My arrogant opinions about politics, culture, science fiction, and whatever else I feel like talking about.
visited *loading* times
Obama vs. McCain? The very idea makes me ill.
Somehow, I'll probably force myself to vote for Straight-Lyin' John, but oh, the pain.
I refer to ex.-Senator George McGovern.
In 1968, when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, McGovern jumped into the race to 'carry on his ideals.' He had no chance, but he did get to meet a lot of influential people in the state Democratic circles.
Then came the Democratic convention. After the riots in the streets, the Democrats were stampeded into reforming their nomination process. And whom headed the committee to do the reforms? Sen. George McGovern.
By the way, what was the point of changing the nominations process. The old process had been on the point of choosing Bobby Kennedy until Sirhan Sirhan killed him. Whom should they have nominated in place of Humphrey, who almost won? But the rioters tantrum-in-the-streets panicked the bosses. The liberals no longer believed in their own cause. The Chicago riots were the Sixties condensed into a few days, though most people never seem to have grasped what the decade was all about, politically.
Anyhow, in 1972, McGovern was the only candidate who understood the new rules, and what they meant: the nomination was not in the hands of politicians who wanted to win in November, but of "activists" who wanted to "send a message" (though "left-wing fanatics" is more honest than "activists.") McGovern won the Democratic nomination, then lost the elections in a landslide.
Since then, the Democrats have only managed to nominate two winning candidates, both times by nominating Southern governors thought to be Democratic centrists by the general population. Five times, they nominated liberal-to-far left candidates, and lost.
If Straight-Lyin' John is our next President, thank George McGovern.
Dana Milbank is upset because there's still a Democratic nomination contest going on. Tim Russert is trying to force her out. The Obama partisanship seems transparent.
Milbank quotes Obama: "This has been one of the longest, most closely fought contests in American history." Oh, really? In 1972, the contest went to the California primary in June. Up till the 1940s, the conventions usually decided whom would be the nominee.
The fact that neither pundit wanted to mention was that Obama wouldn't have much chance against Clinton in the fall elections, but Hillary might be able to beat him. But that isn't something they'd like to admit.
I could be wrong about Milbank's and Russert's motivations. They could just be stuck for something to say, and blathering about whatever pops into their heads. But I think it's more likely they're projecting their hopes for an Obama presidency.
But it isn't.
Up next, ASPCP.
You can't make this stuff up.
Michelle and Barack Obama, I mean. You doubt it? Well,
he said so! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ms. Smarty-pants:
“I do think one of the ironies of the past two or three weeks is this idea that Michelle and I are elitist, intellectual pointy-head types. The fact is our lives more closely approximate the lives of the average voters than any of the other candidates,” he said. “We didn’t recognize the caricature that was being painted of us over the last couple of weeks.”
Just an average couple that attended Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia, made $5.1 million in the last two years, are friends of ex-terrorists and had a Looney-Tunes minister for twenty years who think the government invented AIDS and and has one member running for President. Isn't there someone like that in your neighborhood?
See here.
Naughty, naughty!
Someone posted video of Mickey Kantor, a Hillary advisor, allegedly from the 1993 documentary The War Room. In it, Kantor appeared to refer to Indiana voters as "shit" and "white niggers."
Withing hours, it's shown that the actual soundtrack from the documentary has Kantor saying that the Bush 41 White House is "shitting" over the poll numbers from Texas, and the "white nigger" remark is phony. It's all a fraud.
What I want to know, is, whose fraud? Obama's, hoping to hurt Hillary? Or Hillary's, hoping to make Obama look bad? Or maybe some third party playing a prank?
Inquiring paranoids want to know!
They're a real class act.
Media bias? What are you talking about?
Something I had to share. Someone posting as "hradzka" reviews John Ringo's Paladin of Shadows series. His take can be pretty well summed up by this:
I feel about the PALADIN OF SHADOWS series the way that a lot of people feel about ALL-STAR BATMAN AND ROBIN: it is so horrifically awful that it becomes TOTALLY FUCKING AWESOME. Unless, of course, you have triggers about some or all of this stuff, in which case my recommendation is TO RUN AS FAR AND AS FAST AS YOU CAN. I will, however, say that GHOST and its sequels are *excellent* for reading out loud to people, particularly friends who are horrified and actively begging you to stop. (And you will be inclined to disregard such pleas, because you will need to share the pain.) I should note that, as you may have gathered, the series — GHOST in particular — is not just slaughtering terrorists and deeply skeevy sexual stuff.
[SNIP]
Anyway. Mike has rescued a number of nubile college women from rape and torture at the hands of jihadists, slaughtered innumerable terrorists, killed the president of Syria and Osama bin Laden, and plugged the author's favorite bands and movies. Also, the United States has, as a punitive measure, dropped a low-yield nuke on Syria. You would think that would be enough for a book. Hah. As I said earlier, that is JUST IN PART ONE. In part two, Mike, independently wealthy after getting the bounty for Osama, is now doing a lot of fishing on his newly-purchased and heavily-armed yacht. He meets up with two young college girls and invites them onto his boat, where he promptly introduces them to the joys of BDSM. With emphasis on scenes that incorporate non-con and slavery scenarios. But don't worry! He gets their moms' permission first.
No, really. He does.
[SNIP]
As you can tell, GHOST is a pretty horrifying read. I re-skimmed it writing this, and I had honestly forgotten just how painful to the psyche it is. So you may ask: *Hines, why the hell were you reading this?* And the answer is: because I read the *second* book *first.*
Yes, that's right. I mentioned it above, but in case you'd forgotten: this is a series. And while the first book seethes with anger and disturbing sexuality, the second, while not exactly mature or brilliant, is solid guilty pleasure for those who like men's adventure. The second book also features, amazingly, some characterization. Where the first novel only focused on portraying Mike's hard-assedness and the depths of his depravity, the second features big chunks of him just interacting with characters *without killing or fucking them.*
[SNIP]
Once you get past GHOST's initial spleen-venting, the PALADIN OF SHADOWS series falls into a much-maligned, much-loved genre which, for lack of a better name, I call "Man Builds Stuff and Gets Lots of Pussy." This is, quite frankly, what got me reading the series: I am not much for stories of a guy just killing terrorists and getting laid a lot; but let him start building a small kingdom while killing terrorists and getting laid a lot, and I am there.
So someone sent it to John Ringo, who replied to the author:
Thank you for the best review of the Ghost books I've ever seen.
Go read the whole magilla. Then read the series.
Over at my personal blog, I'm looking for some esoteric information about a rare astronomical event. If you can supply it, I'd be grateful.
The more I watch the Wright/Obama follies, the more fun I have. It's hard to tell what is
the most embarrassing thing being said by or about Wright lately.
In the honorable mention category, we have Rev. Deborah F. Grant, who said, "the scrutiny of Wright is unfair, because he is being examined through a political lens. 'He has not been called to be a politician. He's been called to speak the gospel.' " Somehow, when I read the gospels, I missed the part where Jesus blamed AIDS on Uncle Sam.
But Wright himself takes home a prize for saying "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."
Who'd have guessed that Wright thinks being black is a terrible wrong, akin to putting someone into slavery? 'Say it now and say it loud, I AM BLACK, but I ain't proud — in fact, I'm pretty pissed off at the white man for making me this color.'
I could never have made this shit up.
Still, Rev. Jeremiah wasn't completely loony, all the time. I thoroughly agreed with the part where Wright stuck it to Obama, saying that the Sen. was distancing himself from his pastor was because the Holy Senator was really just playing politics. I'll add: "And badly."
Someone wrote about journalistic integrity with reference to Bill Moyers!
'Barak Hussein Obama should drop out of the Presidential race.' So says
Chris Wilson of Slate.
Wilson is the tactful sort. He doesn't say that Obama's problems with Rev. Wright make it nearly impossible for him to get elected. Nor does he add that losing to McCain, in a year when Republicans are very unpopular, is going to taint him for the future. But those are good reasons.
Instead, Wilson says that Obama should do it to "regain his messiah creds." When Hillary goes on to blow the election, he becomes the de facto party leader. In 2012, he gets the nomination and beats McCain.
I'd add that this gives Obama the chance to distance himself gracefully from Rev. Wright without looking like a sell-out, and to move to the center politically without seeming like an opportunist. It does leave the danger that Hillary would win, but Obama's young enough to wait for 2016. It also leaves the danger that McCain would win, then get re-elected in 2012 — but losing an election is always possible.
But B. Hussein O. won't do it. And he won't because he is precisely the left-wing ideologue/opportunist that he's increasingly seen as.
I only regret that he'll probably get McCain elected.
Lord, Lord, please give me the chance to vote for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife for President.
I was just looking at the exit poll results for the PA primary, as posted by CBS, and noticed thise line:
Clinton Obama
Black (15%) 10% 90%
But further down we see:
Black 30-44 (14%) 58% 42%
Black 45-59 (30%) 63% 37%
Black 60+ (28%) 68% 32%
Now presumably, the figures in parentheses after "Black" refer to percent of all primary voters, while those after "Black 30-44" etc. refer to percentages of black primary voters. Now, if you multiply the percentage figures in parentheses by the percentage figure in the "Clinton" column and total them, you get 46%.
So apparently, Hillary Clinton received around 10% of the vote of black Democratic primary voters, and more than 46% of the vote of black Democratic primary voters, all in the same election.
If someone could explain this to me, I'd appreciate it.
Please, Lord, please give me the chance to vote for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife for President!
I'm really worried about the future of my gal Hillary.
For months now, I've told my friends that I anticipated, come November, taking anti-nausea medication, getting drunk, and then voting Democratic for President. For someone like me, enrolled in the Republican Party in the womb, this was not a welcome thought, but I couldn't bear the prospect of voting for McCain.
Now, after seeing Obama's campaign, I think I can force myself to back "Straightlyin' John" if I have to.
It's difficult to express the depths of my loathing for McCain. Suffice it to say that, for someone who bills himself as a conservative to be an enemy of both the First and Second Amendments is just plain unacceptable.
But the more I watch the Obama campaign, the more scared of the man I become.
It started with this video, which reminds me of a Fascist rally. It's just gotten worse with the revelations of how many anti-Americans he's friendly with. Yet this clown, whose only saving grace is his political incompetence, looks like the Democratic nominee.
I pray this cup pass away from me. I'm still rooting for Hillary to pull it out, and give me a chance to vote for a female Democratic weasel, with no scruples whatsoever and driven by naked ambition. But increasingly, it looks like I'll be stuck with Johnny Boy instead.
Lord, lord, what did we do to deserve this?
In "Best of the Web Today," James Taranto brilliantly slams Democratic Party hypocrisy (by the way, the whole BotWT is unusually good, go read it all):
We agree with Kristol: McCain's service in Vietnam is far from sufficient reason to elect him president. But Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean went further, issuing a statement disparaging McCain:
While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.
ABC's Jake Tapper notes that Dean sang quite a different tune four years ago:
"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"
It almost seems unsporting to call attention to this inconsistency. After all, does anyone think Dean, who himself never joined the service, really believed what he was saying about the importance of military experience back then? Then again, when he and many other Democrats made this argument on Kerry's behalf, they insulted the voters' intelligence. We think they owe the voters an apology.
The description "blatant opportunist" really did fit Kerry in 2004. When he returned from Vietnam, he slandered his fellow veterans as vicious murderers and rapists. Decades later, when he thought it would be to his political advantage, he tried to hype himself as a hero, and then slandered the veterans who called attention to this inconsistency.
By contrast, so far as we know, McCain is uncomplicatedly a war hero, and being a war hero is certainly a point in his favor. Still, we hope he will not follow Kerry's lead and base his whole campaign on his service to the country 40 years ago. We suspect he knows better. And if John McCain opens his convention speech by saluting and saying "reporting for duty," we'll eat our hat.
We have the hat to this day. We have the hat.
OOH! Good Shot, Sir! But this leads me to meditate upon a similarity between Obama and Kerry: the bubbles they live in.
In 2004, Kerry really thought he could get away with presenting himself as a war hero. The fact that he'd tried to dodge the draft by getting an exemption to go to graduate school; the fact that he'd done his best to avoid combat service, and only ended up inland because he was trying to imitate JFK; the fact that he got out of Viet Nam as fast as possible, using the 'three Purple Heart rule'; the fact that one of those Purple Hearts was phony, and another probably so; and above all, the fact that he'd slandered the military in his role as spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War — all this never occurred to him as a probable minus. Heck, he probably saw his VVAW work as more patriotic than his service in Viet Nam. And his constituents in Massachussetts probably did too. Kerry never had to deal with people who despised him as a traitor.
Now, Barack Obama is trying to present himself as above partisanship, a healer of racial divisions, and a man who belongs to a not particularly controversial church. If he hadn't spent all his adult life dealing with people who agree with him on these things, he might have known that Pastor Wright's views would come back to haunt him, and 100% liberalism isn't 'non-partisan.' Those positions will make him the worst candidate in the race, in the view of many, including probably me.
I'd go on, but the thought of an Obama vs. McCain race is too much to blog about without getting vomit all over the keyboard.
Cliff May notes Obama's position on job loss is ludicrous: it's OK to lose your job to an illegal immigrant, but bad to lose it to a foreign factory.
But isn't McCain in favor of illegal immigration too? I wonder if he'll have sense enough to change?
"Liberals" are usually in favor of "gun control," (although "disarming citizens" is a more honest expression than "gun control"). I don't quite see what is liberal about keeping people from owning weapons for self-defense and overthrowing tyranny, but pass that by. Quite a few, however, seem to be whining over the fact that the Roberts court may find a general right to self-defense in the Constitution, and that this may result in a general restriction on "gun control" laws. The "liberals" lament that five Supremes might not construe the Constitution "strictly," by which they mean 'come down in favor of finding "gun control" laws constitutional.'
Jack Balkin is having none of this. As a "liberal," he's in favor of gun control. As an honest man, he acknowledges that if you take the idea of a "living Constitution" seriously, you have no honest complaint about conservative justices inventing a right you don't like. If this means that states can't ban guns till a liberal majority gets appointed to the court, he'll live with that. That's the rules liberals themselves made for constitutional "interpretation."
Also,
Douglas Kmiec suggests the Supremes operate sensibly for a change. In cases like this, where the Court hasn't ruled before, then instead of voting on their opinions, and then researching it, they should research first, and then vote. If they did so, they'd find that the vast majority of scholars agree that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. This would also increase respect for the Court, by showing it isn't playing politics. Alas, it will never happen, because the Court plays politics as a matter of routine, but at least it shows the kind of thing we ought to be doing.
Hmm, Maybe I will have to decide whether to vote for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife for President.
As you know if you pay any attention to politics (and don't restrict your information to whatever The New York Treason thinks you should be allowed to know), Sen. Barack Obama took a major hit over the remarks his minister and spiritual advisor, Jeremiah Wright, has made over the years — remarks well summed up in the phrase "God damn America." On Monday, St. Patrick's Day, Sen. Obama made a major speech, trying to explain his views on race and Wright. Did it work?
I think the most revealing reaction to Obama's speech was this essay by Michael Crowley in The New Republic. Crowley knows the speech had to reach white Americans, and he senses — I think correctly — that it failed.
But Crowley doesn't understand why it failed. He calls Obama's speech "brilliant." In fact, it was politically stupid. Obama doesn't understand the whites he needs to reach, and neither does Crowley.
Here's an excerpt from the speech:
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. . . .
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. . . .
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds — by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
Now, take out the stuff that's personal, that comes from Barak Obama's own life, and what do you have there? Standard liberal boilerplate is all that I can see. There's nothing there that Hubert Humphrey couldn't have endorsed when he ran for the presidency, forty years ago. But Humphrey lost, and in those last forty years, only two Democrats were elected president — and both were Southerners who could pass themselves off as not very liberal.
Here's a part of Crowley's take on the speech:
[Obama's] target audience was working class white voters — Reagan Democrats with a historic tendency to let racial prejudice and fear override their other social and economic interests, and whose view of Obama the Jeremiah Wright controversy threaten to permanently warp.
'Oh, those stupid working-class white folk, who just don't understand their own best iterests! If they'd just do what we liberals told them to do, they wouldn't be in this fix!' Jimmy Carter got elected by pretending not to be as liberal as he was. He lost to Reagan because the charade was exposed. Bill Clinton got elected by moving away from liberalism, and got re-elected by keeping some distance between himself and the mainstream of the Democatic party. Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry lost by plunging themselves into that mainstream.
Obama's appeal was that he was different, a break from the past, someone who could move us forward. This speech, and the twenty-year affiliation with Jeremiah Wright, show that he's just the past dressed in a new package. Now that we've gotten a glimpse inside that package, he looks to me like just another doomed liberal.
Hmm, Maybe I will have to decide whether to vote for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife for President.
Rand Simberg observes Democrats treating each other like Republicans.
I have to admit, I'm meanspirited enough to enjoy the sight.
You can file this one under 'answering your own question.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
"Why are the letters 'NIG' on the child's pajamas?"
Asks a commenter — "Tom" — on my post about the new Hillary Clinton commercial, the one that shows several children sleeping and then Clinton taking a national security phone call in the middle of the night. You can see the commercial at the link, and the pajamas in question are on display during seconds 11 and 12. On pausing, staring, and thinking, I believe these are pajamas that say "good night" all over them, but the letters "NIG" are set apart by a fold in the fabric.
Endlessly more here, but my advice is drop it, Ann.
*Sheesh*, and she's usually so sensible.
Go hide under the bed! We will soon be prayed upon by killer robots!
What is socialized medicine for? It's not, as you might have thought, for providing health care to people. It's about giving bureacrats power to harm.
It seems that, in Britain, some people don't think they will get enough from the N.H.S. when faced with a particular medical problem. So they are willing to spend extra money, their own money, to improve their health care. This, say the bureaucrats who run the system, is wrong. You must take what the National Health gives out, and nothing else. Spending your own money on additional treatment is verbotten.
The Treason story is interesting for the editorial comment buried in it (and the fact that a "news" story has editorial comment buried in it is also interesting, but that's another subject). The N.H.S. is supposedly "devoted to the principle of free medical care for everyone," but its "founding philosophy" is being "tested . . . to its very limits." A philosophy of improving people's health wouldn't have the slightest problem with some people adding cash to whatever the government spent on them. It's only when try to combine the idea of 'improving health' with 'making everything equal' that you have a problem. Some people can't be allowed to make themselves better off.
This story exposes the evil at the very heart of "leftism." People are diverse, some being more capable than others. People make choices, with consequences. The inevitable result of these facts is unequal outcomes. It's a necessary part of the human condition.
But inequality of condition and diversity of outcome are anathema to "leftists." They claim to want to help people, but what they really want is to force them into Procrustes's bed. Individuals must be remade in the image of their rulers.
And when you get right down to it, remaking someone is akin to killing them. The really existing person must be destroyed, an imitation person must be substituted.
So Debbie Hirst is likely to die of breast cancer, killed by Britain's National Health Service. Don't forget this case. It's seldom that the real issues are so clearly revealed.
(Hat tip: Betsy
).
Lately, I've found myself writing little essays on Baen's Bar. This is one, from a thread debating the proper evaluation of St. Joseph (the drunken) McCarthy.
The government has mastered much harder jobs, like counting votes.
(Hat tip: Betsy Newmark
).
The British Laborites have decided that, although it is illegal to engage in polygamous marriages in Britain, if you're Muslim, you can get away with it. In fact, you can not only get away with it, you can get government support for it!
The British government, instead of arresting Muslims in polygamous relationships, which is what it's supposed to do according to the law, largely ignores the issue if the people are Muslim. If they are poor, they get welfare. And if there's polygamy involved, they now get extra welfare.
Legally, Muslim men can't bring extra wives into the country — if, that is, they get up on their hind legs and identify the women as multiple wives for legal purposes, with no other reason to be there. But not to worry. A Muslim man can marry a woman under British and Islamic law, divorce her under British law only, and then marry another under British and Islamic law. He can also bring in them in, probably, using work permits, travel visas, and student visas. Only a spousal visa for a second wife is forbidden.
There may be something to be said for legalizing polygamy. There may even be something to be said for subsidizing polygamous relationships. But there is nothing to be said for making polygamy illegal, and then subsidizing it. Or perhaps I should say, there's nothing to be said for it that they'd have the balls to say out loud. For the true "reasoning" behind it is, 'Our culture is evil and inferior to Muslim culture, and must be destroyed.'
And if they keep such things up, their culture will be destroyed.
(Hat tip: Betsy Newmark
).
More stuff that's not a surprise, or not much of one.
A) The Clinton's show they are willing to do anything to win, no matter how dishonest.
B) A liberal feels betrayed by a politician, specifically, E. J. Dionne feels betrayed by Bill Clinton, because he, Clinton, is willing to do anything to win.
C) The news media are liberal, biased, gullible, and inaccurate.
In a Bruce Willis film, The Last Boy Scout, the hero says "The sky is blue, water is wet, women have secrets. Who gives a fuck?" That's about how I feel about the news.
According to The Wall Street Journal the big news in the Republican presidential nomination race is the Republicans still haven't decided whom their nominee will be.
Gee, I guess I am an old fart. I remember when the decision lasted till the last primary. And now we're supposed to be puzzled because the second primary hasn't decided everything.
SHEESH! Lighten up a bit, reporters. I realize that coming up with something to meet a deadline is an annoyance, but surely you can do better than this? After all, if there was a clear nominee this early, what would you write about next?
Perhaps the biggest reason I haven't posted in so long is a great feeling of deja vu.
Right now, it's big news that 'Wild Fires Run Out of Control in Draught-Stricken SoCal. Thousands of Homes Threatened.' Isn't that a standing headline, like 'Violence in the Mid-East?' The only relatively new thing is an idiot politician blaming it on global warming.
Michael Fumento notes that Hollywood is anti-American, as do Ed Driscoll and Roger Simon reveal that Hollywood is anti-American. Gee, who'da thunk it?
Betsy Newmark notes that politicians are corrupt, and businessmen suicidally stupid politically. That's another old story.
Ed Morrissey and "Mindles H. Dreck" inform me that left-wingers are hypocritices and liars.
As if I didn't know.
And a final shocker: the liberal news media is deliberately dishonest.
Maybe I can just find a program to write the blog automatically?
today
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
October 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
lucys blade snippets
aids
al-qaida
and now for somthng compltly dif
annoyance
arabs
baen books
barack obama
bias
bird flu
blacks
bloggers
blowhards
books
border security
britain
bush administration
cathy siepp
change
citizenship
competence
congress
conservatives
constitution
courage
cowardice
crime
crooks
cultural suicide
culture
danish muhammad cartoons
darfur
democrats
demographics
dishonesty
egypt
elections
europe
evil
fairness
fantasy
foreign affairs
former president penis
france
gays
george w bush
girls
good people
good shot sir
government policy
gun control
hate & haters
higher noneducation
hillary clinton
honest joe wilson
human nature
hypocrisy
i am not making this up
i am shocked shocked
i goofed
i just dont understand it
idiots
ignorance
illegal immigration
illogic
inaccuracy
incompetence
incomprehension
insanity
intelligence
internet
iran
iraq
islam
israel
jew hatred
john kerry
john lambshead
leftists
liberals
liberty
mary mapes
mary o mccarthy
medical science
meshing analysis
mexico
minnesota
miscellaneous
motime
movies
msm
not satire
nsa warrantless surveillance
patriot act
plamegate
political repression
politics
polling
public schools
race
rathergate
reality
religion
republicans
rightists
sarcasm
satire
saudi arabia
science
science fiction
sedition
sense
snippets
social policy
spin
stupidity springs eternal
terrorism
the courts
the duke non rape non case
the future
the georgia giant
the sky is falling
the worlds greatest reporter and
totalitarians & totalitarianism
treason
u s senate
uncertain information
usamerica
war is peace etc
war with jihadism
weapons of mass destruction
weirdness
whiners
whites
wishful thinking
worlds foremost movie critic
would-be greasy pole climbers
