Have A Great Weekend!: RWN doesn't post on the weekends so a few odds and ends before I go...

Go vote for RWN on Blog HOT or NOT. I found that site through the Daypop Top 40 which every blogger should be signed up for by the way.

You'll notice that we do have comments again. Enetation claimed to have made some changes that speeded up their forums big time and it seems like they were telling the truth. So the comments are back...hopefully for the long term.

The long promised "Blogathon" is happening today. Off the top of my head, I know File 13 Amish Tech Support and Yourish.com are participating so give both of them a look.

As always, we're looking for websites we like that want to trade permanent links. If you're interested, shoot me an email.

Now I'm off to see Goldmember. Have a great weekend!

Patriotism Litmus Test. America vs. the U.N.: I could add some things to this exceptional Jonah Goldberg column but he put so much good stuff in it that I don't even have room to post all of his comments of note. So here are just a few of them...

"...Here is Goldberg's General Rule on Patriotism: The more negative your view of America, the more positive your view of the United Nations."

"...Of course, you can think the U.N. is great for America and still love America deeply. Indeed, I have a simple answer to any American patriot who claims that there is no conflict between his love of country and his desire to hitch our fate to the United Nations: "You're mistaken."

Political Opportunity In The Homeland Security Bill: Bush is an excellent political position on this new Department of Homeland Security. If the Democrats go along with what we he wants he can take all the credit for helping to make America safe. But actually, he would benefit more politically if things DIDN'T go his way...

"President Bush sternly warned Congress on Friday against passing a bill that limits the personnel and budgetary powers of the head of a new Department of Homeland Security, giving the clearest indication yet that he would veto a measure now before the Senate.

"Bush indicated he would veto the legislation, if passed in the Senate version, because it doesn't exempt the proposed agency from civil-service and budget rules. Democrats and organized labor have strongly opposed Bush's position, saying it would violate workers' rights."

First off, it would please Bush's Conservative base to see him veto ANYTHING because they generally think he's been too soft on the Democrats. More importantly, 'Homeland Security' is an issue Bush could use to DESTROY the Democrats on the national scene. I can just see Bush at a press conference now...

"I was not about to sign a neutered 'Homeland Security Department' into existence just because the Democrats want to play election year games with the lives of American citizens. In case some Senators haven't noticed, we're at war and I will not under any circumstance risk losing thousands of Americans to a terrorist attack because the Democrats in the Senate want to pander to a special interest group. I consider stopping these terrorists from harming our citizens my top priority and I really wish the Democrats in the Senate would start to get serious about protecting America as well."

Now that would be a soundbite I'd love to hear.

Competition In Education: Here are some questions I want you to think about: If you wanted cheap groceries would you be better off living in an area with five grocery stores in a ten mile radius or an area with one grocery store in that area? If you needed to have your car repaired, would you rather be able to choose between five different body shops or would you rather have only one choice? If you want to listen to the radio, do you think you'd have a better chance of finding something you like in a town with twenty radio stations or a town with one radio station?

If you're like most people you picked the option that gave you more choices every time right? That's because consumers have learned that if you have more options to choose from, you'll get a better deal. Furthermore, competition between multiple options tends to produce better service and a lower price. Americans dislike monopolies because we instinctively know that they mean poor service and higher prices.

Well since that's the case, why are we allowing the public schools to have a monopoly on our tax dollars? Why not let parents take a voucher and choose whether they want to spend their money in a public or private school? We know with complete certainty from our previous experience in almost every other facet of life that competition improves the options for consumers so we can be certain that it'll improve the quality of our kid's education as well. As a society, we need to decide what's more important; making the teacher's unions happy or giving our kids a quality education? So far, we've been making the wrong decision.

The Difference Between Conservatives And Liberals: Charles Krauthammer's new column explains how Liberals and Conservatives see each other....

"To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

Here's a little more detail from Krauthammer on how liberals think...

"Liberals tend to be nice, and they believe -- here is where they go stupid -- that most everybody else is nice too. Deep down, that is. Sure, you've got your multiple felon and your occasional war criminal, but they're undoubtedly depraved 'cause they're deprived. If only we could get social conditions right -- eliminate poverty, teach anger management, restore the ozone, arrest John Ashcroft -- everyone would be holding hands smiley-faced, rocking back and forth to "We Shall Overcome."

Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything."

What Krauthammer defines as "stupidity" (in a nice way, read the column), I would describe as being dominated by emotion. Left-wingers ARE NOT logical people. They tend to pursue policies because they "feel right" and because they think it's the "nice thing to do" not based on whether it'll work or not.

Most of what passes for reasoning on the left is actually childlike emotionalism at it's core. Giving people money is nice, telling them to take care of things themselves is mean so when some group you support wants help, you give them money. Negotiation is nice and military force is mean, so you should always negotiate no matter what the situation is. Those terrorists want to kill us? Well if they only knew we were really nice they'd like us! Maybe we can give them one of our trucks to play with..ehr economic aid, and they'll like us! Putting people in jail is mean, so give them timeout..ehr probation instead!

There are other difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives tend to favor capitalism, traditional values, and have results oriented policy and liberals favor socialism, don't like traditional values, and have process oriented (the intention is more important than the results) policies that they favor. But all these differences are rooted in the fact that Conservatives tend to make decisions based on logic and liberals tend to make decisions based on emotion.

Gang-Raped by Liberals: Usually when we do an edition of A.C.P.O.T.I., we're embarassing some bunch of racist hooligans, poking fun at conspiracy theorists, or bringing the comments of some bunch of Bin Laden loving Islamo-Fascists to light. But today, I ran across some posts that were so repulsive and sickening that they merited being dragged into the public view. Political discussions often get pretty heated and rhetoric gets tossed around freely but rarely do you hear a group of people talking about how much they'd like to rape somebody because they disagree with their views. Well the degenerates at Dumbrella forums apparently have no such inhibitions. They didn't care for the Ann Coulter quotes I put up yesterday which prompted them to go on and on about how they'd love to rape Ann Coulter. You just have to see the conversation of this group of sexual predators in the making to believe it. So get ready for one of our most twisted episodes of A.C.P.O.T.I....

PJ And Ann: Fark linked my Ann Coulter quotes today and there are over 160 posts in the thread. Most of them are just liberals whining about the quotes but one person did post a fantastic PJ O'Rourke quote from Parliament of Whores...

"I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus."

A Reader Comment On The Fast Food Lawsuit: One of our readers sent in a great email about the "fast food lawsuit" and I thought it merited posting...

"If these tubby f***ers were as inventive with entrepreneurial ideas as they were with baseless lawsuits, maybe they could cash in on the coming "fast and healthy" food craze and start a multi-billion dollar restaurant chain of their own. Alas, I think that the number one problem facing these people is laziness. Maybe that is another side effect of a fast food diet...

George Carlin was right. We are circling the drain." -- Scott Canty

Republicans Need To Go On The Political Offensive Over The War: The Democrats are not serious about the 'War on Terrorism' and Al Gore is just the latest example of it. Here's some of his latest quotes...

"I think the principle of 'first things first' does apply and has to be followed if we are to have any chance of success," the former vice president said, suggesting that Afghanistan's stability needs to be assured first.

...I certainly question why we would be publicly blustering and announcing an invasion a year or two years in advance," Gore said, noting that some officials had leaked documents spelling out battle strategy. "What was that all about?" Gore said to laughter. "These guys are supposed to be good at foreign policy. I don't think they are." Contrast that with the situation we have today," Gore said, noting that Arab nations have not indicated they support an effort to overthrow Saddam, and allies in other parts of the world have not been recruited to back such an effort. "I do think the situation our country faces now is fundamentally different than what we faced on the eve of the Gulf War," Gore said. "If the rest of the world does not see what it regards as a sufficient provocation to justify an invasion by the United States, then the diplomatic cost would be extremely high."

You know what Bush's response to Gore's comments should be? Something along the lines of...

"I see that Al Gore and the Democrats wants to put off the invasion of Iraq for a couple of years at least. I'm sure by then they'd simply come up with some new excuse to put millions of Americans at risk by doing nothing. It's a shame that stopping a terrorist supporting nation that's hates America and is pursuing nuclear weapons is less important to Al Gore than getting a lot of pats on the back at European cocktail parties. But then what can you expect from a party that did everything in their power to keep our brave men and women in the armed service from having their votes counted in Florida during the 2000 election? Well no matter what the leaders of Democratic party think about our military, the rest of our great nations supports them and the Republican party is committed to doing anything it takes to protect our great country."

Of course, that's what a Reagan Republican might say. Too bad Bush is too much of a Rockefeller Republican to ever get that tough with the Democrats.

Libertarian Blinders On Drugs: I agree with Glenn Reynolds 90% of the time but I vehemently disagree with his latest column . He starts out by ripping ludicrously stupid anti-rave laws that are designed to criminalize having bottled water and glow sticks. While I agree with him completely on that, we part company as he goes into the main point of his editorial,

"Unable to endure the continuing evidence of drug-war failure, the drug warriors are lashing out, hoping that the ignorant will be convinced that they're earning their pay. Congress is playing along because, basically, Congress isn't up to the job of riding herd on the massive drug-war bureaucracy.

The drug war has been a massive failure: a waste of money, of lives and of time. It's also been accompanied by extensive inroads on traditional American freedoms: property forfeitures, "no-knock" searches, expanded wiretap authority, and the destruction of financial privacy, to name just a few."

This whole "wouldn't we all be better off if we made drugs legal" riff is one of the reasons why Libertarians are part of a marginal third party that will probably stay that way.

"But it's just trusting people to make their own choices" Libertarians say. "Just think about the laws we'll be able to take off the books and all the money we'll save by no longer locking up drug offenders in prison. The government will even be able to make tax money off of selling cheaper, safer drugs. We already have legalized tobacco and alcohol so it's hypocritical not legalize these other drugs"

There are so many flaws in this sort of reasoning. Alcohol, cigarettes, and illegal drugs already have a tremendous negative impact on our society as it is. How many people die because of drunk driving every year? How many criminals do we have robbing homes to pay for these drugs? How many people are in our prisons right now not because they merely possessed or sold drugs, but because they did something stupid enough to get themselves locked up while they were drunk or high? What percentage of the homeless are hopeless addicts?

Then you have to consider the fact that making drugs legal, cheap, and easier to obtain would cause an explosion in the number of people using them. That means more people committing crimes because they're stoned out of their gourds, more homeless people, a large jump in healthcare costs, a massive increase in the number of civil lawsuits because of drug related injuries and deaths, and a huge increase in ruined lives.

It also goes without saying that you're going to see a huge societal impact that may be hard to show tangibly...... lost productivity, higher turnover rates, and a larger percentage of the population that spends all their days and nights stoned somewhere. Furthermore, we're in a society where we have people suing tobacco companies because they smoked, fast food restaurants because they ate too much, and bars because someone got drunk and then killed someone in their car. So do you really think our legal system is ready for legalized heroin, crack, and crank? Also, how many parents would feel better knowing that their 18 year old kid can go buy cocaine at an ABC store? Is that the life you'd want for your kids? Years spent as a coke or heroin junky until an inevitable overdose leaves your child dead in the back of some nouveau opium-den?

Well most people would strongly prefer that drugs stay criminalized and they're right. By legalizing drugs we'd just be exchanging one set of problems for another larger and more serious set of problems in different areas.

Fast Food Restaurants Sued For Making Man Unhealthy: "A New York City lawyer has filed suit against the four big fast-food corporations, saying their fatty foods are responsible for his client’s obesity and related health problems." Fox News, July 25, 2002

When questioned by reporters who were skeptical of the suit Hirsch revealed their was more to the story.

"Four years ago my client was sitting in a park, eating some tofu and strawberries and minding his own business when a van owned by McDonald's pulled up. Immediately a huge purple beast known only as "Grimace" and a surly thug known as the "Hamburglar" accosted my client and forced him into a van. (cont)

RWN's Favorite Ann Coulter Quotes: As Ann Coulter's book "Slander" has rocketed up the charts she's become the new darling of the right. The fact that she's drop dead gorgeous, is seemingly on TV every night, and absolutely drives liberals up a wall doesn't hurt either. Here are some of RWN's favorite Coulter quotes...

The Ethics Of Massacres: I received an email from the guys at Zion Blog today promoting their latest editorial. The editorial comes down in favor of massacring the Palestinians (which I do not agree with at all). Read of the following portion of the piece and think about what your gut reaction is to it...

"But more importantly, people speak in terms they can understand and relate to. Pa undertake massacres because when they ask themselves what would be effective against them – the answer is massacres. This can be demonstrated by examining how arab governments often control their people – massacres.

....It is nice to argue the morality of actions and to argue that states need to act ‘morally’ when it is other peoples’ children and parents being blown to bits. In the real world it is better for the Israelis to feel a little guilty when they go to bed because Israel has intentionally killed arab civilians then to go to bed crying because your wife was just killed or scared because friends are killed every day."

To me, this article raises some interesting moral questions. The Palestinian people and government overwhelmingly support terrorists who kill every Israeli they can get their hands on from a baby in the crib to grandmothers on their sick beds. The only thing that stops groups like Hamas and Yasser Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade from wiping the Israelis out is their inability to get the job done. If the Palestinian terrorists were given the ability to murder every Jew in Israel tonight, they'd do so tomorrow morning and would spend their afternoon in the middle of a Palestinian street party where they would be cheered as heroes.

On the other hand, the Israelis are militarily capable of wiping out the Palestinians. They could literally turn the entire "Disputed Territories" into nothing but blood, sand, and rubble in the space of a couple of weeks. Yet, they're not taking advantage of their military power in that way because of their own populace's superior morality. It's no different than the scene near the end of dozens of action movies where the hero has the villan at his mercy and the bad guy can't bear his defeat. So he tries to taunt the hero into killing him by talking about how he killed his father (or mother, wife, kids, whoever). Then the good guy decides he's not worth it and takes him into jail instead.

I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would be repulsed beyond words by the idea that the Israelis should simply massacre the Palestinians. Yet, are these people just as disgusted by the support of the Palestinian people for terrorist groups who advocate the massacre of Israelis but are simply unable to carry out their desires? I certainly would not support Israel if they practiced genocide but apparently people who are pro-Palestinian have no such qualms about supporting a populace which does believe in wanton slaughter and genocide but is unable to achieve it's murderous ambitions.

***Update*** David from Zion Blog wrote in to clarify his position a bit. "Thank you for discussing the massacre piece. By the way, the proposal was not to wipe out all of the palestinians but just to pay them back in kind every time they commit a massacre."

Where's The Responsibility?: When we're running a 165 billion dollar deficit, don't expect to get back into the black for 2-3 years, the stock market is tanking, we're in the middle of a 'War on Terrorism', and know Social Security is on track to start running a deficit sometime in the next 10-15 years why would we even consider a Prescription Drug plan for Medicare recipients right now? Just look at the numbers that are being tossed around...

"The first bill to fall was crafted by Democrats to create a new government-run prescription drug benefit for the 34 million older Americans served by Medicare, at a cost estimated at $594 billion over several years"

"Next came a "tripartisan" measure from Republicans joined by Breaux and Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, the Senate's only independent. ...That plan envisioned a less expensive program than the Democratic blueprint, with coverage offered through private companies at a cost estimated at $340 billion."

How can we possibly justify creating a massive program like this when we're in the red especially when we know the costs of the program are going to explode when they hit the real world? Why don't we have ANYONE in our government who's responsible enough to stand up for the American taxpayers?

Selling Out Our Kids For Votes: Here's a few stats from the latest Walter Williams column on school vouchers...

"School choice opponents are also dishonest when they speak of saving public schools. A Heritage Foundation survey found that 47 percent of House members and 51 percent of senators with school-age children enrolled them in private schools in 2001. Public school teachers enroll their children in private schools to a much greater extent than the general public, in some cities close to 50 percent. This also applies to the black elite. Jesse Jackson, for example, sent his son to Washington's most elite private school."

So people with the money and the people who know the schools best want their kids to go to private schools but they want to deny poor families the opportunity. Why is that? The honest answer is that the Teacher's Unions don't want the competition and their Democratic patrons are doing everything they can to block it. That's despite the fact that using vouchers would create competition which would lower the costs, increase choice for parents, and would greatly improve the quality of our children's education. It's a shame that the Democrats care a lot more about pandering to one of their constituent groups than actually educating our children or they could get together with the Republicans and get a massive voucher program rolling by the end of the summer.

Ya Gotta See This: Are you unable to make a decision? Do you have a question you don't know the answer too? Then let the Hysterical Liberal Magic Eight Ball give you the answers that no one else can!

Link via Geekpress.

Your Mother Was Right About Unilateralism: When you were a kid, do you ever remember your mother asking you, “if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?” The point of that question was to illustrate that you didn't have to do something dumb just because your friends were doing it. When you apply this lesson to US foreign policy, what you get is unilateralism and a lot of broken-backed friends laying at the bottom of the bridge not the least bit pleased that we´ve chosen not to join them. (cont)

It's Another Blogosphere Round-up: Here a little news and info from across the Blogosphere...

The Vodka Pundit is MIA but Matt Welch, The Spoons Experience. & Dawn Olsen are back. Speaking of "Olsens", I caught Walter Olson from Overlawyered on O'Reilly tonight. Congrats Walter!

Andrew Sullivan did some fantastic work yesterday and the USS Clueless has been pumping out outstanding editorials for the last couple of weeks. Since I'm giving credit where credit is due, Protein Wisdom, Isntapundit, C-Log, Joanne Jacobs, Tim Blair, Cold Fury, The Daily Pundit, and of course the unchallenged king of the blogosphere Glenn Reynolds have been putting out consistently top notch work of late.

A few other odds and ends...I think NZ Bear has one of the best looking pages in the blogosphere these days. It's a clean design that's easy to read and yet is packed with info and is attractive to the eye. I think it's easily Sekimori's best design. On the other hand, Athena from Leaning To The Right probably doesn't have a lot of time to work on her site right now because she's about to pop out a puppy. Also, the funniest political blogs out there: 1) RWN of course, 2) File 13's Amish Tech Support, 3) Happy Fun Pundit, & 4) Possumblog.

That's it for this space filling & time killing edition of blogosphere round-up. Look for this feature again the next time we run out of things to talk about here on RWN =D

***Update*** NZ Bear wrote in to say "Stacy over at Sekimori did the logo (the bear at the typewriter) for my site according to a spec I gave her --- and
did a great job at it. But the rest of the design was all done by little old amateur me."

If Worse Comes To Worse In Iraq: I'm actually glad to see that Jospeh Farah and Arnaud de Borchgrave have published columns speculating about the nightmare scenarios that could occur when we invade Iraq. I think the American public may have gotten spoiled by the last two wars we've fought.

I was in college during the Gulf War and all we heard about before the Gulf War happened was how tough and experienced Saddam's troops were going to be. The screw-ups of Vietnam were like an ever present cloud over the US military at that point. I still remember my college professors parroting the line that there would probably hundred thousand US troops coming home in bodybags and asking if were ready to be drafted. Then we obliterated the Iraqis like they were nothing, racked up something like a 1000 to 1 kill ratio and headed home.

But people still weren't sure of how good we were. So when it was announced that we were going to hit Afghanistan everyone thought we had another mountainous Vietnam on or hands. The best case scenarios had us getting things under control in like a year and there were plenty of people who didn't think we could win at all. Then for all intents and purposes we drove the Taliban and al-Queda out of power in less than three months and we've been doing mop-up duty ever since.

The fact that we won these last two wars so convincingly could be problem if people begin to believe every war is going to a cakewalk. The reality is, we could easily lose thousands of US soldiers taking Iraq and even tens of thousands if things went horribly wrong. What if Saddam somehow got off a biological attack on a large concentration of our troops? Could Saddam even have a nuke on hand that we don't know about? Are there Iraqi agents in the US preparing to launch attacks once the fighting starts? Could an Iraqi attack with weapons of mass destruction on Israel prompt a nuclear response from the Israelis that might kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Is it possible that Iran and Syria might team up with Iraq to launch a surprise attack? Any of these things are possible although some are far more likely than others. However, the American public needs to understand that there are no guarantees in a war. People who study history are simply aware of that fact and accept it as a matter of course. But, everyone else in the US needs to understand it as well so that every setback and downturn in the Iraqi campaign is not falsely perceived as a disaster.

Jumping Into The Tiger Pit: I have a different view of the Rodney King & Donovan Jackson beating cases than many people do. First off, I don't think these beatings are racial incidents at all. Just because there's a white officer and a black "victim" involved, doesn't mean it's a racial issue. The reason these are assumed to be racial incidents has more to do with hypersensitivity to race and racial profiteers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc., who make a living off of playing up racial conflict than the actual facts of either case.

Second of all, while I do believe cops should be prosecuted if they use excessive force, I can't say that I feel any more sorry for King or Jackson than for someone who rubbed themselves down with meat and jumped into a tiger pit. Let me give you a little more detail about what I mean.

Back in my early twenties, I had a predilection for driving fast and paying scant attention to traffic signs so I ended up being pulled over quite a few times. Now when the cop came up to my car, I had both hands on the top of steering wheel so they wouldn't have to worry about me reaching for a weapon. I also was extremely polite, didn't make any sudden moves, and didn't run my mouth to the cops.

See I understand that if you spit in someone's face, grab their gonads, or they think they're in danger, you shouldn't be surprised when you get your teeth kicked in. Just because someone puts on a badge doesn't mean they leave their humanity behind. Again, if they break the rules they're given to operate under as police officers, they should be punished in a court of law. But getting beaten down by the police because you resisted arrest means you're a complete idiot who paid the price for your own stupidity, not some modern day version of Rosa Parks.

The Saddam Hussein Fan Club: We've got our first foreign advertiser! Hooray! Sure it's a Saddam Hussein fan club but I think people need to be open minded about these sorts of things. Read the article, give Saddam another chance, and I think you'll come to understand that he's not such a bad guy after all.

Civilian Casualties In Afghanistan: There is an almost stunning lack of perspective in yesterday's headlining NYT article,

"Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead."

"KABUL, Afghanistan ( news - web sites) The American air campaign in Afghanistan, based on a high-tech, out-of-harm's way strategy, has produced a pattern of mistakes that has killed hundreds of Afghan civilians...."

In a war where the enemy did not wear uniforms, deliberately used civilians as shields, & regularly hid men and equipment in areas inhabited mainly by non-combatants, the fact that we killed less than 500 civilians is a MIRACLE. Not only could no other nation or collection of nations done as well, but no other world power could have even won the war by now. If the EU, Russia, or China would have been fighting this war instead of us (and our allies), chances are they'd still be bogged down in an ugly guerilla war with thousands of civilian casualties and no end in sight. On the other hand, not only have we successfully toppled the Taliban, but we've helped install a Democratic government, and millions of refugees from the Taliban controlled Afghanistan are actually returning home.

Just to give you a little perspective on how another country might have handled Afghanistan, here's some info on Soviet battle tactics...

"Mujahideen guerrillas, though, enjoyed popular support and were fed and sheltered by rural villagers. The Soviets decided to cut off this support by forcing the people from the countryside. The Red Air Force bombed farms, irrigation systems and orchards. It dropped mines on fields and pastures, and machine-gunned livestock.

Of Afghanistan’s 17 million people, some 5.5 million fled to refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran. Another 2 million fled to shantytowns crowded around Afghanistan’s cities. Without the villagers, the guerrillas now had to carry their own food as they moved into battle."

So how many casualties di the Soviets inflict on the Afghans? According to the VFW article I quoted above it's "(at) least 1.3 million." That shines a new light on the "flaws" in the way we conducted the war doesn't it?

What Sort Of Goof Thinks This Is A War For Oil?: Ken Silverstein from the left-wing American Prospect absolutely destroys the "war for oil" claims the fringe left has been making about the 'War on Terrorism'. No, "destroys" is not a strong enough word. Perhaps "mangles", "crushes", "obliterates", or even "annihilates" would be more appropriate. I'm telling you, bookmark this article so the next time some tinfoil hat wearing, Noam Chomsky loving, anti-American, peace weenie makes the ridiculous claim that we invaded Afghanistan for oil, you can just pimp slap them by posting Silverstein's piece.

Thanks to Jarrod Miller for sending me the link.

Superman: The Ultimate Conservative Superhero: I always thought of Superman as the perfect example of a Conservative superhero. He's for truth, justice, and the American way and he gets things done. He doesn't ask for a government grant make things happen, he's doesn't say that you should sit around and wait for the government to take care of your problems, he just makes it happen. An example of a liberal superhero would be someone like Aquaman who's semi-useless 90% of the time and who wouldn't last ten minutes without Superman saving his worthless behind. I could go on but this whole little spiel is mainly just an excuse to quote from
Seanbaby's Super Friends page about a unique dilemma that Superman must face on a regular basis...

"Superman has got to be jaded as hell. Besides the crap he has to put up with from Aquaman every day, he can hear the death screams of orphans for thousands of miles in every direction. That kind of thing would get to get to you. When I hear about dynamite ninjas blowing up the president, I don't feel guilty. There's nothing I could have done; I don't know how to defuse a ninja or even where the president lives. Not Superman. He can take every single obituary personally. He can go through the paper and say, "Let's see, this was the bus that fell off the bridge when I was in the bathroom... and here, I was playing ping pong when this family suffocated under tons of rubble... Oh! And I could barely get to sleep while this former skydiver was screaming for help! Ha ha ha!"

I'm surprised he even cares when the Trouble Alert goes off. I'd expect him to say, "Sorry your government building got shrink-rayed, Congressman, but I can hear a baby being circled by vampire hippos right now. Do you want me to let it get torn apart becau-- oh, there. It's dead. Good job, Congressman Selfish @sshole. How about you don't call again until there's a real emergency like poison ivy or a leg cramp?"

We ALL know here that ISRAELI ZIONISTS jews RULE America: I occasionally like to head over to the Pravda Forums to see what our comrades from Russia are up too. Well there's an orgy of anti-semitism going on over there right now that would make a member of the Palestinian Authority stare in open mouthed shock. In short, these guys blame Jews for EVERYTHING. You almost have to see the latest edition of A.C.P.O.T.I. to believe there are people who think like this...