| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity. | ||
Well, folks, it's vacation time for me and I plan to spend the next week relaxing with my family, doing some grunt work on RWN, and catching up on a few things that I've been meaning to get done.
While I'm gone, there are plenty of links and "Best Of 2004" RWN material to keep you busy. Furthermore, if you're so inclined feel free to donate some cash or buy me something from my wish list, both of which are located in the support section on the left.....oh, and would you please click on my advertisers? They support the page with their ads and it would be fantastic if you could check out their pages to show them that they made the right decision.
Well, I'm prepping for my vacation and I'm sure most of you are getting ready to spend a little time kicking back with your family and friends, too. So have a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and I'll see you in 2005!
When I come back from vacation, I plan to post the most obnoxious quotes of 2004 at RWN. My guess is that most of these quotes will come from liberals, but conservatives are eligible to make the list as well. Feel free to suggest some quotes that you think deserve consideration...
The 3rd Annual Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States: The 2004 Edition
The Third Annual Warblogger Awards For 2004
The 2nd Annual 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2004
10 Quick Warnings For The GOP
Hawkins Vs. Seeman: The Clash In The Chat Room
Putting Our Losses In Iraq Into Perspective
The 'Very, Very' Rule Of Building Traffic For Your Blog
How Long Did It Take To Build An Audience?
If Compassion Is Not Tempered With Reason, It Can Be A Destructive Force
What Could Be More Funny Than Going On A Republican Killing Spree?
Would The Founding Fathers Be Proud Of America?
Conservatives & Immigration
RWN's Top 25 Favorite Ann Coulter Quotes
How Do We Get To A Balanced Budget?
My Election 2004 Predictions
RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2
Why John Kerry Shouldn't Be President -- In Quotes
The Top 125 Political Websites On The Net Version 4.0
11 Rules Of Basic Blogger Etiquette
An Interview With John O'Neill
A Review Of Michelle Malkin's 'In Defense Of Internment'
Gun Lovers Vs. Hypersensitive Liberals!
On Anti-Intellectualism...
History's Biggest Impact Players
The Myth Of The Spitting Myth Part 2
40 Reasons To Vote For George Bush Or Against John Kerry
Love In A Time Of Danger
But, They Say There Was No Relationship Or Ties Between Iraq & Al-Qaeda
Your Guide To The Liberal View Of Foreign Policy & Defending America
Reminder: The United States Is The Best Thing To Ever Happen To This Planet
I've Been Interviewed Again
Why People Like Wonkette & Michelle Malkin Are Good For The Blogosphere
Bloggers Select Their Favorite Fictional Characters
Saying Goodbye To The Gipper
Polling Conservative Opinion Makers About Blogs
When Is War Worth It?
America, Don't Go Wobbly On Iraq
Answering 20 Frequently Asked Questions About Conservatism
House Republicans Call For Troop Withdrawals By John Hawkins & Perry Bullock
Feminist Tweakage In The Blogosphere Version 3.0 -- The Final Chapter!
Get Your Antennae Up!
The 10 People I'd Least Like To Be Stuck On A Desert Island With
If I Were Stuck On A Desert Island With Just 10 Bloggers...
Why We Invaded Iraq
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Favorite Contemporary Dinner Guests
Making The Case For A Federal Marriage Amendment
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Dinner Guests From Hell
Some People Would Have You Believe...
Star Trek & "Death By Prosperity"
Five Gallons Of Gasoline
The Peril Of "Good Ideas"
I'm working on a history of the blogosphere and if you'd like to suggest any key events or happenings that you think should be included, it would be great if you could post them in this thread.
Overheard Inside A Fallujah Bunker
Greek Security Team Fails To Notice Giant Horse
Blue State Blues As Coastal Parents Battle Invasion Of Dollywood Values
Hot New Sixty Minutes Exclusive: The Memo George Bush Doesn't Want You To See!
The Top 9 Signs The Democrats Have Gone Completely Crazy In Reaction To The Polls
If Planned Parenthood Wrote The Next Harry Potter Book...
Sam Kinison: The Original South Park Republican
The Top 10 Reasons To Vote For John Kerry
Americans Don't Like Soccer Because It's So Boring It Sucks Your Will To Live
Majority Of Kerry Voters Believe He Is Not Bush
Mainstream Media Magazine
If The Media Treated Basketball Games Like They Treat The War On Terror
Timid Townfolk Sweep Sheriff Election
30 Fun Facts About Canada
Hillary Clinton's Crash Site Photos. Caution-Gory Footage
The Top 10 Things I've Learned From Watching My Dog
The Difference Between Liberals, Conservatives, And Southerners
Why I Am A Democrat
If you're looking for a somewhere to chat about whatever while on vacation, this thread is the place....
Here is some bloggage and charities to check out while I'm on vacation. Feel Free to give 'em a look...
2Slick's Forum
Ace Of Spades HQ
La Shawn Barber's Corner
Belmont Club
Betsy's Page
Cathy's World
Classical Values
Dummocrats
Guardian Watchblog
Hugh Hewitt
Homespun Bloggers
David Limbaugh
The Politburo Diktat
Politics & Life All Mixed Together
Right Thinking Girl
Spirit Of America
Support Our Troops
Trying To Grok
VDH's Private Papers
Villainous Company
Wounded Warriors
Young Pundits
Tony Snow has given RWN another mention on his blog,
"Meanwhile, Right-Wing News has published its much anticipated roster of Most Annoying Liberals. Of course, Michael Moore wins, but check out the other contenders! "
It's nice to know that somebody at Fox is reading RWN every once in a while.
Ted Rall has also taken note of the "annoying liberal" list as well, but predictably, he doesn't like the list as well as Tony Snow does =D
Ted Rall Named 2004's #2 Most Annoying Liberal
For the third year in a row right-wing bloggers hellbent on destroying America have declared me one of America's Most Annoying Liberals. I've been named along with such other luminaries as President Al Gore, Oscar winner Michael Moore, Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter and legendary CBS anchorman Dan Rather. As Generalissimo El Busho says, we're defined by our enemies and I am d@mned proud to be hated by people who hate such admirable patriots."
HundredPercenter for letting me know about the Rall link.
Ann Coulter, whom I've interviewed twice (here and here) has posted an out-of-country interview with her as part of her latest column. Since it's only half the column, I don't feel too bad about posting the whole thing here. Coulter is brutally funny in this interview and I think you'll enjoy it...
Interview by Carlos Baroni, Oriana d'America, Italy, October 2004
Q: Many liberals are rich, come from the East Coast, are white, studied at the Ivy university. You are rich (I hope), come from Connecticut, are white and studied at Cornell. Why do you hate the liberals?
A: Because I know so many of them. Liberals are clueless, amoral sexual degenerates, communists and pacifists – no offense to you or your readers intended, of course.
Q: You said the USA's worst enemy are the liberals.
A: So what's the question? The enemy within is often far more damaging than the enemy outside. Does the name "Mussolini" – great believer in extensive government direction of the economy, just like the Democrats – ring a bell?
Q: Why do Europeans prefer liberals than conservatives?
A: Because you're all a bunch of atheists, humanists and moral relativists. Love the food, though! And don't get me started on the shoes you wonderful people make! They're to surrender for!
Q: Do Europeans love Kerry more or hate Bush more?
A: Hate Bush. No one loves John Kerry, including John Kerry. Europeans are wrong on policy, not clinically insane.
Q: Who will win the elections 2004?
A: That's for the Supreme Court to sort out, you ignorant foreigner.
Q: If Kerry should win, what will the changes in the USA be?
A: He's got this exciting new plan for Iraq I think you Italians may have heard of. It's called "unconditional surrender." Today, Christianity is legal and gay marriage is illegal. If Kerry wins, these will be reversed.
Q: And the world?
A: That will be up to the United Nations.
Q: Is it right, the Iraqi conflict?
A: No, it's wrong. The rabid savages who are fighting American troops should give up immediately.
Q: What's your opinion about the U.S. media? Are they actually free?
A: Pravda had certain shortcomings in Soviet days, but at least it was honest enough to admit being a Communist Party newspaper.
Q: Our American image comes from movies. But Hollywood isn't the real America ...
A: The real America is Hollywood, Fla.
Q: Does tolerant Islam exist or not?
A: If it does exist, it's keeping an extremely low profile.
Q: Is it possible to export democracy?
A: Yes. Ever heard of "Italy"?
Q: Who are the three best U.S. presidents of the century? And the three best in any time?
A: Century: Reagan, Coolidge, Harding. Ever: Washington, Reagan, Lincoln.
Q: What is your opinion about the center-left leader in Europe? Zapatero, Blair, Schroeder?
A: Zapatero is Spanish for "Chamberlain." I would campaign for Blair for U.S. president. Schroeder – what is the Italian word for "scumbag"?
Q: And about center-right? Berlusconi, Chirac?
A: Chirac is center-right? Better lay off the grappa, Primo. Berlusconi: LOVE him!!
Q: Your last book is called "How to Talk to a Liberal." With which words?
A: A baseball bat is best. But if you absolutely must use words, something like: "Grow up."
"I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – nothing more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland
There is no word in politics today that is misused by more people than the word "neocon." I've talked about this subject before, more than once, but something that happened yesterday prompted me to address it again today.
I was driving home from work, listening to a local talk show host named Jason Lewis who generally does a pretty good show. But, he starts talking about neocons and to be blunt, he had no idea what he was talking about. By that, I mean that he was claiming that John McCain is a neocon, that neocons support drafts, that they support building an American empire...just nonsense. I'm sure that he wasn't trying to be misleading; in fact I'm guessing that he was just confused by all the contradictory rhetoric out there...and he's not alone.
However, there's no need to fear, because RWN is here with a short Neocon Q&A list to clear things up. Read this post, love it, then bookmark it and the next time someone with no clue starts spouting off about neocons, you can straighten him out...
Question: What is a neocon?
Answer: It's simply a person who has moved from left to right in their political views.
Question: How did the term originate?
Answer: According to Jonah Golberg, here's the origin of the word,
"Michael Harrington, the big-hearted socialist, coined the phrase to describe a bunch of "renegade" liberals and leftists who were moving right. It wasn't meant as a compliment. Indeed, in a very real sense, neoconservatism was from the beginning a more useful word to describe a phenomenon rather than a school of thought."
Question: Are all neocons Jewish?
Answer: There are a lot of prominent Jewish neocons, but all conservative Jews are not neocons, nor do you have to be Jewish to be a neocon.
Question: Name some prominent neocons.
Answer: Max Boot, Linda Chavez, Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz, Michael Medved, Richard Perle, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Sowell, Paul Wolfowitz.
Question: How do the views of neocons differ from those of most mainstream conservatives?
Answer: In my experience, they don't significantly differ from those of most other conservatives.
Question: But aren't neocons more hawkish than other conservatives?
Answer: I haven't seen much of a difference between neocons and other conservatives when it comes to the use of military force. For example, if you look at the views of 3 prominent neocons like Richard Perle, Jonah Goldberg, & Paul Wolfowitz and then compare their views on foreign policy to those of three "regular" conservatives like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Donald Rumsfeld, you probably won't find a dime's worth of difference.
Question: Do neocons favor a draft?
Answer: Put simply, the answer to that question is "no". To the best of my knowledge, the only prominent Republican to float the idea of a draft is Chuck Hagel and if I may be so frank, he's a bit of a doofus.
Question: Do neocons want to create an American empire?
Answer: Again, the answer is "no". I don't know of a single, prominent Republican who is suggesting that we create what most people think of as an "empire" (you know, colonies, puppet governments, the sort of thing Europe used to be into).
That being said, I have heard a few conservatives here and there -- Max Boot comes to mind -- refer to an "American empire," but it's pure semantics. They look at all the military bases we have around the world, the multi-national corporations, the cultural influence we have, and call that an "empire". I, and most people, see the exact same thing and disagree with the terminology they're using. But, there is no substantial difference between our actual views, the difference is just in the words we're using.
Question: Are neocons responsible for the war on Iraq? I've heard they've been planning it for years!
Answer: I'll let David Frum answer that questions since he did such a superb job of it in the interview I did with him,
"The idea that overthrowing Saddam Hussein sprung out of the minds of a few people in Washington forgets an awful lot of history. In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991."
I hope that helps make things a little clearer for people...
Fark has a fantastic Michael Moore photoshop thread up right now. Here's my favorite so far...
Is that classic Michael Moore or what? =D
Hat tip to Farker Killer Miller for making this graphic.
This post from the Daily Kos really chafes me, although sadly, the attitude displayed in it is fairly typical of how most left-wingers seem to view foreign policy today.
The post is about the American soldiers killed and wounded in an attack on a dining hall in Mosul. Here's how Kos views it: The post is called "Bush destroys another 22 families" & his comment about the tragic death of those American soldiers is "Who will be the last to die for Bush's mistakes and his administration's incompetence?"
There's the left's entire view of foreign policy in a nutshell, folks: "Who cares about fighting terrorism? Who cares about succeeding in Iraq? Who cares if we have to exploit the death of American soldiers to further our agenda? The only important thing is: How can we blame this on Bush?"
Hat tip to IMAO for the Kos link.
Here we are in an overwhelmingly Christian country, celebrating a Christian holiday, and we have public schools that are petrified to let a bunch of 3rd graders sing "O Little Child of Bethlehem" at a Christmas holiday concert. They're afraid that one day they'll just be having a simple Christmas concert and the next day they'll be besieged by lawsuit happy anti-Christian zealots who claim that singing a song about Jesus constitutes the "establishment of religion" by Congress or by furious liberals who are all riled up about "Jesusland" and pitching a fit.
Maybe that's why Christmas feels a little different this year. In fact, it ALMOST feels like saying "Merry Christmas" to a stranger is an act of defiance...but, it's really not. My guess is that 99.9% of the people out there, even the liberal Christophobes, aren't going to bite your head off if you tell 'em Merry Christmas. Furthermore, I would like to see a larger number of conservatives getting a little more hyped up about defending the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the 1st Amendment since I think that's under assault in this country by groups like the ACLU, but that's a topic for another post.
In this post, I wanted to take the fine folks -- and I mean that, I do really like their website -- at WorldNetDaily to task for being so oversensitive about this whole thing that they're slamming George Bush just for not saying the word "Jesus" lately...no, I'm not kidding! Take a look at the start of the column ...
"WASHINGTON – What's virtually missing from the White House commemoration of Christmas this year?
Jesus.
The little baby in the manger.
The reason for the season."
WND continues...
"While President Bush was re-elected last month in an election victory many attributed to an outpouring of support by evangelical Christians impressed with his candid outspokenness about his faith, some Americans notice the White House website lacks even a single mention of Jesus, whose birth is celebrated by hundreds of millions worldwide Dec. 25.
The official White House site proclaims this as the "Season of Merriment and Melody" – not the birth of the Savior of the world.
...Among the website's many photographs of secular decorations is a shot of a creche, or Nativity, displayed in the East Room, but the baby Jesus is virtually invisible. "
Now, this sort of criticism might be appropriate if George Bush spent his campaign trying to appeal to Christians and then tried to distance himself from them after the election. But, as WND themselves admit in this piece, that's not what he's doing at all...
"At the lighting of the National Christmas Tree Dec. 2, Bush remarked: "Tonight we begin a joyous season, and the city of Washington is never more beautiful than during the holidays. At Christmas time we celebrate good tidings first announced two thousand years ago, and still a source of great joy in our world. Laura and I are always happy to join in the Pageant of Peace, and we thank you all for coming this evening.
"The season of Advent is always the season of hope," Bush continued. "We think of the patient hope of men and women across the centuries who listened to the words of the prophets and lived in joyful expectation. We think of the hope of Mary, who welcomed God's plan with great faith. We think of the hope of the Wise Men who set out on a long journey guided only by a slender promise traced in the stars. We are reminded of the hope that the grandest purposes of the Almighty can be found in the humblest places. And we embrace the hope that all the love and gifts that come to us in this life are the signs and symbols of even a greater love and gift that came on a holy night. The old carol speaks of a 'thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices, for yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.' And every year at this time we feel the thrill of hope as we wait on Christmas Day."
Bush went on to remember troops serving in foreign wars this Christmas season.
It has been noted that the Bushes' holiday card this year includes a Scripture verse. But, again, it does not mention Jesus.
This card has a line from Psalms, 95:2: "Let us come before him with Thanksgiving and extol him with music and song."
Bush has pics of the nativity up at the website, he alluded to the birth of Jesus, he mentioned "the Almighty," he talked about the Wise Men who arrived at Jesus' birth, he sent out a Christmas card with a Scripture verse on it...I mean, come on, isn't WND splitting hairs a bit here? There are a lot of fair criticisms that you can level at W, but one of them certainly isn't that he's running away from his Christianity...
Of late, Christie Whitman & Arnold Schwarzenegger have come out for moving the GOP to the center.
Here's what Arnold had to say,
"In an interview with Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily, Schwarzenegger said that "the Republican Party currently covers only the spectrum from the right wing to the middle, and the Democratic Party covers the spectrum from the left to the middle."
"I would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center," he was quoted as saying. "This would immediately give the party 5% more votes without it losing anything elsewhere."
Whitman was a bit more strident in her comments,
"The main focus of Whitman's book "It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America," is on her desire for moderate Republicans to regain control of the party. The more conservative wing of the party has claimed much credit for Bush's re-election.
"A clear and present danger Republicans face today is that the party will now move so far to the right that it ends up alienating centrist voters and marginalizing itself," Whitman writes in the book, obtained Friday by The Associated Press. The book is to be released by The Penguin Press in late January.
Whitman says fellow moderates, such as former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, were instrumental in Bush's re-election win, often campaigning with him in battleground states.
The role of moderates is to bring the party back to its center, she says.
"It is time for Republican moderates to assert forcefully and plainly that this is our party, too, that we not only have a place but a voice, and not just a voice but a vision that is true to the historic principles of our party and our nation, not one tied to an extremist agenda," she says."
Before I respond to Arnold & Whitman, let me make it clear that moderates certainly play an important role in the GOP. Arnold, Rudy, and to a much lesser extent, John McCain, were assets during the 2004 election cycle. Moderates help keep the GOP competitive in more liberal states, and of course, neither the GOP nor the Dems could win national elections without moderates putting them over the top. So moderates do certainly have a role in the GOP.
That being said, moderates are not the driving force in the Republican Party; to the contrary, they played a relatively minor role in the success of the Party compared to conservatives. Let me break it down for you like this: in my view, there are three men who have been most responsible for the GOP's success: Reagan, Gingrich, & Limbaugh.
Reagan was an enormously successful, popular President. He rebuilt the military, got the economy rolling, broke the Soviet Union, and really helped turn the GOP and the country around after Vietnam and Watergate. Of course, Reagan was a conservative, not a moderate.
Next up, there's Newt Gingrich who helped engineer the GOP takeover of the House that we've managed to maintain to this day. Gingrich is a conservative, not a moderate.
Then there's Rush Limbaugh, who was the real pioneer of the "new media". By proving that there was a huge market out there for an alternative to the mainsteam media, he helped make talk radio, Fox, and the right side of blogosphere possible. Sure, it would have probably happened without him, but it may have taken a lot longer. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, not a moderate.
Name a moderate in the last 25 years who's made half as much of a positive impact for the GOP as any of those three men...go ahead, I'm waiting...you can't do it, can you?
Then take a look at talk radio, where GOP supporters have built large audiences that are starting to rival the power of the MSM. Who are are the ultra-successful "moderate" Republican talk radio hosts? Look at the big boys of talk radio: Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, Medved, Savage, Ingraham, Prager, O'Reilly, Boortz, Elder...which of those hosts are "raging moderates"? You could probably make the best case for O'Reilly, but even he's about as much of a fire-breathing social conservative as you're going to run across.
Now, take a look at the Senate and tell me how many "moderate" Republican Senators there are? There are what, maybe 6-10 of them...and that's being generous...out of 55? The ratio of moderates to conservatives would be even lower if you took a count in the House...but, how can that be if Arnold and Whitman are right?
If the GOP is constantly in danger of "alienating centrist voters and marginalizing itself" because of conservatives, as Whitman seems to imply, why hasn't it happened already given the conservative make-up of Congress? If being moderate is worth 5 points as Arnold said, why isn't the party dominated by moderates instead of conservatives? It's not like they're going to vote for a liberal right?
Well, 2 things...
#1 Sure, conservatives aren't going to vote for a liberal, but are they going to show up on election day to vote for a moderate? Are they going to contribute money? Are they going to be a campaign volunteer? Are they going to talk up the candidate to their friends? Is the conservative media going to defend a moderate when the liberal media attacks them?
Roughly 36% of Americans self-identify themselves as conservatives and they overwhelmingly vote Republican. If you're under the impression that Republicans are going to win by ignoring what these people want and catering instead to moderates, who tend to lean Democratic anyway, then you're setting the Party up for failure. Just think back to the "bad old days" when "moderate" Republicans like Rockerfeller, Nixon, and Ford dominated the Party and ask yourself if we really want to go back to that? My guess is that most Republicans today wouldn't just say "no," they'd say "Hell, no".
#2 The money, the energy, and the ideas in the Republican Party are overwhelmingly generated by conservatives and how could it be otherwise?
Christie Whitman can talk about the "moderate vision" all she wants, but the fact is that there is no such thing. Individual moderates may have a certain philosophy, but what is a "moderate" when you really break it down? For Republicans, being moderate means voting more like a Democrat. For the Democrats, moderates are people who vote like Republicans. Moreover, the issues on which each moderate differs from his party vary from person to person.
For example, you may be consdiered a "Republican moderate" if you're pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, and pro gun control, yet are for cutting taxes, are tough on crime, and are for tough measures against illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, you can be against gay marriage, anti-abortion, and a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment, and yet you're for raising taxes, being soft of crime, and for open borders. Sure there are ideological differences between groups of conservatives and groups of liberals, but moderates as a whole have no coherent political philosophy, so how can there be a moderate "vision"?
Summing it all up, I again want to say that I'm happy to have moderates in the GOP. But, it's also important that people understand that moderates are the back end of the dog in the Party. If you start thinking it doesn't matter which end is which, the dog, or in our case the Republican Party, is going to end up in a world of hurt.
Hat tip to Flame Girl from Fark who posted this satirical pic in an upcoming Photoshop thread that isn't available on the main site yet.
Ya know, I have been pleased with a lot of what George Bush has been trying to do since he won his second term. He has been talking tough about fiscal discipline, he intends to make sure we get the job done in Iraq, he wants tort reform, Social Security reform, tax reform...let me give him a round of applause for that agenda, because he deserves it.
On the other hand, if anything, W. is going even further off the farm on immigration reform. I gotta tell you, my jaw almost hit my chest when I read that Bush said,
"We want our Border Patrol agents chasing, you know, crooks and thieves and drug-runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work. And therefore, it makes sense to allow the good-hearted people who are coming here to do jobs that Americans won't do a legal way to do so. And providing that legal avenue, it takes the pressure off the border."
The overwhelming majority of Bush's own party and a large majority of the American people are ready to do just about anything short of mining the border like the DMZ to keep illegals out of the country and here we have the President of the United States in essence calling for making open borders the law of the land.
Hey, George Bush, I got news: All of these illegal aliens pouring across the border don't have good hearts and even if they did, it wouldn't give them an excuse to break the law.
Maybe we should apply this "good-hearted people" theory to other crimes.
"Sure, he held-up that convenience store, but he's good people, so we don't need to have the police wasting their time chasing him. Oh...and that armed robbery? Do we know if the robber was a "good-hearted person" or a "mean" person, because I think we can just ignore the law this time if the person breaking it is nice."
These "good-hearted people" who're sneaking into the United States are committing crimes, filling up our prisons, having babies and collecting welfare for them here, sending their kids to our schools, overwhelming our hospitals on the border...and why are these people being allowed to sponge off Americans? So Republicans can get fat checks from businessmen who use illegals for cheap labor? Because they think it might get them an extra 2 or 3% of the Hispanic vote?
Not only is that in my opinion, selling out the best interests of America for purely partisan reasons, it's TERRIBLE POLITICS and Bush only got away with it because Kerry was just as bad as Bush on illegal immigration. Let me tell you something, if a Republican candidate who's soft on illegal-immigration, like John McCain for example, ends up going head-to-head with Hillary "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants" Clinton, THAT ISSUE ALONE, may cost the GOP the presidency in 2008.
I'm telling you, George Bush and the rest of Washington Republicans who are ignoring the will of the American people on this issue, are playing with political fire and eventually it's going to burn them, especially if the Democrats ever smarten up on the issue.
Hat tip to Questions And Observations where I found this article.
It started out well enough. A DUer, to his credit, posted a thread called Castro loving is a problem. Hey, that's worthy of a little applause isn't it? I mean how many Democrats are willing to confront the wackos in their party who give them a bad name?
Of course, there were some more DUers who agreed with the original poster and added their support. But, by the time the thread was done, it had regrettably turned into a big ole Fidel Castro luuuuuuuv-fest! And of course, what's for a leftie not to love about a Commie thug who hates America? =D, Ok, that was a little unfair since there were plenty of libs at the DU who came out against Castro, but just check out the comments from all of the diehard, Commie lovin', libs who are still out there....
jjtss: "...I've been a Castro Fan since l956. He rescued his people from abject poverty, enforced prostitution, and various other crimes against humanity forced on them by Batista and his mafia friends. When every citizen has free medical care, and basic food provided then we can overlook his few deviations from democracy especially when all his efforts have been undermined by 50 years of sanctions and embargoes by the biggest military powers in the world. He cleaned up his country and kept it clean in spite of the High and Mighty. Under Batista, dissidents weren't imprisioned, they simply disappeared."
blurp: "Sometimes violence is necessary for a better society. Great point. Also, consider tax evaders in the USA. They have a duty to pay their taxes to help society.
If they don't, what should we do? Ask nicely again?
No. We get police to toss them in jail.
Sometimes you have threaten violence against people to create a greater social good.
In way, what Castro does is nearly democratic, in the sense that he uses his power to insure the majority are helped even though a few individuals may be treated poorly.
Besides, if there were a vote, Castro would win anyway. So I don't see how his actions against a small minority are anti-democratic."
amber dog democrat: "Well I thnk he is better than Bush. If you look at the sum total of misery and destruction attributed to either man, the Chimp has more to answer for. Castro has done more good and less harm."
Grey: "Would you rather live in the usa or CUBA, Trust me, I have lived in both and I will take Cuba first. you just have no idea of the good Castro has done for his people. If the usa had been given it's will, it would be another Haiti or Dominican Republic.
That was the plan,back when the Mob controled Havana. and I speak as a person that was born in the usa and moved to Canada at age 17, You could not pay me enough to move back to the usa, They have to drag me, kicking and screaming across the border just for weddings and funerals. My cousin Jane was unable to pay for her heart medicine and died in a safeway parking lot because of your 'wonderful health care'. In Cuba Health Care and University are FREE
Read the stats on doctors in Cuba, so many that they are able to loan out Doctors, Nurses and Teachers, referred to by the cia and fbi as cleverly disguised 'agent provocatures', to countries in South America.
You just have to wonder at these people, from Cuba, that have the time to sit on street corners and teach the Street Kids, that have to support their families, the art of adding and subtracting so they are not cheated by the north american tourist, out of a few pesos. And the class room is heart breaking, a few peices of chalk and a cement wall, or sidewalk.
Going into homes to teach pre-natel classes and child care to girls, to young to be parents,that know nothing else.
In Cuba no one goes homeless or starves, no one is fat,(well, almost on one) but they have a joy of living I wish I could convey to every one. The joy and sharing I experienced in Cuba was wonderful.
I just wish you could live there for a while and get to know the people, they are just so nice, not angels nor nearly perfect, but so nice. The music is pretty good too, and it's everywhere.
Ok, down off my soap box, thanks for listening."
Mika: "That a stark minority controls the policy against the will of the majority in the USA doesn't bode well in an argument of democratic representation, re US/Cuba policy.
In Cuba things run differently. Democratically.
Cubans wanted universal health care for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, and organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to do so. Cubans wanted universal education for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to do so, and they have it. Cubans want to assist the world's poor with doctors and educators, instead of gun ship diplomacy.. and that is what they have done WITH their government, not at odds with their government.
No one can say with any credibility that universal education and universal health care is forced on Cubans
Cubans want normalization between the US and Cuba, and they have thrown their doors open to us, but, it is our US government that prevents what the majority of Americans want their government to do - normalize relations. Worse yet, the US government forbids and has criminalized travel to Cuba by Americans - something that Cuba hasn't done."
durutti: "Did you buy Powell's UN presentation? You seem like the type. Given the huge red, white, and blue monster living just 90 miles from Cuba's shores that has constantly tried to destroy the country over the past 46 years, it's remarkable how democratic and respectful of human rights Cuba is.
I could write more, but I fear it would be wasted effort. My advice is to read widely on the topic, rather than just settling for the platitudes of U.S. propaganda outlets."
malaise: "Wow. As somone who actually lives in the Caribbean region I can tell you that Castro is very, very popular. He is easily the most respected leader in this hemisphere. Why - he stands up to bullies; Further and more importantly, he has the best educated and healthiest population in the hemisphere. Additionally the Cuban population have the best teeth in the hemisphere. Now that may appear to be triva to people in developed countries but as your polital rights disappear, you may just understand the importance and value of social rights.
You see most of us know that Western powers don't give a damn if a dictator is in charge or they would not overthrow so many democratically elected governments. All that ever mattered was making sure our leaders agreed to the wishes of foreign governments and corporations.
Fidel has his flaws but in terms of developing his people, helping his neighbors with doctors, nurses, engineers, scholarships, and other technical assistance with a lot less strings attached than others who have exploited our hemisphere for centuries, he is a great man.
Forget not that rather than celebrating the bicentential of the ultimate revolution (The Haitian Revolution), we watched the democratically elected government removed from that country. Perhaps you can tell us who benefitted for it sure isn't the poverty striken masses of Haiti. Ask the poor of Venezuela why they live so close to the big oil set up and don't even have piped water let alone electricity?
Who has killed more Pinochet or Fidel? Who killed opponents rather than lock them up - Fidel or Pinochet and who put Batista, Pinochet or the rest of them in power.
We know that whether it is the pretence of democracy or dictatorship, only one set of rights matter. Why don't you attack the IMF and World Bank and institutions set up to bleed us to death rather than attack the one person who put the interests of his people above those who value profit.
If Fidel dies tomorrow, I'll be walking with the people of Cuba near Revolutionary Square in the middle of Havana and tears will flow. He is the only leader in my hemisphere in my lifetime who improved the living conditions of his population - and true he did not make them wealthy - but health, education and housing are way more important than money.
We'd all love both political and social rights but I had to settle for one it would be social rights.
And finally how can a government be democratic when it undermines democracy everywhere else in the name of profit. When you really understand life in this hemisphere outside of your democratic illusion, you'll know why Fidel is loved on this planet.
Edit -sp & gr."
Tinoire: "....I'm not sure about far less so now but Castro has certainly had to fight a lot. Imagine what Cuba would be like if we hadn't waged an economic war against it. That Castro was still able to do as much as he has for the poor is admirable.
I'm sure there are people who are ready for a different leader as they gaze longingly at well-packaged Western goods and fall for the myth that under American capitalism everyone lives in Beverly Hills and shops at Nordstrom's. You never know how good you have it and it's human nature to think the grass is greener on the other side. Tell those same people, those who don't know I mean, what they would have to give up for that fantasy and they'll take their health-care, education, everytime IF you tell them. We of course will tell them no such thing preferring to lure them with Western goods.
I saw this happen many times. Saw immigrants come to this country believing in the fantasy the US was trying to sell them and many of them leaving totally disgusted.
There's a huge difference between the Carribbean moneyed elites, well represented in the US, and the descendants of the slaves who didn't need to flee to the US with their bags of gold and diamonds but I know you know that already. Can tell by your post.
No ruler is ever 100% perfect and no ruler will ever make people 100% happy but people like Castro are up there in my opinion."
Carl Brennan: "Fine work. Demonizing Castro is simply an attempt to destroy a good example of a country not dominated by predatory capitalism."
There is an enormous amount of misinformation about Social Security being put out of late, primarily by Democrats who oppose George Bush's reform of the program. However, the Wall Street Journal does an admirable job of correcting the record. Here are the relevant parts from their editorial....
"Back in the 1930s, when the country was shaking off the Great Depression, it became apparent that the elderly were especially suffering--not only had they lost income and assets but there was no time for them to recoup. And so was born FDR's greatest contribution to the welfare state. The notion was that Social Security would nick a little bit off everybody's paycheck with a payroll tax and then redistribute that money to anybody over retirement age. The holding pen for this pay-as-you-go transfer was called, brilliantly if dishonestly, a "Trust Fund."
Demography made the whole arrangement work for a long time. In the 1930s there were 41 workers for every retiree; the payroll tax could thus be set at a low rate--about 2% for the first $3,000 of earnings. It was quite a deal for the beneficiaries--the average rate of return for people retiring in 1940 was 114%.
And like all income redistribution programs, Social Security presented politicians with lots of incentives for sweetening. In the 1950s, Congress started increasing both benefits and the number of people covered. At the same time, however, the demographics were turning sour. Life expectancy was rising to the 78 years it is today, from 69 for men born in 1940. And fertility rates were declining, from 2.2 children per woman in 1940, to a peak of 3.7 in 1957, to two per woman right now.
No surprise, then, that the ratio of workers to retirees began to fall--in 1950, it had dropped to 16 workers to one retiree and now it is just three to one. Payroll taxes have had to rise accordingly--they are now 12.4%. And real rates of return have gone into a free-fall; real returns for workers born in 1960 and retiring in 2025 are less than 2%.
Bad enough, but it is all about to get much worse. Over the next 20 years, as the Baby Boomers start retiring, the number of retirees will jump to around 77 million from 47 million today. The worker-to-retiree ratio will drop to two to one, and real returns for some could be negative.
The Social Security system will start running a deficit by 2016 when benefits exceed annual payroll tax revenue. The "Trust Fund" surplus will be totally eaten up by 2042 (or a decade later, depending on economic and demographic assumptions). Then Social Security will have to rely solely on revenue from the payroll tax that will not be sufficient to pay benefits.
The immediate problem is that payroll taxes during the surplus period that began in the 1980s were not saved in the mythical Trust Fund; instead the taxes were used to finance other government spending. The Fund is merely the repository for special-issue bonds that are a liability to the federal Treasury. In order to redeem these bonds, the government must increase taxes or borrow (thus making concrete, or recognizing, the debt the bonds do in fact represent). And we're talking about huge amounts: Bonds credited to the Trust Fund now exceed $1.5 trillion. By 2016, when the shortfall begins, that figure will have grown to over $3.2 trillion in today's dollars.
This isn't just an accounting crisis. According to figures from the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security is running at about 4.4% of GDP and revenue at about 5%. While revenue is expected to stay fairly constant, outlays will rise to 6.1% of GDP in 2030. Combine Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is running at 7% of GDP. By 2030, when most of the boomers are retired, spending on these three programs will shoot up to almost 15% of future GDP."
Here's the key paragraph from that excerpt...
"The Social Security system will start running a deficit by 2016 when benefits exceed annual payroll tax revenue. The "Trust Fund" surplus will be totally eaten up by 2042 (or a decade later, depending on economic and demographic assumptions). Then Social Security will have to rely solely on revenue from the payroll tax that will not be sufficient to pay benefits."
Here's what you have to understand: there is no trust fund, no lock box, no Social Security account with your name on it. All the money that has been taken in has been spent. People get confused about that because there are "special-issue bonds" that are supposed to be used to pay off Social Security. But in this case, those bonds are nothing but IOU's.
Think about it, if taxpayers give the government their taxes and the government spends all of that money, how can they be saving it in a "trust fund" at the same time? Well, they're not saving it, they're just making bonds that will have to be paid off by future taxpayers. So when the program starts running in the red in approximately 2016, there isn't going to be any pile of money to dip into. The shortfall will have to be met by running a deficit, raising the age limit, or reducing the amount that's paid out.
That's why George Bush is trying to change the program. He's looking to privatize (I know the Bushies hate that word, but that's what he's doing) a small portion of the accounts, somewhere between 2%-6% of the money for each person. My guess is that, sadly, Bush will fail at trying to reform the program in large part because the Democrats are going to lie through their teeth and play this as a purely partisan issue (He's going to try to take your Social Security away!). Just take a look at what Tom Daschle's replacement Harry Reid said about it,
"(A)ll experts say that Social Security beneficiaries will receive every penny of their benefits that they're entitled to--100 percent of them--until the year 2055. After that, if we still do nothing, they'll draw 80 percent of their benefits. I want those beneficiaries after year 2055 to draw 100 percent of their benefits. But this does not require dismantling the program. For heaven's sakes, they're crying wolf a little too regularly here. There is not an emergency on Social Security. We can do this. The president should not try to jam this private accounts in an effort to destroy Social Security."
Lol, "all experts" say that huh? It's good until 2055, huh? You know the sad thing isn't just that Reid is willing to lie about this or that so many people who don't know any better will believe him, it's that so many liberals and Democrats who do know better will allow these sorts of lies to go unchallenged in order to stick it to Republicans, no matter how many average Americans end up getting hurt by it.
You want to know what's probably going to happen with Social Security because we're not willing to act now? Congress will end up waiting until the program goes in the red a few years down the road and then they're going to jack up the age, slash the benefits, and then rinse & repeat every few years. We could do better than that if we took action now, but my guess is that in a climate where Democrats in Congress largely define themselves as being "not Republicans," it's just not going to be possible.
Dave Barry explains why dogs rule and cats drool in his latest column....Ok, he doesn't really say "cats drool" per se, but that's probably what he meant because you know, cats are like ugh, so he really doesn't need to write it....
"I'm trying to convince my wife that we need a dog. If we're visiting someone's home, and I suddenly experience a sensation of humid warmth, and I look down and see that my right arm has disappeared up to the elbow inside the mouth of a dog the size of a medium horse, I am not alarmed. I know that this is simply how a large, friendly dog says: "Greetings! You have a pleasing salty taste!"
I respond by telling the dog that he is a GOOD BOY and pounding him with hearty blows, blows that would flatten a cat like a hairy pancake, but which only make the dog like me more. He likes me so much that he goes and gets his Special Toy. This is something that used to be a recognizable object — a stuffed animal, a basketball, a Federal Express driver — but has long since been converted, through countless hours of hard work on the dog's part, into a random wad of filth held together by 73 gallons of congealed dog spit.
"GIVE ME THAT!" I shout, grabbing an end of the Special Toy. This pleases the dog: It confirms his belief that his Special Toy is the most desirable item in the universe, more desirable even than the corpse of a squirrel. For several seconds we fight for this prize, the dog whipping his head side to side like a crazed windshield wiper. Finally I yank the Special Toy free and hold it triumphantly aloft. The dog watches it with laser-beam concentration, his entire body vibrating with excitement, waiting for me to throw it ... waiting ... waiting ... until finally I cock my arm, and, with a quick motion I ... fake a throw. I'm still holding the Special Toy. But WHOOOSH the dog has launched himself across the room, an unguided pursuit missile, reaching a velocity of 75 miles per hour before WHAM he slams headfirst into the wall at the far end of the room. This stimulates the M&M-size clump of nerve cells that serves as a dog's brain to form a thought: The Special Toy is not here! WHERE IS THE SPECIAL TOY??
The dog whirls, sees the toy in my hand and races back across the room. Just as he reaches me, I cock my arm and ... fake another throw. WHOOOSH! WHAM! I can keep faking throws until the dog has punched a dog-shaped hole completely through the far wall, and the dog will STILL sprint back to me, sincerely believing that THIS time, I'm going to throw the toy. This is one reason that I love dogs."
Dogs are loyal animals, animals who love mankind, and no matter how often liberals like Hillary Clinton speak out against harmless, lovable, fluffy puppies, I will defend them.
Maybe liberals like Hillary Clinton think your small child should have his dog Fluffy, who he loves more than anything in the whole world, taken away from him if you can't afford to pay the left's $500 dollar dog tax, but I think that's wrong.
There's a reason why dogs are called "man's best friend", it's because they're loyal, because they're so happy to see you when you come home, yes, it's because they love you. So no matter what liberals like Hillary Clinton say, I say your dog is a good dog and if they want to condemn me for saying so, so be it.
...I'm just kidding you liberals, I'm just kidding. Come on, you can't begrudge my getting in a little practice for 2008 can you? Kidding, I'm just kidding again. Geeze, can't a conservative have a little fun?
There was a time when, if you wrote or spoke out against the United Nations, you would be dismissed as some right-wing kook, a nutcase who saw conspiracies or was some kind of isolationist who didn’t understand the need for an international forum where the problems of the world could be resolved without resort to warfare.
Well, friend, welcome to Kookville! Turns out that the United Nations is not simply incapable of stopping wars and genocides, it is so utterly corrupt that it needs to be eliminated entirely in the hope that the many other existing international organizations, treaties, unilateral and bilateral relations can be allowed to do what it will not and cannot.
Hopefully, 2005 will be the year that historians will mark as the one in which this bloated international criminal conspiracy implodes from its own dead weight.
This is not a new thought to me, but it resurfaced as I read an October 9 news article about “a tough new anti-terrorism resolution aimed at stemming attacks on civilians by denying terrorists safe havens, weapons, financial resources, and freedom of movement.” Introduced by the Russian Federation, it was unanimously passed by the UN Security Council. It was described as strengthening the “essential coordinating role of the United Nations in the international campaign against the terrorist threat.”
This is the same United Nations that did nothing when Red China invaded and occupied Tibet. And then gave Taiwan’s seat to Red China.
This is the same United Nations that stood by while Rwanda went about the business of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
This is the same United Nations that has been unable to stop the Sudan from conducting genocide against more than a million of its Christian citizens. And Sudan is a member of the UN Human Rights Commission!
This is the same United Nations that has been unable to persuade Syria to withdraw its occupation troops from Lebanon.
This is the same United Nations that has stood by for years as the Palestinians waged a terrorist campaign against the Israelis and then chided the Israelis for building a fence as a means to defend themselves.
This is the same United Nations that needed a coalition led by the United States to force Iraq to withdraw from its invasion of Kuwait and then spent twelve years passing one useless resolution after another to get Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to disarm. After its Oil-for-Food administrators and key members of its Security Council wallowed in corruption, it faintly blessed the US effort to remove an important base for terrorist planning, training, and funding. And remove an evil dictator from power.
This is the same United Nations that needed the United States to intervene when the North Koreans invaded the south in the 1950s and whose atomic energy agency has been unable to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Now Iran is thumbing its nose at the UN. It’s not nuclear proliferation that is the problem; it’s which country is led by people deemed most likely to use these weapons. The mere prospect of a nuclear exchange drove Pakistan and India to the table to resolve longtime conflicts.
And, yes, this was the United Nations that stood by while the United States pursued a noble, but ill-fated war against the North Vietnamese when they invaded the south.
The United Nations has been unable to respond to outbreaks of violence in Haiti, Somalia, Cambodia, and Kosovo, to name just a few places where it has demonstrated its ineptitude.
It is the same United Nations that is trying to cover up the biggest scandal in history, the Oil-For-Food program it administered which put billions into the hands of Saddam Hussein, allowing him to bribe France, China and Russia, among others, to buy armaments while Iraqi citizens died from malnutrition, disease and the butchery common to Saddam’s regime.
As the scholar Jeremy A. Rabkin points out, “The Security Council has never authorized outside military intervention solely to protect people from slaughter at the hands of their own government.”
Now, three years since 9-11, an event that changed not just the United States, but alerted the entire world to the threat posed by an organization that is not a nation, but a group dedicated to imposing Islam, the Security Council has passed another useless resolution, vowing to do something about it.
Meanwhile, the United Nations has been largely sustained by the nearly twenty-five percent of its annual budget paid by the United States, plus the $1.4 billion the US gives to United Nations’ programs and agencies. US taxpayers fund more of the UN’s activities than all of the other 177 member nations. At the same time, the vast majority of the recipients of US foreign aid routinely vote against the policies of the United States. Most of those opposing US initiatives come from Africa and the Middle East.
Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, there have been 291 wars resulting in 22 million deaths. The US Department of State lists 36 terrorist organizations operating with impunity in at least 60 UN member nations. Fully 102 of 191 member nations do not have completely free and democratic governments. 47 member nations are dictatorships and the UN roster includes six terrorist states.
A Gallup poll in September 2003 found that sixty percent of Americans said the UN was doing “a poor job.” It’s not just doing a poor job; it is actively seeking to undermine the concept of sovereignty for every nation in the world. It is actively seeking to become a world government. It wants to impose its own taxes. It wants its own military force. It wants to ban ownership of guns. It wants control of the world’s oceans and seas. Its Kyoto Protocol will seek to impose limits on the use of various forms of energy vital to industrialized nations, while exempting some like China and India.
There are elements of the United Nations that are doing some good work. It has helped refugees. Its World Health Organization presumably tries to improve conditions. There are, I’m sure other examples, but overall the UN is a cesspool of corruption and the nexus of evil that blithely ignores its original mandates.
So, if by now you have been or are ready to join the rest of us kooks who want the US to withdraw its support, welcome to Kookville. Welcome to the existing and growing majority of Americans who think it’s time to withdraw from the United Nations and find other means to address the world’s problems, unilaterally, bilaterally, and effectively.
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.
© Alan Caruba 2004
Washington, DC - In an effort to help American elementary schools adhere to federal guidelines regarding religious content in school activities, the American Civil Liberties Union today unveiled a new holiday musical program for the nation’s 120,000 public elementary schools. The program, entitled “Holly Jolly Solstice,” will be performed in all federally-funded public schools starting in 2005.
According to spokesperson Emily Kelleher, the new program was prompted by the ACLU's concern that many of the nation's schools were openly flouting constitutional prohibitions against religious content in their December holiday programs.
“Shockingly, we found that many elementary schools are incorporating overt religious themes in their musical shows. For instance, in Washington state and Indiana, we identified references to ‘Frosty the Snowman,’ elves, trees, and other religious themes,” says Kelleher, a senior Enchantress at the ACLU's national headquarters in Washington.
Kelleher says the problem seems to be more acute in the Bible Belt.
“In Alabama, Florida and Georgia, we found children being coerced into wearing religious garb, such as fake red noses and construction paper antlers,” she noted.
ACLU Legal Affairs counsel Kevin Evans said that rapid intervention hopefully kept psychological damage to a minimum.
“In most cases, we were able to deploy therapists and deprogrammers to the offending schools," said Evans. "We’re keeping an eye on the children to see if they develop any odd behaviors as the result of their religious exposure. Like excessive piety. Only time will tell.”
This year, rather than fight hundreds of piecemeal legal battles against individual school districts, Evans said the ACLU decided to take a more positive approach.
“Instead of saying, ‘this is prohibited, that is prohibited,’ we felt it made more sense to say, ‘you HAVE to do this,’” says Evans. “That way we have uniformity.”
To develop the new religion-free holiday program, the civil rights organization turned to Klaus-Maria Francis and Serge Bruno, the duo who penned the controversial all-heterosexual Broadway musical Straight!
Using grants from the ACLU, National Education Association, and a matching grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, Francis and Bruno set about creating a “secular masterpiece for children.”
Unveiled yesterday at ACLU headquarters, the program features bouncy, major-chord melodies with strong kid appeal and a libretto that “is 100% certified religion-free,” according to Kelleher.
The program opens with the upbeat ‘All I Want for Solstice is My Ritalin’:
I’m all worked up for the holidays,
Can’t keep my Tourette’s in check,
I’m hyperactive with A.D.D.
An eight-year-old nervous wreck!
(chorus)
All I need for Solstice is some Ritalin, Prozac and therapy
So I can be stable at the holiday table
Worry and jitter-free!
My counselor says I’m manic – depressive
According to my Rorschach test
Not only that, I’m obsessive - compulsive
And my poor little memory’s repressed
(chorus)
Next, the program takes on a wistful tone with the slow tempo ‘Value Neutral Solstice’:
Oh, I’m visualizing a value-neutral Solstice,
Won’t you be non-judgmental with me?
I’m OK, and you’re OK
Who’s to say they’re better than we?
Oh, I’m visualizing a value-neutral Solstice,
No western culture hegemony!
Please don’t hurt my fragile self-esteem
And don’t lay a guilt trip on me!
Every kid’s favorite holiday character is celebrated in the next number, ‘Here Comes Mother Earth’:
Watch out loggers and resource hoggers,
Here comes Mother Earth!
Watch out polluters, with your Microsoft computers!
Here comes Mother Earth!
(Mother Earth speaks)
Global warming and acid rain,
Capitalism is to blame!
Hey meat eaters and overbreeders -
Here comes Mother Earth!
Behind the wheel of your automobile!
Here comes Mother Earth!
(Mother Earth speaks)
E-coli and cow methane,
Capitalism is to blame!
The grand finale of the program is the joyous “Safe Sex Solstice”:
The stars are bright, and it’s frosty tonight
But it’s so warm when we linger
‘round the pentagram, with a dental dam
And some latex on my dinger!
(chorus)
Have a safe sex Solstice, Mr. Happy wrapped up tight!
Have a safe sex Solstice, at the bath house party tonight!
HIV and STD,
They don’t stand a chance!
There’s a rubber-wrapped present waiting for you
Underneath my leather pants!
(chorus)
(break)
Oh, I’m in-vi-ting
All my favorite Druids!
Oh, I’ve got a con-dom
To contain my body fluids!
(chorus)
Columnist Frank Rich of the New York Times says the new federal holiday program “is long overdue.”
“I’ve attended some of these school shows, and quite frankly, they are embarrassingly amateur,” says Rich, who writes on both theater and politics. “The costumes and sets are worse than anything I’ve seen, including off-off-Broadway. And the actors – my God - half of them can’t even remember their lines. This new program brings sorely needed production values to the schools, without all the disturbing references to mangers and snowmen.”
Kelleher is proud of the ACLU's effort, calling ‘Holly Jolly Solstice’ an “instant classic with a strong educational message.”
“Catchy tunes and flamboyant dance numbers aside, this exciting program teaches all of us an important constitutional lesson," said Kelleher. "Parents and children can rest assured that wise men have no place in American schools."
If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here.
Ah, at long last it's time to finally release the list of the most annoying liberals for 2004. These lists only come once a year and boy -- the people who made it -- whew, are they annoying. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the honorable mentions this year who didn't make the final cut...
Honorable Mentions: The ACLU, Max Cleland, Chevy Chase, Susan Estrich, Al Franken, Whoopi Goldberg, Bev Harris, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Terry McAuliffe, Bill Maher, The New York Times, Lawrence O'Donnell, Keith Olberman, Sean Penn, Charles Rangel, Ron Reagan Jr., Randi Rhodes, George Soros, Bruce Springstein, Jon Stewart, Barbra Streisand, Henry Waxman, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
Want to see the real list? Just click here.
|
|||||
|
|
| |||
