"Dowdful" Credentials

So, this morning, Russert has William Safire, Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd on.
All three work for the N.Y. Times. How's that for fair and balanced?

Russert asks a serious, profound question about, oh, let's say, George Bush's recent trip to Europe.

Safire, sage and thoughtful, comments on what that trip portends and George Bush's surprise easy going treatment of Putin.

Friedman also offers a thought-out opinion.

Dowd makes fun of Bush because on his first trip to Europe several years ago (not the topic of conversation today) Bush developed two nick names for Putin.

Russert talks about the Middle East and the striking new, positive developments.

Safire talks to the incredible possibility that Sharon sees the need to withdraw from settlements he initiated.

Friedman talks about this being a historical "tipping" point with a message of freedoms spreading throughout areas, here to for, immune to democracy; Lebanon, Egypt in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Dowd makes fun of Condoleeza Rice's high heels she wore when she went to Europe.

I got the feeling I was watching, what was scheduled to be, a brilliant panel discussion at Princeton among three geniuses but at the last minute one caught the flu and had to be replaced by the local morning show weather hostess.

European geo-politics, peace in the middle east and America's next diplomatic step to later the landscape of governments in those latitudes . . . and Condoleeza's wardrobe. Ms. Dowd, the ultra liberal feminist, is guilty of perpetuating the alleged glass ceiling with comments like that. And NOW would have already been screaming if a conservative commentator had said that. (ed.)

Among all the important issues, Ms. Dowd also managed to bring up the VERY relevant
matter of the 2000 election. The one with Gore.

This buffoon in bad mascara still can't grasp what happened 5 Novembers ago and is pouting like a little girl who didn't get to ride on the tea cups a second time: "No fair, no fair" while a U.S. President is giving the world a face lift for the better.

THIS works at the New York Times and draws a handsome income?

Mark Levin

(editor's note: It worked for Jayson Blair, didn't it?)

Norm Coleman, American Patriot

This is a link to a speech given by Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman as he received the Defender of the Constitution Award a few days ago. Great reading....

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/guest_commentary/coleman-un-reform-CPAC-speech.htm

A picture that is truly worth a thousand words 

Thank you Hollywood

How about the billboard strategically placed so that all Oscar attendees will see the billboard that says "W, still President! Thanks Hollywood" And has a picture of GWB and Michael Moor-on, Babs, et al... How sweet it is.!

The Ice Witch of Angmar (er, Arkansas)

Watched Hillary at the Baghdad press conference.

What a "tell" as to who this person is.

There she sat, having to praise the military and acknowledge that there was some reason for optimism in Iraq. Why? Because she respects our military? Because she wants to see Democracy flourish where tyranny once prevailed? Absolutely not.

Because, in the best tradition of Clinton politics, she realizes that she has to alter her persona if she is to have ANY chance in 2008. So she is saying all the things that have to be said, even though she doesn't believe any of it, we know she doesn't believe any of it and she knows we know.

Who said Vaudeville was dead?

This ridiculously pompous, out-of-touch slab of protoplasm sits there letting us know how much she loves our military in a bored monotone, with those bags under her eyes, that far-away soul-less stare, and cold, robotic eyes, not unlike a hammerhead shark.

Her sincerity in praising the armed forces was as convincing as Patricia Ireland addressing a bunch of off-duty Chicago Cops at a Tittie Bar on Rush Street and telling them how glad she was to be there with them because they are her kind of people.

It isn't that I disagree with Hillary's positions. Like her husband, she has no position other than the one that is most expedient for her personal journey at that moment.

It isn't because she is a strong, smart woman. I am married to a strong smart woman and she excites me daily after being with her for 16 years.

I despise Hillary because she is the epitome of self-serving, venal, opportunistic avarice at its most concentrated. I wouldn't doubt that she'd pee on a legless orphan if she thought it would advance what ever it is she lusts for at that moment and then look America in the eyes and tell us how important it is to prevent dehydration in legless orphans.

Her complete disregard for us - the people she needs to get her where she wants to go - is as transparent as a glass window at a peep show in the Bowery. That she would, continually, feed us a line of happy horse shit, as though the American electorate would swallow her sideshow act, like we were patients at the County "Slow" Ward, and not ever flinch at the likely prospect that we don't believe her is proof positive of her arrogance and delusional neurosis.

Please pay attention to this witch over the next 3 years.

What you see will ice your spine

Junk Science

Heading to Florida for business and won't return for a week so this is the last piece for a while.

My pal Bert comes up to the plate and hits one out for the second time in a week.

He sent me an article by Michael Crichton.

Didn't get around to it until today and was somewhat daunted by the length - 12 pages.

But I printed it and read it over several breaks in my day.

It is one of the most intelligent and revealing papers I have seen in years. I suggest you visit the site and see for yourself . . . www.crichton-official.com. This one is the lecture of January 17, 2003 titled the "Caltech Michelin Lecture"

Let me give you a very brief synopsis so you know what you are getting into.

Crichton assails the recent phenomena of science finding "evidence" through faulty processes to serve policy.

He explains, nay, reminds us, in objective fashion that science is based on unalterable, provable, verifiable facts that yield results that can be reproduced.

From this point he educates us on some of the fraud perpetrated on the public in the name of science to include "nuclear winter", "second hand smoke" and my favorite that I clearly recall being taught in college, "Paul Ehrlich's scare that by the 1980's the earth would run out of food and world-wide famines would kill hundreds of millions of people." It is ironic that I remembered that subject while I was tossing down a large plate of pasta with alfredo sauce - and thought of it again at the gym while I was doing curls not far from a bunch of people trouncing on treadmills trying to shed excess weight. As famines go, that one is a real disappointment.

This was taught at about the same time we were told that colored toilet paper was as big a threat to mankind as . . . . as . . . nuclear winter.

But the point is that we have been the victims of false science for political purposes going back to the 60's.

This comes to a head as Crichton points out the same faulty processes, the same flawed techniques and the same false premises have been used to tell us that global warming is a threat.

His use of examples and writing style is clear, lucid, and relevant.

EXAMPLE: Recall how Carl Sagan said we were going to have a global catastrophe from the burning Kuwaiti oil wells and the resulting smoke that would cease photosynthesis for a year and plunge Earth into a temporary climactic catastrophe and give us a "year without a summer"? Didn't happen. But official scientists predicted it.

EXAMPLE: He suggests that any attempt to guess at what our world will be like in 2100 based on scientific guesses, or more accurately, guesses mad by scientists is not unlike asking people in New York what in 1900 what they think the year 2000 will be like.

Their answer, indeed, scientists' answers would probably address the concern that with the population growing, where would all the necessary horses come from and what would we do with all that horse shit in the streets.

Amazing analogy even if it is crude.

Only 100 years ago, people contemplating the future couldn't fathom that 80% of France's energy would come from a source they didn't know existed . . . atomic energy. Didn't know about cars, radio, computers, birth control, antibiotics instant replay and spot welding so how could a scientist in 1900 new York make dire predictions about what life would be like in Manhattan in the year 2000.

yet we are comfortable allowing scientists to tell us what the weather will be like in 2100 base don policy-driven science.

We can't predict, with that same accuracy global warming believers predict, what the weather will be 12 hours from now but if science tells us the earth is warming to 'this' extent or 'that' extent so that in 95 years the average temperature will be "X", we accept that AND, none of the guesses - and they are just that, guesses - are based on any observations that are scientific by the strictest definition of science we all accepted in Junior High.

Crichton makes the guess better than I can here so try to read this for your own education and to put the theory of global warming in proper perspective.

Thanks Bert.

(And thanks again to the real Mark Levin, at least the one I know)

Democrat "Values"

Heard / Saw this earlier this past week so I can't recall the name of the Democrat who said this but it isn't important . . . you will hear it again by other Democrats.

On one of the news shows I haunt, the topic was how the Democrats should re-position themselves in future elections.

The spokes-boob actually said, and I closely paraphrase, Democrats should not be perceived as not having values and they have to take back the issue of values and morals from the Republicans. After all, "we embrace values, we believe in funding education, healthcare and seeing to it that the disenfranchised are looked after".

BREAKING NEWS BULLETIN for Democrat strategists . . . .

"funding education" is not a morality or value issue, it is an economic policy.

When I decide to buy the more expensive Michelins for my vehicle, I am not exercising my morality, I am making a financial decision. BUT . . . when I decide to pay for them, as opposed to driving off without paying, THAT, my dimwit politico chum, is a moral decision.

Raising taxes on wealthy Americans is not an ethic/value/morality issue.
Well . . . it is a value of Marx, Trotsky and Lenin but I digress.
Wealthy Hollywood-Americans who swear a blue streak on stage at a political fundraiser . . .
THAT is a "value" issue regardless of the degree they are taxed.

If I decide that handing over more of my tax dollars so children , who have no order and guidance at home, can have more supervisors at school to keep them from stealing quarters form the other students, THAT is not a moral decision believe it or not. That is another economic decision and to a degree, a criminal issue.
Knocking on the door of these kids' teen-age mommies and offering mentoring so they don't mate again and bring another child cum felon-in-waiting into this world is a "value" and "moral" act. Each time Charles Rangle and Maxine Waters ignores this epidemic, THAT is a moral issue.

As long as democrats think that taking a portion of my salary to hand over to yet another Federal agency in the name of helping gay para-palegiac Hispanic women get jobs as trapeze artists in the National Federal Circus they will never understand why so many Americans are addressing morals and values.

Perhaps when they begin to understand the distinction between behavior based on morality and ethical values and simply throwing someone else's tax dollars at causes they prefer
they will begin to be more in line with what Americans are trying to get across to them.


Mark Levin

Explaining the Universe

An interesting commentary by the inestimable Mark Levin.


Everyday I read or hear something from the Democrat-Left wing-media about what is currently wrong with America since George Bush won the election 3 weeks ago. But what they are telling me doesn't make sense. Could I be living in a parallel universe? Perhaps there are two universes (universi?) thus explaining all the confusion.

For example, I hear that it is wrong that Condoleeza Rice is being appointed as Secretary of State because she agrees with the President. In my universe I don't ever recall a President appointing a political enemy into his cabinet. Unless in your universe Jesse Helms was Clinton's Attorney General and Newt Gingrich was his Secretary of Defense, it just doesn't seem to be a problem that Rice is on the same page as her boss. Isn't the cabinet SUPPOSED to be those who agree with, and are eager to, advance their President's agenda? In your universe do you ask people, who disagree with you, to go out into the world and sabotage your policies so absolutely nothing gets accomplished and chaos reigns over the White House?

Also, I hear that because the Christian evangelicals supported George Bush, ipso facto, George Bush's administration is a wholly-owned subsidiary of this group and domestic policy will go in whatever direction various and sundry pastors wish. Jerry Falwell might bark and George Bush might jump. Well, I don't disagree that this bloc supported Bush, my guess is that they found John Kerry repugnant for the same dozen of reasons the rest of us did. But if you leap to the conclusion that a country will directly be run according to the wishes of a single group(s) that supported a victorious President then we may safely assume that under Bill Clinton the country was run by the Hollywood / Homosexual / Trial Lawyer / NEA / corrupt Black Leadership / pardon-seeking, bribe-offering criminal Bloc. That would explain a lot.

Finally, I keep hearing that the Patriot Act has crippled our civil rights. In my universe, the only people who are inconvenienced by the Patriot Act are men captured on the field of battle, not part of an organized national army, dedicated to murdering Americans, including civil libertarians and Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps, in your universe, the Attorney General is hiding in the bushes outside your front door and your jails are filled with housewives who were apprehended while pushing a shopping cart at Safeway or checking out a romance novel at their library but that isn't happening in my universe.

I hear that the President is pushing an extreme right-wing agenda. In my universe, my President is pushing away from a loony, destructive, illogical and self-loathing socialist agenda and putting space between American leadership and the previous common practice of perjury, obstructing justice, seeking bribes and feeding us a steady diet of outright lies. Is that the same thing you are referring to? The universe is filled with mysteries all right . . . and most of them seem to either live in Massachusetts, are taking post-grad courses at Berkeley, or are such big stars in Hollywood they can give their kids funny names.

There is no "I" in TEAM

I've surfed a few of the Democrat / Lefty websites and the bitterness and angry rhetoric is quite interesting and instructive. They are turning on each other and the finger pointing is fast and furious. It seems none of them will accept that their single issue voter fringe views are not going to help their party win elections. Conversely, the GOP/ Righty websites are full of groups claiming that their voting bloc is primarily responsible for W's victory.

It brings to mind the old saying, "Success is the child of a thousand parents, and failure is an orphan".

George Bush's victory is the result of our party leadership talking the talk and walking the walk when it comes to the big tent philosophy of expanding our base and appealing to the mainstream but being tolerant and respectful of dissent from the McCain's, Schwarzenneggers, Buchannon's, and Spectors. With the race as close as it was, each voting bloc was critically important and we did it as a TEAM and each of us deserve a share of the credit. Now we should go out and convince the Ronald Reagan and Zell Miller Democrats that they are actually Republicans and should register that way, or at least follow Zell and take their party back from the lunatic fringe. Either scenario is good for America.

Kerry's Goose versus the Dukakis Tank

Concerning Kerry's October Disguise as a great white hunter......

So, where are the PETA activists? Shouldn't they take this opportunity to throw blood or Heinz ketchup on Jean Francois Kerry for shooting a poor defenseless goose for the sake of a photo op? I think they are at the same undisclosed location that NOW and Gloria Steinem were at during the Lewinsky debacle. Or could they be hanging out with the gay and lesbian rights groups that gave Kedwards a pass on Mary Cheney? The lefties always believe the ends justify the means, as long as it benefits them.

But wait, the controversy continues.. the photo I saw shows the other 3 guys with geese, but not John. Either, 1: He lied about bagging a goose, or 2: He was too good to carry his own goose out from the blind, or 3: He was too "giddy about the Bosox winning" and forgot it. By the way, what true sports fan uses the word "giddy". Maybe those guys over at "Lambert field"

Great piece by Radioblogger on this one.... http://www.radioblogger.com/