You Mean Bush Wasn't Just a Power Crazy "Fascist"?

Huh. All that flap about holding detainees indefinitely, and how EEEEEVIL BushCheneyHalliburton was for doing it. Huh. No kiddin'? Terrorist Prisoners of war who don't belong to any nation's army are tough to deal with??? Really?????

Thank you, John Kerry

More evidence that Democrats think we're all idiots:

“Too bad,” Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.”

Really, John? The governor of Alaska is Sarah Palin? Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. I mean, if you hadn't added that, we wouldn't have known who the heck you were talking about. And of course, it wouldn't have been nearly as hilarious. Look out George Carlin!!! Whoops. Looks like your path to the top is clear, Sir Senator.

On the other hand, John, maybe its best for you she doesn't disappear. 'Cause ya know, then you wouldn't know where she was. And as any good "war hero" knows, it's good to know where your enemy is. Otherwise, you have to spend a lot of time looking behind you.

Heh... #Two Hundred Forty Somethin'

Palin responds to Kerry.

When it's not her daughter on the chopping block, this is the way to respond!

My Two Bits on Sanford

I wasn't really going to say anything. Another politician having an affair. Yes it's bad. No, I don't approve. There is the whole "let the man who is without sin throw the first stone" bit, and the "walk a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him" bit -- which aren't about letting people off the hook. They're about the humility of the observer(s).

The only reason I am commenting is I've seen and heard time and time again ... "yes, Democrats have affairs too BUT .... they don't run on family values." When a Democrat is caught, it's ok because he or she didn't run on family values and it isn't relevant to their job. But when a Republican is caught, it's a scandal because he or she did (presumably) run on family values.

Never mind the fact that Democrats play the family values card as well when campaigning to get votes, and then turn around and vote not to uphold them; to assist their erosion. Because the party platform dictates it.

Here's the deal. How'd the family values runners vote? Did they work to encourage family values, you know, at work? Did they stand up for those values in public even while they failed to uphold some of them in private?

If no, then, you're right. Hypocrites.

If yes, here's what I say. Give me the imperfect man who supports my ideals over the imperfect man who says they don't matter anyway.

Because they do matter whether we manage to live up to them or not.

"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in. " - Hub, from Second Hand Lions

Update: Yeah. Crap like this.

Ah, That Non-Partisan ACORN

Right. Just take a look at this ACORN memo.

Message: Progressives in general, and Democratic candidates in particular, need to be out front and public on an issue that is 1) progressive; 2) popular with a broad electorate; and 3) separates Democrats from Republicans. Raising the minimum wage scores in all 3 categories.

In addition we will work in 2005 to institutionalize the high school senior voter registration project we tested in the spring of 2004. By working with and through local school administrators, their national associations (including the Council of Great City Schools and the American Association of School Administrators), and the two major national teachers’ unions, our methodology is to gain access to high school seniors in minority communities through assemblies, English classes (since all high school seniors take English), and school cafeterias to register them to vote and, where possible, create volunteer voter registration opportunities for them in the larger community.

Impact the post-2010 Congressional redistricting process by building progressive electoral majorities in swing state legislative districts in states where partisan control of legislative bodies is potentially in play.

Sounding like a general "just get out the vote, we don't care if you're Democrat or Republican" kind of "Community Organization" to you?

Basically, they're going in to places where there are high proportions of liberal-leaning people, or gullible people -- who wouldn't normally get involved in politics because they don't feel they know enough -- and pushing them to go vote to cram their ideals down the rest of our throats. They give the appearance that they're not partisan by not (or I'm sure they're not supposed to) mentioning parties, but they know where they are and the demographics of the area they're working. So what if they register 3 conservatives for every 7 progressives? If 10 of them go vote, they still win net votes.

On top of that, I have a friend who actually volunteered to drive people to the polls for the Obama campaign, and he did it. That's right, we can't get the unmotivated people who would vote for Democrats because "they'll gimme stuff" to get up off their tuchuses and go vote, so we'll go pick 'em up and drive 'em.

Oh, there's more. And it gets my taxpayer money. This has got to stop.

M-heh! (BISHORL?)

Read this in the comments section on a post with about a 2006 NRC press release allegedly vindicating Mann's infamous "hockey stick" chart used by the IPCC after his team's methodology were discredited. I read the press release several times and can find nothing in it that vindicates the chart. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that it supports the critics. But that's not the point of this post.

There is a commenter named "Per" ... that fortunately has the nads and apparently the scientific background (and understands scientific method) to go toe to toe with the believers with narrow focus and their constant resorts to name calling and doing about anything but refuting what he says.

But I found this close to one of his posts rather amusing, and wanted to file it away:

If only you hadn't got your words completely wrong, and if only the words didn't mean something completely different, you would be right.

Per, here, gives an excellent example of how I feel conservatives ought to argue (just do searches for "posted by: Per"). Don't get abusive. Stick to the subject at hand. Argue facts and logic about the points without relying ad hominiem attacks against people who have made those points, and just ... give them enough rope to hang themselves. They'll come unravelled pretty quickly and become unnerved by your cool.

And you're allowed to be amused as they dangle. They're not actually hanging, after all. Just pushed from their comfort zones.

Oh, Wow! On that ...

Could Australia Blow Apart the Global Warming Scare?

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

Sleight of Hand

Anybody know in all this talk of whether "deplore" or "outrage" is the better word to use to describe our feelings toward what is going on in Iran, and the big ABC special on National Health Care on TV tonight....

That Pelosi's bringing the Climate Bill with Cap & Trade to a vote this Friday?

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!!! ;-)

Only it isn't funny. This is serious.

Update: Could Australia Blow Apart the Global Warming Scare?

Broad Support for Government Run Free Healthcare

From yesterday's news .

A commanding 85 percent of Americans want "fundamental changes" in American health care, according to a recent New York Times-CBS News poll.

Which is about as meaningful as saying that 85% of Americans want something "different" for dinner. It doesn't tell us what they want for dinner. And rest assured, they don't all want the same thing.

This is how politics works. You use really vague language to justify cramming your plan down everyone's throats.

It might have something to do with the fact that the media has been telling us how horrible our health care system is for so long even though the same poll shows us that 77% of us are happy with it. Which is more than are in favor of a "government run health care option".

72% are in favor of a government run health care "option". But only 57% are "willing" to pay higher taxes to make that happen. When you start specifying a dollar amount, $500 a year ($42 a month) ... that number drops to 43%.

So when it's free, there's broad support. When it's not free, but you don't specify a price, that support is much less broad. And when you specify an annual amount that is lower than a lot of families monthly insurance premiums, less than half want to do it anymore.

Socialism. It works until you run out of other peoples' money. And this is why.

Worst Possible Motives

Progressives: Always at the ready to ascribe the worst possible motives to anything anyone who isn't progressive ... is doing.

Guilty until proven innocent. Which is actually the opposite of the true Classical Liberal position is. That's because classical liberals are now called "conservatives". Which is why I won't call progressives liberals (I don't know if y'all've noticed that).

Sad thing is, then the progressives set the standard of proof so high that it is impossible for the non-progressive to be "proven" innocent.

Just an observation.

Apologies all around

More linky goodness. Seems to be my lot in life the last few days. But this guy nails well what my buddy Mark hit on a few weeks ago.

Here is the great rub in any discussion of America and slavery: Of course slavery is wrong. But if America should apologize for slavery, should not the rest of the world as well?

The rest of world — from Africa to South America to Asia to Europe — took part in slavery, and slavery continues to exist in some of those places today. But America was the first regime founded upon the principle of natural equality, the only principle by which slavery can be rejected as a genuine wrong.

Unlike the rest of the world, America was destined to a conflict over slavery not because America's founding principles are bad, but precisely because they are good. To paraphrase Lincoln's second inaugural address, slavery in America would cause blood to be drawn either by the sword or the lash.

About time we wrest control of the conversation about the character of our country back from the apologists. In more areas than this one.

Meantime these clowns in Congress engage in what amounts to self-congratulating moral masturbation while the country burns to the ground around them.

About that they spend with one hand and point with the other. "But Bush! But Neocons! But ... But Halliburton!!!!!! Hey, look! We apologized for Slaaaaavery! Again."

Oh well. Perhaps the Democrats have a collectively guilty conscience.

Sinking Welfare State

I guess I'm Mr. Link Poster lately. Oh well.

This one's a good analysis, IMHO.

The U.S. welfare state is weakening; insecurity is rising. The sensible thing would be to decide which forms of public welfare are needed to protect the vulnerable and to begin paring others. Our inaction poses another dreary parallel with GM. It was obvious a quarter-century ago that GM the auto company could not support GM the welfare state. But the union wouldn't surrender benefits, and the company acquiesced. Inertia prevailed, and the reckoning came. The same cycle, repeated on a national scale with sums many multiples higher, would be correspondingly more fearsome.

You Can All Join In

I saw this on Facebook today. Kind of innocuous. In a way.

Let’s break a Guinness Record! 90 Million facebook users in 1 group

Except for this … here’s the deal. All you have to do is join. And you can become a part of “this”. Click the “Join” button. That’s it. Check the box. You are a part of something "big".

This is how we got Obama as President.

I will not be joining that group.

I smell a backlash.

Newsweek unhappy with Obama's lack of "Transparency" . In which the administration does in legalese what Obama does daily in front of the podium teleprompters.

ABC's Democrat Disneyland for National Health Care promotion

Chicago Tribune's John Cass on Obama's political play with Investigator Generals

And of course, the story I mentioned in my last post

All from today.

An Encouraging Sign

Las Vegas Review Journal editor Sherman Frederick woke up.

I pushed the DMV clerk the paperwork. She shoved it back and said I didn't have to fill out that form if my address remained the same.

"No, I want to change party affiliation."

"Oh," she said. "Had enough of the president, have we?"

"Up to here. I quit."

Republicans offer our only hope in slowing the Obama "change" juggernaut before the America of unbridled optimism and opportunity goes the way of the buffalo. I don't want my great-grandchildren growing up in cradle-to-grave government care, where only the privileged few may afford a car, or own a home, or get non-rationed health care.

The only institution positioned to stop the progression of the Obama welfare state is the Republican Party, coupled with independent-minded Americans like me.

Second, the popular myth that the Democratic Party is the party of tolerance and big-tent ideas is spectacularly false.

A fiscal conservative such as myself is treated by Obamaniacs like a ringing cell phone in church. "Shhhh!" they say. The only debate among Democrats is how fast and how deeply to run up the national debt. Any Democrat who questions deficit spending or a limit to federal power is simply not invited to the party.

And finally, I have reservations about abortion. Now, I know that there are many Democrats who call themselves "pro life."

But being a "pro life" Democrat doesn't mean you're "anti-abortion." It means that you are "abortion tolerant." The rationalization goes like this: "Abortion is the law of the land. Abortion is wrong. But abortion must be supported and expanded."

It's hardly an intellectually honest position, but all "pro life" Democratic office holders must toe that line. The moral dilemma is further compounded by the Democratic Party ethic that taxpayer money must be used to fund abortion, here and abroad.

Not Telling The Truth

"Let me also say that -- let me also address an illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest; there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe ... that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth." --Barack Obama

Yup, and remember when those baseball players were convinced to take steroid/drug tests "just to see how bad the problem is" by telling them that the results would never be released such that a player could be identified?

Let's also look at some typical Obama semantic posturing here. First, the statement:

"I believe ... that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States."

We are to assume by implication that he means a competetive system. But he didn't actually say that. He didn't actually specify anything. He could be talking about progressive traditions. New Deal traditions. Whose traditions? Wiggle, wiggle.

And then the next line:

So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth.

Well maybe you are, maybe you aren't. Extending the benefit of the doubt, no, maybe you're not trying to bring about government run health care, so when people say that without any evidence to the contrary, perhaps they're not telling the truth.

However, it doesn't make arguments that government-run health care will nonetheless be the effect, the end-result... invalid.

Obama is Right

No, don't adjust your screen. That's what I said.

In my continuing effort to give credit where credit is due, I'll say this.

I think it's good to take a hands-off approach regarding the Iranian election controversy. When he says that if we are seen as meddling in this, it will hurt -- he's right.

Of course, the powers that be over there have already accused us of meddling, which is no surprise. If they can create the illusion over there that these people aren't really mad, the U.S. just got them all riled up over nothing ... they can justify cracking down on it to most of the population..

Saw an Iranian woman on Fox News this morning basically saying the same thing. She's proud, she's excited, she knows it could turn out ugly, but stand back and let it take its course. I personally know a couple more Iranian women here in the U.S. who see it the same way.

Here's the deal. She also said they're using the internet, watching Fox News, twittering what they see to others, etc... so illusion is going to be harder to pull off.

So it's hurry up and wait. Barack is right.

It's All About Her

This really offends my sensibilities.

"Sir" and "ma'am" have always been quite respectful ways to address adult males and females, respectively.

Pelosi, Boxer, Waters ... all California Congress Critters who think waaaaaaay too much of themselves....

Here's a man who has spent his life serving his country. And in the military, "sir" and "ma'am" are literally drilled in to your head to show respect when addressing people.

But Queen Boxer uses it in a not-so-passive ... aggressive moment to slap down the General during his testimony. She, whether she knows it or not, is trying to discredit his testimony. She doesn't care what he's saying, she just likes sitting where she's sitting and being filmed doing it. She's ready for her closeup, Mr. Deville.

Question. When he addressed male Senators, did he say "sir" or "Senator" most of the time?

I know military folks, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts I know what the answer is.

Things I Know #22

22. There are many bad arguments for things that are nonetheless true. However, no argument will change a falsehood into a truth.

This came to mind while pondering the fact that sometimes I cringe at some conservatives' arguments, while I actually agree with their conclusions.

Sometimes there are just better arguments to be made.

Added to the "Things I Know" series.

I'm no social scientist, but I play one in the media

Along the same lines of my last post, I read this article this morning. In it, the author argues why Sonia Sotomayor may be correct about a Latina woman (yes, Bob Herbert, I am aware that's redundant, but her words, not mine) making wiser decisions than a white man. In the end, she says:

Now I am no social scientist, and this argument may be riddled with empirical holes. But it strikes me as intuitively obvious that in order to succeed in a white man's world, women must learn to see both sides in ways that men do not.

It is filled with empirical holes, and yet you forged ahead anyway in an unscientific manner. The thing is, sociology isn't really a science, so claiming the banner of science wasn't going to work anyway.

What other reasons can we think of to explain this?:

one popular trick among High School creative writing teachers is to assign students to write an essay imagining that they were to switch genders, and describe what it would be like to live for one day as a member of the opposite sex. The results are almost always exactly the same: all the girls in class write long and detailed essays demonstrating that they have spent a great deal of time thinking about such questions; roughly half the boys refuse to write the essay entirely.

Could it possibly be that social standards encourage girls to express these ideas while others discourage boys from engaging in the same? A lack of willingness to express these ideas in writing may have more to do with fearing what your friends will tease you about later. It doesn't mean boys can't, and don't, think about it. And apparently half of the boys forge ahead anyway. Besides, once again we're talking about law in the highest court in the land here. Murder is murder no matter who did the murdering. Either they broke the law. Or they didn't. Equal. Protection. Under. The. Law.

It seems to me some people want it both ways. They want there to be no differences between men and women unless said difference casts women in a better light than men. To suggest men might be better at something, anything, is heresy. To argue the converse is "enlightened thinking". Most of the flap over this Sotomayor thing is, in fact more about pointing out this double-standard and trying to get society to address it and come to grips with it. Unfortunately, anybody who brings it up is immediately dismissed as a racist or a sexist. And that -- right there -- is the problem. There's a huge elephant in the room that one side refuses to even acknowledge exists.