<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, September 06, 2004

Kerry takes 457th position on Iraq



Senator John Kerry always ready to say something different is once again against the war in Iraq.

Democrat John Kerry accused President Bush on Monday of sending U.S. troops to the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said he'd try to bring them all home in four years.

White at Harvard in the mid 1960's Kerry gave speeches about being against the war in Vietnam. Then he volunteered for action. Then once he came home was once again anti-war.

Back in '97 Kerry was stumping to invade Iraq, he voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2002 but then voted against spending any money on it. After the no vote on funding he went into the Democratic primaries calling himself an "anti-war" candidate. But at the DNC in Boston he draped himself in the flag and stated that his 4 months on a small boat in Vietnam made him better prepared to finish the fight and win the war than Bush. After the convention he even stated knowing now what he knows he would still voted to authorize the invasion. But that was last month today it's the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time". I wonder what his position will be on Nov 2nd?

Kerry's numbers peaked back before the Democrats convention. He was slowly losing ground all summer until right before the Republican convention when polls started to show Bush taking a lead. Now after the RNC in NY Bush has a 7 to 11 point lead over Kerry depending on the poll. So if the election were today Kerry'd get wiped off the map but the election is not today. Kerry has seven weeks left and 7-11 points can be made up in that time. Let's say it's the start of the 3rd quarter and Kerry is down 24 - 3. It's not panic time but he needs action. The question is if pretending the worlds most powerful and fastest growing post industrial economy is in ruin while beating the "anti-war" drum is the right plays to call.

Of course right about now Chris Matthews would ask me if I actually thought Kerry was a football team.
(0) comments

Media continues Kerry lie



Major media ever ready to carry the Kerry torch continue to focus only on the number that the Democrats want to be looked at.

Although payroll jobs have grown by 1.7 million in the last 12 months, the economy still has lost 913,000 jobs overall since Bush took office.

By saying "lost X jobs overall" the AP is trying to impress upon the unsuspecting reader that there are 913,000 fewer people working since Bush took office when the fact is there are 2.8 million more people working. It's a false image that the DNC wants to present as they have painted themselves into a corner with their constant pessimism.
(0) comments

Kerry lies about the economy.



John Kerry in keeping with the tradition of the Democratic party being the party of negativism where only they can save us from the cesspool we find ourselves in through more government programs and higher taxes has taken the announcement of the August job figures as further proof of our failed economy.

"Yesterday morning, once again, we received disappointing news about job
creation here in America. The newest numbers show that this past month, we
simply haven't created enough new jobs," Kerry said in a radio address.
"President Bush is now certain to be the first president since Herbert Hoover
and the Great Depression who didn't create a single new job," he added.


Yes. 144,000 new jobs and an unemployment rate lowering to 5.4% is definitely something you should compare to the Great Depression. Kerry must feel the need to attack Bush on the economy but he's insane to point to growth indicators as proof of ruination.

"Over the past three years, we've lost 1.6 million jobs in the United States. And to make matters worse, the new jobs were creating pay an average of 9,000
dollars less than the ones we've lost," Kerry went on.


Bullshit. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2001 we had 6.8 million unemployed while last month we had 8.0 million. A difference of 1.2 not 1.6. So the Kerry campaign is either lying to really bad at math and neither bodes well for a Presidential administration. Even so the Dems and their willing helpers in the establishment media have won by being able to frame the debate over unemployment only, which is only one tiny part of the equation. Let's look at another number. In 2001 the number of those employed was 136.9 million. So according to Kerry we should have (136.9-1.6=135.3) only 135.3 million working or 135.7 million is you use the correct number. However the Labor numbers show that in August there were 139.6 million working. That's an employment increase of 2.7 million yet Kerry claims not one single job has been created. Kerry and the left feed off of bad news a negativity and if things are doing better will just lie with the comfort that the media will cover for them.

"All across America, people who are working are working hard. They are working two jobs, three jobs, they're working weekends, just to get by." "Parents are sitting at kitchen tables and wondering how they're going to make ends meet: How they're going to buy back-to-school clothes this week, and still pay last weeks doctor bill,


This is tripe. Feelgood boiler plate that after a moments thought is empty of any meaning. Kerry is going to be using the terms, "just to get by" and "making ends meet" often in the next two months and any one that thinks this means he has a plan to fix it is end wrong. Struggling to get by has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with ones debit load versus their income. You can make $20k and always be ahead on your bills or you can make $150k and be on the verge of bankruptcy. Kerry is out there finding people who have no personal fiscal responsibility and therefore spend more then they make to tout as proof Bush has ruined the economy. But unless the Senator plans on making sure everyone has more money than they can spend it's just empty stump speeches. And how is he going to stop people form working 2-3 jobs? Outlaw part time work? "I'm John Kerry. If you put me in the White House I'll see to it that everyone has more money than they can spend, that people are only allowed to work one fulltime job and no businesses will ever require people to work on weekends." Now that I think about it I can see that it will work. Since no one can do any shopping, as all the stores on closed on the weekends then you will have more money that you can spend.

And for the part of the complicit press...

He made the most of lukewarm job creation data from Friday, pointing to the 144,000 jobs created in August and the drop in the unemployment rate to 5.4 percent -- its lowest since October 2001.


Lukewarm? This August has capped one of the strongest one year periods of growth in the US economy ever but the press always totes the DNC line.

(0) comments

Friday, September 03, 2004

Silent no more.


I've had about as much as I can stomach of the establishment media's constant hypocrisy and dishonesty. I've heard enough double talk, condensation and twisted half truths from Kerry/Edwards as I can take. I don't have a job so I was able to watch a lot of both conventions and if I was going to vote for Bush before I'd want to vote twice for him now.

I'm going to start with Kerry's speech he gave right after the end of the RNC on Thursday night and an article about it from the New York Times (where else?)

For the past week, they have attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief,". "Well, here is my answer to them," Mr. Kerry said to cheers. "I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could've and who misled America into Iraq."

OK Senator, so now you are Bush "misleading" again but wasn't it just 3 weeks ago you said that you still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war even if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found? I don't see how you can fault Bush for Iraq if you where gung-ho WMD or no? Senator if WMD is moot as you claimed back in August then Bush's, "misleading" regarding WMD is also moot. Is this more of Kerry's infamous flip-flopping? I don't think so, I feel it's more evident of a trend in the left of late where they feel they can say anything and on one will call them on it, part of which is probably the blame of the establishment media's refusal to do much more than repeat the Democratic talking points. Well answer the phone Senator cause I'm calling you. Oh, and what is that about. "those who refused to server"? Since when is flying a jet fighter in the Air National Guard with the possibility of being called up "refusing" to serve? So now I guess everyone that was in the National Guard are cowards for refusing to serve their country... but more on this in a moment. (Kerry urges Iraqi invasion)

"The vice president called me unfit for office last night," Mr. Kerry said. "Well, I'm going to leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments make someone more qualified than two tours of duty."

And the moments up. Here's the deal Senator and Mr. McAuliffe way back in 1992 when you guys were running an admitted draft dodger against a WWII hero you kept yammering about how messed up that time was and how whether or not one served shouldn't matter. I bought it when I voted for Clinton. In fact you said the exact same thing again in 1996 running the same draft dodger against another WWII hero that was disfigured for life when he got his Purple heart. I didn't hold Clinton's true "refusal to serve" against him then and I still don't now so I find it very disingenuous of you to ask me to hold it against Bush and Cheny. No. You can't take it back. You talked me into giving Bill and pass and I'll be God dammed if you are going to stop me from giving the same to W and Dick.

"Let me tell you in no uncertain terms what makes someone unfit for office and unfit for duty," Mr. Kerry said, turning to Mr. Bush. "Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead our country. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this country. Letting 45 million Americans go without health care for four years makes you unfit to lead this country.

Again with the moot "mislead" line? Let's see, Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, there were a few massive business scandals that crashed to Earth early in the term but started falling long before Bush was in office and then there was that 9/11 thing you so wish would just go away. In the process over all employment in the US went down about 2.2 million so technically "millions of jobs" where lost but only a couple, not a few. As for Bush not doing anything? I seem to remember a big tax cut that you said would ruin the economy - cause we all know nothing gets an economy churing faster than high taxes, just ask the French - but Bush was able to get it past congress by making it temporary. And then the strangest thing happened, right after the tax cut took effect business investment started to increase and the economy started growing again - that's a coicodence so weird it must be Swedish. In the past 12 months we have added 1.7 million new jobs, we have one of the worlds lowest unemployment rates at 5.4% and a rapidly growing economy but to listen to you it's 1934 souplines all over again. But if we put you in office you say you can fix our ruined economy by repealing the "tax breaks for the rich" and creating job training programs. Senator, if you take money away from the rich, whom by my reckoning do most of the hiring around here exactly what jobs will these centers be training people for? Now for the million uninsured. First of all see here for the truth on that rather large statistic that the Dems will be repeating over and over for the next 2 months but for the sake of this we'll just stick with the CPS's number of 43.6 million, not Kerry's inflated 45 million and not sweat the details. The thing is that the number of uninsured has been hovering between 43 and 44 million since 1998 - long before Bush was in office. But to hear it from Kerry you'd think these 43.6 million sprang out of nowhere during the Bush administration and that conservatives get pleasure out of the suffering, well at least that's what Clinton said at the DNC in Boston. Both Kerry and Bush have plans to address the issue which is good but only Bush as gone into detail on his plan. Kerry has kept quiet because his would require a tax increase beyond merely repealing the Bush tax cuts and that won't sell. The bottom line is that Bush wants to create an environment where the true working poor that are slipping through the gaps can get affordable coverage and have better choice while Kerry wants to create a government infrastructure to administer out insurance taking a step towards the left's utopian goal of a nationalized health care system. I dated a Canadian and am now engaged to a Brit. I've seen the Canadian and British systems and though I'm happy to say we need improvement/reform in our system a step towards what they have is a step in the wrong direction.


"Letting the Saudi royal family control the price of oil for Americans makes you unfit to lead this country. Handing out billions of dollars in government contracts without a bid to Halliburton while you're still on the payroll makes you unfit lead this country



Huh? Saudis? Halliburton? Is this John Kerry or Michael Moore speaking? On Halliburton you either believe in the conspiracy theories or you don't. It's a dead horse as far as I'm concerned. But I have to say I'm a bit confused buy the line about "letting" the Saudi's control oil. What praytell Senator would you do to take the control away from them? Allow drilling in ANWR and off the gulf coast so we can glut the market and lower oil prices? Have a real "war for oil" by invading Saudi Arabia and confiscating the oil fields? Just what would you do sir? Oh and by the way if that makes Bush unfit then just what was Carter and Clinton doing at the DNC in Boston. Why would you want the endorsement of 2 ex-Presidents who were by your definition "unfit" for office?

Not wanting to be left out the little lawyer that could had this to say...

Mr. Edwards, introducing Mr. Kerry, called the attacks on him amazing. "They'll say just about anything, won't they?" Mr. Edwards asked. "He wasn't wounded quite often enough, is that it?



They'll? Don't you mean "We'll"? Anyway, Dems have since the election in 2000 spit nothing but hatred out for anyone outside of their party, Republican, Green anyone. And during that same time have over reacted with charges of racism, hatred and crying of general meanness to anything said against them no matter how tame. Everyone knows and understands that both parties will hit below the belt but I've had it with the Dem crying foul everytime there is a perceived slight. Moveon.Org runs ads equating Bush to Hitler and the Whitehouse ignores it. Moore claims Bush knew about 9/11 and was paid off by the Saudis and the Whitehouse spokesman simply says the "truth will win out". Swiftboat Veterans for Truth say they served with Kerry and they don't think he's fit for office and the Dems threaten to sue TV stations if the don't pull the ad. Many anti-Bush books are published with outrageous claims, one even talking about how to assassinate the President and the White House just ignores it. One person writes a book based on the Swifties for Truth and the Dems first try to sue the publisher and then try to bully the stores into pulling the book. The Democratic Party - Defenders of Free Speech! as long as we agree with it. All the while the Establishment Media(EM) goes right along with it. The EM can't mention the Swifties for Truth without reminding everyone that a Texas Republican gave them $100k and they make the connection as if that's the proof needed to show the Swifties claims are false. Yet at the same time they never once mention the millions George Soros and other uber rich leftists have given to their 527's groups. Kerry calls on Bush to renounce the Swifties for Truth without ever renouncing the leftist 527 groups. The hypocrisy runs so deep it could float a battleship and the Dems and the EM have deluded themselves into thinking no one notices. The WWII generation is still awed by color while the Boomers grew up at a time when the EM ruled the land. We Gen Xers however dust our parents when it comes to media savvy. I grew up watching Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings, I know the games they play. Gen Y coming up behind me is even more media savvy and I think it goes part way to explaining why the trend is for the younger people to be more and more conservative... but more on that another day. Getting back to Mr Edwards. The worst aimed at Kerry in New York was Zell Miller's speech in which he did the unforgivable sin of - drum roll please - reviewing Kerry's voting record. This is equated by Edwards to be on par with getting wounded in action.

If Kerry's skin is that thin perhaps he is "unfit" for duty.


(9) comments

Friday, July 02, 2004

What words are left?



Webster's
Main Entry: quag·mire
Pronunciation: 'kwag-"mIr, 'kwäg-
Function: noun
1 : soft miry land that shakes or yields under the foot
2 : a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position


Bill Day


I have seen the war in Iraq described as horrific, terrible and bloody. I've seen the press try to make out that there no justification for such high causalities. It's been called a quagmire since the dat after the shooting started and now, 3 days have the handover, Bill Day is still calling it a quagmire. But what are the nubmers compared to the wars of the last century?

We are in our 16th month in Iraq with 800 combat dead. The first number is based upon total US combat deaths then divided by the number of months the US was fighting to get the average death rate over a 16 month period. The second number is real deaths adjusted for population (Current, 1900-1999, 1860)

World War II - 150,846 / 378,623
World War I - 98,118 / 278,655
Korea - 18,082 / 33,813
Vietnam - 7,755 / 11,477
Gulf War - 2,320* / 2,691*
Iraq - 800 / 800

BONUS
US Civil War - 208,170 / 1,967,207


Quagmire?

(* - The Gulf War of 1991 lasted one month. This number is extrapolated from the 145 deaths from that month.)
(0) comments

Thursday, July 01, 2004

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/
(0) comments

Moore's Big Blockbuster



I have seen much about how Michael Moore’s lastest anti-American and anti-Bush movie is doing gangbusters.

Reuters
Box-office fever for Michael Moore's searing anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" climbed a bit higher on Monday

Independent
The box-office figures were a vindication for Mr Moore and his immediate backers, the Weinstein brothers of Miramax,

The Oregonian
the film raked in an eye-popping $23.9 million in its first three days

AFP
US filmmaker Michael Moore claimed a major political coup against US President George W. Bush as "Fahrenheit 9/11" scorched box office records and shook the US political scene.


Well just how well has F9/11 done? A quick check at over at Yahoo Movies shows that it ranks as the 10th top grossing film on its opening weekend... since April 7th of this year.

Shrek2 - $108.0 million
Harry Potter 3 - 93.6
The Day After Tomorrow - 85.8
Van Helsing - 51.7
Troy - 46.8
Dodgeball - 30.0
Kill Bill Vol.2 - 25.1
Mean Girls - 24.4
Riddick - 24.2
F9/11 - 23.9


I'm concerned that all this echo chambering talk about how F9/11 is this runnaway train of success is leading to thinking it's going to change minds. For what it is and the number of screens it was shown at F9/11 did well but it's no Titantic and all it's capable of doing is confirming the viewer's already held beliefs that either Bush/Rep/Conservatives are the most evil people on the planet or Moore is a lying selfagrandizing bastard. No one will be swayed but I wonder if the Dems might think they can coast to an easy win against Bush riding the F9/11 wave of success.

Richard Cohen over a the Washington Post sees the same potential problem.
I go on about Moore and Ellis because the stunning box-office success of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. Speaking just for myself, not only was I dismayed by how prosaic and boring the movie was -- nothing new and utterly predictable -- but I recoiled from Moore's methodology, if it can be called that. For a time, I hated his approach more than I opposed the cartoonishly portrayed Bush.


The vibe I am getting from the Dems is the same I got in Feb of '02 when a moonbat handed me an anti-Bush work of his and stated that, "We[anti-war crowd] are just about to win and stop this war.". He had talked himself into believing everyone was against the war, I wonder if the Dems are headed down the same road with Bush.
(5) comments

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

A bit of a Fisking over the Handover



Over at Chrenkoff, Arthur has a nice little Fisking of a few media comments on the US handover of authority to the Iraqi Transitional Authority.
No one questions German or South Korean sovereignty, the economy was broken by Saddam and is now doing much better, thank you very much for asking, and the fact that people set off car bombs and behead hostages is of course America's fault. The situation is only dire if the media is there to report it - by this standard, Saddam's Iraq was a much better plece to live indeed. It's true that the media doesn't invent crises, it only reports them. The problem is the crises it doesn't.

I'd like to say I have noticed a sort of sad dissappointed tone in the media that comes accross to me as, "sure sure but it's no Disneyland yet so you've failed". And remember way back when we talked about them moving the goal posts all the time? We've removed one of the worst baddies ever, offered liberty to a people for the first time ever, done it all with an amazing low casuality rate and in 15 months for the first shots have setup a sovereign Iraqi government and in the proscess have had the oppertunity to kill quite a few terrorist. Yes that sounds like defeat to me.

I feel that a little bit of a nutty left rubs off on our objective media. So perhaps it's since the nutty left thinks that we really are a child murdering, resource stealing nation bent on colonizing the world with little American provences that anything short of the way Edward I colonized Wales can be viewed by the media as defeat for the US. Whether or not the goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom are met is meaningless to the media as deep down inside the never believed those goals cuase we all now Bush lies. Bush said they were their to free Iraq but the media knew we were there to steal oil. Now that Iraq is sovereign and we don't have their oil the feel ok to report the handover in a cynical negative tone since we failed to get the oil they knew we were after. The terro... er... "insurgents" bloodied the US so much we decided to cut and run without all the booty we came for in the first place.

And FOX is the fascist liars.
(0) comments

More on the Media



Both these are from todays Front Page Magazine. The first by William A. Mayer is a satirical bit on how today's media would be likely to report the Allied invasion on D-Day.
Casualties at day's end are nothing short of horrific; at least 8,000 and possibly as many as 9,000 were wounded in the haphazardly coordinated attack, which seems to have no unifying purpose or intent. Of this number at least 3,000 have been estimated as having been killed, making June 6th by far, the worst single day of the war which has dragged on now--with no exit strategy in sight--as the American economy still struggles to recover from Herbert Hoover's depression and its 25% unemployment.

To read this is to see how negetive and cynical out almost useless media has become. In the second link Thomas Patrick Carroll gives his take on why the media is unable to see the horrors commited in the name of Allah while obbsessing over our every mistep.
So why is the liberal media so gentle with our Islamist enemies? What is it about the mindset of contemporary liberalism that predisposes it to be circumspect toward a belief system that, by the left’s own traditional standards, is absurd and repugnant?

A great deal of the answer lies in ‘multiculturalism,’ the latest addition to the cluttered closet of liberal fads.

I think these are both worth a read.
(4) comments

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Restoring a 2006 Chevy Cobalt SS



There's a fun little article in Road and Track about the prospects of restoring the cars of today in the future.

"How did you like the BMW 530i?" my friend, Lew Terpstra, asked.

"Nice car," I said, "if you can master the iDrive system for running the radio and heating system. It drives most people crazy."

Lew nodded. "That system seems to be a point of great controversy among BMW owners." He took a reflective sip of beer and said, "Can you imagine what it's going to be like, 30 or 40 years from now, trying to restore a car like that? Or any modern car, for that matter."

This concept brought a rare, sobering silence to the group.

They have a good point but while they seem to only be considering the ultra high end car the sad reality is that cheap everyman sportcars like the upcoming 205hp Cobalt SS are laden with almost as many electronics and sensors as the money cars are.

When I was 16 a kid with a set of wrenches and a test light could get a 18 year old Chevelle back on the road. Today I need a fancy electrical meter and a lot of beer to figure out what's going on in the Bosch Lufthies 2.2 fuel injection and the APC brains on my 18 year old Saab Turbo. 18 years from now no 16 year old will be able to work on the cars of today.

Today I have my first class as I go back to school for a degree in Electro-Mechanical Engineering. My fiance asked why that subject. I asked her how long she wanted to keep driving her 2003 Mini. She said "20 years" and I said, "Well there you go..."
(3) comments

More on Moore



Yes, I know there is too much on Moore out there right now but I think this article from 1998 on Moore by Matt Labash, "Michael Moore, One-Trick Phony" has a good way of giving info on him before Bowling For Columbine set him up as the #1 posterboy for the extreme Left.
(1) comments

The ACLU is racist



Here we have the ACLU attacking a company for establishing a dress code.
The American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to a ban on sports jerseys, sleeveless shirts and backward baseball caps in Louisville's new nightclub district, saying the dress code is biased against blacks and poor people.

What a load of horse shit. The only way you can think that is if you believe that only people with lower incomes or higher melanin levels in their skin are the ones that wear clothing like that (and also it must be the only thing they have to wear otherwise couldn't they just wear something different?). It's nonsense race biating to say lies like that. Now in this situation the city of Louisville has granted a developement group the rights to create a dress code in an area of city streets that are blocked off. I think it's fair to argue that they can't create a dress code on public streets but that's not how the ACLU is approching it. They are coming at this from the racist and classist angle.

What's next for the ACLU? Attack dress code enforcing night clubs for being racist? Attcking Morton's Steak House or being biased against poor people? I know, they should go after the Catholic church for the dress code priests and nuns are forced to wear. It's so obvious the Church is trying to keep blacks and poor people out by not allowing preists to wear sports jerseys. Come see the racism inherent in the system!

Is the ACLU so blinded by racism that even when going after something questionable (a dress code on public streets) they are unable of presenting a rational arguement? The ACLU's greatest enemy is itself.
(0) comments

EU wants to outlaw Polack jokes



I have to wonder at what point the people of Europe will say no more with the ever growing an invasive regulations coming from Brussels. Declan McCullagh has a nice post over at CNET on how "Europe (still) doesn't get it.". His post starts with a new treaty on cybercrime from the Council of Eruope and goes from there into a general rip on European tendancy to over regulate. Some would say that I'm just a typical ingnorant American to say that the EU over regulates their economies. I would then say, "Score board, score board, score board!".

But that's not what I want to post on. I'm saying now that I find the idea of someone whatching my email looking for something that might insult someone infuriating. There is no arguement that can be presented to me that would for a flick of a second not think this is completely unconstitutional. It's an out and out voilation of the right to free speech.

This is one more illistration of the difference inherent between a society where the constitution lists what government can do vs. one where it lists what governement can't.
(2) comments

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Smart For2 might not make it



The tiny Smart For2 city car that starts at $9,000 in Europe could sell in the US. In places like New York, Boston it could be useful as a second or third comuter car and you'd get sales elsewhere from people looking for something unique. Sales wouldn't be high but in a 16.5 million car market each year there room for everyone. Diamlier-Chrysler has stated openly that they have no intention of bringing the current For2 over to the US because they feel sales would be too low to warrent the trouble and expense. Enter ZAP Inc. and one Thomas Heidemann who are planning on their own to import the For2.

Diamlier-Chrysler's Smart For2


If they can get past all the issues listed in the AutoWeek article they have a huge issue on price. They are going to start the For2 at $15,000? $15k and with a few options it would be pushing $20k. That's Mini territory. That's a loaded Cobalt. That's a nice Civic. That's an AWD Impreza. No one looking at $20k cars is going to opt for a 60hp 2 seater with zero cubic ft. of cargo space over the giant field of "real" cars and many nice cars available at that price. At that price the only people buying will be the idle rich, Hollywoord elites and Greens trying to drive home a political point.
(1) comments

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Right-wing Doomsday



This is an common event. We are all the time bombarded by the nagative nancy doomsday senerios of the Left but it's rare we see one from the Right. I hope you get a chance to enjoy, "The End of Power " from The Wall Street Jounal. Like many doomsdays from the Left there are interesting points to be made and also like many of the doomdays from the Left it is a possibility. There is however one large if and that is their prediction will only come to pass if a large number of factors all develope as they predict. And this one falls to the most base of junk science predictions, the "if this trend continues" school of thought.

In this doomsday senerio we have the polulation of Yemmen becoming larger than that of Russia all thanks to the hard work of continuing trends. I wonder if when people of this school of thought read that a Kia Sedona minivan can go 0-60mph in 8.5 seconds they then assume that it will break the sound barrier in under 2 minutes at full throtle.

The problem with these things is that people get so hung up on the few good points or the details of numbers that the miss the reallity that it's nothing more than a work of "what if" fiction. Niall Ferguson has created for us an interesting world where a decent author could live well off the series of books they could write but I don't think it or any other doomsdays need to be considered too hard when making policy decisions.
(1) comments

Geely wants to sell cars in US



Chinese car company says it will sell cheap sedan in U.S.


The Geely Uliou.


Can they copy the success of the Koreans everyone is asking. Of course people seem to be forgetting that Deawoo and Daihatsu were abject failures or that Kia was doing so well it had to be bought out by Hyundia to stay afloat. Well I'm not going to make any predictions on a car that's not even yet for sale but I know I'll enjoy watching them try. Besides now that the Korean cars are not rolling junk anymore we need a new kid to kick around and make fun of.
(3) comments

Friday, June 18, 2004

Who's lying?



The left leaning press seems to be willing to lie through ommission to support those claiming Bush is the liar. From USA Today...

Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003--the day the war in Iraq began--Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who ''planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.''

However that's not the full quote there is it? Wonder what he really said? Here you go... (click HERE for the full letter)

Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The law authorizes force against all terrorist including those involved with 9/11 not only those involved. Only by lying can the left and Democratic leadership being to create a fictional world where Bush claimed Saddam was in on 9/11.
(7) comments

Prepetuating Lies of the Left





Nice. Here we have the 9/11 commission catching Bush in the act of trying to paint a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam over 9/11. Now he has been caught in his "Sky High Lies" and with it his justification for removing Saddam is gone as well. Guess we should restore Saddam to power then. Only there's one problem with this... Bush never claimed any Saddam - Al Qaeda link over 9/11. Bush did claim Saddam had links with terrorism and I'd say if nothing else paying suicide bombers would qualify as such but the left has twisted that into him claimnig Saddam and Osama were in on it together.
(2) comments

Roger and Jihad



According to a report in the UK Gaurdian, "Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah ". I don't know what more can be said. I think once Hezbollah starts to offer to support your work it's safe to say your work is nothing must anti-American propaganda and need not warrant any further thought. And remember he won the award for "documentary" at Cannes.

For info on refuting Moore's lies check out, Moorelies.com

UPDATE I have added this blog to the list. It's a well done blog. Very well done. Plus with Moore's new film coming out very timely. Enjoy.
(0) comments

Bush's biggest failure



What is it? He never refutes lies. David Horowitz has a good piece of the lies of the left regarding the reasons for removing Saddam. This is a MUST READ

Prior to the inception of hostilities in Iraq in March 2003, the Democratic Party with honorable exceptions like Senator Lieberman and Minority Leader Gephardt was a party of appeasers, demanding more time and more offerings to the Baghdad butcher to avoid a military conflict. From the day Baghdad was liberated in April 2003 and continuously through the present, the Democratic Party and its willing press have constituted a chorus of saboteurs, attacking the credibility, integrity and decency of the commander in chief, exaggerating, sensationalizing and magnifying every American setback or fault -- with the guilt orgy over Abu Ghraib the most egregious example – effectively tying the hands of American forces in the field and encouraging the enemy’s resistance. The hard left actually celebrates this resistance. The soft and cowardly left merely encourages it while pretending not to notice what is doing.

But lies about the war are only the half of it.

There are lies on education, lies on the environment, lies on social security, in fact there is very little debate at all. Any area the Democratic leadership feels they can wedge in a lie to hurt Bush they start firing with both barrels.

The Left and Dem leadership has spent months liying about how Bush is destroying the environment but never give a single example. Why no example? Well see there are none. They talk about how Bush's No Child Left Behind Act is tantamount to a life sentence of poverty for our nations childern. Now we can debate the merits of the NCLB Act but what do the Dems - who are in the pay of the teacher's union - offer to counter Bush's education proposal? The status quo, that's what and we all know how good our schools are. Why they're perfect. Propose a change to Medicare or SSI and the Dems scream you are out to kill the poor and starve seniors. Do the Democarts offer an alternative? Nope just more status quo. I guess SSI and Medicare are running as well as our schools then. Don't forget the economy. The Democrats have been liying about the economy for well over a year now. Just this week while in Columbus Kerry stated that he had, "the leadership needed to get America working again.". Just what America is he talking about? It can't be the United States after all the US economy has been growing for the last 2 and a half years and for the last 3 quarters has been growing fast, gained 1.2 million new non-seasonal jobs in the last 3 months in fact the US economy is now larger than is was before the 3 month recession in 2001. The Dems though seek out people that have lost a job and exploit them to paint a picture of a Depression era economy mindless of the fact that economic growth is so strong once again companies are feeling pressure to increase wages.

Why has the Bush campaign and Republican leadership done squat show the Dems to be nothing but lies and empty rhetoric designed to stop debate by labeling the current administration as evil heartless warmongering idiots? I have no idea. Perhaps Bush is dumb, perhaps they have a master plan that like Pericles no one else can see. Time will tell.
(3) comments

Monday, June 14, 2004

Victor knocks one out



I don't agree with Victor on everything but there are moments when he gets in the grove. Victor's "Feeding the Minotaur" is one of those occasions.

I think the Islamists and their supporters do not live in an alternate universe, but instead are no more crazy in their goals than Hitler was in thinking he could hijack the hallowed country of Beethoven and Goethe and turn it over to buffoons like Goering, prancing in a medieval castle in reindeer horns and babbling about mythical Aryans with flunkies like Goebbels and Rosenberg. Nor was Hitler's fatwa — Mein Kampf — any more irrational than bin Laden's 1998 screed and his subsequent grainy infomercials. Indeed, I think Islamofascism is brilliant in its reading of the postmodern West and precisely for that reason it is dangerous beyond all description — in the manner that a blood-sucking, stealthy, and nocturnal Dracula was always spookier than a massive, clunky Frankenstein.

If only out leaders could be as clear and Victor in their words.

Delenda est Islam
(0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?