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.

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.

Michael J Fox, Michael Steele, and Ben Cardin

Hmmmmm....

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.

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 .... ??????????

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?

Not.

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.

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.

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?

and

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

not NEW - QUEUE - LUR

nu-cle-ar

got it?

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.