Sunday, October 31, 2004

Arafat, Arafat, wherefore art thou Arafat!

If this doesn’t make you vomit up your Fruit Loops, then, well, you must not be eating Fruit Loops (of which, what's your problem?).
The world watches the unfolding drama as the man who has become the symbol for Palestinian nationalism seems to hover between life and death. Though full of uncertainties, Mr Arafat's life has been one of sheer dedication and resilience.
Barbara Plett, BBC Correspondent, Arafat hagiographer.

To be honest, the coverage of Yasser Arafat's illness and departure from Palestine was a real grind. I churned out one report after the other, without any sense of drama.


Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry... without warning.

“Oh sweet, oh loving Arafat, I will feel your tender touch again, inshallah! I pray that I may once again look upon your heavenly face!”
Despite his obvious failings - his use of corruption, his ambivalence towards violence, his autocratic way of ruling - no one could accuse him of cowardice.
Yeah he was a horrible person, but at least he had the courage to send children to blow themselves up. That, kufr, is what makes a man.


Kerry, caught in a bald-faced lie; Media interest level: nonchalant whistling, some nose picking, "missing explosives you say?"

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

As Brent points out, that hardly squares with Kerry's rhetoric earlier on military records. Ever since Kerry and the Democrats launched a full-scale attack on George Bush's military experience and his discharge from the National Guard, calls have come for Kerry to sign a Form 180 to completely release his own records. Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth have asked repeatedly for this release. Kerry has responded repeatedly that all of his records have been made available at his website.

Read the whole thing.

And, of course, this story wouldn’t be complete without an even MORE egregious cover-up of said lie, in order to protect the anointed candidate. NBC conducted a Stalinist purge on its website, expunging “because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from” from the transcript. Then NBC, realizing that it had not made a proper offering to the anointed, deleted the whole exchange above from the broadcast on television.

The media has almost become a threat to our democracy. They not only refuse to push Kerry to sign a Form-180 which would release his military records and clear up the questions the Swift Vets and other have, they are ACTIVELY COVERING UP FOR HIM. Let me repeat that, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE ACTIVELY COVERING UP FOR KERRY. Bold, check, Caps, check, Italics, check, Repetition for effect, check – it’s impossible to overstate how disgustingly in bed with Kerry the mainstream media is. So let me do it again: THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE ACTIVELY COVERING UP FOR KERRY.

The blogosphere has kept up the drum beat for Kerry’s records for a long time, but, alas, with the MAINSTREAM MEDIA ACTIVELY COVERING UP FOR KERRY it makes it kind of hard to gain the information about our possible future president that is necessary in order to make an informed decision on Nov. 2.

Well, at least in one respect the mainstream media (WHICH IS COVERING UP FOR KERRY, by the way) has been upholding its job at hounding people for information. They destroyed Jack Ryan’s campaign by revealing personal details about his divorce, but most importantly, they latched onto Bush’s groin like a pitbull with tetanus in regards to his military records (as well everything else). Just go back and look at this transcript—no even better, listen to the audio on the page—of the press briefing the day that Bush’s records were released. The feeding frenzy over Bush actually releasing his records is still amazing to hear. Do these sound like impartial questioners to you? The insolence bordering on anger in their voice drips with Bush hatred.

Let's review: When Kerry lies about having released his military records, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ACTIVELY COVERS UP FOR HIM by expunging the transcript -- "Oops senator, you weren't supposed to tell us that, because then we would have to acknowledge that you have been lying to us for the past year... we'll just delete that for you." On the other hand, when Bush actually released his records, the press corps layed into him like Michael Moore at an all-you-can-eat Steak Buffet.

Yeah mainstream media, Re: Selling your soul: will a John Kerry presidency really be worth it?



update III: PowerLine doesn't think this specific case is an example of actively covering for Kerry, although the larger case still stands:

Superficially, this is rather damning. But if you read the complete transcripts of the two versions of the interview, you will see that they are quite different. The Dateline version included some exchanges that were not played on MSNBC, and MSNBC included others that were cut from the Dateline version.

Power Line readers are news junkies who are tuned in to the issues surrounding Kerry's military service that have been raised by the Swift Boat Vets and others. Realistically, however, the number of non-junkie listeners who would have understood the significance of the sentence that Dateline cut from Kerry's answer is close to zero. My guess is that whoever edited the video footage for Dateline had no idea that the omitted material was significant.

There is no question that the mainstream media covered up for John Kerry with respect to his military service. But they didn't do it by this minor bit of editing. They did it by never--ever--asking him the basic question: "Why won't you make all of your military records public?"

I would say I agree; THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS BEEN ACTIVELY COVERING UP FOR KERRY but this specific case is not a particularly blatant example. It does serve, however, to highlight the MSM's complete disinterest in Kerry's records. They don't even realize that Kerry's admitting to not releasing his records, when there are highly contentious charges surrounding them and when Bush has released his at the MSM's request, is a big deal.

Complete cluelessness on their part.

A bunch of QaQaa

Tom Maguire has the definitive roundup of the Al QaQaa missing explosives issue. There are still many questions to be answered, but he does a nice job of bundling up the loose ends.

Its a sordid tale of media bias wedded with incompetence. The plot is somewhat convoluted, but explosives are involved (yeah!). Compelling characters abound (including El Baradei, the spurned ex-lover), but, sadly, no vampires.

Unless, of course, you count the New York Times--so yeah, vampires.

I feel so dirty...

A member of the military infiltrates a militantly anarchist website and leaves this message:
Please rise up you assholes I spent 3 years training on active duty army in the 101st abn div now I am in the national guard so I will be there to smack you down. Do you dumbasses really belive that a rubber innertube will stop a bullet. Do you think for one second that you and your few thousand disorginized and incompetently led (what the chain ofcommand for an anarchist army) fools are any match for the millions of highly trained soldiers and policemen. bring the revolution to the streets troops will be there waiting rifles in hand Ohio national guard...4 Kent State............0 Yellow Springs OH.....Antioch College, we have our eyes on you...hell we are just down the street : )

Ohio National Guard 4, Kent State 0. Ouch. This prompted a long, diabolical laugh, which I am not entirely proud of.

Irony reportedly in critical condition!

Details are still sketchy, but according to preliminary police reports, late last night, after a night barhopping with estranged friend Cynicism, Irony was mugged in a back alley, suffering three stab wounds and a severe concussion. Four women are in custody.

Elmo knows where you live...

From Palestine: "Kids' puppet calls for massacre:"

The recently aired episode was dedicated to the importance of trees. The moderator asked "Tarabisho," a talking chick, what he would do if someone, specifically a "little boy," were to chop down his tree. In his squeaky little voice, Tarabisho answered that he would shoot the little boy with an AK-47 automatic rifle, create a massacre and make a riot.
Man, that Tarabisho likes his trees! Although, according to my cursory research, Tarabisho lacks opposable digits, not to mention hands, so I think he’s all talk no martyr here.

In one song on the "Children's Club," very young children are shown singing songs about wanting to become "suicide warriors" and to take up "a machine gun" to direct "violence, anger, anger, anger" against Israelis.

During the show, which featured children aged 4-10, one young boy sings, "When I wander into Jerusalem, I will become a suicide bomber." Afterward, other children stand to call for "Jihad! Holy war to the end against the Zionist enemy."

In another segment, a boy who appears to be no more than 8 or 9 years old chants: "My patience has run out. All Arab existence cries for revenge" against the Jews in Israel.

Yeah, the Palestinian culture is, to use a colloquial term, friggin' messed up (for some truly warped TV—and I’m talking Carson Daly-level warped here—check out these Palestinian TV clips). The glorification of death among the young is no less than a form of child abuse. There can be no lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, no two state solution, until, in the words of Golda Meir, “The Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews.”

As I am personally a fan of not dying, I don’t think I’m going to hold my breath on this one.

Meanwhile, the Arafish has swum upstream to its natural spawning zone, France.

"The latest tests have found that President Arafat does not suffer from any life-threatening illness and what he has is curable," Nabil Abu Rdainah, a senior aide, was quoted as saying.
You mean they can cure “Evil?” My prescription for a case of the evils is 6 million cc’s of Israeli Hellfire missiles, stat.

How to Defeat Terror--A primer

"The Iraq War was a distraction from the War on terror." This is a standard anti-war assertion. But is it truth or tripe?

I don’t know if anti-war types are being willfully obtuse, or if their Bush hatred has blinded them to all but the most simple observations (Bin Laden no here? Grrr… Distraction!). The Lefts inability to understand the Iraq War is one of the reasons why they have been marginalized post-9/11.

To conceptualize the War on Terror as simply a matter of tracking down those that attack us is fundamentally flawed and a sure recipe for disaster. The real question that needs to be asked is how do you dismantle an ideology of terror? You can’t bomb it, you can’t arrest it, and you can’t get the UN to sign a resolution that will end it.

And, yet, if it isn’t dismantled, even as terrorists are struck down their ranks will be constantly replenished until either they or America are bled dry. A war of attrition in an era of asymmetric warfare and weapons capable of dealing out death disproportionate to their cost and size (i.e. explosives) is not something that America should seek out. When one suicide bomber can take out 8 highly trained and expensively equipped Marines we know that it is not a struggle we can hold up indefinitely.

Killing the terrorists in the short run is of vital importance, but for the long haul radical change must be wrought in the Middle East. Hence the war in Iraq.

Essentially, it is an anti-totalitarian war, a war for freedom. This is not platitudinous, as many cynical observors posit. In totalitarian governments, human freedom is restricted to an unacceptable degree, leading to widespread disaffection among the oppressed populace. To enforce these unpopular restrictions, an intrusive police state is required in order to keep a watchful eye on the restive populace. Arbitrary arrests and executions inevitably follow.

Naturally, many yearn for freedom and so desire change. But when free speech is restricted and a single party controls the government, there are no legitimate channels to affect this desired change. Therefore terrorism is utilized. It’s a natural progression from totalitarianism to terror; if you make the climate in which people live unbearable through restrictions on freedom and then if you take away legitimate means to change this climate, terrorism becomes one of the only recourses for change.

Now, many might say that the movement that has mobilized in response to the totalitarian governments of the Middle East is one of Islamofascism, a totalitarian ideology in itself. Therefore the people aren’t entirely against totalitarian mechanisms and so freedom is not the best antidote.

I wholeheartedly agree that Islamic fundamentalism is at heart totalitarian, but the truth is that its practitioners see it as the sublimest manifestation of human freedom. Advocates of Islamic rule believe that only in total shariah law, that is, laws based entirely on the Qur'an, the Hadith, as well as ijma, is human freedom to be found.

Although, in reality the implementation of these laws inevitably leads to a Talibanesque totalitarian theocracy and a resulting restriction of freedom as it is percieved Western philosophical tradition, shariah law is viewed by Islamists as total freedom because, under it, people are not beholden to manmade law, but, rather, only laws made by God. Therefore no one on Earth can tell anyone else what to do, and so everyone is entirely free, only bound by the natural laws of the universe, i.e. those of Allah which are seen as no more restrictive than the laws of gravity. It is impossible for natural laws of the universe to be oppressive, so shariah law is total freedom.

So even as Islamofascists advocate totalitarian shariah law, they still justify it on the grounds of human freedom. But, as shariah law is in fact totalitarian in itself, it in turn leads to dissafection among the masses when it is instituted, leading people to begin to yearn for the freedom of a secular government. These secular governments have, in the past, universally turned into totalitarian dictatorships. This perverse symbiotic relationship between secular totalitarianism and Islamofascist totalitarianism has been the norm throughout the Middle East, the obviously unrelated exception being Israel.

We are now changing this norm by putting forward a third option. Democracy, and, with it, true human freedom in the Western tradition, a freedom of individualism and largely negative rights, i.e. the right to be left alone. Democracy also has a built in defense against terror in that it allows for legitimate channels of access for change. Democracy, it is true, can still spawn terror, but not at the widespread level that the dissafection caused by totalitarianism does.

This grand strategic view of how to win the war on terror is, I think, the best option open to us. We may find later that there are special proclivities in the constitution of Islam itself that naturally tend toward toward terrorism, even in stable democracies, but I think that this can, and should, be confronted later, when secular democracies have sprouted in the Middle East.

This view of winning the war on terror is an entirely liberal view, and one that benefits all involved; the people of the middle east with democracy and freedom and the people of the United States with security. Some liberals, such as Paul Berman in his masterful Terror and Liberalism, have grasped the special role that totalitarianism is playing in relation to terror. But many have not.

Instead, they have contented themselves with a simplistic, shortsighted view on how to combat terrorism, using soundbite-oriented critiques of the war in Iraq such as “No WMD” and “No alQaeda Connections,” which the press, in its natural tendency to simplify issues down to their crudest essence, has eagerly taken.

President Bush has constantly invoked the pivotal role that freedom should play in our policies, but even he has not elucidated his grand strategy to the level that the common person can grasp and believe in. It should be common knowledge by now that totalitarianism is spawning terrorism.

In the first debate, when Kerry was on his “wrong war,” “mistaken war” spiel, Bush should have destroyed him by observing that Kerry had no grand vision of how to actually win the war on terror. The myopia of many liberals, their eyes clouded by the cataract of Bush loathing as well as an innate distrust of American military might, have rendered them largely MIA in assessing the war on Iraq in particular and the war on terror in general for what they truly are.

To them, America is the only oppressor, with the Third World proletariat suffering under its imperialism and lust for oil. Thus we have the widely held belief that America is responsible for what happened to her, that terrorism is a natural rebuke to the intrusiveness of the American sphere of influence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Liberals of today are, in fact, profoundly illiberal. I should have expected better from them at such a momentous time in the world's history.

In case anyone had any doubts...

Who, what, and why we are still fighting. A little reminder.*

*not for the faint of heart

Hey, wait, come back Patriot Act, we still Love ya!

Wisdom from Jeff Goldstein:

US intelligence sources now believe the Azzam tape and the bin Laden tape are linked and combine to send a message—the first, that Al Qaeda is in America and is ready to unleash an attack; the second, that bin Laden is preemptively justifying the death of innocents.

I’ll say it: I sincerely hope our intelligence agencies have surreptitiously violated the civil liberties of enough US-based Islamist sympathizers to glean the information they’re going to need to thwart any impending attack.

I’ll go back to being a libertarian once bin Laden’s head is stuffed and mounted on the front of a yellow Cadillac convertible with Texas license plates

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Our friends, the media

What would happen if documents were discovered that impugned Bush’s military service—oh wait, never mind. The media ran gleefully with them into the public square, shouting incoherently, pants around its ankles. I remember that now.

And what do you think would happen if documents were discovered about Kerry? Let’s take a looksee!

While John Kerry is running around claiming President George Bush and our troops overseas failed the American people by not guarding an explosives dump without explosives in it, documents have been uncovered at Texas Tech University that show Kerry was following Vietnam War protest guidelines from North Vietnamese communists in the early 1970s.


The documents -- which actually LOOK like they came from the 1970s and not from a Microsoft Word program -- were found at the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech University in Lubbock and reproduced from captured communist records. These documents have been PROVEN 100 percent authentic BEFORE their release, unlike those 60 Minutes National Guard documents that CBS refuses to investigate. They show that Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Viet Cong provisional governor of South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Talks, delivered a plan from Le Duc Tho -- Ho Chi Minh's second in command -- for American anti-war activities that anti-war protesters followed to the letter.


Kerry had also met illegally with Binh in 1970 while he was still a Naval officer on inactive reserve status, and in fact, all his meetings were under the six-year window of the term of his enlistment. This precludes him from even running for elective office, much less president, but nobody is mentioning it for some reason. Amendment 14, Section 3 states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-president, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." [emphasis added]

Have you seen a 60 Minutes II breathlessly reporting that yet? Has the New York Times jumped on the bandwagon, with lurid “Kerry committed treason!” headlines?

Bah! There are more important matters at hand, such as anything remotely bad for Bush. .06% of the explosives in Iraq may not have been secured? Holla! That’s good for a weeks worth of headlines there! Kids are playing poker? Must... inform... populace!

I mean, if I was going to sell my soul, I would get something cool, like a Lamborghini or a third arm or something. But a Kerry presidency? Dude, you need to get a out more.

Hoping for a Kerry landslide?

Possible Election Outcomes sorted in order of desirability:

1. Massive Bush landslide. San Francisco put on suicide watch. Countries J-P invaded.

2. Massive Kerry landslide. Acceptance speech lasts 9 hours. Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

3. Massive Nader landslide. Hobbits and trees rejoice. Rainbow-powered cars set for ’05.

4. Massive Inanimate Carbon Rod landslide. Time Magazine Cover: "In Rod We Trust."

5. Protracted Legal Battle; Kerry wins. Lawyers of “He Who Has the Long Face and Windy Speech” triumph over the lawyers of the Bush tribe.

6. Protracted Legal Battle; Bush wins. El Presidente defeats the Democrat insurgency. Edwards cries to his mommy.
In summary, whoever wins I hope they win by a lot, and I’d prefer that it was Bush. Still, I would rather see a massive Kerry victory than a scenario reminiscent of 2000 with Bush emerging as the bloodied victor.

It is absolutely vital that a clear winner with a strong mandate come out of this election. Not only are we in the middle of war against the terrorist-spawning totalitarian mechanisms of the Middle East, but it is our duty to set the proper example for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the election is close, voting irregularities, which happen in every election, will be inflated by the press and used as ammo by lawyers. In turn, the worldwide press will seize on this news and distort it. Finally, news of military coups in Washington will filter down to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The left’s constant whining and wailing about the 2000 election has already seriously undermined the perception of American democracy in the world. In Europe, many don’t understand the Electoral College system of the United States, and thus it is hard for them to comprehend why the popular vote winner lost. Sneers of “Bush stole the election” gain a certain sense of believability, especially for Europeans already predisposed to anti-Americanism.

Many have also been indoctrinated with leftist shibboleths such as the “disenfranchised” of Florida; a favored meme of the left that has had a hugely pernicious effect on the legitimacy of the US in the eyes of many of our voters. This disgustingly opportunistic sniping is done at the expense of American democracy. I’m not looking forward to a Kerry presidency, but his winning would be immensely preferable to a Bush win that destroyed the last shred of American credibility in the world. I generally don't care what France et al think about us (and, in fact, earning the ire of certain countries is a sign that we are going in the right direction), but if we are percieved as a an illegitimate dictatorship it will seriously hamper our ability to champion the spread of democracy. And, given the chance, the Europress would seize any chance to strangle Middle East democracy in its infancy, just to spite America.

Due to the shameful behavior of the left in the past few years, we are put in this awkward position. I hope, underneath the unmitigated Bush hatred, they’re happy for what the damage they have done. I have no faith in Leftists comporting themselves with a modicum of respect for our Democratic institutions or the precarious world position we are in, and so in a protracted legal battle I would hope for a Kerry presidency over a Bush presidency. The right wouldn't bring the country down with it, but, after four years of Bushitler, I would fully expect riots and other violence from the puerile left.

These children have thrown a red-faced, screaming temper tantrum for the last four years, barely pausing for breath, and it has had the desired effect, at the expense of the legitimacy of American institutions.

We need to repair this, starting with this election. Stories of preemptively mobilized lawyers just scare the heck out of me.

update: A related piece:

The Democrat and Republican should agree to accept the outcome of this year's presidential election, no matter how close, no matter which of the two candidates comes out on top. They also should forswear any post-election lawsuits. And they should urge their supporters to do the same.

If Kerry and Bush were to evince such statesmanship, they not only would do much to restore faith in the American electoral system, they also would do much to promote civility between all but the most rabid Democrats and Republicans.

Why bloggers should make political ads, part 2

Which party is really the party of fear?

Friday, October 29, 2004

Maybe he's not dead

Via Drudge:

Arab satellite television Al Jazeera said on Friday it would broadcast a video tape from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden addressing the American people.

It said the tape, to be aired at 4 p.m. EDT, would discuss the reasons behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and their repercussions. It gave no further details.

This could be the first evidence we've had in a long while that Bin Laden isn't laughing it up with Allah. That is, if OBL references current events. The reasons behind 9/11 and their repercussions? Depending on the substance, this tape could have been filmed a long time ago. In fact, this may be al Jazeeras own pathetic attempt at an October surprise.

Anyways, I wonder who he'll endorse? His fanatically cultish behavior hints toward a possible La Rouche endorsement, but he might be an ABBer or a KH4Ker.

The only thing for certain, is that no matter what he says it will help Bush. And I say this from the very bottom of my partisan, hackish heart.

Some might say that Kerry could benefit because Bin Laden's reappearance would highlight Bush's failure to produce his body or capture him. But I think that anything that brings the focus back to the War on Terror is going to remind people, whatever their specific qualms about Bush, that they really can't risk a Kerry presidency at this time.

"Missing explosives" should be ammo for Bush

Andrew Sullivan points to a smoking gun proving that the US flubbed in its efforts to secure the explosives at al QaQaa.

Meanwhile, Charles Johnson points to a Fox News report of a soldier saying the US secured the weapons.

It’s hard to tell what went on at al QaQaa. Either way, though, this story could, and should, be read as a success for the Bush administration. We have taken down a country led by a genocidal madmen in possession of “650,000 to 1 million tons of explosives, artillery shells, aviation bombs and other ammunition” and who, contra to leftist talking points, “provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks.”

Judging by this pattern of behavior, coupled with Saddam's irrantional behavior (plotting to assassinate a former US president? invading Kuwait? invading Iran? Bueller?) and desire to attack America, it previously wasn’t out of the question to assume that Saddam would pass explosives on to one of the terror groups he supported. Now it is.

As I said earlier, it’s not clear if the .06% of Iraqi munitions in question have gone missing, and the extent to which the US may have been at fault if they have fallen into the wrong hands. I would tend to think that the weapons were secured, taken by Russia before the war, or moved by Saddam before the war, because we haven’t seen this type of explosive turn up in the hands of the insurgency (which, if it had been looted, it almost certainly would have), as well as for a gaggle of other reasons.

Either way, it shines a spotlight on the arms dump that was pre-invasion Iraq, as well as the relatively okay ( relatively okay—now that’s a ringing endorsement -ed.) job we have done in securing the most dangerous munitions despite the size of the country, amount of munitions, and security concerns.

Lastly, OT a bit, but credit where credit is due. I wholeheartedly endorse this comment from Bill at INDC Journal:

The WaPo's riled me up with bias before and undoubtedly will again (start the stopwatch), but almost consistently, all election season long, they've shown up with their gameface on certain key issues. The massive exception to this statement is anything written by overt hack Dana Milbank and many of the jaundiced, canned Iraq narratives by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.

Michael Dobbs, Howard Kurtz and Thomas E. Ricks have been relative stars among the media elite, however. Credit where credit's due.

Christian fundamentalists

Today I attended the Dorothy L. Thompson Lecture series on Civil Rights given by the President of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen.

Sadly, this had none of the excitement of a Lou Douglas Lecture. The lecture was a relatively sober critique of the Patriot Act.

The most telling part of Strossen's lecture came when she said that the single most controversial part of the Patriot Act was the secret seizure of library records. In a world confronting the possibility of terror attacks apocalyptic in scale, be satisfied that the most compromised civil right is the 1-and-a-halfth amendment: “Library records shall not be infringed upon.”

In the Q and A portion afterwards, a person I recognized as a Lou Douglass regular asked a question that basically accused President Bush of adopting the “Patriot Act” for religious reasons. Specifically, Bush supposedly thinks that all people are sinners and so must be punished by intrusive, regulative policies. Nadine lapped this up. The questioner also alluded to the real threat. He gestured toward the Student Union, where, “even as we speak, Christian fundamentalists are gathered” *insert ominous music*.

The utter condescension and smug superiority with which he referred to these “fundamentalists” (saying, “how can we convince people like them”) offended even a die-hard Democrat sitting by me. Not to mention the disgusting use of the word “fundamentalist” to describe groups of mainstream Christians meeting together in faith; a startling debasement of a word that shouldn’t be employed lightly in an era of Islamic fundamentalist terror.

Hard leftists feel truly threatened by the religiosity of the Republican Party in general and Bush in particular. They see it is an alien and incomprehensible concept: “he hears God talking to him? Is he insane? Is he possessed?” They are so ignorant of any moral perspective in the area of religion that a person professing an open, unashamed belief in God must be equivalent to the Wahhabi extremist.

George Orwell, an enemy of such moral equivalency, wrote in his essay "The Lion and the Unicorn":

There is not much freedom of speech in England; therefore there is no more than exists in Germany. To be on the dole is a horrible experience; therefore it is no worse to be in the torture-chambers of the Gestapo. In general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread.

Many Christians think homosexuality is sinful, therefore they must be like the Islamist who would stone homosexuals. Many Christians believe a modicum of decency is beneficial for society, therefore they are like the Islamist that advocates the burkha and prevents woman from venturing outside the household. Christians like to pray, therefore God is telling them to hijack planes with box cutters and fly them into the nearest building.

As much as leftists berate Bush for being unable to see shades of gray, they are no stranger to simplistic thought.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Cold front moves through Hell

You thought the Red Sox victory was surprising?

You thought the discovery of hobbits was surprising/humorous?

Those are nothing. Heck, if the Red Sox beat the hobbits in a game of quidditch I would be less surprised than I am now.

According to Medienkritik, Germany’s largest newspaper endorses… Bush.

Holy cataclysmic happenings, Batman!

The German press has been -- how to put this politely -- a reeking cesspool of anti-Americanism. They ran gleefully with the “Bush was wired” conspiracy theory. Comparing America to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia has become germane to any discussion, and is not done with the tongue-in-cheek hyperbole that many US leftists use; the German press is dead serious. The media orgy over Abu Ghraib (which is seen as comparable to Auschwitz in the morally blinkered views of the German press) still hasn’t subsided.

So, yeah. Surprised indeed.

One of newspaper’s points:
1. Bush has clear priorities. He sees the inhuman Islamic fundamentalism and the murderous mullahs as the largest danger for the Western world.
He sees it, but most of Germany doesn’t. I commend this newspaper; they are SO going to get firebombed by the German pacifist movement for this.

Why blogger's should make political ads

Here's the ad they don't want you to see.

They being... oh, I don't know... Ted Kennedy? Does that work for you?

A slight error...

It seems that the estimate on the missing weapons--which may have been carted out by Russia before the war started... yeah, that Russia, the one that was on the Security Council vehemently opposing the war--has been revised down from 380 tons... to 3 tons.

Tomorrows news headline, today: "2721554.2 gms of explosive's missing/Bush, Hitler never seen in same place at same time"

Is that the Emancipation Proclamation in your pocket, or... (Updated)

*Abe Lincoln: Republican from log cabin or Log Cabin Republican?:

"I do not feel my own sorrows more keenly than I do yours," Lincoln wrote Speed in one letter. And again, "You know my desire to befriend you is everlasting." In a detailed retelling of the Lincoln-Speed love story — including the "lust at first sight" encounter between the two young men, when Lincoln readily accepted Speed’s eager invitation to share his narrow bed — Tripp notes that Speed was the only human being to whom the president ever signed his letters with the unusually tender (for Lincoln) "yours forever" — a salutation Lincoln never even used to his wife."
He preserved the American Union...but was he denied a union of his own? He freed the slaves... but was he slave to his own desires? Mary Todd Lincoln... loving wife, or cross-dressing transexual reverse-secret man-lover? This, and tons of other information you didn't want to know, coming soon!

And, courtesty of Fred Phelps, a limerick:

There once was a man from Kentucky,
with men he felt he'd get lucky,
but to his dismay,
this man who was gay,

*Abe Lincoln even graces their site... Mmm...prescient.

Update I: The Log Cabin Republicans have released a statement: "We're here, we're queer... and so was Abe Lincoln! Whatcha thinka that Religious Right!"

Update II: I just got an email from John Kerry:

In light of this revelation, I just thought you should know that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. That is all.

Update III: In light of recent revelations, I just thought we should all take a look at this picture.

Update IV: Re: the look on Franken's face: ewww...

Update V: Umm... just so we're on the same page here, that limerick was a joke and not written by Phelps, the statement was not from the LCR, and John Kerry didn't send me an email. As for the look on Franken's face, see previous update.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Here's what I like to see...

Support for the Iraq war from a man that thinks George Bush is a "serial killer" and illegimate president.

Johann Hari reluctantly hopes Kerry will win, but his ability to endorse the Iraq war is what I expect of liberals as the bare minimum requirement to retain a shred of intellectual honesty and moral honesty. You don't have to like Bush, you don't even have to vote for Bush. Even Christopher Hitchens, one of my favorite columnists (he's an incredibly incisive polemicist, and also coined the term "Islamofascist," which has come to define the enemy) is voting for Kerry (as well as the rest of the staff at Slate--surprise).

In this transcript, he just demolish's Robert Fisk. Robert Fisk is an infamously anti-Western British journalist, most known for saying of an Afghan mob that beat him, "If I had been them, I would have attacked me" as well as for lying about the "Jenin Massacre" and never issuing a correction (go here, if you want to hear Robert Fisk go bonkers after getting called out on it) .

Fisk is also the journalist from which the blogospheric verb "fisk" was coined. For an example of a fisking, see previous entry; it is basically a deconstruction of a column or article while exposing it with ruthless logic and cruel wit. Hella fun, indeed.

Money quotes from the transcript mentioned above:

George Orwell once said, ‘Sometimes a war is right even if the Daily Telegraph says so.’ Well, sometimes a war is right even if George Bush says so.


And please remember: if the invasion hadn’t happened we wouldn’t be talking about Iraqi democracy, ever. We would be talking about Saddam and Uday and Qusay forever. I say better a chance at democracy and trade unions and decency – even if you think it’s slim - than an eternity of Ba’athism.


At one point, in response to another question, Fisk said, "Now nobody is safe in Iraq. Under Saddam, if you kept your head down and stayed out of politics, you could be."

Johann replied later: "Really? What about the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs and the 60,000 people murdered in Baghdad alone? What about the conscription during the Iran-Iraq War? They all kept out of politics, and politics was forced on them. So I don't agree."


Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Another vital issue

But, what is the Collegians take on the missing weapons, you wonder.

"The Pentagon made a mistake — a big one."

Weapons, confirmed as being intact when U.S. troops arrived in Iraq in March 2003, are now missing. About 377 tons of conventional explosives from an Iraqi military installation have disappeared.
Really? Because according to a CBS News story filed at the time this all happened, (link via CQ), the troops didn’t arrive at the al QaQaa depot until April 4. So, I'm thinking it would have been kind of difficult for them to confirm the weapons intactyness in March. Plus, when they did get there, all that was found was a bunch of suspicious powder.

"And although there are no reports of actual weapons being found, there are constant finds of suspicious material," Martin said. "It obviously will take laboratory testing to find out exactly what that powder is."
But don’t let that stop you Collegian, you guys have an election to win. Do continue.

The Bush administration and Pentagon officials used the threat of weapons of mass destruction as the reason to go to war. [emphasis added]
Okay, a minor, quibble. Really, I’m sorry to interrupt, but WMD weren't the reason to go to war. It was one of a few reasons. It was the most hyped of all the reasons, and the most grave, but their were other reasons. I must commend your subtle attempts to de-legitimize the war, though. Sneaky.

Instead, military strategy seems to be focused on killing insurgents and protecting oil fields. The war seems to have become only a means for political and economic gain.
Wow, a high nice swan dive into the fever swamp. 4.5, 4.5, 5. Yeah, the war in Iraq has been a real political asset. Bush could've used his post 9/11 political capital anyway he wanted. Do you think a foreign war is a surefire way to win votes in the post 'Nam era? And economic gain? How many billions have we spent there again? Just asking, you know, because I fail to see the big bucks here.

Oh wait, I get it. I mean, really, just say “war for oil.” You’ll feel a lot better, I promise.

And, anyway, what’s the problem with focusing on "killing insurgents," i.e. the enemy, and "protecting oil," the Iraqi people’s most important natural resource and a vital source of income to help them rebuild? If we don’t, stuff like this happens:

Before Sunday's sabotage attack, southern oil exports had fallen from around 1.8 million barrels per day to 800,000 bpd.

Disruption to Iraqi exports and frequent sabotage cost the government millions of dollars of lost revenue every day when infrastructure operates below par.

But I guess as long as Halliburton doesn't see a penny, its all alright to leave the Iraqi's to suffer under a brutal dictatorship. Thanks for that moral equivalency. I feel all fuzzy now.
We trust the government [ha!] to protect us, yet each day we are left wondering whose interests are really at stake.
Bushalliburton’s, my pretty. We invaded to steal the oil. That’s why gas prices are at an all time low.

But, anyway, thanks for the editorial. That was a lot better than the “Vital Issues are Vital” column. Seriously, I'll take flawed logic and specious conclusions over pointless drivel anyday.

Which reminds me, when are you guys going to endorse a candidate? I’m holding my breath in anticipation.

That liberal media...

Via Drudge, "New Study Finds Media Favored Kerry in First Two Weeks of October:"

A new study for the non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism suggests that in the first two weeks of October, during the period of the presidential debates, George W. Bush received much more unfavorable media coverage than Sen. John Kerry.


In the final accounting, 59% of stories that were mainly about Bush told a mainly negative story, while 25% of Kerry stories played out that way. One in three stories about Kerry were positive, one in seven for Bush.

While bias could be a factor, there are other possible explanations. Fully 40% of stories logged by the researchers had to do with the debates, where Kerry was generally seen as "winning" or doing very well, especially in debate number one. Another 9% concerned Iraq, with many setbacks during this period for the U.S. that also would drive Bush's negatives up unrelated to the campaign. In fact, nearly one in four stories on Bush were related to Iraq.

I wonder why Kerry was seen as winning the debates... could it be that the media creates the molds the way people percieve the outcome? Obviously. But, I'll grant that, especially in the first debate, Kerry was percieved as the clear winner by about everyone but me, partisan hack that I am.

And, also, Iraq probably is a legitimate reason for more negative stories. It's no secret that things are rough there, it would just be nice to get some historical perspective from the papers. For example, are things really that mismanaged in Iraq compared to other wars? At a D-Day training exercise more than 700 men perished. And the media today harps when "0.00005% of the known existing weapons" have disappeared from an Iraqi cache, but even then, probably before we got there (also check out the pictures at that link for some perspective). And, even then the story was started by a man with an axe to grind.

And plus, there is always good news from Iraq, but good news just doesn't sell for the purveyors of propaganda and pessimism.

But still, 59% negative for Bush, 25% negative for Kerry? Kerry would have been completely and utterly destroyed had we had a fair press. His whole plan for Iraq boils down to "I will do better because I'm John Kerry." He lied about meeting with the security council, which is very significant when his whole campaign is based around his supposed diplomatic charm He has accused Bush of mishandling Tora Bora when he (Kerry) supported Bush at the time. He has predicated his whole campaign on his ability to woo allies, when France and Germany have already explicity said they won't help out.

I could go on. The point is, is that there are no dearth of stories on Kerry's faults. The problem is, is that the stories might hit the papers once and run on page A-60. This study adds more evidence to the liberal bias of most media--but really, if you still aren't convinced, I bet Jesus himself could descend from the heavens, show you the wounds on his hands, and that still wouldn't be enough.

Oh... wait. Nevermind. I forgot. If there was a liberal bias, we wouldn't know, because then the media wouldn't tell us about it. Obviously.

Flop flipper! Flop flipper!

If Kerry flip flops, and the only people around are CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago-Sun Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc, does it make a sound?

I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein?
You want to turn attention to Saddam, just two months after 9/11! But, that's the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong armies, with the wrong WMD, with the wrong allies, with the wrong mass graves, and the wrong terrorist connections, not to mention the wrong leadership and wrong planning.

Now, I don't really like the incessant howls of "flip flop!" because, of course, a politician is entitled to change his mind. But when Kerry attacks the president for doing something that, at the time it took place, he had advocated doing, then it makes Kerry look like a cheap political opportunist, at the least, to continually bring up Tora Bora. And, yes, a flip flopper.

One things for sure, if they gave out awards for armchair quarterback, I would nominate Kerry for the Heismann. That is, assuming he's still limber enough to pull this one off.

"Times lied, Credibility Died"

This is the October surprise? That's pathetic. I was expecting a little more, such as Bush's devious hand in the ending of "Friends." You should be ashamed NY Times et al., ashamed. Your capable of so much better. This story didn't have the lovable lunacy of your previous crackpot "Bush was wired" story.

CBS knew how to play this thing. They were, like a good Kerry stooge, planning the story for the eve of the election.

Check out this Daily Recycler clip to see Kerry gleefully accept NY Time's preelection gift, interspersed with clips of NBC just as gleefully leaping at the throat of its competitors and exploding the story. Schadenfreude, how sweet the sound.

Last night, when Phyllis Bennis (not to be confused with Regis Philbin, although they do look rather similar) mentioned this story, I was already rather unimpressed. 380 tons, which, according to my back of the envelope calculations during the lecture, was .15% of the weapons in Iraq. According to John Cole's more considered calculation, he says it's "0.00005% of the known existing weapons" in Iraq. Either way, the weapons were gone before we got there, although I personally don't take comfort in that. Good thing we twiddled our thumbs at the UN, huh?

And, yes, the weapons cash was known as al Qa Qaa. Although why you even bring that up is beyond me. Grow up.

Talking Back to the Fourum -- I

Fourum: "If it really was a liberal hippie rag, they wouldn't print your conservative comments. Would all the dumbasses who overlook the obvious please stop calling?

Me: Are you insinuating that liberals are against free speech, so that if the Collegian was liberal they would obviously turn the paper into a leftist echo chamber, purging all conservative thought?"

Fourum: Er…ah… BUSHLIED!!!

Me: Wow dude, like, turn you're head when you yell that or something, this is a new shirt. But point taken.

All Hail the Chimp!

Presented without comment:
Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Phyllis Bennis--Hive Queen of the Moonbats

Wow, what a night! Next time I promise not to blog, I’m going to make sure that there’s not a Lou Douglas Lecture scheduled.

Phyllis Bennis, moonbat extraordinaire, gave her wonderful lecture “Challenges to Empire: Iraq the UN.”

I had my Lou Douglas Bingo Card ready to go. Free space: Bushitler. Even if they don't say it, you know their thinking it.

7:10 – speech starts.

7:14 – calls USA dangerously unilateralist. Check. Off to a good start.

7:15 – accuses America of war crimes because we waged a war of aggression. Two in a row in the first five minutes!

7:18 – My oceanography professor is here, staring avidly forward in the third row. Man, I’ll never look at him the same way again. That is, with a secret lust that cannot be spoken.

7:23 – Toolina is here, bless her tooly little heart! But where’s her “Bush Lies” shirt? The election is fast approaching, its time to up the rotation on that baby! When she oppressed her self with clothes this morning, she must’ve decided to go with urban anarchist chic instead. And, oh yeah, does it work for her! Still scowling, though. Don’t worry, sweet Toolina, the Bushalliburton oil-igarchy will be deposed November 2! Revolucion! Hey, I’ve seen the girl Toolina is sitting by before. I saw her in the library. Why do I remember this? Because she was making out with another girl. In the library. I’ll never look at you the same way again, Toolina.

7:24 – Drinks deeply from the cup of moral equivalency. Check. S'bout time.

7:27 – “Coalition of the coerced.” Check

7:28 – 7:30: Short break to hose spittle off podium. Man, is that thing glistening!

7:32 – Smashes fruit in front of audience. “American Empire will be crushed like this overripe watermelon! ULULULULULU!”

7:34 – Shrieks, “Death to AmeriKKKa!!!!” and rips off shirt. Gasps of horror ripple through the audience, but, thank God, she was wearing a suicide vest underneath it, so no flesh made its way through. Crowd relieved. Immensely.

7:37 – Bushitler is destroying our democracy. The guy next to me screams “Bingo!” Bennis informs him were playing four corners, because “straight lines are oppressive to the gay community.” Man curses; blames the Jews.

7: 39 – Devours flaming Bush effigy.

7:43 – Still no mention of Fox News. I look around confused. This is a Lou Douglas Lecture, right?

7:50 – She say’s we should learn from Spain! “Appease, appease, aplease don’t attack us anymore!”

7:52 – Speech ends.

7:54 -- For’ner next to me tries to make idle chat. Evil, leftist idle chat. He remarks about the high price of gasoline, and American Empire. I point out that we must not be a very good empire since we aren’t yet bathing in oil and wiping our asses with Renoirs. Well, that’s not exactly what I said, but that’s the gist of it.

8:00 – Q and A! My favorite part of any Lou Douglas lecture. Who’s going to ask the “Indian genocide” question, I wonder to myself, looking around. Toolina? Possibly, but she looks more like a scowler than an asker.

8:10 – Jonas Hogg, fellow Collegianaire asks lucid question about the legitimacy of the UN, mentioning that Kofi Annan is personally involved in the Oil For Peace UNSCANDAL. Phyllis, eager to flaunt her ability to will away discomforting truths says that this is not true, it’s his son that’s involved, and even this isn’t true. Kofi’s not involved? I mean, do you even read the news, or are your lungs just a reservoir of knowledge and truth?

8:23 – Halliburton! Mentioned only in passing, and along with a cadre of other EEEVIL big business. You know, one of those EEEVIL big businesses that employ thousands of US citizens, pay lucratively and are helping rebuild Iraq.

8:30 – Ends. GAAAH! One Fox News bash, or a “Democracy can’t be imposed by force” and I would have had a Bingo! The questions were disappointing; the silent genocide of the Indians shall continue! You have failed Q and A’rs!

Final Statistics:

Number of times Phyllis…

…declared solidarity with the “glorious people’s insurgency” and vowed to give her life for the Iraqi fatherland: 13

…referred to Bush as a “hegemonic, oil-stained murder monkey”: 731

…looked heavenward and invoked the divine will of Allah: 7

… referenced the Duelfer report: 43. Which was agonizing, because she pronounced it “Daooooueeeaaaauuuulfooor” not to mention totally misrepresenting its conclusions.

…referred to Iraq’s “So-called sovereignty”: 91. Assuage your guilty conscience Bennis. Assuage it.

…accused Bush administration of “scaring” people into war: 657,569

…accused Bush of “lying”: approaching infinite.

All in all I was not disappointed; her speech was the furthest left of all the Lou Douglas lectures thus far, which earns her a pretty elite place in the pantheon of moonbat-ery. That’s why I go to Lou Douglas lectures; to observe the febrile rantings of an elite perpetually slighted by a man they consider to be less intelligent than a pet rock.

There’s no way I can even begin to refute/remember all the steaming tripe she served up to the eager leftist audience, but a few stand-out in my mind.

She highlighted this story, about explosives that, supposedly, the Bush team failed to secure during the post-war phase. But she was wrong, although, in fairness this is a recent development.

She also mentioned the infamous 16 words lie—unbe-friggin-lievable! Not only has this story been proved true, but it was true in the first place! The sixteen words: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. The British government had learned this. Many within the US intelligence community didn’t believe this, which is why they attributed it to British intelligence.

Bennis mockingly pointed out that we invaded Iraq—a country without WMD-- while we left the Norks—who have WMD--alone. “NO SHIITE!,” I thought loudly. That was the point of preemptive war, to get the bad guys before they get WMD. Once they have ‘em, we pretty much gotta play their game. Phyllis Bennis is Director of the New Internationalism Program of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. (Not only is this scary, but its ironic. The only internationalism Bennis believes in is bowing to the UN and having America hand out trillion’s for abortions in Africa, while apologizing for having such tasty, nonfatal water and enjoyable culture.)

I also realized another tactic that liberals use to justify their nonsupport of the most liberal endeavor of our lifetime (the Iraq and Afghanistan wars): they simply deny that the people are better off, despite all logic. Try as I might, I don't think I can refute this.

She also based her claim to the war’s supposed immorality based on its lacking the sanction of international law as well as the imprimatur of the UN. Well, you could make a case, a compelling case, that we did have the sanction of international law, since 1441 promised dire consequences if Saddam didn’t cooperate (and he didn’t), not to mention Saddam’s repeatedly violating the Gulf War I ceasefire, an apparent casus belli.

But that’s beside the point. Her legalistic approach fails because if the law is unjust, then anything stemming from that law will also be unjust. Following her law would’ve left Kosovo to the dogs. Also, if Hitler would’ve refrained from territorial aggression, this international law would’ve allowed the Holocaust. I find Bennis’ use of the law to impute morality or immorality on an action to be a cold, semantic last resort to justify her illiberal attitudes.

To rephrase one of Samuel Johnson’s famous quotes: the law is the last refuge of scoundrels.

update: fixed link

So much news, so little time...

In the last few days there has been an explosion of blogworthy news (not like 'blogworthy' is a high standard) but blogging will be light to nonexistent until Thursday, as I have a two tests this week.

I mean, geez, I SO wanted to about the Kerry campaign's blatant condescension toward the intelligence of black voters, as well as all religious people in general:
"For the last four years we've been living in the wilderness," he shouted from the pulpit, Mr. Kerry seated by his side. "There is one who can divide the Red Sea for us and we can cross over on dry ground. You've got a vote in your hand - use it on Election Day, use it and be liberated and be set free."
The dems routinely accuse Republicans of using religion to gain votes and destroying the separation of church and state (they even accuse Bush of believing he's "messianic".) But at least Republicans do it with some style and sincerity. As Bill at INDC Journal said, "Pandering is Bad, But Bad Pandering is Atrocious."

And then there's this little bit of Iraq-flavored Prozac. You mean Iraq hasn't broken off the Middle East and sunk into the sea amidst plagues of locusts and rivers of blood?

Chrenkoff does a great service, and allows sets me daydreaming, "Sigh, just think what it would be like if we had a real press out there, instead of entrenched purveyors of pessimism and propaganda. Sigh."

Well, that's probably it until Thursday (or until I break down in fifteen minutes and stop studying.)

So much news, so little time...

In the last few days there has been an explosion of blogworthy news (not like 'blogworthy' is a high standard) but blogging will be light to nonexistent until Thursday, as I have a two tests this week.

I mean, geez, I SO wanted to blog about the Kerry campaign's blatant condescension toward the intelligence of black voters, as well as all religious people in general:
"For the last four years we've been living in the wilderness," he shouted from the pulpit, Mr. Kerry seated by his side. "There is one who can divide the Red Sea for us and we can cross over on dry ground. You've got a vote in your hand - use it on Election Day, use it and be liberated and be set free."
The dems routinely accuse Republicans of using religion to gain votes and destroying the separation of church and state (they even accuse Bush of believing he's "messianic".) But at least Republicans do it with some style and sincerity. As Bill at INDC Journal said, "Pandering is Bad, But Bad Pandering is Atrocious."

And then there's this little bit of Iraq-flavored Prozac. You mean Iraq hasn't broken off the Middle East and sunk into the sea amidst plagues of locusts and rivers of blood?

Chrenkoff does a great service, and allows sets me daydreaming, "Sigh, just think what it would be like if we had a real press out there, instead of entrenched purveyors of pessimism and propaganda. Sigh."

Well, that's probably it until Thursday (or until I break down in fifteen minutes and stop studying.)

Sunday, October 24, 2004

UN to Saddam: "Hope is on the Way"

The UN is making one last, desperate bid to spare Saddam from death:
"The Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) recently stated that United Nations officials should not be directly involved in lending assistance to any court or tribunal that is empowered to impose the death penalty," Stephane Dujarric said at a news conference.

Kind of ironic, given that Kofi Annan was directly involved in lending Saddam assistance, and Saddam was definitly empowered to to impose the death penalty, and to impose it arbitrarily, often, and in unspeakable ways (hint: it involves people and an industrial strength plastic shredder).

Watching the UN get all huffy over the death penalty, is like watching a serial murderer get pissed off that people drive 20mph in a 30mph zone. The UN is composed of two-bit dictatorships, many of which commonly execute political prisoners, dissidents, etc. arbitrarily, and which also use torture on a day to day basis (not to mention the monsters that hang 16 year old girls in public).

The attempt to undermine a rising democracy because they have a civilized and nonarbitrary way of executing people that deserve it, while, at the same time, trying to perpuate the rule of countries that heinously abuse human rights, is just one of many examples of the moral blindness of the UN.

Afghanistan, check, Iraq, check, Iran...

One of the main problems of the UN is its emphasis on the equality of the countries contained within (besides the permanent members on the Sec. Council). This can, and usually does, lead to stultifying, and, ultimately dangerous, moral equivalency.

Via LGF, we learn that Hans Blix thinks that Iran has the right to enrich Uranium. Why? Because other countries do it. Never mind that Iran is member of the axis of evil, and one of the biggest supporters of terror, as well as a rapidly destabilizing state due to the nascent democratic movement fomenting within. It’s the same kind of thinking that Kerry uses when he insists that America shouldn’t research bunker busting nuclear weapons (a necessity to destroy bunkered WMD facilities), because he thinks it would make us look hypocritical. He thus puts the policeman on the same moral plane as the criminal.

Iran is the next theatre in the War on Terror. I predict that we will have either invaded Iran or sponsored an internal coup before 2006. Really. By 2006 Iran is estimated to have a working nuclear weapon. We cannot let this happen, and, as Iran knows that a nuclear weapon is there only chance to hang on to power, they will do anything they can to achieve it. Any news story you see from now on about Iran bargaining to give up their program in exchange for a light water reactor is just them buying time to finish their weapon. They have absolutely no intent to give up their program, and, thank God, Bush knows this. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to give fuel to Iran.

Iran is also a despicable theocracy run by depraved Islamist crazies. Recently, they staged 120 public hangings to reassert there authority over those that are pushing for more rights. This story rips at the heart strings:

Almost a month ago the Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's appointed judge in the province of "Mazandaran", in the South of the Caspian sea , sentenced "Atefeh Rajabi" a 16-year-old girl to death for committing adultery. The poor girl, deprived of even the very basic motherly love, was hanged in the public before the dismayed eyes of a people who have long forgotten that they were no more living than "Atefeh" was now. Just before she was hanged, "Atefeh" had willed everything she possessed to the poor girls like herself. A short time later, it was revealed that the Islamic judge and a few of his men had raped this little girl before hanging her.
Go to the link. Look at the picture. The placid, resigned look on the girl’s face is haunting, even mesmorizing. Had she lived in the United States she would have wore low rise jeans, talked incessantly on her cellphone, studied for algebra exams, fretted over her hair, flirted with boys in between classes, and, basically, lived her life from day to day as her whims, desires and morals guided her. Instead, there she is, standing there, rope dangling loosely around her neck, the last days of her life made a living hell by the inhuman bastards that raped her, alone and only 16 years old. It's impossible to fathom what emotions, what thoughts, where swirling through her head. Could her faith have been any succor in her last moments after being raped by an Islamic judge and sent to die in accordance with Islamic law? The betrayal of such an integral aspect of her life must have been devastating. The inhumanity of this one act almost justifies regime change, in my book, although you can bet that when the time comes France and co. will only get behind us for as long as it takes them to stab us in the back.

(Oh, by the way, Kerry not only wants to give these monsters fuel, but thinks they need more respect. Just though I'd let you know.)

On the heels of this sickening act:

The tragedy of "Atefeh" was still inflicting its heavy and painful burden on the Iranians' conscience that a report came out proclaiming that another girl, 13-year-old "Zheela", was sentenced to "stoning to death" by another Islamic judge in the city of "Marivan", Western Iran. This poor child is sentenced to death because she has been impregnated by her 15-year-old brother.
I’ll just end the way Michael Ledeen, a neoconservative, and one of the foremost advocates of regime change in Iran, ended his latest column:

Faster, damnit.

updated for clarity

Kerry gives strong, compelling, nonanswers

According to this WaPo article, Kerry is avoiding answering tough questions from Woodward even though President Bush submitted himself to them:

On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations.The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers. [emphasis added to increase hilarity]
“Yeah, we’re not going to answer those questions, but if we did…Man! Would our answers be great!” No one knows what the Zell his answers would be, but since Kerry's giving them, we're in for a treat! This is typical Kerry behavior: I would be a better President than Bush because I am John Kerry. By mere virtue of my service in Vietnam, senatorial demeanor, uncommon intelligence, aristocratic blood, and service in Vietnam, I can rule you peons better than anyone. Submit to your rightful ruler.

Of all of Woodward's questions, I would most like to see Kerry answer this one:
6. On June 1, 2002, President Bush announced his preemption doctrine.

Questions: Do you agree with it? What are the acceptable conditions for preemptive war? Bush has said that he believes the United States has a "duty to free people," to liberate them. Do you agree? Under what circumstances?
Kerry has thus far come across as fiscally liberal-bordering-on-socialist, but as a foreign policy realist. Kerry has said:

the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms.
Stability over democracy? Different forms? A cynical realist position, devoid of idealism and in sharp contrast with Bush’s gung-ho crusade for democracy and freedom. How can so-called “liberals” support such an illiberal candidate?

Oh yeah, right. He’s not Bush. I guess its worth compromising on the spread of human freedom to unseat Bushitler since he, you know, can subpoena your library record --screeching violin music—without you knowing!

What a bunch of tools.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Steal Stolen Honor Now!

You can watch the documentary that has Democrats donning their brownshirts and jackboots, here.

A showing of this documentary was stopped by the left due to threats of violence, and the more civil arm of Leftist censorship unleashed an army of lawyers to prevent you from seeing what is contained within this documentary.

The shameful histrionics that the left go into when confronted with this piece based on factual history, which most of the leftists, if not all, have never even seen, is represented best by this clip from the Daily Recycler. Although the subject matter is the Swift Vets, it displays the same type of Leftist behavior: Our enemies are liars by virtue of their opposing us; this message must be stopped because it is nothing but malicious, self-evident lies, even if I can’t disprove any of it; the movie is a politically motivated hit piece, a belt of ammo for the Republican attack machine.

Watch it. There is no mention of the more contentious Swift Vet charges (i.e. unearned medals, no enemy fire, etc), and, indeed, the Swift Vets for truth are not mentioned in this documentary. Rather, this documentary is a completely factual portrayal, based on witness testimony and public record about the shameful behavior of the anti-war movement in general, and John Kerry in particular, especially in regards to the many POW’s being held by the enemy. The only fact I have seen disputed within this documentary is that Kerry didn’t meet “secretly” with the enemy in Paris. No, it’s not disputed that Kerry met with the enemy, just that this meeting was done “secretly.”

The descriptions of the Hanoi Hilton and the tortures that American soldiers were made to endure, is the most heart-rending and moving part of the documentary. The tortures described are horrendous, although the courage with which the American soldier endured them is ultimately uplifting. It should be obvious, after viewing this documentary, that it is not politically motivated. Rather, the makers and participants are motivated by their loathing of the man whose slanderous testimony was read to them while they were being tortured, the man who destroyed their reputation for decades to come purely for political gain, and, finally, the man that legitimated the torture of POWs in the eyes of their torturers by referring to the POW’s as “war criminals.”

Watch it. But don’t just take my word for. A review in the New York Times says:

Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.
Suppressing speech because it hurts your candidate, even if it contains what you think are distortions, is a heinous violation of free speech. No matter what your political orientation you should recognize this. For example, I support Michael Moore’s right to have his documentary aired every minute from now until election day, if some channel is willing to do it. Freedom of speech is for everyone, be it war heroes with an axe to grind, or disgustingly unkempt and morbese* propagandists.

If the anti-Kerry documentary "Stolen Honor" can be suppressed, then why not the anti-Bush 60 Minutes II fabrication of Bush's National guard record, and from there, why not that blatantly biased Fox News, or the Castro News Network (CNN)? It's a can of worms that the left is opening up here, discerning which speech is free, and renders laughable--as if they already weren't--the accusations of Bushitler's Gulag-ridden, America taking away radical leftists freedom to vocally defecate their treasonous views. I wish.

*morbese: a coinage of mine, combining the words “morbidly” and “obese” into a more mellifluous and pithy concoction. Today’s obesity is not like the obesity of yesterday. Morbidly obese is mainstreaming itself, and, accordingly, deserves a word. They say that Eskimos have 100 words for snow (“they” being ignorant people), so it’s only fitting that America should expand our adipose vocab. The word is not a play off “Moore” and “obese.” Just thought I would make that clear.

updated for clarity; link to Daily Recycler clip added

Friday, October 22, 2004

I am not a Coultist

I dislike Ann Coulter.

Yes she's funny.

Yes she's often right.

But she's scary. Her chilling blue eyes and two-tones-too-deep voice make her a natural for wicked witch of the right, and she happily plays that part.

I'll admit, sometimes my writing can resemble Ann Coulter's (although not with nearly the piercing wit or clever, acerbic invective), the only difference being that where I to write something like, "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," I would do so in an ironic, humorous sense, parodying the view that many leftists have of us right wing warlocks. Ann Coulter, when she wrote this after 9/11, was not joking.

That is frightening, and serves to discredit the conservative cause, as well as appeal to the basest bigotries of man at a time that called for at least some semblance of levelheadedness.

And, also, there was Ann Coulter's shameful behavior in regards to National Review, one of my favorite mags and a flagship publication for the conservative cause, stemming from the above remark. Money grafs:

Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.


Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.

The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

Now, having said all of that, check out RWN's hilarious interview of Coulter. An excerpt:

John Hawkins: Do you think having John Kerry as our President would mean America would be more likely to be hit with another 9/11 style terrorist attack?

Ann Coulter: As I understand it from his policy proposals, such attacks would become mandatory.

As I said, I'll give her her due; she's a funny one, she is. Scary, but funny.

Twin blog

So the Bush twins get a blog at Bush's website? "Nepotism!" I say indignantly! Such corruption within the Bush regime! BUSHLIED!!!

And, courtesy of me, sample entry from the twinblog:

Journal Entry #37

so my lesser half, like, totally flaunts her legs for the camera! wat a hussy lol!

dad always tellls barb that she could be, like, a model and yesterday he raised the terror threat so she wouldnt have to wait in line at the bars and wat does he tell me, "theres somebody out there for everybody"?!?!? grrrrrr :-(

maybe if I cut her hair in her sleep then everyone will love me. That's right, theyll love me.


ps. i cut my arm yesterday. it felt good.

update: no, I don't have any pictures of barb. pleas stop emailing.

Me a tool? That's unpossible!

It takes a certain kind of person to wear a “Bush Lies” t-shirt. More specifically, it takes an abrasively ignorant person with little care for how they are perceived by others.

I saw one of these “Bush Lies” quislings today. She had that downtrodden, oppressed scowl that leftists wear in public, that just screams “I may be oppressed and downtrodden, but I can still scowl—that, comrade, will never be taken away from me by the Chimperor Bushalliburton IV.”

I wish I could see more people like this. There hyperbolic assumption of the mantle of oppressed revolutionary is hilariously ironic given their nonsupport and downright hostility toward the grand project of freedom and democracy being unveiled in the MidEast. Their sullen, nobody-understands-me-they’re-all-just-a-bunch-of-sheeple-it’s-Bush’s-fault-I-can’t-get-a-date demeanor always brightens my day.

This particular “Bush Lies” lass was no exception. As she passed me I avoided eye contact because rumor has it that if you look into their wild eyes you become one of them. And when she was right beside me, she hissed vituperatively “You’re such a tool.”

She didn’t specify what type of tool – tool of capitalist oppression, tool of American Imperialism, tool of Republican bigotry, hammer, etc – but I still nearly died laughing. There is something about being insulted by a scowling, obviously troubled, stranger that really made my day.

My columns have even been relatively inoffensive so far, especially compared to the blitzkrieg of columns that I have planned for the next three weeks. It’ll be a trifecta: oppression, violence and bigotry, with a dollop of patriotism questioning and ad hominems added to taste.

I hope to transcend tool status and make my way into obscenities. From there, is physical assault wishful thinking?

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Another Leftist for Bush

Some of them do get it, including Nelson Ascher, a militant atheist and secularist:

An attack that manages to ground all US and most of the world’s air traffic and close down the stock markets around the planet is something qualitatively different from a bomb in an Ulster pub. Human life is fragile, so is democracy, the world economy, globalization etc. The US can absorb U$ 1 trillion in damages. The rest of the world cannot. The US can survive a nuke in Manhattan. Brazil can survive a nuke in Sao Paulo. But Brazil cannot survive a nuke in Manhattan. What most of the world’s anti-Americans fail to understand is that whatever harms deeply the US harms us even more. Were Africa to suddenly disappear, it wouldn’t make much of a change in the life of New Yorkers. Were NY to disappear, Africa would go along.

So, this is what I have to say for those who think that Americans have overreacted to 9/11. Actually they have under-reacted. One more attack on America and Latin America will be condemned to a further hundred years of solitude and misery.

There are around 200 countries in the world today. Think that every floor of each WTC tower was one of them. The richest were those closer to the ground, the poorest the highest ones. If the base crumbles, the hundredth floor is unable to stand alone in thin air. Besides, the closer people were to the ground, the safer they were. The whole world is the WTC and those who inhabit its higher floors want to see the building collapse. That’s as clever as setting fire to the floor below your own.

[emphasis added]

Seeing such rationality on the left is not common, as the all-subsuming force of Bush hatred generally obliterates all but the most morally relativist thoughts—the facile Bush/Hitler comparisons being the most common and ready example. Nevertheless, there are a growing number of these true leftists becoming increasingly disillusioned with the “blame America” mantra, just as the true leftists once repudiated communism after witnessing it’s grinding de-individualization and de-humanization.

The sad thing is the many that are still willing to tacitly support the enemy, to become “fellow-travelers with fascism” as Christopher Hitchens put it. The bourgeois guilt that many feel in the socialist countries of Europe in relation to the less developed and oppressed of the world, leads them to exculpate themselves by automatically targeting the hegemonic USA. The rich are evil by default in their Marxist ideology, and America is the richest among the rich.

The decadent pacifists in Europe are quite willing to set fire to the floor below them to spite America. Robert “Thank you sir, may I have another” Fisk, symbolic of the anti-American, anti-Western Euroleftist, after being beaten by a Muslim mob in Afghanistan, said, “If I had been them, I would have attacked me.”

He thus legitimated the irrational, anti-civilization behaviors of our enemy simply because he cannot stand the liberal Western culture that has given him so much. His guilt at being privileged has lapsed into self-loathing; of course I deserved to be beaten, look at how much I have benefited from simple accident of birth, whereas these poor Arabs are condemned to the squalor and filth of the third world.

And yet he opposes the attempt to bring democracy and prosperity to the Middle East, vis a vis Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Simply because of the presence of America in this endeavor, the universal corrupter. The mere touch of this Imperialist, bloodstained hegemon makes Fisk wish for the destruction of the floors below him, even at the expense of his own wellbeing. No; especially at the expense of his own wellbeing. He deserves to be humbled by the forces of unreason and nihilism, along with the rest of Western civilization.

Sigh, how depressing it is to dwell upon the enervating parasite of European pacifism, lassitude and moral relativism.

But wait, what’s this? Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Quote of the Day

From the Fourum:

"I'd just like to say that I'm glad Jeremy Parker is writing articles that present a little bit of intelligence in this police state we live in. "

As much as I try to parody the crazy leftists that call into the fourum, they always outdo me. I don't mean this as an insult to Parker (he's really a good writer, just misguided in this instance), but "police state?"

Ahhhh... Leftists are sooooo cute when they have to live under a Republican presidency for four years.

update: Let me summarize my favorite portion of Parker's column for the benefit of posterity, and to put the above quote into context.

paraphrase: "The media isn't biased because if it was biased then we wouldn't know because it wouldn't tell us." But wait... if the media isn't biased, does that mean it would tell us that it is? This argument is more circular than the Daytona 500 (which, I'm assuming, has a relatively circular track...)

And this was the part of his argument that was "painfully obvious."

Well, admittedly, I did find it painful, although not for its honesty.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Elude eludes

From todays paper version of the Collegian, "Not mean to be/K-State loses by 10 to No. 2 Oklahoma; first conference victory still alludes Wildcats." [emphasis added]

Yes, I'm being petty today. Obviously they meant "eludes," and, anyway, it's not as if the headline is even unintentionally funny for having used the wrong word. So why gloat over it?

Yeah, the pettiness thing.

Liberal media bias spotted by onlooker--columnist alleges "swamp gas"

I should be studying. Really. I’ve got hundreds of pages to read and tests to study for.

But I can’t. Must… fisk… column.

In today’s Collegian, “Myth of liberal media bias misleading.” Oh goody goody, you say that the sky isn't blue, huh?

Okay, folks. We’ve got to the point where arguing about media bias is an argument of “how liberal” and “why” not whether or not it exists.

This column starts off with the whole Sinclair anti-Kerry documentary “Stolen Honor” business, followed by a snarky “There’s that liberal media at it again!” And then, just in case you didn’t recognize the sarcasm, “Oh wait, I forgot. The “liberal media bias” is nothing more than a paranoid hallucination purported by Republicans with their panties in a bundle.” BAM! Love that piercing, stiletto wit.

And then, of course, there's the obligatory Fox News mention. Showing that these two stations have a conservative bent is obvious. But why is it obvious? Because they stand in such sharp contrast to the rest of the media. The “Stolen Honor” documentary is nothing compared to, most notably, CBS’s hit job based on fake memos.

But no, CBS can’t be biased, because they once decided against airing an overtly political ad during the Super Bowl. And the same people that decide what ads go on during the Super Bowl are also the same people that decide the day to day news coverage. Riiight.

And ABC can’t be biased:

since the puppeteer pulling ABC’s strings is Disney, and they recently refused to distribute “Fahrenheit 9/11” because it “wasn’t in the interest of the company.”
That’s right, Disney controls ABC’s news coverage. Mickey is there in the newsroom spiking stories about Bushalliburton to protect the American Military-Industrioperial combine.

The common ploy utilized to allege conservative bias is also pulled out of the bag: the presence of conservative pundits. The thing is though, even if every pundit on the news was an ultra-rightwing warlock, this would prove NOTHING in the way of NEWS bias. These commentators are “biased” if by biased you mean admitting to a certain placement on the political spectrum, but they put these biases out on the table and provide opinion on the news of the day. They analyze through the context of their worldview. That’s there job, to provide opinion.

But none of previous really stoked me to write like the following asinine observation:

Question: Who keeps complaining about the supposed liberal media?

Answer: The media.

For some reason, conservatives refuse to wrap their minds around the painfully obvious point that if there truly was a leftist slant, you’d never hear about it in the media. It would be contradictory to their evil, liberal master plan.
This doesn’t even bear comment, really. But since it should be “painfully obvious,” and I’m feeling rather unhurt, maybe I should explain my reasoning. First, the media complains about liberal bias? Sure, certain segments of the media, i.e. the pundits out their paid for their opinions allege bias. But how many news stories do you see from ABC, CBS, NBC, or the like about liberal bias? This is a continuation of the faulty reasoning used earlier: a couple of stations are conservative, so there is no liberal bias. This also ignores where the media liberal accusations have most flourished: on the internet, in books and from conservative radio pundits.

And it’s a complete misrepresentation of the argument alleging liberal bias to say that there is an “evil, liberal master plan.” On the contrary, if you read the seminal works on media bias, such as Bernard Goldberg’s “Bias” and “Arrogance” it is clear that those that believe there is a liberal media bias do not think that it is conscious. It’s a result of groupthink, the fact that reporters are overwhelmingly liberal (this pew poll finds that 34% of reporters call themselves liberals and 7% call themselves conservative—and we all know that, since liberal, unlike conservative, is considered an epithet, the numbers of liberals that call themselves moderate is probably much higher), as well as the fact that most reporters come from the same Metropolitan background.

To say that conservatives allege some master conspiracy is a complete distortion and crude caricature of their real view. If you want to look at insane conspiracy-mongering, look no further than Hillary and her VRWC remark.

All in all, the column followed the usual procedure when arguing against conservative bias: selective anecdotes, the belief that conservatives at the top of the company control day-to-day news coverage, and the vague gesturing toward conservative commentators as if this proved something. I mean, really, read this column, and then read this “there’s no liberal media bias” column from last year. Same old talking points, same old story.

Arguing that there’s a liberal media bias is like arguing with a sophist that attempts to prove that the sky isn’t blue through some semantic and obfuscatory word game. You will never convince me out of what I can see with my own two eyes.

And if you want some research, hey, here you go. The NY Times more liberal than Fox is conservative? You better believe it.

The last point that the column makes is that the Collegian is not “a liberal rag.” Now, I don’t know if it is or if it isn’t. News reporting changes from semester to semester as the editors are all replaced. But just citing two opinion columnists (myself and the conservative James Hurla—conservative? Go back and read his columns and then tell me this again) and a story from April 2003 doesn’t go very far toward proving or disproving anything.

The column ends with this little preemptive zinger at those that might disagree:

If it were, conservative conglomerates wouldn’t own every TV station under the sun. Conservatives wouldn’t completely dominate radio.And this paper wouldn’t print the anti-me Fourum calls that are sure to follow by people who, predictably, refused to listen to any of the facts presented here.
What is he insinuating, that if the paper was liberal, it would be against free speech, or would only print views it agreed with? That’s not a very becoming appraisal of modern liberalism, although I can’t say as that I disagree wholly. And is he saying that if you listen to the “facts” presented here, you couldn’t possibly believe that a liberal media bias exists?

Well, I think it’s clear why Bernard Goldberg’s second book was entitled “Arrogance.”