Raging Right Wing Republican

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

Friday, September 30, 2005

Get Naked For A Cause?

"Well, if we have to..."

These people are a wonder. PETA people can work nudity into any protest. They have to shock the normals, you know. Get the point across by shattering our fragile sensitivities. Then, devastated by their - GASP - nudity, we'll be open. Then we'll listen.

Plus, they get to show their tushies to the world!

At least in this case they're better looking than that inflated scrotum guy.

Let's Get The Kids!

Animal rights terrorists start targeting children.

Such progress!

That Damnable George Bush

George Bush hates rich white people.

That's the only conclusion any sane person must be able to draw today as wildfires rage across California, prompting the evacuation of hundreds and the possible evacuation of many more. Property worth millions of dollars are at imminent risk of destruction as the fires move inexorably towards the more heavily-populated areas of Simi Valley.

And where is the President as clouds of acrid smoke force school dismissals and drive the sick indoors? In Washington pondering his next Supreme Court nominee and attending the retirement ceremony of General Richard Myers and naming his replacement.

Why is he not in California right now directing the firefighting, evacuation, and rescue efforts? Why is he not sitting in a command center directing each and every helicopter dropping water on the fireline? Why has he not met with every evacuee and assured them that the Federal Government will make right their losses? Why has he not wrested control from the county and state officials and declared martial law? Where are the troops? Where are the squadrons of relief personnel? Where is the spandex-clad hero with super breath? Why isn't our President doing something!

Because he hates them. That's why.

Kanye, it's time to get back on the television and tell us who George Bush hates today. Time's a wastin'.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Pataki Says No To IFC

There's great news today. Governor Pataki has ousted the anti-American International "Why Do They Hate Us" Freedom Center from Ground Zero. Congratulations to those at Take Back The Memorial who spearheaded this campaign, and to those who supported them.

Damn Those Religious Groups & Their Charity!

This is going to sound like satire, but it isn't. The secularist mafia is objecting to FEMA reimbursing religions organizations who stepped in during the aftermath to provide food, shelter and clothing in response to Hurricane Katrina. The reason they're so upset? They claim it's a payoff to religious conservatives.

What would such a discussion be without the perfunctory quote from "Reverend" Barry Lynn?
"What really frosts me about all this is, here is an administration that didn't do its job and now is trying to dig itself out by making right-wing groups happy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Lynn added that he accepts the need for the government to coordinate with religious groups in a major disaster, but not to "pay for their good works."

"We've never complained about using a religious organization as a distribution point for food or clothing or anything else," Lynn said. But "direct cash reimbursements would be unprecedented."
Also unprecedented, Mr. Lynn, was the damage from Hurricane Katrina, and the religious and church organizations taking in about half a million people.

And we're not talking about paying people for their good deeds, either. We're talking about reimbursing the costs of organizations - which does includ extra labor costs - caused by an overwhelming raft of people displaced in an unprecedented natural disaster, as well as things like increase electric bills and other increased costs as a result of the hurricane.

Yes, let's punish these people for picking up the government's the pieces after the operation fell apart! What a just compensation. It's people like Barry Lynn who are making it nearly impossible for the Democrat party to convince people they are on the side of religious people and are not reactionary secularists who scream bloody murder at the mere mention of religion.

DeLay Indicted

As they say, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

Unless that ham sandwich is named "William Jefferson Clinton," of course. Bill Clinton is the Rollo Tomase of American politics.

My assessment is pretty much summed up by Ankle Biting Pundits. He's been indicted, but that doesn't prove guilt. Of course, if he is guilty, he should pay the price. Either way, the Democrats are going to have a political field day with it. DeLay has made some boneheaded statements in the past, but for the most part he's been a reliable harbringer of the conservative agenda in Congress, and his absence will certainly hobble progress on that front while he's away fighting off charges.

Three Awful Words: Senator Ben Affleck

The Democrats want him to run, and he's looking to buy property there.

Only In America

What a way to start "being an American!"
Man Takes Citizenship Oath, Wins Lottery

DES MOINES, Iowa (Sept. 27) - A man who immigrated from Kenya to the United States found prosperity beyond his expectations on the day he became a U.S. citizen.

Shortly after Moses Bittok, of West Des Moines, took the oath of citizenship on Friday, he discovered he had a $1.89 million winning ticket from the Iowa Lottery's Hot Lotto game.

"It's almost like you adopted a country and then they netted you $1.8 million,'' Bittok said Monday as he cashed in his ticket. "It doesn't happen anywhere - I guess only in America.''

How To Save $313 Million On One Bridge

Rep. Don Young's ("R"-Checkbook) infamous Bridge to Nowhere will serve 50 residents of Gravina Island and cost American taxpayers $315,000,000. That is $6,300,000 per resident. Currently, the island is served by a 7-minute ferry to nearby Ketchikan.

It would be cheaper to buy a boat for each Gravina resident to cross the waterway, and a car to use on the other side. If the government spent $20,000 on a boat and another $20,000 on a car for each of Gravina's 50 residents, that would be $2,000,000, or 99% less than the cost of the bridge (a $313,000,000 savings).

While it would be absurd to have the government purchase cars and boats for private citizens, not to mention a complete departure from conservative principles of limited government, at least this ridiculous scheme would be less damaging to the economy than the ridiculous $315,000,000 bridge scheme. How about it, Rep. Young?

Democrats & Descartes

Perhaps Descartes was right. Some centuries ago, Descartes coined the phrase, "I think therefore I am." Known by many as the Cogito (Cogito ergo sum), it basically means that since I can think in some way (even doubting many things), since my mind is at work in some way, I must exist. Cogito ergo sum. I must exist because if I did not exist then I could not perform the act of thinking. If I can think, then at least I am certain that I exist.

That said, The Borowitz Report hits on a striking irony:
SCIENTISTS DOUBT EXISTENCE OF DEMOCRATS

Opposition Party Could Be Black Hole, Expert Says

With President George W. Bush's approval ratings plummeting in recent weeks, the inability on the part of Democrats to capitalize on the president's waning fortunes has caused some leading scientists to postulate that the Democratic Party may not exist at all.

Dr. Marisa Drazin, a leading scientist who for years has been questioning the existence of Democrats, said today that what many have thought to be the Democratic Party may in fact be nothing more than a black hole.

"When the president loses ten or twelve approval points, one would normally expect those approval points to go to the opposition party," Dr. Drazin said. "But instead, those points have vanished into thin air, leading one to conclude that the so-called Democratic Party does not exist."

Theories about the nonexistence of the Democratic Party are nothing new, said Dr. Drazin, who pointed out that scientists first developed them during the 1988 presidential campaign of then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

While the silence of the Democratic Party in recent weeks seems to bolster theories of the party’s nonexistence, she said, there are still some nagging pieces of evidence to the contrary, such as the perpetually outspoken DNC chairman, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

"I've discussed the Howard Dean phenomenon with my colleagues," Dr. Drazin said. "And it's the consensus of the scientific community that there is no logical explanation for Howard Dean." [Because there is no logic in his rants?]
This just might explain quite a bit.

If thinking is one sign of a thing's existence, then would the contrary be applicable? Non-thinking is a sign of non-existence? The leaders of the Democratic Party and other Leftists are often known for their lack of thought and rational activity with regard to policy decisions (as Dennis Prager has so clearly demonstrated). They are better known for their alleged empathy. They feel the pain of those involved, of those victimized. They express emotional responses to political problems rather than rationally-based answers. They seek legislation that makes people "feel" better about issues. Thus, the absence of thinking going on. No thinking, no existence? No political/public existence of Democrats because they are not/cannot think politically? Borowitz might be on to something.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Sensationalism

Well, it turns out that the media was great at getting the hype in New Orleans, but not so good at the fact checking, because most of the murders and rapes reported never actually happened, much like the initial forecast of "10,000 dead" and the rumors of cannibalism.

RIP Don Adams

Apparently aside from being an excellent comedian he was also a marine.

Not Anti-War, Just Anti-US

Christopher Hitchens on ANSWER and it's fellow travelers:
To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Bush Can't Win

If the President stays in the White House to coordinate the relief efforts, he's not demonstrating concern for the plight of the disadvantaged and poor. (As if that would actually do anything.) If he makes his way down to the wreckage to help oversee it personally, then he's just manipulating the situation for cheap political points. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

What Part Of Boy Scouts Don't You Understand?

The ACLU and it usual troupe of leftwing agitators are once again attacking the Boy Scouts of America. They're up to the usual, trying to force the Boy Scouts - a private organization with the right to admit and exclude as it sees fit under the Constitution's freedom of assembly - to admit people who don't and won't agree with the organization's beliefs and charter. But now the ACLU has taken its war a step futher and is trying to cross the gender line:
Beside demanding the Boy Scouts open their ranks to practicing homosexuals and atheists, the group also apparently seeks the admission of girls to the organization.
Girls. In the Boy Scouts.

What's In A Name?

Jaytea at Wizbang looks at the rhetoric surrounding both sides of the war effort and doesn't like the implications of being "pro-war." He's got a point; a big part of a battle of ideas is owning the terminology. Take, for instance, the abortion debate: Each side has it's own terms for the supporters and opponents of abortion, each one casting the other in an unfavorable light. Who wants to be anti-life or anti-choice? Once somebody has accepted your terms, half the battle has already been won.


(Kudos to North American Patriot.)

Let the other side be "anti-war." But what should we call ourselves? Jaytea eventually settles on "pro-victory." It doesn't carry the vulnerability of being labeled a warmonger, but it firmly reveals where the loyalties of anti-war leftists and Stalinists at thinly veiled "peace" organizations like ANSWER lie, as well as exactly what we're after. After all, they're not "anti-war," they're just on the other side...

Enter, Stage Left


Turns out those poor souls running the Kerry* campaign agreed to have all of their actions behind-the-scenes recorded. Little did they know that it's going to released to the country for our viewing pleasure! The documentary could have had the alternate title of "The Snooze Room," and it would've fit just as well, I'd wager.
It features, among other not-ready-for-prime-time moments, Clinton scowling and rolling her eyes over an apparent Kerry gaffe during a presidential debate; Kerry pretending to interview himself and babbling in Italian while waiting for a real interview to begin; Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) cursing at reporters during a campaign stop, and Kerry message guru Robert Shrum confidently declaring a few days before the 2004 election: "Zogby [a prominent pollster] just announced who's gonna win. Us!"

[...]

A press release claims the movie - which won't be shown publicly until Thursday - "turns a harsh but deeply revealing mirror on the campaign ... a disorganized, contentious, self-absorbed team that thought they could win by 'not making mistakes,' and keeping their candidate in the public eye without clarifying a position on anything."
This is too good to be true. The possibilities for unbridled hilarity are endless.

Bring us Kerry!

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way promised 239 days ago to release his military records.

Goodbye "God Bless America"?


A recent court ruling out of California has once again thrust the Pledge of Allegiance into the national spotlight. Just as before, it's under fire because of the "controversial" two words contained within it, "Under God."

Citing the establishment clause as the support for removing these words, the state court completely ignores the fact that said clause was meant to prevent the establishment of a national religion, as the Founders fleed from in Great Britain. Nevermind that the presence of two innocuous words does not - surprise! - constitute the establishment of a national religion. I'm not sure, exactly, what religion we've been taken over by during the night while we were asleep, but our all knowing court certainly seems to have been looking askance at the Vatican lately. Perhaps next time the President makes a trip to Texas we should be eyeing him for puppet strings leading back to Pope Ratzinger's doorstep.

To be clear, outside of a state religion, there is no issue of Constitutionality to discuss and any attempts to conflate the two is either ignorant or dishonest. Falling outside of Constitutional authority, the decision of what goes into the pledge thus falls under the purview of the legislature, which as representatives of the people, will naturally be expected to draft legislation which reflects the overall sentiments of the population.

As such, it's simply an affirmation of what the country at large believes, as it should; if it was an atheistic country which drafted up a pledge that was the complete opposite, then the same would be true. Those who have said that were the pledge to instead read "Under Allah" there would be an uproar are correct - of course there would be, for we are not an Islamic country, and to have such a phrase in our democratic society which does not reflect our sentiments would be absurd. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a solution that will please everybody, so it makes sense to reach for the half of load of bread that makes 95% of the country happy, rather than slighting them at the behest of the agitators which amount to only 5%.

It has nothing to do with any sort of favoritism and has everything to do with allowing the will of the people to be represented through the democratic process as it is supposed to, so long as it does not infringe on other people's rights. There is no law forcing anybody to say the pledge; it is completely voluntary. That fact alone blows apart any objections to the pledge, as any further objections no longer rest on Constitutional grounds. There may be social pressures to conform, but there's nothing in the actual pledge causing this to occur, nor is it actual coercion. Banning two words isn't going to cause any of those same social pressures present in society to disappear. Such people are chasing the wrong target. It's the person's choice to recite the pledge. They can choose to oppose the pledge and accept the consequences, as every action taken in society has it's own; they are inescapable. Many actions in society carry a negative social stigma, but nobody would say that we are being "forced" from doing those things.

In short, taking a hatchet to the pledge for the non-reason that it references God is lunacy; to ban the pledge as it stands is to ban the Declaration of Independence, our entire monetary supply, and the last 200 years of Presidential proclamations.

O Canada!

There's another scandal brewing up in the Great White North. This time, it's the result of Canada's controversial gun registration program. This program has apparently made itself a vehicle to graft more money than previously thought possible under the last government corruption scandal which is currently being investigated. The amount of money being wasted to simply maintain a registry list is ridiculous; if you added up hundreds of people who worked up their entire lives to earn a million dollars, then stripped them of everything they owned and smashed it together into one financial heap, you would only begin to approach the amount of money at issue here.

They estimate that the collections will nearly double in five years, which implies compounded annual growth of 14%. If we assume that this will continue going forward, the estimate is an incredible $1.65 billion in fees in 2012-2013. If we also assume that it's intended to be a two year total, though I'm not sure if it will be, the estimate lands around $825 million a year. Looked at another way, imagine if we hired people at $50,000 a year to maintain something as simple as a registry. That would be enough to hire 16,500 people!

Bush VS Rove On SCOTUS

The latest rumor out of RedState is that Bush is leaning towards Priscilla Owen for the next SCOTUS pick but Rove is pushing hard for squishy moderate Gonzalez. A Gonzalez nomination would be a betrayal of the conservative base.

UPDATE: Here's a great post on the issue. It doesn't appear to be much of a possibility, after all. Or at least there doesn't seem to be any benefit to a Gonzalez nomination, so any politically driven choices seem unlikely to support it.

Versus Mass

Republicans enjoy running against Massachussetts.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Broken Promises


There's a new documentary on the UN out:
"Broken Promises" has at its root the betrayed vision of an idealistic youth from the Lower East Side. Silver grew up in a modest Jewish neighborhood, and his way to escape his parochial world, where everyone was defined by ethnicity and race, he says, was to go to the U.N. and just wander around. . . .

There are interviews with peacekeepers on the failures of peacekeeping, including Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire, who wrote the famously ignored "genocide memo" months before nearly 1 million Rwandans were killed, in which he begged for reinforcements. Rwandan survivor Eugenie Mukeshimana appears 10 years later with the daughter she gave birth to in a container while hiding from machete-wielding Hutu killers. Former U.N. translator Hasan Nuhanovic describes how U.N. officers in Srebrenica ordered him to tell his family himself that they must leave the U.N. haven to face death by the Serbs.

One of the most stirring comments comes from Kenneth Cain, a civilian peacekeeper who co-wrote a book titled "Emergency Sex" about what Cain views as U.N. betrayals. It is liberals like him who should be most aggrieved, he says, because it is their ideals that have been most harshly sundered.
The UN was founded to prevent the kind of atrocities and genocide we witnessed after WW2. It has failed in it's mission many times...

Friday, September 23, 2005

The Greatest Complaint Letter Ever?

Maybe!

Iraq's Constitution

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has endorsed Iraq's proposed Constitution. This is a big deal, since Sistani's the most influential Shia cleric in Iraq. Sunnis still mostly seem to oppose it, but the more time goes on the more confident I am that the Constitution will be ratified.

I'll bet violence ratchets upward as we go into election day, and if it's ratified it may go up a little more even after that. But then Sunnis will have a choice: do they want permanent civil war and likely eventual cutoff from the rest of Iraq, or do they want peace?

Judiciary Committee Confirms Roberts 13-5

Eh. They're just setting up their "fair and balanced" credentials for next time. Roberts flew under the radar, so if Bush nominates a more openly conservative candidate they'll need to be able to avoid coming across as obstructionists.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, shows her hand and votes against Roberts. So much for being a moderate. But we're three years from election day and that's plenty of time for people to forget; just in time for her to tell us about how she has a "plan."

Scalia On Modern "Art"

Contrary to the insane ramblings of Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia is the kind of Supreme Court Justice we should have more of. I love what he said about federally funded "art."
The First Amendment has not repealed the ancient rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. . .I can truly understand the discomfort with government making artistic choices, but the only remedy is to get government out of funding.
Federal funding is the same great idea that gave us artistic genius such as "Piss Christ." Why is the government funding art, anyway?

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

What's Going To Be Left Of The South


They don't get any breaks...

Impeach Ginsburg

Now, wouldn't that be ideal? I know it's not going to happen, but a man can dream, can't he? Apparently she's of the mind that only a certain kind of woman can be an acceptable nominee for the highest Court in the land. It seems she's confused what her vocation is; according to her, it's the job of a Supreme Court justice to seize the mantle of the activist and "advance human's rights and women's rights," as well as "find enlightenment."

And here I thought the job of the Supreme Court was to protect and interpret the Constitution, not to reduce the jurists to social workers.

100 Minute Executive Bible Summary

But even better are the summaries of the UN Charter and American history.

Global Warming On Mars

If global warming is in fact happening and is the result of human activity and not simply based on the sun's varying temperatures, then why is the same thing happening on Mars?
"New impact craters formed since the 1970s suggest changes to age-estimating models. And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."
What will they do without Kyoto up there?

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Eeeevil Corporate America

Check this out:
Retailer Wal-Mart slashed third-quarter earnings guidance and set plans to cut . . . 4% of its staff.
Oh, wait, my bad, that actually should read:
Newspaper publisher New York Times slashed third-quarter earnings guidance and set plans to cut . . . 4% of its staff.
But what about the little man, NYT?

What about the children?

The Death Of Feminism

Storming the institutions in our country, feminism played a pivotal role in bringing equality to both sexes. That time has now passed.

Most people would agree that equality between men and women has been achieved. There will always be a few inequalities left to iron out, but for the most part, men and women are equal, and with the ideals of equality integrated within the institutions of our country, any inequalities will most likely be self corrected. There's no longer a need for a force agitating for change from the outside.


Family? Kids? What kids?

After the goal of equality was achieved, most sensible feminists considered the job done. Unfortunately, what's left of the feminist movement today are extremists who embrace abortion as a wonderful thing, fringe loons who think there's a patriarchal conspiracy working behind the scenes to keep women down, man haters who look down on normal women who enjoy the company of the opposite sex, and other rebels without a cause. Whatever's left is being buried by these extremists:
Feminism is dead, and not a moment too soon. It lied about women and thereby made a whole generation of women unhappy. It lied about men and thereby left a whole generation of men confused and embittered. It told women that they could be happy without children. It told women that a busy career with lots of money would compensate for the loss of family. It told women that men are unnecessary. It told women that they could "have it all." It told women that the only power worth having is economic power, when in fact the most awesome (and awe-inspiring) power on this earth is the power of producing and nurturing healthy, happy children. Young women today have heard the feminist message, seen what it did to their mothers and grandmothers, and rejected it. They know that nobody, male or female, can "have it all," for life is tragic. See here. Why can't we accept that men and women are different without viewing one sex as superior to the other? Two things can be different but equal. Men are more aggressive than women. That's a fact. This fact explains why men thrive in - and prefer - competitive occupations. Women are more nurturing than men. That's a fact. This fact explains why women thrive in - and prefer - nurturing occupations. Feminists have told women that they're being oppressed by men. This slanders men and turns women into victims. Feminism is dead. Good riddance.
This explains the various discrepancies between men and women in different fields of work. That more women than men are employed in a certain sector does not mean there is discrimination at work but that simply more women find that job attractive and worthy pursuing - and vice versa.

With the earsplitting shrieks the feminist Left piles on anyone that offends their tender sensibilities, it's a wonder that it took this long.

A Gaggle Of Cartoons

I came upon a treasure chest of cartoons poking fun at the media. This one is my favorite.

UN Sec Gen Bill Clinton

And then one day I woke up and Bill Clinton was running the world!

Or so it would seem, based on this little story about the first annual "Clinton Global Initiative".

It seems pretty clear to me at least that Bill Clinton is angling to replace Kofi Annan when that guy's ineptitude finally catches up to him. Then again, the longer he sticks around the worse it'll be for the UN. The best part:
Clinton told participants — including heads of state and business leaders — to remember the impact their work can have on future generations, saying "we are so arrogant because we are obsessed with the present."
Um, yeah ... we're arrogant. We're not the ones that named a "global initiative" after ourselves.

What If

The recent furor over Iran's nuclear ambitions raises the hypothetical question: What would the situation be like in the region if Saddam was still in power in Iraq?

By now, sanctions against him, that were in effect for most of the late 1990's and until his removal, would either be so porous as to be ineffective or completely non-existent. If anything, as the discovery of the UN Oil for Food scandal showed after the invasion, Saddam would've enriched himself further and curried the UN's favor. As a result, he would be free to resume his nuclear ambitions. With the threat of a nuclear Iran he would be in a position to claim that he needed nukes to defend Iraq from Iran. As we have seen from the Iran negotiations, the Europeans and the UN aren't exactly stiff of spine when it comes to enforcing nuclear proliferation rules. So, we would have two unstable countries, that have gone to war against each other in the past, with nuclear ambitions instead of just one. Not only would Saddam find justification for nuclear weapons but, he would also have the excuse for rebuilding and expanding his regular military forces.

If we hadn't redefined the face of Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm willing to be that A.Q. Khan, the now out-of-work Pakistani nuclear scientist, would be selling nuclear plans to people like Saddam and others. Libya still would be in possession of nuclear development equipment, and so on. How about the thought of a nuclear weapon capable Taliban? Remember that the antiwar folks who now object to the war in Iraq were also opposed to the war in Afghanistan.

FBI Assemble! The Porn Police

Apparently the FBI has decided that the war on terror is over and is funneling it's resources into a war on porn instead. Forget Osama Bin Laden - someone somewhere might have a copy of Playboy under their bed! Sorry Mom and Dad, we know you mean well, but everybody knows that a government bureaucracy hundreds of miles away can do a better job of checking up on little Johnny than you ever could.

This is just Alberto Gonzalezes' way of trying to suck up to the social conservative base with a pathetically weak "I am too conservative!" plea so he can get a ride to the Supreme Court.

Let's Hear It For France

Always ready at a moment's notice to holler from the rooftops how uneducated Americas are when it comes to such things as history or geography (I prefer the terms "America" and "not America," personally), France now has a Foreign Minister, Mr. Phillippe Douste-Blazy, who has one upped America:
...during the visit of French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy to the new Holocaust museum in Jerusalem's Yad Vashem on September 8, he asked - while perusing maps of European sites where Jewish communities had been destroyed - whether British Jews were not also murdered. Needless to say, Douste-Blazy's question was met by his hosts with amazement. "But Monsieur le minister," Le Canard quoted the ensuing conversation, "England was never conquered by the Nazis during World War II."

The minister apparently was not content with this answer, which, according to the magazine, was given by the museum curator, and persisted, asking: "Yes, but were there no Jews who were deported from England?"
Originally run in the French satirical magazine "Le Canard Enchaine", it was discovered that the story was not a satire at all, but - even more surprising - something that actually happened as reported:
According to an investigation by Haaretz on Sunday, the event actually occurred as described, although no official source was willing to confirm it. Douste-Blazy did visit Yad Vashem on September 8, at 11 A.M. He was in fact escorted by the curator of the museum, his entourage from the French foreign ministry and several French reporters.

One of the escorts confirmed on Sunday, on condition of anonymity, that the quotes in Le Canard were accurate, and that they caused great embarrassment. "It's a bit difficult to understand," the source said, "how an educated French person, who was serving in the French government during the huge celebrations of the Normandy landings, does not remember basic facts about the history of World War II, and especially Britain's role, especially in light of the fact, that France's great leader, General de Gaulle, led the operations of the Resistance from exile in London."
Well, there you go. He's certainly in the right department for the French government, isn't he?

Heh... One to savor for the next time you're confronted with the claim that Americans are much more ignorant of the world around them than are enlightened Europeans.

North Korea Reneges

Surprise, surprise. You can't trust a Stalinist:
North Korea said Tuesday it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provides an atomic energy reactor, casting doubt on its commitment to a breakthrough agreement reached at international arms talks.

The North insisted during arms talks that began last week in Beijing that it be given a light-water reactor, a type less easily diverted for weapons use, in exchange for abandoning nuclear weapons. The agreement reached at the talks' end Monday _ the first since the negotiations began in August 2003 _ says the six countries in the negotiations will discuss the reactor issue "at an appropriate time."

Both the United States and Japan, members of the six-nation disarmament talks, rejected the North's latest demand.

"This is not the agreement that they signed and we'll give them some time to reflect on the agreement they signed," U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in New York, where he was with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at meetings of the U.N. Security Council.

"The Japanese side has continuously said that North Korea's demand is unacceptable," Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura told reporters.
The game goes on.

The Summers Effect

Earlier this year, Larry Summers, the president of Harvard, set off a controversy when he made the common sense observation that women and men may have different priorities. Today the New York Times reports that Summers was right:
At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Many women at the nation's most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. . . .

For many feminists, it may come as a shock to hear how unbothered many young women at the nation's top schools are by the strictures of traditional roles.

"They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they're accepting it," said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women's and gender studies at Yale. "Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

"I really believed 25 years ago," Dr. Wexler added, "that this would be solved by now."
But this may be another case in which, à la the Roe effect, the feminist "solution" actually exacerbates the "problem." The vast majority of today's young women are the daughters of women who decided to have children. Women who abjured motherhood for full time careers can't very well pass their values onto daughters they never had.

A Feminist Success

From an essay by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the New York Times Book Review:
[Reinhold] Niebuhr summed up his political argument in a single powerful sentence: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." (Niebuhr, in the fashion of the day, used "man" not to exculpate women but as shorthand for "human being.")
What does it mean that the New York Times cannot assume its readers are literate enough to know the meaning of a common word like man? It means that feminism, while failing to persuade women that children aren't worth having, at least succeeded in something.

Germany's Electoral Woes Validate Ours

The recent elections in Germany have been a mess. Running an election based on the popular vote, the two leading candidates, right-of-center Christian Democrat Merkel and incumbent Gerhardt Shroeder have come to a virtual tie. After all the weeks of intense campaigning, Germans tuned in on election night and learned... nothing. The vote was split between five major parties.

This is like what happened in America during the 2000 elections, but far more complicated. Unlike America, which uses the Electoral College as the final arbitrator of a candidate's victory, Germany uses the popular vote alone. Now they're trying to work on some sort of settlement that would merge parties together to create a party of watered down, centrist, no-real-change status quo policies that would run the government; that idea was rejected, and each side fights for the government mantle of power. In other words, the legitimacy of the government in power will be in fierce dispute.

Can you imagine some situatio in America when we would have to have a coalition government of Republicans and Democrats running the government together? Not divided government between Congress and the President, as we saw in the 90's. I'm talking about running the executive branch together. It's unimaginable. The reason we have a two party system is because they disagree fundamentally on how the government should be run. Thinking of some coalition between a major and a minor party would just move the parties even more to the extremes.

Salvador Allendale, KGB Agent

The Sunday Times has published an article which reveals that the Chilean President credited by conventional wisdom to have been the victim of a 1970's CIA coup was a Marxist KGB agent all along. Not only that, but the alleged CIA coup of popular legend is nothing more than a myth circulated by Marxists. The story of the alleged CIA coup is false on several grounds.

Throughout the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union both attempted to influence the events in other countries to get a better hand over the other side. That the Soviet Union was also involved in Chile is therefore unsurprising. What is surprising is the lack of attention this news has gotten, considering that this requires an overhaul of the history books.

Monday, September 19, 2005

N. Korea Pledges To Drop Nuclear Programs

It's potentially promising news, but I don't buy it. We went through this charade in 1994 and all it accomplished was buying the North Koreans more time to move ahead with their weapons programs.

Apparently we finally gave the North Koreans what they wanted: A pledge that we will not invade them under any circumstances except, I hope, a resumption of nuclear activity. It would be quite productive if this agreement spelled that out, and made it clear that any such pledge is null and void in that event, and an automatic causus belli.

We'll see. But unlike 1994, we should verify as well as trust... It should be noted that this six-country-talk approach, as it appears to have achieved results, was the method of diplomacy President Bush proposed, as opposed to the single-party-talks which John Kerry inexplicably favored. Why would you want to involve only two countries when you could bring to bear the diplomatic pressures of six?

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Hanson VS Huffington

Rolling right out of Hitchens VS Galloway, we have another big debate tonight between Victor Davis Hanson and Ariana Huffington at 9 PM. This won't be a contest; perhaps we can time how long it takes for Huffington to spontaneously combust from rage.

And if you didn't tune in to see Hitchens take apart Galloway then there's some who have written their impressions and basically conveyed what was going on. Tigerhawk has an excellent eyewitness account as well.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Quote Of The Day

Tom DeLay on the "ongoing victory" against government spending:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.

Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief.

"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.

Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

Hitchens VS Galloway

Tonight's the big debate between pro-Iraq war leftist Hitchens and Saddam-loving degenerate "Gorgeous" George Galloway. Hitchens has been preparing for it by writing the case against Galloway on Hitchens' site, which also has a link to the live webcast feed of the debate.

In a recent Slate column, Hitchens recounts just how vile a traitor - and yes, he is guilty of treason, though perhaps not in a legal sense - Galloway actually is.
Fawning on dictators, posing and posturing for a state-controlled press in front of a coerced audience, managing to overlook the existence of death squads and torturers, and praising the invasion and occupation of neighboring states—this is the same George Galloway who in 1994 flew to Baghdad and addressed Saddam Hussein in the following terms, commiserating with him on his failure to annex the Arab and Muslim state of Kuwait:
Your Excellency, Mr. President, I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq. … I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.
Now, you can be a flatterer of dictators and murderers and still—just about—be a pacifist, or "anti-war." But here is what Galloway said about the car bombers and beheaders and suicide fanatics of Iraq, again this July 30 at the Al-Assad Library, as broadcast by Syrian state TV and by Al Jazeera the following day. He informed the Arab world:
Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners—Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. Some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters …As for the jihadist and Baathist resisters: They "are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day."
Change only the name, and this is flat-out Bin-Ladenist hysteria.
It's not pretty.

Expectations are high for Hitchens, but I wouldn't be so confident. Drunk and barely understandable, he had his behind handed to him by Jon Stewart. And Galloway, though a nutcase, has been known to be an especially polished manipulator of the British language, as he ran verbal circles around our own Senators when he appeared in the US.

The Eyes Of Judge Roberts

Tuesday morning, during his confirmation hearing, was when Judge Roberts first developed X-Ray vision.


In a matter of hours, Roberts will see through clothes. Then walls. Then mountains.

Eventually, Judge Roberts will see into the face of God.

Oh, and then after that, he'll see through Joe Biden's BS.

But not until after he sees into the face of God; that comes first.

President Bush & Katrina Response

Remember that "Bush stayed on vacation" nonsense? From Reuters:


U.S. President George W. Bush is handed a map by Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin (R) during a video teleconference with federal and state emergency management organizations on hurricane Katrina from his Crawford, Texas ranch on August 28, 2005.


The President is never "on vacation". Maybe the power of a picture is enough to refute this idiocy.
Bush declares LA emergency
8/27/2005
CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana on Saturday because of the approach of Hurricane Katrina and his spokesman urged residents along the coast to heed authorities' advice to evacuate.

Bush, vacationing at his ranch, was being regularly updated about the storm, which is expected to hit land early Monday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency continue to coordinate with state authorities in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, and have prepositioned supplies in areas expected to be affected, he said.

The president's emergency declaration authorizes the FEMA to coordinate all disaster relief efforts and to provide assistance in a number of Louisiana parishes, or counties.
For the first time in 34 years, the President actually declared a state of emergency before the storm hit. Then he went further...
Bush urges safety from Katrina
8/28/05
CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush, as he readied the federal government for a massive relief effort, on Sunday urged people in the path of Hurricane Katrina to forget anything but their safety and move to higher ground as instructed.

"We cannot stress enough the danger this hurricane poses to Gulf Coast communities," Bush said as the storm roared across the gulf toward New Orleans and other communities. "I urge all citizens to put their own safety and the safety of their families first by moving to safe ground."

With forecasters warning of a category five storm, the president made sure the federal response would not be delayed by already declaring emergencies in Mississippi and Florida just hours after a similar declaration for Louisiana. Such declarations make federal aid available to assist with disaster relief, but they are rarely made before a storm even hits.
Lastly, as has already been reported, Bush personally called Blanco and urged her to declare a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. He was on top of it. Far more than the mayor of New Orleans who had to be reminded by the National Weather Service that hurricanes are dangerous.

Of course, FEMA and the idiot who ran it are a different matter.

Dogmatic, Intolerant ,Close-Minded Scientists

It's increasingly clear to me that for some, dogmatic atheism and "science" have become one and the same. Witness scientists protesting allowing the Dalai Llama to speak at a neuroscience conference.

Letting the man so much as speak is a threat to science? How rabidly anti-religious do you have to be to act like that? Atheists should find this behavior pathetic.

Then witness Richard Sternberg, a man with not one but two PhDs in evolutionary biology:
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Ste[r]nberg, 42, who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
His crime? Being willing to publish a paper by a scientist who argued that there was evidence of intelligent design behind some phenomena found in biology. Sternberg doesn't even agree with the paper, he just published it in the spirit of free and fair debate.

You can read about how Sternberg was harassed and all but thrown out of the Smithsonian here in the Washington Post. And there's more on his home page.

It's interesting that modern day advocates for Darwin are acting exactly like William Jennings Bryan in Inherit the Wind - in other words, as fulminating censhorship advocates and close minded intellectual bullies who are terrified to have their most cherished beliefs questioned. But that's exactly what's going on among many who claim to be upholding the spirit of free inquiry and open debate.

Words Fail To Describe The Tragedy


(Via the The People's Cube.)

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Judge Roberts, Come On Down!


Since the confirmation began this week, I thought I'd direct you toward this little piece of hilarity.

It's true, too. The Democrats basically circle the wagons, ask some questions nobody in their right mind would give the time of day, then accuse the besieged nominee of stonewalling.

Move Over, John McCain

The most dangerous place to be in Washington DC is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.
Yesterday's opening of the John Roberts confirmation hearings was a time for historic firsts.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) made 49 first-person references in a 10-minute statement that was, ostensibly, not about himself.
And Ted Kennedy hasn't even gotten started yet.

Bush Takes Full Responsibility For Fed's Katrina Response


The President probably made the left uncork the champagne with this statement today:
Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility
Say what you will about Bush's policies, but it's clear that he is a man of great character.

I'm wondering why all the focus is on the President to take responsibility when the majority of the trouble was at the local levels, to begin with? The President is the least responsible, Constitutionally, unless he's now expected to shred the Constitution and override the states with troops marching in like some invading army. (And in addition, no conservative would even be capable of such a thing, being a federalist.) This is, of course, precisely what some leftists called for. But the Constitution never mattered much to them anyway, as we know.

Granted, the federal government had its share of problems (Goodbye, Brown), but they weren't nearly as large or as debilitating to the rescue effort as the roadblocks the state officials incompetently set up along the way. The federal government's response was, in fact, faster than all of it's previous responses to other hurricanes, and this is in addition to hurricane Katrina being much more powerful than all of it's predecessors. But that's not necessarily saying much, when it comes to government; the delay was not because of a lack of planning or misexecution but simply the glacial nature of the bureaucracy. The private sector responded much quicker and more effectively.

Of course, after all the clamoring for the President to apologize, and show that he cares, they'll be back to slinging arrows at him in no time, if not using this apology as proof of failure. This is just like during the Presidential debates when of all the possible issues they could've debated they chose to ask an inane, loaded question about what he'd done wrong so he could indict himself at the exact moment he was trying to convince people to vote for him.

Oh, and don't you just love how liberals are once again jeering that the President shouldn't have been away but managing the crisis? It's a repeat of My Pet Goat! Have these people never heard of fax machines, cell phones, and other technologies available today? The President is never truly on "vacation", as he's followed by a mobile White House and the press corps. Apparently actual results don't matter to these people; it's all about the Clintonian obsession with image. As long as he comes out with a few fake tears dribbling down his cheeks and tells us how he "feels our pain" then everything is forgiven.

I suppose I can write a few posts about the local state officials' handling of Katrina, though the fact that the hurricane actually hit other states harder than it Louisiana but we aren't hearing about those on the news is a testament to the fact that it was mismanagement in the one state that caused the trouble. Other areas were devasted to a degree that made New Orleans appealing by comparison, but the governors and mayors in those areas quickly mobilized federal aid instead of keeping them out of state for days and used the resources available to them instead of sitting on their hands until the flood had rendered most of it moot.

Ah, and did I mention they turned away the Red Cross?

Hume On Judicial Activism

Brit Hume made an excellent encapsulation of judicial activism during the roundtable discusson on Fox News last night. It's the best given by any newscaster. Here's the relevant portion of the transcript:
KONDRACKE: No. No, no, no, no. There is no -- look, unless the president comes up with somebody who is way out in right field, I don't think that there's any chance that the Gang of 14 agreement, which ensures that there will not be a filibuster, is going to break up, you know?

So if he nominates -- and I think that he would have to nominate somebody who's really a fire brand, which is unlikely. So, you know, I think that Judge Roberts, though, is not a judicial activist, a conservative judicial activist. He doesn't sound like one. He says...

HUME: That's a contradiction in terms.

KONDRACKE: Well, no, it's not.

LIASSON: No, it's not.

KONDRACKE: Look, somebody who -- like one of the people who sounds like a judicial fire brand is Janice Rogers Brown, who, in various speeches, has talked about returning the state of the law to where it was before the New Deal, when socialism was inflicted on America, that kind of thing.

HUME: But judicial activism refers to a particular judicial philosophy in which there is great elasticity in the Constitution and that is found to permit and guarantee all sorts of things not there before.

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: That's liberal judicial activism.

HUME: Liberals don't like the term. That's what the phrase means.

Liberals have decided that that's disadvantageous to them, because Republicans have succeeded, or conservatives have succeeded, in demonizing the idea of judicial activism. So they invented a new concept of judicial activism, which is judges who are willing to hold certain congressional actions up to the light of the Constitution. And when they found the Constitution doesn't permit them, they strike them down. That's almost the opposite of judicial activism.
(Via NRO's The Corner.)

Shock: Witch Doctor Accused Of Rank Unprofessionalism

Our most trusted institutions and professionals continue to shock us with their lack of integrity:
The woman had told a relative that every time she entered her car an “unseen spirit” would disturb her.

At 10.15pm on Thursday the relative brought the 32-year-old woman to the bomoh’s [witch-doctor's] house in Permatang Badak, near here, to seek a cure.

After relating her problem to the bomoh, he asked her to lie down.

He then took an egg and rolled it over her body, purportedly to sap out the spirit that was dwelling in her.

He then allegedly fondled and sucked her breasts.

Stunned, she immediately got up and demanded an explanation from the bomoh, to which he replied that she was “unclean” and he wanted to remove the bad spirits from her body.
The woman was quoted as saying, "I was fine when the witch doctor rolled an egg all over my naked body to 'call forth the unclean spirits,' but then it just got all weird."

Bad Polling

How often do we see a headline screaming that the President's poll ratings have hit a new low? Every so often a new one comes out and the press nearly hyperventiliates speculating over when, not if, President Bush's lame duck status will descend upon him.

I don't put much stock in these polls. Not only because that events can change and reverse a course seemingly set, but because often the polling itself is unreliable. Often the poll looks accceptable at first glance, but a closer look at the methodologies reveal problems that can skew the results. For instance, that Washington Post poll that has been blaring from the headlines that President Bush's ratings are at an all time low has been guilty of oversampling:
A total of 1,200 randomly selected adults, including an oversample of 200 African-Americans, were interviewed Sept. 8-11 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for results based on the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
African Americans overwhelmingly support the Democrats. By overrepresenting them in this poll the results are inaccurately skewed against the President and help perpetuate false perceptions which mold public opinion, thus setting the tone for future polls.

Yet, despite this mistake, in this write-up of the same story, posted a day later, the oversampling of blacks is not mentioned.
The poll was conducted with 1,201 randomly selected adults, in an interviews between Sept. 8-11. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Bury those facts, boys, bury those facts.

Monday, September 12, 2005

How Does Such Rubbish Get Printed?

Powerline thoroughly destroys an inane analysis of the war on terror written by Michael Hirsh, published in Newsweek.

Roberts Confirmation Hearings

Today began Judge Roberts confirmation hearings for his appointment to the United States Supreme Court. It won't begin to pick up until later when the more rancorous Senators begin making their appearance, but so far it seems that Judge Roberts made an excellent showing. His umpire analogy was clever and apt. He showed an appropriate level of humility and clearly signaled his unwillingness to legislate from the bench.

"You Can Act Like A Man!"

I'm told that's one of the best lines in The Godfather. It was spoken by the Don (Marlon Brando) to Johnny Fontane (Al Martino) when Johnny started crying to Don about how tough show business was. The line was accompanied by a slap in the face by Don to Johnny.

It looks like Oklahoma GOP Senator Tom Coburn - a strong conservative - could learn a thing or two from their exchange. Apparently he nearly broke down in tears during his opening statements in talking about how he wanted "less divisiveness." If that's the case, he ought to be ashamed of himself. Between him and other weak kneed Republicans it seems like the GOP is keeping Kleenex in business.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

9/11

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Reaching For New Lows

Before the dead have even been recovered from the hurricane, CNN and a host of other news outfits have been fighting tooth and nail to be able to broadcast it as entertainment to the masses. As Instapundit says:
THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.

I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?
Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of 9/11. How many pictures of the dying on 9/11 will CNN show? Zero. Will they ever show the video of Daniel Pearle being decapitated? Thought not. If they can't make political hay out of it, it won't be done.

On Eve Of 9/11 Anniversary, NYT Lashes Out

...At America. How unsurprising is it that on the eve of the 4th anniversary of 9/11, the New York Times decides to devote its lead editorial to Abu Ghraib, which seems to have been on their front page for the last 10 million days:
The American public needs answers about the prisons, and it is simply not acceptable that a few low-level reservists go to jail while the civilian lawyers who wrote the torture policies get promoted and the general who devised the interrogations escapes even the mildest rebuke.

Given the need to investigate the Katrina debacle, this may seem one examination too many. But healing the wounds of the prison camps is vital to American values, the country's image and the safety of its soldiers.
I guess I must have missed the clamor, other than from the lunatic leftists, over this.

Germany: Candidate's Gender May Determine Outcome Of Election

Schroeder's been desperately trying to avoid his miserable domestic failures by playing the anti-American card. When I first read the headline, I thought, "Oh damn, those stupid Germans are going to re-elect Schroeder just because his opponent is a woman."

And look, let's face it, Germany isn't even one of those countries where you really need a guy in charge. It's not like the country, you know, actually does anything on the world stage.

They did a few things fifty to sixty years ago before the world had to tell them to knock it off.

But now I'm just in love with the idea of gender based voting, because it seems that a lot of Greens, socialists, communists, and other dopes are going to vote for Schroeder's opponent, Merkel, just because she's a woman.

Go Merkel!

What The British Are Reading About Us Today

From an email:
this is from The Sun, the UK's largest newspaper, on saturday, Sept 10 2005, in a column by Jeremy Clarkson. I quote this verbatim (it's not up on their website, so i'm typing it in)

"Hollywood has taught America that the military can solve anything. It's full of chisel-jawed heroes who never leave a man on the field and never fail to get the job done. So they'd have New Orleans sorted out in a jiffy.

Unfortunately, on the street you've got some poor, starving sould helping themselves to a packet of food from a ruined, deserted supermarket. And as a result, finding themselves being blown to pieces by a helicopter gunship. With the none-too-bright soldiers urged on by their illiterate political masters, the poor and needy never stood a chance. It's easier and much more fun to shoot someone than make them a cup of tea. Especially if they're black."
Oh, that crazy international media! Bless their little hearts.

I've been drowning in Katrina coverage. Somehow I missed the military gunships killing poor, hungry civilians.

New Orleans isn't Mogadishu. But I suspect we'll be reading such things for a long, long time. And many will believe, especially if it conveniently fits into their worldview.

Show This Guy The Door

Is it anti-American to hate everything about America? Or should I not be questioning his patriotism?

Friday, September 09, 2005

AP Jumps The Shark

The Associated Press managed today to pull off a feat many observers once believed to be impossible.

(No, they didn't write a fair and objective story. Let's be realistic. Hell, that would be the subject of a "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" episode, not this blog.)

They threw out a headline which made Reuter's headline about the same event look tame by comparison.

Here's the way in which Reuters projected their antipathy for Tom DeLay regarding that lobbyist and PAC, down in Texas, who are in trouble with the locals:
"Texas groups linked to DeLay indicted in scandal."
Okay. That's merely garden variety partisan liberal media bias. Nothing new.

But here's how the Associated Press headlined their piece:
"DeLay Organization Indicted in Texas."
Now that's derangement brought on by full blown Bush hatred in action.

Shine on, you crazy diamonds!

Great Orators Of The Democratic Party

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The buck stops here." - Harry S. Truman

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy

"The President and the White House spokesman proclaimed that the Administration would not play the blame game. Well Mr. President, this is not a game." - Ted Kennedy

Bush Dissolves Minimum Wage After Katrina

He's taking a lot of flack for dissolving the minimum wage in the wake of Katrina, but I'm all for it. Easing the burden on unsure businesses and making the local more attractive to investment will speed up the flow of goods and services to the devastated areas where they're so desperately needed.

Now if only he could do it for the rest of the country.

In fact, we should slash the minimum wage as a whole. It cuts into employment of lower wage employees and makes it much harder to enter the work force as an unskilled worker - the situation a poor person or a man without prior job experience would find himself in. A low paying job isn't glamorous, but it's not meant to be. It's the first rung on the ladder.

The minimum wage hurts those it claims to help the most.

UPDATE: It's not minimum wage, it's contracting fees that are being waived. Rats.

UNSCAM UPDATE


The Wall Street Journal editorializes:
So it was that the largest fraud ever recorded in history came about. Press reports often cite the overall size of Oil for Food at $60 billion, but Mr. Volcker's report makes clear that the real figure was in excess of $100 billion. From this, Saddam was able to derive $10.2 billion from illicit transactions. But the important point is that he was able to steer 10 times that sum toward his preferred clients in the service of his political aims. None of this happened by accident. . . .

As for the U.N., it proved its worth to Saddam as the one hall of mirrors in which such shenanigans could take place. Yet even now we are told that "at least" Oil for Food fed the Iraqi people when they were on the edge of starvation, and this is accounted a U.N. success. That is false. Oil for Food offered a lifeline of cash and influence to a regime that was starving its people. The program did not corrupt the U.N. so much as exploit its essential nature. Now Mr. Annan wants to use this report as an endorsement of his "reform" proposals. Only at the U.N. could he dare to think he could get away with this.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

NY Times Reaction To Katrina? Bankrupt GM & Ford!

The New York Times wants to fight high oil prices by mandating increased gas mileage:
The lawmakers should call for a rapid, mandatory increase in automobile mileage standards. And they must resist measures that would encourage only more consumption, like temporarily suspending gasoline taxes.
It's quite clear that the editors don't even read their own business section, otherwise they would've known that GM and Ford recently had their debt reduced to "junk" status, with any additional shocks to their core SUV and pickup businesses leading potentially to bankruptcy. But what do they care about a few hundred thousand jobs? (Especially when you consider they also had favored giving Cambodia to Pol Pot in order to "end the fighting"?) It'll also give them another excuse to trash our free market system.

Gay Marriage

Here's an excellent article on gay marriage.

Arnold Set To Terminate Gay Marriage Bill

The Governator announced on Wednesday that he would veto the gay marriage bill if it came across his desk.

Oh, he's done it now. I thought he'd try and stay away from the issue because he'd infuriate one half of the Californian electorate no matter which way he chose to go, and they'll definitely be steaming. Any kind of warm-hearted sentiment liberals have towards Arnold will be replaced by burning effigies at this rate.

Despite his reputation as a moderate, he's still a conservative, and wise enough to know that appeasing the other side never wins one any long lasting support, as President Bush found out on No Child Left Behind. All it ended up doing was alienating supporters and providing liberals a club to beat him over for not spending enough.

He can arguably "preserve the will of the people" as his aide put it, as Californians already expressed themselves in a vote against gay marriage 61% to 38%. That the legislature is so disconnected from the public on this issue simply reveals the grip the Left in California has over the Democrats there. (This is mainly from gerrymandering districts.)

In this case, Arnold decided to side with his strongest supporters, though I'm sure a little pressure from conservatives had something to do with it.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Democrats Plan To Attack Roberts Over... Hurricane Katrina

This is Ted Kennedy's idea, if you can believe such a thing.

That's the sort of idea you come up with when you've had ten or eighteen Chivas Regals. And also, when you're distracted because you're attempting to chat up a coed anthropology major from SFU while not wearing pants.

Charles Schumer is expected to question him vigorously about his "right wing Federalist Society Constitution-In-Exile views", about the sinking of the Titanic, the Tunguska Fireball of 1908, and why Yahoo Serious was ever permitted to have something of a career.

Quote Of The Day

Some wise words from Thomas Sowell:
"During good times or bad, the police cannot police everybody. They can at best control a small segment of society. The vast majority of people have to control themselves. That is where the great moral traditions of a society come in -- those moral traditions that it is so hip to sneer at, so cute to violate, and that our very schools undermine among the young, telling them that they have to evolve their own standards, rather than following what old fuddy duddies like their parents tell them. Now we see what those do-it-yourself standards amount to in the ugliness and anarchy of New Orleans. In a world where people flaunt their "independence," their "right" to disregard moral authority, and sometimes legal authority as well, the tragedy of New Orleans reminds us how utterly dependent each one of us is for our very lives on millions of other people we don't even see. Thousands of people in New Orleans will be saved because millions of other people they don't even know are moved by moral obligations to come to their rescue from all corners of this country. The things our clever sophisticates sneer at are ultimately all that stand between any of us and utter devastation.

Monday, September 05, 2005

"George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People"

Thank you for that insightful observation, Kanye West.

I guess Bush will just turn those trucks and troops around now. I mean, as long as the secret is out of the bag, why keep up the charade?

West is in effect accusing most of America of racism because the response to this disaster - the biggest and fastest mobilization of anti-disaster forces in American history - wasn't fast enough or perfect enough for him. Furthermore, does West name any of the politicans who share his skin color who have responsibility for this, like the Mayor and City Council of New Orleans? Nope. He just picks the biggest, whitest target he can get: Bush. The one who, Constitutionally, has the least responsibliity here.

It's time we face facts: if you're willing to presume bigoted sentiment in a person simply because of his skin color and because you don't agree with his politics, you are a racist.

Kanye West's a racist. So are the people who try to justify "affirmative action" programs that benefit wealthy and upper middle class black kids at the expense of kids of other races. In fact, in the attempt to even the disparities between races and "level the playing field" by artificially propping up black students for their race alone, liberals slam the door of opportunity shut on asians instead. It's been noted in the past that four out of five black students accepted because of affirmative action would be replaced by asians were the decision based solely on the merit of the individual alone.

If you're willing to spread vicious stereotypes because you don't like someone and you think their skin color makes them fair game, you're a racist. If you're willing to subject people to double standards based on their skin color, black or white, you're a racist.

I've resigned myself to the sad fact that, whether deserved or not - and in spite of whatever mishandling the administration has done, I believe it's not - I see no way for President Bush to escape this trumped up line. Barring some political shift I can't predict, the black vote is lost to the GOP for a generation.

Of course, there was negligible black support for the Republican Party to begin with, which made it easier for both blacks and the GOP to ignore each other in a self-rolling snowball. Never mind that the policies that ruined the cities were all put in place by Democratic administrations, and never mind that New Orleans has been mismanaged by generations of Democratic politicians. None of that will matter when it comes time to play the blame game.

After all, to paraphrase reknowned political authority Kanye West, Republicans don't care about black people.

Conservatives generally dislike launching the racist moniker at any opponent because of the liberal tendency to gleefully run away with it and give it out like it's candy. But you've got to call a spade a spade.

After further reflection, I have to admit I laughed out loud at the clip. Not at the tragedy, not at the confused tirade, but I definitely love how West just felt he had to tack on that last bit at the end. What, "George Bush eats puppies" was too direct?

I also love how Mike Myers gets that bewildered "Is this in the script?" look, kind of like that look I got at work when the crazy tech support girl would tell me I need to worry about mercury poisoning, and spend more time cleaning the impurities from my chi / lower intestine.

Then the video cuts to a surprised Chris Tucker, who looks as if he's just been caught stealing.

Yup, instant classic.

Bias

This AP story on Rehnquist is decidedly hard Left.

Stem Cells Not The Miracle Cure?

Embryonic stem cell research is used as a political pike, skewering any politician that doesn't accept the fantastic claims made by the vested interests, the anti-Bush and pro-abortion coalition. Remember that Presidential candidate John Kerry claimed during the campaign that if stem cell research was given free reign Christopher Reeves of Superman fame, who had suffered spinal injuries and was quadripalegic, would be walking tomorrow. Well, Mr. Reeves is dead, as will most of us be before any progress is made in this research.
A leading scientist who pushed for the controversial research into embryo stem cells will warn today that the challenges are so huge that any cures for disease lie a long way in the future.

Lord Winston, who pioneered fertility research in the UK, is to tell the British Association for the Advancement of Science, meeting in Dublin, that during the political campaign to push through legislation in 2001, some parliamentarians were led to believe that clinical treatments were "just around the corner". Some of the lobbying came from patients' groups, but it was stimulated by scientific observations.

"I view the current wave of optimism about embryonic stem cells with growing suspicion. Embryonic stem cells replicate very slowly in culture, and it may well be that in the culture systems where you want to grow them the selective pressure is in favour of the faster growing cells, the ones of course which are most likely to be genetically abnormal," he said.
I'm not against stem cell research, but it's important to keep a balanced outlook on the prospects for all research and not just the item of the day. Much research in new fields is only a tentative first step that will be revised many times over before any solid conclusions are drawn. When we add in the political factor influencing some of the studies and pushing for certain results, the information is skewed even more by "arrogance and spin", as the article puts it.

Democrats Demand Justice Just Like Rehnquist

The beauty of satire is when it captures an essential truth. Scott Ott does so yet again with this post:
(2005-09-05) -- Just hours after the death of William H. Rehnquist, Senate Democrats demanded that President George Bush nominate a replacement whose ideology and judicial philosophy match that of the late Supreme Court justice.

"When Sandra Day O'Connor retired, we insisted Bush appoint a centrist to replace her and maintain the balance on the court," said one unnamed Senator. "Now, we demand that the president name a right-wing, conservative, originalist to replace Rehnquist for that same reason."

The Senator explained that balance is the most important feature of the high court, trumping ideology, logic and the intent of the framers of the constitution.

"As much as we'd like to have another lefty like [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, we must maintain balance," the anonymous legislator intoned. "Even if it means overturning Roe v. Wade, we Democrats shall remain true to our principles."
Yeah, that'll be the day. Roberts is probably as close to Rehnquist as you can possibly get. But I doubt Democrats will celebrate the fact.

Bush Caused The Hurricane & Laughs At Victims

A pack of liberals and Democrats are charging that the responsibility for the scope of the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina lies squarely on Bush's shoulders.

In a recent polling, the American people blame the hurricane, not Bush, for the natural disaster of New Orleans, 55% to 44%. That means that 44% of Americans are idiots - but that percentage does align quite neatly with about half of Americans who voted for Kerry, proving the classic Democratic belief that their constituents are idiots.

The fact of the matter is that President Bush declared New Orleans a disaster zone before Hurricane Katrina even hit land. The National Guard was prepared to move in and only needed the authorization of the state government in New Orleans to act. The supplies were prepared, but it's hard to deliver any supplies when the relief area is an anarchist warzone. With the consideration of the unknown nature of the disaster zone, the federal government's response was adequate.

The problem came in at the state government level, where many opportunities to evacuate people were lost by the notoriously ineffective and corrupt New Orleans administrators. There were hundreds of buses that could have been used for evacuation; they were simply left parked. Where are they now? Under water. The Superdome was designated as the refugee zone, but the officials neglected to stock it with any food or water. What did they expect would happen, that people would arrive there and simply be saved, with no further management? That finger pointing rarely accomplishes anything of value during a crisis seems lost on these people. But if they're going to do it, they should be looking elsewhere than President Bush. The incompetent governor of New Orleans failed miserably.

When disaster struck on 9/11, Rudy Guiliani averted what was an even greater disaster by acting quickly and moving to save the day. The initial death toll forecast for the twin towers was 25,000. Instead the Mayor and Governor of New Orleans decided to take a mental vacation.

NEW ORLEANS EVACUATION PLAN
1) New Orleans administrators evacuate city.
2)
3) Success!

The similarities to Kerry's plan for Iraq are uncanny.

New Orleans Chaos & The Welfare State

This is an excellent article on the corroding influence the welfare state has on society.

Chief Justice John Roberts?


The President just nominated John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

This is an excellent move. The Democrats already vetted his record with a fine tooth and comb, even going so far as to investigate his children and adoption record. After all that, he was approved. It'll be hard for the Democrats to turn around after such a vigorous scrutiny and claim that Roberts is not fit for the job when everything that could possibly render him objectionable has already been seen and he's been judged acceptable. Of course, that won't stop politicians from playing politics, but it does give Republicans ammunition to use against them in turn. I expect him to get approved by the Senate.

As to Roberts' qualifications, he's an absolutely appropriate and fitting choice. Everything I've read about the man suggests he is a federalist. The only possible downside is that it'll be harder to overturn previous judicial decisions that we find disagreeable, but most of those should be overturned anyway if they ever come into consideration by the Court again because they were legally spurious decisions.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

New SCOTUS Seat Available

As I'm sure you've heard, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away last night. A good man and a reliable conservative Justice, though not as dependable as Scalia or Thomas. Now there's going to be two additional battles for the President: The nomination of a new Supreme Court appointee, and the selection of a new Chief Justice.

The question is whether or not the new appointment will be able to pull his weight in the Court as well as Rehnquist has been able to, or if we'll be saddled with another moderate who has no clear principles in their rulings and uses their arbitrary whims as a guide instead. It'll be hard to tell whether this will be the case, as the nominee we'd typically use as a way to forecast the next appointment, John Roberts, is a mysterious candidate. The pressure will be greater on President Bush to nominate a conservative because of the person the nominee will be replacing and to preserve the ideological makeup of the current Court.

I expect Democrats to meet the news with dismay at the prospect of the President being able to appoint to the Supreme Court yet another rabid conservative frothing at the mouth at the chance of tearing into the Bill of Rights like freshly delivered meat. The interest groups on both sides were whipped up into a battle frenzy over the Roberts nomination, which didn't become the controversial free-for-all they'd expected, so there's still a lot of money laying around ready to be used. Perhaps this next nomination will provide the background for the bloodsport they've been eagerly awaiting.

RIP, Rehnquist.

UPDATE: It's understood that when a person dies, you generally try not to speak ill of their name out of respect. That's not stopping leading leftist David Corn at the ultra liberal The Nation from calling Rehnquist a racist and practically dancing on his grave.

Friday, September 02, 2005

Welcome Mat

Thursday, September 01, 2005

Good News From Iraq

Part 34 of overlooked news is up.

Some numbers and analysis suggest that the real make-or-break for democracy in Iraq will be Iraq's economy. There's reason to be hopeful if it's so, because despite what you may have heard about China's burgeoning economy - growing at a whopping 9% last year - it pales in comparison to the rapid economic growth in the last two years in Iraq.

A Minor Problem

The other day, the New York Times reported on a Nebraska couple, Matthew and Crystal Koso, who got married in May after he made her pregnant. Their daughter, Samara, was born last week and is apparently doing fine. His father is in some trouble, however: Mr. Koso is charged with raping his wife.

Mr. Koso is 22, and Mrs. Koso is 14. The pair went to Kansas, where the law permits girls as young as 12 to wed with parental consent - a law the Times reports has Kansas' Gov. Kathleen Sebelius "embarrassed." She "has said she will propose a raise in the minimum age when the Legislature reconvenes in January," the Times adds.

In an editorial yesterday, the Times endorsed the proposal:
The Koso marriage is indeed legal, and that is the fault of the Kansas State Legislature, which should heed a call by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and raise the age as soon as it reconvenes in January. Kansas is not the only state that has failed to fix antiquated laws permitting 14-year-old boys to marry 12-year-old girls if the parents permit. . . .

The fact that parents are willing to go along with these unions does not make them right. Chances are that in most of these cases, as apparently happened with Mr. Koso's family, when the parents found out that a baby was on the way, they were eager for the child to be born to married parents. But neither parental nor state approval makes it right to tie a girl as young as 12 to another person in what is supposed to be a lifetime commitment.
Indeed. A 14-year-old is a child, far too young for something as serious as marriage. At that age, she should be focusing on childish things like playing with dolls, going to sock hops, and having abortions.

Our Guardsmen - On Duty in Iraq & Home

A profoundly stupid argument circulating about the Left asserts that people are dying in New Orleans and elsewhere because there are insufficient Guardsmen on hand to deal with the Katrina catastrophe. Bush's war in Iraq, the line goes, has depleted the National Guard's ranks and is therefore harming Americans in need.

Let's nip this one in the bud, shall we? First, let us note that the National Guard Bureau some time ago committed to the various state governors to keep approximately 50% of Guard strength undeployed for precisely these situations. Second, let us note that of the stricken states now, roughly 60% of their Guard strength is available for disaster duty now. That breaks down to about 6,500 Guardsmen in Louisiana, 7,000 in Mississippi, and 10,000 in Alabama. That's just the numbers available. Of those activated, we see that it comes to 3,500 in Louisiana, 1,600 in Mississippi, and 750 in Alabama. Or, 50%, 19%, and 7.5% of available totals respectively. This doesn't even begin to account for Guardsmen from adjacent states. The Arkansans are ready to deploy, and there are over 8,200 Guardsmen available in Florida alone - and that's for starters.

The modern American left is shot through with men who cut themselves shaving and blame Bush's war in Iraq for the blood thus spilt. There's no point in trying to convince them otherwise, or that Katrina's devastation is not somehow, somehow the Administration's fault. But most people should know better.

Looters & The Left

I noted earlier that environmental extremists were taking advantage of the devastating situation in New Orleans to bash America for not heeding the problem of global warming. They're not alone; other members of the Left and their sympathizers are busy taking shots at President Bush:
Air America's Randi Rhodes: "This President is never gonna do the right thing. I think somewhere deep down inside him he takes a lot of joy about losing people, if he thinks they vote Democrat or if he thinks they're poor, or if he thinks they're in a blue state, whatever his reasons are not to rescue those people..."

Cindy Sheehan: "George is finished playing golf and telling his fables in San Diego, so he will be heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused."

Josh Marshall: "I know we're supposed to be observing an accountability free moment for the president. But there are just too many examples out there of the ways in which his policies have contributed to and accentuated this crisis. . . . No more letting this man's failures become his own argument against accountability. It's always been a live-for-today presidency."

Andrew Sullivan: "Blaming Bush and the war for the poor state of New Orleans' levees is a legitimate argument. And it could be a crushing one."

Molly Ivins: "Does this mean we should blame President Bush for the fact that New Orleans is underwater? No, but it means we can blame Bush when a Category 3 or Category 2 hurricane puts New Orleans under."

New York Times editorial: "George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. . . . Since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal." (The Alenda Lux blog has an excellent dissection of this editorial.)
Last year, when hurricane Charley struck Florida, the complaint was that Bush was too responsive. "Even before the storm hit, the President declared four counties disaster areas to speed federal movey to victims," CBS News reported a year ago. "But that quick response fueled suspicion that he is using disaster politics to help his campaign in one of the most critical battleground states."

Some people respond to a horrific natural disaster by taking cheap shots at their political opponents. Others respond by stealing TV sets. The underlying impulse fueling this behavior is the same and knows no boundaries of social class.