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.

Looking bad for November

The prospects of an anti-GOP wave in November are now clear, the Washington Post reports. The numbers are huge: 40% disadvantage on the "right track/wrong track" question.

Karl Rove has to see those numbers and say, "Wait a minute -- unemployment's under 5 percent and the Democrats are promising to raise taxes ...." But of course:

1. THE WAR is hurting, period.

2. IMMIGRATION probably explains a lot of those "wrong track" numbers. The president's insistence on "guest worker" amnesty totally pisses off the Republican base.

3. THE MEDIA has been unrelentingly doom-and-gloom for the past 18 months.

4. MOST REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES have not yet launched their fall campaigns, while Democrats have been hammering away for months.

It is important to remember that Republicans have been down before. Kerry was leading bigtime for most of 2004, but ended up losing. So this could yet turn around. But it's not going to be easy.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Fidel Castro es un gusano comunista

Today's Spanish lesson, courtesy of Val Prieto: Gusano means "worm."

Cynthia McKinney es un gusano.

Ted Kennedy es un gusano grande.

Fidel Castro es un gusano comunista.

Monday, August 14, 2006

What's Arabic for STFU?

You are a Palestinian, Lebanese or some other kind of Middle Eastern immigrant who wants to fight the "Zionist occupation regime," so why are you in America? Shouldn't you be back home with an AK-47 in your hand, or driving a carload of explosives into a crowd of Jews?

But no, you're marching around Washington, chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans for the weekend, before going home to your nice 3BR house in a tree-lined suburb somewhere.

You are a jihadi chickenhawk, urging others to fight a battle that you are too lazy or cowardly to fight yourself. You're an armchair terrorist, getting vicarious thrills from suicide-bombing as a spectator sport.

A faux Fatah! Muhammed Mitty! A Palestinian poseur!

You've got your cushy little existence in middle-class America -- air conditioning, cable TV, student loans, Starbucks, Wal-Mart. You don't want to give that up. But you don't want to give up Jew-hating, either. So you go parading through downtown DC, cheering for Hezbollah, and that just makes you a loyal courageous Palestinian or whatever the hell you prefer to call yourself.

You ungrateful scumbag. America took you in, gave you a chance at peace and prosperity, but instead you're homesick for whatever worthless patch of sand you came from. Either get the hell out of my country, or grab yourself a nice big cup of STFU, you pathetic weakling phony.

UPDATE: And before you Arab crybabies start whining about "dissent," Dan Riehl reminds us why you Palestinian cowards do your "dissenting" over here, and not back home, where Islamic Jihad kills anybody who "dissents."

Saturday, August 12, 2006

War and peace

Via Hot Air:
IDF officials said yesterday, before the ceasefire, that it would take them a week to get to the [Litani] river. Less than 24 hours later, with time now of the essence, some units are already there. According to their top commander in the field, they could have been there 10 days ago.
So, Israeli tanks are at the river, and the ceasefire (nudge, nudge) is supposed to take effect (wink, wink) at 7 a.m. Monday.

It has been speculated that this "peace" is just a trap for Hezbollah. Let's hope so.

Meanwhile, Florida Cracker says:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert should probably update his resume.
I don't understand why anything was approved that didn't include the immediate release of the kidnapped soldiers. The IDF has the rest of the week-end to do some snot-pounding; let's see how that shakes down.
And Old War Dogs is awake this afternoon:
I wish I'd saved the links to the news about that Israeli field commander getting replaced. "Monty, meet George. Bye, Monty."
Also: Outside the Beltway and Euphoric Reality. Captain Ed here and here.

Jiblog calls the ceasefire a "feel good mirage."

How to lose an election

Ned Lamont is off to a roaring start on the highway to becoming a political asterisk. Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan OD'd on Nedrenaline and slammed Waterbury, Ct., as a city "where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil." Swan has apologized, and Lamont spokes-heiress Liz Dupont-Diehl says:
"This is a misunderstanding that we'll certainly seek to resolve. What Tom was talking about was not any current elected officials and certainly not the people of Waterbury."

Oh hell yes, he was. (All liberals spokespersons lie routinely. It's part of the job description.) The people of Waterbury voted by a double-digit margin for Lieberman in the primary, which is what prompted Swan to make the "slime" remark to Paul Bass of the New Haven Independent. If was the people of Waterbury had voted for Lamont, Swan wouldn't have said that -- Swan was attacking the Democratic voters of Waterbury, 60% of whom voted for Lieberman.

From the Independent article, it's easy to tell that Bass is pro-Lamont, so there's no way he purposely misreported this remark by Lamont's campaign manager.

This is the whole problem with the Lamont campaign: They figured because Connecticut's a blue state, all they had to do was win the primary. But Lieberman isn't quitting, and Lamont clearly doesn't know what he's doing. Holy Joe's got a ton of cash and lots of powerful friends, and there's a huge bull's eye on Ned Lamont's back. It's 2-1/2 months until the election, and if Lieberman ever pulls ahead in the polls, it's going to be a snowball rolling downhill.

At Captain's Quarters, Captain Ed says Rasmussen has Lieberman 5 points ahead of Lamont in the three-way -- and Lamont's "positives" are now under 50% -- so we can expect to see more of these kind of can't-handle-the-pressure stumbles from Team Neddy, courtesy of the same angry misfits who produced the Howard Dean disaster.

Treaty, treason ... or trap?

Reaction to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 is all over the map. Washington Post reports here. Israeli reaction here and here. The Chuckster personally thinks it's a Sudetenland sellout of Israel engineered by President Chamberlain.

But there are other possibilities, the most interesting of which John Loftus raised on the John Batchelor Show, as related by Alphabet City:
John Loftus ... sees the UN resolution as a trap set for Hizbollah by US and France: Iran balks on the deal and sends Nasrallah before Manar's camera to reject the terms. IDF, poised at the Litani, crosses the river, seals the Syrian border and destroys Hizbollah.
Ooh, that would be just like Israel, y'know? Invade, get into a good jump-off position, bait the trap with a treaty offer that you know the mullahs of Killjewistan will reject and then -- wham! -- the snapping bar springs down and catches the rats in the trap. Let's hope so.

Alphabet City also informs us that Omri Ceren at Mere Rhetoric has been on fire fisking UNSCR1701.

UPDATE: Old War Dogs woke up and led his latest "Peace in Our Time" post by linking my President Neville Chamberlain post. I'm running late for something, so I can quickly steal all the Dog's links: Outside the Beltway, All Things Beautiful, and Big Lizards.

I'll be back tonight. Keep an eye on Little Green Footballs and Riehl World View for updates on breaking developments.

Friday, August 11, 2006

How not to debate Ann Coulter

It's hard to believe that Dave Sirota is a professional political consultant ... except that he's a Democrat, and they're pretty hard up for help lately.

Suppose you're a Democrat asked to go up against Ann Coulter on CNBC, a network that nobody ever watches. (More people will see the Sirota-Coulter "debate" on YouTube than saw it on CNBC.)

  • The subject: War, terrorism and politics.
  • The host: Larry Kudlow, a crappy interviewer who takes up way too much air time making his own points.
You've got 10 minutes of TV time and Kudlow (who reminds me of the late, great Phil Hartman) is going to chew up a good 3 or 4 minutes of that. He starts the segment with a minute-long softball pitch to Ann and lets her filibuster for a full minute.

At the 2-minute mark of the segment, Kudlow says, "David Sirota, I want to get your response to that ...." and then takes 24 seconds to formulate an argument about "terrorism on the front page" that ends with, "Dave, that can't be good for the Dems, can it?"

Your 10-minute segment is already 25% gone, so how do you respond?

If you are David Sirota, you ignore the question and go totally ad hominem: Ann is "like Osama bin Ladin," she's "Ayatollah-esque," she said mean things about the New York Times, she said mean things about Justice Stevens and Congressman Murtha!

Genius move, asshole! You've just wasted about a minute of your air time badmouthing Ann Coulter who (I hate to have to point this out) is not going to be on the ballot in November.

When are Democrats going to learn that ad hominem attacks on Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are not going to win them any elections? If somebody likes Ann Coulter, nothing David Sirota says is going to change their minds. And saying nasty things about Fox News -- while perhaps gratifying to liberals -- doesn't do anything to elect Democrats. So you just keep wasting your time attacking the messenger, Dave, and Republicans will keep winning elections.

But the greatest thing about Sirota's ad hominem Coulter-as-Osama rant was that it gave Coulter (who knows a thing or two about ad hominem attacks) a perfect opening to fire back with her tradmark wit:
Right. The Democrats' response to worldwide Islamic fascism is to attack Ann Coulter.
And then she's right back to her talking points.

In 5 seconds, Dave, she not only rebuffed your entire stemwinding rant, but she turned it into a funny soundbite about Democrats' misplaced priorities in the War on Terror.

Game, set, match to Ann Coulter.

Sirota, too stupid even to know when he's been defeated, then goes onto The Huffington Post and beats his chest about how "for one of the GOP's top icons, she was truly unimpressive ... frankly, if this is the best the Republicans have, Democrats are going to really carry election day come November. We are watching the very public implosion of the GOP - and boy is it fun to watch."

The commenter "Summerfield" at Huffington Post nails Sirota:

She took you down without lifting a finger. Why did you attack her? ...

You have a great privilege being on these shows and you should use it for those of us that agree with you. The very fact you show the video and gloat is indicative of how much you missed the mark.

Two pieces of advice, David:
  • 1. Next time you get your ass kicked on one of those zero-Nielsen cable shows, don't brag about it on the blogosphere so that every wingnut with a modem gets the opportunity to make fun of what a lame wussy you are.
  • 2. I know you're straight, but you sure sound like a flaming queen. That whole "metrosexual" thing is great. Stick with it.

Rounding up "young Muslims"

From England to Pakistan to Italy, cops are busting adherents of the Religion O'Peace (gag me) who were planning to kill innocent people:

LONDON -- Arrests of young Muslims in a terrorist plot to blow up U.S.-bound passenger jets soared yesterday, with Pakistan and Italy rounding up dozens of suspects. Britain froze bank accounts of 19 of 24 persons arrested a day earlier.
Pakistan said it was holding Rashid Rauf, a 35-year-old Briton with links to al Qaeda, whom it identified as operations manager of plans to destroy up to 10 planes crossing the Atlantic at the height of tourist season.
Links to Italy were less clear, where police raided Internet cafes, money-transfer offices and long-distance phone call centers catering to Muslims and arrested 40 persons.
The arrests in Rome, Milan, Venice, Florence, Naples and other cities were "part of an extraordinary operation that followed the British anti-terrorist operation," the Interior Ministry said. ...

Pakistani officials said British information prompted the first arrests in Pakistan about a week ago of two British nationals, including Rauf.

Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said Rauf has ties to al Qaeda and was apprehended in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area.

Muslims? What Muslims?

The London Telegraph says Rashid Rauf is only 26:

A statement released last night by the foreign affairs ministry named one of the British nationals as Rashid Rauf, 26.
Rauf's brother, Tayib Rauf, 22, was arrested in Birmingham and is one of 19 people on a list issued by the Treasury of terrorist suspects whose assets should be frozen.
The 19 are among 24 suspects arrested over the alleged plot, at least four of whom are converts to Islam. ...
Rashid Rauf is believed to be wanted for questioning by West Midlands police investigating the murder of his uncle.
The murder of his uncle! Ah, such family values ...
But you've got to love the Brits. With a Labour government leading the crackdown, and nothing like an ACLU to gum up the works with frivolous lawsuits, they're "profiling" like crazy:

Scotland Yard disclosed last night that almost 1,100 people have been arrested as terrorist suspects in Britain in the five years since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. Most have been Islamic extremist jihadis.
Between September 2001 and 30 June 2006, a total of 1,047 people were arrested for offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT). ...

Of the 1,047, a total of 158 have been charged with offences under TACT, while 174 have faced non-terrorism charges, some involving serious allegations such as murder, and 69 have dealt with under immigration law.

The Detroitistan News reports:
London's Evening Standard reported the plotters apparently chose next Wednesday as a target date, since they had tickets for a United Airlines flight that day, as well as ones for this Friday, apparently a test-run to see whether they could smuggle chemicals aboard in soft-drink containers. ...
The 19 identified ranged in age from 17 to 35, had Muslim names and appeared to be of Pakistani descent, although many were born and all were reared in Britain.

If U.S. officials want to round up some young Muslims, a good place to start would be in LaFayette Park today.

President Neville Chamberlain

Lefties can forget about those "Bush/Hitler" memes. We got ourselves a peace treaty, folks! Dan Riehl observes:

Our war President has turned out to be a disgrace. At this point in world history, the Islamofascists look like they deserve to win. In fact, they might.
I believe the terms of the treaty involve Ehud Olmert agreeing to give Hezbollah something called the Sudetenland.

Others feel the same way. Michelle Malkin:

Israel and the West surrender to Hizballah. Terrorists and the U.N. win.

Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse:

So Hassan Nassrallah will emerge from his bunker in triumph, probably to massive demonstrations of support in Beirut and elsewhere in the Arab world.
Uh, Rick ... they're planning "massive demonstrations" tomorrow in Washington, D.C!

Walid Phares at Counterrorism Watch (h/t: AllahPundit):

As soon as a cease fire occurs, the ‘Hezbollah Blitzkrieg’ will crumble the ‘Lebanese Republic of Weimar’ and install its own ‘Khumeinist Republic’ on the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean. ... Hezbollah would have paved the way for Iran to create the mother of all world threats since Hitler.

Other good comments by Confessions of a Pilgrim, Alphabet City, Pierre Legrand, Stuck on Stupid, Lump on a Blog and Old War Dogs.

Whatever the results of this treaty, you can be sure that "peace" will not be one of them. Hezbollah doesn't want peace, Hamas doesn't want peace, Iran doesn't want peace, Syria doesn't want peace, and so there's not going to be any peace.

There won't be any peace until the West makes clear to the devotees of the Religion O'Peace (gag me) that the response to their aggressions and murder of innocents will be merciless and unrelentling war.

As far as I'm concerned, the next time Hezbollah fires a missile at Israel, the IDF tanks shouldn't stop until they roll into the smoking rubble that used to be Damascus. Blast Assad to smithereens, and if Ahmadinejad doesn't like it, blast him to smithereens, too.

Have the terrorists won?

The Commisar declares:
Apparently, complaining about travel restrictions has led to another blogosphere kerfuffle after Michelle Malkin called this post moonbattery. Geez, people, if we can’t complain about airport security, the terrorists will have won.
As they say in the Navy, "A bitching sailor is a happy sailor."

I never liked flying anyway, and do so as little as possible. My preferred mode of travel is to hope into my fossil-fuel-guzzling personal automobile and driving at criminally insane speeds. If I absolutely must take public transportation, Amtrak is more relaxing, and they have a dining car on every train.

Otherwise, if you don't like all the security crap at the airport, tough titty. It's going to be like this until we kill every last jihadi SOB who thinks the Religion O' PeaceTM gives him a license to kill innocent Americans. Vote Republican or STFU.

Partisan? Who's partisan?

Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, tells Republican contributors that Republican ideas for fighting the war on terror are a good thing -- how dare he!
Democrats assailed the Republicans Friday for e-mailing a fundraising appeal mentioning the war on terror hours after British authorities disclosed they had disrupted a plot to blow up aircraft headed to the United States.
"In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a letter that asked for donations to the Republican National Committee.
This Associated Press story leads with the reaction: Before they tell you that Republicans have sent out an e-mail, they tell you that Democrats are angry.

Angry Democrats are news to the AP. The fact that Democrats have politicized the War on Terror by their constant partisan carping and attacking the president? Not news.

The Democrats' "Surrender Now" lobby can say or do anything, and criticism of them is impermissible: You're questioning our patriotism! You're suppressing dissent! Where's my ACLU lawyer?

A typical formulation by E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post:
Support for the Iraq war hits a record low, and all the president's hit men decide that it's time to smear their opponents as defeatists who give aid and comfort to the enemy.
1. Dionne misrepresents the poll. The poll asks people about their approval for how the war is being conducted, not whether they "support" it. Many people who "support" the war also "disapprove" of the slow pace of progress, believing that we should stop playing Mr. Nice Guy and start kicking more hajji butt. Such people, on a simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down question, say they "disapprove" of the war. But they don't support a cut-and-run policy, which is what Dionne's Democrats promise.
2. Polls don't mean zip when it comes to war. U.S. troops in Iraq are busy trying to hunt down al Qaeda, Ba'athists and rogue militias, training Iraqi forces, and preventing a civil war. You can poll every day, but the results don't have anything to do with the war itself. Thank God that Grant, Pershing and Eisenhower didn't have to put up with opinion polls: "Do you approve or disapprove of the decision to invade Sicily?"
3. The Democratic Party does crap like this all the time. And Republicans complain all the time. But the AP doesn't publish a story about every time Republicans get pissed off at what Democrats say in their fund-raising letters.
4. "Hit men"? "Smear"? E.J.'s having his Ann Coulter diva fantasies again. Way to "frame your message," E.J.!
5. What part of the "smear" do you deny, E.J.? You and your Democratic friends in the media constantly pour out negative coverage of the war -- even to the point of betraying national-security secrets about our surveillance of terrorists -- in order to support the Democratic Party's cut-and-run politics. Having fomented disapproval of the war, you then take polls showing that your propaganda has had its desired effect, publish the results and say, "See there?" That such defeatist tactics give aid and comfort to the enemy -- which is just about the only thing you commie peaceniks learned back in the '60s -- is something that former North Vietnamese military leaders have explicitly acknowledged.

If you're waiting for E.J. Dionne to stop being a Democratic Party cheerleader, you'll be waiting a long, long time. Meanwhile, he can't be bothered to notice how Democrats are using national security for political advantage. Thank God for bloggers like California Conservative, who catches this:
“We must implement the strong recommendations of the independent 9/11 ommission to improve airport security screening at checkpoints,” said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, stressing one of the party’s principal campaign-year promises in its drive to gain control of Congress.
To which CC replies:
Yeah, sure, Nancy. Just as long as it doesn’t infringe on any far-left, ACLU-litigated liberties, right?
Please, Nancy and E.J., have a nice big cup of STFU -- on the house.

IDF Babes Are Smokin' Hot

The Chosen Chicks. Hebrew Hotties. Kosher Kuties. Sexy Sabras.

Call 'em what you will, the Israeli Defense Force has some good-looking women. (HT: Tim Blair via the Unabrewer.)

Speaking of which: Debbie Schlussel, another hot MOT, has got the latest news from Dearbornistan.

All these superfine Jewish ladies ... makes you wonder what kind of losers would want to blow them up. Same kind of losers that hate America and prefer to spend their Saturdays protesting in LaFayette Park.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Muslims? What Muslims?

Let's call them "individuals," says TIME:

A total of 24 individuals were arrested in Britain overnight and, says one senior U.S. official who was briefed on the plot, five still remain at large.
Hmmm, what kind of "individuals" would those be?

    • Umir Hussain, 24
    • Muhammed Usman Saddique, 24
    • Waheed Zaman, 22
    • Assan Abdullah Khan, 22
    • Waseem Kayani, 28
    • Waheed Arafat Khan, 24,
    • Cossor Ali, 24
    • Tayib Rauf, 21
    • Ibrahim Savant, 26
    • Osman Adam Khatib, 20
    • Shamin Mohammed Uddin, 36
    • Amin Asmin Tariq, 23
    • Shazad Khuram Ali, 27
    • Tanvir Hussain, 24
    • Umar Islam, 28, (born Brian Young)
    • Assad Sarwar, 25
    • Abdullah Ali, 26
    • Abdul Muneem Patel, 17
    • Nabeel Hussain, 21
What's that you say? A "pattern"? No, I don't see a pattern. I'm not one of those crazy conspiracy nuts who sees patterns everywhere:

What ... no Mary Margaret O'Malley, no Luigi Benvenuti, no Bobby Jack "Tater" Hatfield, no Sven Olsson, no Jacob Feldman, no Shamika Robinson, no Kumiko Yamamoto, no Lee Chin, no Rudolf Guttmacher, no Leszek Kowalski, no Juan Gomez Castro, no Rajiv Singh?

Wonder if Allah will notice a pattern? Some commenters at Patterico say there's a pattern. No word yet from OTB.
SeeDubya thinks the Religion O' Peace may be involved:
What we know so far suggests these were not Iranians or Lebanese Shi’a (i.e. Hezbollah) but rather Pakistani Brits with ties to Al-Qaeda.

Some people are worried about a "backlash."
And some people need a hot cup of STFU.

Friday, August 04, 2006

Blackface, fag jokes are now "progressive"!

Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards!

Lamont's left-wing bloggers photoshopping Joe Lieberman into S&M gay porn pictures. Isn't that sweet?

And Ace says:

Jane Hamsher, unofficial Ned Lamont campaign staffer, posts blackface pictures on her site, and links homophobic photoshops on fellow Lamont-supporters' sites.
Daily Kos, unofficial Ned Lamont campaign consultant, features "Diarist" entries like "Imagine There's No Israel" and a great deal of anti-semitic commentary. And also comments containing homophobic p-shobs of Joe Lieberman.
Ah, well. These guys are skilled and canny political operatives. It's not as if gays, blacks, and Jews are important members of the Democratic coalition or anything.

Voters? We don't need no stinkin' voters!

Meanwhile, Jane Hamsher -- "Honest Ned" Lamont has apparently never heard of her -- is giving strategic analysis and cheerleading for Lamont's GOTV efforts:
This thing is not over, not by a longshot. The internal polling of both candidates says that the race is much closer than the Q-Poll indicates, and it’s all down to the ground game now. Lieberman is trying to de-incentivize the Lamont GOTV effort with disinformation. If you care about a victory on Tuesday, get yourself to Connecticut.
Besides, it is one big fat fucking PARTY here. Starting tomorrow night we’re going to be meeting up every evening for drinks in in New Haven, and we’re having the kind of fun people have when they come together to do something vital for a really good cause.

It’s historic, it’s important, and it’s something you’ll always remember. Join us and kick some NeoCon ass.
"One big fat fucking party" with one nasty-mouth Hollywood liberal.

Welcome to the Hamsher Canyon. Watch out, kids -- don't stand too close, or you'll fall in.

Jake Tapper at ABC:
"No one is questioning the Huffington Post's God-given right to publish anything its writers want... but no one should be surprised when conservatives try to stab Democrats with those same sharp words or images."

Jake is the luckiest SOB in the history of journalism. Rumor is he was cloned from David Broder. He's way too young to be so boring.

Ned: "Dean" (mis)spelled backward?

New e-mail sent out today by Democracy for America (DFA):

There are just three days to go before the showdown in Connecticut between Senator Joe Lieberman and DFA-List candidate Ned Lamont. We have the momentum, but anything can happen, even in the last few days. Senator Lieberman is spending millions on a last-minute TV campaign. That's why scores of DFA activists from all over the Northeast will be working hard for Ned Lamont on the ground. If you can make it to Connecticut this weekend, will you join us?

If you can't make it this weekend, you can still watch Democracy for America Chair Jim Dean on "Meet the Press" this Sunday. Jim and NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert will discuss the Lamont campaign and what it means for the future of the Democratic Party and our nation. Who wouldn't want see that? You can find "Meet the Press" in your area here:
Yesterday, SEIU 1199 endorsed Lamont. That's great news that means even more support for the critical Get Out The Vote effort going on now through Tuesday evening. In a close election like this one, nothing beats feet on the ground. Over and over DFA members have made a difference in this campaign. Let's make sure we do it again. Join DFA and SEIU 1199 in Connecticut this weekend:

Thanks for all you do!

Tom Hughes

Executive Director

DFA is the PAC that Howard Dean formed in March 2004 to carry on his "progressive" agenda after he tanked in Iowa and started screaming like a nut.

Howard Dean used DFA to get himself named DNC Chairman. Then Howard Dean handed over control of DFA to his brother, Jim. And now DFA is hammering Joe Lieberman.

You can't tell me Howard Dean isn't behind this. It's like expecting me to believe that Ned Lamont doesn't know anything about blogs.

Why is Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee, backing a rich racist cracker like Ned Lamont against Sen. Joe Lieberman? After all, Bill Clinton is our first black president and Joe is Bill's favorite black Democratic Senator. (Hey, Jane: You're the one who posted the "darkie" picture, so don't get all Hollywood bitchy at me, sister!)

What did Joe Lieberman ever do to Howard Dean? Or is this like a Mel Gibson thing? Is Howard Dean a closet Jew-hater? Inquiring minds want to know.

Liberalism? You can't afford it

Don Surber nails it:

They go to the best schools. They attend the best parties. They know what’s best for all you little people.The accountants of their fathers and their fathers’ fathers were good enough to protect their fortunes from confiscatory tax laws. This is why they are free to rail against “tax cuts for the rich.”
That's right, he's talking about you, Ned Lamont.

Sistah Toldjah's got Ned's number:

Thanks to lefty bloggers like Kos and Hamsher, Lamont saw his popularity rise considerably. Now, it may be the cause of his downfall, perhaps by being (as I noted in my earlier post on Hamsher) his Wellstone-memorial-turned-political-rally moment.
Meanwhile, Dan's having "Fun With Ned & Jane." And Junkyard Blog knows all about Ned, as does AllahPundit.

The Lieberman campaign issues a press release:

Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith today released documentation showing that Ned Lamont lied about his connection to Lamont campaign activist Jane Hamsher, and demanded again that Lamont sever all ties to the creator of the doctored blackface photo of Joe Lieberman.
"It just doesn't pass the laugh test for Ned Lamont to claim that Jane Hamsher --who moved to Connecticut to be part of his campaign, travels with his campaign daily, was IN his debate war room, AND raised $58,000 for him -- is 'just a supporter,' " Smith said.
"The fact is she is a key force in his campaign, and it's time for him to take responsibility for her disgusting tactics. Her behavior has no place in any kind of campaign, and Ned Lamont needs to cut off all connection to her."
CNN reports:

Liberal bloggers nationwide have supported the anti-war Lamont campaign since January, raising money for the candidate and even appearing in his campaign ads.
According to the fundraising site, Hamsher and two other bloggers have raised over $50,000 for Lamont's Senate campaign.
Lamont's spokesperson, Liz Dupont-Diehl, said that the campaign has condemned the blackface image and asked for it to be removed from the site. She said Lamont will not sever connections with Hamsher, however.
"This is a distraction," she said. "This did not come from our campaign. Bloggers are independent entities, covering campaigns. Like reporters, they travel with campaigns and cover campaigns." ...
Lieberman's camp condemned the photo and disputed Dupont-Diehl's characterization of the relationship between Lamont and liberal blogs.

"That is a shameless lie," said Dan Gerstein, a spokesman for the Senator. "Reporters don't raise money for campaigns ... There are some gray areas with reporters, but this is not one of them."

Cool thing from this story: Lamont's spokewomen is a DuPont.
Lamont, DuPont, J.P. Morgan ... just ordinary folks who care!

Profiles in Liberalism #1

Who are liberals? What do they believe? And why do they bother posting their childish scribblings on the Internet?

Daring to seek answers to these questions, Too Cool for Words has ventured forth into the "sinestrosphere" (h/t ACE) to actually read liberal blogs, and to summarize them here for you, in what we hope will become a semi-regular feature, Profiles in Liberalism.

And we begin with ...

Joseph Hughes

Why pick on poor Joe? Well, he's just so ... typical.

He's a 27-year-old who calls his bio-page "raison d'etre." Let that be a lesson to the rest of you lefty bloggers: Nothing like faux sophistication to grab the attention of Too Cool for Words.

Another great thing about Joe: He's way overeducated:
I have a bachelor of science degree in journalism (news writing and editing) and a master of science (journalism/public relations) from Ohio University. My areas of specialization as an undergraduate student were history and sociology. My master's professional project focused on the reaction at Ohio University to the Kent State shootings in 1970.
Why? Why hang around school to get a master's degree in "journalism/public relations"? With that degree and $1.95, Joe, you can get yourself a decaf latte. Kids, listen to Uncle Chuckie: Unless you want to be a teacher, don't waste your time with a master's degree except (maybe) an MBA. If you're going to be a research scientist or a college professor, forget about the master's degree and go straight for the Ph.D. Other than that, the only excuse for graduate school is to become a doctor or a lawyer.

Having wasted his time and money on a master's degree, what's Joe doing with himself nowadays, other than writing a blog?

I have written for print publications, television/radio as well as for the Web, am a trained copywriter and copy editor and am also well-versed in public relations. As a designer, I have worked for myriad clients, ranging from a middle school drama department to a university's athletics ticket office to a city looking to promote itself. My emphasis is on printed design, but I am also well-versed in creating Web graphics and creative consulting.
Translation: I don't have a real job. And bonus points for the inept use of "myriad." (Try "several." Not quite as pretentious, but surely more accurate.)

Well on his way to being an overeducated, underachieving loser, Joseph Hughes therefore demonstrates the ideal attitude of a liberal blogger: "My own life is a pathetic joke, so let me tell you how to live!" And do not doubt that Joe is infinitely superior to you -- certainly, he does not doubt it for a minute.

Disagree with Joe on gay rights? You're an ignorant hate-filled "bigot"! And though there is no suggestion that Joe himself has ever darkened the doors of a recruiter's office, he's more than happy to denounce you as a "chickhawk" if you don't share his views on foreign policy. Oh, and even if you've got a Harvard MBA, that won't prevent Joe from labeling you "dumb" if you happen to be Republican.

Something you notice about Joe's posts: Most of them are just like that "Bush is dumb" post. A one or two sentence intro, then five paragraphs by someone else.

Like other liberals generally, Joe doesn't know anything about economics. And so when Neal Boortz -- a guy who's infinitely more knowledgeable and creative than Joe -- talks about the minimum wage, Joe calls him a "gas bag." But what did Boortz actually say?
I want you to think about this, folks. You know, most of the people that earn minimum wage are teenagers. They're in the job market for a short period of time, they're learning some job skills, they're learning workplace skills. Most of the people who aren't teenagers that have a minimum-wage job, it lasts about three to four months, and they're off making more money. I want you to think for think for a moment of how incompetent and stupid and worthless ... is an adult that can't earn more than the minimum wage?

Does Joe disagree? I suppose there might be someplace in the country -- some declining steel-mill town in West Virginia, maybe -- where you could put up a sign "Help Wanted: $5.25/hr." and actually get somebody to fill out an application. But Boortz lives in Atlanta, a bustling, booming Sun Belt city. In Atlanta, you couldn't hire an ex-convict, fresh out of prison, to sweep your parking lot for $5.25 an hour. In Atlanta (or Houston, or Tampa, or Denver, or Las Vegas), you've got to offer $9 an hour just to attract applicants with a high-school diploma.

The turnover in low-wage jobs is enormous for the very reasons that Boortz talked about. The unemploment rate is about 5%, which means that 95% of people already have a job. So the people you tend to attract to minimum-wage employment are either young or temporarily down on their luck. Maybe you can hire some guy to stock shelves at the grocery store, part-time, just to bring in a bit of extra income while their wife is home with the baby. But these aren't career positions, so most people don't stay in those jobs long. If they've got something on the ball, they work a few months for minimum wage until they find something that pays better.

But if you find yourself stuck at minimum wage year after year, the problem isn't the economy, the problem isn't your boss, the problem is ... you!

Boortz said that in his typical colorful manner (which is why he gets paid the big bucks) and this sparks Joseph Hughes to say that Boortz is "continually, regularly embarrassed himself." No, Joe. What Boortz is actually doing is "continually, regularly" saying things that clueless liberals don't understand. And when you act so snippy and offended, you're just demonstrating your cluelessness. Boortz is not embarassing himself, he's embarassing you.

Congratulations, Joseph Hughes: You are Profile in Liberalism #1!

Linked at Outside the Beltway.