Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Cool stuff to buy

This merchandise has
The Chuck U. Pharley
Seal of Approval
Click on the mug to see more designs guaranteed to annoy liberals.
Here are just a couple more examples of the great designs by FCBC (For Conservatives By Conservatives) Clothing ...

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Arthur C. Brooks must die!

How dare he reveal the details of The Plan?
Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%.
Revealing details of the VRWC Victory Through Breeding plan might help liberals win. But then on the other hand, have you seen a liberal women lately? Yuck. Who'd want to breed with that?

Monday, August 21, 2006

Polls no cause for GOP gloom and doom

Thursday, the WaPo read the polls and saw gloom and doom for the GOP.

Friday, Erick took a closer look and saw something quite different.

Now, here is a completely different take on the polls:
But an earlier poll of 1,047 Americans conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corporation from Aug. 2 to 3 drew a dramatically different response when it asked people, "How well are things going in the country today?"
A combined 55 percent said things were going "fairly well" (47 percent) or "very well" (8 percent), compared with those who said "pretty badly" (29 percent) or "very badly" (15 percent).
Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, said the question is fundamentally different from the right track/wrong track that other pollsters ask, but he acknowledged that "it is a measurement of how well Americans think things are going in the country today."
"Different questions get different answers," he said.
Ah, so the "right track/wrong track" question doesn't necessarily mean what the pundits say it means. And what about that "generic" ballot question?
Pollsters say the election's outcome will be decided by the large number of independent voters, but Mr. Zogby found that most of them still do not know how they will vote.
"Among independents, 32 percent said they prefer Democrats in November, 20 percent said they prefer Republicans and 41 percent said they were undecided," he said.
In the meantime, despite the emphasis that TV and newspaper polls place on the so-called generic congressional vote -- in which voters are asked which party they will support without naming candidates -- a Newsweek poll last week found that very little knowledge went into these responses.
"Most Americans aren't paying attention to politics yet; 68 percent of registered voters say they have only given the November elections 'a little' or no attention," Newsweek said.
More than two-thirds of voters aren't even paying attention yet, but many Republicans talk like they've already lost hope. Sad and silly, don't you think?

Saturday, August 19, 2006

More racist "humor" from HuffPo

Remember Jane Hamsher's "Blackface Joe" debacle at Huffington Post?

Now, a HuffPoster is joking about "profiling" white boys:

I agree with conservative pundits and politicians who say it's high time we start racial profiling for the criminals among us, especially mass killers. Look, let's get real. It isn't Norwegian grandmothers who are bombing airplanes, it's Muslims!
And it isn't elderly blacks or Asians shooting up our schools, it's young white boys!
Nearly every school shooting in America has been done by a young white boy. ... And these are the most dangerous criminals of all because they target our children!
Are we going to sit back and let them keep killing our innocent school children? ...
The blogger is obviously mocking Ann Coulter, but the school shooting phenomenon -- which peaked in the late 1990s -- is not remotely analogous to the kind of terrorism that killed 3,000 people in a single day on 9/11. No point quibbling over facts and logic with Democrats, however, since their worldview is immune to evidence.

Having analyzed the problem, liberal radio personality Cenk Uygur then proposes a solution:

I say we do a pre-emptive strike. Let's take out three random counties in Kentucky, Colorado and Kansas. ... Remember, these people only understand violence. We have to strike them over there before they hit us over here.
I know some Democrats aren't going to want to drop daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Midwest, but that's because they are cowards. They want to appease our enemies. They don't understand that the real fight here is against Youngwhiteboyofascists. These young white boys hate us for our freedom. If we don't act now, they will destroy our whole way of life. We have to beat them to the punch.
Ha. Ha.

A good joke works because, at some level, it's true. Uygur's joke flops because there is no truth in his implied comparison of (a) the occasional psycho-loner kids who go berserk in public schools, and (b) the ongoing threat posed by al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists. One hates to go point-by-point with a moron like this. However, off the top of my head, here are just a few obvious distinctions between (a) and (b):
  • School shootings are not an expression of political grievance.
  • The school shooters are not united by a religious belief.
  • The school shooting threat has not resulted in any massive disruption of commerce and travel. Millions of harmless people aren't being wanded and searched and asked to remove their shoes because of the threat posed by "Youngwhiteboyofascists."
Perhaps most importantly, in the wake of Columbine, school officials do indeed "profile" as a pre-emptive defense against school shootings -- which is a major reason why such incidents have now become quite rare. Teachers have been trained to watch out for specific telltale signs that a student may be contemplating violence, and all threats are now taken very seriously.

Uygur's joke flops because, rather than exaggerating a truth -- the kind of hyperbole that sometimes gets Coulter in trouble -- he is exaggerating a lie. If America had responded to 9/11 the way it responded to Columbine, then "Norwegian grandmothers" (and 9-year-old girls) would not be getting hassled in airports.

Americans resent the redundant and useless hassles at airports because they know exactly why it's being done: Political correctness. It is a fact (not a joke) that security personnel at airports are ordered to search randomly because devoting special scrutiny to young Muslim males would prompt accusations of "profiling."

The searches of people who don't remotely present a terrorism threat -- "Judging from my personal experience, they seem to have been focusing on finding explosive devices inside women's brassieres," Ann says -- are not merely an annoyance to travelers. They are a diversion of expensive security resources away from the actual threat, with the result that passenger safety is undermined, not enhanced. Every minute that a security guard spends checking an old lady (or a foxy blonde) is a minute not spent checking the people who want to kill us: Young Muslim males.

And that's no joke.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Senate scorecard

At The Fix, the WaPo's Chris Cillizza runs down the week's news about Senate races around the country. Informative, news-wise, although I disagree with some of his rankings.

For instance, the economic disaster in Michigan alone would be enough to put Debbie Stabenow at risk, but Cillizza says her contest with GOP Sheriff Mike Bouchard "still hasn't gelled enough to crack the top 10" of Senate seats most likely to change hands. Heck, Chris, I'd rate Stabenow for the Top 5.

Not only has Michigan's auto industry tanked, but recent news about terrorist threats keeps calling attention to the large Arab population in Metro Detroit, which plays as both an immigration and a national-security issue. Of course, Bouchard won't demagogue this situation (he'd be crazy to touch it directly), but he doesn't have to. It will generate lots of talk-radio heat and just plain old word-of-mouth on its own. All Bouchard has to do is take a bland "we need to protect our border and enforce our laws" line about immigration, and call attention to Stabenow's national-security voting record, and Michigan voters will fill in the blanks for themselves.

(Suggestion to Bouchard: Make sure you get Ted Nugent for as many rallies as possible. The Nuge is very popular with Boomers and gun-rights types, and his support helps undercut the "uptight Republican" image problem that hurts the GOP with blue-collar voters.)

Certainly, it's more likely Stabenow will lose in Michigan than that the GOP will lose Frist's open seat to Harold Ford. Excuse me for pointing this out, but the Democrats picked the wrong state to try for a repeat of the Barak Obama experience in Illinois. Sure, Harold Ford is handsome, articulate and moderate, but he's also black and this is Tennessee.

I know Tennessee. I have friends in Tennessee. Tennessee might some day elect a black Republican to statewide office, but ... a black Democrat? No way. Period.

Assuming that the Republican candidate Bob Corker runs anything like a competent campaign, he'll win by double digits in November -- 55% of the vote, easy.

I don't care what the polls say. The Democrats who have spent the past year hyping Harold Ford are just naive. I sincerely doubt Ford will carry a single county in East Tennnesse, and the Republicans will rack up huge margins in the suburbs of Nashville and Memphis.

Because it's an open seat, Corker can run as an outsider, and doesn't have to defend a congressional voting record. They can't hang George Bush around Corker's neck. He wins in a walk.

Allen vs. property rights?

The backbone of the GOP vote in Virginia is the Shenandoah Valley. So why on earth is Senator Allen pushing a yuppie land-grab plan that would undermine property rights in the Valley? From the NCPPR:
Nearly one year after the U.S. Supreme Court's shocking Kelo v. New London decision touched off a firestorm of bipartisan support for stronger property rights protections, some anti-property rights groups are receiving support from a surprising source: Senator George Allen (R-VA).
Senator Allen is the chief sponsor of legislation that would create a massive federal "National Heritage Area" that would stretch from Charlottesville, VA, through Frederick County, MD, and end in Gettysburg, PA. Such areas are best described as
heavily regulated corridors where property rights may be strictly curtailed.
Allen's bill would deputize special interest groups -- many with clear anti-property rights agendas -- and federal employees to oversee land use policy in the corridor.
"Senator Allen often describes himself as a 'Jeffersonian' conservative, which he defines as someone who doesn't like 'nanny, meddling, restrictive, burdensome government,'" said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs at the National Center.
"However, if you fail to support your rhetoric with substance, you're all hat and no cattle."
To me, Allen's support for this elitist, tree-hugging, anti-"sprawl" agenda is just the latest indication that the Senator is surrounded by the kind of GOP establishment advisors whose first instinct is to triangulate, whose second instinct is to pander, and whose third instinct is to sellout.

If Allen doesn't repudiate this, he's toast. As embarassing as the "macaca" incident was, he can win without the kind of voters who care about silly stuff like that. However, he can't win without conservatives, and he can't win without the Valley.

GOP meltdown: Just media spin?

Erick at Red State has caught Jim VandeHei of The Washington Post doing an al-Reuters in print: Interviewing a "security mom" who supposedly voted for Bush, but now is leaning Democrat -- except she's apparently voted in each of the past five Democratic primaries!

If you know anything about voting habits, that tells you everything you need to know about Jean Thomas of Columbus, Ohio: She's a hard-core liberal Democrat. Gets her news from NPR and Katie Couric, not Rush Limbaugh and Neil Cavuto. Pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-union, pro-tax-increase, anti-war, etc. I bet you dollars to donuts she never voted for Bush, ever.

For VandeHei to use someone like Jean Thomas as an exemplar of the "security mom" phenomenon is journalistic malpractice, plain and simple.

Erick's big score is part three of his "WaPo to GOP: You Are Doomed" series (you should also read part 1 and part 2). This is the same WaPo that made George Allen's "Macaca" incident front-page news for two consecutive days.

As pointed out yesterday, polls indicate this is going to be a real tough year for Republicans. But as also pointed out, a big part of that is the MSM's unrelenting gloom-and-doom. The economy is roaring -- but you never see that on the MSM. Despite serious problems in Iraq, the fact is that U.S. casualties are down and the fearmongering about a widespread sectarian civil war simply hasn't not been fulfilled -- but again, the MSM ignores that.

Erick also notes that "a growing number of incumbent Republicans are fearing a disaster in November," but points to an RCP analysis by Jay Cost suggesting that this disaster is not inevitable. Why? Because the polls -- which now show a 14.8% Democratic advantage -- historically overrepresent the Democrat performance. Th:
[The so-called "generic ballot" question] has sported a large, sustained Democratic skew. This makes it quite possible to find a Democratic false positive - which pundits have managed to find in, by my count, seven of the last eight House elections. ...
Historically speaking, when the Democrats have that kind of edge in June/July, by November their victory in the popular vote "shrinks" to a much more modest 51.75% to 48.25%.
In other words, today's Gallup generic ballot does not predict a Democratic blow-out. Not at all. It predicts another squeaker on the order of Bush v. Kerry. Bush's share of the two-party vote in 2004 was 51.2%. Kerry's was 48.8%. Michael Barone's "49-49 Nation," if you believe the generic ballot, has not actually gone anywhere. This year will be Round 3.

Which is to say that the millions of Americans who voted twice for Bush are not going to go out on Nov. 7 and vote to make Nancy Pelosi the next Speaker of the House. Mass defections like that are rare. The real problem Republicans face is trying to get their voters excited, given the fact that Congress keeps doing the exact opposite of what GOP voters want on such core conservative issues as immigration and spending.

If the Senate can be persuaded to pass an enforcement-only immigration bill, there may still be hope for the GOP Congress. But if they pass the godawful Pence-Hutchison "compromise" or anything else with a guest-worker amnesty, just get used to saying "Speaker Pelosi."

The House members are probably getting an earful about immigration during their August vacations. Maybe they will come back after Labor Day and convince the Senate to do the right thing. So there's still some tiny speck of hope.

"I see drunk people ..."

Haley Joel Osment has been charged with drunk driving after getting into an accident last month.
Osment, who’s 18, fractured a rib and hurt his shoulder in a car crash outside Los Angeles on July 20th.
Osment has been charged with driving under the influence and with underage drinking. Authorities say his blood alcohol content was .05.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

"He was in love with the child"

The suspect speaks:
"I was with JonBenet when she died," John Mark Karr told reporters in Bangkok, visibly nervous and stuttering as he spoke. "Her death was an accident."

The cops speak:
Lt. Gen. Suwat Tumrongsiskul said U.S. authorities informed Thai police on Aug. 11 that an arrest warrant had been issued for Karr on charges of premeditated murder. The warrant was sent to Thai police on Wednesday.
At the press conference, Suwat said Karr insisted after his arrest that his crime was not first-degree murder. "He said it was second- degree murder. He said it was unintentional. He said he was in love with the child. She was a pageant queen," Suwat said.

AllahPundit says the guy may be crazy:
He’s ... obsessed with her case (and Polly Klaas’s), having allegedly studied it well enough to have been encouraged to write a book about it — and, perhaps, fake a confession capable of fooling police. ...

His family says he couldn't have done it.

RWV says:

Whatever the case, this is not your average dime store pedophile. The guy's a total wack job.

Unintentional humor, Dan? "Yeah, he's not one of those sane, sober, responsible pedophiles -- this guy's crazy!"

As far as the "accidental" death claimed by the guy: If he did kill JonBenet, it is certainly a lie that it her death was "accidental."

Why do child-killers kill? If, as the policeman said, John Mark Karr "was in love with the child," why would he kill her?

Most likely: He molested her and, to avoid apprehension, he then decided to eliminate the witness.

The obsessive pedophile lives inside a sexual fantasy world, in which the child actually welcomes and reciprocates his interest. And in that fantasy world, the child doesn't struggle, doesn't scream, doesn't resist. So when, after much scheming, the pedophile finally finds himself in a position to act on his obsession, the screaming, struggling victim -- by her resistance -- becomes an obstacle to the fulfillment of the fantasy. Preferring fantasy to reality, he destroys the reality: He kills the child.

Such a murder also ensures that there will be no witness to accuse him. And that makes it a death-penalty case: A killing committed to abet another felony is first-degree murder. Otherwise, every armed robber would kill his victims, rather than leave them alive as potential witnesses.

John Karr: Why is he a suspect?

The specific connection between John Karr and JonBenet Ramsey is unclear from the available reports. Nothing about him ever living in Colorado. AllahPundit notices this:
Karr was a teacher who once lived in Conyers, Ga. ... The attorney said the Ramseys gave police information about Karr before he was identified as a suspect.
Wood would not say how the Ramseys knew Karr. But JonBenet was born in Atlanta in 1990, and the Ramseys lived in the Atlanta suburb of Dunwoody for several years before moving to Colorado in 1991.
What was he doing following them around in Colorado five years later? And what happened to John Ramsey saying he didn’t know the guy?

So .... a former babysitter? Or is the Atlanta connection an accident?

Karr's resume is online (h/t RWV) and one thing that stands out is that the guy didn't seem to stay in one place very long. Also, he seemed to seek out high-end clients. The resume doesn't say anything about where he taught before 1996.