Saturday, January 01, 2005
We can only pray that this is true, but the signs are encouraging. With the passing of Arafat (an eventuality that once seemed sure to provoke spasms of unrest; instead, the reaction was muted and not at all cataclysmic), the much more agreeable Mahmoud Abbas may be able to finally move the Palestinians past the failed tactics of the past. One of his first public proclamations was that the use of violence did harm to the Palestinian image.
The prospect of removing George W. Bush had the Left in paroxysms of anticipation throughout much of the year; instead, voters decided that taking the terrorists on was worth more than the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. In Australia, voters reached a similar conclusion and returned John Howard to power (though Spain chose to allow their electoral process to be dictated by violence).
In Iraq, the Americans finally realized that violence was the only appropriate response to the insurgent thugs and set the elections back on track by retaking Fallajuh. The insurgent cause was much harmed by the brutality of their tactics, immortalized by the beheading of a female humanitarian who opposed the war. The disgusting spectable of Abu Ghraib paled next to the medieval murder techniques captured on video for all the world to see on Arabic news sites. Those who had a low opinion of America in the first place latched onto the prison photos as confirmation of our immorality and imperialism; the rest of the rational world condemned the practices as unbecoming of the American tradition of humane treatment of prisoners.
Afghanistan held democratic elections, and women regained some standing in that long-oppressed society, though the scourge of drugs (and the War on Drugs) remains. In less than a month, the Iraqis will hold their own elections. Sharon has stood strong in Israel - his much-maligned 'Wall' and tough tactics are reducing the violence in the eye of the storm. Osama bin Laden is reduced to the issuing of occasional political commentary as he stays on the move, fearful of betrayal at every turn. Soon, the tyrant of Baghdad will face justice and certain execution for the horrible ordeals he forced on Iraqi society.
Some years stand out as the history books are written - 1989, 1968, 1939, 1914...and hopefully, soon, 2004. I haven't been this optimistic in a long time. Happy New Year...
Little Miss Attila has an innovative suggestion to improve female viewership of football, but the initial reaction is less than enthusiastic...
David at Infinite Monkeys finally gets around to watching 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. His conclusion - Michael Moore is a patronizing propagandist who deliberately lies (and it's boring, to boot!)...
Oliver Stone continues to blame the demise of his turkey 'Alexander' on the homophobia of the Bible Belt. Most disinterested reviewers from coast to coast had a simpler explanation - it was a really, really bad movie. It shares that distinction with every Oliver Stone movie since JFK...
When Clinton was in power, there was a sure feeling among us that our President was smart - and knowledgeable - and that the world would be okay - he went to Ireland, and you just knew that after he spoke to the Irish, things would go better for them - the same way with Israel and with the Palestineans (sic) - you knew that there were still tensions, but that things would be better - everything had a positive, rather than a destructive, ring to it. Clinton was a real politician - nearly a JFK - and not quite an FDR, but close. - dmligonWell, so much for the peaceful, rational 'progressives' - now here's my New Year's predictions:
Ahh, yes the golden age: the nation dominated by a sex scandal rather than pursuing terrorists. And yeah, you're right, he completely solved that whole Israeli-Palestinian thing with his groovy vibes. Thanks, Bill, for being such a role model (dmligon is right about one thing - he's no JFK - JFK's mistresses were old enough to drink legally).
A drink to paper ballots! and standardized election procedures across the entire country (wait! do I hear trembling knees and biting nails from the right?) - gearhead
gearhead, no, that's the sound of Republicans falling to the floor with spasms of laughter.
Happy New Year to everyone -- may we wash away from our memories the nightmare of election night, and wake up revitalized to take on these knuckle-dragging, wingnut fascists. - pamindurham
Yes, pam, that's the spirit...you simply must take on the knuckle-dragging, wingnut fascists in the Democratic Party, then you might have a chance - what's that, Pam? You meant people like me? Oh...well, then...here's some reading material to get your New Year's off to a better start.
My New Year's wish is that ever time a Democrat gets in front of a camera and talks about terrorist and al qaeda [sic], he/she begins the conversation with one of the following:
the right wing radical group al qaeda [sic]
the radical religious group al qaeda [sic]
the right wing fascist group al qaeda [sic]
the right wing religious fundamentalist group al qaeda [sic]
Come on Dems! Get started linking al Qaida [sic], the Taliban and their American counterpart the Republican Party. - weswing
Yes, weswing (cute name - did you think of it on your own?), that is my wish also. Of course, I say that as someone who wants to see the Democrats lose every election for the rest of my lifetime, and comments like yours assure me you guys are well on your way.
Cheers to All for an enlightened new year
here is to the liberally
loudest new year ever
Scream On - missliberties
YES, missliberties, YES!!! That is what will bring us knuckle-dragging fascist red-staters back into the Democratic fold - more liberal screaming!
- The Iraqi elections will take place in January as scheduled, not without problems, but in a generally safe atmosphere.
- By the end of 2005, we will see movement again on the front of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict.
- The Dow Jones Industrial Average will hit 12,000.
- Kofi Annan will step down in March, ostensibly for personal reasons.
- I will find many more amusing things to mock on 'Progressive' websites.
Welcome, 2005 - I have a feeling we're going to get along just fine...
Friday, December 31, 2004
Another question, this time for Michael Moore. If Bush's seven minutes in Florida could have made a difference, how about Kofi Annan's three day ski vacation?...
The Diplomad has more good thoughts on the UN, its response, and the criticism of US 'stinginess'...
Donald Sensing links to a report that suggests the death count may yet triple, or worse. Let's pray the report is wrong. There are many things to be thankful for as we end this year; one is that we are, simply, alive. Just one more reminder to look at that big box to the right, and ring in the New Year in the best possible way, by giving of your generosity.
Thanks to everyone who's been here in my brief time blogging. I hope to see you many times in 2005. Be safe, have fun, and go Longhorns! Beat Michigan!...
Is it possible for a blantantly partisan site to criticize the Mainstream Media's liberal bias with credibility? deacon at Power Line thinks so, and I do, too. The difference - I trumpet my conservative bias to the heavens, I'm proud of it, and would NEVER deny it. This blog is opinionated, snarky, and hopefully a little fun - hey, wait a minute, I'm using the Jon Stewart defense...
Here's RatherBiased.com with the Top Ten Media Stories of 2004...
On the heels of the criticism of our mere '$35 million' aid package that never was that small, and rants from Eric Alterman that President Bush cares only about killing people, we have this latest complaint: the U.S. is distributing aid outside the auspices of the UN. Given the track record our favorite America-hating international organization has managing funds, I think that is the prudent choice...hmm, maybe we could route some aid through Saddam, if the prison allows it, and he could issue aid vouchers to his friends and family! Or maybe not...
Thursday, December 30, 2004
You: I wish that moron W. and his poodle Tony Blair would just drop dead, but only after being slowly tortured by an Iraqi freedom fighter.
Me: [You, the unidentified but oh-so-typical 'Progressive'] said today that the President and Prime Minister should be tortured and killed.
You: You're a fascist. I hope you get cancer or, better, AIDS, you homophobic bastard.
That's the way the game is played, folks, and it's no exaggeration. Jeff Jacoby provides the proof every year with a column on the most outrageous liberal hate speech of the year. This year's edition includes death wishes on the President and Secretary of Defense, numerous comparisons of Republicans with Nazis, ridiculing of Condoleezza Rice because she is a black Republican of great accomplishment, and much, much, more, so go read it now! He doesn't even mention the maniacs of the Democratic Underground, who seem unable to express themselves without unending vulgarities.
But what about the right, you hypocrite, my two Democratic readers are asking...well, what about it? Every time you hear a 'Progressive' decry the hatefulness of the right while taking a break from printing 'Jesusland' t-shirts, you can bet you're gonna hear about Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter...and then their quiver lies empty. Limbaugh and Coulter have occasionally said some outrageous things, but compare the WORST example from these two with, say, the garbage Eric Alterman routinely spews out on msnbc.com. Here's a prime example of very recent vintage:
Is this president interested only in killing people, but can�t be bothered when given the chance to help save them? His morally callous parsimony in the face of this, the greatest natural disaster in modern history, seems determined to give the rest of that world exactly that impression. George W. Bush shames our nation with large talk and small deeds; with his want of character and smallness of spirit.Yeah, Eric, George W. Bush is only interested in killing people...and Dan Rather is a competent journalist. I mean, COME ON, this guy is considered a great pundit!
The other trick the Left employs to show the Right's 'hatefulness' is epitomized by, to use a sad example, the Matthew Shepherd killing. Shepherd was horribly murdered by some ignorant homophobes in Wyoming, but the larger blame was placed on the 'culture of hate' supposedly spread by conservatism. Here are some observations to clear things up for our 'progressive' buddies:
- The fact that there are ignorant homophobes in Wyoming is not surprising...there are ignorant homophobes in every city, county, and state in the Union.
- No conservative has EVER, to my knowledge (and I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary), applauded this horrible crime or the hatred that motivated it.
- To be killed because one is a homosexual is tragedy. It is also a tragedy to be killed because you are black, or because you just happen to be in a convenience store when it is robbed, or because you happened to work in the World Trade Center. Murder is always deplorable.
- You can oppose gay marriage on religious, social, or political grounds and feel immense pain and sorrow about what happened to Shepherd. There is no contradiction...opposition to a political stance does not necessarily, or even usually, imply hatred.
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Well, thank God this is going to be a rational, well-reasoned article and not some 'Progressive' rant, huh? Do me a favor: read that again, slowly, and wait until the laughter subsides before you continue.
From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are.Wow, is that an ugly piece of writing, and I don't just mean the sentiment behind it. '....the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome'!!!! Let me suggest another paragraph written in the same style:
'From the time of the cavemen to the era of Al Gore's Internet, there have been jackasses who assume that everyone who disagrees with them is, by definition, a delusional pawn. Most such people are insufferably arrogant. I am one such person.'
See? Flows much better, no?
I don't know of many, if any, conservatives who have any use for an 'aristocracy'. One of the defining principles of conservatism is the meritocracy of the individual.
...many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.
The archipelago of conservative think tanks is indeed surrounded by the ocean of liberal academics and members of the fourth estate. The line about aristocrats appointing their children to positions in government is so baffling that one wonders if Agre has any concept of America. Things look different from the ivory tower, indeed...
The opposite of conservatism is democracy, and contempt for democracy is a constant thread in the history of conservative argument. Instead, conservatism has argued that society ought to be organized in a hierarchy of orders and classes and controlled by its uppermost hierarchical stratum, the aristocracy. Many of these arguments against egalitarianism are ancient, and most of them are routinely heard on the radio. One tends to hear the arguments in bits and pieces, for example the emphatic if vague claim that people are different. Of course, most of these arguments, if considered rationally, actually argue for meritocracy rather than for aristocracy. Meritocracy is a democratic principle. George Bush, however, was apparently scarred for life by having been one of the last students admitted to Yale under its old aristocratic admissions system, and having to attend classes with students admitted under the meritocratic system who considered themselves to be smarter than him. Although he has lately claimed to oppose the system of legacy admissions from which he benefitted, that is a tactic, part of a package deal to eliminate affirmative action, thereby allowing conservative social hierarchies to be reaffirmed in other ways.
Agre 'argues' the opposition of conservatism and democracy (say, was I just imagining all the lefties who have been unable to accept the result of the last TWO elections without resorting to conspiracy theories?), then gives away the game by admitting that conservative arguments actually favor meritocracy. To cover for this wholly unexpected admission, he digresses into some garbage about George Bush, ignoring the fact that he earned an MBA, our first president to hold that distinction.
Conservatism promotes (and so does liberalism, misguidedly) the idea that liberalism is about activist government where conservatism is not. This is absurd. It is unrelated to the history of conservative government. Conservatism promotes activist government that acts in the interests of the aristocracy. This has been true for thousands of years. What is distinctive about liberalism is not that it promotes activist government but that it promotes government that acts in the interests of the majority.
Liberalism doesn't promote activist government, but instead government that acts in the interests of the majority? Can I have 'gay marriage' for a thousand, Alex? Anyone hear of 'Roe v. Wade' and the 'implied' right to privacy?
Another example of conservative twisting of the language of conscience is the argument, in the context of the attacks of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, that holding our side to things like the Geneva Convention implies an equivalence between ourselves and our enemies. This is a logical fallacy. The fallacy is something like: they kill so they are bad, but we are good so it is okay for us to kill. The argument that everything we do is okay so long as it is not as bad as the most extreme evil in the world is a rejection of nearly all of civilization.
No, 'Professor', flying jet airliners into skyscrapers is a rejection of ABSOLUTELY all of civilization. We kill in order to protect freedom; they kill in the name of terror, knowing that their cause cannot stand the scrutiny of rational debate. No political document, not the Geneva Convention, not the Charter of the United Nations, could ever imply an equivalence between the United States of America, the very beacon of freedom in the modern world, and the cowardly murderers of al-Queda. When the choice is between pacifism and freedom through the use of the military, I choose the latter 100% of the time.
The flamboyant nastiness of rhetors such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter represents the destruction of conscience as a type of liberation. They are like cultists, continually egging on their audiences to destroy their own minds by punching through one layer after another of their consciences.
Two words: Michael Moore.
Projection was an important part of the Florida election controversy, for example when Republicans tried to get illegal ballots counted and prevent legal ballots from being counted, while claiming that Democrats were trying to steal the election.
Here is the classic example of projection attempting to define itself. Pathetic.
It is often claimed in the media that snooty elitists on the coasts refer to states in the middle of the country as "flyover country". Yet I, who have lived in liberal areas of the coasts for most of my life, have never once heard this usage.
Agre is 100% correct on this matter. The states in the middle of the country are not known as 'flyover country'. As everyone knows, the correct phrase is 'Jesusland'.
It is difficult to identify a single pundit in the media who consistently explicates liberal ideology.
True, if by media you mean ancient stone tablets found in caves in the Middle East.
George Soros is an excellent citizen.
Alright, enough already! I could go on, and on, and on, and on like, say, Agre, but I respect your intelligence far, far more than he does. Agre reveals the liberal's view of the Red States: you are suffering from a disease. Look out, Agre, based on Election 2004, I'd say it's contagious.
Pejmanesque is having a problem with trolls and their idiotic comments. I can sympathize...
For the Democrats, the third rail isn't Social Security, it's abortion (Cal Thomas via Jayson at PoliPundit)...
Finally, best of luck to my alma mater, the Texas Tech Red Raiders, as they take on Cal in the sold-out Holiday Bowl tonight at 7:00 pm central. Get your guns up, Tech fans!...
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Here's a great site with all kinds of resources on the disaster (hat tip to Hindrocket at Power Line)...
Even more ways to help at the Command Post (hat tip to Pejmanesque)...
Of course, what would a disaster be without criticism of President Bush? WizBang has a series of Radical Left responses to the tragedy that are beyond parody (tip of the hat to My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)...
...with a degree of patience the Secretariat has not displayed toward its critics, Mr. Annan seems to be waiting for the U.N.-authorized inquiry, funded at his behest with $30 million in residual Oil for Food money (meant to aid Iraqi citizens, not U.N. investigations), and led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, to inform the secretary-general, privately, and at stately speed, sometime next year, what his own role actually was. At that stage, Mr. Annan will decide what information he deems appropriate to share with the public.Do you see the problem here? The UN is diverting even MORE Oil-For-Food money from its intended purpose, to investigate the billions already stolen, and the investigation funded by that money reports to the Secretary-General himself. This is akin to having Ken Lay investigate the trading practices of Enron.
To this scene in recent months we may add the reports of rape and child molestation committed by U.N. peacekeepers in Africa, allegations of sexual harassment involving the heads of both the U.N. refugee agency and the internal audit division, a revolt against "senior management" by the U.N. staff union, the findings of an internal U.N. integrity survey that a lot of U.N. employees fear retaliation if they speak out, and the statements of a few brave whistle-blowers, fighting for their jobs, to precisely that effect. Plus, if you like, there's the expanding saga of how the secretary-general until confronted by the press allegedly failed to notice that his son had allegedly been doing lucrative business deals with a major U.N. contractor under the Oil for Food program. All of which has been subject to the marvelously circular argument that the press should shut up until the U.N., in between firing off hush letters to its contractors and employing Mr. Annan's U.S.-taxpayer-funded staff to lambaste the U.N.'s critics, can carry out allegedly full and independent investigations of all these troublesome matters.
I happen to believe that Kofi Annan is basically a good man at heart, despite my frequent criticism of him in this space. A good man does not necessarily a good executive make, however, and the criticisms of Annan go way beyond OilyGate. Like a lot of decent people who have let events get out of hand, he is looking for a way to salvage his reputation and that of his organization.
Because I do believe in the essential goodness of the Secretary General, I have one suggestion for his New Year's Resolution: release the Volcker report in full, provide all requested documentation to the congressional investigators, and let the chips fall where they may. Transparency in great abundance is the only way forward if the UN is to retain the credibility Annan so desperately seeks.
Now, it takes more than just mere stupidity to be the Yearly Jackass. No, if that was the criteria, we could have chosen Linda Rondstadt, say, or Ben Affleck. What makes Moore particularly outrageous is his blantant falsehoods that HE KNOWS are falsehoods, all while maintaining the guise of a 'whistle-blower'. Meanwhile, the populist slob sits on his fat butt eating double cheeseburgers while the millions roll in from the gullible 'Progressives'.
Lest you think I exaggerate the willfulness of Moore's falsehoods, consider this very recent headline on his webpage: $40 million for Inauguration, $35 million for Tsunami. It takes a special kind of liar to pretend that he thinks that $35 million will be the grand total we spend on the disaster relief. Very little research is required to learn that the $35 million is an initial allotment that existed in a special fund, and that George W. Bush is even as I type this forming a coalition to provide further, massive aid to the victims. Moore is many things: a propagandist, a rabid Bush-hater, a false 'man of the people', but stupid he is not. He KNOWS this is false, but he could care less.
Nothing epitomizes the selfish foolishness of Moore better than his flip-flopping over his masterpiece of dementia, Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore's outlandish film was so full of distortion that entire websites have been devoted to debunking it, but it was clearly meant to damage Bush in every way, including the timing of its theatrical and DVD releases. To quote ABC's 'The Note':
Now, this interview relates how Moore peddled the falsehood that Disney was censoring the movie because they felt it could affect the outcome of the election:
USA Today's Kasindorf and Keen give "Fahrenheit 9/11" USA Today's "Cover Story" treatment, questioning whether the movie will change voters' minds before the elections.
The duo report that Michael Moore told them part of his goal is to persuade Naderites to vote for Kerry...
Moore said he drew audiences to showings of his movie without telling them in advance that they would be seeing the new film. He said that the reactions from those screening were overwhelmingly positive and reported news of the ovations to the studio and then Disney had an exec take a look at the movie. Disney then decided that it was too hot to handle, concluding that it might affect the outcome of the election and telling Miramax that it could not release the picture. "I had an early sense that this would resonate with an audience," Moore explained.Doesn't that sound like Moore was deluded enough to think he could bring down a president to you? The election didn't turn out as planned, though, and Moore couldn't just admit defeat. Here he is in a more recent interview:
For the moment, Mr. Moore continues to be involved in "Fahrenheit 9/11." In an earlier conversation, he said he was "still in the thick of making sure as many people see this film as possible." Describing the movie as "about the Iraq war and the war on terrorism and the use of fear to manipulate the public," he added, "I started it before there was Bush versus Kerry."Sure, Michael, that's why you included the scenes about Bush 'stealing' the 2000 election; that's why your corpulent visage was so prominent during the conventions; that's why you published (and continue to publish) rant after rant on your website - now that his dream has gone south, Moore hopes he can peddle the myth that it was never about "Bush versus Kerry" (while it may not have been about Kerry as a specific candidate, it was ALWAYS about defeating Bush). The new storyline is that Kerry was a bad candidate (Moore sang his praises to the rafters before he lost) and that it was people like brave, heroic Michael Moore who kept the election as close as it was.
As infuriating as Moore is, though, I hope he keeps making his movies, keeps popping off in public, and keeps posting outrageous screeds on the web - there can be no better example to the world of what a raging 'Progressive' is like when cornered. With friends like Moore, the Democrats will never need enemies - picture Tom Daschle shaking Moore's hand after a screening of 'Farenfat 9/11' and grinning like a hyena and I'm sure you'll agree.
Michael Moore, enjoy the crown, you wear it so well...
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
LiberalOasis cautions its readers not to go ballistic over the suggestion that abortion might not be the most wonderful thing on God's green earth. No worries, 'Progressives': to the Radical Left, abortion remains the most fundamental human right...
To counter the terrifying possibility of a conservative presence on our college campuses, the Campus Progress Network, funded by the Center for American Progress, has mobilized to save the day for the 98% liberal majority (remember, kids, you can't spell 'Progressive' without progress). The following will give you a taste of their bold ideas:
Beyond promoting the progressive message on campuses, the CPN hopes to do something else the right has done so well: develop future leaders. "This is about identifying, cultivating, and elevating these progressives into positions that will help generate bold and innovative progressive ideas for years to come," says Halperin. While students may dabble with progressive ideas in their college years, Halperin explains, many become more conservative with age. The CPN hopes to instill progressive values that will last for life: "Often Democratic leanings are not so deep. Progressives may do a good job of bringing students to their side for a few years, but not in a sustained way, as conservatives do," he says. "We might teach them slogans, but to really show them why progressivism has made the country a great country is something we can do a lot better at."
As Hubbard says, "Today's young voters could be the core of a progressive majority in the not-so-distant future."
That's seven mentions of 'progressive' in as many sentences. My, but those liberals sure are 'progressive'. Hey, you don't think I'm saying 'progressive' too much, do you? Sheesh...
Speaking of the Center for American Progress, Ruy Texeira is one of their Fellows, so you know these guys mean business. For those who don't recognize the name, Texeira is the author of 'The Emerging Democratic Majority,' a book whose entire premise has been torn asunder by Election 2004. Texeira twisted every possible bit of campaign news into a loud advertisement for the Kerry Campaign to no avail, but it's good to see he can still find gainful employement...
Mickey Kaus is just sure that Michael Barone is mistaken in his characterization of the Left as the new reactionaries; he just can't put his finger on why he's mistaken...
Meanwhile, Bob Felton at Civil Commotion detects that oh-so-subtle media bias creeping in while comparing the coverage of Sontag's death with that of Reggie White (hat tip to Michelle Malkin)...
David Horowitz and his support of academic diversity are the subject of this CNN article. It's fairly interesting - consider this quote in light of the simply overwhelming liberal bias in academia:
"It's often phrased in the language of academic freedom. That's what's so strange about it," said Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University historian who has written about academic freedom during the McCarthy area. "What they're saying is, 'We want people to reflect our point of view.' "That would be an accurate statement about the academic Left, but she's talking about the conservatives!....
RealClearPolitics has a slew of good links on the events in the Ukraine...
A good post at Power Line on Duke University's hosting of a troubling conference...
Tongues are wagging over Rumsfeld's comments about Flight 93. Apparently among the many nutso conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is the belief that the US military shot the flight down over Pennsylvania. I agree with Professor Bainbridge that this was a slip of the tongue, but even if we DID shoot down the plane, it was justified, given the events of the day, so I'm not sure what the conspiracists' point is (then again, since when do they need a point?)....
A hilarious 'Best of 2004' list from Jeff Goldstein...
Monday, December 27, 2004
The 'change agents' of the 20th century have become the entrenched interests of the 21st. On almost every meaningful policy level, the 'Progressives' are seeking to impede progress. The dream of a colorblind society has given way to a permanent industry of victimhood. The formerly mighty voices of feminism lay dormant when one of their own took sexual advantage of an intern barely out of her teens in the White House itself, and the only cause that still fires up the feminist ranks is the absolute right to terminate the life of an unborn child. The fight to ensure that workers are able to work in a dignified, safe environment has mutated into a blind hatred of the large corporation. We have a President with the nerve to touch the 'third rail' and seek a long-term solution to Social Security, while the Left denies the very crisis it warned of for so long. Most importantly, President Bush is making a genuine, long-term effort to bring peace and democracy to that most troublesome of regions, the Middle East, and the liberal intelligentsia pretends to think we are engaging in 'imperialism'.
The future of the Democratic Party in America is very much in doubt, if this path remains the preferred route of the Left. We know what they are against: any use of America' s military that is not blessed by the French, fundamentalists or people of moderate faith, anyone who doesn't live in Hollywood or New York, and a President who believes in American exceptionalism (as does the whole word, though often loath to admit it). What are they for, exactly? A party that defines itself in opposition to another is fated to remain forever in the minority. To compete on a national level, the Left must present a vision of the future to Americans - and more importantly, one that is not dependent on the goodwill of the United Nations.
Captain Ed notes that Viktor Yanukovych is having a hard time accepting defeat in the Ukranian election (hey, Viktor, come to America - you'll feel right at home in the Democratic party!)...
Ed Driscoll's wife is blogging now, and she has a post on a tie between Michael Moore and personal injury lawyers. Some day soon look for a lengthy post here on the intimate connection between trial lawyers and the American Left....
Pompous blowhard Dan Rather is this year's winner of the Joseph Goebbels Award, care of Thomas Sowell...
Sunday, December 26, 2004
It goes without saying that the pro-West Yushchenko was blasted as a tool of the United States and opposed by the 'Progressives' who are so, so deeply concerned about counting every vote when a candidate they oppose is elected. The first Ukrainian election was full of genuine fraud, not the fantasy Democratic Underground kind, but the American Left were too busy fighting over Ohio in a futile attempt to avoid facing the fact that John Kerry was a complete flop outside of Hollywood and New York to get too involved. Besides, didn't Putin oppose the evil Bush's Iraqi folly? And since the unabridged right to have an abortion anyplace, anywhere, anytime was not an issue, really, what was all the fuss?
Of course, we all know the Republicans are the cynics, and the 'Progressives' are just full of kindness and tolerance, so I expect to hear their shouts of delight with the triumph of the democratic process that has just taken place...umm, guys? Daily Kos? Talking Points Memo? Democratic Underground? Atrios, um, Eschaton, um, whatever the hell you're calling yourself now?...is anybody there? Must be a bad connection...
JustOneMinute reveals the new, error-free New York Times post-Daniel Okrent...
Reggie White, according to his wife, died of respiratory problems related to his sleep apnea (nothing political or snarky to add here, just sorry to hear it, both because he died much too young, and for the more selfish reason that I was diagnosed with severe obstructive sleep apnea just a few months ago, after going to the doctor and complaining of always being tired)...
The great Patrick Ruffini takes Scott Turow to the woodshed (hat tip to Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit...)