A literal description of my state of mind
A literal description of my state of mind
Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite of conservatives, and Commerce Secretary Don Evans, one of President Bush's closest friends, resigned Tuesday, the first members of the Cabinet to leave as Bush heads from re-election into his second term.
I've made no secret that I can't stand AG John Ashcroft. Yay!
Back in July, Stephen at Hold the Mayo wrote about the story where some nitwits in Florida (don't blame me, I voted for Gore and Buchannan) wrote the UN and asked for international election monitors to ensure a fair election.
I agreed with Stephen that this was enough to warrant a letter to my Congressmen. Today I got a response from Representative Tom Davis, VA 11th. Here's a couple of excerpts:
Under no circumstances do I believe we require international observers to validate our elections. America, while not perfect, has long maintained the lead in freedom and democracy. Furthermore, I am outraged at the notion that other members feel we require foreign nationals to conduct fair elections.
I have personally gained an invaluable understanding of foreign governments by serving as an international observer during their elections. Nonetheless, the spirit in which international observers were called for in this instance was cynical and uncalled for; and I do not support it.
Besides, even the best intentioned election monitors can be duped and made to look foolish. Isn't that right, President Carter?
President Bush says we can't win the War on Terror and the Kerry campaign immediately jumps all over it like dingos on a crippled sheep. And they should've, because it was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
You. Just. Don't. Say. Things. Like. That.
No matter how much truth there is to it, and don't think for a second that he was wrong, because he wasn't. We can't win this war in a conventional sense. There won't be a peace treaty signed and POW's returned and victory parades, because it's a different kind of war. To Muslim radicals, it's not even really a war, it's a form of worship.
Admittedly biased, I think President Bush was speaking plainly, without nuance. I also think a lot of Americans will think about it and quietly agree without the defeatist hand-wringing we're currently hearing from certain quarters. It also gave Kerry something to be tougher on than the President, and that was an unexpected gift that he immediately siezed upon.
I read a science fiction book once (Star Trek?) where the last ragged remnants of terrorist organizations all gathered together for something or other. What stuck with me was the alternate history presented, where terrorist attacks had become more and more brutal and bloody until finally the entire world became disgusted and realized that there were limits to protest. Terrorism died out not because there were no more causes, but because it became unpopular and the results were opposite intended.
They weren't defeated, they became obsolete, but it took a lot of time and lives.
I really wish I hadn't remembered that book.
Over at Q & O (happy birthday guys!), McQ posts a moving and devastatingly effective rebuttal to a comment that I thought cut right to the heart of the matter concerning the Swift Boat Veterans ads.
Until I read the comments, where one Viet Nam veteran summed it all up in as perfect a way as I could ever imagine:
"If Kerry loses, that will be the parade that we never had."
Publicola asks an important question:
If the "Assault Weapons" Ban is renewed will you vote Republican generally & Bush specifically this November?
His reasoning parallels mine, although we come to different conclusions because our key issues are different. I think that second ammendment rights are important, and he makes some telling points that give me things to chew through, but for me the key issue is foreign policy (a superset of the war on terror). I'm going to paint with a broad brush here, so don't get all nitpicky on me. Comments are certainly welcomed.
With President Bush at the helm, America is once again pursuing her best interests. All of the Euro-whining and the moonbat barking basically boil down to the same thing: America is doing what it feels is best for America, and if another country doesn't agree, well, that's just too damn bad. According to some, we're only supposed to act if we get permission from historical friends and allies, regardless of how they've behaved towards us in the present and recent past.
France is diplomatically deft but otherwise irrelevant. Germany is still trying to shake off its national angst over WWII and the effects of reunification, rendering it less than effective on an international scale (other than economically). On a personal note, I found the Germans to be the most racially prejudiced people I've ever met. Is that a European trait? I don't know, but Germans are wonderful people that definitely have a strong bias against non-whites. And America is a mongrel country to them, which may explain some things. Moving along, you have Spain, Italy and Portugal, important locally, but much less so on the international stage.
These countries, and the rest of Europe, have been 'dealing' with the unpleasant facts of the world for decades. Rather than solving their problems, they compromise, usually by devising a solution designed to buy time. They hope the problem will go away in the meantime, or perhaps someone with authority (aristocracy or bureaucracy) will take care of it. It's been pointed out for years that NATO relies almost entirely on US air transport. Are the other NATO nations rushing to build military cargo aircraft? Of course not, but they are finding time to write regulations to define how much curve an imported banana is allowed.
Why are we taking these people into consideration when deciding on US national policy? Because we have to, but over the years that aspect has grown from being one consideration to become THE key consideration.
The foreign policies of this administration recognize that fact. John Kerry wants to bring back the old way, the safe way, the European way. He wants to 'deal' with the world instead of solving its problems as they affect America.
George W. Bush is no friend to the armed citizenry of the US, but he would never bow down to international pressure (via the UN) to impose stricter gun controls. I'm not so sure than John Kerry wouldn't think that a fine idea, since the rest of the world would want that.
I'm sorry if you feel that you couldn't vote for President Bush if the AWB is renewed. I hope you're right when you speculate that there wouldn't be a significant difference in the arena of second ammendment rights under Kerry. That's a helluva gamble though, in my humble opinion.
For the record: I'm anti-AWB. It's stupid legislation, designed to make people think something is being done without actually addressing the perceived problem.
As of right now, Kerry has been campaigning for President longer than he spent in Vietnam.
Important Note: I saw this on someone's site a day or two ago and can't find it again. Please let me know where so I can give credit.
More Important Note: It was over on the most excellent Hold The Mayo! Thanks Stephen.
A lot of people talk about voting for "anyone but President Bush."
These are the same people who raise hell about America supporting despots around the world. In some of those cases, it was "anyone but [insert bad choice]."
Sauce for the goose folks.
There should be no one surprised at the escalation in attacks and casualties against coalition forces the last few days.
A prominent Shiite leader has called for his followers to be reasonable and wait for the UN to make a determination about whether early elections are possible.
And the UN won't come in unless 'security concerns' are addressed. It doesn't matter what you think about that, it's the way it is.
So all the Baathtards have to do is make it bad enough to scare away the UN (not hard to do), and then the Shiite leader will be frustrated, which ratchets up the pressure on everyone. Just what the Baathtards want.
Kofi Annan will play right into their hands (again) and not allow his team to go to Iraq. U.N. stands for "Unmistakably Nutless".
The Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Egypt have all made tiny moves towards a more democratic method of government.
Such steps are encouraging in a region for the most part run by dictators who keep their people under tight control. But the Middle East has seen encouraging signs before that did not develop into democratic reform, and there's reason to believe the most recent events also may only offer false hope.
Except that this time there is one major difference. Nothing says "I'm serious about this" quite like thoroughly kicking the ass of the neighborhood bully, and then sticking around and challenging all-comers to bring it on. For all the whining and breast-beating going on, one thing remains certain - the United States is again respected. And that means people listen to what we have to say.
I'm hopeful, but wary. The US scored similar and significant victories in South and Central America in the 80's and 90's as many countries established democratic governments. Unfortunately, a lot of those gains have been squandered, at least partially due to US neglect of the region. Democracy is robust, and the situation is complex and fluid as both sides try to gain the upper hand, often using the same democratic institutions at hand. Venezuela is a perfect example of this, as pro-Castro president Chavez fights in the courts and polls to remain in power even as he tries to install a socialist regime.
We need to stay involved in the Middle East. We need to get reinvolved in the Americas. If we're going to lead the way towards the form of government that we believe is best for everyone (in the capitalist sense), then we can't afford to drop the ball again.
On October 2, 2003, Ahmad Chalabi, Head of the Iraqi Delegation to the 58th U.N. General Assembly, gave a speech.
Go read, and feel vindicated that we did the right thing.
Thanks to C.D. Hall for this wonderful link. Gotta love a guy who measures time in fortnights.
California candidate Cruz Bustamonte has a sister, Nao, who is a performance artist. In 1992 she did a piece called "Indigurrito" in which she strapped-on a burrito to her loins and called for white men to come up on stage, take a bite out of the burrito and absolve themselves of 500 years of the white man's guilt.
Do you think all that absolution burns more calories than eating the burrito?
I missed this one when it originally happened, but a friend pointed it out.
California Governor Gray Davis on his vision for the state: "My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, of every country on earth," he said.
Another friend noted that Gray Davis is so boring that bringing out Al Gore was intended to "spice up" his campaign!
Let's hope the implementation lives up to the potential.
(from Rec.Models.Rockets newsgroup)
Imagine if you will, someone looking up the name of a senator opposed
to improving the lot of hobby rocketry. This person would write
letters - not to the senator, but to the entities funding the senator.
This person would tell said entities how unhappy they were with the
senator's position. This person would tell said entity that they would
be boycotted until they a) quit funding the senator or b) got the
senator to change his or her mind.
So what? One person writing letters doesn't accomplish much.
But imagine what would happen if everyone here started writing
letters....
If you thought the senators were amazed at how many letters we
generated, imagine what the corporations would think!
"If you liked the California energy crisis, then you'll love Kyoto." -- B.F. Skinner
America took a lot of heat for unilaterally deciding not to join in with the Kyoto accords. This was a more honest position than many countries took, because some signatories had no intention of compliance. Others counted on accounting tricks and the closing of already-obsolete factories to achieve their goals.
Others are finding out what the true cost of compliance is (see note below). The choice is clear. Should they continue to implement the policies despite the negative impact, or decide that the burden is just too onerous? If they do decide to scrap Kyoto, a new set of choices presents itself, none of which look very appealing. Will they have the courage to break cleanly from Kyoto, or will they try to let it wither away quietly? Either way, I don't think the environmentalists nor the EU will let anyone back out without raising a stink.
I'm glad we said 'no' right up front. Lumps taken. Moving on.
Thanks to Random Nuclear Strikes for the pointer.
Note: Live from Brussels is on blog*spot, so if the link doesn't work, scroll down to "I Love It When That Happens..."
Help me choose:
1. Pearls before swine
or
2. Straight from the horses ass mouth
Either way, Aljazeera has it's own website in english. Oh joy.
Over at You Can Call Me Al, his latest post is about a pet peeve of his, namely flag etiquette. I read it a couple of times, trying to figure out what he was actually trying to say. Parts of it seemed to be attempted humor, but other parts were over the top and offensive to me.
The US Flag flies in front of my house every day of the year. It is illuminated at night. When it gets worn I replace it. I understand flag etiquette. I love my country and I stand for the national anthem. I proudly say the pledge of allegiance. I've participated in official flag disposals, and have been moved to tears by the ceremony. I hate to see the flag being burned in anger or protest.
I was also somewhat of a pariah at my American Legion post because I refused to sign a petition for the Flag Amendment. I didn't serve my country for the flag. I served for what the flag stands for. Idiots burning the flag are just as right as fools demanding an amendment to protect it. If you look at countries around the world where it is against the law to dishonor the flag, you'll find that most of those countries are autocratic tyrannies. Because the flag there represents the government, and not the ideals on which that government is based. Big difference.
The protester setting an American flag on fire is, in a painful sort of logic, a powerful example of American freedom in action.
If you see someone displaying a flag incorrectly, you talk to them and help them get it right. If they care enough to display the flag in the first place, you'll find they appreciate the assistance. An attitude of "get it right or don't bother" just isn't what it's all about.
The U.N., tower of courage, is reducing it's staff by 90% in Iraq because of security concerns.
The U.N. Staff Union's committee on security has called on Annan to suspend all U.N. operations in Iraq and withdraw staff "until such time as measures are taken to improve security."
By someone other than the U.N. of course. They just want to run the whole show. From somewhere safe.
The biggest impact of the cutback in international staff is likely to be on the phasing out of the U.N. oil-for-food program.
Read that again. The biggest effect of the U.N. leaving is to slow the closing of a program no longer needed. In other words, they weren't doing much in the way of positive actions, just mostly shutting down unnecessary functions.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, you useless cowards.
Typical terrorist target - 'soft' and full of civilians. The idea is to create maximum casualties and shock. But when the whole world condemns an attack like this, where is the benefit? Other than the morale-boosting effect among the terrorists themselves, what is the point? I've been doing a lot of reading lately about the history of the middle east and it's peoples, trying to get inside their heads, as it were. I just don't understand this kind of thinking. Is it truly a religious experience for them? It seems so much more likely to me that those at the head of these organizations are cynically 'using' Islam as the means to recruit and control the cannon-fodder they need to further their plans. Power. Control. Influence. More of. All of history says so.
Once again, this attack proves that as far as the terrorists are concerned, the only good westerner is a dead westerner. And the word 'civilian' is defined as 'easy target'.
In response to the murder of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top UN official in Iraq:
the Mercosur trade bloc saying in a statement that "this aberrant criminal act constitutes an attack on the whole international community."
Think they’re starting to get it?
Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard condemned the bombing and said Vieira de Mello's death underlined the fact that "nobody is safe from terrorists."
"There is no hierarchy of targets when it comes to the mindless acts of terrorism," he said.
Well, we already knew that he got it, but it's nice to hear it confirmed.
French President Jacques Chirac expressed deep dismay and anger in a message to the UN secretary general, saying: "Such hateful acts arouse nothing but indignation and the strongest condemnation."
From the French, he means. From the Americans, it means we’re going to hunt you until we find you. Count on it.
Earliest reports from the scene quoted UN officials as complaining about the lapse in security and pointed fingers at the US. That nonsense has stopped.
Annan said the U.N. plans to reevaluate its security measures.
Except for a new concrete wall built recently, U.N. officials at the headquarters refused heavy security because the U.N. "did not want a large American presence outside," said Salim Lone, the U.N. spokesman in the Iraqi capital.
Latest reports say that the cement truck was parked on the other side of a concrete security wall, on an access road near the hotel. Basically, since the terrorists were kept farther away from the target, they used a bigger bomb.
Security wasn’t breached.
Tuesday's bomb blasted a 6-foot-deep crater in the ground, shredding the facade of the Canal Hotel housing U.N. offices and stunning an organization that had been welcomed by many Iraqis in contrast to the U.S.-led occupation forces.
The above blip can be filed under 'Everyone automatically hates the Americans'. In the big fathead folder labelled 'Media'.
After laughing my way through an article at Right Wing News, I looked for the typical "If you enjoyed this satire by..." line at the end. It wasn't there, because the article was for real. Whoever said "God must love stupid people, because he made so many of them", knew what he was talking about.
Next time you read about someone calling America a bunch of 'cowboys', smile and acknowlege the compliment. In the meantime just grab a cup of coffee, a plate of beans, hitch up closer to the fire, and read this.