Sunday, November 30, 2003
James Carville inspires donations (from the Washington Times):
"I saw James Carville on TV a couple of days ago pimping for donations for the Democratic National Committee," writes Mike Becker of Phoenix, Ariz., who promptly picked up his phone and dialed the DNC collection line.
"First, you're told they are taking too many calls from committed Democrats and you'll have to either hold or go to the automated donation line. I held. Then you're offered the opportunity to leave your name and number and they will get back to you. Or you can hold. I held," he says.
"I finally was transferred to a young man who is likely the poster boy for success in Washington, D.C.'s public school system. He read — very haltingly and poorly, with no expression — a script that no self-respecting telemarketer would touch. He asked for $100. I told him I was so inspired by James Carville that I had just mailed a $1,000 check to the Republican National Committee. He thanked me for my concern for national issues and my willingness to help.
"Could I possibly afford $10? I repeated my $1,000 story. He thanked me again and asked me what amount would I feel comfortable donating to the DNC? I asked him if the DNC could please send me money directly, instead of waiting to pass a bill through Congress that the pesky president probably wouldn't sign anyway.
"There was a long pause and he thanked me for listening to his entire script and asked me if I see my way clear to make a $10 donation. With never so much as a peep of inflection in his monotone voice. As a broken glass Republican, I was encouraged that the DNC is so hurting for help they can't even find a decent telemarketing company to collect their cash.
"Give 'em a call if you're having a boring day, it's instructional."
"Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America" , which when published should be required reading for all the women and girls in this country who've grown tired of not thinking for themselves
Saturday, November 29, 2003
So how many innocent people have not died as a result of the Iraq war?
I get about 13,000 so far.
Thirteen thousand is about the size of a good basketball game. Perhaps we can convince the Lakers to play a charity game against the Spurs, say. Then we can put 13,000 Iraqi men, women and children into the Staples Center, and make Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, George Clooney, The Dixie Chicks, Janeane Garofalo, end every single person who signed the Not in Our Name petition kill those people in cold blood – electrodes, acid baths or shredders, to get the full effect, although the weak-stomached should be allowed to merely shoot them in the back of the head.
Because that is exactly what would have happened if these people had gotten their way.
Something to think about.
I also have to say that as an ex-soldier I thought that President Bush's visit to the troops in Baghdad on Thanksgiving was simply cool beyond belief.
Friday, November 28, 2003
His surprise visit to Iraq was an excellent move by President Bush! Not only was it an excellent morale booster for the troops, but it also, in a brilliant bit of political one up manship, pushed Senator Hillary Clinton's (democrat - whomever has the cash) visit to Iraq right out of the headlines.
Those on the left who keep insisting that President Bush is stupid are listening to their own spin way too much.
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
The dismissive notion that conservatives leak to outlets on the right for ideological reasons ignores the fact that liberals often do the same thing with news organizations that are either left-of-center or likely to be sympathetic to the message being peddled.
-- Howard Kurtz, Washington Post
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Michael Van Winkle says in The Chicago Report:
Clinton left office without giving the Democrats any direction. The party under Clinton existed to serve his presidency, to defend his antics and get him reelected. All the while, Clinton's policies were creating fissures in the party, fissures he had no intention of smoothing over with his leadership. When a party is split between two possible futures it's up to the leader to pick one and raise the sails. Otherwise, the party is left aimlessly afloat and burdened with resolving the structural cracks itself. This is a very difficult process and we're seeing it played out in the Democratic Primaries. The Democrats aren't sure what their party is and where it's going.
Dick Morris points out more Hypocrisy from the Left.
Here is a, ahem, money quotes:
As the campaign-finance-reform bill went through Congress, Democrats demanded a ban on soft money donations to political parties. They succeeded in including it as the reform's centerpiece.
But it turns out that Republicans are raising twice as much as Democrats are in hard money: $158 million for the GOP vs. $66.5 million for the Democrats. So the Democrats have resorted to a loophole in McCain-Feingold and worked to maximize soft money contributions to phony political committees, allegedly independent of the party apparatus and thus not covered by the soft money ban.
Monday, November 24, 2003
The only Republicans you know are President Bush and your deer-hunting uncle in Minnesota, and you hate 'em both.
Pot is legal, and tobacco is illegal.
You tell your daughter sex before marriage is OK, as long as she and her partner don't use your recreational drugs, your boyfriend, your priest or your bed.
You can't decide what to major in at college: astral projections, witchcraft, channeling or hating Republicans.
Every time there's an earthquake, you're under a table praying that the metropolis will finally get to break away from the mainland.
Each morning, while drinking a latte at Starbucks, you review a complete list of companies you need to boycott.
You think the Left is right and the Right is wrong.
This, of course, is not the complete list.
The Big Lie in Hollywood: The Hollywood Ten Were Not Victims But Villains
by Michael Berliner (November 24, 2003)
[www.CapitalismMagazine.com] November 24 marks the anniversary of fifty of Hollywood's leading executives and moguls firing the Hollywood Ten. These ten filmmakers had been cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to divulge their political affiliations to the House Un-American Activities Committee [HUAC] investigation into communist infiltration in Hollywood.
The anniversary of the Hollywood blacklist against the Hollywood Ten and other communists in Hollywood has brought an outpouring of sympathy and apologies to the "victims," along with incessant moral lessons from the media about this "dark" period in American history.
This much is true: Morality and justice are at issue. But the story has been twisted and the characters grossly miscast. The screenplay as written by politically correct Hollywood should be titled "Three Big Lies."
The ten Hollywood Traitors got fired by the studios, ONE HUNDRED MILLION innocent were murdered by all of the branches of the Communist Party that were in power around the world.
Sunday, November 23, 2003
COLUMBUS, Ga. (AP) - Demonstrators gathered outside Fort Benning to protest a military school were hit with a sonic barrage Saturday: patriotic music Army officials had blaring from the main gate.
A crowd estimated by Columbus police at 8,000 gathered to protest the school once known as the School of the Americas, which they blame for Latin American human rights abuses. It appeared to be the largest first-day gathering in the 14-year history of the protest.
Since when does hunting down and killing Communists, the foremost of the "secular" Enemies of Mankind (I'll take a break from discussing Islam), constitute an abuse of human rights?
The Army's loudspeakers, playing "The Army Song" and "God Bless the U.S.A.," were 50 yards away from where protesters were speaking to the crowd.
Leaders of School of Americas Watch, which has protested at Fort Benning every year since the early 1990s, said they planned to sue over the noise tactic and accused the Army of a "psychological operation."
"There's a lot of ill will being caused that's not necessary," said the Rev. Ray Bourgeois, SOA Watch founder. "The closer we get to closing that school down, the meaner they get."
"Those mean army men won't let us feel good about ourselves," cried the whim-worshipping twit, "WAHHHHHH!!!"
Narcissistic whim-worshippers who imagine themselves to be our "betters" almost always throw a fit when we refuse to play the role that they have assigned to us. It is right and proper for the defenders of Civilization to be feel pride for doing their duty. To spit upon the people who have defended one's continued existance as a free human being is an act of absolute depravity.
I was stationed at Fort Benning in the early 1980's when Comrade Bourgeois, a willing collaborator of the enemies of mankind, began striking his OH-SO-HOLY pose outside of the front gates after some graduates of the School of the Americas killed some priests who were collaborating with the Marxist insurgents.
Needless to say, I was throughly disgusted by his depraved spectacle.
In a life or death struggle, those who help the other side are part of the problem, and must ultimately be included in the solution. Those who actively support and seek to protect the enforcers of a doctrine that has run up a bodycount of ONE HUNDRED MILLION have surrendered any and all claim to the moral status of HUMAN, and claim to the inherent Rights of Man. The self-styled "peace movement" has spent the better part of the last century taking the side of despots and murderers against the free and civilized nations.
Traitor and Murderer are the nicest names I have for such individuals.
I believe that we have been way too nice to the thug-huggers, and having their feelings hurt should be the last thing this whim-worshipping trash should be worried about.
James Carville is still slinging fast and furious on Meet the Press. He just tossed out a comment about the lobby groups controlling Congress. I think he's getting history mixed up with current events:
"The period we're in is a lobbyist's dream come true" -- Joan Claybrook, head of the advocacy group Public Citizen, describing the atmosphere of the Clinton Administration.
The new liberal spin: James Carville is on Meet the Press using the term "War Profiteering Congress".
Remember that term. I'm betting you will be hearing it from every democrat who gets in front of a camera.
US President George Bush is “totally at odds” with his media image, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said today.
Mr Campbell, an opponent of the war with Iraq, spoke out on the ePolitix website about his discussions with the President during the state visit.
He said that they discussed directly issues such as Iraq, the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto and trade sanctions.
“He is personally extremely engaging. He has a well-developed sense of humour, is self-deprecating and when he engages in a discussion with you he is warm and concentrates directly on you.
“He looks you straight in the eye and tells you exactly what he thinks.”
Mr Campbell, stressing that the President was “totally at odds” with his media image, went on: “I was not persuaded by what he said, but I was most certainly surprised at the extent to which the caricature of him was inaccurate.”
-- What did they think he is, a chimp? Oh, hold on ...
It's been 40 years since President Kennedy was killed...and 36 years until the evidence collected by the Warren Commission is released. Is that evidence being held so long to protect their stated theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted on his own or to protect the commission members (of which only President Gerald Ford is stil alive)?
Saturday, November 22, 2003
"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." -- Berkeley Breathed
Friday, November 21, 2003
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Andrew Sullivan's Quote of the Day:
"What people have got to remember is that Sept. 11 happened in 2001 and not in 2003. It was planned under the presidency of Bill Clinton." - British foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The point, of course, is not to blame Clinton for 9/11, but to show that al Qaeda terrorism is not some kind of response to the Bush administration. It predated it, and will probably outlast it.
LONDON - Tens of thousands demonstrators marched through the heart of London on Thursday, toppling a 17-foot tall papier mache statue of President Bush to show their anger for the Iraq war and Prime Minister Tony Blair 's support of the invasion.
This is an act of symbolic magic or what is otherwise called voodoo.
If these stone age mentalities are as they label themselves, progressives, then FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, WAR IS PEACE, ETC., ETC.
“The media, the politicians, etc., they all say Islam is a religion of peace and love,” he said. “It’s almost impossible to say anything different. A new word has appeared in debates: ‘Islamophobia’. It means any critic of Islam is racist. Nobody in France now can criticize Islam or make a joke about it without ending up in jail."
The really sick thing is that valid criticism of Islam would still be perfectly "legal" under Der Fuhererreich.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
No reply from the folks at Marketplace yet over this question:
"Exactly how do you justify interviewing George Galloway without mentioning that(a) he was taking money from Sadam Hussein and (b) he was thrown out of the Labour Party as a result?"
A very well put argument from teh folks at Right Wing News:
I know this is going to be hard for some people on the left to accept, especially since the Democratic party is more the party of McGovern than the party of FDR or JFK these days, but George McGovern was a HUGE WIMP on national defense. Does that mean he was unpatriotic? Not at all. In fact, George McGovern is a patriotic man and his brave service to our country should be applauded.
However, having a distinguished service record in combat DOES NOT make you a foreign policy genius. Take Wesley Clark & John Kerry, for example. Both of them should certainly be congratulated for their patriotism & excellent service to our country in the military. However, neither of them comes across as serious about fighting terrorism and neither of them can be counted on to do what it takes to defend America if they become President. That's not questioning their patriotism, it's questioning their judgement, even if the left seems unwilling to make that distinction.
The most charitable interpretation is that the [so-called "assault weapon"] ban's proponents know nothing about guns. The “assault weapon ban” conjures up images of machine guns used by the military, which are surely not very useful in hunting deer. Yet, the 1994 federal assault weapons ban had nothing to do with machine guns, only semi-automatics, which fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. The firing mechanisms in semi-automatic and machine guns are completely different. The entire firing mechanism of a semi-automatic gun has to be gutted and replaced to turn it into a machine gun.
For the full story.
We are living in the heart of things -- in Trafalgar Square -- and, for what it's worth, can report that there is nothing of any substance going on at all. It's quite quiet -- people are going about their business, but the usual buzz of tourist activity has slackened a bit. The first round of scheduled protest events involved a big talk by prominent left-leaning activists, and drew about 2,000 people. Then, about 1,000 marched through Oxford Street to protest the Bush Administration's environmental policies. The thousands who were supposed to greet him at Buckingham did not materialize -- there were maybe 100. Right now (Wednesday afternoon), just after the President's big talk, there are a few hundred people milling around Trafalgar Square, a women's prayer circle, and some people congratulating themselves for putting red-dye in the fountains (get it?). The crowd is a little bigger than the crowd two days ago, who were protesting the ban on feeding the pigeons, but certainly smaller than the crowd last month, who were protesting tuition hikes at universities. The cops were cracking up. There was supposed to be a big "alternative state parade" of cyclists and other folks, but it seems to have fizzled.
1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crosswords.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn't have to leave LA to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country, and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country... or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy as long as they are Democrats.
10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
Andrew Sullivan presents:
PBS WATCH: An emailer writes:
I heard this last night on Marketplace and was stunned (although at this point, I shouldn't be). PBS' business-oriented show did a story on how the British feel about Bush's visit. The two politicians they spoke to: George Galloway and Ken Livingstone. No mention was made of Galloway's past, his expulsion from the Labour Party, his taking money from Saddam, nothing. He was just a member of parliament. Speaking to the mayor of London might have been appropriate, but they never mentioned his quotes calling Bush the greatest danger to the planet. It was a disgusting attempt to present bias as fact.
Disgusting, but for NPR, entirely unsurprising. Quoting Galloway, without mentioning that he was on the take from Saddam and has been expelled from the Labour Party, is beyond belief.
FREDERICK FORSYTH'S LETTER TO GEORGE W. BUSH:
Today you arrive in my country for the first state visit by an American president for many decades, and I bid you welcome.
You will find yourself assailed on every hand by some pretty pretentious characters collectively known as the British left. They traditionally believe they have a monopoly on morality and that your recent actions preclude you from the club. You opposed and destroyed the world's most blood-encrusted dictator. This is quite unforgivable.
I beg you to take no notice. The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped the other genocide, Josef Stalin.
It has marched for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated against everything and everyone American for a century. Broadly speaking, it hates your country first, mine second.
Eleven years ago something dreadful happened. Maggie was ousted, Ronald retired, the Berlin wall fell and Gorby abolished communism. All the left's idols fell and its demons retired. For a decade there was nothing really to hate. But thank the Lord for his limitless mercy. Now they can applaud Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il... and hate a God-fearing Texan. So hallelujah and have a good time.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Saddam and bin Laden "had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta"
-- From a memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration.
For more details...
Mr Bush seems to very much enjoy bombing people and making with the wrath and the vengeance. This offends our sense of fair play.
A clarification here, the vaunted sense of British fair play means fair play just for the British. When ruling the world, we were entirely justified in sending gun ships up Chinese rivers to support the opium trade and would have very miffed if some Yankee upstart had been going around shouting “no blood for dope” at Disraeli. Burger-scoffing surrender baboons in the war against yellowism, John Bull would have said. Jingoism? We invented it.
Mr Bush on the other hand seems to believe in fair play just for the Americans, which is very disturbing and amoral.
No blood for dope? Now there's a quandary for the anti-globalizers.
More Hate Speech from the Left:
Far Left Liberal Icon, Senator Ted Kennedy (democrat-MA) has called recent federal judiciary nominees "Neanderthals".
These "Neanderthals" include: Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American.
Let's be honest here, if Senator Trent Lot had said that about minority federal appointees, the democrats (and the majority of the media (NYT, LAT, Boston Globe, CBS, NBC, etc.) would be calling for his head.
I'm not the only one to call this Hate Speech. The Wall Street Journal writes:
Here we are in the 21st century, and a prominent politician is equating members of racial and ethnic minorities with a primitive subspecies of human being. Democrats were once the party of slavery and Jim Crow, but we'd thought they were beyond that.
Intellectual objectivity does not require neutrality, but it does call for accuracy. In dealing with the evils of Soviet Communism and its American partisans, most revisionist historians are simply liars. They not only suppress uncomfortable truths, but also fabricate a sentimental, positive leftist saga that never was.
Monday, November 17, 2003
"The Constitution expressly establishes supermajority voting requirements for authorizing treaties, proposing constitutional amendments, and other specific actions. To confirm judicial nominees, by contrast, the Constitution requires only a majority vote — as the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in United States v. Ballin (1892).
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Found on Ipse Dixit:
So, the environmentalist religious fanatics have taken another series of body blows recently. Now they may well have their very own Michael Bellesiles. New examinations of the data show that "the medieval warm period around the 1500s was warmer than the 20th century.... Stay tuned: the supposed smoking gun of global warming may have been loaded with blanks.
Friday, November 14, 2003
Another wonderful tidbit from the greatest Briton:
Churchill's doctor, Lord Moran, favored continuing the BBC monopoly. When he questioned Churchill about it, the great man exploded. "For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behavior has been tyrannical. They are honeycombed with Socialists - probably with Communists."
True again today. They no longer have a monopoly - but they still force Brits to pay for propaganda. This nugget can be found in "Diaries of Lord Moran: The Struggle for Survival, 1940-1965," page 417. -- Found on Andrew Sullivan's blog
Found on Instapundit:
COMMERCE CLAUSE NEWS: I haven't read the opinion yet, but Larry Solum reports that the Ninth Circuit has held that the federal government can't ban homemade machine guns under the Commerce Clause, since they're not in interstate commerce. He notes that this has implications for homegrown marijuana, too.
As I say, I haven't read the opinion, but it sounds like a defensible position to me. [Any position is defensible with enough homemade machine guns! -- Ed. I think you've had too many of those brownies. . . .]
UPDATE: Volokh says this is huge.
ANOTHER UPDATE: For some background on these issues, you might want to read this article that Brannon Denning and I wrote in the Wisconsin Law Review on Commerce Clause issues in the lower courts, and this followup piece from the Commerce Clause symposium issue of the Arkansas Law Review. (That symposium was terrific, but as far as I know the whole issue isn't online. Here, however, is Randy Barnett's contribution.) We have a long-term, quasi-empirical project looking at how the Lopez case is percolating through the lower courts, and back through the Supreme Court. This case will surely make the next installment.
A recent CBS “news” program “The Dark Side of Homeschooling” was a frontal assault, by smears and innuendo, against individual freedom and independence. As a coffin was carried into a cemetery, we were told that homeschooling can hide child abuse, which can lead to death. Such drama provided no information about homeschooling. But it offers an important lesson about the power of principled opposition to such attacks—a lesson that businessmen should heed.
In terms of method, the program was a fairly standard assault on anyone who acts independently of government control. It selected an aberration (isolated instances of child abuse), and then extended such deviant cases across the range of its target group. By claiming that child abuse is a “dark secret” of homeschooling, the program linked all those who educate their children at home with abusers, implied some sort of conspiracy among homeschoolers, and equated freedom with death. No facts are used to show any of this. By innuendo, the stage was set for further attacks against all homeschoolers, and for advocacy of government control over children and homes.
Gosh, what a surprise.
Is it any wonder that I don't watch anything they broadcast any more.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
An email to Andrew Sullivan
"To the list of reasons you gave for the increasing extremism on the left, I would like to add one more, and arguably the primary reason. They had grown used to having a total monopoly on the information rationed out to the American people. With control of all network news and entertainment and most big-screen entertainment, the challenges to their opinions were only seen by their most conservative opponents, never by the “mainstream”. I put that work in quotes, because I mean the true center of the population, while the media has consistently used the term to mean the fairly extreme left wing.
Probably that is why they have reacted so strongly to the cancellation of The Reagans. This was an abandonment by their true heartland. It also explains the violence of their language when they talk about Fox News and talk radio. They react as OPEC would react to a new source that started selling 50 million barrels a day of petroleum at $2 per barrel."
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
A blogger serving in the military points out that Tom Tomorrow is a smug hypocrite. Again, not much of a surprise.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Theodore Roosevelt on foreign policy
"The steady aim of this Nation, as of all enlightened nations, should be to strive to bring ever nearer the day when there shall prevail throughout the world the peace of justice. There are kinds of peace which are highly undesirable, which are in the long run as destructive as any war. Tyrants and oppressors have many times made a wilderness and called it peace. Many times peoples who were slothful or timid or shortsighted, who had been enervated by ease or by luxury, or misled by false teachings, have shrunk in unmanly fashion from doing duty that was stern and that needed self-sacrifice, and have sought to hide from their own minds their shortcomings, their ignoble motives, by calling them love of peace. The peace of tyrannous terror, the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war."
We must be proud of our soldiers, but it is equally true that they should be proud of the cause they fight for. It is terrible to die in war, but there is one thing worse: to die in a war that has no meaning, a war that offers no reason for risking one's life.
The best way we can honor our veterans and give real meaning to Veterans Day—aside from ceremonies honoring their past and present dedication and bravery—is to promise that we will go to war only when America's interests as a free nation are threatened.
The events of 9/11 have made it abundantly clear that there exist Moslem fanatics whose goal is to destroy our country and the values it stands for. It is clearly in our self-interest to use the full power of our military might to destroy those who would destroy us.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Sunday, November 09, 2003
This will drive the far left loonie Dems crazy...Andrew Sullivan compares GWB to JFK
JFK AND GWB: During the primary season (the last go-round) I wrote a speculative (and somewhat hostile) piece comparing then-candidate George W. Bush with former president John F Kennedy. I meant it as a useful mind-exercise, but as time has gone on, I think the analogy strengthens. The backgrounds are similar: unruly scions of political families, young men who got their start in politics through pure nepotism. Their frat-boy garrulousness, their effortless patriotism, their family loyalties - it all works until you get to the moment when GWB gave up the wild life at 40 and JFK kept his going. But on policy, they're also much more similar than either the right or the left is comfortable conceding. They both came into office in a disupted election after a two-term president who presided over a major boom. President Kennedy fought an election on hawkish foreign policy; the current President Bush walked backward into hawkishness through the drastic orientation of 9/11. Both cut taxes and unleashed periods of economic growth. And both argued uncompromisingly for democracy across the world. Some boomers may also see in Iraq the same pattern as president Kennedy's early foray into Vietnam. I'd disagree strongly, but history will surely judge in due course. Perhaps more tellingly, both used powerful and moving rhetoric to assert the exceptionalism of the United States at a time when it was being attacked. President Bush's speech Thursday at the National Endowment for Democracy was perhaps the highpoint of this president's transformation into an old-style Democrat in foreign policy. Too bad the Democrats can neither see this nor profit from it.
LILEKS REVIEWS MATRIX 3 - and a review of Harry Knowle review.
Harry may know movies, but he proves he doesn't know shit about politics or history.
Friday, November 07, 2003
"There's not a gay in Midland who would come out of the closet for fear people would think they're a Democrat." -- A member of the Midland, TX Texas Civil Liberties Union. At least according to Molly Ivins, a well known promoter of hate speech.
From Ann Coulter's current column:
The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their 40-year "War on Poverty." So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C., last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat operations against Marion Barry's regime? How long before we just give up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?
Thursday, November 06, 2003
That is the thing that the advocates of "peace" just don't seem to understand: Peace cannot be achieved unilaterally. When an enemy is determined to make war -- even a pathetically weak and under-armed enemy -- then a war will be fought ... or the enemy will become your conqueror.
War postponed never becomes easier to fight, or less costly in lives and treasure. And those who mock President Bush as a "cowboy" or even, insanely, claim that America (or "the Jews") staged 9/11 just so we'd have an excuse for war will not, if their views prevail, bring about peace. They will simply bring about far more death.
And if we abandon this war, then a day will almost certainly come when all of us will look back with deep regret to the time when we might have rid the world of the scourge of extremist Muslim terrorism (meanwhile liberating more than a few Muslim nations from tyranny) at the astonishingly slight cost in blood and horror, compared to most wars, that we have paid so far in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But we're Americans. We neither study history nor learn from it.
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
President Reagan's daughter on the mockmentary of her parents.
Here are some of the money quotes:
If you have any doubts, read the recently published book of his letters. They reveal a man whose compassion for other people is deep and earnest, and whose spiritual life is based on faith in a loving God, not a vengeful one.
...producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron won’t tell you. They have exhibited astounding carelessness and cruelty in their depiction of my father and my entire family. They never consulted any family member, nor did they speak to anyone who has known us throughout the years. In the New York Times on October 21st, one of the writers admitted that the line about AIDS victims was completely fabricated. In that same article, Jim Rutenberg reported that the producers claimed no major event was depicted without two confirming sources.
Reading the script actually made me feel better in some ways. It is, quite simply, idiotic. Everyone is a caricature, manufactured and inauthentic.
But the idiocy of the script can’t dilute the cruelty behind it. To deliberately and calculatingly depict public people as shallow, intolerant, cold and inept, with no truths or facts to back up the portrayals, is nothing short of malevolent.
Consider the scene in a girls’ boarding school I supposedly was attending when my father was elected governor of California (I was never at an all-girls’ boarding school.) They have a classmate saying to me, ?Hitler’s just been elected governor.? No one writes a line like that with any other agenda except to wound.
CBS STATEMENT REGARDING 'THE REAGANS'
"CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.
Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns.
A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.
This was not an easy decision to make. CBS does tackle controversial subjects and provide tough assessments of prominent historical figures and events, as we did with films such as 'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler.' We will continue to do so in the future."
My commentary: This movie is a hit piece by left wing extremists who hate Reagan. "Fair and Balanced" it ain't.
To be fair, I wouldn't like it if the tiny conservative population in Hollywood did a hit piece on Clinton as he lay on his deathbed either.
What the folks at CBS finally wised up to is that President Reagan is still very popular with a great deal of Americans, and that a lot of their revenue comes from the section of the country the liberals call "the flyover states."
So the whole, uncut version will now be shown on Showtime, so the left can just shut up about censorship.
If it makes them feel better, they now have proof the economic sanctions can and do work.
As a factual matter, conservatives are largely correct and liberal critics and journalists are guilty of cheap shots or lazy reporting. However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
From the Wall Street Journal online:
Defeatist Déjà Vu
"How We Botched the German Occupation"--headline, Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 26, 1946 (263 days after V-E Day)
"Blueprint for a Mess: How the Bush administration's prewar planners bungled postwar Iraq."--headline and Web blurb, New York Times magazine, Nov. 2, 2003 (185 days after President Bush declared the end of "major combat operations")
Liberal Roger Simon writes:
There is not a great deal of domestic policy about which I agree with George Bush. I think taxes should not be reduced for the upper classes. I would like to see a lot more done for the environment, including the automobile companies being forced to build truly fuel-efficient cars as quickly as possible. I favor a woman's right to choose and gay marriage. I'd like to see salaries raised for teachers. I could go on, but I think you get the picture--in many ways I'm a liberal.
Still, if the election were held today, like Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller, I would vote for George W. Bush without a second's hesitation. That's how bad I think the Democrats are on foreign policy, by far the most important issue of our day. I will go further. They are one of the sleaziest collections of low-down opportunists I have ever seen on one stage together short of that crowd of tobacco executives who testified "No, sirree, I didn't know that nicotine was addictive."
You won't read this in the New York Times (or the Boston Globe):
Linda Tripp will get more than $595,000 from the Defense Department to settle a lawsuit over the release of confidential personal information about her to a magazine, her attorneys told the Associated Press yesterday.
From an Editorial in Investor's Business Daily:
"The economy's sizzling 7.2 percent growth pace in the third quarter shows pretty conclusively what some hate to believe: President Bush's tax cuts worked."
"You can count on a few things in this world. The swallows will return to Capistrano. Salmon will spawn. Canada's geese will fly south for the winter. And tax cuts will create growth," the newspaper said in an editorial.
"Bush inherited a mess when he entered office in 2001 — an economy already suffering from shrinking job growth, a collapse in business investment, and one of the worst stock market crashes in history. The economy was already contracting. It was a recession not of Bush's doing.
"But Bush did the right thing, the smart thing: He cut taxes.
"Not once. Not twice. But three times.
"We heard the screams and complaints. A giveaway to the rich, some said. Raise taxes if you want to grow, still others moaned.
"In one of the more bizarre twists of logic, some even claimed Bush's tax cuts caused the recession — a metaphysical impossibility, since the recession began before taxes were cut.
"They were wrong — all of them. This growth is no fluke. This is the way tax cuts are supposed to work. And they do so reliably, with a lag of anywhere from one year to three. Yes, tax cuts work."
Monday, November 03, 2003
Back to the Moon!
NEW YORK (29 October 2003) — According to a 28 October report in the industry newsletter Spacelift Washington, U.S. President George W. Bush may announce a proposal for a manned American return mission to the Moon as part of a shift in the nation's space policy. The announcement may come on 17 December 2003 during the centennial celebration of the Wright Brothers pioneering flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
According to the report, a White House review of the U.S. space policy concluded that a manned mission to Mars would be "considered too expensive and risky." However, the review panel urged Bush "to factor in future interplanetary manned flight capabilities as part of the justification for a return to the moon."
The review panel reportedly included NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The Spacelift Washington report, written by Frank Sietzen, Jr., noted that an unnamed source "who spoke directly with Bush early in the process said the president was initially skeptical that a manned return to the Moon could be conducted for reasonable costs. Bush allegedly said then that he would not seek a massive increase of space spending."