Thursday, September 30, 2004

First debate: not much news

The first presidential debate is over, and what have we learned?

That George W. Bush is not the most articulate guy in the world, but his views are strongly held. Big surprise.

That John Kerry is more articulate, but his views (if he truly has any) are so nuanced as to be practically indistinguishable from ignorance and inaction. He confirmed the suspicion of many that a Kerry foreign policy will be conducted at the permission of the UN. If the Bush folks are smart, they will replay until election day Kerry's line about a "global test" for preemption coupled with headlines on the UN Oil for Palaces scandal.

Busted! Wizbang has the goods.

This last, desparate attempt to liegitimize* CBS News' TANG documents is DOA:

Wizbang chronicles creation of the phony docs. (via Power Line)

* Did I just invent a new word?

liegitimize v. to cite an authoritative source who knowingly lends credence to a false claim.

Not sure whether it was a typo or done subconsciously, but it works.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Dems' rhetoric going nuclear

NewsMax: EDWARDS: Umm - it [the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq] certainly made us more vulnerable to the possibility of a nuclear attack.

The Democrats are officialy in full panic mode. "Vote for us or you might get nuked." I don't recall a campaign ever becoming as cynical, graceless and irrational as the Kerry-Edwards ticket. How could the rhetoric get any lower than this? What's left?

Never mind. I don't want to find out. Let's get this election over with and get these guys some counselling.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Mainstream media covers for Kerry who covers for terrorists

Kerry: "We won the war."

Leave it to WorldNetDaily to report this, since everyone else declined to. That "right-wing" Fox News must be asleep on the job.

Now why would the mainstream media who were covering Kerry's speech not mention this bit? Could it be because Kerry's recent carping on "Mission Accomplished" and unrest in Iraq would be seen as cynical political opportunism at the expense of Iraq's future, as empty rhetoric more likely to encourage al Qaida than American troops? Could it be that people might some sort of inference about Kerry's character from that?

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Even NY Times rips the amoral UN

New York Times (via InstaPundit):

The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may not rise to the level of genocide.

For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur.

But the multilateral process moved along in its dignified way. The U.N. general secretary was making preparations to set up a commission. Preliminary U.N. resolutions were passed, and the mass murderers were told they should stop - often in frosty tones. The world community - well skilled in the art of expressing disapproval, having expressed fusillades of disapproval over Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans, Iraq, etc. - expressed its disapproval.

And, meanwhile, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in Darfur.

There was even some talk of sending U.S. troops to stop the violence, which, of course, would have been a brutal act of oil-greedy unilateralist empire-building, and would have been protested by a million lovers of peace in the streets. Instead, the U.S. proposed a resolution threatening sanctions on Sudan, which began another round of communiqu�-issuing.

The Russians, who sell military planes to Sudan, decided sanctions would not be in the interests of humanity. The Chinese, whose oil companies have a significant presence in Sudan, threatened a veto. And so began the great watering-down. Finally, a week ago, the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to 'consider' sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at no time soon.

As Instapundit would say, read the whole thing.

The UN is at its core, as the author said, amoral. Here we have the implementation of relativism/postmodernism, in this case by the unelected, unaccountable wanna-be world government called the UN. Yes, we oppose genocide, at least in theory. Realistically though, we won't get in the way of our esteemed Russian or Chinese friends making a buck.

Rejecting any absolute basis for morality, i.e. recognition of a transcendent Creator to whom we are each accountable, the substitute appears to be a crude hybrid of utilitarianism and the law of the jungle, no better than the ethos of Jeffrey Dahmer or the Killing Fields.

The UN is not useless. It is much worse than that.

Friday, September 24, 2004

An audacious suggestion, but why not?

Boortz: Fox News' special investigation has found, for instance, a front company in the United Arab Emirates that operated under the program, selling all sorts of stuff to Iraq. Turns out that company was secretly controlled by the government of Iraq itself, which tried to buy military hardware with it. A lot of money changed hands, and a lot of that money is still missing. Where did it go?

We know that Osama Bin Laden doesn't personally have the cash to fund Al Qaeda's $30 million annual budget. Where is he getting it? It is a fact that Saddam had contact with Al Qaeda....did they do some financial deals?

If it turns out that the U.N. funded terrorism, that makes them a terrorist organization. Very interesting.

What?! Why, the mere suggestion that the UN would be involved in funding terrorism...! After all, they carped about Kosovo. They passed resolutions on Iraq. They objected to genocide in Rwanda. Um, they didn't lift a finger for Laos. They equivocate on Zimbabwe. They murmur at Darfur. They give large democracies a single vote, the same as any tinpot dictatorship. They are blatantly anti-American. They say that Israel's existence is the moral equivalent of Nazism.

The UN sponsors of terrorism? OK, maybe it isn't that farfetched.

Friday, September 17, 2004

Poll: feline voters favor Kerry by 60-40.

How to steal an election. This democratic republic will not long survive systematic, large-scale voter fraud. Does anyone care?

Welcome to the unilateralist party, Vlad.

Russia ready to go to war: Lower-level officials including Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov have threatened preventive strikes against terrorists abroad, and it was not immediately clear whether Putin was referring to actions only at home or abroad, too.

Putin said that the steps would be ”in strict accordance with the law and norms of the constitution, relying on international law”.

...“Every concession leads to a widening of their demands and multiplies the losses,” Putin was quoted as saying.

International law. Yep, sure. Islamic fascists butchered hundreds of Russian school children, and Putin is going to wait for permission from France, Kofi et. al. before going after these killers? In an infidel pig's eye.

Russia had its 9/11 last week. They will respond regardless of the wishes of the apparatchiks at UN headquarters. But somehow I don't see the "nuanced" Left being nearly as bothered by Russian unilateralism and flouting of "international law" as they are by American unilateralism (read: acting in concert with dozens of allied nations but without a few that have sweetheart contracts with tyrranical regimes).

If the UN does utter a sanctimonious peep over coming Russian action, a single word ought to silence their phony moral superiority: Darfur.

Martha doesn't quite grasp the concept

Martha Stewart tells authorities which prisons she would prefer.

No word yet on whether she will notify prison authorities on when she would like breakfast delivered to her suite I mean cell or whether a continental breakfast will be acceptable. Also no indication on whether she sould like her message before or after morning tennis.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

From biased to Bozo

As InstaPundit would say, ouch: "The Post says that CBS is now putting its principal reliance on one Bill Glennon, an "information technology consultant." This is the same Bill Glennon, as Little Green Footballs points out, whom Time magazine described yesterday as a former typewriter repairman.

But what's really funny, as Tim Blair points out, is that Glennon first entered the fray as a commenter on the far-left Daily Kos web site! So, after sneering at bloggers non-stop for four days, CBS was finally reduced to tracking down a former typewriter repairman who posted a comment on Kos and putting him forward as their chief defender. Wonderful."

I don't favor kicking someone when they are down, but in Dan Rather's case it seems warranted.

Saturday, September 11, 2004

Power Line puts a fine point on it

Power Line: "Dan Rather and CBS News tried to influence the November election by telling lies and publishing forged documents."

This statement is outrageous, tragic, and undeniably accurate.

What is the difference between America c. 2004 and the Soviet Union? Pravda never had to deal with the blogosphere. Power Line, InstaPundit and the legions of uppety fact-checkers behind them are performing a service of historic proportions.

Barbarian bloggers at the gates

Belmont Club: "The echoes of the big Internet bang which annihilated a 60 Minutes story in under 12 hours are still resounding. The key riffs apparently started at the FreeRepublic and Powerline and as Samizdata notes, the distributed intelligence of the Internet took over. Under the scrutiny of thousands of analysts, the CBS story began to melt down."

Again Wretchard's fine prose got me thinking. It's no wonder that oppressive regimes, such as those in China, Iran and Saudi Arabia feel threatened by, and seek to hinder, their citizens' unfettered access to the World Wide Web. The business of journalism has entered an entirely new paradigm. It's no longer a matter of a few professional journalists, filtered through even fewer editors, deciding what the people need to hear and how they need to hear it. The gatekeepers are now desperately trying to keep out thousands of gate crashers.

Information no longer must pass through one of a half dozen bottlenecks. In genetics, a bottleneck event threatens the survival of a population because variations of traits, helpful towards long-term survival, are reduced. Similarly, media gatekeepers, mired in groupthink for a generation now, have limited the information and perspectives to which the public is exposed, threatening the vitality of Western democracy. Now a new wave of unfettered information and perspectives is threatenening to break the gatekeepers' stranglehold on public discourse and the thought processes of the body politic.

This is why I refer to the mainstream media in connection with the Washington ruling elites as the ancien regime. It simply cannot understand nor cope with the changes, and it would have to become completely inhuman and unscrupulous in order to retain its position of privilege. Will it resort to this? Is it beginning to already? What side will the Republicans take? Will they side with the Democrats in the inevitable push to regulate the Internet "for the good of the people", or will they choose principle over political calculation?

Thursday, September 09, 2004


Heh heh.

Some days it just doesn't pay to step out of the shadows.

The end result of humanism

Belmont Club: "The Left, having declared itself above the pettiness of all moral belief now finds its emptiness filled by the ugliest and darkest blood-cult on the planet. It was a proud Tower, but its windows are now dark and its rooms filled with old and withered things."

There are still some under the banner of "liberalism" who are honest and decent. But more and more, "liberal" is the term claimed by those hostile to the civil rights of those they disagree with, who are cynical and call it "realism", who are cowardly and call it "nuance", who disdain the masses they profess to work for, who claim the mantle of the US Constitution while opposing it at every turn except when they are using it as justification for everything that was once called sin.

Liberals used to be the optimists. Now they are the reactionaries, the angry, the haters.

You will be medicated. Resistance is futile.

WorldNetDaily reports on the effort in the House of Representatives to legislate mandatory mental health screening for all American children.

Never mind that parental rights are being violated, or that many in this country are skeptical of the legitimacy of psychology as a science or the wisdom of enforced conformity through psychotropic meds, or that potential profit to the pharmaceutical companies is limitless. No, our wise leaders in DC are contemplating whether we are individually or collectively competent to make such decisions, and if they decide we aren't, well, we had better go along or else join the legions of the forcibly medicated.

Is the public, unjustifiably relying on the mainstream media to inform them of important matters, even aware of this? Evidently not. Maybe it won't be such a crime to medicate a nation that is so intellectually lazy anyway. Since the birthright of liberty is held so cheaply by so many, maybe "compassionate" fascism is only a matter of time.

But with everyone medicated, will the trains run on time?

Monday, September 06, 2004

The trifecta

Power Line reports more journalistic fiction from the esteemed AP. I'm not going to bother linking to Power Line and Instapundit on this issue anymore, since it seems to be an ongoing trend and they are covering it nicely. I do think though that there ought to be some sort of effort to make those unaquainted with the blogosphere aware of the fiction that poses as journalism at a major wire source. Maybe if everyone in the blogosphere took the time to write a letter to the editor of their local newspaper...?

Blood in the water, going in for the kill

NewsMax: "Sampley's first ad covers information that's been hushed up by the mainstream press: Kerry's participation in a 1971 VVAW meeting in Kansas City where the assassination of several pro-war U.S. senators was plotted and voted on."

The SwiftVets appear to have done significant damage to Kerry's campaign. If this group or their accusations also go national, Kerry is done.

Maybe next time around, a moderate like Lieberman will look more attractive to the Dems.

Sunday, September 05, 2004

AP's undue influence, Part Deux

Power Line: Another Whopper from the Associated Press: But the fact that the AP story is false--and obviously false, to anyone who bothers to read what Arnold actually said--has not prevented it from being picked up by, at current count, 539 news outlets.

Don't know which to marvel at more: the sheer audacity of these repeated lies, or the priveleged status that the AP continues to maintain.

One more reason why public schools ought to include a class on critical thinking.

Saturday, September 04, 2004

Why not?

Hugh Hewitt: "Why not try a simple apology for bad reporting, AP, and move on with better standards expected in this new age of accountability."

Seems an obvious response. Possible reasons the AP won't take Hewitt's advice:

* The blindness that arises from certitude. We haven't done anything wrong, so why should we fix it?

* Disrespect for its audience. Most of them are too stupid to know when we're making up a story to promote a greater truth.

* The Pilate factor (aka postmodernism): What is truth, anyway?

* Cost-benefit analysis. Those who will read and believe us are greater than those who read those pesky blogs. We can get away with it.

Reputable media shows how it's done

Power Line: The Associated Press Makes It Up

Now I've been out of school for a while now, but isn't this the sort of thing that earns a failing grade in sophomore English and possible suspension or expulsion? Does this mean that the standards are actually lower for writers of the vaunted AP than they are for undergrads? But... but... I-I thought that the major media outlets had such high standards for reportage, and that's why blogs are not considered legitimate journalism!

The real shame is the extent to which this American Pravda still dominates what many people see (and don't), from Yahoo! News to wire feeds supplying small town newspapers throughout Flyover Country.

It's not the bloggers who ought to defend themselves.

Friday, September 03, 2004

Clinton heart trouble, Kerry gutted - Bill Clinton to undergo bypass surgery

Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

So depending on your opinion on whether the Clintons truly wanted Kerry to win the election, either the Kerry implosion is stressing Clinton out, or Clinton's "sick note" escuse from campaigning for Kerry was unnecessary. Yes, the latter option is incredibly cynical, but this is Clinton we're talking about. Hillary will no doubt be unavailable too now: staying by Bill's side through his ordeal. Conspiracy theorists couldn't have asked for better timing.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

...and then there are salutes

While Fox News showed O'Reilly trading opinions with guests, C Span showed Gen. Tommy Franks, who commanded the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Franks made a point of saluting the current Commander in Chief. This didn't merely negate John Kerry's famous convention salute to --who?-- himself it seemed. This was an honest salute from a decorated war hero, and his decorations didn't come from events he hides from the public. Kerry's salute, given the circumstances and his post-war activities, seemed a cynical charade by comparison.

Franks also provided this great line on the war on terror: "Hope is not a strategy." Let's see Kerry answer this in a way that doesn't lead hearers to suspect that "nuance" is a cover for cluelessness.

Domestically, differences between the two major parties are next to nil. In terms of foreign policy, the Republicans offer a viable approach to Islmanic fascism while the Democrats offer only Michael Moore fantasies and faux militarism. Kerry's "nuance" belongs in a different time than this one.

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Bush campaign joins litigation against First Amendment

Story here.

Seriously, did all the political savants in DC fail to see this when they passed McCain-Feingold? The right to speak during an election depends on whether a judge deems you politically affiliated. And as we all know, judges strictly avoid partisanship in such matters, right?

I've asked people to explain to me, in practical terms, what the difference is between the two major parties. Nobody has yet, without merely repeating the rhetoric of the party they favor.

Brown Shirts: the old analog type

From Fox News:

Activists Disrupt GOP Youth Gathering:Card tried to continue speaking, but was drowned out and stopped as young participants in the morning event scuffled with the demonstrators. Police moved in to remove the protesters, including a young woman hoisted out by two officers — one at her shoulders and one at her knees

At least one GOP supporter was slightly injured. Daniel Suhr, 20, of Milwaukee, said he was punched in the head by a protester. He had a cut near his temple and the side of his face was reddened.

Protesters March on FOX News: Cops clad in riot gear worked to keep the demonstrators from blocking traffic or entering FNC's headquarters near Rockefeller Center, but navigating the crowd that filled the sidewalk and a barricaded strip of street was tricky.

There was a time when part of being liberal was respecting other points of view, or at very least supporting free expression for those one disagreed with. There are still some of those around, of course, but it seems that more and more those on the political left see little wrong with using brute force to intimidate, suppress or assault those they disagree with. Former liberal David Horowitz keeps tabs on thuggery in academia, last time I checked anyway.

Now there will always be fascists around, I guess. What concerns me is that, more and more, it's only unacceptable when it exists on the right.