Dead Saddam

Good riddance. Anyone who thinks differently, perhaps outside of his immediate family (the ones he didn't have killed, anyway) is in dire need of a head examination.

I clicked on the "Have Your Say" link at BBC, cringing at what I might find.

Sure enough, one from right here in the U. S. of A. :

One wonders if putting Saddam to death is an act of justice or the act of simply stooping to his level on a lesser scale.

Should I give Tim the benefit of the doubt and take it that the "one" he speaks of is Tim, in the first person?

One who would wonder such a thing aloud is one who seeks head-pats and "intellectual" 'yeahs' and 'mmm-hmmms' from those who have taught them that to wonder such things makes one a Progressive Intellectual™.

Anyone who equates the malicious and pre-meditated horrible murders of innocents this man institutionalized with his own much more deserved and much less horrible demise has a moral compass so hopelessly out of whack as to be meaningless. Which in turn allows one to wonder such things and expect to be taken seriously.

Update: Here's another gem -

despide how much we like to think that Iraq's current Goverment is not a puppet of the occuping forces,the execution of Saddam proves just the opposite.

God help you all over there, the Bad, the Ugly and and if there any the Good too.

Well, Nicholas of New York, despite your spelling difficulties, your meaningless platitude asserting some sort of "proof" that America is pulling the strings on a puppet government in Iraq... I can't figure out how this logical lynch pin (hey, no pun intended, but I'll take it) really shows any evidence of your claim, much less a proof ... of anything.

Is he saying that he knows for a fact that Iraqis wouldn't execute Saddam and that the only the Coalition would have any interest in seeing him executed? How about a few facts to back it up? Nope. It's just "proof" of ... whatever Nicholas wants proved, I guess.

Tar-"Che"

While Wal-Mart may be guilty of practicing capitalism, I'll bet they have the good sense not to market mercandise glorifying the murdering Communist icon Che Guevera.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006595.htm

Of course, Target is often touted as the holier place to shop for the liberty challenged.

Let's see... Wal-Mart=Capitalism
Target=Communism

What better way to underscore the motives of the Anti-Wal-Mart Crowd?

Ok, so Target pulled the merchandise ... well most of them have pulled ... most of it. And I may shop at Target again. But my point here is that all Wal-Mart is really guilty of is legally competing in the market, and doing better than some people would like.

And far from turning a blind eye to Target's ... probably somewhat calculated and capitalistic approach to feeding Che-worshiping leftists -- it will probably be praised by many, and the indignance will be to the pulling of the merchandise, not to the marketing of it.

The "Kos" and the "Post" might be interesting to watch. If I could stomach reading them.

Loving America

So I was over reading Michelle Malkin's post from last night about "Ted" Ali Chammout -- some domestic Islamic terrorist (but that's kind of redundant, don't you think?) - and I really didn't get past the first line before this popped into my head.

Almost everyone who is an American citizen, and many who live here but are not -- claims to "Love America".

And yet if you polled a cross section of them on what America is, they'd all have different answers. And that, I believe, is because a huge chunk of them have a much different idea of what America "is". Probably a little more to the point, they love not what America "is", but what they think America should be (and often they think that's what America "is".)

Most of these people will start by saying they love America because we're "free". And yes, that's the idea.

But then they'll go on about the right to health care, the right to be protected from -- whatever: hurricanes, poverty, sheer cliffs, wet floors, trans-fats, being offended ...

Being offended... Unless you're white, or male or Christian, and especially if you're all three. Any two of those can easily get you dismissed from an argument these days. And what are those traits? Why I believe they are race, sex, and creed.

America was an idea where people were free to work as hard, or as little -- as they like, to make the most of themselves or make nothing at all. They could associate with (or not associate with) whomever they pleased, as long as those being assoicated with were amenable to the association (but that was to mainly be worked out by potential associates). They could speak their minds and defend themselves, worship as they wished, and elect their own leaders. All of this while being as free as possible from government interference with their goals, and an adequate framework for the rule of law.

Today we're looking at speech codes, limits on what can be said, sung, or displayed in public places, forcing employers to hire people they may not want to hire, trying to force them to pay for the health care of their employees, trying to force them to pay so much or not hire at all.

Braggin' Rights

So New York City's Health Commissioner has dictated that New York City restaurants can't use transfats in their foods.

But that's GOOD -- they're BAD for you, you say. Well... so is sugar. Salt. White flour. Mashed potatoes. Butter.

So, in a country founded on the idea of liberty, how does something like dictating what chefs can use in their dishes .... happen?

They're called "Progressives", and they are quite proud of the name. Their vision of the world is a world where everyone has what everyone else has, life is risk-free, nobody fights, and everyone lives in a culture that ... er ... respects and embraces ... um ... everyone else's culture. (Well as long as they don't eat meat. Or they're not Christian or Jewish.)

In short, they are Totalitarian Communists. But they don't see it that way.

In their minds, this is the next logical progressive step in the evolution of humans. All we have to do is get rid of the guns, stop killing animals, and hold hands and sing kum-ba-ya around a glowing electrical simulation of a fire powered by solar power from panels that don't exist because they'd mar the natural beauty of the world and displace animal habitat.

There's a lot of moral preening going on here (in the sense of "progressive" morals) to see who is more progressive than whom. Not so different from who is holier than whom, really - though I think the comparison would be lost on most of them. Banning anything deemed "unhealthy" is at the top of the near-term agenda.

If you doubt the holier than thou argument, the City of Chicago has been working on such a ban. And they're upset that they now can't claim bragging rights for being the first city to do it.

“I’m disappointed we’re losing bragging rights to be the first city in the nation to do this,” said Edward Burke, a Chicago alderman who is pushing the ban.

And there you have it. They're proud of squelching liberty.