Saturday, November 15, 2003

Excellent point Scott. It reminds me of Bill Clinton and all the praise he received for being the most caring President ever. It didn't matter that he actually did zilch to help people - he SAID he cared and acted outraged and bit his lip. This was his version of pointing at the Prius in the driveway. So basically what I'm saying is that these Hollywood bozos WILL get away with fooling many people into thinking that they're wonderful, amazing eco-pussies. By the way, environmentally friendly or not the Toyota Prius is imminent death on wheels. You will die when you strike a squirrel, but at least you'll feel good about yourself. Guilt is indeed a powerful incentive.
Hollywood celebrities will drive Toyota Priuses precisely long enough to realize that they are environmentally friendly shitboxes, and then they will retreat to their BMW's and Range Rovers precisely as Ms. Anniston did. You have to give them credit for living the life of the common man long enough to show us the way to environmental nirvana, though. Owning a Prius will essentially become a way for celebrities to relieve themselves of the guilt of owning a stable of other 4 wheel indulgences. It doesn't matter if you actually drive the Prius, as long as you can point to it in your driveway when you start getting heat for taking your Hummer out shopping on Rodeo drive. Toyota knew what they were doing when they marketed these cars to the Hollywood elite; guilt is a powerful incentive.

Friday, November 14, 2003

CNN proves once again that any headline becomes more controversial when you add the term SUV to it. I suppose if our forces in Iraq used Humvees in an attack on Iraqi insurgents, the headline would read "Iraqis killed by U.S. SUV's."
Part II from The Man.

Thursday, November 13, 2003

A few days ago a predicted that it was only a matter of time before some leftist clown protested the display of the American flag on Independence Day because someone might interpret it as support for some Republican somewhere. Well, it's not Independence Day, but the leftist clowns haven't let me down.
Thomas Sowell gives the concept of socialized health care a much needed black eye in his latest piece. Despite socialized medicine's abysmal performance history worldwide, it's probably only a matter of time before the Democrats convince a majority of Americans that health care is a right and therefore should be provided by government. The same lemmings that go along with this latest chapter in the age of entitlements will completely fail to grasp that those of them who actually pay taxes will be still paying for their own health care. The only difference will be that now the US government will be calling the shots, which will, as has happened all over the world, lead to a lower standard of care and longer waits for treatment. In the end it will be sold to the voters using class warfare, and the so called rich will be soaked again for a substandard health care system.

We can only hope that the wisdom of people like Thomas Sowell (who by the way, is the man) prevails in that debate.

That guy is a genius; best stuff I've read in a while. I can hear the feminists wail...

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Hurrah! At last someone has what the Democrats have been seeking; what they have been denouncing the President for not having. A plan! Yes, that's right, an actual plan! And it comes from none other than the self proclaimed Lion of Kosovo, Wesley Clark. Wait until bin Laden hears we're about to unleash The Lion! The modern day George McClellan lays it out for us here.

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

This great little auto-counter effortlessly crushes the counter it was set up in answer to. Some fancy coding that.
This one falls into the "get a life" bin. According to some common sense challenged citizens of South Portland, Maine, yellow ribbons tied on telephone poles now represent support for president Bush, and therefore must be stopped. You have to wonder what they're putting in the tofu these days. There should be an organization called "People With Nothing Better To Do Than Bitch" for these clowns. It's only a matter of time before one of these bozos protests displaying the American flag on Independence day because someone may interpret that as support for some Republican somewhere. It's obvious that these people harbor an irrational hatred for the President, but what is more troubling is the seething contempt for our soldiers that lies just beneath the surface.
Here's another blow to the quagmire crowd. Don't expect any of this to emanate from Peter Jennings' pie hole any time soon.
Charles Rangel is a joke, this resolution is a joke, and if the Democratic party puts any weight behind it they will take one step closer to completing their journey into the abyss. While I'm sure this resolution consists of many pages of democratic eloquence, they could save us all some time just my printing Waaaaaaaaaah! on some democratic party letterhead. They're getting their asses handed to them in elections all over the country, their dreams of a continued recession have evaporated before their eyes, so all they have left is to concoct fantasies about the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld bears the brunt of their frustration because he represents everything they hate: he's highly intelligent, confident, and doesn't communicate in the nebulous political speak so coveted by the dems. He's results oriented, and will step on whoever's toes are getting in the way of real progress. It's easy to understand why the party of political correctness and appeasement wants Don Rumsfeld out.

There will be no proof put forth by the democrats in their attempt to hang Rumsfeld, for they abandoned facts a long time ago. They have switched to a strategy of repeating unfounded mantras until they seep into the public consciousness as truth. The problem is, the only people listening any more come from their quickly eroding base.

One thing I do give Rangel credit for is not accusing Rumsfeld (yet) of being racist. Perhaps there's hope for the Al Sharpton of Congress.

Monday, November 10, 2003

Twenty six Democrats from the House of Representatives led by Charles Rangel are co-sponsoring a resolution urging President Bush to fire SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. The resolution says Rumsfeld misled the American public on assessments of progress in the war and occupation, sent U.S. forces to Iraq "without adequate planning and sufficient equipment," and "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity" in statements on the war and U.S. casualties.

This is of course, complete horseshit.

I would be interested to see a breakdown of Mr. Rumsfeld's alleged misleading assessments on the war and occupation. We won't, because it is not true.

As to sending our boys to Iraq "without adequate planning and sufficient equipment" all I can say is WTF? There are about 24.5 million free Iraqis at a cost of about 300 U.S. troops which is nothing short of amazing and, oh yeah, unheard of. Hell, I'd like to see what our troops could do if there had been a plan and they had been adequately equipped. Again, specifics please.

Rummy "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity" in regards to statements on the war and U.S. casualties. First, prove it. Second, so what. Since when has insensitivity been a disqualifier from a cabinet post? Third, it is not true.

I'm fairly certain this will never see the light of day in a Republican controlled house and I think these bozos are yet again doing their cause a disservice. They believe that as long as they keep repeating this crap, no matter the validity, the people will buy into it. The people that WANT to believe it will, but I think the average American is beginning to see the Democrats for what they really are and it will cost them dearly in 2004.
Al Jazeera and our own news media form an effective two way filter for good information on Iraq. It's ironic that those who accuse President Bush of turning Iraq into another Vietnam are attempting to do the same thing via the media. Here's a prediction: When the terrorists in Iraq have been defeated, and the country normalizes and begins to emerge with a functioning economy, the same automatons that have been blathering on about another Vietnam will start blubbering about how we are destroying and "Americanizing" their culture, as if an injection of personal freedoms and self government were a bad thing. At that point it will be the duty of all sane, able bodied citizens to go forth and deliver falafel wedgies to all of them.
Quote of the day: "It's not difficult to understand why somebody might
pick up an AK 47 against us. Maybe we killed his father in the first Gulf War, maybe in this Gulf War, maybe he's just a dick." - Sergeant Reginald Abram.

From an interesting five part article in the Asia Times by Nir Rosen with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
This tidbit from the Washington Times' Inside Politics section is rather telling:

"In news sure to depress those for whom Republican stinginess and antipathy for the less fortunate is an article of faith, the Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy has just released its Generosity Index 2003, which ranks states not just by how much their residents give per capita but also by how much they give relative to what they earn," the Wall Street Journal says in an editorial.
"As reader Gabriel Openshaw pointed out to us, the resulting index shows that the top 20 states all went for George W. Bush in the 2000 election — while 15 of the 20 least generous went for Al Gore. Maybe, he suggests, the difference is that those in red states are more generous with their own money while those in blue states are more likely to be generous with other people's money."

Enough said.
Thomas Sowell is the man. In his latest installment he deals with the issue of property rights, which Diane Feinstein would like to see "on a lower plane" than other constitutional rights. To Feinstein, it seems some inalienable rights are less inalienable than others. You can be sure that she and other lefties will move to fillibuster any judicial candidate that doesn't enjoy a little Karl Marx with their morning coffee.

Sunday, November 09, 2003

Ha ha ha.
These are some interesting statistics (not quite what we're used to hearing on the evening news) from a speech by Josh Chavetz to the Oxford Union:

"There have been three independent opinion polls conducted in Iraq since the end of the war, and all of them show that Iraqis are overwhelmingly optimistic and welcoming of the coalition presence. The first, conducted by the Iraq Center for Research & Strategic Studies in June, found that 65 percent of Baghdadis wanted U.S. troops to stay for now; only 17 percent wanted an immediate pull-out. A Zogby International poll in August talked to people in Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk, and Ramadi. 70% expected their personal and political lives to improve in the next five years; 60% favored freedom of religion; and 74% wanted to see serious punishment for former Ba'ath party officials. In the most recent poll, conducted by Gallup in September, 67% of Baghdadis think Iraq will be better off in 5 years than it was before the war, with only 8% thinking it will be worse off. 62% said that ousting Saddam was worth the ensuing hardships, and 60% had a favorable view of the Governing Council. When asked to choose between a number of options for a permanent government, a strong plurality, at 40%, chose parliamentary democracy, while only 10% chose Islamic theocracy."

Read it in its entirety here.