The French Nightmare Come True...
From the Times of London, I give you this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1869874,00.html
Th implication is that Jacques Chirac is a dead man walking, and all it will take to bury him once and for all is for the violence now sweeping French cities to spill over and disrupt the tourist trade.
I don't agree that it's that simple, to be sure, but there are underlying factors at play here.
What is happening in Paris, and elsewhere, is simply a repudiation of the European societal model. This model implies that things like culture, religion and custom can just easily be brushed aside in the name of "unity". It is an extension of the philosophical argument that human nature can be ignored when it becomes inconvenient. France, and the rest of Europe to varying degrees, has been attempting to rebuild society in some utopian way since the end of the Second World War. The foundations of this new society are to be based upon the people, at all levels, ignoring the fact that they may be French, Polish, Dutch, etc., and instead consider themselves "Europeans" who happen to speak different languages and eat different foods. Borders and labels, nationalism of any kind, is to be excised or sublimated to the god of "European-ness", and former conventions surrounding nationality and culture are to be laughed at as "constructs".
Unless, of course, you happen to be French, in which case, suddenly French culture, language, art, etc., should have a special place reserved for it.
Extend this to North Africans and Muslims living within this new European world; they are not racially native to Europe, which is a mostly homogenous place. While Europeans may have differences among them they are still Caucasians. So, the newcomers don't "blend in" to begin with. You can put a Norwegian and a Belgian in the same room, and except for slight differences in costume and hygiene, so long as they were silent , you could not place them. Keep that same European duo in the room and add an Algerian, a Morroccan, and an Ivory Coast-er, and it becomes easy to tell the difference.
Which is why pretending to be European instead of Danish and Italian doesn't work for these folks in the societies in which they live. They are set apart. They don't belong. Their very appearance reinforces those notions, and despite the attempts to force a belief that "color doesn't matter" or that "all cultures are fundamentally the same", it's difficult to buck human nature, which naturaly persuades you to seek the differences before you find the common ground.
Naturally, being of the group labelled "the other" in a homogenous society leads to other things. For a start, these people (the rioters) mostly have their roots in regions that were conquered, colonized and exploited by European countries. Four hundred years of colonialism and imperialism have left a scar; not on them, but on the conquerors. And not just a single scar, this scarring takes many forms.
So, it's possible to hear an "enlightened" Frenchman talk about equality one minute and curse the lazy nigger who's late bringing his latte the next, complete with regurgitated racisim that floated around France for centuries before he was born. You think this doesn't happen? Ask the Jews, who have taken this kind of thing in every European country they've set foot in. This residual racism is impossible to erase by government fiat or re-education because it is subconcious. It is ingrained in the culture.
Imperalism left other scars on Europe. Guilt being merely the worst one of all. Guilt over the despoilation of Africa and Asia, the slave trade, the legions of sweating Indian coolies, the dead Vietnamese, Siamese, Sri Lankans, Malays, Zulus, Levant Arabs, Persians, Aborigines, etc, etc, in the name of "King and Country" or "merchantilism" have had a deep effect on the European psyche, particularly after the dissolution of the European Empires. This manifests itself in a kind of patronising deferrence that is both enabling and disabling. On the one hand, it excuses the worst excesses of a particular group because of a legitimate historic grievance, and on the other hand, saps the will of the aggrieved to actually fend for themselves because guilt-ridden European governments and intellectuals will provide for them. It's pennance for the sins of Imperialism.
Which leads us to the question of unchecked immigration.
When you import "the Other" in the millions, simply pay them to exist, or if they should want to actually work, cut them off at the pass with racism, condescension and well-meaning-but-inept government handouts and overtures, and work rules that would choke a hippo, then don't expect them to actually want to be part of your society. They get the impression that you really don't want them anyway.
When you begin to tear at their culture, for many the only thing they know or have, in the attempt to "Europeanize" the non-European, then do not be surprised when they get really angry and start burning Citroens in record numbers. In recent years, France has passed laws banning the wearing of headscarves, has decreed that religion has no place in a modern society, has targeted 700 or more religious groups in France as being a threat to the nation, or claim to defend human rights and freedom while you're in bed with Saddam Hussein (a man many of these people fled from, or from other despots like him), don't look so bewildered.
When Danes vote to make Danish the chief lingua franca and the result is to make it more difficult for immigrants to assimilate, then don't be so surprised when the Others raise a stink over it.
When the Swedish government assumes the mantle of "abortion provider for Europe", don't be so shocked when a group of people who hold deep religious and cultural beliefs that run counter to this proposition get upset.
The problem is not so much Chirac and his cronies (although they are certainly guilty as hell of an awful lot) as much as it is an attitude that permeates European society. It is an attitude of hypocrisy, condescension, arrogance, disrespect, racism and radical thinking that defies the logical lessons of the 10,000 year history of civiliztion.
Chirac, in my opinion, is done for. He was some time ago. The riots will merely speed up the process. He is as much a victim of what I've discussed as anyone on the street lobbing Molotovs at public transport. Europe has three roads it might now travel:
a) It could capitulate and we'll see the first Continent-wide Islamic revolution from Portugal to Poland.
b) It could fight back, brutally, restricting immigration, beginning a program of mass, forced deportations and violence on a scale that is currently unimaginable.
c) It could make an effort to live up to the ideals and values it preaches so haughtily to us Americans and start actually beginning the process of becoming a melting pot not just for Europeans, but for everyone on the continent.
I foresee a combination of all three. The riots will be put down, probably viciously as they escalate. The Europeans, starting with the French, will cave into many of the demands of some of the more radical and violent spokespeople and front groups for the rioters. These "compromises" will seem small and reasonable, but will eventualy blossom into the proverbial turd in the punchbowl, while Europeans once deluded by guilt now delude themselves that they've bought peace. The process will repeat itself.
And the process will eventually subsume that monstrosity called the E.U. It is the E.U.'s stated scoial and ethical philosophy that is being tested in the fires of Paris. Not Chirac. He's had his test on the first night of the riots and failed to answer the bell.
And this scares the French more than anything else; that their beautifully-crafted European Union will lie a-smoldering in the streets of Paris when the continent that believes Europeans can be "citizens of the world" can't seem to acknowledge that someone of a different race can be a citizen of Paris.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Of Bird Flu and Deep Dog Doo...
Okay, Imight have been wrong in my originial assumption. I can admit that. I can live with it, even. It's been known to happen.
Apparently, the Avian Flu just might be something dangerous in way I never thought of before.
According to some new research, the Avian Flu kills by causing your body's immune system to go into overdrive, producing large numbers of "killer cells". About 10 times the number associated with other, more common influenzas. Apparently this vast increase in auto-immune defenses is itself a danger, causing swelling in the lungs, which causes respiratory problems for otherwise healthy people.
In other words, the healthier you are, the more you have to worry. I can't recall ever having to worry about being killed by a flu bug when I was otherwise perfectly healthy. I wonde rif this means that if you have AIDS, you might actually have a better chance of surviving since your immune system is so depressed the flu can only cause it to start working like sled dogs? Something to wonder about, I guess.
Additionally, I've read this morning that the same influenza virus has now been found in pigs. It has already begun to mutate and infect mammals, in other words. Previously, transmission was between birds and people who came into contact with birds or bird byproducts (feces, guts, etc). It now appears that H5N1 is capable of infecting other mammals as well. Whether this is a mutation or an innanate ability is still being debated.
So now here we are: we have a tricky bug that manages to spread itself quite nicely despite the best efforts to contain it. The people most at risk would be the people that would not necessarily be so under normal conditions. And finally, the authorities we're depending on (the ones that have the most information and experience with this disease) are typically Chinese Vietnamese and Canadian, and working with the dubious filter of socialst/communist government (which means the inconvenient truth will not be told until it is too late).
Now, the results of all this research are still not in, and at this point we're still talking speculation. But perhaps I pooh-poohed this thing a bit too quickly.
PS- Here is a link to the story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520504/posts
Okay, Imight have been wrong in my originial assumption. I can admit that. I can live with it, even. It's been known to happen.
Apparently, the Avian Flu just might be something dangerous in way I never thought of before.
According to some new research, the Avian Flu kills by causing your body's immune system to go into overdrive, producing large numbers of "killer cells". About 10 times the number associated with other, more common influenzas. Apparently this vast increase in auto-immune defenses is itself a danger, causing swelling in the lungs, which causes respiratory problems for otherwise healthy people.
In other words, the healthier you are, the more you have to worry. I can't recall ever having to worry about being killed by a flu bug when I was otherwise perfectly healthy. I wonde rif this means that if you have AIDS, you might actually have a better chance of surviving since your immune system is so depressed the flu can only cause it to start working like sled dogs? Something to wonder about, I guess.
Additionally, I've read this morning that the same influenza virus has now been found in pigs. It has already begun to mutate and infect mammals, in other words. Previously, transmission was between birds and people who came into contact with birds or bird byproducts (feces, guts, etc). It now appears that H5N1 is capable of infecting other mammals as well. Whether this is a mutation or an innanate ability is still being debated.
So now here we are: we have a tricky bug that manages to spread itself quite nicely despite the best efforts to contain it. The people most at risk would be the people that would not necessarily be so under normal conditions. And finally, the authorities we're depending on (the ones that have the most information and experience with this disease) are typically Chinese Vietnamese and Canadian, and working with the dubious filter of socialst/communist government (which means the inconvenient truth will not be told until it is too late).
Now, the results of all this research are still not in, and at this point we're still talking speculation. But perhaps I pooh-poohed this thing a bit too quickly.
PS- Here is a link to the story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520504/posts
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
We'll Always Have Paris...Until it Burns Down, of Course...
Regarding the second week of rioting in the...ahem..suburbs of Paris:
1. American media have FINALLY gotten around to mentioning that the "rioters" (at least they haven't called them "insurgents" yet) are, for the most part, Muslim. Always wary of being politically correct and always on the verge of giving themselves a collective hernia in the attempt, the American media, for some reason, just can't seem to do what it says is it's primary job: which is to report stuff.
A reporter's job consists of telling you: who, where, what, why and how. Please take note that "who" came first on that list. One day one, provided that it wasn't absolutely impossible to verify, it should have been pointed out that the rioters were mostly of Musli extraction. Doing so, however, would have "reinforced negative stereotypes about Muslims" which would be too painful for most reporters to relay to you, the general public. However, had the rioters been angry, white, Christian males, most reporters would have mentioned it in the first sentence. This is the price of political correctness, I guess; news is now (seems it always was) censored on the basis of whether or not it would offend someone's sensibilities (unless you're a white, Christian male). I mean it couldn't be importantto the story at all to point out that the rioters are of a certain color or persuasion, right?
Guess again.
Because it is important, because the central theme of this whole rioting business seems to be that there are many Muslims and North Africans who, despite the French penchant for blowing their own horn vis-a-vis sensitivity and PC, feel like second-class citizens. Probably more like third class, if you ask me. It's important, I believe, to let people know what these riots are about, and in this case, race, culture and religion are serving as triggers. A great many of these guys lobbing Molotovs are French-born. They are CITIZENS, not merely immigrants, and they have not been assimilated or granted the full range of rights offered to white Frogs because of their color and culture.
2. The French are having, and will continue to have, a difficult time settling this thing down. Part of the reason is becaue it's obvious that the French police forces are either too frightened to restore order, or have no idea of how to do so. There is also the open frenzy of political backstabbing going on between Chirac, de Villepin and Sarkozy in the light of day. It's obvious that what passes for a French government cannot come to terms with what has happened, therefore, how can one expect the security apparatus to do so?
3. The silence of the American left is stunning. After years fo being told how much better things are in Europe, we have had a string of events that prove that thngs are just a screwy there as they are here. Riots in France have sparked similar events in Copenhagen, Berlin, and several cities in Holland, Belgium and Sweden (the Socilaist heaven). The facade of the modern Euro-secular society, with cradle to grave welfare, with national health, and the peace and politeness that comes from sophistication and bad philosophy, has been torn down. Europe is now exposed for what it has always been: a second-rate version of the United States with the same social problems, but better cuisine.
Now that the lie of Eu-topia has been exposed, I wonder how quickly all the references to French sophistication and Scandanavian welfare nannyism will cease. Seemed to me to be all of two days, but I think there are some last true belivers (Kool Aid drinkers) over on Air America.
One other thing, which strikes me as pretty funny; here in America, our suburbs are places outside the major cities where people who are accused of not wanting to be surrounded by minorities flee to as soon as they possibly can. In France, a suburb, apparently, is where you dump your unwanted minorities, who in turn, wind up surrounding you because you stayed. Which is appropos --- it's the same mentality behind the Maginot Line, I guess.
Regarding the second week of rioting in the...ahem..suburbs of Paris:
1. American media have FINALLY gotten around to mentioning that the "rioters" (at least they haven't called them "insurgents" yet) are, for the most part, Muslim. Always wary of being politically correct and always on the verge of giving themselves a collective hernia in the attempt, the American media, for some reason, just can't seem to do what it says is it's primary job: which is to report stuff.
A reporter's job consists of telling you: who, where, what, why and how. Please take note that "who" came first on that list. One day one, provided that it wasn't absolutely impossible to verify, it should have been pointed out that the rioters were mostly of Musli extraction. Doing so, however, would have "reinforced negative stereotypes about Muslims" which would be too painful for most reporters to relay to you, the general public. However, had the rioters been angry, white, Christian males, most reporters would have mentioned it in the first sentence. This is the price of political correctness, I guess; news is now (seems it always was) censored on the basis of whether or not it would offend someone's sensibilities (unless you're a white, Christian male). I mean it couldn't be importantto the story at all to point out that the rioters are of a certain color or persuasion, right?
Guess again.
Because it is important, because the central theme of this whole rioting business seems to be that there are many Muslims and North Africans who, despite the French penchant for blowing their own horn vis-a-vis sensitivity and PC, feel like second-class citizens. Probably more like third class, if you ask me. It's important, I believe, to let people know what these riots are about, and in this case, race, culture and religion are serving as triggers. A great many of these guys lobbing Molotovs are French-born. They are CITIZENS, not merely immigrants, and they have not been assimilated or granted the full range of rights offered to white Frogs because of their color and culture.
2. The French are having, and will continue to have, a difficult time settling this thing down. Part of the reason is becaue it's obvious that the French police forces are either too frightened to restore order, or have no idea of how to do so. There is also the open frenzy of political backstabbing going on between Chirac, de Villepin and Sarkozy in the light of day. It's obvious that what passes for a French government cannot come to terms with what has happened, therefore, how can one expect the security apparatus to do so?
3. The silence of the American left is stunning. After years fo being told how much better things are in Europe, we have had a string of events that prove that thngs are just a screwy there as they are here. Riots in France have sparked similar events in Copenhagen, Berlin, and several cities in Holland, Belgium and Sweden (the Socilaist heaven). The facade of the modern Euro-secular society, with cradle to grave welfare, with national health, and the peace and politeness that comes from sophistication and bad philosophy, has been torn down. Europe is now exposed for what it has always been: a second-rate version of the United States with the same social problems, but better cuisine.
Now that the lie of Eu-topia has been exposed, I wonder how quickly all the references to French sophistication and Scandanavian welfare nannyism will cease. Seemed to me to be all of two days, but I think there are some last true belivers (Kool Aid drinkers) over on Air America.
One other thing, which strikes me as pretty funny; here in America, our suburbs are places outside the major cities where people who are accused of not wanting to be surrounded by minorities flee to as soon as they possibly can. In France, a suburb, apparently, is where you dump your unwanted minorities, who in turn, wind up surrounding you because you stayed. Which is appropos --- it's the same mentality behind the Maginot Line, I guess.
Friday, November 04, 2005
NOW do you get it?
Regarding the week of riots in the suburbs of Paris: couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.
Despite the pretense of being "enlightened" people, the French are basically reaping the whirlwind they have sown. Two generations (at least) of Muslims and North Africans brought into France for the express purpose of propping up the social welfare state, have decided they've had enough of being second-class-citizens-going-on-slaves, and have found a pretext to riot and destroy(in this case, the death of two teenage boys, ostensibly at the hands of the police).
And this phenomenon willl repeat itself across Europe any day now. I've already read sketchy reports of similarthings hapening in Denmark (which is even more blatanly anti-Muslim than France).
The real problem, of course, is assimilation, and it's a two way street. The French government, and probably the people, are more than happy to extend the benefits of French citizenship to anyone who will work like a sled dog in a menial job, provided none of the nancy-boy French has to actually see or speak to them. Many Muslims are glad to take jobs cleaning sewers and catching rats for minimum wage (or whatever they do), with the promise (promise, mind you) that they might actually make a better life for themselves in a western democratic, secular state).
Unfortuately for them, it doesn't work out that way.
Instead of being welcomed and assimilated, the Muslims are hoarded into ghettos and publicly ostracized. They never achieve much of anything, except criminal records, and then the state goes ahead and tries to remove the symbols of their culture (like the wearng of headscarves). They are good enough to sweep the streets of Paris, but not to actually live in it. They may practice their religion behind closed doors, but not talk about or express it in the public square. They may pay taxes so that Frenchmen can retire at 50 with maid service, but never achieve much in the way of economic betterment.
The French have, for all intents and purposes, imported an entire third-world nation into their midst. Rioting is the very least of their problems at the moment.
And there is a lesson here for us here in America as well.
We have a third world nation in our midst right now. Actually, we have many third world nations in our midst right now. The first one being our own black population, the second (and fastest growing) is hispanic. Forty years of social engineering (forced integration, affirmative action, etc, etc) have done little to improve race relations in this country, and in my opinion, have made them worse.
So, what do we and the French do about it? I haven't the answer. I do know this much: what's happening in the streets of Paris is both dangerous and amusing. Dangerous because it might just be the spark that ignites an Islamic revolution in Europe and amusing because the French, for all their ignorant banter about America being some sort of beast bestriding the planet, denying the less fortunate rights andf a voice, are hoist upon their own petard.
Regarding the week of riots in the suburbs of Paris: couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.
Despite the pretense of being "enlightened" people, the French are basically reaping the whirlwind they have sown. Two generations (at least) of Muslims and North Africans brought into France for the express purpose of propping up the social welfare state, have decided they've had enough of being second-class-citizens-going-on-slaves, and have found a pretext to riot and destroy(in this case, the death of two teenage boys, ostensibly at the hands of the police).
And this phenomenon willl repeat itself across Europe any day now. I've already read sketchy reports of similarthings hapening in Denmark (which is even more blatanly anti-Muslim than France).
The real problem, of course, is assimilation, and it's a two way street. The French government, and probably the people, are more than happy to extend the benefits of French citizenship to anyone who will work like a sled dog in a menial job, provided none of the nancy-boy French has to actually see or speak to them. Many Muslims are glad to take jobs cleaning sewers and catching rats for minimum wage (or whatever they do), with the promise (promise, mind you) that they might actually make a better life for themselves in a western democratic, secular state).
Unfortuately for them, it doesn't work out that way.
Instead of being welcomed and assimilated, the Muslims are hoarded into ghettos and publicly ostracized. They never achieve much of anything, except criminal records, and then the state goes ahead and tries to remove the symbols of their culture (like the wearng of headscarves). They are good enough to sweep the streets of Paris, but not to actually live in it. They may practice their religion behind closed doors, but not talk about or express it in the public square. They may pay taxes so that Frenchmen can retire at 50 with maid service, but never achieve much in the way of economic betterment.
The French have, for all intents and purposes, imported an entire third-world nation into their midst. Rioting is the very least of their problems at the moment.
And there is a lesson here for us here in America as well.
We have a third world nation in our midst right now. Actually, we have many third world nations in our midst right now. The first one being our own black population, the second (and fastest growing) is hispanic. Forty years of social engineering (forced integration, affirmative action, etc, etc) have done little to improve race relations in this country, and in my opinion, have made them worse.
So, what do we and the French do about it? I haven't the answer. I do know this much: what's happening in the streets of Paris is both dangerous and amusing. Dangerous because it might just be the spark that ignites an Islamic revolution in Europe and amusing because the French, for all their ignorant banter about America being some sort of beast bestriding the planet, denying the less fortunate rights andf a voice, are hoist upon their own petard.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Taliban Wing?
Last year or so, during the run up to the 2004 elections, Julian Bond of the NAACP referred to Conservatives in this country as "the Taliban wing of the Republican party". He was soundly denounced and villified for even daring to mke such a statement in public, and to a certain extent, rightfully so. The comment was meant to evoke fear and disgust in certain segments of the population (i.e. those the reliably vote Democrat), and given what we know of the Taliban and their practices, it was way over the top.
Fast forward to October, 2005.
I was recently engaged in a chat on an internet forum regarding George W. Bush and the Supreme Court. The majority of the people involved identified themselves as "Conservatives" with some going as far as to claim the title of "Arch-Conservative" or "True Conservative". The subject matter strayed quite a bit, with arguments about rampant Congressional spending, the threat to free speech of Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold Law that restrticts the subject matter, time frame and funding of any issue-advocacy advertisements during an election cycle, among other things), and a whole host of ways in which George W. Bush has "betrayed" his conservative friends.
They felt that Bush had abandoned them on their issues, and was no conservative at all. They were, of course, talking like the disaffected usually do; they'll take their votes elsewhere (just where is never identified), they'll continue to hound him in the press, write the usual chain letters to memebrs of Congress, etc, etc. They sounded, for the most part, like children promised a shiny new bike for Christmas who awoke to find box upon box of new underwear under the tree. But I digress.
The subject matter was a Supreme Court nomination. This is a very big deal,of course, since Supreme Court judges sit for life and have the ability to shape American life in ways never intended by those who write the laws (i.e. Congress). The issue in play is, was, and always will be, abortion. This vacancy, they all warned in serious tones, must be filled by an anti-abortion nominee. The bravest amongst them actually used the term anti-abortion, just in case you couldn't get the nub of their gist, whilst others used the stealth-term "strict constructionalist" which basicaly means, if it's ain't in the Constitution, then it doesn't exit. I don't ever remember reading an Amendment to the Constitution specifically stating that abortion is legal and a protected right, so natch, a "strict constructionalist" could eradicate abortion while hiding behind this constitutional fig leaf. They wanted to know why Bush hadn't nominated someone willing to order the closing of all abortion clinics and frog-march all doctors who perfom such procedures into the concentration camps. Instead, they were pissed off that the President had nominated one Harriet Miers, of whom they knew nothing, and of whom, therefore, they could expect nothing. Conservatives like to know beforehand just what people are going to do. They make no allowances, however, for reality, random chance or a host of other intangibles, and then they hold you to it like superglue to a pussycat.
Just as an aside, it is a golden rule amongst Conservatives that once a Republican candidate for President accepts their votes and their money, he'd better damn well do what they say, "or else". "Or else" of course, came to pass once --- when GHW Bush (Bush pere) encountered the "deficit hawks" led by Ross Perot. Perot basically stole the conservative vote from Bush, leading to 8 years of the Clintons. Or else, it seems, has dire consequences for those in the cross hairs, and even worse, for those willing to pull the trigger. So, here and now, GW Bush must now give the conservatives what they want: a way to overturn Roe v. Wade.
You see, modern conservatives, in my opinion, are becoming just like the democrats they despise; they have only one issue (which is abortion), and one tone (shrill), because all of their other issues seem to have gone by the wayside in the last five years. Fiscal conservatism? Gone. The Republican-dominated Congress (chock full of people these Arch-conservatives admire) has spent money like drunken sailors on shore leave. The only time I've heard any serious talk about fiscal conservatism came in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when some (estimated) $200 billion had to be found to pay for the damages. This seriously cuts into congressional "pork" like renaming another deserted stretch of highway for Ronald Reagan. It also came with the realization that it was tantamount to giving democrats in Louisiana a blank check. Louisiana is the kind of place where a republican couldn't get elected dog catcher if you offered free booze and hookers at the polling place. All of a sudden, fiscal conservatism is back in vogue.
Are you a defense hawk? Well, many of these people have issues with the way in which Bush is handling the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do too (more on this later). They usually want to know why were expending money and young men in order to ensure that ignorant, desert-dwelling-camel-humping-murderers-of-a-particular-non-Christian-faith get to vote. Why aren't they all dead yet, for the love of Christ? No, the one place you would expect the war to be popular, in conservative circles, is not all that popular (but still accepted as the price of doing business) at all.
Believe in free markets and the immutable laws of economics? Look someplace else. Conservatives, who would be expected to believe business should be left alone to make money as they see fit, are all howling over $3 gasoline like everyone else in the country. Conservatism, to many it seems, starts and ends at your pocket book; tax cuts passed by Congressional action (good), high-priced gas caused by natural market forces (bad).
But what got to me, and started me thinking about Julian Bond's words, was when it was suggested that conservatives look at reality with regards to the enviornment in which President Bush ahs to operate. GW won his first election by fewer than 1,000 votes. He won his re-election with the highest-ever number of popular votes cast, but still by only a 3% margin or so. I don't see, and never have seen, a mandate for Bush, regardless of how much I love the guy.
And therein lies the problem. Conservatives only see the victory, they never see the blasted landscape upon which that victory was achieved. Democrats, incidentally, suffer from the same disease.
GW Bush with a solid victory (15 or more percentage points, without the baggage of Florida in 2000, etc) could very easily step out in front and say, "okay conservatives, I'm going to gove you what you want". GW Bush with a margin of victory less than 3% cannot come out and govern like a conservative. He has to be mindful that should he go too far, the polarized electorate will punish his party in future elections. So, we get a bunch of policies that walk ideological tightropes. We get "Compassionate Conservatism", "Faith-based Initiatives", "No Child left behind" which are conservative policies wrapped in Liberal colors. This is why Bush haters always underestimate the President; he's very good at getting what he wants by presenting it in a way that the other side can only llook bad by opposing, and getting just enough support to pull it off.
It was suggested that perhaps Bush understands this better than his conservative fairweather supporters. It was further suggested that conservatives were beginning to act and think in ways in which it was hardly possible to tell them apart from democrats. They are isnisting that their president is bought and paid for by them, and always point out that the unions, the gays, the blacks, etc, have a stranglehold on a democratic president. They rail against the injustice of having the Supreme Court decide issues that are strictly matters for legislatures (integration, abortion, marriage, religious displys in public, etc) and then scream that they want these things overturned or abolished by the same judicial fiat. Only the court would be stacked in their favor, so it would be alright.
At which point, the person who suggested these things and pointed out the hypocrisy (namely me) was heaped with invective. I was a fag-lover. A NAACP butt-licker. A good little leftist. A communist. A subversive. I was a dead man walking if any of them ever caught me on the street alone. (These are direct quotes). How DARE I engage in the right of free speech in a CONSERVATIVE forum and present views that they didn't want to hear?
Imagine that: a bunch of people who swear, in the loudest possible terms, beating their chests all the time as the true guardians of American government and freedom, that they stand for the Constitution, the American way, and all that, actually behaving like Mussolini's Blackshirts with a case of the running trots. Goddammit, they had a right to see anything they didn't like outlawed, homosexuals punished (that exact term was used). All, by the way, claim to be God-fearing Christians.
I somehow instictively know that these people cannot, just CANNOT be representative of the conservative movement as a whole. They are an extreme fringe in the same way that the Deniacs are for the other side. But my God, was it disgusting to watch.
Last year or so, during the run up to the 2004 elections, Julian Bond of the NAACP referred to Conservatives in this country as "the Taliban wing of the Republican party". He was soundly denounced and villified for even daring to mke such a statement in public, and to a certain extent, rightfully so. The comment was meant to evoke fear and disgust in certain segments of the population (i.e. those the reliably vote Democrat), and given what we know of the Taliban and their practices, it was way over the top.
Fast forward to October, 2005.
I was recently engaged in a chat on an internet forum regarding George W. Bush and the Supreme Court. The majority of the people involved identified themselves as "Conservatives" with some going as far as to claim the title of "Arch-Conservative" or "True Conservative". The subject matter strayed quite a bit, with arguments about rampant Congressional spending, the threat to free speech of Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold Law that restrticts the subject matter, time frame and funding of any issue-advocacy advertisements during an election cycle, among other things), and a whole host of ways in which George W. Bush has "betrayed" his conservative friends.
They felt that Bush had abandoned them on their issues, and was no conservative at all. They were, of course, talking like the disaffected usually do; they'll take their votes elsewhere (just where is never identified), they'll continue to hound him in the press, write the usual chain letters to memebrs of Congress, etc, etc. They sounded, for the most part, like children promised a shiny new bike for Christmas who awoke to find box upon box of new underwear under the tree. But I digress.
The subject matter was a Supreme Court nomination. This is a very big deal,of course, since Supreme Court judges sit for life and have the ability to shape American life in ways never intended by those who write the laws (i.e. Congress). The issue in play is, was, and always will be, abortion. This vacancy, they all warned in serious tones, must be filled by an anti-abortion nominee. The bravest amongst them actually used the term anti-abortion, just in case you couldn't get the nub of their gist, whilst others used the stealth-term "strict constructionalist" which basicaly means, if it's ain't in the Constitution, then it doesn't exit. I don't ever remember reading an Amendment to the Constitution specifically stating that abortion is legal and a protected right, so natch, a "strict constructionalist" could eradicate abortion while hiding behind this constitutional fig leaf. They wanted to know why Bush hadn't nominated someone willing to order the closing of all abortion clinics and frog-march all doctors who perfom such procedures into the concentration camps. Instead, they were pissed off that the President had nominated one Harriet Miers, of whom they knew nothing, and of whom, therefore, they could expect nothing. Conservatives like to know beforehand just what people are going to do. They make no allowances, however, for reality, random chance or a host of other intangibles, and then they hold you to it like superglue to a pussycat.
Just as an aside, it is a golden rule amongst Conservatives that once a Republican candidate for President accepts their votes and their money, he'd better damn well do what they say, "or else". "Or else" of course, came to pass once --- when GHW Bush (Bush pere) encountered the "deficit hawks" led by Ross Perot. Perot basically stole the conservative vote from Bush, leading to 8 years of the Clintons. Or else, it seems, has dire consequences for those in the cross hairs, and even worse, for those willing to pull the trigger. So, here and now, GW Bush must now give the conservatives what they want: a way to overturn Roe v. Wade.
You see, modern conservatives, in my opinion, are becoming just like the democrats they despise; they have only one issue (which is abortion), and one tone (shrill), because all of their other issues seem to have gone by the wayside in the last five years. Fiscal conservatism? Gone. The Republican-dominated Congress (chock full of people these Arch-conservatives admire) has spent money like drunken sailors on shore leave. The only time I've heard any serious talk about fiscal conservatism came in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when some (estimated) $200 billion had to be found to pay for the damages. This seriously cuts into congressional "pork" like renaming another deserted stretch of highway for Ronald Reagan. It also came with the realization that it was tantamount to giving democrats in Louisiana a blank check. Louisiana is the kind of place where a republican couldn't get elected dog catcher if you offered free booze and hookers at the polling place. All of a sudden, fiscal conservatism is back in vogue.
Are you a defense hawk? Well, many of these people have issues with the way in which Bush is handling the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do too (more on this later). They usually want to know why were expending money and young men in order to ensure that ignorant, desert-dwelling-camel-humping-murderers-of-a-particular-non-Christian-faith get to vote. Why aren't they all dead yet, for the love of Christ? No, the one place you would expect the war to be popular, in conservative circles, is not all that popular (but still accepted as the price of doing business) at all.
Believe in free markets and the immutable laws of economics? Look someplace else. Conservatives, who would be expected to believe business should be left alone to make money as they see fit, are all howling over $3 gasoline like everyone else in the country. Conservatism, to many it seems, starts and ends at your pocket book; tax cuts passed by Congressional action (good), high-priced gas caused by natural market forces (bad).
But what got to me, and started me thinking about Julian Bond's words, was when it was suggested that conservatives look at reality with regards to the enviornment in which President Bush ahs to operate. GW won his first election by fewer than 1,000 votes. He won his re-election with the highest-ever number of popular votes cast, but still by only a 3% margin or so. I don't see, and never have seen, a mandate for Bush, regardless of how much I love the guy.
And therein lies the problem. Conservatives only see the victory, they never see the blasted landscape upon which that victory was achieved. Democrats, incidentally, suffer from the same disease.
GW Bush with a solid victory (15 or more percentage points, without the baggage of Florida in 2000, etc) could very easily step out in front and say, "okay conservatives, I'm going to gove you what you want". GW Bush with a margin of victory less than 3% cannot come out and govern like a conservative. He has to be mindful that should he go too far, the polarized electorate will punish his party in future elections. So, we get a bunch of policies that walk ideological tightropes. We get "Compassionate Conservatism", "Faith-based Initiatives", "No Child left behind" which are conservative policies wrapped in Liberal colors. This is why Bush haters always underestimate the President; he's very good at getting what he wants by presenting it in a way that the other side can only llook bad by opposing, and getting just enough support to pull it off.
It was suggested that perhaps Bush understands this better than his conservative fairweather supporters. It was further suggested that conservatives were beginning to act and think in ways in which it was hardly possible to tell them apart from democrats. They are isnisting that their president is bought and paid for by them, and always point out that the unions, the gays, the blacks, etc, have a stranglehold on a democratic president. They rail against the injustice of having the Supreme Court decide issues that are strictly matters for legislatures (integration, abortion, marriage, religious displys in public, etc) and then scream that they want these things overturned or abolished by the same judicial fiat. Only the court would be stacked in their favor, so it would be alright.
At which point, the person who suggested these things and pointed out the hypocrisy (namely me) was heaped with invective. I was a fag-lover. A NAACP butt-licker. A good little leftist. A communist. A subversive. I was a dead man walking if any of them ever caught me on the street alone. (These are direct quotes). How DARE I engage in the right of free speech in a CONSERVATIVE forum and present views that they didn't want to hear?
Imagine that: a bunch of people who swear, in the loudest possible terms, beating their chests all the time as the true guardians of American government and freedom, that they stand for the Constitution, the American way, and all that, actually behaving like Mussolini's Blackshirts with a case of the running trots. Goddammit, they had a right to see anything they didn't like outlawed, homosexuals punished (that exact term was used). All, by the way, claim to be God-fearing Christians.
I somehow instictively know that these people cannot, just CANNOT be representative of the conservative movement as a whole. They are an extreme fringe in the same way that the Deniacs are for the other side. But my God, was it disgusting to watch.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
The Sky Is Falling...
We're all dead. We're all going to achieve that death, after a prolonged agony, the sort of Biblical death reserved for the truly ungodly and evil. We'll all be walking bags of mucuous, puss and infected blood, completely covered in festering boils, each with our own retinue of swarming flies and stray cats that will feast upon our putrid flesh after we collapse. There will be so many of us dead that there will be no one left to bury us and our rotting corpses will be left to be stripped by the ants and our bones bleached in the sun.
Welcome to this dire scenario--- brought to you by the makers of the Avian Flu.
Every few years, it seems, we're told that there is a new and deadly disease that will eventually destroy mankind in the kind of Cecil B. DeMille pandemic that makes the Bubonic Plague look like a picnic or the Ebola Virus seem to be a mere inconvenience. The closer we get to this "pandemic" the more vile and distressing the descriptions of the carnage become. In the end, we never see the dreadful results predicted by the "medical experts" who by then have a new disease to champion.
In recent years, we've all been under threat from AIDS, SARS, and Mad Cow, to name the ones that got the most media attention. There is an "epidemic" of obesity. Imagine that; we've invented a disease (obesity) that three quarters of the planet would love to suffer from --- chronic overeating --- and turned it into something that supposed to be absolutely devestating, capable depopulating entire continents.
When AIDS first surfaced in the 1980's,for example, it was pre-supposed that everyone would eventually get it and die a horrible death. Part of this hysteria was due to the politics of the disease itself, which was initially limited to the gay community who made a great deal of noise about it, but who preferred that it not be identified as "gay" disease for political purposes. And let's face it, if anyone knows how to create a ruckus, it's a sick (as in not-feeling-very-well) homosexual, and 100,000 of them (for example) all making the same racket is something one cannot hope to contend with easily.
The issue with Avian flu and SARS and AIDS and a whole host of other diseases-that-get-no-media-attention is not that they will wipe out huge swathes of humanity in the developed world (except maybe Canada, where the first SARS case went unreported until 60+ people died because no one wanted to cast a bad light on a) Red China and b) Immigrants). It's that they will do so in the so-called Third or Emerging-world, and that prospect tugs at the heartstrings of of people who show up at "Stop Hunger Now" hors douvres parties.
As of this writing, if we are to believe the figures that have been posted in various places, approximately 70 people, world-wide, have been acknowledged as having died from Avian flu. More people die each day crossing the street in Germany. More people die every day from self-inflicted gunshot wounds in the United States. More Britons will meet their maker because of defective lawn darts. As I write this, another few hundred people in Africa have just died of malaria or leprosy. Two years ago, 20,000 people died in France from lack of air conditioning (I guess your typical Frenchman is too lazy to find shade and cold water as well)The threat to the West is largely minimal because of the excellent level and number of health care facilities (for both treatment and research) available to us, by our generally healthier diets and by climate. There are not going to be huge piles of rotting corpses in the streets of New York due to influenza, avian-type or not.
There will be huge numbers of said rotting bodies in China, Vietnam, Tibet, Korea, Cambodia, Thailand. These are regions where medical science is stagnated or completely unknown.
The nightmare scenario is that avian flu will manage to mutate into something capable of being passed from person-to-person instead of from chicken-feces-to-person, and then we'll all be in deep doo-doo. Or will we? What makes this particular strain of influenza more deadly than the ones we have right now? Is it more resistant to medication? No one seems to know, and if they are, they aren't telling. Is it, say, 3 times as nasty as regular flu? Again, no information available that I could find. It could be that Nyquil works just as well on this flu as it does on the older ones. If so, I doubt we'll be reading stories about a pandemic that'll make the Black Death look like a Scout jamboree.
But I have no doubt whatsoever that we'll continue to read news reports and watch newscasts about the deadly danger lurking in the poultry section of your local supermarket. Why? Because hysteria sells, that's why.
Look, I do not object to anyone informing the public of a serious threat to our health. I'd damn well kill anyone who sat on such information and I knew about it. But let's be realistic --- we're not talking gi-normous numbers of deaths here, and very little in the way of factual information put forward in a way that the common man can digest. There is a lot of scary talk and that's about it.
By the way, does this mean that chicken soup is no longer the suggested remedy?
* Two days after this was drafted, a news report emerged that the avain flu resembles in many inportant ways, a strain that was first reportedly known in Scotland, circa 1954, almost down to the last sticky strand of DNA. Sorry, but I have misplaced th elink to this story. Should I find it again, I will come back and repost it.
We're all dead. We're all going to achieve that death, after a prolonged agony, the sort of Biblical death reserved for the truly ungodly and evil. We'll all be walking bags of mucuous, puss and infected blood, completely covered in festering boils, each with our own retinue of swarming flies and stray cats that will feast upon our putrid flesh after we collapse. There will be so many of us dead that there will be no one left to bury us and our rotting corpses will be left to be stripped by the ants and our bones bleached in the sun.
Welcome to this dire scenario--- brought to you by the makers of the Avian Flu.
Every few years, it seems, we're told that there is a new and deadly disease that will eventually destroy mankind in the kind of Cecil B. DeMille pandemic that makes the Bubonic Plague look like a picnic or the Ebola Virus seem to be a mere inconvenience. The closer we get to this "pandemic" the more vile and distressing the descriptions of the carnage become. In the end, we never see the dreadful results predicted by the "medical experts" who by then have a new disease to champion.
In recent years, we've all been under threat from AIDS, SARS, and Mad Cow, to name the ones that got the most media attention. There is an "epidemic" of obesity. Imagine that; we've invented a disease (obesity) that three quarters of the planet would love to suffer from --- chronic overeating --- and turned it into something that supposed to be absolutely devestating, capable depopulating entire continents.
When AIDS first surfaced in the 1980's,for example, it was pre-supposed that everyone would eventually get it and die a horrible death. Part of this hysteria was due to the politics of the disease itself, which was initially limited to the gay community who made a great deal of noise about it, but who preferred that it not be identified as "gay" disease for political purposes. And let's face it, if anyone knows how to create a ruckus, it's a sick (as in not-feeling-very-well) homosexual, and 100,000 of them (for example) all making the same racket is something one cannot hope to contend with easily.
The issue with Avian flu and SARS and AIDS and a whole host of other diseases-that-get-no-media-attention is not that they will wipe out huge swathes of humanity in the developed world (except maybe Canada, where the first SARS case went unreported until 60+ people died because no one wanted to cast a bad light on a) Red China and b) Immigrants). It's that they will do so in the so-called Third or Emerging-world, and that prospect tugs at the heartstrings of of people who show up at "Stop Hunger Now" hors douvres parties.
As of this writing, if we are to believe the figures that have been posted in various places, approximately 70 people, world-wide, have been acknowledged as having died from Avian flu. More people die each day crossing the street in Germany. More people die every day from self-inflicted gunshot wounds in the United States. More Britons will meet their maker because of defective lawn darts. As I write this, another few hundred people in Africa have just died of malaria or leprosy. Two years ago, 20,000 people died in France from lack of air conditioning (I guess your typical Frenchman is too lazy to find shade and cold water as well)The threat to the West is largely minimal because of the excellent level and number of health care facilities (for both treatment and research) available to us, by our generally healthier diets and by climate. There are not going to be huge piles of rotting corpses in the streets of New York due to influenza, avian-type or not.
There will be huge numbers of said rotting bodies in China, Vietnam, Tibet, Korea, Cambodia, Thailand. These are regions where medical science is stagnated or completely unknown.
The nightmare scenario is that avian flu will manage to mutate into something capable of being passed from person-to-person instead of from chicken-feces-to-person, and then we'll all be in deep doo-doo. Or will we? What makes this particular strain of influenza more deadly than the ones we have right now? Is it more resistant to medication? No one seems to know, and if they are, they aren't telling. Is it, say, 3 times as nasty as regular flu? Again, no information available that I could find. It could be that Nyquil works just as well on this flu as it does on the older ones. If so, I doubt we'll be reading stories about a pandemic that'll make the Black Death look like a Scout jamboree.
But I have no doubt whatsoever that we'll continue to read news reports and watch newscasts about the deadly danger lurking in the poultry section of your local supermarket. Why? Because hysteria sells, that's why.
Look, I do not object to anyone informing the public of a serious threat to our health. I'd damn well kill anyone who sat on such information and I knew about it. But let's be realistic --- we're not talking gi-normous numbers of deaths here, and very little in the way of factual information put forward in a way that the common man can digest. There is a lot of scary talk and that's about it.
By the way, does this mean that chicken soup is no longer the suggested remedy?
* Two days after this was drafted, a news report emerged that the avain flu resembles in many inportant ways, a strain that was first reportedly known in Scotland, circa 1954, almost down to the last sticky strand of DNA. Sorry, but I have misplaced th elink to this story. Should I find it again, I will come back and repost it.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Insanity Reigns...
Last night (or was it the night before?) I was watching the O'Reilly Factor on Fox and, lo and behold, but who should happen to be on the show that night but Malik Shabazz (Shab-ass?), who is in some way associated with the "New" Black Panther Party. By the way, the New Black Panther Party is the same as the Old BPP, except that now they apparently wear suits. Despite the new and improved packaging, the essage is still the same: kill WHitey.
Anyway, Mr. Shabazz was on to talk about the recent riots in Toledo, Ohio, where the mayor and police chief are apparently too dumb to realize thatone does not, in this day and age, let Neo-Nazi skinheads hold a protest march in a black neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I don't see the necessity in allowing Nazis to have a public voice, but that's just me. Now, unless you've been living under a rock, you can imagine what happened: a riot, naturally, ensued. You can't put 14 White boys, screaming 'bout the "niggers", in a black neighborhood and expect the locals to obligingly ignore it.
So, of course violence broke out, and of course, true to form, the local "diversity" went way beyond any acceptable and understandable "counter-protest" and immediately took to looting, arson and attacking the police and ambulance crews sent to restore order.
Mr. Shabazz, naturally, condoned the violence (since it was committed by blacks, it's okay), and began to recycle Louis Farrakhan's fairy tale about the Fed'ral Gubmint dynamiting the levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Farrakhan says he has proof (never to be seen) and the "new" Black Panthers divulge that they have evidence as well: residue from an explosive was found on the levee ruins, and the Panthers are the only ones to have found it. They want Congressional hearings, of course, to look into the government's evil deeds.
Naturally, no one stopped to ask how residue of anything was found on blasted concrete thathad been under 30 feet of sewage-infested water for a month, but that's okay: Mr. Shabazz doesn't need to explain anything --- he's black, you know --- and that automatically gives you the right to lie, condone rioting (and even join in) and make false accusations without threat of retaliation.
This is what is passing itself off as "responsible" leadership in the...ahem...black community: a Muslim Hitler who claims he receives messages from the Mother Ship, and a guy who can find evidence that even Quincy could dig up but who doesn't feel like he has to actually show it to anyone.
Last night (or was it the night before?) I was watching the O'Reilly Factor on Fox and, lo and behold, but who should happen to be on the show that night but Malik Shabazz (Shab-ass?), who is in some way associated with the "New" Black Panther Party. By the way, the New Black Panther Party is the same as the Old BPP, except that now they apparently wear suits. Despite the new and improved packaging, the essage is still the same: kill WHitey.
Anyway, Mr. Shabazz was on to talk about the recent riots in Toledo, Ohio, where the mayor and police chief are apparently too dumb to realize thatone does not, in this day and age, let Neo-Nazi skinheads hold a protest march in a black neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I don't see the necessity in allowing Nazis to have a public voice, but that's just me. Now, unless you've been living under a rock, you can imagine what happened: a riot, naturally, ensued. You can't put 14 White boys, screaming 'bout the "niggers", in a black neighborhood and expect the locals to obligingly ignore it.
So, of course violence broke out, and of course, true to form, the local "diversity" went way beyond any acceptable and understandable "counter-protest" and immediately took to looting, arson and attacking the police and ambulance crews sent to restore order.
Mr. Shabazz, naturally, condoned the violence (since it was committed by blacks, it's okay), and began to recycle Louis Farrakhan's fairy tale about the Fed'ral Gubmint dynamiting the levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Farrakhan says he has proof (never to be seen) and the "new" Black Panthers divulge that they have evidence as well: residue from an explosive was found on the levee ruins, and the Panthers are the only ones to have found it. They want Congressional hearings, of course, to look into the government's evil deeds.
Naturally, no one stopped to ask how residue of anything was found on blasted concrete thathad been under 30 feet of sewage-infested water for a month, but that's okay: Mr. Shabazz doesn't need to explain anything --- he's black, you know --- and that automatically gives you the right to lie, condone rioting (and even join in) and make false accusations without threat of retaliation.
This is what is passing itself off as "responsible" leadership in the...ahem...black community: a Muslim Hitler who claims he receives messages from the Mother Ship, and a guy who can find evidence that even Quincy could dig up but who doesn't feel like he has to actually show it to anyone.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
The Silly Season Starts Early...
God, I really hate posting things like this, but someone has to do it in the interests of sanity.
I've read a blurb this morning in the New York Post that both John McCain and Hillary Clinton will meet with the national tragedy, Cindy Sheehan, today when she blows through Washington on her "Look-at-me-I'm-a-bereaved-Mother/Moonbat!" tour.
The day before yesterday, John Kerry (remember him?) made a speech at some confab of idiots criticizing GW for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. He was joined by his old comrade-in-arms, John Edwards (the democrat's answer to Dan Quayle), who also made noises about the same thing. Incidentally, Edward's wife, Elizabeth, managed to take time out from her chemotherapy to announce that we should all listen to Cindy Sheehan (for what, I have no clue).
The opposition for 2008 is starting to line up. God save us if these are going to be our choices.
On the repuiblican side, we see McCain already making waves, polishing up his media-beloved "Maverick" image. McCain is suffering from a deadly disease - narcissim - which blinds him to the truth; he would make a lousy president. His only qualifications are getting shot down twice, becoming a POW, and being involved in the stifling of free speech (McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform Bill). His only rationale for running is to give GW Bush one last flash of the middle finger, a "F*ck You, Rich Boy!) moment, in which McCain both extolls his own miniscule virtues while jabbing a thumb into the eye of the republican party. McCain will merely reinforce everything democrats say come election time in the course of trying to make himself look batter than Bush. For example, I can hear him saying right now "While George Bush is a good man, it's quite obvious, with the trouble in Iraq and the fact that FEMA couldn't get a roll of toilet paper into New Orleans, I would have done it all better."
The only real republican challengers capable of winning in 2008 and presenting the heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, with anything resembling competition, would be Rudy Guiliani and Condi Rice. However, the rabid conservative wing of the party would never let Rudy on the ballot (he's pro choice) and Condi has lots of 'splainin' to do over 9/11, North Korea and the War.
On the democraic side, so far we have two men who have failed to learn the Gore/Lieberman Rule: democrats just don't bury their dead, they bury their wounded. Neither Kerry nor Edwards has a snowball's chance in hell. This leaves Hillary, who has a very interesting tightrope to walk; she has to maintain the semblance of moderation she's been working on for the last four years while reassuring the tree-hugging-double-latte-drinking-metrosexual-faux-disaffected fringe of the party, which is her biggest albatross and her biggest fundraiser. This wing of the party would put Hitler on the ballot, provided he stood for their kooky agenda --- he's not George Bush, you see.
However, that's just everyone's problem. George Bush doesn't have to stand for re-election (he can't), and to run on a platform of "I'm Not Bush" just won't wash. It didn't wash in 2004, and it's even more irrelevant now that the man doesn't have to run for anything. The democrats are still fighting the 2000 election, and so is McCain.
The silly season just got whackier.
God, I really hate posting things like this, but someone has to do it in the interests of sanity.
I've read a blurb this morning in the New York Post that both John McCain and Hillary Clinton will meet with the national tragedy, Cindy Sheehan, today when she blows through Washington on her "Look-at-me-I'm-a-bereaved-Mother/Moonbat!" tour.
The day before yesterday, John Kerry (remember him?) made a speech at some confab of idiots criticizing GW for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. He was joined by his old comrade-in-arms, John Edwards (the democrat's answer to Dan Quayle), who also made noises about the same thing. Incidentally, Edward's wife, Elizabeth, managed to take time out from her chemotherapy to announce that we should all listen to Cindy Sheehan (for what, I have no clue).
The opposition for 2008 is starting to line up. God save us if these are going to be our choices.
On the repuiblican side, we see McCain already making waves, polishing up his media-beloved "Maverick" image. McCain is suffering from a deadly disease - narcissim - which blinds him to the truth; he would make a lousy president. His only qualifications are getting shot down twice, becoming a POW, and being involved in the stifling of free speech (McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform Bill). His only rationale for running is to give GW Bush one last flash of the middle finger, a "F*ck You, Rich Boy!) moment, in which McCain both extolls his own miniscule virtues while jabbing a thumb into the eye of the republican party. McCain will merely reinforce everything democrats say come election time in the course of trying to make himself look batter than Bush. For example, I can hear him saying right now "While George Bush is a good man, it's quite obvious, with the trouble in Iraq and the fact that FEMA couldn't get a roll of toilet paper into New Orleans, I would have done it all better."
The only real republican challengers capable of winning in 2008 and presenting the heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, with anything resembling competition, would be Rudy Guiliani and Condi Rice. However, the rabid conservative wing of the party would never let Rudy on the ballot (he's pro choice) and Condi has lots of 'splainin' to do over 9/11, North Korea and the War.
On the democraic side, so far we have two men who have failed to learn the Gore/Lieberman Rule: democrats just don't bury their dead, they bury their wounded. Neither Kerry nor Edwards has a snowball's chance in hell. This leaves Hillary, who has a very interesting tightrope to walk; she has to maintain the semblance of moderation she's been working on for the last four years while reassuring the tree-hugging-double-latte-drinking-metrosexual-faux-disaffected fringe of the party, which is her biggest albatross and her biggest fundraiser. This wing of the party would put Hitler on the ballot, provided he stood for their kooky agenda --- he's not George Bush, you see.
However, that's just everyone's problem. George Bush doesn't have to stand for re-election (he can't), and to run on a platform of "I'm Not Bush" just won't wash. It didn't wash in 2004, and it's even more irrelevant now that the man doesn't have to run for anything. The democrats are still fighting the 2000 election, and so is McCain.
The silly season just got whackier.
Mars Grows Warmer...Kerry Says Bush Should Have Signed Kyoto Treaty...
Read this:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3362746
And then ask yourself this:
"How can there possibly be global warming on a planet that has no civilization? No industry? No SUV's? No CFC's? NBo internal combustion engines? None of the usual suspects we blame for our own "global warming" here on Earth?"
I have yet to hear anyone in the media put this question to any of the global warming nuts, nor do I expect them to. I have yet to become aware of any of the global warming loonies stepping forward to even explore the question. It is taken as gospel truth that Earth is warming, that mankind and his dirty, little inventions are speeding the process up, and that we're all dead from a combination of skin cancer, dirty air and water, lack of food and really bad sunburns.
Critical questions in this debate remain unanswered. If, for example, we take it as scientific fact (because it is) that the very spot upon which I sit right now was once covered by a 2-mile thick sheet of ice 12,000 years ago, what happened to the ice? Did someone come along with a really big bag of halite and melt it? Giant hair dryers? It melted at some point, the glaciers retreated leaving Staten Island to be inhabited by all sorts of flora and fauna. Why did it happen? Had to be some form of global warming, right?
And this was before civilization even existed. Before all the nasty appendages of human civilization that the Save the Earth crowd finds so dangerous and offensive were even a gleam in anyone's mind.
We have to assume that this warming is a natural occurance. We also have to assume that since this cycle of freezing and warming can be scientifically proven to have happened at least four (4) times, that someone is not being completely honest with us. Could it be the Global Warming is Death crowd? I wonder...
The point is, if we're seeing this phenomenon on an uninhabited planet lacking in the very basics of what the enviornMENTAL movement claims is the cause of our own warming, then they must be mistaken, right? I would bet they are. Therefore, Global Warming is a myth.
So why do they insist on continuing to promulgate a lie? They do so because their real motive is to control human behavior. To have the power to force people and governments to bend to their will, which is twofold: the first is to return mankind to it's Noble Savage state, which never truly existed and is merely a romantic fiction. The second is to replace the seemingly (in their eyes) stupid, uncaring, greedy, avaricious, lusty, wanton governments and industries of this planet with versions more to their liking, i.e. where they are in charge, or failing that, to be in a position where they are dictating the agenda.
Lying in the pursuit of this goal means nothing to them. The ends (a more perfect world according thier own warped vision) justifies the means.
Read this:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3362746
And then ask yourself this:
"How can there possibly be global warming on a planet that has no civilization? No industry? No SUV's? No CFC's? NBo internal combustion engines? None of the usual suspects we blame for our own "global warming" here on Earth?"
I have yet to hear anyone in the media put this question to any of the global warming nuts, nor do I expect them to. I have yet to become aware of any of the global warming loonies stepping forward to even explore the question. It is taken as gospel truth that Earth is warming, that mankind and his dirty, little inventions are speeding the process up, and that we're all dead from a combination of skin cancer, dirty air and water, lack of food and really bad sunburns.
Critical questions in this debate remain unanswered. If, for example, we take it as scientific fact (because it is) that the very spot upon which I sit right now was once covered by a 2-mile thick sheet of ice 12,000 years ago, what happened to the ice? Did someone come along with a really big bag of halite and melt it? Giant hair dryers? It melted at some point, the glaciers retreated leaving Staten Island to be inhabited by all sorts of flora and fauna. Why did it happen? Had to be some form of global warming, right?
And this was before civilization even existed. Before all the nasty appendages of human civilization that the Save the Earth crowd finds so dangerous and offensive were even a gleam in anyone's mind.
We have to assume that this warming is a natural occurance. We also have to assume that since this cycle of freezing and warming can be scientifically proven to have happened at least four (4) times, that someone is not being completely honest with us. Could it be the Global Warming is Death crowd? I wonder...
The point is, if we're seeing this phenomenon on an uninhabited planet lacking in the very basics of what the enviornMENTAL movement claims is the cause of our own warming, then they must be mistaken, right? I would bet they are. Therefore, Global Warming is a myth.
So why do they insist on continuing to promulgate a lie? They do so because their real motive is to control human behavior. To have the power to force people and governments to bend to their will, which is twofold: the first is to return mankind to it's Noble Savage state, which never truly existed and is merely a romantic fiction. The second is to replace the seemingly (in their eyes) stupid, uncaring, greedy, avaricious, lusty, wanton governments and industries of this planet with versions more to their liking, i.e. where they are in charge, or failing that, to be in a position where they are dictating the agenda.
Lying in the pursuit of this goal means nothing to them. The ends (a more perfect world according thier own warped vision) justifies the means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)