New Gallup Poll:
Bush - 52%
Kerry - 44 %
Nader - 1 %
Gee! The mainstream media claimed that Kerry won the debates? The NY Times just endorsed Kerry? Michael Moore must be spinning in his grave (or is that too premature?).
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Yes, Virginia, There Is A George W. Bush
I have noted previously (here and here) about how the current women's movement has all but ignored the incredible advances for women that the Presidency of George W. Bush has made possible. We are talking about MILLIONS of women who had been enslaved under brutal regimes... Meanwhile our current batch of "feminists" are fixated on golf club membership as an indicator of America's decadence and oppression of women.
Women vote in Afghanistan's first free Election - courtesy of the USA and GWB !
Women vote in Afghanistan's first free Election - courtesy of the USA and GWB !
Why Bush Won't Say UBL is Dead
Over at FroggyRuminations (Froggy is a Navy Seal)they are saying what I said some time ago, but using it as an example of the kind of man President Bush is, compared with Kerry. (Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)
He is dead. His remains are turds shat by scavenging animals in the mountains of Afghanistan blown by the wind and stomped on by US troops.
By why not make it public? After all, this is the one thing that could ensure the President's re-election. Have you noticed how coy DOD officials and high ranking officers are when the question is posed? They know. They certainly have intelligence to this effect. Of course, the President could have instructed subordinates to start saying that intel indicates UBL is dead. This would have put pressure on him to prove otherwise by issuing a statement which he is clearly unable to make. This process could have started 6 months ago, and if UBL did not answer, it would in effect prove the case. But it didn't happen. Why not?
Because the President knows that making UBL a martyr would serve to further inspire his minions, and he realizes that preventing this from happening is more important than his re-election. Instead, UBL remains forever silent even as his recruits yearn to hear his voice. Eventually these cultists will realize themselves that UBL went out like a punk, not a martyr and that the AQ head shed has been lying to them for years. That realization combined with US combat boots knocking their teeth down their throats will go a long way to beating this cult into submission. But it is important to recognize that the President's committment to killing terrorists supercedes his committment to his own re-election. I'm sure he hopes that the American people will come to this conclusion on their own and vote for him anyway, but it is quite a risk to take in the ultimate ME situation.
This kind of integrity and committment stands in stark contrast to his opponent.
I couldn't agree more. Read the whole thing--it makes a lot of sense.
He is dead. His remains are turds shat by scavenging animals in the mountains of Afghanistan blown by the wind and stomped on by US troops.
By why not make it public? After all, this is the one thing that could ensure the President's re-election. Have you noticed how coy DOD officials and high ranking officers are when the question is posed? They know. They certainly have intelligence to this effect. Of course, the President could have instructed subordinates to start saying that intel indicates UBL is dead. This would have put pressure on him to prove otherwise by issuing a statement which he is clearly unable to make. This process could have started 6 months ago, and if UBL did not answer, it would in effect prove the case. But it didn't happen. Why not?
Because the President knows that making UBL a martyr would serve to further inspire his minions, and he realizes that preventing this from happening is more important than his re-election. Instead, UBL remains forever silent even as his recruits yearn to hear his voice. Eventually these cultists will realize themselves that UBL went out like a punk, not a martyr and that the AQ head shed has been lying to them for years. That realization combined with US combat boots knocking their teeth down their throats will go a long way to beating this cult into submission. But it is important to recognize that the President's committment to killing terrorists supercedes his committment to his own re-election. I'm sure he hopes that the American people will come to this conclusion on their own and vote for him anyway, but it is quite a risk to take in the ultimate ME situation.
This kind of integrity and committment stands in stark contrast to his opponent.
I couldn't agree more. Read the whole thing--it makes a lot of sense.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Fellowship 9/11
What can I say? You MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST see this short film called Fellowship 9/11. (via Betsy's Page )
One of the most controversial and provocative films of the year, Fellowship 9/11 isAcademy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's searing examination of the Aragorn administration's actions in the wake of the tragic events at Helms Deep.
With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering - or ifnecessary fabricating - the facts, Moore considers the reign of the son of Arathorn and where it has led us.
He looks at how - and why - Aragorn and his inner circle avoided pursuing the Saruman connection to Helms Deep, despite the fact that 9 out of every 10 Orcs that
attacked the castle were actually Uruk-hai who were spawned in and financed by Isengard.
Fellowship 9/11 shows us a Middle Earth kept in constant fear by "Orc Alerts" and
shows us a Middle Earth kept in constant fear by "Orc Alerts" and lulled into accepting a piece of legislation, the Patriot Scroll, that infringes on basic civil rights. It is in this atmosphere of confusion, suspicion and dread that Aragorn, backed by the secretive "Fellowship Group," makes his headlong rush towards war in Mordor - and Fellowship 9/11 takes us inside that war to tell the stories we haven't heard, illustrating the awful cost to soldiers and to orcs and to their families.
Liars Gate Films will release the film nationwide on the Internet on October 7th onIFILM.COM.
One of the most controversial and provocative films of the year, Fellowship 9/11 isAcademy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's searing examination of the Aragorn administration's actions in the wake of the tragic events at Helms Deep.
With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering - or ifnecessary fabricating - the facts, Moore considers the reign of the son of Arathorn and where it has led us.
He looks at how - and why - Aragorn and his inner circle avoided pursuing the Saruman connection to Helms Deep, despite the fact that 9 out of every 10 Orcs that
attacked the castle were actually Uruk-hai who were spawned in and financed by Isengard.
Fellowship 9/11 shows us a Middle Earth kept in constant fear by "Orc Alerts" and
shows us a Middle Earth kept in constant fear by "Orc Alerts" and lulled into accepting a piece of legislation, the Patriot Scroll, that infringes on basic civil rights. It is in this atmosphere of confusion, suspicion and dread that Aragorn, backed by the secretive "Fellowship Group," makes his headlong rush towards war in Mordor - and Fellowship 9/11 takes us inside that war to tell the stories we haven't heard, illustrating the awful cost to soldiers and to orcs and to their families.
Liars Gate Films will release the film nationwide on the Internet on October 7th onIFILM.COM.
New Swift Boat Vets Ads
I'm probably the last one to link to the new Swift Boat Veterans' ads, but I just watched them and they are POWERFUL. I don't know how anyone could see these two ads and still want to vote for Kerry. Take a look--and send them to everyone you know.
Friday, October 15, 2004
The Left's Rainbow Hypocrisy
When you have respect for a person or a cause, it would seem obvious that you don't consider those people or that cause to be something to smear someone else with. Thus it is illuminating to discover what the so-called "Party of the Little People" --as the Democrats are wont to call themselves--REALLY think about the handicapped, Blacks, and Gays. Three groups that they subsume under their "rainbow coalition."
ITEM 1 : Here is the cover of a flyer distributed by Tennessee Democrats that shows how they are willing to exploit the handicapped for political gain:
Item 2:
In what seems to be a deliberate and coordinated attempt to make sure voters know that the Vice President's daughter is gay, both John Edwards and John Kerry made specific reference to that fact in two debates. Mary Beth Cahill defended the attack--which was made even more disgusting by the false sympathy that both men espoused toward the Cheneys--by saying that Mary Cheney was "fair game". You know, "game" as in what hunters shoot?
Item 3:
And, last, but not least is the Left's attack on Condoleeza Rice. We all know what the Left and Democrats think of Blacks who don't agree with their ideology: they are not REAL Black people (and are therefore "fair game" apparently). A incredibly racist cartoon by Jeff Danziger, which showed a barefoot Condi Rice with baby aluminum tubes pandering to all the racist stereotypes you can imagine was here , but because of the outrage it generated, it was removed.
So, there you have three examples of what the Democrats REALLY think of their rainbow base of support. Do you think these examples show respect for "diversity"? Do you imagine that Kerry and Edwards referred to Mary Cheney in order to show their "respect" for VP Cheney and his family? Do you even think that a Black woman in one of the highest political offices in the land deserves to be ridiculed for her achievements because she is Black and a Republican? What about if she had been Black and Democrat?? Would she then be shown some "respect"?
It is in times of stress that you discover what people really think and feel. We have just witnessed the Democrats under stress--and they have completely failed the test of compassion and humanity. Their rainbow coalition is a rainbow of hypocrisy
ITEM 1 : Here is the cover of a flyer distributed by Tennessee Democrats that shows how they are willing to exploit the handicapped for political gain:
Item 2:
In what seems to be a deliberate and coordinated attempt to make sure voters know that the Vice President's daughter is gay, both John Edwards and John Kerry made specific reference to that fact in two debates. Mary Beth Cahill defended the attack--which was made even more disgusting by the false sympathy that both men espoused toward the Cheneys--by saying that Mary Cheney was "fair game". You know, "game" as in what hunters shoot?
Item 3:
And, last, but not least is the Left's attack on Condoleeza Rice. We all know what the Left and Democrats think of Blacks who don't agree with their ideology: they are not REAL Black people (and are therefore "fair game" apparently). A incredibly racist cartoon by Jeff Danziger, which showed a barefoot Condi Rice with baby aluminum tubes pandering to all the racist stereotypes you can imagine was here , but because of the outrage it generated, it was removed.
So, there you have three examples of what the Democrats REALLY think of their rainbow base of support. Do you think these examples show respect for "diversity"? Do you imagine that Kerry and Edwards referred to Mary Cheney in order to show their "respect" for VP Cheney and his family? Do you even think that a Black woman in one of the highest political offices in the land deserves to be ridiculed for her achievements because she is Black and a Republican? What about if she had been Black and Democrat?? Would she then be shown some "respect"?
It is in times of stress that you discover what people really think and feel. We have just witnessed the Democrats under stress--and they have completely failed the test of compassion and humanity. Their rainbow coalition is a rainbow of hypocrisy
Islamic Law and Wife Beating: A Debate
This is what passes as a scholarly discussion in the Arab world: (Hat tip: Jim O)
Dr. Elias: Our civil law and Islamic law do not present wife-beating as a rule, but they deal with a situation where a man beats his wife. What should we do then? My friend, if you beat your wife and it's only light beatings in order to set things straight - that's it. We forgive light beatings. We tell him, "They are not considered an assault, but discipline."
Al-Shazli: What do you mean by light beatings? I'd very much like to know what they are…
Elias: Light beatings, from the legal aspect…
Al-Shazli :I'd like to say something. When a man treats his wife this way, when his hand is like an iron rod, she is hurt, physically and mentally… What kind of idea is this "light beatings"?
Elias: Light beatings are not excessive. They don't leave a mark, don't break bones, don't cause bleeding, and don't cause death. These are light beatings. With some women - nothing helps except beatings.
Bibars: And with some men - nothing helps except beatings.
Elias: For example, a man comes home from work and finds his wife watching TV. She doesn't even get up to make him food. He tells her once, twice, and asks again. If only once he would raise his voice and beat her, she would get up to prepare food for him and by the next day she'd be obedient. This will last for a week and when she forgets, he will remind her. Let's admit it, the woman was created from a crooked rib.
I would like to send a message from here: The wife must speak quietly and she must carry out all her duties toward her husband and family. She must not give her husband the chance to beat her, and if he has already beaten her, she must treat him in a way that will not cause him to repeat it, so the beatings won't become a habit.
This is just an excerpt. Read the entire debate for insight into the Koran and Arab culture. Remember, this is the Shari'a Law that the Canadian government has just approved for Canada. This is the so-called "Religion of Peace". This is an example of the backwards and misogynistic thinking so pervasive in the Middle East.
Tolerating this kind of cultural crap is currently extremely politically correct on our University campuses and in elite intellectual circles that promote "cultural diversity." Even feminists seem to be subdued and kept in their places by these routine outrages. But I, for one, am sick and tired of this warped application of "tolerance". Any individual, any people, any religion, and any government that encourages this perversion of thinking does not deserve any degree of tolerance by civilized human beings. Period. Exclamation point.
Dr. Elias: Our civil law and Islamic law do not present wife-beating as a rule, but they deal with a situation where a man beats his wife. What should we do then? My friend, if you beat your wife and it's only light beatings in order to set things straight - that's it. We forgive light beatings. We tell him, "They are not considered an assault, but discipline."
Al-Shazli: What do you mean by light beatings? I'd very much like to know what they are…
Elias: Light beatings, from the legal aspect…
Al-Shazli :I'd like to say something. When a man treats his wife this way, when his hand is like an iron rod, she is hurt, physically and mentally… What kind of idea is this "light beatings"?
Elias: Light beatings are not excessive. They don't leave a mark, don't break bones, don't cause bleeding, and don't cause death. These are light beatings. With some women - nothing helps except beatings.
Bibars: And with some men - nothing helps except beatings.
Elias: For example, a man comes home from work and finds his wife watching TV. She doesn't even get up to make him food. He tells her once, twice, and asks again. If only once he would raise his voice and beat her, she would get up to prepare food for him and by the next day she'd be obedient. This will last for a week and when she forgets, he will remind her. Let's admit it, the woman was created from a crooked rib.
I would like to send a message from here: The wife must speak quietly and she must carry out all her duties toward her husband and family. She must not give her husband the chance to beat her, and if he has already beaten her, she must treat him in a way that will not cause him to repeat it, so the beatings won't become a habit.
This is just an excerpt. Read the entire debate for insight into the Koran and Arab culture. Remember, this is the Shari'a Law that the Canadian government has just approved for Canada. This is the so-called "Religion of Peace". This is an example of the backwards and misogynistic thinking so pervasive in the Middle East.
Tolerating this kind of cultural crap is currently extremely politically correct on our University campuses and in elite intellectual circles that promote "cultural diversity." Even feminists seem to be subdued and kept in their places by these routine outrages. But I, for one, am sick and tired of this warped application of "tolerance". Any individual, any people, any religion, and any government that encourages this perversion of thinking does not deserve any degree of tolerance by civilized human beings. Period. Exclamation point.
Delusions of Grandeur
Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist (who happens to be paralyzed from the waist down from a car accident while in medical school) says, "In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable. "
What is he talking about? Here is John Edwards Monday, in Iowa:
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
Sweet Jesus. Talk about delusions of grandeur (in this case it appears to be a folie a deux between "God" and his High Priest). Maybe if we pray to John Kerry, he would be willing to cure cancer, diabetes, and AIDS, as well as to make the paralyzed walk again? Amen, Brothers and Sisters!
UPDATE: LGF commenter "The Monster" links to this wonderful photo, illustrating the above point.
What is he talking about? Here is John Edwards Monday, in Iowa:
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
Sweet Jesus. Talk about delusions of grandeur (in this case it appears to be a folie a deux between "God" and his High Priest). Maybe if we pray to John Kerry, he would be willing to cure cancer, diabetes, and AIDS, as well as to make the paralyzed walk again? Amen, Brothers and Sisters!
UPDATE: LGF commenter "The Monster" links to this wonderful photo, illustrating the above point.
Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
If the Republicans are "addicted" to 9/11 like Thomas Friedman insists in his insane op-ed piece in the NY Times, then Democrats are still having frequent flashbacks related to post-traumatic stress disorder from 11/00.
Let's take a look at Friedman's delusional rant. He says, "I don't know about you, but I dream of going back to the days when terrorism was just a nuisance in our lives."
When was that, Mr. Friedman? Was the Iran Hostage Crisis "a nuisance" lasting 444 days of the Carter Administration? How about the Lebanon bombing in 1983 during Reagan? Or, was the 1st WTC bombing a "nuisance" in 1993? And the 17 sailors who died in the USS Cole bombing in 2000? Were their deaths "nuisances"? The last two bothersome events occurred during the Clinton Administration. (Yes, wouldn't it be nice to go back to these days when we were still in a war, but hadn't realized it yet?)
Friedman is not saying anything that I don't hear in some variant every day of my professional life. It is the kind of thing patients say when they don't want to face a particularly unpleasant reality and prefer the blissful state of denial. (If only we were older and didn't have to wait so long !)
Yes, indeed, if only 9/11 hadn't happened, and if only those darn Republicans would pretend like us Democrats that it didn't really happen--we'd all be better off. If only Bush would STOP POLITICIZING 9/11! If only Bush would stop the fearmongering. (Then we could live in the kind of world where we belong).
My God, what has to happen in this country for people like Friedman to understand what is going on in the world? Do we have to have a suitcase nuclear bomb explode in Houston? Do MILLIONS have to die before they understand that THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL US? That they HAVE been killing us for 25 years while we have been pretending they were "just a nuisance"? (But oh, the happy times that we've been spending....)
While Friedman whines about having to listen to "code orange" vs. "code red" alerts and being forced to stand in line or fill out a form and be terribly inconvenienced; we have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan putting their lives on the line every second of every day to protect the likes of him.
While the Democrats continue the disgusting temper tantrum they started on 11/00 because they didn't get their way and feel that the election was "stolen" from them (it's called "losing"); while they are still fixated on chads and lawsuits and trying to get "objective" UN observers to monitor our voting next month (it seems that if the Dems aren't elected and in power, we revert to being a 3rd world country); they have missed the obvious: we are at war for our very existence. (But its gonna make it so much better if we pretend that everything is the way it was)
It isn't George Bush who has divided this nation. It is the part of the population that won't play if they don't get their way. They are standing in a corner with their backs turned away from the rest of us, pouting because the world isn't the way they like it anymore. They want to blame George Bush for that; or a Republican conspiracy, or the omnipotent Karl Rove--anyone but the terrorists. They have the absolute audacity and gall to claim that Bush is living in a FANTASYLAND; while, in reality, they are the ones desperately trying to play "Let's Pretend" and closing their eyes--and minds--to the real world. And in that real world, there are consequences to believing that pre-9/11 everything was just hunky dory. (Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true?)
And, as long as we're daydreaming:
Wouldn’t it be nice if we were older
Then we wouldn’t have to wait so long
And wouldn’t it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong?
You know it’s gonna make it that much better
When we can say goodnight and stay together
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning when the day is new
And after having spent the day together
Hold each other close the whole night through?
Happy times together we’ve been spending
I wish that every kiss was neverending
Wouldn’t it be nice?
Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldn’t be a single thing we couldn’t do
We could be married
And then we’d be happy
Wouldn’t it be nice?
You know it seems the more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it
But lets talk about it
Wouldn’t it be nice?
Let's take a look at Friedman's delusional rant. He says, "I don't know about you, but I dream of going back to the days when terrorism was just a nuisance in our lives."
When was that, Mr. Friedman? Was the Iran Hostage Crisis "a nuisance" lasting 444 days of the Carter Administration? How about the Lebanon bombing in 1983 during Reagan? Or, was the 1st WTC bombing a "nuisance" in 1993? And the 17 sailors who died in the USS Cole bombing in 2000? Were their deaths "nuisances"? The last two bothersome events occurred during the Clinton Administration. (Yes, wouldn't it be nice to go back to these days when we were still in a war, but hadn't realized it yet?)
Friedman is not saying anything that I don't hear in some variant every day of my professional life. It is the kind of thing patients say when they don't want to face a particularly unpleasant reality and prefer the blissful state of denial. (If only we were older and didn't have to wait so long !)
Yes, indeed, if only 9/11 hadn't happened, and if only those darn Republicans would pretend like us Democrats that it didn't really happen--we'd all be better off. If only Bush would STOP POLITICIZING 9/11! If only Bush would stop the fearmongering. (Then we could live in the kind of world where we belong).
My God, what has to happen in this country for people like Friedman to understand what is going on in the world? Do we have to have a suitcase nuclear bomb explode in Houston? Do MILLIONS have to die before they understand that THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL US? That they HAVE been killing us for 25 years while we have been pretending they were "just a nuisance"? (But oh, the happy times that we've been spending....)
While Friedman whines about having to listen to "code orange" vs. "code red" alerts and being forced to stand in line or fill out a form and be terribly inconvenienced; we have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan putting their lives on the line every second of every day to protect the likes of him.
While the Democrats continue the disgusting temper tantrum they started on 11/00 because they didn't get their way and feel that the election was "stolen" from them (it's called "losing"); while they are still fixated on chads and lawsuits and trying to get "objective" UN observers to monitor our voting next month (it seems that if the Dems aren't elected and in power, we revert to being a 3rd world country); they have missed the obvious: we are at war for our very existence. (But its gonna make it so much better if we pretend that everything is the way it was)
It isn't George Bush who has divided this nation. It is the part of the population that won't play if they don't get their way. They are standing in a corner with their backs turned away from the rest of us, pouting because the world isn't the way they like it anymore. They want to blame George Bush for that; or a Republican conspiracy, or the omnipotent Karl Rove--anyone but the terrorists. They have the absolute audacity and gall to claim that Bush is living in a FANTASYLAND; while, in reality, they are the ones desperately trying to play "Let's Pretend" and closing their eyes--and minds--to the real world. And in that real world, there are consequences to believing that pre-9/11 everything was just hunky dory. (Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true?)
And, as long as we're daydreaming:
Wouldn’t it be nice if we were older
Then we wouldn’t have to wait so long
And wouldn’t it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong?
You know it’s gonna make it that much better
When we can say goodnight and stay together
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning when the day is new
And after having spent the day together
Hold each other close the whole night through?
Happy times together we’ve been spending
I wish that every kiss was neverending
Wouldn’t it be nice?
Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldn’t be a single thing we couldn’t do
We could be married
And then we’d be happy
Wouldn’t it be nice?
You know it seems the more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it
But lets talk about it
Wouldn’t it be nice?
Thursday, October 14, 2004
You Can't Have Your Republic And Destroy It Too
Over at Vodkapundit, Stephen Green is extremely upset with the National Democratic Party:
... the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic.
To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.
I could mention the Lautenberg Trick in New Jersey. Or Gore's ballot shenanigans in Florida. Or the voter-registration fraud currently going on in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere. Or the Democrat's successful call to bring election observers into this country. Bring them in from where, Venezuela? Hey, no big deal sullying the reputation of the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy, just so long as we can make the Republicans look bad, right?
The rules don't matter. The reputation of the country doesn't matter. The political health of the nation doesn't matter. Power matters.
I don't mean to say that Republicans haven't used dirty tricks, or won't in the future. But I have yet to see them pull anything as crass as replacing a losing candidate with a more-popular one just weeks before election day, and in violation of state law. I have yet to see Republicans calling on the world's most corrupt international organization, run largely by apparatchiks from the world's most brutal dictatorships, to pass judgment on how we run our elections. I have yet to see the Republicans encouraging their own to commit fraud by shouting "Fraud!" where none yet exists, putting at risk everything we've built here in the last 228 years.
Because, in the end, that's what the national Democrats are doing: They're trying, however inadvertently, to destroy the Republic in order to rule it.
Democracy is the free market of political systems. And like any free market, it can't function without some basic level of trust. That trust comes, slowly, from hammering out rules even competitors can live with. That trust comes, with difficulty, by honoring those rules, even when your candidate doesn't win. That trust exists in relatively few places around the world.
I couldn't agree more. Why would we put our Republic's future in the hands of those who could care less about its destruction? In the hands of those who are guilty of doing their damndest to destroy it for their own personal aggrandizement? Just watch what they do when they lose the election fair and square on November 2. Their rage will be something to see, and will give further evidence of the underlying motives of the Democrats. Just check here and here, if you don't believe me.
And, about that last debate. The Democrats are so desperate to spin a win for their candidate that they have become parodies of themselves. Bush was the clear winner and for almost the entire debate Kerry was on the defensive. The absolute low point for Kerry was when he felt it necessary to refer to the sexual orientation of Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary. Edwards did it in his debate with Cheney, and it was distasteful and somewhat nauseating then. But Kerry doing it in the last debate was pure excrement. You can bet that if John Kerry had a gay daughter and Bush referred to her in such a manner the mainstream media would be calling for Bush's head and detailing his history of "insensitivity".
My mom used to tell me "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Indeed.
... the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic.
To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.
I could mention the Lautenberg Trick in New Jersey. Or Gore's ballot shenanigans in Florida. Or the voter-registration fraud currently going on in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere. Or the Democrat's successful call to bring election observers into this country. Bring them in from where, Venezuela? Hey, no big deal sullying the reputation of the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy, just so long as we can make the Republicans look bad, right?
The rules don't matter. The reputation of the country doesn't matter. The political health of the nation doesn't matter. Power matters.
I don't mean to say that Republicans haven't used dirty tricks, or won't in the future. But I have yet to see them pull anything as crass as replacing a losing candidate with a more-popular one just weeks before election day, and in violation of state law. I have yet to see Republicans calling on the world's most corrupt international organization, run largely by apparatchiks from the world's most brutal dictatorships, to pass judgment on how we run our elections. I have yet to see the Republicans encouraging their own to commit fraud by shouting "Fraud!" where none yet exists, putting at risk everything we've built here in the last 228 years.
Because, in the end, that's what the national Democrats are doing: They're trying, however inadvertently, to destroy the Republic in order to rule it.
Democracy is the free market of political systems. And like any free market, it can't function without some basic level of trust. That trust comes, slowly, from hammering out rules even competitors can live with. That trust comes, with difficulty, by honoring those rules, even when your candidate doesn't win. That trust exists in relatively few places around the world.
I couldn't agree more. Why would we put our Republic's future in the hands of those who could care less about its destruction? In the hands of those who are guilty of doing their damndest to destroy it for their own personal aggrandizement? Just watch what they do when they lose the election fair and square on November 2. Their rage will be something to see, and will give further evidence of the underlying motives of the Democrats. Just check here and here, if you don't believe me.
And, about that last debate. The Democrats are so desperate to spin a win for their candidate that they have become parodies of themselves. Bush was the clear winner and for almost the entire debate Kerry was on the defensive. The absolute low point for Kerry was when he felt it necessary to refer to the sexual orientation of Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary. Edwards did it in his debate with Cheney, and it was distasteful and somewhat nauseating then. But Kerry doing it in the last debate was pure excrement. You can bet that if John Kerry had a gay daughter and Bush referred to her in such a manner the mainstream media would be calling for Bush's head and detailing his history of "insensitivity".
My mom used to tell me "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Indeed.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Economists Against Kerry' s Economic Plan
Leading economists have a message for America: “John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.”
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”
(hat tip: Betsy's Page)
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”
(hat tip: Betsy's Page)
Pizza Order in 2008
Email from a friend:
ORDERING PIZZA IN 2008
[This is so close to what is probably going to be happening in 2008 that we're not sure how funny this really is...]
Operator: Thank you for calling Pizza Barn. May I have your national ID number?
Customer: Hi, I'd like to place an order.
Operator: I must have your NIDN first, sir.
Customer: My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's 6102049998-45-54610.
Operator: Thank you Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland Drive, and the phone number is 494-2366. Your office number over at Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number is 266-2566. E-mail address is eehan@home.net. I see you're calling me from home.
Customer: Huh? Where'd you get all this information?
Operator: We're wired into the HSS, sir.
Customer: The HSS, what is that?
Operator: We're wired into the Homeland Security System, sir. This will add only 15 seconds to your ordering time.
Customer: (sighs) Oh well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat Special pizzas.
Operator: I don't think that's a good idea, sir.
Customer: Whaddya mean?
Operator: Sir, your medical records and commode sensors indic ate that you've got very high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice.
Customer: What?!?! What do you recommend, then?
Operator: You might try our low-fat Soybean Pizza. I'm sure you'll like it.
Customer: What makes you think I'd like something like that?
Operator: Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion.
Customer: All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then.
Operator: That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids. Your 2 dogs can finish the crusts, sir. Your total is $49.99.
Customer: Lemme give you my credit card number.
Operator: I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash. Your credit card balance is over its limit.
Customer: I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your driver gets here.
Operator: That won't work either, sir. Your checking account is overdrawn also.
Customer: Never mind! Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How long will it take?
Operator: We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45 minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick'em up while you're out getting the cash, but then, carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little awkward.
Customer: Wait! How do you know I ride a bike?
Operator: It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid for and you just filled the tank yesterday.
Customer: Well, I'll be a #%#^^&$%^$@#
Operator: I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a August 23, 2004 conviction for cussing out a cop and another one I see here in September for contempt at your hearing for cussing at a judge. Oh yes, I see here that you just got out from a 90 day stay in the State Correctional Facility. Is this your first pizza since your return to society?
Customer: (speechless)
Operator: Will there be anything else, sir?
Customer: Yes, I have a coupon for a free 2 liter of Coke..
Operator: I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from offering free soda to diabetics. The New Constitution prohibits this...
Thank you for calling Pizza Barn!
ORDERING PIZZA IN 2008
[This is so close to what is probably going to be happening in 2008 that we're not sure how funny this really is...]
Operator: Thank you for calling Pizza Barn. May I have your national ID number?
Customer: Hi, I'd like to place an order.
Operator: I must have your NIDN first, sir.
Customer: My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's 6102049998-45-54610.
Operator: Thank you Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland Drive, and the phone number is 494-2366. Your office number over at Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number is 266-2566. E-mail address is eehan@home.net. I see you're calling me from home.
Customer: Huh? Where'd you get all this information?
Operator: We're wired into the HSS, sir.
Customer: The HSS, what is that?
Operator: We're wired into the Homeland Security System, sir. This will add only 15 seconds to your ordering time.
Customer: (sighs) Oh well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat Special pizzas.
Operator: I don't think that's a good idea, sir.
Customer: Whaddya mean?
Operator: Sir, your medical records and commode sensors indic ate that you've got very high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice.
Customer: What?!?! What do you recommend, then?
Operator: You might try our low-fat Soybean Pizza. I'm sure you'll like it.
Customer: What makes you think I'd like something like that?
Operator: Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion.
Customer: All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then.
Operator: That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids. Your 2 dogs can finish the crusts, sir. Your total is $49.99.
Customer: Lemme give you my credit card number.
Operator: I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash. Your credit card balance is over its limit.
Customer: I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your driver gets here.
Operator: That won't work either, sir. Your checking account is overdrawn also.
Customer: Never mind! Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How long will it take?
Operator: We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45 minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick'em up while you're out getting the cash, but then, carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little awkward.
Customer: Wait! How do you know I ride a bike?
Operator: It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid for and you just filled the tank yesterday.
Customer: Well, I'll be a #%#^^&$%^$@#
Operator: I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a August 23, 2004 conviction for cussing out a cop and another one I see here in September for contempt at your hearing for cussing at a judge. Oh yes, I see here that you just got out from a 90 day stay in the State Correctional Facility. Is this your first pizza since your return to society?
Customer: (speechless)
Operator: Will there be anything else, sir?
Customer: Yes, I have a coupon for a free 2 liter of Coke..
Operator: I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from offering free soda to diabetics. The New Constitution prohibits this...
Thank you for calling Pizza Barn!
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
BUSH v. KERRY
Hugh Hewitt asks his listeners what this Presidential Election is all about, and here are some of their replies:
Churchill v. Chamberlain
offense v. defense
advance v. retreat
resolve v. dithering
blunt talk v. nuance
England and Australia v. France and Germany
Allawi in power v. Saddam in power
post 9/11 v. post-Cole
values of America at its founding v. the values of Europe today
leader v. talker
lightning v. lightning bug
White House v. waffle house
Noah's Ark v. Titannic
Lincoln v. McClellan
limits on abortion v. no limits on abortion and taxpayer-funded abortions
parental notification v. no parental notification of teens seeking abortion
tax cut v. tax hike
private sector growth v. public sector growth
cheeseburger v. escargot
honest humility v. prideful arrogance
"Let's roll" v. roll over
Thanksgiving in Baghdad v. Christmas Eve in Cambodia
F-102 v. hot air balloon
September 12 v. September 10
reality v. make believe
big fish v. big fish story
Patton v. Peter Pan
Popeye v. Wimpy
Iceberg v. crushed ice
Battle Hymn of the Republic v. Kumbaya
Pat Tillman v. Michael Moore
D-Day v. Dunkirk
Brit Hume v. Chris Matthews
G-suit v. stuffed suit
national identity v. internantional anonymity
to be v. not to be
G-man v. g-string
tastes great v. less filling
Gary Cooper v. Inspector Clouseau
Churchill v. Chamberlain
offense v. defense
advance v. retreat
resolve v. dithering
blunt talk v. nuance
England and Australia v. France and Germany
Allawi in power v. Saddam in power
post 9/11 v. post-Cole
values of America at its founding v. the values of Europe today
leader v. talker
lightning v. lightning bug
White House v. waffle house
Noah's Ark v. Titannic
Lincoln v. McClellan
limits on abortion v. no limits on abortion and taxpayer-funded abortions
parental notification v. no parental notification of teens seeking abortion
tax cut v. tax hike
private sector growth v. public sector growth
cheeseburger v. escargot
honest humility v. prideful arrogance
"Let's roll" v. roll over
Thanksgiving in Baghdad v. Christmas Eve in Cambodia
F-102 v. hot air balloon
September 12 v. September 10
reality v. make believe
big fish v. big fish story
Patton v. Peter Pan
Popeye v. Wimpy
Iceberg v. crushed ice
Battle Hymn of the Republic v. Kumbaya
Pat Tillman v. Michael Moore
D-Day v. Dunkirk
Brit Hume v. Chris Matthews
G-suit v. stuffed suit
national identity v. internantional anonymity
to be v. not to be
G-man v. g-string
tastes great v. less filling
Gary Cooper v. Inspector Clouseau
Talking Points For The President
One of my favorite writers, P.J. O'Rourke wants to put some words in President Bush's mouth and give him several talking points for the next debate. Here is a sample:
(1) My opponent, Massachusetts senator John Kerry--or, as I like to think of him, Teddy Kennedy with a designated driver . . .
(2) There are two organizations pushing for change in November--al Qaeda and the Democratic party. And they both have the same message: "We're going to fix you, America." On the whole, the terrorists have a more straightforward plan for fixing things. They're going to blow themselves up. Although, come to think of it, Howard Dean did that.
(3) Senator Kerry, what do you mean my administration "lost" 1.6 million jobs? Did Dick Cheney accidentally leave 1.6 million jobs in the Senate men's room or something? Did you find them? Have you got 1.6 million jobs that you're hiding, Senator Kerry? And if you're elected, are you going to give them back?
I especially liked points 15 and 16:
(15) Senator Kerry, you say you were in favor of threatening to use force on Saddam Hussein, but that actually using force was wrong. The technical term for this in political science is "bullshit."
(16) What are you going to do, Senator, give Saddam Hussein a mulligan and let him take his tee shot over?
I hope the President reads O'Rourke's Weekly Standard column!
(1) My opponent, Massachusetts senator John Kerry--or, as I like to think of him, Teddy Kennedy with a designated driver . . .
(2) There are two organizations pushing for change in November--al Qaeda and the Democratic party. And they both have the same message: "We're going to fix you, America." On the whole, the terrorists have a more straightforward plan for fixing things. They're going to blow themselves up. Although, come to think of it, Howard Dean did that.
(3) Senator Kerry, what do you mean my administration "lost" 1.6 million jobs? Did Dick Cheney accidentally leave 1.6 million jobs in the Senate men's room or something? Did you find them? Have you got 1.6 million jobs that you're hiding, Senator Kerry? And if you're elected, are you going to give them back?
I especially liked points 15 and 16:
(15) Senator Kerry, you say you were in favor of threatening to use force on Saddam Hussein, but that actually using force was wrong. The technical term for this in political science is "bullshit."
(16) What are you going to do, Senator, give Saddam Hussein a mulligan and let him take his tee shot over?
I hope the President reads O'Rourke's Weekly Standard column!
Iwo Jima Covered By Today's Media
Now here is an interesting satire by Zell Miller on how the battle of Iwo Jima would be covered by today's media (Cutie Cuddley reporting):
What if today's reporters had covered the Marines landing on Iwo Jima, a small island in the far away Pacific Ocean, in the same way they're covering the war in Iraq? Here's how it might have looked:
DAY 1
With the aid of satellite technology, Cutie Cudley interviews Marine Pfc. John Doe, who earlier came ashore with 30,000 other Marines.
Cutie: "John, we have been told by the administration that this island has great strategic importance because if you're successful, it could become a fueling stop for our bombers on the way to Japan. But, as you know, we can't be sure this is the truth. What do you think?"
Pfc. Doe: "Well, I've been pinned down by enemy fire almost ever since I got here and have had a couple of buddies killed right beside me. I'm a Marine and I go where they send me. One thing's for sure, they are putting up a fight not to give up this island."
Cutie: "Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they've built over the years. How will you ever get them out?"
Pfc. Doe: "With flame throwers, ma'am."
Cutie (incredulously): "Flame throwers? You'll burn them alive?"
Pfc. Doe: "Yes ma'am, we'll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said that on TV."
Cutie (audible gasp): "How horrible!"
Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): "We're at war ma'am."
(A Marine sergeant watching nearby yells, "Ask her what does she want us to do — sing to them, 'Come out, come out, wherever you are. Pretty please.' "
Cutie: "Pfc. Doe, what's that mountain in the background? Is that the one they say is impregnable?"
Pfc. Doe: "I don't know what that word means, ma'am, but that's Mt. Suribachi, and we're going to put a flag right up on top of it just as soon as we can. I gotta go."
Cutie to camera: "No one has yet really confirmed why this particular battle in this particular place is even being waged. Already, on the first day, at least 500 Marines have been killed and a thousand wounded. For this? (Camera pans to a map with a speck of an island in the Pacific. Then a close up of nothing but black volcanic ash). For this? For this?" (Cutie's sweet voice becomes more strident as it fades out.)
There's more to read, so go to the entire article. My father fought and was wounded on Iwo Jima. So I grew up on the real story of the Marines, who lost more than 6000 souls from 2/19/1945 to 3/23/1945. There were over 25,000 wounded in that month. My father saw many of his friends killed. The Japanese used suicide techniques and only 1000 of over 21,000 Japanese defenders were ever taken prisoner. It was a true hell on earth for over a month. But the Marines prevailed and the pitiful, but strategic island was secured for use by Allied warplanes.
Cutie, the reporter above, is typical of the kind of reporters now assigned to cover military action today. She has absolutely no understanding of military matters--including tactics and strategy; military heirarchy and command structure; command and control; and weapons. She probably wouldn't know the difference between a "Marine" and a "soldier" or a "corpsman" and "medic" and might exclaim in wonder, "there's a difference?"
But why bother to do any homework, when you know in advance what you're supposed to think about what's going on and why? The only thing missing from Zell's parody is the interview that Cutie would try to arrange with the Japanese soldiers in order to give "balanced" and "objective" coverage of the battle.
What if today's reporters had covered the Marines landing on Iwo Jima, a small island in the far away Pacific Ocean, in the same way they're covering the war in Iraq? Here's how it might have looked:
DAY 1
With the aid of satellite technology, Cutie Cudley interviews Marine Pfc. John Doe, who earlier came ashore with 30,000 other Marines.
Cutie: "John, we have been told by the administration that this island has great strategic importance because if you're successful, it could become a fueling stop for our bombers on the way to Japan. But, as you know, we can't be sure this is the truth. What do you think?"
Pfc. Doe: "Well, I've been pinned down by enemy fire almost ever since I got here and have had a couple of buddies killed right beside me. I'm a Marine and I go where they send me. One thing's for sure, they are putting up a fight not to give up this island."
Cutie: "Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they've built over the years. How will you ever get them out?"
Pfc. Doe: "With flame throwers, ma'am."
Cutie (incredulously): "Flame throwers? You'll burn them alive?"
Pfc. Doe: "Yes ma'am, we'll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said that on TV."
Cutie (audible gasp): "How horrible!"
Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): "We're at war ma'am."
(A Marine sergeant watching nearby yells, "Ask her what does she want us to do — sing to them, 'Come out, come out, wherever you are. Pretty please.' "
Cutie: "Pfc. Doe, what's that mountain in the background? Is that the one they say is impregnable?"
Pfc. Doe: "I don't know what that word means, ma'am, but that's Mt. Suribachi, and we're going to put a flag right up on top of it just as soon as we can. I gotta go."
Cutie to camera: "No one has yet really confirmed why this particular battle in this particular place is even being waged. Already, on the first day, at least 500 Marines have been killed and a thousand wounded. For this? (Camera pans to a map with a speck of an island in the Pacific. Then a close up of nothing but black volcanic ash). For this? For this?" (Cutie's sweet voice becomes more strident as it fades out.)
There's more to read, so go to the entire article. My father fought and was wounded on Iwo Jima. So I grew up on the real story of the Marines, who lost more than 6000 souls from 2/19/1945 to 3/23/1945. There were over 25,000 wounded in that month. My father saw many of his friends killed. The Japanese used suicide techniques and only 1000 of over 21,000 Japanese defenders were ever taken prisoner. It was a true hell on earth for over a month. But the Marines prevailed and the pitiful, but strategic island was secured for use by Allied warplanes.
Cutie, the reporter above, is typical of the kind of reporters now assigned to cover military action today. She has absolutely no understanding of military matters--including tactics and strategy; military heirarchy and command structure; command and control; and weapons. She probably wouldn't know the difference between a "Marine" and a "soldier" or a "corpsman" and "medic" and might exclaim in wonder, "there's a difference?"
But why bother to do any homework, when you know in advance what you're supposed to think about what's going on and why? The only thing missing from Zell's parody is the interview that Cutie would try to arrange with the Japanese soldiers in order to give "balanced" and "objective" coverage of the battle.
Mystery Solved !
Conspiracy theorists have ominously suggested that it was a hidden microphone through which the evil Karl Rove issued his Machiavellian instructions to the President, but Scrappleface has the real reason there was a bump on the back of a suit jacket worn by President George Bush during the first debate with John Kerry. Here's the headline:
Object Under Bush Jacket Identified: 'It's a Spine'
And, if you are wondering how Kerry plans to end the "nuisance" of terrorism, Scrappleface again has the scoop:
Kerry Says Do-Not-Terrorize List Would End Nuisance
Read all his funny posts when you get a chance! Just keep scrolling down as you laugh.
Object Under Bush Jacket Identified: 'It's a Spine'
And, if you are wondering how Kerry plans to end the "nuisance" of terrorism, Scrappleface again has the scoop:
Kerry Says Do-Not-Terrorize List Would End Nuisance
Read all his funny posts when you get a chance! Just keep scrolling down as you laugh.
Some Things ARE Possible
On Saturday, millions of women voted for the first time in Afghanistan. But in Saudi Arabia, having women vote in elections there, "just isn't possible," according to Prince Nayef bin Sultan.
One definition of the word "possible" is "capable of being realized." It is perfectly obvious that if women who once were oppressed under the the most misogynist regime in history --the Taliban-- are now free citizens in a country that has free elections, then ANYTHING is possible. What makes it impossible for Saudi women to vote? Not the bullshit reasons cited by Prince Nayef (no pictures on their ID card because of the bhurka; etc.) but because of two major societal flaws: 1) a fear of women that lies at the core of Islam; and 2) an aversion to democratic processes that lies at the core of the Saudi Royal Family.
If I were Prince Nayef, and I saw Afghanistan; and I saw Iraq; I would be VERY afraid that the male-dominated, privileged and victim-worshipping world I lived in was on the verge of some very big changes....
One definition of the word "possible" is "capable of being realized." It is perfectly obvious that if women who once were oppressed under the the most misogynist regime in history --the Taliban-- are now free citizens in a country that has free elections, then ANYTHING is possible. What makes it impossible for Saudi women to vote? Not the bullshit reasons cited by Prince Nayef (no pictures on their ID card because of the bhurka; etc.) but because of two major societal flaws: 1) a fear of women that lies at the core of Islam; and 2) an aversion to democratic processes that lies at the core of the Saudi Royal Family.
If I were Prince Nayef, and I saw Afghanistan; and I saw Iraq; I would be VERY afraid that the male-dominated, privileged and victim-worshipping world I lived in was on the verge of some very big changes....
Monday, October 11, 2004
Which is it Mr. & Mrs. Kerry ?
While Teresa trumpets, "No blood for oil!" to the downtrodden masses, her husband slams Bush because gas prices are too high.
While John criticizes the Halliburton / KBR oil contract in Iraq (In an interview with the WSJ in May, Senator Kerry tried to back away from his primary-season labelling of companies that send jobs abroad as "Benedict Arnolds." Now he's back attacking Halliburton for doing business overseas);
Teresa says,
"John and I believe that we have to have corporate America at the table and being a part of providing answers to a lot of these problems,”
Well, which is it Mr. and Mrs. Heinz Kerry?
If we went to Iraq to get cheaper oil, where is it?? If corporate America must be at the table to provide answers for this country, why are you constantly harassing Halliburton?? (which, unfortunately for their stockholders, have been unable to make a profit on the Iraq contract - but, hey! Why let logic get in the way of a good smear?)
Surely only an intellectual moron would stil believe the tired, old refrain that Heinz Kerry is singing? Surely only those infected with that virulent anti-capitalist ideology virus could possibly believe that Halliburton, who has done business with EVERY administration since the Vietnam War, has been the impetus behind Afghanistan and Iraq? Does 9/11 even factor into the discussion?
People who simultaneously advance opposite and mutually exclusive positions are not generally open to reason. And, as for facts, they are meaningless nuisances and are always trumped by the degree of passion with which a speaker expresses his or her views. So, if the Kerry's decide to answer the question, be prepared to listen to a "nuanced" type of defense--you know one like "I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it."
While John criticizes the Halliburton / KBR oil contract in Iraq (In an interview with the WSJ in May, Senator Kerry tried to back away from his primary-season labelling of companies that send jobs abroad as "Benedict Arnolds." Now he's back attacking Halliburton for doing business overseas);
Teresa says,
"John and I believe that we have to have corporate America at the table and being a part of providing answers to a lot of these problems,”
Well, which is it Mr. and Mrs. Heinz Kerry?
If we went to Iraq to get cheaper oil, where is it?? If corporate America must be at the table to provide answers for this country, why are you constantly harassing Halliburton?? (which, unfortunately for their stockholders, have been unable to make a profit on the Iraq contract - but, hey! Why let logic get in the way of a good smear?)
Surely only an intellectual moron would stil believe the tired, old refrain that Heinz Kerry is singing? Surely only those infected with that virulent anti-capitalist ideology virus could possibly believe that Halliburton, who has done business with EVERY administration since the Vietnam War, has been the impetus behind Afghanistan and Iraq? Does 9/11 even factor into the discussion?
People who simultaneously advance opposite and mutually exclusive positions are not generally open to reason. And, as for facts, they are meaningless nuisances and are always trumped by the degree of passion with which a speaker expresses his or her views. So, if the Kerry's decide to answer the question, be prepared to listen to a "nuanced" type of defense--you know one like "I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it."
Fear and Anxiety
Charles Krauthammer--a psychiatrist as well as a pundit--has a great editorial in Time Magazine that discusses the value and appropriateness of fear and anxiety. Called "The Case For Fear-Mongering" it points out (in case you have forgotten) that the protection of America is what this election is all about.
The late 1940s and '50s were so pervaded by a general fear of nuclear annihilation that the era was known as the Age of Anxiety. That anxiety dissipated over the decades as we convinced ourselves that deterrence (the threat of mutual annihilation) would assure our safety.
Sept. 11 ripped away that illusion. Deterrence depends on rationality. But the new enemy is the embodiment of irrationality: nihilists with a cult of death, yearning for the apocalypse — armed, ready and appallingly able.
The primordial fear that haunted us through the first days and weeks after 9/11 has dissipated. Not because the threat has disappeared but for the simple reason that in our ordinary lives we simply cannot sustain that level of anxiety. The threat is as real as it was on Sept. 12. It only feels distant because it is psychologically impossible to constantly face the truth and yet carry on day to day.
But as it is the first duty of government to provide for the common defense, it is the first duty of any post-9/11 government to face that truth every day — and to raise it to national consciousness at least once every four years, when the nation chooses its leaders.
Meanwhile, John Kerry is saying the following:
‘’We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,'’ Kerry said. ‘’As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.'’
Nothing could more clearly tell me that John Kerry just doesn't get it. The world has fundamentally changed. WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHOSE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS RATIONALLY MOTIVATED. If he persists in thinking that groups such as al Qaeda are just a bunch of criminals--prostitutes and gamblers--who need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, he will get us all killed. And you don't have to be a "fearmonger" to come to that conclusion.
UPDATE: Belmont Club has a nice analysis of the NY Times Magazine piece on Kerry's position on the WOT. Also, The Volokh Conspiracy (via Instapundit) has this:
But what remarkable analogies Kerry started with: prostitution and illegal gambling. The way law enforcement has dealt with prostitution and illegal gambling is by occasionally trying to shut down the most visible and obvious instances, tolerating what is likely millions of violations of the law per year, de jure legalizing many sorts of gambling, and de jure legalizing one sort of prostitution in Nevada, and de facto legalizing many sorts of prostitution almost everywhere; as best I can tell, "escort services" are very rarely prosecuted, to the point that they are listed in the Yellow Pages.
These are examples of practical surrender, or at least a cease-fire punctuated by occasional but largely half-hearted and ineffectual sorties.
The late 1940s and '50s were so pervaded by a general fear of nuclear annihilation that the era was known as the Age of Anxiety. That anxiety dissipated over the decades as we convinced ourselves that deterrence (the threat of mutual annihilation) would assure our safety.
Sept. 11 ripped away that illusion. Deterrence depends on rationality. But the new enemy is the embodiment of irrationality: nihilists with a cult of death, yearning for the apocalypse — armed, ready and appallingly able.
The primordial fear that haunted us through the first days and weeks after 9/11 has dissipated. Not because the threat has disappeared but for the simple reason that in our ordinary lives we simply cannot sustain that level of anxiety. The threat is as real as it was on Sept. 12. It only feels distant because it is psychologically impossible to constantly face the truth and yet carry on day to day.
But as it is the first duty of government to provide for the common defense, it is the first duty of any post-9/11 government to face that truth every day — and to raise it to national consciousness at least once every four years, when the nation chooses its leaders.
Meanwhile, John Kerry is saying the following:
‘’We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,'’ Kerry said. ‘’As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.'’
Nothing could more clearly tell me that John Kerry just doesn't get it. The world has fundamentally changed. WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHOSE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS RATIONALLY MOTIVATED. If he persists in thinking that groups such as al Qaeda are just a bunch of criminals--prostitutes and gamblers--who need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, he will get us all killed. And you don't have to be a "fearmonger" to come to that conclusion.
UPDATE: Belmont Club has a nice analysis of the NY Times Magazine piece on Kerry's position on the WOT. Also, The Volokh Conspiracy (via Instapundit) has this:
But what remarkable analogies Kerry started with: prostitution and illegal gambling. The way law enforcement has dealt with prostitution and illegal gambling is by occasionally trying to shut down the most visible and obvious instances, tolerating what is likely millions of violations of the law per year, de jure legalizing many sorts of gambling, and de jure legalizing one sort of prostitution in Nevada, and de facto legalizing many sorts of prostitution almost everywhere; as best I can tell, "escort services" are very rarely prosecuted, to the point that they are listed in the Yellow Pages.
These are examples of practical surrender, or at least a cease-fire punctuated by occasional but largely half-hearted and ineffectual sorties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)