Raging Right Wing Republican

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

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Bush and perfection

Bush is far from the perfect conservative. He lacks Reagan's communication skills and tends to put a conservative spin on big government rather than attempting to downsize it. But as I've heard Dennis Prager say, "I don't compare Bush with perfection; I compare him with the Democrats."

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Merry Christmas

Sunday, December 23, 2007


As you can tell, posting is sparse, due to the Christmas season. It'll pick up again after all the merrymaking is over. There will still be posting, though.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Video game brutally assaults seven year old girl, death

A 7 year old is left alone at home with her 16 year old sister and 17 year old boyfriend.

He starts to beat the stuffings out of her for some good old fashioned drunken fun: a broken wrist, multiple bruises, and death.

Then they dump an egg down her throat. After leaving her not breathing for 15 minutes they decide it might be a good idea to call for help.

Yet the headline screams: "Sister charged in "Mortal Kombat" death of 7-year-old."

Video games sure are violent these days.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Nothing like self-respect

Feminists today: "I have, let's see, NO friends that don't have sex with a guy within the first week of dating him."


Dinesh D'Souza on environmentalists

Liberals think that conservatives don't care about the environment. But this is silly. We like trees, rivers, and baby seals as much as the next guy. Indeed, as conservatives, we should be dedicated to conserving God's green Earth, and we are. It is hard to quarrel with the environmentalist claim that the ecosystem is a precious and fragile thing, and that man has the power to destroy it. The stewardship of nature is now a human responsibility.

The problem with environmentalists is that the movement seems to have been taken over by enviro-nuts: vegans, organic farmers, fruit-juice drinkers, tree-huggers, and earth-worshippers. These people do not have a reputation for being rational. Indeed, they seem to operate in perpetual alarmist mode. Thus they routinely exaggerate the threat that economic growth, technology, and human beings themselves pose to the planet. Moreover, the solution of many environmentalists—to restrict growth, to oppose "artificial" technologies such as pesticides and bioengineering, and to limit the aspiration's of the world's peoples—is impractical and harmful. . . .

They have warned that the earth is running out of food and water, that pollution levels never abate, that the population of the earth is surpassing the earth's capacity, and that massive human and ecological disasters are imminent. In reality, agricultural production per head has risen; known reserves of fossil fuels and metals are greater than previously thought; economic growth has produced lower birth rates and successful efforts to reduce pollution levels, and none of the horrors predicted by the environmentalists have come to pass.

. . . the solutions of the environmentalists are even less plausible than their forecasts. How likely is it that environmentalists can persuade people in the West, and in the Third World, to limit their aspirations to have a better life? How convincing is it to say to a Brazilian farmer, "We are more concerned about the rainforest than your efforts to feed your family?" Does it make sense to tell a poor logger, "Don't cut down those trees because they are the home to a very rare breed of ant?" There is virtually no chance for such arguments to succeed. . . .

The basic flaw of the environmentalist approach is its unremitting hostility to growth, affluence, and technology. Indeed, growth, affluence, and technology are the best hopes for saving the earth. Rich people—not poor people—join environmental protection groups. Only when countries become rich do they start worrying about pollution, and have the resources to tackle the problem. Moreover, affluence is nature's best contraceptive: it is a universal demographic law that when countries become wealthier, their birth rates drop. Indeed, the wealthiest nations have birth rates so low that they are considerably below replacement levels.

Finally, technology—not the naturalistic lifestyle—is the best way to preserve the environment. Organic farming, for instance, provides employment for lots of poor, simple folk, and produces crops that upper-middle class people are willing to pay more for. Organic farming, however, is inefficient. It consumes vast tracts of land to produce very small potatoes and strawberries. High-yield farming is vastly more efficient. Pesticides and bioengineering help farmers produce the most crops out of the least amount of land. When we get higher yield on our farms, we leave more room for wilderness.

By opposing the solutions that have the greatest chance to work, the environmentalists reveal themselves to be unwitting enemies of the planet. We cannot rely on these people to save the earth. Rather, conservatives must assume the responsibility of being the true stewards of creation.

(Dinesh D'Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative [New York, NY: Basic Books, 2005], 167-170)

Sunday, December 16, 2007

War on... science?

Hillary says she wants to end President Bush's "war on science." There's a war on science now? When did I miss that?

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Dr. Strangebush

It says, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." But what we're worried about isn't their weapons program — it's their civilian program that we're watching. Unlike other countries, such as Japan, the distinction between Iran's weapons program and civilian program is blurred. The scrutiny is on Iran's civilian program due to its suspicious resemblance to a weapons program, unless it's common practice to enrich uranium for "peaceful purposes" in secret laboratories hidden away in underground bunkers, then letting nobody inspect them.

Besides, just because "Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" in 2003, doesn't mean that it didn't get started up again in 2004. So to say that and then assert there is no danger is a non-sequitur.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

How well do you know Roe?

Take this "Roe IQ test" and find out. It doesn't say what the correct answer is for the questions you mark wrong, though... If you want the answers, I'll place them below.* No cheating!

Post what you get. I got 100%.

*1) Anytime during the pregnancy, 2) No limitations, 3) True, 4) False, 5) 40-49 million, 6) Parental notification is not required, 7) True, 8) Fewer than 1 percent, 9) None of the above, 10) Ginsburg, 11) United States, 12) All of the above

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Brent Bozell on media bias

In an April 10, 2002, appearance on CNN's Larry King Live, ABC News anchor Peter Jennings gave a remarkable answer when asked about media bias.

"Historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years," Jennings said. "It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they are now. And so I think, yes, on occasion there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will." . . .

Then again, was the statement that astonishing? Well, yes, simply because nobody of his stature had ever come close to admitting that liberal bias existed. . . . But if one looks closely at Jennings' answer, it becomes clear that, to the distinguished anchor at ABC News, media bias really isn't much of a problem at all. It's just an "instinct" that is evidenced only "on occasion." . . .

Jennings also betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of why media bias is a problem. For "too long," he said, "conservative voices" were not "heard as widely in the media as they are now." Quite true, but that statement is slippery, on two counts. First, who does Jennings mean by "conservative voices" — journalists, or their guests? There is no empirical evidence I've seen that there has been any marked increase of conservatives in the newsrooms — note that we're talking about newsrooms, not the pundits' roundtables — of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS. Second, if by "conservative voices" Jennings is referencing the opinions of conservatives within news stories, even if journalists are giving more airtime to conservatives, it doesn't follow that the coverage of those "conservative voices" is any more positive. . . . The media's pervasive bias determines precisely which news stories are (and are not) covered, and in how much detail. Indeed, the media elite deliberately attempt to set the national agenda through their coverage of the news.

I have learned this firsthand in a career spent closely analyzing the news media, but the point was driven home to me several years ago at a meeting with a Los Angeles newspaper. The Media Research Center had just released an exhaustive study regarding liberal bias in the news media, and I was scheduled to meet with the editorial board of the (now-defunct) Los Angeles Herald-Examiner to discuss the report's findings. When I arrived, however, I was ushered into the conference room and met by a solitary figure, a member of the editorial board obviously pegged with the unsavory assignment of listening to this pesky conservative. The ponytailed hair and the cold body language — he silently pointed me to a chair — hinted that this would be anything but a productive meeting. I made an opening statement, then passed him the voluminous report we were to discuss. Without bothering to open it, the editor shoved it back at me and unleashed a vitriolic harangue against conservatives. Niceties flew out the window as he snarled, "All you conservatives care about is making money!" Clearly we weren't going to discuss the report, so I asked him what liberals like him cared about. Without bothering to deny my description of his ideological persuasion, he quickly shot back, "You just don't get it: We are the social conscience of this country and we have an obligation to use the media."

At least this editor had the decency to admit what so many others steadfastly deny. Yes, the mainstream news media's views of conservatives is less than flattering — the liberal media see conservatives as "the great unwashed," as Republican congressman Henry Hyde aptly put it — and that is a big problem. But just as important, and too often overlooked, is how the media view themselves. The media elites feel they must be the "social conscience of this country"; they seem to have a higher calling beyond objectively reporting what happens on a day-to-day basis. Reporters, editors, and producers routinely display an arrogance driven by an inflated sense of self-worth. They are the enlightened, the elite.

(L. Brent Bozell III, Weapons of Mass Distortion [New York, NY: Crown Books, 2004], 1-4)

"It's not just that it's anti-religious. It's that it's boring."

Another stellar review of The Golden Compass.

Friday, December 07, 2007

You know what we haven't heard about in a while?

Funny, that.

NBC refuses to run ads thanking troops

NBC journalist calls the President a "monkey," keeps job: not controversial.

NBC journalist says evangelicals want to go to Gitmo and "torture people just for fun": not controversial.

Ad thanking troops for their service: controversial.

Fur business: mean or green?

Liberalism biting itself in the behind: the Canadian fur industry points out that actual animal fur is more environmentally friendly than fakes.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Party's over, Canada

The US dollar is worth more than the Canadian dollar again. They had a field day when it first dipped below it. It was fun while it lasted.

Hippies take day off work to hang in trees, take off clothes

Why does every protest involve getting naked?

What kind of work do these people have that they can take off whenever they feel like it for some lunatic demonstration?

They're like monkeys.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

New citizens increasingly Republican

Minutes after taking the Pledge of Allegiance, new American citizens are urged to register as voters by Democratic activists who see them as natural party supporters who could hold the key to the 2008 election.

But with increasing illegal immigration threatening the economy and security of the United States, many legal immigrants anxious to uphold the laws of their adopted country are moving towards the more hard-line immigration stance of Republicans.
Makes sense. People who follow the rules tend to look askance at cheaters.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Numbers don't lie

November will be the least deadly November for US troops in Iraq since the start of the war.

November 2003: 82.
November 2004: 137.
November 2005: 84.
November 2006: 70.
November 2007: 34.

Looks like the job's done! Time to go home!