The mature follower of Jesus stops asking, "Who's going to meet my needs?" and starts asking, "Whose needs can I meet?" Do you ever ask that question? -- Rick Warren
With Halloween coming up, a lot of people will be looking for scary movies to watch this week-end. So, with that in mind, here are 20 horror movies, that get the Right Wing News seal of approval....well, you know, such as it is -- we are talking about horror movies here.
Alien
Aliens
The Amityville Horror, 2005
The Blair Witch Project (People either love or hate this movie)
Cabin Fever
Candyman
Dagon
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
The Dead Hate the Living
Dead Alive (Gory)
The Fog
Frankenfish
Gingersnaps
Hellraiser
House of a Thousand Corpses (People either love or hate this movie)
Monster Man
Pet Sematary
The Ring
Saw
Witchboard
I'm not sure when the New York Times starting doing articles on the blogger reactions to stories, but they linked the post immediately below this one about the Scooter Libby Indictment.
Right Wing News made the WAPO and the New York Times on the same day, for two different posts: who'd a "thunk" it?
"If there are any charges, my guess is that they'd be a result of someone forgetting that old maxim: "The cover-up is worse than the crime." In other words, there doesn't appear to have been any crime committed initially, but someone may have still panicked, done something dumb, and may be hit with a perjury or obstruction of justice charge as a result."
If what Fitzgerald said is correct (Libby is innocent until proven guilty), that's exactly what happened. According to Fitzgerald, Libby tried to soft sell his involvement in the Plame leak while he was under oath and now he's paying the price. That's really too bad, because it sounds as if Libby would have walked had that not happened.
#2) Fitzgerald seemed fair and did his best to overstep his bounds at the press conference. He certainly didn't strike me as politically biased.
#3) The one thing that Fitzgerald said that did strike me as "odd" was that Valerie Plame's friends and neighbors didn't know she was in the CIA. Multiple newspapers have reported otherwise and according to a column by Cliff May, it wasn't exactly a big secret.
#4) What happens with Rove? Is he going to walk? Hard to say yet. If so, that's definitely good news for the White House. If not, of course that'll be another negative.
#5) The political fall-out for this whole mess may be significantly less than expected long-term, especially if Rove isn't indicted. Furthermore, if Libby agrees to a plea bargain, which isn't out of the question, this whole ugly incident could start to fade into the rear view mirror by next year. The Democrats will do their best to keep the story front and center through next year, of course, but if this ends with a plea bargained perjury charge against Libby at worst, they may not have much luck. This certainly isn't good news, but it could have been far worse.
Anyway, it's still very early and over the next week we should be able to get a lot more perspective on this whole issue.
*** Update #1 ***:Libby's Lawyer (.PDF) says that no laws were broken, the inconsistencies are just a result of different recollections from different people and memory lapses. That could certainly be possible...
"POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.
Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.
Women's groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.
The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background."
Some police officers have claimed the directives hinder enforcing the law equally.
Police are told: "In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims."
What?!?!?!
"In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims"?
That's exactly backwards, Muslims -- and members of every other religion for that matter -- "need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of" the country they're living in.
The obvious concern here is that somebody is going to pound his wife to a pulp and then he'll convince some Muslim cleric -- who thinks beating your wife is just peachy (and such imams are not in short supply)-- to talk the police into letting the wife beater skate.
That's ludicrous, it should never happen, in Australia or here in the United States. Beating your wife is immoral and reprehensible and what Muslim leaders or imams think about it is irrelevant and should be treated as such.
I wasn't planning to do any other posts on the Harriet Miers nomination because -- and I admit it -- I have beaten this dead horse so hard that there's nothing left but a pulpy, red, spot on the ground mixed with a few cracked horse teeth.
But, I did want to take a moment to counter some of the gloom and doomers out there who are claiming that the sky is falling because Harriet Miers went down to defeat. The truth of the matter is that the Miers nomination going down in flames was good for the President, the Party, and conservatism in general.
As far as the President goes, not only did he just put an end to a nasty revolt among his own troops, he has a great opportunity to unite the entire base behind him with his new selection. If he wants to be a "uniter, not a divider," there are probably 15 nominees Bush can select that will be wildly popular with the base. Then, after Bush makes a great call on the next nominee, many of the people who have been ripping him up one side and down the other (yours truly included,) will be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The thinking will go:
"Sure maybe Miers was a mistake, but maybe Bush was just too loyal to his own people. It's hard to fault him for that, especially since he recognized that he made a mistake and selected a great nominee the second time around. Boy, aren't we lucky to have George W. Bush as our President?"
The pro-Miers people? Well, first of all, there weren't very many people who were "Pro-Miers". In actuality, Miers had no fans before she was nominated and very few who liked her afterwards.
Most of the pundits and bloggers who defended her, did so not because they thought she was a wonderful nominee, but because they supported the President, thought it would bad for the Party if she was defeated, thought she at least deserved hearings, believed Bush would never withdraw her so why bother fighting, etc, etc, etc.
Well, guess what?
When George Bush selects a new nominee, almost all of the "Pro-Miers" folks will get behind that nominee for the same reasons they supported Miers. If you're going to tell me that after we have a Karen Williams, Michael Luttig, or Priscilla Owen on the Supreme Court, the conservatives who were backing Harriet Miers are going to honestly wish that she'd made it through instead of the next nominee that Bush selects, well, I just don't believe that.
Also, it's worth considering that this whole fight has been a wake-up call for the Republicans in Washington who've been taking conservatives for granted. The thinking up on the Hill prior to the Miers nomination seemed to be "Don't worry about the conservatives. Where else are they going to go?" I suspect the new thinking will be more along the lines of: "We better worry about the conservatives because who knows what they're going to do if we keep disappointing them?"
That's not to say that this fight will bring all the Republicans in Congress around to our point of view, but it will nudge them in the right direction on spending, illegal immigration, and many other issues that conservatives care about.
Plus, there's another added benefit to all of this.
Think about what will happen if Stevens or Ginsberg retire before Bush gets out of office. Because of this brawl, we're going to be almost guaranteed to get an originalist replacement. On the other hand, if Miers had made it through, Bush may have gone with Gonzales or some other nominee suggested by Harry Reid. Now, that's not going to happen.
Last but not least, there is a glorious moment that all conservatives should be waiting for: When Bush's next originalist nominee, the replacement for "swing vote Sandra," is actually confirmed. You know why that is going to be such a great day? Because that will be when it finally dawns on the Democrats that they've been completely and utterly hosed. Little miss flipping coin, Sandra Day O'Connor, will be gone and in her place will be a rock solid originalist who'll be up there for decades. It'll be enough to bring a smile to a conservative face and a tear to a Democratic eye...
*** Update #1 ***:Redstate is saying that their sources are telling them that the next nominee has already been chosen:
"Multiple sources are telling RedState that Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will be named by the President at the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court as early as Monday.
"The situation is still in flux," says one source, "but not very much." Says another, "The White House Counsel's Office is not doing too good at keeping this a secret."
Now, take that with a grain of salt. Sometimes RedState's sources are spot-on and sometimes they're just spotty. But, if Samuel "Scalito" Alito is actually the nominee, the "snoopy dance" icon is coming out again on Monday. It couldn't get much better than Alito...
RWN got a brief mention in a WAPO column on the Harriet Miers withdrawl called: "Power of the Punditocracy".
Right Wing News has a picture of a dancing Snoopy at the top of the page:
"First of all, thank God! I cannot even begin to tell you how happy this makes me. In fact, I actually whooped so hard when I heard she withdrew that I scared the dog...
"This is such a great moment, such a great day for conservatism! In fact, to celebrate, I'm grilling steak tonight. Oh man, it's just such a win. I mean they say you can't fight City Hall? Well, conservatives just fought the White House and won!"
Ah, fun times...although in retrospect, I should have bought more expensive steak and some shrimp to go along with it. When the next nominee is confirmed, I think I'll just go out to eat to celebrate.
You’ll be shocked, shocked to read this, but it seems the great man of populist integrity is, at his heart, as much of a flithy capitalist whore as anyone.
"...Michael Moore likes to portray himself as a working-class man of the people, but a new book exposes him as a “corporate criminal, environmental menace and racist union-buster.”
In “Do As I Say, Not As I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” Peter Schweizer reveals that Moore, who has been vociferous in his criticism of defense contractor Halliburton, has bought and sold hundreds of shares of Halliburton stock — and that of other defense contractors — through his private foundation.
Moore, who has claimed he doesn’t own a “single share” of stock, has also invested heavily in HMOs and pharmaceutical giants, the targets of his next movie, “Sickos.”
Moore also likes to rail against what he calls rampant racism in the United States and the fact that supposedly no one hires blacks for good jobs.
Schweizer points out that “out of the 134 producers, editors, cinematographers, composers, and production coordinators Moore hired, only three were black.” And not one African-American lives in the ritzy Michigan enclave where Moore has a $1 million mansion.
And while publicly championing unions, Moore has been quite anti-union in his own business dealings and had several clashes with the Writers Guild."
We’ve detailed a number of these revelations here over the years, specifically the way Mike treats his staff and won’t allow them to unionize, pays them slave wages, and outsources much of his production work to Canada. It’s good to see it all laid out in print, nicely researched and sourced. I just bought this book from Amazon.
"Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?
Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.
In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination." -- Walter Williams
(This will be at the top of the page all day, so scroll down for updates).
Update #1: First of all, thank God! I cannot even begin to tell you how happy this makes me. In fact, I actually whooped so hard when I heard she withdrew that I scared the dog. He was looking at me like, "What, are you hurt or something?"
This is such a great moment, such a great day for conservatism! In fact, to celebrate, I'm grilling steak tonight. Oh man, it's just such a win. I mean they say you can't fight City Hall? Well, conservatives just fought the White House and won! Did I say this is such a great moment, such a great day for conservatism already? Good, because it deserves to be said twice!
Update #2: The good news is that we've just won a great battle for conservatism. The -- I don't want to call it bad news, because I don't think it will be -- is that we're only 1/3rd of the way done. George Bush still has to select another nominee and then we have to get that nominee through the Senate.
If Bush does go with Alberto Gonzales or some other unpopular nominee, I don't think you'll see this kind of fight again because part of the reason conservatives fought so hard was to save George Bush from himself. If he nominates another stinker after this long, bloody, brawl then not only would it prove his intentions weren't good, it would show that he's every bit as dumb as the Democrats think he is -- and let me tell ya, he's not a dumb guy.
That's why I suspect that George Bush -- who is probably quite understandably weary of fighting with his own base -- will select a nominee that conservatives will be thrilled with this time. Then, I think you'll see an unprecedented pressure from the base on Republican Senators to support that nominee to the hilt.
So while we shouldn't count our chickens before they're hatched, I think we're "in position to get in position" and when it's all said and done, we're going to be very happy with the person George Bush picks the next time around.
Update #3: Next, let me reiterate three things I've said before:
I'd be lying if I said I was anything less than thrilled out of my mind by the withdrawal of Harriet Miers, but I have nothing against anyone who was on the other side on this one and I look forward to having everyone on the right united to fight for a new nominee next time around.
#2) "I don't think Harriet Miers is unaccomplished, a moron, or an awful person."
I'm sure Harriet Miers is a very nice lady, who has accomplished a lot in her life, and I wish her all the best.
#3) "Conservatives who are opposing Bush on this nomination are sending Bush a message. If he shows that he hears that message and the Miers nomination is withdrawn, then he deserves credit for that and a 2nd chance to prove his intentions were good."
Conservatives had every right to be furious with Bush over his nomination of Harriet Miers. But, the withdrawal of Harriet Miers (They've obviously had this planned all week) proves that even if Bush wasn't paying attention before, he's listening now. Since he is paying attention, conservatives should cut him a little slack and give him a chance to show he's sincere.
Our motto at this point, even for conservatives who have been frustrated with Bush, should be the same as that poster in Mulder's office on the X-Files: "I want to believe". That's how I feel and I know a lot of other people on the right who have felt compelled to fight him on this issue look at it the same way.
Update #4: DJ Drummond over at Polipundit is a little worried a particular ramification of this withdrawal:
"This hands a whole new weapon to the Left; Ideology as a valid litmus test in nominations."
#1) The official reason for Harriet Miers withdrawal was that the Senate was going to seek documents from the executive office.
#2) While ideology was a complaint of those us who opposed the nomination, cronyism and her lack of qualifications for the post were also frequently mentioned.
#3) The Democrats already use ideology as a litmus test. Why do you think Bork was defeated? Why were Estrada, Brown, Owen, among many others filibustered? It certainly wasn't because they weren't qualified for the job. It was purely because of their ideology. So, the Democrats are already using a litmus test.
Update #5: If Rush Limbaugh can toot his own horn sometimes, then why can't I? Here's a little Miers timeline to show what a prognosticator I turned out to be on this whole thing:
"...(I)f anything, the base is looking for a sure thing this time around and the level of discontent on the right will certainly rise if they don't get it....Up to this point in his 2nd term, for whatever reason, George Bush's political instincts seem to have largely failed him. But, this is one area where Bush cannot afford to make a mistake. Nominating Alberto Gonzales or for that matter any of the other nominees with questionable conservative credentials -- like Edith Brown Clement, Larry Thompson, J. Harvie Wilkinson, or Harriet Miers -- would be a calamitous error."
(Miers is nominated. This post was made within 15 minutes of the official announcement): "George Bush's decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing....To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection.... Miers' selection will lead to a wave of attacks on the President by conservatives....This is undoubtedly the worst decision of Bush's entire presidency so far."
The obvious solution would be to pull the Miers nomination and select a candidate who would satisfy the base. Many people don't think that will happen because Bush is famous for his bulldog like tenacity. As Rogers Cadenhead put it:
"The president's so stubborn that were he captain of the Titanic, he would have run the ship into a second iceberg to prove he meant to hit the first one."
That's a great line, but it doesn't necessarily ring true in this case. Remember Linda Chavez and Bernard Kerkik? Since their nominations were withdrawn earlier in his administration, there's no reason to believe that Bush will stick with a nomination until the end, regardless of the political cost. That's doubly true in this case since there are plenty of far superior candidates to Miers waiting in the wings.
"This situation is so out of hand that it would be an incredible blunder NOT to pull this nomination. What's the point of going forward with a nominee who is so widely disliked when you're allowed to withdraw the nomination and select another choice? Politically, this should be the biggest no-brainer of Bush's presidency. That's why I still believe that the Miers nomination will be withdrawn. Either Bush will come to his senses, Miers will give up, or enough Republican Senators will promise to vote against her behind closed doors to force Bush's hand."
"...(T)here are now some signs that the Harriet Miers debacle may be drawing to a close....Given that the Miers nomination is still being ferociously hammered, you'd expect the White House to still be trying something, anything right now -- unless -- they're planning to give up the fight.
Now, don't take this to the bank yet, it's not over until it's over. Heck, I think it's about to be over and I already have a big anti-Miers piece written for tomorrow. But, if we're lucky, we may be seeing the beginning of the end for the Miers nomination. Cross your fingers..."
Update #6: This is a repost of something I wrote back on October 7th. So, the dates will, of course, have to change and we don't know who the nominee will be yet, but I think it's entirely possible that things may play out roughly like this:
How A Miers Withdrawal Scenario Might Go
On October the 14th, the White House announces that Harriet Miers has asked the President to withdraw her nomination. The Sunday Morning talk shows talk incessantly about how Bush's crony pick was withdrawn, the split in the conservative movement, and how this is the worst thing that ever happened to Bush. What a triumph for the left...or is it?
On the following Monday, October the 24th, President Bush announces that he is nominating Edith Hollan Jones to the Supreme Court. The left wails & gnashes their teeth in anger. The same conservatives who bitterly attacked Bush over the Harriet Miers nomination, praise him to the skies for his selection. Right wingers who previously said that they wouldn't donate money to the GOP in 2006, open up their checkbooks to donate money to conservative special interest groups that plan to run ads to defend the Jones nomination.
On November the 7th, Jones goes before the Senate. Every Republican plans to vote for her, but the Democrats aren't happy. There is even some talk of a filibuster. But, after just seeing the terrible "wrath of conservatives scorned" over the Miers' nomination, Republican members of the "Gang of 14" become terrified of the consequences of a vote against the nuclear option. John McCain understands that going the wrong way means his presidential campaign in 2008 is doomed. Mike DeWine knows he'll lose his Senate seat if he votes with the Democrats. Lincoln Chaffee has a tough primary coming up and he knows going the wrong way means defeat. Lindsey Graham, who has already been stung by criticism over his role in the "Gang of 14" deal, doesn't want a repeat performance.
Harry Reid then sees that there are 52 votes for the nuclear option and figures that he may not be able to stop Jones, but if the conservative base is less motivated in the future, he may still get a chance to block a nominee down the road. So, knowing that he can't win, he decides to keep his powder dry in case there is another Supreme Court opening later in Bush's term.
Then, on December the 2nd, Edith Hollan Jones comes up for a vote which she wins: 55 - 45. The public at large? They've heard the Democrats' spiel about Republican extremists a thousand times before. They just don't pay much attention to it. Besides, Edith Hollan Jones seemed so competent in the confirmation hearings.
The Democratic base? They're demoralized and angry. They had the best nominee they were ever going to get with Miers and somehow it all slipped away from them.
The Republican base? They're energized & ecstatic because they snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. The Miers nomination? Well, since Bush proved himself by selecting Jones, it must have meant his intentions were good with Miers. Maybe she wasn't a great candidate, but at least things did turn out OK in the end. Heck, OK is an understatement! We got Edith Hollan Jones on the Supreme Court thanks to Bush!
“NAME THE LIBERAL HYPOCRITE” QUIZ
From Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles In Liberal Hypocrisy, by Peter Schweizer
Who says that conservatives are racist because they don’t support affirmative action but has an abysmal record of hiring blacks?
a. Barbra Streisand
b. Michael Moore
c. Al Franken
d. All of the above Answer: D. All of the above. Of the 112 people Franken has hired to work on his books, television projects and radio program, only one was black. Of the 135 individuals Michael Moore hired, only three were black. Barbra Streisand has hired 53 senior people to work on her film projects and only one was black.
Who says that corporations are “terrorists” and has said “I don’t own a single share of stock” but secretly owns shares in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, and even Halliburton?
a. Barney Frank
b. Gloria Steinem
c. Michael Moore Answer: C. Michael Moore. According to IRS records, Moore owns at least several hundred thousands of dollars in stock and has a broker, even though he has repeatedly claimed he doesn’t “own a single share of stock.”
Who says that Americans need to consume less to stave off ecological disaster, but spends $22,000 a year to water their lawn?
a. Hillary Clinton
b. Barbra Streisand
c. Rob Reiner Answer: B. Barbra Streisand. The singer, who says that cutting back is the only way to protect the environment, lives alone with her husband on a compound with five homes and a 12,000 square foot air conditioned barn.
Who says the rich need to pay their fair share and favors the estate tax, but hides his own assets in numerous trusts, including one in the faraway Pacific island of Fiji?
a. George Soros
b. John Edwards
c. Ted Kennedy Answer: C. Ted Kennedy. The Kennedys have transferred more than half a billion in money from generation to generation but according to their own records paid only $34,000 in estate taxes. Their largest asset, the Merchandise Mart real estate company, was in a trust domiciled in Fiji.
Who has proclaimed themselves a corporate activist but has made money by investing in companies they were protesting against?
a. REM’s Michael Stipe
b. Ralph Nader
c. Alec Baldwin Answer: B. Ralph Nader. When Nader went after Firestone in the 1970s he made stock investments in Goodyear, their main competitor. When he campaigned for the breakup of Microsoft in 2000, he invested hundreds of thousands in other high-tech companies that stood to benefit.
God, what a revolting passel of leeches. The book, which ought to be a best-seller, can be had here. I got almost all of them right, but still managed to miss one or two. It all only goes to show that it’s simply not possible to exaggerate the staggering plenitude of self-righteous hypocrisy these worthless crumbums are only too happy to inflict on the rest of us. Marie Antoinette, call your office, please.
This content was used with the permission of Cold Fury.
Yesterday, thanks to the fine folks at World Ahead Publishing, I was able to participate in a teleconference with Juanita Broadrick and Kathleen Willey, fresh off of their visit to the Clinton Library.
It was interesting to hear what both of them had to say and it was pretty clear that they both intend to be thorns in Hillary's side as she runs for the White House. At one point, they said they intend to try to have a face to face with Hillary to ask her, publicly, about what her husband did to them. That would be highly entertaining.
Today, I was invited to a blogger teleconference with Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, one of the Senate's biggest deficit hawks. If we had 100 Senators like Tom Coburn, deficits would be a thing of the past.
The Senator talked about getting spending under control, but he made it clear that there just are not enough other Senators, on either side of the aisle, who are serious about cutting the deficit. Basically, I took his message to the blogosphere to be: "Those of us in the Senate who want to cut spending need the blogosphere's help to make it happen." So, if you're a blogger looking to hammer away on government spending, hit it hard! It'll help Senators like Tom Coburn get the job done.
Alan Greenspan
Antonin Scalia
Ariel Sharon
Bill Gates
Dick Cheney
Hamid Karzai
John Howard
Margaret Thatcher
Milton Friedman
Newt Gingrich
Condi Rice
Thomas Sowell
Tommy Franks
Walter Williams
Paul Wolfowitz
Wake Up, America; It's Time to Take Our Ball and Go Home -- Satire By Frank J.
Every so often in our nation's history we adopt a policy of strict isolationism due to our fear and ignorance.
It is once again time for such fear and ignorance.
"If it ain't happening in American borders, we don't care anymore." It's time to admit the obvious: the rest of the world hates us. So, let's hate them back. Really, what's worth all this grief we get from dealing with them? Apparently they all enjoy fascism and murder and what not, so leave them to it. The Middle East was just fine having war with itself before we came along (not to mention the meddlesome joooos). Europe thinks it’s so smart, so let's hand over the keys to the rest of the world to them and declare "If it ain't happening in American borders, we don't care anymore."
Let's pull American troops out of everywhere and station them around our own borders. Let's sever all outside communications, no longer take calls from foreign diplomats, and outlaw international flights. "American" will be the only acknowledged form of human communication, and all other attempts at linguistics will be banned. Maps of the world will only show America with "There be dragons here" the only thing said about whatever is outside our borders. Hawaii will be abandoned as it's just too big an outlier to coincide with our new strict isolationism.
I know; you think you see problems with this. "Don't we need stuff from other countries?" you probably ask. Bah! Sure, it's nice to get cheap plastic trinkets from China, but I bet Mexico can make stuff for us cheap and they're right next door (hell, half its citizens are already in this country and hanging outside Home Depot). As for oil, if we ever need any we can just invade our neighbor Canada. That would be a nice war that families could participate in on the weekend vacations. And, since at any time many Americans are in Canada as tourists, all we have to do is make sure they're armed and then we're occupying the place without a change in status quo. See, all our needs can be met with only dealing with the two countries contiguous to the U.S.A.
But what if terrorists attack again because their god Llama told them too? Then we start nuking places at random (cruise missiles are preferred as we can use those from the comfort of our own home). Our new policy will be that we no longer distinguish between foreigners, so, if we are attacked, it is the fault of all non-Americans. Other countries will soon learn that America is extremely violent when preturbed, and soon they'll be tripping over each other to make sure that no one ever bothers us.
Space exploration can continue, but we must make it clear that we own space. All astronauts should have knives to stab anyone they see in space who isn't an American. All countries will know that, if you go into space, America will cut you.
It's a complex world, and it is time to simplify things. And, if you have a better plan for world peace than not caring about the rest of the world, then I'd like to hear it.
Unless you're foreign; then I'll cut you.
This satire was used with the permission of Frank J., a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "Atlas of Countries That Don't Suck (a.k.a., A Map of the U.S.)" and "The Dummies Guide to Being a Cranky Hermit".
21 Short And Sweet Rebuttals To Pro-Miers Arguments
1) But Harriet Miers is pro-life! That means she'll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The nominee's personal views should have no bearing on how she rules in the court room. But, even if they did, there are many cases the court will decide other than Roe v. Wade and ideologically, Harriet Miers appears to be a pro-life squish. Why should conservatives support a Supreme Court Justice who will vote against Roe, but will vote with the liberal block of the court on many other issues, when there are numerous other judges who will toe an originalist line?
2) Miers is an Evangelical Christian. Wouldn't it be great to have an evangelical Christian on the court? Since Harriet Miers' religious beliefs are not supposed to affect how she rules and since she will undoubtedly testify that her religion won't play a role in her decisions, the fact that she's an evangelical Christian matters little when it comes to her fitness to be on the court.
3) Miers may turn out to be another Scalia. True, but that seems more unlikely by the day. On the other hand, Miers may also turn out to be another Souter. When we have a Republican President who promised to appoint conservative judges and 55 Republican Senators, we deserve better than a coin flip for a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.
4) Because of her experience in the White House, Harriet Miers has experience in war on terror related issues that would be of value on the Supreme Court. Actually, the time Harriet Miers spent as the President's counsel is a huge negative. That's not just because it makes her look like the crony that she is, but because it may lead to her having to recuse herself from key cases. What good is legal experience in the war on terror if it leads to Harriet Miers being unable to vote on those key cases?
5) The President has a right to select whatever nominee he wants for the Supreme Court: Agreed. But, the rest of us have every bit as much of a right to criticize that pick, encourage him to withdraw the nomination, and to demand that Senators vote against the nominee.
6) The President deserves great deference in his selections for the Supreme Court: Agreed. But, I would argue that after promising to appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas on the campaign trail, he exceeded the level of deference he deserves to be given with his selection of an under qualified crony, with no originalist credentials, for the Supreme Court.
7) You should just trust the President! Republican Presidents have said, "Trust me," as they've given us John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. So, "trust me," alone just isn't good enough anymore.
8) What about the endorsements of Miers? People like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Ken Starr support her. Setting aside the fact that the number of prominent conservatives opposed to Miers vastly outnumber those who support her nomination, the pro-Miers side has had more than enough time to lay out their arguments and, quite frankly, the case always seems to come down to some version of, "We trust the President." If that's their position, that's fine, but for those of us who aren't willing to, "trust the President," on this, there is little reason to be comforted by those endorsements.
9) But, President Bush knows her personally. Shouldn't that count for a lot? David Frum knows Harriet Miers personally and he's leading the opposition to her candidacy. Jerry Bartos, a conservative member of the Dallas City Council knew her and rated her effectiveness at "zero." Ned Ryun, a presidential writer who had a run in with her said he, "started laughing," when he heard she might be nominated because he couldn't believe it was true. Bruce Packard, a former partner at Harriet Miers law firm said she was "liberal on issues other than abortion." The President may know and adore Ms. Miers, but since there are so many other people who know her and don't have a high opinion of her, it seems unwise to place much stock in his personal opinion alone.
10) If you voted for George Bush, you shouldn't criticize his choice: We voted for a President, not a king or dictator. If the President can't take criticism, he's in the wrong job.
11) Criticizing the President over this nomination hurts our chances in 2006: To me, this has it exactly backwards. The President chose to select a nominee who he knew would inspire ferocious criticism from the right and he has stuck with her despite the howls of outrage from people who are normally his strongest supporters. Therefore, it seems to me that the President, not the people criticizing him, are responsible for the political damage that's being done.
12) If Harriet Miers is withdrawn or loses in the Senate, it'll be a big political setback for the President. That's just incorrect. Was having Robert Bork rejected a big setback for Reagan? No. Was withdrawing the nomination of Linda Chavez or Bernard Kerkik a big setback for Bush? No. What would hurt Bush is shoving Harriet Miers through the Senate, over the strident objections of his most ardent supporters. If he wants to start a grudge war with much of the conservative punditry and blogosphere that will probably last for the rest of his presidency, that's the perfect way to do it.
13) Harriet Miers was a last option. All the good candidates dropped out. Don't buy that for a second. Scott McClellan has said that: "The list of possible nominees was ``well into the double digits'' when ``a couple of individuals'' asked that their names be dropped." Losing a couple of candidates out of let's say 15 is just no big deal, especially when Harriet Miers was probably less qualified for the job than every other candidate that was being considered.
14) Harriet Miers was probably the best Bush could get. No other nominee could have gotten through the Senate. Hogwash! There are 55 Republican Senators, probably 51 or 52 votes for the nuclear option if need be, and John Roberts made it through the Senate with 78 votes. Given how white hot the base is about judges and how much pressure there would have been on Republican Senators to vote for any well liked candidate, it's likely that there are, at a minimum, a dozen more worthy candidates than Miers that Bush could have gotten confirmed by the Senate -- and still could.
15) There have been other nominees confirmed to the court in the past with undistinguished track records. So why should Harriet Miers be any different? There have also been candidates with undistinguished track records who have been rejected by the Senate as well. Arguing that historically, there have been a handful of candidates that are as bad as Harriet Miers, doesn't speak well for her qualifications for the job.
16) How Can Republican Senators who voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer turn around and vote against Miers? Setting aside the fact that neither Ginsburg nor Breyer lacked qualifications for the job or was a crony of President Clinton, Republicans have a right to demand the same thing of President Bush that Democrats did of President Clinton: Supreme Court Justices who represent their philosophy and further their interests. This is doubly true in the case of George Bush, who made a campaign pledge to appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas.
17) We should wait for the hearings before making a decision. The chief complaints against Harriet Miers from the right have been that she is under qualified for the job, a crony of the President, is insufficiently conservative, and has no track record as an originalist. Which of these issues can she possibly address in the hearings? Why should people take her word for it if she says she believes in strict constructionism or if she talks about how conservative she is despite the fact that there is no evidence to back it up? There is just no reason for conservatives to wait until the hearings to make a decision.
18) Are you implying that people who support Miers are unprincipled or not "real conservatives"? Not in the least. Supporting Harriet Miers is not "unconservative," "dishonorable," or "unprincipled," although I do believe it is a serious mistake.
19) The criticism of Harriet Miers is sexist! There were numerous female candidates Bush could have selected who would have inspired celebration on the right -- like Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Karen Williams, and Edith Hollan Jones among others. As a matter of fact, Janice Rogers Brown would have probably been the most popular selection Bush could have made on the right. Therefore, charges of sexism simply have no basis in fact.
20) The criticism of Harriet Miers is based on snobby elitism: Harriet Miers may have accomplished a lot in her life, but compared to the other candidates for the job, she has had an undistinguished career. Quite frankly, Ms. Miers' credentials are a joke compared to people like Michael Luttig, Edith Hollan Jones, and Miguel Estrada. Pointing out that Ms. Miers was not a merit based pick for the Supreme Court does not constitute elitism.
21) Even if Miers isn't a great candidate, is she really worth this sort of fight? Absolutely! We're talking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court here and the Justice who fills that slot will be making far reaching decisions that will impact our lives in a myriad of ways. If this isn't worth a fight, then what is?
Bush Lied About WMDS, But Kerry Just Made A Mistake...
This is just beautiful.
On "Hannity and Colmes," Sean Hannity was debating Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and made reference to some quotes, probably these quotes:
"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- John Kerry, USA Today on 2/13/03
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
You'll notice that both of those quotes are by John Kerry. Well, Hannity used a little sleight of hand to show how hypocritical and dishonest Maurice Hinchey and the Democrats in general have been over WMDS in Iraq.
"HANNITY: I'm listening to what you're saying. So you're saying when the President told the nation that Saddam's nuclear threats are a real grave danger to America and Saddam's WMDs are a threat to America, you're saying that George W. Bush purposely lied to America? Is that what you're saying?
HINCHEY: I'm saying whoever wrote that speech gave false information to the Congress. Whether or not the President knew it when he gave the speech, I'm not sure. Whoever wrote that speech certainly did.
HANNITY: The only problem is Congressman, the words I just said to you were John Kerry's words. John Kerry said that to America. You voted for John Kerry. Now I'll ask you, did John Kerry give false information to America?
HINCHEY: John Kerry, I think, made a mistake and voted for the resolution —
HANNITY: Oh, he made a mistake and Bush is a liar."
Exactly. The prominent Democrats who had access to intelligence briefings and came to exactly the same conclusions as Bush did were legion. But they "made a mistake" while "Bush is a liar."
The partisan and deceitful people, like Maurice Hinchey, who are still calling Bush a liar over WMDs ought to be ashamed of themselves....
"The Ku Klux Klan plans to rally in Austin to support the gay marriage amendment set for the Nov. 8 ballot.
The rally planned on the steps of city hall the Saturday before the election will urge voters to favor proposition 2.
However, some who support proposition 2 don't welcome the KKK's assistance."
"Some...don't welcome the KKK's assistance?" Is there anybody who wants these idiots on their side, for any reason, on any issue?
Hey, here's a suggestion for the Klan: you really want to help out? Come out in favor of gay marriage. Talk about what a great benefit it would be to our society, say you love Andrew Sullivan's website, and generally make fools of yourselves -- like you always do. Then, as more people are quite naturally repulsed by the sort of drooling idiots who are in the KKK, it'll help build support for a gay marriage Amendment. It's a brilliant strategy!
On the other hand, the members of the KKK could just take the sheets off, stop being racist scumbags, and join the rest of society. That wouldn't be so bad either.
Perhaps because they were so intent on sticking it to their hated nemesis, Chimpy Mcbushhitler, CNN buried the lede in an article on some very depressing poll numbers for Republicans. Here's how they began the piece:
"A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.
In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.
Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election."
Well, that might be relevant if this were an election year or George Bush were running for office again, but since he's not, who cares?
On the other hand, these are some numbers that should be a wake-up call to Republicans:
"On separate issues, a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better.
The only issue on which Republicans came out on top was in fighting terrorism: 49 percent said the GOP is better at it, while 38 percent said the Democrats are.
And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq.
This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month."
The adoption of the Iraqi Constitution apparently turned a few people around on Iraq and the GOP is still getting good marks for fighting terrorism, but we're getting buried in every other area. Any way you spin it, that's still bad news.
Health Care and Social Security are areas that Democrats usually hold a significant advantage, so while those numbers aren't good, they're less scary than they would be otherwise. But when the public believes the Democrats would do a better job at handling Iraq and would prefer for them to handle gas prices by 20% and the economy by 12%, that's troubling.
The good news is: this isn't an election year. We've got a full year to turn these numbers around -- and I have confidence we can do so, especially in Iraq where the trial of Saddam, another successful election, and troops coming home should help prove the worth of Bush's policy over the next few months.
But, Republicans also need to acknowledge that we're in a hole with the public and the first thing to do when you're in a hole, is stop digging. Bush needs to pull the Miers nomination, stop pushing his unpopular guest worker program, get serious about securing the borders, cut spending, start talking up the strength of the economy, and make more of an effort to publicize the things he has done (and wants to do) to cut gas prices.
Again, a turnaround for the GOP by 2006 is very possible, especially since the Democrats haven't exactly been covering themselves with glory over the last year, but it's time for Republicans in Washington to understand that things aren't going so well politically. Some Republicans in the House seem to be starting to get the message, at least when it comes to spending, but the White House and most of the Republicans in the Senate seem to be oblivious. That needs to change...and soon.
Bush: Miers Views Not Clouded by Legal Scholarship -- Satire by Scott Ott
As part of a third White House strategy to prop up the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, President George Bush announced today that Miss Miers is not "intellectually burdened" with detailed knowledge of the opinions of legal scholars regarding the Constitution.
"Justice Harriet Miers will read the Constitution like I would," said the president. "I want someone who has a fresh perspective on the actual words of the document, rather than on what Chief Justice Earl Warren Burger wrote in 1812."
Meanwhile, White House sources said, Miss Miers "pulled an all-nighter" preparing responses to a follow-up questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee due today.
The nominee reportedly consulted several familiar legal reference works, including Cliffs Notes, U.S. Constitution for Dummies and the Schoolhouse Rock video on American history.
"I think the Judiciary Committee will find that Miss Miers is quite familiar with the Constitution," Mr. Bush said. "During the vetting process, she actually sang the Preamble, which really impressed us. Even Chief Justice John Roberts didn't do that."
This content was used with the permission of Scrappleface.
Spike Lee Thinks The Government Deliberately Flooded Part Of New Orleans
Spike Lee has apparently decided to hitch a ride on the same crazy train Louis Farrakhan has been riding over the levees in New Orleans:
"Declaring “it's not far-fetched,” movie director Spike Lee affirmed on Friday night’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, that he believes Louis Farakhan’s allegation that a levee was destroyed in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in order to flood the nearly all-black ninth ward. Lee contended that “a choice had to be made, one neighborhood got to save another neighborhood and flood another 'hood, flood another neighborhood.” ABC News reporter Michel Martin chimed in with how “anybody with any knowledge of history can understand why a lot of people can feel this way, that that's a reasonable theory.” But she went on to dismiss the theory, prompting Lee to demand: "Presidents have been assassinated. So why is that so far-fetched?" To hearty applause from the Los Angeles audience, Lee asked: "Do you think that election in 2000 was fair? You don't think that was rigged?" Lee argued: “If they can rig an election, they can do anything!"
You know what kills me about this? It's not that Spike Lee buys into this conspiracy theory, because let's face it, Spike Lee is a complete chucklehead. What kills me is that you have a reporter from ABC, who knows better, saying that Lee is espousing a "reasonable theory."
That's just it, it's not a "reasonable theory," it's a wacky conspiracy theory and educated people should be laughing at dopes like Louis Farrakhan and Spike Lee for believing in it. Instead, we have a moron like Spike Lee claiming that the government deliberately drowned black people in New Orleans, based on the word of a crackpot who has visions about space ships, and he's being taken seriously.
That's one of the worst things about modern politics. Because of political correctness, politeness, and fear of offending political allies, people are far too accepting of ridiculous conspiracy theories. The country deserves better than that...
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Decide Who Should Rule The World
The BBC polled more than 15,000 people worldwide on whom they would want to lead a fantasy world government. The results were, particularly for conservatives, quite disturbing with people like Bill Clinton, Noam Chomsky, Kofi Annan, and George Soros making it into the top 11.
So, in order to get a different perspective, Right Wing News decided to poll more than 200 right-of-center bloggers on whom they'd want to be part of a team to "Rule The World."
There was one caveat however. Since many conservative bloggers, myself included, vehemently object to the idea of one world government, all bloggers were told they were choosing a team to run every country in the world except their own home country.
Representatives from the following 38 blogs responded...
All bloggers could make anywhere from 1-15 unranked selections and were allowed to select any living person, from anywhere in the world, for their lists.
Without further ado, here are the people right-of-center bloggers would choose to rule the world:
15) Paul Wolfowitz: Former US Deputy Secretary of Defense. World Bank President (4)
15) Arnold Schwarzenegger: Governor of California (4)
15) Rush Limbaugh: Talk radio host (4)
15) Junichiro Koizumi: Prime Minister of Japan (4)
15) Christopher Hitchens: Pundit (4)
15) Bill Gates: Founder of Microsoft (4)
15) Tommy Franks: Former US General (4)
15) Dick Cheney: US Vice President (4)
15) George W. Bush: US President (4)
15) Tony Blair: British Prime Minister (4)
12) Donald Rumsfeld: US Secretary of Defense (5)
12) Václav Havel: Former President of Czechoslovakia (5)
12) Pope Benedict XVI: Pope (5)
10) Mark Steyn: Pundit (6)
10) Victor Davis Hanson: Pundit (6)
7) Thomas Sowell: Pundit (7)
7) Antonin Scalia: US Supreme Court Justice (7)
7) Ann Coulter: Pundit (7)
4) Natan Sharansky: Soviet dissident, former Israeli cabinet member (8)
4) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor of New York City (8)
4) Milton Friedman: Economist (8)
2) Margaret Thatcher: Former British Prime Minister (10)
2) John Howard: Australian Prime Minister (10)
1) Condoleeza Rice: US Secretary of State (14)
Fee - Fi - Fo - Fum - I Smell The Blood Of A Nomination!
Of course, it goes without saying that there's no way to definitively know whether the nomination of Harriet Miers is going to be withdrawn. However, there are now some signs that the Harriet Miers debacle may be drawing to a close.
First off, there was a story in the Washington Times this week-end that suggested the White House was preparing an exit strategy:
The White House has begun making contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as President Bush's choice to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, conservative sources said yesterday.
"White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?' " a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times yesterday.
The White House denied making such calls.
"Absolutely not true," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said.
But a conservative political consultant with ties to the White House said that he had received such a query from Sara Taylor, director of the Office of White House Political Affairs.
Miss Taylor denied making any such calls.
A second Republican, who is the leader of a conservative interest group and has ties to the White House, confirmed that the White House is making calls to a select group of conservative activists who are not employed by the government.
The White House is denying the story, but the Washington Times is a conservative newspaper with solid sources on the right and if they say they have two people saying the White House is asking about a withdrawal strategy, it's probably true.
Then there was this story from RedState, a blog that has multiple sources that have been closely involved with the selection of Supreme Court nominees:
"RedState is able to report this morning that, very quietly, certain third parties have begun going back through the list of potential judicial nominees at the behest of the White House. Sources tell RedState that while the White House intends to make a public display of moving the Miers nomination forward, the reality of the situation has been conveyed to the President -- namely that it is increasingly likely that Harriet Miers will meet a bipartisan effort to block her nomination.
As a result of growing chatter about the nomination, the White House is, as the Washington Times reported, trying to develop an exit strategy. At the same time, the White House does not want to withdraw the nomination without having a replacement close by."
This rings true, for two reasons: first of all there was this Q&A with the President yesterday:
"Q Mr. President, as a newspaper reported on Saturday, is the White House working on a contingency plan for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination?
THE PRESIDENT: Harriet Miers is — is an extraordinary woman. She was a legal pioneer in Texas. She was ranked one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States on a consistent basis. She is — look, I understand that people want to know more about her, and that's the way the process should work.
Recently, requests, however, have been made by Democrats and Republicans about paperwork and — out of this White House that would make it impossible for me and other Presidents to be able to make sound decisions. They may ask for paperwork about the decision-making process, what her recommendations were, and that would breach very important confidentiality. And it's a red line I'm not willing to cross. People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings, but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, here's my advice to you, here's what I think is important. And that's not only important for this President, it's important for future Presidents.
Harriet Miers is a fine person, and I expect her to have a good, fair hearing on Capitol Hill."
Notice that Bush didn't deny that she'd be withdrawn, he didn't testily say she'd be confirmed again, he just gave a non-answer and said he expected her "to have a good, fair hearing on Capitol Hill."
The other significant thing is the dog that didn't bark yesterday.
Last week, the White House rolled out a group of Texas judges to talk up Harriet Miers qualifications. Granted, they didn't get anywhere, but at least they tried.
This week? There was no big roll-out, the RNC didn't even bother to send out a Pro-Miers press release yesterday, and as far as I can tell, there was no serious attempt to rebut the damaging charges that came out over the week-end (that Miers supports gender and racial set asides and was involved in a questionable land payout). Given that the Miers nomination is still being ferociously hammered, you'd expect the White House to still be trying something, anything right now -- unless -- they're planning to give up the fight.
Now, don't take this to the bank yet, it's not over until it's over. Heck, I think it's about to be over and I already have a big anti-Miers piece written for tomorrow. But, if we're lucky, we may be seeing the beginning of the end for the Miers nomination. Cross your fingers...
Excerpt Of The Day: How To Get Government Spending Under Control Long-Term
"But the better solution to the huge increase in federal spending would be a constitutional amendment to hold the growth of federal spending to specific percentages of revenue unless there is a supermajority override by both houses of Congress. It is not a new idea--Delaware, for example, passed a constitutional amendment in 1980, when I was governor, to limit state government spending to 98% of revenue unless there is a three-fifths vote of each legislative house to spend more. The extra 2% goes into a Rainy Day Fund--the kind of fund that could be used for relief in Katrina-type national catastrophes. The amendment has produced 25 consecutive years of balanced Delaware budgets, a fiscal discipline that the federal government needs even more that state governments do.
Another approach is the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, or Tabor, which Colorado put into place via a constitutional amendment in 1992. It limits annual state government spending to inflation plus population growth, with any extra revenue going back to the taxpayers. From 1995 to 2000 Colorado ranked first in the nation in GDP growth and second in personal income growth. Its success has generated a furious effort to allow more spending that will be on the 2006 ballot.
Amending the Constitution is not easy, but is the best solution to the long term spending challenges that have faced every modern president since the Great Depression of the 1930s. And offering it up in our troubled big spending times would energize a policy debate that America needs to have." -- Pete Du Pont
We Have to Defeat This Happy, Amiable Man! By Frank J.
I just got a fundraising e-mail from the Democrats trying to use Tom DeLay's mug shot against him. So, they have this whole letter bad-mouthing him, and there he is, smiling and looking like the nicest guy in the world.
Picture from fundraising e-mail.
I never had much of an opinion of Tom Delay before, but right now I think he's the coolest politician ever from how he threw this indictment right back in the Democrats' faces. Only way this could have been better if the Democrats got him to do the perp walk like they wanted, but he did it while strutting to the tune "Staying Alive."
Just when you think the situation in Britain can't get any more ridiculous, you read something like this:
British banks are banning piggy banks because they may offend some Muslims.
Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here.
Muslims do not eat pork, as Islamic culture deems the pig to be an impure animal.
Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, backed the bank move.
"This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers," he said.
A Muslim Labour MP, Khalid Mahmoud, is quoted as saying, "the traditions and symbols of one community should not be obliterated just to accommodate another...I doubt many Muslims would be seriously offended by piggy banks." Indeed, I have no doubt that this nonsense has come about not in response to some groundswell of outrage from British Muslims, but because of demands from that country's increasingly vocal, perenially outraged Islamic radicals - and some "sensitive" Britons' willingness to give in to their every demand, no matter how ridiculous.
Enjoy your sausages and bacon, my English friends, because they won't be around much longer.
This content was used with the permission of Daimnation!
Now you may be wondering: "Why in the world would they send this book to a right-winger?" Well, in the initial email they sent, they said they'd "love to have some people who do not agree with Mr. Chomsky's ideas commenting on the book." With that in mind, I just finished up Imperial Ambitions, the second book by Chomksy that I've read by the way, and my first comment is that Noam Chomsky is a shallow, dishonest, unimpressive, overrated basket case who makes a living by duping gullible college students and soft headed intellectuals into believing that his quasi-delusional analysis of world events has some bearing on reality.
Unfortunately, Chomsky is as influential as he is wrong and, therefore, it's not enough to simply write him off as a political quack. So, let me explain the problem with this book and with Chomsky.
First of all, in order to know what's wrong with Chomsky's thinking, you need to understand what's wrong with his world view or as I like to think of it, the mythology of Chomsky. Here's the best way to get a grip on the Chomskyesque perspective...
Imagine a fairy tale world full of Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Gnomes and other mythical creatures. It's not a perfect world, nor is everyone pure and good, but as a general rule, the Gnomes get along with the Elves and the Hobbits like the Dwarves and all is well...or more accurately, all would be well if not for the kingdom of Amerikkka, which is the primary source of misery, pain, and horror in
Chomskyland.
Unfortunately, the kingdom of Amerikkka is ruled by members of two evil, competing clans: The Repligoblins and the Demiorcs. While the Demiorcs may be slightly less evil than the Repligoblins, they are evil all the same -- and when I say evil, I mean evil! The rulers of Amerikkka eat evil, they sleep evil, and when they go to the bathroom, they even crap evil. Everything they do is evil and if it's not evil, they're just not interested in participating.
Sadly, these evil leaders and their minions have, through brainwashing and propaganda, buffaloed the common folk in Amerikkka into believing that they're actually good! This is how the Demiorcs & Repligoblins keep power and can do their evil works.
Oh, and they're ALWAYS evil works. For example, the silly people of Amerikkka think that when their armies were sent to stop the lizard people of Kraugh from eating everyone in a nearby pixie village, it was out of compassion. But actually, the motive was to steal all the pixie magic. See? Even when Amerikkka does something that appears to be good, it's actually bad!
But, what about when the armies of Amerikkka stopped rampaging trolls from crossing the border and sacking the countryside? Bah! Obviously that was evil! Why, those trolls never meant any harm and even if they did, who could blame them for attacking an evil kingdom like Amerikkka?
That is what "Chomskyland" is like and if you understand it, you understand the way that Noam Chomsky looks at the world.
If America does something that on its face appears to be selfless or good, Chomsky looks for the deeper, darker motive. If America is in conflict with another country, then the other country is, by definition, a hapless, blameless innocent simply reacting to the machinations of the evil American giant.
That's the framework Chomsky operates under and it explains why he argues that the attempt to build nuclear missiles in Cuba was a defensive, not a provocative measure (P.5). It's why he can claim, presumably with a straight face, that the United States is deliberately "blocking a solution" to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians (P.11). It's why Chomsky can suggest that Bush hates Democracy (P.15), that bombing Serbia was about showing everyone, "who's the boss" (p.54), and that the Marshall Plan was really all about making Europe "more dependent on the United States" (P.57). In Chomsky's view, America is always evil and its motive are always bad.
So, if Chomsky is basically selling nothing but "America is evil," how is he able to convince people to buy? In other words, why do people find him to be credible?
The chief way Chomsky is able to convince his marks that he knows what he's talking about is by focusing on America's past. His readers think, "Look how much Chomsky knows about American history and how many examples of American perfidy he can cite. He knows so much, and has so much evidence, that he just must be right!"
What these people don't know is that Chomsky is presenting a funhouse mirror version of history that is warped and stripped of most of the relevant details. Just to give you one very typical example, Chomsky claimed that Iraq was no threat to America before the Iraqi war and as evidence, he said:
"Kuwait and Iran, which were both invaded by Iraq, (didn't) regard Iraq as a threat to their security."
Could that be because the United States had military bases in Kuwait and was enforcing "no-fly zones" in Iraq that made an attack on Iran or Kuwait impossible? Why would they regard Iraq as a threat as long as the US was there?
Chomsky does the same thing time and time again with events related to the Cold War, which surprisingly, he talks about quite a lot in the book. You'd think that a book about the "post 9/11 world" would for the most part be on, well, the "post 9/11 world." Instead, Chomsky spends more time than you would expect discussing Cold War battlefields like Vietnam, Grenada, Cuba, and Nicaragua, among others.
But here's the rub: despite the fact that US foreign policy in these countries cannot be effectively explained or understood without mentioning the role the Soviet Union played, Chomsky either ignores the Soviets or acts as if they were almost irrelevant to what was happening. That's like having a discussion about WW2 without going into detail about what the Nazis were doing.
Of course, that's exactly the point. You can make history appear to show anything you wish if you strip away the context and any inconvenient facts. Chomsky does this routinely and as a result, he presents a bizarro world version of history to his readers that is patently misleading.
But even if they're not familiar with history, you'd think that the Chomsky-bots out there might start to figure out that there's something a little off about their hero after reading quotes like these with no-follow up or explanation:
"The universities are pretty right wing..." -- P.180
Compared to what? The old Soviet Union?
"Actually I hate to use the word religious. Part of the reason is that you could make the argument that organized religion is sacrilegious. It is
