< meta name="DC.Date.Valid.End" content="20050827">

Catastrophic Success

As if there weren't enough political opinionating out there, I, too, now sing the body bloglectric. Let me FEED you![XML]

Location: United States

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

End of NaNoBlogMo

I wanted to write an entry per day for the month of November with a minimum of 15,000 words. Sadly, not counting this entry or titles, I only wrote 12,489 words, some of which were actually other articles. I did make 30 (now 31) posts. Still I will give myself 10,000 words for the month, meaning that at this pace, I could write a novel in 5 to 6 months. Good to know. Maybe I'll do it for real next year. Yes. Yes, I will.

Monday, November 29, 2004

10 Rules of a Southern Belle

I found this link in my referrer logs (an artifact of Blogger's odd "Next Blog" feature, I imagine) and read it and dear god, this is brilliant. These 10 items are more guidelines than rules, but this woman so completely understands men that her code of behaviour will lead to the utter and willing domination of all men. I think this woman should give classes in how to completely subvert the will of any man you choose to be with.

She doesn't do it by overtly controlling any aspect of the relationship, only by so controlling her own behaviour that any man would willingly do anything she asked. Ladies, this is how you get your man to behave himself. Be a woman and treat him like a man. The core precept of this list is "You get more flies with honey than with vinegar," and it ends with one of the truest statements I have ever heard:
"Women judge love by how the man makes them feel. If he makes us feel all mushy and giddy with butterflies the size of rabbits in our tummy, it's love. For a man, it's not how he feels about you that grabs his attention...it's how he feels about himself when he's around you. If being around you makes him feel like the man he wants to be, then he will love you forever."

Well, that's one more addition to my blogroll.

November 29, 1947 - November 29, 2004

This BlogBurst piece is cross-posted by participating websites, to commemorate a milestone in Israel's history. The list of the participating sites is appended at israpundit's original post.

November 29, 2004:

Anniversary of the UN vote on Resolution 181

Today is the anniversary of the UN vote on resolution 181, which approved the partition of the western part Palestine into a predominately Jewish state and a predominately Arab state. (It is vital to recall that the UN partition plan referred to western Palestine, to underscore that in 1921 the eastern part was ripped off the Jewish National Home by the British Government and handed over to the then Emir Abdullah.)

The partition plan was approved by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions.

The 33 countries that cast the “Yes” vote were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela. (Among other countries, the list includes the US, the three British Dominions, all the European countries except for Greece and the UK, but including all the Soviet-block countries.)

The 13 countries that chose the Hall of Shame and voted “No” were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen. (Ten of these are Moslem countries; Greece has the special distinction of being the only European country to have joined the Hall of Shame.)

The ten countries that abstained are: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

On November 30, 1947, the day following the vote, the Palestinian Arabs murdered six Jews in a bus making its way to Jerusalem, and proceeded to murder another Jew in the Tel-Aviv - Jaffa area. This was a prelude to a war that claimed the lives of 6,000 Jews, or 1% of the total Jewish population in 1948. This toll is the per capita equivalent of today’s Canada losing 300,000 lives, or the US losing 3,000,000.

The object of the war, launched by the Arabs in the former Palestine and the armies of Egypt, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon (with help from other Arab countries), was to "throw the Jews into the sea". As the partition map indicates, however, rather than annihilate the Jewish population, the Arabs ended up with less territory than they would have gained by peaceful means.

In addition to the bloodshed in nascent Israel, immediately after the UN vote, Arabs attacks their Jewish neighbours in a number of Arab countries, the murders in Syria’s Aleppo being the best known.

Bruised and bleeding, Israel prevailed nonetheless. May our sister-democracy thrive and flourish.

I post this because Israel is the one nation truly beset on all sides by terrorism and is daily shown her enemies' desire to eradicate her from the face of the earth. Israelis understand that choosing not to fight in the face of evil is a choice to die. Ending Islamofascist terrorism is not easy or pretty, but it is necessary. America has been a steadfast ally of Israel, even though we were at times misguided enough to believe a peaceful resolution was possible with Arafat (we were wrong). I hope that America is ever the beacon of hope for Israel to cling to. I hope that our efforts to protect her are as steady and strong as our efforts to protect ourselves.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004


Thanksgiving is on Thursday (how unusual) and I was feeling reflective as a result. So since blogs are vanity publishing I thought I'd turn away from the politics of this blog (in which my interest has temporarily ebbed as I scramble hither and yon in preparation for the holidays and end-of-year at work) and focus instead on what I have to be thankful for.

A little background. Growing up, I was utterly and completely convinced that I was going to die at 22. Part of this stems from the fact that my mother died when she was 22 (I was 3 and half, barely older than my elder daughter) and that she reportedly knew that she was going to die very young and in a fire, both of which happened. At any rate, I presume that was a contributing factor in my paranoia, but there are others, I'm sure, but I don't want to get into speculation on that. This put quite a damper on any future plans I made, since, after all, I wouldn't really be around to enjoy them. I met the woman who is now my wife when I was 16 (she was 17) and we were in high school. We dated for nearly two years and even after breaking up, were still quite close. We did eventually get married (otherwise she wouldn't be my wife, eh?) two days after I turned 22. She knew of my paranoia, but decided she would rather have one year as my wife than never be married to me at all.

At 22 I married the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. I swore my love for her that day could never be eclipsed, and then it was, time after time, day after day. I am thankful for Carrie, for her deigning to share her life with me.

At 23, I first became a father to Audrey Koren. She has brought more joy and purpose to my life than any self-help book. Watching her learn and grow has been an experience unlike any other. She has given me a new pair of eyes to view the world. Everything she learns, I learn anew. I love her and I am thankful that she is ours.

At 24, I was hired by the company I was under contract to and began my first non-contract work in over a year. Permanent employment was a blessing I had hoped for, but could not ask for (under the terms of my contract). It provided the stability and confidence I needed to be the father and husband I needed to be. I am thankful to be employed in such a vibrant economy.

At 25, I became a father again, to Madelyn Rose. She is now a year old and much to my surprise, everything I learned with Audrey, I have again learned through Madelyn's very different perspective. She has been a wonder and sheer pleasure. She is as different in disposition from Audrey as she is alike her in appearance. She is far more exploratory and brave than Audrey was, taking more risks and getting into more than her big sister did, which only complicates her mother and father's lives since they now have a 3 year old and a more curious one year old with contend with at the same time. I mean that in the very best way. I am thankful for Madelyn, for her spirit and her curiosity.

I have watched the two of them lay the groundwork for the tight bond they will share later. I have observed that there are few more iron-clad but confounding relationships than sisterhood. They fight, argue, love, play and learn together. I am thankful for their love in each other.

At 26, my big event hasn't happened yet (I don't think - geez, I hope it wasn't the election, there's still 9 months to go), but fatherhood has taught me patience, and the year is still young, so I am ready.

These last four years are years I never expected to have. They have been the best years of my life and there aren't any indications of it letting up. I am thankful for the gifts I have, the people who surrounded, the family who loves me, the country I live in, the brave men and women who fight and die that me and mine can live as we wish, for the opportunities I am daily given, even if I don't always take advantage of them. I am the luckiest man in the world and I defy you to prove otherwise.

This Thanksgiving, take the time to be thankful for all of your gifts and blessings. If, unlike me, you are religious, then pay special thanks to your deity for allowing you to live here and now.

Happy Thanksgiving and may your next year be a Catastrophic Success (with the emphasis on the Success).

Friday, November 19, 2004

New addition to bookmarks

I just added Billiken's Bluff to my feed list. They have an interesting little group over there. There are multiple posters, and I tend to agree with N-Dot more often than not, but the other posters seem to have good heads on their shoulders too.

N-Dot's Most recent entry is quite good and gives a new perspective on the way Jaques Chirac views international relations, in light of his remarks to Tony Blair that: "Well, Britain gave its support, but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."

The point is that Chirac can not understand why any country would support any other country unless they were receiving tangible favors in return. A shared value system and protection of a shared way of life are beyond his ken.

N-Dot then goes on to show how that crazy isolationist George Washington kind of knew what he was talking about way back when. (You mean the wisdom of the past may apply to the present? Shut up!)

Recommended reading.

EU Values

European Union justice and interior ministers agreed Friday that new immigrants to the 25-nation bloc should be required to learn local languages, and to adhere to general "European values" that will guide them toward better integration.

European Values? Like this?

Other interesting tidbits today:

Missing link found?
A nearly 13 million-year-old ape discovered in Spain is the last probable common ancestor to all living humans and great apes, a research team says in Friday's issue of Science magazine.

A husband-and-wife team of fossil sleuths unearthed an animal with a body like an ape, fingers like a chimp and the upright posture of humans. The ancient ape bridges the gap between earlier, primitive animals and later, modern creatures.

Matchmaker Liable for Bad Marriage. In other news, Cupid Hangs up Bow and Arrow and Santa Sued for Giving Boring Toy.

UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan. They've got my vote! Seriously, though, I don't understand if a No-Confidence vote from the UN Staff can actually remove him from office. I think the General Assembly would have to do so, but this at least shows his unpopularity amongst those who work for him.

Kerry blames Osama. For stealing the election from him. Honestly, what does it say about the confidence the American people have in you when they entered the voting booth with national security on their mind, as you say, and chose your opponent? UPDATE: Best of the Web used the same headline for this story as me! It's not at all a big deal. They surely got the story from Drudge like me, and how many ways can you headline this story? It's just neat is all. And LGF uses the exact same headline! Squee!

Greeks say Alexander was NOT bi-sexual. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Really? Are you kidding me with this?

"Comparing pornography to heroin, researchers on Thursday called on Congress to finance studies on "porn addiction" and launch a public health campaign about the dangers.
"Internet pornography is corrupting children and hooking adults into an addiction that threatens their jobs and families, a panel of anti-porn advocates told the hearing organized by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., chairman of the Commerce subcommittee on science."

Just say no to Pr0n!

"Mary Anne Layden, co-director of a sexual trauma program at the University of Pennsylvania, said pornography's effect on the brain mirrors addiction to heroin or crack cocaine. She told of one patient, a business executive, who arrived at his office at 9 a.m. each day, logged onto Internet porn sites, and didn't log off until 5 p.m.

Layden called for billboards and bus ads warning people to avoid pornography, strip clubs and prostitutes."

There is not a single reference to personal responsibility in this entire article. Instead, just like foul-language and violence on television, this image is purveyed of Cheney-esque fatcats in a smoky room plotting and planning the best way to "corrupt the children" and turn them into mindless zombies incapable of resisting the allure of the "evil, vile pronographers!" There is not a single moment given to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, a rational adult can chance across a pornographic advertisement or spam and NOT be reduced to a drooling puddle of testosterone ready to rip, rape and tear through society. "The titties told me to rape!" Bullshit.

Personally, I am not a big porn guy. I could take it or leave, but I have seen it, and I do come across it in my travels through cyberspace, and I don't objectify women any more than any other sexually healthy male. I don't run rampant at night sexually assaulting any woman I see. I have sexual urges, of course, and those are satisfied by my wife, myself or my imagination. It is ridiculous to assume that a chance porn-sighting will forever corrupt our children and irreversibly turn our culture into a cesspool incapable of decency and subjugating base instincts. We are rational beings. Passionate, yes, but rational all the same. We use the power of our minds to make decisions every single day. Just as I can watch football and not tackle the first person I see, play Halo or Grand Theft Auto and not shoot the first person I see, I can see a picture of a naked woman and not screw the first person I see.

I understand that a boundary must be erected between adult material and children. I agree. It is, however, the responsibility of the parents to guard that wall, not society. Every brick of that wall that is assumed by society absolves parents of that responsibility. And its a cumulative process. The more responsibility for rearing children that is taken by society, the easier it is to justify removing more and more responsibility from parents. I have two young daughters and I monitor closely what they see and hear. That is my job as their father. I also encourage an environment of learning and questioning. When my elder daughter (3 years old tomorrow) wants to know something, or doesn't understand something, she asks. So far, the subject matter has been pretty tame, but tricky stuff does come up ("What is heaven?" after hearing the word in the "Knick-Knack Paddy-Whack" song) and stronger questions will come up in the future. I'm sure that the issue of sex and porn will come up. When it does, it is my responsibility to explain it in ways that allow her to assimilate the information in such a way that she can healthily deal with porn-spam if she should ever see it.

As parents, our ONLY job is to prepare our children to be functional (at least) and productive (we hope) members of society. That means instilling the mores and values that continue that society. It also means preparing them for the times they encounter the less pleasing or less visible elements of society. That means everything from how to avoid being a victim to self-defense to how to safely own and operate a gun, car and computer to seeing violence and sexual content in the media. If we accept as true that our children can be corrupted by a salacious image they may only see for a moment, we might as well give up on parenting and turn our children over to state-run indoctrination centers that will program them to be happy little robotic servants of the state subject to the whims and desire of their basest instincts and just hand in the keys to the kingdom we have guarded these past 229 years. At that point society can no longer function because there is no one to run it. There will be those who can use their brains and it is they who will become the rulers deciding what will be programmed into our little child-bots.

Beware the path of protection in the name of the children. To quote Terry Goodkind, "lightning awaits you down that path." When you remove the expectation of personal responsibility, then no one is accountable for their own actions and that only benefits the natural dictatorial tendencies of the government, because who else will make those moral decisions you don't want to bother yourself with?

Friday Funnies

Bad day to be a crane operator

Newest Member of the Sears/K-Mart merger: France

Viable Exit Strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan.

With most sincere apologies to Gilberts and Sullivan

Apple's new internet offer

And speaking of Macs, a classic anit-Mac movie made on a Mac.

Thursday, November 18, 2004


Carolyn Parrish has been thrown out of the Liberal caucus by Prime Minister Paul Martin, who said Thursday that her behaviour had become "unacceptable."

According to the one Canadian with whom I am familiar, the government is perilously close to falling because the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party Coalition's now two vote deficit. A straight-party no-confidence vote would bring a 153 to 153 vote tie leaving two independents (Parrish being one of them) to determine the outcome. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. President Bush is scheduled to visit Ottawa later this year. I wonder if a new government will arise in the meantime.

Paul Wells makees a point in his post about her that makes my earlier whining about the left just more indicative of my Americentrism (hey, I own it!). She does drink the Left's kool-aid though.

(It is, though, odd to call her and some other Bush critics "anti-American"; she never had a cross word to say about the Yankees until the Democrats lost the White House. She has a party she prefers when it comes to forming the government of the U.S., just as Mr. Bush has a party he prefers when it comes to forming the government of, say, Spain. He stated his own preference; she stated hers. It is a measure of her perverse genius that she managed to make Bush look elegant by comparison.)

To be honest, she was probably dismissed more for her outright flouting of Prime Minister Paul Martin's authority than for her statements and actions against the President. Still, I take a little pleasure in seeing her taken to task for her insubordination if nothing else.

Wells again:
And now we come to day's most richly entertaining lesson. No prime minister can tolerate a display of open contempt from somebody who is supposed to be a member of his team. The proper response to such behaviour is dismissal. Paul Martin reached that inevitable conclusion today.

Also, for my American readers, a good resource on how the Westminster System of Parliament works can be found here and here. This is the system of governance used in most of the Commonwealth countries and/or the Anglosphere members.

Canadian MP Teaches Love and Understanding

Outspokenly Liberal Canadian MP Stomps Bush.

"OTTAWA - Renegade Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish has once again enraged members of the opposition and her own caucus after tossing a George W. Bush doll on the floor and grinding it under her heel on a satirical television show.

Incensed Conservative MPs demanded that Ms. Parrish -- who last year referred to Americans as "bastards" and more recently likened the U.S. war effort in Iraq to "a coalition of the idiots" -- be banished from the Liberal caucus for her anti-American outburst."

If only we would listen to the liberals in both of our countries and just let go of our hate!

It appears to have caused a stir though, so perhaps, not all Canadians have bought into this liberal mentality of "Hate is bad. Unless you hate Conservatives and GW Bush."

Ontario Liberal MP Roger Gallaway called the stunt "bizarre and stupid," and lamented Ms. Parrish's theatrics as "a rather perverse joke."

"It's a pathetic spectacle that someone would behave in this fashion. I would expect more from infants. It's rotten timing ... and I would hope that she would consider mending her ways," said Mr. Gallaway, who nonetheless argued against bouncing Ms. Parrish, a four-term MP who represents the Toronto-area constituency of Mississauga-Erindale.

"I have a fundamental problem with removing someone from caucus because they're being bizarre and stupid. This place allows all kinds of bizarre and stupid behaviour. Stupidity is a defence here," he said.

Stupidity may be a defense, but it should also be painful.

I know that what is going to happen is that there will be an outcry from the left about how everyone's making "such a big deal out of nothing" because they find it funny. Its always OK to pick on Republicans and fat people. Because its funny. What would the hue and cry be like if a Tory had ground a Bill Clinton Doll or a Paul Martin Doll (can anyone find me a link for this)?

I'm a little sick of the measure of your hipness being determined by how wittily you can besmirch the President of the United States. Do you remember how the Left cried out for respect of the President of the United States when they were valiantly struggling against the Clinton-hater members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Where is that respect today?

The Left has never cared about the office of the President, only that they controlled it. Heaven forbid a Republican get in the White House, and even worse, makes effective use of the bully pulpit! The only use the Left has for the Presidency is the ability to make appointments in the bureaucracy and the judiciary. They have no understanding of the necessity for the Commander-in-Chief powers and woe betide the President who exercises them.

It's sad that it doesn't matter what George Bush does, he is going to be villified. I admire his efforts to reach across the aisle when possible, and I have to admit that I don't think I could continue to do so in the face of such hatred. I don't know that I am man enough to face that fray every single day. I am glad that George W. Bush is man enough and that he continues to try. I am glad he's our President and I hope that he can withstand the hatred for four more years. The mid-term elections of '06 could go a long way toward reinforcing his bulwarks, so its time to start looking ahead. Maybe we can increase the conservative majority in both Houses again, and further confound the Canadians and Europeans. I can't wait.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Rights and Responsibilities

I wrote this some time ago as an elucidation of the basis of my personal philosophy. I accept these statements as axiomatic and thus, if you disagree with me on any of them, chances are you are going to disgree with me on any extrapolation of these statements.

As a human you possess these rights:
The right to Life. The right to live and continue to live until you choose otherwise, or until your life is taken from you
by accident or natural cause. No one has the right to deprive you of your life. You have the right to defend your life, by
any means necessary, if someone attempts to take it from you.

The right of Thought. You have the right to think anything you choose to think. Your thoughts, without word or deed, can not infringe upon another's rights. Your thought can not be controlled by another, unless you allow a person to do so. You must
choose every day to be a victim of thought control and mental violence. If you fail to educate yourself to engender rational thought, your only crime is against yourself. Thoughts are not crimes. This is the most inherent, innocent, inalienable and yet dangerous, right possessed by humans. The right of belief is an extension of the right of Life.

The right of Words. You have the right to say anything you want. You have the right to write anything you want. You have the right to publish anything you want. You are bound, however, by laws that protect the public from clear and present danger in
situational circumstances. You are prohibited by law from shouting FIRE in a public theater when there is no such fire because such an exercise of the right of words endangers the right of life for the others in the theater. Words are often
assigned importance or positive and negative connotation based upon a community's moral standards, but community standards are rarely standard and almost never reflect the entire community's morals. Such infringement upon the right of words is to be avoided at all costs. This invariably leads to the issue of pornographic content (for what are pictures but substitutes for 1000 words?). This is a delicate subject, but essentially as long as the photos/videos/etc are of consenting adults who are aware of the capturing of their images and no one is being harmed, then they do not infringe upon anyone's rights. Words are, however, only Thought expressed.

The right of Action. You have the right to do anything you choose, as long as such action does not infringe upon another person's right. This is the most delicate right, but certainly the most necessary. Thought is not enough to allow survival.
You can not speak food onto a table. You can only insure your life continues by taking the actions necessary to maintain it. You must work so that you can earn money to purchase food. You must take action to ensure your body remains capable of
earning food. These are necessary actions. All others are elective actions, but they are not invalid for being lesser actions. These are the actions of choice. You are free to do anything you choose, so long as no one is harmed or has their
rights infringed upon. Anything. Keep in mind though that Action is only Thought expressed.

I did not choose this order arbitrarily. The right to Life is paramount to all other rights. Since no external evidence proves Life beyond Death, rationally, you only have one Life, which therefore must be protected and maintained through any
necessary means. Life is not, however, being and unthinking vegetable hooked up to all manner of life support. Life is, however, nothing without Thought. Life begets Thought as a survival necessity. Thoughts can not, by themselves, infringe upon
another's rights. Therefore, Life and Thought are the two most inalienable rights.

To be effective in maintaining life though, Thought can only direct words and actions. You can not think yourself fed, nor think your thirst quenched. Neither Word nor Action can exist without Thought. The right of Words is necessary to ensure you can articulate Thought to other humans. When living in a society with other humans, the Right of Word is necessary to ensure that your rights are protected, and your Thought articulated to the group to otentially further survival. Thousands of years of evolutionary programming made humans social creatures. We need that social interaction to feel fulfilled. But that is not a cause to declare it a right. Without the Right of Word, the ability to say, print or communicate anything, you risk the oppression of your rights by those who would speak where you can't. The Right of Word, though, imparts on its users the responsibility to use it properly. One should speak where one is informed and has knowledge. Speaking out of ignorance,
although protected, serves no benefit to the individual or to society and can cause harm by spreading disinformation, misinformation and poisonous ideas. But then, that's what the Right to Thought is for. You are free to think any idea,
poisonous or healthy. If you accept a poisonous thought and it leads to your harm because you did not examine what you accepted into your head, you earned your fate. Words can not, by themselves, infringe upon another's rights. Words can
influence another's thought, but it is the individual's responsibility to think for him or herself and choose whether or not to let those words change their thoughts.

The right of Action is the only right that alone can infringe upon another's right. It is an action to kill someone, gag someone, lock them up, beat them, bind them or otherwise restrict their freedom to exercise their rights. But Action is also
a survival necessity. You can not speak your dinner onto the table, nor speak the water from the ground. Action can be noble or banal, but is only a reflection of thought. Action is impossible without thought to lead it. What this means is that your actions are the true indicator of thought. Any action you take is the result of a choice you made. Whether it comes from the most rational thought process or is the result of a thoughtless passionate rage, it is still a choice made by the individual
through the Right of Thought.

All of these rights hinge on the Freedom of Choice. One must be free to choose when, how and where to exercise these rights. I deliberately called it the Freedom of Choice and not Right of Choice because Right to Choose connotatively refers to Abortion and that's another rant altogether. Without Choice, the other rights are automatically rendered moot.

All rulers rule through the implicit or explicit choice of those ruled. If too many of these rights are unreasonably suppressed for too long, it is incumbent upon the Ruled to take Action to remove such a government and install a new one
which will allow those rights to flourish. In America, we are lucky that, for the most part, these Rights are recognized and codified. Certain limits are placed on them, mostly by necessity. Although the State is not as important as the Individual,
in order to maintain peace, certain limits must, by necessity, be placed on the populace. It is the mark of a great nation, and coincidentally, by ours (but not exclusively), that only those constraints that are necessary are placed on the people. Americans tend to raise quite a ruckus when we feel we are being unduly limited. You'll notice however, that there is no Gulag that Americans are thrown into for exercising their Right of Words against such limitations.

Two quotes held dear:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried," Winston Churchill

"Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored," Aldous Huxley

If you read all that, although its not succinct, everything else called a Human Right can reasonably be seen as an extension of those I have enumerated. However, I don't grant every so-called "right" labelled such by any special interest group (i.e., I don't believe abortion is a right and I don't believe health care COVERAGE is a right). I guess I am kind of a Libertarian, but they are a little to0 anarchist for me. I am also sort of an Objectivist, but they are a little too cultish and extremist for me.

Beyond that, I try to avoid party politics when I can. I am trending toward calling myself a Neo-Conservative despite how much the left has tried to revile the term.

Monday, November 15, 2004

Apparently I'm dense...

Through an apparently completely unintentially ironic choice of words, the diagnosis of Waaah-fter Election Blues was named Post-Election Selection Trauma. I didn't realize it until LGF abbreviated it, but it comes up as PEST in short-form. Just how unintentional was it though?

I can well imagine a therapist getting sick and tired of listening to his patients whine after the election about their candidate losing and coming up with a way to differientiate the PESTs from the real patients. It seems that such angst would be pretty superficial at best since voters tend to care about who's President every four years or so. Today's BEst of the Web has more on the story, including a quote from one of the patients of the doctor who coined the phrase:
"I was so invested emotionally, watching the debates, and was very disturbed whenever I heard a Marine has been killed. I thought Bush's actions were war crimes. But I'm sleeping again since the therapy and have felt better ever since. I don't know what will happen now, but I'm going to take it day by day and see what happens." - Karen I-Don't-Want-To-Give-My-Last-Name, Boca Raton, Fl.

How easy would it be for a trained hypnotherapist to plant a few suggestions that Karen's life isn't really going to go in the shitter because of who the President is? Wouldn't calming her inner "fury" be a pretty simple matter of post-hypnotically suggesting that she simply go on with her life and try to do the best she can to promote her own interests? All hypnosis does is ease the transition from where a patient is to where the patient wants to go. Especially considering this was done in one session, I think this was one therapist's internal joke that went off the reservation when one of the PESTs sent this tidbit to the newspaper.

I like the idea of calling those who can't help but wail and shriek and moan about how their cushy upper-middle-class lives are going to end because Bush got elected and they don't have the support or gumption to secede and Canade won't let them defect PESTs. That will be my new word-of-choice.

Colin Powell Resigns

I hereby nominate The Diplomad for Secretary of State.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Vote Fraud! But I don't mean that in a bad way...

The Votemaster over at Electoral Vote.com has linked to and is hosting a "study" by a University of Pennsylvania professor who insinuates the complete impossibility of the President being re-elected legitimately in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida based solely on non-scrubbed raw data released by the exit pollsters by mistake. He claims that there is no possible way for the vote counts to be legitimate because they diverge so much from the exit polls. I have a few problems with this study though. However, I am not a statistician or a pollster, so this is just a list of things that twitch my BS meter.

One: Its pretty obvious from the tone of this paper (entitled "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy") that Dr. Steven Freeman was quite convinced of his premise before seeking his data. I think he would have been pretty hard to convince of anything other than that Bush "stole the white house"< /end liberal shrieking>.

Two: He doesn't actually have the data he uses as the basis of his thesis. He collected the data from CNN's webpage which supposedly had the unscrubbed data up (again by mistake) until 12:30 a.m. on election night. He has no idea how accurate this pure raw data reflected what CNN actually received from the National Election Pool's pollsters. I just don't like that he is coming to these conclusions based on second- or thrid-hand data.

Three: He takes as inviolable that the exit polls are correct and that the vote count is wrong. His reason for treating the NEP/CNN polls as inconvtrovertible is that a group of students at Brigham Young University have, in the past, been remarkable accurate with their exit poll in Utah, and were again this year. So, obviously since one exit poll is accurate, then ALL exit polls must be accurate, especially when employing different methodologies and different questions and different poll-takers. This seems overly confident to me.

I have posted a comment on a vaguely-related thread at LGF and emailed Shannon Love from Chicagoboyz.net about this for additional fisking because she did such an excellent job debunking the bogus Lancet Study on Iraqi deaths. Hopefully they can do better than my simple BS-meter allows me to.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

It's about damn time!!

Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat Dies

Thursday, November 11, 2004
Associated Press

RAMALLAH, West Bank — Yasser Arafat (search), who triumphantly forced his people's plight into the world spotlight but failed to achieve his lifelong quest for Palestinian statehood, died Thursday at age 75.

Triumphantly? This murdering terrorist slimeball? TRIUMPHANTLY? The man is single-handedly responsible for prolonging a state of war between Israel and its neighboring countries, and he acted triumphantly? If not for him, Palestine would have been a recognized state almost a decade (or longer) ago. His PLO gave excuse to Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad to send mindless drones into Jerusalem with bombs strapped to their chests. He was the face of legitimacy for Islamofascist Terror. It was the fault of American leaders like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton that the man was given credence to deal with America in the first place, but it is the fault of the UN that he was even elevated to the world stage and legitimated. As James Lileks says:
"All you need to know about Arafat was that he insisted on wearing a pistol when he addressed the UN General Assembly. And all you need to know about the UN, I suppose, is that they let him"

What peeves me off most about this article is that Fox News (top link) ran such an unbalanced article on their site. I expect this from CNN, but this kind of mourning of a brutal wannabe-tin-pot-dictator is beneath Fox and frankly makes me sick.

I refuse to mourn for a bloodthirsty dictator.
I refuse to feel bad because I thrill at his death.
I refuse to remember him as a savior of his people and a statesman (Thanks, Senator Kerry for that one).
I refuse to be party to any commiserations upon his far-too-good-for-him death.
I refuse to feel anything other than joy for Israel and the Israelis.
I refuse to be apologetic about my joy at the death of a monster. No one cried for Hitler. No one should cry for one who aspires to BE Hitler.

I am celebrating. I will not cease celebrating until the undeserved and too-willingly-given tributes from all the networks finally wear me down. Then I'll just be angry he was able to die so peacefully.

I wish I believed in Hell so I could take comfort in the secure knowledge that this man was roasting for all eternity... Maybe I'll entertain a daydream or two. It will involve Matzo balls and a very uncomfortable location. And a goat. Definitely a goat.

UPDATE: I'm not the only blogger who refuses to mourn.
The Diplomad feels as I do: "We will shed no tears for "Chairman" Yasser Arafat. In a 20th century of vile gangsters, his place in the pantheon of thugs is secure."

LGF on the other hand takes a more irreverant tone to their lack of reverance, although they also refuse to mourn or eulogize him.

Jimmy Carter, on the other other hand, has betrayed his country again by publicly weeping about "the end of an era." What a dhimmitudinous boot-licker. Has the man no self-respect or is peace at any cost so ingrained in him that he can't see a terrorist when its right under his nose?

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Judges Shmudges!

The last news cycle has focused on the probability of the President nominating judges for the Supreme Court and possible opposition from Arlen Spector and the Democrat minority, or on the Same-Sex Marriage issue. I have to admit that my largest focus during the election was on foreign, not domestic issues. At home we have our system of checks and balances, our local, state and federal elected officials and our open society to come to a consensus about the will and rights of the people.

Abroad, however, we do not. There is nothing but our will to protect our interests and our will to fight for them to prevent the erosion or eradication of the ideals we hold dear. Bearing that in mind, I support the President and, most especially, our troops as they wage the War on Terror (of which, Iraq is a major battlefront, and Fallujah a major battle - Godspeed ladies and gentlemen).

The War on Terror is fought militarily, yes, but also financially and politically. The re-election of George W. Bush was a win in the war because it showed that the American people are resolved to wage complete war to complete victory, and not a sensitive war to complete appeasement.

Another political arena, however, is America's Diplomatic (ever since I started reading the The Diplomad I start to type it with a "d") Foreign Policy - our leaders' interaction with other foreign leaders. One of the core principle of the Bush foreign policy is his refusal to negotiate with Yassir Arafat, may he rest in fiery pieces, Kim Jong Il (He's So Ronery) and America has a long-standing policy of not dealing with Fidel Castro and embargoing Cuba. Arafat is on his deathbed, Castro just took a nasty fall and Jong Il is desperately trying not to be the dictator who oversaw the downfall of the People's Republic of North Korea. Arafat is 75, Castro is 78 and Kim Jong Il is 64.

Any one of them is bound to die while President Bush is in office. Arafat will likely die before the week is out, but either of the other two could die in the next 4 years, especially Castro, who has been the center of rumors of ill health for years. In each case, unique opportunities and problems are presented.

Palestine will have to choose a new leader from among Arafat's cadre of trusted advisors, all of them older, or from the group of younger "revolutionaries" who have come to the PLO's cause later. It is questionable whether any of them will be able to unite the Palestinian people or can obtain the legitimacy required to move forward for peace talks with Israel. One can always hope for a bloodless coup. However, I think it likely that another idealogue will take Arafat's place, but will be unable to further unite the various factions that make up the PLO and Paletinian Authority. After a short, and sadly, pretty bloody, reign, I believe the beleagured Palestinian people (maybe with an infusion of younger Palestinian expatriates who have lived in liberal Western societies) will put a moderate in power who truly is committed to establishing a viable Palestinian state and will resign himself to allowing the existence of the Israeli state. At this point, Palestine will also cease to be a proxy battle for the Egyptian and Syrian governments to attack Israel. Either the violence will be escalated to an all-out war against Israel (which would be difficult to pull off with all of those US troops in the area), or the Arab League will be forced to admit it was outmaneuvered and will be forced to pull back into their own countries to regroup. I don't think that will be the end of it though, unless Iraq succeeds beyond all hopes and shows what liberal democracy can bring to a country with deposits of liquid money beneath its sands.

I am reluctant to admit this, but I was actually hoping that Hurricane Ivan would nail the island and with the least possible loss of life, so destroy the infrastructure that the Cuban government would be forced to accept the help of the United States. I tried to imagine who would help Cuba get back on its feet. I ruled out China (the only powerful communist country in the world) because I didn't think the US would allow Chinese troops and aid workers in our hemisphere (I was also very wrong). The UN would try to provide aid, but since most of it would come from the US, I figured the US would just directly aid our fallen neighbor and try to inspire some goodwill in the people there (not that they hate us, but they don't hate Castro enough to revolt). As for the EU, well, I'll just laugh and go no further. I thought it would be a perfect opportunity for the US to engender a new Cuban revolution. After 45 years of Castro's rule, I find a new communist revolution without the Soviet's money unlikely. Maybe when they saw that cars were actually made after 1975 they would embrace capitalism. Sadly, that opportunity never came (although, again, I didn't wish for any Cubans to die). Now we must wait until Castro kicks it and hope that the people reject Castro's kid brother, who is the heir apparent and four years younger than Fidel. When that happens, GWB better be right there with offers of re-opening trade and travel to Cuba on the condition that the people establish a new government, friendly to the United States, or at least to the United States' democratic ideals. What a coup that would be for Dubya.

North Korea is a special case because it has Uncle China right next door, ready to prevent the greedy capitalists from co-opting any hiccups in its government. If Kim Jong Il dies, I would wager that China would offer the North Koreans the oppprtunity to be folded into Greater China as a new Republic in the People's Democratic Republic of China. Failing that, a new puppet regime will be installed. Thankfully the President has consistently taken the right approach with Kim Jong Il, and promises to continue doing so. NK is China's mess. There is no reason, regardless of what Madelyn Albright and Bill Clinton say, that the US should help prop up the government when we know that any aid we provide will never reach the people and will only serve KJI and his cronies. Refusing bi-partisan talks and insisting on six-way talks (with China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia) is the only way not to get saddled with the burden of supporting NK and being the target of the nuclear weapons it promised not to make. Eventually, the North Korean government will collapse under its own weight. Wouldn't it be great if the Korean Penninsula was reunited under the democratic government of South Korea? I really don't know what would happen if the attempt was made - woudl China allow it without a fight, or would Korea, again, become a proxy war between the United States and a communist regime? That one really worries me. Any other insights would be appreciated.

I'll be honest. I have a real hard time thinking seriously about KJI after seeing Team America: World Police. Really. A KJI puppet. Does China pull the strings?

There is a lot of opportunity for George Bush to pull off even more of a Foreign Policy victory here than just the application of the Bush Doctrine to the Middle East and winning the War on Terror. GWB could join the ranks of the great foreign policy Presidents (Madison, FDR, JFK, Nixon, Reagan). One can hope.

Monday, November 08, 2004

Love and Marriage: Or A Simple Proposal

There seems to be a cosmic confluence of news cycle that is telling me to discuss Gay Marriage (really a piece on Jim Lehrer and ChicagoBoyz.net). Most of the debate at the moment is prompted by the nebulous "moral values" stat from the exit polls (which were SOO reliable when predicting the election winner...). I think there is a way to reach the end-state that the SSM advocates want while not "forcing" it down anyone's throat.

I don't understand why this approach hasn't been suggested, but as far as I'm concerned, it allows for the people to speak so Democracy is respected and still allows for a Federal recognition of marriage.

It seems to me that a lot of the opposition to establishing gay marriage as a reality in this country stems from a sense that the people have been removed from the process. The only state with real gay marriage benefits is Massachusettes and it was done by court fiat, not by the legislature and not by popular referendum. Sure, there are plenty of Americans who oppose it on moral grounds, but many don't oppose it, but want to be consulted (as one would expect in a democracy). I think a Federal Marriage Amendment is appropriate, but not the discrimination-enshrining one proposed by President Bush. How about this:

"Whereas the right to define marriage is not enumerated in this Constitution, such power rests with the States or the people, as per the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, marriage shall not be defined by any branch of the Federal government of the United States of America, but instead shall be determined by the individual States or the people therein, by whatever method they deem expedient according to their individual constitutions and existing legislation in those states. Federal marriage benefits shall be accorded to those whose marriage is recognized in the majority of States. All branches of the Federal government are hereby prohibited from ruling, legislating or otherwise enacting any other definition of marriage."

This prohibits the Supreme Court from forcing SSM on all states against their citizens' wishes, encourages a true debate and allows for the gradual acceptance of gay marriage across the nation as the more reticent states see that god has not caused California to fall into the Pacific ocean and that the sky has not, in fact, fallen. Instead, activist groups can concentrate on convincing individual states to accept SSM (which should be easier on a state-by-state basis because if all their resources are concentrated in one state, they become the big fish in the small pond rather than the small fish in the big pond of Washington). Canada's (legal) acceptance of gay marriage has been a province-by-province affair (if I understand correctly) with the Supreme Court preparing to weigh in now that there are only a few left. Also, once the majority of states (26) accept marriage by two people of the same sex, the federal government will recognize gay marriages in all fifty states, even if the state of residence doesn't recognize their marriage (assuming of course, they were legally married in another state). State and Federal income taxes are filed separately anyway, and the majority of federal marriage benefits are in the form of taxation and death benefits. States retain the power that is by nature theirs, what little the federal government has to do with marriage is satisfied by majority rule. Period. The end.

I honestly believe that the biggest cause of outrage comes from people believing that their opinion (vote, preference, etc.) don't matter and that they are (or will be as the case may be) ruled by a select few who can not be removed from the bench. The Supreme Court is the only branch of our government without oversight and who may not be overruled. It was to remove any chance of discovering any more "hidden" rights in the Constitution that Bush's FMA was supposed to accomplish. This is in reference to the Texas v. Lawrence ruling which declared all anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional based on a never-before discovered implied right to privacy hidden in the Constitution. While I don't dispute that such a right exists, I still don't understand the rationale that led to its discovery.

I can't find the article now because my old link has gone dead, but there was a law passed on or around September 26th that barred a state court from ruling on a particular issue. Sadly, I can't remember anything else about this other than that it was in the 9/27 AP story and it was in the Chicago Sun-Times. At any rate, if this law sets a sound precedent, it may not take an amendment to stop the Judiciary from ruling on a particular topic, and provide some much-needed congressional oversight of the courts, but as the article implies at the end, Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Friday, November 05, 2004

John Kerry Loves Democracy

In a showing of utter class and grace, John Kerry chose not to pursue a scorched earth war to obtain the presidency through chicanery and strongarming the courts. In his speech, he displayed exactly the pro-American sentiments that would have actually earned him credit with exactly the Middle Americans he could not or would not connect to. Middle Americans want their President to actually strive for American pre-eminence in the world and not some back-door subservience to the UN, Europe and the nebulous World Community with its NGOs and International Criminal Court.

For once John Kerry sounded sincere in his love for America and Americans. He honestly seemed to have learned from the citizens of this country who he had never really known.

"I want to especially say to the American people in this journey, you have given me honor and the gift of listening and learning from you. I have visited your homes. I have visited your churches. I've visited your union halls. I've heard your stories, I know your struggles, I know your hopes. They're part of me now, and I will never forget you, and I'll never stop fighting for you."

I believe him. I believe that he now has an understanding of who Americans really are. He doesn't understand it completely, and there is a good chance he never will. Its something that must be lived. Its something that bonds with one's soul as you daily breathe the air of freedom. A private school in Sweden will never prepare you to lead and love the United States of America.

Listening to his speech, I realized that, even if it may be late, John Kerry truly has found the love of his country that we red-staters were looking for. President Bush conveys his immeasurable love and understanding of the people of this country with a glance, and even moreso with a quivering lip as he recalls the soldiers and citizens who have died in this War on Terror while accepting his party's nomination. Kerry finally communicated this in the intangible ways recognizable only by Americans. John Kerry seems to realize he underestimated the American people and it seems we have earned his respect. If it had happened sooner, he may have had a better chance.

When the election did not go his way, he looked at the the situation critically. Had there been as small a difference in Ohio as there was in Florida in 2000, it is pretty much given that he would have used the courts to investigate any possible malfeasance that would award more votes to him or remove them from his opponent. But President Bush would have done the same. However, with a difference approaching 140,000 and not nearly enough provisional and absentee ballots to (assuming a 60-40 split in his favor) swing victory to him, he chose to concede the state and the election. This was contrary to the wishes of his campaign, legal team, running mate and supporters. For a man who always seemed a little too inclined to listen the Michael Moore lunatic fringe of his party, he surprisingly decided that rather than drag out another election and cast doubts on the legitimacy of President Bush's election (again), to instead take the step that would best heal the country after such a divisive and emotional election season.

Because John Kerry loves his country more than the office of President (again, would that such a sentiment were communicated prior to the election), he released the pretension to office that has so polluted the mind of Al Gore these last 4 years. Because John Kerry loves Democracy, he respected the outcome of democracy and took the path of the good (rather than the sore) loser. He congratulated his opponent on a well-waged competition, just as we expect our sports "heroes" to do. In every competition we expect both the winner not to gloat and the loser to accept the loss without whining. George Bush and John Kerry both did exactly that, to their immeasurable credit.

By accepting the results of the election without resorting to the courts, I believe that John Kerry saved our electoral proccess. Now the election of 2000 is an aberration and not a precedent. If the Senator had taken the battle out of the hands of the American people and allowed the courts to intervene (or interfere, depending on your view of 2000) in the will of the people again, especially in an election with the highest turn out in a generation, he would have stripped the electoral process that has served us so well for so long of any legitimacy in any future election. The results reported on election night would ever after be tentative until such time as the Supreme Court weighed in on the decision. The voice of the people, the intended final arbiter of the will of the people, would forever be subject to a self-imposed check on itself that can never exist in a Democracy.

We would quickly resign ourselves to living in a Judiocracy. As it is, half the country feels the Judiciary oversteps it proscribed bounds and wanders too far into the Legislature's bailiwick. It would then become established fact.

For saving the country I love, for protecting the process we cherish and need, for being a statesman and not a politician, for loving your country, I thank you Senator John F. Kerry. May the lessons you have learned in this campaign serve you well in the US Senate, the mostpowerful legislative body in the world, for many years to come. I will close with the Distinguished Gentleman from Massachusettes' own words:
"In American elections there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates win or lose, the next morning we wake up as Americans."

We all win, because he had the grace to lose well. Thanks.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

By the way

Since they stopped updating the profile page, this is the latest post that shows up even though it isn't the most recent. Click here for the front page.

I have added trackback and commenting from HaloScan. Not that anyone reads this...

Oh if only ...

This post on Democratic Underground (I know, I know, but hear me out) is exactly the kind of analysis I want the Democratic Party to conduct on itself. The author exercises clear vision when viewing the differing factions of his own party, of which he labels three (Left-liberals, Center-left libertarians and Center-left populists). We are all familiar with the first two. These are the people we see most prominently in the left-leaning MSM and on universities arguing that "bi-sexual Asian studies should have it's own building. But what goes? The math department or the hockey team, I say hockey."

It is his insight into the third group that makes this essay remarkable. He tells his compatriots:
"I think most observers would agree that the Democratic party is getting killed among the third group: Center-left populists. The Republican party is making great inroads into this group on an overtly cultural appeal. Party elites in Washington, DC, New York, and California, scratch their heads and wonder why working-class people would possibly vote against their own economic interests.

I think that the simplest answer is this: Their interests are not entirely economic. Like most voters, they vote on a broad range of issues, including cultural issues. But I think there is something else going on here. Maybe the Democratic Party isn't doing such a great job at defending their economic interests"

He realizes that the Democrats are bleeding these Center-left populists to the Republican Party because they can not find any cultural benefit in staying with a Democratic Party that cares more for easing everyone's pain and getting down to the "root cause" than fighting the enemy that has declared us unworthy of living as we see fit and demands we either become Islamofascists like themselves or die. Zell Miller is a center-left populist. He believes in the Democratic Party of FDR and JFK. He WANTS that party back. He said so in his book and they refused to listen. So now he gets to say" I told them so (registration required, sorry).

If the Democratic Party wants to avoid becoming a permanent opposition party (like the Canadian Tories), they need to rediscover the people they want to represent. For too long, they have allowed the elites to take over the party. The same elites that are left scratching their heads when their base leaves them. Skinner, the author, writes this about the top-down approach in the Democratic Party:

"I believe that party elites are disproportionately drawn from the first two groups: Left-liberals and center-left libertarians. I know lots of Democrats here in Washington, DC, and they are almost all relatively affluent professional types from the Northeast or West Coast who don't have any life experience at all interacting with regular people from middle America. In fact, their opinion of them could almost be described as contemptuous. At a minimum, I think it could be called condescending. We think that we are doing "those people" a favor by supporting policies which will help them, and quite frankly we feel a little offended that they aren't thanking us for looking out for them.

Quite understandably, the response of some center-left populists is "I'll look out for myself, thanks." Nobody wants to be anyone else's charity-case."

Oh. My. God. He gets it. Red, White, and Blue Americans do not want government handouts. They want the government to make it as easy as possible for them to earn their way into the American Dream. I'll repeat that - so pay attention: E-A-R-N their American Dream. I don't mean earn in monetary terms, and I don't mean justifying why they are deserving of being given the fruits of the dream. I mean working hard, seeing the results and knowing that no one gave you what you have - knowing that by your effort and force of will, you have obtained legally, legitimately and honorably earned everything you wanted and now have.

Today's Democratic Elite does NOT understand that this work ethic, this puritan-bred work ethic, is a source of pride for Middle America. We don't want the government to take care of us from cradle to grave. We want our government to keep us safe, promote our interests abroad, make the playing field as level-as-possible and get the hell out of the way.

Some Middle Americans believe in a social safety net so that if you get knocked off your feet, there is something to catch you until (and this is important) you get back on your feet, at which point, we don't need the government anymore and we'll take over again, and by the way, thanks for the assist. People who feel that way are the Center-left populists Skinner is talking about. They do not believe the government should be creating and maintaining "cadillac-driving welfare queens" [Note: I know these stories are apocryphal, I'm making a point, don't write letters - Ed.]. These are the people that the Dems need to find in their party, promote and listen to them. Until they do, they will only appeal to the far left of their party and those will be the only votes they receive. If the Democrats go completely liberal, then only complete liberals will vote Democratic.

Skinner again:
"Ultimately, my point is this: There is going to be a lot of fighting about whether we need to go "liberal" or go "centrist," but in the end, I think it's missing the point. As long as urban elites from the Left-liberal group and the Center-left libertarian group are arguing among themselves about "how to win the hearts of populists" we are going to lose. Because, let's face it: Most people don't have that much experience dealing with people who are different from ourselves.

If we want center-left populists to be Democrats, we need center-left populists in our coalition to show us how. We need to value their contributions, and we need to welcome them into our coalition as equal members."

He doesn't claim to know what the CLPs want. In fact, I think he's pretty clear in acknowledging his ignorance in the matter. He has the intellectual honesty to ask for help and ask his party-mates to ask for it too.

There is a lot of discussion on this thread and I haven't been through it all, but I did see this from "UCLA Dem":
"Using the "male generic" (e.g. he or his) to represent the individual excludes women.

We can get our values across without saying the individual and "his"...

We need to say "Every child born into the US has a birth tax of $100,000 on him/her or them that he/she or they will have to pay."

Sigh. Those over there? Those are trees. If you back up a bit you can see something called a "forest" ... no, back a little further. There ya go! *pats UCLA's head*

This is the exact myopia that causes the Dems to hemorrhage swing voters.

At any rate, read the article. Like Senator Kerry's concession, it is a credit to the Party.

Update: While strolling through the commentary, I saw a post by Skinner that clarified his article and my interpretation was correct. He gets it. An excerpt:
"But more importantly, I am arguing that we -- meaning urban liberal party elites -- might not actually know what is best for them -- meaning rural and working-class voters.

I can sit here and pontificate on what is necessary to appeal to these voters, but I gotta be honest here: I am totally unprepared to make that call. I am surrounded by urban liberals. I have very little contact with rural and working-class people. Any solution that I propose would not be based on actual knowledge. It would be based on my own ignorance and bigotry."

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Now that's Class

John Kerry:

In American elections there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates win or lose, the next morning we wake up as Americans.

Pretty good speech. It will be nice if he goes back to the Senate and makes a real effort to reach across the aisle. It would be classy for the Republicans not to get drunk on Power and shut the Democrats out of the process.

Maybe next time the Dems won't nominate a Massachusetts Liberal Brahmin and we'll have a real choice.

Popularity contest

Bush is the first President to be elected with more than 50% of the popular vote since his dad in 1988, but more importantly, the first president to win RE-election with more than 50% of the popular vote since Ronald Reagan and beating the popular vote record besides.

I can't see how you can call a 3 and a half million vote difference, a 3-4 seat gain in the Senate, and a 2 to 5 seat pickup in the House anything other than a mandate.

Hopefully, the Democrats will finally examine themselves and reconstruct their party to return to a party that can represent a majority of the people (Silent America as Bill Whittle calls it) and not a loose coalition of victim groups. Maybe then I can be forced to think long and hard about my choice for President rather than have to immediately reject the Democrat because the candidate is too far left to hold any realistic view of the world.

Sadly, that is unlikely to happen since I have even heard Fox News start speculation about Hillary Clinton in '08. Looks like a Libertarian or Republican vote from me!

Red Shift

Aaron the Liberal Slayer has a great post showing how big Blue states got redder and a lot of smaller blue states got a lot redder.

Also, he has this rebuke from Senator Kerry:

That'll do it

Fox has just called Nevada for Bush which puts him at 274 Electoral Votes. This is the first network to give Bush an Electoral College victory. Fox still shows 22 votes up for grabs in New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Kerry is shown with 242.

CNN still shows Ohio Iowa and New Mexico up for grabs has Bush up 254 to 252 since they have called Wisconsin for Kerry.

Yahoo! still shows the same count as CNN, but they have marked Bush as the winner (even without the electoral majority).

The popular vote is 58,538,229 for Bush and 54,995,942 for Kerry.

Its all over but the liberal whining."

It's all over, and its not even December

The Associate Press is reporting that Kerry has conceded Ohio and the election. Fox News confirms. Finally, we can get back to whining about our individual lives and worlds and stop pontificating on presidential politics except where if affects our corners of the world. You know, status quo.

Don't worry, of course, I'll keep pontificating. I know both of you are waiting with baited breath.

Correction already (at Whine Oh 5)

Yahoo! and CNN have called Michigan and Hawaii for Kerry giving him 242 Electoral Votes, but they have not called Ohio for Bush so they still show him at 249. Fox has given Kerry Michigan, but not yet Hawaii, giving Kerry 238, but they have called Ohio for Bush, giving him 269. C-SPAN still has not called Michigan, Ohio or Hawaii for anyone, so they still show Bush 249 and Kerry 221.

I'm sure some other state is gonna finish when I hit update. Damn it...

Hello Mr. Edwards, is it Whine O;Clock already?

What does it mean when the candidate can't come out and rally the troops on his own and sends his running mate to declare the team's intention to again try to use state courts to hijack an election?

Yahoo! is showing that Bush leads in Ohio by 125,000 votes and gaining as the final precincts come in. That's about 2% of the votes in Ohio, an awfully BIG challenge. I can't imagine that there are that many provisional ballots and I can't see that so many votes could be called into question.

Kerry went out tonight with a whimper, not even making a statement to his faithful waiting in Boston. Frankly, that's pretty shameful.

At the time of writing, Nevada is breaking 50 to 49 for Bush with 65% of the precincts reporting (5 electoral votes), New Mexico is split 52% to 47% in Bush's favor with 98% of precincts reporting (5 e.v.), Iowa has Bush in the lead 50 to 49 percent with 97% preporting (7 e.v.), with 87% reporting, Wisconsin shows Kerry up 50 to 49 (10 e.v.), Michigan has Kerry 51% to 48% (17 e.v.), and Ohio's 20 electoral votes are either given to Bush or up for grabs depending on who you ask. In total, there are 44 or 64 electoral votes in the air with Bush almost certain of victory. Excluding Ohio, Bush has 17 votes leaning toward him and Kerry has 27. I can't see how Ohio can be construed to go for Kerry with a 125,000 vote margin.

I think it is tremendously odd that neither candidate has put in an appearance yet. Perhaps they won't until tomorrow. Still, you expect to see your candidates on election night.

If only I could go to sleep and wake up in the morning and know who my president is going to be, but I can't even go to bed cuz I am updating my electoral map (with crayon) and cleaning up all the food.

Come on... Come on...

Fox has given Bush Ohio and Alaska (269 Electoral Votes). CNN, C-SPAN and Yahoo! has not.


I know that I am shamelessly begging like a six-year-old in a Christmas Department Store, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota or Nevada ... PLEASE break for Bush!!!

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

It's so close....

I am sweating like a bitch. It is so warm in my house and I'm really just champing at the bit to see Ohio called for Bush.

At this point, if Bush wins Ohio, Kerry CAN NOT win. If Bush loses Ohio, he can still win or tie.

Our election party was a success I believe. Now, the food is wiped out, and we play the waiting game (and Super Smash Brothers).

Come on Ohio, DON'T LET ME DOWN!!!! Ohio is the maker of Presidents. Since it has been a state, no one has lost Ohio and won the presidency (so sayeth ABC News).

*pant pant*

Monday, November 01, 2004

Birthday wishes

Help me grant an earnest young man's birthday wish tomorrow.

Vote for George W. Bush!!!!

All two of you who may be reading this that is...

That is all.

Jobs lost and gained

I've been wondering how Bush can have an annualized unemployment rate of 5.4% (the same as Clinton in 1996) and still have lost more jobs than he gained, as John Kerry would have us all believe. I accepted the idea that maybe there were more jobs, but that wages for these new jobs were lower. As it turns out, neither of those Kerry statements are true. As quoted by a Carnegie Mellon economics graduate (and current high-school teacher):
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 136,181,000 employed laborers 16 years of age [and older - Ed.] while there were 6,647,000 unemployed workers when President Bush took office in January 2001. The unemployment rate was 4.7 percent. Currently there are 139,641,000 jobs for the work force over 16 years old and 7,545,000 unemployed workers. The unemployment rate in September was just 5.1 percent. This is a net gain of about 3.5 million jobs, but it does not take into account the growing population. Notice, however, that while the total number of jobs increased that the unemployment rate has increased 0.4 percentage point.

Kerry Lied and Kids ... went to work. Well at least he's not trying to get a job where trust in him is of utmost importance... oh wait...

See the entire article in the Pittsburgh Tribune here.