Mortal Thoughts

The Tea Party

2010-10-29T17:56:00.000-07:00

It's interesting to me that the new Tea Party, which takes its name from the Boston Tea Party (of renown to those of my generation, and all generations before it), stands for many of the same concerns as the original. Those concerns are freedom from oppressive government, oppressive taxes and, in the case of the new tea party, adherence to constitutional principles. The Tea Parties are not partisan, and in fact, all parties are represented as well as all religions and races. If Republicans are overrepresented, perhaps it's because they have a greater sensitivity to oppressive government, taxes and adhering to constitutional principles. If blacks are underrepresented, perhaps it's because they are less likely to be Republicans. Certainly those black Americans in the tea party movement are passionate about their beliefs.

So the interesting point is that Democrats, who ordinarily laud grassroots efforts, or so spooked by the Tea Party. To them it's dangerous, nutty, right wing. To a smaller extent the Republican Party is spooked as well. At least the professional elite in the Republican Party is rattled by this amateur approach to their profession. It will be interesting to see the results of next week's election.

Al Qaida Develops Winning Strategy

2007-07-16T08:34:00.000-07:00

They've finally done it - developed a winning strategy. "We'll fight the Americans until we win" didn't work very well, since the Taliban fell in about 4 weeks in Afghanistan (the country that had never been conquered, even by Alexander the Great), and the whole country of Iraq, with the 4th largest army in the world with all manner of Weapons of Mass Destruction, fell in even less time. So their next strategy was "we'll kill so many Americans you'll have to leave." that didn't work so well either, since the American president didn't cave in the way they expected. So now their strategy is "we'll kill OUR OWN PEOPLE until you surrender." The Pelosi-Reid-Murtha crowd, add Jim Webb to that, don't need a strategy to surrender. They're ready to admit defeat anytime America is fighting. Al Qaida's new strategy has really energized them.

The Science That Dare Not Speak Its Name

2007-02-13T10:04:00.000-08:00

Global Warming, a thousand blessings on Your Name, has finally reached the level that makes all scientific inquiry into its existence, and reasons for its existence, more than unnecessary: it is unhelpful. The idea that Global Warming, may Your Name be glorified, might not be due to man’s sin is no longer to be questioned. This does not mean, however, that Global Warming, live forever, can be said to be due to Original Sin. That kind of sin is a foolish concept that smacks of religion, and as modern people, we rely on the human capacity to understand science, rather than be guided by the unquestioning faith required by superstition.

We are talking here of the sin of white, male Europeans. They are the culprits who have put their comfort and amusement above the health of the planet. And they are the ones who continue to ask for scientific verification of Global Warming, all honor to Thy Holy Name.

WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS! Just look at the recent post on Apple’s website: (http://www.apple.com/pro/sessions/globalchange/)

“Over the past several decades, satellite data have revealed the gradual shrinkage of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean. This image shows the extent of ice in September, 1979 (yellow line), compared to its extent in September, 2005. This is a reduction of more than 20 percent.”

Since 1979 the ocean levels increased, . . . why, I can’t tell you how much the levels have risen! Thousands, perhaps millions of have been affected. I’m sure of it. Just as sure as I am that a glass full of ice will overflow when the ice melts. Right?

The sky isn't falling!

2005-05-25T13:52:00.000-07:00

Thank goodness. My understanding was that if the Nuclear Option had been voted on the Capitol dome would explode. Literally.

An odd emotion for the press to promote, since a quick scan of the Constitution and Lexis-Nexis, not to mention a rudimentary understanding of politics and government would expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats on the issue.

For instance, the filibuster is not enshrined in any document, much less the Constitution. It was first employed in 1806, and first curtailed in 1917, when cloture (Senate Rule XXII) was introduced. Tradition being important to the Democrat’s position, let us note that the filibuster was used to slow legislation through extended debate. Using it as a tool to block the Advise and Consent of the Senate happened first 2001 (the Abe Fortas “filibuster” can be argued either way). So the Democrats’ use of the filibuster to block judges flouted Senate tradition.

Another silly notion was the claim that we would lose a check on the Executive branch. There was never an issue of “checks and balances,” since the term refers to branches of government, of course, not political parties.

More pernicious were the statements made by Sen. Russ Feingold on C-SPAN today. He made the point that the rules were being violated by the Republicans. Just how is changing a Senate rule a violation of Senate rules? It makes me wonder when an intelligent individual like Feingold lets his liberal bias lead him into making such a solecism.

Yes or No?

2005-03-25T06:10:00.000-08:00

Widely reported is an ABC poll that purports to show that most Americans support the judicial rulings in the Terri Schiavo case. The poll was conducted with a sample of about 500 respondents. Do you believe it? Should you?

Let me help you on this. Without getting into the discussion of whether or not the media is biased, I'll go straight to the numbers. I won’t bore you with the background, but a poll of 500 is absolutely unreliable. The math employed in probability informs us that 1,100 to 1,500 is necessary for credibility.

Second, ask yourself the following question, one that fairly describes the Terri Schiavo situation:

“As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been disabled for 15 years. Some doctors who have examined her say it is possible that her condition is reversible with therapy. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be allowed to live. Her estranged husband wants her to die, but her parents want to take care of her and pay for therapy. In a case like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?”

Naturally, this is not the question ABC asked. Here’s how they phrased it:

“As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?”

Believe me, ABC did not tell us the question. Michelle Malkin (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050323.shtml) broke that story. In fact, it is not the story you see reflected in the mainstream media. It takes a minimal amount of effort to find out that Terri has never had her own counsel; that she never indicated her wish to die not named Schiavo; that her friends quote her as saying, “Where there’s life, there’s hope;” that she was leaving her husband when the “accident” occurred, on witnessed only by her husband; that he remembered she wanted to die some seven years later, after he received a large settlement for her injuries.

Of all the nonsense!

2005-03-21T12:11:00.000-08:00

The Terri Schiavo case has had the marvelous effect of turning the lights on in the kitchen and letting us see the cockroaches for what they are.

The LA Times editorial takes the odd approach of dismissing any jurisdiction Congress may exert over the Judiciary, or States’ rights (as though racial integration was effected without the help of Congress and Federal courts), and then fulminating about how hypocritical and politically motivated the Republicans are for doing so. Pardon me? How does that bear on the case? Shame, Mr. Kinsley, you should know better.

A “bio-ethicist” from the University of Pennsylvania informs us that Michael Schiavo shouldn’t be castigated for living with another woman while being married, since remaining married preserves his standing in “fulfilling” her wishes. I would have thought that the ethical way would be to forego other relationships, like fathering children, until the marriage had ended.

This isn’t even a matter of whether Terri Schiavo is really in a persistent vegetative state. Want proof? How about this: let’s say you want to be kept alive as long as your mom and dad are willing. Still think a judge should be able to starve you?

This case is about whether we should believe the claim made by Terri Schiavo’s adulterous husband that she once said she would rather die. This claim was remembered by this man after he had become engaged to another woman and Terri had been awarded money, many years later.

Now for my bona fides on this. On the Saturday before the Super Bowl my family was told by my 94-year old mother’s doctor that Mom would not survive the night. I bought it, she bought it, we all bought it. She lived the next few days in hospice as we gently let her body shut down, and she stopped eating. Towards the end, some of us figured, what the heck! she ought to at least enjoy some ice cream, maybe soup. Yadda, yadda, yadda -- she is back in her own apartment, living alone and livid at the doctors and their opinions. We are thrilled to have her back with us. Amazing what a little food and therapy can accomplish!

Shall we raise taxes?

2005-03-01T11:27:00.000-08:00

Think about it. What do you want? More revenue, or lower revenue. If history is any guide, lowering taxes will generate more revenue for the government (cf. Kennedy tax cut, Reagan tax cut, and, yes, the Bush tax cut).

Obviously, there are limits, but at the margin lower taxes mean higher revenue. The real issue is control (see my comment on Eric's comment on Social Security). People who lean toward raising taxes are really driven by their bias for control by the State. They know better how to steer your life than you do. You'll just blow the money on things you want, like a new Dodge Ram, whereas they will set it aside for things you really need, like new programs in education, or a new subway.

If you like being taken care of, turn Left. If you like cutting your own path, it's on the Right.

Hunter Thompson, R.I.P.

2005-02-28T10:09:00.000-08:00

Let me say at the outset, I am not in the least perturbed that this person took his own life. After all, it was his choice. That the act may be the only irretrievable mortal sin is not something to which he would give much credence, wouldn't you agree?

What I find repulsive is the fawning way Thompson is being dealt with by his running dogs in journalism. Some of them, like David Carr in the New York Times, try to pass themselves off as acolytes of a sort. Carr only displays his ignorance of physics in bending his own white-bread reporting style("Mr. Thompson managed to live and write his own version of the Heisenberg principle: That the observer not only changes events by his presence, but his presence also frequently surpasses the event in terms of importance.") No mention of the way his suicide might affect (forever) his grandson.

You liked Hunter Thompson? I liked Joe Pyne. Both had more style than, say, that unprincipled imp Michael Moore, and now both are gone. No big deal.

Saving Social Security

2005-02-18T09:31:00.000-08:00

This is definitely a great discussion to have. Why? Because it demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Left. (I'll leave it at that, because I like to believe that the ideas of Liberals and Democrats have not been entirely subsumed by the Left.)

The Crisis. Am I to understand that we are to relax until it's a crisis? Would you recommend the same approach to, say, global warming? Hmmmm?

The Choice. Since Bush's approach is to allow each citizen choose his route to retirement, i.e., all government controlled (current system) or partially owned and controlled by Everyman. What reasons can you think of that mandate no personal control (and no personal ownership of the portion one may choose)? I thought you were Pro-Choice?!

The Math. Don't tangle with me on this. Not even "economists" like Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times. It's simple: if few choose the ownership option, not much will change. If many do, it will be reflected in the pay-as-you-go system the government uses currently.

The Vision-thing. Once again, this president is proving he's way beyond his critics in seeing into the future and boldly going where, well, you know...

Man of the Year

2004-12-20T06:44:00.000-08:00

No surprise here, although there are many on the two coasts wondering what happened. Here's a line of thought for those lamenting Time’s choice: Osama bin Laden was awarded this distinction three years ago. If it helps, just think of it as another evil person getting his just notoriety. (Or does it offend you that the President is compared to a man that Michael Scheuer regards with much respect?)

For my two cents, Bush has displayed the same steadfast determination that made Winston Churchill the icon of strength that he was for the “greatest generation.” Today’s generations seem incapable of understanding the value, or even the concept for that matter, of sticking to one thing. Music videos, ads, MTV, even Sesame Street have all combined to put the focus on “impressions” at the expense of character.

Where’s my clicker?

Canada, O Canada

2004-12-01T06:10:00.000-08:00

We have now the revealing, and distressing picture of our Neighbor to the North trying to indict President Bush for war crimes while he makes the first visit in over a decade of a sitting president to Canada.

Well of course. Remember how we indicted FDR for war crimes after he declared war on Germany? Why, we had not been attacked by the Germans. The Japanese attacked us, primarily because we had not shown proper respect toward their ancient culture, as I recall. Get a grip!

Look, an entire side of my mother’s family was born Canadian, including her. One of my daughters graduated from McGill University in Montreal. I have had nothing but good experiences in any interactions with Canada. But I am getting fed up.

They’re ticked off because we didn’t swallow the Kyoto protocols hook, line and sinker; because we behave as if the USA is a superpower; because we say what we mean and mean what we say. And because we don’t seem to pay attention to them.

Of course we don’t pay attention to them! Why should we? Canada is a huge country with few people, and their actions in the world make the country look even smaller. That’s reality, neighbor. And here’s another reality --- you piss enough of us off, and your going to see what it’s like if we return the favor.

So be proud of your nation, but Tread on Me at your own risk.

What a guy!

2004-11-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

There he goes again. Paying little attention to the sensibilities of a foreign nation, President Bush simply reached into the middle of a developing flap between the Secret Service and Chilean security officials, grabbed his chief bodyguard by the arm and pulled him into the State dinner in Santiago. This didn’t play well in Chile, the New York Times was careful to inform us.

Why am I reminded of Alexander and the Gordian Knot? No doubt you recall the prophecy that the individual who was able to untangle this ancient knot was to conquer Asia. Alexander cut it in two with his sword, and the rest is for Oliver Stone to tell you.

I know the Left in this country flip-flops between viewing the president as a clueless coward and a Machiavellian bully, but let’s at least agree on how his supporters see him: he’s a real man, one with a vision clearly held and the courage to pursue it decisively. The incident in Chile is not important except as an indicator. Can you imagine how Kerry would have handled it? Carter?

It chills the blood to think about it.

Tell Laura, I love her...

2004-11-15T06:03:00.000-08:00

Since they lost on November 2nd, we have been witness to the Democrats in the process of continuing to destroy the viability of their party by driving their party towards a more narrow ideology. Do Republicans want to follow their lead?

Arlen Specter is under the gun by conservatives for remarks he made related to his expected elevation to chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Laura Ingraham is one of those in full cry to deny him this position. Before we speak about why Specter is in this pickle, let’s look at the realities.

First, the Republican Party is doing a creditable job filling the vacuum left in the “big tent” by Democrats (Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are quite familiar with the peculiar bigotry displayed by purists who would rather lose elections than allow for competing viewpoints, but that’s another blog.) Does it really help the Republican Party grow its membership to insist on ideological purity?

Second, think about effectiveness. Do you think a conservative ideologue would be more effective than Specter getting conservative judges approved? As long as Specter continues to support the President’s choices and moves the process swiftly to a floor vote, all of which he has committed to do, he will be a far more effective advocate than anyone else on the Committee.

Finally, let’s think about why Specter is in this position. The article characterizing Specter’s comments was written by the AP’s Lara Jakes Jordan, the reporter who spun Rick Santorum’s (R. - Pa.) remarks on the Texas sodomy case into the same trap. Santorum stood by his remarks, and refused to follow her story down the spider hole, but conservatives are lining up to take the plunge.

Laura, I love you, but you’re wrong on this.

Am I blue?

2004-11-08T06:19:00.000-08:00

Without question, many voters in the blue states are very blue indeed, but not me. With insightful advice from intelligent, astute political observers like Bill Clinton, Democrats should be able to fix their problems and move on. After all, it was Clinton who warned them about underestimating Bush, saying after they first met, “This guy really connects.”

Of course, this presumes that Democrats will follow his advice. After viewing the election wrap-up on Real Time with Bill Maher, I can confidently report that there is little danger of that happening.

The panel consisted of D.L. Hughley, Pat Schroeder and Andrew Sullivan, with a teleconference obeisance to Noam Chomsky, the highly intelligent priest of anti-Americanism and hypocrisy from MIT.

Mr. Hughley betrayed the peculiar mixture of ignorance, bombast and non sequitur that seems to plague Hollywood activists. Former Congresswoman Schroeder was her giddy self and Andrew Sullivan turned out to be a stalwart supporter of the nation, an outcome that put Bill Maher off his game.

Famously knavish in his attack from the Left, Bill was non-plussed, to say the least, when Mr. Sullivan roundly criticized the poisonous Mr. Chomsky as the prevaricator he is. Bill stacks his audiences with fans of Michael Moore so that his most vile asides will be guaranteed a round of applause. The audience, like Bill, wasn’t expecting one of the three other voters for Kerry to defend his adopted nation so stoutly. Their applause was disconcerted and contradictory; Bill was stung and flailing.

All of which confirms that the Republicans have nothing to fear for the next several election cycles. The Democrats, it appears, have nothing they need to fix.

Sacre Bleu!

2004-11-03T19:48:00.000-08:00

At least, that’s what I expect Jacques Chirac had to say when he got the election news from Les Etats Unis.

Random comments—

I, for one, will never let a national election go by without volunteering to help. I’m embarrassed to say that this is the first time I did more than carp from the sidelines. I knew if I thought the election was important, I had to pitch in. I was surprised how enjoyable it was working with the exciting team of kids that came from DC to help out.

Nothing so became the challenger in the campaign as his demeanor in leaving it. I was genuinely touched with his concession speech, and impressed with the integrity he showed in resisting the efforts pressed by Terry McAuliffe and John Edwards to take the decision to the courts.

The President weathered the withering attacks from the Left, Right and Center, while his opponent ran only one gauntlet, the one crafted by the Swift Vets. The mainstream media stayed scrupulously away from any embarrassing questions. After all the vitriol - Pouf! Michael Moore- Pouf!

Osama bin Laden found out he was not dealing with Spain or the Philippines. But then, shivering in his cave, he already knew that.

With the unfortunate help of their new governor, Californians signed a check for $6 billion for Idiotic Scam Cell research. 23 years and no breakthroughs – no wonder the vulture capitalists want the good people of California to take the risk so that they can spend theirs on Ferrari F430s. Vroom!

Our volunteers vs. their mercenaries

2004-11-01T13:52:00.000-08:00

Perhaps you heard of them. Some of them were caught red-handed leaving a prison with stacks of absentee ballots under their arms. This is wrong on several fronts: third parties are not allowed to deliver ballots; no one was monitoring how the voting was carried out; prisoners serving time for misdemeanors can vote, but felons cannot. The mercenaries were caught on tape.

In Lower Merion Township, decidedly for Kerry this cycle, over 400 George Bush signs have been stolen. No Kerry signs have gone missing. Kinda says something about Kerry supporters, doesn't it.

Final note: I have it from a reliable source that Florida will go for Bush. I wish I were as confident about Pennsylvania.

The Search for Intelligent Life in a President

2004-10-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

Guess what. Kerry ain't it.

Bush had higher SATs than John Kerry and a higher rating on his Officer aptitude exam. But you probably knew that. What you didn't know is that the Green Bay Packers play at Lambert Field and Manny Ortez did a helluva job for the Red Sox. That's a new record for Kerry: dissing both Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz in one comment

Let's face it: Kerry is not up to the work. Ask someone from Massachusetts and he will tell you that Kerry is a phony, and always has been.

The real thing

2004-10-27T05:36:00.000-07:00

It’s downright laughable to see liberal Democrats trying to assume the mantle of two of the many things they despise about America: religion and the military. Are they fooling you?

John Kerry of late has been quoting Scripture in churches, no doubt because the Bible has played such an important part in his life. This would be something of a surprise, since neither a personal relationship with God nor familiarity with Scripture is the usual focus for Catholics. It’s revealing, therefore, that the Scripture he quotes is from the Protestant Bible, not that of the Catholic Church. Not only Protestant, but from the King James Version, written when the fields were still blood-soaked from the religious wars of the sixteenth century.

Revealing, but not surprising for a candidate whose web site proudly declared that his favorite verse was John 16:3. Now, as anyone who has watched a sporting event knows, even one at “Lambert” Field, that nut with the funny hair usually holds up a sign that cites John 3:16, known to many Christians as “the Bible in miniature.” I leave it to you to look up Kerry’s favorite verse and see how prescient his choice is.

As uncomfortable as they are with religion, the Liberals are even more out of place when the military is mentioned. It is clear that they have no interest in Kerry’s military record beyond the fact that he served in Vietnam, since it serves as an anodyne for the shameful way they treated the returning soldiers in that war. They also use it like wolfbane against the accusations of being soft on defense.

The truth is that they want what Kerry wants: to retreat from Iraq, cut joint and bone from the military budget and abandon the remains to the regency of the UN. In the meantime they will submit the autonomy of their own country to the guidance of that same entity and judge our actions in the World Court.

Kerry’s a phony on both faith and war, and his record attests to that point. In fact, his supporters are counting on it. You want the Real Thing? Vote for Bush.

Do you care if we are safer?

2004-10-22T13:42:00.000-07:00

Are we safer now than we were before 9/11?

Of all the specious questions being asked by the Democrats, this is the one that is my candidate for the least pertinent.

Let me demonstrate: Were we safer on December 6, 1941 or December 8, 1941?

Without question we FELT safer on December 6th. We didn’t know that Japanese fighter-bombers were on their way to destroy the Pacific Fleet. We certainly weren’t safer as the first bombs were on their way to shatter our Sunday morning, wouldn’t you agree?

The real question is this: how do we insure our safety? And whom do we trust with that mission?

A simple choice

2004-10-22T07:25:00.000-07:00

What is the choice between Kerry and Bush? It’s really very simple: Bush will fight in Iraq. Kerry will bail.

Please don’t try to argue this point and pretend you are being honest. There is simply nothing in Kerry’s political history that suggests anything else. He wanted to cut and run in Vietnam, he opposed our aggressive approach against the Soviet Union, he opposed advanced weapons, increased budgets for Intelligence, voted against action to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

Kerry keeps saying that Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you really think that he is the one to WIN that war? Any war? Of course not. He’s never once spoken of victory, not in 35 years. And victory is exactly what Kerry will not pursue. And if you’re voting for Kerry, it’s because you want the troops home as quickly as possible, not because you want victory. Be honest. Even if he is not.

Faith and the Black vote

2004-10-19T10:41:00.000-07:00

It was a revealing moment. John Kerry explained the importance of his faith. Revealing, because it seemed to show how unimportant his faith is to him. This is a man who has not been on his knees since the erstwhile Mrs. Heinz said yes.

Soon after I had the odd experience of witnessing a conversation between Pat Buchanan and Larry O’Donnell, a newsman who fancies that we have heretofore been unaware of his liberal bias, in which they discussed the unsettling relationship that George W. Bush seems to have with God. Taken together with Ron Suskind’s article in Sunday’s NY Times (underscored last night by his appearance on Hardball, I am led to this conclusion: Liberals do not fear God; they fear men who fear God.

The genesis of this rather bizarre fear is ignorance, like that of many fears. These are people who simply know little about God or Faith. In the case of Messrs. Buchanan and O’Donnell, it is an ignorance they come by naturally enough, since they are both Irish Catholics. When they grew up, they were discouraged from forming any religious relationship other than one with the parish priest. Catholics have never been as interested in the Bible as they are in the Catechism, but at least they have come a long way from the 17th Century, when they had some Dutch skinned alive for reading the Word of God.

In Mr. Suskind’s case, the fear seems to stem from what can only be compared to a puerile ignorance of the subject. Imagine the naïveté encompassed in his understanding of prayer. Any person of faith, certainly any Christian who is in the habit of getting on his knees in prayer, understands the concept of seeking the will of God. If you believe in a Higher Being, doesn’t it make sense to try to understand what He wants? Mr. Suskind pictures this as demented, as though the petitioner must be a wild-eyed idiot who hears things.

I don’t fear a president who fears God; I fear one who does not. So do a lot more African-Americans than the Democrats are comfortable with, which is why many black churches are abandoning Kerry.

The case for multilateralism

2004-10-12T05:55:00.000-07:00

What do you think Kerry means by multi-lateral? At this point in the election debate, you should be able to answer this, because if you can’t, you’re not going to get any help from the media.

About all you will get from the New York Times and the LA Times regarding multi-inter-national-lateral is that the term applies to John Kerry alone. The term that is used with George Bush is unilateral, alone, nobody but us.

Think about it. George Bush went to the UN, got a resolution passed unanimously in the Security Council to put the wood to Saddam if he didn’t fork over his WMD. When it came to putting the wood together France, Germany and Russia demurred. Thirty other nations joined in a coalition with the US in the lead (you were thinking Italy should be the leader?) and thirty days later Iraq fell, several years ahead of what the nattering class was predicting. After learning what we have about the UN’s Oil for Food program, namely, that the French, Germans and Russians were making huge profits, and Saddam thought of it as his Money for WMD program, it’s no mystery that the three allies were not anxious to confront Iraq.

Meanwhile, Bush is leading a majority of nations in the successful prosecution of the war against terrorism everywhere else, a majority that includes France, Germany and Russia, BTW. In addition, Bush is negotiating substantial concessions from the three in his drive to forgive Iraq’s debt.

Things are looking up for the globe, wouldn’t you say?

Hardhitting debate assessment

2004-10-09T07:12:00.000-07:00

Both contestants were dressed conservatively, although John Kerry’s chalk stripe from Savile Row did much to complement his tall figure. George Bush selected an unfortunate light blue tie, rather than the more usual subdued red chosen by the other finalist. Each responded well to questioning in this most important test of the contest, responding with vigor and passion. We are not concerned with what was said; only how well each response was enunciated. Once again, Mr. Kerry won this portion of the contest with his sonorous, orotund delivery. Mr. Bush tended to be clipped and strident, continuing to drop his final “g’s” to everyone’s dismay.

Next up: the swimsuit competition.

Here's your hat, what's your hurry?

2004-10-05T14:13:00.000-07:00

Tom Friedman tells us he’s back. The New York Times columnist would have us believe that his sabbatical while writing a book has given him new perspective on Iraq. Here’s the shocker – he thinks the Bush administration has screwed things up.

Shocking? Hardly, since the only time Tom has given any slack to the Bush administration is after it won its stunning, three-week victory against Saddam Hussein, making Friedman’s protestations of the disastrous quagmire to do so inoperative.

He states in his column, “This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage…” Why do I think he means HIS advice? If you look at the laundry list of things Tom has suggested, you see that the advice Bush has failed to heed has all the marks of Friedman’s political point of view, his remonstrance to the contrary notwithstanding. The choices Tom Friedman has provided over the months since our remarkable victory underscore his liberal viewpoint.

Does that mean that things are going swimmingly in post-war Iraq? Of course not, any more than they did in China, when the Japanese surrender left 190,000 armed Japanese troops in a land they considered under their boot, or in Germany, where the “Werewolves” tried to wreak Nazi havoc on our troops. But history and logic are never high on his liberal radar. Emotion reigns supreme there.

The choices Bush has made are manifestly not political, but in the long-term interest of this country, and of Iraq, for that matter. The war began on 9/11 when the US was attacked. When it is won, sometime between the span of the Second World War and the Cold War, we will have a clearer view of leadership of this president, and the views of Mr. Friedman will sound as wrong-headed as those columnists who heralded the choices made by Neville Chamberlain.

Tom, take another break. You could use it.

The medium sure ain't the message

2004-10-04T13:43:00.000-07:00

Let’s take a look at that message Kerry used in his debate, shall we? Don’t try to read a transcript, because your eyes will cross. Kerry was clear about only one thing: his contempt for President Bush. Everything else was all across the board, but the Democrats don’t care. They would accept Kerry’s decision to reintroduce slavery, as long as it won the White House. They have no more intention of allowing Kerry to win the war than they have reinstituting the draft or slavery, for that matter. They will say anything to win.

One of his chief gaffes was the absurd contradiction that Mr. Multilateral would sweep aside the multilateral talks with North Korea going on now, in favor of the US alone negotiating with Mr. Kim. ‘Splain that to me, will you? That’s right up there with the Global Test Mr. Kerry is currently studying for.

Another canard that the Press has yet to discover is the notion that there is a draft lurking in the minds of the Republicans. The dots that the dear reporters seem incapable of connecting are: it is Kerry, not Bush, who keeps saying we need more troops, in contradiction to the theater commanders; no president can reinstitute the draft by fiat; the all-volunteer service has yielded the most effective fighting force in the history of mankind; only Democrats are flogging this horse.

My favorite is the idea that other countries, like France, are magically going to help us in Iraq. Look, France wouldn’t even fight for themselves; I wouldn’t count on them doing our fighting. French leaders allowed their populace to be subjected to jackbooted Nazis after a month in 1940. Freedom isn’t a big deal for them. They prefer to make money by skirting International sanctions, like Oil for “Food.”

Rather Redux

2004-10-03T08:09:00.000-07:00

Let’s take a break from all the heavy breathing over John Kerry’s performance at the first debate (I notice no one is talking about the substance of his remarks, but that’s another blog).

Dan Rather is back in the news, this time with his two “competitors” from the older networks. Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw have come to the defense of their colleague, citing such nostrums as, "I don't think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career," (Jennings), and condemning “a kind of political jihad ... that is quite outrageous," (Brokaw).

Funny, I don’t remember Peter voicing that sentiment about Martha Stewart, and she’s doing time. This is not one event in Rather’s career, any more that Monica Lewinsky was one event in Clinton’s career. What those two have in common is that for each it was the one event that defied prevarication and stonewalling, because both turned out to be incontestably true. Several examples of Dan Rather’s use of questionable authenticity have been raised in the past, but have always been met by the press’s version of stonewalling, “we stand by our story.” What about Spiro Agnew? He only got caught once.

With regard to Brokaw's comment, hoisting Rather by his own petard is just desserts, not political jihad. Somehow I don’t think Tom would have accepted such shoddy reporting and questionable evidence if it had been in defense of President Bush. Let’s remember that Tom Brokaw is the kind of discerning intellectual who has said he maintains course by steering between his friends who think he is too liberal, and those who think the opposite.

Tom, maybe you need a wider set of friends.

Unpacking the debate

2004-10-01T06:23:00.000-07:00

It's a draw. That’s what the big media outlets think. Both the Washington Times and the Washington Post agree on it. Even the New York Times admitted a draw, before it began its inevitable spin on Kerry’s appearing “presidential.”

I don’t agree. I think it was a “Nixon-Kennedy” event. If you heard it on the radio, Bush won; if you watched it, Kerry won. Kerry looked good, Bush looked tired.

But if you were to read a transcript, Kerry made some statements that make him not-ready-for-prime-time. The champion of international alliances would engage North Korea unilaterally. The person harping on U.S. casualties would put more American troops in harm’s way. Mr. One-thing-at-a-time (first bin Laden, then the next target) would prevail in this war much faster than Bush. Look, France and Germany have been helping us right along in the war against terror, but they are not about to pitch in to something described as a “grand diversion.” How ‘bout the “global test?” What’s up with that?

The Republican campaign is running like such a well-oiled machine, that I am tempted to suspect that they planned it this way. Can you say, “first Reagan-Mondale debate?” Developing…

Thank goodness Kerry’s benighted campaign staff decided to drop the Vietnam hero stuff. CBS producer Don Hewitt made the quote of the week, "You can't play war hero if it's about a war where you threw your medals away. “

Electoral Sweepstakes

2004-09-30T13:17:00.000-07:00

Hear we are, just prior to the first presidential debate, and it looks like a landslide in the Electoral College. I took note after the Republican Convention of the tally that seemed most likely in that august institution, one whose value I had questioned until the Democrats so dishonorably sowed the seeds of distrust in 2000. I have added some states (like MO, OH) that are still showing as Undecided, even though they are clearly trending toward Bush (i.e., coming to their senses).

Let's look at the Electoral Sweepstakes tallies:

09/05/2004 -- Bush 185 Kerry 190 Undecided 159

09/30/2004 -- Bush 299 Kerry 171 Undecided 64

And from the Electoral Vote Predictor (see http://www.electoral-vote.com/)
As of:
09/30/2004 -- Bush 280 Kerry 254
Final Prediction from Electoral Vote Predictor
11/02/2004 -- Bush 350 Kerry 178

Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets!

Impeach the president NOW!

2004-09-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

I have been quiet about my growing concern about the president, but the incompetence and prevarication of this man has led me finally to speak out about it: it's time to IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

There is widespread agreement as to his incompetence, and questions as to the depth of his avowed "born-again" Christianity, not to mention his judgment and handling of the economy. The timing may be late, but the president should be impeached.

I'm speaking, of course, of Jimmy Carter, the man whose presidency has been so deservedly disrespected by almost all Americans. Now he is reaching new lows in his behavior, having crossed the line 14 years ago when he actively worked against the actions of his own country and his president in trying to influence other countries to leave George H.W. Bush's coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Not surprisingly, Jimmeh had no effect.

His calling into question the election in Florida shows his understanding of the issue to be as lacking as his judgment in raising the issue. Listen up, Jimmeh: the election in 2000 was thrown into turmoil by the Democrats, who raised questions of voting fraud in precincts controlled by Democrats because of ballots designed by Democrats. Finally, the Democrats tried to hijack the vote through the Florida Supreme Court, controlled by Democrats.

Let's impeach President Carter. Thank goodness we don't have to remove this shameless hypocrite from office.

Unfit for office, any office

2004-09-28T06:12:00.000-07:00

As the Democrat campaign continues to unravel, the two Massachusetts senators have now made it clear through their actions that neither is fit for the office he holds, much less the office one seeks.

Kerry proffers his campaign promises, adding up to his message on Vietnam three decades ago. Of course he sees Iraq as a quagmire -- what other analogy would suggest his message of defeat and ignominy? He disrespects our allies, including the prime minister of Iraq, a man with imprimatur of Kerry's beloved, impotent United Nations. He questions the motives of our Allies, and underscores the threats of our implacable enemies.

Meanwhile, his colleague demonstrates once again that the wrong person paid the price at Chappaquiddick. As long as Ted Kennedy persisted as the buffoon of the family he now heads, his cowardly behavior 35 years ago seemed perfectly in context with the rest of his life. Now he extends his natural aversion to noble behavior at the expense of the safety of his own country. How else to describe his pusillanimous remarks about a "nuclear 9/11?"

Shame on both your houses. Or I should say, on all of your mansions.

Begin self-destruct sequence...

2004-09-27T06:49:00.000-07:00

As we close in on the last month before the election, Senator Kerry begins the self-destruct sequence the Clintons have been banking on from the outset. Returning to his natural, gloomy, pessimistic outlook on life, Kerry has decided to emphasize everything he can find that could be construed as catastrophic in Iraq.

Thank goodness he wasn't around when we invaded Omaha Beach, when we held fast at Bastogne, while we extricated ourselves out of the mess at Anzio.

And fortunately, the perspective of Americans, by and large, is the opposite of Kerry's. That is precisely why we prevailed at Normandy, in France, in Italy -- and in the Cold War. A more politically astute person, say, someone like Clinton, would understand the danger of those shoals, and tack smartly to the right until safely elected. The Disciple of Defeat is headed towards defeat.

Thank goodness.

Made for each other

2004-09-23T17:22:00.000-07:00

This is the woman who refused to acknowledge she had accused some of her critics of having "un-American traits;" who described herself, "I want to be a dog;" who called people "scumbags."

Now that her husband has staked his claim as the Disciple of Defeat, Teresa Heinz Kerry predicts an Osama bin Laden "capture" before the election. Of course, her spin is that it would be a dirty trick by the GOP. But to paraphrase the well-respected Executive Editor of the LA Times, when the time is right, you run with it. He was talking about the groping stories that came out a few weeks before Arnold Schwarzeneggar was elected. He was right, and if Osama is captured before the election, that's fine with most Americans.

But not Teresa. Teresa, look at the bright side. You can use it to excuse the embarrassing loss of your husband's nasty campaign.

"Johnny, we already knew ye"

2004-09-23T08:41:00.001-07:00

A revealing column in Monday's Boston Globe by renowned author James Carroll makes an eloquent statement of John Kerry's politics. He clearly states the far left positions that are driving the Democrat Party, and have been driving away people from Ronald Reagan to Zell Miller. Like the the ideas that the US is the terrorist nation, and Gorbachev's good offices ended the Cold War that had been the delight of the American military-industrial complex. I guess it shows that eloquence doesn't rule out stupidity. In fact, eloquence is trumped by the malicious silliness of ideas like Carroll's.

Any thought that Kerry had changed his stripes from being the country's disciple of defeat to a viable commander-in-chief disappeared on that same Monday with Kerry's speech at NYU. Now, Iraq is a disaster and Kerry wants us to flee the scene ASAP.

Surprisingly, the nuanced and mutable candidate turns out to be exactly who we always knew him to be. Obviously, the reason he cares so much about the opinions of Europe, the UN and the world is that he rather disdains this country, especially the opinions of those who enjoy brat and beer at "Lambert" Field in Green Bay. Kerry is focused on the defeat of US interests, just like he was 35 years ago and ever since. If that's what you want, don't punch that chad for Bush: he's the candidate who is focused on victory.

Disciple of Defeat

2004-09-21T06:19:00.000-07:00

There’s been a lot of speculation of what kind of president John Kerry would make. Much of the complaining has come from Republicans who want to hear Kerry address the issues of today, not Vietnam and the issues of the past. Democrats want to know Kerry's position, too.

I’ve got news for you: we don’t need to hear Kerry’s position. We are very familiar with it.

During the 70s, Kerry did everything he could to torpedo America’s efforts in Vietnam.

During the 80s, Kerry did everything he could to hobble America’s efforts in winning the Cold War.

During the 90s, Kerry did everything he could to cripple America’s military and sap the morale of our troops.

Today, Kerry has decided to focus all his energies in destroying our efforts in Iraq.

John Kerry knows defeat well; he has pushed for the defeat of his own country at nearly every turn. Here is what he will do -- Kerry will apologize to his European mentors for his country’s actions. Then he will discover widespread atrocities directed by the Bush regime. In the interest of national healing, he will keep the details to himself. Then he will begin to pull American troops out of Iraq, finding the elected Iraqi government corrupt and in violation of human rights. Then he will apologize to the Iraqi insurgents and the “Arab street” for the actions of U.S. troops who invaded their lands. Finally, he will begin to negotiate with al Qaeda and its clients, who have no interest in doing so.

Kerry has said that he would not have ousted Saddam. He will pursue attacks on the United States like the lawyer he is: in court. He will refrain from using U.S. military power without the imprimatur of the United Nations. He will turn over tactical control of our Armed Forces to the generals of other countries.

If this is what you want, vote for Kerry. But don’t be confused about what he intends to do.

CBS = New York Times

2004-09-19T11:47:00.000-07:00

Let me share with you how the fake documents CBS has tried to flog fits with the media’s approach to the Swift Boat Vets, and their attack on John Kerry.

My reference is Nicholas Kristof’s column yesterday in the New York Times (a copy of which I will post on my website at http://rance.net/kristof.pdf). Mr Kristof makes the point that, “Mr. Kerry has stretched the truth here and there, but earned his decorations. And the Swift Boat Veterans, contradicted by official records and virtually everyone who witnessed the incidents, are engaging in one of the ugliest smears in modern U.S. politics.”

What the column has in common with CBS is shoddy work.

For instance, Kristof mentions William Rood in connection with the March 1969 incident, when Rood’s comments about Kerry refer to the February 1969 mission. A small matter? Not when Rood is used as an eyewitness to an event he didn’t attend.

Another example: Kristof claims that every enlisted man that served with him backs up Kerry’s account. That conveniently leaves out Steve Gardner, the man who served longest under Kerry, and calls him a coward and a liar.

Regarding the March 1969 incident, virtually everyone who was an eyewitness to the Bay Hap incident in March disputes Kerry’s account, contrary to Kristof’s assertion .

The now common assertion made by the mainstream media that the charges alleged by the Swift Boat Veterans have been contradicted is misleading. The allegations have been contradicted, but not disproved. I have unpacked the charges made by the Swift Boat Vets and found there are 35 charges, 16 of which are TRUE (Kerry has admitted or has failed to address), 15 are IN DISPUTE (contradicted, but not disproved) and four of which are FALSE (not admitted by the SBV, but summarily deemed false by me). The full list is available at http://rance.net/sbv.pdf.

Who’s smearing whom?

Dan: "I was wrong."

2004-09-16T08:47:00.000-07:00

Now, even Dan rather admits that there may be some question as to the authenticity of the Guard documents that form the centerpiece of his reporting against W’s service. I guess when the LA Times says you’ve been had, you might want to check

We all knew Dan was biased. We all knew he was arrogant. We didn’t realize he was totally clueless. When one of his document analysts warned that the documents would be questioned by thousands, did he really not get it? Doesn’t he know about the “Wisdom of Crowds” theory of bloggers that James Surowiecki has made popular.

I am awarding Dan the Robin MacNeil award for Cluelessness. You may remember that when the erstwhile Mr. MacNeil was retiring from the MacNeil-Lehrer Report, he famously announced that neither he nor Jim Lehrer had any need for the Internet since. “We know how to use libraries.”

A modest proposal

2004-09-14T17:06:00.000-07:00

Let me pass on to Dan Rather a modest proposal suggested to me by the CEO of a media firm in New York City: locate a 1972 typewriter that has the capabilities of the one CBS insists prepared the phony National Guard memos, and have someone type them out. Then we can compare the typed memos with the phony ones CBS insists are authentic. If they match, we can all move on. Sound fair?

Or, we can all just take Dan's word on it.

CBS memos proved false

2004-09-13T15:14:00.000-07:00

In this blog’s continuing Search for the Truth, I thought I'd check something out, and lo and behold, found that if I use Microsoft Word to write "111 th" -- leaving a space after the number, there is no superscripting of the "th." On the other hand, if I write the same number without the space, the "th" is reduced in size and superscripted. Interestingly, this is precisely what happened in the 04-May-1972 memo.

I purchased in 1967 an IBM Executive typewriter with proportional spacing, and am very familiar with its operation. In order to center a line on the page (like the header of the 04-May-1972 memo), one has to measure the width of the script, then back off from center half that amount and begin typing. The width of the script must be measured by first typing each line left justified, then half-spacing over to the end of the longest line. Of course, this procedure is tedious enough to preclude anyone doing it unless it was terribly important. (In my case, I fully-justified my resume at the time, so it was worth the extra hours.) With M/S Word, it's a simple command.

Bottom line? The CBS memos are forgeries.

CBS stands by its story

2004-09-13T06:33:00.000-07:00

CBS stands by its story. This is the story that points to previously unknown documents of LTCOL Jerry Killian, a man dead two decades, who (though he didn’t type) used Microsoft WORD 10 years before it was available. Those documents now appear to be forged.

CBS stands by its story. Sounds a lot like NBC standing by its story on GM pickup trucks back in the ‘80s. Stood by, that is, until GM spent untold amounts investigating the story and on the close inspection of the films, and mirabile dictu, it turns out NBC itself deliberately ignited incendiary devices to “simulate” explosions that were not cooperating with NBC’s preconceived notions. NBC: “Oh, that…”

CBS stands by its story. Understand, the reporters didn’t think it was necessary to talk to the widow of the man, nor his son. Both said nothing sounded like their loved one.

CBS stands by its story. Even though the person who “authenticated” the documents says he never saw the forged documents, and never authenticated them. And says he was misled by CBS.

CBS stands by its story. Even though the person who is said to have pressured LCOL Killian to “sugarcoat” Bush’s record was no longer in the National Guard at the time.

Dan Rather: "DOH!!"

2004-09-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

Dan Rather "authenticates" documents written by W's admiring CO in the Texas Air National Guard, a man dead for two decades, and it turns out the man was using Microsoft WORD ten years before it was invented. Look, I had an IBM Executive typewriter in 1967, one that types using proportional spacing, but I got news for Dan: it couldn't produce superscripts, and it wasn't perfectly even across the page.

We knew Dan was biased, and we knew he was getting old -- real old -- but we didn't realize he was credulous. DOH!

Kerry still on course...

2004-09-09T07:58:00.000-07:00

The Democrat campaign for Kerry is on course to augur in a few weeks from now, just like Genesis. In true Democrat style all attacks, old and new (Bush was AWOL, Cheney's a coward), are being repeated by every Kerry surrogate, including the usual suspects in the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, Kerry trips all over himself, calling Iraq a distraction from the War on Terror, then lamenting the 1000 dead threshhold in "the War on Terror" (I notice the speech has been laundered on the Kerry site, but I heard it with my own lyin' ears). Kerry's claim to "respond after attack," makes Cheney's warning in Iowa seem prescient.

Paul Begala calls President Bush a "gutless wonder," says he has a "lack of intelligence," and calls Vice President Cheney a "dirt bag." James Carville says the President is "ignorant big time" and said "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are a couple of nobodies." Bush and his campaign continue to honor Kerry's service, focus on the future and take the high road. No wonder, since the Democrats have a Florida-style traffic jam going on the low road.

I say, "Bring it on." I have greater confidence in the American people than Kerry's elitists have.

Terror in Russia

2004-09-07T10:10:00.000-07:00

While we are all in shock over the horror at the school in Beslan, the media seems curiously unwilling to connect the dots to the war on terrorism. I know the media is ABLE to draw conclusions, since I have them watched them make breathtaking leaps from one dot to another when it suits them.

These were not the “Russian rebels” the New York Times talks about today. These were terrorists. Chechens, Ingush and others, they had specially trained dogs, NATO gear and advanced communications. They had intimate knowledge of their target, and were ruthless in following their plan. The Chechens have been a part of Russia longer than either California or Texas has been a part of the U.S. What would your response be if your child were involved in a horror like this, and the “rebels” demanded return of their land, say, California?

Get ready.