A few more thoughts on the latest bin Laden video ...
If there's one thing that is guaranteed, it's that a mass-murderer is almost certain to be a liar as well.
In this, bin Laden does not disappoint:
"Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."
As I've said before, not messing with al-Queda's security in the '90's guaranteed us the opposite of security—it emboldened the terrorists and led to 9/11.
I could recount other parts of the Bin Laden tape, like where he uses the dying agonies of thousands as a taunt, or where he parrots Michael Moore's pathetic laugh line about "My Pet Goat." But then we already knew what a sick, twisted b*****d Bin Laden was; if the hellish acts of 9/11 didn't convince us of that, him laughing about it wouldn't.
Now a word (or many) about that utterly repulsive dirtbag Michael Moore …
If I had ever produced something—by accident or design—that ended up as a taunt on the lips of bin Laden, I would be made physically ill with remorse and self-censure; it would doubtless subject me to depression. I expect the same might be said for my readers, or indeed for everyone possessing sanity or a conscience. Generating fodder that becomes a bin Laden talking point would be anathema to any man or woman with a soul and a conscience; they would have a hard time living it down, even in the relentless 'court' of the mind.
From all I know of that wretch Michael Moore, he holds it as a triumph rather than a tragedy to be publicly cited by the world's worst terrorist. Almost as good as an Oscar, eh Moore? He probably even chuckles about it as he reaches for another box of Krispy Kreme.
If Michael Moore ever chanced to meet bin Laden or Zarqawi, he would probably embrace those "Minutemen" as comrades in a common cause; they share—after all—his supreme hatred for President Bush. Of course if these same terrorists failed to recognize Moore, they would cut off his head for the camera—quite an ironic end for the world's leading agitprop filmmaker.
Here's a shocka—the Guardian endorses anti-Bush Kerry!
Christopher buries a wicked dagger between the Guardian's pestilential ribs,
I suppose if you can't get the man assassinated,[*] you might as well endorse his opponent.
Let it bleed, Chris; Let it bleeeeeed! I’ll even help you twist it if you like (then what say we snap it off?).
The Guardian's endorsement, by the way, opens with the line,
Plenty of Americans believe it is none of our business whom they elect as their leader on Tuesday.
Well hells yeah! Got that D-A-M-N-tootin' straight!
(WHEW!) There! I feel Much. Better. Now. :-)
__________
* The Guardian recently ran a belatedly-retracted article that ended with this paragraph:On November 2, the entire civilized world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?
Hugh recently posted on his exchange with a soldier:
"Sir, eight out of ten soldiers support the president. Why is it so hard for the civilians to get it?"
Hugh responded:
A majority do, and the rest are figuring it out.
I would add this thought:
Civilians don't see what you see; you see first hand what would sooner or later come to the streets of America if we don't take the battle to the enemy.
The soldier's question really gets to the point. There's a reason why eight out of ten soldiers support the President. Hopefully civilians get a clue by Election Day.
Eminent historian Victor Davis Hanson exhorts us to courage, with the assurance we will win the war on terror, if we will only see it through.
The weakness of our enemies:
The terrorists cannot win either a conventional or an asymmetrical war against the United States, should it bring its full array of assets to the struggle. Indeed, the Middle East, for all its revenue from inflated oil prices, has a smaller economy than Spain's. It has never won a war against a Western power. [...]
The only hope for terrorists:
In a word, the jihadists and their fellow-travelers are once again convinced that this time it will be different because the West, and the United States in particular, have neither the patience nor the will to endure their primeval killing of a post-Saddam Iraq. [...]
The high price of retreat:
An American flight would shame Tony Blair and John Howard, leave eastern Europe to the bullying of Paris and Berlin, destroy the Iraq interim government, take the heat off Arab autocracies, and send a message that American policy was back to Clintonian-like law enforcement, replete with jargon such as "sensitive" and "nuisance."
In conclusion:
Meanwhile, we all vote. One candidate urges us to return to the mindset of pre-September 11 — law enforcement dealing with terrorists as nuisances. He claims the policies that have led to an absence of another attack at home, the end of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, idealistic efforts to extend freedom, and radical and positive changes in Pakistan, Libya, the West Bank, and the Gulf have made things worse. In contrast, the other reminds us that we are in a real war against horrific enemies and are no longer passive targets, but will fight the terrorists on their home turf, win, and leave behind humane government. No choice could be clearer. It is America's call.
Read his entire article, The Power of Will.
The great milblog Belmont Club decodes the essential message of Bin Laden’s latest videotape:
It is important to notice what [OBL] has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.
The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.
Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.
As the commentary above indicates, since 911, we've opened some serious cans of Whoop@$$ on the turbaned heads of al-Queda and its sympathizers.
Gone are some of OBL's more fantastic pronouncements of American/infidel doom. My, my, how things have changed since 9/11; now the sheik promises to make nice if we will pretty please stop pummeling his terror network. Sorry, Binny—we tried Clinton's do-nothing policy throughout the 1990's, and all it got us was a bunch of increasingly audacious attacks, culminating in 9/11.
Seems that the Bush doctrine has OBL's nickers turban in a knot. I like it when al-Queda's kingpin tries to arrange a truce; it tells us more than perhaps anything else just how much progress we've made in barely over three years against the specter of international terrorism.
We've come too far out of the smoking ruins of 9/11 to wander back toward them for lack of resolve to finish that work so nobly begun. We've given up too many brave soldiers in this great war on terror to grant Bin Laden a reprieve at the moment he is reduced to talking truce. His weakness should fill us with renewed zeal to finish the wretch and his henchmen once and for all. There's no turning back now; no turning back to a "Global Test;" no turning back to a show of hands from America-hating countries at the U.N. At least not if we know what's good for us.
As rightly noted at Belmont Club, "The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day."
(hat tip Hinderaker at powerlineblog)
Just because it's October 31st the Day of the Great Pumkin Halloween, a bit of scared-spitless kinda fun ...
The similarities between each pairing of monsters is kinda scary. And I don't know about you, but most of the monsters on the left hand side creep me out more than those on the right (maybe ‘cause the ones on the left are … real!). :-O
(hat tip Michele, on this her favorite holiday)
The juvenile antics of Halloween-Queen Michele might be good for a laugh, but for real fear there's the realization that this man might be elected President in a couple of days.
It's scary that the race is even close; scarier still that Lurch (aka Munster) might actually win this thing (thanks to—or even despite—the massive Democratic vote fraud underway in a host of close states ... but I digress).
For true fear I would rather whistle through a graveyard on Halloween night than contemplate one day (let alone four years) of a Kerry Presidency.
I'm going to be sweating it out on pins and needles until the Election is decided, at which point the pins and needles will be replaced by either elation or depression.
U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo appeared on the Hugh Hewitt Show this Friday, sharing his recent experiences while visiting Russia last month, soon after the infamous Beslan massacre.
Here's just one paragraph from Tancredo's diaries:
In every room there is a story of heartbreak. In the first visit we meet a 16 year old boy who lies in very serious condition. This young man had the courage to grab the gun of a terrorist who had been shot and proceeded to kill another terrorist who was shooting at fleeing children. He then placed his body over a small girl for protection from the onslaught of bullets and shrapnel meant for her.
Read the rest of it here. (hat tip Hugh/Generalissimo)
Former Navy SEAL Matthew Heidt has discussed America's risk-assessment in light of Beslan. Very compelling. It examines the threats and tactical realities facing law enforcement response to a possible Beslan, USA. Excerpts won't cut it; you've got to read it all.
At Radio Blogger, Generalissimo reminds voters to remember the threats that we face when we go the to voting booth this coming Tuesday:
[Beslan is] Just more proof that we are in a global war on terror, and this election is truly the most important election of our lifetime. Think before you vote.
The timing of the latest Bin Laden tape couldn't be better - better, that is, to underscore a salient point that most Westerners have been slow to grasp: It doesn't mattter who is president, or what we do, we will never be "secure" from terrorism as long as we do not submit to the will of Allah and the subjugation of Wahhabism. If Bin Laden was truly being conciliatory, as this article states, he would be urging the American people to elect the leader they felt was best able to produce the results that are Bin Laden's stated goals, i.e. the "injustices" perpetrated by the US and Israel against the Lebanese and Palestinians. (Previous videos of Bin Laden claim that Al Qaeda terrorism is the result of our invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, our presence in Saudi Arabia and our presence in Iraq, among other perceived sins - the list is endless, and morphs to fit the moment. Never mind that Al Qaeda has a global presence perpetrating terrorism against innocent and unarmed men, women, and children.) Instead, we are subjected to the usual monologue entreating us to leave Muslims in peace and end our support for Israel in order to attain "security" from another Al Qaeda attack. Instead of a solution, we are presented with a conundrum: We as Americans are responsible for our security from terrorism, but not necessarily by participating in our electoral process ("Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said.) How then, is the ordinary American supposed to elicit his or her security if not necessarily by choosing the commander-in-chief best suited to meet the goals of Muslim terrorists? Assuming, that is, that we should meet those goals, and I am not saying as much. The answer, of course, is simple, but not one that allows the peace, security and freedom of the American people: Immediately withdraw all troops from the Middle East, pull all support from Israel, thereby ensuring the destruction of her people and country by terrorists and the various Muslim regimes in the area, and by embracing Islam ourselves. Of course, in order to do this there would have to be a unified revolt in the US, large enough to unseat the present administration and overthrow our existing system of government and our military. I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd rather just go to my local polling place on Tuesday to cast my vote for the candidate that I feel is best able to ensure that Bin Laden is captured, Al Qaeda is rendered significantly harmless, Israel is secure and the American people, as well as others around the world, are free to elect who they want and worship as they see fit as individuals. The latter solution is infinitely more palatable.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Oct. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Senator John Kerry released the following statement today:
"In response to this tape from Osama bin Laden, let me make it clear, crystal clear. As Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. They are barbarians. And I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes. Period."
Kerry promises he will "stop at absolutely nothing" to fight terror. "Whatever it takes. Period." The question is, who really believes him, I mean really in their guts believes him?
So he says he'll "stop at absolutely nothing." At least half of stopping at absolutely nothing is the taking of proactive, aggressive, preemptive strikes against terrorist infrastructures, and the regimes where they find refuge, succor, and opportunity to train.
Not long ago, Kerry eschewed preemption, while promising to vigorously "respond" to any attack on our country. That makes as much sense as vowing to crush a viper after it has unleashed it's lethal bite.
Sorry, Kerry, we already have a President who has an all-out commitment to fight terrorism; a President who—unlike you—is about actions rather than mere feints. Our current President actually delivers in hard reality that which you can only parrot as campaign fodder: namely, a no-holds-barred, stop-at-nothing, whatever-it-takes attitude in hunting down, capturing, and killing terrorists the world over. So you see, Monsieur Kerry, the position you seek is already ably filled … now go away.
Kerry’s vacuous, wholly unconvincing promise is one that I will repeat unceasingly for the next four years if to our grave misfortune he is victorious on November 2nd. If this appeaser becomes President, I’ll recount his laugh-out-loud assertion, “I’ve never wilted in my life,” every time he rushes to the U.N. to play “Mother, may I?” with Kofi Annan.
UPDATE:
And this retort of Kerry's statement from Generalissimo:
Good rhetoric that rings hollow. How can we be united when Kerry has attacked the president for dividing this country unlike no other.
Hunting down the terrorists wherever they are, except in Iraq, which was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?
And I will stop at nothing, unless we don't pass a global test?
Don't buy it. Don't trust him. No credibility. We're in a war. A life or death war. There is only one man up to the job, and it ain't John Kerry.
In conclusion, when you think about it there are so many ways to fisk Kerry's laughable attempt at hawkish bluster the mind boggles.
Update: A copy of the FEC complaint itself can be found here. (PDF file - Adobe Acrobat required)
Update II: Explanation of why this a frivolous complaint below.
Update III: Debate over Political Human Sacrifice continues at Free Republic and now over at Lucianne.com. The wires have now picked up the story. More coverage here.
Small blurb in the LA Times today about this:
The Battle Over the Airwaves I
Stung by a radio campaign to oust veteran Rep. David Dreier, the National Republican Congressional Committee has filed a federal elections complaint. It contends that an ongoing campaign by a pair of radio talk-show hosts represents an illegal contribution to Dreier's opponent.
Dreier (R-San Dimas) has been taking a beating at the hands of radio hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of KFI-AM (640) radio in Los Angeles. They have launched an on-air campaign to oust the 24-year veteran for what they claim is a lax record on illegal immigration. Dreier's opponent, Cynthia Matthews, has appeared on "The John and Ken Show" during the campaign.
The radio hosts say they have offered to have Dreier appear on their show to defend his record on illegal immigration, but he has declined. Kobylt called the complaint "absurd" said he and Chiampou did not plan to retreat from their efforts to oust Dreier.
*
Meanwhile, the discussion over at Free Republic about this topic is worth checking out. It seems to mirror the sharp disagreements by the readers of this blog as well as the other sites that discuss the merits of Political Human Sacrifice.
Update II: It should be obvious to anyone reading the complaint itself that
it is frivolous on its face.
But for those who need extra convincing, here are the relevant parts of the campaign finance laws:
When used in this Act...
(8)(B) The term ''contribution'' does not include -
(i) the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee;...
(9)(B) The term ''expenditure'' does not include -
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;"
(f)(3)(B)(i)The term ‘electioneering communication’
does not include—[A] communication appearing in a news story,
commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate"
(emphasis added)
Now al-Queda is threatening us, that we'd better not vote for Bush?
Who do they think we are?, Spain?!
Some new mouthpiece headdress is on videotape, promising that blood will run in our streets, and that we will mourn in silence. So far it's bluster worthy of Baghdad Bob (eg; "God will roast their stomachs in hell," et al). Since 9/11 they've learned that there's a wide difference between their desire to strike America and their ability to do so.
The videotape asserts:
"You are guilty, guilty, guilty. You're as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You're as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell ..."
With the exception of Powell (a blightsome dove in a blessedly hawkish administration), such men are men I would aspire to be in the league of and in league with. The very reasons that I give thanks to God for these intrepid men are the reasons al-Queda curses them.
I take al-Queda's latest threat to mean that they reckon the only way we can expiate our guilt is to throw out Bush and elect Kerry, just as Spain threw out Anzar to elect Zapatero. All the more reason to laugh in Islamofascism's face when—as appears likely—President Bush wins reelection this coming Tuesday.
UPDATE:
Now on the heels of that video is another one, which purports to be from OBL himself. Oh well, just another reason to vote Bush.
This is toooooo funny! ... Arafat as Fred Sanford.
Hopefully the ailing father of modern terrorism experiences the "Big one" very soon.
Until that glorious moment, it's not too late to get your pick in at the LGF Arafish Death Pool.
PS—See also Arafish in Jammies.
In a masterful description, Michele called John Kerry
Skeletor in a latex mask
Check out this latex mask over this face.
Scary, isn't it?
UPDATE:
Michele's response—"Holy crap, that scared me!"
It won't change the way I feel on any given issue or necessarily change the way I vote, but I have been wrestling with the possibility of resigning from the Republican party from the time when I first read a copy of the complaint.
Rather than listen to a large part of their constituency on an important issue, the Republican Congressional Committee has become unhinged.
They have used a law to try and clearly muzzle free speech. If the complaint goes forward, then no radio talk show host is safe (Limbaugh, Hannity, Stern, etc.)
More details when I have time...
(5:26pm) - Buckle up. John & Ken's rally next to Dreier's office this Monday is sure to be quite a show.
(7:08) - Lonewacko gets the ball rolling over at Free Republic.
The LA Times has been conducting interviews on this, so its only a matter of time before they pick up the story.
The Calblog daughter, Maddy, put together this week's Carnival of the Vanities. The commentary while blogging went like this:
"Mom, you never did a Carnival?"
"Mom, you should do a Carnival."
"Mom, I can't believe you never did a Carnival."
"Wow, this is a lot of work."
"Mom, never do a Carnival."
Go visit.
Excerpts from the latest Victor Davis Hanson Article.
Country at a Crossroads
November 2 will say a lot about the American people, and our future
Had Lincoln lost the 1864 vote, a victorious General McClellan would have settled for an American continent divided, with slavery intact. Without Woodrow Wilson's reelection in 1916 — opposed by the isolationists — Western Europe would have lost millions only to be trampled by Prussian militarism. Franklin Roosevelt's interventionism saved liberal democracy. And without the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and his unpopular agenda for remaking the military, the Soviet Union might still be subsidizing global murder.
This election marks a similar crossroads in our history. We are presented with two radically different candidates with profound disagreements about how to conduct a historic worldwide war. We should remember that all our victorious past presidents were, at the moments of their crises, deeply unpopular precisely because they chose the difficult, long-term sacrifice for victory over the expedient and convenient pleas for accommodation (if not outright capitulation). We are faced with just such an option today: a choice between a president whose call for patience and sacrifice promises victory, and a pessimist stirring the people with the assurances that we should not have fought, and now cannot win, the present war in Iraq. [...]
Later in the article, Victor Davis Hanson explains why a Kerry Presidency would be so disastrous:
WHAT KERRY PORTENDS
A Kerry presidency would not be a setback for our present winning strategy; it would be an unmitigated disaster. Why such a pessimistic appraisal? First, Kerry's own rhetoric has been abjectly defeatist, if not Orwellian. He promises to bring allies into a war he smears as having been waged in the wrong place, at the wrong time. He broadcasts in advance a timetable for withdrawal. His present positions are at odds with his own past votes to support the Iraq operation, which he has alternately praised and demeaned depending on the ephemeral news from the battlefield and its immediate impact on polling.
Senator Kerry also has a disturbing record of opposing America's past armed struggles, as both a soldier and a senator, in the midst of hostilities. He returned from Vietnam to allege war atrocities against his fellow soldiers in the field, and met with enemy North Vietnamese representatives in Paris. During the first Gulf War, he voted against authorization even as troops were mobilizing in the desert sands to expel Saddam Hussein. Had Kerry's position won out, Saddam would now have nuclear weapons and over 20 percent of the world's oil reserves, and be idolized as the legendary Saladin come alive to the Arab Street. Even as we witness the first national vote in Afghanistan in 5,000 years, a brave Prime Minister Allawi steering his country toward elections, and unyielding Australians reelecting their war president in a landslide vote, a President Kerry would revert to his default of opposing further military efforts even as they are nearing victory.
Third, John Kerry has a telltale record of voting against most of the major weapons systems — bombers, tanks, and missiles — that are presently critical to the American military. Had his naïve visions trumped Ronald Reagan's realism, the United States would not have had the military wherewithal to convince Mikhail Gorbachev that further armed Soviet resistance was futile and suicidal, and we could have won neither the first Gulf War nor the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. [...]
The article concludes:
In sum, a Kerry presidency will lack either the vision or the resolve to finish the war, resulting in a defeat for the United States in Iraq — with calamitous consequences for the brave reformers there, an end to liberal momentum in the Middle East, a reversal in the conduct of Libya, Pakistan, and the Gulf, and assurance to Syria, Lebanon, and Iran that the United States is conducting not war but a criminal investigation akin to efforts against gambling or prostitution. Chamberlain-like, we will return to the complacency of the pre-9/11 days, regarding the telltale signs of the destruction to come as mere "nuisances." All the hysterical invective of John Kerry's surrogates — like George Soros, Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, and Teresa Heinz Kerry — cannot change that bleak and depressing fact.
Read Victor Davis Hanson's article in its entirety here.
I gave an earlier criticism of O'Connors jurisprudence last week.
Now here is (*sigh*) another reason to put O'Connor on my dump list.
She is certainly not the only Justice with these views. That's the real unfortunate part.
Do I really need to explain why I have a problem with international jurisprudence in Constitutional interpretations?...I should think it would be self-evident, but I am open to having to explain the obvious if I have enough time and if there is sufficient demand for it.
As long as the guy hasn't purposefully tried to distribute the tape across state lines, I'd have to admit that I would vote to acquit on this one.
(Hat-tip: How Appealing)
I already cast my vote at one of the early voting locations. It was quick and easy. The touchscreens were a lot nicer than the punchcards and checking your ballot was far easier. (I must admit though that long before 2000, I had the habit of pulling out my card, making sure the right holes were punched and there were no chads. I don't think I was suspicious though. I learned to do that in the olden days when computer programs were run by punchcards and a hanging chad caused your program not to run.)
If you want to vote early, here are the LA County locations. You need no id or preregistration. Walk in. VOTE.
The OB/GYN who testified for the defense in the Peterson trial was the infertility doctor who helped us when we were having the twins.
I still have much larger doubts about Kerry on the key issue, and I am appreciative of the profound international pressures on Bush whenever he takes any military action whatsoever, but I still must admit an acute sense of disappointment by the allegations printed in today's Wall St. Journal article.
I am beginning to wish that Bush had a primary challenger from the right that would have forced him to be even more hawkish on the war against the terror masters.
Am I the only one who has thought this? (I guess it wouldn't be the first time...)
The only thing worse than reading this story would be
to have to listen to John Kerry tell a whopper by suggesting that he would have taken action against Zarqawi in Iraq if he were in the White House.
Eugene Volokh suggests that the Supreme Court's obfuscations are merely a continuation of a much older legal tradition.
The right-of-center blogosphere (yours truly included) had high hopes for this news story from today's Washington Times, which showed that Kerry's claim during the debates that he met with the UN Security Council was not exactly accurate. Personally, I think Kerry lies often and this lie was about an event recent enough and verifiable enough that perhaps others would finally realize.
However, in the same news cycle, the NYT came out with an article that explosives have been looted in Iraq. That's the news that's getting play from MSM and certainly from Kerry, who is using the acts of terrorists in Iraq to accuse Bush of lying. (Note: I heard the accusations of lying in Kerry's speech but I yet to have a link that excerpts that part.)
Do I think the explosives in Iraq are no big deal? No. I do, however, have an expectation that bad things will happen in war and we have to expect a certain number, even if we can't predict what. Iraq has not hit the level of disaster or quagmire or even mistake on my internal barometer. I think this administration will be able to deal with the missing explosives in whatever way military folks do that. I think a Kerry administration would say the missing explosives prove we shouldn't be there. They'd start to pull out and not deal with recovering or neutralizing them at all. That's why missing explosives don't change my vote.
UPDATE: The Defense Department spokesman on Fox News this morning said that the explosives were already gone when troops first reached the facility in 2003. Wait and see whether that information filters through the normal channels.
I am going to be one of the RNC's lawyers on the ground next weekend. No inside information available for two reasons -- I am not supposed to talk to the media and I have no inside information.
I get on a plane Firday morning, meet my team members at the airport almost 2000 mles from home and we drive to Republican HQ in a town I had to locate on the map for 5 pm training. After that, I have no idea.
I am excited. A long time ago, I was a baseball geek. Pitchers and catchers report was a great day in February indicating the start of the season. Then as I got older, I couldn't get interested until Opening Day. Now, I barely glance at the season, but come playoffs, I am riveted. My interest in the political season has changed the same way. Months and months of tied polls and "shifting momentum" failed to draw me in. The homestretch, though, has got my adrenalin pumping. I am looking forward to working at the end in a battleground state.
There's some information you should know.
1. You, too, can be part of the 72-hour deployment. Signup here.
2. The MSM reports are concerned that the lawyers on the ground will drag the election out to 2000 proportions. We all get back on the planes and leave town first thing Wednesday morning. I have yet to see a report that doesn't imply otherwise.
After being introduced to the Jamba Juice pumpkin smoothie last year, I was disappointed to learn that they took it off of the menu when winter ended.
Although they aren't touting it much on the menu displays, I am pleased to report that the pumkin smoothie has now returned for its seasonal run at the Marina Del Rey Jamba Juice location.
I have yet to confirm if Robek's Juice has also put it back on the menu. I personally give Robek's pumkin smoothie a slight edge over Jamba Juice, but both are quite excellent.
In case they should decide to take it off the menu prematurely this year, what purports to be the recepie for the pumkin smoothie can be found here.
True, they are still run by a bunch of authoritarian Commie-bastards with no respect for democracy.
But it seems that China has officially turned the corner to become a civilized nation starting today.
The Boston Herald has the gloat down pat:
NEW YORK - For $185 million, Yankees owner George Steinbrenner bought himself what amounts to the lowest, most dubious place in baseball history.
Yes folks, for the largest payroll on the planet, the Boss purchased what will now be considered the greatest collection of chokers ever assembled, as last night, the House of Pain turned into the House of Shame.
Indeed, how sweet it is! Darth Steinbrenner's Empire has struck out.
As a sports commentator once commented, ‘The rest of baseball is the Yankee's farm club.’
Each off-season, Sith Lord Steinbrenner wages war against the Rebel Alliance. Lavishing millions in Imperial credits, he woos the cream of the Rebellion's free agent crop to the Dark Side. Fighter jockeys of renown, who had broken into the League in X-Wings, inevitably fly TIE Fighters tomorrow.
Steinbrenner is old man Potter—he may have bought up the rest of Bedford Falls last off-season (A-Rod, Brown, et al), but for another glorious year he has been thwarted from getting his grasping hands on the Bailey Savings & Loan (World Series Championship). Yankee fans are despairing, but for the rest of the baseball cosmos, It’s a Wonderful Life. Atta boy, Clarence! :-)
Now back to more delicious quotes from the Herald article:
[T]he 2004 Yankees are poster boys for unprecedented failure. Hands down, they represent the biggest sporting collapse of all time.
And by the time Georgie Porgie is done paying the luxury tax for spending well over the limit and hands over what's expected for revenue sharing, the number he will wind up dishing out for this disaster will be more like $265 million.
Talk about gagging.
George's boom-or-bust lineup went belly-up for the fourth straight game. [...]
Plain and simple. The Yankees served up the most expensive choke in the history of the sport.
Correction, it was the most expensive choke in history. Period. End of story.
Now that the Yankees are toast and the Sox are representing the American League in the Fall Classic, it's only a matter of time before John 'Lambert' Kerry says, "I can't wait to see the Red Sox play at Fenwick Park."
UPDATE:
For a short list of other stunning baseball debacles, check out Kevin Murphy's post.
I always feel kinda funny about linking to my own writing on another site. Even though there may be viewers on this site that don't venture over to Socallawblog, I still feel like I am somehow taking unfair advantage of the blogging system.
On the other hand...what the heck.
How is it possible that a socialist hack like Jackie Goldberg can consistently get re-elected in this state?
How is it possible that California has such an entrenched loony-leftist legislature that is out of ouch with the general voting populace?
Governor Arnold hints that he might be up for doing what would undoubtedly be one of his best actions in office.
From the sound of it, Kerry's stumping for Chirac's job, not Bush's. The French-looking candidate has become the French-sounding candidate:
John Kerry—"Vous etes de Haiti? D'accord, je vais aider les Haitiens."
Hugh played the clip a million times on his show today ... each time (though I would not have thought it possible) more hilarious than the last.
Listen to it here.
Read about it here:
In Orlando, the Democratic challenger promised he would do more than Bush for troubled Haiti - and slipped in some French to prove his sincerity."Vous etes de Haiti?" Kerry said after spotting a Haitian immigrant. "D'accord, je vais aider les Haitiens." Translation: "You're from Haiti? Yes, I'm going to help Haitians."
Slate (hat tip NRO) captures Monsieur Kerry's sheer boneheadedness:
ORLANDO—Let's see: Your opponent is characterizing you as an effete internationalist willing to "turn America's national security decisions over to international bodies or leaders of other countries." In particular, he suggests, in all seriousness, that you want to call up Jacques Chirac for permission before deploying the military. At the Republican National Convention, you were portrayed as a beret-wearing poodle named "Fifi Kerry." How should you defend yourself against these slanders?By speaking French on the stump, of course.
What's left for Jacques Kerry, short of zipping up the skunk suit and busting loose with some Pepe Le Pew impersonations?
In the last day or so, the listserrv the L.A. County Bar's small firm section got an email asking for volunteers for the Election Protection coalition, asking lawyers to volunteer. Having already volunteered through the Republican lawyers, I ignored it. There was the usual ensuing complaints about sending extraneous material to a listserv. Then the Exec. Dir. sent out a note indicating that the email was inappropriate. A short while later came a second email from the Exec. Dir., which caused me to raise my head from my work. In it, he announced that the Election Protection Coalition was nonpartisan and apologized for his earlier "misguided assumption." Take a look at the website and tell me if you believe it is nonpartisan.
Hugh's newest Symposium question:
"In 250 words or less, why vote for Bush and what's wrong with Kerry?"
Perhaps no other single thing is more damning to Kerry as this Kerry quote:
"Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world, which will do a number of things."
Kerry would be Kofi's b***h, playing footsies with France while the terrorists poise to hit us again. Bush will take the fight to the enemy, hitting them before they hit us.
There are many reasons Bush is preferable to Kerry, but in my view nothing so disqualifies Kerry as a potential Commander in Chief as his subservience to the U.N. in matters of foreign policy.
UPDATE 1:
Hugh identified Froggy Ruminations' post as a Symposium fave. The reads in part:
President Bush’s actions and words following 9/11 exemplify a grace under pressure, outstanding leadership, and steely resolve that will not soon be replicated. His response to the assault on our Homeland was the perfect combination of effective force, assertive diplomacy, and crisis management. The Afghan campaign will go down in military history as a textbook implementation of Unconventional Warfare techniques to achieve with a small number of SOF operators what the entire Soviet Army could not. This was set in motion within a month of the precipitating event, which is all the more amazing. Not all Presidents would take the risk of confronting our enemies in Afghanistan in such a manner. He managed to kill Usama bin Laden without martyring him, which has allowed the US to continue to pursue AQ elements in the tribal border regions under the pretext of revenge. The President also understands very well that without the boogeyman, his momentum on the GWOT [Global war on terror] would be jeopardized by squishy liberal opponents.
UPDATE 2:
A not-to-be-missed Hugh Symposium highlight: "50 reasons" picture montage—Incredible work went into this pictorial on the War on Terror.
Stewart Baker's comments hit the nail on the head as to how much needed copyright reform can be a winning issue for Republicans.
Some choice paragraphs:
Recently, David Boies, famous for his representation of Al Gore, signed a rich contingent-fee deal to pursue a claim that Linux open-source software violates his client's copyright. Last month, he launched test cases against DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone. If he prevails, businesses all across the country could find themselves
paying big damages simply for having purchased Linux servers. It's asbestos litigation for the Internet age.
That ought to be enough to wake up the business half of the Republican coalition. As for social conservatives, it's no accident that the rise in offensive mass entertainment has coincided with the growth in copyright's reach. The more you subsidize an industry that treats the coarsening of our culture as, well, as its business model, the more coarsening you're going to get. So if conservatives really want Janet Jackson's attention, not to mention MTV's, they should stop lobbying the FCC and start asking why obscene and indecent performances should be given 95 years of statutory protection.
Big Copyright is one special interest that Republican strategists should love attacking. What's to fear, that Hollywood will end its generous support of Republican candidates? And talk about wedge issues. Voters under 40 are already more Republican than any other generation. What if the administration stood with them on this issue, proposing a cap on the damages that the industry can extract from college students for downloading music? Say, $1 a song, or even $10, instead of $150,000. Karl Rove could put that on the table, sit back and let John Kerry choose between his contributors and our kids.
That is just a taste. Baker's entire essay is well worth reading. It is apparently a few months old, but I am only now discovereing it thanks to Overlawyered.com.
Miller notes that Michael Moore's agitprop tripe raked in $113M at theatres alone, with no money pledged to the those in the armed forces; No consideration for the brave servicemen for whom the disgusting butterball Moore shed crocodile tears over in Fahrenheit 9/11 Fraud'N'Hate 9/11.
Moore is turning the bashing of President Bush and the War on Terror into a cottage industry with DVDs and companion books, and laughing his fat, slovenly ass all the way to the bank ... and Krispy Kreme.
Miller tells it like it is:
This is nothing more than one man profiting off of the sacrifice of others. He might as well catch a flight to Iraq and steal watches and wallets off of the dead.(Read the rest of Miller's post here)
Just another reason why I hate/detest/despise that fat slob Michael Moore.
From the debate transcript:
(Moderator) Bob Schieffer: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President.I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration.
I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue.
How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?
And why do you suppose he got more e-mail on this topic than any other?...
Thanks to John & Ken and the rest of the alternative media in the Southwestern United States for leading the way in forcing this issue into the limelight after the mainstream media largely ignored it.
This can only give more steam to Political Human Sacrifice. Those targeted for "sacrifice" are no doubt worrying even more after tonight....
I just wrote the following to a family relative:
I have to get this off my chest regarding the upcoming elections.Kerry really scares me. Pessimist that I am, I'm afraid he might somehow win election. Maybe he won't, but there's always that chance that he will ... and even that chance is deeply troubling to me.
I'm not joking when I say that if he wins I'm going to experience some level of depression. It's hard for me to even put into words how unbelievably bad his essential character is; how dim a view he takes of the America I love; how warped—really insane—is his vision of the world. I can't express how terrible his administration would be for America.
If Kerry wins, the America-hating Left both here and abroad will have a carnival, and will never stop rubbing, uh, poo poo in the faces of the rest of us. Just imagine the sick, leering grin plastered across the dirtbag face of that vile pig Michael Moore. The mere thought is nauseating.
For these reasons—and oh-so-many more—the possibility of a Kerry Presidency is a harrowing one.
UPDATE:
My relative responded ...
I do know what you are expressing, just hadn’t considered the garbagebag Moore angle yet. [...] I just can’t bear the thought of the same guy who gave his lying Senate testimony about unspeakable war atrocities becoming president. [...] No, Kerry just can’t win. If he does, you won’t be alone in your depression. Whether yours will be deeper, I don’t know. But you won’t be alone.
Born on this day in 1925, Margaret Thatcher (bio-official website) would one day become British Prime Minister. Working in concert with her dear friend and ally Ronald Reagan, she would well earn her moniker “Iron Lady,” helping to face down the Iron Curtain.
In my estimation she and Sir Winston Churchill stand as twin pillars—the greatest Prime Ministers in Britain’s storied history.
Happy Birthday, Lady Thatcher!
Score last weekend's elections a double blow against terror, as both Australia and Afghanistan rejected a shameful, Spanish appeasement to terror.
Right after Spain turned its national elections into an incredulous referendum of solidarity with al Queda, the "neo-liberal" British magazine The Economist salivated over the death of the coalition's War on Terror in the famous cover: "One down, three to go?"
The great Left hope was that the rest of the hated quintet—Howard, Bush, and Blair—would 'fall like a house of cards,' joining defeated Spanish President Anzar in the 'killed' column.
It must frost the liberals that Australian PM John Howard won, and won big, actually picking up seats in Parliament. So much for the domino effect; so much for four-for-four in the loss column. If momentum counts for anything, it's no longer "One down, three to go?," but "One down up, two more down up soon?"
Also this last weekend, Afghanistan made history with its first free elections. Women voted and ran for office in Afghanistan, even while Saudi Arabia just this week banned women doing precisely those things. Who would have thought a few years ago that Afghanistan would make such advancements that left Saudi Arabia in the dust of societal progress!
As far as I see it, it's two up (Australia and Afghanistan) and three to go (America, Britain, and Iraq) in countries voting for freedom, strength, and support for the ongoing—and imperative—War on Terror.
During last Friday's Presidential Debate, and lady in the audience asked Kerry:
Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
Kerry assured the lady that darn tootin' he'd tax her to federally fund abortions across America; what's more he wanted to raid her pocket book to abort babies around the world:
I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.
This is the same Kerry who pledged during the same debate:
I am not going to raise taxes.
(See Hugh for more debate quotes on abortion, as well as Hugh’s typically masterful commentary)
Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Marc Racicot has written an open later to Union thug-boss John Sweeney, protesting the wave of havoc which organized union thugs have directed against Republican Party offices across the country.
How much you wanna bet Sweeney is sitting with the boys at union headquarters, laughing his [butt] off, and saying,
'Ha, ha! We've got the#%@&*%[bums] on the run, boys! Break a few more arms, and throw in a few knee-caps, and our boy Kerry's as good as President.'
(hat tip LGF)
UPDATE:
Opinion Journal highlights AFL-CIO coordination of union violence.
I never knew Jacques Derrida personally. I never knew what he was like as a person. For all I know, he was a very kind man.
But I do know this - his "Deconstructionist" philosophy was a complete fraud.
Hopefully, Derrida's death over the weekend will hasten the demise of his already fading philosophical fad.
"Deconstructionism" was nothing more than
a means for intellectual mediocrities to wrap their pedantic thoughts in incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo to make it seem like their ideas had some academic weight worth discussing.
When people complained that they could not understand the writings of Deconstructionist writers, they would disingenuously respond with even more verbose jabberwocky in a not-too-subtle attempt to suggest that the reader just wasn't "smart enough" to understand.
Derrida's own statements from his obituary are quite telling -
Deconstruction, which (Derrida) introduced in the 1960s, both electrified and polarized those with the intellectual muscle to unwind its implications. The language he and others used in discussing it was deliberately dense, complex and, some said, circular. He bristled when confronted with the difficulty of his work.
"Why don't you ask a physicist or mathematician about difficulty?" he told a New York Times reporter in 1998, "little frostily," she said. He continued: 'Deconstruction requires work. If deconstruction is so obscure, why are the audiences in my lectures in the thousands? They feel they understand enough to understand more.'
No, Mr. Derrida. The reason thousands flocked to your lectures was because mediocrity is the norm in the academic world. And the mediocrities of the world often gravitate towards gurus who give them tools which allow them to hide their mediocrity. Plain and simple.
Some physics and math is difficult in the sense that they require building blocks of knowledge. But those basic building blocks are intuitively simple to understand. If a=b and b=c, then a=c. Even the more abstract concepts of physics can be explained at comprehensible levels if you take the time to explain them to non-physicists (Relativity for example).
I was subjected to a Deconstructionist professor in college during a course in film criticism and could not believe how much of a complete waste of time it was.
(A deconstructionist would "deconstruct" my text and spend hours making up new [and meaningless] words in an attempt to find the "contradictions" of the last sentence I wrote. Pointing out that the phrase "how much" and "complete" were somehow "contradictory".
This is not philosophy. It is a childish word game that needs a dense and incomprehensible vocabulary in order to hide the fact that it is not worthy of academic study. It is fine to point out that language (like the human mind) is finite, and thus has limits as to accurately it can describe the objective world. But that is a concept that can (and just was) described in a sentence or two. It is quite another matter to suggest that text has no fixed meaning.
Try and find a Derrida obituary, or any website for that matter, which can clearly describe just what "deconstruction" is. Feel free to post it in the comments section. (Good luck!)
Derrida was one of the fathers of modern moral relativism. Another telling quote from his obit -
Critics called it nihilism (the denial of the meaning of existence, or denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge and truth), a charge he vehemently denied.
His work, to be sure, has attracted greater enthusiasm from literary critics and language professors than from formally trained philosophers or scientists. Some Cambridge University faculty members, objecting to their school's plan to award Mr. Derrida an honorary degree in 1992, derided his work for "denying the distinctions between fact and fiction, observation and imagination, evidence and prejudice."
It is hardly surprising that Derrida became a quiet apologist for anti-Semitic author Paul de Man. De Man used Deconstructionism to obscure his past writings for the Nazi regime - arguing in the end that all text had no real fixed meaning. Derrida had to partially jettison his own "philosophy" in order to get out of the fix that he created.
No wonder why Derrida and Deconstructionism was so heartily embraced by leftist quarters in the academic world.
Good riddance.
"With (Derrida), France has given the world one of its greatest contemporary philosophers, one of the major figures of intellectual life of our time," (French Prime Minister Jacques) Chirac said in a statement.
I am not sure if this last quote is simply an indictment of French sensibilities or rather an indictment of the overall quality of "intellectual life in our time".
You be the judge.
John Kerry's recent quote in a New York Times article—in which he dreams of a day when terrorists can once again be considered a "nuisance"—has deservedly received a lot of attention.
'Senator Nuance' has thus added "nuisance" to his vocabulary, and has become—therefore—not only the fifth teletubby, but the 'Nunu' (Nuance & Nuisance) [alternately spelled "Noo Noo"] as well. [Pity I don't have Photoshop!]
Rush mentioned on his show today a quote that hasn't hasn't gotten nearly as much play, from Kerry's favorite for Secretary of State, Richard Holbrooke:
Even Democrats who stress that combating terrorism should include a strong military option argue that the ''war on terror'' is a flawed construct. ''We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense,'' says Richard Holbrooke, the Clinton-era diplomat who could well become Kerry's secretary of state. ''The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor. What we're really talking about is winning the ideological struggle so that people stop turning themselves into suicide bombers.''(emphasis supplied)
Un-freaking-believable! And this is the guy Kerry wants for his Secretary of State? Scarier still is that Holbrooke clearly fits hand-in-glove in a would-be Kerry administration.
Electing Kerry would not only put Herman Munster (aka Lurch) in the White House, but the creep show of all the wack-jobs like Holbrooke he would put on his cabinet.
It is very sad to hear of the premature passing of Christopher Reeve as a result of cardiac arrest at the age of 52.
He had already been battling with health issues this year, as he confided in a recent interview:
I've had three bad life-threatening infections this year. This most recent was a blood infection caused by an abrasion on
