The EU Constitution is well on it's way to crashing and burning, and I'm sure none of the intellectuals over there can figure out why. *
The fact that it's based mostly on economic interests and not on ideals should give them a clue.
A Constitution has to be a starting point. A place where you say, "From now on, this is how the world will be." Instead, they changed nothing and just listed all of the wants and demands of the European elite as they now stand.
The United States Constitution takes up about 5 pages (according to MS Word). The EU Constitution takes up about 439 pages representing the interests of everyone from the Unions to the Reindeer herders of Lapland.
The equivalent in this country would be like the Democrats drafting a new Constitution and inserting every demand from their various constituency groups.
They'd insert individual "hate crime" rights as interpreted by GLBT's, blacks, "homeless" people, the "poor" and any other group that votes for them. That alone would take up 100 pages.
They'd insert a "progressive" tax code that would soak the rich at the expense of the less rich. That would take another 50 pages or so.
In other words, it would be a Constitution based on buying power and votes, written by a bearaucracy.
Our Constitution is based on Freedom and Liberty. Theirs would be based on 35 hour work weeks and 6 week vacations. There's a noble goal.
It's a Constitution based on the childish self-centeredness of the Left. If it doesn't have what they want, they're going to take their ball and go home.
And that's just fine by me.
*Proving my point, a large part of the article that I linked to above has to do with how France's "no" vote on the Constitution helps the UK's bid for the 2012 Olympics. It's all self-interest.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
Take a Break!
Well, I don't feel too bad. Apparently everyone else took a break from blogging this weekend. That's good. If politics consumes us, we'll be no better than Hillary.
I memorialized our troops by mowing my lawn and working on my house, neither of which I'd have if the Socialists took over and denied me the most basic of our rights, which is land ownership. Take that away and you can own nothing. Think about it.
Thank God for the people who are willing to go to war for us so that the protestors can still whine.
That says it all, doesn't it?
I memorialized our troops by mowing my lawn and working on my house, neither of which I'd have if the Socialists took over and denied me the most basic of our rights, which is land ownership. Take that away and you can own nothing. Think about it.
Thank God for the people who are willing to go to war for us so that the protestors can still whine.
That says it all, doesn't it?
Friday, May 27, 2005
Stupid is as Democrats Does
Canadianna got me thinking.
In any debate over the relative intelligence of the Left or Right, Lefties always claim the high ground. They claim that they are the intellectual elite, while any Conservative is usually portrayed as a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, gap-toothed moron.
And why do they consider themselves so far above we who are on the Right? Because they are the "intellectual elite" who are controlling the colleges and universities of this country.
Big deal. There are maybe a few thousand of them with a liberal arts degree that was turned into a PhD because of nothing more than their political views. Their thesis didn't have to make any sense whatsoever. As long as it meshed with their professor's political viewpoint, it was judged a passing grade.
As I've said before, some of the most idiotic people I've ever met had college degrees. Usually, college doesn't teach you how to think, it teaches you how to kiss your teacher's ass. If you do it for long enough, you get the Holy Grail of tenure.
But Liberals, having no grasp of the reality of numbers, think that because 1/100th of 1% of their ranks control the universities, that they are more intelligent than Conservatives.
Apparently, having a few thousand people in your ranks makes you the "intellectual elite".
It never occurs to them that the majority of the people voting for them are on the lower end of the IQ scale. They just know that they're smarter than the rest of the country!
Business degree vs. Liberal arts degree. Who do you think is more intelligent?
Running a business vs. running a beauracracy. Who do you think needs more brains?
IQ test. Any time, any place. Send us your best.
In any debate over the relative intelligence of the Left or Right, Lefties always claim the high ground. They claim that they are the intellectual elite, while any Conservative is usually portrayed as a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, gap-toothed moron.
And why do they consider themselves so far above we who are on the Right? Because they are the "intellectual elite" who are controlling the colleges and universities of this country.
Big deal. There are maybe a few thousand of them with a liberal arts degree that was turned into a PhD because of nothing more than their political views. Their thesis didn't have to make any sense whatsoever. As long as it meshed with their professor's political viewpoint, it was judged a passing grade.
As I've said before, some of the most idiotic people I've ever met had college degrees. Usually, college doesn't teach you how to think, it teaches you how to kiss your teacher's ass. If you do it for long enough, you get the Holy Grail of tenure.
But Liberals, having no grasp of the reality of numbers, think that because 1/100th of 1% of their ranks control the universities, that they are more intelligent than Conservatives.
Apparently, having a few thousand people in your ranks makes you the "intellectual elite".
It never occurs to them that the majority of the people voting for them are on the lower end of the IQ scale. They just know that they're smarter than the rest of the country!
Business degree vs. Liberal arts degree. Who do you think is more intelligent?
Running a business vs. running a beauracracy. Who do you think needs more brains?
IQ test. Any time, any place. Send us your best.
Why Lie?
What the hell is wrong with people who vote for Democrats? They vote for people who will lie about the smallest thing, even when there is no reason to lie.
Last night I watched Senator Harry Reid say something to the effect of being "saddened" that they didn't get to vote on John Bolton's nomination to the UN, and then go on to blame the lack of a vote on the Bush administration's refusal to hand over every document in the country that has any pertinence to Mr. Bolton including, I assume, his 1st grade report card.
Harry Reid was not "saddened" by the lack of a vote. Quite the contrary, it was exactly what he was aiming for.
Why lie about that? Think about it.
He could have just said that he was glad that the vote was postponed because he disagrees with Mr. Bolton on ideological grounds, and that he wanted time to rally more support for his views.
Nobody would have faulted him for that. Yet he lied. Why?
I can almost see the reason people with no principles (other than Power At All Costs) would lie about bigger issues, but why lie about something so trivial and obviously untrue? It's pathological.
My ex-wife was like that. Lying was so ingrained in her, that she would lie about the most mundane things. It was a knee-jerk reaction. It was so ingrained in her, that she didn't even realize she was doing it half the time. It was just one symptom of some deep psychological problems.
Just like the Democrats in Washington, she was vaguely aware that the way she thought wasn't quite right, so she was always on the defensive. She considered any question to be a possible (probable?) attack and would lie about it to put herself in the best position to defend herself. Or so she thought.
The fact is, most of her lies were so silly and childish, that they were utterly transparent. Again, just like the Democrats.
And yet, almost half of the country votes for these people. Yes, I married one, but I eventually got rid of her when it became clear that it was never going to change and was seriously harming our family (country).
Will your "Joe-six-pack" Democrat ever do the same?
Last night I watched Senator Harry Reid say something to the effect of being "saddened" that they didn't get to vote on John Bolton's nomination to the UN, and then go on to blame the lack of a vote on the Bush administration's refusal to hand over every document in the country that has any pertinence to Mr. Bolton including, I assume, his 1st grade report card.
Harry Reid was not "saddened" by the lack of a vote. Quite the contrary, it was exactly what he was aiming for.
Why lie about that? Think about it.
He could have just said that he was glad that the vote was postponed because he disagrees with Mr. Bolton on ideological grounds, and that he wanted time to rally more support for his views.
Nobody would have faulted him for that. Yet he lied. Why?
I can almost see the reason people with no principles (other than Power At All Costs) would lie about bigger issues, but why lie about something so trivial and obviously untrue? It's pathological.
My ex-wife was like that. Lying was so ingrained in her, that she would lie about the most mundane things. It was a knee-jerk reaction. It was so ingrained in her, that she didn't even realize she was doing it half the time. It was just one symptom of some deep psychological problems.
Just like the Democrats in Washington, she was vaguely aware that the way she thought wasn't quite right, so she was always on the defensive. She considered any question to be a possible (probable?) attack and would lie about it to put herself in the best position to defend herself. Or so she thought.
The fact is, most of her lies were so silly and childish, that they were utterly transparent. Again, just like the Democrats.
And yet, almost half of the country votes for these people. Yes, I married one, but I eventually got rid of her when it became clear that it was never going to change and was seriously harming our family (country).
Will your "Joe-six-pack" Democrat ever do the same?
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Non-thinking Education
Not long ago my daughter brought home one of those innumerable fliers from school. At least this one wasn't begging for money, but something in it did catch my eye.
The flier said that the kids were going to be learning how to measure lengths and distances. They would be using cubes and craft sticks as measuring devices.
It occurred to me that it might be easier and more productive to just "skip the middle-man" and use rulers and/or tape measures.
Why say that your desk is 15 cubes wide when it's just as easy to say that it's 2 feet wide?
Is it just me or is that just plain logical? Apparently, in the environs of the Government schools it isn't, because when I suggested it to her teacher, she looked at me as if I were speaking some lost language from the darkest reaches of Borneo.
It's no wonder that our kids aren't being taught how to actually think in these schools: their teachers don't know how to think! You can't teach something that you don't know.
I'm sure that she can teach the kids all about diversity, environmentalism and bullies, but her college never taught her how to be in the least bit logical. Apparently, rational thought isn't important to the "educational community", which would explain why they're all liberals.
I would give my left arm to put my daughter in a private school but, unfortunately, it's not in the budget and, at present, there's no way that it can be.
Which brings me to another of those points that are just too obvious and nobody seems to ask: whenever you mention school vouchers, the usual suspects always say that "It would take money away from public education". Well, yes it would. But if the child using that voucher is no longer in the public education system, you don't need the money for that child. Right?
If the child isn't going to be in their school, they shouldn't care that there's no money to pay for that nonexistent child.
Why have I never heard anyone who matters ask that question? I can't be the only one who's thought of it. And if someone would actually ask it, maybe we could point out that they really don't want the money "for the children" as they always claim, but are using it to hire more "grief counselors", administrators, vice-vice-principals and anyone else who can jack up the numbers on their union rolls.
Yes, I may be more logical than a lot of people out there, but I'm not Spock! I honestly think that people are trying to think so deeply about political subjects, that they miss the easy questions that would blow the Left's arguments out of the water. I know they would, because whenever I ask them, people are left blinking and stammering for an answer. Because there is no answer.
I take that back. There is an answer, but they would have to admit their real motives, and I don't even think that they can do that to themselves.
The flier said that the kids were going to be learning how to measure lengths and distances. They would be using cubes and craft sticks as measuring devices.
It occurred to me that it might be easier and more productive to just "skip the middle-man" and use rulers and/or tape measures.
Why say that your desk is 15 cubes wide when it's just as easy to say that it's 2 feet wide?
Is it just me or is that just plain logical? Apparently, in the environs of the Government schools it isn't, because when I suggested it to her teacher, she looked at me as if I were speaking some lost language from the darkest reaches of Borneo.
It's no wonder that our kids aren't being taught how to actually think in these schools: their teachers don't know how to think! You can't teach something that you don't know.
I'm sure that she can teach the kids all about diversity, environmentalism and bullies, but her college never taught her how to be in the least bit logical. Apparently, rational thought isn't important to the "educational community", which would explain why they're all liberals.
I would give my left arm to put my daughter in a private school but, unfortunately, it's not in the budget and, at present, there's no way that it can be.
Which brings me to another of those points that are just too obvious and nobody seems to ask: whenever you mention school vouchers, the usual suspects always say that "It would take money away from public education". Well, yes it would. But if the child using that voucher is no longer in the public education system, you don't need the money for that child. Right?
If the child isn't going to be in their school, they shouldn't care that there's no money to pay for that nonexistent child.
Why have I never heard anyone who matters ask that question? I can't be the only one who's thought of it. And if someone would actually ask it, maybe we could point out that they really don't want the money "for the children" as they always claim, but are using it to hire more "grief counselors", administrators, vice-vice-principals and anyone else who can jack up the numbers on their union rolls.
Yes, I may be more logical than a lot of people out there, but I'm not Spock! I honestly think that people are trying to think so deeply about political subjects, that they miss the easy questions that would blow the Left's arguments out of the water. I know they would, because whenever I ask them, people are left blinking and stammering for an answer. Because there is no answer.
I take that back. There is an answer, but they would have to admit their real motives, and I don't even think that they can do that to themselves.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Could it be?
From Reuters:
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday denied a report that he authorized the military to shoot down a small plane that prompted evacuations of Washington power centers earlier this month.
The Washington Post, quoting federal officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, reported on Wednesday that Rumsfeld had given the military authority to take the action, if necessary, against the Cessna 150 that had wandered into restricted airspace over the Washington area on May 11.
Gee, while trying to show what a bloodthirsty killer Rumsfeld (and by extension the Bush administration) is, the MSM relies on anonymous sources and gets it wrong...again. Anyone shocked?
You'd almost think that it's a disinformation campaign to make the MSM look bad while Rummy and Bush roll around laughing at how easy it is to dupe these guys.
But I'll save that conspiracy theory for Air UnAmerican. I'd bet that it shows up within a week.
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday denied a report that he authorized the military to shoot down a small plane that prompted evacuations of Washington power centers earlier this month.
The Washington Post, quoting federal officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, reported on Wednesday that Rumsfeld had given the military authority to take the action, if necessary, against the Cessna 150 that had wandered into restricted airspace over the Washington area on May 11.
Gee, while trying to show what a bloodthirsty killer Rumsfeld (and by extension the Bush administration) is, the MSM relies on anonymous sources and gets it wrong...again. Anyone shocked?
You'd almost think that it's a disinformation campaign to make the MSM look bad while Rummy and Bush roll around laughing at how easy it is to dupe these guys.
But I'll save that conspiracy theory for Air UnAmerican. I'd bet that it shows up within a week.
What Arrogance!
Apparently some "equal" branches of our government are more equal than others.
For their part, Senate Democratic Leader Reid and his House counterpart, Rep. Nancy Pelosi scheduled a "unity event" to argue that the agreement was a victory — and a message to the White House that the president must consult with Congress on future court nominees.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi apparently now expect the President to bow before them and kiss their rings.
If I were President Bush, I'd call a press conference and tell them that they can kiss my...well, you get the picture.
Why is it that Democrats in Congress seem to have no grasp of what the Constitution says? You would think that to get that far in politics, they'd have to have at least read it! Or is it that they think that the Constitution is irrelevant when dealing with their vast intellect? God, what arrogance!
There is nothing in the Constitution that even vaguely suggests that the President should have to consult with the Legislative branch before sending his nominees to the Senate. President Bush, Senator Frist and any other Republican out there should start howling to high heaven about this.
The "checks and balances" system was put in place so that no branch of the government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) can usurp power from the others.
The Democrats whined about Republicans hurting our system of "checks and balances" when it came to disagreements between parties, which is not at all what the system was put in place for.
But they are perfectly willing to utterly ignore those checks and balances when it comes to the way they're supposed to be used: to balance power between the branches of government.
The Legislative branch has no power to dictate to the Executive branch! Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have no right to demand anything of President Bush!
Come on! I'm just a grease-monkey and even I know that! Why isn't anyone else saying the same thing? I have yet to hear any outrage against the Senate demanding that the President consult with them before he does anything. The Senate can do no such thing!
The minority party has taken over the Legislative branch and, without so much as a "Thank you, maam", they start dictating to the Executive branch! Once again, I thank God that the military hates these people or they would be dictating from the chair of a Dictator once the smoke cleared and the blood dried.
Is this just one of those things that's too obvious for the deep-thinking 'professionals' to see, or what?
For their part, Senate Democratic Leader Reid and his House counterpart, Rep. Nancy Pelosi scheduled a "unity event" to argue that the agreement was a victory — and a message to the White House that the president must consult with Congress on future court nominees.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi apparently now expect the President to bow before them and kiss their rings.
If I were President Bush, I'd call a press conference and tell them that they can kiss my...well, you get the picture.
Why is it that Democrats in Congress seem to have no grasp of what the Constitution says? You would think that to get that far in politics, they'd have to have at least read it! Or is it that they think that the Constitution is irrelevant when dealing with their vast intellect? God, what arrogance!
There is nothing in the Constitution that even vaguely suggests that the President should have to consult with the Legislative branch before sending his nominees to the Senate. President Bush, Senator Frist and any other Republican out there should start howling to high heaven about this.
The "checks and balances" system was put in place so that no branch of the government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) can usurp power from the others.
The Democrats whined about Republicans hurting our system of "checks and balances" when it came to disagreements between parties, which is not at all what the system was put in place for.
But they are perfectly willing to utterly ignore those checks and balances when it comes to the way they're supposed to be used: to balance power between the branches of government.
The Legislative branch has no power to dictate to the Executive branch! Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have no right to demand anything of President Bush!
Come on! I'm just a grease-monkey and even I know that! Why isn't anyone else saying the same thing? I have yet to hear any outrage against the Senate demanding that the President consult with them before he does anything. The Senate can do no such thing!
The minority party has taken over the Legislative branch and, without so much as a "Thank you, maam", they start dictating to the Executive branch! Once again, I thank God that the military hates these people or they would be dictating from the chair of a Dictator once the smoke cleared and the blood dried.
Is this just one of those things that's too obvious for the deep-thinking 'professionals' to see, or what?
McCain: More Me Now!
I've heard endless debate over the past two days over who won and who lost in the filibuster compromise. Nobody can seem to figure out who the winners and/or losers are. Why? Because there aren't any winners or losers. Nothing has changed.
It was a political sleight-of-hand designed to accomplish nothing more than get 14 left-wing Senators' names in the news as being "bipartisan".
The Democrats can still filibuster and the Republicans can still vote to end the filibuster.
The problem is, just as when the Democrats started filibustering judges for the first time in history and then, when we tried to stop them, accused us of "changing the rules", they'll now filibuster some judge as "too extreme" and, when we bring up the "nuclear option", they'll accuse us of backing out on the deal.
You know it's coming.
But that's OK. John McCain got his mug in the spotlight and managed to get in a shot at President Bush, whom he's still mad at for beating him in the 2000 primaries. After all, the MSM had christened HIM as it's darling! Mostly because they knew he'd be easy to beat when the real race began; but his ego won't let him see that. The Republican base would never stand behind him. And after this, any further political aspirations he may have had (e.g. the Presidency) are finished for good.
As long as we don't forget this. I, for one, intend to make sure that we don't.
What a pathetic little man he is.
It was a political sleight-of-hand designed to accomplish nothing more than get 14 left-wing Senators' names in the news as being "bipartisan".
The Democrats can still filibuster and the Republicans can still vote to end the filibuster.
The problem is, just as when the Democrats started filibustering judges for the first time in history and then, when we tried to stop them, accused us of "changing the rules", they'll now filibuster some judge as "too extreme" and, when we bring up the "nuclear option", they'll accuse us of backing out on the deal.
You know it's coming.
But that's OK. John McCain got his mug in the spotlight and managed to get in a shot at President Bush, whom he's still mad at for beating him in the 2000 primaries. After all, the MSM had christened HIM as it's darling! Mostly because they knew he'd be easy to beat when the real race began; but his ego won't let him see that. The Republican base would never stand behind him. And after this, any further political aspirations he may have had (e.g. the Presidency) are finished for good.
As long as we don't forget this. I, for one, intend to make sure that we don't.
What a pathetic little man he is.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Remove Their Propaganda
I have the perfect solution to help Newsweek not make the same mistake and get even more people killed: take away all of the copies of the Koran at Gitmo.
What the hell are we giving these people copies of the Koran for in the first place? This is the book that got these savages into their present mindset to begin with! It would be comparable to giving German POW's copies of Mein Kampf during WWII!
Who's bright idea was this anyway? "I know, let's give these people the very document that started them off killing us in the first place!"
God help us, but the military has become "culturally sensitive". I think that we should give them a copy of the Bible and The Constitution. Maybe that would help them evolve into at least the 19th century.
Do they give Christians a copy of the Bible when they capture them? No, they give them a knife across the esophagus.
Saudi Arabia shreds any Bibles if it finds foreigners trying to bring them into the country.
You can be executed for converting from Islam to Christianity in most Muslim countries.
But some Leftist rag publishes a story based on nothing, and 17 people die.
Because that's what these savages want to believe about America. And they'll just conveniently ignore the part of the Koran that speaks of Muslims not killing other Muslims.
I swear, these people are looking as hypocritical as Teddy (whattya you lookin' at?) Kennedy.
What the hell are we giving these people copies of the Koran for in the first place? This is the book that got these savages into their present mindset to begin with! It would be comparable to giving German POW's copies of Mein Kampf during WWII!
Who's bright idea was this anyway? "I know, let's give these people the very document that started them off killing us in the first place!"
God help us, but the military has become "culturally sensitive". I think that we should give them a copy of the Bible and The Constitution. Maybe that would help them evolve into at least the 19th century.
Do they give Christians a copy of the Bible when they capture them? No, they give them a knife across the esophagus.
Saudi Arabia shreds any Bibles if it finds foreigners trying to bring them into the country.
You can be executed for converting from Islam to Christianity in most Muslim countries.
But some Leftist rag publishes a story based on nothing, and 17 people die.
Because that's what these savages want to believe about America. And they'll just conveniently ignore the part of the Koran that speaks of Muslims not killing other Muslims.
I swear, these people are looking as hypocritical as Teddy (whattya you lookin' at?) Kennedy.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Odds Aren't
Dennis Prager had an excellent point the other day: If the media doesn't have a left-wing bias, why does it always err on the anti-American side? Always!
The odds say that the media would occasionally err on the side of the military or the Bush administration, but they never do!
The next time some Lefty smirks when you cite media bias, shove that one in their face.
The odds say that the media would occasionally err on the side of the military or the Bush administration, but they never do!
The next time some Lefty smirks when you cite media bias, shove that one in their face.
Here and Now
With all of my ranting about how the Left are just children in disguise, I missed this one completely.
Bob over at either orr whacked me in the head with a big ol' shovel and opened my eyes on this one. It was always on the tip of my tongue, but he hit it.
The sad part is, once liberalism had a vision of the past, a comprehension that we are on a continuum that began long before our great-great-great-grandparents were conceived and that should continue - barring the ultimate cataclysmic event - for long after our great-great-great-grandchildren have passed on.
The Left lives in the "now" just as my daughter does. She just recently grasped the concept that I'm a lot older than she is. That I've been around for far longer than she has.
It explains so much.
- They call Conservatives Nazis because they have no grasp of what the Nazis really were.
- They still embrace Communism because they have no real idea of the atrocities committed by all Communist regimes. I'm sure that they've heard about them, but it's just not real to them.
- They call the Bush administration "the most corrupt administration in history" because they don't know how corrupt some of the past administrations (i.e. LBJ's) have been.
- As I''ve noted in the past, they're trying to overcome thousands of years of evolution (i.e. men & women are equal, end of all wars, etc.) in their puny lifetimes, because they really can't grasp the difference between 70 years and 10,000 years.
Here's another one of those things where the examples are endless, but you get the idea.
Thanks, Bob. Consider yourself linked.
Bob over at either orr whacked me in the head with a big ol' shovel and opened my eyes on this one. It was always on the tip of my tongue, but he hit it.
The sad part is, once liberalism had a vision of the past, a comprehension that we are on a continuum that began long before our great-great-great-grandparents were conceived and that should continue - barring the ultimate cataclysmic event - for long after our great-great-great-grandchildren have passed on.
The Left lives in the "now" just as my daughter does. She just recently grasped the concept that I'm a lot older than she is. That I've been around for far longer than she has.
It explains so much.
- They call Conservatives Nazis because they have no grasp of what the Nazis really were.
- They still embrace Communism because they have no real idea of the atrocities committed by all Communist regimes. I'm sure that they've heard about them, but it's just not real to them.
- They call the Bush administration "the most corrupt administration in history" because they don't know how corrupt some of the past administrations (i.e. LBJ's) have been.
- As I''ve noted in the past, they're trying to overcome thousands of years of evolution (i.e. men & women are equal, end of all wars, etc.) in their puny lifetimes, because they really can't grasp the difference between 70 years and 10,000 years.
Here's another one of those things where the examples are endless, but you get the idea.
Thanks, Bob. Consider yourself linked.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Still Looking
A month or two ago I was wondering what ever happened to Michael Moore? Nobody had heard him flapping his jowls for awhile.
Well, I'm still wondering.
It seems that the only place he exists anymore is on "extremist right-wing" talk-radio and blogs. The rest of the media apparently won't return his calls. In 1984-speak, he has become an "unperson".
I bet they wish they could do that with Howard Dean, too. Unfortunately (for them), they put him at the head of their party's mechanism. Ya gotta love it.
Well, I'm still wondering.
It seems that the only place he exists anymore is on "extremist right-wing" talk-radio and blogs. The rest of the media apparently won't return his calls. In 1984-speak, he has become an "unperson".
I bet they wish they could do that with Howard Dean, too. Unfortunately (for them), they put him at the head of their party's mechanism. Ya gotta love it.
Gentlemen, Start Your Brains!
Yesterday as I was driving home from work, I flipped the radio over to Air UnAmerican to see what the enemy was up to. Lo and behold, the first guy who called started talking about how all of the military base closings were being implemented in the North. After about 3 minutes of the host trying to get him to make his point, he finally stated his theory that, in preparation for the coming "civil unrest", which the Conservatives knew would be forthcoming from their policies, they were consolidating their forces in the South to deal with it (apparently believing that all of the "rednecks" in the South were in lockstep with them).
The scary part of this was that this guy didn't sound like some stoned college kid, or ex-hippie. This guy sounded like he was an otherwise rational person who has been driven over the edge by the left-wing propaganda. He is the exact type of person who I mentioned in an earlier post about normal people falling for the Leftist propaganda and turning into conspiracy theorists.
He, and many, many others in the Democrat party have quit thinking completely. They were never much good at it to begin with, but all reasonable thought has stopped.
On a side note, I've come up with another theory (just full of them...or something...aren't I?) on the whole "conspiracy theory Left" movement: I think that they're trying to show their intelligence by coming up with the latest, greatest conspiracy theory. This is now what passes for deep thought amongst the Left. They're trying to "one-up" the last theory by seeing how "deep" into the twisted psyche of the Bush administration they can delve. They're looking for their Al Franken "affirmation" from their peers.
As another example of this, I was at work today and one of my co-workers stated that he believed that "Bush will go down as the most corrupt politician in history". Well, it's obvious that he knows nothing of history but, then I asked him why, if that was so, Bush wasn't being officially investigated for anything? Clinton had been investigated for many years and for multiple scandals by his 5th year in office. Did he think that the Democrats who are calling him a "loser" and a "liar" and comparing him to Hitler are just too nice to make a fuss by calling for official investigations? Did he think that if the Democrats had the slightest bit of evidence about any wrongdoing that they wouldn't be shrieking to have it investigated?
He just blinked for a few seconds before hemming and hawing. He had no response. None. Why? Because there is no response. But more importantly, he had never thought about that before. He had absorbed everything he had been force-fed by the MSM for the past 5 years with no questions asked or logical thought.
The scary part of that is that, if this guy would stop and think about these things, he would be a Republican in a minute. He hunts and fishes, has snowmobiles and ATV's, has nothing but scorn for welfare queens and the whole PC "victimhood" culture of the Left, probably makes over $100,000 between him and his wife (yet he bitches to me about the "rich", of course) and is exactly the kind of person that the Democrats stereotype Republicans as being.
The Democrats are attacking him and his lifestyle, yet, because he can't be bothered to look into anything more deeply than The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal, he keeps voting for the very people who are attacking him.
I know many people like this. I'm sure that you do, too. Keep plugging away at them.
The scary part of this was that this guy didn't sound like some stoned college kid, or ex-hippie. This guy sounded like he was an otherwise rational person who has been driven over the edge by the left-wing propaganda. He is the exact type of person who I mentioned in an earlier post about normal people falling for the Leftist propaganda and turning into conspiracy theorists.
He, and many, many others in the Democrat party have quit thinking completely. They were never much good at it to begin with, but all reasonable thought has stopped.
On a side note, I've come up with another theory (just full of them...or something...aren't I?) on the whole "conspiracy theory Left" movement: I think that they're trying to show their intelligence by coming up with the latest, greatest conspiracy theory. This is now what passes for deep thought amongst the Left. They're trying to "one-up" the last theory by seeing how "deep" into the twisted psyche of the Bush administration they can delve. They're looking for their Al Franken "affirmation" from their peers.
As another example of this, I was at work today and one of my co-workers stated that he believed that "Bush will go down as the most corrupt politician in history". Well, it's obvious that he knows nothing of history but, then I asked him why, if that was so, Bush wasn't being officially investigated for anything? Clinton had been investigated for many years and for multiple scandals by his 5th year in office. Did he think that the Democrats who are calling him a "loser" and a "liar" and comparing him to Hitler are just too nice to make a fuss by calling for official investigations? Did he think that if the Democrats had the slightest bit of evidence about any wrongdoing that they wouldn't be shrieking to have it investigated?
He just blinked for a few seconds before hemming and hawing. He had no response. None. Why? Because there is no response. But more importantly, he had never thought about that before. He had absorbed everything he had been force-fed by the MSM for the past 5 years with no questions asked or logical thought.
The scary part of that is that, if this guy would stop and think about these things, he would be a Republican in a minute. He hunts and fishes, has snowmobiles and ATV's, has nothing but scorn for welfare queens and the whole PC "victimhood" culture of the Left, probably makes over $100,000 between him and his wife (yet he bitches to me about the "rich", of course) and is exactly the kind of person that the Democrats stereotype Republicans as being.
The Democrats are attacking him and his lifestyle, yet, because he can't be bothered to look into anything more deeply than The Minneapolis Red Star Tribunal, he keeps voting for the very people who are attacking him.
I know many people like this. I'm sure that you do, too. Keep plugging away at them.
Mike and Ike, They Think Alike
Is it possible that Muslims are just lefties? Could it be that easy?
But Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad says “The apology and retraction are not enough. “They (Newsweek) should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims.”
They're worried about having their feelings hurt. Hurt feelings are the equivalent of flying planes into buildings and sawing people's heads off.
That sounds just like the moral equivalence of the Left in this country. It's no wonder that they actually have sympathy for these terrorists: they think alike.
They're both immature and childlike, but in a very dangerous way.
But Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad says “The apology and retraction are not enough. “They (Newsweek) should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims.”
They're worried about having their feelings hurt. Hurt feelings are the equivalent of flying planes into buildings and sawing people's heads off.
That sounds just like the moral equivalence of the Left in this country. It's no wonder that they actually have sympathy for these terrorists: they think alike.
They're both immature and childlike, but in a very dangerous way.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Iowanian Rampage
Now this is funny. From Iowahawk:
“It is important that we remember that Lutheranism is a religion of peace,” said Army spokesman Maj. Richard Lehrman. “And we need to remember to avoid insensitive behavior and remarks that will cause these peaceful Lutherans to go on another bloody killing rampage.”
Read the rest of it at the link above. It's the funniest thing I've read in months.
(Tip o' the Hat: Right Wing News)
“It is important that we remember that Lutheranism is a religion of peace,” said Army spokesman Maj. Richard Lehrman. “And we need to remember to avoid insensitive behavior and remarks that will cause these peaceful Lutherans to go on another bloody killing rampage.”
Read the rest of it at the link above. It's the funniest thing I've read in months.
(Tip o' the Hat: Right Wing News)
That''s No Ordinary Lightbulb! It's a Killer!
While continuing my self-education in all things fluorescent, I ran across a little something from the Energy Star website run by the EPA:
CHANGE A LIGHT, CHANGE THE WORLD
Changing the world starts with simple actions. When you replace light bulbs or entire light fixtures in your home with ones that have earned the ENERGY STAR, you contribute to a cleaner environment while saving yourself energy, money and time buying and changing lights in your home. Every American is encouraged to change out their 5 most frequently used light fixtures or the bulbs in them to ENERGY STAR qualified lighting. If every American home made this "5 light change" not only would each family save more than $60 every year in energy costs, but together we'd also keep more than one trillion pounds of greenhouse gases out of our air. That's a $6 billion energy savings for Americans equivalent to the annual output of more than 21 power plants.
OK, let's be generous and say that there is one home for every two people (give or take). We'll give them 140,000,000 homes.
Divide 1,000,000,000,000 pounds of gases by 140,000,000 and you get roughly 7143 pounds for 5 light bulbs. Divide 7143 by 5 and you get 1428 pounds of gases for every lightbulb!
Does anyone care to do the math on how many cubic feet 1428 pounds of CO2 would take up? Or how about a trillion pounds of the stuff?
I would love to see the figures that they used to come up with this. I'm sure that there are some truly hilarious assumptions made. My guess is that they took every person on earth (including the dead ones who voted in the last election) gave them a home of their own, and rated the light bulbs at 5,000 watts. Or something like that.
And they have no qualms about putting this stuff out there. Why? Because so many people in this country have been conditioned to believe whatever the government tells them, that they won't think twice about that ridiculous figure.
And it's all about money. They've learned that if they put these ridiculously large numbers out there, eventually the usual unthinking "Our Mother the Earth" suspects will pick it up and start protesting while they should be looking for work. And if they can panic enough people, they get more money. Nice game they have there.
(On that subject, I saw a great protest sign from the Right side. The rally must have been held on a Saturday. "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns!")
CHANGE A LIGHT, CHANGE THE WORLD
Changing the world starts with simple actions. When you replace light bulbs or entire light fixtures in your home with ones that have earned the ENERGY STAR, you contribute to a cleaner environment while saving yourself energy, money and time buying and changing lights in your home. Every American is encouraged to change out their 5 most frequently used light fixtures or the bulbs in them to ENERGY STAR qualified lighting. If every American home made this "5 light change" not only would each family save more than $60 every year in energy costs, but together we'd also keep more than one trillion pounds of greenhouse gases out of our air. That's a $6 billion energy savings for Americans equivalent to the annual output of more than 21 power plants.
OK, let's be generous and say that there is one home for every two people (give or take). We'll give them 140,000,000 homes.
Divide 1,000,000,000,000 pounds of gases by 140,000,000 and you get roughly 7143 pounds for 5 light bulbs. Divide 7143 by 5 and you get 1428 pounds of gases for every lightbulb!
Does anyone care to do the math on how many cubic feet 1428 pounds of CO2 would take up? Or how about a trillion pounds of the stuff?
I would love to see the figures that they used to come up with this. I'm sure that there are some truly hilarious assumptions made. My guess is that they took every person on earth (including the dead ones who voted in the last election) gave them a home of their own, and rated the light bulbs at 5,000 watts. Or something like that.
And they have no qualms about putting this stuff out there. Why? Because so many people in this country have been conditioned to believe whatever the government tells them, that they won't think twice about that ridiculous figure.
And it's all about money. They've learned that if they put these ridiculously large numbers out there, eventually the usual unthinking "Our Mother the Earth" suspects will pick it up and start protesting while they should be looking for work. And if they can panic enough people, they get more money. Nice game they have there.
(On that subject, I saw a great protest sign from the Right side. The rally must have been held on a Saturday. "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns!")
Our Differences Are Not Different
I found this paragraph in a story about Harvard caving in to the feminazis and giving them $50 million for women's programs.
The recommendations include a senior administrative post overseeing diversity and faculty development — which Summers had previously committed to — as well as better mentoring for faculty and freshmen interested in science, enhanced faculty benefits in areas such as child care, and safe transportation for researchers working in labs late at night.
Now, if these women want safe transportation late at night, wouldn't that mean that they believe that they're not as able to protect themselves as men are? In other words, they're (gasp) different than men?
I guess that once they extorted the $50 million, hypocrisy doesn't matter.
The recommendations include a senior administrative post overseeing diversity and faculty development — which Summers had previously committed to — as well as better mentoring for faculty and freshmen interested in science, enhanced faculty benefits in areas such as child care, and safe transportation for researchers working in labs late at night.
Now, if these women want safe transportation late at night, wouldn't that mean that they believe that they're not as able to protect themselves as men are? In other words, they're (gasp) different than men?
I guess that once they extorted the $50 million, hypocrisy doesn't matter.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Dadgummed Whippersnapper Blogs!
The MSM kind of reminds you of Grandpa in his last days. Doddering, can't remember where he put his dentures, getting everything mixed up, but insisting that he's as well as he ever was.
Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman said the magazine believes it erred in reporting the allegation that a prison guard tried to flush the Quran down a toilet and that military investigators had confirmed the accusation.
"The issue here is to get the truth out, to acknowledge as quickly as possible what happened, and that's what we're trying to do," Klaidman told the "CBS Evening News" on Sunday.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! CBS news. Truth. Stop it man, you're killing me! For once CBS news was able to feel morally superior to someone.
In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah called the alleged desecration a "brutal" form of torture and urged Muslims and international human rights organizations "to raise their voices loudly against the American behavior."
Yes, that's brutal. I'd much rather have my head sawed off by a bunch of Muqtars. I bet the Grand (Poobah) Ayatollah said nary a word about that brutality. Spare me your righteousness, pig.
These "journalists" are directly responsible for at least 15 deaths because of nothing more than their desire to make the Bush administration look bad. "Newsweek Lied, People Died!" Bet you won't see any of the ANSWER protestors out there chanting that one.
I don't know about your plumbing, but if I tried to flush anything much bigger than a matchbook down my toilet, let alone a copy of the Kuran, I'd be in for a long day of playing plumber.
Shouldn't that have raised a flag for the folks at Snoozeweak? Maybe these rich liberals have better plumbing than I do, but I doubt it (although a bidet wouldn't surprise me). It's just another case of them being so willing...no, eager to believe anything that makes Bush, Conservatives and/or the military look bad, that they jump on the story with absolutely no thought or fact-checking.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source"
I would bet anything that, if this source even exists, they have direct partisan links to the anti-Bush crowd. They always do. But that's never taken into consideration by the MSM. After the whole "Memogate" thing at CBS, you'd think that, for their credibility's sake, reporters would look more deeply into any charges that are made. But they never do. They never learn.
Wild accusations are made against John Bolton and the media runs with them. It takes bloggers about 5 minutes to find out that these accusations are being made by Democrat activists and outright Bush-haters.
No wonder they hate blogs! We are the future, and it really pisses Grandpa off.
Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman said the magazine believes it erred in reporting the allegation that a prison guard tried to flush the Quran down a toilet and that military investigators had confirmed the accusation.
"The issue here is to get the truth out, to acknowledge as quickly as possible what happened, and that's what we're trying to do," Klaidman told the "CBS Evening News" on Sunday.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! CBS news. Truth. Stop it man, you're killing me! For once CBS news was able to feel morally superior to someone.
In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah called the alleged desecration a "brutal" form of torture and urged Muslims and international human rights organizations "to raise their voices loudly against the American behavior."
Yes, that's brutal. I'd much rather have my head sawed off by a bunch of Muqtars. I bet the Grand (Poobah) Ayatollah said nary a word about that brutality. Spare me your righteousness, pig.
These "journalists" are directly responsible for at least 15 deaths because of nothing more than their desire to make the Bush administration look bad. "Newsweek Lied, People Died!" Bet you won't see any of the ANSWER protestors out there chanting that one.
I don't know about your plumbing, but if I tried to flush anything much bigger than a matchbook down my toilet, let alone a copy of the Kuran, I'd be in for a long day of playing plumber.
Shouldn't that have raised a flag for the folks at Snoozeweak? Maybe these rich liberals have better plumbing than I do, but I doubt it (although a bidet wouldn't surprise me). It's just another case of them being so willing...no, eager to believe anything that makes Bush, Conservatives and/or the military look bad, that they jump on the story with absolutely no thought or fact-checking.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source"
I would bet anything that, if this source even exists, they have direct partisan links to the anti-Bush crowd. They always do. But that's never taken into consideration by the MSM. After the whole "Memogate" thing at CBS, you'd think that, for their credibility's sake, reporters would look more deeply into any charges that are made. But they never do. They never learn.
Wild accusations are made against John Bolton and the media runs with them. It takes bloggers about 5 minutes to find out that these accusations are being made by Democrat activists and outright Bush-haters.
No wonder they hate blogs! We are the future, and it really pisses Grandpa off.
Please Don't Die!
While watching the tribute to Nancy Reagan on C-SPAN this weekend, it occurred to me that I really hope Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton live forever.
The MSM hated Ronald Reagan, but they actually gave his passing quite a bit of coverage. Can you imagine what it's going to be like when Carter or Clinton die?
With Carter it will be endless prattling about his Nobel Peace Prize. You know, the one he earned by helping a madman in North Korea attain nukes? Little to nothing will be said about his disastrous domestic policies that caused inflation to skyrocket and interest rates to hit 20%.
The Nobel Peace Prize should really be renamed the "Nobel Prize for Helping to Bring Down the Great Satan".
Clinton will be remembered for...I'm not sure. He never actually did anything while he was in office other than midnight basketball for kids who should be in bed resting up for school the next day. I'm sure that the economic explosion of the 90's will be attributed to him, though that was caused almost completely by the internet boom (You could, indirectly, attribute it to Al Gore I suppose. After all, he took the initiative in creating the internet).
And the love-fest will go on 24/7 for months. I my emigrate to the Yukon if that happens. If it isn't already full from the 3 Americans who may have actually followed through on their threat to move to Canada if Bush won.
The MSM hated Ronald Reagan, but they actually gave his passing quite a bit of coverage. Can you imagine what it's going to be like when Carter or Clinton die?
With Carter it will be endless prattling about his Nobel Peace Prize. You know, the one he earned by helping a madman in North Korea attain nukes? Little to nothing will be said about his disastrous domestic policies that caused inflation to skyrocket and interest rates to hit 20%.
The Nobel Peace Prize should really be renamed the "Nobel Prize for Helping to Bring Down the Great Satan".
Clinton will be remembered for...I'm not sure. He never actually did anything while he was in office other than midnight basketball for kids who should be in bed resting up for school the next day. I'm sure that the economic explosion of the 90's will be attributed to him, though that was caused almost completely by the internet boom (You could, indirectly, attribute it to Al Gore I suppose. After all, he took the initiative in creating the internet).
And the love-fest will go on 24/7 for months. I my emigrate to the Yukon if that happens. If it isn't already full from the 3 Americans who may have actually followed through on their threat to move to Canada if Bush won.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
The Clinton Legacy
The pundits of the late 90's were worried about the effect that Bill Clinton's behavior would have on America. They were worried, and rightly so, about the message that it would send to us and our kids about sex, lying, justifying bad behavior, selfishness and more.
And they may have been right had 9/11 not occurred and stiffened a lot of spines. If we had been allowed to continue on with business as usual, we may not have been shocked out of the morass of "the end justifies the means" and "if it feels good, do it" relativism that he embodied.
Thankfully, many, many people were awakened by the tragedy of 9/11.
But Bill (and Hillary) Clinton's legacy does continue. You can see it every day in the likes of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, MorOn.org and all of the rest of the extreme Lefties who are willing to lie, spin, twist, shriek and ignore every principle but one: Power at any cost.
Like Bill and Hillary, they have abandoned all principles in their pursuit of power. No lie is too big. No political tactic is too extreme. No personal attack is unjustifiable. No want is to be unsated.
Bill was good at disuising his extremism. Hillary wasn't, but if she kept a low profile, she could manage to get some things done.
The current crop didn't learn the "disguise" or "low-profile" maneuvers, but just went right out there and used the rest of the Clinton low tactics of "power at any cost". They are screaming out their true beliefs and they're turning a lot of people off.
History will judge him harshly, but his true legacy is to turn his party into undiguised left-wing fanatics. Unlike Bill, the people who are using his tactics of attack & destroy don't have the charm to pull it off without seeming like fanatics.
Americans don't like fanatics of any stripe.
Let's hear it for the Clinton Legacy!
And they may have been right had 9/11 not occurred and stiffened a lot of spines. If we had been allowed to continue on with business as usual, we may not have been shocked out of the morass of "the end justifies the means" and "if it feels good, do it" relativism that he embodied.
Thankfully, many, many people were awakened by the tragedy of 9/11.
But Bill (and Hillary) Clinton's legacy does continue. You can see it every day in the likes of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, MorOn.org and all of the rest of the extreme Lefties who are willing to lie, spin, twist, shriek and ignore every principle but one: Power at any cost.
Like Bill and Hillary, they have abandoned all principles in their pursuit of power. No lie is too big. No political tactic is too extreme. No personal attack is unjustifiable. No want is to be unsated.
Bill was good at disuising his extremism. Hillary wasn't, but if she kept a low profile, she could manage to get some things done.
The current crop didn't learn the "disguise" or "low-profile" maneuvers, but just went right out there and used the rest of the Clinton low tactics of "power at any cost". They are screaming out their true beliefs and they're turning a lot of people off.
History will judge him harshly, but his true legacy is to turn his party into undiguised left-wing fanatics. Unlike Bill, the people who are using his tactics of attack & destroy don't have the charm to pull it off without seeming like fanatics.
Americans don't like fanatics of any stripe.
Let's hear it for the Clinton Legacy!
Brainstorm!
OK, here's the plan:
We give out "questionnaires" to find out who among us are the uninformed or half-informed.
Then, when it comes time to vote, we let them vote for the next 'American Idol' or who should get "voted off the island".
That way they could feel like they're voting, but we won't have the morons who actually watch this drivel electing the people who make the policy for this country.
I strongly suspect that the uninformed and half-informed are the same people who actually care about these shows. And these are the same ones who are being inundated with political correctness on all of the sitcoms and drama shows.
They are the weak-minded among us and are easily swayed by their feelings. In other words, the "useful idiots" that the Left depends on to keep any power whatsoever.
We give out "questionnaires" to find out who among us are the uninformed or half-informed.
Then, when it comes time to vote, we let them vote for the next 'American Idol' or who should get "voted off the island".
That way they could feel like they're voting, but we won't have the morons who actually watch this drivel electing the people who make the policy for this country.
I strongly suspect that the uninformed and half-informed are the same people who actually care about these shows. And these are the same ones who are being inundated with political correctness on all of the sitcoms and drama shows.
They are the weak-minded among us and are easily swayed by their feelings. In other words, the "useful idiots" that the Left depends on to keep any power whatsoever.
Friday, May 13, 2005
New Rule! New Rule!
Ok, this is the new rule:
Republican Presidents aren't allowed to nominate anyone for anything if that nominee actually agrees with the President about anything.
Somehow I don't remember Bill Clinton nominating anyone of the right-wing persuasion for anything, but the Senate Democrats didn't seem to have a problem with that, and the Republicans never filibustered those nominations.
In fact I keep hearing about a bunch of idiotic judicial rulings coming down from Clinton appointees.
And does anyone care to discuss Madeline Halfwit Albright as Ambassador to the U.N.? This woman (with help from Jimmy Carter) created the North Korean crisis and is directly responsible for the lack of any response to terrorists in the 90's. Not to mention helping to create the atmosphere in the U.N where the oil-for-food scandal erupted. She was in so far over her head that she couldn't see daylight.
But John Bolton isn't qualified because he's a meanie!
Will the Democrats ever get any grown-ups in their party?
Republican Presidents aren't allowed to nominate anyone for anything if that nominee actually agrees with the President about anything.
Somehow I don't remember Bill Clinton nominating anyone of the right-wing persuasion for anything, but the Senate Democrats didn't seem to have a problem with that, and the Republicans never filibustered those nominations.
In fact I keep hearing about a bunch of idiotic judicial rulings coming down from Clinton appointees.
And does anyone care to discuss Madeline Halfwit Albright as Ambassador to the U.N.? This woman (with help from Jimmy Carter) created the North Korean crisis and is directly responsible for the lack of any response to terrorists in the 90's. Not to mention helping to create the atmosphere in the U.N where the oil-for-food scandal erupted. She was in so far over her head that she couldn't see daylight.
But John Bolton isn't qualified because he's a meanie!
Will the Democrats ever get any grown-ups in their party?
Phantoms of the Left
From the LA Times via Yahoo:
The Sacramento Bee announced Thursday the resignation of an award-winning columnist, the latest in a series of cases across the nation in which journalists had been forced from their jobs because of questions about the veracity of their reporting.
In an explanation to readers, Bee Executive Editor Rick Rodriguez wrote that Diana Griego Erwin could not adequately answer questions that first arose last month about whether "people mentioned in several recent columns actually existed..."
The departure of Griego Erwin, who wrote three columns a week, continues the run of recent embarrassments for newspapers, many of which have cost writers their jobs.
Last week, USA Today Pentagon correspondent Tom Squitieri resigned under pressure after lifting quotes from another newspaper and using other quotes without attribution.
That followed on the heels of the resignation of veteran Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Al Levine, who pilfered information from two Florida newspapers without crediting them.
Los Angeles Times reporter Eric Slater was dismissed last month when editors at the newspaper could not verify information in an article he wrote about fraternity hazing at Cal State Chico.
The recent headliner in the string of news scandals was bestselling author, sports columnist and TV personality Mitch Albom, who was suspended from the Detroit Free Press for describing a scene in the stands at an NCAA basketball tournament game before the game had been played.
Most of these firings are due to nothing more than plain laziness and/or the desire to take credit for other peoples' work. Yes, that's disturbing, but it's not nearly as bad as what would seem to be the fanaticism of these "journalists" like Ms. Griego Erwin who make up stories and people out of thin air.
Think about it: their rationale seems to be: "Even though I can't seem to find any real people who will illustrate my point of view, I know that my point of view is correct, so what's the harm in making them up?"
They just know that their opinion is shared by millions upon millions of people, so why do the work of actually going out and finding said people.
Or, worse yet, they can't find any real people who actually agree with them, but it must be a fluke, because they know that they're right. It's the arrogance of the Leftist elites.
Either way, it's a perfect illustration of the Leftist-run MSM.
The Sacramento Bee announced Thursday the resignation of an award-winning columnist, the latest in a series of cases across the nation in which journalists had been forced from their jobs because of questions about the veracity of their reporting.
In an explanation to readers, Bee Executive Editor Rick Rodriguez wrote that Diana Griego Erwin could not adequately answer questions that first arose last month about whether "people mentioned in several recent columns actually existed..."
The departure of Griego Erwin, who wrote three columns a week, continues the run of recent embarrassments for newspapers, many of which have cost writers their jobs.
Last week, USA Today Pentagon correspondent Tom Squitieri resigned under pressure after lifting quotes from another newspaper and using other quotes without attribution.
That followed on the heels of the resignation of veteran Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Al Levine, who pilfered information from two Florida newspapers without crediting them.
Los Angeles Times reporter Eric Slater was dismissed last month when editors at the newspaper could not verify information in an article he wrote about fraternity hazing at Cal State Chico.
The recent headliner in the string of news scandals was bestselling author, sports columnist and TV personality Mitch Albom, who was suspended from the Detroit Free Press for describing a scene in the stands at an NCAA basketball tournament game before the game had been played.
Most of these firings are due to nothing more than plain laziness and/or the desire to take credit for other peoples' work. Yes, that's disturbing, but it's not nearly as bad as what would seem to be the fanaticism of these "journalists" like Ms. Griego Erwin who make up stories and people out of thin air.
Think about it: their rationale seems to be: "Even though I can't seem to find any real people who will illustrate my point of view, I know that my point of view is correct, so what's the harm in making them up?"
They just know that their opinion is shared by millions upon millions of people, so why do the work of actually going out and finding said people.
Or, worse yet, they can't find any real people who actually agree with them, but it must be a fluke, because they know that they're right. It's the arrogance of the Leftist elites.
Either way, it's a perfect illustration of the Leftist-run MSM.
Stir the Pot
The other night, as I was doing more extensive research (i.e. sitting on the couch watching the History channel, again), I started thinking about how long we were involved in World War II compared to how long we've been fighting the War on Terror (we really need to come up with a better name).
Well, Mark Steyn at National Review was apparently wondering the same thing; but he actually did the math and came up with a date: May 19, 2005. That's next Thursday.
A week and a half after the VE Day anniversary, here's a date that will get a lot less attention: May 19, 2005. On that day, the war on terror will have outlasted America's participation in the Second World War. In other words, the period since 9/11 will be longer than the period of time between Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945.
That is just incredible. After the thousands of movies made and millions of words written about WWII, our involvement was only about 3-1/2 years. It seems so much bigger than that. And it was.
That so many people made so many sacrifices for that war seems almost unbelievable in light of the American people today.
Back then, everything from gas to food was strictly rationed. Women had to switch from silk stockings to nylons because silk was needed to make parachutes. You couldn't buy a new car back then because all of the factories were busy making war materials. People planted "victory gardens" in any available open space to supplement the food supply. Any little bit of scrap metal was turned in by the people to be recycled into tanks, guns, airplanes, etc. People walked whenever possible so that more gasoline could be sent to the troops.
And, though there was some grumbling, the vast majority of people in this country did it happily enough, because they knew that it was necessary to defeat the very real threat to the American way of life.
Now look at today. People complain loudly and vociferously because they have to stand in line a few extra minutes at airports. Other than that, what sacrifices have we had to make in our daily lives? None.
Because those in power know that we wouldn't stand for it. Because the 1960's generation taught us that having whatever we want and doing whatever we want, when we want to, is our entitlement.
Until very recently I believed that most people weren't taking this war seriously because it lacks a well-defined enemy within well-defined borders who are all dressed in identical uniforms.
After thinking about what the people of the 1940's were willing to do to win the war, I no longer believe that. I believe that most people aren't taking this war seriously because, if they admitted that it was a real war, then they'd feel obligated to do something about it.
Osama may be right in one regard: too many people in this country have become soft and spoiled by the "if it feels good, do it" attitudes that became prevalent during the '60's and '70's.
In some respects, it's also the fault of our leaders (many of whom come directly from the 1960's counter-culture) for not telling us what is needed.
Many of them refuse to do it for fear of losing power by angering people by telling them that they have to change their lifestyles to preserve that same lifestyle for future generations. They are the ones that are so power hungry that they'd rather let the nation burn than lose power.
There are others in power who believe (as I do) that it would be a lost cause to try to get people to sacrifice anything. In the beginning President Bush and his administration tried, briefly, to tell us what we could do to help ourselves. He was rewarded with scorn and ridicule.
Remember when he said that we should keep an eye out for anything suspicious? When he said that mailmen and meter readers could be a great help by reporting anything that didn't seem right?
He was accused of trying to turn everybody into informants for the State.
Remember when he said that it would be a good idea to keep duct tape and plastic sheeting handy to make an airtight room to ward off biological agents in event of attack?
The idea was ridiculed for months, even though it made sense to at least try to protect yourself.
Eventually he just gave up, and I don't blame him. It's sad, really. It's a sign of a country that is in total denial of reality. We are so afraid of losing the smallest of our comforts that we feel we're entitled to, that we deny the very real threat that someone is trying to bring down our country.
Or maybe we've become so used to the Left trying to bring down our country for so long, that we've become numb to the attacks.
The Left is also a huge part of the problem. The country has become so politically correct that we can't say one bad thing about the very people who are attacking us. That, my friends, is insanity.
As I said in a previous post: it's not just some small sliver of "Islamofascists" in the Mideast who are trying to kill us, as the MSM would have you believe. Even right-thinking people in the "alternative" media mouth the words of "tolerance" for fear of bringing the thought-police down on their heads.
The fact is, the vast majority of people in the Mideast agree with the terrorists and are cheering them on just as we cheer our troops on. They may hate the dictators that they live under (i.e. Saddaam), but they have no great love for us and believe that the terrorists are doing the right thing. They look upon them as freedom fighters until the terrorists take over their towns and homes and start killing them. Only then do they run to us and tip us off and beg for our help.
And after we take care of the problem they go right back to bitching about us (see Fallujah). You'd almost think that they were French!
What's needed is an outright campaign to villify these people just as we did with the Germans and the Japanese in WWII. Although the Left would scream otherwise, it isn't racism. It's their attitude and their beliefs. It was hardly racist of us to villify the Germans in the 1940's when so many of us were direct descendants of these (white) Germans. But their attitude and their actions were horrible and evil, just as they are in the Mideast today.
There's nothing wrong with villifying that.
Well, Mark Steyn at National Review was apparently wondering the same thing; but he actually did the math and came up with a date: May 19, 2005. That's next Thursday.
A week and a half after the VE Day anniversary, here's a date that will get a lot less attention: May 19, 2005. On that day, the war on terror will have outlasted America's participation in the Second World War. In other words, the period since 9/11 will be longer than the period of time between Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945.
That is just incredible. After the thousands of movies made and millions of words written about WWII, our involvement was only about 3-1/2 years. It seems so much bigger than that. And it was.
That so many people made so many sacrifices for that war seems almost unbelievable in light of the American people today.
Back then, everything from gas to food was strictly rationed. Women had to switch from silk stockings to nylons because silk was needed to make parachutes. You couldn't buy a new car back then because all of the factories were busy making war materials. People planted "victory gardens" in any available open space to supplement the food supply. Any little bit of scrap metal was turned in by the people to be recycled into tanks, guns, airplanes, etc. People walked whenever possible so that more gasoline could be sent to the troops.
And, though there was some grumbling, the vast majority of people in this country did it happily enough, because they knew that it was necessary to defeat the very real threat to the American way of life.
Now look at today. People complain loudly and vociferously because they have to stand in line a few extra minutes at airports. Other than that, what sacrifices have we had to make in our daily lives? None.
Because those in power know that we wouldn't stand for it. Because the 1960's generation taught us that having whatever we want and doing whatever we want, when we want to, is our entitlement.
Until very recently I believed that most people weren't taking this war seriously because it lacks a well-defined enemy within well-defined borders who are all dressed in identical uniforms.
After thinking about what the people of the 1940's were willing to do to win the war, I no longer believe that. I believe that most people aren't taking this war seriously because, if they admitted that it was a real war, then they'd feel obligated to do something about it.
Osama may be right in one regard: too many people in this country have become soft and spoiled by the "if it feels good, do it" attitudes that became prevalent during the '60's and '70's.
In some respects, it's also the fault of our leaders (many of whom come directly from the 1960's counter-culture) for not telling us what is needed.
Many of them refuse to do it for fear of losing power by angering people by telling them that they have to change their lifestyles to preserve that same lifestyle for future generations. They are the ones that are so power hungry that they'd rather let the nation burn than lose power.
There are others in power who believe (as I do) that it would be a lost cause to try to get people to sacrifice anything. In the beginning President Bush and his administration tried, briefly, to tell us what we could do to help ourselves. He was rewarded with scorn and ridicule.
Remember when he said that we should keep an eye out for anything suspicious? When he said that mailmen and meter readers could be a great help by reporting anything that didn't seem right?
He was accused of trying to turn everybody into informants for the State.
Remember when he said that it would be a good idea to keep duct tape and plastic sheeting handy to make an airtight room to ward off biological agents in event of attack?
The idea was ridiculed for months, even though it made sense to at least try to protect yourself.
Eventually he just gave up, and I don't blame him. It's sad, really. It's a sign of a country that is in total denial of reality. We are so afraid of losing the smallest of our comforts that we feel we're entitled to, that we deny the very real threat that someone is trying to bring down our country.
Or maybe we've become so used to the Left trying to bring down our country for so long, that we've become numb to the attacks.
The Left is also a huge part of the problem. The country has become so politically correct that we can't say one bad thing about the very people who are attacking us. That, my friends, is insanity.
As I said in a previous post: it's not just some small sliver of "Islamofascists" in the Mideast who are trying to kill us, as the MSM would have you believe. Even right-thinking people in the "alternative" media mouth the words of "tolerance" for fear of bringing the thought-police down on their heads.
The fact is, the vast majority of people in the Mideast agree with the terrorists and are cheering them on just as we cheer our troops on. They may hate the dictators that they live under (i.e. Saddaam), but they have no great love for us and believe that the terrorists are doing the right thing. They look upon them as freedom fighters until the terrorists take over their towns and homes and start killing them. Only then do they run to us and tip us off and beg for our help.
And after we take care of the problem they go right back to bitching about us (see Fallujah). You'd almost think that they were French!
What's needed is an outright campaign to villify these people just as we did with the Germans and the Japanese in WWII. Although the Left would scream otherwise, it isn't racism. It's their attitude and their beliefs. It was hardly racist of us to villify the Germans in the 1940's when so many of us were direct descendants of these (white) Germans. But their attitude and their actions were horrible and evil, just as they are in the Mideast today.
There's nothing wrong with villifying that.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Fur is Murder? Then What Do You Call This?
In a reciprocal act of theft, I give you this from The Conservative Princess:
"While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret. From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing."
The Princess fleshes it out more. Go read the rest of it there. I just thought that this really needed to be called to everyone's attention.
"While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret. From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing."
The Princess fleshes it out more. Go read the rest of it there. I just thought that this really needed to be called to everyone's attention.
We Are The World?
Suicide bombers mingle with Mr. Tickle at Tehran book fair
TEHRAN (AFP) - Scooby Doo, where are you..? If you're at Tehran's book fair and looking for something for the kids, you'll find the stand right next to Islamic Jihad's and around the corner from those other surprising pillars of the publishing world, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran's massive annual literary fest, it seems, has pretty much something for everyone: Thomas the Tank Engine, interior decorating, Microsoft Windows programming, "How to Kill an Israeli" and Jean-Paul Sartre.
"We have a stand here every year," explained a young man at the Hamas booth, which featured T-shirts blazened with the portrait of their late spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, replica suicide bomber headbands and posters featuring mugshots of Palestinians who "blew themselves to bits.
But we're all the same, right? In fact, American culture is inferior to these peoples', say the libs.
But Hezbollah even had something for kids: "Resistance Boy: The Boy from Quds (Jerusalem)" is the name of the PC CD-Rom.
"It's a game for children. They have to shoot down Israeli aircraft and shoot at other things," explained the Hezbollah salesman.
For adults he recommended "Special Force", a 3D shoot-em-up in which nifty programmers have managed to turn aliens into Israelis, and where the object of the game is to die.
No, we are not all the same. The majority of people in the Mideast are murderous scum who are still living in the 7th century, and until I see the majority of them speaking out against this kind of stuff, I will continue to believe that. So far I've heard maybe a half dozen speak out against it since 9/11. And most of those didn't sound very sincere.
A half dozen, compared to the thousands that I saw dancing in the streets after 9/11.
Did anybody see a single person in America dancing in the street after that massive earthquake hit Iran a couple of years ago? Or after the tsunami wiped out a couple-of-hundred-thousand Muslims?
No, what you saw was our offer of aid to Iran (which they rejected), and hundreds of billions of dollars given to the tsunami victims.
We are not all the same. Don't ever try to equate me with these people. It would be hard to come up with a worse insult. I, and most Americans (and a few Canadians), are so vastly superior to these people as to make it seem that we're different species.
And before you lefties start becoming apoplectic, let me say that it really has nothing to do with race. If white people in some part of the world (say, France) were acting this way, I'd call them scum, too. It's all about attitude. You show me a majority of Mideastern people speaking out against terrorism against America and Israel and I'll take back every word.
Until then, I'll wait for Hell to become a Frigidaire dealership.
TEHRAN (AFP) - Scooby Doo, where are you..? If you're at Tehran's book fair and looking for something for the kids, you'll find the stand right next to Islamic Jihad's and around the corner from those other surprising pillars of the publishing world, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran's massive annual literary fest, it seems, has pretty much something for everyone: Thomas the Tank Engine, interior decorating, Microsoft Windows programming, "How to Kill an Israeli" and Jean-Paul Sartre.
"We have a stand here every year," explained a young man at the Hamas booth, which featured T-shirts blazened with the portrait of their late spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, replica suicide bomber headbands and posters featuring mugshots of Palestinians who "blew themselves to bits.
But we're all the same, right? In fact, American culture is inferior to these peoples', say the libs.
But Hezbollah even had something for kids: "Resistance Boy: The Boy from Quds (Jerusalem)" is the name of the PC CD-Rom.
"It's a game for children. They have to shoot down Israeli aircraft and shoot at other things," explained the Hezbollah salesman.
For adults he recommended "Special Force", a 3D shoot-em-up in which nifty programmers have managed to turn aliens into Israelis, and where the object of the game is to die.
No, we are not all the same. The majority of people in the Mideast are murderous scum who are still living in the 7th century, and until I see the majority of them speaking out against this kind of stuff, I will continue to believe that. So far I've heard maybe a half dozen speak out against it since 9/11. And most of those didn't sound very sincere.
A half dozen, compared to the thousands that I saw dancing in the streets after 9/11.
Did anybody see a single person in America dancing in the street after that massive earthquake hit Iran a couple of years ago? Or after the tsunami wiped out a couple-of-hundred-thousand Muslims?
No, what you saw was our offer of aid to Iran (which they rejected), and hundreds of billions of dollars given to the tsunami victims.
We are not all the same. Don't ever try to equate me with these people. It would be hard to come up with a worse insult. I, and most Americans (and a few Canadians), are so vastly superior to these people as to make it seem that we're different species.
And before you lefties start becoming apoplectic, let me say that it really has nothing to do with race. If white people in some part of the world (say, France) were acting this way, I'd call them scum, too. It's all about attitude. You show me a majority of Mideastern people speaking out against terrorism against America and Israel and I'll take back every word.
Until then, I'll wait for Hell to become a Frigidaire dealership.
I Know You Are, But What Am I?
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio agreed on Thursday to let the contentious nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador go to the full Senate for a vote. But he issued a scathing attack on Bolton.
Voinovich portrayed Bolton, now the top arms-control diplomat at the State Department, as "arrogant" and "bullying."
Well. That's rather ironic (or hypocritical), isn't it?
Let's rewrite that sentence, shall we?
"In an arrogant and bullying statement, Voinovich portrayed Bolton, now the top arms-control diplomat at the State Department, as "arrogant" and "bullying."
There. Much better!
I should have been a journalist.
This idiot RINO, Voinovich, let's loose a scathing attack on Bolton for what? For being mean to people! And yet, he doesn't see himself as arrogant, bullying (there's that little kid word again!) or even hypocritical.
I'd call that pretty arrogant.
Voinovich portrayed Bolton, now the top arms-control diplomat at the State Department, as "arrogant" and "bullying."
Well. That's rather ironic (or hypocritical), isn't it?
Let's rewrite that sentence, shall we?
"In an arrogant and bullying statement, Voinovich portrayed Bolton, now the top arms-control diplomat at the State Department, as "arrogant" and "bullying."
There. Much better!
I should have been a journalist.
This idiot RINO, Voinovich, let's loose a scathing attack on Bolton for what? For being mean to people! And yet, he doesn't see himself as arrogant, bullying (there's that little kid word again!) or even hypocritical.
I'd call that pretty arrogant.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Road Tolerance
Here's something that I've been thinking of posting but never seem to get around to because it doesn't have (much) to do with politics.
It is, however, one thing that enrages me at least as much as Lefist politics. It shows the sheer stupidity, self-centeredness and uncaring attitude that is ruining this country. It sums all that up in a real-life setting that is our roadways. I'll write about the rules of the road here in Minnesota, but it probably applies to where you live, too.
I keep hearing people say that nobody obeys the speed limit anymore. I agree. However, what these people usually mean is that people are supposedly flying down the highway at excessive speeds. In reality, what I seem to run into more than speeders, are people who are going well under the speed limit.
I don’t speed very much. If I’m in a big hurry, I might go 5 MPH or so over the speed limit, so it’s not as if I’m trying out for the NASCAR circuit out there.
But time and time again, I run into people who are driving in the left lane at speeds well under the posted limit. I’ve also been behind a lot of truck drivers, who are cruising in the left lane, doing 10 MPH under the posted speed limit. It used to be that you could at least trust the truck-drivers to do the right thing.
These people don’t seem to know or care that the left lane on any two-lane road is for passing. It’s actually the law, though I doubt that it’s ever enforced. I also doubt that the vast majority of people who are on our roads know that it’s the law.
Here’s a simple rule: if another vehicle is coming up behind your vehicle and you’re in the left lane, get the hell out of the way!!! How hard is that? If you’re too frightened to change lanes, you shouldn’t be on the road to begin with! If you won’t go into the right lane because you’re afraid of merging traffic, you shouldn’t have a license!
But apparently our Legislators here in Minnesota heard our call, because they responded by posting signs that say "Slower traffic move right" every 50 miles or so along major Interstate highways. Yeah, that'll help.
The preceding paragraphs should be written in the same 13 languages that the welfare office uses for its forms and also printed in large type so that the elderly can read it.
And if I am in the right lane and doing the speed limit, get off my ass. I'm obeying the law and if you have a problem with that, the left lane is for passing (see above).
Usually when this happens and the car finally gets around me, it's some twenty-something-going on-thirteen-year-old girl who's pissed at the world because she's been convinced that she's a victim and therefore has to prove to the world that she's just as tough as the guys.
There's usually a sticker in the back window that says "Bad-Ass Girlz Drive Bad-Ass Toyz". The "toy" in question is usually some dented little piece of tin that's worth maybe $1000. Yeah. Bad-ass. Put it on a GTO and I'll be impressed.
Some day I'm just going to hit the brakes and she can buy me a new truck. I'll take my driving skills and the survivability of my SUV over her skills and Dodge Neon any day.
***
If you’re mystified about who goes first when there’s a tie at a stop sign (hint: it’s the vehicle to the right), get off of my road. You're too stupid to drive.
Left and right turn lanes are not just to get you out of the main roadway, they are also a lane to allow you time to slow your vehicle down. If your vehicle can’t stop before the stoplight in the distance allotted by the turn lane, you should either fix it or junk it.
I understand that there are times when the turn lane is full of cars, but I’ve seen thousands of people do this when the turn lane is three blocks long and there isn’t one car in it. Move into the turn lane and then hit the brakes!
I can’t count the number of times that I’ve seen people: a) step on the brake, b) move over into the turn lane and then c) turn on their blinker. Here’s another hint: your blinkers are to let people know what you are about to do! They don’t do much good if you’re already in the turn lane and then you turn them on!
But, of course, people do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do. The correct sequence would be: a) turn on your blinker, b) move into the turn lane and c) hit the brakes. When you do it the other way, you're slowing down all of the traffic behind you.
I'm convinced that people just never actually think about what they're doing while they're driving. These people are in control of 3,000 pounds of fast-moving steel, but they can't be bothered to actually think about what they're doing.
And that includes exit ramps. There’s a particular exit ramp on my way home from work that has to be at least a quarter-mile long. Every day I get behind people who step on their brakes before they go into this exit lane. They could coast to a stop before they came to the lights! Why are they hitting the brakes and slowing everybody down before they get off the highway?
Which brings me to blinkers. How lazy do you have to be to not “feel” like sticking out a finger to turn your blinker on? Is it really just too much effort? Whether making a turn, changing lanes or exiting a highway, it’s really not that hard to stick a finger out and flip your blinker on. If it’s too much effort for you, then you should get off the road, go home and get some rest
And, again, it’s the law. According to the statutes, you’re supposed to signal at least 100’ before any turn.
Unless, of course, you’re on a cell phone and it’s plastered to your left ear. Then you have no fingers available to turn your blinker on; or to drive, for that matter.
Cell phones need to be banned from automobiles. Period. Quite frankly, from what I’ve seen, I’d rather share the road with a drunk. Most of these people who are babbling on their phones aren’t the best drivers to begin with. The law doesn’t let you watch a movie or play video games while you’re driving, why should you be able to talk on the phone?
I’m no technophobe. I have a degree in computer programming. I love new technology. But when I used my cell phone while I was driving, I realized that I would go blocks without really noticing what I was doing. Once I realized that, I wouldn’t even answer the thing unless I had a place to pull over.
I was watching a documentary about the German Autobahn on the History channel last night. They showed a guy doing 212 MPH in the left lane and not once did he have to slow down because some moron was doing 40 MPH in the left lane.
It occurred to me that we could never do that in this country because too many people here are too selfish and uncaring to follow the rules of the road. They feel that they are entitled to do whatever they feel like doing, and who cares if they're interfering with other people's lives?
Does that sound familiar? If it feels good, do it. Rules are Ok unless I don't feel like obeying them; then they're oppressive. I don't care if my actions get in your way because I should be able to do whatever I want to.
Anyone out there care to do a study of the voting patterns of people who are doing all of the above? Judging by bumper-stickers alone, I think I already know the answer.
- The Exile
It is, however, one thing that enrages me at least as much as Lefist politics. It shows the sheer stupidity, self-centeredness and uncaring attitude that is ruining this country. It sums all that up in a real-life setting that is our roadways. I'll write about the rules of the road here in Minnesota, but it probably applies to where you live, too.
I keep hearing people say that nobody obeys the speed limit anymore. I agree. However, what these people usually mean is that people are supposedly flying down the highway at excessive speeds. In reality, what I seem to run into more than speeders, are people who are going well under the speed limit.
I don’t speed very much. If I’m in a big hurry, I might go 5 MPH or so over the speed limit, so it’s not as if I’m trying out for the NASCAR circuit out there.
But time and time again, I run into people who are driving in the left lane at speeds well under the posted limit. I’ve also been behind a lot of truck drivers, who are cruising in the left lane, doing 10 MPH under the posted speed limit. It used to be that you could at least trust the truck-drivers to do the right thing.
These people don’t seem to know or care that the left lane on any two-lane road is for passing. It’s actually the law, though I doubt that it’s ever enforced. I also doubt that the vast majority of people who are on our roads know that it’s the law.
Here’s a simple rule: if another vehicle is coming up behind your vehicle and you’re in the left lane, get the hell out of the way!!! How hard is that? If you’re too frightened to change lanes, you shouldn’t be on the road to begin with! If you won’t go into the right lane because you’re afraid of merging traffic, you shouldn’t have a license!
But apparently our Legislators here in Minnesota heard our call, because they responded by posting signs that say "Slower traffic move right" every 50 miles or so along major Interstate highways. Yeah, that'll help.
The preceding paragraphs should be written in the same 13 languages that the welfare office uses for its forms and also printed in large type so that the elderly can read it.
And if I am in the right lane and doing the speed limit, get off my ass. I'm obeying the law and if you have a problem with that, the left lane is for passing (see above).
Usually when this happens and the car finally gets around me, it's some twenty-something-going on-thirteen-year-old girl who's pissed at the world because she's been convinced that she's a victim and therefore has to prove to the world that she's just as tough as the guys.
There's usually a sticker in the back window that says "Bad-Ass Girlz Drive Bad-Ass Toyz". The "toy" in question is usually some dented little piece of tin that's worth maybe $1000. Yeah. Bad-ass. Put it on a GTO and I'll be impressed.
Some day I'm just going to hit the brakes and she can buy me a new truck. I'll take my driving skills and the survivability of my SUV over her skills and Dodge Neon any day.
***
If you’re mystified about who goes first when there’s a tie at a stop sign (hint: it’s the vehicle to the right), get off of my road. You're too stupid to drive.
Left and right turn lanes are not just to get you out of the main roadway, they are also a lane to allow you time to slow your vehicle down. If your vehicle can’t stop before the stoplight in the distance allotted by the turn lane, you should either fix it or junk it.
I understand that there are times when the turn lane is full of cars, but I’ve seen thousands of people do this when the turn lane is three blocks long and there isn’t one car in it. Move into the turn lane and then hit the brakes!
I can’t count the number of times that I’ve seen people: a) step on the brake, b) move over into the turn lane and then c) turn on their blinker. Here’s another hint: your blinkers are to let people know what you are about to do! They don’t do much good if you’re already in the turn lane and then you turn them on!
But, of course, people do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do. The correct sequence would be: a) turn on your blinker, b) move into the turn lane and c) hit the brakes. When you do it the other way, you're slowing down all of the traffic behind you.
I'm convinced that people just never actually think about what they're doing while they're driving. These people are in control of 3,000 pounds of fast-moving steel, but they can't be bothered to actually think about what they're doing.
And that includes exit ramps. There’s a particular exit ramp on my way home from work that has to be at least a quarter-mile long. Every day I get behind people who step on their brakes before they go into this exit lane. They could coast to a stop before they came to the lights! Why are they hitting the brakes and slowing everybody down before they get off the highway?
Which brings me to blinkers. How lazy do you have to be to not “feel” like sticking out a finger to turn your blinker on? Is it really just too much effort? Whether making a turn, changing lanes or exiting a highway, it’s really not that hard to stick a finger out and flip your blinker on. If it’s too much effort for you, then you should get off the road, go home and get some rest
And, again, it’s the law. According to the statutes, you’re supposed to signal at least 100’ before any turn.
Unless, of course, you’re on a cell phone and it’s plastered to your left ear. Then you have no fingers available to turn your blinker on; or to drive, for that matter.
Cell phones need to be banned from automobiles. Period. Quite frankly, from what I’ve seen, I’d rather share the road with a drunk. Most of these people who are babbling on their phones aren’t the best drivers to begin with. The law doesn’t let you watch a movie or play video games while you’re driving, why should you be able to talk on the phone?
I’m no technophobe. I have a degree in computer programming. I love new technology. But when I used my cell phone while I was driving, I realized that I would go blocks without really noticing what I was doing. Once I realized that, I wouldn’t even answer the thing unless I had a place to pull over.
I was watching a documentary about the German Autobahn on the History channel last night. They showed a guy doing 212 MPH in the left lane and not once did he have to slow down because some moron was doing 40 MPH in the left lane.
It occurred to me that we could never do that in this country because too many people here are too selfish and uncaring to follow the rules of the road. They feel that they are entitled to do whatever they feel like doing, and who cares if they're interfering with other people's lives?
Does that sound familiar? If it feels good, do it. Rules are Ok unless I don't feel like obeying them; then they're oppressive. I don't care if my actions get in your way because I should be able to do whatever I want to.
Anyone out there care to do a study of the voting patterns of people who are doing all of the above? Judging by bumper-stickers alone, I think I already know the answer.
- The Exile
Monday, May 09, 2005
Hypocrisy Unbound!
You know how the Left likes to whine about the Patriot Act infringing upon Constitutional rights?
Here's something you can throw in their faces and smirk:
Bill Clinton
speech, August 12, 1993:
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
Bill Clinton
USA Today, March 11, 1993:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
::smirk::
Here's something you can throw in their faces and smirk:
Bill Clinton
speech, August 12, 1993:
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
Bill Clinton
USA Today, March 11, 1993:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
::smirk::
Hypocrisy Overload
You know how the Lefties are always whining about how the United States consumes some huge portion of the world's resources?
You know how the Lefties are always whining about how the Federal Government should be taking care of everyone?
Well, while looking up the properties of electronic ballasts for fluorescent lights (yeah, I know: what a fascinating job I have!) I came across the following statement:
"As the world's largest consumer, the federal government can help "pull" the entire U.S. market towards greater energy efficiency, while saving taxpayer dollars."
While "saving taxpayer dollars" is certainly an admirable goal, wouldn't it save even more taxpayer dollars if the Federal Government wasn't the world's largest consumer of anything?
If these Lefties are so concerned about America consuming so many of the world's resources, maybe they should start advocating cutting back the government!
Can you imagine how many trees that we could save if we were to shut down the useless bureaucracies who are consuming entire forests with their insatiable appetite for paperwork? Every government, from your local village to the Feds, lives on paperwork! It takes 3 pages of paperwork for them to print out one page for your records.
Think about all of the Government vehicles that are driving around out there that could be gotten rid of and the pollution and the gas that would save.
Think of these massive Government buildings that are sucking up electricity, heat, water, and creating millions of tons of trash.
As usual, the Lefties can't link one thing to another. Their support of the Government is diametrically opposed to their love of "Mother Earth". It's not even hypocrisy in this case. They just, plain can't think that deeply or that far ahead.
What we really need is for one of these bright, young college folks to actually do a study on how many resources the Federal and/or local Governments actually consume. Now there's a thesis for you.
Just think: the Lefty professors couldn't hardly justify giving them a bad grade, seeing as how it's for the Environment and all. The dichotomy between Big Government and Environmentalism may just cause the Prof's head to explode.
- The Exile
You know how the Lefties are always whining about how the Federal Government should be taking care of everyone?
Well, while looking up the properties of electronic ballasts for fluorescent lights (yeah, I know: what a fascinating job I have!) I came across the following statement:
"As the world's largest consumer, the federal government can help "pull" the entire U.S. market towards greater energy efficiency, while saving taxpayer dollars."
While "saving taxpayer dollars" is certainly an admirable goal, wouldn't it save even more taxpayer dollars if the Federal Government wasn't the world's largest consumer of anything?
If these Lefties are so concerned about America consuming so many of the world's resources, maybe they should start advocating cutting back the government!
Can you imagine how many trees that we could save if we were to shut down the useless bureaucracies who are consuming entire forests with their insatiable appetite for paperwork? Every government, from your local village to the Feds, lives on paperwork! It takes 3 pages of paperwork for them to print out one page for your records.
Think about all of the Government vehicles that are driving around out there that could be gotten rid of and the pollution and the gas that would save.
Think of these massive Government buildings that are sucking up electricity, heat, water, and creating millions of tons of trash.
As usual, the Lefties can't link one thing to another. Their support of the Government is diametrically opposed to their love of "Mother Earth". It's not even hypocrisy in this case. They just, plain can't think that deeply or that far ahead.
What we really need is for one of these bright, young college folks to actually do a study on how many resources the Federal and/or local Governments actually consume. Now there's a thesis for you.
Just think: the Lefty professors couldn't hardly justify giving them a bad grade, seeing as how it's for the Environment and all. The dichotomy between Big Government and Environmentalism may just cause the Prof's head to explode.
- The Exile
As If There Were Any Doubt
"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." (Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party)
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Let's End It
There's really a very easy way to create stability in Iraq.
Pull the troops out of Germany and all of the other countries where they're not needed, add 100,000 troops in Iraq, put 100,000 troops on Iran's border and 100,000 troops on Syria's border and tell them that it might be a good idea to seal their borders to keep these terrorists from invading Iraq. We'd hate to have any misunderstanding about who's supporting these terrorists who are undermining our efforts. That could lead to some really unpleasant consequences.
Then let the Iraqi forces deal with the internal problems.
This "insurgency" would be over in a month once the Iraqi forces hunted down and shot all of the terrorists who were trapped in Iraq with no replacements coming in from the aforementioned countries.
We could end this. If the Gulf War taught us anything, it should be that overwhelming force wins.
What do you think Iran and Syria would do when they got a peek at 100,000 American boys with their tanks, stealth bombers, fighters, artillery and high-tech equipment sitting 50 yards from their border?
My guess is that we would see no more illegal immigrants in Iraq. None. Iran and Syria's border guards would execute anyone approaching the border from their side. Because that M1-A1 Abrams tank over there just happens to have his turret pointed at my guardshack. And they don't miss.
Sure, they'd rant and rave over at the U.N., but who cares? For once the U.N. wouldn't be on the side of these little dictators, because that would mean they'd have to have endless resolutions against America. Maybe even try to sanction us. And if they do that, we pull out and they're finished.
Iraq would be stabilized in a heartbeat.
Pull the troops out of Germany and all of the other countries where they're not needed, add 100,000 troops in Iraq, put 100,000 troops on Iran's border and 100,000 troops on Syria's border and tell them that it might be a good idea to seal their borders to keep these terrorists from invading Iraq. We'd hate to have any misunderstanding about who's supporting these terrorists who are undermining our efforts. That could lead to some really unpleasant consequences.
Then let the Iraqi forces deal with the internal problems.
This "insurgency" would be over in a month once the Iraqi forces hunted down and shot all of the terrorists who were trapped in Iraq with no replacements coming in from the aforementioned countries.
We could end this. If the Gulf War taught us anything, it should be that overwhelming force wins.
What do you think Iran and Syria would do when they got a peek at 100,000 American boys with their tanks, stealth bombers, fighters, artillery and high-tech equipment sitting 50 yards from their border?
My guess is that we would see no more illegal immigrants in Iraq. None. Iran and Syria's border guards would execute anyone approaching the border from their side. Because that M1-A1 Abrams tank over there just happens to have his turret pointed at my guardshack. And they don't miss.
Sure, they'd rant and rave over at the U.N., but who cares? For once the U.N. wouldn't be on the side of these little dictators, because that would mean they'd have to have endless resolutions against America. Maybe even try to sanction us. And if they do that, we pull out and they're finished.
Iraq would be stabilized in a heartbeat.
Pro Life Punk
Who knew Johnny Rotten was a Conservative?
Sex Pistols:
BODIES
She was a girl from Birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was case of insanity
Her name was Pauline she lived in a tree
She was a no one who killed her baby
She sent her letter from the country
She was an animal
She was a bloody disgrace
Body I'm not an animal
Body I'm not an animal
Dragged on a table in factory
Illegitimate place to be
In a packet in a lavatory
Die little baby screaming
Body screaming fucking bloody mess
Not an animal
It's an abortion
Body I'm not animal
Mummy I'm not an abortion
Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess
I'm not an discharge
I'm not a loss in protein
I'm not a throbbing squirm
Fuck this and fuck that
Fuck it all and fuck the fucking brat
She don't wanna baby that looks like that
I don't wanna baby that looks like that
Body I'm not an animal
Body an abortion
Body I'm not an animal
An animal
I'm not an animal.....I'm not an abortion.....
Mummy! UGH!
Sex Pistols:
BODIES
She was a girl from Birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was case of insanity
Her name was Pauline she lived in a tree
She was a no one who killed her baby
She sent her letter from the country
She was an animal
She was a bloody disgrace
Body I'm not an animal
Body I'm not an animal
Dragged on a table in factory
Illegitimate place to be
In a packet in a lavatory
Die little baby screaming
Body screaming fucking bloody mess
Not an animal
It's an abortion
Body I'm not animal
Mummy I'm not an abortion
Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess
I'm not an discharge
I'm not a loss in protein
I'm not a throbbing squirm
Fuck this and fuck that
Fuck it all and fuck the fucking brat
She don't wanna baby that looks like that
I don't wanna baby that looks like that
Body I'm not an animal
Body an abortion
Body I'm not an animal
An animal
I'm not an animal.....I'm not an abortion.....
Mummy! UGH!
Friday, May 06, 2005
The Power of America
This is America. A country that used 1960's technology to send men through 250,000 miles of space to the moon and bring them back alive for no other reason than we wanted to beat our enemies to that goal.
We did it because our President challenged us to do it within a decade. We did it with time to spare.
What we need is another challenge. One that challenges the best minds of this country to come up with an alternative fuel source within the next decade, thereby freeing us from our dependence on the Middle East for oil.
Think about what will happen to the Mid-East if and when we meet that challenge. If you think that it's a hellhole now, what's going to happen when nobody needs their only product?
These people are still living in the 7th century. They have no industry and produce nothing but oil. Even that was given to them by the industry of the West.
The people of the Mid-East should be begging us to Democratize them because it's only a matter of time before we find a way to power our country without them and, if they haven't modernized by that time, that whole portion of the world is going to implode.
The poverty there will make Africa look rich. Africa at least has some natural resources that can be sold. Other than oil, the Mid-East has nothing unless they can figure out a way to sell sand.
The tyrants of the Mid-East are betting that things aren't going to change, that we'll always need their oil. They're betting their lives and the lives of every person in their countries against American ingenuity. That's a very dangerous bet.
If we can put a man on the moon just because we wanted to beat the Soviet Union to the punch, surely we can figure out a way to power this country when our economic survival is at stake.
We did it because our President challenged us to do it within a decade. We did it with time to spare.
What we need is another challenge. One that challenges the best minds of this country to come up with an alternative fuel source within the next decade, thereby freeing us from our dependence on the Middle East for oil.
Think about what will happen to the Mid-East if and when we meet that challenge. If you think that it's a hellhole now, what's going to happen when nobody needs their only product?
These people are still living in the 7th century. They have no industry and produce nothing but oil. Even that was given to them by the industry of the West.
The people of the Mid-East should be begging us to Democratize them because it's only a matter of time before we find a way to power our country without them and, if they haven't modernized by that time, that whole portion of the world is going to implode.
The poverty there will make Africa look rich. Africa at least has some natural resources that can be sold. Other than oil, the Mid-East has nothing unless they can figure out a way to sell sand.
The tyrants of the Mid-East are betting that things aren't going to change, that we'll always need their oil. They're betting their lives and the lives of every person in their countries against American ingenuity. That's a very dangerous bet.
If we can put a man on the moon just because we wanted to beat the Soviet Union to the punch, surely we can figure out a way to power this country when our economic survival is at stake.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Conspiracies R Us
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
- Dr. Strangelove
***
So what would motivate otherwise rational people to believe in things that are the equivalent of a Hollywood thriller?
Well, the basic charge that I always hear is that it's easier for them to believe that failures are someone else's fault and not their own. While this does fit in with the "Left as children" theme and undoubtedly does explain part of their behavior, I don't think it explains nearly all of it. I think that there are many reasons all running together in their confused little minds.
A large part of it is just pure hatred for George Bush. Even among so-called "mainstream" Democrats there is outright hatred for Bush, fanned constantly by the media and the Democrat party leaders (it's becoming becoming harder and harder to distinguish between the two). That would also explain why, among "mainstream" Democrats, there is also a willingness to believe these outlandish conspiracy theories. Bush has been demonized so hard for so long, that "normal" people now believe it's plausible that he is the equal of Adolph Hitler or that he may have flown the planes into the WTC towers by remote control on 9/11.
It's called propaganda and it works. Just as Hitler convinced rational people in Germany that the Jews were responsible for all of their problems, so the Left is now convincing people that Bush is responsible for all the problems of the world. And they're not just using this tactic against Bush.
They've convinced million of people in this country that we are on the verge of becoming exactly like Nazi Germany. They believe that we're at the same place that Germany was circa 1933, just before Hitler started his rampage.
It kind of boggles the mind when you think that they're using Hitler's tactics to convince people that all Conservatives are Nazis. If nothing else ya gotta give them points for having balls. Or maybe not. It's entirely possible that they don't even see the parallels. These people of the "reality based community" aren't exactly known for their immersion in reality or logic. And most of them have barely a passing acquaintance with history.
They've accused the Pope of being a Nazi. They accuse people who believe in "moral values" of rabidly promoting a fascist state. They accuse "religious" people of being part of the moral values gang.
I know hundreds of Democrats who go to church, but somehow they don't equate themselves with these religious people that the Left is constantly attacking. Apparently, just as they believe that anyone who has one dollar more than they do is rich, they also believe that the "fanatical" religious people that their party is always attacking is any group who is just a little more religious than theirs.
Another factor that may make people believe in stories that seem to come straight out of Hollywood is...Hollywood.
I know hundreds of people with all types of political views. Very, very few of the Republicans I know (especially the men) can watch more than about 2 minutes of TV shows like "CSI" or "Law and Order" or even "24". The people that I know who watch these shows religiously (if you'll excuse me) are almost invariably Democrats. These people get into the stories so deeply that I sometimes have to wonder if they believe it's real.
None of the Republicans I know are in the least bit fascinated by Hollywood stars. Many of the Democrats read "People" magazine, watch "E!" entertainment channel and actually care about the day to day lives of those stars. Their devotion is close to worship. It's no wonder that they actually believe a lot of what comes out of these (mostly) uneducated people's mouths.
The belief that the Pentagon was struck by a missile and not an airplane is something that could have come directly from Hollywood.
And, when these people are watching movies, who is, invariably, the bad guy? 90% of the time it's some rich, white guy and/or the evil Corporation that he works for.
What did George Bush do before he became Governor of Texas? Why, he was a rich, white guy who ran an evil oil Corporation. And there is no more evil Corporation than an oil Company.
When you immerse yourself this deeply in the fantasy world of Hollywood, it's not hard to see how you could believe that the conspiracies of the Left are not only possible, but actually plausible.
And, last but certainly not least, is the fact (yes, fact) that, when you use your "feelings" more than your logic, as the Left always does, you are gullible and easily manipulated.
There is no evidience of any of the things that the Left rails about. None. Not one single thing.
But they keep putting it out there and people keep believing them.
These are the same people who voted for what was supposed to be "The most ethical administration in history".
If they had the smallest bit of evidence that anything that Bush said might not be true, do you think that they would hesitate to scream for an "anti-Kenneth-Starr" type investigation?
But no matter how much they may call Bush a criminal, they know that they have nothing. This may very well be the most ethical administration in American history, and that's what pisses them off and motivates them to believe the unbelievable.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
- Dr. Strangelove
***
So what would motivate otherwise rational people to believe in things that are the equivalent of a Hollywood thriller?
Well, the basic charge that I always hear is that it's easier for them to believe that failures are someone else's fault and not their own. While this does fit in with the "Left as children" theme and undoubtedly does explain part of their behavior, I don't think it explains nearly all of it. I think that there are many reasons all running together in their confused little minds.
A large part of it is just pure hatred for George Bush. Even among so-called "mainstream" Democrats there is outright hatred for Bush, fanned constantly by the media and the Democrat party leaders (it's becoming becoming harder and harder to distinguish between the two). That would also explain why, among "mainstream" Democrats, there is also a willingness to believe these outlandish conspiracy theories. Bush has been demonized so hard for so long, that "normal" people now believe it's plausible that he is the equal of Adolph Hitler or that he may have flown the planes into the WTC towers by remote control on 9/11.
It's called propaganda and it works. Just as Hitler convinced rational people in Germany that the Jews were responsible for all of their problems, so the Left is now convincing people that Bush is responsible for all the problems of the world. And they're not just using this tactic against Bush.
They've convinced million of people in this country that we are on the verge of becoming exactly like Nazi Germany. They believe that we're at the same place that Germany was circa 1933, just before Hitler started his rampage.
It kind of boggles the mind when you think that they're using Hitler's tactics to convince people that all Conservatives are Nazis. If nothing else ya gotta give them points for having balls. Or maybe not. It's entirely possible that they don't even see the parallels. These people of the "reality based community" aren't exactly known for their immersion in reality or logic. And most of them have barely a passing acquaintance with history.
They've accused the Pope of being a Nazi. They accuse people who believe in "moral values" of rabidly promoting a fascist state. They accuse "religious" people of being part of the moral values gang.
I know hundreds of Democrats who go to church, but somehow they don't equate themselves with these religious people that the Left is constantly attacking. Apparently, just as they believe that anyone who has one dollar more than they do is rich, they also believe that the "fanatical" religious people that their party is always attacking is any group who is just a little more religious than theirs.
Another factor that may make people believe in stories that seem to come straight out of Hollywood is...Hollywood.
I know hundreds of people with all types of political views. Very, very few of the Republicans I know (especially the men) can watch more than about 2 minutes of TV shows like "CSI" or "Law and Order" or even "24". The people that I know who watch these shows religiously (if you'll excuse me) are almost invariably Democrats. These people get into the stories so deeply that I sometimes have to wonder if they believe it's real.
None of the Republicans I know are in the least bit fascinated by Hollywood stars. Many of the Democrats read "People" magazine, watch "E!" entertainment channel and actually care about the day to day lives of those stars. Their devotion is close to worship. It's no wonder that they actually believe a lot of what comes out of these (mostly) uneducated people's mouths.
The belief that the Pentagon was struck by a missile and not an airplane is something that could have come directly from Hollywood.
And, when these people are watching movies, who is, invariably, the bad guy? 90% of the time it's some rich, white guy and/or the evil Corporation that he works for.
What did George Bush do before he became Governor of Texas? Why, he was a rich, white guy who ran an evil oil Corporation. And there is no more evil Corporation than an oil Company.
When you immerse yourself this deeply in the fantasy world of Hollywood, it's not hard to see how you could believe that the conspiracies of the Left are not only possible, but actually plausible.
And, last but certainly not least, is the fact (yes, fact) that, when you use your "feelings" more than your logic, as the Left always does, you are gullible and easily manipulated.
There is no evidience of any of the things that the Left rails about. None. Not one single thing.
But they keep putting it out there and people keep believing them.
These are the same people who voted for what was supposed to be "The most ethical administration in history".
If they had the smallest bit of evidence that anything that Bush said might not be true, do you think that they would hesitate to scream for an "anti-Kenneth-Starr" type investigation?
But no matter how much they may call Bush a criminal, they know that they have nothing. This may very well be the most ethical administration in American history, and that's what pisses them off and motivates them to believe the unbelievable.
My Ethics = Your Ethics = Good
From the AP:
According to the researchers, journalists are significantly more ethical than the average adult — eclipsed only by seminarians, doctors and medical students.
"We did not really think that journalists would come out as high as they did," said Coleman.
Wilkins and Coleman surveyed journalists for the first time using a decades-old model for assessing one's morals, a test given to more than 30,000 people representing numerous professions...
Wilkins and Coleman traveled to newsrooms across the country for two years interviewing a sampling of 249 journalists.
Using a version of the Defining Issues Test, developed in the 1970s at the University of Minnesota, the professors offered participants six ethical dilemmas, each followed by a dozen questions that seek to determine what motivated a journalist's decision.
After I pulled myself together and quit laughing, I thought about this for about 2 seconds and it all made sense.
If it's a bunch of professors at the University of Minnesota who are defining what "ethics" are, it's really no wonder that their definition of "ethics" matches those of journalists; they're both left-wing loonies.
I'm sure that the questions were something along the lines of:
If you were to see a black man walking down the street towards you, you would:
a) Call your religious friends together and have a good, old-fashioned lynching.
b) Shoot him with your permitted handgun.
c) Call him a nigger.
d) Offer him a job.
e) Offer him someone else's money.
f) Offer him a job paid for with someone else's money.
I'd bet that the results would come out quite differently if it were an independent, nonpartisan group who had designed the test.
Notice how desperately they try to validate the "test" by saying that it's "decades-old". Age does not make anything correct. And anything from the '70's culture is definitely suspect.
I live within screaming distance of the U of Minnesota. I pay for it with my tax money. I know what a bunch of Left-wing fanatics lurk there. the people there aren't much different than Ward (I don't wanna be Whitey) Churchill.
Nice try.
According to the researchers, journalists are significantly more ethical than the average adult — eclipsed only by seminarians, doctors and medical students.
"We did not really think that journalists would come out as high as they did," said Coleman.
Wilkins and Coleman surveyed journalists for the first time using a decades-old model for assessing one's morals, a test given to more than 30,000 people representing numerous professions...
Wilkins and Coleman traveled to newsrooms across the country for two years interviewing a sampling of 249 journalists.
Using a version of the Defining Issues Test, developed in the 1970s at the University of Minnesota, the professors offered participants six ethical dilemmas, each followed by a dozen questions that seek to determine what motivated a journalist's decision.
After I pulled myself together and quit laughing, I thought about this for about 2 seconds and it all made sense.
If it's a bunch of professors at the University of Minnesota who are defining what "ethics" are, it's really no wonder that their definition of "ethics" matches those of journalists; they're both left-wing loonies.
I'm sure that the questions were something along the lines of:
If you were to see a black man walking down the street towards you, you would:
a) Call your religious friends together and have a good, old-fashioned lynching.
b) Shoot him with your permitted handgun.
c) Call him a nigger.
d) Offer him a job.
e) Offer him someone else's money.
f) Offer him a job paid for with someone else's money.
I'd bet that the results would come out quite differently if it were an independent, nonpartisan group who had designed the test.
Notice how desperately they try to validate the "test" by saying that it's "decades-old". Age does not make anything correct. And anything from the '70's culture is definitely suspect.
I live within screaming distance of the U of Minnesota. I pay for it with my tax money. I know what a bunch of Left-wing fanatics lurk there. the people there aren't much different than Ward (I don't wanna be Whitey) Churchill.
Nice try.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
You're Trying to Make Me Think I'm Paranoid!
For some time before the last election, but especially in the time since, the Left has gone completely off the deep end with their conspiracy theories.
I find this absolutely fascinating, since the people putting forth these theories aren't just the extreme Left fringe, but perfectly normal people (well, as normal as they can be and still believe in conspiracy theories); the ones who flocked to see Michael Moore's "documentaries" and still believe that they're truthful, although they've been proven to be nothing more than slickly edited propaganda films.
I don't find the theories themselves to be particularly fascinating. They're actually rather childish and easily taken apart. What I find fascinating is how otherwise intelligent (they can't all be morons, can they?) people will allow themselves to believe these things. Why would they believe anything that is so obviously unbelieveable.
Not long after 9/11 I heard a guy on the radio saying that he had read (and believed) that George Bush personally flew the planes into the WTC towers by remote control.
Just the other day I heard, for the hundredth time, that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 and not a plane. It may have been "The Military" itself that launched it, or it may have been the Israelis or it may have been a vast international plot cooked up by the Illuminati.
Today I heard, for the thousandth time, someone saying that America is in the same place that Germany was in 1933, and that we were on the verge of fascism and massacres of gays, blacks and other minorities at the hands of "religious fanatics" (read Nazis).
Iin that vein, I think that I'll tackle some of the overarching issues, beginning with these conspiracy theories and what motivates these people to believe the unbelieveable.
But before I start, I think that I'll re-post the theme that overarches everything the liberals do. Call it a fresh start.
If you keep the following in mind at all times, you will find it laughably easy to refute the arguments of liberals.
I find this absolutely fascinating, since the people putting forth these theories aren't just the extreme Left fringe, but perfectly normal people (well, as normal as they can be and still believe in conspiracy theories); the ones who flocked to see Michael Moore's "documentaries" and still believe that they're truthful, although they've been proven to be nothing more than slickly edited propaganda films.
I don't find the theories themselves to be particularly fascinating. They're actually rather childish and easily taken apart. What I find fascinating is how otherwise intelligent (they can't all be morons, can they?) people will allow themselves to believe these things. Why would they believe anything that is so obviously unbelieveable.
Not long after 9/11 I heard a guy on the radio saying that he had read (and believed) that George Bush personally flew the planes into the WTC towers by remote control.
Just the other day I heard, for the hundredth time, that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 and not a plane. It may have been "The Military" itself that launched it, or it may have been the Israelis or it may have been a vast international plot cooked up by the Illuminati.
Today I heard, for the thousandth time, someone saying that America is in the same place that Germany was in 1933, and that we were on the verge of fascism and massacres of gays, blacks and other minorities at the hands of "religious fanatics" (read Nazis).
Iin that vein, I think that I'll tackle some of the overarching issues, beginning with these conspiracy theories and what motivates these people to believe the unbelieveable.
But before I start, I think that I'll re-post the theme that overarches everything the liberals do. Call it a fresh start.
If you keep the following in mind at all times, you will find it laughably easy to refute the arguments of liberals.
Liberalism Explained Redux
Originally posted 1/24/05
I've been putting this post off long enough. It's long and I could go on forever because the examples are so numerous, but it explains every liberal position perfectly.
Liberals are really very easy to figure out. Go hang out in any elementary school for a while and you'll see the exact same behavior. Liberals are nothing more than people whose emotional state hasn't progressed beyond childhood. You'll see that theme pointed out over and over again throughout this blog. It is, in fact, one of the main themes of this blog.
A few examples.
What do liberals hate more than anything? Why, unfairness, of course. To them everything must be fair. The rich have too much money and the poor don't have enough. Everyone should have the same amount of everything no matter how hard they've worked. Oddly enough, my five-year-old daughter has the same viewpoint. So do Communists. Apparently my daughter is a Communist. I suppose all children are Communists if you think about it.
I've heard a lot of conservatives mistake liberals' attitudes for communism. Liberals aren't communists except in the sense that the equal distribution of wealth seems like a good idea to someone who is, emotionally, six years old. What six-year-old doesn't want other kids' candy/taxes shared with him? In fact, the theory of communism is itself rooted in the mindset of a six-year-old. Karl Marx was, obviously, emotionally stunted.
If only that poor person had as much money as that mechanic, life would be good. It doesn't matter that the bum chose to spend his life doing nothing while the mechanic learned a trade. It doesn't matter if that welfare mom chose to have four kids and spend her life sitting on the couch watching 'Jerry Springer' while the carpenter got up at 5:00 A.M. every morning and went to work. They should still have the same amount of everything.
Speaking of "unfairness", I've heard more than a few liberals criticize America because our big, strong army went into poor, little Iraq and beat the hell out of their army.
These same people incessantly mouth the words, "We support the troops", but they'd apparently rather have the enemy's army be the same strength as ours so that we'd lose just as many troops as they do. Apparently what they mean is that they support the enemy's troops.
Obviously nobody ever told these people that life isn't fair. Some people just naturally have more brains, talent and/or ambition than others.
That's the one big reason that Communism has failed and always will fail. The more intelligent and ambitious will always try to get ahead of others. Always. It's hard-wired into us over thousands of years of evolution.
For people who are so convinced of Evolution's truth, they sure don't seem to put much stock in it.
Of course, they don't see the hypocrisy, because that's another trait of both libs and children. As one local radio show here says, liberals can't link. They can't see connections between actions.
Then again, they don't much care whether evolution is the truth or not, as long as they can use it to put down religion.
Of course they hate religion. It speaks about "right" and "wrong". Just like my daughter, these people can't stand being told that they're wrong. Which is the same reason they hate people who are "judgmental".
And, of course, once again they can't see the link between calling Conservatives "evil", "mean-spirited", "warmongers", "greedy", etc. and being judgmental. That is their judgment of me, but they really can't see it.
Just calling someone "judgmental" is a judgment!
Another manifestation of liberals' inability to see connections, is there inability to foresee consequences.
Just as a child doesn’t think about the consequences of throwing a rock through a window, the liberals don’t think about the consequences of their actions. They think things out to the point where they feel good, and then they stop. They never think beyond that.
Take welfare, for example. Giving poor people other people’s money made the liberals feel good. (STOP THINKING HERE IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL). They never thought about what would happen if you paid people not to work.
40 years and 3 TRILLION dollars later and the poverty rate is exactly the same as it used to be. The only difference is that now our crime rate and illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed!
This was Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, his war in Vietnam went a lot better.
Another example? OK.
Just today, a couple of days after President Bush's 2nd inauguration, the evil, right-wing-extremist radio program that I was listening to played a tape recording of a bunch of protestors.
It occurred to me that these protestors' chants sounded an awful lot like the nursery rhymes my daughter likes to chant.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, (your cause here) has got to go" really isn't that different than "Ring around the Rosie, pocketful of posies".
"Like father, like son, one term and Bush is done" (Heh).
"Peter, Peter pumpkin eater, had a wife and couldn't keep her".
They're short, they're easy to memorize, they rhyme, they're kind of fun to say, they don't take a whole lot of thought...you get the picture. If you listen to just the cadence and not the words, you can't tell the difference.
(An interesting sidenote: have you ever thought about what "Ring around the Rosie" was about? It's actually about the bubonic plague. "Ring around the rosie" was actually describing the ring that formed around the sores when one caught the plague. People used to hold flowers (posies) to their nose in the belief that it would ward off the plague. "Ashes, ashes, all fall down!" kind of speaks for itself. Just as you've probably never thought about that, liberals don't really think about what they're chanting.)
This whole "libs as kids" theory was just kind of a vague notion and almost a joke between my friends and I until the last couple of school shootings. What did they blame them on? Every child's nemesis: bullies!
That's when all of the pieces came together.
These "poor kids" killed a bunch of bullies in their schools. They deserved our sympathy, not our reprimands.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that, if you look at these liberals, you can see inside them the kids in school who were constantly picked on. They all look "off" somehow.
An old boss of mine had a theory that they were actually aliens. "Just look at them!" he'd say. "It's obvious". But I think that what he was seeing was actually just the invisible target pasted on these people. These people were all of the misfits in your school and mine.
A psychologist I once knew told me that a lot of people's emotional progression stops at a certain traumatic point in their lives. Maybe these bullies traumatized these kids to the point where, even as adults, they can't grow up.
That would also explain why my daughter's public school sends home endless fliers on the subject of bullying. The people who are running the public school system are some of the biggest liberals in the country. I'd also bet that they were picked on when they were kids.
It would also explain their whole culture of "victimhood".
I'm sure that you'll see many, many more examples as I blather on in this blog.
From now on, whenever you hear a liberal speak, think about what they're saying and try to link it to childhood behavior. Once you start seeing the pattern, you can see it in everything that they do. It's actually a lot of fun for those of us who actually think.
I've been putting this post off long enough. It's long and I could go on forever because the examples are so numerous, but it explains every liberal position perfectly.
Liberals are really very easy to figure out. Go hang out in any elementary school for a while and you'll see the exact same behavior. Liberals are nothing more than people whose emotional state hasn't progressed beyond childhood. You'll see that theme pointed out over and over again throughout this blog. It is, in fact, one of the main themes of this blog.
A few examples.
What do liberals hate more than anything? Why, unfairness, of course. To them everything must be fair. The rich have too much money and the poor don't have enough. Everyone should have the same amount of everything no matter how hard they've worked. Oddly enough, my five-year-old daughter has the same viewpoint. So do Communists. Apparently my daughter is a Communist. I suppose all children are Communists if you think about it.
I've heard a lot of conservatives mistake liberals' attitudes for communism. Liberals aren't communists except in the sense that the equal distribution of wealth seems like a good idea to someone who is, emotionally, six years old. What six-year-old doesn't want other kids' candy/taxes shared with him? In fact, the theory of communism is itself rooted in the mindset of a six-year-old. Karl Marx was, obviously, emotionally stunted.
If only that poor person had as much money as that mechanic, life would be good. It doesn't matter that the bum chose to spend his life doing nothing while the mechanic learned a trade. It doesn't matter if that welfare mom chose to have four kids and spend her life sitting on the couch watching 'Jerry Springer' while the carpenter got up at 5:00 A.M. every morning and went to work. They should still have the same amount of everything.
Speaking of "unfairness", I've heard more than a few liberals criticize America because our big, strong army went into poor, little Iraq and beat the hell out of their army.
These same people incessantly mouth the words, "We support the troops", but they'd apparently rather have the enemy's army be the same strength as ours so that we'd lose just as many troops as they do. Apparently what they mean is that they support the enemy's troops.
Obviously nobody ever told these people that life isn't fair. Some people just naturally have more brains, talent and/or ambition than others.
That's the one big reason that Communism has failed and always will fail. The more intelligent and ambitious will always try to get ahead of others. Always. It's hard-wired into us over thousands of years of evolution.
For people who are so convinced of Evolution's truth, they sure don't seem to put much stock in it.
Of course, they don't see the hypocrisy, because that's another trait of both libs and children. As one local radio show here says, liberals can't link. They can't see connections between actions.
Then again, they don't much care whether evolution is the truth or not, as long as they can use it to put down religion.
Of course they hate religion. It speaks about "right" and "wrong". Just like my daughter, these people can't stand being told that they're wrong. Which is the same reason they hate people who are "judgmental".
And, of course, once again they can't see the link between calling Conservatives "evil", "mean-spirited", "warmongers", "greedy", etc. and being judgmental. That is their judgment of me, but they really can't see it.
Just calling someone "judgmental" is a judgment!
Another manifestation of liberals' inability to see connections, is there inability to foresee consequences.
Just as a child doesn’t think about the consequences of throwing a rock through a window, the liberals don’t think about the consequences of their actions. They think things out to the point where they feel good, and then they stop. They never think beyond that.
Take welfare, for example. Giving poor people other people’s money made the liberals feel good. (STOP THINKING HERE IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL). They never thought about what would happen if you paid people not to work.
40 years and 3 TRILLION dollars later and the poverty rate is exactly the same as it used to be. The only difference is that now our crime rate and illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed!
This was Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, his war in Vietnam went a lot better.
Another example? OK.
Just today, a couple of days after President Bush's 2nd inauguration, the evil, right-wing-extremist radio program that I was listening to played a tape recording of a bunch of protestors.
It occurred to me that these protestors' chants sounded an awful lot like the nursery rhymes my daughter likes to chant.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, (your cause here) has got to go" really isn't that different than "Ring around the Rosie, pocketful of posies".
"Like father, like son, one term and Bush is done" (Heh).
"Peter, Peter pumpkin eater, had a wife and couldn't keep her".
They're short, they're easy to memorize, they rhyme, they're kind of fun to say, they don't take a whole lot of thought...you get the picture. If you listen to just the cadence and not the words, you can't tell the difference.
(An interesting sidenote: have you ever thought about what "Ring around the Rosie" was about? It's actually about the bubonic plague. "Ring around the rosie" was actually describing the ring that formed around the sores when one caught the plague. People used to hold flowers (posies) to their nose in the belief that it would ward off the plague. "Ashes, ashes, all fall down!" kind of speaks for itself. Just as you've probably never thought about that, liberals don't really think about what they're chanting.)
This whole "libs as kids" theory was just kind of a vague notion and almost a joke between my friends and I until the last couple of school shootings. What did they blame them on? Every child's nemesis: bullies!
That's when all of the pieces came together.
These "poor kids" killed a bunch of bullies in their schools. They deserved our sympathy, not our reprimands.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that, if you look at these liberals, you can see inside them the kids in school who were constantly picked on. They all look "off" somehow.
An old boss of mine had a theory that they were actually aliens. "Just look at them!" he'd say. "It's obvious". But I think that what he was seeing was actually just the invisible target pasted on these people. These people were all of the misfits in your school and mine.
A psychologist I once knew told me that a lot of people's emotional progression stops at a certain traumatic point in their lives. Maybe these bullies traumatized these kids to the point where, even as adults, they can't grow up.
That would also explain why my daughter's public school sends home endless fliers on the subject of bullying. The people who are running the public school system are some of the biggest liberals in the country. I'd also bet that they were picked on when they were kids.
It would also explain their whole culture of "victimhood".
I'm sure that you'll see many, many more examples as I blather on in this blog.
From now on, whenever you hear a liberal speak, think about what they're saying and try to link it to childhood behavior. Once you start seeing the pattern, you can see it in everything that they do. It's actually a lot of fun for those of us who actually think.
Libs Are Just Kids Redux
Originally posted 1/26/05
Well, that last post was so much fun, let's keep it going, huh? Like I said, the examples are endless and the more you figure them out the more convincing the whole theory becomes.
What's the worst thing in the world that a little kid can call someone?
"You big dummy!"
What do Democrats and liberals call all Republicans? That's right: dummies.
It used to be that they'd just call Republican Presidents stupid. Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush I, Bush II. For some reason the American people were fooled again and again into voting for complete idiots.
But in the last few years, and especially since the last election, the extreme lefties have taken over the Democrat party and now call anybody who voted for Bush a dummy. Now we're all a bunch of "knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, gap-toothed idiots" from Red States.
It's really what they thought all along, but in years past they were at least smart enough to realize that the way to bring people to your side wasn't to call them idiots. Now the fanatics have taken over and, like the kids they are, they're throwing a tantrum because they keep losing, not realizing or caring what the consequences of that tantrum will be. Again, liberals can't link and can't look ahead to see those consequences, just as a little kid can't.
And, as kids, they don't believe what their eyes tell them. They have to look around them and see people who voted for Bush all over the place. I really doubt that these Bush people even faintly resemble idiots. But, just as kids can be convinced that Santa Claus exists despite all of the evidence to the contrary, so too can liberals believe that all Republicans are stupid. It doesn't matter what they see every say. Their leaders (read "mommy") tell them that it's so, and they couldn't possibly be wrong!
I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that if you took 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans at random and tested their IQ's, the Republicans would win, hands down. Why do I believe that? Because that's what my experience tells me. Not what Rush Limbaugh tells me.
Alright, let's talk "environmentalists".
Awhile back I had to cut down a tree in my back yard because it was dying and killing other trees around it. When it came down, my daughter cried her little eyes out. I explained to her why it had to go, but she really didn't understand.
Shortly thereafter I was watching the local news and saw a story about a bunch of protestors who had been trying to save some trees that were in the way of rerouting a highway. Their court appeals had run out and the Sheriffs had to literally drag them away from those trees.
The footage on the news showed these people crying their little eyes out as the trees came down. No different than my daughter, who was 4 at the time.
Next: little kids will tell you the most outrageous lies right to your face and expect you to believe it. Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, anybody?
A child will break something in the other room in a house with just the two of you in it and, when you go to find out what that 'crash' was, will deny that they did it.
Al Gore: Internet, Love Canal, Love Story, Texas fires, etc.
Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky", "I'll only raise taxes on the rich", "That depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is".
Hillary Clinton: Claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was born years before anyone knew who he was. "Lost" Rose lawfirm billing records for months before they just happened to show up on the dining room table.
John Kerry: Was in combat for four months (one of which would have been training) and received three purple hearts and a silver star, which would have made him the most decorated hero in American history.
Teddy Kennedy: wasn't drunk and was just giving Mary Jo a ride home when he skidded off the bridge.
The really sad thing is that so many people in this country actually believe them and defend them, which tells you where their heads are at.
Liberals need someone to take care of them (i.e. the Government) just like a kid needs his parents. Mommy and daddy are supposed to take care of them and fix everything that they don't like, just like the Government is supposed to take care of everything and fix everything (usually through one person on the court) that liberals don't like.
I'm sure that we'll get back to this subject. I'd love to hear any examples that you may have.
Well, that last post was so much fun, let's keep it going, huh? Like I said, the examples are endless and the more you figure them out the more convincing the whole theory becomes.
What's the worst thing in the world that a little kid can call someone?
"You big dummy!"
What do Democrats and liberals call all Republicans? That's right: dummies.
It used to be that they'd just call Republican Presidents stupid. Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush I, Bush II. For some reason the American people were fooled again and again into voting for complete idiots.
But in the last few years, and especially since the last election, the extreme lefties have taken over the Democrat party and now call anybody who voted for Bush a dummy. Now we're all a bunch of "knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, gap-toothed idiots" from Red States.
It's really what they thought all along, but in years past they were at least smart enough to realize that the way to bring people to your side wasn't to call them idiots. Now the fanatics have taken over and, like the kids they are, they're throwing a tantrum because they keep losing, not realizing or caring what the consequences of that tantrum will be. Again, liberals can't link and can't look ahead to see those consequences, just as a little kid can't.
And, as kids, they don't believe what their eyes tell them. They have to look around them and see people who voted for Bush all over the place. I really doubt that these Bush people even faintly resemble idiots. But, just as kids can be convinced that Santa Claus exists despite all of the evidence to the contrary, so too can liberals believe that all Republicans are stupid. It doesn't matter what they see every say. Their leaders (read "mommy") tell them that it's so, and they couldn't possibly be wrong!
I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that if you took 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans at random and tested their IQ's, the Republicans would win, hands down. Why do I believe that? Because that's what my experience tells me. Not what Rush Limbaugh tells me.
Alright, let's talk "environmentalists".
Awhile back I had to cut down a tree in my back yard because it was dying and killing other trees around it. When it came down, my daughter cried her little eyes out. I explained to her why it had to go, but she really didn't understand.
Shortly thereafter I was watching the local news and saw a story about a bunch of protestors who had been trying to save some trees that were in the way of rerouting a highway. Their court appeals had run out and the Sheriffs had to literally drag them away from those trees.
The footage on the news showed these people crying their little eyes out as the trees came down. No different than my daughter, who was 4 at the time.
Next: little kids will tell you the most outrageous lies right to your face and expect you to believe it. Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, anybody?
A child will break something in the other room in a house with just the two of you in it and, when you go to find out what that 'crash' was, will deny that they did it.
Al Gore: Internet, Love Canal, Love Story, Texas fires, etc.
Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky", "I'll only raise taxes on the rich", "That depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is".
Hillary Clinton: Claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was born years before anyone knew who he was. "Lost" Rose lawfirm billing records for months before they just happened to show up on the dining room table.
John Kerry: Was in combat for four months (one of which would have been training) and received three purple hearts and a silver star, which would have made him the most decorated hero in American history.
Teddy Kennedy: wasn't drunk and was just giving Mary Jo a ride home when he skidded off the bridge.
The really sad thing is that so many people in this country actually believe them and defend them, which tells you where their heads are at.
Liberals need someone to take care of them (i.e. the Government) just like a kid needs his parents. Mommy and daddy are supposed to take care of them and fix everything that they don't like, just like the Government is supposed to take care of everything and fix everything (usually through one person on the court) that liberals don't like.
I'm sure that we'll get back to this subject. I'd love to hear any examples that you may have.
Gotta Have Priorities
Could somebody tell me why Congress is looking onto steroid use among professional athletes? SInce when is that part of their job description? I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution.
Do they really have nothing better to do? We're at war and under threat of attack at any time. Our borders are wide open, inviting terrorists to come into the country any time they want to. One of our biggest entitlement programs is due to go bankrupt and the longer we wait to fix it, the more it's going to cost.
Hmm, what should we do first? Hey, I know: let's look into steroid use among professional athletes!
What the hell is wrong with these people? Am I the only one who sees the ridiculousness of the situation?
On the plus side though, at least they're not passing any more laws that intrude into my life while they're doing this. Definitely a mixed blessing.
Do they really have nothing better to do? We're at war and under threat of attack at any time. Our borders are wide open, inviting terrorists to come into the country any time they want to. One of our biggest entitlement programs is due to go bankrupt and the longer we wait to fix it, the more it's going to cost.
Hmm, what should we do first? Hey, I know: let's look into steroid use among professional athletes!
What the hell is wrong with these people? Am I the only one who sees the ridiculousness of the situation?
On the plus side though, at least they're not passing any more laws that intrude into my life while they're doing this. Definitely a mixed blessing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)