Thursday, May 16, 2002

Democrats run for themselves, Republicans run for the country

Democrats run for themselves, Republicans run for the country
There is more than simple ideology that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans. Their minds are wired in fundamentally different ways.. We have five former presidents walking the earth today, and their conduct is remarkably different depending upon their party affiliation.
Republicans are represented by Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush the elder. In the other corner, we have Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as Democratic ex-presidents.
The conduct of Republican ex-presidents is notable for its restraint. Gerald Ford rarely utters a word on policy. Ronald Reagan is unable to express himself anymore, but even before his illness, he kept his opinions to himself. George Bush the elder kept his tongue even as his successor used the bully pulpit to taunt and ridicule him.
Neither Democrat has managed such self-control. Two or three times each week, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton III pontificates on some issue or other that concerns him. In particular, he extols the overlooked accomplishments of his presidency, or how he considers his successor’s election illegitimate, or how he would have done a much better job fighting the war on terror, if only the attack had occurred on his watch.
Lately, his insatiable need to be the center of attention has taken him to the offices of NBC, where he pitched himself as a daytime television talk show host. Now that Clinton has lived up his original dream of emulating John F. Kennedy, both by being president and a serial philanderer, he has set his sights on emulating Maury Pauvich and Jerry Springer.
I can see it now: This week, on the Bill Clinton Show, transgendered construction foremen, and the women who still love to see them with their shirts off. This episode brought to you by Tide, the tough stain remover.
James Carter’s presidential record was one of unalloyed incompetence. America has worked hard to forget him. To overcome this, Carter has worked overtime to keep his name in the news. Sadly, he does it in much the same way that he did as president, by inflating totalitarian dictators.
In 1994 Carter praised the brutal Stalinist dictator of North Korea, Kim Il Sung: "I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country."
Carter was impressed by the economic vibrancy of the North Korean capital, calling Pyongyang a "bustling city." Today, North Koreans eat grass.
Other dictators he has nuzzled include Yugoslavia’s Marshall Tito, and former Romanian strongman Nicolae Ceausescu.
Most recently, he has taken sides with Fidel Castro, touting the Cuban education and health care systems as superior to the United States’. He contradicted US intelligence by declaring that Cuba had no biological weapons laboratories. He cited what was to his mind, an unimpeachable source, Fidel himself. Perhaps Carter wouldn’t think so highly of Castro if someone reminded him that the Cuban tyrant was a tobacco peddler.
If Carter is good for nothing else, he is a constant reminder of the wisdom shown by the American people when they voted him out of office in 1980.
The absence of Democratic self-discipline is not confined to their tongues. They often allow other body parts to run their lives.
While Carter managed to confine his adultery to his heart, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton tomcatted with reckless abandon. Can anyone remember similar behavior from a Republican president?
Aside from Hillary Clinton’s tactless and unsupported accusation in Vanity Fair magazine back in 1992, that George Bush I committed adultery, there are not even whispers about Republican presidential infidelity.
I think that it’s about priorities. Democrats seem determined to write themselves into the history books. The taping system that eventually tripped up Richard Nixon was originally installed by Lyndon Johnson, who wanted to provide a complete record of his greatness for historians.
With Republicans, it is service to their country that animates them. Reagan and Clinton presided over two of the most robust periods of economic growth in the nation’s history. When good economic news was announced, Clinton never failed to assign himself all the credit. Ronald Reagan never failed to credit the American people for their accomplishments.
Democrats’ interest in their country seems to begin and end with their own entries in the history books.

Saturday, May 11, 2002

What's Next, Handicapped Access for Physically Challenged Illegal Immigrants?

What's Next, Handicapped Access for Physically Challenged Illegal Immigrants?
It's never safe to say you've seen or heard it all. The families of illegal aliens who perished in the desert are suing the United States Government for not supplying water stations that might have saved the criminals lives. It seems that the INS has concentrated its enforcement in areas where it is actually possible to cross on foot. They have posted few agents where the terrain makes it impossible to cross. According to the plaintiffs, this strategy is forcing the illegals to attempt crossing the border in these hot dry areas. If they're going to do that, say the lawyers, then they should provide water stations for them.
"What these agencies knew — or should have known — is that by doing this, and with a history of deaths in the desert, these people would cross in these dangerous areas," said A. James Clark, one of the two Yuma lawyers filing the claim. "It would have cost the government nothing to put water stations in, as it had done in other locations."
What these dimwitted attorneys can't understand is that, if there were water stations in the desert, then all the INS would have to do would be to place guards near the water and then they could round up the crooks when they came to get a drink.
Oddly enough, the lawsuit does not hold accountable the smugglers who sent these people into the desert where they died. What does that tell you about how much they really care about the illegals?

When Compassion Fascists Stifle Debate, the Field is Left Open for Real Fascists

When Compassion Fascists Stifle Debate, the Field is Left Open for Real Fascists My, oh my, but the cradle of civilization seems to be having a series of bad hair days. Politicians who couldn’t win one percent of the vote in Idaho, are making serious waves in Europe. And it’s largely the fault of the left-wing thought police.
As they do in this country, the European thought police have endeavored to squash any debate on immigration. To question open borders is to invite ostracism and name-calling. Although they could scarcely have been more different, two politicians who dared to speak forbidden words have found their way into the headlines recently. Both have been branded as “fascist,” “far right-wing,” and “racist.”
France’s Jean-Marie Le Pen has never tried to hide what he is. He is indeed a racist and an apologist for the Holocaust. He shocked France and the rest of Europe by winning enough votes in a primary election to earn a general election ballot spot against incumbent president Jacques Chirac. He ultimately lost by the largest margin in French electoral history, but observers are still unnerved by the fact that 18% of the French population found his views appealing enough to vote for him, even without butterfly ballots.
In recent years, France has experienced a huge influx of largely illegal immigrants from North Africa. Suddenly, France has something that it always considered an embarrassing problem of the United States – slums. Those slums have also nurtured something else that the French considered uniquely American – crime, including violent crime.
Polite French politicians have refused to even acknowledge that there was a problem. To speak of it was to invite accusations of racism and to risk being labeled a fascist. The field was left open for Le Pen, who openly embraces fascism. Le Pen spoke to people’s anxieties and many held their nose and voted for him as the only person willing to address their greatest fear.
Another European politician in the news lately was Pim Fortuyn of the Netherlands. He was assassinated last week by an animal rights and environmental activist.
Fortuyn also rose to prominence with an anti-immigrant platform that inspired Euro-snots and the American media to associate him with Le Pen. But Fortuyn was not the openly crude racist that is Le Pen. Fortuyn was an erudite sociology professor who loved the Netherlands and its libertarian culture.
Like France, the Netherlands has absorbed a flood of Islamic immigrants. Fortuyn argued that such immigration should cease until the immigrants already in the country have assimilated. Fortuyn was not interested in the race of the immigrants. He was worried that unassimilated Moslems threatened traditionally liberal Dutch culture. The immigrants brought with them the culture of their homelands, which is largely intolerant, sexist and homophobic.
Fortuyn was a homosexual and had a vested interest in defending a culture that allowed him to walk its streets freely.
Hey, that reminds me, where is the outrage over the murder of an openly homosexual politician? Why isn’t this a hate crime? Sorry, I digress.
Despite his obvious liberalism, Fortuyn was tagged by the thought police as an “extreme right-winger” for questioning unfettered immigration. His opponents did not engage his arguments. They could do nothing more than call him names.
There are forbidden words and subjects in this country too. And they open the field to provocateurs and charlatans. Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Poobah David Duke received a disquietingly high percentage of the vote for governor in Louisiana some years back by challenging conventional wisdom on such matters as racial preferences.
In Washington, any elected official who dares suggest that the citizenry is overtaxed should expect rhetorical evisceration by big city editorial pages. Whenever a social welfare program is discussed, it is not considered proper to ask taxpayers how much of their own money they are willing to give. Rather, politicians go to the recipients of these wealth redistribution programs and ask them just how much of somebody else’s money they are willing to settle for. It seems a curiously out of balance system.
With no elected officials willing to risk defending their cause, taxpayers have been forced to turn to hucksters like Tim Eyman, who has organized several tax cutting initiative drives.
Squelching honest debate leaves the field clear for the extremes to thrive.

Friday, May 03, 2002

Massacre, We Don't Need no Stinking Massacre

Massacre, We Don't Need no Stinking Massacre
What ever became of that big Israeli massacre in Jenin? After every news outlet of note gave prominence to Palestinian terrorist clams that Israeli Defense Forces had massacred 500 or even 1000 innocent, unarmed Palestinians in Jenin, we have now learned that events actually unfolded precisely as Israel said it did.
Fifty six Palestinians died and all but a very few were armed, uniformed Palestinian gunmen. The central part of the city was blasted and bulldozed because it was too heavily booby trapped to be taken any other way.
The verification of the Israeli side comes from what news organizations usually consider an unimpeachable source. The very same Palestinians who cried "massacre" in the first place.

Religion of Peace Update

Religion of Peach Update
This at least is progress. On April 24, Iran's Grand Ayatollah Montazeri issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, condemning suicide bombings. He ruled that bombings which target innocent innocent women and children was antithetical to the teachings of Islam, and that those who did were condemned to an eternity in Hell. That's a little different from the promise of paradise and 72 hot, horny virgins that Osama bin Laden and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasir Arafat promise.
But sadly, the very next day, Iran's supreme poobah, the Ayatollah Ali Khamanei essentially contradicted Montazeri and praised Palestinian suicide bomers.
"Palestinians are standing up to the pressures on them and the height of their resistance is manifested in their martyrdom- seeking operations which make the enemy tremble," pronounce Khamenei, placing his nation solidly on the side of suicide slaughters of children and against the teaching of Mohammed. I thought Iran was supposed to be a "perfect Islamic state." It would appear that the Iranian government officially hates Jews more than it loves Allah.

Politically Correct Heckling

Politically Correct Heckling
It is now official. Seattle is the most politically correct city in America. Way over there, on the silly side of the Cascade Mountains, political correctness has even invaded the last, most hallowed bastion of political incorrectness, the ballpark. Last week, when the hated ( Oops, I mean visiting ) New York Yankees arrived to play the Seattle Mariners, fans who arrived at Safeco Field wearing t-shirts bearing the phrase, “Yankees Suck” were told to turn the shirt inside out, cover it, take it off, or leave the ballpark.
Like a university administration, the Mariners’ hierarchy is proud of its thought police: "We may lead the league in ejections from the ballpark, but not because fans are misbehaving more here, but because we don't tolerate much," said Mariners’ spokeswoman Rebecca Hale. "This is about appropriate behavior. We have a code of conduct, a policy for language on clothing and banners and signs. Our feeling was this was not promoting what we want."
Yes indeed. They don’t tolerate. Seattle is a great bastion of liberalism and liberals are notoriously intolerant.
There are rumors that, in the near future, female fans will be required to wear burqas. I understand that, since the collapse of the Afghanistan fashion market, burqas can be acquired quite cheaply on Ebay. Men will have to wear beards. Tofu will serve as a substitute for hot dogs. Herbal chai teas will replace beer and pop. All will chant “ohm” in observance of the seventh inning meditation.
It may be worth reviewing the etymology of the phrase, “you suck.” “You suck” dates back to college campuses in the fifties. It was clever shorthand for telling someone that he is nothing. Nothing is a vacuum, and everyone knows that a vacuum sucks.
But it seems that some simple and dirty minds have managed to corrupt the phrase’s message into something else. Now that I trouble myself to think of it, there’s hardly a better place on earth than Seattle for corrupting such a phrase.
Political correctness, wherever it occurs, has at least two goals. The first is Orwellian mind control. In his novel, “1984,” Orwell described “Newspeak,” a synthetic language that was a creation of his Seattle-like totalitarian state. Newspeak was intended to deprive its citizens of the ability to formulate thoughts of dissent against the government – or to speak ill of the opposing team.
Although liberals don’t call it that, newspeak is the holy grail of liberalism . Ban words and you ban incorrect thoughts. Those of us who make our living on college campuses know all about forbidden words.
The second goal of political correctness is to make the whole world like a preschool playground, where grownups can pretend that nobody's feelings ever gets hurt. John Rocker knows what it’s like to run afoul of that proscription.
The athletes who are typically the targets of the crowd’s abuse usually take a philosophical view. Abuse from the fan who buys the tickets and therefore pays for the athlete’s multimillion dollar home, his Mercedes and his swimming pool, is tolerated as a privilege the fan has paid for.
We can only imagine what might result should Seattle’s new political correctness metastasize into other sports venues. It’s quite common at basketball game for the home crowd to voice its displeasure with a referee’s call by chanting, “Barbra Streisand, Barbra Streisand!” Although, it’s just possible that the crowd is actually reciting some other slogan starting with the letters B S that have essentially the same meaning. In the future such fans should be expected to chant, “We beg to differ, we beg to differ!”
Attempts to distract the visiting team’s free throw shooter would have to cease. It’s just not fair that visitors would be treated differently from the home team. It might cause them to lose and feel bad.
It may take a while for other sports venues to catch up to Seattle. To wit, during last year’s playoffs, many Yankees fans arrived at the ballpark wearing a tee shirt portraying a fireman urinating on Seattle hero Ichiro Suzuki.
"That was apparently appropriate at Yankee Stadium. It wouldn't be at Safeco Field,” sniffed Ms. Hale.
New York needs Ms. Hale. Perhaps we could ship her across the country to civilize those East Coast barbarians.