Raging Right Wing Republican

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

Friday, March 31, 2006

Howard Dean: Bush "Scapegoating" Hispanics

Democratic Party chief Howard Dean accused President Bush and the Republican Party on Friday of exploiting the immigration issue for political gain by scapegoating Hispanics.

Dean and Bush agree on the legislation at the heart of the debate. Both support a Senate bill that would expand guest-worker programs for an estimated 400,000 immigrants each year.
This is hilarious. The President is the one who's been backing amnesty for illegal immigrants. How is that "scapegoating" Hispanics? The President and the good Dr. agree on this issue; is he scapegoating Hispanics too? And what's more, how exactly is this being "exploited for political gain" by the Republicans? If anything, it's the Democrats who profit from this. They can just sit back and watch the Republicans tear themselves apart as years of Republican efforts to woo Hispanic voters are undone. I'm trying to figure out how that helps the Republicans, though.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Green Party Shamelessly Exploits Moron

Not content to fail on their merits, The Delaware Green Party has hit a new low in drafting admitted anti-war moonbat Michael Berg to run for office:
"Other than stopping this war, I have no political ambitions," Berg said. "Let's face it, I would not be running if my son had not died in Iraq. People would not have known my name, and the Green Party would not have asked me to run."
And that just about says it all doesn't it? Like Sheehag, Berg wants to blame Bush for his son deciding to take a job in a warzone for a little extra scratch. The far Left, that's already planning a mid-term campaign that consists of combing military hospitals for wounded vets to flash any lost limbs and guilt the public into voting for them, is intent on applying a new strategy known as The Max Cleland Offensive. Too bad it didn't work for Cleland very long.
"I would rather run on my shoestring budget than on the silver slipper of the Democrats," he said.

Prominent Democrats such as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry want to "escalate" the war in Iraq by sending in more troops, Berg argues.
When Hillary and Kerry are still too conservative, you may not have hit the bottom but you'll be hitting it soon enough.

May the voters of Delaware hand him his own head at the ballot box.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

America is Falling Back to Sleep

A recent poll has shown that Americans are more concerned about medical care than they are about the possibility of another terrorist attack on their country. This would go a long way toward explaining why President Bush's approval numbers are so low. Bush is focused on the war on terror; on protecting this country from the jihadist goals of Islam. In a way, the Republicans and the President are victims of their own success - this happens to all wartime leaders. Americans have noted that there has not been an attack on their country since 9/11, and therefore the threat of a terrorist attack is all but over and we're all safe. Now it's time for the government to do something to relieve them of the onerous responsibility of providing for your own medial care. After all, your health and your medical care is the responsibility of either your employer or the government, right?

In the meantime, we learned yesterday that congressional investigators successfully smuggled enough radioactive material into this country to make two dirty bombs. The material even set off radiation detectors at the border checkpoints, but got in. One border crossing was in Canada, the other in Mexico. Both crossings were chosen because there were radiation detectors there. In both cases the detectors went off. The "smugglers" were pulled aside and questioned. They showed forged import licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The forgeries were copies of a document they found on the Internet. The forgeries worked, and they got through the border checkpoint.

Read that entire last paragraph again. This should be today's big story. Still feeling sleepy?

Illegal Invasion


Screw 'em. Just build the damn wall and send them back to Mexico.

Jobless Americans

A reader asks:
"The U.S. has an employment rate that is so low it's approaching full employment. If we suddenly eliminate 10+ million workers from the workforce, where are the replacements going to come from?"
Perhaps from here:
"The share of young black men without jobs has climbed relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late 1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless - that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000."
When illegal immigrants take jobs, they have to take them from somebody. The reason most Americans "won't do" many of the jobs illegal immigrants take up is because the illegals flood the market and drive down the wages of the jobs that would otherwise be higher.

Britney Spears Sculpture: Half Weird, Half Tasteless

I don't even mean the part about her depicting her at the moment of childbirth. That, I suppose, is a controversial but interesting (maybe?) subject for art.

But... why Britney Spears? And what's this business of a... bearskin rug? And why the hell is she on all fours?


It doesn't even look anything like Britney Spears. And didn't she get a C-section? Wouldn't it make sense to make a sculpture of somebody who, I don't know, actually gave birth?

At some point, I hope, the trivial impulse for camp and arch (gay-culture-influenced) irony will finally be seen as passe and then we can perhaps have good art again. But that impulse seems to have been with our artists for a while, and they haven't beat that dead horse enough yet for their liking.

Democrats to Take Out Osama

This is good. The Democratic party, the party of appeasement, the party of treating terrorism as nothing more than a crime problem for 3 decades, the party of surrender in the war on radical Islam, they suddenly have a plan to eliminate Osama Bin Laden. This should be good.

First, the details of their "plan." The Democrats issued a position paper for their party in the 2006 election. Essentially, they're saying 'elect us and here's what we'll do.' Here are the details:
1. They promise to eliminate Osama Bin Laden. They don't say how. Doubling special forces and increasing the number of spies. Yeah, I'm sure that will help.

2. They promise a responsible redeployment of forces from Iraq in 2006. That's code for cutting and running. Again, they don't say how or what they would do to stabilize Iraq.
So... more of the same. Unfortunately, their servants in the mainstream media are giving them the headline that they have a plan to catch Osama. But really, they have no plan. just an empty promise. But hey! If politicians have learned one thing in the last 30 years it's that people will fall for empty promises. It's the same thing Democrats have been giving us on national security since the days of Jimmy Carter. Appeasement, surrender and cluelessness. Some plan!

San Francisco: Fannnn-Tastic

Yale is kosher with having a Taliban official as a their newest freshman, but some beliefs are just beyond the pale.

A Christian Youth rally was held in San Fransisco. Some of the "open minded" liberal locals were less tolerant than one might expect.
Barricades separated Luce's crowd with counterprotesters about 6 feet away who said the Friday and Saturday event amounted to a "fascist mega-pep rally."

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, told counterprotesters that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting and they should get out of San Francisco."
Yeah, they hate Christians. We all knew that. Now let's compare:
"...Backlash over sex party for S.F.'s elite nearly kills bond issue...The bond measure was heavily supported by the 49ers, the city's Democratic leadership...

But the entire drive for what was known as "Proposition D" nearly self-destructed a month before the election when the campaign's manager, prominent liberal political consultant and San Francisco power broker Jack Davis, held an X-rated party attended by Mayor Willie Brown, various elected city supervisors...

The party, which featured acts of profound sexual perversion, was a 50th birthday celebration for Mr. Davis, and was organized by some of his friends. There were both male and female strippers dancing at the party, as well as live and simulated sex acts openly performed on a stage throughout the night...

The bacchanalia concluded with a "dominatrix" beating a man in front of the crowd, urinating on him in full view of the audience, and carving a satanic symbol-a pentagram-into the man's bare back with a knife. Finally, the man was publicly sodomized with a whiskey bottle...
I do believe that certain things are better kept in private. Namely, satanic-symbol flesh-carving. That's never something you should do in public; trust me.

It's become socially unacceptable to say Jesus Christ in public (at least in a non-blasphemous manner), and yet it's intolerant to not want to sit on the stool just vacated by the guy wearing nothing but assless chaps and nipple-clips.

Some Eavesdroppers are more Equal than Others

When a Republican president eavesdrops on America's enemies, liberals shout "civil liberties." When a Democratic congressman eavesdrops on political enemies, liberals shout "civil liberties"--civil liberties for the spy and not the spied on.

Stand by to go live...

Raise the lights and cue the music:

As if the debates over immigration and the Iraq war weren't contentious enough, Congress is about to embark on some really hot-button issues: flag burning, same-sex marriage and censuring the president.

A good time will be had by all.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Scientific Proof: French are Dumb

Remember the guy last year who gave a whole bunch IQ tests and found that men were about 5 IQ points smarter than women? Well, he's back, but this time he is breaking down the smarts across Europe. He theorizes that those in northern, colder climates had to develop the smarts to survive:
  • Germany: 107
  • Spain: 98
  • Netherlands: 107
  • Hungary: 98
  • Poland: 106
  • Russia: 96
  • Sweden: 104
  • Greece: 95
  • Italy: 102
  • France: 94
  • Austria: 101
  • Romania: 94
  • Switzerland: 101
  • Turkey: 90
  • Britain: 100
  • Serbia: 89
  • Belgium: 99
Of course, there's other applications as well:
Professor Lynn ascribes the differences between British and French intelligence levels to the results of military conflict.

He described it as "a hitherto unrecognised law of history" that "the side with the higher IQ normally wins, unless they are hugely outnumbered, as Germany was after 1942".
That whole north/south thing doesn't exactly apply here in the States. After all, we're a melting pot and evolution doesn't apply for a country just a couple of centuries old. Of course, a whole lot of French settled down around New Orleans and we all saw what happened to those guys . . .

But wait, there's more! The Brits do pretty well in another category:
Britain does well in another of Professor Lynn's measures. He found that university students here have the second-highest undergraduate IQs in the world at 109, pipped only by those in America on 110.
Them's our allies.

W's Tangled Immigration Rhetoric

The President is right on a great many issues, but on immigration, he is wrong. His rhetoric on immigration makes no sense:
"No one should pretend that immigrants are threats to America's identity..."
That depends how many there are. We are told that by 2050, France will be a majority-Muslim nation. So immigration will have threatened France's identity pretty decisively, won't it? As Enoch Powell used to say: Numbers are of the essence. If one-tenth of China's population managed to cross the Pacific and enter the USA, that would increase our population by 44 percent. That wouldn't threaten America's identity? Numbers are of the essence.
"...because immigrants have shaped America's identity."
Either they have, or they haven't - it's debatable. Some people would say that America's identity is still fundamentally Anglo-Saxon-Celtic. But suppose the statement is true. Then presumably, permitting the continued mass influx of Mexicans would further "shape America's identity" - by making this country more like Mexico. Is this what Americans want, for our country to more closely resemble Mexico? Is it a thing that any sane person would want?
"No one should claim that immigrants are a burden on our economy..."
Of course immigrants are a burden on our economy. To the degree that they need housing, transportation, medical care, schooling for their children, Social Security, possibly welfare, all human beings are a burden on our economy. The question is, are immigrants - especially illegal ones - a net burden on our economy? Do they take out more than they put in? This is in fact a topic of debate among economists, with respectable scholars on both sides. The debate has been going on for years.

Pro-Taliban Liberals

In today's Yale Daily News, senior James Kirchick weighs in on the controversy over Yale's admission of erstwhile Taliban spokesman Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, and he makes a very insightful point:
Outrage over religious fascism ought to be the province of American liberals. But in Hashemi's case it has been almost entirely trumpeted by Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and right-wing bloggers. A friend of mine recently remarked that part of his and his peers' nonchalance (and in some cases, support for) Hashemi has to do with the fact that the right has seized upon the issue. Our politics have become so polarized that many are willing to take positions based on the inverse of their opponents'. This abandonment of classical liberal values at the expense of political gamesmanship has consequences that reach far beyond Yale; it hurts our national discourse.
During the past several years liberalism has come to be defined less by what it stands for than by whom it stands against. "The enemy of George Bush is my friend" might as well be the credo of American liberals at this moment in history. And since George Bush is the leader of our country, it follows that "the enemy of my country is my friend."

Monday, March 27, 2006

Saddam, WMD's, And Al Qaeda: What We Now Know

It's hard to upset conventional wisdom, especially when that conventional wisdom is beloved by an entire political movement and their communications staff in the media. But truth is elusive and inexorable. It wants to be free.
Reams of documents – ultimately numbering in the millions of pages by the time CDs, hard drives, and computer memories are downloaded and printed – are slowly beginning to be translated and released for analysis. These documents – though only 2% or so are translated and available – substantiate without doubt the following allegations: Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, the Baathist regime and al Qaeda had extensive, wide reaching ties. Saddam was, at a minimum, a supporter of the 911 attacks if not a sponsor of them. Saddam’s intelligence services trained more than 8,000 al Qaeda terrorists, primarily from Somalia and Sudan, at camps such as Salman Pak and Ansar al-Islam within Iraq. And Saddam helped finance al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups.

Further, the documents substantiate a broad, on-going program Iraq had to develop nuclear weapons. Indeed, Saddam had instructed his minions to begin preparing to re-energize the program after UN sanctions were lifted, a hope he had reinforced by French, Russian, and German diplomats, and traitors like British Parliamentarian George Galloway, all of whom convinced him that delay and obfuscation of the UN would get him off the hook.

We also know, thanks to the work of former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada, that Saddam had several civilian aircraft – one Boeing 747 and a “group” of 727s - stripped of passenger equipment and converted into cargo planes. The aircraft flew 56 sorties between Iraq and Syria, delivering drums of the chemical weapon Sarin along with other chemical and biological weapons. The deal with concocted on Saddam’s orders by “Chemical Ali” his general in charge of special weapons, and Bashar Assad’s cousin, General Abu Ali. It was a rare occasion for cooperation between the rival Baathist states, but as Sada notes, “there was complete agreement between them.”

In addition to the air sorties an uncounted amount of WMD were transported to Syria by commercial trucks – familiar 18-wheelers – and other civilian vehicles, including ambulances. “Saddam was convinced,” according to Sada, “that commercial trucks could pass right through security checkpoints…and they did.” American CIA overhead assets – spy satellites – were on the lookout for military trucks and ignored “routine” commercial traffic.

General Sada is not a lone voice in this matter. The Mossad, Israeli intelligence service, has long claimed that the weapons were transferred out of Iraq. American generals Paul Vallely and Thomas McInnerny noted in their 2004 book, Endgame, that extensive stockpiles of WMD were hidden in three locations within Syria and in the Syrian-controlled terrorist camps of the Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Included in the stocks were nerve agents like Tabun, Sarin 1, and Sarin 2. They did not remain hidden for long.

Up to 20 tons of these chemical agents were intended for use by al Qaeda terrorists in attacking three targets in Amman, Jordan in 2004 – the Jordanian Ministry of Defense and Intelligence Service buildings, and the American Embassy. These were to be simultaneous truck bomb attacks that were thwarted by good counter-intelligence work. The trucks were large 15-ton capacity powerful vehicles that could power through barriers and obstacles to crash into the buildings. At that time the homicide drivers would detonate the ammonium nitrate load triggered by plastic explosives – probably C-4. Resting atop the explosive load were Saddam’s chemicals, sufficient to kill upwards to 100,000 people in downtown Amman, by conservative.
Actually, I'd put Sada's claims in the category of "Things We Suspect, and Require Further Investigation," not "Things We Know."

But that Amman chemical-bombing incident is compelling. And we have not yet heard where, precisely, this huge amount of chemical WMD's came from. Syria, perhaps, or maybe Iran; but Iraq seems a more likely place.

There's more, of course.

Trouble Ahead

David Frum:
Immigration truly is emerging as an issue that can shatter the Republican party. The president is determined to thrust upon the party an amnesty/guestworker approach that is opposed by the overwhelming majority of the Republican rank-and-file. He has come to believe - and tells visitors to the White House - that party opposition to him is based on irrational fear, ignorance, and prejudice. (Just like Dubai! Or for that matter, Harriet Miers.)

If anything were calculated to solidify the perception that this administration scorns the values and concerns of the ordinary Republican - if anything were designed to discourage ordinary Republican from turning out in November 2006 - it is what this administration is doing now. At a moment when the president needs his maximum strength to see his foreign policy through to success, he is gambling everything on a wager he cannot win. His version of immigration reform can only pass Congress with Democratic votes, and there is zero possibiilty that the Democrats will help him - but every likelihood that they will egg him on to incite a Republican civil war on the issue that most bitterly divides the president's party.

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry: New Iraq Docs Show Collaboration Between Saddam And Bin Ladin

Bob Kerry is to be praised for having the integrity to admit the obvious, against his partisan interests. Not many Democrats are going to endorse his assessment.
A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001. . . .

. . . the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.
A 9/11 Commissioner, too. And he seems to believe the document changes the known facts about al-Qaeda and Saddam.

Not to be Outdone


Donald Rumsfeld pauses briefly to kill a reporter with a ballpoint pen.

Politicians to Public on Immigration: No Comprende

Hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets of Los Angeles this weekend. Denver, Phoenix, and other cities hosted, on a smaller scale, similar events. What do they want? Open borders! When do they want it? Now!

Nine out of ten Americans view illegal immigration as a problem, but nine out of ten politicians won't do anything to solve it. Why? Illegal immigration benefits two groups: illegal immigrants and the businessmen who employ them. The former constitute an interest group within the Democratic Party; the latter are a substantial portion of the donor base for the Republican Party. Both parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of porous borders and lawless hiring practices.

A second reason helps explain why the popular will has been thwarted: voters who feel most passionately about illegal immigration, legal immigrants and the businessmen who employ them, generally support lax enforcement of immigration laws. Huge majorities support restricting immigration (both legal and illegal), but those huge majorities aren't so affected by the issue as to vote solely on it. The hundreds of thousands of protestors who showed up in Los Angeles, on the other hand, are personally affected by immigration laws and do - to the extent that they can vote - cast ballots solely on the immigration issue.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

What's Not to Despise?

Atheists aren't liked so much:
American's increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn't extend to those who don't believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota's department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society." Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
Well, let's see, they want to ban Christmas, are constantly trying to tell everyone else what to do, manage to find the doom - DOOM! - of an impending Christian theocracy in every issue, always assume that they are more intelligent and educated than everyone else on the mere basis of their beliefs and have a historically murderous track record that is second only to Genghis Khan. After all, when you reject any objective belief system and embrace subjectivity then the only path you've consigned yourself to is that of "might equals right."

There are some exceptions, of course, but I've found that the atheists I've met tend to have social skills that hover around the Chess Club level, just above the hairier man-hating feminists. Unlike agnostics, who couldn't care less whether you believe in Jesus Christ, Allah or Mighty Cthulhu, atheists will bring up either a) the Spanish Inquisition, b) the Crusades, c) the purported Christianity of Adolf Hitler, or d) the Thirty-Years War within five minutes of hearing that incindiary word, "hello".

No one minds agnostics, partly because they're perfectly willing to admit that they have no idea and partly because they tend to keep their suspicion that you don't either to themselves. Atheists, on the other hand, seem to have nearly as strong a propensity for proselytizing as Jehovah's Witnesses.

And, of course, they say their disbelief in a god doesn't mean that they have no basis for morals or character, (although they can never explain what their carefully thought-out morality is based upon), but then, it's not as if they believe they're ever going to be held to account for lying about it either.

Afghan Apostasy Trial: As Usual, Mark Steyn Leaves Nothing Left to Say

From his column today:
I can understand why the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would rather deal with this through back channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies. Abdul Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to, not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet.

What can we do? Should governments with troops in Afghanistan pass joint emergency legislation conferring their citizenship on this poor man and declaring him, as much as Karzai, under their protection?

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" - the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gen. Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Friday, March 24, 2006

Still Can't Trust the Russians

Apparently the Russian ambassador to Iraq gave Saddam the US war plans ahead of the attack.

Yes, "more diplomacy" would've really gotten the Russians on board, right?

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Busted! ABC News Exec: "Bush makes me sick"

What liberal media?
A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

"If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained.
But, but, but! It's a corporate media conspiracy led by the Reich wing!

Where's my cheap gas, Mr. President?

Yesterday President Bush marked the third anniversary of the Iraq war by touting the efforts to "build democracy." As the Associated Press notes, the President gave the speech without ever using the word "war." What the AP seems to have missed is that he also didn't use another, even more important, term: gasoline.

Even before the war began I've been a staunch proponent of the Bush Administration's policy on Iraq. And longtime readers of this blog can attest to the fact that my support for the war has been unwavering. But after three years I can no longer bite my tongue. It's finally time I speak out against this grave injustice.

I know we're supposed to stick with the story line that we went to war to find WMDs (wink, wink) and to liberate the people of Iraq (nudge, nudge). I realize we had to tell the UN something and that was the story we came up with. Fine. I was willing to stick to the script as long as it allowed us to further our real goal: to seize Iraqi oil so that we could have an endless supply of cheap gas.

I realize that as a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy™, I'm not supposed to speak about this topic in public. But I simply can't keep quiet any longer. Seriously, isn't it time we came clean about our real motives for going to war? It's not like we're convincing anybody. Survey shows that 60% of Germans and 58% of French believe that the war on terrorism is being fought "to control Middle East oil." When you can't even fool the French, its probably time to drop the ruse. (OK, Frenchies, we admit it. C'est la vie.)

Besides, by pretending the war wasn't about oil we're allowing the Administration to bungle that part of it without being able to criticize them for it. We must put a stop to this reckless disregard for our national interest and we need to do so quickly. We have to take a stand before I'm forced to take out a second mortgage in order to fill up my Hummer.

Just look at what we're doing to the Iraqi oil industry. We secured the oil fields from Saddam's army, removed the explosives intended to sabotage them, rebuilt the infrastructure, dredged the harbor required to transport the oil, and then we gave the oil fields back to the Iraqis. For shame. How can Donald Rumsfeld sleep at night? Many of our boys made the ultimate sacrifice for that most noble of reasons - so that we could buy all the gas we wanted as cheaply as possible. Are we seriously going to besmirch their memories by allowing the Iraqi people to control their own oil? What kind of occupying force have we become?

And what about the poor Brits? We convinced Tony Blair to go along for the ride by telling him he’d have cheap petrol for his MINI Cooper. Now gas in the UK is $5.98 per gallon (That's in US dollars. It probably sounds even worse when you convert it to metric). As the great British patriot Morrissey would say, "That joke isn't funny anymore."

But the most infuriating part - my hands are shaking with rage just typing this - is that the Iraqis are getting gas at forty six cents a gallon! Forty six cents! You can't buy raw sewage in America for forty six cents a gallon! And why do the Iraqis need such cheap gas anyway? They don't even drive SUVs! Do they require cheap gas for the daily commute to Fallujah where their job is to fight the infidels?

Forget the Iraqis, I'm the one that needs cheaper gas. I'm the one who has to carpool with a guy who drives a VW Beetle and smells like patchouli oil. I even volunteered to go to war just so I could afford not to ride to work in a car with a "Visualize World Peace" bumper sticker.

I can live with the failure to find WMDs. I can handle the inevitable setbacks. And I can even adjust to the fact they we may have to be in the country for the next ten years. But what I can't live with is paying $2.60 for a gallon of gas when the entire purpose for going to war was to to steal the oil. If it turns out that Bush was telling the truth when he said the "invasion" was really about liberating a people, establishing a democracy, and all that other neo-con nonsense, then I'm going to be one very ticked off voter.

Monday, March 20, 2006

The Catastrophe that Wasn't

It's been three years since coalition troops entered Iraq. The results of that intervention have been mixed: the toppling of a tyrant and successful democratic elections vs. a continuing guerrilla insurgency and a fraying of American national purpose. Critics of the war are right to say terrorists are more active in Iraq than before--but then, if terrorists are going to be active, surely it's better to have them in a place where American servicemen can kill them.

To hear the carping critics, you'd think Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, or that such a disaster is imminent. To put all this negativism into perspective, though, consider some of the warnings from before the liberation:
  • "In launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. . . . Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed." - Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002
  • "Not so long ago, prominent German politicians were outdoing each other forecasting worst-case scenarios for the Iraq conflict. The predictions ranged from 'millions of victims of U.S. rockets' to 'millions of Iraqi refugees desperately fleeing the country.' " - San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2003
  • "It is also likely that in the early stages there will be a large segment of the population requiring treatment for traumatic injuries, either directly conflict-induced or from the resulting devastation. Given the population outlined earlier, as many as 500,000 could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries. " - U.N. report on "likely humanitarian scenarios," Dec. 10, 2002
  • "Up to four million people could die in a war on Iraq involving nuclear weapons. A more contained conflict could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond. It could also damage the global economy and thus indirectly harm the health and well-being of millions more people across the world." - executive summary, "A New Gulf War: The Real Cost," Medact ("a UK-based charity taking action on key global health issues"), Nov. 13, 2002
The antiwar Web site IraqBodyCount.net puts the maximum number of Iraqis who've been killed in three years at 37,795. Meanwhile, USA Today has some comparatively good news for Americans:
U.S. military deaths during the past month have dropped to an average of about one a day, approaching the lowest level since the insurgency began two years ago, according to a USA Today analysis of U.S. military data.

The decline in U.S. deaths comes as Iraqi casualties are the highest since the U.S. military began tracking them in 2004.
Obviously we'd all prefer if the number of deaths were zero - the objective of war is always peace - but it is a good sign that more Iraqis are shouldering the risk of defending their newly free country.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that antiwar sentiment seems to be abating:
"Many of the weekend demonstrations across Australia, Asia and Europe drew smaller-than-anticipated crowds - far short of the millions worldwide who protested the initial invasion in March 2003 and the first anniversary in 2004."
Only 1,000 people showed up to a Saturday rally in New York, a city of eight million.

It's easy to get discouraged by the drumbeat of bad news from the adversarial media - and polls suggest many Americans are sorely tempted to give up and give in. Here's hoping we continue to resist.

Democrats will "raise your taxes and raise the white flag"

Republicans plot strategy for 2006.

The GOP is fearful about the midterms, and it has reason to be. And I, for one, think a shot across its bow is in good order. But as someone who has followed politics avidly, I've learned this:
  • Do not overestimate the power of the liberal media. The media always carp, and frequently lie, about Republicans.
  • Republicans almost always outperform the pre-election polls. (Remember all those exit polls showing a Kerry landslide? Heh, heh, heh.)
  • In addition to usually having lots of cash from the grassroots, the modern GOP has an unparalleled "get-out-vote-effort" ground operation.
  • Campaigns are thematic events, and Republicans are usually better than Democrats at theme crafting.
And, most importantly:
  • Republicans get to run against Democrats.
In short, take due notice of all the reasons, both political and substantive, that the GOP should have its ass handed to it come November. But don't be surprised if it doesn't happen.

Specter: Extra $7 Billion Budget Buster Spending Not Enough

So the Senate manages the budget resolution - by promising billions more in spending:
"The Republican Party is now principally moderate, if not liberal!" exulted Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), after the Senate - including a majority of Republicans - approved his budget-busting amendment to spend an extra $7 billion on domestic programs.
Way to go, Arlen Specter. This is why we voted against him in Pennsylvania, guys. Yet Bush rode to his rescue, and for what?
The Senate also added funding for a host of programs, including $7 billion for health and education programs championed by Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican.
Increased spending and higher taxes. Is this why we voted Republican?

Viewed by themselves, the Republicans don't deserve to keep control of Congress in the '06 elections. And yet the lack of a viable alternative from the Democrats shows they aren't qualified to hold the position. Their left wing utopianism and obsession with multilateralism will get us all killed. National security trumps spending, though the Republicans can't run from their fiscal irresponsibility forever.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Quote of the Day

Ronald Reagan:
'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' That's a catchy phrase but also misleading. Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission. Freedom fighters target the military forces and the organized instruments of repression keeping dictatorial regimes in power. Freedom fighters struggle to liberate their citizens from oppression and to establish a form of government that reflects the will of the people... [O]ne has to be blind, ignorant, or simply unwilling to see the truth if he or she is unable to distinguish between those I just described and terrorists.

Al Franken: The Movie

Can't wait!

It's called "Al Franken: God Spoke." It's a movie about Al Franken. That's the premise. Just film Al Franken's daily routines and the people will come to see it.

Hell, you couldn't get people to watch Al Franken when you could see him for free on SNL for 63 years. And you can't get people to listen to him for free on Air America.

Saddam Hussein Directly Financed al-Qaeda Affiliate In Phillipines

No connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, Part 8,594:
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.

The fax comes from the vast collection of documents recovered in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. Up to this point, those materials have been kept from the American public. Now the proverbial dam has broken. On March 16, the U.S. government posted on the web 9 documents captured in Iraq, as well as 28 al Qaeda documents that had been released in February. Earlier last week, Foreign Affairs magazine published a lengthy article based on a review of 700 Iraqi documents by analysts with the Institute for Defense Analysis and the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia. Plans for the release of many more documents have been announced. And if the contents of the recently released materials and other documents obtained by The Weekly Standard are any indication, the discussion of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq is about to get more interesting.
Liberals are always complaining that we don't "debate" issues. They always say that it's impossible to have an actual "dialogue" on key questions.

Actually, we could, if not for their cowardice. They want a "debate" to occur, but they don't want to be a part of it. They fear the political consequences of announcing their real beliefs. That's why they only "raise questions" -- "questions" don't necessarily tie you to an answer that can be used against you. Well, sure, I mean we all know the answers they're hinting at. But they don't want to provide answers, just "raise questions" and "encourage debate," just like the kind of person who never offers his own suggestions, but just criticizes the attempts of others to solve the problem.

Well, maybe it's about time we had a real debate about Saddam's support for al-Qaeda, huh?

Saturday, March 18, 2006

NYC Will Begin Teaching About HIV & AIDS... to Kindergarteners

Sounds about right.

8:00: Story circle

9:00: Unsafe sexual practices and bodily fluid exchanges

10:00: Show and tell

11:00: Safe alternatives to sex

12:00: Nap time

1:00: Selected readings from Encyclopedia Brown, including "The Case of the Hermaphritic Hemophiliac"

2:00: Intensive psychological counselling attempting to heal the deep scars just inflicted on kids that still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

He was almost President


Now that's quality taxidermy.

Friday, March 10, 2006

You know what America needs? More abortions!

Saletan writes on how 48 of 50 abortionettes agree:
Friday morning, leaders of pro-choice and feminist groups gathered at the Center for American Progress to debate the movement's future. One of the panelists reported that the latest annual tally of abortions in this country was 1.295 million. The most recent comparative numbers, detailed in an article I brought to the meeting, indicated that our abortion rate exceeds that of every Western European nation. "Raise your hand if you think that number is too high," the conference moderator told the 50 people in the room.

I saw one hand go up. The woman next to me said she saw another. The two hand-raisers used to work for pro-choice groups but no longer do.
Since 1.295 million abortions per year isn't enough, I suggest the federal government begin a campaign to increase that number, beginning with blacks and Jews. After all, the two groups are the strongest supporters of the Abortion Party, so there's no reason why they shouldn't be the first to benefit from the wonders of their favorite procedure.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Caffeine: The Silent Killer

The London Times reveals yet another study identifying the caffeine in coffee as the bane of all existence, this time accusing it of contributing to heart attacks.

You know what also contributes to heart attacks? Bear maulings. Bear maulings contribute to heart attacks. But I'm certainly not giving up my morning constitutional of combating woodland fauna for primacy of the forest just because some "doctor" cautions me against it.


Who needs Starbucks when you have adrenaline?


So, you keep drinking your coffee, and I'll keep knife-fighting grizzlies, and we'll all find a way to get along just fine.

Dems Propose Common Sense Budget Act

Members of the Democrat's Progressive Caucus are proposing the diversion of $60 billion dollars to "humanitarian assistance, social programs, energy conservation, homeland security and deficit reduction."

Naturally, being a Democrat proposal, it does absolutely nothing to actually curb wasteful spending, but actually increases it and redirects it. Where's that money coming from? The military's budget, of course! We don't need humvees or body armor in the world liberals live in. (Except when it's a convenient club to bash Bush with, that is.)

They're setting aside more for Darfur than the next largest cause: modernizing American schools.

Yeah, that'll resonate with the heartland in an election year. Who's in charge over there?

Let this show that liberals don't actually care about limiting government spending. They talk a good game, of course, but it's just a political talking point designed to capitalize on conservative disapproval of runaway spending. Conservatives are the ones who want to limit the growth of government, not liberals. Liberals want it to grow! After all, almost every liberal proposal requires a ridiculous amount of the taxpayer's dollars. Social Security is a bloated nightmare, as is Medicare, which dwarfs even that. And socialized medicine? Hillary's healthcare proposal would've required the gobbling up by the government of 1/7 of the entire nation's economy.

If you happen to be a liberal who opposes this kind of thing, then you simply happen to hold a conservative belief in this instance, and it simply shows how far conservative ideas have come. But don't expect the Democrats to ever limit the pillaging of our national treasury; it's part and parcel of their plan to spend exorbitant amounts of money, whereas conservatives, at least, would be acting in opposition of their principles in doing so and therefore are much more likely to change their ways.

The Death of the Canadian Model

Liberals in the United States have long pointed toward Canada as a model for the US to emulate.

The New York Times reports that the Canadian system is imploding. A recent Candian Supreme Court decision allowed private health care (oh, the shame, the horror) and as a result, Canadians tired of waiting for radiation therapy, eye surgery and hip replacements have turned toward private alternatives springing up under the new legal environment.
Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.

But a Supreme Court ruling last June - it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists - appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.

"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.
The key paragraph:
The country's publicly financed health insurance system - frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity - is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.
The flood gates are open, and they're going to be very hard to close. How do you tell someone who has cancer that they have to wait and possibly die instead of forking over money for a diagnostic test? Each such case is a politician's nightmare. (Think Terri Schiavo.)

The problem is that a socialized healthcare system, at it's core, is flawed. It has rotten incentives. Let's suppose that a law was passed to make the price of lobster a fraction of it's current price. The obvious result is that there would be far fewer lobsters on the shelves, because more people would buy them and because businesses would have less incentive to restock their supply because they can just switch to more profitable catches. This is what happened in the 70s with the oil prices caused by the price controls. And it's the same thing in Canada, with one huge difference: unlike lobster, there aren't many substitutes for health care services.

As with the lobster example, there's a shortage of both nurses and doctors in Canada. This should be obvious; where is the one place government can control costs? Doctor and nurse salaries. If you fix that and the rate of increase at a fairly low level then you can control rising costs. But doctors and nurses are highly intelligent and motivated people, and they will see that they can get more for their work in other occupations or other countries. Why sit around and get paid dirt when you can get more? So now we have a shortage of doctors and nurses. The exact same logic applies to hospitals, MRIs, and other things as well. The population is largely unable to go elsewhere to get an MRI scan so if you have only three MRIs throughout the entire nation, there isn't much people can do about it.

To make the system work, Canada has to make all other alternatives illegal - a position they proudly share with North Korea and Cuba, the only other two nations who outlaw any private practice of medicine. (This was the same thing we saw with Hillary's healthcare proposal to socialize 1/7 of the economy.) If it wasn't outlawed, then it would exacerbate the problems regarding shortages as there would be even more places from which much needed manpower could leak. Doctors would leave the government system for private companies. That would make the waits for the government system even worse. Given the existence of private health care companies, there would soon be private health insurance companies as well. Pretty soon, the only people left on the government system would be those who had no other choice, such as the poor. At this point it wouldn't be much different from the US system.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Saddam Knows How To Play 'Em

One thing common to successful dictators is an uncanny ability to size up one's opponents and strike their weak points. Hitler had an uncanny ability to perceive the motivations of foreign statesmen, until this ability failed him in 1939. Stalin and Mao were experts at political infighting, able to play their opponents off against one another, without anybody realizing how powerful they themselves had become until it was far too late. Saddam seems to share this keen sense. One does not obtain and retain absolute power in a tribal country such as Iraq for as long as he has without it.

Although Saddam seemed to have made a mistake in gauging the resolve of his foreign enemies in 1991 and 2003, he clearly perceived the weakness of the UN, which is a weakness especially common to tax-funded bodies (the UN being funded by monies donated by the tax coffers of member nations), basically, that with no incentive for the completion of a project, the workers on said project will attempt to drag it out forever, knowing that their livelihood depends not on its completion but on its prolonged incompletion. So, his efforts to stall weapons inspections would go over well with the weapons inspectors themselves, for the more he stalled, the more funds, underlings, and time (and thus money) they would gain. And in twelve years the task was still incomplete, the weapons inspectors such as Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei protesting before the 2003 invasion that they "needed more time" - naturally. It's not a great stretch to assume that for these men, earning their money from ongoing inspections, that after twelve years, a "few more months" wouldn't have turned out to be enough time either, even with US troops massing on Iraqi borders.

So Saddam, like Hitler, Stalin and Mao, gave his opponents what they wanted or what they thought was in their interests whilst actually achieving his own goals. And Saddam continues to make efforts to play his enemies off against one another, like his recent claims to have been tortured. If, as he claims, "the signs [of beating] are all over my body", then to simply open his shirt in the courtroom would prove this. But he didn't, and it makes no sense for his gaolers to beat him anyway. But in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, Saddam figures this is worth a shot. More lies will undoubtedly follow before his trial is over, but anyone tempted to listen to them would do well to remember what happened when people believed lies from similar people at, say, Munich in 1938, promises of free elections to be held in Soviet-occupied territory after the defeat of Nazi Germany, or of invitations to free speech in China. By now we should have learned not to listen to the chronically dishonest and self-interested.

Presidential Imitations

Hey, this guy's pretty good.

Popular Mechanics Debunks Katrina Myths

Now What? Lessons of Katrina:
GOVERNMENT RESPONDED RAPIDLY

MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

NEXT TIME: Any fatalities are too many. Improvements hinge on building more robust communications networks and stepping up predisaster planning to better coordinate local and national resources.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Hey, the Oscars are on!

Who cares?

Today's Sign That We Are All Going To Die

This has nothing to do with politics, but I have to comment on a recent acquisition of mine...

First came single-blade disposable razors. These were feeble wuss-razors that couldn't shave a yak.

The double blades weren't much better, but they were progress.

Next came the Mach3 razors, which revolutionized shaving . . . by making it more expensive than a drug habit. These things are dime bags of Bolivian rock.

Then came the Mach3 M-Power vibrating razor. The razor that doesn't cut your hair so much as shake the crap out of it.

Of course, Schick has the four-blade Quattro, or as I like to call it, "The False Pretender."

But now... it's finally happened. Man has broken the surly bonds of reason: Gilette has made the . . . five blade razor!


I have a thousand years of power!


Five blades? I can't imagine such a thing. That's more preposterous than a five-assed monkey.

The Fusion: a cut so close, you'll lose the facial hair you had in pictures taken of you a decade ago. A razor so precise it can shave through the very fabric of the space-time continuum.

Where will the madness end? Five blades? Six? Ten? The Platinum Mach14?

These are dangerous, uncertain times, my friends.

Impotence

Sure, our enemies are laughing at us - but hell, at least we had the moral high ground.

Until that asshole Bush came along and muddied the waters with all his neocon warmongering. Now, not only will Iran get nukes (and likely use them), but we don't even get to claim we stood astride history yelling "peace, my Muslim brothers" right up until the moment the immense flash and the glorious, purifying fire of Allah provides us with a moment of frozen clarity.

And if we don't live to see Iran go nuclear while we refused to act to prevent it, well, then the terrorists will have already won - something I know to be a fact because Bush hating feminist Maureen Dowd whispered it in my ear while she was drunk on Bud drafts and trying to slip a dollar bill down my pants at a Mets exhibition game.

UPDATE: ...As if on cue, here's John Kerry, reiterating the global test he denied advocating for. Which, if I have this correct, means he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. And that, mathematically speaking, makes him... what, a transnational progressivist? An ass... ?

On Propaganda, revisited

Here's a "news bulletin" from Uruknet alleging "In the new Iraq, US soldiers rape schoolgirls in the daylight":
From a reader of al moharer.net

March 4, 2006

Informed sources from the city of Mosul ascertained today that the US degraded occupiers would do anything to satisfy their beastly nature and to tune up with their debased culture. The same sources added that three days ago a US occupation tank in the city of Mosul (250 miles north of Baghdad) blocked the way of a school bus carrying some forty Iraqi schoolgirls. The sources explained that two debased US soldiers got into the bus and ordered at gunpoint the school kids in the bus to show their breasts. One US female soldier, the Iraqi bus driver indicated, putting her liberation weapon aside, took off her heavy flak jacket, and exhibited to the terrified school children her sow's filthy udders.

The same sources from the city of Mosul said also that the children started to yell and some of them passed out while the bus driver was shouting to get some help from the US Occupation appointed police, which wouldn't move a finger.

The Mosuli sources bitterly complained that the Arab TV channels and Media were informed about this daylight rape and sexual abuse against Iraqi school girls but they wouldn't say a word because liberty of speech and freedom of Media in the new democratic Iraq, equals under the fascist US Occupation an ascertained death.

Now Arabs! You got it! This is why Egypt's Mubarak and Saudi traitors of Mecca and Medina allowed the US fascist army to use their territory to attack Iraq and humiliate its Muslim and Arab people, change their religion and convert to Bush the drunkard's, loot their petrol, steel their identity, destroy their past and future and to finally rape in the daylight, at gun point, the innocent Arab and Muslim Iraqi children and get away with it!
Well, I'm certainly sold on the authenticity of this story. After all, US soldiers lack the discipline necessary to demand the mass exposure of school childrens' breasts at the threat of gunpoint.

But then, my opinion matters little here. What does matter is that any attempt by the US military / intel community to counter such allegations - say, by placing a counter-story in the Iraqi press that points out that no such offense took place, and that perhaps even provides logistical proof and eyewitness testimony to that effect - is baldfaced US propaganda, and is as vile and unseemly as the Uruknet story itself. It's all relative, you see.

Except, of course, that we must necessarily be held to a higher "standard". Because, you see, in order to hold the moral highground, we must refuse to defend ourselves in kind. Sure, soldiers may die as a result of enemy propaganda - but in the long run, we will have shown ourselves to be our enemies' betters by not forcing the truth into circulation as part of a war time strategy to defeat enemy propaganda.

After all, we hold all the military power. So the least we could do is leave the terrorists with their propaganda advantage. It evens the odds and makes the fight more fair. And that's what it's all about.

Kind of like parity in the NFL!

"Reverse Terri Schiavo" Coma Victim Begins Eating, Drumming in Response to Stimuli

In case you don't remember, a man had beaten his girlfriend's daughter into a bloody pulp. The state wanted to yank the plug on her; the man, hoping to avoid an actual murder rap (which would be filed if she died) wanted to keep her on life support. She's making progress:
A nurse told the mother of Haleigh Poutre during a hospital visit on Tuesday that the severely beaten Westfield girl, whom officials once wanted to let die, has been able to eat scrambled eggs and cream of wheat, and has tapped out drum rhythms during physical therapy, according to the mother's lawyer
I cannot comprehend why the state views death as the default prescription. Liberals generally favor spending of government money on health care; why are they so gung-ho to save a few bucks by killing people who are actually alive and might have a chance at a decent recovery?

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Being Personally Against Abortion but Pro-Choice Doesn't Cut It

The only good reason for being personally against abortion is a reason that demands we be against other people choosing to have abortions.

If abortion doesn't kill children, why would someone be personally opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another's right to do it? The position of being personally against abortion but favoring another's right to abortion is therefore self-contradictory and morally baffling. It's like saying--exactly like saying--"We're personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor's right to abuse his child if that is his choice." Or "I'm personally against genocide, but if others want to kill off an entire race, that's none of my business."

The only good reason for feeling bad about abortion is that it kills an innocent child. If it doesn't, there's no need to feel bad. But if it does, then you should not just refrain from it yourself, you should oppose others doing it also. You should favor laws to restrict it, for exactly the same reason you favor laws to restrict rape, child molesting, and murder.

Because You Can't Control Your Sexual Behavior

South Dakota is banning abortion. Though it'll have to get approved by the Supreme Court, which is unlikely, I applaud them nonetheless. Predictably, leftists bray that women will be "forced" into ripping the lives they create out of their bodies with coat hangers. But don't worry! One feminist group has provided a How-To Guide for murdering your unborn baby. The goal is to provide a more clinical approach to the ghoulish act. Ya know, just like when you engage in commerce with an individual who's business it is to kill the unborn. They provide a nice cozy hot-chocolate and blankets-right-out-of-the-dryer experience for self-centered irresponsible women who live at the mercy of their sexual impulses and don't believe in using space age conception control devices like "condoms" or putting a child up for adoption. Check this, and remember, this is par for the course in an abortion:
"Most pieces of fetal material will come out with a simple tug on the forceps (again, don't be too afraid to use force and put a bit of muscle into it). However, at 13-14 weeks the fetal head may be slightly big to bring out. Pinch it with the forceps and take it out in pieces, as well."
Jeffrey Dahmer might not find that utterly ghastly. What ever happened to that guy? Must have missed his calling.
"When you feel the curettage and removal is complete, make sure you examine the fetal material you have already extracted. If you're missing anything obvious -- for instance, a head -- make sure to find and remove it."
This is so much better than controlling your sexual impulses and practicing responsible sexual behavior. So much better than giving birth to a live human baby and putting it up for adoption, or - GASP! - taking care of him or her yourself! Can't have that!

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Cindy Sheehan Denies, Denies, Denies

She made the mistake of taking questions. What follows is an example of barefaced denial Clinton would be proud of.

"You are being lied to"

Quel suprise.

So much for that civil war, eh?

What a Difference!

I received these sets of photographs showing women without and then with makeup. The difference is stunning, each more unbelievable than the last:

Makeup picture 1
Makeup picture 2
Makeup picture 3