Friday, November 30, 2007

Erin Burnett Refers To GWB As "The Monkey In the Middle"

Fake Mug Shots Of Bush & Cabinet At NY Public Library

It's Moose-ness!

Thank you to our dear Fairest Wit for bringing us this 'Moose Story'. This little guy was born right on the street in downtown Naubinway, Michigan. He's 12 hours old!

Another Perspective: Energy

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Another Perspective: Energy
By Lawrence Henry

On Bunker Hill Day in 1995, I marched in the parade with the Charlestown Against Drugs program. I jogged most of the way, three and a half miles, running from one side of the street to the other, passing out CHAD buttons and greeting people. When the parade was over, I drove up to Lynnfield and played nine holes of golf, walking, in about an hour and a half. All this in 95-degree heat.

At one point last week, I lay in bed with my eyes closed, carefully evaluating my physical state, trying to figure out how I could most efficiently get up and eat breakfast -- and not at all sure that I could make it.

I describe this contrast not to make a point about physical fitness or health or medicine or any such thing. In this season of presidential campaigning, however, I do point out that our candidates mainly engage in a contest of energies. That does not always yield the best president. It tends to yield the most aggressive contender.


During the (Bill) Clinton administration, Clinton and his minions brought the ethos of show biz to politics. That ethos? Aggression works better than competence.

An old friend of mine, Bob Merlis, stated that principle to me in terms of the music business more than 20 years ago. Merlis, who worked at Warner Brothers, said, "There are people in this business who really aren't very good, who just got where they are through an iron will to get across."

Bill Clinton, of course, with his hound dog ways, ought to have been horsewhipped long before he got anywhere near the presidency. It amazes me that, coming up as he did through a state like Arkansas, some brother or father or husband of one of his paramours didn't get after him with something a lot deadlier than a horse whip.

But he made it to the Oval Office, where, in the key decision of his presidency, he told Dick Morris, "We'll just have to win then" -- this after Morris had told him his poll numbers were in the tank over Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton put aggression before competence, before principle, before the country, before everything -- to save his own hide. Our political culture learned the lesson well. Like bad money driving good out of the economy, Clintonian aggression drove competence out of politics for the rest of his administration and into the Bush administration, too. We got a little rest from it after 9/11, but it came roaring right back.


The two lead Republicans have started tearing into one another lately, over past performance and current ideas -- not over polemic fusillades like "cowboy diplomacy" or "quagmire." That tends to hold true down the line. An uncharacteristically strong and broad Republican field argues with one another over questions like, "What did you do?" and "What do you think?"

On the other side, the Democrats reiterate the same old talking points -- playing the same old politics of aggression. The ultimate nominee will, of course, play the game the same way in the general election. And that makes me wonder: What if the Republican candidate could frame the presidential election as ideas versus aggression? I mean, in such a way that the American people saw it that way?

This election may well be a debacle for the Republicans -- everybody seems to think so. But I actually find it encouraging that aggression doesn't simply match up against aggression this time around.

We may actually have a chance to put a whole different kind of politics in play. I hope we do.

Apartheid Not Peace

Apartheid Not Peace
By Caroline B. Glick

This week the Bush Administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.

Evident everywhere, the discrimination against Israel received its starkest expression at the main assembly of the Annapolis conference on Tuesday. There, in accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.

At the meeting of foreign ministers on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called her Arab counterparts to task for their discriminatory treatment. "Why doesn't anyone want to shake my hand? Why doesn't anyone want to be seen speaking to me?" she asked pointedly.

Israel's humiliated Foreign Minister did not receive support from her American counterpart. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spent her childhood years in the segregated American South, sided with the Arabs. Although polite enough to note that she doesn't support the slaughter of Israelis, she made no bones about the fact that her true sympathies lie with the racist Arabs.

As she put it, "I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness."

Rice's remarks make clear that for the Secretary of State there is no difference between Israelis trying to defend themselves from a jihadist Palestinian society which supports the destruction of the Jewish state and bigoted white Southerners who oppressed African Americans because of the color of their skin. It is true that Israel has security concerns, but as far as Rice is concerned, the Palestinians are the innocent victims. They are the ones who are discriminated against and humiliated, not Livni, who was forced - by Rice - to enter the conference through the service entrance.


Thousands In Sudan Call for British Teddy Bear Teacher's Execution

Thousands In Sudan Call for British Teddy Bear Teacher's Execution
By FoxNews

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, protested Friday outside the presidential palace in Khartoum, demanding the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pick-up trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation.

Click here for photos.

They massed in central Martyrs Square, outside the palace, where hundreds of riot police were deployed, though they did not attempt to disrupt the rally. "Shame, shame on the U.K.," protesters chanted, and they called for Gibbons' execution, saying, "No tolerance: Execution," and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad."

The women's prison where Gibbons is being held is far from the site. Unity High School, which is closer by in central Khartoum, is under heavy security protection.

The protest arose despite vows by Sudanese security officials the day before, during Gibbons' trial, that threatened demonstrations after Friday prayers would not take place. Some of the protesters carried green banners with the name of the Society for Support of the Prophet Muhammad, a previously unknown group.

Some of the protesters, who an Associated Press reporter at the scene said numbered as many as 10,000, carried clubs, knives and axes — but not automatic weapons, which some have carried at past government-condoned demonstrations, suggesting Friday's rally was not organized by the government.

During Friday sermons, the Muslim cleric at Khartoum's main Martyrs Mosque denounced Gibbons, saying she intentionally insulted Islam but he did not call for protests. "Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion," the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

"This is an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad," he said. Hard-line clerics who hold considerable influence with Sudan's Islamic government, have sought to whip up public anger over the Gibbons' case, calling her actions part of a Western plot to damage Islam.,2933,314111,00.html

Thursday, November 29, 2007

The Toricrat Party

Democrats Are Disloyal On Iraq War
By David Huck

In the summer of 1776 at Hampton Court Palace in England, the signed Declaration of Independence of the United States of America was handed to King George III. His reaction is seen in his diary for that day. He wrote, "Nothing significant happened today."

It's easy to understand why he was so confident. King George could send an army of 5,000 ruthless Redcoats to any spot on the globe on his feared armada of frigates and battleships. John Adams, an architect of the Declaration, lived in a house that would have fit in the kitchen of King George's palace. The idea that the farmers and merchants in the American colonies could succeed in separating from Great Britain was ridiculous if not amusing. You have to wonder: How could the fathers of our country have imagined that they would prevail against this mighty naval force and battle-trained army?

What they had was a powerful belief, actually religious conviction. If all you ever know about our Declaration of Independence are the following words, you will know enough. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Lacking this belief, they could never have won, but with it, they could not lose. These men who fathered our country were religious men, almost exclusively Christians. They resented King George's burdensome, ever-increasing taxes and his invasive control over their lives. They refused to bow in his presence. He was their enemy and their solution was heard in a battle cry of the Revolution, "No King but Jesus!"

But not everyone agreed. War was dangerous and expensive. We might lose and then be worse off. Some in Pennsylvania thought war was morally wrong and that God would punish us with defeat. "Yes, the taxes were high and the King was awful but we're getting by," they believed. These people were known as Tories or Loyalists. The largest collection of Tories was in Connecticut and, even today, Connecticut is the state most opposed to the war in Iraq. The Tories spoke out against the war at every opportunity and worked and planned for its failure. Then as now there were traitors in high places. Benedict Arnold attempted to surrender West Point when his plot was discovered and his name disgraced forever.

Thus, our father's fathers had two challenges, to win a just war with their right hand while containing a disparaging opposition with the other. It has been rightly said, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Here we are 231 years later, fighting a just war that we didn't start against radical Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq in an effort to establish democratic rule in both countries. In Iraq, the stakes are higher since they control an important part of the world's oil supply, which if shut off could damage our economy.

Today's Tories are the Democrats. They liked the sound of going to war and voted for it, but when the going got tough they got cold feet and have been speaking out against it at every opportunity. Their allies in the liberal media have added their shrill voice of protest. The Democrat-controlled House passed 50 resolutions to stop the war. They all failed. Undaunted by this, they have tried to cut off funds to support the troops in proposed budgets.

Now however, victory seems much more likely as the Petraeus troop build-up has dramatically reduced violence and thousands of residents are returning to Baghdad, It's no surprise that the Democrats are panicking and rightly so. The Democrat nightmare is that Iraq will be pacified just in time for the election next year and there will be no one to blame but George Bush and the Republicans.

After the American victory in the Revolution, many Tories left and returned to England. We should be so lucky when Iraq is pacified.

Nazi Documents Unsealed After 60 Years Offer Deeper Look At Holocaust

Nazi Documents Unsealed After 60 Years Offer Deeper Look At Holocaust

After more than 60 years, Nazi documents stored in a vast warehouse in Germany were unsealed Wednesday, opening a rich resource for Holocaust historians and for survivors to delve into their own tormented past.

The treasure of documents could open new avenues of study into the inner workings of Nazi persecution from the exploitation of slave labor to the conduct of medical experiments. The archive's managers planned a conference of scholars next year to map out its unexplored contents.

The files entrusted to the International Tracing Service, an arm of the International Committee of the Red Cross, have been used until now to help find missing persons or document atrocities to support compensation claims. The U.S. government also has referred to the ITS for background checks on immigrants it suspected of lying about their past.

Inquiries were handled by the archive's 400 staff members in the German spa town of Bad Arolsen. Few outsiders were allowed to see the actual documents, which number more than 50 million pages and cover 16 linear miles of gray metal filing cabinets and cardboard binders spread over six buildings.

On Wednesday, the Red Cross and the German government announced that the last of the 11 countries that govern the archive had ratified a 2006 agreement to open the files to the public for the first time.


The (Un)Fairness Doctrine

The (Un)Fairness Doctrine
By Rebecca Hagelin

Who should decide what you hear over the radio and on TV? You? Or policymakers in Washington?
If freedom of speech appeals to you -- if you think we need robust debate to keep democracy alive and well -- the answer should be clear.

Unfortunately, it’s not so clear to certain liberal lawmakers. The rest of us hear, say, Rush Limbaugh on our lunch hours and tune into Bill O’Reilly in the evening and enjoy the lively give-and-take that erupts over the issues of the day. But those liberals aren’t so happy. They don’t like it when Rush or Bill (or Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and other noteworthy and entertaining pundits) shines a spotlight on our elected leaders and all their foibles.

That’s why liberals are dusting off the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” The Fairness Doctrine, despite its name, gives Americans a raw deal. The Federal Communications Commission created it in 1949 to require broadcasters to present both sides of any controversial issue that they touched on. Sounds … well, fair, right? Except for two major problems:

One is practical -- it makes for boring radio and TV. Why? Because broadcasters responded to the Fairness Doctrine predictably: Realizing that it would be extraordinarily difficult to ensure that each issue was treated in perfect balance, they opted in large measure to steer clear of controversial topics. After all, there’s only one way to guarantee that no one is offended by what you say … and that’s to say nothing.

The other problem is a little something known as the First Amendment. Where, pray tell, is it written in the Constitution that we must exercise our free speech in a “balanced” way? Sorry, but the kind of robust debate that our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution -- indeed, the kind of debate that led to the founding of this nation -- can’t be hemmed in with parliamentary demands that we carefully include “the other side” every time we speak. Like it or not, democracy’s messy.

So the FCC, in 1985, finally began to overturn the Fairness Doctrine, and President Reagan vetoed every attempt to bring it back. It didn’t take long for the phenomenon of talk radio -- as we know it today -- to arise. “When Rush Limbaugh began his career,” writes Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., in the latest issue of American Legion magazine, “there were 125 talk-radio stations. Today there are 2,000.” And no, they’re not all conservative. “While Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other conservative giants dominate the national syndicated market,” Pence adds, “many moderate and liberal programs succeed admirably at the local level.”

Regardless, many politicians don’t like talk radio and its televised equivalent. After all, Americans who listen to pundits with strong opinions tend to become, gee, informed about the issues of the day. Instead of minding their own business, they learn things. Then they call and write their representatives in Washington, demanding action. We can’t have that!

Of course, the case against an unregulated marketplace of ideas is so flimsy, it requires deception. Consider the liberal attack on Rush Limbaugh over his “phony soldiers” remark: Rush, in fact, had made a perfectly legitimate argument. If a soldier who had been kicked out of boot camp, then claimed to have witnessed fellow soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq isn’t a “phony,” who is?

But the truth didn’t matter to many liberals. They tried to accuse Rush, of all people, of being anti-patriotic! It was so absurd, the charge didn’t stick. But that didn’t stop liberal lawmakers from threatening to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

That’s why Pence has introduced the “Broadcaster Freedom Act” -- to ensure that no future president can regulate the airwaves of America without an act of Congress. “America is a nation of freedom and strong opinion,” he says. “Our government must not be afraid to entrust our good people with all the facts and opinions necessary to make choices as an informed electorate. That is what democracy is all about.”

It’s not just Republicans who think so. As President John F. Kennedy once said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

So let’s ask those who champion the Fairness Doctrine: What are you afraid of?

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Iraq Withdrawal News Goes Unnoticed

Iraq Withdrawal News Goes Unnoticed
By Philip V. Brennan

Keeping in mind Robert Burns' advice that the best-laid schemes "O mice an 'men Gang aft agley [often go astray], An'lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy!" there is a glimmer of great good news about Iraq that might just portend a lasting solution to what has been an ongoing debacle.

Good news, that is, for President Bush and the Republican Party but bad, bad news for that huge segment of the Democratic Party that in their pursuit to recapture the White House and maintain control of Congress lust after a crushing defeat for their country in the war in Iraq.

A blockbuster story in Tuesday's New York Sun revealed a startling development in the administration's planning that would result in an end to our occupation in Iraqi and a substantial withdrawal of most U.S. forces by the summer of 2008, thereby depriving the Democrats of the issue they hope will propel them to an overwhelming victory in the 2008 elections.

According to the Sun, which shines brightly through the dark clouds emanating from The New York Times building, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Iraq war tsar has "quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency."

To put it simply, what is in the works is an end to our occupation of Iraq, withdrawal of all but 50,000 U.S. troops in non-combat roles, all taking place next July, long before the November elections.

The Times, of course, could not find space to report this incredible breakthrough although it has to rate as the most important development in the long and dreary saga of the Iraq war.


Deceased Still Lining Democrat Political Coffers

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Deceased Still Lining Democrat Political Coffers
By Fredreka Schouten

Harold Schooler died in 2003, but his political activism lives on.
The former piano salesman and musician is among more than 160 dead people who have given more than $540,000 to political committees and candidates for the White House and Congress over the past eight years, an analysis of political donations shows.

LIST: Top donations from deceased donors

The estate of Schooler, who lived in Palm Springs, Calif., has donated $28,500 this year to the Democratic National Committee.

Federal rules allow such donations as long as contributions don't exceed legal limits and the intentions of the deceased were known, said Federal Election Commission spokesman Bob Biersack. Such gifts are fairly rare, he said.


Eight Years of Liberal Hatred

Eight Years of Liberal Hatred
By J.R. Dunn

In politics as in personal life, hatred is a dangerous tool. It's like one of the early medieval cannons, just as capable of blowing up in your face as it is of lobbing a ball at the enemy. Of course, the medieval metal casters realized they had a problem and worked to correct it. Haters never seem to get that far.

For the latest evidence of this, we can thank
Peter Berkowitz. Berkowitz is that rarity, a sincere liberal with as critical an eye for his own side as he has for the opposition. In a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, "The Insanity of Bush Hatred", Berkowitz attempts to take the measure of the haters, a phenomenon generally unmentioned by the legacy media, which prefers to act as an unknowing conduit for these people (watch how quickly this changes if Madame Hillary manages to squeak in).

Berkowitz gives us several fine examples of individuals on the very edge of permanent cognitive damage from Bush Derangement Syndrome. People who can't so much as hear the name without their faces going red and their features distorted. (My favorite is the "political moderate" who answers a civil question with: "I . . . hate . . . the . . . way . . . Bush . . . talks", an excellent illustration of the psychological factor called "displacement".)

(Other examples, if such were needed, can be found in this
piece, concerning the next president's options in Iraq. According to Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group, the surge and its results are no more than a piece of theater worked up to allow Bush to hand the disaster over to the next administration. That is to say, Al Queda in Iraq is allowing the tar to be beaten out of themselves on behalf of their old pal George. Thanks for the input, Joost.)

Berkowitz gives us a nice guided tour of liberal follies from the inside. But he fails at coming up with an explanation. He's a rational man, looking for reasons in the record, sorting through the facts in an attempt to pinpoint exactly where Bush hatred began to metastasize within the liberal mentality.


Kerry Will Go Down “Swinging” in Round Two

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Kerry Will Go Down “Swinging” in Round Two
By Michael McBride

Naval Aviation hopefuls are trained to box. The Navy is not really trying to develop the next Mike Tyson, but they have a specific purpose for this training and it serves its purpose.
The boxing program is designed to test three things about the flyboy wannabes; their response to training under duress, their physical fitness, and their mettle. All of the qualities that it takes to be a viable aviator in combat, post-shoot down survival, or life in a POW environment.

For anyone that has boxed, jab-jab-hook is as easy as it comes on the heavy bag or in front of the mirror, but throw in a couple of rounds of shuffling around the ring, and take a few shots to the brain/housing group, and jab-jab-hook becomes more like walking a tight rope in a hurricane. The brain knows what it wants do, but the ability to physically respond to its commands cannot be overcome because of exhaustion, disorientation, and the cumulative toll that blows to the head have over time.

Does the candidate react instinctively with trained responses? Did he cover and jab? Counterpunch? Move along angular lines rather than straight lines? Was he able to absorb the training and translate that directly into calculated action while under duress?

Is he physically exhausted too soon? Simply put, does the candidate have the physical capacity for the rigors of flight and its potential consequences? Does he have the gumption to punch back? Did he quit rather than fight back? What is his true mettle?

It is the exhaustion and confusion inherent in boxing that bares the true soul and mettle of the boxer. Or in this case, determines if the aviation candidate has the skeletal structure and fortitude necessary to become a viable part of Naval Aviation as a pilot or crew member. If you swing at a Naval Aviator/NFO/Crewmember, expect them to return the favor.

Right away, not four years later.


Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Afternoon Hoot!

VDH: When and Why Mice Roar

When and Why Mice Roar

One becomes bewildered at the tone of Gen. Sanchez's
rebuttal to the Bush radio address, especially if collating both his present advice and criticism of Iraq with his own past tenure there—a similar syndrome to the supposedly sensational charges of the Scott McClellan memoirs, given the latter's utter incompetence and inability at a time of war to articulate, expound, and defend what the U.S. was trying to do in Iraq—all akin to those — cf. Michael Scheuer, Richard Clark, et al. — who could not capture, much less kill bin Laden in the 1990s, nor trace down the 9/11 terrorists before 9/11.

In all these cases, there is dismal pattern: a mediocre functionary keeps quiet about the mess around him, muddles through, senses that things aren't going right, finds himself on the losing end of political infighting, is forced out or quits, seethes that his genius wasn't recognized, takes no responsibility for his own failures, worries he might be scape-goated, and at last senses that either a New York publisher or the anti-war Left, or both, will be willing to offer him cash or notoriety — but only if he serves their needs by trashing his former colleagues in a manner he never would while on the job.

Note that none offered to resign as a matter of principle when they were not yet in a precarious position; all post facto found some sort of profit in timing the proper occasion to level the "J' accuse!"

But this is now all as predictable as it is monotonous.

I Can't Tell If He's Blushing...

Iraqi Soldiers Thwart Terror Suspects Disguised as Bride and Groom

Suspicious Iraqi soldiers thwarted terror suspects disguised as a bride and groom trying to pass through a checkpoint along with their "wedding procession" outside the Iraqi capital, the Iraqi Defense Ministry said Monday.

The procession Sunday near Taji, about 12 miles north of Baghdad, raised suspicion among the soldiers because most of those celebrating were men, an official in the ministry told The Associated Press. Soldiers searched the car carrying the purported bridge and groom and discovered the "couple" were two wanted men: Haider al-Bahadili and Abbas Latif.

Two other terror suspects were detained along with them, according to the Defense Ministry statement. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to ministry orders, said the investigation into the suspects was ongoing and declined to release further information.,2933,312887

Monday, November 26, 2007

'Redacted' is Repulsive

'Redacted' is Repulsive
By Ross Kaminsky

Brian DePalma’s “Redacted” did something that is not easy to do: It left me briefly at a loss for words. But given that words are what a movie review is made of, I shall select a few: Repugnant, repulsive, anti-American propaganda.

Whereas “Lions for Lambs” could have been written by a first-year college film class, “Redacted” could have been written by the “Ministry of Information” of Iran or Hamas.
The premise of the movie is a montage of different video sources, including videos taken by US soldiers, surveillance cameras, insurgents, and American civilians using YouTube-like programs and blogs. But what this movie is really about is summarized well in the “Plot Keywords” on “Gang Rape”, “Iraq War”, and “Pregnant Woman Murdered”.


Every moment of this movie is an attack on the US military. Every soldier is made to look evil, stupid, or feckless, everything from being rapists and murderers right down to being mean to kids. DePalma says in an interview that he’s clear these are the bad apples, but since he never shows any other character types the obvious implication is that the whole army is a barrel of bad apples.

In their desire to criticize the war and crucify the military, De Palma, Cuban and friends have taken to heart Goebbels’ belief that "It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success." But Americans are not highly susceptible to such transparent hatred which may explain why this film was first released in Spain and not yet widely released in America. At the time of this writing, about 1,050 people had rated this film on IMDB. There is a clear trend that the older (and wiser) the viewer, the less they liked the film. More interestingly, the average vote from a US viewer is about 4/10 while Non-US viewers rate it above 7/10.

This movie will likely do fairly well in Europe and very well in the Middle East, much as films about Jews making bread with childrens’ blood can do well in such places. In fact, “Redacted” is all to similar to those films in intent. The style of the film as a series of apparent documentaries interspersed with fake news broadcasts will be effective with unsophisticated viewers and many will believe what they are seeing to be true or at least representative.

The movie will be shown as a recruiting tool by Al Qaeda and will cause at least a few ordinary people to hate and mistrust America. It wouldn’t surprise me if a few of those took violent action (or financed it) as a result. That blood will be on the hands of Brian De Palma and Mark Cuban. Unfortunately, that’s probably just what they want.

For self-hating Americans offering aid and comfort to the enemy, “Redacted” earns the full five Jane Fondas, as well as my undying enmity for those who created, financed, and acted in it.


Archbishop 'Confused' About Radical Islam

Archbishop 'Confused' About Radical Islam
By Damian Thompson

One wonders what the millions of Christians persecuted by Islamist terrorists and governments will make of the Archbishop of Canterbury's interview with a Muslim lifestyle magazine. If they are looking for a condemnation of Islamic violence, they will be disappointed.

Dr Rowan Williams is "surprised" by the way Pakistani Muslims perceive local Christians as "deeply threatening". He feels that the Muslim world should be ready to acknowledge that "their present political solutions aren't always very impressive" and that they should consider learning from "classical liberal democracy". And that's it.

The rest of the interview is given over to attacking the United States and "Christian Zionists" - hardly a bold stance in a Muslim magazine.


Dan Rather’s Last Big Story Is Himself

Dan Rather’s Last Big Story Is Himself
By Joe Hagan

If he weren’t famous, he’d be mistaken for a veteran of a long-ago war: khaki safari shirt on his back, scuffed combat boots on his feet, that wiry crest of a brow, rheumy eyes under heavy lids, lower lip jutting out like an ornery fish resisting a hook.

When Dan Rather sits on a bench in Central Park to tell how his 44-year career at CBS News ended in ignominy and humiliation, he is in fact still waging a war, a bitter and personal one. And the memories of the battles that undid him are still fresh on his mind. “Monday morning, about 8:49—and I think that is the time precisely,” he says.

He’s recalling January 10, 2005, when he first received the 224-page report commissioned by CBS that excoriated his infamous 60 Minutes Wednesday segment on President Bush’s National Guard service. Of that report, Rather says, “When I read through it, all I could say to myself, on each page, is, ‘What bullshit. What pure, unadulterated bullshit this whole thing is. What a setup. What a fix.’ ” He nearly spits the word fix.

Three years later, Rather cannot forget. He’s suing CBS and its former parent company Viacom—along with Viacom’s chairman, Sumner Redstone; CBS chief Leslie Moonves; and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward—for $70 million. The core of Rather’s lawsuit is a mundane contract dispute over whether he received the airtime he was promised in his final year on CBS. But like Rather himself, it’s charged with hurricane-force drama, draped in a larger tale of conspiracy and corruption.


Sunday, November 25, 2007

Amateurs Unravel Russia’s Last Royal Mystery

Amateurs Unravel Russia’s Last Royal Mystery
By Clifford J. Levy

On the outskirts of this burly industrial center, off a road like any other, on a nowhere scrap of land — here unfolded the final act of one of the last century’s most momentous events.

A short way through a clearing, toward a cluster of birch trees, the killers deposited their victims’ bodies, which had been mutilated, burned and doused with acid to mask their origins. It would be 73 more years, in 1991, before the remains would be reclaimed and the announcement would ring out: the grave of the last Russian czar, Nicholas II, and his family had been found.

But the story does not end there.

Eleven people were said to have been killed that day in July 1918 on Lenin’s orders. Just nine sets of remains were dug up here and then authenticated using DNA. The remains of the czar’s son, Aleksei, and one daughter, whose identity is still not absolutely clear, were missing. Did their bones lie elsewhere, or could it actually be that they had escaped execution, as rumor had it for so long?


UN Climate Circus Rolls In On CO2 Cloud

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

UN Climate Circus Rolls In On CO2 Cloud
Nicola Smith and Jonathan Leake

It has been billed as the summit that could help save the planet, but the latest United Nations climate change conference on the paradise island of Bali has itself become a major contributor to global warming.

Calculations suggest flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia will generate the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That is similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

When it was first conceived, only a few thousand politicians civil servants and environmentalists were expected to attend the conference — about normal for such an event.
The meeting, which runs from December 3-14, aims to create the framework for a successor to the Kyoto treaty on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, which expires in 2012.

However, climate change’s growing political importance has led to a surge in interest in the conference, which is being held in the luxury holiday resort of Nusa Dua on Bali’s palm-fringed southern coast. Attendees are expected to include celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, the actor, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, and Al Gore, the former US vice-president.


Indonesian officials say the final tally could reach 20,000 — and fear it could stretch the resort’s infrastructure to the limit. About 90% of the emissions will be generated by delegates flying thousands of miles to Bali, with the rest coming from the facilities they will be using.
Chris Goodall, a carbon emissions expert who did the calculations for The Sunday Times, estimated that each person flying to Bali would, on average, generate the equivalent of 6.48 tonnes of CO2. If 15,000 people attend, this adds up to over 97,000 tonnes of CO2. To this must be added about 13,000 tonnes of CO2 from the conference venue and hotels — a total of 110,000 tonnes.


Saturday, November 24, 2007

The Stab That Failed

The Stab That Failed
By Noemie Emery

Eagerly anticipating the defeat in Iraq to which they are so much attached, some on the left have also been preparing for another contingency: the assault that they think they see coming, a drive to pin the whole wretched failure on them. Apparently, this will be "stab in the back" redux, a new iteration of the theme deployed so successfully in interwar Germany by a resourceful, ambitious Austrian corporal, who managed to propel his rise to power with the claim that World War I would have been won by his country, if not for sinister forces at home. Then, it was subversion by Jews and other disloyal elements.

This time, in the left's imagining, the blame will fall on the press and the Democrats who, by pulling the plug at just the wrong moment, caused the loss of Iraq. "Nobody I know in a rational condition believes that the United States is going to have any kind of a military victory," Mark Shields said in August. "So the idea is going to be, 'We were on the cusp of victory and the rug was pulled out from under us by these willy-nilly, weak-kneed, nervous Nellies back home.

The problem with this is (1) that we may really win, and have no failure to blame upon anyone, and (2) that the nervous Nellies really did try to keep us from winning, indeed fought fang and claw to derail our best efforts. If they had had their way, Iraq would still be the quagmire they are so fond of invoking, and the United States--or George W. Bush, which may be the more relevant factor--would have incurred a definitive and, at least in his case, legacy-blasting defeat.

It is unfair of course to call this a stab in the back, as the Democrats have been engagingly open about their intentions. In the course of the past year, they have gone from attacking a plan that had not been effective to attacking one that hadn't been tried yet, to attacking one that exceeded all expectations, while in the process ignoring reality, slandering a commanding general, and denying American forces in battle due credit for what they had done. If not backstabbing as such (see above), it is diverting enough a spectacle to merit a replay. Let us look back at this last year of battle and see how the story played out.


Was McClellan Book Excerpt Really About Valerie Plame Wilson?

Was McClellan Book Excerpt Really About Valerie Plame Wilson?
By Noel Sheppard

Without peeking, do you think the now infamous excerpt from White House press secretary Scott McClellan's not yet written book specifically referred to Valerie Plame Wilson, or anything to do with that scandal?

While you ponder, it is quite conceivable that this entire media frenzy is not only much ado about nothing, but an example of what happens when today's so-called journalists see what they believe to be Republican blood in the water despite the presence of red dye #2.

As cleverly pointed out by Lee Hempfling Thursday (emphasis added):

"Like a pack of starving banshees, jumping at the first odor of raw flesh, the liberal and foreign press have fallen all over themselves to write about a short excerpt of a book by Scott McClellan. The problem is, the quote offered says nothing about the topic the lunatics have attributed it to."

Let's take a close look at the actual excerpt and see what the real subject was (emphasis added to point you in the right direction):

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

Do you see Valerie Plame Wilson's name anywhere in this excerpt? No.

So, why were media outlets - in particular, MSNBC - so quick to conclude that this had anything to do with her?
When you read that excerpt without the preconceived notion that it's about Plame, isn't it actually about the failure to find WMD?

As such, isn't it likely that the "false information" McClellan "unknowingly passed along" dealt with weapons in Iraq, and that this is what "Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself" were involved in? Honestly, where in these 121 words can one deduce this has anything to do with Plame without stretching to spine-breaking conclusions?

In the end, the reading comprehensions skills of the media appear quite abysmal, and we should all be ashamed for not recognizing it sooner.

Bravo, Lee.

Reports of Bush Insider Defections Greatly Exaggerated

Reports of Bush Insider Defections Greatly Exaggerated

Though things have begun to turn around in Iraq and Bush's perseverance is in route to vindication, don't expect any mea culpas from the Bush bashers. Predictably, we're just witnessing new tactics in their seven years war to destroy him.

They thought they'd hit the jackpot with the excerpts from the new book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. McClellan claims, "I had unknowingly passed along false information (about Scooter Libby and Karl Rove's role in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case). And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

From Chris Matthews to Keith Olbermann to David Shuster, mainstream-media talking heads thought they'd uncovered another smoking gun in the president's hand. The print big boys took their cue.

The Los Angeles Times apparently saw this as an opening to resurrect an older story first appearing in The New York Times on April 1, 2007, detailing how ex-Bush aide Matthew Dowd had "lost faith in Bush."

Dowd, a Texas Democrat, had signed on with Bush because he "was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington." But after being part of Bush's "political brain trust" for six years, he decided that Bush was not living up to his promise.

But that's old news, right? Not quite. The Los Angeles Times rehashed the story again last week in what appears to be a shameless ploy to pile on Bush with this "Bush insiders turn on Bush" theme.

As usual, this is just more hot air with no substance. As for the mainstream-media spin that McClellan claimed Bush deceived him on Plame, Peter Osnos, head honcho of McClellan's publisher, Public Affairs Books, flatly says that McClellan "did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him." Osnos said Bush told McClellan what "he thought to be the case." And, McClellan believes that "the president didn't know it was not true."

Don't expect any retractions from the mainstream media since their original story will continue to serve their purpose of painting Bush, Cheney and Rove as despicable demons.

But how about the dramatic turnabout of Matthew Dowd from confidence to disappointment in Bush? Though the headline fits the mainstream media's "Bush is evil" template, what does the underlying LA Times story reveal?

Well, it shows Dowd switched parties when he started working with Bush because he was impressed with Bush's track record as Texas governor in reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats. But he was obviously never a conservative, and his disenchantment with Bush's policies clearly stem from his persistent ideological differences with Bush.

His liberal mindset caused him to buy into the Democratic line that Bush didn't work with Democrats in Washington, ignored "the will of the people" on Iraq and governed with a "my way or the highway" mentality.

The most revealing part of the story is Dowd's critique of Bush's "acrimonious fight" with Democrats over Social Security. Dowd said Bush "had the chance, but not the desire, to reach out to Democrats."

Absent his blinding leftist bias, Dowd would understand that Bush did try to set a "new tone" and bring in Democrats to help craft policy in education, taxes, Social Security and elsewhere. He would see that from the very beginning -- Bush-Gore 2000 in Florida -- the Democrats met Bush's bipartisan overtures with stabs in the back.

Democrats falsely accused Bush of trying to destroy Social Security and wouldn't even negotiate as long as Bush insisted on pursuing very limited privatization. On taxes, they have endlessly played the class warfare card. On Katrina, they played the race card. On Iraq and the war on terror, they've obstructed every step of the way and called him Hitler.

What Democrats, including Dowd, really mean by Bush's dictatorial approach to governing is that he wouldn't abandon his policies in favor of theirs.

Why don't we ever read any stories about their partisanship, their refusal to reach across the aisle, their refusal to allow Bush to be commander in chief -- especially now that he is being vindicated in Iraq? Don't journalistic ethics and fairness demand some stories that Bush's so-called stubbornness on Iraq can now be seen as admirable vision during time of war?

All the recent hype about Bush insiders defecting is just so much propaganda. If anything, these insider "defections" show what often happens when Republicans rely on Democrats to work with them for the common good.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Dem Plans To Hurt the Economy

FROM DU: Forget Black Friday- Buy Nothing

A 24 hour moratorium on consumer spending.

DUers Chime In:

--That's my plan... Fortunately, I don't give a shit about tomorrow. Fuck the gift-buyers.

--I have to buy cat food, but nothing else, I promise!

--Election day is more important to me than shopping tomorrow...

--We ain't buying nothing tomorrow, but I expect to be as succesful as any other boycott I have particiated in. Oh and for christ sakes if I buy a product on Friday or Saturday from a given retailer, it will not make a damn difference to the balance sheet for those who scream... but, but this will hurt small retailers.

--So yes, if only and even a million people take the day off... nothing will happen, but if 20% of the population stays home... they'll ask questions... if half the population stays home it will make the news. But for that to happen we need people like you to realize that alone you won't change a thing, but in a group, you have a lot of power. So I stay home, hoping against hope that someday people like you will finally get it and join up. Once again, me alone wil not do a damn thing... but me and another fifty million, or more, will have retailers and the powers that be going... hmm. And if this is done for a week, the economy can be brought to a halt.

--Talk w/ your family. Both branches of our family do not give 'corporate purchased' gifts.

-- I refuse to enter a store for the next few days if at all possible.

--I gassed up 2 days ago.... I have no need to buy anything. Our families don't buy corporate, so its a moot point.

--Not much shopping frenzy here, the local choices being MallWart or Kfart. The rest of the stores are locals, and will be opening at the normal time.

--I'm getting an oil change...and that's it;as if to make the circle complete i have asked my friends and relative to buy me nothing.

So, here are the sad-sack Democrat plans for Black Friday this holiday season. They have organized a huge 'boycott' of retail stores--especially the bigger ones. They want people to refuse to shop on Black Friday (the day that traditionally kicks off the holiday shopping season and is the best chance businesses have for getting out of the 'red' for the year, hence the term 'Black Friday'.)

Why they do it is anybody's guess. Some do it to protest 'high prices' or their 'low pay'. Some do it to 'protest the economy' and want this to hurt it. Others do it to protest President Bush and 'the way things are'--with an eye towards hurting his presidency. Still more do it to reject capitalism, 'consumerism' or people simply 'buying crap they don't need' (though I wonder how they made that ridiculous assumption.)

Of course, these same people have been adjudged the party of the rich--and I see few of them going without their hybrid cars, their trips to Cindy Sheehan's Dood Ranch-On-the-Road, or time off work to camp out in Nancy Pelosi's back alley. They want to talk about mindless consumerism while giving buckets of their money to the likes of Krazy Kucinich, Al Gore's Huckster Parade, and John Edwards living in a house the size of the Kremlin.

They can talk about hunger in America all they want, but they'd better ask Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, and Gorebalony about it first. Lefty free-range turkeys, organic produce, and the homemade wine they had yesterday cost more--and was more extravagant--than anything we had here.

This is just one more mindless display of the depravity and negativity of the Left. They're not grateful for anything, can't begin to thank our troops or believe anything good about America or the war--and they'll do anything to hurt George Bush and his time in office--no matter who else gets hurt in the interim. What pathetically empty people they are.

The DU 'I'm With Stupid' Award

FROM DU: I Am Not 'Undecided' Any More!

Q. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination I will support 100%... Anyone else with me?

A. No offense, but . . . duh. It's not like I'd get in line to vote for Mitt, Rudy, Mike or any of the idiots on the other side. As far as I'm concerned, you can run Bozo the Clown as a Democrat and I'll pull the lever.

God Bless Our Troops!

Glitter Text Generator

myspace layouts, myspace codes, glitter graphics

The Left Is Froot Loops!

Mankind 'Shortening the Universe's Life'
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.

The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory, the most successful theory we have. Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang.


Woman Says Babies Are Not 'Eco-Friendly': Aborts and Sterilizes Self
By Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Morag Turner

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.


Volunteer Santas Have To Sign A Clause
By Larry Copeland

On the advice of legal counsel, Santa Claus is changing the way he does business.
Actually, the Postal Service is changing its Operation Santa program, in which letters to Santa are answered by volunteers who grant children's Yuletide wishes.

For nearly 100 years, Postal Service employees have sorted through the Santa letters and passed many on to volunteers, charitable groups and corporations that want to help. Volunteers could call an 800 number to receive information on a deserving child or go online to answer the Santa letters.

This year, for the first time, those volunteers will have to present photo identification and sign a waiver releasing the Postal Service from liability for "all causes of action, claims, liens, rights or interests of any kind or type whatsoever."


Hunger Hysteria In the Land Of Plenty

Myspace Layouts

Hunger Hysteria
By Robert Rector

Examining food security and obesity in America.

This week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its annual report on household food security in the United States. According to USDA, some 12.5 million households, or roughly 11 percent of all households, experienced “household food insecurity” at some point in 2006 and some 35 million people lived in households with some form of food insecurity. Most of these households were low income. The report showed little change in food security levels in the U.S. over the last decade.

While these numbers sound ominous, it is important to understand what “food insecurity” means. According to the USDA, “food insecurity” is usually a recurring and episodic problem rather than a chronic condition. In 2006, around two-thirds of food insecure households experienced “low food security,” meaning that these households managed to avoid any disruption or reduction in food intake throughout the year but were forced by financial pressures to reduce “variety in their diets” or rely on a “few basic foods” at various times in the year.

According to the USDA, the remaining one-third of food insecure households (around 4 percent of all households) experienced “very low food security,” meaning that at least once in the year their actual intake of food was reduced due to a lack of funds for food purchase. At the extreme, about 1.4 percent of all adults in the U.S. went an entire day without eating at least once during 2006 due to lack of funds for food.

Children are generally shielded from food insecurity. Around one child in two hundred experienced “very low food security” and reduced food intake at least one time during 2006. One child in a thousand went a whole day without eating at least once during the year because the family lacked funds for food.

Political advocates proclaim that the USDA reports suggest there is widespread chronic hunger in the U.S. But the USDA clearly and specifically does not identify food insecurity with the more intense condition of “hunger,” which it defines as “discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain...caused by prolonged involuntary lack of food.”

What is rarely discussed is that the government’s own data show that the overwhelming majority of food insecure adults are, like most adult Americans, overweight or obese.


Thursday, November 22, 2007

A DU Thanksgiving

FROM DU: Is There A Somber Mood On the Nation This Thanksgiving?

Speaking to customer service checking on a catalogue order, at the end of the phone call I wishes the customer service rep. a "happy thanksgiving." All I got back was something that sounded like a grunt.

Some friends went to visit relatives only to find that the host has been drunk for the last three days which altered moods and enthusiasms. My friends came back home... no thanksgiving at their destination place of several days ago.

The neighborhood feels empty--but then, I don't know if it is a projection or the real thing. There seems to be an omnipresent feeling of either pretend... let us all pretend to be happy... or a feeling of... "it just isn't the same..." I am not sure just what mood is flowing around the nation this year. (flordehinojos)

FROM DU: What IS the World Coming To? Seriously

Most of us are painfully aware of all the conflict and division in our country and around the world, and most of us suffer in various ways from many terrible things. We are going through a horrible tribulation, which was very predictable and was in fact predicted long ago by many wise seers.

But, must this tribulation continue and just keep getting worse?

Even more to the point, are these really the so-called "end times" that so many proud and militant conservatives on the "Religious Right" talk about? And, must there be even more of their so-called "holy wars" fought in the name of Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Zionism in order to fulfill prophecies?

Well, if the truth be told, the humble and meek shall indeed inherit the earth -- along with those who are now arrogantly proud and militant but will ultimately be humbled and made contrite in the face of truth. Then, when we are finally reconciled and united, the people of earth will be able to accomplish all those things that will save and greatly improve our world.

Granted, that may seem to be quite impossible right now, because we are pitted against each other and sharply divided by leaders who aggressively compete and fight for worldly power, whether it is because of partisan politics, a dispute over land and resources, or a so-called "religious" conflict, and many of those leaders claim that God is on their side. (IsaiahTruman)

FROM DU: The Trouble with Thankfulness

Like most Americans, I'm appreciative of all the wonderful people and experiences in my life, and I like the idea of taking a day off from lamenting all the painful, tragic, and humiliating experiences in my life and the many more in the lives of so many people around the world impacted by my government (even if we are now losing an innocent life in Iraq alone at the rate of one every 10 minutes, or 144 in the day I take off to "be thankful").

And in fact, I never thank my wife, my son, my parents, my friends, my employer, my allies, my heroes enough. A day set aside to phone and write and visit those people to thank them would be a holiday above all other holidays. But that is not what Thanksgiving is. At best, that is what Thanksgiving might someday become.

For theists, Thanksgiving is an opportunity to thank "god." For muddleheaded atheists Thanksgiving is an opportunity to thank... (blank) (there's no conclusion to the sentence). And for clear thinking atheists, it's a holiday that does not fit. One cannot be thankful to nothing. If you're going to be thankful, not for what your loved ones do, but that they exist, you must be thankful to "god" or to some nameless mush standing in for "god."

Well, what - after all - is so wrong with that? What's wrong with nice warm humble feelings, even if they make no grammatical sense? I think there are two major things wrong with it, one fairly obvious, the other a little less so. The obvious problem is the panglossian blinders required. Rather than appreciating my loved ones, I am supposed to feel a sense of "thankfulness" for them that is inevitably directed at the same divine fate that gives the world such overwhelming misery, pain, and death.

In short, "god" has so much to answer for, that before I would consider summoning an ounce of gratitude for the beautiful trees and squirrels outside my window, I want to know what good can come of the precarious situation that is providing this summer weather in November, I want to know why a neighbor was recently murdered, I want to know why so much of the world has to live in such horrendous poverty for the benefit of a gluttonous minority, and I want to know what war is for. Thanking anyone or anything who runs this spectacle strikes me as presenting an award to a mass murderer because he polishes his knife so beautifully.

The less obvious trouble with thankfulness can be seen when we move beyond blaming "god" for the world's misery. After all, if you don't "believe in god" you can't blame "god" any more than you can praise him/her/it. And if you cannot blame "god" then the truly painful thought arrives: we must blame ourselves. In fact, we and nobody else bear the responsibility for what goes well and poorly in the world. We get no credit for the squirrels. They simply evolved. But we get credit for maintaining a world they can live in, or blame for destroying it. We acquired this responsibility when we gained the power to destroy the world. That doesn't mean a key to preserving the world doesn't lie in refraining from trying to control it.

Children who die from preventable diseases, workers who die from unsafe working conditions, and families who die in wars all die with their blood on our hands and nobody else's. We, humanity, and we, Americans in particular, are the ultimate cause of tremendous suffering. Far from thanking some primitive fantasy for the state of things, we should be standing, speaking, and acting to change things. Instinctive acceptance of the status quo as at least partially "right" is the most dangerous result of vestigial theism, and the last thing we have time for is a holiday that promotes it.

This Thanksgiving, go out of your way to thank somebody who is working for radical democratic change in the world. And, this holiday season, thank your loved ones for who they are. Don't thank anybody else for them. But put your generosity where it belongs: in actions aimed at benefitting those in the world who have it worst. (davidswanson)

I chose these three pieces because they are SO representative of the DU mindset on this Thanksgiving. These people, as a whole, are perennially negative. (You watch: if a Dem candidate wins the White House, they'll STILL be bitching about the state of things. This year, all would be perfect if only a Democrat won--next year everything will still be lousy because the Republicans still exist at all.)

They have no joy, no gratitude, true thankfulness about them. Indeed, a later post ask them to list one thing they were thankful for. This is how they answered:

--'Cindy Sheehan',
--Dem candidates,
--Al Gore (they talk a lot about their free-range turkeys and organic stuffing),
--For the ass clowns who have somehow become our leaders, and thus motivated all of us to care a little more,
--I'm thankful for Senator Jim Webb, his staff and for Bucky,
--That I now know what I DON'T want in our next President,
--NASA, NSF, Nat. Geography, and other science research/education groups (for giving me a place to dream),
--I'm very happy for that. Very grateful. Tomorrow it all begins again. I'll go back to the rat-race. I'll worry about EVERYTHING from the squatter in chief sullying OUR White House to wondering where the hell to get a part-time job to get through Christmas, the same shit I worry and obsess about every day, etc.

Not a single person thanked our troops, the President, this country, our freedoms, our blessings--or God. That's DU and the 'Progressive Democrats for ya; I hope I never 'progress' that far.

Who Should Get Medal for Outing Valerie Plame?

Who Should Get Medal for Outing Valerie Plame?
By John Gibson

Apropos of the letters: A bunch of lefties are writing in asking: "Why aren't you going to talk about Scott McClellan's new book?" — in which he says Bush lied when he assured McClellan that Libby and Rove weren't involved in the outing of Valerie Plame.

First, Scott McClellan has come out today and clarified earlier reports: Bush did not lie to him.
Second, I'm the guy who said a long, long time ago that whoever outed Valerie Plame should get a medal, and if it was Karl Rove I'd pin it on him myself.

"John, have you taken leave of your senses? Whoever did that should be put on trial for exposing a U.S. secret agent."

Well, most times, but not all, especially when the secret agent — if she actually was one — is actively working against an elected president's publicly stated policies from behind her veil of secrecy. This is about an anti-Bush cabal inside the CIA, something that should be rooted out. Ours is not a government of spies who pull political strings while in hiding and are never exposed because of their special status.

So did she pull strings? Her bosses say she did, that she set up the meetings which eventually led to her anti-war husband setting off to ostensibly establish a reason the president might use to underpin his war plans. Instead, her husband went on a mission so lackadaisical that it certainly was no surprise to his wife when he came home and said Saddam was not trying to buy nuke bomb material from Africa. If her husband had stumbled on Saddam's actual nuke bomb he would have denied ever seeing it.

And the fact that later subsequent reports from the CIA itself said her husband was wrong should also be noted.

In total, it was "Miss Spy" — Plame — and her former ambassador husband deciding they would tank the president's war plans by responding to the vice president's query with an answer the president and the vice president wouldn't like and would put them in the box, no matter what the actual facts in Africa were.

So I still want someone to get that medal. I just can't figure out which person deserves it most: Rove, Cheney, Armitage, Libby or Bush himself.

That's My Word.,2933,312503,00.html

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Thanks To Our Men and Women Overseas

Crybaby Kerry

Crybaby Kerry
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Most informed Americans have heard about "anger management counseling." It is a widely prescribed therapy for those who lose their temper uncontrollably in public or in private or while watching the Hon. Henry Waxman pretend to be the late Andrei Vyshinsky, prosecutor at the Moscow Show Trials.

Well, during the past few days I have been following the Hon. Jean-Francois Kerry's (D-Mass.) controversy with Boone Pickens, and I believe I am in need of "laughter management counseling." Every time I think of this ponderous stone-headed senator bellowing phony pieties, I suffer a dreadful agitation in the funny bone. I only hope that my health insurance is applicable.

As reported
late last week, billionaire investor and environmentalist Boone Pickens, during an address at The American Spectator's 40th Anniversary Gala, promised to pay $1 million to anyone who could find error in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, which he helped bankroll in 2004. The ads were produced to expose the braggart Kerry's incautious claims about his service during the Vietnam War -- that would be the war Kerry participated in briefly before coming home and traducing his fellow comrades in arms with vicious lies and distortions before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

Remember his more recent claim that he supported our war in Iraq before he opposed it? Inconstancy is in his DNA.


Thanks, But No Thanks

Thanks, But No Thanks
By James Lewis

Our age is dominated by the most ungrateful voices in centuries. The poet of our time is the tantrum-throwing Allen Ginsberg, who wrote in Howl:

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by
madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
looking for an angry fix...

That is the song of the entitled generation: The Beats, the Hippies and the Boomer Left. After all, who destroyed Ginsberg's Beatniks but themselves? They went looking for "an angry fix" because they were hooked on showy self-destruction. They celebrated their own perversities and blamed America. They still do.

The Boomer Left started its long march to power by breaking all the family rules --- proper dress, basic cleanliness, personal responsibility, hard work, telling the truth, loyalty in love, respectful speech, self-discipline in sexuality, drugs and alcohol... all the way to gratitude toward one's country. Because that's what patriotism is, of course. When the New York Times happily betrays national security secrets today, it is just acting on the same generational need to break down American values. It makes them feel good.