May 31, 2004
|[Posted by ]|
My uncle Bob was a member of the Lincoln High School class of 1944. Instead of marching across a platform in the gym and going to parties, Bob was fighting in Guadalcanal and Pelileu (where he was injured and received a Purple Heart). Next week, Bob and 13 other members of the class of '44 will be honored at the High School's graduation ceremony.
In the meantime, Bob is talking to today's high schoolers about his experiences in WWII. I'm a little jealous. When I was in school, WWII history was something we rushed through at the end of the year. It was more important to talk about the "turbulent 60s" than the modern-world-shaping 40s. But it was no matter, I was brought up on a steady diet of WWII documentaries, books and movies. (A quick aside...when my Dad took my Star Wars, I cried because I didn't want to go to another "war movie").
When you learn about WWII, one inescapable thing is the nobility of America's actions in it. It's hard not to believe in your country when you understand what we accomplished in WWII. I hope that these high schoolers learning about WWII now from people like Bob can hold those lessons to their heart even as they enter colleges and universities filled with professors dedicated to making America the root cause of all evil in the world and media organizations dedicated to putting the worst face possible on our actions & prospects. It's funny, men & women Bob's age faced the challenge of facism and imperialism, kids today face the challenge of chomskyism. Hopefully, they too will prevail.
May 30, 2004
|[Posted by ]|
I get more convinced every day that a large percentage of Americans are upset because we're not ruthless enough in Iraq and elsewhere. And indeed, recent polls seem to indicate that many Americans want the US to be harsher, if necessary, in the War on Terror. Mark Steyn says:
In my corner of northern New England, as in Highgate and Holland Park, it is also stressful being a Bush apologist. Most of the guys I hang out with demand to know why he's being such a wimp, why's he kissing up to King Abdullah about a few stray bananas in some jailhouse, why's he being such a pantywaist about not letting our boys fire on mosques, why hasn't he levelled Fallujah. In other words, don't make the mistake of assuming that Bush's poll numbers on Iraq have fallen because people want him to be more multilateralist and accommodating. On my anecdotal evidence, they want him to be more robust and incendiary.
In the past week, there's been a lot of talk about al-Qaida planning attacks to hopefully influence the US elections. But here's the thing: I don't think we're Spain. I don't think Americans would respond to another attack with demands to appease the terrorists. I think Americans would respond to another attack with demands to nuke the Middle East.
I took an informal poll this weekend. I asked what would you want the US to do if, for example, the WWII Memorial Dedication or Indy 500 crowds were atttacked resulting in tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of deaths.
No one thought we should just go and nuke people, but, there was strong support for us to demand the immediate turning over of all known terrorists in a country "or else". "Or else" is up for debate.
My brother, who, truth be known, is a little out there, would start by bombing Mecca, then Medina until all terrorists were in US custody and everyone renounced Islam. He would also support bombing Palestine with planes full of rocks and immediately putting all Arab non-citizens in America on "rafts in the ocean" Like I said, he's a little out there, but you get the idea.
If al-Qaida is foolish enough, and lucky enough, to get off a major attack in America, I believe the only regime change they'll get will be in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
May 25, 2004
|[Posted by ]|
Ed Garvey, former Wisconsin union leader and candidate for Governor is upset. He’s worried about the future of democracy. He believes that “action must be taken if we hope to preserve democracy”.
And what would that action be? Defeating the Islamofascist enemies of democracy and all that we hold dear? Oh no, in order to preserve democracy the media should “reform” itself to be more critical of the government. Garvey says:
Think, for example, of the incredible decision of the Bush administration to "out" Ahmad Chalabi last week. This country invaded Iraq based on intelligence that was "stove-piped" to the top from Chalabi and his ilk. Our reputation in the world irreparably damaged for generations to come, 800 dead American soldiers, 6,000 dead Iraqis, $115 billion spent thus far, thousands of injured servicemen and women, all based on the intelligence of the neo-conservatives' favorite hero.
Chalabi conned the cons. Now we find out he was a tool of the Iranians, Iraq's enemy, feeding us false intelligence to accomplish just what happened. We invaded Iraq and got rid of Iran's No. 1 enemy, Saddam Hussein.
Clever stuff but a heavy price for our young men and women in uniform to pay for the stupidity of Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
This is a new one. So the Neocons are tools of Iran? Wow, doesn’t he really mean Israel? I also like how Garvey talks about Iraq solely in terms of loss. No mention of saving millions from the yoke of tyranny. No mention of disrupting the flow of dollars to terrorists organizations. No mention of the chance to build a functioning democracy as an shining example to the rest of the Middle East. Iran had absolutely no interest in Hussein’s overthrow. With the U.S. in Iraq, Iranians are further emboldened in their quest for reforms. If Garvey knew anything about the Neocons other than how to call them names, he’d understand that one of our goals in the Middle East is to cause instability. What 9/11 proved is that we could no longer live in the status quo, post-Cold War world. Things need to change in order to keep Americans safe.
Garvey compains about the lack of digging into this story. He questions why the media aren’t covering it more. In this specific case, I don’t know why. But the media is doing a terrible job in Iraq. There’s no news about reconstruction projects throughout the country. No news about all the children who’ve been able to go back to school. No news about the discovery of real, live weapons of mass destruction and finally, no news about the UN Oil for Food scandal which gives a simple, sickening explanation for the reluctance of some of our European “allies” and the UN to join the fight in Iraq.
So what’s the problem? For me, and many, many Americans, the problem is that our ultra-liberal media is more interesting in bringing down the Bush administration than in reporting the truth. But, in Garvey’s mind the problem is, you guessed it, media consolidation.
According to Garvey, groupthink has invaded the media and a liberal just can’t get a fair shake anymore. Of course, the recent data released by Pew Research completely refutes this idea. The media is unfailingly to the left of regular Americans. Media research has shown time and again this philosophical difference produces reporting that is biased to the left.
Accordingly, what does Garvey think is the most important thing we can do to stop monopolization of the media? Wait for it: Full public financing of political campaigns.
That’s right, good people. We, the taxpayers, should foot the entire bill for elections. John Kerry is already trying to exploit the current system. Now, I’m not a believer in slippery slopes, but I do believe that when government starts to pay for something, there’s a line of people ready to gouge them. Politicians already suck enough blood, they don’t need anymore. What we all need in some intellectual garlic to continue to fight back against stupid editorials like this one.
The Taliban wing of the Republican Party
|[Posted by james]|
It seems that Senator Tim Johnson, Dummocrat, S.D., thinks that the Taliban are alive and thriving in America. At a recent campaign speech in South Dakota, he referred to what he called "The Taliban wing of the Republican Party". What's more, he refuses to retract the statement.
I don't think I have to explain to any intelligent person why this is astonishingly inappropriate. Unfortunately, Timmy isn't an "intelligent" person, so he may need some help.
136 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone (202) 224-5842
TDD (202) 224-8279
Fax (202) 228-5765
May 23, 2004
Things you can do to help Bush get reelected
|[Posted by ]|
One vote can make a difference. As James Hat posted earlier, if just one more person in each ward in Wisconsin had voted for Bush, he would have carried Wisconsin in 2004.
I'm going out on a limb and saying that if you read a blog called "Dummocrats.com", chances are that you vote and that you will vote for Bush. He's got your vote, so the focus needs to be on getting more votes. I'd like to propose that each Bush voter gets 5 more people to vote along with them for Bush. This should be easy. You don't need to convert hardcore Democrats, you just need to get nonvoters to the polls and voting for our candidate. In the 2000 election, only 67.5 percent of registered voters voted in the Presidential election. Go after that 32.5 percent.
If you don't think you can get 5 voters, keep in mind that Atkins rules apply here, so if you can supress the vote of someone sure to vote for Kerry, you only need to get 4 more votes for Bush.
Keep in mind that you're going after traditional nonvoters. You may not always be able to appeal to them based strictly on the issues. You either have to fire them up, or frame a vote for Bush as a personal favor to you.
Enough with the justifications, here are some suggestions on how to get your 5 (or supress some of theirs):
1. Don't wait until November 2nd. Your friends might be too lazy to stand in line on Election Day, so download registration forms and print out absentee ballot requests in late September for them. They do actually have to fill them out and send them in, but it still may be easier than getting them to the polls.
2. If you're not seeing anyone, consider dating a Democrat. Then, either get them to change their ways for you or keep them from the polls on the 2nd with an all day festival of lovin'.
3. Hold an Election Day happy hour. Take the opportunity to pester your right-leaning coworkers about voting. If they haven't voted, they'll still have a couple of hours. Don't think it's wrong to say, "I'll buy you this beer if you go vote as soon as you're done with it" or "If you go vote right now I'll buy you a drink and some appies". Election Day is not a time to be stingy. If your friends lean left, don't mention Election Day at all, if they haven't already voted, maybe they'll forget until it's too late.
4. Don't be afraid to show your support. Major media are frankly anti-Bush. Hollywood celebrities are loudly anti-Bush. You need to be out for Bush (yes, I get the pun). Get a bumper sticker, write letters to the editor, talk about it. Voting Republican isn't something you should be ashamed of. Right now, popular media has the default notion that everyone hates Bush. That's just not the case. If you make your support known, you may inspire others to confess their support as well.
5. Brush up on your history. The trendy new media angle is to compare Iraq to Lebanon. Their "point" is that occupation of an Arab nation failed in Lebanon, so therefore we're doomed to failure in Iraq. This is the only example of occupations used. The media don't talk about our post-war occupatons of Japan or Germany simply because they were successful. When people piss & moan about Iraq, point this out.
6. Don't forget 9/11. Never forget it. That's why we are at war. We were attacked. Don't get caught up in blaming Bush or Clinton or anyone else. Islamofascists are at fault plain & simple. Remember that. It's okay to be pissed off and to hate the Islamofascists. Ask people this: who do they think the terrorists want to win the election? If that doesn't get them to the polls, nothing will.
May 20, 2004
|[Posted by ]|
Bitch Girls posts an article on the North Carolina Republican Party refusing to allow the Log Cabin Republicans to set up a booth at this weekend's state convention.
The chairman of the state party says that the North Carolina Republican Party and the Log Cabin Republicans "do not seem to share the same agenda." However, the leader of the state LCR responds by pointing out that it "believes in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty." Sounds like a South Park Republican to me. And a damn good one too.
Without 9/11, I truly believe the Republican Party would be in a full-blown crisis. The Christian Right and the South Parkers have put aside their differences to support the efforts in Iraq and elsewhere. But make no mistake, the differences do exist and they are serious. If you're a Republican, you're going to have to decide what's more important: individual liberties or traditional family values, small government or drunken spending, gun rights or the "war on drugs". Right now, Bush transcends these differences because of his personal leadership, but sooner or later he won't be there to hold the party together.
I can already picture the Republican National Convention in 2008. After a bitter primary season, a traditional Christian conservative wins the nomination. He delivers an acceptance speech reminiscent of Pat Buchanan in '96. The speech will fire up his core supporters but sicken Republicans with a libertarian bent. These Republicans will feel abandoned by the party and will either cast protest votes for a third party candidate, stay away from the polls in droves or hold their noses and vote for one of the major party candidates, perhaps even the Democratic nominee, if it's someone like John Edwards.
Jkhat asked why John Edwards would even be interested in being Kerry's running mate. I think it's because he's looking to 2008. Being on the national ticket now would give him a huge leg up on his primary primary opposition, Hilary Clinton. And, unlike Clinton, Edwards doesn't have a built in base of people that would do anything to defeat him. Mrs. Clinton has a dedicated group of voters outside of the coasts that will go to polls specifically to vote against her.
I see the situation in North Carolina as a sign of what's to come. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that the leaders of the Republican Party can come up with a platform that represents a livable compromise between these two factions. Actually, that's not true. I really hope that small government, big freedom Republicans can make the rest of the party see the light. And soon.
May 19, 2004
Sen. Fritz Hollings (D) releases statement that many call 'anti-Jewish'
|[Posted by james]|
Senator Fritz Hollings, D- SC, has released this statement charging that President Bush invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of securing Israel. Not surprisingly, the statement has been met with accusations that it is, in some way, anti-Jewish.
While the validity of that claim seems dubious at best, I find this passage from Senator Holling's statement interestingly incorrect:
With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, "Terrorism War." Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War.
I don't know where the good Senator gets this - every time I have ever heard the President refer to it, he's called it "The War on Terrorism," not the "terrorism war." There would be nothing inaccuarate about referring to the wars that he's mentioned as examples as the "War on Calvaries" or 'The War on Blitzkriegs." (As silly as that sounds).
My point is, Sen. Hollings got that fact blatantly wrong. How many other "facts" that he spouts are similarly incorrect?
Edwards likely VP Choice
|[Posted by james]|
Some sources are reporting that John Edwards is Kerry's top choice for VP. The pick makes a lot of sense for Kerry, since Edwards is the most conservative Democrat in the field, except for possibly Lieberman. He's also anti-NAFTA and pro-second amendment, traits that have a lot of appeal in the southeastern US, places where Edwards already polls well.
I don't see why John Edwards would accept a Kerry nomination, though. To me, Edwards seems like the most logical heir-apparently to the "new" Democratic party. Thanks to his (misguided, in my opinion) stance on trade issues, he has strong union support, and he has a charisma that appeals to the much coveted "swing" or "middle of the road" voter.
Edwards would be crazy to hitch his wagon to Kerry's star. He has a bright future in the Democratic party, and if the Kerry campaign crashes and burns, as it likely will, Edwards loses too much, personally.
May 18, 2004
Castro has another 63 good years left in him
|[Posted by james]|
Fidel Castro's doctor has cleared him to live until age 140.
And you thought that communism wasn't good for anything!
Seriously, though - could this statement be laying the foundation for a "continuance government" in the event of Castro's death? Picture this: Castro dies, and his aids don't tell anyone. Instead they carry on with the government like nothing happened. People may start to get curious when he doesn't appear in public, so the aids will probably release a concocted audio tape of a Castro statement every so often to quell the masses. (sound familiar, btw?)
Fidel Castro is singlehandedly holding the Cuban government together, thus preventing Cuba from slipping into Haiti-like anarchy. His death would certainly spark a revolution in not only Cuba but in Miami as well, to some extent. There are hundreds of thousands of Miami residents that vow to return to Cuba upon Castro's death, and many of them have delusions of taking the reigns, sheparding Cuba into the 21st century.
In light of the political realities, is a possible Castro continuance plan necessarily a bad thing? Granted, appeasement is decidedly un-American, but on the other hand, it's also un-American to sit back and allow a country of 11 million to decend into chaos and anarchy.
Communist China has become an economic behemoth owe largely to their slow and deliberate approach to adopting a free market system, first in Taiwan and now gradually upon the mainland. It's doubtful that the same result would have been reached if they took to "sudden revolution" approach.
Madtown Liberal Invades DC
|[Posted by ]|
The Communist Times (okay, so it's really Madison's Capital Times, but you get the idea) is at it again. The author of the piece, Bill Berry, visited DC and came back home filled with "wisdom". I'm filled with bile. All I can do is attack this bit by bit.
A work trip led to Washington, D.C., last week. As always, the capital of the so-called free world was fascinating to a small-town boy from Wisconsin.
"The capital of the so-called free world"? As opposed to what? Paris? Even a Frenchie like Brigit Bardot might debate you on that one.
The contrasts have always been stark, but they seem even sharper in these post-9/11, war-in-Iraq days. Washington, D.C., is a city that seems to have more rich and powerful people and more down-and-out beggars per person than anywhere.
It has fabulous free museums and monuments that draw visitors from around the world. Clots of Japanese tourists, each person clutching a camera, pose at the Washington Monument, just feet away from a busload of school kids from Illinois. The tourists walk past the ever-present beggars, whose blankets and little caches of belongings claim park benches in the summer and heating vents when it gets cold.
Isn't it funny how the press only notices the homeless when Republicans are in the White House? Actually, I'd use a word other than "funny", but you get the point. I'm sure DC was full of homeless people when Clinton was President, just as much as I'm sure that Berry wouldn't have reported that fact.
I remember being in D.C. last year on March 17, St. Patrick's Day, the day President Bush announced on national TV that Saddam Hussein and his bunch had run out of chances, and an invading army would be unleashed. It was a declaration of war. How strange it seemed to walk past some crowded Irish pubs near my hotel that day, just before the Bush speech, and to see great crowds of revelers. They seemed oblivious to and uncaring about the gathering storm, but maybe they were just resigned. I went to a liquor store near the hotel and bought some stiff booze, then headed to my room to drink and curse at the TV.
Hey, you out-of-touch liberal, maybe some of these people were celebrating the fact that we were finally going to get Saddam and continue to make progress in the War on Terror? Maybe some people agree with the President and aren't simply "resigned" to what was going on. I know it's hard to believe that everyone might not conform to your ultra-liberal viewpoint, but it's true. Even on your beloved coasts.
a Capitol staffer told me last week that he was convinced terrorists would again strike D.C. He had no inside information, just a sense of time and place, and he spoke without fear or emotion of any sort. He expressed no desire to leave the place, and we went on to talk about other matters, as though we had just finished discussing yesterday's Packers game. So it goes in the capital of the so-called free world.
So what's your point? Of course DC is a target. DC will remain a target of terrorism until we KILL THE TERRORISTS and destroy regimes that support them. Do you know WHY DC is a target? Because it's the CAPITAL OF THE FREE WORLD you idiot!
An army of service industry people works in Washington, there to wait on, ferry, open doors for people who work in the offices or visit on business. I am drawn to them, those who will open up a bit when someone shows interest. Their smiles are real. They speak with pride of their children and grandchildren, with intelligence about politics, economy, their city. They are not going up any career ladders. Rather, they are holding onto some rungs. I wonder where they live, and how much distance there is between them and the beggars. My friends chide me for tipping these people too much. I consider it a tithe of sorts.
Oh, what a wonderful, benevolent visitor Mr. Berry is. He alone recognizes the working class citizens of the capital of the free world. But hold on here, he considers tipping a "tithe of sorts"? Is he really that arrogant? He considers tipping charity? I hope the service industry employees he's demeaning with this attitude spit in his food.
One of the evenings last week, the TV in the hotel bar alternated images between stories about a beheaded American and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. The sound was turned down, and no one was watching. A woman entertained at a piano, men smoked fat cigars, and people drank from cocktail glasses that glistened beneath the overhead lights. The contrasts seemed stark to a visitor, but it was just another day in the capital of the so-called free world.
Hmm, I'm sure that if this were happening in France everyone in the hotel bar would be engaging in a lively debate about why America is the cause of all evil and suffering in the world. Maybe Michael Moore would be there! Oh, poor Bill Berry having to suffer through a trip to DC when he could have been in Cannes instead.
May 16, 2004
Top 10 additional ways American Olympic athletes can avoid bringing on the ire and contempt of the entire world
|[Posted by james]|
In a effort to help Olympic Consultant Mike
Moron Moran reign in displays of American patriotism at the upcoming Olympic games, the staff here at dummocrats.com has come up with a list of additional things he can recommend to our selfish and evil American athletes, so that they don't inadvertently start World War III by inciting the world to hate America even more.
Top Ten ways American Olympic athletes can avoid bringing on the ire and contempt of the entire world
10. Replace the red, white and blue on the US olympic flag with vertical red & white bars and slap a big ol' red maple leaf smack dab in the middle, eh.
9. Ban our women from going to the Olympics. The sight of our infidel hotties in skimpy athletic uniforms inflames our peaceful Arab friends.
8. Require our athletes to compete with one of their arms tied behind their back so as to give other teams a fair shot at winning. After all, how can a disadvantaged Latvian be said to be competing on a level playing field when he's been forced to live his whole life without a Sony Playstation? Think of it as an affirmative action for athletics.
7. Pay reparations to teams that we've unfairly beaten in the past.
6. Instead of saying they're going to Disneyworld, winning athletes should proclaim that they're going to Mecca.
5. Current recording of the national anthem must be replaced by new synthesized version sung as a duet with David Hasselhoff & Kylie Minogue.
4. After we beat a team, we must pour billions of dollars into their athletic programs. The worse we beat them, the more money they get.
3. If France is losing a game, American athletes must enter the contest on the French side, allowing them to win. Afterwards, French athletes get to spit in their food and pretend they don't understand what they're saying.
2. Lobby the International Olympic committee to start awarding first place with 72 virgins instead of with a gold medal. Allahu Akbar!
1. Before each event, American athletes must consult with an international panel of coaches. Only after a multi-lateral strategic consensus is reached may they compete.
You're welcome, Mike.
|[Posted by james]|
I am disgusted by the latest edict handed down by US Olympic officials.
American athletes have been warned not to wave the U.S. flag during their medal celebrations at this summer's Olympic Games in Athens, for fear of provoking crowd hostility and harming the country's already-battered public image.
The spectacle of victorious athletes grabbing a national flag and parading it around the stadium is a familiar part of international sporting competition, but U.S. Olympic officials have ordered their 550-strong team to exercise restraint and avoid any jingoistic behavior.
"What I am telling the athletes is, 'Don't run over and grab a flag and take it round the track with you.' It's not business as usual for American athletes. If a Kenyan or a Russian grabs their national flag and runs round the track or holds it high over their heads, it might not be viewed as confrontational. Where we are in the world right now, an American athlete doing that might be viewed in another manner."
In other words, you should be ashamed of being an American. You should be ashamed of your country. If you show any pride in America or her countrymen, if you celebrate either of their accomplishements, you will be punished.
Hey, why don't we change the team uniforms, too - we should remove the red, white and blue so as to not offend anyone. A solid solemn black uniform should do the trick. While we're at it, I suppose that we should remove the US flag from the uniforms as well. Oh, and make sure that our athletes know that they should never, ever, win an event - if you're leeading an event, if you're even in the top 10, pull back! Let another country win! We don't want to incite the crowd! The world already hates America, let's not "rub it in!"
Uggh. I'm left speechless, my mouth gaping as I stare ahead in horror and disbelief.
What can it say. Let Freedom Ring.
May 15, 2004
Dummocrats admit that they would have a dream ticket if it consisted of Republicans
|[Posted by james]|
Ok, you might think that the headline is a joke : it isn't. Read this article in the NYT and tell me how it saying anything other than that.
- Some prominent Democrats are angling for McCain to run for vice president alongside Senator John Kerry
- This is all despite the fact that 'Mr. McCain said, "I have totally ruled it out."'
- "Senator McCain would not have to leave his party,"
- The only thing he would have to do is say, `I'm not going to appoint any judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade,'
- "It would be a dream team," (Democratic strategist) Mr. Lehane said.
So, let me get this straight - prominent Democrats are saying that (true) Republican John McCain, one of the most fiscally conservative voters in the Senate, would be their dream candidate as long as he pledged not to do one little thing? How is this any different from them saying "We would join the Republican Party if not for that sticky abortion issue?" How is this any different from saying "we would be a better party if we were more like the Republicans?"
Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist said such a ticket "would be the political equivalent of the Yankees signing A-Rod." "It would be a dream team," Mr. Lehane said.
This is a terrible analogy for a couple of reasons. First, does Mr. Lehane realize that A-Rod is the highest paid player on the Yankees? Sure, adding the best players in the league to any team team will make it better. This is like the bottom dwelling Washington Wizards saying "we'd be a dream team if we had Shaq and Kobe!" This is like the Chicago Bears saying "Man, we would be so awesome if we had Tom Brady, Marvin Harrison, and Ahman Green!"
You know who would make a great fighting team? Muhammad Ali and Smiley Parker. Who the hell is Smiley Parker, you ask? Does it matter?
You have a crappy team, Mr. Lehane - of course adding superstars from the other side is going to make it better.
Another thing wrong with the analogy is the team he chose to make it with. Does "political strategist" Lehane realize that outside of New York City, no one in the country cares about the Yankees? I'm not looking to start a flame war here, and I don't mean to offend any Yankees fans, but really - if you want to look "more in touch" with voters having zip codes that start with something other than a "1," you might try picking a team that has nationwide appeal. Honestly, picking a team that most of the country hates, and then analogizing your candidate to it, isn't the way to win votes
While some "prominent" dums are talking, it doesn't look like they're all ready to jump ship. Democrat strategist Donna Brazile correctly notes "McCain has not been pro-choice; he's not been out front on affirmative action. He's not been out front on core issues that have defined the Democratic Party."
Has the Democratic Party really moved so far to the left that they have alienated their own leadership?
Linda Ronstadt Weighs In on Election 2004
|[Posted by james]|
Thank the Lord, Linda Ronstadt has finally broken her silence. On Saturday, Linda Ronstadt, the highly acclaimed political maven, finally shared her opinion of the President with the with the anxiously awaiting masses of America.
I for one am happy as a clam. Finally, the protests can stop. Living here in the Capital of our great Republic, I was sadded to see the tens of thousands of lost souls wandering aimlessly on the Mall, many desolate and disheveled, with their enormous signs asking "What Would Linda Do?" Signs desperately pleading, "Linda, Please Guide Us!" "Linda, we need your help!" It brought tears to my eyes.
But now, the nation waits no longer. Linda has spoken.
God bless Linda Ronstadt, and God bless the United States of America.
Update: July 19, 2004 Linda has spoken, but the people are telling her to shut up!
Showing Their Colors
|[Posted by ]|
Madison, Wisconsin has one of the most beautiful Capitols in the country. Atop it sits the Miss Forward statute. She faces Washington, D.C., so it's nice to think that she may be watching over my partner on this site, jkhat, and making sure he has a steady supply of beer, brats & cheese. Other times, I think she's turning her back on the many, many, many Dummocrats who populate my city.
Every Saturday the grounds of the Capitol are taken over by farmers from all over the county and beyond. Thousands walk around buying veggies, cheese, herbs and more. Because of the crowds, the Farmer's Market has also become a haven for political activists. I expect that as my birthday (all I want is four more years and four more beers!) draws closer and closer, the scene will get more shrill, after all, this is liberal heaven. For now, however, it dispells the notion that Republicans are nasty "attack dogs" and liberals are their victims.
The booths for both the Democratic Party and Kerry for President have almost nothing to do with their candidates. They're not pro anything. They're anti-Bush and that's it. That's the only message they are getting out. Check out these pictures.
I heard a couple of gentlemen discussing the fact that there were no Bush supporters around. Now, that's the fault of the State & Dane County Republican Parties for not having their own booth, but I'd also like to think that Republicans have better things to do on a beautiful Saturday in May than sit by blow up dolls of John Kerry. They'll be there when it matters in the fall.
But, I do think that Bush supporters need to show their support more, especially in liberal cities like Madison. Pin a Bush button to your shirt. Wear an American flag pin. Show your colors. The opposition is surely showing their true colors.
May 14, 2004
Wisconsin and the 2004 election
|[Posted by james]|
There are three interesting things to point out about this article.
1. Congrats to President Bush on picking up an Honorary Doctorate of Laws. Well, there is really nothing to congratulate in that, I suppose. So, let me change that to "Congrats to Concordia University for having the good sense to award President Bush an honorary degree."
2. The President lost Wisconsin last time around by fewer than 6,000 votes. That means that if just one more person per ward in Wisconsin would have voted for President Bush, he'd have taken 11 more electoral votes. That's right, just one, single, solitary person per ward. Who out there doesn't know at least one person that isn't planning on voting because they think that their vote doesn't make a difference? If that person lives in Wisconsin, or any other of the other 17 "battleground states," they are sorely mistaken.
3. How do you like Mary Devitt of Glendale, WI? In the article, she is quoted as saying that she is out protesting because "she doesn't want her tax dollars to be used for a war she doesn't believe in." Well, Mary, I'm quite certain that I don't want my tax dollars being used to fund hundreds of the socialist programs that I'm sure you support. But do you see me out there marching around with a sign? No. If I made a sign and marched around bitching about every government program that I didn't support, I've have no time to eat, sleep, or work. Speaking of, what are you doing out marching around on a Friday afternoon, anyway? Don't you have a job?
John Kerry misses vote on unemployment. Bill fails to pass by one vote.
|[Posted by james]|
"The Senate on Tuesday rejected by a single vote Sen. Maria Cantwell's amendment to provide extended federal unemployment benefits to 47,000 Washington workers and more than 1 million others nationwide.
... The amendment required 60 votes to overcome objections ... the Republican-controlled Senate rejected it on a 59-40 vote.
... The only senator who missed the vote was Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts"
Hmm, you'd think that someone who has spent the last 5 months charging that the President has "turned his back on unemployed working families" would show up for a vote as monumental as this.
President Bush's campaign spokesman, Steve Schmidt, said, "Last month, John Kerry was pushing for the extension of unemployment benefits. Today, he had the chance to actually vote on that question, but was too busy playing politics when he would have made the difference in the Senate."
May 13, 2004
Liberal La-La Land
|[Posted by james]|
It's becoming tedious to update every time Air America has another failure or does something colossally stupid, but the latest out of Lib-fantasy world is just too stupendous to pass up:
"Air America has shut its sales offices in Los Angeles and Chicago and is recasting its business plan ... About 15 to 20 people were laid off in the closing of the sales offices ... Chairman Evan Cohen, Vice Chairman Rex Sorensen and Head of Programing David Logan have left while co-founder Mark Walsh has stepped down as chief executive ...
Sinton said the company had moved away from its original business model, which was to lease and totally control the radio stations in which its programing ran.
... Sinton said Air America has found success with traditional affiliate relationships, under which it provides about 20 hours of programing per day in many cases in exchange for the ability to sell a certain number of minutes per hour of advertising.
"The business model has changed with our on-air success. The fact that we are moving the needle so quickly with affiliates has surprised us and negated the need for us to control our own stations," Sinton said.
"We're always looking for new financing...."
"On air success?"
May 12, 2004
Eyes Wide Shut
|[Posted by ]|
I can't watch the video of Nick Berg being beheaded. I wouldn't have watched the video of Fabrizio Quattrocchi's killing even if his cowardly murderers had released it. On some level, I know that it's my duty to be a witness to this kind of depravity. It's hard to have the resolve necessary to defeat evil if you don't face it honestly. On the other hand, I've never once pretended that the monsters we face are anything but, well, monstrous. So, I'm taking a pass on this one.
But here's the thing. I think other people may need to see it. I don't mean this to sound hypocritical, but the people that are worried about global condemnation over America's actions in Iraq need a refresher course on what horrifying creatures we are trying to defeat. This isn't to diminish the actions in Abu Ghraib, but rather to not diminish the forces of evil against us. The men and women who tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib will be punished. That is what we do to people like that in America. The men who killed Nick Berg are celebrated in their culture. If we're lucky enough to find them and kill them they believe they'll be greatly rewarded in heaven. We can tell wrong from right. They can't.
CBS showed disturbing images from Abu Ghraib in the name of good journalism. They did not, however, show images of Nick Berg's murder. This type of media hypocriscy has been going on since the afternoon of September 11th. This hypocrisy means that our actions (and I mean our policies, not the actions of these morons in Abu Ghraib) are never put in their proper context. How can you understand the sheer ferocity we should fight the War on Terror with if the images from when it started have been supressed for two years in order to not enflame us? We're at war. And it's for a reason. A damn good one.
Listen Up: John McCain is a Republican (you fools)
|[Posted by james]|
The media loves to talk about the possibility of John McCain "becoming" a Dummocrat. It's one of the more ridiculous notions floating around, and is being pushed by people who either 1) know little about John McCain and politics in general or 2) those with a political agenda to confuse the voters. Much like Republican Ron Paul, John McCain is one of the most fiscally conservative voters in the entire Congress. He largely embodies the true, "core" principles of the Republican party, principles that are often forgotten in today's unfortunate world of soundbites and pandering for the centrist vote.
The name stems from the primetime cartoon "South Park" that clearly demonstrates the contrast within the party. The show is widely condemned by some moralists, including members of the Christian right. Yet in spite of its coarse language and base humor, the show persuasively communicates the Republican position on many issues, including hate crime legislation ("a savage hypocrisy"), radical environmentalism, and rampant litigation by ambitious trial lawyers.
South Park Republicans are true Republicans, though they do not look or act like Pat Robertson. They believe in liberty, not conformity. They can enjoy watching The Sopranos even if they are New Jersey Italians. They can appreciate the tight abs of Britney Spears or Brad Pitt without worrying about the nation's decaying moral fiber. They strongly believe in liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. However, they do not live by the edicts of political correctness.
In short, there is no way in hell that John McCain would have anything to do with a tax and spend liberal like John Kerry. Quoth McCain, November 2003: Congress spending money 'like a drunken sailor'. Let me tell you, if the body of Congress is a drunken sailor, then John Kerry is its proverbial Captain Joseph Hazelwood. Why on God's good earth would John McCain hop into bed with someone that spends like John Kerry?
He wouldn't. But the media has been using the philosophical differences between McCain and President Bush to confuse the voter. They're building on a general misconception that liberal = libertarian. It doesn't.
And it doesn't stop with the media - John Kerry is trying to do the same thing. A couple of months ago, Kerry made big news by announcing that he was considering John McCain as his vice presidential nominee. McCain lent the statement some credibility by not flat-out rejecting the notion as ridiculous, as he had always done in no uncertain terms in the past. His failure to do so that time sparked a lot of interest in the national media: "Is he considering changing parties?" they questioned.
Did they know what was really going on? Did they understand that McCain's failure to quash the notion right off the bat was a meant as a signal to the White House? McCain was saying "Hey Mr. President - you can't win this thing without me. You'd better start cutting back on your spending problem."
Soon after that incident, the White House unveiled a new plan for cutting back spending. Had the President heard McCain's message and acted on it? Certainly. Was John McCain satisfied with the result? Only John McCain can answer that question, but my guess is no. My guess is that McCain is looking for a position of influence in the Republican party. Time will tell if that happens.
In the meantime, John Kerry continues to exploit his friendship with McCain and McCain's drive for power within the party for political gain. Knowing full well that he can't continue to point to McCain as his likely VP nominee after he actually names another nominee (and why hasn't he done that yet, btw?), Kerry has taken to hinting that he would appoint McCain as Secretary of Defense. Not a bad move to hop up a few points in the polls now, since it capitalizes on the hot political issue of the day, namely the Iraq prisoner abuse issue. The move is an attempt to attract "middle of the road" voters that trust John McCain. It has the benefit of sending a message "it's not about Republican or dummocrats, it's about all of us, in a bi-partisan effort, to remove the President," which is message that the Kerry campaign has been desperately trying to send.
But make no mistake, not only would McCain never be appointed to such a position, he'd never accept it if asked. Libertarians are not Liberals. John McCain is no Liberal. John Kerry understands this all too well, but he also understands that McCain is in a battle for control of the Republican Party, and because of that, likely won't flat out reject the notion.
That the average middle of the road voter doesn't understand what's really going on is unfortunate. But, fortunately for President Bush, what that voter does understand is "straight talk," and we all know that McCain is the master of that. All McCain has to do is make the statement "I would have nothing to do with a Kerry Administration" and those voters are gone. I wonder how much of his race John Kerry will hang on the McCain assocation?
Indeed it is. As Senator George Allen points out: it's quite a gambit.
|[Posted by james]|
National Review has a good article outlining the abomination that is the 17th Amendment. (via Boots and Sabers) I've been a supporter of repealing the 17th for years, and it's nice to see that some action is finally being taken on the matter. There is a wealth of information available on repealing the 17th, and I'd encourage every thinking person to read it.
Air America losing ad dollars with disgusting content
|[Posted by james]|
As if liberal radio upstart Air America didn't already have enough problems paying their bills (see here and here), they're now finally starting to lose advertisers as well. I admit, they have managed to stay on the air longer than I would have guessed. But judging from their vile and downright treasonous content, I don't expect them to last much longer. Check out this excerpt from a piece in today's NY daily news.
The queen of venom, Randi Rhodes, followed Franken in the host slot. Her imitation of a cracker military type telling a soldier to "insert this fluorescent light bulb into that man's buttocks" was revolting. She compared U.S. prisons in Iraq to the "Nazi gulag" and said, "The day I say thank you to Rumsfeld is the same day I'll say thank you to the 12 people who raped me."
Rock bottom came when she compared Bush and his family to the Corleones in the "Godfather" saga. "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw," she said, imitating the sound of gunfire.
During a day of torture by radio, I heard ads for Hewlett-Packard, Greyhound and, especially, General Motors. I asked GM why it appeared in such shows.
Ryndee Carney, GM's manager of marketing communications, said the ads were wrongly picked up from an earlier deal with WLIB. She said the station was ordered to "cease and desist" yesterday, and added: "GM will not advertise on any Air America affiliates."
Wow - the day she thanks Rummy will be the day she thanks "the 12 men who raped her?" I wonder if she feels the same way about Douglas MacArthur, Abe Lincoln, or even George Washington? And what is this about saying that the president should be killed? I don't care what side of the political divide you fall on, that is always inappropriate, and, in my opinion, unpatriotic and downright treasonous. Libs are always complaining that people are unfairly labelling them as "unpatriotic" because they choose not to support the war in Iraq. No, I respond - you're being labelled as unpatriotic because of statements like these.
I don't listen to Air America - the so called "nationwide" network doesn't even broadcast in Washington, DC. Go figure. But with them making comments like those excerpted above, I think that it's time to act. If anyone knows of companies that advertise on Air America, let me know. Either send an email or post in the comments section. I'll maintain a list, and hopefully a boycott will help us get this gross spectacle off the air sooner rather than later.
May 11, 2004
|[Posted by ]|
1. These people are the monsters & pyschopaths.
2. The Islamofascist monsters are clearly playing to the media here knowing full well that with the media's anti-Bush lust they will play along? These Islamofascist monsters didn't kill this man to protest prison conditions or false arrests (and even if they did, that's no excuse). They did it because they are monsters. Pure and simple.
3. Finally, I wonder if the media will examine why there are Islamofascist terrorists in Iraq? Might they examine if there's a link between Iraq and terrorists groups? Of course not.
If you're a Type A conservative, tonight will not be a good night to watch the news. Tomorrow won't be a good day to read the paper.
More Fun at the Communist Times
|[Posted by ]|
Today's Communist Times (Madison, WI) calls for Donald Rumsfield to resign. But not because he alone is to blame for the prisoner abuse scandal (oh no, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz...you know, the usual suspects are too), but because he's the only smart one in the bunch.
The author, John Nichols, says:
Unlike the rest, Rumsfeld has some history of actually thinking for himself.
Unlike Bush, Cheney and the rest, Rumsfeld excelled as a student, served honorably in the military, got himself elected to Congress by age 30 and then worked creatively - and without indictments - for a succession of Republican presidents. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with most of the policies that Rumsfeld pushed along the way, and with many of his decisions about who to work with.
I'm so sick of the liberal media painting Bush as some kind of idiot savant. The man holds degrees from both Harvard & Yale. Now, I'm the first person to argue against the preciousness of Ivy League degrees, but complete idiots generally don't graduate from both of the most prestigious colleges in the country.
The article just gets worse and worse:
Let's face it, Bush is the same disengaged, unprepared princeling that he was when the Supreme Court handed him the presidency.
Let's face it, John. Bush won. HE WON. Na na na na. He whumped your boy Gore in Florida. When the votes were all counted by independent news sources later in 2001, he won. HE WON!!! He was elected legitimately and all the screaming and crying and whining from the left can't change that fact.
Let's face it, John. Bush began his term with a crumbling economy waking up from the Clinton/internet fantasy years. Add onto to that the economic turmoil of 9/11. Now, nearly all economic indicators are moving in the right direction. It's not the mysterious business cycle that did this. It's the policies implemented by our supposedly disengaged, idiot savant of a President. He drastically cut taxes and supported the Federal Reserve in lowering interest rates to jump start the economy.
Finally, John, it's time to face the fact that this "disengaged" President has defeated the Taliban, liberated Iraq, declawed Libya, scattered terrorist organizations around the world, prevented any terrorist attacks in America since 9/11, helped maintain peace between Pakistan & India, continued to contain North Korea and etc., etc., etc.
But, silly me. Why would John and others like him actually face the facts when they can have so much more fun simply calling Bush names? Of course, it's hard to believe they have time to even deal with the "princeling" what with all the hand wringing over the treatment of poor Saddam Hussein and other Islamofascist monsters.
My favorite part of this is the title of the article: "Rumsfield shoud quit a sinking ship". Isn't that a perfect illustration of Dummocrat philosophy? Why show integrity and courage when things get rough when you can just quit? Why take the blame when you can pass the buck?
May 10, 2004
Numbers don't lie, the media does
|[Posted by james]|
It's true, the numbers don't lie. But that's only true if you actually have all of the numbers. My previous post about the 2,000 mom march reminded me of something - protests, gatherings, kibbutzings, whatever, here in DC usually aren't that well attended. Often times, the media doesn't tell you that.
What the media reports is the number of people "estimated" to show up, before the fact. Take the recent WTO 'protests' for instance - the week leading up to them, national news outlets were reporting that 20,000 protesters were "expected" to show up. DC shut down many streets in preparation for the march, and they had riot police all over the place. Guess how many people showed up? According to the Post, it was around 2,000. By my own estimate, though, I'd put the number at less than 1,000. (No, I wasn't down there demonstrating with these goofballs, but I did happen to jog past a couple of their so-called "events.") The problem is that the national media rarely reports turnout numbers after the fact. I dont know if it's an intentional omission on their part or if it's simply that "poor turnout" isn't newsworthy enough to make the cycle, but either way, the result is that the nation is left with a distorted impression of the actual turnout.
Sometimes, I think that the media does purposely mislead as to the size of a particular demonstration. I'm reminded of an anti-Iraq-war demonstration that happened sometime in the past year - before the fact, the media was reporting that tens of thousands of people would be in attendance. But only about 400 people showed up for that one. Did the media report the low turnout? No. And it wasn't because it simply wasn't newsworthy - national media outlets ran stories after the event, saying things like "the crowd marched to the White House to demand so-and-so," but they never mentioned a number. You can be sure that if the turnout was large that they'd sure as heck give you an estimate of the number of people. The worst part is that some papers carried pictures of the 400 protestors, and they were all carefully framed such that it looked like a large protest.
Because of my own first-hand observations, I'm very skeptical of any media coverage of demonstrations, especially those overseas. Every once in a while you'll see a story such as "Italians turn out en masse to show their hatred for President Bush." When you do, take a closer look - is there an aerial shot of the demonstration? Or is the photographer carefully choosing his shots so as to misrepresent the event in order to push a particular political agenda?
(also at inthehat)
A voice from the front
|[Posted by james]|
From today's issue of The Federalist:
"I am now officially sick-and-tired of the self-serving and largely uninformed hand-wringing about the goings on at Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad. As someone who has actually been on the grounds of Abu Ghraib prison, let me explain a few things. First of all, there is no excuse for what a few soldiers did; but there is also no reason to make this into the moral equivalent of the Black Plague. It should be pointed out that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are not Boy Scouts rounded up for jaywalking. These are bad guys who either blew up or shot a coalition member; or were caught assembling an explosive device; or were caught in a place where the makings of explosive devices were found; or were caught with a cache of weapons. See the pattern here? In short they were trying to kill me and others like me. And if they succeeded in doing that, they were going to come over there and try to kill you. ... The Roar du Jour from those who want to get into this story by beating their chests over how terrible it all is, keep telling us that this has damaged American credibility in the Middle East. Let's look at that. First, lots of Arabs don't like us in the first place. Those Arabs will not like us any less for this incident. That dislike has nothing to do with our cultural insensitivities. It has to do with America's refusal to allow those same Arabs, many of whom have been bankrolling the Palestinian terrorists for decades, to wipe the State of Israel off the face of the Earth they way they have wiped it off the face of their maps. Second, those who claim that the Abu Ghraib situation will poison the well of American goodwill for decades, are really the ones who are under rating Arabs. They have to believe that all Arabs will assign the actions of perhaps a couple of dozen soldiers to the 280 million Americans who have pledged to help the Iraqis attain security, independence, and prosperity. Those making that claim must, therefore, believe that all Arabs have the intellectual capacity of a frog (a real frog, not a French person) and the emotional development of a three-year-old (a real three-year-old, not a French person). Finally, our friends on the Left are so very, very concerned about how foreigners (read, Europeans) will see us. I don't care what the French, the Germans, or the Spaniards think about us. The French and the Germans are up to their elbows in the fraud and theft of billions of dollars in what is called the Oil-for-Food Program but which was really the Oil-for-Palaces Program. ... The actions of a few soldiers in Abu Ghraib were wrong. But we cannot allow the spotlight currently shining on them to cast a shadow over the other 135,000 soldiers who are in Iraq doing their jobs professionally, properly, and with honor."
--Friend of The Federalist Rich Galen from the front
Million Mom March turns up 998,000 moms short
|[Posted by james]|
It seems that only around 2,000 people showed up for this past weekend's "million mom march," a demonstration purportedly aimed at urging the renewal of a federal ban on assault weapons. It would be foolish to think that this group is so limited in their activism - a quick look at their webpage reveals that they're really about banning alll guns.
"Posted by Connie (FL): How many people must die before the distribution of guns is brought under control? "
Posted by Kay (0):
"Why I march. Because we are victims of a minority of the society that has confused a questionable right of every individual to own a gun with the right of all citizens to live, work or attend school without fear of gun violence"
Let me just say up front that I think it's really funny when people who have no idea what they're talking about start making constitutional arguments. Let's take a look at the two "rights" cited by Kay: 1) the right to bear arms. enumerated. 2nd amendment. 2) the "right to live, work, or attend school without fear of gun violence." This one isn't in the constitution, Kay. It's not an enumerated right, Kay. So, right off the bat, you called the wrong one "questionable."
I suppose that one could come up with a crafty argument to hang a general "right to not be exposed to violence" on the 4th or 9th amendments, or maybe on the Due Process Clause of the 5th. But that's beside the point. What strikes me as particularly ridiculous about Kay's statement is that she is alleging that she has a right to not be afraid.
I can't believe that there is an affirmative duty to prevent people from bein scared. Fear is a very subjective thing, and it's often perceived where there is no actual danger. For instance, Kay here would probably be afraid to walk down 14th Street alone, but I'm not afraid to do the same. Have Kay's rights been infringed upon simply because she is afraid? No, not at all.
I don't know much about this assault weapons ban, but from the article I gathered that it is set to expire in September. If it does expire, and if the "violence rate" remains unchanged, will Kay concede that the ban accomplished nothing at all? Probably not. People like Kay never admit when they're wrong.
May 09, 2004
Rather be Elsewhere
|[Posted by james]|
Games People Play
|[Posted by ]|
Is football a conservative or liberal sport? What about golf? Or baseball? What games do the Nader Greens play? And what about those wacky Libertarians? Can you discover your own political philosophy through your favorite pastime?
College Football: it's the one major sport that resists a playoff. Oh sure, they crown a national champion, but unlike most leagues, in which only one team ends the season on a winning note, dozens of college football teams do. More teams share in the winning. Everyone is happy and the seasons end in picture perfect Bowl extravaganzas. What a utopian vision. Clearly, college football is a socialist game.
NFL Football: it pains me to say this, but the NFL is Communist. What else can you call revenue sharing? Win or lose, your spending is capped. As in Communist societies, the overall quality of the product declines. The NFL's overly zealous crackdown on celebrations also smacks of Communist-style oppression.
Baseball like the fields it's played on, is a sport the Greens can love. Baseball, like Green advocates, is resistant to change. Progress is seen in terms of potential damage rather than the potential benefits. Baseball is also in love with its own traditions and memories. Hmm, sounds like the way the far left feels about the 60s.
Hockey: in spite of its Canadian roots, hockey is a modern Republican sport. Hockey, like Republicans, understands that a show of strength is necessary to maintain the peace. That's why most Stanley Cup winners feature a goon or two and why most Republican Presidents stump for a strong military.
Golf: it's the game of choice for the Christian right. The rather shameless history of exclusion is one obvious similarity. Professional golf rules are rigid: no carts, no shorts, no super jacked up clubs. The rules of the Christian right are also rather rigid. It's all about these preset rules used to guide the individual in their quest for par or eternal salvation.
Horse Racing is definitely the sport for Libertarians. Each state makes it own thoroughbred racing regulations. There's no national authority. There are no spending caps or player contracts to negotiate. The owners and trainers are their own bosses and make their own rules.
What about Dummocrats? Figure Skating is the sport for them. No other sport rewards style over substance better than figure skating. No other sport depends almost exclusively on the judgement of supposedly impartial international institutions. If only there had been some kind of big scandal in the last couple of years involving the French or something. Then it'd be perfect.
(Originally posted on In The Hat)
I am so very sorry
|[Posted by james]|
Last Friday, Outside the Beltway had one of the funniest posts that I've seen in weeks.
Apparently, I missed the memo that everyone is supposed to apologize for semi-random events for which they have no control. My bad.
I, too, apologize for the Reserve MPs who were mean to prisoners in Iraq. Sure, I’ve been out of the Army for twelve years now, but I once wore the same uniform as those guys and was also in Iraq for several months. I also drove past several Iraqi prisoners on more than one occasion without stopping to share my MREs with them (I’d have gladly donated my oatmeal cookie bar). Perhaps if I’d set a better example then, BG Karpinski would have been a better commander and I’d have conveyed to future generations of soldiers that we should be nice to Iraqi prisoners rather than making fun of their wee-wees and otherwise abusing them.
I’m very sorry that I didn’t see the 9/11 attacks coming and did nothing to prevent them. To the families who lost people that day, I failed you. Had I only been endowed with omniscence and omnipotence, rest assured that I’d have stopped the attacks rather than teaching at a mediocre college in South Alabama that day.
Also, while these events were before my time, I feel really bad about the My Lai massacre, Jim Crow laws, the Holocaust, slavery, killing all those Indians and stealing their land, and the Spanish Inquisition. If there’s anything else you’re feeling bad about, I apologize for that, too. And if this apology offended you in any way, you have my apologies.
I, too, would like to apologize. First, I apologize for not linking to this story earlier. And now that I have linked to the story, I apologize if my linking to it offends any of you. I also apologize for sleeping in today. If I had just gotten up earlier, I may have been able to make a difference in someone's life. Maybe I could have kicked off a few emails to the servicemen in Iraq and asked them to stop abusing prisoners. At the very least, maybe the 10 seconds that they would have spent reading it would have saved a prisoner from 10 seconds of abuse. It's all my fault. Indeed, my want for sleep was selfishly motivated - I admit, I was tired, but I was wrong to not think about all of the poor tired people around the world that aren't fortunate enough to get to "sleep." I am very sorry. I take full responsibility. You'll have my resignation on your desk by morning.
Be sure to click over to OTB and read some of the follow-ups. Especially funny are the posts that just don't "get it."
|[Posted by james]|
According to a 1996 CNN news story, a 5.6% unemployment rate is "low." But to hear the media cite 5.6 today, you'd think that we were in the middle of the second great depression. This little discrepancy made its way around the blogging world a couple of months ago, but I'm mentioning it again because it's important that we not forget the bias in the media and how it feeds the idiocy of so many uneducated Americans.
From the Mouths of Waitresses
|[Posted by ]|
Why cover the President of the United States when you can talk to waitresses in a coffee shop in Prairie du Chien? Clearly, you shouldn't. At least not if you're a reporter for Madison's Communist Times. Let's read some of the wisdom of the locals:
"Let's face it: This is a poor community, and he's basically for the corporations," said Theresa Thiede, a waitress. "The rich get richer and we get poorer."
At the restaurant, waitress Kim Sepe said she believes Bush is trying to do a good job on the economy. "It's a lot to handle, and after all, he's only one guy," she said.
But she was skeptical about the president's claims that there are more jobs now and that his tax cuts have helped fuel an economic turnaround. She complained that whatever gains there have been have been swallowed up by rising prices, "especially now that gas is $1.95 a gallon."
I mean really, why do we need economic indicators when we can rely on Prairie du Chien waitresses to monitor the economy for us?
The story does have a happy ending though (and clear proof that at least one of these waitresses is a Dummocrat):
Yet for all their discontent about Bush, there was even less enthusiasm among the staff at the Hungry House Cafe for Bush's Democratic opponent, John Kerry. "I haven't seen anything that impresses me about him," Lenzendorf said.
Asked what she'd do if forced to choose between Bush and Kerry, she responded, "I might just stay home, which is terrible to say. But I don't know. I just don't know."
That's right honey. Piss & moan about the state of the country but then don't actually get off your ass for 20 minutes to go vote to do something about it.
May 08, 2004
Fast beat the feet, fast fall the hands
|[Posted by james]|
"One City, Many Visions, One Goal"
OK, first off, what retard designed this page? More importantly, what retarded manager signed off on it? Honestly, what happened? Were the brass at madison newspapers sitting around and saying "you know, comrade, we just don't have enough stalinst looking pages. can we get more red in there, maybe some black, too? oh yeah, that looks good. how about a commie lookin font and a few statist looking stars? can we get that? we can? oh, sweet! but, wait, the actual logo still doesn't look commie enough? what can we do with that? oh, sweet! the "o' is now a star! so sweet!!!"
Enter, the slogan. "One City, Many Visions, One Goal"
What the hell is that?!
First, that is the stupidest slogan that I've heard. I find it self defeating. I will concede that there is just one city. But- if there is only one goal, then why are there so many visions? Do all of the visions necessarily envision the same goal? If so, that must be a pretty poorly conceived goal. Or, at the very least, you would think that it would say "one vision," not "many visions." Or is there only one 'real" goal in the newspapers' mind? And whose goal is it? Retarded.
Next, did the author come up with it after reading mein kampf? Who picks a slogan like that?
Not to mention that these retards want to make sure that people turn out at the "poles." tell me, guys, which "pole," north or south?.
Schwarzenegger by 8,000 and one-fourth
|[Posted by james]|
Wow, what won't dummocrats do to get votes? Next up, they'll be trying to give hamsters the vote.
For Love or Country
|[Posted by ]|
From the LA Times:
A 72-year streak links the victory or defeat of the Washington Redskins on the eve of election day with the presidential race. If the Redskins go down to defeat or tie, the sitting president's party loses the White House.
So, who do the Redskins play just before the election? You guessed it: my beloved Green Bay Packers.
"Like President Bush, the Packers have a record of being strong on defense," Bush campaign regional secretary Merrill Hughes Smith told the Green Bay Press-Gazette. "Thank goodness Joe Gibbs is back!"
The Redskins' performance has aligned with the presidential outcome in the last 18 elections — a probability of 1 in 263.5 million, according to Dave Dolan, an assistant professor of statistics at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.
I love the Packers, but I love my country more. I guess I'd trade four more years for one Packers loss. But, the Vikings better lose that day too.
May 07, 2004
Bush projected to win the second largest landslide in presidential history?
|[Posted by james]|
In a Yale University economic election prediction model, George W. Bush is projected to win 60.42% of the two-party popular vote. ( Thanks to Ace of Spades for the pointer. )
"If both of these quarters are counted as good news quarters, the vote prediction rises from 58.74 percent to 60.42 percent, since each good news quarter contributes 0.837 percentage points to the vote prediction."
I know that this projection only includes the "two-party" vote, but 60% is huge. Richard Nixon is credited with winning the highest percentage of the popular vote in American presidential history when he took 60.7% of the vote in 1972. ( some critics have pointed out, "but he cheated!" fair point. :-)
Look What the Marketing Geniuses Came Up With This Time (Dummocrats aren't the only stupid ones).
|[Posted by ]|
The Bush campaign is spending money left & right. Last night ads were on the Friends finale. Other ads have aired during American Idol and the Kentucky Derby. That's all well and good that the campaign is trying to reach the mass audience. What I take issue with is the choice of message.
I loved the first series of Bush/Cheney ads. They were poignant and positive and evoked the feeling of Ronald Reagan's classic "It's Morning in America" spots.
Appropriately, the campaign followed up with another series depicting John F. Kerry as the harbinger of "sunset in America". The ads clearly had the desired effect as Kerry has, despite some bad news in Iraq, continued to plummit in Iraq.
But, I think it's time to change the tone of the ads again (actually, it's past time). After a certain point, the attack ads start to sound nasty and it plays into all the media noise about "nasty, dirty Republicans". And, as sick as we are of hearing about Vietnam, imagine if we have to start hearing about Willie Horton.
The economy is humming along and that's the positive message that should now go out to voters. The campaign should follow this path:
1. Justify the War of Terror.
2. Frame the President as the "steady hand" we need to fight it.
3. Portray Kerry as a lefty pinko punk
4. Talk up the positive aspects of the recovering economy.
5. Portray Kerry as a tax & spend liberal
And that's pretty much it folks. Stick to those five things and Bush will probably win again.
Air America Grounded?
|[Posted by james]|
Drudge is reporting that there is more trouble at Air "America" :
PAPER: 'AIR AMERICA' MISSES PAYROLL; MORE TURBULENCE AT LIB TALK NET
Thu May 06 2004 23:59:55 ET
In yet another sign of trouble for Air America Radio, the liberal talk network entering its fifth chaotic week on the air, co-founder and chairman Evan Cohen resigned Thursday, as did vice-chairman and investor Rex Sorensen.
The CHICAGO TRIBUNE is planning to report in fresh editions: The company also failed to make its scheduled payroll, leaving its staff roughly 100 radio personalities, writers, and producers unpaid until Thursday.
The departures of Cohen, a former political operative from Guam who was among the network's initial investors, and Sorenson, an investor who owns radio stations in Guam, mark the second executive shake-up at the fledgling network in as many weeks.