Okay, students. In what year was this written? 10 Extra Points for naming the author. No Googling allowed.
"Pay attention, because I am going to explain our foreign policy.
At the current time (11:21 a.m.) our biggest foreign-policy problem is Saddam Hussein, the evil and amoral dictator of Iran or Iraq, which may actually be the same foreign country.
You may recall that, way back when George Bush was President and most of the White House sex rumors concerned Millie the dog, we beat Saddam in a war. I mean, we kicked his butt. We dropped bombs all over Iraq (or possibly Iran), thereby insuring that Saddam would never, ever, ever again be a threat to the peoples of the world until maybe seven months later, when suddenly, BAM, there he was again! Despite clearly losing the war! That is how amoral he is.
The word was that Saddam was making chemical and biological weapons, which are a clear violation of international rules, because they kill people. So the Clinton administration (motto: ``No We Are NOT Obsessed With Monica Lewinsky Monica Lewinsky Monica Lewinsky!'') was threatening to send Air Force planes over there to drop MORE bombs (which are allowed under international rules, although they also kill people, but in a legal way) on Iran (or possibly Iraq) again.
Perhaps you are wondering: ``What's the point of dropping more bombs, since that is exactly what did not work the first time? Why not just quietly, without making a big public deal of it, send a couple of experienced guys named Victor over there to quietly arrange for Saddam to have an unfortunate shaving accident that results in the loss of the upper two-thirds of his head?''
I am frankly shocked that you would even suggest such a thing. What you're talking about is assassination, which is a serious violation of international rules. On the other hand, it is perfectly OK to drop large quantities of bombs on a foreign country, as long as you are not specifically trying to drop one on the foreign leader, which of course under the rules would be assassination. (These rules are made by lawyers.)
The rules also state that, when you drop your bombs, you are supposed to try to gain a Consensus of World Opinion, which is legally defined as ``at least four nations that know how to make a decent car, plus, if he is not off somewhere building a house, Jimmy Carter.''
This is where we've been running into trouble. America is currently very unpopular in the world. For example, our allies hate us. Especially the French. They have always hated us, of course, for stealing the concept of french fries, but now they REALLY hate us, because our culture has become so dominant that they're having trouble completing so much as a single sentence without using American words. They're always blurting out statements like: ``Le software de la hardware est un humdinger!'' And then they get so mad that they could spit.
Pretty much the entire membership of the United Nations also hates us, because we haven't been paying our dues, which the member nations desperately need so that they can continue carrying out the vital U.N. mission of parking illegally all over New York. In fact our lone international ally at the moment is a man named ``Tony,'' who has been visiting the White House and who claims to be the prime minister of Great Britain, which I for one do not believe for a second. I don't know much, but I know there is nobody in Great Britain named ``Tony.''
So as I said, the world pretty much hates us, and it's getting worse, because every day more nations are being exposed, via international TV syndication, to Jerry Springer. It is only a matter of time before one of these small irate goat-oriented nations decides to launch a chemical or biological attack on us. That's certainly what I want to do when I watch Jerry Springer, and I live here.
My point is that we are not going to get any international help in dealing with Saddam Hussein. It's totally up to us, and I say it's time we stop pussyfooting around and use the ultimate weapon -- the one weapon that will guarantee that Saddam never bothers us again. Yes, as shocking and heartless as it may sound, I'm proposing that we send an Air Force bomber directly over Baghdad, and drop the most damaging, the most horrible, the most morally repugnant weapon that this nation has ever produced: lawyers. (We could even, if necessary, put parachutes on them.)
Within a matter of hours, all of Iraq (or possibly Iran) would be paralyzed by lawsuits; once word got around of the potential size of the damage awards, everybody living within a 50-mile radius of a suspected chemical or biological weapons facility would be complaining of whiplash. Saddam would be ruined for good, and the whole world would thank us. Even the French. Their exact words would be: ``Merci a bunch!''"
Well, try all the Democratic candidates for starters then add in every Democrat west of Bangor, Maine. The angry left wants to conveniently forget that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. The Democrats do not want include Iraq in this definition because they somehow irrationally have come to the conclusion that Saddam was a nice guy and was only killing his own people. New York Times reporter John Burns wrote about the night the bombing of Baghdad started:
"The initial response of the journalists on the roof of the Palestine Hotel was to leap and shout for joy. I had never seen this amongst journalists. I think our profession makes us inclined to non-partisanship. It certainly makes us cynical of good intentions in international affairs. But that night, I think most of us felt, 'Thank God. At last this terror is to be ended.'"If Democrats attack the President's conduct of the war or for even invading Iraq in the first place, they are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists. It is clear.
Anti-war bloggers like Kleiman play dumb. "Who us?" some bloggers ask, then they go into the standard Democratic line about being accused of being unpatriotic because they oppose the war, the President, and the troops ( yes,the troops, I have started collection of blogging Democrats actually hoping for more casualties in Iraq in order to make Bush look bad). Making weak little statements about supporting the troops every other week to cover up what almost amounts to treason is hardly being patriotic. These people are so out of touch with main stream America it is laughable. They could care less about the war, terrorists, and the troops. A win in 2004 is all they care about.
If you follow the war closely you quickly realize that the group of thugs actively killing coalition forces, aid workers there to help Iraqis, and their fellow Iraqis are doing it for one reason. They have absolutely no way to prevail militarily or politically so they are trying to re-create a Somalia where if they kill enough Americans we will leave and let them take over. What is their barometer for success? Who are they depending on to help get us to withdraw? The American left and it is working - their cries for withdrawing from Iraq are getting louder and more out in the open. The American left, by loudly opposing the war and constantly denigrating President Bush, are giving these thugs in Iraq hope that eventually the left will get into power and withdraw our forces. The left is therefore giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It is shocking to read and get the impression that the left does not regard these thugs as the enemy but as freedom fighters, guerrillas, etc. There are ways to respectfully dissent that do not help the enemy and the American liberal left has chosen another path.
Bush's ad hits the nail on the head. You can tell from all the whining coming from the left about it.
I have nothing against metrosexuals, mind you. Heck, some of my best friends are metrosexual. Would I want my daughter marrying one? Well, no, but that's because she's four. By the time she's of the marrying mind, they'll be called something else. I don't imagine I'll mind if she wants to marry someone like that, except to note to her that there's a certain level of interest in personal grooming that's normal and healthy, and there's a certain level that bespeaks of a pointless self-centeredness.
Scalzi writes the way Sinatra sings. IMHO. Simple yet smart, multifaceted, smooth, and easy to read. Just the right tone of voice. For me anyway.
Foaming at the mouth about the possibilities of keeping President Bush off of various state presidential ballots next November Kos tries to slip some revisionist history past this blogger into a blustery, incorrect statement:
But California? After the Right's power-grab in the state, there should be no reason for the state's legislature to amend the law to allow Bush on the ballot.
Let's see, if the people of California who are overwhelmingly Democratic, vote 55% to 45% to remove their incompetent Democratic Governor from office then voted 68% to 32% to replace him with someone other than a Democrat it is a Republican Power-Grab? The Democrats voted out Gray Davis and voted in Arnold. All the registered Republicans in the state could not have elected Arnold or thrown out Davis by themselves if the Democrats had not helped.
This is how these people think. They make up cute little phrases like "The Right's power-grab" to cover up the fact that they are in severe denial. Politely point this out to them and they will come up with some lame excuse for using it then start calling you or President Bush names to change the subject.
Viking Pundit showed me the way to http://www.poliblogger.com/poliblog/mt-tb.cgi/2361 this. The Toast-o-meter is a Weekly News Round-Up and Handicapping of the Race for the Democratic Nomination. Cool and funny.
The funniest comment?
Clark tried to reinvigorate his campaign, which is never a good thing to have to do when you only just started.
I lurk around the google group rec.gambling.poker because I think I am a poker player. All the posters in the group seem to be long time buddies. Nobody who posts there hides their opinions under a stack of chips. Some posts are downright hilarious.
There is a show called Hollywood Celebrity Showdown that features celebrities playing poker on the Bravo network.
Irish Mike gives his not politically coorect opinion on how the show should be run:
I will watch. However, I think there should be a stringent selection process and only qualified celebrities should be allowed to play. The women must be at least 36 double Ds and wear scoop necked tops and the men should be - well, who really gives a shit about them. No wait - the men have to know the ranks of some of the poker hands and be able to name three of the four suits. One last thing - none of them, including the "Hollywood Home Game Ace" celebrity moderator, should be allowed to talk - ever. OK, I've got a six pack of Guinness and a fifth of Paddy - let the games begin! Irish Mike
I bet that Irish Mike would be a regular watcher if it were Hollywood Celebrity Strip Poker Showdown.
UggaBugga!!! UggaBugga misreads Justice Scalia's words to suit his own purposes.
UggaBugga, in a post titled "Taking Scalia Seriously" pulls a quote, out Justice Scalia's excellent essay about the death penalty, not war and then dowdifies it and tries to logically apply it to the war in Iraq. The actual passage in the Justice's essay concerned the legal and moral history of the death penalty and has absolutely nothing to do with war. Did UggaBugga even read it?
... the core of [St. Paul's] message is that government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God. ... It is easy to see the hand of the Almighty behind rulers ... who at least obtained their thrones in ... battles whose outcome was determined by the Lord of Hosts, that is, the Lord of Armies.
UggaBugga then follows this with a loopy non-sequitur:
"So, Mr. Scalia, if Bush fails to succeed in the war in Iraq, does that mean the hand of the Almighty isn't behind the president, and that Bush - by your standard - has no moral authority?"
I posted this piece of garbage to show the typical fuzzy thinking by anti-war left and the use of dowdification to support some sort of poorly written wacky point they are trying to make. And Senator Kennedy calls Republicans Neanderthals?
You can vote on the name for the Thanksgiving Turkey used in the annual pardoning ceremony at the White House here. You cannot submit a name of your own. Smart people are running the website.
There are interesting stories about the turkeys, the historical background of the ceremony, and a picture of President Bush talking to one of the Democratic presidential candidates (looks like Kuncinch) on the site too.
ABC posts a solid anti-Bush article about his visit to England with so many negative remarks and references it would be hard to list them all. The article consists of many paragraphs describing the MASSIVE protests that allegedly have greeted Bush during his visit to the motherland and about a protest that is suppose to happen TOMORROW. There is very little about President Bush's important speech to Whitehall today. Apparently ABC decided to devote its coverage to the protests by communists led groups instead reporting on a speech by the President of United States. In reads like the ABC reporter spent the day watching BBC and reading the Guardian who have been almost promoting the protests. The BBC evens provides protesters a map on where the protest will be held. They also have a Reporter's Log type of story that is mainly comments about the protests and snide remarks about President Bush. On the Volokh Conspiracy a British friend of Eugene Volokh has a slightly different view of the protest activity. According to her the protests are almost non-existent which is at odds with the amount of media attention the protests have received.
If you want to read the text of President Bush's great speech to Whitehall today it is here. You will not find much of it in the media because to them the almost non-nexistent protests are the main story.
It is kind of comical to me reading all the posts about WMD, Saddam, etc. that lefties put up. It is as if there is some big ass trial going on where poor old Saddam has been wrongly accused of something and he needs to be defended by people in this country that call themselves patriots.
It sounds like everyone is saying that Saddam somehow deserved to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This is absolutely ridiculous. The man was undeniably an unmitigated bastard for a ton of reasons and deserved to be taken out for whatever excuse we had handy. If someone says that is not nice I say: No, it isn't, but who, besides nervous and naive little twats, says we always have to be nice? We have to act in our best interest and it was in our best interest to get this putrid corpuscle on the butt of the world out of the way.
Anti-war liberal blogger Daily Kos writes:
But fact is, most Americans aren't frothing at the prospect of sending our men and women to die for vague notions of "reshaping the middle east" or WMD fabrications. Those that do deserve every last bit of contempt that can be mustered.
Apparently the Daily Kos thinks that the vast majority of Americans in this poll that supported the war back in March are worthy of every bit of his and his readers' contempt. He probably felt the same way in March but I am not going to waste my time going back to verify it.
Liberal blogger Mark Kleiman happily tells us to expect nothing but bad economic news in the future based on a negative Reuter's mention of Wal-mart's CEO's comments concerning the economy. Reuter leads off with "Economists and politicians giddy about prospects for U.S. economic growth got a dousing of cold water on Thursday from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. " We can expect Prof Klugman to jump on this bandwagon soon.
CEO Lee was actually quoted as saying "I don't think consumer spending is slowing, but I also don't see the strength that many of you in the investment community appear to see." A perpetual political pessimist like Kleiman and Reuter's fair and balanced reporter sees this statement as a totally negative 'the glass is half empty' statement while the optimist will see it as a confirmation of Wal-Mart's strong results continuing since their business is dependent on consumer spending. Certainly the economy has been sluggish in previous quarters, but if major elements in the economy like consumer spending, housing, and capital expenditures are all rapidly improving how can the economy not grow? In addition, holiday sales are expected to be at least 5% higher than last year. Internet retail sales over the holidays are expected to be 25% higher. That can't be bad news for the economy except to those wanting to see a black lining on the economic clouds of the future. In addition, tax refunds should be at record levels next year. Then there's the huge rise in consumer confidence that shows better things are ahead.
I guess it is also terrible that Wal-Mart's same store sales rose 6.1%, total sales rose 13.0%, and earnings per share rose from .41 to .46.
Prof Kleiman comments: "Most of the economists (and stock traders) weren't giddy in the first place, and most of the politicians (including political journalists, including bloggers) won't even bother to notice a fact that contradicts their spin." Hogwash. How much are the S&P 500 and NASDAQ up over last year? 20% and 45% increases are pretty "giddy" predictions of where the market thinks the market is heading in my book. One thing about climbing in Prof Klugman's unkept economic bed is that you have to put up with the smell from his half baked economic forecasts and theories. Prof Kleiman doesn't seem to mind the odor.
What slightly sick inventive mind came up with the Incredible Smoking Baby product and thought people would actually shell out $9.00 for one? I'm not even going to give you the link so you can go buy one.
This blog is not being turned over to announcing advances in whale excrement and flatulence studies, I just find them interesting. Having two sons that have been always flatulence devotees and connoisseurs might be responsible for my interest. We need something interesting to talk about since they do not have any interest in politics. (Side note: to make a class of 3rd graders fall out of their chairs laughing, just make a sound remotely resembling flatulence at anytime during your presentation to them. They love that stuff.)
Whale researchers in Australia are following whales around, scooping up whale droppings out of the water to study. Evidently, whales pass small amounts of feces all the time. The researchers say it is not one almighty event. They are studying the droppings to find out what kinds of foods the whales eat. The biggest danger to researchers is whale flatulence which, as one of my earlier blogs showed, comes out in one big bubble.
Attention 3rd grade teachers: this might lead to a science project that your kids would really love and never forget.
I am against pedestrian bridges. In 99% of the cases they are what I call Joey Smith Memorial Bridges built in response to some unfortunate little kid getting run over while crossing the street at the point the city eventually builds the bridge. No city official wants to tell a teary-eyed mom who just lost her son or daughter that the bridge is a total waste of money. The community of mothers with little kids rallies behind her at meetings saying "We must save the children. If just one child is saved it is worth a million bucks."
Just ask yourself: "Have you ever seen anyone using these bridges?" In Colorado, a truck took out one of these memorial bridges and guess what? No one was hurt! That is because exactly 4 people have probably used the bridge since 1979 and the likelihood of someone being on the bridge when it was hit was almost zero.
N. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, recently gave an excellent speech on why the estate tax should be abolished. He made two key points. First, the presumption that the tax falls on the rich is wrong because it assumes that the burden of the tax falls on the deceased, which is obviously wrong. In fact, taxes can only fall on the living, namely decedents, who are almost always less well to do. Second, the estate tax is a direct tax on capital, which not only punishes the thrifty while relieving the profligate, but hurts workers and others far removed from the direct effects of the tax by reducing capital formation and, hence, productivity and living standards. Mankiw concludes: "The estate tax unfairly punishes frugality, undermines economic growth, reduces real wages, and raises little, if any, federal revenue. There are no principles of good tax policy that support this tax, and I support the President's calls for its permanent repeal."
The Wall Street Journal came up with this today:
RED STATES CARE: In news sure to depress those for whom Republican stinginess and antipathy for the less fortunate is an article of faith, the Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy has just released its Generosity Index 2003, which ranks states not just by how much their residents give per capita but also by how much they give relative to what they earn. As OpinionJournal.com reader Gabriel Openshaw pointed out to us, the resulting index shows that the top 20 states all went for George W. Bush in the 2000 election--while 15 of the 20 least generous went for Al Gore. Maybe, he suggests, the difference is that those in red states are more generous with their own money while those in blue states are more likely to be generous with other people's money.Why do you think the 9 Democratic candidates want to raise taxes?
Over on Slate Tim Noah says he is troubled:
But it is troubling that the public, or at least a highly influential segment of it, has apparently ruled any criticism of President Reagan out of bounds. When did the Gipper become St. Ronald?It was not so much that the CBS program criticized President Reagan, it was that they were lying about him that bothered Reagan supporters. It irritates liberals so much that Reagan is held in high regard for what he accomplished while in office they have to try to drag him and his wife down to the level, say, Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were so tacky that they left office being accused of stealing White House furnishings.