Wednesday, October 20, 2004
No more. via LittleGreenFootballs see what the Village Voice thinks of President Bush. There actually is a medical condition known as Bush-Derangement-Syndrome.
Said one: "These guys, they’re not stupid. They are fighting a war but they are not savages - they’re not actually killing people willy-nilly. There was no reason for them to kill me," he told reporters on his arrival at Sydney airport last night. "There was a reason to kill (British hostage Kenneth) Bigley, there was a reason to kill the (two) Americans (kidnapped with Bigley). There was not a reason to kill me."
Read the whole thing and click on the links provided. You'll never trust another report from the Arab world.
So before the formal canonization of Kerry, I'd like to go on record as saying, along with a few other brave souls, that it is no longer a question of Kerry and the Democrats losing in November, but only one of how great and lasting their humiliation and degredation is going to be.
As far as I can see it is going to be massive: a Tsunami of rejection; a battering of the Bozos with no ref to stop the fight in the sixth round; a comet impacting dead center in the Democratic Fantasy World and smothering all but the deepest burrowing small rodents in a layer of ash half a mile thick; a landslide in which the entire north face of Mount Everest decides to take a vacation on the shores of the Indian ocean; a blowout equal to the hotspot under Yellowstone deciding to displace Krakatoa as the loudest implosion heard in recorded history; an "L" branded on the forehead of the Democratic party so large and so deep that travel agencies from Japan will divert a whole season of Grand Canyon tours to the nearest Kerry Compound just so they can marvel and photograph themselves standing at the brink.
Thoughts on war and peace from arguably the most incompetent president of the 20th century, via MSNBC's Hardball.
"This is part of a painful pattern of bad acting that begins with mindboggling foreign policy prevarication, picks up speed with terribly awkward stump soundbites ("Bring. It. On."), reaches new heights with a bizarre debate detour into "lesbian[ism]," digs up questionably exploitive quotes from a dead Christopher Reeve and leaves us today with patronizing redneck grammar from the original effete Boston Brahmin, a man so dedicated to etymologically correct pronunciation that he's one of 10 people in North America that uses the "soft-g" when he breaks out the word "Ghengis" during the course of false war crimes testimony before the Senate.
I mean, Kerry may be "a man who will do and say anything to get elected," but does he have to patronize America's intelligence every time he attempts a cynically calculating remark? "
See the Washington Post article. Hat tip to Beldar blog
You hear not just of America's injustice in Palestine or Chechnya — not to mention nothing about saving Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan of the 1980s — but also of what we did in Spain in the 15th century and in Tyre, Gaza, and Jerusalem in the 12th. The mystery of September 11, 2001, is not that it happened, but that it did not quite happen when first tried in 1993 during Bill Clinton's madcap efforts to move a smiling Arafat into the Lincoln Bedroom and keep our hands off bin Laden. Only an American with a JD or PhD would cling to the idea that there was not a connection between Group A Middle Eastern terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993 and Group B who finished the job in 2001.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
The most important Middle Eastern Islamic population centers lie along a strip of Earth sufficiently narrow that it would take no more than four Minutemen to destroy them all.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
In it he blasts Sinclair Broadcasting. In his words, “by giving Kerry no voice, ‘Stolen Honor’ fails the basic smell test of news: fairness and balance.”
Of course that remains to be seen since Sinclair claims that their program is a work in progress. In addition, they have invited Mr. Kerry to participate. Pitts dismisses that as “… inviting him to be the turkey at Thanksgiving.”
That Pitts is a partisan hack is not open to question. He had enough integrity to write an article about the CBS Texas Air National Guard forgeries. However, the slant there was vastly different. In that article he assumed all the accusations made against George Bush were true. He was not castigating CBS for airing a one-sided attempt to smear the President. His problem with this slime ball story was its “shoddiness.” He blamed CBS for using bad fakes. In Leonard Pitts’ world, journalistic hits on Republicans are fine as long as the evidence isn’t faked. When Democrats are the target they are “propaganda” and a “tawdry attempt to swing an election.” Even when the evidence is a videotape of the perp’s own words.
Was John Kerry, to use Leonard Pitts’ own words: “…in essence, a traitor?” We’ll see what the evidence shows. You can be sure of one thing; the evidence will NOT include bad fakes. John Kerry will appear in his own words. And the former POWs, many with real purple hearts, silver and bronze stars and even Medals of Honor, will be given a chance to speak their minds to millions of people, something they have not been given an opportunity to do for 33 years.
Now that’s news.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
" Egalitarians are often in the vanguard of those seeking to promote this most dangerous of all inequalities -- the inequality of unaccountable power in the service of a vision."
Read the whole essay by Thomas Sowell.
a) Spend it on a new Chrysler Crossfire.
b) Hire a new employee for his business.
c) Invest it in a stock mutual fund.
d) Send it to the Internal Revenue Service so President Kerry can use it to help people whose lives were ruined by the Bush administration.
See the others at Scrappleface.
To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.
"Sinclair's owners aren't interested in news, they're interested in pro-Bush propaganda," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, whose complaint will accuse the firm of making an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign.
If this is an in-kind contribution, what is "Fahrenheit 9/11"? How about Bruce Springsteen's pro-Kerry concerts, or for that matter newspaper editorials endorsing one candidate or another?
All these things of course are constitutionally protected free speech, as is "Stolen Honor." McAuliffe's complaint is frivolous, though it does underscore the absurdity of campaign finance laws that attempt to silence some political speech while carving out an exception for the media.
As well, it underscores the authoritarian nature of the political left when it comes to political speech. Liberals are quick to cry "censorship" when others merely criticize far-left or anti-American speech (remember the Dixie Chicks?), but they are eager to use the force of government to silence those with whom they disagree.
But how does it work, exactly? Somehow Kerry can make the lame man walk, and the blind man see, but what is involved? Do I have to get on a bus and go to Washington, or will Kerry tour the nation working his wonders?
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
A few weeks before, I had attended a party at which I was lambasted, intimidated and mocked by a group of people I had known for some twenty-odd years. It reminded me of a comment made to me by an American expatriate shortly after 9/11: ‘Now I know what the Jews felt like in pre-war Germany.’
Read the rest of the article from Frontpage.
From TCS: Tech Central Station.
Some people are so gullible that they believe the get-rich-quick e-mail that purportedly comes from relatives of deposed African dictators. Other people are so gullible that they've fallen for an e-mail hoax claiming that the military draft will be reinstated next spring. The media don't run stories that treat the African scam letters as possibly true, but the media have, unfortunately, not always been so accurate about the draft hoax.
From Rocky Mountain News.
"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.
Rudy Guliani comments on Kerry
John Kerry hasn’t quite lost the Times, he’s come remarkably close with the New York Times Magazine interview
Kerry wrote own after-action report on Rassmann rescue, creating the "official" Navy record.
Edwards: 'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'
None of us can know for certain how we would behave in his circumstances, and very few of us will ever face them. But, if I had to choose in advance the very last words I’d utter in this life, “Tony Blair has not done enough for me” would not be high up on the list.
Mark Steyn comment on the latest beheading.
Wonder who pays taxes? Read HERE.
Muledriver interviews Hitler.
Finally, a few details on Kerry and the end of the war in Viet Nam.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
JOHN KERRY is famously hard to pin down; you can reach out to grasp his opinion only to find that it has flitted away like a bashful butterfly, or a goldfish you are trying to catch with your bare hands. But nowadays his pronouncements and campaign ads are easy to read. They suggest that Iraq is like Vietnam; that
our top priority is accordingly not to win but to get out. John Kerry evidently believes, a propos Vietnam, that we should have run away sooner. Many Americans disagree. Many Americans believe that we should have stood by our friends until a free and stable South Vietnam had taken root.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Here's an excerpt:
We analyzed human rights criticisms made by four mainline Protestant denominations (the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) and two ecumenical bodies (the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches) over a period of four years (2000-2003) to determine which nations were criticized for human rights violations and why. We used the 2004 human rights assessments published by Freedom House as a benchmark for human rights in nations analyzed. A given church statement or document was considered to have criticized human rights in country X when, in the context of a discussion of human rights in country X, it passed negative judgment on specific current policies or actions of the government of X.
Overall, criticisms of Israel amounted to 37 percent of the 197 human rights criticisms offered by the churches during those years, only slightly higher than the 32 percent of criticisms leveled at the United States. The remaining 31 percent of criticisms were shared by twenty other nations. For every one criticism of any other foreign nation, one criticism was made of the United States and one of Israel. Nearly all churches demonstrated this focus on the United States and Israel in their legislative actions, their statements, their news sources, or all three.
As a result, nearly three out of four human rights criticisms were made of nations designated as free (mostly the United States and Israel) by the Freedom House assessments. Those rated not free totaled 19 percent of criticisms, while partly free nations totalled only 8 percent of criticisms. Of the fifteen worst human rights offenders in the world, only five were criticized by the churches during the four year period studied.
Regions like the Middle East (apart from Israel) and Central Asia (former Soviet republics) were the most notable areas ignored by the churches in their human rights advocacy. Partly free nations, where church influence might be most effective in widening the limited civic space already open to indigenous Christians and other citizens, received the least attention.
The mainline churches are not adequately addressing the wide range of human rights abuses taking place in the world. Denominations are focusing on the United States and Israel as the primary perpetrators of human rights violations. Great attention to the United States may be expected from churches that find their homes there. But the dramatic focus on Israel as opposed to many more repressive regimes, including other U.S. allies known for human rights abuses (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt), must be challenged.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the churches made the mistake of supporting oppressive Soviet-sponsored liberation movements around the world. They largely ignored human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and its satellite states, instead focusing on U.S. policy as the primary source of abuse. It appears that mainline denominations may be making the same mistake today with the Arab and Muslim worlds, ignoring many of the most serious abuses while apparently laying heavy blame upon the United States and Israel not only for their own lesser abuses, but also for the abuses of others. . . .
I don’t watch Presidential debates for the same reason I don’t like going to children’s plays, amateur theatricals and school assemblies: they are not particularly entertaining and I get no pleasure watching people embarrass themselves.
Their ostensible purpose is risible. If you can’t figure out which candidate you support based on your understanding of the issues, debates will not provide an answer. Debates favor the liar over the truth teller. They favor the facile over the thoughtful and the handsome over the homely. Debates are – in many ways – less truthful that paid political ads since how things are said in a debate often has more of an impact than what is said.
That does not mean that I have not paid any attention to the first debate of this campaign. I have given the impact of the debate an opportunity to percolate, to be spun by the spinmeisters and to be dissected by the various interest groups. And here is my conclusion;
1) The first reaction of most of those who watched the debates is that Kerry won on style. To paraphrase one commentator, it sounded as if Bush came to a 90 minute debate with 30 minutes of material.
2) The second reaction of most commentators is that neither candidate delivered a knockout punch. No one exploded. No minds were changed.
3) The Democrats are using outtakes from the debate to illustrate Bush’s facial expressions when Kerry was speaking.
4) The Republicans are using outtakes from the debate to show Kerry flip-flopping.
The bottom line is this; the effect of debates is almost always to provide a story for the days and weeks after the debate. The Kerry camp’s only ammunition from debate number 1 are Bush facial expressions. The Bush camp is using Kerry’s words from the debate to reinforce his flip-flops, and is beginning to use both his nuclear disarmament comments and his “global test” comments as new ammo against him.
The Democrat response is weak and content-less. It will reinforce Bush haters but will not persuade the uncommitted. The Republicans came away with more ammunition to fire at Kerry. Most Americans have no problems with our nuclear arsenal and few want our foreign policy to pass a “global test.”
The early conventional wisdom is wrong. The winner of the debate is Team Bush.
ACT II – RIDGE OVER SILVERANGO CANYON
Scene 1 – Johnny Arrives amid furious shootout
MARSHALL HAYES: Nuance! I never thought you would pitch in against these outlaws! Now grab a rifle and commence a-shootin’!
JOHNNY: Don’t flatter yourself, Marshall! If I were sheriff we wouldn’t be here in the first place. And also, I would be shooting better.
HAYES: Do you mind, Nuance? Me and the boys are a little busy here.
JOHNNY: You call this collection of drunks and layabouts a posse?
HAYES: Can it Nuance, we’ve got desperados to kill!
JOHNNY: Listen to me Marshall, I know something about desperate, no-win situations. Need I remind you that while you were dallying with the dance hall girls at Fort Sheridan, I was off fighting a little thing called ‘Antietam’?
DESPERADO (running): I can’t take it anymore! Arrgghh!
HAYES: Got ‘em!
JOHNNY: You fool – don’t you see? Killing them only encourages them! You’ve got to start engaging in constructive dialogue!
HAYES: Nuance! Get back here, man! Where do you think you’re going?
JOHNNY (mounting horse): To Fort Escargot, to get the only man who can save you!