i pledge allegiance to roe v. wade
here libs, try this one on for size:
NO LAW IS EVER SETTLED LAW.
not the ones that say little brown babies can't go to school with little white babies, and not the ones that say they are all equal under vacuum, pliers, and saline injections.
not that it should really make much difference what your opinion on roe is. any right thinking citizen ought to feel the bile bubbling up when senators start asking for oaths of fealty. they're demanding allegiance to the ends, which, even if valid, may have been reached through flawed means. those means would then be upheld, free to bring about future perversions of justice we cannot even begin to foresee. and, of course, the vehemence with which the oath is demanded gives us all the more reason to be suspicious. senators don't whisper lies, they scream them.
sure, i'm just one more rightwing crank worked up into a lather over abortion, but it's not like i'm the one out there boasting of my broad-mindedness--a condition which, for the liberal, amounts to the willingness to accept any means, however flawed or duplicitous, so long as the desired end can be attained.
locdog's got a mean little end himself, baby
at least they didn't cut off any ears
it seems john kerry just can't help himself. maybe it's because his own military career was a complete fraud, but whatever the reason, he can't help but smear american troops in harm's way:
[T]here is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women.
back during vietnam, it was cutting off ears and razing villages in a "fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." but with new wars comes new ugly slander. no longer are we compared to ravaging mongol hordes. we've graduated to gestapo.
and did anyone else notice that kerry used the t-word (that i so handily emphasized in the quote)? now we all know what a gifted orator the good senator is, so we can hardly be expected to believe that its usage was accidental.
so according to john kerry, american soldiers are rapists, pillagers, and now terrorists. funny. the rest of us have always thought of them as heroes.
i've decided to become a liberal
so i've decided to become a liberal. as i see it, it offers many distinct advantages over my present lifestyle.
1. first and foremost is the death of truth. at the end of the day, issues like right and wrong, faith and spirituality, and other great questions of our day are entirely up to me. rather than being obligated by reason to believe in something i find distasteful, i am free to select whichever religion/standard of justice/view on a particular issue makes me feel best--and, what's more, i'm under no obligation to be consistent. indeed, consistency, as any decent lib will tell you, is the "hobgoblin of small minds." the more i vacillate, the smarter i am.
2. second, and this is the most direct consequence of number 1, is that i would then be free to pursue a life of unabashed hedonism. i would do this by telling myself that i would draw the line at hurting others, but, as AIDS, unwed mothers, drug and alcohol addiction, and a million other societal ills readily attest, such is, in fact, an impossibility. that said, my friends, who would all be liberals themselves since liberals shun intellectual diversity like leprosy, would never criticize me. liberalism isn't about results, ergo, it doesn't really matter who i hurt. what matters is that i maintain the proper attitude while hurting others. i may not be a hypocrite, and i may not make anyone else feel bad about how they are hurting others. other than that, i can go nuts. get married five times to five women and sire five children to all of them--hey, the kids will be better off without all the constant bickering, right? that sort of thing.
3. closely related to number 2 is the sudden boost in popularity that would inevitably follow, as i will now be aligning myself with all of popular culture. whether it's MTV or commander in chief, the common thread of liberalism runs through all. the attitudes and values espoused by nearly everyone else around me will now be my own. when i am in a group with several colleagues and one of them starts making fun of Christianity or the president or the state of kentucky, i can laugh along with everyone else.
4. popularity is the admiration of others, but i think that i will be able to do a lot more admiring myself. i'll be able to pick up a major newspaper or turn on a network news broadcast at random and know that i am going to agree with everything i see. nothing will challenge me, nothing will cause me to become upset--at least, the stuff that will upset me will be things like the destruction of the rainforest. it will be something that's further confirming my worldview as it's upsetting me. i can watch the oscars and actually enjoy the acceptance speeches. when barbara streisand opens her mouth, i'll enjoy what comes out of it (singing aside, i mean.) i can listen to this american life or watch nightline and not want to throttle someone. whereas meaningless multiculturalisms like "happy holidays" used to make me want to puke, they'll now fill me with an urge to...have a happy...something. but it'll be good, of that i'm sure.
5. i can be lazy. i can be indigent. i can be a victim. i'll no longer have to take personal responsibility for anything anymore--indeed, my liberal politicians will actively discourage me from doing so. if i have a need, no longer will i need to go out and work to fill it, i'll just cry about it until someone fills if for me. i'll sleep until noon, buy steaks and tacos with my food stamps, maybe buy a quad or a dirt bike. who knows?
i'll no longer have to fight against the rising of the tide. i'll no longer have to weep at the gathering gloom. whereas i now think everything is getting worse, i'll then think everything is getting better. in short, i will let go of every ounce of character, independence, self-reliance, discipline, devotion, integrity, intelligence, and principle i have and be just like george soros. well, sans billions anyway.
then again, maybe locdog could remain a ruthless capitalist bastard long enough to make a bit more scratch, then go for the conversion--you know, just like soros
not a good day to be a republican
but at least france is burning to the ground.
i find that so damned gratifying that i'm really quite ashamed of myself.
1. the french wise up, deport the imam ringleaders, shot rioters on site, and block future muslim immigration.
2. they bend over backwards to capitulate, thus sparking an endless cycle of extortion.
3. they cede france, pack up, and move to spain.
my money's on 2, but 3 is a solid dark horse.
i'm not sure what's more fun, watching allah's chickens coming home to roost or watching the american left squirm in reaction.
best reaction thus far: IOZ's presumably meth-induced take, wherein he argues that the most appropriate response to decades of government-afforded jobs and housing is to burn down one's community. 35% unemployment would make me want to riot too, i suppose, but then, when the government-sponsored-jobs-protected-by-trade-barriers approach is what got france into this mess in the first place, it's hard to imagine what more the government could be expected to give them. what they should give them, after the tear gas and bullets, i mean, is a pink slip and a tax break. put another way, they should give them the opportunity to start their own lives.
and let's not get too swept up in the revolutionary spirit, comrade. these aren't a bunch of trotsky's we're talking about here. we're talking about the arab street, homes. the most brutish, ignorant, and cruel place on earth. it's usually kept in check by the thugocracies that produced it in the first place (see hussein, saddam) but when it gets a taste of western liberty things can get a little messy (see iraq.)
why are the islamists revolting? because the frog-wannabes haven't had a bath in weeks buh dum bum. but seriously folks, is there any other way to behave?
someone spits on a koran? we riot. someone calls God by a different name? we riot. someone fails to provide us with our politically correct kosher diets? we riot. someone applies a filthy jewish word like "kosher" to our diet? we riot.
i know, i know. i'm a racist. yeah. sure. whatever.
here's the problem, chief. it's not about race. it's about islam. it's about a belief system that has warped the minds of men to the point where they can reliably be counted upon to act like monsters at the slightest provocation (e.g. osama) and where most of the ones who aren't monsters themselves cheer on those who are (e.g. our good friend the arab street.)
france has had a checkered history when it comes to islam, of course. algiers and what have you. but since then they've thrown open their borders and done their best to provide their guests with good old fashioned european socialism. among leading western powers, one could not name a nation more willing to traffic with unsavory arab governments or ready to defend the same from just reprisals. how perfectly fitting that islam, a philosophy that cannot be bought, cannot be reasoned with, cannot be sated by anything less than total surrender, has now set it's sights on france.
and anyway, locdog could care less who governs virginia
bring it on
it wasn't supposed to be this way.
the 2,000th death celebration. record oil profits. harriet meirs. tom delay and merry fitzmas, next it's karl rove.
last week brought us some of the GOP's darkest days since watergate, and unquestionably the darkest of the bush administration.
what a difference a week makes, huh?
after a 22 month investigation into the plame leak, the closest thing to an indictable offense that special prosecutor patrick fitzgerald could come up with is an unknown cheney aid possibly perjuring himself over something that was never a crime to begin with. but paddy boy would be damned if he wasn't going to indict someone for something after the better part of two years--even if it wasn't going to be karl rove.
harriet "who?" meirs is a memory the base will be only too happy to block out thanks to samuel alito, a brilliant, soft-spoken judge who should make a bang up witness at his confirmation. after having their heads handed to them by roberts, senate dems were salivating at the prospect of beating up on the relatively inexperienced meirs. but alito will eat their lunch and the little note their mama wrote them, too.
record oil profits are bad news when you're paying over three dollars at the pump, but with gas prices falling to pre-katrina levels, that headline has lost much of it's sting. combine that with low unemployment and brisk economic growth and the fiscal picture isn't nearly as grim as the dems try to paint it.
even tom delay has been blown off the front page, mostly by the alito nomination, but also by the report from the president's tax advisory panel (not as far-reaching as some of us would have preferred, that, but a definite improvement) and the bird flu initiative (relatively meaningless from a public health standpoint, but a brilliant bit of initiative-seizing politically.)
yep, it wasn't supposed to be this way.
which is why it was the democrats melting down yesterday with their grandstanding closed-door session, not the republicans. what else have they got left? cindy sheehan, harreit meirs, valerie plame...the three queens of discontent came bearing lumps of coal instead of priceless gifts. serves the dems right.
the democrats are a party in disarray. the last national figure they had with any semblance of an idea was al gore, and he couldn't sell a book of matches to an eskimo. since then it's been attack, attack, attack, but they haven't been able to punch through the republican lines on any front. the democratic base, still bitter over clinton's impeachment, the 2000 elections, the crack their mothers smoked while expecting, and God knows what else, believe that the way to get out of the muck they're bogged down in is to mash the accelerator even harder. the democratic leadership, cowed by the move-on chicken-littles now ruling the roost, is only too eager to oblige.
personally, i'm praying that the white house and republican leadership will grab their torches and kindling and dive into this latest witch hunt with relish. let's have that debate about pre-war intelligence. let's look at the claims of clinton and gore in '98 and '99, back when the (not so) little blue dress was the fashion craze. let's look at the UN's own findings over that same period, since they were so reluctant to help. let's talk about the iraqi people's plight prior to their liberation by allied forces, since ted kennedy is so convinced they were better off before we came. let's have our debate over whether the world is safer without that madman hussein in it as a middle-eastern superpower. let's investigate the links between al qaeda and the former regime, now that harry reid has assured us that there was absolutely 100% no connections whatsoever. for three years now republicans have been bullied into silence by some of the most ludicrous charges in modern political history for fear of an unsympathetic media. it's inexcusable. iraq is all the dems have left now, and, truth be told, they haven't even got that. they've only got the illusion of it, the fantasy version the republicans have allowed them to spin for mass consumption. i say it's time to take history back.
the democratic party isn't just at a 52 week low, here. this is rock bottom, a fiasco of historic proportions. theirs is a party with no leaders, no direction, and no real purpose for being. they offer nothing positive to support; a vote for them is a vote for blind rage. it's madness. contrast them, if you will, with the gingrich-era GOP. sure we attacked clinton and sure we had our fun with his scandals, but we at least offered ideas, a vision for the future known as the "contract with america" that served as some tangible alternative to the failures of the clinton administration on a so-called "middle class tax cut" and healthcare reform. and the result? the first republican-controlled congress in 40 years. the democrats offer bile and more bile, and will thus remain safely marginalized.
i find myself almost hoping that the dems get their wish and somehow manage to destroy george w. bush, because he's all they've got left. george bush is the democratic party.
locdog is the republican party
quick take on miers: bush is weak
bush doesn't have any choice in this thing.
assume that bush wants to name another scalia to the bench. how can he? borders and budget have weakened him with his base, iraq and katrina with everyone else.
the liberals reaction so far has been shockingly tame. about the worst i've heard are charges of cronyism--a real howler after 8 years of bubba and friends. cronyism basically means that the libs can't think of anything else to fault bush with on this pick. she doesn't seem particularly dangerous ideologically speaking, but then, for certain democrats, their base wouldn't tolerate a vote for one of bush's nominees had he sent them the second coming of leon trotsky.
on the other side, i've heard many conservative commentators blasting the republican senate for not being able to hold it together, but let's face it, senators will always do what is in their best interests. ask yourself this question: if bush's poll numbers weren't in the tank, would he be appointing miers? not a chance. it's not the senate's fault should they splinter away from an unpopular president, which, of course, is exactly what would happen if he sent up paleolithic pick we on the right had been hoping for.
bush wasn't a lame duck when he started his second term, but one thing is for certain: he is now.
as to miers herself? who the hell knows. she's been one of bush's closest confidants for years, so it really comes down to whether or not you think personal loyalty would trump ideology when it comes to a nomination that will shape the future of our nation for decades to come.
bush has been disappointing in a lot of ways, but i don't yet buy into that cartoon villain image. if miers is a stealth conservative pick, her appointment and what will probably be a successful confirmation (assuming no nanny problems, sexual harras--no, i don't think i want to finish that thought...never mind) may well turn out to be one of the most tactically brilliant political moves of this young century.
if it's trickery then it's good trickery, but locdog wishes we didn't need it
make your case against delay here.
i set out this morning to do a post in defense of tom delay when it suddenly dawned on me that i'm not exactly sure what i could even defend him from. so, concerned liberals of the web, here's your chance set me straight.
what, exactly, has tom delay done?
i'm not looking for railing accusations and ten page screeds, i'm looking for facts, because, on the basis of what little fact i've seen, i'm having a hard time figuring out what law delay broke.
i know what he's accused of. he's accused of violating texas campaign contribution law--law modeled on the mccain-feingold federal version--by conspiring with another party to solicit corporate donations for TRMPAC, a political action committee he founded. but beyond that it starts to get a little murky.
TRMPAC sent $190,000 to the republican national committee, $155,000 of which was donated by corporate sources, on the 13th of september, 2002--less than sixty days from the november elections. presumably, this is what delay is being indicted for.
i say "presumably" because none of what i just explained is actually illegal. according to the sections of texas election code delay supposedly violated (253.104 (a), (b)):
A corporation or labor organization may make a contribution from its own property to a political party [but] may not knowingly make a contribution...during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election.
except that no such donations actually occurred. TRMPAC is not "a political party" any more than moveon.org is, so corporations broke no law in giving them money (there is also some dispute as to when those corporations actually made their donations to TRMPAC, with some observers claiming that these did not occur withing the 60 day limit.) corporations made perfectly legal donations to TRMPAC, and TRMPAC then made a donation to the RNC--but TRMPAC itself isn't a "corporation or labor union," so what's the problem?
now you could say that this is all a bit unseemly, a bit sleazy, a bit dirty. hey, i'll be the first to agree, but what you can't say is that it's illegal--or, if you can, then you need to show me how.
according to delay, who appeared with brit hume last night on FNC, both parties do it. that's not a defense, but it's not much of a surprise, either. essentially what TRMPAC did (and delay denies having any knowledge of or hand in their day-to-day operations, including the 2002 check, of course) was to launder corporate money into the hands of state candidates.
well, that's not illegal. and if you liberals don't like it, you have only yourselves to blame. welcome to the nasty world of campaign finance, post-mccain. we told you this would happen.
and even if you could somehow prove to me that what TRMPAC did was illegal, you'd then have to prove that not only did delay know if it, but that he actively conspired to "knowingly [make] a political contribution in violation of...Texas Election Code," as the indictment charges. in other words, it's not enough to merely show that delay was aware of what was happening, and it's not enough to show that delay told TRMPAC to make it happen. you have to show that delay knowingly violated the law, i.e., you have to prove his intent.
good luck with that.
this is a weak indictment brought on by a prosecutor with howlingly transparent political motives--a topic for another post--founded in the most liberal county in texas. maybe that doesn't make delay innocent, but the burden of proof is on you guys, and so far, i'm not seeing much in the way of proof.
locdog invites you to lay your cards on the table