Monday, January 30, 2006

HA! A LIBERAL . . .

Who gets it. At least this guy admits that Bush bashing is a vapid endeavor:

The organizers of "Laughing Liberally," a one-off evening of stand-up
comedyat the 1,500-seat Town Hall on February 4, say their show has broader
ambitions. "It's not going to be an evening of Bush-bashing because that's
very easy to do. Hopefully there will be some actual ideas in it," said Jim
David, one of the more established comics on the bill with 19 years in the
business.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

THE DEATH OF CIVILIZATION

There are many ways it can happen.

But if society is too screwed up to know the difference between reality and fantasy and treats them the same, events do not bode well for long-term survival:

Countries in Asia are considering new sets of laws governing in-game crime. This has been highlighted recently by the murder of a Chinese man who didn't pay up for the purchase of a super sword for the game Legends Of Mir 3, by the seller. Whilst places like South Korea which has a section of its police force that investigates in-game crime, the BBC reports that, "The row is thought to have blown up partly because China has no laws that cover the theft of virtual in-game items."

Many of the magic weapons, armor, artifacts and money from online games, such as EverQuest and Ultima Online, change hands for large sums of money. At any one time millions of dollars in game items are being traded on places like eBay or specialized sites. The China Daily said that increasing numbers of players were going to court to resolve disputes over stolen money and game items.

Or maybe there's something even more sinister taking advantage of things. SOMETHING has to be the opiate of the masses, right?

Saturday, January 28, 2006

MAY THEIR SPIRITS SOAR . . .

. . . in the heavens to which they aspired.

Below is the text of President Reagan's eulogy of the Challenger:

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd planned to speak to you tonight to report on the state of the Union, but the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans. Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this pain with all of the people of our country. This is truly a national loss.

Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But we've never lost an astronaut in flight; we've never had a tragedy like this. And perhaps we've forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. We mourn their loss as a nation together.

For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we're thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, "Give me a challenge, and I'll meet it with joy." They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us. We've grown used to wonders in this century. It's hard to dazzle us. But for 25 years the United States space program has been doing just that. We've grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We're still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.

And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.

I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute. We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue. I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA or who worked on this mission and tell them: "Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it."

There's a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and an historian later said, "He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it." Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake's, complete.

The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and "slipped the surly bonds of earth" to "touch the face of God."

Audio here.

Friday, January 27, 2006

U.S. INVADES IRAN

Just a little headline writing practice. You can leave the wi-fi equipped bunker now.

RE: BLEAH

On the note of my previous post, let's think about it folks.

NYS has some extremely wealthy denziens. I know what law firms there pay.

Their taxes are extremely high.

They have a huge welfare state.

YET, they have the greatest disparity between rich and poor.

Doesn't this say something pretty significant about the ability of government to actually bring people out of poverty? For that matter, shouldn't fostering self-sufficiency among the impoverished be the purpose of any welfare state related program?

We redesigned the federal system so that it would be a "welfare to work" system, did we not?

BLEAH

Because we live to support the income redistributing welfare state:

Matthew Maguire, a spokesman for the Business Council of New York state,
said the money earned by the state's wealthiest residents is "something that
everybody who cares about New York should be pleased about."
"New York's
wealthy pay huge sums in taxes and those wealthy people and their taxes make
it
possible for New York to provide the nation's most generous social
service
programs to less fortunate New Yorkers," he said.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

COOL V. NOT COOL

This is the number one story of our current times.

This story is getting lower and lower on the coolness scale. Nukes in our hands and in those of another superpower? Cool. Nukes in our hands only? Way cool. No nukes at all? Cool enough. Nukes in the hands of Israel and Iran? Very uncool.

MORE RIOTING IN CHICAGO

Welcoming you back to our beloved site with regards from here in the Windy City.

Tell me if all of this sounds familiar. We've got a Mayor Daley. We have a war that many believe never seems to want to end. Why not spice things up with a little sentimental convention-style rioting, just like 1968? Should the Democrats have their policial convention in 2008 in Chicago, it could be accompanied by a nice war protest.

Think about it. You've got the Humphrey-like insider who's the anointed Dem favorite for the nomination and viewed by the radicals in the party as a war supporter: Hillary. You've got complete nutcase peacenicks on the left, gearing up to oppose anyone, even a politician carrying the Democrats' banner, who even hints at supporting the war. To know what radical leftists do when they feel powerless, just watch the footage from any WTO meeting. Mix all of this together and you get riots.

Disbelieve? Read this from the New York Sun, quoting Molly Ivins:

The lack of any ideological agreement among Mrs. Clinton's Democratic
skeptics is a boon to her because it prevents support from coalescing around an
alternative. However, the senator's most vocal opposition at the moment is coming from the anti-war left. For instance, a left-leaning syndicated columnist, Molly Ivins, declared in a recent column that she could not support Mrs. Clinton in 2008. "Enough triangulation, calculation, and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election," Ms. Ivins
wrote.

Who needs a cow and a lantern?

WE WOULD NEVER EAT HERE

Nice to see the French saving the homeless from those evil right wing groups that are - how dare they! - serving food to the homeless. Imagine that. Who do these right wingers think they are anyway? They need to start shaving their heads and burning immigrants' homes and start acting like rightists again.

PLEASE, JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT!!

I absolutely want her to run and get the nomination. Despite all of her posturing with respect to Iraq, Iran and immigration and despite all of her support from wealthy leftists, she's got no chance, nada, zip, of winning the presidency. If anything, the rampant hatred for her husband, who would be a de facto co-president would be enough to keep her out. The GOP base would be lining up to vote in September of oh eight.

I'm more concerned about a more wishy washy Democrat running than I am someone with Hillary's - the Big She - alleged gravitas. The Bush presidency, that's GWB, has been a volatile, polarizing and tumultuous crusade. It reminds me in that regard, now that I think about it, of a certain 8-year presidency in the 1980s. What did that get us? "Kinder, gentler." I predict by 2008 America will want another softie to take office, as history confirms. Truman got us Ike. Nixon ran on promising "peace" and the planted "bring us together" sign. Watergate: Carter. Tumultuous presidencies are usually followed by peaceful ones - us soft Americans demand it (I say that collectively).

So, I'd rather have a Brillo pad like Hillary running for the Dems instead of Edwards, Kerry or Bayh, because I can almost guarantee that the Republicans are otherwise going to nominate a softie in 2008. By this, of course, I mean that the only chance the GOP will hoist a candidate with the kind of true balls that the real right wingers like me would prefer, such as Jeb or maybe George Allen, is if Hillary's in the field and predicted to get the nomination. Otherwise we'll get some sap like Romney. Bleah.

And of course, if you haven't been paying attention for the last 70 or so years folks, this fight is all about the Court. If it weren't for the Right losing its grip on the Supremes, there'd be no New Deal, Great Society, weak death penalty, defunct Bowers v. Hardwick, campaign finance reform, and of course, no Roe - just name your liberal mainstay and it wouldn't exist but for judicial fiat.

So, run Hillary. And please bring Bill with you on every campaign stop. We on the Right need you now more than ever.

Monday, January 23, 2006

IRAN UPDATE

These folks continue to scare. We had better have some good - and I mean damn good - Arabic speaking spies infiltrating the military leadership - excuse me "energy" leadership - in Iran to find out the locations of every uranium enrichment site. Unless the current regime falls down, I don't see this conflict ending without some explosions happening. Krauthammer says Iran could be ready to start nuking its enemies in a matter of months and I certainly hope that the production and enrichment program is offed before then.

RE: WHY . . . ?

It blows my mind as well, like a Tomahawk landing in the Afghan desert. The other side has lost all sense of perspective - they're cracking up because they no longer have control and it's amazing. They almost don't know what to do with themselves.

I truly believe that many liberals want us to suffer huge casualties in Iraq and the GWOT. I think they have a sense of glee every time we suffer a defeat. I admit I was bitter about Kosovo because I didn't think we belonged there, and my isolationist tendencies kicked in during Iraq I in 1990. But I could never imagine myself rooting for the U.S. to lose. These people on the other side are keeping tallies on their basement walls of the mounting deaths, and practically dancing every time a Blackhawk goes down so they can feel smugly satisfied that they are on the "right side of history."

Well, screw that. Let the crack up continue, and let the glorious internet expose these unpatriotic frauds for what they really are.

Friday, January 20, 2006

WHY DOES THIS ACTUALLY BLOW MY MIND?

Check this post on Daily Kos.

This guy sympathizes with bin Laden; he says so himself. He says he'd support a "truce" which advances al Qaeda's interests, especially if it includes impeaching Bush.

And look at the poll -- respondents actually say they despise George Bush more than bin Laden.

Any rational American who actually believes in America should be appalled and sickened.

Folks, there's an illness in this country. And that's no hyperbole.

EDIT: They took the page down. Could it be that Kos actually thought it was too toxic even for his site? No doubt he got a lot of heat.

AND SPEAKING OF . . .

"Air America" host Mike Malloy, in response to an invitation from the Conservative Political Action Conference, one where he was invited to broadcast from CPAC's floor and presumably say anything he wanted to:

"Um . . . you're kidding, right? Why would I have any desire whatsoever to attend or participate in a convocation of neo-Nazis????? I had two uncles fight against you [expletive] in WW2. And, now, surprise! surprise! here you all are on US soil. Kindly get the [expletive] off my email. Thanks."


The mind SWIMS in the irony abundant in this statement. According the story, Malloy's Air America colleague Al Franken was happy to attend and debate G. Gordon Liddy. You'd think Malloy might relish the same opportunity, to call it as he sees it from the belly of the beast. Apparently not.

Little needs to be said about the nastiness of the reply -- our "Nicer Sort of Person Updates" simply ASSUME that kind of behavior to be rampant on the Left, and it's especially gratifying to see such a noxious example from an Air America host, considering the entire NSOP moniker comes from AA's Janeane Garofalo, who said AA would be different from conservative talk radio because with "liberals, you have a nicer sort of person."

Then, of course, the reflexive use of the term "Nazi" to describe anyone on the Right is institutional among the Left's "intelligentsia," a particularly juicy irony considering their propensity to compare anything a Republican administration does to McCarthyism, what they think of as Republicans accusing anyone THEY didn't like of being Communists.

We could write lengthy columns on the psycopathy of the Leftist elite. And heck, maybe we should.

Incidentally, the leader of the CPAC "Nazis" is Jewish. I'm sure he appreciates the affectation.

RE: NICER UPDATE

Gee, I wonder. And they were shocked? Haven't the folks at the WP ever read the Democratic Underground?

Thursday, January 19, 2006

NICER SORT OF PERSON UPDATE

I'll bet you a month's rent that the "nasty" comments being made were not being made by "Rethuglicans."

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

RE: IRAN

Well, Dave, my day has gotten that much fractionally worse. My lunchtime Starbucks will be that much more bitter. Better ask for the extra splenda - still trying to work off a massive holiday weight gain which has me looking like a "before" photo.

In all seriousness, the Iranian situtation is extremely disturbing. (FYI, Jack Straw: great name). It seems as if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has figured out what AQ already knows: the West is weakened due to anti-war and especially anti-Bush sentiment to which those in the West with resolve give wayyyyyyyy too much regard. For that matter, the Iranians are going to exploit the rift in the west until Bush and those willing to do something about Iran really stand up to the regime - and you know what that's going to look like.

And can anyone blame the Iranians? I mean, of course, in the sense that if you are a bad guy, and the only good guy who can stop you is fighting with himself about whether he was too bad in his efforts to do good? The insanity of Ahmadinejad aside, as Iran sees it, the nation has a chance to become the capital of Islam and a legitimate world threat. All it needs is perhaps a few more years or less before it walks through that door to the might of nuclear capability.

Kurtz' s great blog at NRO last week pointed out that it's up to the Democrats - probably guys like Biden, Clinton and Leahy - to start talking like we are going to do something (and by that I don't mean give the Heisman to any Iranian oil tankers that show up at the Port of Houston) in order to get Tehran to even so much as think twice. Since that's unlikely given that, as we've seen with Hillary, even the most beloved leaders on the Left are beholden to the Move On Money-go-round, nothing short of war seems likely to end this scenario.

Most Democrats would rather Iran get the bomb and have us enter a detente than stomach a preemptive offensive. But, as you pointed out, Dave, war is the answer if the question involves living comfortably with this:

Since coming to power, Mr. Ahmadinejad has organised an international
conference designed to prove that the Holocaust never happened and has declared
it the aim of Iranian policy to "wipe Israel off the map". Now he is fulfilling
his country's long-planned strategy of making the means to do just that: he has
broken the seals. Iran can have its own Bomb in four years or so.

No amount of sugar, fake or otherwise, would sweeten that scenario.

I'd be giving up coffee.

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING UPDATE

Gotta love a little alternative sentencing idea. Let's hope this clown doesn't bring any kerosene and matches and some wooden planks with him.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

RE: IRAN

This little tidbit here isn't likely to make you any more comfortable, Mark.

Moore raises MANY good points about the failure of European diplomacy as regards religious fanatics, et al..

But on the tip of his pen is another point he doesn't QUITE make, but implies:

It's often a criticism of Bush that Iraq "distracted" from the GWOT.

But aren't the media "guilty" of the same thing by criticizing Iraq to the extent of ignoring everything else? Important things? VEERRRRY important things?

In all, I think this is the scariest thing we've seen so far, perhaps in our lifetimes. I have no doubt the Israelis sense their very existence is on the line and they are making plans.

Friday, January 13, 2006

WAR

I had said a few days ago that whatever bad consequences come from striking Iran are going to better than the consequences of a nuclear Iran.

When they have a president who denies the Holocaust, talks about wiping Israel off the map, and says that the Iranians must prepare themselves to rule the world, who in their right man thinks they should have nukes?

IRANIAN UPDATE

This is becoming an enormous problem. Where this is headed is starting to scare me and quickly.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

RE: POSIT

I would find that flat out concluding that one with a history of vitrue-infracting cannot, in the future, act virtuously is an error in logic, yes. It might be a worthy assumption, but it is not a corollary.

RE: ALITO

Dave. I'm back from my hiatus. I'd like to report that liberal ecoterrorists kidnapped me locked me up in a basement after literally ripping the pump out of my hand at the local Exxon (who knew that one of those gas station "fresh" subs could keep one sustained for two weeks?). Only, none of it is true. I've just been in a funk but the Alito hearings have awakened me and I'm back to my posting duties. Viva la CB.

I expect that Alito will be confirmed at this point unless something drastic happens, which would be a shame. I'm very curious how the Roberts high court will shape up and just how conservative it will be. I don't really think that we're going to see any real dramatic scaling back or thwarting of the metastasization of liberal constitutional theory until a fifth solid conservative (assuming Roberts and Alito are who they say they are and remain so) is placed on the Court, be it a replacement for Ginsburg, who's had health problems, Stevens, Souter or Breyer.

But anyone on the right would have to admit that having Alito on the bench would be a huge improvement over what was there before. Hopefully, this nation's highest level of jurisprudence will entail fewer balancing tests and more originalism for the foreseeable future.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

GWOT: THE NEXT PHASE?

There's a familiar ring to this statement from Secretary Rice:

Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice

Washington, DC January 11, 2006

The United States has grave and continuing concerns about Syria's destabilizing behavior and sponsorship of terrorism. The Syrian regime is obligated to implement UN Security Council resolutions 1546, 1559, 1595, 1636, and 1644. It has failed to do so.

Syria must cease obstructing the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri and instead cooperate fully and unconditionally, as required by UN Security Council resolutions. We call upon the Syrian regime to respond positively to the requests of UN Independent International Investigation (UNIIIC). We intend to refer this matter back to the Security Council if Syrian obstruction continues.

The United States stands firmly with the people of Lebanon in rejecting any deals or compromises that would undermine the UNIIC investigation, or relieve Syria of its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. We are firmly committed to seeking justice and pursuing the investigation to its utimate conclusion.

The United States also calls for the full implementation of all parts of UN Security Council resolution 1559, including the disarmament and disbanding of Hizballah and other militias. Syria's continuing provision of arms and other support to Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups serves to destabilize Lebanon, makes possible terrorist attacks within Lebanon, from Lebanese territory, and impedes the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.

As Resolution 1559 demands, Syria must once and for all end its interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon. Continuing assassinations in Lebanon of opponents of Syrian domination, including most recently the murder of journalist and Member of Parliament Gebran Tueni on December 12, 2005, create an atmosphere of fear that Syria uses to intimidate Lebanon. Syria must cease this intimidation and immediately come into compliance with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

IT'S JUST AS BAD OVER THERE

I'm not sure if it's comforting or just that much more appalling that the foreign press asks such unbelievably ridiculous and irrelevant questions of its own leaders.

ALITO

He doesn't appear to be a polished man, in terms of presentation or engagement. But he's not unpolished, either; he doesn't stutter, throw in lots of "ums," get lost in his thought, or repeat himself. His answers and statements have been technically excellent, denoting a deep understanding of the law, and from what I've seen, quite correct in terms of both legal and historical accuracy and judicial philosophy. From what I understand, he's a man I'd want on the Court and the kind of jurist and legal theorist I'd hope I could be, if I had gone down that road.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

NICER SORT OF PERSON UPDATE

Posted with no need for comment:

LINK

Sunday, January 08, 2006

POSIT

One does not need to have acted with complete virtue in the past in order to act credibly with virtue at present.

Discuss.

HOW . . .

. . . did this seemingly prevailing conventional wisdom that Hillary is "unstoppable" in 2008 get started?

She'll be a 1.33-term Senator in 2008. And a former First Lady who tried to be a co-President and got shot back down to making cookies every time she tried to set policy. (That's not a slur on a stereotype; it's a literal truth. She bombed miserably on national health care, and next we heard from her, she was sharing cookie recipes.) This is not a resume made in Heaven for the Oval Office.

Where is she all that in tune with the nation on policy, either? Better question yet, in those areas where she might be (at least by position-taking in the Senate), how's she going to get past the MoveOn and DailyKos types who currently rule the Democrats from the radical Left? There's already talk in those circles to head off her candidacy.

My feel of the sitauation, today, January 8, 2006, is that she won't get the nomination.

Friday, January 06, 2006

CLASSIC


While we're on the subject of Chris Muir, he gets props for this.

You have to know quite a bit about Muslim history to get it, but if you do, it's hilarious.