Digital Brown-Pajamas
Sleepy Stormtroopers of the Religious Right

Tuesday, November 09, 2004



Monday, November 08, 2004

Great 3-D Map of Election Results

You can see the image here. (Hat tip to Beelzabubba of FreeRepublic)

Saturday, October 09, 2004


To my horror, Dick Cheney referenced "factcheck.com" in his comments during the VP debate, but meant FactCheck.org. FactCheck.com is a grossly partisan propaganda site set up by Soros. But FactCheck.org on the other hand is fairly even-handed. Now, if Bush walks on water in your eyes, you may not be altogether pleased, and in some instances they do seem to me to show a bit of bias to the left in some of their interpretations, but for the most part it seems to be a reliable source of information

FactCheck.org gets a precious link spot.

Now it's Zarqawi, not OBL

This would be a major press coup. If Zarqawi is captured/killed before the election, OBL suddenly becomes irrelevant in the eyes of voters. Frankly, I don't think OBL is too relevant now anyway. Most likely the guy is buried under a million tons of granite in the former cave system at Tora Bora. He is part of the geological record now. At any rate, he is obviously not a major player at this point. But, Zarqawi is another story. Bush could utterly out-maneuver the press and Kerry with a Zarqawi kill. Right now, Zarqawi embodies all the loathing and abhorrence Americans have for terrorism, and a photo of him with two in the chest and one in the head would carry Bush to a landslide win. [hat tip: powerline]

Thursday, October 07, 2004

The Future of Manned Space-Flight

This article makes clearer the point I made here that the significance of the X-Prize contest isn't merely that civilians did it, but that it has opened the door to space-tourism and a true "Space Age." It is significant that SpaceShipOne was the vehicle to win, rather than one of the rocket teams, because, as the article notes, rockets were a "quick-and-dirty" solution and ultimately have limited space-travel. Thanks to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Jet Brain

I think my friend Steve must be on the payroll at JetBrain because he keeps BUGGING me about it! Some kinna crackware he's on, tryin to get me hooked too. But I didn't see anything about him trying out SiteMeter, or Blogroll when I suggested them!

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

The Moderate Moderator

Kudos to Gwen Ifill for a masterful job at moderating the debate. That is how you do it. I couldn't tell you what that lady's political leanings are. The questions for both men were tough, fair and informative. That was a refreshing surprise.

Ron Reagan

When I hear a guy like Ron Reagan say "I don't know what freaks people out about gay people!" I sense a man stuggling with the closet door...

Gordon Cooper

I've been totally remiss in noting the death of the man who wrapped up the historic Mercury program in 1963. Gordon Cooper died yesterday in Ventura California. Cooper was an odd duck in the space program, outspoken in his belief in UFO's and often unguarded in his criticisms of NASA. But regardless, he demonstrated the best of the original 7 throughout both the Mercury and Gemini programs.

The Cheney Right-Hook

Although Edwards edged out Cheney as far as the perceived win goes, by far the best punch came from Cheney: "If you can't stand up to Howard Dean, how can you stand up to Al Qaeda?"

Edwards: We'll spend even MORE on AIDS

Nevermind that 15 billion on AIDS is an utterly unprecedented and unthinkably generous move on the Bush administration's part, Edwards has to descend to childish one-upmanship by saying He and Kerry would double it. I 'bout fell out. How pathetic.

Monday, October 04, 2004

The Truth About the Debate

Republicans, like Hugh Hewitt are going to have to come to terms with the fact that Bush lost the debate. They keep having these useless discussions about how Bush won the debate because he was right. Indeed, I would agree that on the basis of the facts of the debate, Bush won hands down. But the fact is, nobody cares about that. The debates are not about issues. As the Kerry campaign well-knows, you can say just about anything in a debate and nobody cares. Kerry outright lied numerous times during the debate, but the public is not scrutinizing him for that. No, the debates are all about perception, and on that point Bush was completely out-maneuvered. The debates are all about impressions and appeal. If you are interested in the facts and issues surrounding the election, your mind is already made up, and has been since before the Democrat convention. The debates aren't for you. They are for the apolitical and for those who themselves want appear politically involved at the water-cooler.

X-Prize Winners!

I've said before, the real history was made on June 21, 2004 when Mike Melvill became the first man to earn astronaut wings as part of a private space-flight venture. As important as it is, however, I'm not sure that's the part history will remember. Private, civilian space-tourism is what the X-Prize is really all about. Ansari X-Prize defined the demonstration of space-tourism capability as being able to perform two missions in two weeks with three passengers on each trip. That test was passed today, October 4, 2004, again by the Paul Allen/Burt Rutan team, with the ship flown by newly winged astronaut, Brian Binnie. Here are some good articles about today's event: Bloomberg - highlight:
"The big guys at Boeing and Lockheed probably think we're a bunch of homebuilders,'' Rutan said. "If they looked at how the flight was run, I think they're probably looking at each other now and saying, 'I think we're screwed.'''

San Francisco Chronicle - highlight:

"Let me say I thank God that I live in a country where this is possible..."- Brian Binnie, SpaceShipOne Pilot.

I'm looking at making some investments. Maybe Virgin Galactic?

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Le Farte

The French alternative to fossil fuels.

Saturday, October 02, 2004


Thanks to you clowns, I'm an insignificant microbe in the blogosphere ecosystem.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Kerry's Unilateralism

Why is it ok, according to Kerry, to go into Sudan unilaterally, for humanitarian reasons, but it was wrong to go into Iraq, with a coalition, for humanitarian reasons? (among other things) Why is it a must to have France, Germany, and Russia (a true coalition, in Kerry's mind) involved in Iraq in order for a military action there to be legitimate, yet uni-lateral talks, not multi-lateral talks, are required in North Korea?

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Folly Revisited

But, remember what I said here. If you waited for the debates to guide you in your decision, you aren't qualified to pick your nose, let alone a president.

I Can't Look..

I wrote that earlier post smug and comfy in the belief Bush would trounce Kerry in tonight's debate. Bush gave me a high degree of confidence in his performance with O'Reilly this week, and I thought for sure that would carry over into the debate. So, I didn't watch the bloody thing. I hate this stuff and always have. Tony Snow insists that campaigns are fun. They are not fun, and I heard that Tony Snow likes to suspend himself from spikes run through his nipples. There is too much at stake to consider this "fun." I've read a number of sources, from CNN, Matthew Yglesias, TalkingPoints, and Mickey Kaus, to Powerline, InfiniteMonkeys, and FoxNews, and on balance the judgement is that Kerry comes out of this debate with a perceived win. The President was careless about his demeanor and allowed Kerry to come of as the Presidential one. Kerry comes away with electoral points on this one, and there will be no landslide this election. All the partisan optimists can hang it up. Look for this one to end in the courts.

The Folly of the Undecided Voter

John Podhoretz was on a local conservative talk-show yesterday raising the specter of voter fraud in the coming election. Expect a bunch of it – from Democrats. Much was made of absentee ballots and the particular problems they present, since there is basically no security in place. It’s a huge hole, and Democrats are huge absentee voters. There was one objection Podhoretz made, however, that I totally disagreed with. He complained that absentee ballots could be mailed in before there had even been a debate and that people would be voting while uninformed if they did so. This is a weak argument, in my opinion. If you are still truly "undecided" by the time the challenger’s convention rolls around, you are a major dunderhead. If you don’t know what you believe, and what the candidates believe out of the gate, maybe you should just sit the election out. Such folk aren’t voting from principle, but from appearances and impressions. While they puzzle over who the better kisser is, who looks better in a speedo, who reminds me more of my best uncle Ned, or who just spits less when he talks, I'm puzzling over their idiocy. They claim they're still undecided about who will help the economy more, but this only proves they know nothing about economics. Its all a thin veil covering the fact that to them, the election is basically a popularity contest. To the truly “undecided” voter, the campaign season is just one long episode of “American Idol.” Within twenty years, candidates will be singing soulfully to a crowd of clapping dumb-heads, and on inauguration day, will probably start a recording career as well as the Presidency. It’s no virtue to be undecided in September.

Monday, September 27, 2004

X-Prize Launch!

Stay posted here for coverage of Wednesday's first official X-Prize shot. Now, in my mind the real competition is over. The SpaceShipOne team has already done the real history making by being the first civilian operation to get to space. But this is fun nevertheless, because this time they have to take a crew, and then repeat within two weeks. There's nobody really even close to them, and this has to be done by January. In a related story Paul Allen and Burt Rutan, the forces behind SpaceShipOne, have contracted with Virgin Galactic to create and run a fleet of similar ships and to operate as a "space tourism" outfit.

Coming Soon...

Over the next few weeks, I intend to write about a few items that are "just for the record." Among the topics - a refresher on the circumstances of the 2000 election nightmare, why you should vote for Bush, why you should absolutely NOT vote for Kerry, and my prediction for the outcome of this November's election.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Cheap Shot

Thought I'd take an easy shot: Also in that awful speech, Kerry accused President Bush of not guarding ammunition dumps "after we won the war..." (Uh-oh think fast, you know what the right-wingers will do with that quote) "...uh, the military part of the war." ..Whew! That was CLOSE! Yeah...almost made it sound like the we won the non-military part of the war, and not just the far less important military part. Yeah, the fighting that's happening now is...non...uh..military.. So...

Kerry, no doubt

Today, Democrat candidate for President Walter Mondale, oops, Michael Dukakis, (sorry), John Kerry said, "We need a president who has no doubt that the war on terror can and will be won." Really? Let me get this straight, you, John Kerry, who have had two or three positions on Iraq in the past WEEK, and many more over the past few months; you who have said you can't tell us the details of your Iraq plan until you get in to office; you who voted for the 89 billion before you voted against it; you who said Vietnam was the biggest nothing in history, yet based your whole candidacy on it; you who have also called the Vietnam war a crime against the Vietnamese and yet are "proud of your service"; you who said that you supported giving the President authority to go into Iraq, yet have said the President "misled" America and then that this is the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," you are suggesting yourself as being the decisive one? Laughing..so..hard....can't... breathe Or maybe your are redefining what it means to have "no doubt." See, I thought that having no doubt meant being assured that what you are doing is the right thing and not being buffeted by every wind and wavering of public opinion. I thought it was conviction and steadfastness even in the face of opponents seeking distract you and throw you off your purpose. But Bush is doing that now, and you call it "stubborn" and "unwilling to admit he's wrong." So, I guess "no doubt" means having doubt? I heard some knucklehead this morning on the radio actually say that Kerry's apparent indecisiveness was actually an asset to him because it meant that he was open-minded and willing to listen to people. Never mind that his indecisiveness means precisely that given a spectrum of choices, Kerry cannot make one himself. Was this caller suggesting that Kerry's indecisiveness meant that he would rely on others to make decisions for him? Well, now that we've established that Bush is hard-headed, stubborn, unilateral, closed-minded, and a go-it-aloner, I guess that obviates the case the left uses to make that Bush hired a cabinet that makes decisions for him But, I doubt it. It's the very ability of the left to hold two contradictory views at the same time that is the very fuel of their political machine.

And that's not all!

Man, it just gets better and better! In the same speech referenced below, he also said of the war on terror "It's as monumental a struggle as the cold war." This is the same guy who said THE COLD WAR COULDN'T BE WON!!!!! He said we'd have to learn to co-exist with the communists! So is that how he plans to win THIS "monumental struggle" as well?

Murder vs. Killing

Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg, the first of a string of beheaded Americans in Iraq, was on the Michael Medved show yesterday. First of all, I can't imagine this fellow's grief. I can't even conceive of losing my son at all, let alone losing him in the monstrous way Berg has lost his. While I sympathize (or is it empathize, I don't know) with his pain he is nevertheless guilty of some very wrong-headed thinking that, in my opinion can only be causing him more internal grief. Medved asked Mr. Berg on more than one occasion, "What should be done to Zarqawi should he be captured? Should he be executed?" To this, Berg answered that it would be wrong to kill Zarqawi, and that he should rather be put in prison for life. He said "Murder is always wrong." Now, I think most people agree with this statement. I certainly do. But there is a basic assumption in this statement from Berg that murder and killing are the same thing. "Murder" is the taking of a life for no just reason. Murder is intentionally targetting the innocent for death, It is stealing something from someone that can not be recompensed. Therefore, Not all killing is murder. There are some in the world for whom it is just to take their lives, for instance, those who commit murder. Killing a murderer can no more be called "murder" itself than requiring restitution from an embezzler can be called "stealing". Pacifists, and opponents of capital punishment will tell you that human life is so important that to take it is unthinkable. They self-righteously imagine themselves as having the morally superior position. After all, they are protecting human lives, aren't they? But it is this very position that reveals a profound lack of value for human life. Human life is so very valuable, and irreplaceable, that the penalty for stealing it from someone should itself be the ultimate. Capital punishment and the threat of military action are the two ultimate statements a society can make regarding how they value the lives of their citizens. Lastly, this opposition to war and capital punishment is hypocritical of most who hold it. With the exception of the Catholics in that camp, the vast majority of them are pro-choice regarding abortion. The same people who expend significant portions of their time and money in their zeal to save the life of a murderer, or who will even give their own lives in protest, will also scream in your face that a woman has the right to kill her unborn child, the ultimate in human "innocence." That they miss the profound irony in this is beyond me. It verges on mental illness that any individual can hold both of these opinions at the same time and not experience debilitating cognitive dissonance.

Monday, September 20, 2004

Who Do You Believe?

The underlying assumption for most Americans reading the news has been that newspaper and television news reporting carries inherent credibility. The power of the MSM's credibility has always been its assumed objectivity, and to some degree, this would be a fair assumption in another time. In the aftermath of Rathergate, the press finds itself in an interesting situation. Previously, most people, at least subconsciously, tended to side with the press in the case of a story contradiction. Especially if a government official was involved, the public would normally assume that if it was in the papers, it must be true. But now the lid has blown off. Critics of the MSM (Main-Stream Media to the uninitiated) have put hammer to marble for a couple of decades now, seemingly to no avail, until it finally calved last week with Dan Rather's gross attempt at public deception and the manipulation of an election. Rather than accept the MSM's version of events, Americans are now asking the question as to who is telling the truth? It has been demonstrated to the average person, that news outlets are players in world and national events, not just reporters. As an example, read this story about the NYT's version of Saddam's state of mind in prison versus Prime Minister Allawi's version. They are radically different, and who now is inclined to just take the NYT's word for it that Saddam is standing firm, refusing to repent over Allawi's version, in which Saddam is broken and begging for mercy? Whom do you believe?

Saturday, September 18, 2004

I Love Beer

Great news passed on from Powerline. But, what about that gut?

Friday, September 17, 2004

Cut to the Quick

There are some not-to-be-missed articles out there from the last day or so. First is this from Ann Coulter who, in a column from yesterday, masterfully illustrates the point that CBS and the MSM in general are colossally hypocritical. First, is this new shocking allegation, that MUST be answered:

Curiously, all this comes at the precise moment that speculation is at a fever pitch about whether Kitty Kelley is in the advanced stages of syphilis.

Then there's this from Jonah Goldberg who describes the blindness that develops in the intellectual ghetto known as the old media.

Denial, after all, is simply the place where your personal interpretation of reality splits off from the objective facts. When Hitler ordered massive counterstrikes using forces that no longer existed, you can be sure his generals understood that the boss had taken leave of this world.


Rather would sound more sane if he said Hobbits are conspiring against him.


I've never believed that media bias is a conspiracy. It's more like background radiation, a certain set of unquestioned assumptions that tend to irradiate everything — the food, the water, the verbs, the nouns of mainstream news coverage. A place like CBS News is a real hot zone where the bias Geiger counter can break its arm off.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Democrats: The Party of Compassion


Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Rather vs. Bush

Golberg is totally on the mark here: Well, if you agree with Rather [that it is outrageous and offensive that anyone would question the judgment that led to the release of the forged document], maybe you should give just a smidgen more slack to George W. Bush about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush's sources were more solid by several orders of magnitude than Rather's, and yet it is "obvious" to so many that Bush lied while Rather deserves the benefit of the doubt. George W. Bush had the head of the CIA, the intelligence agencies of all our allies, the Clinton administration, the United Nations, and most of the establishment media generally backing his understanding of the threat from Iraq. Dan Rather had a couple shoddy Xeroxes — not all of which were examined thoroughly or at all. He interviewed a partisan — Ben Barnes — a huge backer of Kerry whose story has changed several times. But because many who hate Bush believe he lied, they are willing to believe any lies that confirm what they already know to be true. You might say the same to me, since I'm one of those people who've seen Dan Rather as a joke for a very long time. Fair enough. The difference is that I have better evidence on my side.

Just to Reiterate..

Republicans sure are sneaky bastards. When the Dems accuse the President of cheating to get out of military service, wiley Republicans forge incriminating documents and trick news people into publishing them just so that they can discredit them. They troll neighborhoods, vandalizing their own campaign signs so that people will blame Democrats for it. They cackle hideously in their inventive, evil genius. When they want to trick people into believing Iraq has WMD, they don't just go in and plant them themselves (having abundant access to nuclear materials and the like). No! That's too infantile and obvious for a Moriarty like Bush. No, instead they just liiiieeee! Mwooohhaahahaha! In their insatiable greed for oil riches, rather than control their dupes in Congress to open up ANWAR, (again, how simple and unsophisticated!) instead they concoct some silly story about Saddam Hussein supporting terrorism so that they can invade Iraq and spend billions just fighting to keep the oil flowing sometimes. You might THINK they want CHEAP oil to flow. But NO, you unthoughtful person, expensive oil. AHA! who would have guessed?

Things Not To Do In Class In Seattle

Seattle is "fabulous". That's why I hate it. It's stylish, modern, metro-sexual. And I'm so sick of "interesting" little shops and bland, tasteless restaurants with clever little names like "Aqua Verde" (a Taco shop), "Zeitgeist" (a coffee shop), and Green Cat Cafe (deli). The WTO riots, which featured anarchists, turtle and bumblebee costumes, and Union leaders, couldn't have happened in a more deserving city. It's like an anal retentive San Francisco. Seattle is a liberal ghetto. What else can you say about a place that, with a straight face, sends "Baghdad" Jim McDermott to Congress every election. The fun thing about it being so inbred, however, is that the residents are so logically complacent that they are frequently off their guard and say really stupid stuff that you can use to humiliate them. I'm in a class today, and the instructor commented that he was troubled by the fact that in Ballard (or was it Bainbridge Island? Oh well, it's all part of the same ghetto) he drove by innumerable campaign signs, and that every one of the Bush/Cheney signs had been defaced or destroyed and the Kerry/Edwards signs untouched. Without missing a beat, I mean he barely got the words out before her voice started, this lady blurts "well you're assuming that Bush supporters didn't do it themselves." !!!! I was moved to mock her to utter scorn. I poured it on a little thick, but it was glorious. "Yeah, right, a bunch of Republicans marched to Ballard to deface all the signs they spent thousands of dollars to place!" She and her neighbor even had to laugh, albeit shame-facedly. Then another guy says, "Coulda been kids." "Yeah, but they were definitely REPUBLICAN kids," I chimed. Actually, it was probably Karl Rove, and he did it just after he dropped of a set of documents at CBS...

"Homicide" Bombers

Here's one big difference between conservatives and liberals: Liberals are homogenized. They are of one mind, like the Borg. If you make the mistake of signing on, you must, as they say, "Drink the Kool-Aid." Any deviance puts you on the outs and you will be dealt with. Conservatives, on the other hand, are always criticizing each other. We don't care. We are striving for something better than the appearance of unity. All that to set up my criticism of the day: I hate the term "Homicide Bombers." Some knuckle-head commentator at Fox came up with that one, I think. I understand that the intent was to subtract from whatever sympathy points accrued to the terrorists formerly known as "Suicide Bombers." But this is so petty and unneccessary and actually serves to confuse the matter. When a terrorist sets off a bomb, the obvious intent is homicide. They aren't excavating, or digging wells. "Suicide" is pre-fixed to indicate a certain type of attack in which the killer is so deranged as to include him/herself in the arrangement. At least there is some benefit. So please, can we drop the smarminess and just call them "terrorists"?

Friday, September 10, 2004

Lehane Fulfills it!

As Predicted!!!

Thursday, September 09, 2004

CBS Gets Dirty To Help Kerry

Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, And he who rolls a stone will have it roll back on him. - Proverbs 26:27
The Democrats and the leftist press have been searching high and low for payback on the Republicans ever since John O'Neil and the Swift Boat men started dismantling Kerry's thin lead a few weeks ago. Going after Bush's National Guard service is merely tit-for-tat, but we should remember that Kerry was already the Tit. The Dems are the ones who decided to make an issue of military service by first attacking President Bush's Guard service (attempted now for what, the 5th time?) and then so loudly trumpeting Kerry's four month tour of Vietnam. Whether the Bush campaign was involved or not, the SBV's WERE the response, not the instigation. At any rate, like a petulant child they have been gritting their teeth waiting for their "that's what you get" moment. And they thought they had it. In fact, CBS pretty much sold the farm on this one. Looks like those incriminating documents, the ones that "prove" that Bush was "AWOL," are in reality forgeries. My prediction: By tomorrow we will be hearing stories about how some Republican actually created the documents to entrap Democrats and discredit CBS.

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

GQ - The Definitive Kerry interview

This GQ interview says it all. Kerry is such caricature that I thought it was a joke. But this is FOR REAL!!! GQ: Who's the better band: Stones or Beatles? JK: Um... GQ: And don't give me some lame political answer and say "I like them both." Pick one. JK: Well, I can pick both. I can tell you the truth, and the truth is I love both. I love "Brown Sugar." I love "Jumpin' Jack Flash." I love, you know, "Satisfaction." I like "Little Red Rooster." I love every Beatles song. I mean, I love the Beatles. I love the Abbey Road album, I love the White Album. GQ: But, c'mon—you have to choose one. Wait! This part is great. Think "Choose a position on the war in Iraq, Mr. Kerry. Choose a position on ANYTHING!!" JK: But I don't have to. And that's the glory of life. I play them both. I do! I play them both. I've got them both in my car. GQ: What about Dylan? Ever met him? JK: I have. It was like meeting an icon. I love Dylan. He's brilliant. One of my favorite songs ever in life is... I mean, I can name any number of his songs that I love [long pause]... but you know, Lay across my big brass bed—"Lay, Lady, Lay." GQ: Is there anyone you want to meet that you haven't? JK: Lots of people And what woman wouldn't swoon at this bit: GQ: I'm single. What should I look for in a woman? JK: Look for what gets your heart. GQ: What would it be for you, with Teresa? JK: Someone who excites you, turns you on. It's a quality of character. It's a kind of presentation. Sense of womanhood. Confident. It's a woman who loves being a woman. Who knows how to ßirt and have fun. Smart. Has a sense of self. Strong. And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging. GQ: How do you like to be challenged? I want a woman who's going to call me on my shit. JK: I think every man wants a woman who also is supportive, there for you. But that's only part of a relationship. It's work. It's hard. Nobody who's not had a relationship or who hasn't been married understands. You have to care about it. You have to invest in it, and you compromise on certain things. But if it works, it's great. GQ: And when it doesn't? JK: When it doesn't, for one reason or another, you wind up like I did. GQ: Divorced? JK: Yeah. GQ: But that's— JK: It happens. GQ: But you don't regret any of that. JK: Well, I think you're always saddened by it. GQ: But sadness is not regret. JK: Right, but it takes its toll. And anybody who's been through it will tell you that. I would advise people to try to find a way to avoid it. It's not fun. It's tough on kids; it's tough on people. Lastly, the interviewer wants to know about the after-effects of Vietnam: GQ: You've never seen a therapist? JK: No. I had some nightmares when I came home, which is not unusual. GQ: Like what? JK: I can't say. To me Vietnam is an old place, an old memory. It is old history, it's gone, it's past. The less I have to talk about it, frankly, the happier I am. He can't say? What he means is, he didn't know that the question would be asked in the interview, so he didn't have any nightmare stories prepared. There's always that one about the rice in his ass. And what's this about being happier the LESS he has to talk about Vietnam? Good Grief! Hide your Prozac! How can he go on? His political life of abject sadness and depression is about to be capped with a suicide watch!

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Kerry's Complaint..

I heard it from Betsy, who heard it from polipundit. Good Kerry crack-fest. Here's my favorite line:
Listening to John Kerry complain about the scrutiny his Vietnam record is getting is like Pamela Anderson complaining about the fact that guys keep staring at her breasts. What the hell did you expect? - John Kerry: Not So Swift

Friday, August 27, 2004

Is Space Worth It?

I've been saying for a while that the poverty/deficit/crime argument against space exploration is erroneous. There is no amount we'll spend on going to the Moon or Mars that could impact any of those areas significantly. But, as the '60s space race showed, there is a significant economic and quality of life benefit to be gained from funding space exploration. This article makes the case quite well.

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Another Vindication

I’m beyond asking why this stuff doesn’t get covered in the press. It’s a completely rhetorical and cliche question. But, here we are again with another vindication of Bush administration folks from the wild-eyed, hysterical, and hopeful accusations made by Bush-haters.

James Schlesinger, former Pentagon chief and chair of the independent panel charged with investigating abuse of terrorists at Abu Ghraib came out with a report Tuesday. Here are the highlights of the Wall Street Journal piece:

  • Of the 55,000 detainees in Iraq only 22 of the terrorists [my word, not OpinionJournal’s] were being interrogated
  • Schlesinger says “The behavior of our troops is so much better than it was in WWII"
  • Regarding the notorious Maryland National Guardsmen pictured in the infamous photographs, he says, "[they] were not part of authorized interrogations nor were they even directed at intelligence targets"
  • He continues, "There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities."

For me, the most significant point of this article, is the impact that this whole scandal has had on the intelligence gathering ability of interrogators in Iraq.

"We can't even use basic police interrogations tactics that they use in the States," a Marine officer is quoted as saying in a Journal news article yesterday by Greg Jaffe and David S. Cloud.

The zeal and carelessness fueling Bush-haters is resulting in putting folks in danger. I was incensed and offended by this whole thing as everyone else was, but this kind of stuff is just scorched-earth politics.

Don't wait for anyone to recant on this stuff. Most likely, they will just keep rolling grenades into the tent.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Abortion Rights, Civil Rights, and the Naked Boob

All of our children are breast-fed. If there is any totally obvious biological truth, isn't it that at least one of the primary functions of a woman's anatomy is to feed a newborn baby? I believe that even in public it should be accepted and that it is a natural right, as long as it is done discreetly and with regard to those who may be made uncomfortable. But not all proponents of breast-feeding agree with the latter assertion as you will read in this FOXNews.com article on the boob debate. There is a feminist movement afoot seeking to allow women to breast-feed "in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding." Make no mistake, for these booby-fascists the argument is not about breast-feeding being "healthy and natural." In fact, it isn't about the children at all. This is all about a woman's control over her own body, and in typical feminist fashion that means some amount of control over others as well. As in the abortion debate where women must have sovereign control over the life of the baby and the claims of father in terms of his relational rights over his unborn child, leftists now want to force you to tolerate the bare boob wherever you go. It isn't enough to make moral choices for themselves, they must make them for everyone else too. It doesn't matter that the job can be done while modestly covered, because the nursing babe isn't the point. The boob is the point. Whether having a double-latte or a double-cheeseburger you may have to guard little Howard's (or big Howard's for that matter) eyes when you go out. According to the article, the nipple nazis regard this as a matter of civil rights and invoke the Civil Rights act of '64 as their battle-cry. Apparently, the boob has been oppressed far too long. Having been enslaved by its white lace masters, the boob now wants equality and freedom. Rosa may have wanted to be at the front of the bus, but now the bust just wants to be out in front. Hopefully, we can avoid the fire-hoses this time.... Is this what the Civil Rights movement has come to? MLK would be proud.

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

My Pet Goat

While reading an article by Debra Saunders today in the San Francisco Chronicle, I was pushed to critical mass on this whole idea that the President sat there stupefied in a second-grade classroom for seven minutes after learning that the WTC had been attacked by terrorists. Of all the things to be set straight, maybe this isn’t the most important, but it sure bugs me. Lets just be clear that the President did not continue to sit with the second-graders reading "My Pet Goat" after hearing of a terrorist attack. How could he? Nobody knew it was terrorism at that point. Everyone thought it was an accident involving a commuter plane. How alarmist and crazy would he have looked had he set in motion all the elements of a national emergency because some budget airline pilot fell asleep at the yoke? This is all they’ve got folks. The sad part is, the goats are staring at Michael Moore with those empty, unquestioning eyes

Monday, August 23, 2004

Hugh Hewitt's Kerry Links

Hugh Hewitt has a list of some of the best Kerry/Cambodia stories out there. I was cautious about this whole thing at first, but this guy is another Gore.

One of the oddest items I didn't know was that John Kerry claimed to be the Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman, when it was really BOB Kerry. Then one of his idiot spokesmen made some comment that the names sounded similar… How lame. If a Bush supporter had made such a weak and stupid statement it would be on the cover of the NYT…

Wednesday, August 11, 2004


I watched the Perseids tonight. My oldest daughter and I sat out on the back porch for about 20 minutes. Despite the tall copse of trees covering Perseus, I counted maybe ten. Emily caught a few. They were big ones, so it was gratifying. Things astronomical are high on my list of life's deeper pleasures along with wine, good books, friends who love God, and Thai food. Chewy, meaty, rich pleasures. These things are designed to prove to you that God is good. If you aren't paralyzed with deep inner dread at the night sky, I don't get you. I'll have to blog on this soon..

Al Qaeda Plans Assassination

Another warning to you Kerry supporters. Take a look at whom you are keeping company with. Although there is an assumption that Bush would be the prime target, the intelligence did indicate that the attempt would be "carried out against a U.S. or foreign leader either in the United States or abroad" and that planning involves "multiple targets in multiple venues across the United States." Here’s the kicker: "The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Kerry in Cambodia

We should probably tread lightly here, but this Kerry/Cambodia story is classic. This is the highlight: "It was physically, totally, categorically, across-the-board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a swift boat," says Gardner. "There were concrete pilings that were put in the water...plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 44 boat, it was a physical impossibility to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters."

If the Iraq War wasn't effective, what has been?

Thanks to Tony Snow for reminding me that the Iraq war was the most "effective" war fought in American history. With minimal force, our military achieved the overthrow of one of the most feared nations in the Middle-East in a matter of weeks. Somehow, I don't think this is the definition Kerry had in mind. I recall all the prognostications of disaster at the time. We were going to be bogged down in the desert for months and years. Our supply lines were cut-off. American soldiers were killing each other. The desert was swallowing us up. At every new stage a new disaster was predicted, so that now, when we are fighting insugents in Najaf, these same folks feel vindicated. But what war has ever been fought with no setbacks? We are winning in Iraq, and some folks just can't handle it.

Kerry's New Iraq Position

I take the following bit of news with a grain of salt. After all, on any given day I could make a case that Kerry would either never have gone to Iraq, would have gone to Iraq sooner, would pull out of Iraq immediately, or would escalate our military activity in the Middle-East. To Kerry, these positions are merely tools used to perform the political task at hand. In this case, the task at hand is to draw in pro-Iraq war folk who are luke-warm on Bush. So, now Kerry tells us that regardless of the presence of WMD, he would STILL would have voted to give the President authority (hat tip to Drudge )to invade Iraq. Excuse me, but this is exactly the Bush position, most recently voiced by Condi Rice on Meet the Press. You anti-Bush people have a problem here, since your main platform is opposition to the war in Iraq. I suppose there is a difference though; I'm willing to bet Kerry would have gone with Schlumberger over Halliburton instead. (See the Board of Directors) Kerry goes on to make the more mysterious statement that "[he] would have used that authority effectively." How? By spending MORE time stroking the U.N. while Saddam buried and/or exported his goods? What is the "effective" use of authorization to go to war? Equally galling in Kerry's remarks was his counter-question to Bush as to "why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war...." I'm continually mystified that the same people who criticize the President for not acting on the scant intelligence regarding 9/11 turn around and call the WMD intelligence unreliable, as though they would have known the difference. Remember, the British, Russians, Egyptian, Saudis, French, and Germans all verified the same findings, and continue to up until now.

Monday, August 09, 2004

Mercenary Politicians

I must be the only one suffering cognitive dissonance from the idea of Alan Keyes running for the Senate in Illinois. I like Keyes. He's a man of integrity, and his convictions are clear. He's a perfect foil to Barack Obama, a man who is decidedly not whom he appears to be. (The Democrats don't want you to know he has no blood connection to any American black slave; he was raised by a white mother and white grandparents in Hawaii, and attended Harvard Law School. There's nothing wrong with any of this except, however, that he is trying to tell the poor Black community that he's one of them. But folks, he's white.) This guy is a plantation liberal, taking advantage of his skin-tone for political purposes. But back to Keyes. I'm just a little disturbed by conservatives who quiver with joy for the Obama antidote. Here I am, still wretching with the indignity of Hillary's 2000 carpet-bagging stunt in New York, having condemned it as a cheap political trick that cheated New Yorkers of real representation, and then the Republicans trot out Keyes with all the same shameless zeal. But, beyond the hypocrisy, there is an even more disturbing consequence of the Keyes strategy. In effect, we are ratifying the political proposal made by the Democrats in the 2000 election that the parties begin recruiting folks nationally who can win battles on the local level. This is "Dream Team" politics, and a monstrously bad idea. Soon, running for public office will be a more mercenary affair than professional basketball, if that's possible. Old fashioned me, I thought that Senators and Congressman were for representation of the various states. In other words, folks from Illinois are best suited to represent Illinois, not folks from Maryland, however politically brilliant. I'm afraid the day may come when local residents, the people with the real stake in the affairs of their state, will be shut out of state and national politics altogether. This is not something I think the founding fathers would have approved of. But for now, what am I, and the voters from Illinois, going to do? Vote for Obama because we don't like carpet-baggers? Go Keyes!