Friday, September 30, 2005

My Feelings are Offended!

People on the Left are always offended by something or other. They spend their lives parsing people's words and actions, just looking for a reason to be offended. Anything that a Conservative says or does can be twisted into a reason for offense. Hell, Conservatives don't even have to actually say or do anything to offend the Left. They make up conspiracies just so that they can feel offended!

Why? Well, my theory is that they are so used to feeling miserable, so attached to all of their mental baggage, that they're deathly afraid of actually feeling good, especially about themselves. They've felt this way since they really were children, and they know that if they were to let go of their baggage-train, they could no longer make themselves out to be the "underdog" or the "victim". After all, underdogs and victims can't be happy, can they? Not to mention the fact that you'd have to change your entire outlook on life, and to these "progressives", change is bad. Witness their inability to acknowledge any progress that's been made since the 60's.

In fact, this is a little more than a theory. Someone who was very close to me had this problem: she always had to be a victim. She was terrified of being happy so, anytime her life got too close to being normal, she'd do something to throw it into chaos. She had grown so comfortable with her baggage, that the scariest thing in the world for her would be to leave it behind. I'm sure that most of you know someone like this.

This woman had learned, over many years, to use her victimhood to manipulate people. If she didn't have that she would, in her eyes, be powerless. And the power to make people do what she wanted was paramount.

Sound familiar? She knew nothing about politics, but she would have been a perfect liberal.

When she finally straightened her life out, she told me that everything that I had said to her on the subject was exactly true. I, of course, had already known that because of the fact that she would go into an absolute rage whenever I mentioned it. I may not be a genius (well, technically, I guess I am), but reading people's motivations has always been extremely easy for me for some reason. I've been told that I would have made a good psychologist; but every psychologist I ever knew was nuts. Hmmm.

Well, that part got longer and a bit more personal than I had intended, so let's move on, shall we?

How about the whole feeling of being "offended". Being offended is, actually, very, very close to having your feelings hurt, isn't it? Especially if you can't think in a manner that allows you to see the nuances between the two concepts. In other words, if you think like a child.

I believe that when liberals feel "offended" by something, what they really mean is contained in that phrase that every three-year-old has uttered at one time or other, right before bursting into tears of self-pity: "You hurt my feelings!"

Sure, Conservatives are offended by a lot of things, but usually these things are outrageous insults to the norms of society. Trying to get rid of "God" in the public square, crosses in jars of urine, flying airplanes into other words, things that are truly offensive and meant to be that way, usually for no other reason than to gain attention.

Liberals, on the other hand, are offended by everything that is a norm. They don't like religion, they don't like the Founding Fathers, they don't like anything that was established before 1963 other than the "Great Society" welfare state. And, other than Roe v. Wade and the parties of the 60's, nothing that came after 1963 was any good, either. Everything else is offensive to them.

As with other liberal phrases, "That's offensive" is just an acceptable adult way for them to say that their feelings have been hurt.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

What's Your Point?

Once again, political correctness raises it's ugly head to stifle debate and persecute people for speaking any truth that doesn't agree with the Left.

WASHINGTON – Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats on Thursday demanded that former Education Secretary William Bennett apologize for remarks on his radio program linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.

Mr. Bennett responded that the comments, made Wednesday on his Morning in America show, had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was "morally reprehensible."

The author of The Book of Virtues, answering a caller's question, took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," Mr. Bennett said.

He went on to call that "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

On his show Thursday, Mr. Bennett, who opposes abortion rights, said he was "pointing out that abortion should not be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism ... should be supported or opposed for economic reasons.

"Immoral policies are wrong because they are wrong, not because of an economic calculation."

The Left seems to have a problem, not with the point that Mr. Bennett was trying to make, but with his suggestion that a minority in this country might be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

Well, here's a newsflash for you on the Left: young, black men are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of the violent crimes in this country.

That's the truth. Any of you Lefties want to argue the point? I mean argue the facts, not just call me a racist for pointing out the truth.

You know, I used to think that these moonbats on the Left just twisted the words of people on the Right until they could find a reason to get outraged.

However, since I've been blogging, I think that the truth may be very different: the reading comprehension scores of the Left are very low. They never get the point!

It seems that whenever I have to educate a troll it's not my main point that I have to explain, but one word or phrase in my post.

There seem to be specific words (i.e. black) that, when read by a Lefty, stops them in their tracks and obliterates their memory of anything that they've read before or after. They hit that word and it becomes an obsession that blocks out everything else.

Their subsequent comments focus on that word or phrase whether it has anything to do with the post or not. I'm almost convinced that I could write, "The black cat attacked the mouse", and some troll or other would call me a racist because I used the words "black" and "attacked" in the same sentence. They wouldn't even see the words "cat" or "mouse". That example may be a little extreme, but not very.

And now they've done the same thing to Bill Bennett, a classy, extremely intelligent guy who seems to be naive enough to be bewildered by the Left's reaction to his speaking the truth in trying to make his larger point. This guy believes so deeply in the truth that he can't seem to understand that some people hate it and others are willing to twist it to their own needs.

Go to the Salem Radio Network's website and show your support for Bill. He deserves it.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

The Misfits

Forgive me if this is a bit late, but I’ve been busy being…a lumberjack! Leaping from tree to tree, with my girlie by my side! Oh, I’m a lumberjack and I’m OK…Sorry. Got carried away there.

I’m sure that many of you caught the dueling rallies in Washington D.C. on C-SPAN this past weekend.

The contrast between the Left-wing and the Right-wing rallies was incredibly pronounced.

Let’s take a look at the differences, starting with the Left’s rally.

The anti-war, anti-Bush Leftist rally was today’s liberals in microcosm. It was sheer ugliness and hysteria. It was like watching a train wreck: horrifying, yet fascinating.

One thing that struck me when the camera panned across the crowd, was that there were very, very few, if any, people in their 30’s there. They all seemed to be in their early twenties or late 40’s and older.

The ones in their twenties are the kids who romanticize the 60’s and are sorry that they missed the protests, the “free sex” and the partying. When I was their age, I romanticized the 60’s, too. I knew nothing about politics, but the music was (and still is) so cool, the freedom that the young people seemed to have back then, the defying of the “authorities” and yes, the free sex and partying were very appealing when I was that age.

The fact is, yes the music was cool, bit it’s message was na├»ve. The so-called free sex came at the cost of disease, jealousy and unwanted pregnancies. All that partying led to addiction, legal troubles and the fun of watching your friends O.D.

And as far as “freedom” went, these people were, as they are today, locked into a rigid social system that far outdoes anything that the so-called “establishment” ever created. Any dissent with the Leftist party line was crushed mercilessly.

These people preached “peace & love”, yet they ushered in some of the most violent, hate-filled episodes to ever occur on American soil. The SLA, The Black Panthers, bombings and the assassination of police officers were just some of the “groovy” things that these “flower children” devolved into.

The youngsters at these rallies know nothing of this. They don’t realize that what they are doing could, and eventually will, just as easily degrade into the same quagmire (wink) that the 60’s did.

The older ones at the rally were the real ex-hippies who were trying to relive their heyday. They remember it as a time of “meaningfulness”, but it was mostly about the free sex and the partying. They may have convinced themselves otherwise over the years, but they didn’t really care about whatever “cause” they were shrieking about back then, and they really don’t care about it now. Which leads to my next point.

The speakers at the anti-war rally, such as Ralph Nader and Jessica Lange, just seemed like they were acting all worked up. Ralph Nader seemed like he was giving a campaign speech for the ten-thousandth time (which is, basically, true) and couldn’t really get into it. Jessica Lange whom, I must say, looked about 20 pounds overweight and 20 years older, spewed the usual Leftist talking points in the usual hysterical way. She read every word as if reading from a script, which is, after all, exactly what she was doing. Watching this woman it occurred to me that she, like so many on the Left, is a complete idiot who would be speechless if she didn’t have a script in front of her.

In fact, almost all of the speakers at the Left’s rally did nothing but read prepared statements to the crowd of backpack-wearing, shorts and combat boots crowd. They all say the exact same thing, yet they have to read it from a sheet of paper. If you care so much about a subject, don’t you think that you could get by with a few notes instead of reading something verbatim?

One girl grabbed the microphone in a death-grip and screamed for 5 minutes straight about the American “occupation” of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Philippines (?).

When she was done with her shrill rant, she and some friends held up some poorly-made banner and started some odd, stomping “dance” while chanting some stupid rhyme set to the tune of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall”. When they screwed it all up, they all started giggling! It doesn’t seem to be terribly sincere when you can go from a hate-filled, shrieking, hysterical rant, to giggling only 30 seconds later.

Like the rest, she couldn’t care less about her so-called “cause”. The real point of her rant was, “Pay attention to me!!!”

And the people in the crowd, these “freedom-loving individualists”, were all dressed the same. Most of them had backpacks on, sandals or combat boots seemed to be the only choices of footwear (The Princess will be horrified by that), shorts & t-shirt or sundresses were all that covered any torso, bad haircuts and cheesy facial hair (mostly on the “men”) were the order of the day. So much for individuality.

Who are these people? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: these are the misfits, the powerless kids back in school. The ones who had no friends either because they had no personality or, more often, because the personality that they did have was so grating, so adversarial, that no one wanted to hang around with them. And now they’ve all banded together. They’ve finally found a place where they fit in amongst the other misfits.

And they look upon Conservatives as the normal kids who made their lives miserable and whom they so hated.

Which leads us right on in to looking at the “support our troops”, pro-Bush rally.

The people at this rally looked normal. They looked like the people down the block who you wave to as you drive by while they work in their yard.

There were suits and ties, dresses, polo shirts and khakis, jeans and t-shirts…any manner of dress that you can name. These were the real people of America, not the brainwashed, lockstep masses of the Left dressed in their “unique” uniforms that all look alike.

They were all ages, from teenagers, to people who were, obviously, in their 80’s, not just the ex-hippies and the wannabe hippies.

There were no childish chants or any other displays. Just the facts, ma’am.

There was no screaming and ranting. There was plenty of emotion, but no feigned, shrieking “outrage”.

The patriotism and the support for the troops were obviously genuine. These people weren’t just mouthing the words. The people involved in the Leftist rally were, obviously, “supporting” the troops only because they knew that to do otherwise would make pariahs out of them. That’s why they always say, “We support the troops, but…”

Just as 5% of your school consisted of misfits who hated everybody, so today the Left consists of 5% of the population who hate everybody. They’re the same people. They never went through the socializing process that most people went through that taught them how to get along with other people. They had no friends. They lived in their own little world. Their view of the world was whatever their bitter, little minds made it out to be while they sat, alone, in their bedrooms. They wanted to be part of a group, but they were never accepted.

And then, one day, they found “The Left”: a group of fellow misfits who would accept anybody, as long as they “believed” the correct things or, at least, mouthed the words and were willing to be used for political purposes.

And willing they were. They had finally found a group that they could belong to. After spending their entire lives on the outside, craving the personal contact that is so important to children and teenagers, they would “believe” whatever they had to, as long as it meant that they could have “friends”.

As I’ve said before: they don’t care about whatever “cause” they’re currently going into hysterics about. They just want attention and companionship. The alternative, in their minds, is to go back to sitting in their bedrooms by themselves, alone and lonely.

I’d almost feel sorry for them, but they can’t understand that this is no longer high school and all of the “cliques” are gone. We on the Right would gladly welcome them to our side, if they’d just grow up and think for themselves.

Monday, September 26, 2005

I Am Outraged. No, Really!

Can you believe that those jackbooted fascist representatives of the Bush regime have arrested Cindy Sheehan and imprisoned her in their gulag?

I shudder to think what she must have went through in their torture chamber. Based on their standard operating procedure, they must have made her sit in a holding cell for a few minutes until she paid the $50 fine. Oh, the horror of it all! What a courageous sacrifice this woman has made!

What the hell is wrong with these morons? While Cindy was being arrested, they sat and chanted, "The whole world is watching." I'm pretty sure that the rest of the chant got drowned out in the hysteria: "The whole world is watching us make fools of ourselves."

How could any thinking person actually take these people seriously? Their craving for attention is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about human nature.

They are idiots, every last one of them. I don't mean idiots in the "dummy" sense that they use it. I mean that they are truly and honestly stupid. If you can't make the connection between America fighting wars and your right to speak against your government, you are a fool.

Just as in most of the major wars that America has fought, what we are fighting for in Iraq is the ability to remain free to call President Bush a "fascist", if we so desire.

If we don't fight this war in Iraq or Afghanistan, where should we fight it? "Nowhere!", says the Leftist fool. And, eventually, these people would have the same right to protest that they do in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other Islamic country. In other words, none.

That is such an easy concept. Why can't they understand it? What do they think would happen if we quit fighting? Like the children that they are, they can't think that far ahead. They just want what they want, and the consequences are too complicated for them to comprehend. They are mindless, frightened sheep who say whatever their leaders tell them to say.

They don't love America, but I don't think that they hate it, either. Both concepts are just too complex for them. The concepts of love and hate in these people are no more complex than a small child's love of mommy or hatred of a bully. It's purely emotional, with no logic involved.

To love America is to love a concept. An idea. Yes, it's emotional, but that emotion is based on a knowledge of the almost(?) miraculous coming together of people, events and ideas that resulted in the outrageous idea that a people could be the masters of their leaders. It's not based on the childish concept of love, which is whether something makes you feel "good" or "bad". To love America, you have to be able to appreciate a very complicated concept, and that's way beyond these people.

America isn't perfect. Nothing is. But America is light-years closer to perfection than their beloved Communism, which is itself a very childish and unrealistic idea (i.e. everybody has to share everything with me).

I'd bet that 98% of those on the Left have never given any real thought as to what would happen if we were to quit fighting.

The other 2% are the more intelligent (but no less childlike) of them, and they really do hate America. They are the ones who would like to see America fail, so that their infantile form of government could be implemented. They think that everything should be shared equally, although they would be more equal than the rest because they would be the ones running things and, therefore, would get a larger share of the "equal" sharing (got that?).

Like anyone else on the Left, they can't see the link between their own greed and hunger for power, and the fact that Communism always fails because of those very corruptions. They cannot see the logic. Like a kid crying for a candy bar before dinner, no thought is given to whether it would be a good thing or not.

It's what they want, so it has to be right.

Saturday, September 24, 2005


I was, and still am, concerned about the whereabouts of Michael Moore. Nobody has heard from him since last year's election. What happened to him? I have a few theories:

a) He's committed suicide and is rotting away in his "man-of-the-people"'s mansion.

b) He's suffered an "accident" at the hands of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

c) He's holed up in his mansion, depressed and drowning his sorrows in Hostess and McDonald's products.

d) The Democrats want nothing to do with him having realized, too late, that having this propagandist sitting with Jimmy Carter at the DNC was a bad idea.

But he's not the only one that seems to have disappeared. Where has Howard Dean been lately? His rants used to be so entertaining, but I haven't heard a word out of him for months.

The Democrats have apparently figured out, again too late, that he's a nutcase and that elevating him to the position of DNC chairman was a mistake.

This guy was such an egomaniac, what must the Democrats have done to shut him up? The only thing that I can think of is to threaten to take away the thing that every Lefty loves most: power.

"Listen, mate. That's a nice bit of power you got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it, eh? Now, if you were to just piss off and shut yer syrup-hole, maybe you could hang on to it for a bit longer, capiche?"

Anyway, somebody should really call these guys and make sure that they're OK. It would be a shame to lose laughingstocks such as these.

Friday, September 23, 2005

The Fun Never Ends

Just when you think that you're getting ahead of the game, something like this happens:

We had some major storms rumble through here on Wednesday night. I no longer have any trees in my back yard. Let me correct that: I have four trees in my back yard, but they're all horizontal.

On the bright side, I'll never have to rake my back yard again. That and they fell away from the house.

On the negative side, I have to figure out what to do with about 5 tons of wood. Not to mention the weeks that it's going to take me to cut these things up.

Any of you environmentalists out there who would care to take these 100 foot trees away and give them a decent burial, feel free to get ahold of me. Or you could make thousands of picket signs out of these trees.

There's an odd thought: do tree-huggers use wood products for their picket signs? That would seem to be a bit hypocritical to me. Unless they only use naturally fallen birch bark and sticks. I'll have to look more closely the next time I see those misfits making fools of themselves on TV.

The alternative would be for them to use plastic, which would be a petroleum-based product. But they wouldn't do that, either, would they? Hmmm.

And if the downed "tree-friends" weren't enough, my good computer is screwed. I apparently clicked on the wrong link and something downloaded itself onto my hard drive. Luckily, I have 3 more computers in the house to play with.

If it were just a virus, I could deal with that. This was just some wannabe programmer out to make a buck. Somebody wrote some shitty code in C++ and put it out there on the internet for some ad-search program. Back when I was a "Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer" (snort), it was Holy Writ that you didn't put a piece of shit like this in anybody's hands, let alone allow it to be downloaded surreptitiously onto other peoples' computers.

So, what it comes down to, is that I am one busy hombre. I hate to disappoint my regular readers. I assume that there's a reason that you keep coming back. But for the next week or two I'm going to be posting between running my chainsaw and trying to fix my computer.

Stay tuned.

Like, You are so Totally Ignorant (Update)

While picking up my daughter from school for the last week or so, I've noticed a car in the parking lot with its rear-end smashed in.

Written in purple magic marker on the damaged part of the car was this brilliant statement: "Some ignorant drunk driver ran into me!"

Out of curiosity, I was tempted to figure out who's car this was, but I decided that it was obvious who this person was, at least in the broad sense.

The use of the word "ignorant" told me everything that I needed to know."

Ignorant" is the new word of the Left. It is their substitute for calling somebody a "big dummy" like most children would.

Every comment that I've ever left on a Lefty blog has, eventually, called me "ignorant". It just sounds more sophisticated than calling someone a "dumb-dumb", I guess. Or it would if they didn't all suddenly start using it at once.

Add to the equation that they are so insecure that they don't want anyone to believe that they backed into something (i.e. it's not my fault!) and we have everything we need to know.

I'd bet that whomever owns this car is a) female, b) a college attendee, c) a true-believer in Left-wing causes and d) clueless about how the real world works.

I'll eventually figure it out and let you know if I'm right.

UPDATE: I found out who owns this car. She's actually one of my daughter's daycare providers.

As I guessed above, she's a female college attendee from California who is, maybe, 20 years old. I haven't discussed politics with her but, judging by her clothes and piercings, I'd bet that she isn't a Conservative.

Thank you. It's a gift.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

We Need More Power, Scotty!

It's odd that the Left is still displaying their usual unbridled, childish rage. After all, they, at least, are apparently living their "one-world" dream.

Michael Medved interviewed British MP George Galloway on his radio show today. Mr. Galloway had nothing more to say than the usual Leftist talking points, in addition to the usual lying and distortion of his past record and quotes.

The only difference is that Mr. Galloway is stupid in a Scottish accent.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Like, You Are So Totally Ignorant!

While picking up my daughter from school for the last week or so, I've noticed a car in the parking lot with its rear-end smashed in.

Written in purple magic marker on the damaged part of the car was this brilliant statement: "Some ignorant drunk driver ran into me!"

Out of curiosity, I was tempted to figure out who's car this was, but I decided that it was obvious who this person was, at least in the broad sense.

The use of the word "ignorant" told me everything that I needed to know.

"Ignorant" is the new word of the Left. It is their substitute for calling somebody a "big dummy" like most children would.

Every comment that I've ever left on a Lefty blog has, eventually, called me "ignorant". It just sounds more sophisticated than calling someone a "dumb-dumb", I guess. Or it would if they didn't all suddenly start using it at once.

Add to the equation that they are so insecure that they don't want anyone to believe that they backed into something (i.e. it's not my fault!) and we have everything we need to know.

I'd bet that whomever owns this car is a) female, b) a college attendee, c) a true-believer in Left-wing causes and d) clueless about how the real world works.

I'll eventually figure it out and let you know if I'm right.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

I'm Back...

OK, I'm back from my hiatus. I've been so busy lately that I haven't even checked my e-mail in a week. However, I have gotten a lot of things that needed doing, done. I'm never ready for winter, but at least this year, I'll be close.

That said, what shall we talk about tonight? How about a point made in one of the comments on the post immediately below. It also happens to be a subject which I find endlessly fascinating: paranoid conspiracy theories.

One of the trolls who followed me over from Pandagon (and, like all the rest, none of them leave a link) made a point that I have heard many times before when speaking of the Left and their unending conspiracy theories. They always say, "Yeah, but what about the Right's embrace of the theories of Vince Foster and Ron Brown being murdered?" He (?) even threw in one I haven't heard before about some kids being beaten to death because they "saw too much".

The fact is, none of those theories was taken seriously by more than a relative handful of people on the Right. If there were more than a few thousand across the country who really believed those stories, I'd be shocked. I certainly never heard anyone with any real credibility who believed them.

However, you can't swing your proverbial dead cat (sorry, PETA) without hitting someone on the Left who believes the most incredible stories, and not just the nutcases. O.K. they may be nutcases, but they are also in positions of power on the Left.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid. Those are a small fraction of "leaders" on the Left who have bought in to these conspiracies.

And all they can ever come up with are, really, two cases that some nutcases on the really extreme Right believed: Ron Brown and Vince Foster.

So let's see what the Left has come up with, shall we?

- George Bush "stole" the election in 2000. Somehow "the Chimp" managed to be smarter than all of his adversaries, because not once has the count ever gone against him.

- George Bush "stole" the election in 2004. And John Kerry conceded only because he really isn't a power-hungry, rich white guy; which we're led to believe doesn't exist in the Democrat party. He didn't really want the job anyway. Or maybe George Bush threatened his life if he didn't concede!

- George Bush "allowed" his "friends" in the oil business to break whatever laws they wanted to after he was elected (e.g. Enron). Apparently these people became criminals in January 2001 when Bush was inaugurated and were found out immediately. They were apparently doing no wrong during the Clinton administration.

- Microsoft was "let off the hook" from it's anti-trust lawsuits for no other reason than Bill Gates was a rich, white guy. It's odd that Bill Gates stands for some of the most leftist causes imaginable.

- Anthrax was unleashed upon the publisher of The National Enquirer because they dared to publish "drunken" pictures of Bush's daughters. Yes, he's that evil!

- The anthrax scare was created by the Bush administration so that they had an excuse to roll back the civil liberties of Americans everywhere, thus expanding their fascist hold over these people. I notice, however, that, for some reason, these poor people haven't lost their right to accuse Bush of the most horrific things imaginable. Any othe fascist dictatorship would have had them killed long ago.

- Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden could have been assasinated but weren't, because that gave Bush an excuse to feed the "military-corporate partnership". Apparently the old term, "Military-Industrial Complex" has become too attached to conspiracy theories, so they renamed it (smirk).

- Flight 93, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, was shot down by the military, and the story of the passengers rushing the cockpit was fabricated to cover Bush for giving the order. On the other hand, if it wasn't shot down, it should have been; and Bush was negligible for not giving the order.

- Flight 587, which crashed on November 12, 2001, was really brought down by terrorists and not an onboard explosion as the administration has said. So, on the one hand, Bush wants to use terrorism to fuel his war on our rights, but on the other hand, he doesn't want to admit that terrorists are blowing up planes. Hmmm.

- The Bush family is in league with the Bin Laden family through the Carlyle Group. Streeeeeetttch....

- Bush is a puppet of Israel. For some reason the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is bowing to "the Jooos!"

- Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq so that he could go in there and control the oil. Even I'm sick of responding to this one. OK, kiddies, let's rehash this for the completely retarded out there:

a) everyone who mattered believed the very same thing until a month after we invaded Iraq and didn't find WMD's. The U.N., France, Russia, Germany, Bill Clinton...everybody!

b) if Bush is so corrupt, why didn't he just plant some WMD's and say, "Aha!" One of my former trolls, who has apparently run away forever, kept making the point that they knew that they'd find some, so they didn't bother. He never would answer my point that Bush could plant them even now if he wanted to and say, "Well, look what we found buried out in the desert!"

- Bush personally flew the planes, by remote control, into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. He was, after all, a pilot!

- Osama Bin Laden was actually in US custody and would be "captured" right before the Presidential election in November, 2004 to give Bush an edge. Apparently he escaped, huh?

- George Bush helped members of the Saudi royal family "escape" right after 9/11. Apparently we were supposed to send members of a country's royal family to a "gulag" where they could await Amnesty International and Dick Durbin to free them from the torture of having to eat lemon-chicken and asparagus tips.

- George Bush was a member of "Skull and Bones", which proved that he was a member of the "New World Order" crowd. Or was that the Trilateral Comission? Or the Illuminati? I can't keep them all straight even though I, too, am a member! Muahahah!

- Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was a member of the "Federalist Society", which proves that he's...what? A Republican? Someone who believes that the Constitution says what it says? Either one is evil to the Left.

- Countless comparisons by Democrat leaders to Bush being a Nazi, a fascist, a name it. Many of these were made on the floors of Congress. One accusation by the lead Senator of the Democrats!

Kind of pales in comparison to "right-wing" extremists saying the Clinton's had Vince Foster offed, doesn't it?

- Bush slowed federal relief to the hurricane victims in New Orleans so that more "niggers" would die and/or abandon their property so that New Orleans could be made into a "lily-white" Republican stronghold.

- Levees were destroyed in New Orleans so that poor, black neighborhoods were flooded instead of the more affluent parts of the city (which seem to have been flooded anyway).

That is a very, very, partial list of the conspiracy theories that the Left has come up with. There are, literally, hundreds more. Everything that Bush does is nothing more than his conspiring to advance his agenda by any means possible and, usually, by the most evil means at his disposal for no other reason than he hates minorities enough to want to commit mass-murder.

The fact that these things are ridiculous, and able to be picked apart as easily as any childish fantasy, deters these people not in the least.

I've said it before, but I think that it bears repeating: this is now what passes for deep thinking among those on the Left. Whoever can come up with the most dastardly, evil, convoluted theory on why President Bush does anything, gets a high-five, and that most coveted feeling amongst the Left, AFFIRMATION! The feeling that they really do matter! That their life really isn't meaningless!

To give the devil his due, this is how those on the Left "think outside the box". It doesn't matter how ridiculous or stupid their theories may be, because they know that if they can come up with their own theory they will be, for once, not parroting the Democrat talking points. This is what passes for originality of thought for those on the Left.

Deep down, they know that, when we on the Right laugh at them for not having any original ideas, we are, well, right.

They are unable to harness enough logic to make it from one logical proposition to the next and come up with an original thought. The next best thing is to indulge their childish fantasies and come up with a fantasy that nobody has thought of before.

Once again, their entire motivation, as it always is, comes down to, "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!" No different than any child.

So, Ron Brown and Vince Foster. You guys need about 500 more conspiracy theories to even come close.

Friday, September 09, 2005

And Now, Yet Even More Random Musings

I'm sure that my regular readers have noticed that I haven't posted much this week. It's that time of year in Minnesota when it suddenly dawns on you that there'll be snow on the ground in a couple of months and you have to get moving on all of your projects before they're, literally, buried.

Add to that the fact that it's been Monkey Girl's first week back in school, and I've been busier than a Lefty trying to pin a scandal on George Bush (and, if I may brag a little, Monkey Girl is reading at a 5th grade level. Not bad for a 1st grader, eh?).

I haven't had time to listen to the radio much, or read all of the stuff that I usually read or, for that matter, think a whole lot about politics.

So, instead of anything long, deep and substantial (watch it!), I give you this:

- The German people were held responsible for not stopping Hitler. After the death camps were liberated, the people in the communities surrounding the camps were made to bury the dead inmates and witness the atrocities that they pretended weren’t happening.

Why can’t the Muslims be held responsible for not policing their community? There is no unified, clear, unabashed denouncement of the terrorists in their midst. They know who the terrorists are. Not turning them in is no different than the people living around the death camps pretending that they didn’t know what was happening.

- Yes, it would be nice if “mainstream” Muslims were to denounce the terrorists, but it would also be nice if they’d denounce the holy war to take over the Christian West. It would be nice if they denounced the stoning of women who have been raped. It would be nice if they’d denounce intentionally blowing up innocent women and children. I don't expect them to jump right to the 21st century, but it would be nice if they could at least make it to the 19th.

- The “progressive” Left has aligned itself with a 14th century religion.

- After watching NARAL and NOW’s reactions to John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court, I’m a bit bewildered. Don’t you think that these two groups, more than any others, would want to stay away from the “hysterical female” stereotype?

- 90% of Democrats hate being called “Liberals”. 90% Republicans have no problem being called “Conservatives”. Why? Because Democrats don’t want to be associated, at least in public, with Liberal stances on the issues. They're embarassed.

Republicans, on the other hand, are perfectly comfortable with the Conservative stance on issues. We believe in what we stand for because we're not doing it just to feel good about ourselves or to get attention.

- The Left loves to scare people with the “religious extremists who are taking over our country”. But, they exclude all religions other than Christianity from that statement, be they Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Moonie. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say the “Christians who are taking over our country"? That is, after all, what they mean.

- The Left's politics dictate their values.
The Right's values dictate their politics.
Think about that.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

What I Did This Summer

Check this thing out. I hung and wired 3 of these in our shop in June:

That's a 24-foot-diameter ceiling fan. To give you some perspective, your typical house is about 30 feet wide. They're 20 feet in the air. You can feel the air moving from these things 75 feet away.

If you're a guy and you don't say, "wow", I'd check your testosterone level.

Is it any wonder that I love my job? I get to spend large amounts of other people's money to do stuff like this.


I'm sure that the hurricane relief efforts will never miss any piddling contribution that I could make, but the fact is, the second that the usual (and some not-so-usual) suspects came out and called me a "racist", I decided that New Orleans could sink or swim without me. You can fence New Orleans off and let it rot for all I care.

Oprah, Mayor Ray Nagin, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, MSNBC/Newsweek, The AP, and countless others, including many, many normal residents of New Orleans, have all come out and, directly or indirectly, said that the white majority of this country had no problem letting black people die.

That's me and, most likely, you they're talking about!

I'm sick of being called a racist every time anything negative, great or small, happens to a Left-sanctioned minority group. These idiots insult me, and then expect me to help them.

That's like a bum coming up to you and saying, "Hey, asshole, you're the reason I'm poor! Give me some money!" Not a very good fund-raising technique.

That may work on your typical bleeding-heart liberal, but it doesn't work on me. I can't be guilted into doing what they want me to do.

It never ceases to amaze me that more people, especially Conservatives, aren't offended by this. Do you think that, like wealthy Democrats who want to raise taxes on anyone who is "really" rich (i.e. has one more dollar than they do), they're talking about somebody who is "really" a racist? No! They are talking about you. Yes, you! They don't care if your a Conservative or a Liberal, if you're white, they think that you are a racist!

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of being insulted and accused of something that I've never done.

From now on, no matter how noble the cause may be, the second that the word "racist", "sexist", "homophobe" or any other of the Left's "victimhood" phrases pops out of some ignorant fool's mouth, you can count me out. My support ends right there.

If their leaders would tell them to sit down and shut up, I might reconsider, but that'll never happen, because these so-called "leaders" are the ones inciting it.

That also goes for them using a cause to jump on the "Bush-bashing-bandwagon", or twist it for their political gain. If they can't help people for the sake of helping people, without gaining anything or trying to further their political agenda, then they can count me out.

Their criticism of FEMA is usually accompanied by a reference to "the Bush administration", but even when it isn't, it's not hard to read between the lines. As some idiot rapper said recently, "Bush doesn't care about black people".

The really sick thing is that these people believe that they are the "selfless" people in our society when they will do absolutely nothing if there's no gain for themselves.

If it were just the "usual suspects" it would be one thing, but this is the mayor of the city and the residents of that city, whom millions upon millions of white people are trying to help. And Oprah doesn't need to advance a political agenda. Do you think that they all suddenly decided that "whitey's out to get me" the day after Katrina hit? No, I guarantee you that they've thought that I'm a racist for a long, long time.

Piss on 'em. They preach "unity" but all they do is divide. They can get by just fine without me.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Ah, the Good Old Days.

Remember the good old days? The days when we lived in utopia and nothing ever went wrong that a few well-spoken words couldn't handle?

Remember the good old days when there were no such things as real terrorists, only criminals who had a bad habit of killing alot of people by blowing things up? These criminals were handled by our incredibly efficient justice system one at a time, and it was only a matter of time before we had prosecuted them all to the full extent of the law. There was certainly never any reason to go to war over these miscreants.

Remember when North Korea had no nukes because our most dignified statesman, Jimmy Carter, went over there and got them to promise to stop their nuclear weapons programs by promising them everything that they wanted? And North Korea complied immediately and gave Jimmy a big hug. Bill Clinton was a trifle miffed because he hadn't actually authorized the trip, but that was water under the bridge after that spectacular foreign policy success.

Or how about when the U.N. used to be a dignified, earnest, efficient protector of human rights? They had no truck with dictators, or human rights abusers of any sort, and their proclamations were always obeyed immediately because of their moral certitude and their willingness to back up their threats with massive military might. Corruption? Perish the thought.

And do you remember when Europe was always on our side, and also willing to stand up for themselves like the noble people they were? There was never any disagreement. They stood with us through thick and thin. The thought of us having to take care of a war in their own backyard was unthinkable! But when that war did, eventually, somehow come along, we certainly didn't need permission from the U.N. to go in there and bomb the hell out of the people who were prosecuting Muslims. And again: corruption in Europe? I should say not!

The presidential administration in Washington was the most ethical in history. Nobody in that administration ever told a lie or, for that matter, twisted their words around to try to get out of some silly little politically-motivated scandal. They were straightforward people who would look you in the eye, and whom you knew you could believe. Because they had no history of lying. They were looking out for the interests of the American People (especially "the children"), and their own political careers be damned! Once again: corruption? How dare you even suggest it? There were certainly never any criminal investigations or legal proceedings that could sully the fine names of these people.

Sure, we had the occasional natural disaster, but there was Bill Clinton in his leotard and cape, wind and rain lashing his hair, standing atop a mountain of bottled water and lobster thermidore, with 500,000 national guardsmen ready to distribute it to whomever happened to want it, within minutes.

Taxes were low, the rich paid their fair share, there were no homeless people, Social Security was nothing to worry about, health care was dirt-cheap (although 43,000,000 people still, apparently, couldn't afford it), the economy wasn't headed toward recession, although global warming was, butterflies were free and everybody loved us.

But then, the "dunce", George W. Bush somehow rigged the election in Florida in a way that made it impossible for Al Gore to come up with a number of votes higher than his, no matter how many different ways, or no matter how long, they tried.

And now, everything is doom and gloom. There is no hope. The fascists (not those lighthearted, whacky communists, though) have taken over and it's only a matter of time before the world is covered by a toxic cloud and the ovens are stoked up to get rid of Bush's political enemies.

People are being silenced (apparently all it takes is to say, "shut up, moron") by the fascist Right and homes are being raided in the middle of the night.

Abortionists are being lined up and shot, falling into graves that they themselves were forced to dig.

Women are being forced back into the kitchen where they must take care of their slavemasters' horrible children and receive only a sound beating as payment.

Homosexuals are being rounded up and sent to labor camps, where they are forced to live in co-ed barracks, slaving away in the rusty-coathanger-factory, and not allowed to marry.

Anyone not carrying a Christian Bible at all times, and who isn't able to recite chapter and verse on demand, will be sent to the Gulag on a Carribean island where they will be forced to eat lemon-chicken and asparagus tips.

All chemical plants are being run three-shifts-a-day, and their product is being piped directly into the rivers, lakes, oceans and even the groundwater itself.

Animals are being tortured for fun, before being made into meat for the holocaust on our dinner plates and in our milk glasses.

Sound ridiculous? Apparently you haven't read any of the Lefty blogs lately. For them, this wouldn't even be considered outrageous.

Bureaucracies Fail

The Democrats have finally acknowledged that a massive Federal Bureaucracy (FEMA) can fail.

So why can’t they see that the Education bureaucracy has failed, or that the Welfare bureaucracy has never worked, or the Social Security bureaucracy was doomed from the start?

Is it just because this one failed so quickly and obviously, for all to see on the nightly news?

Democrats live in the here and now. They can’t see the logical progression of things. The bureaucracies mentioned above (and others) failed slowly over the course of many years, or never really worked at all. It wasn't a sudden kick in the teeth, so they never had to acknowledge it. With FEMA and New Orleans, they have no choice. It's too obvious. They can't pretend that it's not happening.

If the Social Security system suddenly collapsed and 10,000 people starved, then they’d take notice. They still wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but it would give them an excuse to blame one more thing on George Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, neocons, religious extremists (excluding all faiths other than Christians), Karl Rove, Israel, the Trilateral Commission and Pat Robertson.

Bureaucracies, by their very nature, are huge, lumbering things that take forever to get up to speed, and are almost impossible to turn from their "by the book" mentality. They have procedures for implementing their procedures, starting at the top and working down to the bottom. Every step must be taken in the proper order, just as in a religious ritual. All of that takes time.

Also in the nature of the bureaucracy is the mindless will to grow, grow, grow. Shortly after they are developed, that growth always becomes their #1 mission. They are like tumors. The purpose for which they were set up is relegated to the back burner in their desire to grow and consume more and more resources.

Bureaucracies have no conscience. While the individual cells may actually care about the suffering of the people they are paid to protect, the overall mass can't care. The wiring between the cells is intentionally complicated and confusing, because inefficiency allows it to take up even more resources, with the promise that it could fix itself if only there were more resources available to it.

But at least Fema did, finally, get going. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it got going as quickly as it did. Has it ever moved faster during any other major disaster? I seem to remember a lot of the same bitching about FEMA being slow to react after Hurricane Hugo and the flooding on the Mississippi about 10 or 15 years ago.

Did anyone ever think to do a study to see how long it usually took FEMA to respond to a disaster, and then tell state and local governments that they're probably going to be on their own for that long, so they'd better prepare for it? My guess is that most localities figured this out for themselves and are, for the most part, as prepared as they can be.

The Bureaucracies in New Orleans and Louisiana were even more useless than the ones at the Federal level. They didn't even put their disaster plans on the back burner. They just never made any! Can you believe that this city, which is built below sea level, on the ocean, and between a huge lake and the largest, most flood-prone river in the country, had no plans in place in case of a major levee break and/or flood???

Everyone on earth knew that this was going to happen eventually. The incompetence of not dealing with the issue is beyond incredible!

And then they have the gall to try to blame it all on FEMA (and, not very well hidden in the subtext, President Bush)! What a buch of useless baggage those people are. Anyone who has held elected office in New Orleans and/or Louisiana should never be allowed to hold another public position. Ever.

They planned for a few hours of wind and rain, but totally mismanaged the aftermath. It is tempting to analogise this with the Left's (whom that city is controlled by) whining that Bush "won the war, but mismanaged the aftermath" in Iraq.

But Bush, so far, has lost "only" 1800 soldiers whose job it was to die for this country, if necessary. The incompetence of the bureacracies of Louisiana, and New Orleans in particular is going to cost at least 10,000 American civilian lives, and probably more.

The Left needs to understand that every bureaucracy has design flaws that will cause it to fail. Some quickly, but most over time. The nature of bureaucracies is self-centeredness and lust for power.

No wonder the Left thinks there's nothing wrong with bureaucracies.

Friday, September 02, 2005

How Low Can They Go?

Apparently, according to the Left, any time a hurricane approaches an American coastline during a Republican administration, we need to have 50,000 National Guard troops in a sprinter's position just outside of the hurricane zone waiting to rush in.

We need to have enough food and water stockpiled on the borders of Gulf Coast states to feed at least 2 million people for months, and we need to get it moving even before the hurricane has dissipated.

We need to do this every time a hurricane approaches the coast for the next 200 years, or until the next time it happens, even though it would be a massive waste of resources.

I predicted this on the day that the storm hit (8/29).

However, I have a prediction: if massive aid isn't in place on the Gulf coast by midnight tonight, the Left will say that Bush was dragging his feet and didn't get federal aid there in a timely manner.

This is a perfect example of the Left's entire mindset. New Orleans is a massively Democrat city. They expected someone else (e.g. the Federal Government, i.e. you and me) to take care of them. The mayor of N.O. is whining because the Federal Government took a few days to react to something that shocked fucking everyone! What did the city of New Orleans do for themselves? Not a goddamned thing from what I can see. What did the state of Louisiana do? Shit. They sat and waited for the Federal Government to fix their problem.

How many times in the past have hurricanes come at the Gulf Coast? At least 3 times every year. How in the hell was George Bush supposed to know that this was going to wipe out one of America's largest cities?

The answer is, he couldn't know. Nor could anyone else. But the Left, including the MSM, of course, will politicize anything if it may give them an advantage.

What a bunch of absolute...I really can't even find the words to describe people who would use this horror for nothing more than political advantage. I can't even put together a long string of expletives that would express it properly, and I'm a trained professional.

The Left is lower than scum. To politicize something like this is even lower than I imagined that they could go. There is, literally, nothing that transcends their absolute addiction to power.

That scares the hell out of me. These are the same people who think that Joseph Stalin wasn't such a bad guy, even after he killed enough people to make Hitler look like a piker.

Their channel to power is through the Democrat party. They're already doing a pretty good job of it by themsleves, but we need to destroy the Democrat party forever.

How can we do that? In another post back in January, I laid out the case for running Condoleeza Rice for President against Hillary. It would be a sure thing, and would take away almost every position that the Democrats and Hillary would be running on.

If this disaster shows us anything, it should show us that the people running the Democrat party are no better than crack addicts looking for their power fix.

Damaged Goods

So now we know what motivates those on the Left: the same things that motivate all children, whether physically “grown-up” or not. But why did they stay in that stage of permanent childhood, while the rest of us grew up?

The theory that I’ve heard most often is that of “liberal guilt”. The thinking goes that, somehow, these liberals feel guilty for leading “privileged” lives while others are leading lives of destitution.

I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense.

First of all, most of the Lefties that I’ve seen, such as protestors, college kids, etc., aren’t all leading “privileged” lives. In fact, other than the “limousine liberals”, most of them are from lower to middle-class backgrounds. Yes, they had more than the “poor” people that they supposedly champion do, but most of them were far from rich. Certainly not rich enough for them to feel terribly guilty about having so much more than the “poor”.

On top of that, the liberals that I’ve known are the most selfish, self-centered people on this earth. Like a child, everything relates to them. Even their attempts to help the “downtrodden” are nothing more than an attempt to make them feel good about themselves.

How could they feel “guilt” about another person’s plight when they are obsessed with their own feelings and position?

So, why have these people never grown beyond the emotional level of children? I actually touched on it in one of the above posts, but I didn’t quite realize the significance at the time.

A psychologist I once knew told me that a lot of people's emotional progression stops at a certain traumatic point in their lives.

And there you have it. Scratch a liberal deep enough and you’ll find some traunatic experience that stopped their emotional growth. Something that they’ve never been able to deal with. Bullying, molestation, overly-critical parents? Who knows? It explains everything, though.

It explains why they all seem to be pissed off and depressed. Think about it: have you ever met one who wasn’t? They may try to hide it, but if you look closely, you can see it in all of them. Al Franken, Michael Moore, Al Gore? Hell, Bill Clinton’s self-destructive streak alone tells me that I’m right.

These people really don’t like themselves very much no matter what they may project to the world. They say that all comedy contains a grain of truth. Methinks Al Franken’s “Stuart Smalley” character contained more than a grain or two of truth.

It explains why everything has to be somebody’s fault. There has to be a “victimizer” that represents whatever traumatized these people. There is no such thing as an accident or, as in the case of Hurricane Katrina, a natural disaster. Somebody must be blamed (and, hopefully, sued). In the case of Katrina, they’re already blaming President Bush for not signing the Kyoto treaty and for not having massive federal aid waiting just outside the hurricane zone.

It explains why they hate the same things that all children hate. Spanking children is a crime. Bullies are the epitome of evil. There is "right" (i.e. whatever makes you feel good), but nothing is ever "wrong". Feeling bad about yourself (low self-esteem), even briefly, is about the worst thing in the world.

Yes, plenty of people on the Right have been traumatized in one way or another, but we managed to deal with it and grow up to become responsible adults.

But the people on the Left are damaged goods who are incapable of dealing with their issues and, therefore, will never grow up. They have, apparently, become comfortable with their baggage and have turned it into a political agenda.

“Liberal guilt” is a myth. These people don’t feel guilty about their position relative to “the poor”. Perhaps they feel guilty about not dealing with whatever or whomever traumatized them in their past, but they certainly don’t feel guilty abut their position. If they did, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O’Donnell and all of the other rich Lefties would give their vast fortunes to these people whom they supposedly care so much about.

But they don’t really care about “the poor”. They found out that people saw them in a good light for sounding off for the “less fortunate”, and that affirmation was like crack for these “self-esteem-challenged” people. It was a way for them to not only feel good about themselves, but to get a desperately-craved “atta-boy” from others.

As I said in one of the previous posts, 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.

These people have finally found a "society", amongst all of the other misfits, where they fit in. After spending a huge part of their lives thinking that they were the only ones who felt that way, they were ecstatic to find a place where they belonged.

After being refused entry into all of the cliques, they have finally found their own.