Raging Right Wing Republican

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

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

On liberals and SUVs

Every now and then when I'm driving around to school or somewhere else one of my liberal friends will gasp at the earth-rending beast that is my vehicle of transportation. (Not that I chose it or anything, but anyway...)

This led me to think about the different attitudes that liberals and conservatives bring to their automobile choices.

LIBERALS:
SUVs require more resources to build and therefore strain the environment.

They require more gas and increase our oil consumption.

They can easily crush the puny smaller cars of which liberals drive.
CONSERVATIVES:
Sure, it's expensive, but we already own the world, so no big deal.

Dude, look at this SUV; it's fucking awesome.

They can easily crush the puny smaller cars of which liberals drive.
I hope that clears things up.

Monday, October 30, 2006

CNN headline: Lynn Cheney novel churns controversy in Senate race

Webb's novel is mentioned briefly towards the end.

Lynn Cheney's novel causes controversy in Senate race.

Who'd have thought that this could've been so easily turned against a non-politician not even in the race?

Well played, CNN. Very well played.

I also like how the article quotes Webb and other Democrats insisting the book features "graphic" scenes of lesbian sex, and that Cheney denies this.

I guess it's an open controversy! He said, she said.

Except it's not. If the passages were so graphic, CNN would quote them just like Webb's "penis in mouth" passages to settle the dispute. But they don't, leaving it to the reader's imagination to make up for it. I read the supposedly "graphic" passages and they aren't graphic.

I've noticed a pattern. It always seems to go the same way.
1) Liberals cry foul over something absurd.

2) They they use this as a justification to push something nasty they would've pushed anyway. (If no immediate source of fake outrage is available, they claim they had to do this to "get tough.")

3) The media goes after the story like gangbusters, sparing the Democrats the inevitable loss of favorability rating for going so negative. So it's a win-win for the Democrats -- they get the fruits of negative campaigning without any of the drawbacks, because it's the media doing it for them.
And besides, we're playing by the Democrats' own rules. Just listen to what Keith Olbermann had to say about sex scenes from Scooter Libby's book:
"We have beaten the hell out of Libby for this, and deservedly so. If a Democratic White House official had written this book, his head would be on a pike somewhere."
Well, now a Democrat has written that kind of book, and far worse. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So it's funny how quickly the Democrats have rediscovered the irrelevance of fiction writing, at the same time that they're attempting to shift the spotlight onto Lynn Cheney's deranged scribbling. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Christian fascism watch: Republican says Democrats don't love the Lord

Great. The media is going to destroy us over this gaffe, as rightly they should.

Liberals are going to be outraged; the media is going to be in a tizzy; messageboards will be on buzzing with smug liberal haughtiness and paranoia over "theocracy"; we may as well go deaf in the awaiting cacophony.

Oh, wait. It was Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat, who said that about Republicans.

So, nevermind. You'll never hear about this again. My bad. I thought this was a major story, but I didn't appreciate the "context," ie., this is a story that could show a Democrat in a "hateful" light, and is therefore not a story at all.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Oops! NYT shamelessly compromises national security, feels bad later

The New York Times was the paper that revealed to the world the productive financial surveillance program used to hunt down terrorists. Of course, when you tell the terrorists where you're snooping, it's not long before that avenue of information quickly dries up. Now, only after they needlessly compromised national security, they confess to feeling bad about the program who's outing they previously defended:
Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone's private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of "the most substantial argument against running the story," but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column. . . .

I haven't found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken.
Of course, every revelation they've come to here was perfectly apparent before they exposed the program, too.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Allen exposes underage sex scenes in Webb's novels

Wow.

Destroyed.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Keith Olbermann's wordgames

According to the dictionary, sophistry means:
A subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
In other words, playing the used car salesman to make an argument.

And one such example would be using the word "terrorize" to imply that your opponent is guilty of "terrorism," as Keith Olbermann did in his latest deranged "Special Comment":
The dictionary definition of the word "terrorize" is simple and not open to misinterpretation:

"To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."

Note please, that the words "violence" and "death" are missing from that definition.
Aha! Don't you see?! Bush is the real terrorist!

So this definition of "terrorize" has been used to argue that "the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party," because -- according to Keith -- its latest campaign advertisement is meant to "coerce by intimidation or fear" people into voting Republican.

Note that Olbermann used the definition of "terrorize" -- not "terrorism" -- to brand the GOP a "terrorist group":
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The only difference left between Olbermann and some "peace activist" nutjob waving around a "George W. Bush is the Real Terrorist" sign is that Olbermann has a TV show.

Torture in Jordan? Blame America

"Several governments around the world have tried to rebut criticism of how they handle detainees by claiming they are only following the U.S. example in the war on terror, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Monday," the Associated Press reports:
Nowak said that because of its prominence, the United States has a greater responsibility to uphold international standards for its prisoners so other nations do not use it as an excuse to justify their own behavior.
Nowak doesn't stop at just observing international conventions against torture; he wants us to close Gitmo and give terrorists "automatic legal counsel" as well as the ability to contest their captivity in federal court.

What happens then, if Khalid Sheikh Mohammad or someone like him were captured? How could we possibly interogate him to learn about and prevent any terrorist attacks? What Nowak wants is for Americans to be willing to die to deny Jordan an excuse that they would weasel into making anyway.

Big news

BUSH TO STEP DOWN AT END OF TERM:
Bush is constitutionally barred from seeking a third consecutive term, but supporters have called for a referendum on amending the country's laws to allow him to stay in power.
No dice, said the President. He won't change the constitution just to keep power. What a great guy! I did not see that one coming.
"In all, I can say we are satisfied with how the country is developing, including the economy," he said. . . .

Bush said contract killings had declined in recent years and authorities were becoming more successful in cracking down on financial crimes.

"The obligation of the state is to bring any such investigation to the end -- this concerns the killings of mass media representatives and killings in the economic sphere," Bush said.
Contract killings on reporters and businessmen are way down. Now that's what I call Presidential accomplishment.

But perhaps a neo-fascist Rethuglikkkan like myself isn't naunced enough to understand how exactly alike our country is to an authoritarian regime.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The People's Cube

Welcome to the Revolution, Comrades.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Hardcore liberal Obama just another "centrist"

At least, according to the AP, to whom any liberal is just a sensible moderate touting common sense. I mean, how can any thinking person not be liberal?

If he counts, anyone does!
(AP) London, March 2, 1867: Karl Marx, a rising star among centrist economists, announced today the publication of the first volume of his treatise, 'Das Kapital'.
Writes the AP of Obama:
"In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president."
Centrist? Maybe in France.

Let's take a look at his record, or more specifically, the interest groups he toes the line to:
  • Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006.
  • National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006.
  • Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005.
  • NAACP 100% in 2005.
  • American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005.
  • Illinois Environmental Council 100% in 2003 .
  • Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old beat] 100% in 2005.
  • National Organization For Women 100% in 2005.
  • NRA, 'F' in 2004.
  • Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005.
  • 2005 AFL-CIO 92%.
  • Americans for Democratic Action [old-style liberal organization] 100% in 2005.
Yeah, this guy has John McCain written all over him, alright. I'd like to see anyone be able to name at least once -- just once -- that he broke ranks with the party line. What would the AP label a Republican politician with mirror image ratings as this? A "centrist"?

Obama is yet another liberal peddling the same old screed against American society. He just put a smiley face on it.

Multiple choice

Who wrote the following passage?

"Bush's fellow Republicans applied a rubber stamp to much of his conservative agenda the past six years, including tax cuts that went largely to the rich."
A) Andrew Sullivan
B) John Kerry
C) Paul Krugman
D) Ayman al-Zawahiri
The answer is: none of the above! It was written by a "reporter" for the Reuters "news" service.

Campaign finance model projects GOP win

Barron's Online:
Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data -- suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three. . . .

Is our method reliable? It certainly has been in the past. Using it in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, we bucked conventional wisdom and correctly predicted GOP gains both years.
The most noticeable effect of the Democratic Party's scandalmongering these past few weeks was to prevent the Republicans from peaking too soon. We've hit our lowest point; now we can only improve in the coming days. The pendulum has begun to swing back in the GOP's direction.

Once again, the Democrats come galloping in from stage left to rescue the GOP from its own folly. If we manage to hold both houses of Congress, we should probably send the Democrats a gift basket for upsetting the natural flow of the election cycle just when it had settled in to give them victory.

But it won't happen without conservatives turning out to pull the lever for the GOP.

Scalia rocks

Scalia attempts to teach the ACLU a thing or two about the proper role of the judiciary:
He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues. Arguing that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion, Scalia warned, "Someday, you're going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach." . . .

"Whether it's good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution," he said.
This is exactly why the Left, which realized they can't get their agenda through the democratic process they pay so much lip service to, decided to push their agenda through liberal courts where they only had to convince five people instead of over 100 million. The same dynamic is at play with gay marriage. It's also why every judicial appointment is now treated like a battle to the death.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Reuters reads Bush's mind

And yet another example of the media injecting their own perspective into purportedly objective stories and passing them on as news.

Reuters covers the signing of the Military Commissions Act with all the high-minded fairness we've come to expect -- including this passage in which reporter Steve Holland reads Bush's mind and reports on an inner struggle he finds there:
But Bush also could not resist a swipe at Democrats, an indirect shot far short of campaign stump speeches in which he charges they are soft on terrorism.
Who said Bush was trying to resist?

"Scientists said"

The ozone hole above the Antarctic has been growing, but scientists expect it to shrink again, reports Carl T. Hall, science writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. Good news, right? But the article ends as follows:
Scientists said they expect the ozone layer will have fully recovered sometime around 2065-2075--just in time for global warming to have a shot at destroying all life on Earth.
How much do you want to bet no scientist actually said that? It certainly sounds like Hall is using unnamed sources to get away with editorializing, a common practice, which you should keep your eye out for whenever an "anonymous source" turns up in a news report.

BBC admits liberal bias

Surprise: "It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism."

What liberal media?

Friday, October 20, 2006

Life imitates the Onion

"Iraqi Leaders Call for Moment of Violence During Ramadan"--headline, Onion, Oct. 17

"U.S.: 22 Pct. More Attacks in Ramadan"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 19

It's here: GOP version of LBJ's "Daisy" ad debuts

These are the stakes:



It's okay. It would have been better if it had clips of Democrats interspersed between the terrorists and showed Reid and co. congratulating themselves on their attempt to kill the Patriot Act, among other measures that helped stopped incidents like the London bombings.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Liberals declare in unision: Republican won Connecticut debate; He's great, vote for him!!!

Yaaayyy!!! The Republican won the debate, easily destroying Lieberman, while Lamont "held his own" or did very well too!

And all the liberals who've pushed the Lamont candidacy agree -- Schlesinger is just too damn good a candidate for Republicans not to vote for!

Wow!!! He must really be somethin' else, then, to have earned such unaninmous -- nay, well coordinated -- praise from liberal Lamont supporters!

Connecticut Republican voters -- get out there and vote for Schlesinger! Because they told you to, and you're as retarded as they think you are!

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

What if the polls are wrong?

They have been before. They should be viewed with skepticism.

Remember, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. It's not over until it's over.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Man Coulter

It's time for another round of Ann Coulter two minutes hate, apparently. At a recent convention, Jon Stewart went on about how "offensive" she's become. Andrew Sullivan added his voice to the din, calling her "the drag queen who pretends to be conservative for money."

I'm not exactly a Coulter fan but her Apocalypse Now Conservatism is certainly more interesting than the crowd pleasing "aw shucks" liberalism of Jon Stewart. And Andrew Sullivan complaining that someone pretends to be conservative in order to profit from it? Better luck next time, girlfriend.

Lancet destroyed

It's over, folks. Even the anti-war body count site Iraq Body Count, who you would expect to have the most exaggerated numbers, who places the kill count around 50,000 tops, has released a thorough refutation of the Lancet "study."

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Agenda for the 2008 Democratic National Convention

7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:30 - 8:00 P.M. Nonreligious prayer and worship. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding-- Barney Frank presiding.
8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally. Cindy Sheehan-- Susan Sarandon.
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender-- French President Jacques Chirac
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay. Sean Penn
9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented Truth in Broadcasting award, presented by Michael Moore
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
10:00 P.M. How President George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers-- Howard Dean
10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents Internet
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War criminals-- John Kerry
11:30 P.M. Coronation Of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Conservatives are right about everything!

That would have been a much better headline for the research finding that diversity encourages intolerance.

It also could have been "Pat Buchanan was right after all!", but that would have just been cruel.

Multiculturalism promotes distrust

Robert Putnam, the Harvard sociologist who wrote Bowling Alone, has found out what conservatives have known all along: multiculturalism promotes distrust and tribalism instead of tolerance. The most multicultural places also tend to see the least trust among its citizens. This is unsurprising. Any observer of identity politics, the offspring of multiculturalism, can see how it has divvied up American society into a thousand different interest groups that emphasize our differences, and therefore promotes the same intolerance it claims to fight against, instead of championing our common bonds.

The professor gives away his left-liberal academic bent when he exposes his own depressing mindset at the end of the piece:
Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the 'importing' and 'exporting' societies, and that trends 'have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed'. In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof. Putnam said: 'What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us.'
What if we're happy with the current us, and don't want to change?

It may be the case that "trends" are "socially constructed." A left-liberal academic like Prof. Putnam naturally hopes that human behavior is "socially constructed" -- that we are so malleable that once we get the social engineering right, diversity and civility can coexist. Instead, I am more inclined to think that this is evidence that there are stubborn features of human nature at work here. After all, is it not easier to befriend and relate to those similar to us?

Lancing Lancet: 547 becomes 654,965

That's the number that the fishwrap "medical journal" The Lancet claims have brutally died as a result of our eeevil neo-con invasion of Iraq.

Of course, that would be the same Lancet that previously claimed 100,000 had died, only to admit later that what they meant to say was "somewhere between 8,000 and 192,000, we're not sure."

The same Lancet whose publishing deadlines always just seem to magically coincide with US elections. In fact, the author of the report freely admits that its release was timed to affect elections, "out of concern for humanitarian issues."

The same Lancet, coincidentally, whose editor likes to hang out with and give speeches alongside George Galloway. In this video, purportedly objective Lancet editor Richard Horton attends an antiwar rally railing against the "lying" "axis of Anglo-American imperialists" who have created a "mountain of violence and torture" preferring "global death" and the "killing of children instead of building hospitals," all of which has "shattered the human family." Yeah, no political agenda there.

The actual number of Iraqi deaths recorded in Lancet's latest study is just 547. Extrapolating from that figure, the study's authors estimate "that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war."

This, they got from talking to Iraqi households, which in plain English means "we listened to the folklore for a while then pulled some numbers out of our ass."

Of course, the rejoinder to any doubts cast on the study's credibility has been to bludgeon the temeritous offender with a howl that the study has been "peer reviewed." You get the picture; the study has been peer reviewed, you proles! Don't question it! Yet there are some who doubt the authority of peer review: "We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Who is this peer review heretic? Why, none other than the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton, of course!

To put the Lancet's numbers in perspective, that's larger than the total number of Americans killed during combat in every major conflict in our nation's history. It's a larger number than were killed in Germany during five years of Allied bombing. And it's more than double the combined number of civilians killed in the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

So, according to these geniuses, Iraq would've been better off if we'd just nuked the place!

In other words, what we see here is a politically motivated load of steaming manure stacked so high that you have to bring your own oxygen to climb the foul mound of mendacity.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Profiles encouraged?

Few FBI agents know Arabic, the Washington Post reports:
Counting agents who know only a handful of Arabic words--including those who scored zero on a standard proficiency test--just 1 percent of the FBI's 12,000 agents have any familiarity with the language, the statistics show.
Hey, wait a second. Why should we care how many FBI agents speak Arabic? Arabic-language skills are good and well, but they won't do any good in catching a terrorist if that terrorist is a 70-year-old grandmother from Iowa. (Unless she speaks Arabic, of course.) Isn't the FBI just perpetuating the stereotype that terrorism is an "Arab" thing?

Shays goes nuclear, defends Hasert by citing Chappaquidick: "Hasert didn't kill anybody"

Chris Shays deserves to get knocked around. But every once in a while... bah-zingggg!
When the congressional page scandal broke last month, Democrats across the country saw a chance to lambaste Republican leadership - including Diane Farrell, who called on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to step down.

But when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy came to Connecticut last week to help her campaign, Rep. Christopher Shays hit back.

"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," said Shays, R-4th District, referring to the 1969 incident in which the Massachusetts Democrat drove a car that plunged into the water and a young campaign worker died.

"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.
Ted Kennedy.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Woman takes intruder's gun, kills him

Three men kicked down an apartment door, forced the people inside (including two children) into the living room and demanded money. One of the intruders muscled a woman into one of the bedrooms looking for money.
When that man struck her on the head with his handgun, she wrestled the gun away from him and shot and killed him, according to a police incident report.

Two other men involved in the attempted burglary fled in a teal green minivan. Police were still looking for them Monday.
But wait! A criminal shouldn't have a gun. We have laws!

When criminals know that people inside homes and apartments are unarmed, kicking down doors in a home invasion becomes an easy option.

Just ask the Brits!

Monday, October 09, 2006

North Korea goes nuclear


The Clinton-Carter approach bears fruit!

Now that North Korea has nearly achieved its status as a nuclear power, dealing with it will become immeasurably more complex and difficult. Whereas before we had both an advantage in overwhelming power in conventional as well as nuclear forces, now we only command the former, which is canceled out by the latter. They don't have to nuke us to milk their nuclear status for all it's worth. Their ability to project their influence and affect events across the globe has just multiplied a thousandfold. Whereas before we could've simply swatted aside a North Korean attempt to expand their influence, now it's backed by the threat of nuclear arms, much like in the days of the Cold War, leaving us at best with nothing but a stalemate.

And it isn't even necessary for North Korea to personally fire nukes at America for American cities to burn. All they have to do is discretely pawn some of their technology off to al Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization. They already sell them conventional weapons. Then New York has the dubious honor of going up in a mushroom cloud as Kim Jong Il laughs securely from afar.

The biggest loser in all of this: Iran.

The curtain has been ripped aside, and all the stress on diplomacy and giving the North Koreans "incentives" to listen to us has been exposed as foolishness. Now, as we near a confrontation with Iran, those same people are calling for all that and more against Iran, yet those same techniques did us no good with North Korea; it's as if we did nothing for ten years. Essentially, we did do nothing for ten years.

As a result, nothing could have solidified the case for war against Iran more than a nuclear North Korea. A rogue regime is going to get nuclear weapons if they want them. If we can't stop them through other means, then the only alternative is to get rid of the regime itself before it acquires nuclear weapons and the immunity it brings.

UPDATE: They might be faking it. Again.

Kerry appears on Maher's Real Time


Of course, the interview was chock full of flawed assumptions, but what else is new. (Transcript here, video here.)

A few exchanges stood out to me:
MAHER: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

KERRY: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
Somebody's not bitter.
MAHER: Um, you famously said about Vietnam I think in 1971, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Is there any reason that line doesn't work now even more so for Iraq?

KERRY: I think its, uh, I think it's even much more poignant today than Vietnam. The fact is that this was a different kind of choice -- pure choice.
A choice you supported and enabled! Kerry is the last one to have any credibility on this issue, being just as responsible for the current "quagmire" as anyone else.

He continues:
And where we do have the center of the war on terror, in Afghanistan and the northwest corner of Pakistan, they're basically walking away and not finishing the job. It's the most extraordinary contradiction. It is a deception -- a war of complete and total deception, and misleading. And I think our troops have done their job, and it's time for Iraqis to stand up and do theirs and bring our heroes home.
So how exactly have we been "walking away" from Afghanistan? If anyone is "walking away," it's those Europeans that Kerry so loves to emulate, being unable to scrape together even a measly 2,500 troops and wanting to station them in non-combatitive areas to boot, which defeats the purpose.

And regarding Iraqis "doing their job," it'll be kind of hard for them to do it without support, wouldn't it? So then it looks like our job isn't done after all. Oops.

This part of the interview was great:
MAHER: So, what can you do differently when you run in 2008?

KERRY: Well, if I run...

MAHER: I thought I'd catch you there...

KERRY: No you didn't, I know you didn't think so. You're too smart to have thought you would.
Hahaha! What an ass. Maher's expression here was priceless. Even he was unsure how exactly to take that. Apparently Kerry has yet to wean himself off the habit of condescending to those around him, be they softball throwing interviewers or Secret Service agents who've sworn to throw their lives down for him.

God, please let him run again. We could dredge up all the old stuff, and if there's one thing we know about the Boston Brahmin, it's that he's dead sure to produce new gaffes and obfuscations that we could have a field day with.

Kerry's run to the Left, as is apparent in this interview, is nothing but pandering to the far Left crowd that was mad at him for not going more to the Left last time. By doing so, he confirms one of the biggest knocks against him -- that he's a political chameleon who will sacrifice any principle in the pursuit of power.

So, the Democrats ought to be the ones who most object to his running again. But it would be hilarious if he did.

At Gitmo, detainees get La-Z-Boys, pastries


If you're hoping to hear about the old wooden chair under a bare lightbulb swinging on its cord, here's the reality: The detainees are interrogated on either a La-Z-Boy recliner or a luxuriously upholstered sofa -- blue plush with gold piping. . . .

If I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new Qurans in each unoccupied cell. To reassure incoming inmates that the filthy infidels haven't touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Qurans are hung from the walls in pristine surgical masks. It's one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it's hard to see why it's in the interests of the United States government to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry.
We run the only "torture camp" in history that has it's prisoners gain weight and where they don't actually want to leave because their freedom would leave them worse off.

Families are red, singles are blue

After the 2000 election, the terms "Red state" and "Blue state" became a popular shorthand for describing the political and cultural divide that separated Democrats and Republicans. The flawed but useful metaphor implies that idealogical leanings and political affiliations are clustered around geographic areas. But a recent analysis by Census data by USA Today reveals a pair of factors that are even more determinative of political affiliation than race, income, education or geography: family and fertility.

In fact, when it comes to Congressional representation, marriage and parenthood are the key indicators of whether a district is Democratic and Republican. Republican House members, for instance, overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of married people and lots of children. Democrats' districts, however, are stocked with people who have never married and have few children.

The demographic data shows a remarkable divide:
  • Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people.

  • Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married.

  • Democrats represent 30 districts in which fewer than half of children live with married parents. Republicans represent none.

  • Republican Congress members represent 39.2 million children, about 7 million more than Democrats. In fact, Republicans represent an average of 7,000 more children per district.

  • Children in Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty and with single parents than kids in GOP districts.
  • The "marriage and fertility" gap may be the most useful predictor of the mid-term elections. Four of the five Republicans who have the lowest rates of married people in their districts (Steve Chabot (OH) 48.3%; Heather Wilson (NM) 51.1%; Deborah Pryce (OH) 51.2%; J.D. Hayworth (AZ) 51.6%) are in tight races with a Democratic challenger. Rep. Melissa Bean (IL), on the other hand, a Democrat whose district has a high marriage rate, faces a strong challenge from a Republican. Altogether, 27 of the 38 Republican districts considered vulnerable in the mid-term elections have fewer married people than found in the average GOP district.

    If you want to understand the political divide in the U.S., take a hard look at this "marriage and fertility gap" and ponder why the GOP is preferred by voters with traditional family structures. It's about time we set aside the simplistic Red State/Blue State. For when it comes to politics, what really matters is the state of the family.

    Saturday, October 07, 2006

    Death by chocolate

    The torture continues for Gitmo detainees:
    Meals totaling a whopping 4,200 calories per day are brought to their cells, well above the 2,000 to 3,000 calories recommended for weight maintenance by U.S. government dietary guidelines. And some inmates are eating everything on the menu . . .

    Human rights groups attribute the weight gain to lack of exercise.
    When will President Bush step up and end this "Gulag of our times"?

    Friday, October 06, 2006

    Spot the idiot

    Garrison Keillor, writing in the Chicago Tribune, apparently thinks that America is being just beastly to the "poor shnooks" who destroyed the World Trade Center:
    The U.S. Senate, in all its splendor and majesty, decided that an "enemy combatant" is any non-citizen whom [sic] the president says is an enemy combatant, including your Korean greengrocer or your Swedish grandmother or your Czech au pair, and can be arrested and held for as long as authorities wish without any right of appeal to a court of law to examine the matter.
    In reality, every single detainee held by the military gets what they're entitled to: a hearing before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- an Article 5 hearing in the Geneva Convention's parlance -- tribunals whose decisions are subject to judicial review.

    This means that every detainee held, from any random terrorist to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will recieve Article 5 hearings. I suppose that Keillor is upset about the CIA's terrorist interrogation program, from which Khalid Sheikh Mohammad came.

    Yet it's one thing to argue that due process for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is more important than preventing the deaths of any more Americans in future terrorist attacks. By raising the absurd specter of Korean greengrocers and Swedish grandmothers and Czech au pairs being detained as enemy combatants, Keillor reveals that even he doesn't take his own argument seriously.

    The gay excuse

    With McGreevey and Foley falling back on their sexual orientation as a crutch to soften the severity of their incompetence and abuse of power, it's only a matter of time before others follow suit. Gay Americans ought to be more vocal when their counterparts seek to use their sexuality as an excuse to be held to a different standard -- or none at all -- thus painting other gay Americans in a bad light, especially when it's those same people who tell us that their sexuality should have no bearing on how they're judged.

    In New Jersey, a completely unqualified man was given a Homeland Security position because the gay governor apparently needed to keep his little Israeli sidepiece close by. Yet, I read positive and even jubilant pieces about him in the gay press. Even if he was legitimately gay, and not using it as a way to dodge responsibility for his corruption in the same way Mark Foley has attempted to use his so-called alcoholism, why would homosexuals defend a sexual deviant and a liar?

    What if George Bush were to suddenly come out of the closet and claimed that he made a Horse Show guy the head of FEMA because he found him attractive?

    The gay Left should stand up and roast these opportunistic politicians who use their sexuality to dodge scrutiny and give homosexuals a bad name, instead of closing ranks and defending those who hurt us all just because they share the same sexual politics.

    Ready for more insanity?

    Remember John Mark Karr, the fake Jon-Benet killer? He's just had all child porn charges against him dropped in California. He's free. The guy got himself out of a Thai jail and got a first-class ticket to America. Maybe he and Mark Foley can open a consulting firm together.

    The die is cast

    This week was the week for Republicans to get on a stronger footing on the Foley scandal: to have those most responsible take a fall (Hastert staffers and probably Shimkus); to make it clear that they have nothing to hide by appointing someone widely respected to investigate the whole mess (Bob Bennett, whose name has been mentioned, might have been a good choice -- a Democrat and a tough lawyer and not a partisan hack); to get their facts straight and present a united front to the world; to eschew foolish conspiracy theories that made them look desperate and out of touch with reality.

    None of that happened, and now it's probably too late.

    Now, they have to play the hand they have dealt themselves, and that means going on offense: expressing outrage that they would all be tarred with the actions of one perverted guy in their midst; contrasting the way they handled Foley -- out of Congress immediately as soon as they learned what he was doing -- with the way Democrats stuck with Studds and Clinton; attacking the media and the Democrats for wanting to run a campaign on the misconduct of one cashiered congressman when we are waging two wars and there are real issues of national significance to be debated.

    Politically, this is the only way forward for them now.

    Ban-Ki Moon

    Suddenly I'm excited by the possibility that Bab-KI Moon may become the new UN Secretary-General.

    Why?

    This : "Senior officials at the United Nations expressed despair today at the prospect of Kofi Annan being succeeded as secretary general by Ban Ki-Moon, the South Korean foreign minister. "The mood among staff is glum," one of the officials said. "We are not very excited about the outcome."

    Moon's the one!

    Wednesday, October 04, 2006

    Liberal hypocrisy on Foley: Fact that Foley was gay should've "raised questions"

    Democratic strategist Bob Beckel finished saying on Hannity & Colmes last night that the fact Mark Foley was gay should've "raised questions" about the more innocuous emails he sent. He then likened gay men around boys to notorious bank robbers hanging around banks.

    And he's not the only one! How quickly they change their tacks:
    ...in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?
    Now the reality is that I tend to be suspicious of any gay man interested in being "friends" with a sixteen year old boy. Or, for that matter, any straight man interested in being "friends" with a sixteen year old girl.

    But the Democratic Party stands as a whole for the proposition that we can't have any suspicions about gay men who want to hang out with the boys in the woods.

    So, true enough -- we ought to suspect any man interested in hanging out with kids. Men ought to be bored by children, even their own. If they seek out children as social companions, something is wrong.

    But I doubt the Democratic Party will embrace such a common sense notion any time soon.

    And even given that basic truth, exactly how much suspicion is warranted? I agree with Beckel to a degree: suspicious behavior should raise suspicions. And they were. But how much further do you go after confronting Foley and getting his denial?

    The emails in question, remember, showed nothing definitely inappropriate. Even asking for a picture isn't that sinister.

    So we're all supposed to go grab the torches and pitchforks because "some fag" wrote an email to a kid?

    Sounds kind of homophobic to me, but hey, I'm awaiting clarification from the liberals.

    Tuesday, October 03, 2006

    Note on Foley

    Somehow there's some people apparently who haven't heard of what's going on here. A quick summary: a Florida Republican Congressman, Mark Foley, got busted for sending sexual IMs to a 16 year old male Page. Apparently this is against the law. And that's just the beginning: there's at least 52 such conversations and other Pages that are coming forward as having suffered under his carnal gaze.

    Our pedophilic representative then resigned instantly when he was notified that news organizations had obtained records of his conversations, though it was only when his shenanigans were uncovered that he suddenly discovered the moral fortitude to bear the responsibility. Which he isn't, really, since he's claiming it's all the fault of alcohol.

    Alcohol: it can do anything! One day you're doing great, then you have a few sips and before you know it you're hollering about Jews running the world or suddenly developing a taste for younger flesh.

    Now there's a firestorm as the media drumbeat and the Democrats, eager to avoid national security issues on which they're weak, try to paint the rest of the Republicans as somehow being involved in covering it up -- which is false, of course -- and Republicans are running for their lives as an every man for himself free-for-all threatens to put the final nail in the coffin of the GOP's electoral prospects.

    Misleading headline of the day

    The headline to this story reads "Hasert won't resign over sex scandal."

    That is an elegantly written headline. It crams so much salacious, misleading innuendo into a mere six words that they're probably cooking up a Pulitzer Prize category for it even now.

    First implication: Hasert was involved in a sex scandal. Anyone who actually reads the story will instantly realize that's not the case, but most people never make it past the headline (including me). So now a lot of people think Hasert's been having some illicit sex on the side.

    Second implication: this scandal somehow involves sex. For a media that can so credulously draw such a fine distinction between oral sex (which is apparently not sex) and vaginal sex (which definitely is), they seem interestingly unable to draw a distinction between anal sex with a minor (which is what Rep. Studds (D) did; not sex) and cybersex involving no actual physical contact with a minor (which is what Rep. Foley (R) did; sex).

    Third implication: that Hasert is the one expected to resign means that somehow he and other Republicans bear responsibility for it, as if it occured under "their watch." Foley wasn't theirs to "watch." They saw or heard about a few e-mails that seemed peculiar, somebody told Foley to knock it off, and that was as much as it was in their power, or it was their legal or moral or political responsibility, to do.

    Clarification: Apparently they changed the headline during the course of the day. What I'm talking about was up there earlier.

    John Howard blasts Australian leftists for churning anti-American hate

    Why can't Bush drop the "uniter, not a divider" nonsense and go after them like this?

    It's because he lets himself get handicapped with this sense that the Office of the President is above political parties. It's noble that he tries to stay above the fray of partisan politics, and speaks to his character and integrity. But it's no good when the opposing political party can't get past their hatred to work together. Any attempt to even consider a Bush proposal is derided as going "Republican-lite." Whenever Bush reaches a hand across the aisle, it almost gets bitten off. If he extends the Democrats an olive branch, they rip it away and start whipping him with it.

    What happened when Bush allowed Ted Kennedy, of all people, to write the NCLB act? All he ended up doing was angering Republicans and made Democrats thirst for more. Trying to "outspend" a Democrat is impossible. They'll always call for more. Now the same people who helped write it are calling it a failure and laying the blame at Bush's feet.

    Bush even does it in his speeches, trying to avoid the typical Republican / Democrat divide. Whenever he talks about "certain folks" obstructing efforts to pass legislation in the interests of national security, he never mentions the Democrats by name, as if to give them a chance to change their minds and save face. But they never do.

    All this softballing just gets used against him.

    They say every prosecutor has to point the literal finger of guilt at the accused and state his guilt without equivocation. The jury won't convict a man unless the prosecutor seems wholly convinced of his own case. (That's not all it takes, of course, but it's a prerequisite.)

    If Bush wants the jury of the American people to convict the Democrats of negligence and dangerous naivete on the war on terror, he too has to rise up and point the finger of guilt and state in no ambiguous terms that they're guilty as charged.

    If he's hesitant to do that, who's going to believe it?

    AP Frets: Detainees being fed too much

    High calorie foods which the prisoners choose to gorge themselves on just might be a violation of the Geneva Conventions against transfats.

    Okay, I added that last part in about the violation of the Geneva Conventions. But I think it's implied.

    There are two parties out there: one cares about Gitmo terrorists stuffing themselves with fatty foods, the other isn't quite sure why we don't just toss them a tourniquet and a hacksaw and tell them "You should probably start with the calves; there's some good eatin' on those."

    T-Word sighting

    Reuters:
    An Iranian woman now living in a homeless shelter in Manhattan, was once a leader in a terrorist group based in Iraq trying to overthrow the Tehran government, federal authorities said in court documents on Monday.
    A what group? Isn't one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter? Where are the scare quotes?

    Oh, wait. She was trying to overthrow the Iranian government, not just wantonly murdering civilians. That's very different.

    Geneva Con

    "Iraqi officers loyal to Saddam Hussain filmed their cold-blooded murder of two British bomb disposal officers who were captured after a roadside ambush," reports the Times of London, which describes the March 2003 incident:
    An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam's military intelligence.

    The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.
    We keep hearing that if we don't accord Geneva Convention protections to al Qaeda detainees, our soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment. But here is how an enemy -- one that, unlike al Qaeda, actually is a signatory to Geneva -- treats Western soldiers. So what exactly do we gain by even meeting our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, much less exceeding them?

    Canada: A "great power" under conservatives

    The Jerusalem Post on Harper's vote:
    At a summit of 53 Francophone countries last week, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed what it means to be a great power.
    Standing alone on principle, Canada forced the conference to introduce a modicum of balance into a lopsidedly anti-Israel statement on the recent war in Lebanon. . . .

    In the meantime, Canadians should be proud of their government's leadership. . .
    A Canadian emailer summarizes the response:
    "I have never been so proud of a Canadian Prime Minister in my life!"

    The Fourth Reich

    Clintonista Robert Reich wants to return to the good old days when the government fleeced people with a 90% marginal tax rate. And he's considered a moderate Democrat. This is what we face if the Democrats regain power.

    Amazing.

    The Dem playbook

    Literally:
    Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There's no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley's cybersex IMs. There's plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the "overly friendly" e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the "GOP's knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails."
    Of course, pointing out what an underhanded and dirty tactic this is means "making excuses" for Foley.

    Monday, October 02, 2006

    Harry Reid of the ivory tower

    Harry Reid has reached into Republican Jon Porter's personal life, attacking him for not having a college degree and getting a divorce. Perhaps Mr. Reid would like to tell everyone in the United States who doesn't have a college degree what other jobs they're not qualified for.

    Oh, and guess who said this: "I regret the current political climate in which policy disputes escalate too quickly into personal condemnation."

    Yes, Harry Reid, earlier this year.

    God is love, love is blind

    Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

    Following on this note, CBS offers us: Kissinger advised Nixon on Vietnam, Kissinger advises Bush on Iraq ... therefore, Iraq is Vietnam!

    It may fly at the "fake but accurate" network that spent the last national election giving us Dan Rather's fake memos, but I don't think it's gonna fly down here on planet Earth.

    Bush to sign anti-internet gambling bill

    Frist snuck the provision into a ports security bill few could vote against. Bush will sign it, of course. They followed by stripping out provisions forbidding serious felons from working at ports.

    So: the port security bill provides no actual port security, but it does keep you from reraising with AQ.

    Dems overreaching on Foley

    Given the proximity of the election, it's not surprising that Democrats have seized onto Foley's repugnant actions in a desperate attempt to shift the focus of the national spotlight off national security and smear the Republican House Leadership for how they handled the situation. Pelosi has had a field day throwing mud at the wall about how Republicans turned a "blind eye" and basically covered up for pedophiles like Foley for political gain. But it's a stretch, at best.

    Back in 2005, the House Leadership was alerted that Foley had written some "overly friendly" emails to a page that the page's parents wanted to stop.

    These aren't the emails that broke the news; they were much more mild. They're somewhat creepy, inappropriate, and "overly friendly" for a Congressman to be sending to a sixteen year old page. But they're not sexually explicit or illegal, and Foley didn't attempt to set up a meeting.

    Now, what action would you take if you found out about these emails? Clearly, this guy is a little too friendly, the kind of guy that might make you uncomfortable, but does that scream "PEDOPHILE!"? Is being "overly friendly" enough to get reported to the police? No crime had been committed. What about the ethics committee? There wasn't an ethics breach.

    So, what did they end up doing?
    "(T)he Chairman of the House Page Board and the then Clerk of the House confronted Mr. Foley, demanded he cease all contact with the former page as his parents had requested, and believed they had privately resolved the situation as the parents had requested."
    In other words, they did just what the parents wanted, and given the non-sexual nature of the emails, it was the appropriate way to handle it.

    Then we come to the instant messages that landed Foly in hot water recently. These messages, the House Leadership did not learn about in 2005, but last week, just like everybody else, and had the appropriate reaction.

    The situation was handled correctly back in 2005 given what they knew at the time, and it's being handled correctly today.

    The story doesn't just end with the Republicans, though. Obviously someone has known about these explicit messages for quite a while and timed their release for maximum political impact -- and of course, that someone would have to be a liberal group. So, who's really looking out for these teenage pages? The House Leadership which called for a criminal investigation from the moment they found out about them or the liberals who kept those messages secret for months until it would benefit them politically?

    The St. Petersburg Times even knew about the same emails the Republican leadership knew about back in 2005. They found them so innocuous that they didn't even to bother a story on them. That's rather significant -- if even liberal journalists were looking at these emails and saying, "there's nothing to see here," that tells you a lot.

    Foley is a scumbag, but him being a scumbag doesn't have anything to do with other Republicans.

    Sunday, October 01, 2006

    97 reasons Democrats are weak on defense and can't be trusted to govern in wartime

    From Investors Business Daily. Typical Friday column though: it's shooting ducks in a barrel. My initial reaction was, "Is that all they can think of?"

    Australian ideas on rehabilitating inmates


    I love these people.