And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. -- Niccolo Machiavelli
Why Would Anyone Moon Over Castro Of All People?: Castro is a an incompetent & brutal Communist thug who has mired his people in poverty & squalor. In the US, left-wingers and celebrities rant about their "dissent being squashed", Bush acting like a "dictator", and how terrible it is to live in the United States. However, in Cuba, dissent is REALLY squashed, there is REALLY a dictator in charge, and the people are REALLY miserable, so much so that they're willing to risk their lives crossing the ocean on anything that floats just to get away from Castro's merciless regime. Yet, Castro's most ardent supporters are the very same left-wingers and celebs who seem to believe that Bush is going to, or already has made America into another Cuba.
Jeff Jacoby talks about some of Castro's cheerleaders, Jesse Jackson, Norman Mailer, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte to name a few. Then there's Oliver Stone, Jack Nicholson, Naomi Campbell & Kevin Costner and plenty of others. Their attitudes are typified by comments recently made by Ed Asner in an exchange with Pat Buchanan on the May 7th edition of Buchanan & Press...
Buchanan: "...What is it about these, Harry Belafonte, frankly, and Danny Glover that they can attack the American government and defend a guy (Castro) who would basically put him in prison for doing what they do here in the United States?"
Asner: "Well, they may well be put in prison here for those, for the support they're giving to Castro, the way things are going in this country. I am opposed to capital punishment by any country, by any persons. I disapprove of Mr. Castro's executing. I understand that the trial was very fair, that the death penalty is exercised in Cuba and therefore, by Cuban standards, the trial was fair and judicious even though I abhor the death penalty."
Buchanan: "I want you to name individuals in this country who have made political statements criticizing President Bush who have been put into a penitentiary for five, ten, or twenty-five years like these dissidents who criticized Castro were put into prison. And is this not a real slander on your own country to suggest that it behaves in the same manner as Fidel Castro?"
Asner: "Uh, my country is much more fortunate so it can't, it doesn't have to afford the excesses that Fidel Castro has to resort to by constantly being embargoed by the United States."
Buchanan: "Why does he have to do this? Why does he have to do it?"
Asner: "Why does he have to do it? Because he feels the imminent threat of the Bush administration. I don't regard the Bush administration as being representative of my country."
A bit later Buchanan pointed out: "He has persecuted his own people, he has denied them free elections for 40 years. He's an unelected dictator who puts people in prison on his own whim. What is the infatuation-"
Asner interjected: "We didn't have a free election in 2002."
Here's a guy who's angry about executions in the US where the criminals get appeal after appeal and trial after trial, but Castro, who can sentence men to death at a whim doesn't bother Anser. Asner claims that we may start putting people in prison for disagreeing with Bush and he's obviously unhappy about it, but Castro has done exactly that for decades and Asner in unmoved. Asner says that, "(w)e didn't have a free election in 2002" which is quite frankly right out of the barking moonbat's conspiracy handbook and yet Asner defends Castro's Cuba, where they really don't have free elections.
Attitudes like this defy all logic and common sense and on some level, the Castro defenders must know it. After all, you don't see people like Asner, Costner, or Stone moving to Cuba do you? So what are their motivations? Are they so full of hatred that they'll simply embrace anybody who will attack Bush &/or America? Could they be so blindly supportive of thoroughly discredited Communist doctrine that they're willing to embrace even a thug like a Castro as long as he tows the right ideological line? Whatever their reasoning (or lack thereof), to excuse a monster like Castro for his abuse of the Cuban people and act as if he's some sort victim of the US is the act of a despicable human being.
Al-Jazeera Unveils New Reality Show American Jihad
Al-Jazeera Unveils New Reality Show American Jihad By Shamus Young: Al-Jazeera television is taking a page from western infidel networks with its hilarious new reality series American Jihad. In the show, 10 would-be human bombs compete for fame, martyrdom, and fabulous cash prizes. The first one to complete his mission will get $1 million in cash for their surviving families from the House of Saud.
Islamic Mullahs have also increased the payout each contestant will receive in the afterlife. Normally each murderous bomber would be entitled to 67 virgins, but one lucky winner will get an astounding double payout of 134 afterlife virgins. The show will run for 10 weeks, with each episode featuring another hopeful, homicidal bomber and some unexpected twists that are sure to keep the audience and the bombers guessing. Promised one Al-Jazeera executive, "We are going to put the "fun" in Fundamentalist Islam!"
As the contestants are finding out, it takes more than a suicidal bent and blind, ravenous hatred for their fellow human beings to complete their mission. Players are learning that the judges have a few tricks up their sleeves that will make getting the money and virgins a real challenge for even the most murderous psychopath.
Ahmed Akbar was the first to discover that jihad isn't always fair, when he ran into a crowd of his enemies screaming, "Death to America!" His rage turned to humiliation, however, when the bombs strapped to his chest released not fiery death, but a sweetened fruit punch. Said Akbar, "It was very embarrassing. The punch ran down my front and made it look like I'd pissed myself. A few seconds before I'd been screaming and now I was in a crowded room with everyone staring at me and my underwear full of sticky children's drink. The people were pretty angry and I had to really run to escape them. I had to outrun an outraged crowd of infidels and kuffers with wet pants. I won't fall for that one again!"
The next contestant, Abed Sahif was careful to make sure he was given live explosives before being blindfolded and taken to an unknown location to perform his act of senseless slaughter. It wasn't until the last moment that he realized he'd been led back to his own neighborhood. Said Sahif afterward, "Those guys are clever. I'm glad I recognized the voice of my uncle nearby or I might have blown him up. That could have been really embarrassing to blow up people I care about."
Sources have revealed the next show will contain a hilarious twist, when the next contestant is sent charging into a nightclub filled with mannequins dressed as American tourists. Said the producer of American Jihad, "I can't wait to see if he really blows himself up without making sure there are live infidels around. This is going to be hilarious."
If you liked this satire by Shamus Young, you can read more of his work at The Lemon.
Giving Sharpton His Due: Speaking of "Race hustling poverty pimps", I have to admit that I can't stand Al Sharpton. That being said, I do have to give some credit for being audacious. After all, what other Democratic contender for the Presidency would have the guts to do this...
"The Rev. Al Sharpton could barely contain a smile Thursday when he visited the tomb of Robert E. Lee.
"I want people to see that if I'll go to Robert E. Lee's tomb, I'll go anywhere,'' said Sharpton, a controversial black activist who is running for president.
He added: ``I wonder how this will play back in Harlem?''
Seeing Al Sharpton of all people do that is so outrageously, bodaciously, mind-bendingly hypocritical, that it's actually funny...and Al knows it. I still don't care for Sharpton, but let no one say the man doesn't have a sense of humor =) I for one hope he stays in the race for a long time, not only because I think he may launch scathing on the top contenders and pout if he doesn't get his way, but because he's about as entertaining as it gets for a politician...even if he's wrong on almost everything.
Why Can't We Make Black Immigrants Into Bitter Race-Baiters Like Us?
Why Can't We Make Black Immigrants Into Bitter Race-Baiters Like Us?:William Spriggs, the executive director of the National Urban League Institute for Opportunity and Equality is not happy. It seems that black immigrants aren't buying into his line of racially divisive claptrap...
"When we talk of housing disparities, education problems ... many [immigrants] don't think that affects them," said William Spriggs, executive director of the National Urban League Institute for Opportunity and Equality.
"Black politicians ... haven't been able to get [black immigrants] to buy into what white America is all about, about what white privilege is. Immigrants don't come here with that understanding. We have to change our language to let them know that these are their problems."
Yeah, don't these people know they're being oppressed and that their only hope is to vote Democrat and do whatever "race-hustling poverty pimps" like William Spriggs tell them to do? Spriggs then went on to say...
"Several of the panelists said the best way to get together all blacks - immigrants and American - is to emphasize their common ancestry of slavery. "We just got off the boat at a different point," Mr. Spriggs said."
What is this, the 19th century? If Spriggs got off a boat, it was probably because the National Urban League held a fund raiser on a yacht. Hilary Shelton of the NAACP added to the race-based hand wringing...
"Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said there has always been a struggle over resources in minority communities.
Saying he has been around the world, "Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Mexico, South Africa ... what I feel like is white supremacy is very much with us," Mr. Shelton said.
Many immigrants are not even aware of the "color line" that prevents minorities here from excelling, other panelists said in amazement."
How do you look at the countries he mentioned and ignore the Socialism/Communism & the corrupt and incompetent leaders and conclude that, "white supremacy" is the problem? Who are these white supremacists that are keeping the good people of Cuba down for example? Is Castro running around under a white sheet when we're not looking? Also, if many these immigrants are not aware 'of the "color line"', maybe it's because they came from backwards countries where almost everyone is poor to the United States, where by the way, they're doing very well...
"Studies have also found that African-born residents in the United States are better-educated and have among the highest per-capita incomes of any immigrant group. They do not arrive in large numbers, accounting for between 5 percent and 6 percent of legal immigrants since 1997, according to federal numbers.
The Economist reported in 1996 that three-quarters of African immigrants have some college experience and that one in four has an advanced degree."
So these African immigrants are getting an education, doing well financially, and are too busy enjoying life in America and pursuing the American dream to pay attention to what people like Spriggs & Shelton think? Hey, they sound like the sort of immigrants we want in this country...
***Update***: Bill Quick at Daily Pundit weighed in on this issue as well.
"Moralizers", "Bible Thumpers", & "Social Conservatives": I generally prefer to stay away from the fuzzy "Social Conservative" issues because they're often so subjective & personal to most people that it's difficult to change minds. Moreover, I'd probably qualify as a "tweener" when it comes to Social Conservatism. I'm more Socially Conservative than the average person, but I'm not in the same ballpark as people like Paul Weyrich, Ralph Reed, James Dobson and Bill O'Reilly. So while I might agree with those guys on many issues, I disagree with them on more than a few as well. For the most part, violence & profanity in movies, music, and video games is a non-issue for me. The same goes for gambling, rappers doing soda commercials, prayer in schools, and a number of other hot button issues with Social Conservatives.
Now although I may disagree with Social Conservatives on some things, I don't dislike them, feel threatened by them, etc. However, I've noticed a strong dislike of Social Conservatism, even among some people on the right that is in my opinion largely unwarranted. The Bill Bennett and Rick Santorum flaps were excellent examples of what I'm talking about. In both cases, the reactions to what both men said was grossly out of proportion to what Santorum said and what Bennett did. Of course, the left is going to bash Conservatives at every opportunity, that's to be expected. Also, you're going to have some honest disagreements and political base covering on the right as well.
But, I also noticed two other wellsprings of criticism that came largely from Libertarian leaning righties that I thought were unfair. First off, there are obviously quite a few people out there who have a problem with religion in general. I'm talking about the type of people who are so distrustful of religious people that they think Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both of whom I find to be annoying) are wannabe Theocrats and who also rant about how much they can't stand "Bible Thumpers".
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but there's nothing wrong with thumping a Bible. As a matter of fact, I (and most Americans) like someone like Reagan or Bush 43 who doesn't mind thumping the Bible once in a while and seems to be genuine about it. You only have to look back to our last President to see that there are far worse alternatives.
The second and more frequent complaint that I've seen people on the right make about Social Conservatives is that they tell other people how to live & they're "moralizers". Well, who isn't a "moralizer", especially when it comes to politics? If you're a political junky (and many people reading RWN probably qualify), you're taking positions based on morals day in and day out. People don't seem to get this point, especially IMO, Libertarians & people on the right heavily influenced by Libertarian thinking. Many Libertarians seem to be under the incorrect impression that because they have "live and let live" point of view about many social issues, they are not taking moral positions on those issues. But, that is incorrect. For example, if you believe that prostitution, smoking pot, and gay marriage should be legal, then in effect, you don't consider them to be issues of moral consequence serious enough for the government to get involved in. So in effect, you are making a moral judgement by being against getting the government involved.
The response to that is, "Well no, I'm not taking a moral position, I just favor letting people make their own choices." Well, let's suppose people decide to use crack, engage in bestiality, walk around naked in a school zone, or if one of the big 3 networks decided to regularly run XXX pornos. I suspect a lot (but not all) of the people complaining about "moralizing" and defending choice would be against letting people "make their own choices" on those issues (or on others we could easily speculate about). Why so? Because they're willing to make decisions based on morals as well, they just have a different threshold for getting the government involved.
The point of all of this is that a lot of the criticism of Social Conservatives that I've seen is largely off target. As per usual, the left's criticism is easily dismissed. Just ask a left-winger who gets all bent out of shape over the "moralizing" of Social Conservatives if abortion, Affirmative Action, & welfare are moral or immoral and watch the fireworks. But, on the right, I think too many people are attacking Socially Conservative strawmen they've set up instead of simply disagreeing with ideas. Attacking someone because you disagree with their position is one thing, but getting all bent out of shape because you think someone "moralizes" or because you have some sort of irrational hatred of all religion is another.
Ted Rall Shows You What Rush Limbaugh Is Talking About...
Ted Rall Shows You What Rush Limbaugh Is Talking About...: I ran across an obnoxious column by Ted Rall that I was going to comment on, but Rush Limbaugh had already unknowingly summed it up brilliantly. I ran across the following words of wisdom from Rush on Zogby Blog....
""The Democratic leadership (not you rank-and-file members) are drowning in hatred. It's made them totally irrational, to the point where they can't refrain from attacking George W. Bush even when they know doing so will hurt them more than it does him. If they didn't hate Richard Nixon too, they'd do well to take heed of his farewell words: "Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
Bush doesn't hate guys like hate-filled Bob Byrd of the KKK. That's the whole idea behind his "new tone." Two things are going on with the Democrats and this latest attack on Bush over his landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Number One: Attacking Bush is the natural instinct of the reactionary Democrats and liberals, because they can't go on living if they're out of power much longer. Everything - duty, honor, country - is second to getting their power back.
Number Two: There is a seething rage and hatred for Bush. This hate fuels their attacks, and every single George W. Bush success stokes that fiery hate - which in turn leads to ever more brutal (and politically foolish) salvos. For example, every single thing these people said about Iraq turned out to be bupkis. Not one of the so-called peace movement's nightmare scenarios came true. Now they see this great carrier landing, and they flip out! If we'd lost, you know damn well they'd be all over Bush for that, but they just can't abide any reminder that this man they called an idiot won two wars against foes they called unbeatable in 18 months.
These überleftists, those of you marching in the anti-Bush peace marches who can't get over this false talking point that Bush is "illegitimate" after 2000, have been infected with this hatred. I am talking about many of you rank-and-file people in some of this, because I think you're the ones these Democrats think they're winning over with this hatred in the presidential primaries. I've been asked what I'd do if I were on the other side of that carrier landing. I know this: I'd try to get in on it! At the very least I'd shut up about it, rather than talk about it so the news keeps playing the video of it over and over again."
Even though Rush was talking about Dems like Robert Byrd who were furious over Bush's trip to the USS Abraham Lincoln, what he said almost perfectly applies to this section of Ted Rall's latest nauseating editorial...
"Democratic leaders ought to select their nominee in a smoke-filled room, call off the expensive and divisive primary process and order all other comers to stand down. Forget the union rallies, the badges and the buttons--whoever wins the nomination should invest every dime he can raise on the cruelest TV attack ads this country has ever seen.
Go after Bush's ultimate Achilles' heel: run countless loops of the inarticulate Resident's clashes with the English language. "Too dumb to talk," a sinister voiceover reads. "Too stupid to trust." Use time-proven Republican methods, like name-calling: Extremist. Out of touch. Tax and spender. Hates workers. Racist. Homophobe. Corrupt CEO coddler. Idiot. Drunk. Cut to the post-pretzel-incident photo: "America needs a sober president."
Forget ideas--voters respond to the personal stuff. Dwell on the two years Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. "Brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam," a 30-second spot should intone as the camera pans over names of the fallen on the black wall in Washington. "Rich kid George W. Bush deserted. This coward snorted coke and drove drunk while other kids died." Who doubts that if Gore had played up Bush's DUI arrest, he would have picked up an extra 500 votes in Florida?
The stolen 2000 election shouldn't become a clarion call for pity votes--Americans hate sore losers--but presented as straightforward evidence of Bush's poor character. Contrast images of Gore's graceful concession speech with shots of the screaming young hoodlums dispatched by Karl Rove to intimidate Florida election officials. Remind, remind, remind: "I know I can beat George Bush," Lieberman said on May 4th. "Why? Because Al Gore (news - web sites) and I already did it." That's the snotty attitude Democrats need in order to prevail in 2004."
Did Rush have Rall's number or what? Oh..and just to add my two cents to this -- All of those vicious GOP attacks on Clinton really made a big dent in his popularity didn't they? Wasn't he at 60%+ when he left office after his second term was over? Having seen my Party go down this dead-end road before (although not to the extent Rall is suggesting), I can't say that I'm too worried about the Democrats doing the same thing.
Republican Senators Push 'Virtual Tax Cut' By Scott Ott: In order to avoid a compromise with Democrats, Senate Finance Committee Republicans have agreed to a "virtual tax cut" which would be "identical in principle" to President Bush's initial proposal for a $726 billion tax cut package.
The Republican proposal takes the $726 billion and cuts it in half, then spreads it out over 25 years and excludes taxpayers who breathe any mixture of oxygen and nitrogen, or whose whose bodies feature bilateral symmetry, or who possess a central nervous system.
"Perception is everything," said and unnamed Senate Republican. "That's why this proposal is so important. It makes people feel like they're getting a tax cut, without the government having to return a penny to any individual person or corporation."
If you liked this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
PS: No one show any of this to Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and George Voinovich or they'll find a way to sneak it into the tax bill -- JH
The Families Of Illegal Immigrants Shouldn't Be Rewarded For Their Reckless & Criminal Behavior
The Families Of Illegal Immigrants Shouldn't Be Rewarded For Their Reckless & Criminal Behavior: It seems the US is responsible for the death of of 14 illegal immigrants? How you ask? By not making it easier for them to illegally sneak into the United States...
"The families of 14 illegal entrants who died crossing the desert east of Yuma in May 2001 have filed a $42 million lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior.
The lawsuit claims federal border policy forced the immigrants to enter through a treacherous desert area southwest of Tucson known to have little water and that Humane Borders was refused permission to place a water station "in the exact area" where the crossers died.
The lawsuit, filed April 30 in U.S. District Court in Tucson, seeks about $3 million for the families of each of the victims for damages including pain, suffering, grief and expenses.
The border crossers spent five days trekking across the desert in temperatures of more than 110 degrees. The U.S. Border Patrol found the first survivors on May 23, 2001.
The day after the incident, the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area placed seven Humane Borders flags marking wildlife water stations migrants could use.
That decision showed the government felt placing water in the desert for people would save lives, said James Metcalf, one of three attorneys who filed the lawsuit.
"They've got all kinds of critters. They also seem to have some human beings running around out there. These folks are still human beings who die at alarming frequencies, and they're aware of that," he said.
By allowing water stations in areas where it formerly prohibited them and by setting up emergency call boxes to save the lives of illegal entrants in the desert, the government has acknowledged people need help to make the journey, he said.
"The government doesn't assume responsibility unless they in fact have one," Metcalf said."
I'm sorry to hear that those people died, but I'm not sorry to hear that "federal border policy forced the immigrants to enter through a treacherous desert." The more treacherous and dangerous it is, the less people will try to illegally enter our country. Personally, I'm against putting out any water, phones, or doing anything that could conceivably make it easier to sneak into our country. To the contrary, I support putting troops on the border, using Predator spy planes, and doing everything within reason to stop the flow of illegal aliens.
We already have millions of illegal aliens in our country who obviously have no respect for our laws, don't pay their fair share in taxes, use our government services, and siphon off the resources of our schools, jails, and hospitals. We need to crack down on these people and make every effort to secure our borders against illegal aliens, drug runners, and even potentially against terrorists who could easily creep across the border into our country.
I would have no problem with setting up a worker program with Mexico so that people who want to work in the United States can do so legally. In fact, such a program would probably be welcomed by the millions of Mexicans who do respect our laws and who are patiently waiting their turns to enter our country legally. But, we should have zero tolerance for illegal aliens and do nothing to make it easier for them in the United States. That means their children shouldn't be able to go to school here, they shouldn't be able to get driver's licenses, and there should be no water stations in the desert. If they don't like that, then just maybe they'll stay home, which would suit most Americans just fine.
Jews Should Be Racial Deleted From The World, Leaving Not One Jew
Jews Should Be Racial Deleted From The World, Leaving Not One Jew: So I'm surfing the net looking for a new rat's nest of idiocy to expose in the ACPOTI (Anyone Can Post On The Internet), and I was lucky enough to run across Overthrow.com. The guy who runs the page claims to be into "libertarian socialism" and "radical traditionalism". I'm not sure exactly what either of those is supposed to be, but apparently bombs have something to do with it since the site owner includes instructions for building them. The forums are full of spam and lots of anti-semitism. They also feature instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb and a hitman advertising his services. I should get a medal for trolling through all of this garbage just to find freaky ACPOTI material to entertain all of you. Who knows what sort of list I'm on at the FBI now. I can just imagine...
Agent 1: "Hey Agent Starling, look at this one! He has been to racist sites, radical Islamist pages, conspiracy pages...& he runs a page called "Right Wing News"!
Agent 2: "Did you say "Right Wing News" Crawford? That sounds like it could be an extremist page!
You see the risks I'm taking to shine some daylight on these people for your amusement? One of you should buy me a Segway off of my wish list or donate so much money to my Paypal account that I can afford to gamble like Bill Bennett just as a thank you...(Cont)
Bush Is In The Catbird's Seat For 2004: I haven't done a lot of 2004 election analysis so far because it's early, but Bush does look to be in excellent shape for the election. Moreover, the smart guys on the left, the Carvilles, Begalas, Clintons, etc, KNOW Bush is looking good even if they won't admit it. If you want proof of that, just ask yourself, "why aren't Al Gore and Hillary Clinton in the race right now?" Either one of them could easily win the Democratic nomination and get a shot at Bush in 2004, but neither of them wants the opportunity to play Walter Mondale to his Ronald Reagan.
Ok, ok, I don't want to claim it's going to be a landslide victory for Bush or even that Bush has it in the bag because you never really know how an election is going to play out until it's over. But, the Democrats don't have a great group of candidates. There are five guys who at this point at least appear to have an outside shot of grabbing the nomination and they are...
Dick Gephardt: Here's a guy with minimal charisma who failed to help the Dems take back the house, has flip flopped on plenty of issues, and who has made socialized medicine, something the American people have never embraced, the centerpiece of his campaign. He's a very weak candidate.
Howard Dean: Dean has made some headway with the Democratic base because he's been so strongly anti-war, but he has reduced his foreign policy creditability down to "Jimmy Carter-like" levels at the same time. American voters would be terrified of having a weakling like Dean in charge while we're in the middle of a war against terrorism and rightfully so. I'd say he is unelectable.
John Kerry: Michael Dukakis redux. Kerry is an ultra-liberal who votes to the left of Ted Kennedy and has a knack for saying politically embarrassing things that reminds me of Tom Daschle. A lot of lefties like him because they think the fact that he was a Vietnam war hero will blind people to the fact that he's soft on defense. Kerry himself mentions the fact that he served in Vietnam incessantly. What isn't being mentioned (yet) is that after Kerry got out of Vietnam, he turned into an anti-war hippy who once claimed to have thrown his medals away and who also marched with Communists (and yes, I'm thinking there's probably footage of that sitting in a safe in Karl Rove's office). Because of all of this, I think Kerry has about much chance as Dukakis would if he came out of retirement and ran again.
John Edwards: In sports terms, Edwards is what as known as a "project". He has a lot of things going for him as a candidate. He's pretty, he's from the South, he comes off as a moderate, and he has lots of trial lawyer money behind him. On the other hand, he's a freshman Senator, who's not very charismatic, hasn't done anything of note or made much of an impression, and quite frankly, he'd lose his own state to Bush by 15+ points if the election were held today. All that being said, I think Edwards is the Dems second best candidate -- although that's not saying much.
Joe Lieberman: Lieberman would be the most electable candidate for the Dems because he was strongly in favor of the war in Iraq, is hawkish on foreign policy, and comes across as moderate on most domestic issues. Ironically, Lieberman probably won't win the nomination because he was strongly in favor of the war in Iraq, is hawkish on foreign policy, and comes across as moderate on most domestic issues.
Now some people think this is going to be a repeat of 1992, but as many people have pointed out, the conditions are very different. Bush has MUCH higher ratings than his father on the economy, the danger isn't going to be over in 2004 because the war on terrorism will still be ongoing, while there's always a bit of GOP infighting going on, Bush 43 hasn't infuriated the base like his father did by breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge, and last but not least, Ross Perot isn't going to be siphoning off a lot of GOP voters this time.
Things are looking pretty good right now, especially since the top Dem candidates are having to move farther leftward and away from the mainstream to try to win the nomination in this crowded field. Bush's HUGE fund raising advantage isn't going to hurt either. If the economy starts to pick up steam in the next year or so as well, Bush could become VERY DIFFICULT to derail in 2004. So don't count your chickens before they hatch, but it looks very likely that Bush is going to be around one more term than his pops was.
Republican Babe Pic Of The Day: The JerseyGOP website has a Republican BABE Of The Week section and I ran across pics of Kirsten Andersen, a Conservative columnist for PoliticalUSA there. This girl was just jaw droppingly, mind bogglingly, hot....well here, let me show you...
I'm telling you, she makes my knees weak. Darcy Olsen & Emily Pataki are just "wow" as well. Both of them have that "girl next door" look, although it would have to be a pretty snazzy neighborhood since one of them is a Governor's daughter and the other is a CEO.
But, I'd have to rank Kirsten up there on my personal top 10 list along with Jennifer Anniston (Friends), Mariah Carey (Singer & actress if Glitter counts as acting =), Sheila Moon (actress & music video maven), Zhang Ziyi (Rush Hour 2 among other movies), Lisa Kudrow (Friends), Grace Park (women's golfer), Alyson Hannigan (From Buffy), Renee O'Connor (Xena's sidekick), & Denise Richards (From Starship Troopers among other movies)...
The North Korean Twilight Zone: I'm not exactly sure why North Korea decided to invite pro-wrestlers of all people to put on a show in Pyongyang back in 1995, but they did. Eric Bischoff was one of the people who was there and he actually had some very interesting things to say about his experiences in the poor, backwards, and yet very dangerous nation of North Korea...
"...There were only two television stations, for example, both of them 24-hour propaganda. There were only two or three radio stations, all of them totally government-controled propaganda. And the population in North Korea is fed an entirely different base of knowledge in terms of world history. They live in 1952. I'm not being funny; I'm not exaggerating. They still believe and make their population believe that the Korean War is essentially continuing to take place; although it may not be an armed conflict, the population believes that North Korea is still at war with the West in many ways.
...According to the North Korean doctrine, the North Koreans won World War II, and defeated Japan. There's no reference to American involvement. There's no reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to the North Korean government, that never happened; it was North Korea that defeated Japan and ended World War II. That'll give you an idea of just how brainwashed North Koreans are. That's what they're taught in schools.
...On the way over to pay homage to the "Great Leader," we were informed by our "cultural attaché" in no uncertain terms that we were not to "molest" any of the North Korean women. It sounds funny until you realize that that was their fear, because they're taught that Westerners are barbarians - that we're there to rape, kill, burn, destroy. That's their view of who Americans are -- Westerners in general, but specifically Americans. It wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as a warning, because they really thought that that was what we were there to do. So that's how the trip started. And it got more interesting from there.
...North Korean rush hour is all foot traffic; there are no cars. Just foot traffic and bicycles. The only cars are government or police. It was bizarre. And by the way, my cultural attaché didn't see me leave the hotel. Evidently, he didn't expect me to get up quite that early.
All of the North Koreans were going to work. One of the things I found very interesting is that, no matter what your job is in North Korea, you walk to work in a suit. Whether you work in a factory, a dairy or a post office, you walk to work in a suit, and then when you get to work, you change into whatever work clothes you wear. When you're done, you take your work clothes off, put your suit on and walk back home. So everyone was walking around in a suit - either dark blue or black.
...They're all wearing black or dark blue, and there is this incarnation of evil, as they've been brought up to believe because of brainwashing, jogging down the street in rush hour one Wednesday morning in Pyongyang, North Korea, wearing red sweatpants and a yellow T-shirt. And the people were scared to death. As I'm running down the street, crowds of people were literally parting like the Red Sea. They weren't rude; they weren't aggressive in any way. Quite the opposite, they were so taken aback.
...The city of Pyongyang is just one big mass of concrete - very modern in appearance, because it was pretty much leveled in 1952, so it's been rebuilt since then. One of the amazing things is that the streets are so incredibly wide. They go all the way through the city of Pyongyang. And I actually asked, "Why are these streets so wide? You don't have any cars.
They were very proud to inform me, "The city of Pyongyang is designed to be an airfield, so that in times of war, fighter jets and bombers can land anywhere that they want to within the city." So literally, the city is designed as a series of runways, surrounded by buildings.
...North Korea is so poverty stricken that in the countryside they literally eat their dead. That's been documented by a number of recent news stories and documentaries. They're famished. They've been in a condition of drought for an extended period of time, probably nearly a decade. So there's very little if any agriculture. They really have no resources. They're entire economy is built around their military and weaponry. They really don't have any infrastructure to feed their culture, which is one of the reasons that they're in such a desperate condition...."
I feel nothing but pity for those poor, brainwashed people, especially since we may have to kill them in great numbers one day. Maybe some of those South Koreans who love to complain about the United States should remember that if it wasn't for us, this would be what their lives would be like as well...
In My World: Whitehouse Denies Scaring Away France
In My World: Whitehouse Denies Scaring Away France By Frank J.: "So why are we watching the stupid gringo Democrat get into his car?"
"Just wait for it," Bush answered, watching out the window with barely contained excitement. Below them, Tom Daschle sat down in his car and turned the ignition. Soon his car exploded into a ball of flame and Daschle started running around the parking lot on fire and screaming.
"Stop, drop, and roll, jackass!" Bush shouted and closed the window. He then collapsed into his chair laughing.
"Isn't that attempted murder?" the Mexican asked with some concern.
"What are you? Some legal scholar? Practical jokes aren't crimes."
Bill Bennett's Enron Experience: I've been mildly amused by the whole Bill Bennett gambling controversy because it reminds me of the W's "Enron experience." In W's case, you had a bunch of Democrats endlessly repeating the worlds, "Bush, Enron, & scandal" while hoping something would stick. Now, we have a bunch of leftie columnists breathlessly writing "Bennett, gambling, & hypocrisy" while dreaming that it'll catch on. Same schtick, different day.
Even the people slamming Bennett will for the most part admit that they don't have anything of substance. Bennett was gambling legally, he hadn't slammed gambling in the past, & I haven't heard anyone offer any evidence that Bennett has been unable to financially handle his losses...if there are any (Bennett says he has broken even).
But the scandal is supposed to be....well, I'm not sure exactly. What is the scandal supposed to be? I've seen a lot of mentions of Bennett's "Book of Virtues", but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you've ever read the book (and I have), it's nothing but a collection of stories and poems that laud self-discipline, compassion, responsibility, friendship, work, courage, perseverance, honesty, loyalty, & faith. That's hardly controversial...well unless a Conservative is saying them in which case you might find a few contrarian leftists who would willing to put in some kind words for cruelty, treachery, & sloth just to show how different they are from the right.
I've also seen a bit of whining that Bennett is a "moralist", as if there's anyone who isn't in some form or fashion. Ask someone who gets all upset about Bennett whether abortion, Affirmative Action, & welfare are morally right and you'll get an earful.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Bennett gambles, even if it's for high stakes. It's not something I'd do, but then I probably wouldn't be interested in collecting cars, owning the Oakland Raiders, or some of the other things people with truckloads full of extra cash spend it on. If you have the money and that's your thing, so be it. Anyway, soon this will all blow over unless Bennett gets caught watching an "R" rated movie, uses the word "niggardly" on Crossfire, or commits some similar oversight that the left can feign outrage over.
In Britain, The Criminal Sues The Victim: I think some of the Brit politicians are a bit confused about law. See, when they call it a "criminal justice system", that doesn't mean that it's primarily designed to get justice for the criminals. Read this story from The Sun and you'll see what I mean...
"FURY erupted last night after David Blunkett's lawyers said burglars need protection from householders.
They insist villains deserve to be treated like any member of the public - and MUST be able to sue homeowners who attack them during a break-in.
...Mr Blunkett last night insisted he had nothing to do with the ruling.
His aides refused to condemn it - confirming that criminals are entitled to rights.
But Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said..."The world has clearly gone mad. Why on earth should I be able to sue for things that happen while I am in the process of burgling?"
Leaked papers show they (Home Office lawyers) believe burglars should be guaranteed protection from homeowners who try to protect their properties.
The document says: "It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be members of the public whilst committing criminal offences."
This is simply bizarre! I cannot imagine how anyone could vote for politicians who think this way. As far as I'm concerned, if you break into someone's home, you're taking your life into your own hands. I don't care if you're armed or unarmed, how old you are, or whether you're a choir boy when you're not breaking into houses, if you get caught in the act the homeowner has every right to shoot first (or stab them with a steak knife if you're a gunless Brit) and ask questions later. As a matter of fact, if you shoot a burglar who breaks into your house, I think you deserve an "attaboy", not to be harassed by a bunch of politicians who seem hell-bent on making it easier for criminals to victimize law abiding citizens.
X2 -- Xmen United Mini-Review / Theoretical Question -- Should We Lock The Xmen Away?: When I was a kid, I used to enjoy comic books. My fave was Spider-Man although I read the X-Men semi-regularly as well. Of course, it was hard to translate that to the silver screen back in the seventies and eighties. That's because the special-effects of the day just weren't good enough to capture the action. But that has changed big time and the special effects in X2 were simply superb. Add that together with solid plot, the great action, and the complex and interesting characters...yes, I said complex and interesting characters in an adaptation of a comic book. I know some of you are probably poo-pooing that, but just consider one of the characters -- Magneto. Here's a guy who lost his parents in the Holocaust and now he's concerned (with good cause) that there's going to be another Holocaust with mutants ending up in the death camps this time.
That's a theme running through the comic by the way -- mutants just wanting to live their lives and humans fearing them and wanting to either destroy them or lock them away. It's interesting that the comics creators came up with that idea because it would be a difficult issue to grapple with if there were actually mutants. Imagine if you will, extremely powerful mutants who were born with powers they can't get rid of. Some of them are good, some of them are bad, but many of them are VERY, VERY, dangerous. Some of them can manipulate the minds of humans at will, others can control the weather, and still other mutants can flawlessly imitate anyone they wish. I won't give away all the details, but in X2 President is attacked by a mutant, a US Senator is successfully impersonated by a mutant, and still another mutant threatens the continuing existence of human kind.
So do you lock the mutants up or kill them for how they were born? Especially when you know there are mutants that are good, decent, and upstanding people who have done nothing wrong? If you say no, would you be willing to live with the terrible risks of letting the mutants run around free? Consider that in America we're afraid to let law abiding people have assault weapons, so how do you think we'd feel about someone who could fire optic blasts from their eyes or gouts of flame from their hands? Think about the incredible risks of having someone like Professor X out there. He could simply roll up to a nuclear silo and mentally force the people inside to fire a nuclear weapon, thereby starting WW3...and what could stop him? So should these mutants be destroyed to protect humanity or should we respect their rights as human beings mutants? That's pretty deep for a comic book, huh?
Back to the movie review. The only real flaw in the movie was one that couldn't really be helped. There are so many Xmen and the comic has been around so long that it's almost impossible to fully develop the characters the way it should be done in a 2 hour movie. I mean you have Professor X, Storm, Nitecrawler, Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Rogue, Iceman, Pyro, Magneto, Mystique, & William Stryker who are all main characters. How do you give them all the time they deserve? You don't, although X2 gives it their best shot.
But, I don't want to give you the wrong idea. I enjoyed the movie and any fans of the Xman comic book or who liked the first movie will probably enjoy it as well. It's a fun, action filled movie and I'd give it a thumbs up...
Failure to Find Saddam Proves He Never Existed By Scott Ott: Six weeks after the invasion of Iraq, Pentagon officials are quietly beginning to acknowledge that their failure to find Saddam Hussein may be proof that the Iraqi leader never existed.
"We hate to admit it," said one unnamed official, "One of our main reasons for going in there was regime change. You know...overthrow a brutal dictator who tortured his own people. But at this point, we're not sure there ever was a Saddam Hussein. After all, if we don't have him dead or alive...who's to say?"
The military official said that the statues, murals and videos of Saddam Hussein are "circumstantial evidence which don't prove anything."
"I try to look on the bright side," he added. "Maybe we'll luck out and find a few chemical weapons so the war won't have been a total waste."
Experts agree that evidence of actual atrocities against Iraqis lacks the news value that potential atrocities against Westerners would have.
If you liked this humor by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
Janeane, You Ignorant Slut...By MJ: MJ, the anonymous Conservative from Hollywood is back and he's blasting away at Janeane Garofalo with everything in his verbal arsenal. It couldn't happen to a nicer faux-intellectual celeb...OK, Streisand deserves it more, but Janeane runs a close second... (Cont)
