Jun

30

2004

Down The Hatch

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | Comments Off

Ah ha! I knew the reports of how well that movie, (whose name was stolen from a Ray Bradbury title), was doing were false. How else to explain this Rueter’s Headline:

U.S. doughnut sales continue to slide

So it does take record sales to support Moore’s pastry habit!

Jun

30

2004

A letter to the American people

Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | 1 Comment

This is a copy of a FULL PAGE AD taken out by the Iraqi people in USAToday and other national newspapers. Our response as a nation should be… “You’re welcome… now earn this!”

IraqLtr.gif

Read more

Jun

30

2004

Is affirmative action the anchor holding blacks in the Democratic Party?

Filed Under Race and Prejudice | 5 Comments

In a post from last week, Scott Wickham sounds some themes appropriate for the moment.

There are clear policy choices in this election that will affect lives of the majority of black Americans, in this election the republican party, Bush in particular, has more to offer us than the democrats. Unfortunately we will not be able to benefit from them unless we vote for Bush in 2004. Bush has stood by his supporters again and again, those who don’t support him get ignored. The majority of black America can not afford to be ignored by the government.
Directly above that post is another that seems to explain this, yet doesn’t.
There is ONE reason that is always brought up to condemn Bush when I suggest that blacks should vote for Bush. That is of course his stand against affirmative action. Bush like the majority of Americans don’t support affirmative action. I am sure I and many of my friends have benefited from it, so I personally support it.

Unfortunately its an idea who’s time has past.

Okay, so maybe I’m a typical ignorant white guy who doesn’t understand black America, but is affirmative action the crux of all the negativity against the Republican Party? Is part of that because even rational people who disagree with it feel necessary to support it because they have been helped by it? Somebody please comment and try to get whitey here to understand.

Jun

30

2004

“We are not enemies, but friends.”

Filed Under Politics, Race and Prejudice | 2 Comments

I was describing to Steve just this morning (okay, yesterday morning…) how there are some people of the opposing political philosophy with whom I feel no real aggravation. It’s actually closer to exasperation, and that’s a big difference in my book. For these particular people, their perspective coupled with their essential goodness causes them (IMHO) to misunderstand that my contrary perspective does not mean I’m essentially evil (or at least “inherently wrong”). I believe in these people and their honest and well-meaning conviction of their positions. My hope and love for them rides on the belief that they are caught in a doctrine that has lied to them and misled them about me and what I believe, and that there’s always hope I can work with them and occasionally sway them to agree with my side of an issue. This also causes my mind such grief that I almost think I could bend spoons with my despair.

But tonight I see that there is a corollary to this phenomenon, and despite 1-1/2 years of blogging, I’m suprised that this is the first time I truly understand this. There are other people – people who adhere to a philosophy very similar to my own – who cannot bring themselves to believe that I am on their side. Or perhaps, for reasons of their own, they just cannot allow themselves to be affiliated with a name I wear with unabashed pride, as a sign of that philosophy we share. While the first phenomenon I described is akin to exasperation, this one is closer to unrequited love: you can see the goodness in each other, and care for each other, but the other side isn’t quite capable or willing to qualify it in the same way you are. That’s more than puzzling – it hurts sometimes, and there’s not much you can do about it.

Ambra Nykol brings this into focus where my outreach to the black community is concerned.

I grew up in a home with Christian Democrat parents. I couldn’t even explain that one to you if I tried (and I will). However, when asked at one point by my high school history teacher about my family’s political affiliation, without hesitation, I answered, “We tend to vote for Democrats because although we are against many of the things for which Democrats stand, we think the racial issues supercede the morality issues.” At the time I don’t think I understood what I was saying, but even now, I couldn’t agree with that statement less.
Yet Ambra’s piece is the first installment of a promised multi-post series called, “Why I Am Not a Republican”. After reading this, I’m sure there’s a 12-place setting of silverware somewhere that’s just gotten twisted all to hell.

A wise man, caught in a time when he had a terrifying difference of opinion with his politcal rivals, once tried to reach out to them and show them that the ideals they shared far outweighed the differences that separated them.

We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
Abraham Lincoln uttered these words during his first innagural address in an attempt to cross a far greater political divide than the one that separates me from black conservatives like Ambra today. That some in my party may have used tactics in the past forty years that were more than criminal is indefensible. But that the Republican Party itself should be prejudged for the actions of this minority over the tireless effort of the majority in the preceeding 100 years is incomprehensible to me.

This impression feeds off itself, causing our party to become more and more white. This is not proof in itself that Republicans are racist. Yet we continue to be portrayed as such, and this causes most of us to become disillusioned to the hope of ever being proved otherwise. That blacks who realize they don’t share the radical socialist philosophies of today’s Democratic Party have a hard time passing the gut-check and becoming Republicans isn’t surprising for the exact same reason, but in reverse.

Honest Abe said it himself, “We are not enemies, but friends.” We share many values and our party was the political home for many blacks for almost a century – for most blacks for most of that century. You don’t have to be satisfied with the half a loaf the Democrats promise and never deliver. Prominent Republicans like Powell, Rice, Paige, Thomas, and Elder can tell you you have no more to fear from us than from them.

On the contrary, the longer we resist balancing out this equation, the greater the chance you will get nothing from the allegiance they’ve come to expect from you. And the longer we resist balancing out this equation, the less those despirited Republicans will expect they’ll need to listen to black voices during debate. The longer it takes for the two of us to embrace our common heritage and our common future, the greater racism will fester on both sides.

UPDATE: Y’know, I read over this, and I get the distinct impression I might just be stepping over a line, especially with all these “you’s” and “we’s”. I’m sounding especially preachy, perhaps.

Then again, another quote comes to mind:

Wait, hold on here. Is this a barbershop? Is this a barbershop? If we can’t talk straight in a barbershop, then where can we talk straight? We can’t talk straight nowhere else. You know, this ain’t nothin’ but healthy conversation, that’s all.

A friend once complained that she didn’t like two pictures of Mr. Lincoln on the masthead. Eddie’s just given me a better idea for one of them.

UPDATE II: Ambra seems to have confused even herself in the process of writing her posts. The quote above has already been corrected, but with the morning light I see I went off in a direction that isn’t exactly derivative of her post. I guess in some instances I’m talking to the Democrats she is talking about, and in others I’m talking to the conservatives like her who haven’t yet decided what comes after being a former Democrat.

Well, in any event I got a barberpole out of it. And I’m anxiously awaiting the next installment.

Jun

29

2004

Say ‘Abu Ghraib’ in Latin

Filed Under Religion | Comments Off

I guess you should put me into the third class of Catholics according to the Dallas Morning News’ editorial excoriating the Church for the sex abuse scandal: I feel powerless. But here’s a news flash for you: I always have. What else is new? That’s part of being Catholic.

You may be asking, “The sex abuse scandal?” Yes, it’s still alive.

In the Romanesque version of the Abu Ghraib story, the abuse goes on and the press is all too delighted to tell us about it. It smells like 1974 all over again… not content to come close to destroying the American Presidency, the press sets its sights on the papal throne.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s heinous what some priests have done, and it is compounded by the apparent complicity of certain bishops. But the press isn’t in this for Truth alone. Nowhere in the editorial does it even suggest that some of these men might not be guilty – even though some of them haven’t even had a trial yet. In the midst of a furor over wrongful prosecutions despite DNA evidence proving otherwise, you’d think some people carrying on a crusade for Truth might consider that at least some of the adults pointing the finger of blame for their screwed up lives might just happen to be lying about what happened five, ten and twenty years ago. And we’re still talking about a disgraceful minority of the priests and bishops.

That said, many if not most of these cases are not in doubt, and many times bishops have shuttled priests from parish to parish despite knowing full well what they have done. The problems need to be rooted out and excised from Mother Church. But you’re not going to get lay Catholics who remain active in the Church to foment a revolution from within. We’re the ones who respect and adore the Church for taking hundreds of years to come to a conclusion about something, despite the pressure of a modern age that demands things get done yesterday.

The church will heal, but don’t expect it on your timetable. You want “fast”… we’ll give you fasting.

UPDATE: Robert Novak offers some (as usual) pessimistic words about freedom of speech in churches.

Jun

29

2004

Stars on the rise

Filed Under Race and Prejudice | Comments Off

Star Parker, like Juan Williams before her, makes the case for playing for the black vote by going into black churches.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie has been touring the country with boxing promoter Don King addressing black businessmen in the inner cities. But is this really the best way to reach black voters? Less than 3 percent of blacks own businesses and most of these are mom-and-pop operations with revenues of less than $150,000 per year.

The way to reach blacks is through the black church. Starbucks knows this. Its recent entry into the inner cities has been orchestrated through churches.

Nationwide, there are 65,000 black churches, with more than 20 million members and $50 billion in revenues. Republicans need to build on this base, already with Bush on social issues, and help blacks make the logical connection between their faith and the importance of individual freedom and personal responsibility.

This is bordering on mind-blowing. Gillespie’s almost feeble attempts to seem like we’re reaching out to the black community – while not making much of an attempt at all – are going to be seen as more of the same pandering from the right that the community gets from the left. It’s time to stop this. NOW.

PLEASE call the Bush campaign, email the RNC, talk to every Republican officeholder you know and tell them all to get the message to Karl Rove and the President to listen to Star Parker and Juan Williams. Let’s take our case to the people directly by going into the black churches.

Jun

28

2004

Our clock seems a little slow

Filed Under History | Comments Off

Well, now. Bush & Co. seem to have gone off and ruined David’s work on his fancy countdown clock.

Iraq became a sovereign country on Monday, 15 months after the United States led a coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from power and two days before the June 30 deadline for control to be turned over to the interim Iraqi government.

“This is a historical day,” Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi (search) said. “We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation.”

In a swearing-in ceremony, the coalition officially transferred power to the new Iraqi government.

I got up this morning just in time to hear Chucky-boy Schumer tell Fox News that it was a bold and decisive move. Naturally, I turned it off before I could hear the “but…”

Jun

27

2004

Mea Culpa

Filed Under Economics, Religion | 4 Comments

I fear I might be doing Dana a disservice by preaching my extended-length anti-(liberal-)Catholic sermons against government waste over at Note-It Posts, but commenter Kirk has proven to be a true irritant for me. In case my religious rantings are a bother for her, here’s a thread where she can direct Kirk for all the fisking he desires.

Jun

26

2004

Olympic Truce, Why Stop There?

Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off

There is this Egyptian guy over in Judea who sometimes wants us to believe he is powerless to stop the Islamofacists from trying to finish what the National Socialists aspired to during WW II, the extermination of all of Jewish heritage.

Funny thing now, is that he is talking about a truce during this summer’s Olympics, this man that once put a sponsor of the Munich Olympic terror attack into a position of power in Palestine, he wants a truce this year? If this man can get his side to stop their terror for a few weeks, why not for all time? I think it is time to press Mr. Yassir Arafat once again. He can give a truce? I say we should, in poker terms now, put him all in. If he can stop it for awhile, he must stop it all together, or he is the next to go.

So, what do you say slick? Are you bluffing, or are you ready to play for all of your chips?

UPDATE: Allah has the perfect complement to this article. – Chris

Jun

26

2004

Separation of Church and Strafe?

Filed Under War and Terrorism | 2 Comments

Michele at A Small Victory notes a political effect on our military’s ability to fight that is predictable only in that it is too absurd to not happen in these times. Imagine this: two members of the Congress do not want our troops to kill the enemy with bullets purchased from Israel!

Apparently, our domestic sources for ammunition can not keep pace with the demand, so the DoD imported rounds from a Jewish manufacturer. Now, for fear of offending the maniacal murderous dead-enders masquerading as religious zealots who wish to end our existence, members of our goverment want those rounds to be expended only on the practice range. Every day it gets harder to tell who is on our side, and who is against us.

This comment was too rich to not share:

“Okay, okay. I’ve already mentioned this elsewhere, but it’s like a scene from ‘Aliens’. The Marines are down under the cooling towers, in the very heart of Alien country. The loser Lt. has the SgtMaj. collect all the rounds, worried that one stray shot could set off a small thermo nuclear reaction. A disgusted grunt asks: ‘What are we supposed to use? Harsh language?’” – tree hugging sister
Of course, that film was made before the current plague of political correctness infected our nation so completely. Today harsh language will land you in trouble, unless your are a moonbat liberal, then you can say no wrong. Well, I say [insert VP Cheney addressing Sen. Leahy here] political correctness; praise the Lord and pass the ammunition through hog fat and into the enemy. Let us worry about stopping them, let them worry about their souls. For, if they do not have faith in their God, and their salvation, why should we. In that sense, I am all for a separation of Church and strafe.

Jun

26

2004

Crickets are chirping again

Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off

The Belmont Club has two posts today that absolutely skewer the news media’s coverage of the military’s successes in Iraq, not to mention some special attention for Ted Koppel and Michael Moore. (Hat trick!)

In information also gleaned from Strategy Page, Zarqawi’s attacks in recent days don’t seem to be doing much good. They’re just pissing off the decent Iraqis who are doing the most dying, and both they and the Americans are counting down the hours when we start being the invited guests of the new Iraqi government.

Jun

26

2004

Quotables

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

“The idea is that you argue in the daytime and then you have a drink together at night. But there’s a difference when you essentially accuse a Vice-President of corruption, and then you slap him on the back and smile. I think that deserves a riposte, including a suggestion of how the Senator might entertain himself.”
 - Charles Krauthammer, describing the disingenuous gregarity of U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), and Vice President Cheney’s recent off-color suggestion on the Senate floor in response

EDIT: As Major Garret of Fox News insinuated but didn’t spell out, the fellow who adorns our masthead knows a thing or two about political rivalry. One of his confidants during the Civil War, Charles Sumner, was beaten almost to death with a cane right on the Senate floor during debate. And as early as 1836, Honest Abe was known to finish some “discussions” with a certain fellow legislator from Illinois (named Stephen Douglas) by wrestling with him in the dirt.

Jun

25

2004

Conspiracy Theory

Filed Under War and Terrorism | 5 Comments

Has anyone else noticed the increased use of the big 500lb bombs by our forces recently? Two separate and specific attacks that I count. And has anyone else picked up on the fact that General Kimmitt, in a departure from his traditional “we’ll let you know in a few weeks what the after actions report says” or “we believe the strikes were successful, but we’ll have to get more intel” type statements, his pronouncements about these recent strikes have been absolute!? I saw the daily press conference the day of the first bombing and the change in General Kimmitt’s demeanor was striking… he was absolutely positive that the bombing was successful! And this only hours after the bombing had occurred! My spidy sense began tingling!

“All of our post-strike intelligence continues to confirm that this was a safehouse with significant amounts of ammunition stored there,” Kimmitt said. “I will say more accurately that these were key personnel in the Zarqawi network.”
One thing I know for a fact – generals get to be generals not so much because they are good soldiers, but because they are good logisticians, tacticians and politicians. Generals are very measured and reasoned people. How is it all of a sudden then, that General Kimmitt feels so confident and, more telling, in public… in front of the media? How is it that we now have so much (and presumably accurate) actionable intel on the whereabouts of Zarqawi and his aides to justify a bombing in the middle of a residential district? Could it be, dare I say it (alert the Liberal media, it’s their favorite subject!)… Abu Ghraib?

I can hear the “Say what!” coming from all of you as I type… but just follow me for a sec.

It is a well know and oft used tactic of police and prosecutors in this country to employ snitches, preferably close associates, to help them gain information to help them snag the really big fish. This is used with low level drug dealers all the time to help the authorities get to the suppliers. It was also used with great affect to help take down the mob. But you couldn’t just ask a guy to be a snitch, you needed to have something on him… threaten him with 20 years in prison and offer to reduce it to 3 as long as he helps… that sort of thing.

So, let’s say the cops pop some guy and get him to agree to roll on his bosses, you just can’t cut him loose! You have to make it look plausible… like the cops had let him go due to a snafu on their part or some such ruse. Whatever the reason, the entire setup depends entirely on getting this guy to assimilate back into the group without being suspected. Now it would seem to me that, in order to make the release of this guy as believable as possible and thereby give your plot the maximum chance of success, the worse you have to make yourself look in the process.

Now remember Abu Ghraib… and think James Bond!

WOW… now I really hear the chorus of “You’re out of your flipping mind!”

I know I skirt the edge of “tinfoil hat” land with this proposition, but what if the prisoners we have released over the past few months due to the Abu Ghraib kerfuffle were, shall we say ‘enhanced’ (without their knowledge, of course) to allow us to track their movements? I know we posses the technology to do this. I mean how hard would it be to drug a prisoner and make him ingest or surgically embed a transponder of some sort? I would say, in a controlled environment like a prison, not too hard at all! And since it would then appear to many in the world that we were just releasing individuals in an attempt to lessen the bad press the prisoner abuse has caused, we could essentially release hundred of ignorant snitches onto the streets of Baghdad, Mosul, Baqouba, Ramadi, and Fallujah… and into the waiting and open arms of our enemies.

Now I’m not saying that the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was intentional (though if it was, with this as their goal, I would have a new found respect for our intelligence agencies) but what if some enterprising agent saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. Taking lemons and making lemonade as it were! I mean, any intelligent person would know that the Abu Ghraib story would create a firestorm of controversy, especially with our liberal press so anxious to find a chink in GWs armor! And any intelligent person would also surmise that such scrutiny would probably force us to release individuals we would rather not release. I believe that someone intelligent enough to know those things would see the opportunity to enlist – overtly and covertly – operatives that could and would aid our cause.

It’s just a passing thought I had… I know, probably just gas! But I just think it’s curious, especially since the Military faces we see on TV – General Kimmitt, et al – after having been so hesitant in the past to confirm or deny any action in Iraq, are now so willing to speak with such assurance. Could it be that they know for a fact that they got at least one “key personnel in the Zarqawi network” because they put him there?

Hmmmmm… I wonder!

BTW… you may well be saying “well if this is true you just let the cat out of the bag!”

But did I?

Having a mole with a transponder in the midst of the enemy camp would only be marginally better than for an already paranoid and suspicious enemy to believe that everyone in their camp had a transponder embedded in them!

Jun

24

2004

The root of the problem

Filed Under History | Comments Off

As you should know from my frequent mentions of it, I’m currently reading Carl Sandburg’s two-part biography of Abraham Lincoln. Much to my suprise, I found when Sandburg described Lincoln’s first Innaguration Day, he confirmed something James Taranto has pointed out many times (for an example, look in his columns for for the frequent “Homelessness Rediscovery Watch” entries):

March 4 dawned with pleasant weather that later turned bleak and chilly for the 25,000 strangers roving Washington. With hotels and rooming houses overcrowded, hundreds had slept on the porches of public buildings and on street sidewalks.
Thus proving that homelessness has been caused by Republican presidents since the very beginning of the Grand Old Party.

Jun

23

2004

Proportion

Filed Under Education, History, Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Politics | Comments Off

Here at TBR, we recently had a discussion with a reader who insisted that our military has created a prison system for captive enemies that is comparable to the old Soviet Gulags. I believe that we won the argument, and that the claim made by upyernoz was ridiculous. The hyperbole in his charge is similar to that which we hear often lately, wherein the word worst is tossed about with ease, and the names of the most infamous people, places and actions of the twentieth century are conjured up to defame contemporary people, places and actions.

Bret Stephens’ Just Like Stalingrad explains why using Hitler, Gulags, Holocaust, worst economy, international failure, worst President, etcetera to describe today’s people and events is not only incorrect, but also damages the language.

So here is one aspect of this insanity: no sense of proportion. For Mr. Blumenthal, Fallujah isn’t merely like Stalingrad. It may as well be Stalingrad, just as Guantanamo may as well be Lefertovo and Abu Ghraib may as well be Buchenwald, and Mr. Bush may as well be Hitler and Hoover combined, and Iraq may as well be Vietnam and Bill Clinton may as well be Franklin Roosevelt.

The absence of proportion stems, in turn, from a problem of perspective. If you have no idea where you stand in relation to certain objects, then an elephant may seem as small as a fly and a fly may seem as large as an elephant. Similarly, Mr. Blumenthal can compare the American detention infrastructure to the Gulag archipelago only if he has no concept of the actual size of things. And he can have no concept of the size of things because he neither knows enough about them nor where he stands in relation to them. What is the vantage point from which Mr. Blumenthal observes the world? It is one where Fallujah is “Stalingrad-like.” How does one manage to see the world this way? By standing too close to Fallujah and too far from Stalingrad. By being consumed by the present. By losing not just the sense, but the possibility, of judgment.

So, the next time a blame America first liberal speaks out, repress the desire to castigate him for telling the biggest lies since back when Clinton disgraced the Presidency. For, that would certainly be disproportionate, the lies then were too many, too bald; and they haven’t stopped coming yet.

Next Page →

  • Featured Sponsor

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories