Saturday, December 30, 2006

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.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006


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.

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

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

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.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

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.

Friday, December 08, 2006

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.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Quote of the Day

From a Jennifer Mountjoy letter on Mark Steyn's Mailbox:

One thing about the Islamo-nutters, they don't bore everybody with diplomatic niceties - they say what they think, and they think what they say, more or less. It would almost be refreshing, except for the fact that all of us are somewhere on their "To Do" list.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Worst Fears May Yet Be Realized

Just as I was soothing my fears about the Consequences of the Election, we have this:

Iraq Al Qaeda Chief Says Democrat Victory A Step In Right Direction

I REALLY REALLY don't enjoy saying "I told you so" on this one. This is serious.

Dems, how will you step up to the plate?

Diversity Matters


Apparently in Michigan there was a proposition on the ballot to end racial quotas in education and hiring in the state.

It passed 58%-42%.

Now... Democrats have taken over the house and senate in elections won mostly by razor-thin margins. This will be seen (by them) as a mandate to do whatever the Democrats feel should be done. Pull out of Iraq, impeach Bush. Charge everybody in the Pentagon with war crimes. Repeal the second amendment. Roll back all tax cuts. Fire John Bolton. Make people refer to gay unions as marriage. Hey, the people have spoken.

In Michigan, this initiative passed by a relatively wide margin. The "We The People" of Michigan spoke. And the elitists manage to argue that there is no mandate here to do what the proposition clearly stated.

Here is how the University of Michigan responded.

I don't know about you, but to me this little speech reads something like this:

Diversity matters at the University of Michigan. It matters because, it matters, and the manner of its mattering matters. The people are stupid. We know better. Because diversity matters. Our institution is great because diversity matters. And it matters more than it matters to the people who voted, because we will have no part of what the people have said. Because diversity matters.

It kind of reminds me a little bit of this famous passage:

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it." Amen.

The underriding tone is, "Screw the stupid hick voters. We know better. We're smarter than they are, and we'll make sure it doesn't happen." Nothing in her lengthy blather mentions the primary and obvious issue at hand; fairness demands that those who have worked hard academically and succeeded get in to school or get a job regardless of their race or gender. That's fairness.

In her rant, she basically says that this nebulous "diversity", which appears to be some sort of sacred and holy term, is the most important thing to the University. Without it, the whole university would just crumble from the inside and decompose into a dilapidated shell.

Of course, what this really says is that black people can't study and learn on their own. Which is basically saying that blacks are inferior to whites. Which sounds to me a whole lot like.... um... what's the word I'm looking for?

Oh yeah, racism.

It's time to play "Find the Racist Statement"

After getting into a bit of a pissing match with a troll on another forum, I've decided I've had it with so-called progressivism.

Ok, actually I'd had it quite some time ago, but something snapped. Again.

After describing his modus operandi when arguing with someone who actually uses rational thought as "WWJJD" (What Would Jesse Jackson Do?") -- and the answer to that question would be: to find some contorted perversion of logic through which he could call me a racist and therefore dismiss anything I said.

I knew what the response would be -- it was so predictable I shouldn't even get any credit for getting it right. And, predictably, his response proved my initial point.

"WWJJD? Ah, now we know who the real racist is!"

Now granted, I know this guy was a troll and just likes to see if he can get people's dander up. However, there are too many people -- most of them under 35, but there are millions of older ones as well -- actually buy this crap.

So here is my challenge:

Find the racist statement in the following:

  1. Islam encourages violence
  2. Jesse Jackson is a race-baiter
  3. White people are racist
  4. I am afraid to walk inner city streets alone at night

See how you do. And I'll make this an open-book test:

Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment

1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an
instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Thursday, November 09, 2006

What does it mean?

One thing the new Dem House and Senate should keep in mind if they start to think that this election was an anti-war mandate.

In blue Connecticut, the anti-war wing of the Democratic party kicked Joe Lieberman out for being pro-war.

Lamont, who beat him out in the primaries, won on his anti-war stance.

Leiberman beat Lamont as a principled independent in the actual election.

If this election were to be viewed as an anti-war mandate, why would the anti-war Democratic candidate in an extremely Blue State have lost?

No, this election was about revenge against Bush, and dissatisfaction from the Repubican base due to their abandonment of the principles that got them elected in the first place.

Post-Election Manners Matter

I've tried to say it. The Captian's tried to say it. Michelle's tried to say it.

Bill Whittle says it best.

I wish to tell my friends to be cheerful and especially to be of good will. Disappointments come and go, but moments of courage and integrity in dark hours will be there when the stars grow cold. We have lost the election, so let us maintain our determination, our dignity and our sense of humor, and let us take this moment to reflect upon how our actions have fallen short of our ideals. And then, finally, let's act like the Americans we are, roll up our sleeves and start rebuilding. We who have survived Civil War, the Nazis and the Communists can probably manage to find a way to preserve the Republic in the face of Speaker Pelosi.

America is not only much, much stronger than you imagine; it is stronger than you CAN imagine.

On being genuinely anti-war

Having overwhelming military force on your side, and letting your enemies know that you have the guts to use it, is being genuinely anti-war.
- Thomas Sowell

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

As the dust clears...

It looks like the Democrats will have majorities in the House and Senate. I heard an analyst on the news say that this always happens in the 6th year of a two term Presidency and was completely predictable.

Obviously, from my perspective this is a disaster, for several reasons.

The top reason is that the Islamists will view this as vindication of their world view and strategy. America is weak. She has no stomach for a fight. If they just dig in and trickle casualties every day, the headlines will drive the American People to pull out.

Even if we don't pull out -- which we probably won't until 2008, the signal has been sent as clearly as the Madrid bombing and that subsequent election. The West has a weakness that can easily be exploited. It's going to take a couple more 9/11's to drive that point home to the West, if it ever can be driven home.

The other reasons have much more to do with domestic economic and social policy. In a nutshell, I believe in limited government, Democrats do not. Republicans at least pay lip-service to it.

Anyway, I will join my other conservative collegues in not moving to France or Barbados, not going out into the streets and burning things, not chanting mindless slogans, not saying "'f' the coasts", etc.

Even if Republicans had held on to Congress, I would not be sending emails like the one some twit sent Michelle Malkin.

Conservatives, in general, have much better manners than "Progressives" in general.

For a little demonstration of "un-hinge-itude", see the "Talent Butt-Boy" thread over here starting with the "Sullivan will keep me from voting a straight R ticket" post -- while it lasts (it'll expire in a couple of weeks).

Yup. That's me. Talent Butt-Boy. They're SO tolerant. And polite!

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Whine early, Whine Often

Remember the Democrats' Election Day Litigation Strategy from 2004?

Looks like maybe it's the Modus Operandi now.

Imagine a Democrat who wanted to make such a charge -- how could he do it? How could they make sure they get it on tape.... hmmmm....

Could a Democrat possibly call a phone number, claiming to be from the Virginia Board of Elections, and leave such a message? Then the Democrat on the other end could make sure the message was recorded and post it to the web to get nice, wide dissemination.

Nah. Democrats would never do anything like that.

Democrats oppose Voter ID

Why, again, do Democrats oppose voter ID laws?

Here's a clue:

Considering the fact that a Republican couldn’t get elected trash collector [in St. Louis], it is absolutely amazing the amount of fraud which occurs. Remember the election of 2000 when 247,135 of 258,532 [St. Louis] adults registered to vote? This 95.6% voter registration is a ridiculous number,

Another Moral Authority Card

Conservatives, get out and vote

To all my conservative friends and family, please make sure you vote today.

To all of my Leftist friends and acquaintances ... remember, it's really more how you feel that's important.

Whittle Alert!

Bill Whittle's Back.

'nuff said.

Monday, November 06, 2006

An Even Better Take on that Mystery Box

From Mark Steyn's "Drifting Along" - a great read...

Look at the nearest we’ve got to a specific campaign pledge from Speaker-Presumptive Pelosi. In her “first hundred hours”, she’s pledged that she’ll enact every single last proposal by the 9/11 Commission. Why? She’s elected as a legislator in order to legislate, isn’t she? Doesn’t she have any ideas of her own? Apparently not. What His Holiness the Pontiff Thomas Kean says is infallible and all must accept it as such.

You know, I’m betting that if you asked Mrs Pelosi to name the five most urgently needed 9/11 Commission proposals that had not yet been enacted, she wouldn’t be able to. This is essentially intellectual outsourcing – or, as Madam Speaker would put it, “As a mother and a grandmother, I’m very concerned about safety. In fact, I’m too busy expressing my concerns about it to do anything about it.” Saying we need to work through the UN more on Darfur, and with our European “allies” on Iran, and that we need to send Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright out to Pyongyang to sign a bilateral agreement pledging massive US investment in Kim Jong-Il’s nuclear
powered leisurewear plant, these are all also forms of outsourcing: let’s fly somewhere, hold some meetings, sign some agreements, do nothing.

What "the Kerry thing" says about the Democratic Base

Morgan sums it up tidily in his post from this morning. Summing up the comments from the established news media and from "progressive" blogs:

Senator Kerry didn’t say it. But if he did, everybody knows he’s right. Everybody thinks what he said…which, really, he didn’t say. Senator Kerry doesn’t believe what you think he said, which he didn’t actually say, because he’s very well educated and he’s one of those troops, so it’s patently silly to think for a minute Kerry would say this thing, that he didn’t really say, which everybody knows to be true anyway. Kerry is right about this thing he didn’t really say. Everyone agrees. And he doesn’t.
Go read the whole thing. It may be long, but it's a good read.

Monopoly Card for Democrat's Campaign

In keeping with the spirit of my last post and integrating this idea into it, I give you my "Chance" card for the Democrats. This pretty much sums up their platform this election season.

update: as that might be a little too subtle for some -- here's an alternate version:


Saw an Anti-Talent ad last night where a bunch of veterans (complete with wheelchairs) railed against Talen for voting ... however many times ... "against" veterans.

Taking a little side trip here, first of all, if somebody put up a bill that says "we're going to give all veterans $5 million apiece, and someone voted against it ... this would be tallied as voting "against" veterans.

So they never tell you what bills they're talking about or let you consider what might have been in those bills to warrant voting against them -- a vote against giving them something they are not currently getting, or voting to repeal a bad program that shouldn't have been passed in the first place, or maybe getting something that many are abusing, or even voting for something that might curtail that kind of abuse... it doesn't matter. It was "against" veterans if it means that even some veterans might not get what they would be getting if the bill passed.

And let's not even mention the fact that the Missouri VFW endorses Talent for Senate. (Ooops. Cat's out of the bag now.)

But back to "Change". At the end of the spot, they put the words "We Want Change" on the screen and show their faces.

Once again, the Democrats are running on "change". Just generic "change".

Give me the box that has the contents listed on the outside, please. The Democrat's box simply says "Something Else" on the outside.

Be careful what you ask for.


In 8th grade, our teacher ran us through a two or three week course on advertising techniques. At the time I thought it was an odd thing to teach in 8th grade. In retrospect, I think this was to tip us off to the angles advertisers use to get your brain to come around to thinking that you need their product.

The very first one was called "Bandwagon". Show that "everyone else" is buying it, "everyone else" thinks it's great, you should, too.

Propaganda is advertising.

Now not all advertising is dishonest. Nor is all propaganda. That's one thing I hate about today's political arguments. If you don't like it, you call it "propaganda" and dismiss it without having to address it's substance. Kind of like saying "extremists" or "conservatives".

More and more people are switching to....

More and more people are dissatisfied with the way Bush is handling the war. Ever increasing opposition to the war. Growing dissatisfaction with the Republican-held congress. For at least a couple of years.

If we repeat these things often enough and long enough, people -- in moments of weak mind, may start thinking -- man, if everyone else is thinking this, what's wrong with me? People crave other people's approval. If I make a "brave" anti-war statement, all those people will cheer and pat me on the back. I'll be in. People will look up to me.

News, the way it's gone since Bush II was first elected has been a 6 year Democratic Party infomercial.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Our Country

I heard John Mellencamp's "Our Country" in the background of a Chevy commercial during the World Series. I'm a Mellencamp fan, and I like what he's done with his sound, especially with this song.

So I wanted to go out and find the lyrics and see what he's talking about. Most of them are generic enough, but there are a few subtle digs (room enough in here for science to live and room enough in here for religion to forgive) which I assume are aimed at religious opponents of embryonic stem-cell research (now called "stomatic" stem-cell research... sounds so much more sterile ... but I digress.)

In the song, he calls for a utopia everyone can get behind. Bigotry is seen as obscene by all, everyone thinks poverty is ugly, and everybody understands everybody. Niiice. Birds, butterflies, flowers, green grass.... ahhhhhhh.

"And the ones that run this land help the poor and common man." This reveals a crack in my appreciation for the song. This argues that it is the government's responsibility to take care of the poor, and hints at a world view that the common man needs help. Really not part of my world view, nor do I believe it was a part of our Founding Fathers' world view.

Anyway -- by and large, I don't have too much problem with the song outside of that line because he kept the rest of it civil enough, and I commend him on it.

However, in looking for the lyrics, I also ran across an open letter to America he and his wife wrote back in late October, 2003.

Great, I thought. This'll give us some insight into what's on the blue collar, rural America rock hero's mind. I was a little leery, but... knowledge is important.

He starts out by complaining that those who are against the war have been labeled as "unpatriotic". I can understand where he's coming from -- one should not be labeled unpatriotic simply based on whether or not he opposes fighting a particular war... particularly if he can make a well-reasoned argument explaining his position. And there are such people and such arguments. I think they're wrong, but I don't think it means they're unpatriotic. And I'll grant that there are some who would label them so on the basis of their anti-war position. They'd be wrong, too. But that's not where the bulk of anti-war people stop.

He goes on talking about all the things that nobody likes about any war. All the deaths. The cost. The number of bombs. And from there he decends into a screed of leftist talking points.

  • War is to benefit corporations
  • Loss of respect in the world (especially with the U.N.)
  • need for public health care program
  • government "provides" jobs
  • failing economy
  • there are poor people (and it's all the rich people's fault-implied)

After that, he's worked up a full head of steam and hits the moonbat pitch

  • Bush lied
  • failed to secure our borders
  • Bush lied (2)
  • Thousands died
  • Bush stole the election
  • Bush should be impeached
  • Blood for oil
  • corporate greed
  • Bush lied (3)
  • "terrorized" by our own government
  • "no dangerous dictators captured"

Ok, so this was written in Oct, 2003 -- two months before Saddam Hussein was captured and 6 months after his government was toppled and went into hiding. And no matter how many times they say it, the facts are behind Bush -- he did not lie. Contrary to the blood-for-oil mantra, no oil fields were captured. Indeed, this out of Iraqi President Talibani (to the French) just today:

"Your oil companies can come to Iraq ... Americans didn't interfere (in our oil)
and don't have any right to interfere."

Show me a law-abiding U.S. citizen who was "terrorized" by our government. Recount after recount showed that Bush won the 2000 election. The economy is definitely not failing by any standard economic measure. And I wonder if he'd care to name a few of the "thousands" of troops coming home to cut benefits, health problems ignored, jobs gone, and families living in poverty? Who? Let's go check out their real stories.

Then John asks, "Who is to say what is or isn't 'Patriotic'?"

I'm gonna take a wild stab and say "John Mellencamp", for he then proceeds to tell us what isn't patriotic.

"Do the flags that wave from every minivan really offer any support?"

YES THEY DO! Ask a soldier. I'm a step-father to one who went there and thankfully came back. He can probably hook you up with tons of soldiers who would say most definitely, 'yes'.

And check this one out:

"... some still resist the open mindedness that is the very foundation of this country."

I wonder how many documents from the founding fathers you'd have to scour to find the phrase "open mindedness"? Fairness, yes. Liberty, yes. Open mindedness?????

You know, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. It just means you can't be thrown in jail for speaking your mind. If you're going to screech "first amendment" remember that street runs both directions. You call me a Nazi by calling Bush Hitler, I can call you unpatriotic for coming up with the anti-american angle on every little thing America does, anywhere, anytime. And neither one of us gets thrown in jail.

When you say this is "Our Country" and we need to "take it back", who do you mean by "Our", and from whom do ... er .... "they" need to take it back? Any way you slice it, half of us voted for Bush whether you believe he should have won or not. When you call him Hitler, you call us Nazis. Plain and simple. When you find ways to blame America for Islamists planting bombs to kill civillians... when you blame America for Islamists flying airplanes into our buildings, when you equate our POW camp at Guantanamo to a Gulag by distorting facts, setting insanely low standards for what defines "torture" or mistreatment, and you give more weight to what the enemy says than you do to what we say is going on -- yeah, you're unpatriotic in my book.

Maybe John hasn't said these things himself, but when someone repeats practically line-by-line the talking points of those who have said these things -- it is rational to assume that he believes them himself, and would agree if those "diverse1" opinions were recited in his presence.

Anyway, I still like the song. I still like his music. I hope he comes around. But this is "Our Country", too.

1Note that "diverse" means you disagree with a conservative point of view. Conservative points of view are not a part of "diverse". They can be dismissed out of hand simply for being "conservative". To the Left, "diverse" means "agreeing with us."

Kerry Apologizes (sort of)

If you call this an apology: "I said it was a botched joke. Of course, I'm sorry about a botched joke."

The latest Reuters headline:

Kerry Apolgizes for "botched" Iraq Joke

You know, the one he refused to apologize for yesterday because he was speakin' truth to power.

Now it was all a joke. Not only was it a joke, but his office came out with a bit of damage control they couldn't seem to find yesterday. In what looks suspiciously like a retro-active re-write to match the narrative being given by Chris Matthews et. al., they now said that he left out a few key words.

Kerry's office said the senator had misread his prepared remarks. They said he had intended to say, "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

(Red words were not spoken) Yep, if he had said that, then he would definitely have been talking about President Bush, and this wouldn't be near the flap it is.

But that's not what he said, and he made no attempt to correct it yesterday (or today, his office conveniently came up with this story today) -- and, in fact, went on the counteroffensive instead of clarifying what he supposedly meant to say, and somehow didn't.

Sorry, Kerry, not buying it.

This is damage control. Your party slapped you down, and your office is trying to cover your ass by what I'll bet is a lie about what you were "supposed" to say.

Thank You, Senator Kerry

You Dems have tried to make this congressional election about President Bush. I suppose turnabout is fair play.

Thank you for reminding us why we turned out in such large numbers against you in the presidential race, that we may have the same motivation to vote against those who share your world view.

Those who have been disappointed by Republicans in the last few years would do well to remember:

Republicans may be disappointing, but
Democrats are Dangerous

Keep them out of control of Congress.

Chris Matthews takes "Slant" to a new level

Perpendicular is more like it. You can't get much "slantier" than that.

Check out the video at the political pitbull.

For a little more on the AP story Matthews uses to defend Kerry, see this Malkin post. The AP story makes a "Michael Moore" style cut to make it appear that he was talking about the President.

As I said in my last post, I don't doubt he was taking a jab at the president -- that's what he does. But he did it through the troops with an extremely disrespectful comment. A comment he refuses to acknowledge the disrespect in and refuses to retract.

Anyway, you gotta love this from Riehlworldview:

Dem Congressman: Kerry Blowing It, Again
Evidently the Congressman didn't want his name attached to the quote. So much for this all being partisan spin.
A Democratic congressman told ABC News Tuesday, "I guess Kerry wasn't content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too."

Oh, and he cancelled today's campaign appearances. M-heh!

To me, though, this is less about the insult than it is revealing about the mindset lies beneath it.

I don't want these people running the country.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Did Kerry call our Solidiers Dumb?

In his defense (gawd I really hate having to do that), I somewhat doubt that's the way he meant it. My guess is he was basically trying to encourage students to work hard and study (yay) BUT -- he also had to add a little political statement (boooo). Because that's what moonbats do. Like Christian Zealots yelp out a "Praise Jesus" expecting to get a thunderous approving response, so do Leftist Moonbats have an almost tourettes-like compulsion to yelp out a "Bush Is Hitler" or some other such popular psuedo-religious incantation.

That political statement is basically the bit of the Leftist Narrative that the Evil AmeriKKKan Korporate Giants Who Control The Republicans exploit and enslave the poor, uneducated masses to fight their wars of Imperialistic Aggression™.

That is religious dogma to the hard Left, and it's leaking to the middle Left (and also to the extremely retarded hard right, a-la Alex Jones & Co).

At any rate, I'll go ahead and say, while perhaps he didn't mean to say that outright, it was indirectly what he meant. He didn't mean not to say it, for it practically goes without saying in his world view. It never occured to him that someone might disagree with the premise. The echo-chamber is that bad.

My step-son graduated from IU with a double-degree and a minor. He worked hard, and had a very good GPA. And he joined the Marines to serve his country, not because he was too stupid to get a job. He went to Iraq, served a tour over there. Now he's back. And he has a job.

Vop you, John Kerry.

Liberals have this mindset that they are here to take care of those who aren't as intellectually or socially endowed as they are. It is a dangerous elitist mindset that leads to disasterous social revolutions where a lot of people die and/or get put in prison because they don't share the pure and noble vision of shepherds (them) over sheep (the population).

And that's where Kerry's blunder came from.

Update: This Major summed it up very well.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Blind Party Loyalty

I frequent a social arena where I hang out with some local active Democrats.

One of them frequently says (about Iraq) "I'll tell you what we ought to do, and that's flatten the whole place. Your guys won't do that."

Frankly, I don't want to argue with him. I won't change his mind, and he won't change mine. So I don't. It's not worth the friction it would cause in the social scene. I change the subject. He can't really think that his guys (or gals) would. He's just been a Democrat all his life. In his head, Democrat=Good, Republican=Bad.

He's shocked that I could possibly vote for Talent over McCaskill. Shocked and disgusted.

And yet ...

What happens if the Democrats win control of Congress?
  1. Start impeachment proceedings against Bush
  2. Block any efforts by Bush to fight this war even as hard as he has been fighting it
  3. Try to force the U.S. to pull out of Iraq

  1. due to the world-wide spectacle alone, would be bad for national security. It also validates the Islamist belief that the U.S. has no stomach for a fight.
  2. help the Islamists get a better foothold
  3. really, really validates the Islamist belief that America, when faced with a determined fight, will always quit

Bad. Bad. And Bad.

Plus, I'm partial to all 10 of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, #2 included.

I don't need any more reasons to vote for Talent.

Dave and Bill

So Bill O'Rieley asks David Letterman if he wants America to with the war in Iraq or not.

It's a yes or no question. I'd even take "I want America to win, but I don't think we can" for an answer. Or even, "what do you mean by "win"? But no. Dave chooses the low road by basically calling Bill an idiot. Instead of answering the question, Dave says it's not a simple question for him, because he's thoughtful.

And the Left goes wild. "Man, you really put him in his place, Dave."

So -- if you're thoughtful, you don't have to answer a tough but important, defining question. You can just yammer on about all the nuance, and you're lauded by half the country because of your indecisiveness, because of your lack of moral compass. It just spins around and spins around. Try to pin it down to a general direction, and it just spins off into another, giving all the reasons not going a different direction might be a bad idea. Until you try to pin it down to that general direction, whence it will "thoughtfully" spin off in yet another.

Not Leadership Material, to borrow from Morgan at the House of Eratothenes.

Enraptured Lefties said "Dave shut him down." Frankly, I chalk it up to Bill being polite in David's house -- a concept that would be lost on most of the moonbat left. Bill basically refused to stoop to the level Letterman tried to take it to. Bill, by saying nothing (as far as I can tell by the clip and response) was saying "I'm not going there, Dave." A courtesy to his host.

Do you want to win this war, or not? It's a separate question from do you think we should have gone into this war or not? Or Do you think George Bush is an Idiot?

But that is what the question boils down to to these people. Do you want to win this war?

But... but... if America wins, that might validate the policy, and if I'm against the policy that started it, I must hope that we lose. But I can't say that. So I'll just weasel and pretend to be intellectual by saying "it's not that simple".

Bill's right. It is that simple. Do you want America to win or not?

What does "win" mean? Basically a stable Iraq with a basically democratic form of government that is not hostile to the United States or the rest of the West. I'd even take a stable Iraq that is not hostile to the United States or the rest of the West.

Do you want that, or not?

Global Warming Chicken Littles Scream "Sky Still Falling - FASTER"

There's been some buzz in the headlines about some new Global Warming speculation report. You know, "What might happen if we are right about Global Warming, even though time and time again the data doesn't pan out".

Anyway, Melanie Phillips has a good assessment.

And as always, for a crash course on what gets filtered out by the press, check out Junkscience.Com

Missouri Amendment 3 - It's really quite simple

Or so says the pamphlet left on my door last night.

"Saving Money, Saving Lives"

is the title of the brochure. Ah, I feel good already. So let's start reading.

Big Problem, Simple Solution

Oh, well good. Whatever this is should've been thought up a long time ago.

  • 1 in 4 Missourians smoke
Well. Ok. Kinda their business, in my book.

  • Missouri teen smoking rates are among the highest in the country
Wish that weren't true. But it is really none of my business as long as it isn't my kids.

  • Missouri is last in smoking cessation funding
Ah, I see ... more money will solve the problem.

  • Tobacco Settlement Money is not being used to support smoking cessation programs
You mean the government is collecting money and using it for things other than what it said it would use it for? Say it ain't so, Joe! Ah, there's a caveat down here. Annual audits to ensure that's what it's being spent on. Mmmm hmmmm. Pardon me if I'm skeptical -- not that it's the main point.

  • Each year, 17,000 more children become addicted to smoking in Missouri
Ah, "teenagers" wasn't good enough. They hadn't used the coup de gras, the word "children" yet. Brings to mind a bunch of 7 & 8 year olds puffin' in the alley behind the school. If you doubt that that is the intent, that's what the picture on the brochure depicts. Of course, I've seen the numbers for some of these studies. They get to define who "children" are. It's often anyone under 20. Or 21. Or whatever arbitrary line someone felt like drawing to puff (ooooooh) up the numbers.

  • Increases taxes 4 cents per cigarette. 20% on other tobacco products.
  • for every 10% increase in the cost of tobacco, 4% of adults and 7% of children quit.
So, we're increasing the cost of a pack of cigarettes by ... 16%... ish .... depending on the brand. And the cost of cigars and other tobacco products by 20% across the board. Wait, aren't cigarettes the main problem anyway? I don't see a lot of kids smoking pipes after school.

Anyway, so... Big Problem, Simple Solution.

Simple solution is: Give us more money, we'll fix it. Promise. But of course, the problem won't go away, so next year, give us MORE money and we'll fix it. And again, the problem won't go away. It's the perpetual problem, and all it takes is more money to "solve" it.

So, say 1 in 4 smoke. We're raising the tobacco tax by 16%. We get (according to these folks) a 4%-7% drop in smoking rates per 10% cost increase in tobacco. Let's make that 5% just for simplicity sake.

So next year, instead of 1 in 4 (25%), we can expect 25%-2.5% = 22.5%, or 1 in 4.4. We'll do it again in a couple of years, and it'll be 20.25%, or 1 in 5. and we'll keep doing it, because the problem is not gone.

Actually, if the solution is so simple, why not just increase the tax to $1 a cigarette right now? That should decrease adult smoking to ~3.3%. I mean, it's that simple, isn't it? That's what we're saying here. We're not going to make it illegal, we're just going to have the government stick it's fingers in the market to an outrageous extent. Whose interest does that serve?

(hint: it starts with a "G", ends in a "T", and has an "OVERNMEN" in the middle)

Here's the best part. At the end of their TV ads, they say "if you don't smoke, you don't pay" as a further way to "sell it" to .... non-smokers.

Ever hear of a tyranny of the majority?

To Demonstrate Real Tolerance...

HT Michelle Malkin

Apparently at William & Mary University, there's a Christian Chapel that often gets used by secular groups and other religious organizations.

To show tolerance, the President of the university says they have decided to ditch the cross for certain events in order to avoid offending people.

Now pardon me, but if you're going to be offended by THE symbol of Christian belief ... isn't that being a little .... well ... intolerant?

I read a good quote on somebody's blog the other day -- actually, it's the tagline for the blog.
"Which is more irrational? Believing in a God you can't see, or being offended by a God you don't believe in?"

M-heh! Not bad.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Michael J Fox, Michael Steele, and Ben Cardin


So, Ben Cardin got a Michael J. Fox ad. In the ad, Mr. Fox says that Ben Cardin supports expanding "Stem Cell Research", and Michael Steele does not.

Before I continue, I should probably mention that 1) not supporting embryonic stem cell research is NOT the same as not supporting stem cell research, and 2) nowhere is it illegal to do embryonic stem cell research. All of this flap is over whether or not the government should fund it. The amendment to the constitution (and why, again, does the Missouri Constitution need to address stem cell research, specifically?) wouldn't outlaw it either -- but I digress.

So this is interesting. And telling.

Michael Steele says, “I am an enthusiastic supporter of cord blood, adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo, and I fully support expanding innovations in technology that make it possible to treat and prevent disease without the willful destruction of human embryos.”

Cardin Voted AGAINST a bill which would have Expanded Research On Stem Cells That Do Not Destroy Embryos. (I read that as "expanded government funding to....")
Granted, I'm going on Michael Steele's word here. But something tells me he's not lying. Too blatant a statement, too easy to fact-check and burn him.

So why, then, does Cardin get Michael J. Fox's plug and not Steele?

It's gotta be politics. Cardin has a "D" after his name. Steele has an "R".

As far as Rush Limbaugh's comments the other day (though he thankfully did apologize for it) -- I wouldn't accuse Michael J Fox of putting on an act. So he didn't take his meds so we can see some of the terrible effects of Parkinson's. No crime. Perfectly fair. Rush doesn't help by beating this ad up over the wrong things. But his points about how misleading the ad is and how it's got plenty more to do with party politics than it does with stem-cell research (embryonic or not)?

Rush was... well, I hate to use a cliche, but .... "right".

note: for the record, I am a fan of Michael J Fox. I am not particularly a fan of Rush Limbaugh. I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Bush Signs Border Fence Bill

Bush Signs Border Fence Bill

Predictably, the Democrats call it an election year political stunt. No, really, I predicted it when I read the headline. Sure enough, there it was, wrapping up the article.

Democrats called the legislation a political stunt.

"By abandoning comprehensive immigration reform and embracing election-year political stunts, President Bush and Republicans in Washington have once again put the interests of their party above the interests of the American people," said Democratic National Committee spokesperson Luis Miranda.
See, no matter what Bush does, they will find a way to make it "wrong". That "nuance". The party of "what the definition of the word is is."

And the Democrats would have .... ??????????

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Active Duty Soldiers Call for Staying the Course

Did you see that headline?

Yeah, neither did I. Bet you bucks to bagels, though, that if you polled a random cross-section of them, that's what they'd call for.

But, according to this Reuters story: U.S. troops on active duty call for Iraq withdrawal , 200 of them have joined some anti-war group, repeating the same mantra of charges -- and that's news. Also gives the impression "hey, our own troops don't believe in the cause", so (1) Bush was Wrong™ (that's the most important thing) and (2) we should definitely pull out, because, after all, Bush was Wrong™.

Oh, and by the way, he Stole the Election™. Twice.

Wonder when we'll see the article about Active Duty Soldiers calling for Staying the Course?


Missouri Values

So last night I see another Claire McCaskill ad (you know, the lady complaining about Jim Talent's negative ads, but I digress)....

The ad says

Jim Talent talks a lot about Missouri Values..... but he voted 8 times against increasing the minimum wage.

Then they throw his salary ($165K) up there, and say again

8 times* against increasing the minimum wage. Does that sound like Missouri Values to you?

* her website says 10 in some places, 11 in others

Well, in a word.... yes.

Missouri values government staying out of contractual agreements between its citizens, especially the Federal Government. Missouri values working for your wages. Missouri values the jobs that don't go away when government demands an arbitrary minimum compensation.

Question: Will McCaskill make less money than Talent if she wins? No, she just promises to mess with the free market and force people to pay more than the market would naturally bear.

Worried about jobs going overseas? Setting a higher minimum wage encourages it. Makes us less competetive.

But McCaskill, like most modern-day Democrats, sees it differently. It's like the parent who tries to buy love from his/her children by not teaching them responsibility and discipline, but by buying them whatever they want. Missourians want higher wages. Everyone wants higher wages. I'm from the government, and I'm going to give it to you if you vote for me. This promotes government reliance and a sense of entitlement.

It's the opposite of what one famous Democrat said long ago. It's "ask not what you can do for your country, but demand that your country do for you!"

Those are not Missouri values. Missouri does not value socialism.

Missouri values American culture. Missouri values the second amendment.

Yup, sounds like Jim Talent's values are much more in line with Missouri Values.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Re-Elect Jim Talent

  • Supporter of confronting Islamist Jihad head-on

  • Staunch Second Amendment Supporter

In stark contrast to his opponent, and those are my two top issues.

Most other domestic issues become moot when we do not have the will or courage to fight for ourselves, and when we are not allowed to defend ourselves as our Constitution has guaranteed us for 230 years.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Losing our History, Losing our Culture

Just ran across this piece by Max Borders -- excellent for chewing on.

Two quick hits:

Do your college kids know more about Rigoberta Menchu than Patrick Henry? Have they read more Marx and Engels than Locke and Hume? Are they asked to share stories of phallo-logo-centric abuse in required courses, but can’t explain the Bill of Rights? Is their idea of “democracy” populist rebellions and land reforms, or based on the Constitution and private property?


Students who are poorly armed with civic understanding become either apathetic rubes or victims of the latest idealist fancies. Politicians with vacuous promises or black-robed activists will come along and subvert Constitutional protections our collegiate generation never even knew they had.

In five years, students-turned-money-making professionals benefitting from our market economy will nevertheless fall for fantastic claims about government manipulation of gas prices by the president because they’ve never had to draw a demand curve. Millions will line up behind partisans fighting over territory that belongs to neither, such as private rights to property. If today’s college students don’t know that life, liberty and property are fundamental to our national identity, won’t these be up for grabs too?

Second Amendment - One of my top issues this election cycle

It's not just the second amendment, either -- it's the mindset that goes along with that support. The mindset that liberty is important, and that power belongs in the hands of the people. This issue probably trumps even the importance of being serious in the war on Islamic Jihadists, though that comes in at a very close second.

This is why my Republican representative and my Republican senators will be getting my vote in a few weeks. (Incidentally, I wouldn't rule out voting for a Democrat if he/she were a second-amendment advocate. We just don't have one of those here.)

On that note, I just ran across a Reuters article entitled:

No Solution In Sight for U.S. Gun Violence
The story is crafted to imply that outlawing guns is the solution, and the problem is is that we are not moving closer to that goal.

What if I were to tell you that one one-hundredth of one percent of our population dies every year from gunshot wounds?

You'd probably think that's pretty underwhelming. Tragic, but underwhelming.

Now, what if I told you that the number of Americans who die from gunshot wounds every year is 30,000?

In fact, both statements are true and say the excact same thing. One of the statements has context factored in, the other does not.

Let's factor in a little more context. That number includes suicides and accidents. And yes, it includes murders as well. But it's not 30,000 murders.

Now let's factor in a little more context. Are we to believe that guns cause suicides? That these people would not, in fact, have killed themselves were it not for the guns? That people are murdered because their killers have guns?

Are we really to believe that we could avoid 30,000 deaths a year in the United States if we somehow magically got rid of the guns (remembering that outlawing them doesn't get rid of them)? Folks, people are more creative than that. Cain did not have a gun, and Able was just as dead.

The Reuters article quotes David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center as saying
"The fact that most of our lethal violence involves firearms lends credence to the hypothesis that the prevalence of guns is a prime reason."
Any bit of logical scrutiny finds this to be a bogus argument. What it lends credence to is that guns are the easiest way to expedite the intentions of those who wish to kill themselves and others. The desire comes from something else. Guns are not the motivation. Guns are not the cause. Guns are the tools. There are other tools. Getting rid of them will not stop the motivation or the manifestations of those motivations -- it would, in many cases, (the ones that wouldn't be using the now illegal guns) merely alter the plans. Maybe tire irons would then be the leading weapon used to kill. Would tire irons, then, be a prime reason people are murdered due to the fact that most lethal violence involved tire irons?

Oddly, if you look at the statement, it is actually true -- a prime reason most of our lethal violence involves firearms is that, by gosh, they're available. But the implied corralary, that ergo if we make them less prevelant or get rid of them altogether then the people who would have been killed by guns would be alive today -- is ludicrous.

Last, but by no means least important -- our Founding Fathers put a lot of thought into constructing the legal framework for a free society. They talked about it at length, even after the constitution was written. If you read what the founding fathers wrote, and you read their discussions and dissertations on the topic, it is very clear that they, in fact, meant:
That hypothesis [see previous quote], widely accepted in much of the rest of the world, is hotly contested by American advocates of unfettered access to guns, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), who say that the second amendment to the Constitution gives all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms.
[emphasis, mine] American advocates of "unfettered" access to guns are not "led" by the National Rifle Association. The National Rifle Association exists because many, many Americans recognize the assault on the second amendment (#2, right after free speech and freedom of religion) and the need to organize to fight the organized opposition. The gun-control advocates would like us all to believe that the Evil Corporate Gun and Ammo Manufacturing Complex, some outside, anti-American force -- is behind all this and leading a bunch of blind, uneducated people along, enslaving their Bubba minions' feeble minds to this great Evil Cause. But that ain't the way it is.

And for more on why the second amendment says what it says, worded far better than my feeble attempts, read Bill Whittle's Freedom.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

McCaskill's empty campaign

Another McCaskill add. "Jim Talent cut Medicare by $X and then Y Missourians lost their coverage".

Ok. I guess the implication here is that Jim is a big meanie and could have no other possible reason for "cutting Medicare". Medicare is apparently an entitlement, according to McCaskill, and if you were ever getting it, there's no possible way you shouldn't have been getting it. So if you're not getting it any more, that's a Bad Thing.

But never mind that. McCaskill's solution is "isn't it time for a change?" Of course, she is quite vague on just what those changes might entail, other than "working and fighting for" health care for Missourians. I'm pretty sure the Inalienable Rights clause doesn't mention anything about government-sponsored health care. Tough to find something about it in the Constitution, too. Of course, I'm a right-wing extremist for bringing that up.

Apparently, though, her lack of vision is the least of her problems.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Last Man Standing

A Reuters article attempts to address the last man in custody at Gitmo after the post 9/11 sweeps (apparently about 1,200 were arrested, most were released and/or deported).

The article lists his charges against the U.S. Government, which are mostly of physical abuse.

The staff at the jail where he was first held "poured hot coffee on my body, they also poured cold ice water on my body," he wrote in one, claiming that staffers also cuffed his hands and feet, which caused "my ankle and lower extremities to swell abnormally."

"It is my firm belief that I am constantly subjected to physical abuse (because) of my ethnicity, I am Iranian of Persian birth," he wrote in another, filed this summer. In that lawsuit he claimed that immigration officers forced him to kneel while handcuffed, and then kicked and punched his stomach and kidneys.
When I read this, however, I can't help but think of the Manchester Document -- an Al Queda Manual found in England.

In Lesson 18, the first two instructions are:

1) At the beginning of the trial, once more [em. mine... making these claims is apparently very important and has been brought up earlier in the document at least once] the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security (investigators) before the judge.
2) Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison

and it's brought up again in the sixth instruction

6) During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.

It's a huge part of the Al Queda strategy. They know how we in the West feel about mistreatment. They are instructed to lie to gain sympathy for themselves and to question those who hold them. It is designed to wear down support for the government. And it works.

Then there's this passage from the epitome of the type of people in the West Al Queda seeks to elicit sympathy from:

"People lost years of their lives and families were ripped apart in the frenzy of fear," said Kerri Sherlock, director of policy and planning at the Rights Working Group, an advocacy organization in Washington D.C. "Do we really want to be a country that locks people up without guaranteeing their basic constitutional rights?"
To which I ask, what Constitutional Rights are guaranteed to an alien trying to enter the country with fraudulent documentation? (he was caught trying to enter the country on a fraudulent Italian passport).

He's the last one being held. Why could that be? Because the ReThuglican Meanies love holding him? I kinda doubt it. Otherwise a lot more of the 1,199 others would still be around.

As to the "Frenzy of Fear" -- Islamic radicals basically declared war on the West in the 1980's. The west ignored them -- batting at them like so many flies. They began taking advantage of our openness and insistence on giving the benefit of the doubt, and then a group of them flew 3 airplanes into buildings in the US -- and failed to get the fourth one to it's target, our Capitol. So when we find an Iranian Muslim shortly afterward trying to enter our country fraudulently, I wouldn't call it a frenzy of fear, I'd call it a frenzy of prudence.

I'm sure our policies have been fine-tuned by court battles and legislative haranging. To answer the question, no, we don't want to be a country that locks people up without guaranteeing them their constitutional rights (assuming that person is a constitutionally protected citizen). We don't even want to just hold people willy-nilly who have not had such rights bestowed upon them. Next time we go through this (and unfortunately no matter how hard we try there will be a next time) -- it'll go better.

Remember, if this guy had gone free and was found later to be involved in some future attack, Bush would have "failed". Instead, it looks like we're pretty sure this guy is involved somehow or he would've been released earlier like the others. And of course, that means Bush "failed".

Because it's not about Constitutional Rights or Homeland Security. It's about how Bush "failed".

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Worsening and Worsening

Every day I hear about the "worsening" violence in Iraq.

I've heard about it pretty much every day since the invasion.

Now, "worsening" -- to me, means that it was bad yesterday, and today it is (bad + more bad). Presumably if it continued to "worsen", the next day it would be (bad + more bad) + more bad. In all of these cases, today's sum has to be "higher" than the previous day's sum. This is not a linear relationship.

If 20 people a day were killed... that's 20 today, 20 tomorrow, next week -- 20 a day as well... that's not worsening. That's the same. That's a linear increase. No, worsening would be 20 today, 25 tomorrow, 30 the next day, and so on -- so say if we started out at 500 a month three years ago, what must the average be today?

You never hear stories or headlines that say that it ever got better for a period, or for several periods, or that the violence has fluctuated. It is always "worsening". This leaves the impression that the non-linear chart of "badness" must be astronomical by now, unless the "worsening" is measured in a very few people per period... in other words, an extremely slow and stable worsening.

That's certainly not the impression the headlines leave you with.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Yard Sign

So I'm driving around town, and I see this yard sign that says:

Had enough? Vote Democrat.

Mmm-hmmm. Now, what does that say? It says, "we don't really have anything to run on except for the fact that we're not them. "

I should make my own sign.
Had enough? Vote Democrat. Because you don't know what "enough" is!!! We'll show you "enough", Jack!!!!

Look 'a dat. All thinkin' he know what "enough" is and shih. Ah sho' dem "enough", da's fo' sho!

Sign of the times

I saw three bumperstickers last weekend that said "Impeach Bush", one of them clearly came from a Democratic Party publicity source (because it said so).

Folks, that's the agenda, and they're showing their hand. They want to get you used to the idea now. Then if the dems win a majority, you can bet there'll be a massive effort by the party to impeach the president. They and much of their base are still sore about losing the last two elections, still sore about making themselves look so bad as they trip over themselves to change like chameleons to blend with whatever the latest opinion polls seem to say, and then attempt to walk and try to get the public to forget that they held the opposite position just a few weeks ago. They have an axe to grind, and that axe is George W. Bush.

Bush Derangement Syndrome -- coming to a polling place near you.

And while we're at it....

The Mark Foley Scandal.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a Foley scandal. Not a capital hill scandal. Not a Republican scandal.

It's a Foley Scandal. He resigned.

Stop trying to make it bigger than it is. Does anyone honestly think that party behavior would be any different if this were a Democrat, and do you think that no Democrat has ever done anything like this? And if he did, would he lie about it and try to get out of it? (wait... somehow that sounds ... familiar... hmmmm... can't put my finger on it. Maybe I should use a cigar instead.) If one did such a thing, should we project the sin to all Democrats? Come on.

I really don't think America is that stupid.

General Newsey Things and politics

Read a story in the paper the other day about Saudis celebrating the onset of Ramadan -- I suppose it's a bit like their "Lent" -- making this celebration something of their "Mardi Gras". The article went on to talk about how it struck the author that many of these young men were among the newly unemployed, and lamented that in a country with so much oil wealth, and especially while reaping recent huge windfall profits of the oil market -- that the job rate would be so low. This exposes the underlying progressive assumption that wealth creates jobs and not the other way around.

Of course, wealth can be used to create jobs -- those in turn would create production, which is really what creates wealth. But where's the incentive for that in a non-free-market system?

Here in a local race, I note that Claire McCaskill's senatorial ads emphasize that while she was state auditor she investigated nursing homes 15 times and had 94 "findings". Because, you know, it's all about the "findings". We don't know what the "findings" were, or whether they were relevant or accurate -- but that doesn't matter. There were 94 of them, and that's a Good Thing . Because more is better. Guess that makes her a good senatorial candidate. Meanwhile, the negative side of her ads attempt to bash Jim Talent for doing things that benefit business. Because, you know, people who run businesses aren't American. Again exposing another underlying progressive assumption -- wealth is finite. If some people make "too much" money, it must be because they are taking advantage of other people. Ergo big companies are bad, and anything that helps big companies is wrong. Wal-Mart, of course, being the obvious worst offender.

The city council passed an ordinance last night banning smoking in local restaurants. I see this as a blow to liberty -- even though I am not a smoker and I ask for non-smoking seating when I go to restaurants. I think restaurant owners should be allowed to provide whatever kind of environment they want to. If people don't like it, they won't go there. If they do, they will. Nobody ever held a gun to anyone's head and said "you must eat at this restaurant" (breathe the smoke, breathe the smoke... mwahahahahahah!). The Declaration of Independence's inalienable rights clause didn't say anything about the right to eat at a restaurant at all, much less a smoke-free one. It did mention Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ... both of which get a mighty swat from this ordinance. Which exposes progressiveness for what it is -- a movement that says "we know better than you do, let us make the rules". It's tyranny with a condescending smile.

Which is why I find it imperative to defeat the Democratic Party in general (though on a person by person basis I may differ -- there is ONE Democrat I plan to vote for for local judge. But that's a whole 'nother issue). The party has been taken over by this progressive movement and its disparate little sub-movements from animal rights to peace at all costs to economic policies that look a whole lot more like communism than a free market. If you're anti-america, you're a Democrat -- it's pretty much as simple as that. I'll grant that it doesn't necessarily go the other way, but the fact that if you're Anti-America, you're very likely to vote Democrat speaks volumes.

Of course, there are those who say they aren't anti-America, that they love this country and only want what's best for it. You know, like smoke-free restaurants, and mandatory hybrid cars, the repeal of the second amendment, state-regulated business, and a foriegn policy that says "don't mess with us anymore or we'll have to have a really really serious talk. Again." You know, that America. The one that doesn't exist... yet.

Then there's North Korea -- as far as I can tell, the world is proving once and for all -- as if we didn't all get the message before, that "UN" actually does stand for "Useless Nitwits". Now I like John Bolton, but it's like an adult working with a bunch of children. Spoiled ones at that. Why in the hell should North Korea or anyone else listen to anything the United Nations says? What are they going to do? Write another letter of condemnation? Whoooo! Scary!

China warned North Korea that it was in danger of "damaging" their relationship. Just in danger, though, the relationship hasn't actually been damaged yet.

And lastly, please, Mr. Bush? Jimmy Carter drove me crazy during his presidency with his inability to prounounce the word "nuclear" -- and you pronounce it the same way he did. It's driving me nuts -- again.

The word is pronounced NEW - CLEE - UR



got it?

Monday, October 09, 2006

Bravery and Cowardice

Atlas Shrugs points us to a Victor Hanson article comparing today's progressives to dwarves on the shoulders of giants Victor makes his point well, so I thought I'd share -- since I don't have time right now to post anything new myself: (exerpt)

Note also the constant subtext in this new self-censorship: fear of radical Islam and its gruesome appendages of beheadings, suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, barbaric fatwas, riotous youth, petrodollar-acquired nuclear weapons, oil boycotts and price hikes, and fist-chanting mobs.

In contrast, almost daily in Europe, "brave" artists caricature Christians and Americans with impunity. Why?

For a long list of reasons, among them most surely the assurance that they can do this without being killed. Such cowards puff out their chests when trashing an ill Oriana Fallaci or Ariel Sharon or beleaguered George W. Bush in the most demonic of tones, but prove sunken and sullen when threatened by a Dr Zawahri or a grand mufti of some obscure mosque.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Hmmmm... why does this seem so relevant to me?

I wonder... I wonder.... hmmmmm...

And these people vote

I just overheard a co-worker speculating that the Republican Party is responsible for oil and gas prices falling. The argument goes that "they" want America not to think about gas prices at election time. The "logic" goes like this: the oil companies own the party, and since the oil companies want the Republicans in power, they are driving the price drop to manipulate the November election.

These people are great at speculating how things could work, but not so good at figuring out how things actually do work. Which is the main reason I don't want them winning elections.

It would be instructive to invstigate how many Congress Critters -- and which ones -- own stock in oil and how many of them -- and which ones -- get contributions and lobbyist niceties from oil companies. Not that that would necessarily prove anything (remember, evidence != proof). My bet is that the Leftist Nuts would be shocked and their theory would be dealt a huge logical blow.

Meanwhile, the sane world says that oil prices have been, for the past 6 months, inflated by spot market hyper-speculation of risks, plus diminished refinery capacity due to last year's hurricane season, and the heightened summer demand -- all of which have, over the past several weeks, been soothed. The price of oil was un-sustainibly high due to -- market forces largely outside of Oil Company control. The oil companies benefit, for sure, just like you do when the value of your real estate jumps dramatically.

No, no! Say the conspiracy theorists. Everything I don't like is being controlled by Karl Rove!!!!

Here's a thought provoking post:

From Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

Popes, Despots, Americans, & Jews

"...Why were Pope Benedict’s remarks considered so ‘politically insensitive’? Why were are the remarks made by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmandinejad at the United Nations considered alternative ‘political’ worldviews? Why is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seen as tortured ‘political’ issue only?"

ht: The Anchoress

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Voter ID

Another word to be wary of is "disenfranchise" -- which is basically a weasel word meaning "these people can't be expected to be responsible".

Photo voter ID cards will "disenfranchise" voters who don't have photo ids. Because Lord knows, just because you're responsible enough to vote doesn't mean that you can be expected to go through the effort, to say, go get a voter ID card. I'll bet if the same people had to get down to WalMart or a free medical clinic, they could find a way to get there. If someone were giving away money, they'd get innovative. But for something as unimportant as, you know, proving that you have a right to vote (you're a citizen and all) before you vote... well, geez. That'd just put me off, I'll tell you. I mean, who do they think they are, trying to make sure our government is chosen by actual American Citizens?

No, the main leaders of the "disenfranchise" charge are the politicians who like to promise people who don't have much -- more of what others do have -- for no other reason than the fact that they can, and then go around picking them up to make sure they get to the polls (because they can't actually be responsible for arranging that trip to begin with on such an important day).

Pelosi-crats are worried that people who think government is the responsibility of others and is there to serve them will be less likely to go out and vote if they have to put forth any significant effort to do so. Then only people who think it's important to vote will get out and ... vote. Which could be disasterous for Pelosi-crats -- especially since they've gone out of their way to paint themselves as sympathetic to illegal immigrants who won't have to show an ID either if the law doesn't pass.

They like to paint themselves as Robin Hoods, but they're really vote prostitutes.

I Agree With Chavez

Well, on this point, anyway: The UN is useless.

One might wonder why, since he feels that way, he was directly addressing the World Body in person yesterday.

Unless, by his mere ability to be allowed to be taken seriously there, he was making it self-evident.


Tuesday, September 19, 2006


The Pope's comments have been labeled "dangerous". Archbishop Pell's comments have been labled "dangerous".

What "danger" does the Pope's or the Archbishop's comments present to the world?


All of the "danger" lies in the petulant Islamic response. But of course, that is precicely what everyone (but obviously excepting the Pope and Archbishop) is bending over backward to avoid saying. After all, everything is the fault of the West. The WEST, I tell you.

NO! NO! Don't look THERE! Only HERE! HERE!!!!!

(pay no attention to the mob behind the curtain)

Nnnnnot excactly

From an otherwise welcome article from Reuters:

Muslim anger swelled after Pope Benedict's speech in Germany last week in which he referred to criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said everything the Prophet brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

Not excactly. What the Emporer said was anything new (that wasn't already revealed in Judaism & Christianity) that Muhammed brought was evil, such as...

There was certainly some good in Islam -- none of it was new, though. That pisses them off even more, though, as it is their belief that Islam is the final revelation of Allah. Judaism & Christianity are (according to Muslims) heresies of two stepping stones along the way.

But I'm beyond worrying about what will piss them off. Since they are so determined to be pissed off, they'll find something to piss on about no matter what. It would be a waste of effort on my part.

"More Proof"

(File under "pet peeves")

I'm always wary of people who use the term "more proof" instead of "more evidence", as it peels back the curtain attempting to cover their intellectual bankruptcy, woven from shrill threads of half-baked and typically borrowed ideas.
Evidence != Proof

Evidence can support a proof, be incorporated into a proof -- but evidence is not proof.

Remember that the next time someone says "that's just more proof that..."

Another recommended article (regarding forgiveness)

(for those of you who don't know, the Umma is the Muslim faithful)

Monday, September 18, 2006

Today's reccomended reading

As I am too busy to write much lately and others seem to be saying things at least as well as I could, probably better -- today's reccomended reading comes from Mary Laney at the Chicago Sun Times.

Peaceful Muslims Should Turn Their Anger Toward Islamofacists


Something's wrong. As I thumb through the pages of newspapers and magazines and flip through newscasts on radio and television, it seems that something is terribly wrong.

While the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America are peaceful citizens, their voices are not ringing out.

you noticed, too?

We've just passed the anniversary of the worst attack on America in history, 9/11, when Muslim terrorists killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children as they turned passenger planes into missiles. Yet the news is filled with stories of Muslims -- not loudly condemning the Muslim murderers -- but complaining of their treatment here and demanding Americans change their attitudes.

We Americans should change our attitudes? Terrorist cells have been discovered here. Plots to blow up bridges and the Sears Tower have been uncovered. Bomb-making supplies carried by Muslim terrorists have been stopped at our borders. A plot to bomb 10 airliners bound for the United States was foiled. Yet we Americans should change our attitudes?

America has opened its doors and universities to Muslims from foreign countries -- perhaps the best way for these students to see our freedoms and develop a new respect for our country. But where, I ask, is the returned show of support?

Why should they show their support? Their religion says we are swine and dogs -- and that we live at their discretion. If we submit to Islam (admit it is superior to whatever we believe, if we will not believe and convert) and pay the jizya -- we can live. Why would they feel compelled to show support for swine? We are beneath them. Really. That is what they believe, despite the semi-official taqiyya lip-service to the contrary.

I'm hoping this whole blowup over the Pope's words (more accurately, the Pope's quoting a Byzantine Emporer's words of 600 years ago) will at the very least finally wake up those who are on the left but not the far left (I've given up hope on them, their ability to reason went out the window long ago) and those in the middle sympathetic to the left -- to the fact that Islam is most demonstrably not a religion of peace.

  • Kick a Koran? Fire bombings, death threats, shootings, riots.
  • Draw an illustration of Muhammed? Fire bombings, death threats, stabbings, riots.
  • Point out that Islam is violent? Fire bombings, death threats, shooting a 77 year old nun in the back, riots.

Folks ... wake up. Please!

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Oriana Fallaci

Italian author, political interviewer Oriana Fallaci died at age 76 yesterday. I've read a few articles by her and knew of her existence, and have been thankful for her point of view on the current Islamist threat. Via the Anchoress, who knows a lot more about her, I get this well-distilled quote from Oriana:
"The West reveals . . . a hatred of itself, which is strange and can only be considered pathological; the West . . . no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure.”

The Anchoress is the latest "Blog of the Week" on Powerlineblognews. She is a good writer. Thoughtful, well informed, dripping with the kind of decency we should all be soaked in, yet not shy about expressing her beliefs. I'd fear giving her a big head, but since I am nobody, anyway, and I'm quite certain she's not the type to let praise go to her head -- I'm not worried.

I'd encourage you to go read the post I linked at the top of this post.

On that -- doing a little reflecting on why I read blogs (and why I write this one -- with all due respect to Morgan Freeberg, this truly IS the blog that nobody reads and I have the statcounter numbers to prove it) -- I don't really read them to get my news, or find out what my opinion is or should be as some people might argue. I read them because I am woefully lacking in my expressive abilities (especially verbal -- I do better writing) and I am often looking for better ways to express what I already believe. I am also open to the beliefs of others and am willing to give them a shot at showing me the truth in what they believe. Ultimately, I get my news from about the same places everyone else does... BBC, NPR, Reuters, AP, and, often via links from other bloggers, Washington Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and -- I hate to even type this name here but ... the New York Times. The LA Times.

Why I typically go to conservative bloggers -- 1) the news is already spun hard to the left. Almost by reflexive definition, a journalist is a liberal "blogger". They just use ink or radio waves instead of (primarily) the internet and a big electronic chalkboard. I've already seen it from the left angle, I'd like to see it un-spun the other way. 2) as I mentioned above, I'd like to find out others' takes on the news -- people who have similar philosophical leanings as I do because they often have found better ways to express my opinion than I have. I do agree with most of them most of the time. I disagree with all of them some of the time. And sometimes, they convince me to look at something in a way I wouldn't have. I think it's healthy.

Ok -- there's another two cents for today, and a plug (like she needs one) for the Anchoress.

Friday, September 15, 2006

News Flash: The Pope is Catholic!

So the Pope, in an address to a group of representatives of science, addressed what he and others think is wrong with Islam -- and, by using a 700 year old quote from a Byzantine emporer, appears to have "offended" Muslims.

Muslims and secular leftists the world over are rushing to condemn the Pope for suggesting that Christianity is somehow superior to Islam.

Let me see here... if the Pope doesn't think Christianity is superior to Islam -- wouldn't that disqualify him for the job?

And while we're on the subject, why is it that it's perfectly acceptable to condemn and deride Christianity, but if you draw a picture of Mohammed -- you ought to be thrown in a gulag?

Wake up, folks! Muslims are killing non-muslims (and Muslims, too, it turns out) in the name of Islam. It is an idea deeply entrenched in Islam, and it has a long history of it. The spread of Islam by the sword is, in fact, what ultimately triggered the eeeevil crusades in the first place. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. If you won't believe me or look it up yourself -- then apparently the belief that there is nothing the matter with Islam is a religious belief to you. The belief that no religion but Christianity can be criticized is one of your religious beliefs -- it is an idea you believe is true based on faith.

It was not irresponsible or wrong for the Pope to say what he said. The Pope is doing his job. The irresponsibility comes in when the media fails to read and understand the entire dissertation and the context and prints a headline like "Pope Slams Islam".

The MSM is lazy, sensationalistic, and has an anti-judeo-christian agenda, that is more clear today than ever before.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Typical and Succinct Thomas Sowell Quote

From Thomas Sowell
Our whole educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities, is increasingly turning out people who have never heard enough conflicting arguments to develop the skills and discipline required to produce a coherent analysis, based on logic and evidence.

That's about the size of it. It's more and more apparent to me every day.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

And who didn't expect this?

Via Reihl World View:

Iranian Offer Not A Serious One
Despite early reports of some hope for progress with Iran on their nuclear program, it's now obvious no progress has been made at all. The offer amounts to the UN stopping any talk of sanctions and, in return, Iran would consider a two month halt to the program.

In the closed-door meetings Iran "had a long list [of conditions] including [a] complete and total halt in activity at the UN Security Council, an absolute stepping down from going for sanctions and that Iran would have the right to nuclear fuel technology on its soil," a Western diplomat said on Monday.

"In return for this, Larijani said the Iranians would consider -- consider, not actually carry out -- a two-month halt in enrichment. It was all very conditional," the diplomat said, in relating a briefing from Solana.
Anyone who did not assume this was coming was delusional.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Hirabah, not Jihad

I'm not one for going out of my way for politically correct speech... and this isn't really written from that angle anyway.

This article makes some excellent points and I'm not so sure more people shouldn't start thinking along these lines. Or at least about the implications of the issues he raises.

Monday, September 11, 2006

What? There's treatment worse than Americans deal?

And it ain't the Jooooooooos?

Abu Gharib has been turned back over to Iraq.

According to the London Daily Telegraph article:

The notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is at the centre of fresh abuse allegations just a week after it was handed over to Iraqi authorities, with claims that inmates are being tortured by their new captors.

An independent witness who went into Abu Ghraib this week told The Sunday Telegraph that screams were coming from the cell blocks housing the terrorist suspects.

Conditions in the rest of the jail were grim, with an overwhelming stench of excrement, prisoners crammed into cells for all but 20 minutes a day, food rations cut to just rice and water and no air conditioning.

Some of the small number of prisoners who remained in the jail after the Americans left said they had pleaded to go with their departing captors, rather than be left in the hands of Iraqi guards.

"The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better," said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism.

I'm sure that, given a little time to work out the kinks in the logical gymnastics, the Left will find a way to say that this, too, is Bush's fault.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Who ya gonna call... NewsBusters!

hat tip: Riehl World View

I hope the MSM starts looking in the mirror and self correcting soon. It would be doing the world a service.

The BEEB Who Cried Wolf (from Newsbusters)