Monday, August 30, 2004
Only at Harvard do they think like this
I just read an article on Opinion Journal by some Harvard professor, about how a Bush loss could be good for the GOP. This is the conclusion:
Like Adlai Stevenson before him, Mr. Kerry has an aura of unelectability that may yet prove fatal to his hopes. But a Stevenson win in 1956 would have transformed the subsequent course of American political history. Conservatives may ask themselves with good reason whether defeat then might ultimately have averted the much bigger defeats they suffered in the '60s. In just the same way, moderate Republicans today may justly wonder if a second Bush term is really in their best interests. Might four years of Mr. Kerry not be preferable to eight years or more of really effective Democratic leadership?
First, what big defeats in the 60's is he talking about? Kennedy barely beat Nixon in 1960, and LBJ was riding the JFK sympathy wave in 1964, and there was no way he'd have lost.
So, to accept the logic of this Harvard "genius," Bush should lose so Kerry can be an ineffective leader for the next 4 years so the Republicans can regain the Presidency in 2008. This is what liberals have been reduced to doing in order to supply reasons why Kerry should be elected.
When it comes down to it, you must accept on face-value the professor's argument that Bush has been an ineffective leader (which I don't) and that we are exactly like the British. (Which we aren't) Those teabags are secular, government-dependent Socialists, while we are religious, inependent-minded capitalists. (Give the British this: There are still quite a few of them who still have iron balls. Thank God for them)
Read the whole thing. This is liberal thinking at its apex. It sounds brilliant, but falls apart under the most minimal of scrutiny.
Like Adlai Stevenson before him, Mr. Kerry has an aura of unelectability that may yet prove fatal to his hopes. But a Stevenson win in 1956 would have transformed the subsequent course of American political history. Conservatives may ask themselves with good reason whether defeat then might ultimately have averted the much bigger defeats they suffered in the '60s. In just the same way, moderate Republicans today may justly wonder if a second Bush term is really in their best interests. Might four years of Mr. Kerry not be preferable to eight years or more of really effective Democratic leadership?
First, what big defeats in the 60's is he talking about? Kennedy barely beat Nixon in 1960, and LBJ was riding the JFK sympathy wave in 1964, and there was no way he'd have lost.
So, to accept the logic of this Harvard "genius," Bush should lose so Kerry can be an ineffective leader for the next 4 years so the Republicans can regain the Presidency in 2008. This is what liberals have been reduced to doing in order to supply reasons why Kerry should be elected.
When it comes down to it, you must accept on face-value the professor's argument that Bush has been an ineffective leader (which I don't) and that we are exactly like the British. (Which we aren't) Those teabags are secular, government-dependent Socialists, while we are religious, inependent-minded capitalists. (Give the British this: There are still quite a few of them who still have iron balls. Thank God for them)
Read the whole thing. This is liberal thinking at its apex. It sounds brilliant, but falls apart under the most minimal of scrutiny.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Laugh of the weekend
Pssst..it's the guy in the hockey mask
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Life at law school
The first 10 days have been, well, chaotic. This weekend, I will share with you some great stuff. Thankfully, I've lucked out, met great people, and feel great about my future at UNM Law.
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Gotta love teabag journalism
From the UK Mirror:
Blair snubs Bush's war honour invite
Exclusive by Paul Gilfeather Political Editor
TONY Blair has snubbed George Bush's pleas to fly to the US and pick up his "war medal" ahead of the Presidential elections.
The US President knows the PM, who is massively popular in the States, would provide his flagging re-election campaign with a much-needed boost.
Flagging campaign? They are mistaking Bush for Kerry. This is typical teabag, (and New York Times and L.A. Times too) liberal media. Write what you wish was true in order to true and make it true.
Tony Blair is well-respected in this country, no doubt. But Bush surely doesn't need him to help him in his re-election efforts. The British, as usual, inflate their own self-importance.
Blair snubs Bush's war honour invite
Exclusive by Paul Gilfeather Political Editor
TONY Blair has snubbed George Bush's pleas to fly to the US and pick up his "war medal" ahead of the Presidential elections.
The US President knows the PM, who is massively popular in the States, would provide his flagging re-election campaign with a much-needed boost.
Flagging campaign? They are mistaking Bush for Kerry. This is typical teabag, (and New York Times and L.A. Times too) liberal media. Write what you wish was true in order to true and make it true.
Tony Blair is well-respected in this country, no doubt. But Bush surely doesn't need him to help him in his re-election efforts. The British, as usual, inflate their own self-importance.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
What do people expect?
It must be those ininsured Wal-Mart workers who caused this:
Los Angeles Emergency Care Crisis Deepens
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 20 - A crisis in Los Angeles County's emergency health care system became more acute this week with the announcement that the oldest hospital in the San Fernando Valley would close by Dec. 31, officials said here Friday.
News of the closing of the institution, the Northridge Hospital Medical Center campus in the Van Nuys section, which opened in 1929, follows by a week the closing of the emergency room at Elastar Community Hospital in the East Los Angeles neighborhood.
In the last two years, four other emergency rooms, most in low-income areas, have closed in the county, primarily because of the high cost of treating thousands of uninsured people, officials said.
Gee, I wonder who that could be. Uninsured people...Los Angeles....yes, that's right, it's illegal aliens!! of course, reading the New York Times, you'd never know it, because they never even consider that they may be the problem.
They sure think we are all a bunch of dopes.
Los Angeles Emergency Care Crisis Deepens
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 20 - A crisis in Los Angeles County's emergency health care system became more acute this week with the announcement that the oldest hospital in the San Fernando Valley would close by Dec. 31, officials said here Friday.
News of the closing of the institution, the Northridge Hospital Medical Center campus in the Van Nuys section, which opened in 1929, follows by a week the closing of the emergency room at Elastar Community Hospital in the East Los Angeles neighborhood.
In the last two years, four other emergency rooms, most in low-income areas, have closed in the county, primarily because of the high cost of treating thousands of uninsured people, officials said.
Gee, I wonder who that could be. Uninsured people...Los Angeles....yes, that's right, it's illegal aliens!! of course, reading the New York Times, you'd never know it, because they never even consider that they may be the problem.
They sure think we are all a bunch of dopes.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Day one
Tomorrow is my first day of law school at the University of New Mexico. Wish me luck. Photoblogging to follow.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
The so-called "Dream Team"...
...is a nightmare. Except for Tim Duncan, who is a great player and top-notch individual, I don't like any of those losers. The NBA sucks, the players have no fundamentals, and play defense like the other guy has the bubonic plague. They got smoked by Puerto Rico today 92-73 at the Olympics. And I am damn happy about it.
If there is one thing that I am liberal about, it is the USA Basketball Team. I always root for them to lose. And I hope they come home in shame.
If there is one thing that I am liberal about, it is the USA Basketball Team. I always root for them to lose. And I hope they come home in shame.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
The aftermath
Thank God Hurricane Charley is over. Now, the requisite pictures of ruined trailer parks are showing up:
Friday, August 13, 2004
Bill Maher is a jackass
I never watch Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO because Bill Maher is a dope. His guests are usually dumber than lamposts, which is probably why he has such dummies on, to make him look smarter. The last time I watched it, I only did so because he had on David Frum. Of course, Frum was smarter than Maher and the other 2 guests combined, yet Frum was marginalized. I was so pissed, I swore never to waste my time on this show.
Tonight, since he had on Michelle Malkin, I decided to watch again. I wish I didn't. She was made a fool out of by Maher, the unfunny and simply idiotic D.L. Hughley, some equally idiotic Democrat named Rahm Emanuel, and the studio audience.
The reason this show, and Politically Incorrect before it, is a complete failure can be found in his guests. Really, who gives a damn what D.L. "I barely got a GED" Hughley thinks about terrorism and President Bush? All Hughley did was read off the leftist talking point, and add a few F-bombs for effect, and the audience acted like he was the 1977 version of Richard Pryor.
The brilliant Mrs. Malkin was so marginalized and stepped on, I became angrier by the minute. What upset me the most was when Maher brought up her book, In Defense of Internment, and less than 30 seconds later said, "that was a long time ago, who gives a fuck?" I wish she got up and walked out on that circus.
And, once again proving that Democrats are not serious on terrorism, Congressman Emanuel said there was only 2 instances of terrorism on our soil, 9/11 and Oklahoma City. Talk about pathetic moral equivalence and downplaying the scumbag Arab terrorists. (Surprisingly, Maher brought up the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as another example.) And, he talked about being concerned about people with swastika tattoos. Oh, please. Get real. A completely unserious asshole Democrat,
Really, who finds Maher funny? All he does is bash Bush and Ann Coulter, and none of it is funny, except to the Bush-haters he fills the audience with. Then again, he must use a laugh track in post-production. No way people are laughing that hard at his dumb rules.
And, there was even a segment with Maureen Dowd. I have never seen her live before, only her picture in the New York Times. For such a smart ass writer, she has all the personality of a wet sponge.
In sum, why should anyone be forced to listen to reason and intelligence from a Michelle Malkin when we can get the insight of perennial failures like Bill Maher and D.L. Hughley?
I am looking forward to seeing how Malkin handles this on her blog.
Oh, one other thing: The religious right (re: Christians) is the cause of everything, just ask Hughley and Maher.
Tonight, since he had on Michelle Malkin, I decided to watch again. I wish I didn't. She was made a fool out of by Maher, the unfunny and simply idiotic D.L. Hughley, some equally idiotic Democrat named Rahm Emanuel, and the studio audience.
The reason this show, and Politically Incorrect before it, is a complete failure can be found in his guests. Really, who gives a damn what D.L. "I barely got a GED" Hughley thinks about terrorism and President Bush? All Hughley did was read off the leftist talking point, and add a few F-bombs for effect, and the audience acted like he was the 1977 version of Richard Pryor.
The brilliant Mrs. Malkin was so marginalized and stepped on, I became angrier by the minute. What upset me the most was when Maher brought up her book, In Defense of Internment, and less than 30 seconds later said, "that was a long time ago, who gives a fuck?" I wish she got up and walked out on that circus.
And, once again proving that Democrats are not serious on terrorism, Congressman Emanuel said there was only 2 instances of terrorism on our soil, 9/11 and Oklahoma City. Talk about pathetic moral equivalence and downplaying the scumbag Arab terrorists. (Surprisingly, Maher brought up the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as another example.) And, he talked about being concerned about people with swastika tattoos. Oh, please. Get real. A completely unserious asshole Democrat,
Really, who finds Maher funny? All he does is bash Bush and Ann Coulter, and none of it is funny, except to the Bush-haters he fills the audience with. Then again, he must use a laugh track in post-production. No way people are laughing that hard at his dumb rules.
And, there was even a segment with Maureen Dowd. I have never seen her live before, only her picture in the New York Times. For such a smart ass writer, she has all the personality of a wet sponge.
In sum, why should anyone be forced to listen to reason and intelligence from a Michelle Malkin when we can get the insight of perennial failures like Bill Maher and D.L. Hughley?
I am looking forward to seeing how Malkin handles this on her blog.
Oh, one other thing: The religious right (re: Christians) is the cause of everything, just ask Hughley and Maher.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Picture of the week
It might take me a week to stop laughing at this picture. Even the caption bashes Bush. I love it!!
Great site I found
Just keep scrolling down.
Goodbye McGreevey
I really don't care who Governor McGreevey of New Jersey was bending over in his bedroom, because he has been bending over my family in South Jersey for the last 2 years. My parents, for example, have been choked with tax raises over the past 2 years while McGreevey has passed out graft like nothing.
As a true Democrat, McGreevey, by not resigning until November 15th, has once again denied the voters of New Jersey their rights. And, once again proving the Democrats commitment to our security, he hired an unqualified guy he wanted to fuck as his security advisor. In true fashion, the liberal media is covering for him, and before you know it, they'll make him into a hero for coming out:
McGreevey, the state’s 51st governor, took office 2½ years ago, and, despite inheriting a $5 billion budget deficit, he steadfastly refused to boost income taxes for most New Jerseyans, instead raising taxes on millionaires, casinos and cigarettes.
How nice. They left out the outrageous increases in property taxes over the past 2 years, his lies, and his never ending quest to try and skull-fuck the people of South Jersey, especially those who work in Philadelphia.
I am glad to see him go. And, my family is ecstatic, to say the least.
As a true Democrat, McGreevey, by not resigning until November 15th, has once again denied the voters of New Jersey their rights. And, once again proving the Democrats commitment to our security, he hired an unqualified guy he wanted to fuck as his security advisor. In true fashion, the liberal media is covering for him, and before you know it, they'll make him into a hero for coming out:
McGreevey, the state’s 51st governor, took office 2½ years ago, and, despite inheriting a $5 billion budget deficit, he steadfastly refused to boost income taxes for most New Jerseyans, instead raising taxes on millionaires, casinos and cigarettes.
How nice. They left out the outrageous increases in property taxes over the past 2 years, his lies, and his never ending quest to try and skull-fuck the people of South Jersey, especially those who work in Philadelphia.
I am glad to see him go. And, my family is ecstatic, to say the least.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Yeah, OK
Of course this makes for a top headline:
Saddam gave up all Iraqi WMD after 1991 Gulf War, says former nuclear chief
LONDON (AFP) - Saddam Hussein gave up all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, the scientist who headed his nuclear programme, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar, said in a BBC interview.
"There was no capability. There was no chemical or biological or any what are called weapons of mass destruction," said Jaffar in what BBC television called his first-ever broadcast interview.
Funny how the BBC and the AP can't wait to run with a story like this, yet always ignore Saddam threatening to kill his scientists who cooperated with inspectors, or one of the ones Saddam killed.
This is my favorite part:
Speaking in Paris, where he now lives, Jaffar -- who ran Saddam's nuclear programme for 25 years -- said there was "no development" of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons "at any time after 1991".
He said he knew that for a fact "because I am in touch with the people concerned".
He's now living in France. What a shock!! And, he knows all from his nice villa.
Sure, Saddam is a victim of the evil Bush. Funny how the article fails to mention all of the U.N. resolutions and pronouncements of the Clinton administration throughout the 1990's.
Saddam gave up all Iraqi WMD after 1991 Gulf War, says former nuclear chief
LONDON (AFP) - Saddam Hussein gave up all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, the scientist who headed his nuclear programme, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar, said in a BBC interview.
"There was no capability. There was no chemical or biological or any what are called weapons of mass destruction," said Jaffar in what BBC television called his first-ever broadcast interview.
Funny how the BBC and the AP can't wait to run with a story like this, yet always ignore Saddam threatening to kill his scientists who cooperated with inspectors, or one of the ones Saddam killed.
This is my favorite part:
Speaking in Paris, where he now lives, Jaffar -- who ran Saddam's nuclear programme for 25 years -- said there was "no development" of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons "at any time after 1991".
He said he knew that for a fact "because I am in touch with the people concerned".
He's now living in France. What a shock!! And, he knows all from his nice villa.
Sure, Saddam is a victim of the evil Bush. Funny how the article fails to mention all of the U.N. resolutions and pronouncements of the Clinton administration throughout the 1990's.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Chief Justice Clarence Thomas?
This post will get me shit-canned from the university of New Mexico School of Law, where I begin one week from today. (Nice work by Brandon for paying attention and guessing right away where I am going)
Biographer Sees Thomas As Chief Justice
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Clarence Thomas has been interviewed by White House lawyers as a possible choice to be the next chief justice of the United States, says the author of a new biography.
Thomas says he isn't interested but could find it hard to turn down an opportunity to be the first black man to lead the Supreme Court, said biographer Ken Foskett.
Since Thomas has dared to stray from the plantation, liberal dopes have willfully failed to see that Thomas has become the Court's most original thinker. Just read his short but poignant dissent in Lawrence v. Texas to understand why I think Thomas deserves to be Chief Justice:
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
I join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' " Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.
Liberals more interested in outcomes favorable to the homosexual lifestyle rather than ones that adhere to constitutional principles just despise that type of thinking. Thomas saw that case as an issue for the people to decide through their elected representatives, as he should have. Sadly, Thomas (as well as Scalia and many others) is seen as some sort of "radical" for actually thinking that the people, not he, should be deciding what laws they live under. And, add Thomas being an African-American to that equation. Besides Condi Rice, can you name one public figure in this country that has been on the recieving end of some of the worst overt racism in the press?
If Thomas were to ever be nominated for the top slot, what liberals will do to him will be even more shameful than what they did 13 years ago. No one will discuss his qualifications or his work on an honest level. Instead, we'll hear all about Anita Hill again, and the media will be full of unabashed liberal racism. You watch.
Biographer Sees Thomas As Chief Justice
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Clarence Thomas has been interviewed by White House lawyers as a possible choice to be the next chief justice of the United States, says the author of a new biography.
Thomas says he isn't interested but could find it hard to turn down an opportunity to be the first black man to lead the Supreme Court, said biographer Ken Foskett.
Since Thomas has dared to stray from the plantation, liberal dopes have willfully failed to see that Thomas has become the Court's most original thinker. Just read his short but poignant dissent in Lawrence v. Texas to understand why I think Thomas deserves to be Chief Justice:
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
I join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' " Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.
Liberals more interested in outcomes favorable to the homosexual lifestyle rather than ones that adhere to constitutional principles just despise that type of thinking. Thomas saw that case as an issue for the people to decide through their elected representatives, as he should have. Sadly, Thomas (as well as Scalia and many others) is seen as some sort of "radical" for actually thinking that the people, not he, should be deciding what laws they live under. And, add Thomas being an African-American to that equation. Besides Condi Rice, can you name one public figure in this country that has been on the recieving end of some of the worst overt racism in the press?
If Thomas were to ever be nominated for the top slot, what liberals will do to him will be even more shameful than what they did 13 years ago. No one will discuss his qualifications or his work on an honest level. Instead, we'll hear all about Anita Hill again, and the media will be full of unabashed liberal racism. You watch.
I was shocked to read this
Accuser Files Civil Suit Against Kobe Bryant
DENVER -- The 20-year-old accuser in the Kobe Bryant case filed a civil suit Tuesday seeking an unspecified amount in monetary damages from the basketball star, saying that he has a "history of committing similar violent sexual assault on females."
The civil suit, labeled "Jane Doe vs. Bryant," was filed Tuesday in federal court in Denver, the court assigned to Judge Richard Matsch.
No matter what they say, they are trying to force Kobe to pay up before he is acquitted. If you were Kobe, how much would you pay to just make all of this go away? I'm quite sure if paying her $5 million would end this tomorrow, he'd do it in a second.
DENVER -- The 20-year-old accuser in the Kobe Bryant case filed a civil suit Tuesday seeking an unspecified amount in monetary damages from the basketball star, saying that he has a "history of committing similar violent sexual assault on females."
The civil suit, labeled "Jane Doe vs. Bryant," was filed Tuesday in federal court in Denver, the court assigned to Judge Richard Matsch.
No matter what they say, they are trying to force Kobe to pay up before he is acquitted. If you were Kobe, how much would you pay to just make all of this go away? I'm quite sure if paying her $5 million would end this tomorrow, he'd do it in a second.
Monday, August 09, 2004
One week away
I start law school next Tuesday. I haven't said where I am going because, half-jokingly, I think that if they read this blog, they'd revoke my acceptance. After all, as a conservative who despises liberalism and all it stands for, and one who thinks that Clarence Thomas should be the next Chief Justice, I will not be in lockstop with the prevailing "liberal wisdom" and "groupthink" that permeates nearly every law school.
I am now willing to reveal where I am going, but first I thought it would be fun to get your guesses in the comments. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you may have already figured it out by all of the clues I have left.
Have at it. Where do you think I will be spending the next 3 years?
I am now willing to reveal where I am going, but first I thought it would be fun to get your guesses in the comments. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you may have already figured it out by all of the clues I have left.
Have at it. Where do you think I will be spending the next 3 years?
Stem Cell Research
Kerry is actually right to discuss the potential of stem cell research. However, he has been seriously misleading about the Bush Administration's stance on the issue. (What else is new?) Basically, Bush is leaving it to the private sector, and is not providing federal money for it, which is exactly what he should be doing.
If stem cell research has the potential benefits that many people claim it does, the private sector will indeed chase the vast profits that will come with it. As Kerry continues to press this issue, just remember that it is nothing more than a part of the complete end game, which is total government control over health care.
If stem cell research has the potential benefits that many people claim it does, the private sector will indeed chase the vast profits that will come with it. As Kerry continues to press this issue, just remember that it is nothing more than a part of the complete end game, which is total government control over health care.
Laugh of the day
From the Socialist rag U.K. Guardian:
Without a war on poverty, we will never defeat terror
While the world focuses on the war against terror, the war against poverty slides on to the backburner. Since the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 2001, three developments have become decisive on a global scale. The first is the fight to root out militants, the second is the political rise of those on the religious margins and the third is the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Yeah, OK. The "root causes" crap will never die, no matter what evidence you put in front of dopes like Benazir Bhutto.
Without a war on poverty, we will never defeat terror
While the world focuses on the war against terror, the war against poverty slides on to the backburner. Since the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 2001, three developments have become decisive on a global scale. The first is the fight to root out militants, the second is the political rise of those on the religious margins and the third is the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Yeah, OK. The "root causes" crap will never die, no matter what evidence you put in front of dopes like Benazir Bhutto.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
O'Reilly vs. Krugman
If you can, watch or TiVo the Tim Russert show tonight. (It's on 2 more times)
Either Krugman has Parkinson's Disease or he is shaking like a leaf trying to respond to O'Reilly. Here's the gist of the conversation:
Krugman: "Bush is the worst ever, it's the government's money, not yours, and Bush has played into bin Laden's hands."
O'Reilly : "Krugman, you are a lying leftist dope."
O'Reilly is kicking his ass all over the set. Krugman is such a tool, to say the least.
Either Krugman has Parkinson's Disease or he is shaking like a leaf trying to respond to O'Reilly. Here's the gist of the conversation:
Krugman: "Bush is the worst ever, it's the government's money, not yours, and Bush has played into bin Laden's hands."
O'Reilly : "Krugman, you are a lying leftist dope."
O'Reilly is kicking his ass all over the set. Krugman is such a tool, to say the least.
Thanks Sherlock
I was surprised to this this obvious headline in the New York Times:
Diplomacy Fails to Slow Advance of Nuclear Arms
Diplomacy fails almost every time it is tried. Iran and North Korea are recalcitrant states who will never take diplomacy seriously. Of course, it only takes one paragraph for the Times ot blame it on all the cause of all the world's problems, George Bush:
KENNEBUNKPORT, Me., Aug. 7 - American intelligence officials and outside nuclear experts have concluded that the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts with European and Asian allies have barely slowed the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea over the past year, and that both have made significant progress.
Funny, nowhere in the article is the failure of the IAEA, the E.U., and the U.N. mentioned. And, nowhere is it mentioned that Clinton could have settled the North Korea problem in 1994. Instead, he choose to bribe North Korea under an "agreed framework." Of course, North Korea laughed while taking all of the food and oil we sent them, while continuing business as usual.
Diplomacy does not work with these people. They will both have to be dealt with eventually, like it or not.
Diplomacy Fails to Slow Advance of Nuclear Arms
Diplomacy fails almost every time it is tried. Iran and North Korea are recalcitrant states who will never take diplomacy seriously. Of course, it only takes one paragraph for the Times ot blame it on all the cause of all the world's problems, George Bush:
KENNEBUNKPORT, Me., Aug. 7 - American intelligence officials and outside nuclear experts have concluded that the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts with European and Asian allies have barely slowed the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea over the past year, and that both have made significant progress.
Funny, nowhere in the article is the failure of the IAEA, the E.U., and the U.N. mentioned. And, nowhere is it mentioned that Clinton could have settled the North Korea problem in 1994. Instead, he choose to bribe North Korea under an "agreed framework." Of course, North Korea laughed while taking all of the food and oil we sent them, while continuing business as usual.
Diplomacy does not work with these people. They will both have to be dealt with eventually, like it or not.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Reuters is shameless
This caption is perhaps the worst bit of bias ever to come from Reuters.
U.S. President George W. Bush has told a roomful of top Pentagon brass his administration would never stop looking for ways to harm the United States. Bush is pictured in a July 31 file photo. REUTERS/Mannie Garcia
Bush misspoke. So what? This is what he said:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,” Bush said on Thursday.
Big f'n deal.
U.S. President George W. Bush has told a roomful of top Pentagon brass his administration would never stop looking for ways to harm the United States. Bush is pictured in a July 31 file photo. REUTERS/Mannie Garcia
Bush misspoke. So what? This is what he said:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,” Bush said on Thursday.
Big f'n deal.
More From The "Slams" File
The heat on the Swift Vets who are against Kerry is ratcheting up. (See the ad here. Thanks to our friend Cynthia for the link, who we pray is recovering from her surgery well.)
First, Senator John McCain is upset....at the veterans! (the original said "McCain slams ad questioning Kerry's service.")
McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry (news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
McCain is wrong for doing this, especially since he was once a POW forced to hear his jailers run Kerry's speeches for propaganda, and he didn't like it one bit.
The answer to why McCain did this is simple: He is running again for President in 2008. Sadly, McCain thinks that all the fawning media coverage he has been getting for the last few months will transfer to the next campaign. It won't. He has made the mistake of believing his own press. Plus, let's face it, he doesn't like Bush. He thinks that Bush underhanded him out of the nomination. I'm sure McCain thought that after winning New Hampshire, he was going to sail to the Republican nomination. Obviously, that didn't happen, and the press has played up the "Bush skull-fucked him" angle to no end.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
That McCain plans to run for President in 2008 is the only plausible explanation for his active efforts for the Bush campaign. By doing this, he is helping to gain support for himself down the road. I am disappointed that, as a POW and Vietnam Veteran once slandered by Kerry now comes to his aid.
With all that being said, if I am still here in Arizona when he runs for re-election, or if he runs for President in 2008, I won't hesitate to vote for the man. He is a good man trying to appeal to a future electorate. I don't agree with it, but I respect him enough to not hold it against him.
Also, the DNC is trying to crush this ad. If Bush did this, could you imagine the "censorship" cries?
DNC Lawyers Work To Muzzle Swift Boat Vets' Ad
HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a letter which lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry have sent to television station managers attempting to suppress the blistering anti-Kerry TV spot created by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and first reported here on HumanEventsOnline.com.
The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor" (emphasis added).
I really don't like treading in these waters, questioning Kerry's service. But, since Kerry has basically used it as the sole justification for his candidacy, he needs to answer for this.
First, Senator John McCain is upset....at the veterans! (the original said "McCain slams ad questioning Kerry's service.")
McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry (news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
McCain is wrong for doing this, especially since he was once a POW forced to hear his jailers run Kerry's speeches for propaganda, and he didn't like it one bit.
The answer to why McCain did this is simple: He is running again for President in 2008. Sadly, McCain thinks that all the fawning media coverage he has been getting for the last few months will transfer to the next campaign. It won't. He has made the mistake of believing his own press. Plus, let's face it, he doesn't like Bush. He thinks that Bush underhanded him out of the nomination. I'm sure McCain thought that after winning New Hampshire, he was going to sail to the Republican nomination. Obviously, that didn't happen, and the press has played up the "Bush skull-fucked him" angle to no end.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
That McCain plans to run for President in 2008 is the only plausible explanation for his active efforts for the Bush campaign. By doing this, he is helping to gain support for himself down the road. I am disappointed that, as a POW and Vietnam Veteran once slandered by Kerry now comes to his aid.
With all that being said, if I am still here in Arizona when he runs for re-election, or if he runs for President in 2008, I won't hesitate to vote for the man. He is a good man trying to appeal to a future electorate. I don't agree with it, but I respect him enough to not hold it against him.
Also, the DNC is trying to crush this ad. If Bush did this, could you imagine the "censorship" cries?
DNC Lawyers Work To Muzzle Swift Boat Vets' Ad
HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a letter which lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry have sent to television station managers attempting to suppress the blistering anti-Kerry TV spot created by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and first reported here on HumanEventsOnline.com.
The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor" (emphasis added).
I really don't like treading in these waters, questioning Kerry's service. But, since Kerry has basically used it as the sole justification for his candidacy, he needs to answer for this.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Is Kerry...
...running for President of the United States or for the mayor of New Hope, Pennsylvania?
Kerry's swiftboat mates don't support him
Click on this page to find out which of Kerry's mates are supporting him in his run for President:
All of those supporting Kerry are highlighted, and one of the highlighted is Kerry!
All of those supporting Kerry are highlighted, and one of the highlighted is Kerry!
I'm sure the ACLU...
...will not care about this:
Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.
Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.
However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.
Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean," Local 6 News reported. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.
Yep. Reat tolerant those Muslims are. I look forward to the strong response from the local ACLU chapter.....not.
Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.
Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.
However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.
Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean," Local 6 News reported. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.
Yep. Reat tolerant those Muslims are. I look forward to the strong response from the local ACLU chapter.....not.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Huh?
Iraqis on Tour Banned From Memphis Hall
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Iraqis visiting on a civil rights tour were barred from city hall after the city council chairman said it was too dangerous to let them in.
The seven Iraqi civic and community leaders are in the midst of a three-week American tour, sponsored by the State Department to learn more about the process of government. The trip also includes stops in Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago.
Someone answer this for me: What the hell is a "civil rights tour?"
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Iraqis visiting on a civil rights tour were barred from city hall after the city council chairman said it was too dangerous to let them in.
The seven Iraqi civic and community leaders are in the midst of a three-week American tour, sponsored by the State Department to learn more about the process of government. The trip also includes stops in Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago.
Someone answer this for me: What the hell is a "civil rights tour?"
A movie I'll surely see
July 09, 2004 - The Internet Movie Database points out a Wall Street Journal article that reveals details about Steven Spielberg's forthcoming, top-secret project about the tragic 1972 Munich Olympics.
WSJ reports that the film will be titled Vengeance and will star Eric Bana as an agent of the Mossad (Israel's secret service) who hunts down the Palestinians responsible for the murder of eleven Israeli athletes.
WSJ reports that the film will be titled Vengeance and will star Eric Bana as an agent of the Mossad (Israel's secret service) who hunts down the Palestinians responsible for the murder of eleven Israeli athletes.
More Wal-Mart hatred
I laughed my ass off when I read this:
Study: Low Wal-Mart Wages Cost Calif. $86 Million
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California paid an estimated $86 million in pubic assistance in 2001 because workers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. earn such low wages, researchers said on Tuesday.
"Wal-Mart workers' reliance on public assistance due to substandard wages and benefits has become a form of indirect public subsidy to the company," said the report issued by the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center.
"Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance."
The report said many of Wal-Mart's 44,000 California employees in 2001 relied on food stamps, Medicare and subsidized housing to make ends meet and also need more public health care than typical retail workers.
Only $86 million? Why isn't Berkeley studying how many billions that illegal immigrants and the homeless are raping the California treasury for?
Study: Low Wal-Mart Wages Cost Calif. $86 Million
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California paid an estimated $86 million in pubic assistance in 2001 because workers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. earn such low wages, researchers said on Tuesday.
"Wal-Mart workers' reliance on public assistance due to substandard wages and benefits has become a form of indirect public subsidy to the company," said the report issued by the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center.
"Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance."
The report said many of Wal-Mart's 44,000 California employees in 2001 relied on food stamps, Medicare and subsidized housing to make ends meet and also need more public health care than typical retail workers.
Only $86 million? Why isn't Berkeley studying how many billions that illegal immigrants and the homeless are raping the California treasury for?
Typical Kerry mentality
From the "Slams" file, we have this new addition:
Kerry slams Bush for encouraging terrorism
UNITED States presidential contender John Kerry sought to build on the momentum of the Democratic National Conference yesterday when he launched a book-length blueprint for his White House campaign, including plans to fight terrorism and improve homeland security.
Speaking at a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Mr Kerry put security at the heart of his campaign, accusing the president, George Bush, of pursuing policies that had encouraged recruitment of terrorists and failed to make the US as safe as it ought to be.
This is breathtaking logic, by no means unique to the gutless appeasers in the Democrat party. Using Kerry's logic, if Bush did nothing to respond to 9/11 and let Iraq alone, terrorism would not be a problem. If we had any media types who weren't Kerry stooges, one of them would ask Kerry, "If Bush has encouraged terrorism, how do you explain that the 9/11 was hatched 5 years in advancce, long before he became President. And, would you say that a sexy woman wearing a short skirt encouraged rape?"
Kerry slams Bush for encouraging terrorism
UNITED States presidential contender John Kerry sought to build on the momentum of the Democratic National Conference yesterday when he launched a book-length blueprint for his White House campaign, including plans to fight terrorism and improve homeland security.
Speaking at a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Mr Kerry put security at the heart of his campaign, accusing the president, George Bush, of pursuing policies that had encouraged recruitment of terrorists and failed to make the US as safe as it ought to be.
This is breathtaking logic, by no means unique to the gutless appeasers in the Democrat party. Using Kerry's logic, if Bush did nothing to respond to 9/11 and let Iraq alone, terrorism would not be a problem. If we had any media types who weren't Kerry stooges, one of them would ask Kerry, "If Bush has encouraged terrorism, how do you explain that the 9/11 was hatched 5 years in advancce, long before he became President. And, would you say that a sexy woman wearing a short skirt encouraged rape?"
Part of me is gone
Take a look at this picture:
That is what is left of the Coral Reef Restaurant/Lounge in Bellmawr, New Jersey. it caught on fire Saturday night right around closing time. (Another article here)
Part of my life is in that rubble. I had a great DJ career in the Philly area for over a decade and that was the place that launced it all for me. I started there when I was 18 years old, and worked there on and off for years. I cannot even begin to explain all of the fun I had there, and how sorry I am to see it gone.
That is what is left of the Coral Reef Restaurant/Lounge in Bellmawr, New Jersey. it caught on fire Saturday night right around closing time. (Another article here)
Part of my life is in that rubble. I had a great DJ career in the Philly area for over a decade and that was the place that launced it all for me. I started there when I was 18 years old, and worked there on and off for years. I cannot even begin to explain all of the fun I had there, and how sorry I am to see it gone.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
I can't believe it
Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle only did $5.15 million total business this week. This is an outrage!! Perhaps this will be a word of mouth movie, as I have predicted, and will do better in it's second week. (I guarantee it will be a big DVD hit, like the original Austin Powers, which didn't hit big until it was released on home video.)
And, what really gets me is that The Village, possibly the worst movie I've seen in 10 years, did $50.8 million. Forever more, I will refer to this movie as "the movie I do not speak of." If you saw that crap, you'll get the reference. You are better off if you didn't and you don't.
Roger Ebert, who I do not always agree with but certainly respect, ends his review perfectly:
Eventually the secret of Those, etc., is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore.
And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets.
Yeah, I want my $6.50 (student discount) back.
And, what really gets me is that The Village, possibly the worst movie I've seen in 10 years, did $50.8 million. Forever more, I will refer to this movie as "the movie I do not speak of." If you saw that crap, you'll get the reference. You are better off if you didn't and you don't.
Roger Ebert, who I do not always agree with but certainly respect, ends his review perfectly:
Eventually the secret of Those, etc., is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore.
And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets.
Yeah, I want my $6.50 (student discount) back.
