-- I'm going to be taking Memorial Day off since I have learned from experience that traffic drops precipitously on holidays anyway. So RWN will be updated again on Tuesday.
-- Speaking of Memorial Day, FDR pointed out something of importance when he said,
"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them".
Freedom isn't free and the members of our armed forces who risked all and sometimes gave all defending it deserve our respect and admiration for their service to our country. For all the men and women who have fought, bled and died for America, RWN salutes you.
-- As per usual when I take a three day week-end, I've posted some worthy blogs in the daily news section to give you something to read. Give 'em a look and you may find some new blogs worth bookmarking.
-- I've added some new forms of advertising to RWN. We now have advertisements that go in the daily news section and on the main page. Give those a look.
Also, our $15 88x31 buttons that stay up for a month are still available although more than half of the slots are already sold. If you want to get one of the button ads, I'd suggest getting something in ASAP since I do expect them to sell out again this month. If you're looking to get the word out about your product or blog, there are some VERY affordable ways to do it here on Right Wing News.
I Get Letters -- More Hate Mail: This is probably a bit perverse, but I generally enjoy getting hate mail. I think it's because I can just imagine these left-wingers being sent a link to RWN by one of their friends and then getting here, being infuriated by the page, and sputtering with rage as they blast out an email to me. The very idea of making left-wingers that angry just warms the cockles of my cold, black heart.
Here's a representative sample of the sort of stuff I've been getting from angry lefties lately...
===
Wolf Nipple
Subject : Your Web Site
SUCKS!
i'd ask politely that you GET AN EDUCATION, and stop spewing your hate-filled, ignorant jibberish."
===
Stewart W. Leathwood
Subject: Fascist!
You are an anti-American Fascist and a traitor you should turn yourself in to the U.S. Marshals service as such!
===
McGinty Robert X
Subject: Wow
Vited your site, what a sad excuse for a hate filled @sshole you are, you aren't even wirth pity just contempt, guess anyone can buid a web site to spew their own personal venom and then act as if they represent the right, BULLSH*T.
One last coment, a follower of Christ you are NOT, you missed that point all together.
Have Grap for a Life.
RMc
===
From: Charles Fraser
Subject: You are a bunch of knob jockys!!!
You f*cking bunch of insensitive, stupid, simple minded objective f*ck nuts. The banner on your limp spirited web site says you fight for truth justice and the american way. Then next to humor you have war in brackets along-side more of your in-bread trash; the problem being that this is the American way, no one but your stuck up selves wants a part of it. Might does not equal right, and you are the least popular country in the world. Get that into your head. If you come to england, ever, there are thousands of people wanting to hurt people like your selves so much. do take that as directly as it is stated. Stay with your over weight, infested with boredom, crime and a confused herd people. I am ashamed to have my flag flown next to yours in a country which has displayed none of the necessary criterion which your country (in a position of power and with the possibility to have great wisdom (not an ex-alcoholic) in power) has promised that they had. (The weapons of mass D you right wing f*ck.)
Your small minded opinion can damage that of others equally slow to the point at hand, and these people are not to blame, you are for imprinting your forgotten selves and opinions on them.
right wing news is an ignorant site fueled by ignorant politicians who have no trace of intelligence whatsoever. it's a bit sad seeing people like you in power. I just have a comment about the environmentalist quotes you posted and laughed at: has anyone in the right wing news staff taken any environmental science courses? Are any of you scientists? probably not. that's why you do not realize the full extent of the environmental problems we face. most of those quotes spoke with logic. they were all true, even though some were a little bit morbid. but hey, so is the war....
===
colm FINLAY
Subject:
....Anyway I hope your website contracts a virus which gives you all warts on the top of your knobs so americans can no longer breed.
I actually thought you boys were all right before i visited this site. Keep up the good work f*ckheads...
===
Heh, heh...I'll certainly have to avoid talking "jibberish" and I'll do my best to steer clear of whatever the Hell this is supposed to be as well, "I hope your website contracts a virus which gives you all warts on the top of your knobs so americans can no longer breed." I wonder if this is the tenor of the hate mail all the Conservative bloggers get? My guess is that this sort of stuff is typical...
No One Covers The War On Terrorism Like The Weekly World News
No One Covers The War On Terrorism Like The Weekly World News: As per usual, the print edition of the Weekly World News is full of fascinating information that the mainstream press has obviously tried to keep under wraps. For example, when was the last time the Washington Post ran an article about capturing demons for fun and profit? Why hasn't the New York Post informed the public about the crazed squirrels who ate a scientist alive during an experiment gone wrong in Germany? Has Matt Drudge let us know that earth's atmosphere is evaporating and that every human on the planet will suffocate to death within eight years?
Well, the Weekly World News has all these stories and more (did someone say Bat Boy?) and they're blowing the cover off of the war on terrorism. For example, here's the beginning of an article on Osama Bin Laden...
"American agents hunting Osama Bin Laden are getting help from an unexpected source -- it turns out he's a bed-wetting mama's boy!
"We've gotten to know all of Bin Laden's quirks pretty well," confides a member of the CIA's crack pursuit team, "but what's really helped us most is the way he wets himself whenever he falls asleep."
See? While the New York Times was busy trying to figure out how many articles Jayson Blair created from scratch, the Weekly World News was doing some real reporting!
But, the WWN really blows it wide open when the reveal perhaps the biggest scoop of the year so far -- Saddam's Diary! Just look at these shocking excerpts the WWN says the CIA & Army intelligence have confirmed were penned by Saddam himself...
On Jacques Chirac...
"Jacques is my friend, my lover, my confidante. His kisses are like the French wines we drink -- sweet, and fine. Our nights are filled with love for one another. I wish he never had to leave me, but the world wouldn't understand what we have between us."
OK, so that one was no big surprise. But, what about this...
"Cannibal cultures have the right idea. Human flesh is more powerful than all the other meats. When I eat the flesh of fresh babies, I am energized and joyous for weeks. The taste is exquisite, like tender marinated lamb."
You hear that you peaceniks? While you were in the street trying to keep us from invading, Saddam was eating babies. I hope you're happy! Perhaps he was so troubled by what you're about to hear that eating babies was his only solace....
"Why me? Why me? My own sons are endowed like big, strong, animals and I am so small. My lovers laugh at me behind my back. I have heard they call me 'the pencil'."
Moreover, Saddam apparently dresses in women's clothes, loves Michael Jackson, planned to invade America, enslave the Arab world, and nuke the Pyramids, Mt. Rushmore, and the Eiffel Tower (I bet he and Jacques would have had a lover's spat after that).
Now, I'll grant you that some people would call the Weekly World News "total fiction", "complete b.s.", "less reliable than Jayson Blair", etc, etc. But hey, since Yahoo is posting a WWN story about meat producing trees with no warnings that the story isn't credible, how bad can the WWN be? I mean Yahoo certainly wouldn't lead person, after person, after person astray by not adequately alerting people to what sort of paper the Weekly World News actually is....or would they? I think the fact that Snopes had to actually punch something up explaining to people that there aren't really "Tree(s) That Give Meat Instead Of Fruit" answers that question. Yahoo should take the hint, yank the story, explain what happened, and stop posting material from the WWN without a warning...
We Don't Need The Government's "Help" Fixing Spam: Ronald Reagan once said, 'The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."' That's particularly true when it comes to spam. Take it from someone who works for an ISP wholesaler, you don't want the government to try to legislate spam away.
Most of the people in government -- heck, let's be honest -- the majority of people on the net don't have a good understanding of how their own computer works, much less how the net works. I can say that with complete certainly because I spent thousands of hours in tech support talking to people who thought I could see their screens or wondered if it was OK to turn their computer back on since it had been a year since they got an "illegal operation" error on the FBI website (yes, I really did get that call). Now, I'll grant you that Congress makes laws all the time without having enough knowledge to make a decision, but I don't want them doing that when it comes to spam.
I say that because there's no law that Congress can pass that is going to even make a dent in amount of spam coming into your inbox. That's because it's a global problem and even if we pass a "spam and we shoot you" law, it's not something that spammers in other countries are going to have to worry about. I talk to multiple ISPs & people who deal with mail servers and spam every day, so believe me when I tell you that the solution to the spamming problem is technological, not legislative.
That's why you should be very wary when you hear our Congress discuss ways to "help" us deal with spam. Some of the things they're coming up with are largely ineffective, yet relatively harmless things like targeting US based spammers or coming up with "do not email" lists. If they want to bust a few spammers and get good press by suggesting things like that, that's fine, but no one should actually expect it to cut into the amount of spam we're receiving.
However, not everyone who claims that they, "only want to help" has a benign agenda. For example, Senator Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota) suggested that we tax email to help stop spam. It also wouldn't surprise me to see people who want the government to tightly monitor and control the net claim that they only want to fight spam. After all, it's a lot easier to sell, "We just want to find out who the spammers are so we can stop them" than, "WE ARE WATCHING YOU!" In any case, there's very little good that is going to come out of having Congress trying to wipe out spam.
I've Been Interviewed: Andrew H. of Belly Flop did an interview with me and posted it to his blog. Because of some technical problems, Andrew had to cut the interview a bit short and Ozrael from The Electric Reel was unable to participate as planned. However, I still think it's a good read. You can view the interview by clicking here.
RWN's Favorite George S. Patton Quotes: America has been blessed with a large number of talented generals in our history, but my favorite has always been Patton. Arguably, he was the best General we've ever had, and unquestionably he was the most colorful. That's why I thought you might enjoy a selection of quotes from the man who once described himself as, that "Son-of-a-Godd*mned-B*tch named Georgie Patton."
Fans Express Disgust Of Bonzi Buddy In The Matrix Reloaded
Fans Express Disgust Of Bonzi Buddy In The Matrix Reloaded By Steve Tanner: While thousands of Matrix fans rushed to see the latest in the sci-fi trilogy, many were baffled and angered at the newest film addition - Bonzi Buddy. Contrary to opinion, Time Warner feels they have made a revolutionary break through by including it to The Matrix Reloaded.
Fans worldwide expressed their disappointment to the annoying little monkey. "It kept asking me if I need to go to the bathroom and if I understood the plot" claimed moviegoer Jeffery Stepp, "Then at key points of the film, it would tell me where I could purchase crappy merchandise from the film. It would not shut up."
Ted Pickeral, and executive at Time Warner defended its decision to include Bonzi Buddy in the film. "The Matrix is basically a big computer program. One of our companies (AOL) proudly includes Bonzi software in most of its programs. That little purple ape fills me full of joy. We think fans will really enjoy the upcoming sequel Revolutions where we experiment with Pop up windows and parental controls."
If you liked this satire by Steve Tanner, you can read more of his work at Broken Newz.
A Frank Guide to Homeland Security Alert Levels By Frank J: Everyone has heard of the Homeland Security Advisory System by now and its rainbow of colors, but most are confused of exactly what it means to them about how they should act and live when it is at its different levels of alert. That's why I've decided to create this guide make things clearer to the people.
First, here is what the alert levels mean in general:
- Green (Low): All evil had been destroyed. The world is now a peaceful utopia.
- Blue (Guarded): There's still the occasional pickpocket, so show a little caution.
- Yellow (Elevated): Terror lurks in the shadows; be wary.
- Orange (High): The terrorists are out there and they are coming for YOU!
- Red (Severe): The world is exploding around you. The only law is your own gun. (Cont)
The Blogs I Visited Yesterday: As you must have guessed, I page through a truly massive number of web pages every day in order to find daily news and topics worth posting about on RWN. Well yesterday, I decided to keep a record of all of the blogs I hit during the course of a day. I thought about including all the web pages I hit, but the list would of been extraordinarily long and besides, the blogs need the rub more than pages like National Review & The Drudge Report. If your blog didn't get mentioned, don't take it personally because the list varies greatly from day to day...
Even Aliens Can Figure Out That America Rules And The Rest Of The World Drools
Even Aliens Can Figure Out That America Rules And The Rest Of The World Drools: ZetaTalk is page dedicated to...well...Zetas. Zetas are supposed to be some sort of aliens and they are trying to contact us by having conversations with someone called the "Zetan Emissary". I didn't read far enough to see how they contact the "Zetan Emissary", but I'm guessing that she takes off her tinfoil hat, stops taking the drugs her psychiatrist gives her, and then they transmit their ideas directly into her brain.
Apparently, talking to aliens draws a lot of traffic since Zetatalk is the 11,235th most popular page on the web according to Alexa. Just to give you a little perspective, the web page of wildly popular talk radio host Neal Boortz is ranked just behind Zetatalk at 11,338
So what do these aliens talk to the "Zetan Emissary" about? All sorts of loopy things that we are going to take a look at in the latest edition of ACPOTI (Anyone can post on the internet)... (Cont)
Another New York Times Reporter Making A Fool Of Himself
Another New York Times Reporter Making A Fool Of Himself: Last Saturday, New York Times reporter Chris Hedges was booed off the stage at the Rockford College graduation after he started spouting his leftist & anti-American spew at the audience. Do you want to know what the first thing he said was ?
"Hedges opened with: "I'm here to talk about war and empire."
He said the United States was an occupying force, rather than a liberating force. He predicted Iraq would become a cesspool for the United States as it was for the British in 1917."
It's no coincidence that he started getting booed two sentences in. Foghorns also sounded out, people sang God Bless America, and his mike was cut off twice. Normally, I'd be appalled at that type of behavior, but in this case, the speaker deserved everything he got. That's because it's not appropriate to go to a graduation ceremony and then reel off an incendiary political speech. To the contrary, it shows complete disrespect for your audience because they didn't show up to have a political debate, they came to hear a successful person telling them how to "go out and make (their) mark." Instead the audience at Rockford College was forced to sit through this sort of blather from Hedges...
-- "The real injustices, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, the brutal and corrupt dictatorships we fund in the Middle East, will mean that we will not rid the extremists who hate us with bombs. Indeed we will swell their ranks. Once you master people by force you depend on force for control. In your isolation you begin to make mistakes."
-- "This is a war of liberation in Iraq, but it is a war now of liberation by Iraqis from American occupation."
-- "We have lost touch with the essence of war. Following our defeat in Vietnam we became a better nation. We were humbled, even humiliated. We asked questions about ourselves we had not asked before.
We were forced to see ourselves as others saw us and the sight was not always a pretty one. We were forced to confront our own capacity for a atrocity -- for evil -- and in this we understood not only war but more about ourselves. But that humility is gone."
Big surprise that this guy works for the New York Times, huh? It's also no surprise that he tried to claim that his free speech was being squashed because people didn't want to listen to this drivel at their graduation...
I didn't expect that. How can you expect to have anyone climb on stage and turn your mike off," Hedges said Tuesday during a telephone interview. "Watching it in my own country is heartbreaking."
Do guys like this and the people who ran the Wellstone memorial service have any shame? Is there ever a little voice in their heads that goes, "you know, maybe now isn't the best time for me to slam my political views down everyone's throats?" Apparently not and that's too bad...
Raving Moonbat Or Faker? It's time to play -- "Raving Moonbat or Faker?" That's the game where you try to decide if someone posting in the comments section of RWN is just trying to get a reaction of if he's actually a member of the tinfoil hat club.
The first time we tried this was with "Patriot", a man who claimed I was a CIA agent and that the government could kill people through their cell phones. Patriot turned out to be a faker.
"Conservative" John here.....for what it's worth, I actually *do* think W flew the jetliners into the WTC (metaphorically speaking, of course). I mean, when you look at the evidence you can't help but come to the realization that the military got a "stand down" order from somewhere and W *is* the Commander in Chief. Add to that the fact that W and Cheney asked for "no investigation" and that not a single person anywhere along the line has been taken to task for 9/11. The evidence points straight at him.
I think he was behind it, BUT.... I think there must be a very good reason for it. Face it guys, none of us really has a clue as to what is going on out there, maybe 3000 people had to be sacrificed in order for many more to be saved. W's a good man. I'd follow him anywhere. I'm sure that whatever plot was (or is) taking place must've left him no other choice but to allow it to happen.
I shudder to think of a weaker man having to make a decision like that (who knows what kind of mess Gore would've gotten us into?). It's probably better that the investigation was squashed, you never know what some half-witted Vom-o-crat might have revealed to the world."
Of course, there are people who are this loopy out there so this guy could be genuine. On the other hand, what are the chances of someone who is genuinely this nuts commenting on RWN, a page known for ridiculing kooks?
I have my own opinion, but I'll refrain from weighing in -- for a while at least -- so as not to unduly influence what everyone else has to say. Hit the comments section and let RWN know what you think!
Jayson Blair Is A Great Example Of What's Wrong With Diversity Programs
Jayson Blair Is A Great Example Of What's Wrong With Diversity Programs: Not only was Jayson Blair a lying, plagiarizing, slubberdegullion of a journalist, he's apparently a jerk who thinks other people are largely at fault because he has no ethics. Just look at his most recent comments...
"I don't understand why I am the bumbling affirmative action hire when Stephen Glass is this brilliant whiz kid, when from my perspective -- and I know I shouldn't be saying this -- I fooled some of the most brilliant people in journalism," he said. Glass, who was fired by the New Republic for inventing stories five years ago, "is so brilliant and yet somehow I'm [an] affirmative action hire. They're all so smart, but I was sitting right under their nose fooling them. If they're all so brilliant and I'm such an affirmative action hire, how come they didn't catch me?"
..."Anyone who tells you that my race didn't play a role in my career at the New York Times is lying to you. Both racial preferences and racism played a role. And I would argue that they didn't balance each other out."
While ridiculing what he called "idiot" editors at the Times, he also said it was "kind of unfair" to blame Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd for his misconduct. He said Boyd, the paper's highest-ranking black editor, tried to block his promotion to the national staff.
....But he kept returning to the question of race, telling the Manhattan weekly: "I was under a lot of pressure. I was black at the New York Times, which is something that hurts you as much as it helps you. I certainly have health problems which probably led to me having to kill Jayson Blair, the journalist. . . . So Jayson Blair the human being could live, Jayson Blair the journalist had to die."
....Blair added that "there are senior managers at the New York Times who want African American reporters to succeed, and there are hundreds of white junior managers who resent that and don't."
...(T)he paper said Blair had fabricated 36 stories -- including one that featured the father of rescued POW Jessica Lynch choking up, complete with an erroneous description of his West Virginia home because Blair had lied about being there.
When the Times investigation was published, Blair said, he "just couldn't stop laughing" because his description of the West Virginia home had been so far off from reality.
....Describing himself in the Observer interview as having struggled with alcohol and cocaine since he was a teenager, Blair said he botched the coverage of a 2001 benefit concert, which required two corrections, because he was drunk on assignment."
Let me see if I have this straight...here we have a guy with a coke and alcohol problem, who constantly made stuff up and plagiarized material from other papers (which he seems to think is amusing), & he also admits that he got breaks because of racial preferences. Yet this same guy is complaining about racism!
That's why I find it very ironic that Blair said...
"Blair added that "there are senior managers at the New York Times who want African American reporters to succeed, and there are hundreds of white junior managers who resent that and don't."
Maybe it's just me, but if I worked for the New York Times and was busting my behind trying to work my way up the ladder and some coked up drunkard who did shoddy work was getting promotions and breaks because the senior staff of the paper wanted to push "diversity", I'd resent his success too.
Last but not least, I think it's again worth pointing out that if the New York Times had simply given people breaks and promotions based on merit instead of diversity, there's no way a mediocrity like Blair would have had an opportunity to embarrass the Times (and himself) like this. Moreover, someone else who actually deserved a shot would have been in Blair's place. It's always good to remember that this sort of "diversity" often means that someone more competent was passed over. That's not only morally wrong, it can turn out to be very bad business as the New York Times found out the hard way.
Liberals Change Stance on Independent, Assertive Women: "Ann Coulter is a Hag"
Liberals Change Stance on Independent, Assertive Women: "Ann Coulter is a Hag" By Shamus Young: The long-standing idea that independent and assertive women should be celebrated has come into question since Ann Coulter began using her outspoken nature to challenge and confront liberals. Many have come forward to denounce her pattern of being pushy and having her own opinion on things.
Said the gentle and soft-spoken Tom Daschle, "She is so confrontational. Why can't she a bit more demure, more like [Dianne] Fienstein or Hillary Clinton? And the thing with guns. Women with guns make me uncomfortable."
Said Presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt, "As smart as people say she is, you would think she would learn her place by now. Didn't they teach her anything in college?"
The only liberal who doesn't seem to have a problem with her strident views is Bill Clinton, who said of Coulter, "Oh yeah, I'd hit it."
If you liked this satire by Shamus Young, you can see more of his work at The Lemon.
I Know The Website Is Called F*cked Company, But Come On
I Know The Website Is Called F*cked Company, But Come On: Have you ever heard of a website called F*cked Company? If not, you're one of the few. According to Alexa, F*cked Company is the 901st most popular website on the net. For those that aren't familiar with them, F*cked Company runs a game that is essentially a deadpool for companies. Back in the day when I ran Brass Knuckles Webzine, even I ranked them as one of the top 25 most entertaining websites on the net.
I just wanted to give you all that background info so you wouldn't shrug this off as a small-time page when I show you what a cesspool of humanity that their forums are. Normally, I quote offensive posts for this sort of thing. However, in this case, the forums are such a sewer that I only need to show you some of the subjects of the more offensive posts to give you a good idea of what it's like....
- I have reason to believe f*gs outnumber heteros 3:1 in this forum -- Staunch FishP*ssy
- The Fat N*GGa WINS!!!!! -- Blackie Lawless
- When you rape a chick, is it right to thank her after? -- colin kick*ss
- why are white people so ugly? -- perkeetr
- This is why, f*gs must die ... -- .
- Aw f*ck, now there are Mexicans living in the Seattle area. -- thisistotalbullsh*t
- William Hannibal Thomas Explains N*gger Crime -- I Am AntiN*gg
- To lose weight, I think I will start drinking my own pee and cook my sperm -- 0riqinal Lonely Guy
- Why is it that black people can't get to work on time... -- WCO
- OK - I admit - I was Daniel Pearl's Head -- StaunchNinerFan
- My d*ck is 12" soft -- klonkydong
- Does God masturbate a lot? -- Lucky8
- I SHAT in a PLAY-DOH maker -- ipoopedoutsideoneaste- r"
I was tempted to actually do a little more work and punch all of this up as a new edition of ACPOTI, but I could feel my IQ dropping like Bill Clinton's pants in front of an intern as I paged through these posts, so I decided not to spend any more time there than necessary. But geeze, could these people be any freakier?
Since When Do Non-Americans Have A Say In Who We Select As President?
Since When Do Non-Americans Have A Say In Who We Select As President?: Stephen M. said the following in the comments section of my, "Guide To Beating Bush In 2004" post...
"I guess I'm the only one with the nerve to point out that Lieberman is an unacceptable choice for President because he is Jewish. I never hear this being mentioned by any media outlet, yet it's the most significant 'con' against him (well, besides also being a Democrat). Any current and future cooperation we expect from the Middle East would immediately cease if the United States elected a Jew as President. I rather like Lieberman. But both the left and the right have to realize that he cannot realistically be considered if we truly want to change opinions and behaviors in the Arab world.
....(O)ur goals in the Middle East and the war on terror around the world would be severely damaged if Lieberman were to be elected. I wanted to draw attention to desired outcomes. I have to believe that nearly all our efforts since 9/11/01 would come crumbling down if we had a Jewish President. The rest of the world just isn't ready for it. And, at this moment in history, we're very much concerned with the business of the rest of the world. Eventually, yes, we need leaders from every walk of life for this country. But baby steps would seem to be the prudent course of action right now."
Before I get started, let me make it clear that I don't support Lieberman. If he wins the Democratic nomination, I'd like nothing better than to see him go down in history with Dukakis and Mondale in the book of Democrats who were caught on the business end of a GOP landslide victory.
That being said, I find the very idea that Americans shouldn't vote for a candidate because the rest of the world won't like it to be repulsive. When it comes to American elections, the rest of world's opinion is meaningless. Who cares who they want or don't want to be our President?
Furthermore, how far do people want to go with this sort of thinking? Suppose Hillary Clinton & Condi Rice were to end up duking it out for the Presidency in 2008. Would we force them wear veils so they won't offend the sensibilities of a bunch of Saudi sheiks and misogynist dictators? Should we decide that both of them are ineligible because women because the tyrants and thugs who run the Middle-East think of women as 2nd class citizens?
Hell no, we shouldn't. If any nation doesn't like who the American people chose to be President, then they can just go deal with the other super power out there...oh wait, there isn't one. So if ***shudder*** Lieberman were to win, then the rest of the world could like it or lump it. Putting it another way, the anti-Semites who run most of the nations in the Middle-East could either make a decision to work with Lieberman or they could join the world's pariah states like Iran & Cuba that don't want to deal with us. Personally, I think most of them would prefer to hold their noses and deal with Lieberman rather than risk poisoning their relations with us. But either way, what they think has no bearing on who we should vote for.
A Guide To Beating Bush In 2004: Just as an intellectual exercise, here's how I would try to beat Bush if I were the Democratic nominee in 2004 assuming the Dems had an electable ticket like Lieberman for President / Edwards for VP...
-- The War on Terrorism: I would "hug Bush on the issue and say that I agree with most of the things he's doing, then I would attack him from the right. I'd demand that we the "Roadmap" be taken off the table until the Palestinians stopped supporting terrorism and that we crackdown on Saudi Arabia. I'd also call for MASSIVE increases in spending on the homefront (more than Bush would be willing to stomach) in Iran and I'd try to sound just as hawkish as Bush on North Korea, Iran, & Syria. This may seem like a stretch, but it would be necessary to offset the Dems greatest weakness and a hawk like Lieberman could pull it off.
-- Running against tax cuts almost always proves to be a bad idea, so why not go with the flow? I'd call for tax cuts just as big as Bush's cut and I'd keep some of his proposals like getting rid of the marriage tax and the child tax credits. Then I'd call for taking the rest out of social security taxes. From the Democrat's perspective, if you're going to do a tax cut, you might as well make sure that you give it to people who are going to vote for you.
-- Bush has run large deficits and Democrats do have some credibility on that issue because Clinton was able to balance the budget. So, I'd propose a Balanced Budget Amendment. It probably wouldn't pass because my own most of my own Party wouldn't vote for it, but it would be a popular policy to push.
-- There is one major issue that BOTH parties are on the wrong side of, illegal immigration. The American public wants something done, but Bush is afraid angering Hispanic voters so he isn't willing to make a move. Were I Joe Lieberman, I'd push this issue because it would pull in a lot of undecided voters and because I really don't think it would have much of a negative impact on Hispanics. If they went through all the trouble to get here legally, I'm not sure that they're going to have soft spots in their hearts for people who aren't willing to pay their dues to get here.
-- Then I'd hit all the hot button issues of the left that the Democratic candidate HAS to hit, like being pro-abortion, for the environment, talking up unions, supporting Affirmative Action, etc.
Now I'll grant you that there would be a lot of left-wingers who would dislike some of those issues, but that's when I'd fire back with, "Do you want 2 or 3 ultra-right wing judges on the Supreme Court? Because that's what you're going to get if I'm not elected. Do you want women to have the "right to choose"? What about Affirmative Action? If I'm not elected, they may not be around in 4 years!"
Pushing these issues would allow the Lieberman/Edwards ticket a way to attack Bush at his most vulnerable points even if the economy improves. This agenda could bring over a lot of swing voters while the Democratic base would hopefully be motivated enough by the dislike of Bush to turn out in droves despite a more right leaning agenda than they'd like.
We don't know who's going to get the nomination and what strategy they're going to use, but what I just came up with has to be better than the "vote for us because we're not Republicans" strategy most Democrats seem to have embraced.
PS: Don't worry about me giving the Democrats any ideas. They don't listen to Conservatives when it comes to things like this.
Quotes Of Note From Every US President: For your edification and entertainment, I put together a list of quotes from every US President -- Washington to W. Read and enjoy...
Face The Truth About The Palestinians: The "Roadmap to Murderville" is predictably leading to more dead Israelis. Every time there is another push towards peace, Palestinian terrorists desperately start murdering Israelis in an effort to thwart the process. That's a given.
But, here's the obvious truth so many people don't want to accept -- the Palestinians don't want peace. If they want peace, then why is Abbass not making any sort of effort to stop the terrorists? Why didn't Arafat ever make the effort when he was fully in charge either? Arafat didn't try and Abbas hasn't tried so far, because going after the terrorists isn't popular with the Palestinian people. Furthermore, just ask yourself -- are the terrorists going to be more or less popular after deliberately scuttling the "Roadmap" with these attacks? In the past, terrorist attacks have increased the popularity of the terrorist groups that perpetrated them and I see no reason to think it'll be any different this time.
Trying to negotiate peace between two parties when one of them wants to continue fighting is a waste of time. Until the Palestinians show that they want peace, we shouldn't continue pushing this farce of a peace plan. It's only going to lead to more innocent people dying with absolutely no hope of producing results.
The Democrats, W, The War On Terrorism, & The 2004 Election
The Democrats, W, The War On Terrorism, & The 2004 Election: In an effort to keep up with what the other side is thinking, I was reading the Smirking Chimp. While I was there, I ran across an interesting article. At first, I thought I had stumbled across a perceptive leftie...
"The biggest problem the Democrats have isn't Bush's popularity. It's that voters fear voting for Democrats, because Democrats look like spineless, fraidy-cat wimps."
To begin with, I thought he was referring to the fact that Democrats do come across as "spineless, fraidy-cat wimps" when it comes to foreign policy and that's going to really hurt their chances of taking back the Presidency in 2004. I mean, even Democrats would have to get a bit nervous thinking about someone like Howard Dean or John Kerry trying to deal with Al Qaeda and belligerent rogue states that are developing nuclear weapons. But actually, the author meant something else entirely...
"The Democrats biggest problem is that (so far) they're not willing to "take down" Bush. They're not willing to do what the Republicans LOVE doing - run a nasty, brutal, take-no-prisoners "TAKE DOWN" campaign to force Bush's approval numbers down to where they should be - in the 30's.
...If the Democrats want to win in '04, they are going to have to imitate the Republicans. Attack, attack, attack. Play OFFENSE for once. How? It's SO EASY, people - Bush is HANDING us the ammunition. Bush's war stance is making him popular? How 'bout running an ad like this?
OPEN WITH BLACK AND WHITE, SLO-MOED IMAGE OF BUSH IN SILLY FLIGHT SUIT ON AIRCRAFT CARRIER
Announcer - George Bush promised he was going to make our country a safer place to live. So how's he doing?
SHOT OF OSAMA BIN LADEN
Announcer - Osama bin Laden, the man Bush promised to capture "dead or alive," still at large...
SHOT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
Announcer - Saddam Hussein, still at large.
NEWS FOOTAGE OF RIYADH BOMBING
Announcer - Al-Qaeda - still at large, and stronger than ever, because Bush let them re-group while he lied us into a war, chasing after Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that weren't there...
BACK ON BUSH
Announcer - In the meantime, Bush has cut moneys to protect our ports, harbors and public facilities, making them more vulnerable to terrorist attack than ever....
SHOT OF IRAQI SOLDIERS
Announcer - He and his Republican cronies even had the nerve to cut the pension benefits of our soldiers as they were risking their lives in Iraq.
SHOT OF GEORGE, NEXT SHOT OF VOTERS
Announcer - It all comes down to one question. After four years of George Bush, do YOU feel any safer?
SHOT OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
Announcer - He's had four years and hasn't done the job. We need a Democrat to unite the world against evil. Vote for (NAME HERE).
BACK ON GEORGE
Announcer - Because fighting evil is more than empty threats and photo ops. "
Setting aside the numerous inaccuracies and conjecture that the writer treats as fact in the ad, I would laugh at the idea that the author thinks the Democrats need to, "(p)lay OFFENSE for once" if the GOP didn't have plenty of people who believe exactly the same thing. Politics at the national level is a no-holds barred knife fight in a snakepit and both sides go on the offense at every opportunity. If anything, the Democrats need to stop trying to go on offense so often and come up with some ideas people can get behind. I say that because the Democrats have been so caught up in partisan sniping since Bush was elected that they must have lost a lot of credibility with the public.
Moreover, much to the author of that commercial's chagrin, the Dems are going to have a tough time being credible when they go after W. on security issues. That's not only because Bush has had tremendous success in that area, but because the Democrats themselves aren't credible when it comes to foreign policy. Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham are the only two hawks that are running and even if one of those two guys won the nomination, they'd be handicapped by all the peaceniks in the party who believe foreign policy should largely consists of doing whatever Kofi Annan tells us too and making nice with the French.
So if the Dems want to attack Bush's performance in the war on terrorism, great, that only helps the Bush campaign by keeping the debate focused on Bush's biggest strength and more importantly, on the Democrats most vulnerable point. Just imagine the election coming down to, "Who do you trust to defend America from her enemies? George Bush or John Kerry?" Talk about a landslide victory for the GOP...
***Update***: John Cole from Balloon Juice weighs in on a similar subject.
PETA Protests Violations of Animal Privacy By Shamus Young: Animal-rights group PETA has come forward to speak out against the widespread violations of animal privacy by their owners. Said PETA spokesman Alec Baldwin, "These people are taking pictures of the animals they live with and posting them on the internet. How would a person feel if their roommate took pictures of them and put them on the 'net without permission. This is an incredible injustice."
Cats are the greatest victims of the practice, with millions worldwide sharing pictures of their feline friends on their webpages without the consent of the animal. Added Baldwin, "Cats are very private animals. If they want to share pictures of themselves, then let them make their own webpage."
If you enjoyed this satire by Shamus Young, you can read more of his work at The Lemon.
Fans Express Disgust Of Bonzi Buddy In The Matrix Reloaded By Steve Tanner: While thousands of Matrix fans rushed to see the latest in the sci-fi trilogy, many were baffled and angered at the newest film addition - Bonzi Buddy. Contrary to opinion, Time Warner feels they have made a revolutionary break through by including it to The Matrix Reloaded. 
Liberals Change Stance on Independent, Assertive Women: "Ann Coulter is a Hag" By Shamus Young: The long-standing idea that independent and assertive women should be celebrated has come into question since Ann Coulter began using her outspoken nature to challenge and confront liberals. Many have come forward to denounce her pattern of being pushy and having her own opinion on things. 
