I've been busy all day (and I mean busy, from 5:30am on), so I totally zoned out about the New Hampshire primary.

I just checked out CNN, and -big surprise- Kerry came out on top with 39% of the vote. Dean was #2 at 26%, with Clark and Edwards at a misirable 12% each.

Now, here's the wierd thing; according to CNN, Dean is in the lead on the number of delegates.

Apparently the good doctor has been picking up the odd unpledged delegate here and there, so he's still on top of Kerry* 113 to 94 right now.

This is almost as much fun as Fantasy Football!

*Yes, that is a scary mental picture for me, too.

Is the president rethinking his campaign strategies? Perhaps:

ScrappleFace: Bush Turns to Clinton for Election Advice

The United States, in cooperation with coalition forces, announced that the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) is now considered a terrorist organization, along with any affiliated organizations.

If you haven't heard of them, the PKK is a Kurdish separatist group that has fought with Turkish forces in the past, as well as being responsible for attacks in Turkey.

I'm sure the Turks feel better, now.

And only Ariel Sharon can evacuate Jewish Setttements in Gaza.

Apparently Prime Minster Sharon is serious about removing the settlements, even if his timeline isn't very specific at the moment.

Before the critics start flailing away, I would like to point out that even this much shows terrific courage on Sharon's part.: 'A Gaza settler spokesman called Sharon's comments "miserable" and vowed that the nationalist camp would work "to cut short Sharon's term as prime minister through legal means."' (from the Reuters article)

Everyone knows that the Israel/Palestine problem is nearly impossible to solve; the problem is that both sides have something they don't want to give up. The coservative Israelis want to keep the settlements; the Pals want to keep killing Jews.

The good thing for Israel is that giving up the settlements -as long as they keep building the Security Wall- is to their long-term benefit. Even if the Pals don't give up their murderous agenda, all Israel has to do is shoot every SOB that tries to cross the wall. The sections they have up have already dramatically reduced the number of terrorist attacks, as well as casualties.

Once the wall is done, they can hand Gaza and the West Bank over to the Palestine Authority, and let the newly-minted citizens of that country support themselves.

They want freedom? Then give it to them, good and hard.

Now this is interesting; over half a million Syrians have signed a petition that is scheduled to be presented to Syrian authorities on March 8.

"Some 600,000 citizens, including intellectuals, lawyers and human rights activists, have already signed the document, the Committees for the Defense of Democratic Liberties and Human Rights in Syria said.

The group said it hoped for a million signatures by March. Syria has a population of around 18 million. "

But this has nothing to do with the Iraq invasion. Not a bit.

Purely coincidence, I'm sure.

Heh.

Any party that reigns unchallenged for a long period of time tends to become corrupt. Acton once said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Analog editor John Campbell once said that he would change that to "unchallenged power corrupts absolutely." I think that this is largely true.

Recall that for at least a generation after the Civil War, the GOP reigned supreme over the United States, damn near literally. A single act sufficed, generally, to quell any possible Democrat upstart: waving the bloody shirt; a phrase introduced at this time by actually waving a bloody, torn shirt supposedly taken off of the body of a man flogged by unreconstructed Rebels in the South.

Rosemary Esmay (AKA Queen of all Evil) has Laid Down the Law:
"I have had it with the hurling of criminal accusations at the President of the United States. Or anyone else for that matter.

Being AWOL, a rapist, a deserter, a murderer are crimes. From now on, this is a conspiracy free zone."

Amen, Your Majesty!

Please note that Rose is not excepting Democratic/liberals with this: anyone coming up with the latest version of the "Vince Foster conspiracy" will get short shrift as well.

This is as it should be. I strongly lean towards Bush these days, but we -as citizens- should handle our obligation to select representatives in a responsible manner.

Even if Bush looks like Curious George, and Kerry is Botoxulon.

(By the way, Rose, have I told you lately how damned sexy you look, when you get mad? Heh)

Ara over at E Pluribus Unum sez (if I understand him) that the big money always wins in elections.

In fact, he even did a little thought experiment:

Imagine that we're running for the Senate from Iowa. Imagine that Dick Morris is your senior campaign consultant if you like. [shiver]

So, which one do you choose?

I'd say that's not the point. To quote Sun-Tzu: "A lion will attack an ant with all of his power." In other words, it's human nature to take the $5 million, no matter whether it affects the election or not.

But that's not the real point. The real point is that Howard "I have a Scream" Dean spent upwards of $60 million up until the Iowa caucus (with Iowa getting a lions' share), but Kerry still beat him like a red-headed stepchild in K-Mart in every state.

Now, what was that about big money again? Heh.

Y'know, it used to be so simple when I was a kid. If someone pushed you, you pushed back. If they took a swing at you, you had the right to fight back.

The new, modern solution is "Zero tolerance." NO fighting. Like mom use to say "I don't care who started it, you're both in trouble!" Ok, fine. So when someone (oh, say) verbally and physically bullies a girl, she reports the thugs to the school, and justice prevails, no?

Um, no. At least not here in Butler County, right down the road from where I live. Alicia Kinsey did the Right Thing: complained about harassment by four other girls. A foot in the back of the neck, in fact.

Talawanda Middle School Counselor Sandy Greenberg brought three of the four girls to her office and left them alone to write down what happened. All three claimed that Ms. Kinsey threatened one of them with a knife the day before, even though they couldn't get their story straight. The girls couldn't agree whether Alicia threatened to stab or kill the other girl. The fourth girl was questioned separately later that day. She named the wrong girl as the target of the threat. Later one of the original three recanted; she wasn't even on the bus that day.

So far the case sounds pretty far-fetched and thin against Ms. Kinsey, no? Again, no.

Greenberg reported all this to Vice Principal Chris Rhoton, who talked to Alicia the following day. The result: he had Alicia questioned by a police officer, charged with criminal menacing, then expelled.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

Get the full story at Zero Intelligence, a website dedicated to "Fighting School Board Tyranny/Inanity." It's a great place.

Generally, Ara and I have disagreed just a tad on the '04 elections. :)

But I'm with him 100% on this:

"...the Spanish people overthrew the incumbent ruling party in reaction to this terror attack.

Bottom line? If, God forbid, the same thing happened here three days before the election, regardless of who was ahead or behind, I would hope that the people of the US would not lose their resolve. If we do, the terrorists win. "

Amen.

I want to take a moment to point out (and many liberal/Democrats may find this hard to believe) that quite a few conservative/Republicans oppose Kerry not just because he's a Democrat, but that they think he'll revert to a "talk about it, don't do anything" policy like the one that gave us a bombed-out asperin factory in Sudan and "Blackhawk Down" in Somalia, but not much else.

Before anyone pops a rivet, I'll admit that things are different, now. Even Slick Willie might have pursued a more "warhawk"-like foreign policy after 9/11, and many intelligent commentators believe that Gore would have at least executed something similar to Bush's Afghanistan operation.

But, many observers hear what Kerry is saying, and interpret it to mean that he really will return to policy that views terrorism more as a police-enforcement matter, than a military one. In other words: have a lot of conferences, publish press releases, but don't spend any blood or treasure defending our society.

If Kerry is elected, I hope he doesn't follow that path. And if he does choose the path of courage and righteousness, I'll be behind him 100% as well. As Churchill once said: "God willing, we can do no other."

Or cite another Churchill quote, especially the first line:

In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will

I generally manage to keep up on this stuff, but Dean caught me on the hop with this one.

Or, you can go directly to the source he links to here:

"03/13/2004: Rebellion in Northern Iran
Project FREE IRAN has several pictures similar to this of an ongoing rebellion in Northern Iran in a place called Fereydunkenar, which I would imagine few of us have ever heard of. Street battles have occurred and, according to the site, several protestors killed by "security forces." Project FREE IRAN is worth bookmarking because this struggle is certain to continue and our media have little access, even if they wanted it. (hat tip: Larry)"

But that's not all! Just a few hours ago I found this link over at The Corner on NRO:
SYRIAN RIOTING

"Public buildings still burned Sunday in the northern Syrian city of Qameshli following riots in which at least 14 Kurds were reported killed in clashes with security forces, an AFP reporter saw. Syrian authorities swiftly cracked down on the unrest over the weekend, branding it an attempt to destabilise the country as Washington prepares to impose economic sanctions on Damascus."

"At this moment, Qamishli and four other Western Kurdish cities are under siege by the Syrian military. Tanks and helicopters surround the cities. Syrian soldiers and Arab militias on patrol shoot indiscriminately into the streets. Communication with the outside world has been cut off. Mobile phone contacts report over 50 people killed and hundreds injured by this callous act."

"US forces now in Syria (emphasis added: Casey)

"Analysis: this highlights some key points that will be discussed later. First, the signs of concrete American involvement have come to light. American personnel and helicopters landing in northern Syria, no matter who they are or why, is big news. Assad's dispatch of his brother (Defense Minister) to speak with Kurdish leaders is also a major turning point; signs that the Syrian military can't control the situation? Or simply fear international backlash by making any critical moves?"

Things are heating up over there! And (as Dean pointed out) as of 3/15, 10:45 p.m. Eastern time, CNN still doesn't have a clue on their website.

UPDATE (March 19): the UK's Telegraph is now reporting on the rioting in Syria.

Yesterday, Dean Esmay linked to a story about ongoing rebellion in Iran.

Michelle over at A Small Victory followed up on that tonight.

It's pretty darn clear that something is going on over there (see my post here about Syria), so you would think that the major services would have reported something about by now, wouldn't you?

Not to worry, CNN is on the job!

"Iranians celebrate fire festival
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Posted: 6:37 PM EST (2337 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iranians danced in the street, threw firecrackers and jumped over bonfires Tuesday night as authorities openly tolerated an ancient fire festival for the first time in 25 years."

Oh, I see! It's just a New Year's Eve celebration, not a rebellion against a vicious theocracy. I feel much better, now.

It's a good thing that CNN is there to provide us with 24/7, honest, and unbiased reporting.

Just like they did in Iraq...

UPDATE (March 19): the UK's Telegraph is now reporting on the rioting in Syria.

Ken Jacobson, over at Esoteric Diatribe had a good (and funny) idea.

Why not google-bomb Kerry with the word waffles the same way some squishy lib'rls did with the miserable failure thing?

A good idea, sez I! I think it would be funny to link Kerry with the word waffles. After all, waffles are square like Kerry, waffles are flat, like Kerry's delivery, and waffles are toasted, just like Kerry will be in November.

Of course, I'm excited, because I like to eat waffles in the morning.

Blueberry.

So I encourage everyone to mention waffles on their website, tell their friends to mention waffles as well, and maybe we'll get waffles up to #1 on Google.

On a (barely) more serious note, if you want to keep the rating from being degraded by the search engine, and your blog 'ware will let you, just post-date the article discussing waffles so that it stays on your main page. This makes it count more.

Or you can do what I did, and put a waffles link on your sidebar.

Happy waffles-ing, everyone!

UPDATE: Ken has told me that we're bombing waffles, not waffle. Whoopsie. All fixed, now!

As Jerry Pournelle observed when someone sent him this article.

"As I understand it, the original Social Security Act promised that the Social Security Number would never become a national ID number, nor SS Number be used for identification. So it goes."

But, but, I thought that we could trust the government! Yeah.

This is exactly why I am generally opposed to government intervention into sociey. No matter how well-intentioned a program starts out, it spawns ugly unintended consequences, becomes a political football, or both.

How do you think that poor guy who's Social Security number was hijacked by terrorists feels?

Looks like Michele has hit the big time; she's been linked by The Corner. Her work covering Rall & Wright (maybe they can go on the road as a hate act) has been excellent.

I just have to say: you go, girl! Keep the fires burning.

Could it be?? Is this true??

'Federal Deficit Likely to Narrow by $100 Billion
Tax Receipts Pare Borrowing

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page E01

Smaller-than-expected tax refunds and rising individual tax receipts will pare back federal borrowing significantly for the first half of this year and could reduce the $521 billion deficit projected for the fiscal year by as much as $100 billion, Treasury and congressional budget officials said yesterday. '

(snip)

'G. William Hoagland, a senior economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said he dashed off a memo to GOP leadership predicting the 2004 deficit could be trimmed to $420 billion, a record in dollar terms but considerably lower than the White House's $521 billion projection.'

But still...

'Democratic and Republican budget aides in the House warned yesterday that it was too early to reach conclusions. Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq. The improving federal borrowing picture, they said, may just be bringing the administration's $521 billion deficit forecast more into line with the $477 billion deficit predicted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official budget scorekeeper.'

I imagine that Terry McAuliffe is investing a lot of money in Pepto-Bismol right now. Heh.

If you have delicate ears, or are of otherwise of refined disposition, do NOT read the following post.

I apologize to my regular readers for the following language.

I got quite a bit of traffic a couple days ago regarding my little rant regarding the hypocritical hysteria over the Abu Ghraib "torture." Apparently at least a couple of folks found that offensive. Some of those sort of folks like to use the word "obscene" when talking about Abu Ghraib.

Well, they're full of it. They don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. What, you want an example? Ok.

This is obscene.

In case you haven't heard yet, a young man named Nick Berg was beheaded on videotape, just like Daniel Pearl. Watch the tape. Listen to that poor boy screan as they saw his head off with a knife, and then hold it up in front of the camera. Then, think about the "naked butt" pyramid, and other "tortures" inflicted on the Iraq prisoners.

Then, after that, look me in the eye and tell me about the "obscenity" of Abu Ghraib.

What in the hell is wrong with these people!? How morally obtuse do you have to be to not comprehend that we are talking about two tremendously different ways of life here?

On the one hand, we have some idiot reservists who embarassed some prisoners, for which they should be soundly punished. On the other hand, we have sick cowards who don't even have the courage to show their faces as they slowly murder a civilian who never did them any harm.

The really sick part is that the looney part of the Left will immediately say we "provoked" this foul atrocity, because they are pathologically locked into a "hate Amerikka" mode that prevents them seeing the bloody reality in front of their faces.

Let me paste in a quick quote from Emperor Misha's excellent post regarding Abu Ghraib and the Berg murder:
"Now, first I have to say that it was, is and continues to be my impression that the idiots parading around in our uniform that did this are nothing but a bunch of sick pervs doing all of it for shits and giggles, and there is nothing at this time that makes me believe otherwise. For one thing, professionals would never EVER pose for pictures and distribute them to G-d and everybody.

However, and this is a big however, if you consider stripping people naked and putting hoods over their heads "torture", then you need to turn Oprah off, right now, and get the fuck away from the TV until you've re-acquainted yourself with the real world that we live in."

There are too many people who still don't seem to understand that there is, out there, a way of life which is devoted to the death and destruction of America. Those people need to wake up, and tell the world where the stand, because sometimes you just can't sit on the fence and hope the world ignores you.

Me, I stand with the West. Where are you?

I know this analogy has been drawn before, but I couldn't resist linking to the new trailer at apple.com.

From The Life of Brian, What have the Romans ever done for us?

Ara Rubyan, buttocks still stinging from a recent spanking, has presented an interesting possibility for the Democrats this year.

What if Kerry picked John Glenn for his running mate?

As I said over there:

This may shock a couple of folks, but I voted for Glenn regularly. :)

Now, if it were Glenn/Kerry, instead of the other way around, now... Heh.

Actually, Glenn is probably the only Democrat who could beat Bush at the flight-suit game: Marine aviator, ace, war hero (no "missing" medals or war crimes here!!), and the first American in orbit to boot.

I have to say, if he were (say) 10-15 years younger, and the Dem Presidential candidate, I would be tempted. Really, I would.

So, what do you think, y'all? Could a Kerry/Glenn ticket do it? Even more so, would a Glenn/Kerry ticket make you stop, think, and maybe putl the "D" lever this fall?

The phone lines are open...

Chris Muir has, in his usual inimitable way, gone to the root of the problem.

His Awesome Impressiveness, the Emperor Misha, has coined a delightful new word.

"Assweasel."

Sally forth, and enjoy the latest broadside from His Majesty.

Sometimes someone hits the nail right on the head.

Every once in a while, someone drives the nail right through the wood.

Bill Whittle is not only through the wood, he's out the other side and across the street. All I can say is read it.

Strength Part 1
Strength Part 2

I generally tend to be pretty verbose when I get worked up, but this work has left me speechless.

I repeat: read it.

A big thanks to Misha I for the original link!

Motorcycle group Rolling Thunder, comprised of 70 chapters and over 7,000 members, endorsed President Bush today in Washington D.C.

When Bush accepted the endorsement from group leader Artie Muller, the president joked "Artie, I thought you were going to offer me riding lessons."

The group organizes an annual Memorial Day gathering in Washington, D.C. This year (according to Yahoo! news sources) "The straightlaced US capital was shaken by the furious roar of 80,000 leather-clad bikers riding Harley Davidsons for the annual Memorial Day rally."

Rolling Thunder is dedicated to POW/MIA and veteran's issues such as better veteran's benefits, and volunteers to provide time, food, and clothing to local veterans and communities.

Bikers (and veterans) for Bush. Is this cool, or what?

Don Sensing over at One Hand Clapping asks the $64 question:

Does anyone still doubt that we really are at war?

"Kidnaped American civilian Paul Johnson, Jr., held as hostage by al Qaeda terrorists in Saudi Arabia, was murdered (not executed, murdered!) by having his head hacked off either today or yesterday.

The terrorists gave photos to Arab media of Johnson's head resting atop his corpse. Caution, these photos are sickening (link may be perishable). But don't avert your eyes. This is what these adherents of the so-called religion of peace are doing."

That, my friends, gets right to the root of things. When will people stop parroting the same mindless pacifist cant over and over again, and understand that there are people (and organizations) out there who are dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization?

Not because the West "exploited" the Arabs; they've been the beneficiaries of literally hundreds of billions of dollars the past two generations.

Not because the West (ok, just America) "sponsored" Israel; over fifty years ago the Jews of the world decided never again, and that the next time anybody tried a pogrom, the anti-semitic rat bastards were going to get their cojones stuffed down their collective throats.

And not because classic Western (AKA "Dead White Male") civilization represses Islam; Islam has done a wonderful job of repressing itself for a millenium. I repeat: we are facing the results of over one thousand years of medieval fascist kleptocracy

We are at war. If you have a problem with that: lead, follow, or get out of the way.

In other words: oppose the war honestly, with every tool at your disposal ; do not drool some mealy-mouthed fence-straddling "We support the troops, but we don't like what they're doing." crap. If the war is wrong, say so. Tatoo it across your chest. Fight it with every breath you take, from the bottom of your heart. Don't snipe, nitpick and connive on how to best situate yourself for the next election.

Or you can follow; join the war effort, but try to inject some sanity info the mix. But if you honestly can't see the difference between the abuses of a handful of incompetant screw-ups and the Hussein Family perversions, there's something wrong with you. And, yes, I think that every one of those idjits should face maximum jail time if convicted.

Of course, there's always "get out of the way," but for some odd reason -can't put my finger on it- I have this silly feeling that the moonbat pacifist fringe won't do that. One of their deepest collective needs is the validation and adulation of the great, unwashed masses.

Liberals are now publicly advocating voting fraud via Air America.

The wonderful folks who gave us "Bush==Hitler" are now suggesting that Democrats migrate to Ohio -just for November-, since our lovely state has a simple 30-day residency requirement, and Ohio may be the critical swing state in the election.

Let's import voters from other states to influence an election...

Hey Al, Randi: y'all forgot the old Daley trick of having dead people vote!

Yep, the Democrats are all class: "Vote early, vote often." Heh.

Thanks to the Conspiracy to keep you Poor and Stupid for the story.

Milblogger Blackfive discusses interventing in the Sudan, and closes with an intelligently provocative suggestion.

The usual "willing" include Great Britain and perhaps Australia.

And -as usual- France, Germany, and Russia have all said "nyet!" In fact (from other sources) those three countries have indicated that they won't even send money, much less troops, to help.

The suggestion?

I believe that we must seriously consider who is a "responsible" world member and how to support them.

An excellent suggestion indeed! Who wants to start?

From Lawrence Jarvik Online:

Agustin Blazquez produced and directed the documentaries Covering Cuba (which premiered at the American Film Institute cinema in the Kennedy Center), Cuba: The Pearl of the Antilles, Covering Cuba 2: The Next Generation and, Covering Cuba 3: Elian.

The interesting thing is that the AFI has refused to show Covering Cuba 3: Elian, since they view the film as "too controversial."

Mind you, this is after the American Film Institute bumped an Orson Welles retrospective so they could show Fahrenheit 9/11, which is (apparently) not controversial at all.

It's those damn neo-cons and the right-wing Bush attack machine, crushing dissent again.

Curse you, George Bush!

Chris Muir is a talented and funny cartoonist. He also frequently shows a deft touch with his commentary, and he even tries to show the "squishy liberal" point of view once in a while. :)

This strip, however, is a true gem!

I just wanted to take a moment to point out that quite a few commentators have projected a bump in the polls in Kerry's favor after the convention.

Apparently it's traditional; both parties' candidates each get a bump after their respective conventions which last a few weeks, then evaporate.

Why am I saying this? Because I anticipate a great deal of joy among the Kerryites when the post-convention poll results come out. "Oh, look, Kerry is killing Bush in the polls! We're a shoo-in!"

Um, no. Bush will see the same sort of bump/evaporate after the GOP convention. It's nothing to get excited about. Even Republican National Comittee Chairman Gillespe has predicted an 8-12 point increase for Kerry after the election.

Consider it the poll equivalent of Indian Summer...

Dean Esmay recently published a pledge which he asked other citizens to take: no matter who wins in November, try to treat the President with the respect the office deserves, especially during the challenges we currently face.

The interesting thing is that he's not the first one I've seen put it that way recently. If you check out the conservative site Free Republic Network you will find similar sentiment.

I can't find a permalink, so here's a quote from their Mission Statement:

Guiding Principles

The Free Republic Network believes:

* that this nation's framing documents -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- establish the guiding principles for a just and free people
* that government is a double-edged sword -- potentially the greatest champion of the rights of citizens, but also the greatest threat to their freedom. To safeguard against tyranny, we believe Americans should strictly limit the scope of our government to those powers, duties and responsibilities assigned in our Constitution.
* that taxation should not exceed the minimum amount needed to accomplish the legitimate duties and responsibilities of government set forth in the Constitution.
* that American citizens must educate themselves and engage in civic and political action, to secure Constitutional rights and liberties for themselves, their families, and future generations.
* that individuals are responsible for their own livelihood and the support of their own families, and that each of us is personally accountable for his or her words, actions and decisions. We believe it is the responsibility of our government to promote the general welfare, not provide it, and to ensure equal access to the American Dream, not to enforce equal outcomes.
* that each of us has a personal obligation to help others overcome misfortune and become productive, and that this work is best accomplished through private rather than public efforts.

Code of Conduct

Network members are asked to abide by our basic Code of Conduct, which includes the following guidelines:

* Do not commit, promote or encourage unlawful actions or acts of violence.
* Maintain the highest ethical standards in dealing with other organizations.
* Maintain courtesy and a professional demeanor.

Especially note the last part. Also, if you read the most recent article there, by John Armor, you will find this remark:

No matter who is President of the United States, the office is entitled to a certain level of respect regardless of the opinion you have about the individual currently occupying the White House. Others have made this point, so I support their position.

For instance, I have spent more than eight years condemning Bill Clinton as a person. It痴 more than eight years because even though he痴 out of office, he will not go
away. But always my objections were based on facts of what he did or did not do. I did not resort to schoolyard name-calling. Never did I approach the depths of 途hetoric� that Whoopi Goldberg applied to President Bush.

Could this signal -God forbid- the return of manners to politics? Stay tuned!

Looks like the Kerry/Edwards/Oompah-Loompah ticket is running into a rocky start after the convention.

Apparently the projected deficit will be $100 billion less than earlier anticipated.

Thanks to the Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid for the link.

For some folks, the need to believe that BushLied^(tm) supercedes any call to a rational debate. This has caused Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping to ask We expect Michael Moore to lie about Bush, but is prevarication a virus infecting all Bush's opposition?

Donald carefully and methodically lays out the facts for everyone to see that not only did President Bush not lie, he has in fact consistently pursued the same strategic goals outlined in his speech to the UN on 9/12/02.

This is the best approach in refuting the notBush supporters: we have to patiently and consistently continue to cite the facts of the matter, and avoid ad hominem personal attacks. Don Sensing leads the way.

Read it here.

Dean's World regular Scott Eiland has coined an entirely appropriate nickname for He Who Must Not Be Fed (which I also like):

Lord Pork Pork.

Heh. For the historically challenged, it's a take-off of the Nazi propagandist Lord Haw Haw during World War 2.

I like it...

Dean has a nice post about the sane people in the world which reminded me of that lovely sobriquet.

Veterans have been grumbling about John F. Kerry ever since he became the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

Now that he's officially the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, the vets have stopped grumbling, and started talking.

Now I know the first thing the Kerryites will claim is Republican Attack Machine^(tm)! The only problem is that the men in the ad actually served with Kerry.

Ooopsie.

Not to mention that several of these men were also awarded the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and other decorations. Most especially not to mention Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman. That's flag rank, bunkie.

Oh, a request for the Republican Attack Machine^(tm) paranoids: show me some cancelled checks, or receipts, before you start puking out more accusations, as evidence.

I'm thinking Kerry is really going to regret saying "Bring it on." by November. Heh.

I can see the presidential campaign is moving into high gear; the MoveOn(Please) folks are really kicking it into high gear!

Man. I don't know if Bush can take any more devastating campaign hits like this...

Thanks to Emperor Misha for the link.

I've noticed that what I consider to be a really bad habit has been spreading lately.

It seems that quite a few folks have gotten into the habit of using the word "apologist" as a derogotary term. This started out back in the early spring with the moonbats who kept pushing the "Bush AWOL" and/or "Halliburton runs everything" sort of foolishness. They insisted on calling anyone who defended Bush an apologist, as opposed to "supporter" or "defender."

Here's the thing: now Bush supporters are calling Kerry supporters the same damned thing in reverse! So we have "Kerry apologists," whose chief offense seems to be defending their chosen candidate. Certainly it's their right, as American citizens, to do so, no?

Now don't get me wrong; I intend to vote for Bush this fall, and I certainly believe that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have at least some legitimate claims.

My question is this: just what is your overall objective? If you want to preach to the choir, bash the other side as a bunch of clueless idiots, and pile on the latest "gotcha," knock yourself out, it's your dime, amigo.

But. if you are in the slightest bit interested in actually threshing out some of the issues, and maybe even opening up someone on the opposing side to a new interpretation (even if you don't change their mind), then I humbly suggest that you may want to consider not using the word "apologist."

Not too long ago, my friend Dean Esmay asked conservatives to take a pledge that they would faithfull support Kerry should the Senator from Massachusetts win the presidency this fall. My goal is more modest.

Right now I'm asking Bush supporters to refrain from using condescending, hot-button/buzzwords such as "apologist," even if their opponents won't.

After all, it won't hurt us to show them respect, which any adult citizen is reasonably entitled to expect; and if they refuse to return the favor, the onus is theirs, not ours.

So, what do you say?

Caught this citation over on the Corner at NRO.

The original story can be found here.

You should definitely read the whole thing, but the bottom line is that Kerry (while recently campaigning down in Florida) bragged about supporting the Helms-Burton sanctions against Cuba back in 1996.

''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: "And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

The Miami Herald continues:

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier. (emphasis added)

In other words, he voted for it, before he voted against it. And where have we heard that before, hm?

You know, every once in a while I just have to cringe when I hear someone like House Speaker Denny Hastert make the clumsy effort to imply that George Soro's money comes from drug cartels.

HASTERT: ...You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where -- if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from. And I...

WALLACE: Excuse me?

HASTERT: Well, that's what he's been for a number years -- George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he's got a lot of ancillary interests out there.

WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?

HASTERT: I'm saying I don't know where groups -- could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know. The fact is we don't know where this money comes from.

After all the time I spend bitching about Lord Pork Pork (AKA M. Moore), the bloody House Speaker has to pull a bonehead stunt like this one...

I suppose he's just trying to uphold the tradition that the GOP is the Stupid Party.

Thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy for the original link.

Just cruised on by the VodkaPundit, where he put up a link to the Zell Miller interview on Hardball after his speech.

My analysis: Damn! Miller is a real bulldog. He got right back in Mathews' face and didn't back down. Ya gotta love it!

My favorite part: where Miller said he wished he could still challenge Matthews to a duel.

I just wish I had the disk space to put it up here. Anyway, run on over there, and enjoy the show.

UPDATE: Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has a link to the transcript , and shares his thoughts on the exchange.

Spin like Hell...

In the very latest fatuity from the sinking ship known as the Kerry campaign, Senator Waffles now says that the Iraq war was the "he wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." The Rueters story also quotes Kerry's earlier statement that

he would have voted to give Bush the authority to use force if necessary against Saddam Hussein even if he had known at the time that the Iraqi leader had no weapons of mass destruction

The man just can't make up his mind. By the way, if the above quote sounds familiar, it should; it was a popular way to describe the Vietnam War. I can see that Mr. Kerry is maintaining his repuation for "nuance."

Thanks to Greyhawk over at the Mudville Gazette for the link; I was going to comment on that quote but he beat me to it! While you're at it, why not drop by the Gazette, and drop something in the tip jar? The 'Hawk could use the help, and I'd hate to lose a fine commenter.

Oh. My. GOD.

-step 1: cover keyboard and monitor.
-step 2: remove all spillable drinks from computer area.
-step 3: Read this. (WARNING: probably not work safe if your boss doesn't have a sense of humor!)

What's really funny is that it's dead-on accurate...

Thanks to Don Sensing for the link!

UPDATE: I suppose I should explain that, if you don't "get" Monty Python, you probably won't get the joke... :)

After the Great Meltdown of '04, I lost a lot of links to terrific places.

One of those places was the Dissident Frogman, one of my favorite amphibians! I finally made some time to drop by and I found the Big Red Button.

WARNING: press the Big Red Button at your own risk!! You Have Been Warned...

Run on over to the Kerry Spot, and scroll on down to the [09/10 02:04 PM] Entry:

"MCAULIFFE BLAMES ROVE FOR CBS DOCUMENTS

From the Washington Times:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe today said neither his organization nor John Kerryｴs campaign leaked to CBS documents questioning President Bushｴs service record, which may have been forged.

He suggested White House adviser Karl Rove could be behind the documents.

"I can unequivocally say that no one involved here at the Democratic National Committee had anything at all to do with any of those documents. If I were an aspiring young journalist, I think I would ask Karl Rove that question," Mr. McAuliffe said.

Christ on a Crutch! McAuliffe has finally jumped the shark!

Ladies and Gentlemen, we can now summarize the Democratic Party Platform in one sentance:

Bush lied, and Rove planned it!

Just caught this at Llamabutchers:

Is there nothing we can do to help this poor man?

Don Sensing has posted some excellent articles on the forged TANG memos, but his most recent to date has raised an interesting point I haven't seen before:

...the mainline media are now going to be very wary of dirt slung by the Kerry camp because CBS was so badly hoodwinked by the Kerry campaign. One thing I learned about the news media in my years of media relations management: when they turn on you, they use sharp knives. Kerry's camp has committed an unpardonable sin: it has made them look like fools.

Given that, his conclusion that "The Dems' campaign strategy is dead and buried" is spot-on. And where does that leave Kerry for the next seven weeks?

The Puppy Blender, of course! Glenn Reynolds has decided to call this scandal:

Ra^therGate

We have another winner!

The piquant and picturesque Rachel Lucas certainly coined one:

The Revolution Will Be Blogged

The articulate and quick-witted Ara Rubyan dropped by recently, and with tounge in cheek pointed out that Ms. Knox -former secretary to TexANG Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian- will be dismissed as a "leftist partisan hack," after she said that the statements in the forged memos were true, and asks

Will these Kerry campaign operatives stop at nothing?

Well, Ara, I hope they stop soon; they're making themselves look like fools. What y'all don't realize is that most normal human beings don't care about Kerry's Vietnam, or Bush's TexANG! I've heard it myself, over and over; even here in southwestern Ohio, in counties where I'm sure Bush will win comfortably a few weeks from now. They're tired of hearing about it.

And will you look at the latest exhibit? I have no doubt that Ms. Knox is a fine lady, and a decent human being -her opinion of the President notwithstanding ;) - but can anyone consider her statement as anything but hearsay, especially after thirty years? That she knew what her boss was thinking, even though said statement is directly contradicted by LT COL Killian's filed evaluations of Bush, as well as the testimony of Killian's wife and son?

I am sure that at this point the first reaction of the Kerry supports will be to retort "And the Swifties aren't relying on hearsay, eh?" No doubt in a sarcastic and skeptical tone. :)

Well, no, not really. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have made sworn affadavits as to what they saw and heard during their time with Kerry in Vietnam, which at the very least makes them liable for perjury charges; not to mention there's a great difference between one secretary testifying as to what she thinks her boss was thinking, and over 250 combat vets testifying as to what they experienced in combat.

Of course, part of the problem is that these testimonies contradict each other; Hell, Kerry contradicts himself more than once! But that's the problem. Don Sensing, the same fellow I quoted in my original post, wrote an article about the ...fragility... of memory in combat. A classmate of his spent time in Iraq during the Gulf War, and was surprised at the variety of recollections of a particular fight written down just a few days later; is it any wonder there's disagreement about something that happened 35 years ago?

I'm thinking -if I can get the energy up- of writing an article on how neither side has introduced much in the way of irrefutable fact during the "Great Vietnam Debate." As best I can tell, 99% boils down to he said/she said/they said. You picks your memories, and you takes your choice.

Point being here that the Kerry supporters are flailing away at a an equine that's not only dead, but bled, butchered, and sold by the pound at the local grocery store.

Dobbin-burgers, anyone?

GOP Congressman Chris Cox has called for hearings about the actions of the CBS News division, and 60 Minutes II in particular, while publicizing the forged "Bush memos." In particular, Mr. Cox said that "despite the growing abundance of evidence that CBS News has aided and abetted fraud,'' CBS still refuses to divulge their source, or sources. (emphasis added)

Apparently Mr. Cox is upset by the idea that one of the major new organizations in this country (and the world) would stoop to fraud. Well, so am I.

The difference between us is that I think a Congressional investigation is exactly the wrong way to go about it. To my knowlege neither Congress, nor any other federal agency, has jurisdiction over the network's actions, unless the FCC fines Dan Rather for baring his chest on national TV.

And there goes my lunch...

On a more serious note: the investigation is a bad idea. Not only is there no legal precedent for such action, if held it would create a precedent of Congressional interference in reporting the news, and open the door for Federal harassment whenever a representative finds a story "suspect." Merely claim fraud, and pound the table.

I would suggest that if Representative Cox is that upset with CBS, he should file a civil suit in court.

Let's not compound the arrogant incompetance of the bungled forgeries with the absurd fatuity of Federal interference in yet one more part of our lives.

I've heard of the The Joy of Cooking, then later The Joy of Sex, but The Joy of Politics?

And what the heck is a Votergasm!?

You have to admire a site which encourages political activity via er, other activity, like Doing the Nasty on election night. Not to mention the disclaimers for the Votergasm pledge:

* Pledge-fulfilling sex must be consensual, legal, and generous. And safe. And hot.

* Acceptable sexual positions include, but are not limited to: missionary, doggy-style, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, leapfrog, butterfly, humpback whale, cling wrap, squashing of the deck chair, accordion, reverse piggy-back, advanced ("twin") leapfrog. Male-male, female-female, group, and oral variations of these positions can also be used to satisfy the pledge.

* Taking the pledge indicates a good-faith effort to abide by its provisions. Pledge-takers who have violated withholding provisions become effective non-voters, and are barred from sex with fellow pledge-takers.

* Pledge-takers who fail to vote are forbidden from masturbating. (Exemption: pledge-takers who are not eligible to vote are encouraged to masturbate frequently.)

* "Cybersex" does not satisfy the pledge, dorkwad.

* Non-voters may render themselves eligible for sex with American Heroes by voting at least twice in local, primary, and/or 2006 congressional races. Those voting in only one such race qualify to perform, but not receive, oral sex on American Heroes.

* Achievement of a Votergasm during election-night sex is probable, but not guaranteed. Those encountering difficulty reaching Votergasm are encouraged to slow things down, talk about it, and reduce the pressure. Other techniques include the use of massage oils, toys, "dirty talk," "ballot stuffing," and "exit polls."

* Per the U.S. Constitution, children conceived on election night are eligible for gigantic interest-free loans from the U.S. government, and special t-shirts.

Thanks to The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid for the link.

A long time ago, a man once asked "What is truth?"

The answer was debated pretty vigorously the next two thousand years...

Most of the time, I prefer discussing facts, over "truth". Or the lack thereof.

In this case, The Truth About Iraq.

From Blackfive:

Steven [Moore] was in Bagdad for nine months, from July of last year through April of this year, doing about a dozen polls and seventy focus groups, and advising Ambassador Bremer on Iraqi public opinion.

Since returning from Iraq, Steven was disgusted with how the media was portraying events in Iraq and thoroughly nauseated by Michael Moore (who has never been to Iraq) and the lies that he is propagating. So, Steven started The Truth About Iraq.org where he uses some of the polling information from Iraq to debunk some of the myths that have been created by the media.

What impresses me about Moore's work is that TruthAboutIraq.org actually backs up specific claims with specific fact. And links...

An excerpt from their homepage:

Welcome to The Truth About Iraq.org! The more than forty countries that comprise the Coalition Forces have done a great service to the Iraqi people, the American people and the world by deposing one of the most brutal and prolific killers in history.

Our goal is to help the American people better understand the situation in Iraq through sources other than the mainstream media - public opinion research, statistical analysis and personal accounts.

This site should be in the toolbox of every blogger who supports the war.

Now here's something which should be on every blogger's list of links:

The U.S. Constitution Online.

You can read the Constitution as plain text, or with (excellent) hyper-links, and views for kids of different ages.

They have a balanced and intereresting discussion of the current marriage debate as well.

This, my friends, is the sort of chewy goodness that the internet was made for! Highy recommended.

The accepted translation from the Latin is A new order of the ages.

A rather appropriate ageis, I think, for the first democratic election in Afghanistan.

As the United States obsesses over last night's presidential debate, and the incessant wrangling over Iraq, a small miracle has slipped under the mainstream media radar: Afghanis are voting for their first representative government.

While we're talking about it, here's another small miracle the MSM missed: 13 million eligble voters registered, out of 28 million people.

The first corallary of that statement is that -obviously- quite a few women registered.

Since some of the ballots will be transferred from Hindu Kush voting stations via mule, the final result won't be known until late October; but we know who cast the first vote: the young lady -and science student- Moqadasa Sidiq.

Is it too soon to nominate Ms. Sidiq as the 21st Century's new Lady Liberty?

You can take the title two ways: contempt for Democracy, or the contempt that current Democrats have for our system.

Either way, Stephen Green solidly nails the issue to the wall for everyone to see:

Democracy is the free market of political systems. And like any free market, it can't function without some basic level of trust. That trust comes, slowly, from hammering out rules even competitors can live with. That trust comes, with difficulty, by honoring those rules, even when your candidate doesn't win. That trust exists in relatively few places around the world.

That, my friends, is why I'm voting Republican this year: because too many Democrats -especially the party leaders, movers, and shakers- have bought into the "Worst. President. Ever." and by any means neccessary dogma they've been spewing for years. They really do believe that the ends justify the means, and that's a frightening thing.

If you don't ask me, ask the people who survived the Terror.

One of the enduring lessons of the French Revolution, and the ensuing Terror, is that the incorrupt leaders of a Republic can wreck the rule of law as well as any tyrant, especially when they do so from the highest of motives.

Casey's Rule for Idealism: any person or group who thinks that they are above the law is a threat to the rule of law, and the Republic.

There's a certain kind of leftie who enjoys twitting Southerners; never mind why; and that kind of leftie displays a marked preference for outspoken bumper-stickers. One of the more popular ones has a message for Dixie: "You lost. Get over it."

Excellent advice, I think, for everyone, the day after an election.

In reply to my last post, Democratic Contempt, fellow blogger Mark Adams said that I had the "Right message," but the "wrong messenger lynched." He then asked a very good question:

Why do we abhor the same things but believe that the source is on the other side of the fense? I know I'm correct and you know you're right. The evil we see is the same. What gives?

Ok. That's two questions. :) Still, good ones. I decided to put up my reply in new post.

---

Well, Mark, in this case my first impulse is to point out the Democratic obsession with the Florida 2000 election, and all the "selected, not elected" horseturds ejected about it ever since. :)

Then there's the hysteria about the "Republican Attack Machine^tm," but it's the Democrats who have called their opponents "Digital Brownshirts," claimed that the President has "betrayed" this country, and said -flat out- that anyone who votes for Bush is "out of their minds." Just to name a few examples.

Oh, and then there's the rash of attacks, shootings, and break-ins lately as well. All on Republian offices.

And the GOP hasn't literally embraced a dishonest demagoge such as Michael Moore. We can disagree, and argue about, whether Bush "had a plan," "not enough soldiers," and so on, but what Moore puts out is just vicious slander.

I agree that there are issues which should be discussed. The PATRIOT act, for example. (BTW, before the Donks start flogging the Derms about that one, recall that the act passed unanimously, thankyouvermuch! {g}) Even the ACLU has calmed down to the point where they admit that certain parts of PATRIOT have turned out to be useful, but that the bill -as it stands- is flawed, and should be objectively reviewed.

I have no problem with this. In fact, I've always viewed PATRIOT with far more suspicion than -for example- Dean Esmay has (at least from his comments), since quite a bit of the provisions are from a huge wish-list that different law agencies have been working on for years. I also think that the entire TSA is a massive cluster-fuck, and should be jettisoned ASAP. After that we should hire the security folks from El Al for direction.

I also think that we should raise two more active-duty divisions. Not because "we don't have enough troops in Iraq," but because I estimate that those troops will be there for at least 3-5 years. We need the strategic reserve.

I just hope that Democrats who keep yelling about "not enough troops," and the guys who repeat Kerry's slogan about 40,000 more troops (not a bad goal; that's approximately two divisions), remember that those new divisions will add billions more to the defense budget.

And maybe, (God forbid!) we should start talking about cutting some parts of the federal cancer? Hm?

But no, Mark, from what I've seen, the worst of it the past few years has come from the Democratic Party, from their refuse to accept the decision of a disputed election, from their cavalier treatement of local elections (can you say "Torricelli?" I knew you could!), to the marshalling of legions of lawyers weeks in advance of the presidential elections, and the actual invitation of the freaking UN to "monitor" the election.

In other words, the Democrats respect neither the voters nor their decisions.

UPDATE: I really should give Michael Moore credit for -once in his life- doing the right thing. Moore actually turned down the Ra^thergate memos, because he couldn't verify them, and that they sounded "too good to be true." Good on ya, Mike! Now lay off the freakin' doughnuts... Heh.

The past couple weeks have been a bear, but y'all don't want to know about my personal problems. :)

Sgt. Hook has posted a link to a letter from a man who lost his son in Afghanistan, about the slogan "vote Bush, or stay home." Read it.

I think my own preferences for the White House are obvious, but that's not the point, here. The point is that every one of you has the moral resposibility to vote.

Returns from early voting in Georgia tend to indicate a record turnout, even though that state is pretty much red. Here's hoping the rest of the country follows suit.

Many people are praying the same thing: "Please, God, don't let it be a close one!!"

Amen, brothers and sisters!

As I hinted in my previous post, I'm going to vote for Bush next week.

I strongly support Bush's work against islamofascism. But while I'm voting for Bush, I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican. I'm just picking those guys for national representation. There's a fair number of conservative/GOP positions with which I do not agree.

One of them is gay marriage. Now, I opposed the Massachutsetts descision, but that's because I can't stand judges who seem to think constitutions were written in pencil. I'm pretty libertarian on this one; let's let folks sort things out for themselves, shall we?

But there's always someone, isn't there? I just found out last week that Issue #1 on Ohio's ballot this fall proposes to amend Ohio's constitution to specify marriage as between one man and one woman. The wording is intimidating:

Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:

That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:

"Article XV, Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

Now -originally- I intended to put up a short, incisive, well-reasoned argument against the proposed amendment, but we're past that. If you're for it, then so be it. I'm speaking to the more relaxed folks out there:

Excuse my language, but this amendment is just bullshit.

I'm betting that many folks, like me, didn't even know the issue was on the ballot for next week. What I want to do is jump up on the roof and shout out that we have to defeat this amendment.

Screw that. We don't want to defeat it; we want to beat it to death with a big rock, drive a stake thru its atrophied heart, and bury the very idea under a big landfill; by such a large margin that the next goober who tries to mess with the personal lives of this great state will be ridiculed into oblivion.

Tell your friends, email your pen-pals. Log on to your favorite blog and tell them about this; urge the author to link here (or elsewhere) so that we can politically obliterate this.

For those who consider conservative Ohio to be full of whacky homophobics, I offer the following:
-The Cincinnati Post says no
-The Cincinnati Enquirer says no
-Governor Bob Taft is agin' it
-so is Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro
-both Republican US Senators, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich say nay

Go here for more information.

Dean Esmay has done a magnificent job of interviewing several Swift Boat vets, and now he presents #3, Steve Gardner, gunner's mate on PCF 44. The boat that John Kerry commanded in Vietnam.

This stuff is "must" reading for anyone, Democrat, Republican, or Independant, who is honestly curious about Kerry's history, and the men who saw him in action.

While you're over there, check out his other interviews:
Van Odell
George Elliot

After you're done reading, tell everyone you know...

Ok, it's time to crash for the evening.

With 97% of the votes counted, Bush is showing at least a 120,000 vote edge.

And yes, I know, there's a lot of absentee ballots that have to be cast. I'll bet you money they're mostly military personel, and we all know how that's going to break.

Seriously, the absentees would have to break at 75/25 for Kerry (maybe more) for him to win. It's over. And someone tell idiot Mary Beth Cahill to shut up, and leave!

I'm callin' it 286-251, in favor of Bush. If you want to see my breakdown, check out the extended post below.

Dean Esmay recently linked to this article by Michelle Malkin, about some of the issues that minority conservatives uniquely have deal with, as conservatives.

Some of the comments at Dean's World display a remarkable lack of sympathy for Ms. Malkin, including the observation that

freedom also includes the right to not be locked up in a cage simply because you belong to a certain race. That's something Malkin doesn't understand.

My reaction started life as a response in that thread, but I decided to put it up here as well.

It really should say that on some columns. Honestly. Take this one, for example, in which Michael Demmons blames the pregnancy and abortion rates in America on Republicans, although in a later comment he backtracks in order to place the blame more squarely on the "social conservatives."

The mind boggles...

Naturally, I felt compelled to reply. ;)

Ok. In this post, I accused Michael Demmons of bad reasoning.

Discussions in the comment thread with Michael cleared things up somewhat. He was commenting on which party -if any- was responsible for abortion rates in the US. Thing is, one of the posts upon which he was commenting linked back to Oliver Willis; someone I avoid reading in the same way I avoid "reality" TV and Ben Affleck policitcal commentary. Hence I didn't read the original posts.

I have to admit that "if you had to blame a party, I would blame Republians" (later changed to "social conservatives") is semantically much different from the absolute statement that Republicans (or "social conservatives") are responsible for the abortion rate, etc.

So I retract the vehement tone of my original post, but stand by the facts presented. Said vehemence was due to percieved bad reasoning, not the social position per se.

Yes, boys and girls, that's one of the things that gets Casey fired up: really bad reasoning. Now you know. :)

It's Sunday, January 30, 1:00AM Eastern time as I write this. I see from One Hand Clapping that the voting has already started in Iraq. Apparently the first man to vote was Interim President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, a Sunni Muslim. As Don Sensing points out, it would seem that this was choreographed so that Sunnis would be encouraged to vote.

Don includes a link I've seen mentioned elsewhere, and I've been meaning to mention it here: Friends of Democracy. Do not walk, run over there and read (as they say) the whole thing. The people writing there are Iraqi citizens. They aren't "shills" for any US political party, nor are they CIA operatives. They are just men and women who want to make a difference for their country.

For those who are oh-so-blase about the elections, and the odds for success: here's a photo of Mehsin Imgoter absentee voting in Michigan. His son was killed in the 1991 uprising.

If that picture doesn't touch you somehow, there's something wrong with you...

UPDATE: I foolishly forgot to mention the ever-indispensible Command Post for up to the minute blogging as the Iraq election unfolds.

Dean has been (rightfully) happy about the great turnout in Iraq today. Of course, he's right that the MSM would find a negative spin. CNN, for example:

President Bush today called Iraq's historic election a "resounding success" as Iraqis "take rightful control of their country's destiny." With polls now closed, Iraqi officials are reporting a higher turnout than expected, despite a spate of attacks and threats aimed at disrupting the vote. At least 25 people were killed and more than 70 wounded in a string of attacks.

First sentance: Bush is happy too.
Second sentance: turnout is "higher than expected." (as opposed to the rumored 70%+ we've seen cited elsewhere)
Third sentance: yep, gotta bring up the terrorists insurgents.

Call it the speed-bump method of spinning the news; each successive sentance is progressively more negative. Also note the complete absence of context, either in the lede or the body linked above.

So instead of reporting that attacks (and casualties) were damn near non-existant, with an excellent turnout, CNN instead quotes Bush, then implies with two down-twists to imply that he's being over-optimistic again.

Feh.

Captain Ed has done an excellent job dissecting blithering idiot former General Attorney Ramsey Clark's ...defense... of Saddam Hussein.

Apparently we've been "demonizing" Hussein. This definitely qualifies as a Duranty Report.

Another bloglist newcomer (for me) is Gay Orbit, where you can "discover your inner homo." Heh.

In this particular post, Michael Demmons asks "Ahmmm, again, why is it judicial activism when gays and lesbians use the courts, but not when conservatives use the courts?"

Well, that's a good question.

(with apologies to The Elephant Man)

I was just catching up over at Dean's World, when I caught a post by Michael Demmons announcing that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has Hodgkin's disease.

Now Michael -who wishes well for the Senator, as should we all- remarked that 'There are going to be people on the extreme right who will salivate over this - just as people on the far left get giddy when life throws curves to their "enemies."'

This bothered one conservative regular, who felt that conservatives had been insulted. Apparently he missed the adjective far in the phrase "far right." :) Micheal, in reply, suggested a quick check to see what the freepers (regulars on the Free Republic blog) had to say about Specter's illness, and I decided to take him up on it.

Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters points out that Senator "white nigger" Byrd has tried to paint the Bush administration as Nazis, because they want to change the Senate committee rule on cloture.

What's that? Simple. The minority party can block, indefinitely, a committee approval or disapproval of a presidential candidate by keeping that nominee approval in committee. How? By talking. And talking. And more talking. And, by not sending the nominee for an approval vote to the full Senate. In other words, they can shove the nomination in a hole, and ignore it, unless 60 out of 100 senators approve a move to a full vote on the nominee. That's a cloture. And how many times has one party (or the other) had that kind of super-majority in the Senate? And that's the problem...

Just what is the "moderate" political position in America today?

Dean Esmay asked the hard question: is there a moderate position today? He concludes -righly, I think- that "moderate" is an approach or a temperament, not a political position.

On the other hand Alan, of The Yellow Line argues that centrist is a more appropriate word. But "centrist" is just as bad as "moderate." The reason being that one is still defining a political position in terms of other people's political positions, especially when you consider that Alan says that centrist/moderates "are more interested in moving outside the dichotomy of left and right." In that case, they aren't centrist anymore, because they've changed the frame of reference.

I also have to severely disagree with the definition of moderate as "socially liberal/moderate and fiscially conservative." Is that "the" moderate posistion, or is it just one of them? And just who defines moderate? Is there a central (aha) comittee for the Centrist/Moderate Party no one's heard about? Or is this some sort of alleged statistical measurement of a mean or median? If so, who measured it, and how?

Just over a half-hour ago London suffered another series of bomb attacks on subway stations.

London Police Chief Ian Blair origonally reported four explosions or attempted explosions. Later reports used the word "bang(s)."

The latest developments at the Command Post blog seem (to me) to indicate that some detonators went off, but no known major explosions as yet.

UPDATE: BBC has more info: "The BBC's Andrew Winstanley said devices had been found but appeared to have been dummies, containing no explosives."

MORE: Instapundit is on it, and apparently the London media is as self-destructive as the D.C. crew: "Some idiot correspondent asked Blair if the attacks were his fault because of the Iraq war. And others are taking an equally negative line -- one asks if the propaganda war against terror is being lost."

I like Reynolds' response:

You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.

The kind of question I'd like to see from the media? How about: "Mr. Prime Minister, how long do you expect before we hunt these rat bastards to their graves?"

Mary Madigan -while writing at Dean's World- recently quoted a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll to the effect that " 38 percent said no one is to blame" for the Katrina disaster.

Not to break up the mutual-congratulation party, but FEMA has come in for a bit of legitimate criticsm, including Republican reps in Congress.

Apparently Mike Brown's performance has underwhelmed more than a few folks who can't be called Bush-haters. Some folks have pointed out his absolute lack of anything resembling experience for his appointed position, while others say that his role is primarily ceremonial.

Either way I see no problem with shit-canning him. Even if he didn't screw up, it would be a tremendous confidence-builder for the nation.

Foreword: Dean Esmay writes about A Voice of Sanity on Intelligent Design. After I finished writing this, I was surprised by my conclusions. As opposed to Dean, I'm agnostic, and believe there are "things on Heaven and Earth, undreamt-of in your philosophy." On the other hand, I still insist on scientific rigor when processing ideas.

So where does that leave me?

Mary Madigan -on Dean's World- has been inspired by Neo-neocon to contemplate just why someone like Ramsey Clark would even think of legally defending Saddam Hussein. After all, Hussein is one of the worst sleazeballs down the pike since at least Idi Amin.

Does Clark hate his own country that much?

I think I have an answer.

It's very simple. Recall one of the basic elements of modern liberal mindset which has nothing to do with hating America, blue-collars, or anything else: the tendency to orient towards a morally binary ("all or nothing") point of view.

So, war is either inherently good or fundamentally evil. A law is either just and necessary, or corrupt and should be abolished. Any goal which is not perfectly just is -be definition- wrong.

Let us refer to an historical example, the Civil Rights movement. Anything which advanced the cause of black Americans was just, and proper. So any erosion of individual rights, states rights, or arrogation of power to the federal government was ignored. Their cause was just, hence any actions taken were just. Anyone who protested the steps taken were labled racists, no matter their reasons. This resulted in Barry Goldwater being lumped in with the Klan, since he was on the "same side" as the evil people.

You can see the same attitude today, which is frequently confused with "America hating," since both groups corrosively criticize the United States. The difference is that the haters are just that, while the "all or nothing" crowd use the following reasoning: The United States has committed an immoral/evil act (McCarthy, My Lai, Watergate, etc.), and is therefore evil.

First corollary is that America is just as evil as the USSR, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba; take your pick.

Second corollary is that the US must persue a perfectly moral path in order to speak or act with moral authority. Since that's impossible, they regularly condemn America, no matter what America does.

This explains Clark, as well. Since he sees the world in morally binary terms, Hussein must be innocent or guilty; no "maybes." And -since a true liberal refuses to prejudge anyone, especially a lawyer- there must be a doubt about his guilt. Hence he is owed a true defense.

See? No hating, no deep, ulterior motives. Just a very simple worldview. One that is highly moral, within its precepts. Alas, those precepts far too simplistic.

Just in case any conservatives are tempted to pull a holier than thou attitude, let's recall the decades-long popularity of the Frankensteinian "communists bad, anti-communists good" mentality; no matter how much of a repressive, murdering rat bastard that anti-communist was.

The ever-irrepressible Stephen Green links this New York Times article: Kerry Urges Alito Filibuster, but His Reception Is Cool, with the title What Do You Do With a Broken Party?

Ouch...

Fer chrissakes, Kerry literally phoned his objections in! From fracking Switzerland!! Does Frank J. know of this?

What is noteworthy about the Times article is the nearly uniformly negative vibe cast regarding Kerry's awkward attempts to promote a last-minute filibuster of Sam Alito. As they say in the boonies, "When you've lost the New York Times, you've lost," well, the mindlessly parochial urban upper-class vote.

But I'm sure there's a truly pithy quote regarding this in the boonies, somewhere...

The main reason I'm linking this -aside from the excellent "heads up" from Mr. Green- is this felicitous phrase:

In the space of 48 hours, the three top Democrats for 2008 proved themselves to have all the staying power of a nervous virgin on the set of a porn shoot.

I have to nominate this as the early front-runner of the 2006 Sweepstakes for exellence in phrase-coining. Or some such. ;)

One of the things which really irks me are historical hair-splitters who claim things like "Hitler was never democratically elected to power."

For all the Monday-morning-quarterbacking, Hitler was -in fact- legitimately elected to his defined job of Chancellor, according to the Weimar Republic.

And, despite the revisionist whining, the leader of the NSDAP followed all proper parilmentary rules and procedures while gaining the office of Chancellor.

The mistake the other parties made was that they expected Adolf to actually honor his promises.

A recent thread on Dean's World induced this post, and I haven't even had the chance to read to read the Reaon Foundation article to which Dean originally linked, yet. Heh.

What sparked my post was bad reasoning, assumed beliefs about illegals (how they get paid, whether they "steal" jobs from Americans), blithering about what's "fair" or "right," and several magnificent posts by the inimitable Arnold Harris.

My thougts, as follows:

For those of you hyperventilating about "lost taxes," try investigating how hard it is to create and run a small business in the US today. Even a local drive-through has to take out fed, state, and FICA taxes before paying an employee.

Paul S. repeats a popular argument, but one that lacks force. I can testify from personal experience that -while there are jobs Mexicans will do that Anglos won't- the workers aren't paid less. Go to damn near any restaurant in America, and you'll find managers who will hire anyone willing to work hard at well above minimum wage. In fact, many Mexicans expect more exactly because they are willing to work so hard.

Paul is, of course, perfectly free to contradict my position by providing facts to the contrary. :)

Arnold (as usual) does a magnificent job defining the problem. While I don't agree with every word, the gist is inarguable.

I originally put this up in February 2005; I find it to be even more relevant today. Please note that I have taken the opportunity to add some detail wherein I felt the original occasionally lacked.

Any party that reigns unchallenged for a long period of time tends to become corrupt. Acton once said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Analog editor John Campbell once said that he would change that to "unchallenged power corrupts absolutely." I think that this is largely true.

A review of the political history of the United States does not indicate much Federal corruption for the first eighty-plus years of our existance. This is true mainly for two reasons: the Federal government lacked the political power it has today, and it controlled a far smaller percentage of the national income. Recall that tariffs were the main sounce of income for most of the 19th century; hence their importance for the Civil War-era politicians.

For at least a generation after the Civil War, the GOP reigned supreme over the United States, damn near literally. A single act sufficed, generally, to quell any possible Democrat upstart: waving the bloody shirt; a phrase introduced at this time by actually waving a bloody, torn shirt supposedly taken off of the body of a man flogged by unreconstructed Rebels in the South.

You just can't make this stuff up!

A former French military air traffic controller says a fragment of Comet Schwassman-Wachmann will hit the earth in two weeks.

Better yet, it's all Bush's fault:

He concludes the May 25 event is tied in to the Bush administration's policy of preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and the effect of nuclear weapons on the realms of higher intelligences.

First Katrina, then this. What's next?

DAYS SHORTEN, LEAVES FALL OFF TREES, BUSH TO BLAME!!

A big thanks to Professor Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy for the original link.

Scott Kirwin manages to generate some light and heat over Ann Coulter's latest faux pas, when she disrespected the so-called "Witches of East Brunswick."

First, let me address the bottom-feeders who think it's funny to disrespect Ms. Coulter for her appearance: you are vile, superficial slugs. Cracking on someone's appearance has nothing to do with their argument, and that's the way I've always fought my (rhetorical) battles. Except for Micheal Moore. So, I'm not perfect...

The people who talk about Ann's height, "skinny ass," or imply that she's "really a man" (or in drag) are just as crass, superficial, and cruel as the people who crack on Condi Rice's color, teeth, "big nose," or other features just because they don't like her politics.

Those creatures -whether left or right- who have nothing better to criticize are some of the worst kind of bottom-feeders around. Why? Because their very arguments demonstrate their complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy. If the best you can come up with is cracking on how someone looks, how they talk or who they fuck; you ain't got nothin' to say to me.

GayPatriotWest cites Pat Buchanan's latest idiot remark, and makes a strong case that the Patster shouldn't be considered a conservative any more.

Good stuff. Go read it.

Just got back from errands and voting; I live in John Boehner's district in Ohio.

I was surprised to see so many cars there at just before six o'clock. The sole "activist" (in favor of a local county levy to increase mental-health funding) out front told me it had been busy all day.

It turns out one of the reasons was the new voting machines. Yep, I finally got to vote electronically. My personal preference is for paper ballots, but this system seemed to work well.

I used to enjoy at least some of Ann Coulter's work. When she kept out of the gutter she could be inventively witty and genuinely funny.

Alas, she has become more and more hatefully unpleasant.

The most recent incident (courtesy of Captain Ed) involves calling John Edwards a faggot.

I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab.

That's bad enough. What's worse is that many in the audience actually applauded her! In fact a couple of commenters on Captain Ed's post tried to defend her. Sheesh. Thank God there are classy conservative folks like Ed who are willing to call Ms. Coulter out on her hateful remarks.

This is the sort of vicious, mindless drivel that convinces the rest of the world that conservative Republicans really are a bunch of mindless homophobes, no matter the reality. I think the Human Rights Campaign has it about right when Joe Solomonese said

We demand that every single Presidential candidate in attendance at this conference, along with Vice President Cheney stand up and publicly condemn this type of gutter-style politics,” continued Solmonese. “If not, then their silence will be deafening to the vast majority of Americans who believe this type of language belongs no where near the discussions about the future of our country.”

This is exactly the kind of crap which can drive independents such as myself away from Republican candidates. I've known and worked with gays/lesbians for over thirty years in local music, theater, and other areas, and (here in the midwest) they're pretty much like straights. It's just that their compass points in a different direction. One lesbian couple I know own a home, and want nothing more than to get married and raise a kid. How Republican is that!?

Sorry, Annie; you have now been officially defined an Idiotarian by the Gantry Launchpad Mission Control.

(apologies for the Galaxy Quest quote, but it seemed appropriate.)

I've been following the debate over John Edward's decision to keep running, including over at Dean's World. Since that thread seems to reflect some of the "real world," I'll ground my comments from that thread.

First up we have Arnold Harris, who says

If Elizabeth Edwards were my wife, with terminal breast cancer, I would not leave her immediate presence -- except for the obvious and vital sanitary purposes -- for as long as she could live.

I sure as hell would put aside every other activity.

I feel sorry for the former senator, even though I would not want him for US president. I feel sorry for his family. I feel sorry for his beautiful and gracious wife.

Well, Arnold, you -in spite of you very kind words- aren't John Edwards, are you ? Nor am I you.

Which is my point, really. This truly is a personal decision, one which pretty much by definition will be different for each person, as they are different people.

Will Collier, over at Vodkapundit, has ID'd the best slogan to date for Fred Thompson.

Hell, I forgot he was even in that movie; it's been too long!..

This should go along nicely with the last post about the Fred bumper sticker.

Frank Facts about Fred Thompson.

Some of my faves:
* Fred Thompson has on multiple occasions pronounced "nuclear" correctly.

* Fred Thompson has blasted more people in the face with a shotgun than even Dick Cheney.

* Every night before going to sleep, Osama bin Laden checks under his bed for Fred Thompson.

* Though Fred Thompson left the Senate in 2003, Harry Reid still hasn't stopped wetting his pants.

* Fred Thompson's gaze can kill small animals.

* Fred Thompson once ended a filibuster by ripping out a Senator's heart and showing it to him before he died.

* Fred Thompson's sense of strategy is so great that he can checkmate you using only a pawn and a knight.

* Fred Thompson can know both the exact position and momentum of a particle. Furthermore, he knows Schroedinger's cat is dead because he personally strangled it.

This mindless bit of dreck has caused a bit of a stir by claiming that Will Smith said "Hitler was a good person." What stands out to me is that anyone actually reading the article should immediately realize that there were no actual quotes to that effect.

Word to the wise folks: look for the quote marks. If you don't see them, then the reporter is making things up.

Eugene Volokh, Ilya Somin, and Dave Price all agree that Smith never said anything resembling the quote attributed to him.

Mr. Price seems to think that Smith displayed a certain degree of naivety for his general point of view, while the Volokh Conspiracy writers limited their skepticism to the idea that someone like Hitler could be "reprogrammed" or psychologically reshaped; a position with which I agree.

Smith's general point rang a bell with me, and it bothered me for a bit. For quite a while I've held to the belief that no one sees themselves as evil, but I couldn't recall the seed of that belief. Then it hit me: Heinlein, naturally!

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly.

So maybe Will Smith isn't quite so naive after all.

Meryl Yourish thinks that safety helmets aren't enough for sledders. I agree.

Not only do we need mouth guards and eye protectors, we need to do something about those bloody unsafe metal runners! Yep, it's all fun and games until someone loses a finger...

My proposal is to replace metal runners with Nerf runners. This follows in the footsteps of other great ideas like Nerf footballs, Nerf frisbees, and Nerf dartguns. Mind you, the kids won't go very fast with Nerf runners on their sleds, but isn't that all to the good? God forbid someone might get hurt having fun.

Neptunus Lex had something to say about the differing reactions that McCain and Obama recently faced, when commenting on a proposal to lift the ROTC ban at Columbia University.

The thread quickly became a discussion about "keeping (or encouraging) liberals out of the military," with the majority opinion developing that political diversity is very important for our military. It's a good thread, you should Read The Whole Thing, as they say.

What caught my eye towards the end was a secondary thread started by russiannavyblog (comment #15) wherein he mentioned more than a few liberal military members of excellent standing. Others took issue as to whether certain politicians (Teddy Roosevelt) were "really" liberal or not, and in what context. Mention was made of Teddy's trust-busting work, in contrast to McKinley.

That's where I jumped in:

Back in the day, more than a few of those trusts were (economically) objectionable. The problem is that both the economic & political context have changed, as well as our terms.

Back then, "progressive" or "reformist" meant something. Truly large corporations (including especially the railroad companies) held an enormous power over local politics. Unions were still scrabbling for a toehold, up to the point where the Supreme Court struck down one collective bargaining agreement on the basis that said agreement violated the individual's right to freely contract their own labor. Even most conservatives today would, I think, be appalled at that logic.

Patterico recently had something to say about the Horrible Reporting that the L.A. Times Did on the US Attorneys purge last year. It's good stuff.

What caught my eye was his mention of an earlier argument (March '07) that then-Attorney General Gonzales should resign, something I would have heartily agreed with had I seen it.

Patterico then mentioned that he had opposed nominating Gonzales for the Supreme Court back in September of '05, which brings me to this post.

To my friends on the Left, who opposed the Gonzales nomination for the Supreme Court:

THANK YOU

The Vodkapundit got me started on the EC-wargaming thing. Back on October 13 I did a little twiddling of my own, with the results here.

John Murtha served his time in the Marines. When I read the report of his death, I checked his Wiki entry.

Murtha joined the Marines in 1952, and later became a Drill Instructor. He was later selected for OCS. Murtha was discharged in 1955, remaining in the Marine Reserves. He later volunteered for duty in Vietnam, "receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry." (Wiki)

In other words: no matter what we think of his politics, he was no chickenhawk or Limousine Liberal. The man without a doubt got his hands dirty, and his blood spent.

That said, in this writer's opinion he sacrificed his moral authority when he slandered the Haditha Marines before the official inquiry was finished.

In short: while we should honor John Murtha's service, we should also recognize his abdication of loyalty. Hence we should accord former Congressman John Murtha the title of EX-Marine.

Ace has a post up about Andrea Mitchell's attempt to rewrite history by way of recasting Ronald Reagan as a moderate.

While exposing this claim as self-evident hogwash, he has this to say:

It's one thing for a political party to attempt this gambit. What the hell is a supposed journalist doing regurgitating such bullshit?

Or is Andrea Mitchell this stupid that the Obama Mind Trick worked so well?

Um, is that a trick question?

The Vodkapundit watches Poliwood's take on the new movie Atlas Shrugged, and decides "Maybe I'll wait for the DVD."

There was one very telling comment about 8:30 in;

Righteous indignation & loud declamation belongs on talk shows. It doesn't belong on film.

The Heartland Institute recently put up an electronic billboard comparing AGW proponents with the Unabomber., which quickly caused sparks to fly.

Ms. Laframboise was quite right that the billboard was a terrible idea. The problem is when True Believers tout this sort of bilge as a good argument. Just check out the comments thread on the topic at Watts Up With That?, or Legal Insurrection.

The following started as a comment at Legal Insurrection:

An amazing display of hypocrisy.

Let's whip out the favorite Conservative line "what if the other side did it?" In this case I don't doubt the more fervent conservative commenters would be spitting fury at the evil, slanderous moonbat liberals who always descend to the lowest level, instead of arguing the facts.

Unless one of "our guys" did it, in which case it's "telling the truth," or "speaking truth to power." It's ok then. The irony here is that I know liberal/progressives who reason (if I may misuse the word) exactly the same way, but in the opposite direction.

For those who think that billboard is acceptable, or the "truth," or "fighting fire with fire" (or whatever rationalization you prefer) I suggest you look at that sign again, the look at how Tea Party members behave & speak in public, then look at the Occupy movement.

This crap has "OCCUPY" all over it.

For those who find the above comparison offensive, feel free to provide proof of Tea Party rallies or demonstrations where those present:
-Expressed hate speech in terms of class warfare, or blaming The Joos.
-regularly attacked police officers
-regularly destroyed public or private property
-used urine or feces as weapons

I have no use for the excuse that "they do it too," or that we need to "fight fire with fire," or that using reason & logic is somehow "surrendering" or conceding the argument. It matters not a whit if the proponent is Conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, or Progressive*, this kind of over-the-top slander has no place in our public discourse.

*Communists are, of course, right out.

They both lost on Jeopardy
.

After going over Stephen's drunkblog, and reviewing history, I'll make some observations.

I have for a while now noticed that for certain movies, the critics really loved it while the audience hated it, or vice versa. This happens for TV shows as well. Most critics panned "The Orville" but it got great ratings from actual viewers.

It's come to my attention a similar phenomenon has occurred with respect to the "Death Wish" remake which came out a couple of months ago. The Rotten Tomatoes scores are only 13% fresh from critics, but 86% fresh from audience reviews. What gives?

The NYTimes reviewer called it "an imbecilic misfire." The Variety review says "It's a first-person shooter fantasy." Vulture says "It's practically an NRA promo."

...Yet it's generated an 86% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Definitely some cognitive dissonance going on.

I have a sneaking suspicion the gun-control crowd should take this as the canary in the coal mine. Pushing for some sort of gun ban could blow up in their faces.

Just sayin'...