Friday, September 29, 2006
AOL ran a poll yesterday asking customers to rank the last four presidents in the order that history will favorably judge them. Below are the results and the "first place" percentages.
1) Ronald Reagan 50%
2) Bill Clinton 29%
3) George H W Bush 10%
4) George W Bush 11%
True conservatives would have Reagan in first place and "W" in second. "W's" first place votes no doubt are cast by those who truly grasp the gravity of our struggle with radical Islam and figure his stature will rise with the perspective that only time provides. Bill Clinton's first place votes are purely Democrat-Liberal.
But the numbers demonstrate that among a generally liberal population (AOL customers) two conservatives garner 60% of the first place votes. To me this indicates that even among likely Democrat voters - Bill Clinton's presidency is recognized for what it was - and perhaps the post-9/11 chatter may be revealing even more of his shortcomings.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
If you read the writings of Mark Steyn you begin to wonder if there is hope for the survival of western culture - and you begin to think that Europe is already lost. With the European-Muslim birth rates soaring, and the radical elements of the immigrant population effecting the formation and rule of law, Europe faces a more insidious and ubiquitous threat to its survival than the Nazis brought to the 1930's.
Imagine the Nazis in plain clothes, infiltrating every facet of life in every country of Europe. Imagine the Third Reich conquering France, England, and Spain - not with armies, but from within. If you imagine a more patient Hitler with a subtler approach, you begin to grasp the monumental challenge that Europe faces.
Ironically, it may be the rise of another fascist leader that ultimately saves the European culture.
Adolph Hitler rode the economic forces of the Great Depression into power, establishing economic security and modest prosperity. Although he abolished political parties, his popularity was such that he probably would have won an election held in 1936 or 1938.
Consider the forces acting upon on the European Culture and Economy today. Consider the Muslim riots throughout Europe. Consider the rapes, the bombings, the threats, and the demands for a separate Muslim society with a form of Sharia Law. We constantly hear of pending civil war in Iraq, but aren't the same forces at play throughout Europe?
Recently in Switzerland, the conservative "Swiss People's Party" has forced immigration reforms, through national referenda, that have wide public support. If the "Europeans" of Europe are to resist the Muslim colonization and intimidation of Europe, I believe it will be through the efforts of conservative groups rallying a populace which has seen enough political extortion and negative change.
My question is this: Could Europeans unite behind a charismatic leader that promised order, prosperity, and the reestablishment of the dominant culture? Is there a country in Europe that is ripe for such a leader?
Mankind may be suffering the birth pangs of World War III. Some say it is already upon us. If the battle lines form in Europe, will the United States play a role similar to its past?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Andrew McCarthy writes in the National Review Online:
Another day, another New York Times publication of classified information.
Another election cycle, another strategic intelligence-community leak transparently designed to affect the outcome.
Another coincidence of Iraq and al Qaeda terrorism, another simplistic Democratic claim of causation between Iraq and al Qaeda terrorism (but, naturally, never a concession of connection between Iraq and al Qaeda terrorism).
On Sunday, the Times disclosed a selectively leaked snippet from the new National Intelligence Estimate which evidently suggests that Bush administration policy — in particular, the war in Iraq — has increased Islamic radicalism. As night follows day, prominent Democrats were ready to pounce …
Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, jihadism is attractive to tens of millions of people in what is called the Muslim world. Out of a total population of about 1.3 billion, that may not be a very high percentage (although I daresay it is higher than we like to think). But it is the ideology that attracts recruits. Grievances are just rhetoric. If the bin Ladens did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will.
It is bad enough when the Muslim charlatans opportunistically use American policies they don’t like for militant propaganda purposes. It is reprehensible when American politicians do it.
Jihadists hate us because they hate us, not because of Iraq. If President Clinton’s Iraq policy was a problem, it was only because he didn’t follow through on it. By threatening to act forcefully but then letting Saddam Hussein and his terror-mongering fester, Clinton played right into al Qaeda’s conviction that America did not have the stomach for a fight and could be attacked with impunity — a conviction that was reinforced when terror attacks were in fact met with paltry, or no, response.
Bush, to the contrary, has chosen to fight al Qaeda where it is standing, figuring captured or dead terrorists can no longer harm Americans. Right now, al Qaeda is standing in Iraq, so that’s where we must fight it — whether or not you agree that we should be there in the first place. It matters nothing that jihadists will use that fight in their recruitment speeches. It matters everything, though, if we withdraw from the fight and they win.
The entire article is terrific. McCarthy makes the point that al Qaeda terrorists grew in number during the Clinton years - that bin Laden's fatwa to kill Americans whenever and wherever came along in 1998 when Clinton and Sadam were still in power.
Monday, September 25, 2006
GENEVA — Swiss voters ratified new asylum and immigration laws on Sunday, making it more difficult for refugees to receive assistance in Switzerland and effectively blocking unskilled workers outside Europe from moving to the country.
The proposal was overwhelmingly accepted in all of Switzerland's 26 states.
The government says the law is designed to prevent abuses in the system caused by non-refugees finding ways to stay indefinitely in Switzerland. It facilitates easier repatriation of people whose asylum requests have been rejected, which the government says will allow it to devote more resources to real refugees.
Those refusing to leave despite a rejected application can now be denied social welfare.
Critics contend the new requirements will close the door on victims of war and persecution around the world who are unable to produce valid identity papers within 48 hours of entering Switzerland as the law demands.
They say the bill — passed after heavy campaigning by the right-wing Swiss People's Party and its billionaire leader Christoph Blocher — is unrealistic in expecting rape or torture victims to be able to furnish such papers when fleeing their homes. Rights groups have said it could lead to violations of international law.
The country's cherished system of direct democracy means that the people's consent is required on any major issue. Referendums occur regularly throughout the year.
(The bold type was my emphasis added.)
This article talks much of refugees, but surely the Swiss and the Conservative Party mentioned have looked around and noticed what's happening in Europe - and perhaps these laws have much to do with Muslims and their accompanying problems.
Notice that it's the conservatives (called right wingers if you're a liberal journalist) who are leading the way.
Maybe the USA needs a little direct democracy on its immigration issues. Bypassing the Republicans-in-Name-Only and the Dems, and letting the majority opinion rule, would yield much different immigration policies.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Chris Wallace faced an irate Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday when Wallace brought up the topic of the way the Clinton Administration had handled terrorism in the 1990's. It wasn't pretty. The former president went on a temper-tirade, resurrecting the "vast right-wing conspiracy" argument as to why his administration was being criticized.
While he made some arguable points as to why the Republicans were as negligent as he was, his insecurity, paranoia, and defensiveness were palpable.
Now I understand that his legacy consists of a degrading sexual encounter and impeachment - and that this legacy can ill-afford the labels of negligence and incompetence. But appearing to go a little bonkers and attacking Chris Wallace and the media for questioning his greatness is not very becoming in a former leader of the free world, and added nothing to the defense of his administration.
My general impression of the interview was that - it's still all about Bill. There's no room in the spotlight for anyone but Bill. There's no room in Bill's life for criticism - unless he's deflecting it onto others. In fact I think Bill will spend the rest of his life talking about and defending... Bill.
If I had embarrassed and shamed myself as he did I would have left office and avoided the public spotlight just as Richard Nixon did after his resignation. But I believe former President Clinton needs attention like most people need air.
Still, taking responsibility and exhibiting a little humility would have played much better in the interview.
Do I think that if George W Bush had been president during the World Trade Center Bombing, the embassy bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole - would he have been much more aggressive in going after Bin Laden?
In Great Britain...
POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.
Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act.
Unbelievable. Muslim immigrants arrive in Merry Old England, and instead of expecting them to assimilate and become British, they are granted special rights that further accentuate their perceived autonomy - and that stress their culture of origin.
When British law has to pass muster with Mahmoud, Rahib, and Abu before British citizens can be protected, I have to doubt that Parliament is serious - about security - and preserving England's culture. Has anyone considered the danger of sharing sensitive anti-terrorist information with people who consider Europeans infidels, and the West their enemy?
Tony Blair is retiring in the spring. That should just about do it.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
A Trysting Place
Danny Glover and Hugo Chavez, shown above, were caught slow-dancing at a Harlem night club on Wednesday afternoon.
An embarrassed Chavez stated, "Danny is the devil and he wants to dominate me."
Later that night Iran's President Ahmedinejad, know to be very close to Chavez, was asked if he ever slow-danced with the Venezuelan dictator.
Smiling, he answered, "Yes, and he comes to about here on me." The evidently taller Iranian leader then entertained the press by demonstrating several complicated dance steps while singing I've Got the World on a String.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush "the devil."
The leftist leader, who has joined Iran and Cuba in opposing U.S. influence, accused Washington of "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world."
Chavez drew tentative giggles at times from the audience, but also some applause when he called Bush the devil.
Last evening on Hannity and Colmes, one pundit described the applause as "enthusiastic and sustained."
Now I understand the need for there to be a little club and clubhouse for those people around the world who hate us to meet and say nasty things. I just don't think my tax dollars should be used to support it. Why should we finance a propaganda tool for our enemies? (And how many billions of dollars per year?)
If our government functioned with common sense and clarity, we would politely excuse ourselves from the UN, allow it to collapse, and start over with proven allies.
The maniacal egomaniacs of the world would still be heard, but we wouldn't be paying for their rostrum and microphone.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
“2030—then we take over,” reads a popular T-shirt worn by Muslims in Stockholm. Recent comments by European politicians might cause these young Swedes to think about pushing the date forward a couple of decades. Europe, it increasingly appears, is in fact ready to be handed over to radical Muslims without a fight.
There are nearly one million Muslims in the Netherlands out of a population of about 16 million. Almost half of Amsterdam’s population is of non-Dutch origin, while only one out of three students in Amsterdam schools is Dutch. Not only are three out of five Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands unemployed, but most are not integrating into Dutch society. As Bruce Bawer explains in his book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, “It was this policy, known as ‘integration with maintenance of one’s own identity,’ that enabled Muslims to establish an extensive separate culture within the Netherlands, complete with government-funded schools, mosques, community centers, and other institutions.”
If you'd like to see Europe while it's still European, I wouldn't put it off.
And in 2030 (or before?) when Muslims start running European governments, where will the United States be? If the current immigration spectacle persists, we will live in communities where unemployed Muslims run around creating havoc, and wear T-shirts that say, "2050-then we take over."
Colin Powell Frolics with Democrats
Last week Colin Powell posed for a picture to symbolize his efforts to lead Senate Democrats away from the President's proposed strategies for interrogating and trying enemy combatants.
Powell said, "Rejecting the President's proposals will help us preserve our dignity and reputation around the world."
Yasser Arafat, the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) from 1969 through 2004, had an amazing talent for speaking peace in English and war in Arabic. Evidently Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was paying attention and taking notes.
The language may be Farsi, but it is the same lie - the same misrepresentation of intents. The media are much too anti-Bush to "take sides" and expose the inconsistencies of Ahmadinejad's words and behavior, so there is no way to evaluate the Iranian President's "performance" at the United Nations other than to say it was a triumph of propaganda.
Senator George Voinovich of Ohio called Ahmadinejad "...a Hitler kind of person," and watching this little tyrant preach to the morally challenged body in New York was reminiscent of the Nuremberg Rallies - a nut leading the naive - a deadly affectation of peaceful diplomacy.
I wonder how many people here and around the world were suckered-in by his lies. As in the 60 Minutes interview, the Iranian leader "waxed reasonable." But isn't this the same Ahmadinejad who speaks prophetically of the coming of the Muslim divine savior, known as the Mahdi - the same Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust- the same Ahmadinejad who calls for the destruction of Israel?
The anti-war crowd surely eats this stuff up, as they lean toward their television screens with hope-filled eyes. But the discerning eye sees Ahmadinejad holding a naive world to his breast... nursing it with lies - knife in hand.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Skyepuppy has a post you must not miss. It explains so well what we face in Radical Islam.
You'll find it here:
Sunday, September 17, 2006
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- An Italian nun was shot dead at a hospital by Somali gunmen Sunday, hours after a leading Muslim cleric condemned Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks on Islam and violence.
The nun, who was not immediately identified, was shot in the back at S.O.S. Hospital in northern Mogadishu by two gunmen, said Mohamed Yusuf, a doctor at the facility, which serves mothers and children.
...for his remarks on Islam and violence"... Oh, we must not suggest that Islam has a connection with violence because it might inspire one of the non-violent Muslims to go out and shoot a Nun in the back. And just how much courage does it take to shoot a 70 year-old nun in the back?
In an address on Tuesday, the Pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor as saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Washington based Council on American-Islamic Relations stated:
"The proper response to the Pope's inaccurate and divisive remarks is for Muslims and Catholics worldwide to increase dialogue and outreach efforts aimed at building better relations between Christianity and Islam. "
CAIR didn't mention the dead Nun. Evidently they don't consider what happened to her "evil and inhuman."
These people who hate our country and culture are still being allowed to immigrate. The "proper response" to Muslim immigration is - no more.
In the last 150 years, the Dutch have become the tallest people on Earth - and experts say they're still getting bigger. It is a tale of a nation's health and wealth.
With their protein-rich diet and a national health service that pampers infants, the Dutch are standing taller than ever. The average Dutchman stands just over 6 feet, while women average nearly 5-foot-7.
The Dutch were not noted for their height until recently. It was only in the 1950s that they passed the Americans, who stood tallest for most of the last 200 years.
I remember reading James Michener's description of the Dutch who settled South Africa in The Covenant. He described them as a stocky, short-legged people. Evidently their legs have grown longer.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
E. coli lives in the intestines of cattle and other animals and typically is spread through contamination by fecal material. Brackett said the use of manure as a fertilizer for produce typically consumed raw, such as spinach, is not in keeping with good agricultural practices. "It is something we don't want to see," he told a food policy conference.
I just saw an old farmer spreading manure as I was driving home last night on Highway 26. But he probably wasn't preparing for a spinach crop in the spring.
Escherichia coli (pronounced Escherichia coli) is the predominant bacterium in a healthy person's intestines and takes part in the digestive process. It is also by far the most likely culprit if you develop a urinary tract infection.
In a world made up only of smart people, all that spinach throughout the country that will end up in landfills - could be taken home, washed, cooked, and eaten with no deleterious effects.
One of my chemistry professors in college told me that during WWII when Americans were encouraged to have Victory Gardens and an emphasis was placed on eating spinach through the influence of a popular cartoon, doctors noticed an increase in cases of Rickets. My professor suggested that something in the spinach was believed to effect the absorption of calcium in children's diets.
I've seen no documentation of this, but I do know that in the spring when the green leafy vegetables are at their peak, patients who use the blood thinning agent, coumadin, often develop problems in controlling the "thinness" of their blood. And, calcium is a key player in the coagulation process.
There. Now you have more to worry about.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Freedom is never free, but it is constantly being purloined by squatters who make their fortunes, careers, and reputations on the sacrifices and blood of young patriots.
I remember how I felt on September 11, 2001, and if you had told me that we would not face another attack on American soil for the next five years, I would have laughed in your face. Much has been done here at home to enhance our security, but I believe we owe the last five uneventful years to the young men and women who stormed Afghanistan and toppled the evil dictatorship in Iraq. This country rose up on the backs of soldiers - not politicians - and crippled a terrorist force that threatened to steal our national confidence and change forever our goals and dreams.
Enter the liberals and the anti-war movement. Enter the same crowd, if whose appeasing mantra had triumphed during the cold war, would have awarded the Soviet Union with a lease on life well into the 21st century. Enter the socialists and activists who dream of peace in a world of religious extremists who prey on weakness and naive political indecision.
Murtha, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Reid, and their limp-wristed clan, whine and preach and call for retreat, while enjoying the security and robust economy provided by the sacrifices of young soldiers who have preserved the very foundation of our wealth and culture.
The story is the same throughout our history - shameless opportunists gracelessly and ungratefully enjoy their freedom, while undercutting the brave souls who protect it.
Ann Richards RIP
“Poor George, he can’t help it,” Ms. Richards said at the Democratic convention in 1988, speaking about the current president’s father, former President George Bush. “He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
Hardy Har Har. But the elder George beat Dukakis in the fall of that year.
Ann W. Richards, the silver-haired Texas activist who galvanized the 1988 Democratic National Convention with her tart keynote speech and was the state’s 45th governor until upset in 1994 by an underestimated challenger named George W. Bush, died Wednesday at her home in Austin. She was 73.
Ms. Richards was the most recent and one of the most effective in a long-line of Lone Star State progressives who vied for control of Texas in the days when it was largely a one-party Democratic enclave, a champion of civil rights, gay rights and feminism. Her defeat by the future president was one of the chief markers of the end of generations of Democratic dominance in Texas. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/us/14richards.html?ex=1158897600&en=408a0e9bfa0492c2&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY
She was matronly, grandmotherly, and spoke with a down-home southern accent, but she was a liberal through and through. I believe she was successful because she did what so many Democrats do best - misrepresent themselves, making them palatable to an electorate with which they have nothing in common.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
No, the four legged kind.
While exercising (walking) on the local high school's dimly-lit track at 4:30 AM, Mr Malott - sensing movement - looked behind him and saw a fox 30 feet away, crouched - and ready to kill.
Fearing dismemberment, Malott's life flashed before his eyes... his childhood in Tokyo... his battle with Kyong Singh... those sweet afternoons outside Osaka with Su Kim Dyong.
Realizing the wrong life was flashing, Malott snapped into action and swung his arms while hissing like a cat. The fox stopped - perhaps confused - but then continued his pursuit.
Totally creeped-out, Malott returned to his truck - still swinging his arms and hissing - and decided to start walking in the daylight hours.
The entire staff at Malott's Blog would like to publicly apologize to any elderly women living on Walnut Street who may have been awakened in the night by a loud hissing sound - and subsequently frightened by a man flailing his arms like a madman over on the track.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
OK, now I understand why the Clintonistas wanted "The Path to 9/11" yanked from ABC's broadcast schedule. Even with the edits, Sandy Berger and especially Madeline Albright come across as weak, indecisive, negligent, and clueless.
"Are there no men left in Washington? Are they all cowards?"
And isn't it always a pleasure to revisit President Clinton's bald-faced lying to the American people?
I taped Monday's installment and have only viewed the part where the writers attempted a little "forced fairness" by making Condoleeza Rice look cartoonish... (or was it maybe to throw cold water on any presidential bid?)
Riveting television is so rare. I'm enjoying it.
Friday, September 08, 2006
The Path to 9/11 is still slated to air on Sunday, but the Clintons and the Democrats have evidently twisted enough arms to force an edit of the original production.
But so far the Democrats have not been successful in editing the following events from history:
02/26/1993 – World Trade Center bombed
03/08/1995 – Two U.S. diplomats in Pakistan murdered
06/25/1996 - Khobar Towers bombed
11/12/1997 – Four U.S. businessmen kidnapped and murdered
08/07/1998 – Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya bombed
10/12/2000 – U.S.S. Cole attacked by suicide bombers
It is not a great mystery as to why the Clintons and the Dems are raising such royal ruckus over this docu-drama. The Clinton years will forever be remembered for oral sex and impeachment, and if you throw into the mix an incompetence that led to 9/11, the former president is nudged into the realm of historically "bad presidents", regardless of fortuitous economic numbers.
And the last thing the Dems want to see parlayed about around the water coolers of America is anything to do with our security and who is best at securing it.
But in the age of Michael Moore and other Left-Wing historical and political liars, the Democrat protests ring rather petty.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Hugh Hewitt writes:
On Sunday and Monday nights at 8 PM, ABC will air a five hour mini-series, "The Path to 9/11." I have watched it, and it is a riveting and in some respects horrifying recreation of the events from the hours before the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 through the awful events of 9/11.
"The Path to 9/11" has drawn the deep anger of the Clinton political machine. Representatives of that era have been demanding at a minimum edits and some outright cancellation of the program. Monica Lewinsky makes an appearance, you see, as does Bill Clinton's videotaped testimony about his perjury. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as indecisive, Madeleine Albright as misdirected, George Tenet as sputtering. The film does not spare the Bush Administration its shots either, but for the left in the US the most damning thing possible is a recounting of the deep slumber concerning al Qaeda that overcame not just President Clinton but all parts of the national security apparatus throughout the '90s.
...the mini-series is the first attempt --very successful-- to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy.
Hewitt says that the Clinton Machine is putting pressure on ABC for last minute edits... hoping it airbrushes the narrative... and if this happens we will no doubt hear about it from Hewitt.
Hopefully this will remind the American people - and the American electorate - what we face in this war on terror.
Last Sunday, Meet the Press was the venue for one of the most one-sided political debates in history. On his radio show, Peter Heck said that Bob Casey's performance was so bad that it actually made him uncomfortable to watch.
Closing in on his front-runner opponent in the polls, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., came out swinging in the first and probably the only public debate with Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey.
He may have delivered a knockout blow to Casey, who appeared confused and inarticulate during his encounter with the fast-talking Santorum during their weekend debate on NBC's "Meet the Press" with host Tim Russert.
Asked how he would balance the federal budget, Casey replied that he would repeal the recent tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year, the very tax cut that gave the U.S. the world’s fastest growing and strongest economy, and retain a tax on very large estates. He refused however, to cite any federal programs he would be willing to cut.
His responses provoked Santorum to observe: "What you heard from Mr. Casey is what you hear all the time. No specifics, no answer."
"Do you support more intelligence gathering because your party has been out there trying to undermine our surveillance programs? You’re the one who’s gone out and said that you have serious questions about our intelligence surveillance programs. What do you think has kept our people safe? What do you think stopped the British, the British attack?
I think you just fundamentally misunderstand the problem. You’re saying that somehow or another the language and terminology doesn’t matter. You believe that we’re going to win or lose this war on the battlefield in Iraq and the battlefield in Afghanistan. I don’t. I think we’ll win or lose this war right here in America.”
I hope the debate was viewed by the people of Pennsylvania, because the liberal spin machine was out immediately with damage control, with no mention of the carnage inflicted by Santorum.
Carrie Budoff of the Philadelphia Enquirer demonstrated her lack of journalistic integrity when she wrote:
Both candidates scored points, but neither seemed to emerge with a clear victory.
Casey will need Ms. Budoff and the liberal press if his political skills were accurately represented on Sunday.
And... I just hope that the rest of the Republicans up for re-election watched this debate... and were taking notes.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Last Liberal Warrior?
Today we are hard pressed to find anyone on the Left who thinks freedom - or for that matter, survival - is worth fighting for. So it's a sad day.
TONY Blair will leave 10 Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister more than a decade after his historic 1997 landslide win.
The Sun can reveal that he has finally decided to step down as Labour leader on May 31 next year — exactly ten years and 30 days after becoming PM.
Where does this leave Britain's contribution to the war on terror? What does this mean for England and its burgeoning population of Muslims? It's anyone's guess, but I doubt that Blair's retirement is in any way a positive thing.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Was it a disagreement over covering the 9/11 anniversary that cost Janeane Garofalo her perch on Air America?
"She said she quit because she asked to do a segment where she intended to interview some FDNY 9/11 heroes, and the radio brass killed the idea," says a snitch.
Garofolo's manager wouldn't comment beyond saying, "That may very well be true."
An Air America Radio spokeswoman, however, denied that version of the story.
The obvious retort... Who cares? But I must say that Garofalo's "stand-up" was some of the sharpest and funniest comedy I've ever heard.
The reason why Air America is such a commercial and popular failure is best demonstrated in the fact that liberal politicians must hide their political beliefs from their constituents in order to be elected. Political Talk-Radio that heralds these beliefs (the beliefs of those who control the Democrat Party) simply has no audience.
Liberalism survives politically only through obfuscation and disguise. Uncloaked, as on Air America, it sounds so... weak and un-American, and cannot compete in the realm of ideas, or for the hearts of the American public.
By contrast, Conservatism plays well in debate and generally only fails nationally when it is moderated.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Man with Melon
This of course is a reproduction of Edouard Manet's early masterwork Man with Melon, which engendered great controversy in the late 19th century by mixing realism with impressionism, and introducing the "fat hanging over the sides of shorts" concept which was later rejected by the Salon des Refusés. Exhibiting a delicate blend of light and shadow, Manet's uniquely frank (and largely unpopular) depiction of a simpleton holding out a melon was immediately rejected. In stark contrast, Manet's later work, Woman with Melons, enjoyed instant critical success and appealed to a wider and much more enthusiastic audience.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Send a Christian Christmas Card to the ACLU. It will move them deeply in a way that you may never fully appreciate. You can just mail it to the same address where they direct donations:
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
This idea was in an email that was forwarded to me. I love it.
Friday, September 01, 2006
How many times have we heard the question: "How could we possibly have known that terrorists would use an airliner as a weapon against us?"
However in Tom Clancy's book Debt of Honor, published in 1994, a 747 was flown into the capitol building killing the president and all of Congress.
Has anyone heard any talk that would suggest that Al-Qaeda might have gotten the idea from Clancy's book? I haven't, but the connection is obvious.
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.
...it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
I hope the mainstream media doesn't hurt itself clamoring to apologize to Karl Rove and other White House officials.
Al Gore Sings at MTV Video Music Awards
The former vice president brought down the house with his stunning and sexy rendition of "Stormy Weather", a prelude to his fascinating lecture on global warming at the 2006 MTV Video Music Awards Show. Always known for his fluid motions and his suave, sophisticated stylings, Gore lent his hip, "ultra-cool" persona to the otherwise staid event.
Former U.S. vice president Al Gore addresses the audience about global warming at the 2006 MTV Video Music Awards in New York August 31, 2006. REUTERS/Gary Hershorn (UNITED STATES)