Clean-up On Aisle Six Continues
As I continue to clean up the mess left by
UNESCO, it looks like France has a more
serious threat to it's culture than Big Macs:
Clichy-Sous-Bois opened its first Muslim-Themed 'Beurger King' earlier this year to serve halal burgers- meaning burgers made with meat slaughtered according to Islamic dietary laws.
Plame Game II
This is something that Rush has been hammering on from the beginning of this story, and something I meant to include in
my post:
Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning [for the CIA]: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger.
The part of this that Rush has been hammering on is that the bureaucracy of the CIA, State Dept. and others are trying to undermine Bush and Bush is trying to clean things up. What I had intended to talk about was the fact that, for a "covert" agent, Plame and her husband were sure thrusting themselves into a hot political debate. Then it's a big surprise, a crime, and a cover-up when the people on the other side of the issue try to find out who Joe Wilson is and how he ended up in Niger?
Supreme Court
This is a pretty
concise point that conveys my feelings on the next Supreme Court appointment:
I don't see that state-sponsored executions are a left-right issue. The issue is the interpretation of our constitution, a matter of the courts and for the courts, which should apply principles, yes, but should be above the -- sometimes quite petty -- distinctions of liberal and conservative.
You could insert any issue in place of the death penalty, and the same statement would apply. Which is why it's a shame the debate has been framed by the terms "liberal" and "conservative. Also why it's a shame that Bush's screw-up with Miers resulted in the Republicans
framing the debate as all about abortion.
The court's job is to interpret and apply the law. Which is why it is so ridiculous for the court to
quote foreign law as some sort of source or precedent when no such consideration went into passing the law. The legislature is elected by, and responsible to the people who elected them, not the French. The law, and the constitution, should be interpreted based on the law and it's original intent. And if the legislature, or in this case, the founding fathers, didn't intend to grant a right to abortion, they didn't. Did they mean for the "right to privacy", sometimes correctly construed, to allow a woman to kill her unborn child? If you want a law that grants that, then get it passed.
Don't Worry, The U.N. Is On It
And from the same story mentioned
below, there is this gem:
At the United Nations on Friday, the Security Council issued a statement saying it "condemned" Mr. Ahmadinejad's remarks. The original text, introduced by Britain, included the word "strongly," but it was dropped because of objections from Algeria, the sole Arab country on the 15-member panel.
Plame Game
Okay, just like the Harriet Miers story, this has taken a while to hit my radar screen. Maybe it was the glee in the reporters voices that kept me away. Or maybe the fact that it was all just supposition based on supposed leaks. Maybe it's just been a tough week. But the Plame Game finally has my attention.
As for Miers, I hope Bush nominates the most conservative, most highly qualified person - male, female, black, white, brown, off-white with a touch of beige - with the most verifiable background, that can possibly be found. Then I hope he looks at the Republicans in the Senate and says "Here you go, now you get her approved". After all, this is already only about Roe v. Wade, as the Republicans helped
frame the debate. The conservative voice of the Republican Party has been heard. Will the spineless take heed?
But about the Plame Game, I'm pretty much just pissed off. This whole affair began as an investigation of whether the White House outed Ms. Plame, a "covert" CIA agent, as retribution on her husband Joe Wilson. After almost two years, we get an idictment against Cheney's Chief of Staff for perjury.
NOT the outing of a CIA agent, which
Fitzgerald waxed elegantly about in his news conference. To the point that I later heard a news reporter put it just that way. Perjury. In a case where apparently no crime was committed. After all the crap he said about saying nothing about anyone not charged, I guess once you charge them with something you can accuse them of being a child molester too. If he broke the law then charge him for it, or shut up.
And to you anti-war libs trying to make this part of your case against Bush's "illegal" war - you are contemptible maggots. You just made the Vice President's Chief of Staff resign over some trumped up crap in a time of war. Your rhetoric is reprehensible, your support for our military is non-existent, and your behavior is infantile.
And to my point, on the same day this hits,
this story is in the news.
Yep, a banner day in the cesspool of D.C.
The Man arrives with a disgusted look...
Ok, ok. I'll try to be serious.
“The US is a multicultural society that fully supports the diversity of cultural expressions at home and abroad. We are committed to free trade and we regret that the convention reflects the efforts of some countries to advance an agenda of trade protectionism under the disguise of protecting cultural diversity."
The lone superpower boasting the most liberal economic, political, religious and personal freedoms needs to make this statement?
Vigorously championed by France and Canada, the diversity convention is held up by supporters as a vital tool for combating English-speaking cultural standardisation.
Hahahahah! Whooooo! That's good.
For the French government — which has successfully fought to keep cultural items such as films, music and publishing exempt from the general drift towards freer trade — the text is an important international marker ahead of a new round of talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Cultural diversity. Uh-huh. Right.
But defying a near total international consensus, the United States refuses to see the convention as a force for cultural variety — but instead as a charter for governments to put up new trade barriers and suppress the free flow of information.
Ummmm, because it is?
“America’s honeymoon at the UN’s culture arm didn’t last long,” said the Wall Street Journal, recalling that it was Bush’s wife Laura who represented the United States in the 2003 re-entry ceremony. Washington now contributes 22 percent of UNESCO’s budget.
What the fuck are we doing there?
However in Paris the press could hardly contain its glee at America’s isolation in the 60 year-old forum, which was set up after World War II to promote peace via the interchange of ideas.
Peace via the interchange of ideas? Yep, that'll do it. We all know the world is all about the interchange of ideas - unless those ideas are freedom and democracy.
“They have reaffirmed loud and clear that culture is not just another commodity."
That, madam, is where you are wrong.
Canadians widely regard their culture as heavily influenced by the US economic behemoth, with which it has a free-trade agreement.
Yeah, what a shame. Influenced by all that American money. Poor bastards. Send us a bill. And we'll apply it to your Canadian Defense Account.
“Canada’s rich diversity, its two official languages and its aboriginal heritage, which are key to the country’s common identity, have nurtured numerous and varied cultural expressions that give meaning to what it means to be Canadian."
Yeah, cultural expressions like the near secession of Quebec.
The rest of the world can take their namby-pamby, touchy-feely, cultural diversity and shove it up their ass. It's not our fault your people like Big Macs and Star Wars better than the shit you're putting out.
And one other thing. If you want a prognostication from all this, here it is:
Israel was alone in joining the United States in opposition...
When The 1st Fails, There's Always The 2nd
Great article on gun control by John Stossel. Very simple, rational, truth. However, this quote will just embolden Mr. Can't on his position that drugs should be legalized:
"First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them 'criminals.') Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it."
But here's the money quote:
"What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, 'the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.'
'The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do,' Judge Kozinski noted. 'But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.'"
Or, more simply, as this reader from
Instapundit put it:
"In 1999 or so, NPR ran a story about an armed gang of about 30 men in Bosnia rounding up all the military-aged men/boys in a village and executing them in their village square. About 300 were killed.
The thought 'it would take a whole lot more than 30 men to kill 300 villagers in an armed society' occurred to me, and I joined the NRA that evening.
I've heard the "living, breathing Constitution" morons say that there's no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen things like the internet, cloning, etc. Well, maybe not, but they damn sure foresaw this. And provided for it.
United Nations
Never mind the text of
this story. Never mind that Mugabe called Bush and Blair terrorists. That is what the media will focus on because they love that crap. And they will say never mind who the source is.
The real story here is this: Why is the United Nations having a racist dictator who wrecked his country's agriculture industry and is starving his people speak at the 60 year celebration of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization?
Surrendering The High Ground
Okay, the Miers nomination has finally hit my radar screen. One would have thought it wouldn't have taken this long. After all, the runaway judiciary is a real hot button for me. But I guess I had just chalked it up to another in a long line of disappointments in the Republicans for conservatives. Rush called it a pick made from weakness, I rather thought of it as a pick made on the defensive. As
Immanuel said, maybe Bush was reeling from all the fallout from Katrina and wasn't up for the fight. And who could blame him anyway? Would you expect the senate Republicans to stand up?
I was thoroughly disgusted with the Democrats (which has become commonplace for me ever since the
Wellstone memorial service) for their transparent view that this was all about Roe vs. Wade and abortion. Quite a small-minded view considering you are appointing someone for life to the highest court in the land. For conservatives, and, I thought for Republicans, the issue was much larger. I thought what was at stake was the Constitution and whether it means anything anymore.
With recent decisions such as Kelo vs. New London, campaign finance reform, sodomy laws, and juvenile death penalty statutes it seemed not to matter what the Constitution said or did not say. That is why it was so important to get a constructionist judge on the court who would exercise judicial restraint and not legislate.
But now, in the aftermath of the Miers nomination, that has all gone out the window.
This nomination is now about abortion. And nothing will change that. Not even if Miers is withdrawn and replaced by someone else. Anyone else. It is about abortion not because the Democrats made it so, after all such has always been the case in their view. No, it is now purely about abortion because the Republicans have made it so. By going out and assuring the pro-lifers that she is anti-abortion we have not only lost the debate, we have lost the opportunity to have the debate. We even have the First Lady calling conservatives sexist. I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Forget the fact that Roe should have never been heard or ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Forget about justices conjuring up something in the Constitution to support their personal views. The Republicans have now allowed the Dems to frame the debate. And whether or not we win the battle, we have already lost the war.
Bird Flu Pandemic
I did a search on google news and found this story
everywhere:
Indonesia Bird Flu Death Toll Rises to 6. 6? This stuff is all over the news because of 6 deaths? I must be missing something, right? So I read on and find this:
The H5N1 strain of bird flu has swept through poultry populations in large swaths of Asia since 2003, jumping to humans and killing at least 65 people more than 40 of them in Vietnam and resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of birds.
65 people in Asia? And this is all over the news? And then there's this:
Despite the growing toll from the virus, Health Minister Siti Fadila Supari told reporters that "the situation appears to be in control," repeating earlier assurances that the disease was not spreading between humans.
"The death toll is much less than in Vietnam, so the people must not panic," he said.
Are you kidding me? A pandemic? We went through this same bullshit with West Nile Virus. What is the world going to do if we face another true pandemic? And if you would like a description of the real deal
check this out:
A company cook named Albert Mitchell reported to the infirmary with typical flu-like symptoms - a low-grade fever, mild sore throat, slight headache, and muscle aches. Bed rest was recommended.
By noon, 107 soldiers were sick.
Within two days, 522 people were sick. Many were gravely ill with severe pneumonia.
Then reports started coming in from other military bases around the country.
Thousands of sailors docked off the East Coast were sick.
Within a week, the influenza was hitting isolated places, such as the island of Alcatraz.
Whatever the cause, it was clearly airborne.
Within seven days, every state in the Union had been infected.
Then it spread across the Atlantic.
By April, French troops and civilians were infected.
By mid-April, the disease had spread to China and Japan.
By May, the virus was spread throughout Africa and South America.
The actual killer was the pneumonia that accompanied the infection.
In Philadelphia, 158 out of every 1000 people died. 148 out of 1000 in Baltimore. 109 out of 1000 in Washington, D. C..
The good news (if there was any) was that the disease peaked within two to three weeks after showing up in a given city. It left as quickly as it arrived.
The United States death toll was a total of 850,000 people, making it an area of the world that was least devastated by this virus.
850,000. Now that, my friend, is a pandemic. At that point, you can panic. Until then, I'll worry about the idiots I have to dodge on the way to work every morning.
Eddie Eagle
The NRA has had a program for many years featuring a character called Eddie Eagle who teaches kids what to do if they find, or find themselves in the presence of, a gun. The mantra that Eddie Eagle sings repeatedly is "Stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult".
Now I can personally vouch for the effectiveness of this message, though I didn't depend on Eddie Eagle to convey it. I'm a parent. However, whether the program works or not is not even the issue. My question is, what can it hurt? Is that not exactly what you would want your child to do if they found a gun? Maybe in a friend's house?
But, of course,
there are people who don't want this taught. Like this quote from some mental giant "local emergency room doctor" who "has treated his share of juvenile gunshot victims":
Nobody should trust Eddie Eagle to make their child any safer than before they took the program. Rather than try over and over again to gun-proof our kids, I think we ought to child-proof our guns.
Ya gotta hand it to the libs. They can come up with some damn slogans. Unfortunately, many of them lose their appeal when you look at them more closely. And to me the question comes to this: Who would you rather trust more - your child whom you and Eddie Eagle have drilled repeatedly to stay away from guns or your child's friend's father that has been reminded repeatedly via public-service announcements to lock up his guns?
If your answer is not your child, you must have some damned high-caliber neighbors.
The Truth
From President Bush's
speech this morning:
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence—the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we’re not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We’re facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers—and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.
Those who don't, can't, or won't understand this endanger us all.
Media Bias
This is a subject I don't talk about much, simply because it can't be proven and those on the left not only refuse to admit the media is biased in their favor, but even go so far as to claim a bias to the right. However, for this post I am going to speak from the viewpoint that everyone knows there is a liberal bias in the media. No one with a shred of objectivity would argue that - and the rest of you are a lost cause anyway.
The question is this - Without the media's assistance for the last 40 years, where would the Democrats and the liberal movement be? Both books by
Bernard Goldberg and
this story point to how insidious the bias is, and the fact that it is not a conscious act but a result of group think and a uniform world view among the elites. And it is only now, with the rise of talk radio and the blogosphere that it is being illustrated and challenged - which is shaking the media and the liberal establishment to its core.
A more optimistic conservative could make the case that the liberals are on the ropes. The Democrat Party is in total disarray, they can't win an election for dog catcher, and many of their sacred cows are, if not being slaughtered, at least being herded in that direction. However, the Republicans are doing their best to show that it doesn't really matter which party is in power - because it's all about power.
But by any measure, the Dems and libs have lost their stranglehold on the government. Where would they be without the help of the media, which has, if anything, stepped up its efforts? Without all the acronyms carrying their water, could they stand on their own? In my opinion, they've never before had to actually defend their absurd philosophy, and now so pressed are doing a pretty poor job of it. What would they do if the media actually showed who the anti-war movement is? What would they do if Larry King actually asked a pointed question? What would they do if Terry Moran and his ilk were replaced in the White House with Brit Hume and his ilk? What would they do if everywhere they went, they were asked what they thought of the NARAL ad accusing John Roberts of supporting violence against abortion clinics? Or how it is that New Orleans was so dirt-poor after having been run by Democrats forever?
I certainly wouldn't venture a guess on the answers to these questions. It is, in fact, such a stretch that I can barely picture it in my mind. I keep trying though, and will, as I fall asleep tonight. With visions of stammering libs dancing in my head.
UPDATE
First, let me say that I don't watch the Today show. But, while getting ready for work, my local news was interrupted by President Bush's press conference nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Not paying too much attention and in and out of the room, I happened to hear the end of the press conference and got to hear Couric asking Tim Russert his take. Her quote, which so interested me I TIVO'd it back to listen again, was pretty much this:
"Tim, I guess the most frightening thing about this nominee is the lack of a paper trail..."
Frightening? I'm terrified. What with terrorism having been defeated and all, this is the scariest thing on my radar.
Boobie-Thon!
How come I can never think of something like
this?
