I’ve been having an interesting and rather fun flame war in a newsgroup. It is interesting because the “liberal” correspondents seem to love comparing Nazi Germany of the 1930’s and 40’s with the United States of today. Some will even go to such lengths as to list the 14 indicators of fascism in society. These are laughable as they employ the same logic as do UFO hunters at Roswell, New Mexico.
The Ultra left are very easy to needle, they must live in a perpetual Skinner Box, one little touch, and off they go! I wonder if there are more psychiatrists, either absolutely or per capita, on the East and West coasts of the US as compared to the rest of the nation. There was an interesting article about this on television yesterday. Apparently someone has researched the dreams of various people, separating them into liberal and conservative classes. According to the story liberals have a difficult time sleeping and have many nightmares, while the conservatives sleep soundly and have rather prosaic dreams. The significance of this research is unknown but one can draw one’s own conclusions and probably be just as correct as the researchers.
One problem with flame wars is that the combatants, being anonymous, reveal their lack of vocabulary and self control by the plethora of expletives used to express their feelings. They have no ideas. It turns out that George Bush is a dictator, fraudulently elected, beholding to wacko Christians, foreign and domestic oil companies, Dick Cheney (Halliburton), and is the world’s terror leader.
Some other interesting research that offers hope to the world is a study which purports that liberals in the US are being affected by Darwinian logic. They are not having children and when they do find themselves pregnant they tend to abort the fetus. On the other hand those families who call themselves conservative and opposed to abortion are flourishing. No wonder the Democrats are clamoring for voting rights for illegal immigrants, without the fertility of Hispanics wacko liberalism will be extinct in 40 or so years.
Such an outcome would diminish our society. Much of the humor would be gone; silly bumper stickers would be no more, the airwaves would be absent of male bashing, children would be abundant (that’s a good thing), illegal immigration would stop, smoking, drinking, obesity, would all be choices again. Freedom and liberty would reign with responsibility binding a civil society together.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
Now It's Darfur
Darfur is a disaster of proportions that won’t be known for many years. Messrs. Clooney and Cheadle have a solution, or at least a plan and that demonstrates the confusion of liberals. Sudan’s president, an Islamofascist, has made it clear that no UN force will be allowed in the Darfur region of Sudan, in fact they will be attacked by Sudanese forces to prevent their entry.
In the United States television ads are being run, paid for by Clooney and Cheadle, urging citizens to lobby President Bush to insist on a strong UN force to save the people of Darfur from complete destruction. There seems to be a disconnect here. It’s not that the Darfur project isn’t worthy of the attempt, but the contradiction of Clooney’s position on the Afghanistan and Iraq combats involving the United States and others. As demonstrated in his movie Syriana Clooney clearly believes that such actions were driven by the need to preserve President Bush and his oil buddies. Mr. Clooney disregards that the same people and mentality at work in Darfur is also at work in Iraq.
The liberal thought that Iraqi democracy is not the business of the United States, Michael Moore for example, is contradicted by the idea of the US armed forces attacking Darfur under the cover of the UN. How far from being a US interest is the Darfur problem? Is it just another example of the “feel good” foreign policy that will be in effect once a deluded public bring the Democrat Party to power?
The UN should intervene in Darfur, even if it irritates Chavez and Ahmadinejad, on the basis of its humanitarian role in the world. The same diplomats who childishly applauded Chavez’ juvenile antics are representatives of regimes that murder their own citizens. Kofi Annan’s leadership or lack thereof has provided the springboard for such behavior. A United Nations effort is needed to attack and destroy the thugs who murder under the guise of Islam, but it won’t happen. Such an effort was not mounted in Rwanda, despite Bill Clinton’s “best efforts” he did feel their pain, and it won’t happen now.
Feel good liberalism is merely a cover for not taking responsibility. The latest example is last night’s passage of the Detainee Treatment Law. This is the most ridiculous action ever in the course of protecting oneself from attack. Yet, Harry Reid and cronies, the Democrats have said that the law will be declared unconstitutional because it deprives prisoners of war or their constitutional protections. The media reports and supports these statements with a straight face. A prisoner of war has no rights beyond those of the Geneva Convention. A prisoner of war may be detained until war’s end without any conversation about anything. Torture is always wrong; it’s inhumane and often ineffective, misleading, and self-defeating. Interrogation is not torture.
In the two examples discussed above a conclusion may be drawn about a Democrat defense of the United States. With people like Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid and the rest the citizens of the United States can expect two things: severe attacks on US personnel during the next 40 days, and homeland attacks by emboldened Islamofascists encouraged by the Democrat withdrawal from Iraq.
In the United States television ads are being run, paid for by Clooney and Cheadle, urging citizens to lobby President Bush to insist on a strong UN force to save the people of Darfur from complete destruction. There seems to be a disconnect here. It’s not that the Darfur project isn’t worthy of the attempt, but the contradiction of Clooney’s position on the Afghanistan and Iraq combats involving the United States and others. As demonstrated in his movie Syriana Clooney clearly believes that such actions were driven by the need to preserve President Bush and his oil buddies. Mr. Clooney disregards that the same people and mentality at work in Darfur is also at work in Iraq.
The liberal thought that Iraqi democracy is not the business of the United States, Michael Moore for example, is contradicted by the idea of the US armed forces attacking Darfur under the cover of the UN. How far from being a US interest is the Darfur problem? Is it just another example of the “feel good” foreign policy that will be in effect once a deluded public bring the Democrat Party to power?
The UN should intervene in Darfur, even if it irritates Chavez and Ahmadinejad, on the basis of its humanitarian role in the world. The same diplomats who childishly applauded Chavez’ juvenile antics are representatives of regimes that murder their own citizens. Kofi Annan’s leadership or lack thereof has provided the springboard for such behavior. A United Nations effort is needed to attack and destroy the thugs who murder under the guise of Islam, but it won’t happen. Such an effort was not mounted in Rwanda, despite Bill Clinton’s “best efforts” he did feel their pain, and it won’t happen now.
Feel good liberalism is merely a cover for not taking responsibility. The latest example is last night’s passage of the Detainee Treatment Law. This is the most ridiculous action ever in the course of protecting oneself from attack. Yet, Harry Reid and cronies, the Democrats have said that the law will be declared unconstitutional because it deprives prisoners of war or their constitutional protections. The media reports and supports these statements with a straight face. A prisoner of war has no rights beyond those of the Geneva Convention. A prisoner of war may be detained until war’s end without any conversation about anything. Torture is always wrong; it’s inhumane and often ineffective, misleading, and self-defeating. Interrogation is not torture.
In the two examples discussed above a conclusion may be drawn about a Democrat defense of the United States. With people like Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid and the rest the citizens of the United States can expect two things: severe attacks on US personnel during the next 40 days, and homeland attacks by emboldened Islamofascists encouraged by the Democrat withdrawal from Iraq.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
World Weariness
I’m not sure about the rest of the world but in America the nut jobs are out in force. From Vernon Robinson, a candidate for the House of Representatives and a good old fashioned demagogue, to the latest UFO proponent shifting to a mega conspiracy theory about the world trade center, the argument could be made for reinstating publicly sponsored mental health facilities. Mr. Robinson has a good chance of unseating the incumbent, Brad Miller, and maybe he will make a good representative. His platform of anti-illegal aliens will garner many votes as should be the case. His ads are inflammatory in the great tradition of American politics.
Controlled implosion is the latest theory on the UFO left. Of course these wackos forget how difficult it is to rig the most rudimentary buildings for implosion and how dangerous it is to the workers doing the rigging. Yet they would have us believe that mysterious government agents went to the World Trade Center, during the work week I guess, and rigged explosives without being noticed and without incident. Let’s consider this view. The process of implosion has been shown and discussed on television innumerable times and will no doubt continue to be demonstrated. These old structures are inevitably gutted, no wiring, no furniture, the ground cleared for hundreds of feet around the implosion site. The explosive rigging takes about a month and is done carefully. Given these conditions how was the rigging of the World Trade Center done?
In out town a large office building was imploded recently, and it was quite a sight to see. One person among the crowds watching was injured by flying glass. Apart from that the demolition went off without a hitch, and it looked nothing like the World Trade Center collapse. There was a series of loud bangs, the detonations of the explosive, and then a rapid collapse inward of the structure; it did not fall straight down.
The resiliency of the citizens of the United States is remarkable considering what we have been through the last five years. The Democrat Party is struggling, as a friend of mine predicted, the occupation of Iraq is dragging on interminably, Cindy Sheehan is moving in next door to George in Texas, pedophiles and child murderers are given slaps on the wrists, abortions among liberals are making them an endangered species and damaging social security, Afghanistan is heating up, and Richard Branson has yielded to peer pressure and donated three billion dollars for Global Warming research. Apparently he wants to keep up with the Buffets and the Gates’. When asked about his reasons he stated that while he had been skeptical he was now 99% convinced of the danger of Global Warming. When asked about the non-starter of a hurricane season he responded that the lack of hurricanes this year was due to the cooling effects on the Atlantic this year of the wind.
My friends it’s your turn; take it!
Controlled implosion is the latest theory on the UFO left. Of course these wackos forget how difficult it is to rig the most rudimentary buildings for implosion and how dangerous it is to the workers doing the rigging. Yet they would have us believe that mysterious government agents went to the World Trade Center, during the work week I guess, and rigged explosives without being noticed and without incident. Let’s consider this view. The process of implosion has been shown and discussed on television innumerable times and will no doubt continue to be demonstrated. These old structures are inevitably gutted, no wiring, no furniture, the ground cleared for hundreds of feet around the implosion site. The explosive rigging takes about a month and is done carefully. Given these conditions how was the rigging of the World Trade Center done?
In out town a large office building was imploded recently, and it was quite a sight to see. One person among the crowds watching was injured by flying glass. Apart from that the demolition went off without a hitch, and it looked nothing like the World Trade Center collapse. There was a series of loud bangs, the detonations of the explosive, and then a rapid collapse inward of the structure; it did not fall straight down.
The resiliency of the citizens of the United States is remarkable considering what we have been through the last five years. The Democrat Party is struggling, as a friend of mine predicted, the occupation of Iraq is dragging on interminably, Cindy Sheehan is moving in next door to George in Texas, pedophiles and child murderers are given slaps on the wrists, abortions among liberals are making them an endangered species and damaging social security, Afghanistan is heating up, and Richard Branson has yielded to peer pressure and donated three billion dollars for Global Warming research. Apparently he wants to keep up with the Buffets and the Gates’. When asked about his reasons he stated that while he had been skeptical he was now 99% convinced of the danger of Global Warming. When asked about the non-starter of a hurricane season he responded that the lack of hurricanes this year was due to the cooling effects on the Atlantic this year of the wind.
My friends it’s your turn; take it!
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
O'Conner Strikes Back
Sandra Day O’Conner proved her lack of reasonableness and inability to remember decisions made by the court during her tenure. In an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal O’Conner tries to argue that the judiciary in the United States in unfairly criticized as activist legislating from the bench. Her argument is weak, though somewhat interesting in what it reveals.
O’Conner states that the Courts role is to interpret the law without political influence or bias; has this ever been the case? She goes on to mention that another function of the court is to protect certain classes of the public from the depredations of legislators and that it is generally successful in this effort. While on the court, and over her objections, the Justices interpreted the public good of imminent domain to mean that the interests of real estate developers who might pay higher taxes supersede the interest of poverty level landowners. This does not seem to square with part of her case.
She goes on to decry the security threats to judges and laws making it possible to prosecute judges for various misdemeanors. It is of course deplorable that anyone should be subjected to threats to their person and feels forced to install security systems and personnel. Unfortunately this is the state of the world with extremists on both sides going way over the top in their reactions.
O’Conner would have served the reading public better had she been honest about her views. She, and no doubt every public official, has an exaggerated idea of her worth in society as juxtaposed to “everyday” citizens. The beauty of the United States is that no such status is permitted simply because one has accepted the call of the citizenry to service. This is a civic obligation and a privilege that most are not called to. For her to imply that judges are not influenced by their own feelings is ludicrous. They, as we all do, have the need to impress their friends, frustrate their enemies, and feel good about themselves; a task that might be impossible in a truly impartial judge.
The most egregious statement is the bemoaning of the proposed legislation to prevent judges from using foreign law in interpreting the US Constitution. This is an amazing proposition as United States citizens have no desire to be ruled by the EU, the UN or any other alphabet judicial system.
Please read her comments when you can and see what you think.
O’Conner states that the Courts role is to interpret the law without political influence or bias; has this ever been the case? She goes on to mention that another function of the court is to protect certain classes of the public from the depredations of legislators and that it is generally successful in this effort. While on the court, and over her objections, the Justices interpreted the public good of imminent domain to mean that the interests of real estate developers who might pay higher taxes supersede the interest of poverty level landowners. This does not seem to square with part of her case.
She goes on to decry the security threats to judges and laws making it possible to prosecute judges for various misdemeanors. It is of course deplorable that anyone should be subjected to threats to their person and feels forced to install security systems and personnel. Unfortunately this is the state of the world with extremists on both sides going way over the top in their reactions.
O’Conner would have served the reading public better had she been honest about her views. She, and no doubt every public official, has an exaggerated idea of her worth in society as juxtaposed to “everyday” citizens. The beauty of the United States is that no such status is permitted simply because one has accepted the call of the citizenry to service. This is a civic obligation and a privilege that most are not called to. For her to imply that judges are not influenced by their own feelings is ludicrous. They, as we all do, have the need to impress their friends, frustrate their enemies, and feel good about themselves; a task that might be impossible in a truly impartial judge.
The most egregious statement is the bemoaning of the proposed legislation to prevent judges from using foreign law in interpreting the US Constitution. This is an amazing proposition as United States citizens have no desire to be ruled by the EU, the UN or any other alphabet judicial system.
Please read her comments when you can and see what you think.
Confused People
Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, and Cindy Sheehan are now the most vocal advocates boosting Cesar Chavez. What’s going on here? The Belafonte and Glover connection are the most confusing, no doubt both men suffered racial discrimination during their youth. At that time most of the United States was either de jure or de facto an apartheid state. Blacks were invisible except for lynching or being accused of crimes. If the crime was black on black it was not much of a concern for society. The opportunities for social acceptance and integration were rare. Yet succeed they did and even became figures recognized around the world.
Belafonte had an even more difficult row to hoe than did Glover, so his bitterness may understood a bit better. Glover faced racial prejudice too, but not as gratuitous as Belafonte. Today these men spit on the very country that provided the opportunities for them, despite having to wrestle them forth. These men are symbols of what’s possible in the United States. They would not have accomplished their success under the regimes of Hussein, Chavez, Castro, or any other dictator. Yet they call George Bush a dictator and call for his assassination; if not blatantly certainly by implication.
They bemoan the ultimate demise of affirmative action which of the two only Glover could have been a beneficiary. Thirty years later affirmative action has come to be a tool to affirm the inferiority of blacks by admitting that they can not succeed any other way; they are not capable. Since this is patently untrue why do Glover and Belafonte (and others) insist upon its retention? Is it simply payback, if so when is enough paid back?
As for Cindy Sheehan she is a pathetic tool of the ultra liberals and the Democrat left. She revealed herself clearly during a recent C-Span interview. She simply spews forth the Michael Moore, George Clooney, Martin Sheen, party lines. None of the aforementioned is too bright either for that matter.
Time will tell but recent events are waking the US electorate to the real nature of ultra liberalism which will be represented in Congress by the Democrat Party; as disaster in the making for the American people.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Clintonmania Revealed
I guess Billy did again. In his interview last week that was finally televised in full on Sunday, Clinton revealed his essentially weak character. This weakness manifested itself in his womanizing which all his supporters, male and female, pointedly ignored. In fact his staff and flunkies slandered and attempted to intimidate women who made accusations against Clinton. The clearest example of this is Jennifer Flowers who had a twelve year affair with Clinton which he and Hillary vehemently denied and coined the term “the Bimbo effect.” Later all the tapes and letters came out.
Clinton’s behavior during the interview shows an unstable man seriously concerned about his historical image’ something that will be firmly established many years after his death. Why? One excuse might be obsessive/compulsive disorder, quite the fashion among liberal circles, or some other excuse. A hallmark of a dedicated liberal is a negative one: the absence of personal responsibility. Political and social leaders are called by that name in expectation of providing an example to the rest of society. For many years the wrong message has been sent.
A recent Harvard study demonstrated the high school, or just plain school, drop-outs achieve less in society. Was that supposed to be a big surprise? The conclusion was that these people are “victims of a system that has failed them.” This is a rather strange conclusion though not unusual. The liberal elite is still trying to build a system in which everyone is successful, in some form or other, that requires no effort on the part of the beneficiary. What would happen if the expectations were reversed and the system was considered a neutral component while the participants were the active components?
The liberals are now saying that Bill bravely stood up to the Republican in house propaganda machine known as the Fox News Channel. This is indeed a weak response, it’s some one else’s fault that Bill made himself out to be a silly desperate man. His performance was astounding from another statement he made. Clinton claimed that he ordered the assassination of Bin Laden, even contracted for it. This, I hope, is a lie; otherwise he is admitting to an attempted felony as an act of that kind is prohibited by US law.
Take your pick, Chris Wallace or Bill Clinton.
Clinton’s behavior during the interview shows an unstable man seriously concerned about his historical image’ something that will be firmly established many years after his death. Why? One excuse might be obsessive/compulsive disorder, quite the fashion among liberal circles, or some other excuse. A hallmark of a dedicated liberal is a negative one: the absence of personal responsibility. Political and social leaders are called by that name in expectation of providing an example to the rest of society. For many years the wrong message has been sent.
A recent Harvard study demonstrated the high school, or just plain school, drop-outs achieve less in society. Was that supposed to be a big surprise? The conclusion was that these people are “victims of a system that has failed them.” This is a rather strange conclusion though not unusual. The liberal elite is still trying to build a system in which everyone is successful, in some form or other, that requires no effort on the part of the beneficiary. What would happen if the expectations were reversed and the system was considered a neutral component while the participants were the active components?
The liberals are now saying that Bill bravely stood up to the Republican in house propaganda machine known as the Fox News Channel. This is indeed a weak response, it’s some one else’s fault that Bill made himself out to be a silly desperate man. His performance was astounding from another statement he made. Clinton claimed that he ordered the assassination of Bin Laden, even contracted for it. This, I hope, is a lie; otherwise he is admitting to an attempted felony as an act of that kind is prohibited by US law.
Take your pick, Chris Wallace or Bill Clinton.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Ryder Cup Blues
Well, as predicted here a few weeks ago Europe has retained the Ryder Cup. I had expressed reservations about Tom Lehman as Captain and contrary to European opinion said that Ian Woosnam would be a formidable Euro Captain. It’s never pleasant to be correct when you don’t want to be. Still the American team looked defeated before they started.
Frankly, as professional athletes, they are an embarrassment to the game. American pros can’t play as a team, as proved in the singles they can’t play on their own either. While the play is not over as this is being written it seems likely that this will be the worst defeat of either side in the history of the competition. The American team let the Euro press jibes wear them down. Like children they let one miscue ruin their attitudes toward victory. Essentially they quit.
Tiger Woods played miserably, even in winning his singles match, the other two members of the world top three didn’t even show up. It’s possible that Phil Mickelson’s career is just about finished; he apparently became depressed about throwing away the US Open and is still in a funk. The behavior of the two teams couldn’t have been more different: the Euros encouraged each other while the Americans barely spoke to each other.
Tom Lehman was an utter failure as the Team Captain sticking with losing combinations well past anything reasonable. All the motivational speakers, movies, rants, and tirades will never work in a sport where self motivation is the only way to win.
Frankly, as professional athletes, they are an embarrassment to the game. American pros can’t play as a team, as proved in the singles they can’t play on their own either. While the play is not over as this is being written it seems likely that this will be the worst defeat of either side in the history of the competition. The American team let the Euro press jibes wear them down. Like children they let one miscue ruin their attitudes toward victory. Essentially they quit.
Tiger Woods played miserably, even in winning his singles match, the other two members of the world top three didn’t even show up. It’s possible that Phil Mickelson’s career is just about finished; he apparently became depressed about throwing away the US Open and is still in a funk. The behavior of the two teams couldn’t have been more different: the Euros encouraged each other while the Americans barely spoke to each other.
Tom Lehman was an utter failure as the Team Captain sticking with losing combinations well past anything reasonable. All the motivational speakers, movies, rants, and tirades will never work in a sport where self motivation is the only way to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
