Charlie Rangel Is Lying Mood:
Charlie Rangel, the ultraliberal Democratic U.S. Representative from New York, told Tim Russert today that it was "clear" that there were minorities in Florida who were kept from voting in the 2000 Presidential election. That is a complete and utter lie. Had Russert pressed him on the issue to produce any evidence at all of this bullshit claim, Rangel would not have been able to as he is simply repeating a well-circulated lie cooked up by an embarrassed and bitter Left-wing press.
Rangel also claimed that Bush is the first "appointed" President in our history and that his Presidency is the GOP's revenge for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's manipulations of the vote on behalf of John Kennedy in 1960. What horseshit!
It is "clear" to me that the Democratic Party is a corrupt institution that relies almost entirely upon the ignorance and stupidity of its base, which is comprised of exactly those kind of people who would send such a liar as Rangel to represent them in Congress term after term.
Caught Some of the Democratic Debate Just Then Mood:
MSNBC just carried the Wisconsin Democratic primary debate, of which I caught just a few minutes. I haven't been watching much of any of these stupid sitcoms because, for one thing, I can't. I can't stand listening to these equivocators and slapstickers, especially not without wondering whether they have any clue about our foreign policy (i.e., the war in Iraq).
Kerry is the worst of the bunch in that he can't answer a question without droning on and on, never actually making his position clear. As to the question of why he voted for the war, his bullshit response is to fixate on "the process." That's his out, see. Kerry doesn't want to accept responsibility for his vote because he can more easily blame the President for not going to war in the "right way," even though it's clear that our false allies in the UN and NATO were never amenable to doing it the "right way," any way. Kerry (and Edwards, too) think they're protected by this assinine and legalistic argument, but no one who actually thinks is going to buy that nonsense. Those who are opposed to the war aren't going to concede that there was a right way to enter into it in any event and those who are for the war already have a candidate (the President), a man decisive enough to do the job, regardless of the detractions of loser nations like Turkey and France and domestic guttersnipes like the anti-war Left.
As for the participation of wankers like Sharpton and Kucinich, why are they still allowed to be on stage with the others? They're nothing but comedic fodder. It's nauseating to hear a crowd of self-conscious and self-congratulatory yankee Democraps applaud the reckless accusations of a race-baiter like Sharpton. "Oh, how open-minded and inclusive we are to allow a colored man to entertain us! Maybe he'll do a Jolson number for us after the show." And Kucinich? This flake is clueless. Is it even conceivable that such a character could be President? Enough already! Go smoke some pot with Willie.
And Lee Harvey Dean? The guy is still toast. Even if Kerry turns out to have a scandal on his radar, you're still not going to take the nomination.
Kerry is the nominee. If he's smart, he'll pick Edwards for the Veep this summer and find new ways to work his war record into every response he gives.
Thanks to the Baseball Crank for an excellent post that puts all of the Dims in their place. I don't see how these scurrilous charges of Bush being AWOL from the Guard (McAuliffe) or a deserter (Moore-on) can be sustained.
Oh, and by the way, fuck you, John Roberts and Terry Moran.
The Fantasy Ideology Here is a brilliant essay by Lee Harris on the "fantasy ideology" of radical Islamofascism. It's a long piece, but essential reading. And thanks to the excellent blog Occam's Toothbrush for turning me on to it.
No, I don't want to have to put up with another sex scandal involving a politician and an intern. I mean, what will the French think? But, it seems to me that the issue of adultery is as indicative of a man's character as his military service. Is that not so?
I can appreciate the ideal of monogamy and I think it's great, but I have shockingly little faith in it. Which is why I think marriage should be the right of any couple (of whatever combination of genders) who are actually committed to each other. If they're not, they shouldn't be married; they should be divorced.
In my mind, a marriage in which one or both partners is being unfaithful is a sham. The only reason why these spouses would stay married is because they have rationalized the adultery and are too lazy to surrender the financial or social benefit of their union.
The kinds of "power couples" that politics produce are particularly nauseating because most of them strike us as marriages of convenience and ambition. I still laugh at Hillary Rodham Clinton's tale of her "shock" at discovering that Bill had, indeed, been getting blow jobs on the side. Of course she knew he was cheating on her! She had known what sort of rake he was from day one. But, could it have mattered less? No. She wouldn't have dared hop off of that gravy train.
I would guess that the same sort of arrangement pertains to the Heinz-Kerrys. The Senator's wife once said she wouldn't kill him if he were cheating on her ---she would maim him. Which is a politician's wife's way of saving the appearance of her self-respect when the only interest she really has is in being a politician's wife who knows that he sleeps around on her.
My only question at this early stage in the scandal is why General Clark would help to spread this story to the media ---and then endorse the candidacy of a man he said would "implode" because of his dalliance with an intern. Seller's remorse?
This One's for YOU, Terry Mood:
I'm thinking right now of DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe's recent outburst of giddiness at the prospect of pitting his man with the "chest full of medals" against the President (a man who served his country by training to fly fighter aircraft in the Air National Guard and was honorably discharged for it ---or, have I mentioned that already?). You see, McAuliffe thinks that John Kerry's war record is enough to trump a mere veteran of the stateside Guard and that this comparison, in itself, is somehow supposed to undermine the President.
But, why would McAuliffe think that? There's two reasons. One, he is misinformed as to the record of the President's service. McAuliffe, like other atrophied sphincter muscles in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, thought that they could make some hay out of Bush's extended absences from the Guard and the preferential treatment he received. They thought this would reflect poorly on Bush, relative to Kerry. And, so far, they've been right. But, this is only because the anti-Bush leaders rely on the ignorance of their supporters. They only bring up what they can portray as negative aspects of Bush's service, believing that this will obscure the fact that the President served bravely. Once all available information is out there, this bunch of chickenshittedness will only expose its propagators (at least to the fair-minded) for the operators they are.
The second reason McAuliffe thinks that this dream match-up is a winner is because it is in his nature as a hypocrite to think so. Here's a man who never served in uniform, but who cynically uses the record of men who did to further his own agenda. Here's a man who slanders the President by harping on what he wrongly sees as deficiencies in his (the President's) character, but who never said a word about Bill Clinton, a shameless draft-dodger.
Well, this one's for you, Terry: you want to question a man's character for your own gain? Turns out that you might just have another bimbo eruption on your hands. Enjoy your weekend, you lousy insinuator. And stand by for news.
Back in 1992, John Kerry was saying he didn't think that the issue of military service during the Viet Nam era was something to be used against a candidate for the Presidency. Whether this sentiment was expressed in defense of the self-admitted draft-dodger Bill Clinton in his race against a man who bravely served his country in the Second World War I don't know. But for Kerry and those who do his dirty work to now change the standard is just the worst sort of hypocrisy. There is no contradicting this. If military service wasn't an issue 12 years ago, why should it be one now?
Retired Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska (a man who lost an arm in that war) said this morning that the President served his country honorably. Any fair-minded person should agree with that. Do those who call the President a shirker have no conscience? Do they have any reckoning of what a dangerous job it is to fly combat aircraft?
The fact (and I think it is one) that GWB was benefited by his connections in getting his placement in the Air National Guard doesn't change any of the other facts of his service. He was honorably discharged after spending years in training and administrative duties. He didn't run a game on his country's military like his predecessor; he stood and delivered.
During the Civil War, young men of means were allowed to pay a substitute several hundred dollars to go and serve in their place. Naturally, those who were poor didn't have that luxury. Can we even conceive of such an outrageously unfair and classist arrangement today? Talk about dodging the draft!
Yet, during the Viet Nam War, the young George W. Bush didn't pull strings or use his connections to avoid the military; he pulled and used them to get into the military. We can be proud of him for that. Let detractors like the rectal thermometer Terry McAuliffe make their comparisons between him and his soon-to-be opponent. Real Americans aren't going to play along.
Happy Birthday to Charles and Abraham Mood:
Today is the 195th birthday of both Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. I've always thought it was a tidy turn that two of the 19th Century's most important figures were born on the very same day.
"Black Propaganda" Mood:
I find it very interesting that Jane Fonda would call media efforts to link her to John Kerry "black propaganda." What ever could she mean? Does she deny knowing him from their days in the anti-Viet Nam War movement? She can't do that because that would be a lie. Of course they knew each other. So, why would Kerry's opponents be wrong in saying that they were at least acquainted? Does Fonda have something to be ashamed of? I thought that she and Kerry both were proud of their protests. After all, the Leftist Senator began his political career by calling his fellow veterans drug addicts and murderers ---and she began hers by being a Viet Cong starfucker--- so what's the problem? If our involvement in Viet Nam was so shameful, then why should either of them run from their association?
You want to dredge up that war, Senator Gigolo? Sounds good to me. You think that photo the media keep running of you and Hanoi Jane at an anti-war protest is the only one out there? Think again. Keep encouraging your little minions to slag the President like the goddamned hypocrites they are and it's gonna be a whole year of night terrors and cold sweat.
Powell Cleans a Loser's Clock Mood:
During the Secretary of State's testimony before a Congressional committee today, some wanker from Ohio (Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown) decided to take it upon himself to insinuate that the President was AWOL from his National Guard duties. Colin Powell then put him in his place, basically saying that he wouldn't dignify Brown's remarks with much more of a response than to say that he didn't know what he was talking about. Fantastic.
Slanderers like the anti-American truck-stop toilet Michael Moore and this chump from Ohio ought to shut their fucking mouths. Would they like to tell the families of National Guardsmen who are in Iraq tonight that their sons' and daughters' military service isn't legitimate? Even John Kerry suggested that those of his generation who went into the Guard were only trying to avoid service in Viet Nam. That may be, but the truth is that even National Guard units were called up and, despite the fact that Bush did not wish to go into the war, he would have been obligated to had it been necessary. Is he to blame because it was not? Is he to fairly be accused of dodging his duties when he trained for years as a fighter pilot? It's just wrong.
Guardsmen aren't cowards, then or now. They serve a vital role in our nation's defense. It's also true that they simultaneously pursue civilian lives of work and school and family-raising. George W. Bush worked hard to both serve his country in this way and to pursue his own ambitions in education and business. The National Guard knows this about its reservists and works to accomodate them, as is reasonable. The Guard did this for the future President, too, and it's nothing wrong or even suspect.
People need to lay off of this issue. It's a disgrace.
Over and Out
Here's a long and detailed letter from a man who served with the President in the Air National Guard. Of course, asshole liberals will ignore it, but that's because they're too busy servicing each other.
The Foundation of My Political Philosophy
Many years ago, I formulated the foundation of my political philosophy with the maxim that any action which humanely or justly reduces or restricts the number of people in the world is a benefit worth pursuing. This is why I absolutely support the rights of individuals to abortion, contraception, and euthanasia, and the rights of society to execute the irredeemable and to prosecute war against the unjust. The truth is that there are too many people in the world and, in particular, too many of the wrong kind of people.
You may see this as a kind of nihilism, but I see it as a way to human dignity. Who can deny the devastations of overpopulation in the places we live and wish to preserve? In the middle of the last century, there were fewer than 150 million people living in the United States; now, there are almost 300 million. The curve in the growth of the world's population is almost vertical. How can this not affect the dynamics of urban life where people are practically living on top of each other and exhausting the infrastructure of their communities?
In cultures where women have no real reproductive rights, or where those rights are subject to negative religious influence, poverty and disease and abject ignorance condemn all of their members to animal competition for scarce resources. Where is the dignity in that? Politicians, like the Pope and the leaders of fundamentalism, who say that life is unconditionally precious and must be allowed to multiply are, in fact, ideologues of death and despair. The fetishes that the Right makes of the unborn and the Left makes of the disease-ridden are the worst kind of misapprehension of what constitutes human dignity and value.
The Earth is a vast cradle of life expressed in countless beautiful forms, but it is a fragile and finite place, too. That is why we must turn more and more to Science to solve our problems, by which we have always advanced ourselves (Homo sapiens being a self-made animal.) Still, Nature will have its way with us, whether we wish it or not. Why must we force her hand when we potentially have the wisdom to stay it? She will not suffer fools gladly or tolerate any other gods before her. Count on that.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 3:11 AM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Wednesday, 11 February 2004 6:44 AM CST
Kosovo Clark ist Kaput Mood:
celebratory Now Playing: theme from The Love Boat
Now that Clark is dropping out of a race he had no business ever being in, I wonder if he'll still have to answer questions about his "steam-of-consciousness" statements that the Clinton White House pressured him into wrapping up the war in Kosovo to benefit the notorious traitor Al Gore in his 2000 presidential bid. What a bunch of buttloaves.
The Democratic Party ought to be ashamed of itself for allowing posers like Clark to run under its banner. The guy is an ill-informed egotist who was simply using the party to advance himself. He was just making shit up as he went. And the Dims only countenanced him because they thought that any man on horseback who would pander to them would somehow undermine Bush, the notorious draft-dodger, on the issue of the war.
Well, they still have that in mind with Kerry, whom Clark (importantly) outranked. Who knew that the Viet Nam War would still be helping the Dumbocrats show how tough they are militarily? What, is it 1964 again already?
What There's No Contradicting Mood:
happy Now Playing: the bridge from "Ashes to Ashes" by David Bowie
There can really be no contradicting the fact that the greatest thing on television (besides The Simpsons when it's good) is C-SPAN's weekly coverage of Prime Minister's Questions from the British House of Commons. I wish we had something like that over here. Every week, the Prime Minister has to stand tall before the House and respond to his "right honorable friends" and other ladies and gentlemen. I have almost no understanding of probably a full third of what the MP's are beefing about, but it doesn't matter; I am compelled to razz whoever's speaking right along with them. And they're not shy about giving each other the business. It's a complete joy to watch someone like Tony Blair take it and give it right back. Thatcher and even Major were very good at that sort of thing, too. Keeps 'em honest. And keeps me in stitches. All hail Britannia.
John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq. Why did he? Was he trying to get on the right side of History this time, having voted against the resolution taking us into the Gulf War? If his vote for the war in Iraq was motivated only by politics, as was his vote against the $87 billion funding package that is helping to preserve the victory there our soldiers sacrificed their lives for, then where are his principles? If Dean's supporters, who are adamantly anti-war, now turn to Kerry, where are their principles?
Kerry's answer will be that he was duped into supporting the war by faulty intelligence about the existence of WMD. But, didn't he see the exact same evidence that the President saw? If the entirety of the rationale for going to war was to keep Saddam from using those weapons, and both men were duped, then how can Kerry claim that the President's justification was different from his? The truth is that he cannot. The truth is that Kerry voted for the war because he knows that the majority of the American people support it. Therefore, his opposition now is a political contrivance aimed at attracting Leftists to his side.
Is there any reason to believe that the French or the Germans would have come into the war with troops to support us? Of course not. Chiraq and his obstructionist little friend Villepin and Schroeder and his commie-terrorist foreign minister Fischer were never going to help us militarily. Never. They were too busy capitalizing on anti-American sentiment to bolster their own domestic situations. Was Kerry expecting them or NATO or the UN to help? If he was, and were he in the Oval Office, we would still be waiting to remove Saddam and the Ba'athists.
Kerry and the liberals are big on multilateralism (i.e., waiting on cowards and losers to try "diplomacy" one more time), but there's no evidence that such an approach would have worked or is going to work any time soon. And time is what we don't have. And hopeful expectations are what we can't have.
Diplomacy only works after some ass gets kicked. That's one of the biggest open secrets of human History. The UN is shit without American might. Kofi Annan and the tin pot dictatorships and banana republics and overpopulated basket cases he represents would never admit that, but it's true. The anti-war Left needs to accept the fact that our country (with the help of our true allies) is the only reliable force for good in the world. They should shut up, honor our troops for their commitment and sacrifices, and do more to promote the ideals for which our country is known.
Al Gore Is a Sack of Shit Mood:
Al Gore's remarks yesterday in Tennessee about how the President "betrayed this country" by taking us into the war in Iraq are just more evidence of his instability and irrelevance. What a loser he is! Yeah, he knows a lot about betraying people; just ask his former running mate from 2000.
Gore is a phony fuck, with his faux-Tennessean accent and his contrived oratorical passion. He's never going to recover from losing the election of 2000 and he's determined to go down in History as an embittered failure. And, so, he embraces others who are just as angry and frustrated as him. He feeds on their paranoiac ignorance with accusations that the President was planning 11 September while running for office.
We can be grateful that the voters of his own state denied Gore the Presidency. It was never Florida, see; it was Tennessee. If the people who supposedly know you best won't even consent to your leadership, what business do you have becoming President?
Had Gore been in charge on 11 September 2001, his first move would probably have been to dispatch some EPA inspectors to Manhattan to do an environmental impact study on asbestos particulates in the air.
You're finished, Gore, and so is the angry little twitch you endorsed.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 12:51 PM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Monday, 9 February 2004 2:28 PM CST