has anybody mentioned that to you?

Remember last spring, when the Army's recruitment efforts fell short for a few months? The media's glee would have made you confuse the New York Times and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered was the wonderful news that the Army couldn't find enough soldiers. We were warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train wreck.

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army's numbers look great. Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record levels. And you don't hear a whisper about it from the "mainstream media."
It's as if they're biased or something.

What people often confuse is the enlistment rate with the quotas to be met. The reason we often end up with headlines about the army ending up in a supposed drought of volunteers is because the standards have been raised during war-time, even though the actual number of enrollees is higher.

Try Again, Pat

Pat Robertson's latest foolishness amounts to him calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the "democratically elected" tyrant in Venezuela, leading to his denunciation by the White House and various religious groups. I wouldn't lose any sleep if somebody were to bump off Hugo Chavez, but I find it odd that this is coming from somebody claiming to represent the Christian viewpoint. Don't Christians believe in the value of human life and that killing is wrong, except perhaps in self defense? If we were at war and had to take actions to defend ourselves and end the war, it would be a different story; but we're not at war. It's not exactly my place to analyze the merits of his justications from a Biblical perspective, though, so I'll leave that to his fellow Christians.

Politically, his message will be hyped up by the media and thus play into the hands of America's enemies, giving them propaganda to bolster notions that America is out to conquer others and take their oil. We shouldn't lose sight of who the real villain is, however, that being Hugo Chavez. Robertson does have a point, however rhetorically clumsily it was expressed, in that Hugo Chavez represents a problem that needs to be addressed, and his remarks are useful in that they'll highlight the problem for consideration as they are being discussed now.

Expect liberals to seize onto his comments and gleefully use them to smear Christians and conservatives as a bloodthirsty mob. It's interesting how much media coverage his remarks are getting, almost as if he's supposed to be speaking for all Christians, or something. From personal experience, I know that he speaks for very few.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Quote Of The Day

Thomas Jefferson:
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope to never have occasion for them."

I Know! Let's Handcuff The Military

John Byrnes ridicules the assumption that Americans are just plain stupid and don't realize that enlisting in the military might involve danger at some point.

No Lie

Friday, August 19, 2005

Bad Arguments

Here are two arguments currently being presented by the Left that they would do well not to use, and which any thinking person can see are not worth the electrons used to display them on my monitor.

1) The Chickenhawk argument: You cannot support a war unless you are willing to volunteer to serve in the war.

This, of course, means that Bill Clinton was wrong to commit US troops in all of the places he sent them and should have immediately pulled them out of Somalia the day that he was inaugurated as President. It also means that Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) had no business supporting the US entry into World War I and that anyone who is opposed to the Iraq war but in favor of the intervention in Afghanistan better have served, or be serving, in the military. How about all of the people who supported the US entry in World War II, but didn't rush out and join the military?

The military is made up of voluntary participants; it's made up by people who have specifically chosen to play that role in society, who know that their lives may be in danger, and the fact that they sign up for it anyway is what makes it heroic. To suggest that there is something illegitimate about this voluntary force because it's not a conscripted army like in Vietnam takes away from the heroism of those who are currently fighting and who choose to take on the burden of defending the country.

Obviously, this is a silly argument to anyone who stops and thinks about it for a moment. If we were to apply this argument to everything then you couldn't have opinions about parenting if you weren't a parent, or hiring and firing people unless you were a manager, or be in favor of law enforcement unless you were a police officer. In other words, the Left pretty much would be unable to voice opinions about much of anything. It's not so much an argument as a personal jab used to silence critics and shut down debate. This is anti-democratic as the notion that only the military should have any say in how society is run betrays the democratic principles of civilian run government. (The military reports to the Commander in Chief, a civilian. The government isn't a military run enterprise.)

2) Argument from Moral Authority: "Moral Authority" means that no debate is possible with the positions held by those with "Moral Authority".

This is a means of ending debate in an undemocratic fashion, and it betrays the paternalistic nature of the Left. They know better for us "common folk" than we do. Their latest attempt is based on Cindy Sheehan. I feel sympathy for her, and I understand her position. However, her loss in no way compels me to adopt the same position she has adopted. In fact, it is flat out impossible for her "moral authority" to be absolute since there are other parents whose children were killed in Iraq who hold a position 180 degrees opposite from hers. This is an awful argument that is unworthy of the sacrifice, whether justified or not, of the soldiers killed in this war and their families. Leftists mainly use this argument to prop up the bodies of the sacrificed to shield themselves from criticism.

Both positions, as demonstrably poor and illogical, with no strong basis to back them up whatsoever, betray the ultimately weak series of arguments by the anti-war Left. Without much rigor or merit to their ideas, they're left with the hysteria and emotionalism they're commonly known for.

Wait A Second! Wasn't Canadian Healthcare Supposed To Be Free?

Here's a story that perfectly illustrates the problems with socialized medicine. When the cost of using something decreases, it can be expected that people will use it more. (As with all forms of socialism, government intervention artificially inflates demand, yet supply remains the same.) But medical resources aren't infinite, which means that they have to be increasingly rationed between all the patients who need care. Patients who have terminal diseases are put on a never-ending waiting list that could very well outlast their window for being saved, like this mother who is battling cancer. Lucky for her, she has a son employed in America.

You get what you pay for. Nothing.

Overwhelmingly Scientific

Fresh off tacking to the right in supporting John Roberts so he could try and ingratiate himself with conservatives, media darling John McCain is now tacking back to the left for the rejuvenating sustenance of huzzahs from the press (Democrat Zell Miller was never glorified as a "maverick", a term which apparently only applies to Republicans who veer left). The topic is now global warming. Joining McCain in his fact finding mission to Alaska to watch ice melt is his fellow Presidential hopeful and seeker of exalted "moderate" credentials Hillary Clinton and McCain wanna-be Lindsey Graham.

After seeing ice melt with their own eyes, which in their minds equals scientific evidence for global warming, the Senators pronounced themselves sold on the concept:
"We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role," McCain said...

"I don't think there is any doubt left for anyone who actually looks at the science," Clinton said. "There are still some holdouts, but they are fighting a losing battle. The science is overwhelming, but what is deeply concerning is that climate change is accelerating."
Of course, the science is neither overwhelming nor is it evidence. The McKitrick-McIntyre study and the Soon-Baluinas study not only reveal significant flaws in the studies most often cited by Kyoto advocates, but also posit causes of climate change whose empirical proof is equally "overwhelming". Of course, this kind of blasphemy does not sit well with the high priests of global warming, who dispense with the scientific standard of unemotional, fact based research to silence their critics.

The fact is that climate models are highly subjective, and there is no evidence that climate change is occuring at an unnatural rate. The Earth's climate has been changing since Day One, affected by the sun. Furthermore, that human activity is the cause for global warming is not made clear at all, and simply assumed true, by global warming advocates; yet nature produces much pollution on it's own which the Earth has been handling fine. The volcano Mt. Rainer in Washington belches out more smog and soot than all human activity combined in that state. It's been doing it since it formed, and the sky has yet to fall.

Even if it could be determined that human activity, rather than natural solar cycles or some other cause are warming the atmosphere, it isn't clear that reducing emissions is worth the cost of restraining economic development. After all, is it worth diminishing our prosperity so the catastrophes predicted occur in 100 years instead of 105? What about all the other causes we could spend our limited resources on, such as poverty, AIDs, and so on?

Sheehan Wins A Convert!

For the GOP, that is. A longtime liberal suddenly discovers Cindy Sheehan's shenanigans have pushed him to the right.
I actually felt myself become a republican today. It was around 10am, when I read the latest update of the Cindy Sheehan saga in CNN.com. I then shot over to read some blogs about it, and perused the comments in some of them, which was nothing but a long series of petty (albeit entertaining) partisan bickering.

Then it happend. The good little democrat in me tied the little noose around his neck and jumped off the stool. He just couldn't take it anymore.

Take what? The whining. The constant whining by the extreme left about the reasons for war, the incompetence of this administration, and how we've all been lied to, and how we should pull out of Iraq immediately, because, *gulp* our soldiers were in danger.
Excellent...

An Attempt To Channel The Progressive Mind

Man, these inconvenient non-ties between Iraq and transnational terrorism just keep piling up.

I mean, I'm to the point where if Howard Dean wasn't so certain about there being no connection whatsoever, I'd be getting a little suspicious. Which would put a good sized dent in my worldview.

So please. Stop it with these things called "facts" and "reasons", I beseech you. We're beyond this. Bush lied. LIED! PERIOD.

Stop it with all your stupid digging!

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Quote of the Day

Michael Barone:
"Tolerating intolerance, goodhearted people are beginning to see, does not necessarily produce tolerance in turn. ... Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures are morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures, but in certain specific times and places -- mostly in Britain and America, but also in various parts of Europe. In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swathes of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America, though it has existed in every society and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians. But most Americans know there is something special about our cultural heritage. ... Mutilculturalist intellectuals do not think our kind of society is worth defending. But millions here and increasing numbers in Britain and other countries know better."

Russel & Lenin

For some reason, leftists love putting various tyrants who made their name carving out swaths of blood from the innocent on a pedestal. Hitler receives the proper demonization he ought to have, but Stalin, who was worse, is ignored. (How often do you see any Stalin analogies?) Lenin, too, receives none of the criticism others get. In fact, like Che Guevara, who adorns many shirts as a fashion symbol, Lenin is mythologized as some sort of working man's hero, when in fact he was a twisted and vicious individual who took out his frustrations on society. Richard Brookhiser pastes an interesting reminiscence from the late, reknowned, analytic philosopher and pacifist leftist, Bertrand Russel. Reflecting upon his meeting with the esteemed V.I. Lenin, Russel noted:
"When I met Lenin [in 1920] I had much less impression of a great man than I had expected; my most vivid impressions were of bigotry and Mongolian cruelty. When I put a question to him about socialism in agriculture, he explained with glee how he had incited the poorer peasants against the richer ones, 'and they soon hanged them from the nearest tree -- ha! ha! ha!' His guffaw at the thought of those massacred made my blood run cold."
Sounds like a great guy...

Oil For Enron


The UN is apparently very thorough in its contacts when it comes to corruption:
Since the Oil for Food program came to an end in 2003, it has been described--accurately enough--as oil for palaces, oil for terror and oil for fraud. Now it turns out the U.N. relief program in Iraq was also oil for Enron."

Great Unbiased Sheehan Reporting

Arizona Republic:
1,000 show up at 5 Valley war protests

Judy Nichols and Jessica Coomes
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 18, 2005 12:00 AM

It is perhaps only a mother, a mother who has lost a son, who could stand vigil in Texas against the war in Iraq.

In the post-Sept. 11 era, when criticism of the war is often labeled unpatriotic, observers say it is only someone who has made the ultimate sacrifice who can speak out.
Who knew she fought in Iraq and made the "ultimate sacrifice", yet managed to return from the grave to speak out against the war?

Roberts Critics Scraping The Bottom Of The Barrel

It's pretty sad when, in order to imply that Roberts is a racist, his critics must reach back to housing discrimination and race riots that took place in his hometown when he was a teenager.
LONG BEACH, Ind. - Like most towns across America, the exclusive lakefront community where Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. grew up during the racially turbulent 1960s and '70s once banned the sale of homes to nonwhites and Jews.

Just three miles from the nearly all-white community of Long Beach, two days of looting and vandalism erupted when Roberts was 15, barely intruding on the Mayberry-like community that was largely insulated from the racial strife of that era.

It was here that the 50-year-old Roberts lived from elementary school until he went away to Harvard in 1973, and that decade — as well as the rest of his life — is receiving intense scrutiny as the Senate gears up for its Sept. 6 confirmation hearings on President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee.
Come on. They're scrutinizing his childhood? His high school years? Are they going to find out that he once had a few beers before he was of age? Maybe spray painted his girlfriend's name on the city water tower?

I thought the only qualification we were looking for in Roberts as a SCOTUS nominee was related to his ability to apply law to given situations. Was Roberts writing briefs and motions between little league games and piano lessons?

Iraqi Constitution


(Cartoon courtesy of Cox and Forkum.)

The drafting of the Iraqi Constitution has been delayed a week to settle disagreements between the various factions vying to influence it's creation. Some groups are trying to divide Iraq into separate states, one for each group, instead of one unified nation. This could be troublesome, but these are problems they'll have to work out.

Our own Founding Fathers took 11 years to draft our Constitution, and they had common cause. To add to that, there was an additional disaster known as the Articles of Confederation which led to the Constitutional Convention. To begrudge the Iraqis another week, who have no such history or experience in democracy, is ridiculous. If anything, more time than that would help, but the political will to stay in Iraq and help bring it about may not last long enough.

Blame Bush!

I love how the New York Times manages to blame President Bush for everything, even the content of their editorial pages.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Black People = Livestock

What do you get when you compare black people to animals? PETA's latest stunt:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a national animal rights group, posted giant photographs of people, mostly black Americans, being tortured, sold and killed, next to photographs of animals, including cattle and sheep, being tortured, sold and killed.

"I think it is an apt comparison," said Josh Warchol, 26, of Wallingford, president of the Southern Connecticut Vegetarian Society, which is aligned with PETA.
Of course he does. Required reading for PETA is the work of Peter Singer, specifically "Animal Liberation".

Peter Singer is a philosopher who is essentially the godfather of the animal rights movement. He's on the fringe, a thinker for a school of thought called utilitarianism. His brand essentially lowers humans to the status of animals. For all the intelligence humans possess, the only thing Peter Singer thinks it's really good for is to make determinations about whether you are better off dead now or later. In the end, you'll die anyway, and the only question is whether you were much use or you overstayed your welcome.

Most people rebel against this, along with Singer's other weird ideas like his support for bestiality. For PETA, though, if they can draw a connection between cows being slaughered for food and the murder of a human being, then maybe we'll stop killing cows. The amusing part is that Peter Singer himself argues the exact opposite - we don't deserve to treat ourselves better than any cows, because we're no better than animals. It's still crazy either way you look at it.

Of course, to take on the NAACP could be considered even crazier:
"I am a black man! I can’t compare the suffering of these black human beings to the suffering of this cow," said Michael Perkins, 47, of New Haven. He stood in front of a photo of butchered livestock hung next to the photo of two lynched black men dangling before a white mob.

"You can’t compare me to a freaking cow," shouted John Darryl Thompson, 46, of New Haven, inches from Carr’s face. "We don’t care about PETA. You are playing a dangerous game."
You think PETA would have learned from the first time they tried this stunt, tastefully titled "Holocaust on Your Plate":
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) continued its denunciation of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for its "Holocaust on Your Plate" project for trivializing the murder of six million Jews and called its appeal for approval by the Jewish community "outrageous, offensive and taking chutzpah to new heights." The PETA exhibit was unveiled in New York City's Duffy Square, the heart of the theater district.

[Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director:] Abusive treatment of animals should be opposed, but cannot and must not be compared to the Holocaust. The uniqueness of human life is the moral underpinning for those who resisted the hatred of Nazis and others ready to commit genocide even today.
Uniqueness of human life? Not a Peter Singer fan, I'd wager.

The ADL got a semi-apology from PETA's Ingrid Newkirk:
Our mission is a profoundly human one at its heart, yet we know that we have caused pain. This was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry.

Hard as it may be to understand for those who were deeply upset by this campaign, I was bowled over by the negative reception by many in the Jewish community. It was both unintended and unexpected. The PETA staff who proposed that we do it were Jewish, and the patronage for the entire endeavor was Jewish.
Newkirk is a fitting name, by the way, since it means "new church" in Scottish, radical environmentalism practically serving as his religion of choice.

The "apology" runs for over 1000 words, but it can be distilled to these four sentences. We're sorry you were bothered by this, but not for doing it in the first place. And if you need to blame someone, blame those Jews.

One can oppose PETA's extremism without being some kind of animal hater and endorsing unnecessary suffering. PETA's comparisons between buying meat at the grocery store and the greatest tragedies in history trivializes the pain and death the victims suffered.

Some have argued that PETA has the right to voice it's opinion. (Somehow this means we shouldn't criticize them.) Well, of course they have the right to voice their ideas. So what? What's that have to do with the ridiculousness of the ideas themselves? The fact that people actually believe this garbage is both hilarious and sad.

PETA! Where eating a cheeseburger is as bad as torture and slavery.

State Was Ringing The Bell On Bin Laden?

It's starting to appear that our intelligence wasn't as screwed up prior to 9/11 as we've been led to believe. In fact, it looks as if the Pentagon and the State Department were doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing:
State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden’s move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam “well beyond the Middle East,” but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that “his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of ‘Arab mujahedeen’ receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum,” in Sudan.
Maybe it wasn't the intelligence community that was dysfunctional, but the Clinton administration - the one group that completely avoided criticism from the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream press in general. Let's not forget that the 9/11 Commission itself was chaired by Jamie Gorelick, who was the originator of the wall preventing the FBI and CIA from sharing information, which was one of the factors that led to 9/11. Having such a person on the investigative committee would represent a huge conflict of interest, wouldn't you think? Curiously, the 9/11 Commission's report was silent on her role, and it appears that it wasn't the only chunk of information they decided to pan.

Once we add this revelation to the Able Danger revelations, which has recently been unearthed as another portion of the investigation the 9/11 Commission did not highlight, and which showed much of the danger from the hijackers and other participants in the attack was in fact recognized, it looks like our intelligence people were doing what they were supposed to be doing and that the administration was doing a fantastic job of either ignoring or misusing whatever information it was given.

The Irritating Cindy Sheehan

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News lists seven reasons he finds Cindy Sheehan irritating.

I found number four and six to be particularly interesting:
4) Because the Democrats and Sheehan are so willing to prostitute Casey Sheehan's memory at every opportunity, now the pressure is on for Republicans to do the same. We're already starting to hear talk about finding people who've lost children in Iraq and also support the war, so they can be asked to speak out. I don't feel right about that. If they want to come forward and talk on their own, they have the right to do so, of course, but we shouldn't be getting into some kind of "grief off" with the Democrats.

[...]

6) I know everyone wants to treat Cindy Sheehan with kid gloves because she lost a son in Iraq. But, how many times does she get to lie without getting called on it? When she's saying she won't pay taxes, being applauded by David Duke, or taking digs at our country: "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for," is she supposed to get a free pass for that?

Try that sort of thing where you work some time and see how well it goes over. When your boss asks where your report is, say: "I didn't do the report and you better not say anything about it because my son died a year ago."

How long does Sheehan get to figuratively use the corpse of her son to deflect all criticism, get special privileges, and demand media attention?
The rest of them are worth reading.

AARP Members Support Personal Retirement Accounts

I bet you won't hear mention of this in one of the AARP's mendacious, anti-choice television ads:
Voters age 55 and older think offering personal retirement accounts to young workers is a good idea by almost a two-to-one margin, with AARP members slightly more likely to say personal accounts are a good idea than non-AARP.
So even as they're discouraging the rest of us from "playing the slots", they find investing in personal accounts beneficial enough for their own members.

Liberals VS The Pentagon's Freedom Walk

Apparently remembering the victims of 9/11 and honoring American servicemen and women is an unacceptably "controversial" event.

The Inhumanity Of It All...

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The U.S. military plans to ease conditions for some detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - housing them in a renovated section with televisions, stereos and a view of the Caribbean, the detention center's commanding officer said in court papers.
The horror doesn't end there. The top book at Gitmo? Harry Potter:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Harry Potter has bewitched detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where tales of the young wizard and mysteries by Agatha Christie top the list of most popular books, a prison librarian said on Tuesday. . . .

"One prisoner has requested the movies," she said.
Such terrible conditions. Truly the gulag of our times!

UN Funds Palestinian Incitement Propaganda


What a surprise:
The United Nations bankrolled the production of thousands of banners, bumper stickers, mugs, and T-shirts bearing the slogan "Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem," which have been widely distributed to Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip, according to a U.N. official.

[...]

In addition to the slogan "Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem," many of the materials displayed the logo of the United Nations Development Program, which operates in 166 countries and spends about half a billion dollars a year.
The UN: Let's be honest. If we actually bring peace to the world, that's the end of our Caviar Wishes and Champagne Dreams lifestyle. Once you've gotten a taste of $1000-a-night call-girls, it's really hard to go back to economy class.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

All Talk

The bluff has been called:
OTTAWA -- Canadians can put away those extra welcome mats -- it seems Americans unhappy about the result of last Novenmber's presidential elections have decided to stay at home after all.

Official statistics show the number of americans actually applying to live permanently in Canada fell in the six months after the election.
[Americans electing to stay in US, Associated Press]

Behind The Scenes With Bush & Grieving Families

Newsweek has a story about what has gone on in the sessions when Bush met with grieving families. It's powerful, and totally combats the image Cindy Sheehan has been trying to portray of Bush, acting like it was a party. And he doesn't seem to be trying to avoid families that are angry with him, but he meets them and grieves with them, accepting their criticism.

Here's a view from one sister who wanted to express her anger but who got a different reaction from meeting the President.
The most telling - and moving - picture of Bush grieving with the families of the dead was provided by Rachel Ascione, who met with him last summer. Her older brother, Ron Payne, was a Marine who had been killed in Afghanistan only a few weeks before Ascione was invited to meet with Bush at MacDill Air Force Base, near Tampa, Fla.

Ascione wasn't sure she could restrain herself with the president. She was feeling "raw." "I wanted him to look me in the eye and tell me why my brother was never coming back, and I wanted him to know it was his fault that my heart was broken," she recalls. The president was coming to Florida, a key swing state, in the middle of his re-election campaign. Ascione was worried that her family would be "exploited" by a "phony effort to make good with people in order to get votes."

Ascione and her family were gathered with 18 other families in a large room on the air base. The president entered with some Secret Service agents, a military entourage and a White House photographer. "I'm here for you, and I will take as much time as you need," Bush said. He began moving from family to family. Ascione watched as mothers confronted him: "How could you let this happen? Why is my son gone?" one asked. Ascione couldn't hear his answer, but soon "she began to sob, and he began crying, too. And then he just hugged her tight, and they cried together for what seemed like forever."

Ascione's family was one of the last Bush approached. Ascione still planned to confront him, but Bush disarmed her in an almost uncanny way. Ascione is just over five feet; her late brother was 6 feet 7. "My whole life, he used to put his hand on the top of my head and just hold it there, and it drove me crazy," she says. When Bush saw that she was crying, he leaned over and put his hand on the top of her head and drew her to him. "It was just like my brother used to do," she says, beginning to cry at the memory.

Before Bush left the meeting, he paused in the middle of the room and said to the families, "I will never feel the same level of pain and loss you do. I didn't lose anyone close to me, a member of my family or someone that I love. But I want you to know that I didn't go into this lightly. This was a decision that I struggle with every day."

As he spoke, Ascione could see the grief rising through the president's body. His shoulder slumped and his face turned ashen. He began to cry and his voice choked. He paused, tried to regain his composure and looked around the room. "I am sorry, I'm so sorry," he said.
This is why being President is such a terribly difficult job. The President has to make decisions that he believes are best for the nation even if it means that good Americans will die. You may disagree strongly about whether the President made the right decision to go into Iraq, but you'd have to be blinded by dislike for Bush to deny that he doesn't feel deeply about those losses. Every President does. Just look at them before they became President and compare them to later pictures from their Presidencies, such as those of Lincoln, Truman, or Johnson.

It's admirable that Bush hasn't used these private sessions for public benefit. There's a lot of politicians, like Bill Clinton, who enjoy making a spectacle of loss so they can hype how "sensitive" and "caring" they are, who would have had photographers putting out pictures of his hugging and grieving with the families, but Bush hasn't. Even while Bush is being criticized for not doing enough to meet the families, he hasn't used these meetings for political purposes. It's clear from the Newsweek story that their sources are the people who were in those meetings themselves, not the White House. A lot of Bush's more fierce critics incorrectly see a deeply dishonorable man, but this demonstrates a certain level of honor that you would not see in other politicians, particularly last year during a tough re-election fight.

Exploiting The Dead


(Cartoon courtesy of Cox and Forkum.)

Cindy Sheehan has been parading around the country using her dead son who served in Iraq as a shield to protect her from her outlandish and ridiculous rantings. As a mother grieving the loss of her son, she deserves sympathy, but now she's taking advantage of our goodwill and using it to fuel a publicity stunt. Her son's sacrifice and her grief deserve respect, but that doesn't give her a license to tour the country spouting politically charged nonsense. Worse, she's letting herself be used by far left groups to score dirty political points, people who don't give a damn about her son beyond what good press it can get them.

The Washington Post reports:
Cindy Sheehan vaulted into national consciousness this month on the power of her story as the grieving mother of a fallen soldier.

But what began as a solitary campaign to force a meeting with President Bush by setting up camp along the road to his ranch has quickly taken on the full trappings of a political campaign. Sheehan is working with a political consultant and a team of public relations professionals, and now she is featured in a television ad.
Listen to her words today. They don't have anything to do with her son anymore. She's complaining about taxes, calling for impeachment, demanding that America surrender in Iraq, and even managed to throw in something bizarre about "Israel leave Palestine". (Maybe she's referring to old Palestine, in which case Israel will just need some big boats or something...) After all of this - and only then! - will the world be safe from terrorists. She's been staging a protest, full with the accompanying media brigade, to have President Bush drop everything he is doing running the country so he can come out and get berated by her and the anti-war fanatics she's surrounded herself with. These barbs launched against America has also earned her the admiration and support of David Duke, infamous Ku Klux Klan Grandmaster and white supremacist.

In short, Cindy Sheehan has allowed bitterness and anger to consume her, becoming the ringmaster of a tawdry political circus.

Interestingly, she already met President Bush a while ago, said kind words of him, and found him to be absolutely the man needed to be in charge, and sympathetic to her grief. Somehow during then and now her memory of the event seems to have rearranged itself because the President morphed into a bloodthirsty monster in between.

Apparently all of this rank hypocrisy and parading the death of her son for her "15 minutes of fame" is too much for her husband, who has filed for a divorce, along with her family, who cannot understand what is going through her mind and are regretfully distancing themselves from her paranoid outbursts.

Effect Of Bush Tax Cuts On Economy


OpinionJournal.com:
In the past 24 months 3.5 million more Americans have found work, which is the equivalent of a new job for every worker in the entire state of Indiana. Every single job that was lost during the bursting of the technology bubble and stock market collapse of 2000-01 has been matched by a new job, often in a new industry. As the nearby chart shows, the bottom of the jobs recession hit in mid-2003--and the recovery began at the very point that the Bush marginal-rate tax cuts were enacted into law.
(Via Willisms.com.)

If Only We Were As Mean As The Republicans!

Over at the WAPO, this article about whether the Democrats are too nice for their own good, comes from such a skewed perspective, that it almost sounds like a Scrappleface parody.

There are a few token Republicans quoted, but the whole piece is chock full of Democratic hatchet men bemoaning the fact that the Donks keep getting beat by Republicans because as the old saying goes: "Nice guys finish last." Here's a representative sampling:
"Republicans don't mind running an ad that's entirely false, but Democrats have never learned, and I'm not sure many of them want to learn, how to play that kind of politics," said Robert Shrum, an adviser to several Democratic presidential campaigns. NARAL had to pull the ad, he said, because "they weren't getting support from any substantial quarter."

Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who like Shrum favors hardball politics, protested that "we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome.

...Some Democratic operatives say their trouble is congenital. "The problem is our politically impractical insistence on always residing on the moral high ground," said Jim Jordan, who was a longtime adviser to Kerry. "A large part of our ethos goes to what we perceive to be moral superiority and the sad truth is in politics that's sometimes inconvenient."
This is hilarious! We live in an age where the President is regularly accused of being behind 9/11, going to war in Iraq in order to enrich his oil buddies, and is called a Nazi with regularity. Beloved Democratic loser Paul Hackett recently called Bush a "son-of-a-b*tch," a "chickenhawk," and "un-American." The current darling of the Democratic Party, moonbat Cindy Sheehan, is running around on an "impeachment tour" practically accusing Bush of murdering her son: "I want to ask the president, why did you kill my son?"

Meanwhile, the WAPO is quoting these Democratic operatives who're bemoaning the fact that they're playing by "Marquess of Queensberry Rules." They could not be deeper in denial...

(Content via Right Wing News.)

Good News From Iraq Struggles To Be Heard

US Army Captain Christopher Vick:
"I think it's hard for Americans to get up every day and turn on the news and see the horrible things that are going on here, because there's no focus on the good things that go on. What they see is another car bomb went off."
All is not hopeless, however; the latest good news from Iraq roundup is available from Arthur Chrenkoff.

And Then There Were Three


Kofi Annan's brother is now also under investigation in the Oil-for-Kickbacks scam:
To the cast of characters caught up in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal, investigators have reportedly added another name, that of the secretary-general's brother, Kobina Annan.

That means at least three members of the Annan clan are now under scrutiny, including Secretary-General Annan himself, his globetrotting son, Kojo Annan, and his brother, who is Ghana's ambassador to Morocco.

This latest news comes from London, where the Sunday Times's Robert Winnett reported yesterday that the U.N.-authorized investigation into oil for food, led by a former chairman of the Federal Reserve board, Paul Volcker, is looking into suspected business connections between Kobina Annan and a family friend, Ghanaian businessman Michael Wilson.
Kofi, Kojo, and Kobin. It's a Kofi kabal! I hope they all get konvicted.

NCAA Bans Sports Team's American Indian Nicknames


Jeb Bush denounces the NCAA's decision, calling it "ridiculous".
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush criticized NCAA officials on Tuesday for their decision to penalize Florida State for using an American Indian nickname and symbols, saying they instead insulted the university and a proud Seminole Tribe of Florida.

The NCAA's finding that the school's Seminoles nickname is "hostile and offensive," instead of honoring American Indians has the opposite effect, the governor said, because the tribe supports the school's use of its name.

"I think it's offensive to native Americans ... the Seminole Indian tribe who support the traditions of FSU," Bush said on his way into a Cabinet meeting. "I think they insult those people by telling them, 'No, no, you're not smart enough to understand this. You should be feeling really horrible about this.' It's ridiculous."
Let's see. The Seminoles support the use of the name. Thus, in typical fashion, we must eliminate it because someone, somewhere is going to get offended.

We need simply find a negro midget female-to-male transexual lesbian prostitute mexican-american downs syndrome marching band member and have them make a list of what they find not to be offensive and rewrite the constitution so that all these things are illegal.

And wat about the Red Hawks? What about Notre Dame and Boston's basketball teams? Should we stamp our feet until those are changed as well? "Giants" is offensive to short people. Sorry San Francisco and New York! Any animal name is offensive to PETA, not to mention the Green Bay Packers, which gives a nod to the state's meat industry.

There's nothing derogatory about the name at all. The reason Indian tribes are frequently chosen to represent a sports team is because of their tradition of having a fierce warrior culture. It grants the tribe recognition, and is an honor and a form of tribute, not some sort of underhanded racism.

Screamin' Dean: Women Don't Know How Good They Had It Under Saddam


Karl Rove must've been behind this:
Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" yesterday, the fiery former Vermont governor said, "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."
To be fair, if Iraq went much more for Sharia law than it did under Saddam, the average woman would in fact be worse off. Yes, Saddam's son raped a lot of women, but obviously he couldn't rape every woman in Iraq. There are only so many hours in a day filled with political killings and torture sessions booked from morning 'til night, after all! And the day really fills up. Not much time left over for trolling around the streets of Baghdad looking for a young girl to abduct, rape, and then kill, along with her whole family. Of course, Saddam certainly tried.

But really, there isn't any real indication that Iraq is going to become a nuttier state. That's just Howard Dean's wishful thinking.

You would think that those who claim to champion women's rights and human rights would be on the front lines in terms of supporting bringing democracy to Iraq, instead of trying to undermine the resolve in fighting terrorists who believe women are property.

Chutzpah Of The Year Award


Bill Clinton claims he would've attacked Bin Laden before 9/11, had he been President. But wait, wasn't he, in fact, President before 9/11? I seem to remember that happening at some point.

He says he'd have attacked only if the CIA and FBI had confirmed to him that Bin Laden attacked the USS Cole.

Too bad they'd already confirmed that:
On the day of the Cole attack, a list of suspects was assembled that included al Qaeda's affiliate Egyptian Islamic Jihad. U.S. counterterrorism officials told us they immediately assumed that al Qaeda was responsible. But as Deputy DCI John McLaughlin explained to us, it was not enough for the attack to smell, look, and taste like an al Qaeda operation. To make a case, the CIA needed not just a guess but a link to someone known to be an al Qaeda operative.

[...]

An FBI special agent recognized the name Khallad and connected this news with information from an important al Qaeda source who had been meeting regularly with CIA and FBI officers. The source had called Khallad Bin Ladin's "run boy," and described him as having lost one leg in an explosives accident at a training camp a few years earlier. To confirm the identification, the FBI agent asked the Yemenis for their photo of Khallad. The Yemenis provided the photo on November 22, reaffirming their view that Khallad had been an intermediary between the plotters and Bin Ladin.

[...]

In other words, the Yemenis provided strong evidence connecting the Cole attack to al Qaeda during the second half of November, identifying individual operatives whom the United States knew were part of al Qaeda. During December the United States was able to corroborate this evidence.
Clinton just raised the threshold for action high enough that he could kick the can down the road. But now he wants to play the tough guy...

RRWR Returns

Posting resumes today. And there's a lot to cover...

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Going To Be Busy

There won't be any updates for a little while.

The Conservative Grapevine is a good source for a quick dose of daily links, if you want to keep up.

UPDATE: I'll probably be back and ready to go beginning next week. Then we roll on.