Hi everybody. I apologize for not meeting my pithy, intelligent, and insightful quotient today. I've been distracted I guess.
I'm really looking forward to casting my vote and having the election be in the past. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for democracy. But I happen to live in one of those swing states - Wisconsin - where no matter where I look or what I do I am beleaguered by campaign messages. Kerry was here yesterday with Springsteen. Fowled up traffic. Non-stop campaign ads on television, radio, etc. I'm so tired of it.
Everybody who reads here knows that I'm voting Bush on Tuesday. I've talked about it plenty. I fully realize his short-comings. I don't agree with him on every issue. But, on the one that I am absolutely not willing to compromise on, namely national security, the war on terror, and my future children growing up free, Bush is the only choice. And that is that.
The Badgers don't play this weekend. Halloween is a madhouse in Madison, so they don't schedule a game, fearing violence in the streets. Whatever. I've got the blahs.
So, I guess that Al Jihada is going to play some new bin Laden video this afternoon. Nah, that can't be politically motivated or anything, can it? Although, if it really is a new tape and if it really is released this afternoon, I can't help but think the jihadists screwed the pooch.
Why? Because for maximum benefit they shouldn't show it on a Friday. Not many people watch the Friday evening news, at that's on a regular week. People go out to dinner, to the bars, etc. If you want people to see it, release it on a Monday or Wednesday. There is a reason why the "B Team" at the major networks to the newscast on Fridays. Viewership is in the toilet.
Second, don't the jihadists know that releasing a new tape from a figure so long absent from his public villainy only throws more support behind the guy most likely to see him made into worm food? No sane American has anything but hatred for that putrescent bag of kaka. Showing up and throwing about some crap about rivers of blood, infidels, great suffering, etc. is only going to make the vast majority of Americans want to nuke your ass. You see, this is because it will bring up all those September 11 feelings all over again. This nation has no equal when it is pissed off. We can make nice even when the folks at the UN are talking bad about us at town. We even take crap from each other. But NO WAY are we going to let you influence our election. We can fight over the who bitterly with each other. You rear your ugly goat-tick infested scraggly-assed bearded head, and see how fast we join together to stomp a cowboy boot on your snake-like beady eyes. We'll Fed-Ex you to those 79 virgins you've been promised. And we won't apologize.
Moreover, starring in your own film noir extolling the virtues of the mujahedeen and martyrs and their glorious victories only reminds the world that ours is the side of might and right and yours is the side of hopelessness. We are the heroes, you are the thugs. Popping your head back out of your cave and smiling for the cameras only puts a target on your head, you dumb son of a bitch, but thank you. Before you know it, some American Sniper's bullet will find it's home between your eyes and you can have a little taste of what we call payback. We have some nice parting gifts for you. Bob, tell him what he's won.
Sorry, I got a little wild-eyed there. I hate bin Laden. He has perverted and hijacked Islam. He is nothing but evil incarnate and I'd like to see him burn.
I'm a bit off my politics at the moment, so I'm going to expound on the idiocy of one man. For once, I'm not talking about John Kerry.
In the early Summer of 1996 I agreed to marry this guy. We had been together for awhile, albeit by long-distance, and he decided it was time. Now, this guy was in the Navy, stationed at Virginia Beach for a while before shipping out again. He was supposed to ship out in 4 weeks when we became engaged. He wanted me to drive to Virginia Beach from Champaign, IL. Two weeks before our engagement I started my first post college graduation job.
Needless to say, it was way too soon to request vacation. I couldn't go. I was behind the 8-ball at work and had just moved into a new apartment. So, I suggested we get together when he got back to VA, 10 months later. By then I could take some vacation since the growing season would be over. He agreed. In actuality, he really wanted me to pick up and move to VA. Quit my job, get out of my lease, and move, knowing he'd be leaving in 4 weeks, abandoning me to my own devices in a foreign town for 9 months without job or home. But he agreed that my way was best.
A week later he called me, said he didn't love me anymore, and our relationship ended. It took all of 45 seconds. There was no discussion, no reason. I was hurt. Resentful and suspicious. But mostly hurt. I never heard from him again. I pulled myself up by the bootstraps and went on with my life.
A year later I met someone wonderful. But I still doubted myself. Eventually I fell in love with this new guy. We dated for many years before we got married. He is my Prince Charming. So imagine my shock, fear, and suspicion when the sailor called me a couple of months ago.
Of course, I learned he was trying to make contact before he actually got me. He called my parents and got the answering machine. He called the family business and talked to my cousin. My cousin gave him a phone number for my first job. They gave him the number of the facility I'd been promoted to. Those people refused to give him my new contact information as it just seemed...weird. My stepmother told me about the message on the answering machine.
I admit it, it freaked me out a bit. Why, after 8+ years would he try to make contact? I had a few ideas, and I'm not ashamed of them. I figured it might be part of a 12-step plan. I thought it might be some medical emergency or a death in the family. I even thought maybe he reenlisted and is just now getting out. And a tiny little part of me suspected it could be a booty call thinly veiled in a long-delinquent apology.
I toyed with not returning the call. I've moved on. I'm happy with how my life turned out. I certainly don't need to talk to him again. But my curiosity was piqued. He had treated me shabbily, and I wanted to avenge that girl he hurt. But I also didn't want to do so in a way that would bring me to his level. I wanted to be the better man.
So I returned his call. I was cool but polite. He was a bit too friendly for it to be suspicion 1 or 2. He asked how long it had been. I told him 8 years. "You must be surprised to hear from me."
"You could say that," I said.
He says he just wanted to "apologize for the way things ended between us." Hmmm. I said, "It's been 8 years, surely you haven't been fretting over it that long?" To which he replied, "Well, yeah, I have. I'm sorry." To which I said, "Thank you." He then asked me what's been going on in my life. I told him I was married. He asked, "do you have any babies?" Strange phrasing, I thought and answered in the negative.
I asked about his life. He has 2 sons, one 4 years old and another 20 months old. He talked about how he does all kinds of boy things with them: hunting, fishing, rough-housing. I asked, "And their mother?"
"She's not around." Ah ha! [Right eyebrow raises in a Columbo-key-to-the-mystery-found kind of way] I'm on to him.
He said, "I have a habit of running women off."
"I can't argue with that," I replied. We chatted a bit more and he wished me and my family well. He was glad that things were going so well for me. I offered up the same banal platitudes. End of call.
This was nothing more or less than a long-distance attempt to posset his ego. He was attempting to regrab my heartstrings and play me again like a fiddle. It was all conveniently disguised as an apology, true. Is it uncharitable of me to point out that if he had really felt bad about what he had done, that surely he could have found time to apologize before 8 years had passed? It was transparent. Perhaps it is un-Christian, uncharitable, petty, and callous of me to say it. Worse, to feel this way.
But you know what? This chickie learns from her mistakes. My husband loves me, even at my most annoying. Hell, he worships the ground I walk on. I wouldn't trade him for anything - I worship him right back.
But the hurt little girl inside of me needed to hear the apology, late and though it was thinly veiling another motive altogether. I fed that little girl the squashed bug of a man that once tried very hard to squash her. And she is happier for it. Not real proud of herself for the need to feel vindicated after so long, but she does feel better.
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and
related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S.
military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international
technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops,
working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive
material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole
series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all
evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The
others were transportation units."
Look, I'm tired of the Kerry Kamp's insistence that this is evidence of failure. Nothing John Kerry could have done, had he been president, could have prevented this. Saddam is like a NY City Street Con-Artist. While you are trying desperately to figure out what's happening over here (wavy hand) he's busy picking your pocket, raping your sister, and gassing Kurds over here. It was Standard Operating Procedure.
I swear to god, Kerry has given me a new-found appreciation for Slick Willy...something I didn't believe possible, but it falls into the "Even Clinton would be better than Kerry." I'm ashamed to say it, but I believe it is true.
Kerry appears to have nothing but contempt for our troops. He pays them lip service, sure. Afterall, they are a voting demographic, but then he turns around and vilifies the mission, degrades morale, points out all of the trouble spots, all the while completely ignoring the successes and the victories.
It is revolting. Abhorrent. Morally bankrupt. Definately not behavior characterized by leadership.
I've said it many times, but the fact of the matter is, the men and women in uniform fighting our countries battles are deserving of nothing less than our complete respect and faith. They are literally putting their life blood on the line for the mission. For the greater good. For freedom. For you, me, and everybody else. You can't denigrate the war and honor the soldier. Its impossible. The soldier takes the mission personally. It isn't a job he can quit, it is something he believes. No amount of spit will stop a warrior from believing in his cause. If you denigrate the quilt, doesn't the seamstress take offense? If you puke at the taste of the meal, don't you insult the chef? These things are much less trivial than questioning the manner in which those who provide the freedom do so.
Somedays I wish that I could give our fighting forces a big hug. I love them. All of them. I believe in their mission and I know that there is no better force. I know that we will win, because we have the right guys, the right stuff, and the heart to get it done. No matter what Jean Francois Kerry says to the contrary.
The study also concluded that despite media promises every four years to focus less on campaign dynamics and more on issues, this once again has not occurred. Also: "The coverage this year has been even less likely than four years ago to describe how campaign events directly affected voters." ... While bias could be a factor, there are other possible explanations. ... The study also notes "some differences in tone between different media," finding that newspapers "were the most negative medium by a sizable margin."
Next up, our continuing coverage of the Water is Wet scandal.
VVTV...bringing you all of the information you already knew.
Before I get into this, I want to preface my statements by saying that in no way am I actually advocating these actions, I'm just wanting to pursue a line of thought.
So, let us suppose that the United States of America were to pull out of NATO and the UN.
Hmmm. (fingers drumming on desk)
The world is such a safe place and all, such alliances taxing American taxpayers detrimentally, blah, blah, blah, just suppose we didn't ante up.
Are the socialist states of the EU and other countries prepared to act in their own defense? I am under the impression that the state of their militaries is...well...if you had to give it a letter grade might be a C-. This is my impression. "Readiness" is not their keyword. Could they repel an invasion? Suppose some meglomaniacal dictator bent on world domination took it upon himself to "clean up and simplify Europe" a la Hitler. Anybody who has every played Stratego knows it is tough to hold Europe. So, I ask again, what if?
Suppose some evil dictator...let's call him Dick... and suppose he is the leader of Luxembourg. Suppose that he decided to "right the wrong" visited upon Luxembourg by Belgium in 1839 when they lost half their territory and invaded Belgium, marching all the way to Bastogne and then holding, seemingly pacifying the World that their intentions were limited to old territory. Belgium was having fits, but the rest of the world seemed okay with it. "The US denounces in the strongest of terms, this unprovoked attack on Belgium and her people," is the word from the US state department, but offers no aid to ailing Belgium, who was caught completely off-guard and has no way to defend herself, save by farmers taking up their pitchforks and shovels.
After some time passes, Dick seeks to pacify and bring stability to Belgium by marching troops all the way to the North Sea, neatly bypassing Brussels, but also giving himself a port, and all of this under the guise of stopping rioting in the Belgian frontier. He continues to leave Brussels alone. Suppose then that the world community sees the newly calmed Belgium as an improvement and again decides to do nothing. The US issues a statement "We denounce this illegal war in the strongest of terms!" but does nothing.
After 4 months of occupying the New Belgium, Dick sends troops into France along her borders with Belgium and Luxembourg, at 6 distinct points, wave after wave taking small French towns completely by surprise. The invasion does not stop for several days until the Lux Legions occupy France from Dijon to Rouen, neatly sidestepping Paris. Dick tells the world that the border move was necessary to seal the border with Belgium against French insurgents coming over the border and terrorizing the fragile peace.
La Belle France appeals to the world that her borders have been defied and that she now lacks the ability to repel the invaders. The PM of France pulls all troops to Paris, in an attempt to prevent the ransacking of the Crown Jewel of France. In a joint appeal, the ambassadors of Belgium and France to the U.S.-less UN demand that the UN and NATO act to end the aggression. Unfortunately, the acts of Luxembourg and Dick's Legions now have the world somewhat nervous, and no major player in the European Theater is willing to send troops to France.
Germany is concerned because she shares a border with both France and Luxembourg and has so far managed to stay clear of Dick's ambitions. The Netherlands are concerned with preventing Dick's advance north and have sent all of their troops to the border, but are unwilling to invade Belgium in the hopes that the New Belgium will be more agreeable to work with on EU matters. Switzerland, in her grand tradition, is feverishly preserving her neutrality, but also is accepting much cash from France and the other European nations for safe-keeping in her banks. The Spanish and British are maintaining that they can't get involved in an "illegal" war, but do wish the French and Belgians well. The Italians are putting on a brave face, but do not yet feel that they are in any real jeopardy.
Secretly Dick has been plotting with Larry of Liechtenstein who in a surprise move, publicly announces his support for Dick two days before invading Germany by way of Austria.
The world fears that Alexi of Andorra will be the next mad man to initiate his plans of world domination and begs and pleads with the USA to come to the rescue. President Kerry, in a surprise move addresses the world from the Rose Garden saying, "To our European friends, I say we are with you, if only in spirit. The American people do not wish to become involved in another war where the blood of American boys and girls is spilled to save a people from a regime that while not chosen, is still not perpetuating genocide. The European people may likely be better off under this new unification and we see no reason to interfere in this illegal war at this time. The American people have spoken and Congress has moved to prevent me from taking any action. Perhaps we can all just go back to how things used to be."
This announcement was met with furious outrage in France and Belgium.
Twenty-eight years ago today my little sister entered the world. I must admit that her arrival turned my world upside down. I had to make room for "the baby." She cried a lot at first, and she always wanted me to play with her. I really didn't want to all of the time. I was the put-upon older sister, too-cool by half, and annoyed by her whining.
However, as time went by and our parents divorced we became a tight little unit, she and I. She didn't really speak for a long time, but we spoke our own language and I translated her wants and needs to the rest of the world. I even chose her outfits for a while.
We have faced the unknown world of airline travel and layovers together as children, sat in weird children-only waiting rooms waiting for some mysterious airline employee to read off our names and escort us to our next flight. We've waited patiently as Amtrak tried to kidnap us and been embarrassed when Dad came walking up to the train, knocked on the baggage car door, and demanded the conductor relinquish his children.
We've faced a stream of step-fathers together, seeing each one come and go in his own time, and the addition of a much younger sister. We've giggled under the covers until she started her evil, maniacal laugh that always creeped me out. We've plotted and schemed, played in the mud, and screamed at bugs. All together. We've even seen the proof of the Kamikaze fly, who dive-bombed into strawberry jello, prompting a near-fatal choking on a corndog.
Nowadays she's my best friend and I don't mind her whining so much anymore. Our play no longer involves Barbie, and now involves shopping malls, but we still communicate in a special way. Nobody else knows what I'm thinking or what I will think quite like she does, and vice versa. We are opposite sides of the same coin. And, I love her 'cause she's my sister.
Who wouldn't? You get to bad mouth the United States, steal millions or billions of dollars from oppressed people via some UN Scam or other, and imagine all the pages and interns that must work at the UN! Maybe he could even get a Nobel Prize!
Ha, Ha, hahahahahahahahah (maniacal laughter)
Bill wants to be Secretary-General. I want to be a perfect size 2, fabulously wealthy, brilliant, a master chef, and grow 4 more inches in height.
Smash has a great post today on the Sinclair Broadcast Group's Kerry Documentary and he shares The Code. Read it!
The original NY Times article can be found here. Excerpt follows.
The imagery is crude, but powerful: each mention of Mr. Kerry's early 1970's meeting with North Vietnamese government officials in Paris is illustrated with an old black-and-white still shot of the Arc de Triomphe, an image that to many viewers evokes the Nazi occupation of Paris. The Eiffel Tower would have been more neutral, but the film is not: it insists that Mr. Kerry "met secretly in an undisclosed location with a top enemy diplomat." Actually, Mr. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
The film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, a former investigative reporter and a Vietnam veteran, gives his own testimony, explaining that even though he has uncovered all kinds of misdeeds in his career, the history of Mr. Kerry's antiwar activism is "a lot more personal.'' He recalls listening to Mr. Kerry's testimony in 1971, saying, "I felt an inner hurt no surgeon's scalpel could remove.''
That pain is the main theme of the documentary, which can be seen in its entirety on the Internet for $4.99. One former P.O.W., John Warner, lashes out at Mr. Kerry for having coaxed Mr. Warner's mother to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation, where disgruntled veterans testified to war crimes they committed. Calling it a "contemptible act," Mr. Warner, who spent more than five years as a prisoner, tells the camera that Mr. Kerry was the kind of man who preyed on a mother's grief "purely for the promotion of your own political agenda."
Yeah, that's right. I am pissed. I am PISSED OFF! I am kick-a-puppy-mad. I am seething and coming over all cat like. You know, like a pissed off cat, spitting, hair raising mode that just precedes the big attack?
John "Regular Guy" Kerry is out and about today "proving" what a "sportsman" and "gun nut" he is by hunting goose. The following rant...well, I won't be held responsible, that's all. Warning: vile spew ahead, slippery on rocks, watch your step.
1. This is a blatant appeal to so-called "uninformed rednecks". I am not a political operative, but I recognize it for the shameless pandering that it is.
2. John Kerry is no gun lover. He is not a member of the gun culture. He hunts deer on his belly in the prone position, or so he claims. (Yeah, right. Sure you do, Francois)
3. John Kerry is a gun hater. He has again and again voted against the rights of regular gun-owning citizens.
4. Apparently it is okay to kill a goose, but not okay for me to prevent my own rape, at least, this seems to be today's message from the Kerry Kamp. HEIL!
6. Vile Pig!
7. He must not want the big job to bad if in the middle of crunch time he takes off to go look "regular guy" for the press. Will he be pheasant hunting when Al Qaeda makes its next big move in this war, catching him again, unprepared? Perhaps he'll be hunting spotted owl? I propose we send him to Fallujah if he's that good a shot!
8. Creepy Pandering Lurch-looking Hypocrite!
9. President Bush is campaigning and performing his presidential duties while John Kerry dinks around in a cornfield looking effete while attempting to appear manly. He looks more like Bo Derek than Bo Duke.
10. What a joke!
11. Forgive me, but I don't care about hunting. Don't care for it. I don't want to have to kill anything that isn't buzzing in my ear or about to sting. I don't deny the right to other people, however. I understand that many enjoy it, that it plays an important part in managing wildlife populations, and is an important part of some destinations' tourism. But I don't think it is more important than the preservation of my life. Apparently if I am raped by a goose I am free to kill it, according to John Kerry, but an ex-boyfriend hopped-up on drugs and intent on forcing himself upon me...let the boyfriend take what he wants Kerry seems to say.
12. Shoot a goose, Save a Rapist.
13. Okay, who thinks Kerry will actually eat that goose? Certainly not me. That is of course unless he was after the foie gras. Goes well with Dom and Beluga, maybe.
Blogger is running a thing to coincide with National Novel Writing Month in November. I am considering participating. I've had two ideas knocking around in my brain for a couple of years and since the election will be over by then (although we may be in recount mode) except for either the crowing or the crying, it comes at a good time.
Posting will be light today as I consider the possibilities. Check out the new poll if you want to weigh in on which plot I should explore.
In particular, please note the following that I have excerpted for your ease (emphasis mine):
Q: You'd be just the second first lady who was born abroad, the first who had two foreign parents. Do you think that causes Americans any pause?
A: Well, Americans who pause probably don't know history very well, because we are all from somewhere. We are continually being from somewhere. And in such a young country as this — it's not like we're talking, you know, old Europe. We are constantly renewing our energy and our knowledge and our heart and our soul, enriched like no other country in that sense. And to fear that or disparage that I don't think is American. And I never hear that out there.
Charming! (said scathingly) She manages to say that Americans who are suspicious of foreigners in positions of national power are stupid, then goes on to further denigrate us by saying the country is too young to really understand this complicated issue. What CRAP! First of all, we have constitutional protections against getting entangled in foreign matters as well as preventing their interference in our domestic matters. Furthermore, if ever there was a country where people are fully cognizant of where they are from, it is in this great melting pot we call the USA. This woman REALLY pisses me off! She manages to be both condescending and idiotic...and that takes talent!
Q: You'd be different from Laura Bush?
A: Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things. And I'm older, and my validation of what I do and what I believe and my experience is a little bit bigger — because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about.
Okay, I'd like to beat her over this one. First of all, from everything I've ever read says that she has worked as both a public school teacher and a librarian. I count those both as a "real job." Furthermore, she couldn't really be called an heiress. So, between the two, I believe Laura is more likely to have punched a time card, changed dirty diapers, ran a vacuum, washed dishes, and pumped her own gas. The very notion that THK would suggest that she is the one who has more experience in common with the little people by right of age is laughable. Laura Bush, if visiting my house for supper, would likely offer to help me with the dishes. That's what good women do, particularly if you were raised in the Southwest...I don't have enough experience to speak with authority on other regions. But I would be Dead Parrot stunned if THK offered to do likewise. My money is on her refusing to even enter into our home, Poynette, Wisconsin not being on the way to the Cape, or Aspen, or "old Europe".
The woman makes me need to toss my cookies. She's an elitist and thinks she knows what is best for us little folk. Condescension drips from her ever utterance. Excuse me, I'm going to be sick.
I saw this ad on tv this morning. It is so powerful, it made me a bit misty. Some will say it takes advantage of the victims of 9/11, but I say, we were all victimized that day. I also know that this isn't the first we've seen of the President's heart and commitment, nor will it likely be the last.
The most telling part of the add is what Ashley has to say. I get misty just remembering it. I think it will strike a cord with many, even those who didn't know about the incident previously.
To the Gentleman who insists that the death tax doesn't put family farms out of business:
Thank you for taking the time to visit. I appreciate your views and respect your right to assert them. However, I try to be respectful and the tone of your comments was less than.... However, I absolutely feel the need to refute you on two issues and since this is my blog, I get to do that. Please remember that these are my opinions.
1. The Death Tax and the Family Farm. Just because there is no record that the Death Tax never put anybody out of business doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I know of several instances where family farms died with a generation simply because in order to pay the taxes, the next generation had to sell the farm. Does this mean they didn't want to farm? Hardly. It isn't just farms that this happens to, but by far, farmers and ranchers get hit the hardest. For example, my family owns a farm in Kansas. Most of the land was purchased long before I was born 30 years ago, and has only increased in value since then. Farm land is only profitable if you farm it. You only realize the increase in value if you sell it...therefore, all of that "gain" in value only becomes an issue if you want to sell or if someone dies and it has to be valued as a part of an estate to pay estate taxes. If you have to sell an asset to pay for owning it, methinks the tax is too high. I doubt you know any farmers, but if you do, I recommend talking to a few. Farms go down all the time because somebody died and the family can't afford the taxes.
2. Your comment "Waaah! He might propose tougher gun regulations," is a bit childish. If you choose not to be armed, that is your choice. However, as a victim of assault and stalking, I take offense at your suggestion, implied as it is, that I should not be trusted with a weapon, nor the right to defend myself. The fact of the matter is that there is far too much gun legislation as it is, all cutting into my rights. As it is, gun regulations do nothing to prevent crime and make criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens. If you wish to live in a society where you have to wait for the police...well, good luck with that.
Again, I respect your comments, but please, in future, remember that these are my opinions.
What’s Wrong with Kerry:
1. No executive experience. He’s never ran so much as a taco stand.
2. No proven leadership. Although the men on his boat in Vietnam support him, the rest of the Swifties are adamantly opposed to him because of…
3. Lack of loyalty. He quickly ran from a fight he volunteered for, then lied to Congress about war crimes committed there. This suggests that Kerry is open to persuasion instead of a man of conviction.
4. Kerry WILL raise your taxes and take your guns.
5. More concerned with the preservation of the UN than the UNion.
6. Kerry will fight a “more sensitive war on terror” and play right into the hands of the terrorists.
7. Terrorists want Kerry to win.
8. Kerry doesn’t know where Kerry stands without floating a poll.
Why Vote for Bush:
1. Has executive experience as Governor, businessman, and President.
2. Bush will keep working to eliminate the marriage penalty and working to keep family farms in the hands of families by continuing to fight the death tax.
3. Bush is a leader. Nothing proves this like September 11th.
4. Bush will make sure America stays safe by fighting an aggressive war on terror on their turf.
5. Bush will attempt diplomatic avenues but never let other countries dictate to us.
6. Terrorists fear George Bush.
7. The men and women on the front lines want George Bush to be their leader.
8.You always know where George Bush stands.
in traffic over the weekend. It can only be in response to the essay I wrote about the Mary Cheney invocation by M. Kerry at the debates. Welcome, all. We have no qualms about offering you a stool, a beret, and a martini. Snap at will.
The game Saturday night against Purdue was a real nail-biter. For the first half things were pretty calm at our house. The Badgers were up 7-0 until the beginning of the second half. Then, Purdue scored a td, then scored again making it 7-10. That's when things got kind of depressing. But in no time at all we had regained the advantage. Of course, it all came down to a field goal. If they missed, we win. If its good, it OT. But, they missed and we won. It was beautiful. Happiness all around.
Before I again go running silent for the weekend, I would like to weigh in on the Kerry outing Mary Cheney brouhaha. As it so aptly fits in with the homework assignment given by Hugh Hewitt, I feel this post is both timely, and a prime opportunity to vanquish another villain.
Before I begin however, I would like to make perfectly clear that I see no shame in homosexuality. I don't care what your sexual orientation is. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home, so long as nobody gets hurt. However, I don't want you to feel obligated to inform me, either. I'm not going to tell you about my sex life, so I'd prefer you kept the details of your own to yourself as well.
That being said, I would like to say that Kerry's answer to the question in debate 3 in which he mentioned Ms. Cheney is wrong in just about every way possible. He was answering the question of whether he thought homosexuality was a choice. M. Kerry, for those not tuned in, answered, and I paraphrase, "that were one to ask Mary Cheney, daughter of VP Dick Cheney, she would tell you she's just being who she is." He invoked the name of a child of a candidate in a incredibly public forum viewed by millions all over the earth. He identified her sexual preference for all and sundry, and to add insult to injury, further made sure everyone knew which Mary Cheney he spoke of.
I suggest to you, that no matter what her sexual orientation, it was not his business to bring it up. She is a private citizen, not a public official. This is a personal matter, none of Kerry's business, none of anyone's business but Mary Cheney's. Now, I've heard a lot of blather about how he did no harm because she was already "out". This is pure crap. She may be "out" to her parents, friends, and co-workers. She may even be a national advocate of some sort, I don't know. But unless I missed the memo, she didn't come "out" to the world.The fact of the matter is, he has no right to share her private life with millions of Americans and viewers world-wide unless she has explicitly given him the right to do so. And, if she had so authorized him, I would expect to see her standing there beside him.
Suppose that instead of the question being about homosexuality the question had been about abortion. Had he invoked the name of a private citizen, no matter who, as having had an abortion there would be a rush to string him up. And Democrats would lead the mob! The fact of the matter is, whether an abortion, sexual preference, or some other aspect of someone's private life, he has absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to divulge the information, secret or not, in a public forum such as this. It was very wrong. And if he can't see that he owes an apology, he's too damn stupid to understand the delicacy of foreign policy.
What he did borders on criminal. Suppose someone out there, some homophobe, takes it into his head to purge America of the problem of homosexuality, beginning with the brand new poster girl nominated by John Kerry? Suppose someone tries to kill her. It isn't such a leap. That's how wrong it was. Essentially, he has invited violence upon her. It is a violation of her privacy, and incredibly irresponsible.
And, were his motives as pure as he suggests, I put to you that he could have answered the question more powerfully, without invoking Mary Cheney by saying something akin to the following:
"Well, I can only tell you that I didn't choose to be heterosexual. I am not aware of any choice. I am who I am. American homosexuals, I believe, are who they are."
At least this would be honest and draw from his own life experience, but perhaps we are setting the bar a bit too high with that honesty stuff for Mr. Kerry to hurdle.
You would think that a man with two daughters of his own would be more responsible about the safety of another politician's family. It is so obviously a political ploy it is disgusting. I feel really sorry for Ms. Cheney. She has become a political football through no action of her own. She has been pulled into the fray like an older Elian Gonzalez. Kerry, it seems, will do anything to achieve his ambition. If he has to throw a few people on the political landmines, so be it! seems to be his opinion. Mary Beth Cahill is certainly complicit in this, if not worse, for her comments that Mary Cheney was "fair game." Edwards is guilty of this as well. Edward's wife is an idiot if she can't understand why Lynne Cheney is upset. They are all villains. I hope they get what's coming to them!
You know I can 'go off' in a heartbeat sometimes, but something M. Kerry said in the last debate has my panties in a bunch. I have paraphrased his comments below:
"I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See that house? We did a drug bust there last week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him. Because of the president's failure to push the renewal of the assault weapons ban, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today."
My issues with this are numerous, so I'll try to be concise. Also, my source of information is the smartest man I know on gun issues, my dad. I'm trying to get some independent confirmation from Kim du Toit, and I will update if he responds.
So, back to the vanquishing:
First and foremost, the AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun and was legislated against long before the assault weapons ban. Second, supposing that really was an AK-47, no criminal is going to follow the laws of the land in acquiring it, so no amount of legislation matters. Third, they actually do perform background checks at gun shows. I've been. I've seen it done.
Therefore, Kerry is either stupid, in which case he isn't fit to be President, or sloppy in his details, in which case he isn't fit to be President, or lying, in which case he isn't fit to be President. Furthermore, I suspect that his personal anecdote was meant to frighten the suburban soccer moms out there with the mental picture of an AK-47 lying on a bed in Iowa.
AND IT REALLY PISSES ME OFF!
The Assault Weapons Ban was dumb legislation. It made things illegal because of how they looked, amounting to little more than gun metal prejudice! I realize that most Democrats fear guns like mice fear barn cats, but the fact of the matter is that there are millions of law-abiding gun owners in the United States. If we were all mass murderers, the population wouldn't be bulging. The Assault Weapons Ban failed to get renewed because...for once, our Representatives in Congress recognized the bill as the bit of ineffectual fluff it was. What do you know, a bit of sense from Congress.
John Freakin' Kerry has me MAD AS HELL, and I'm not going to take it anymore!
Name THREE of your...
1. Pet Peeves: people who don't use their turn signal, people who think I'm not entitled to an opinion, people who won't speak intellectually and cite facts, but instead bark out incomprehensible buzz words like "IRAQ IS ALL ABOUT THE OIL!!!!!!!!!!"
2. Favorite Sounds: wheat rustling in the wind, the ding of an oven, quiet
3. Biggest Fears: being raped or murdered, snakes, a John Kerry Presidency
4. Biggest Challenges: being a conservative in a liberal state, being more diplomatic and less call 'em like I see 'em, and addictions to caffeine and chocolate
5. Favorite Department Stores: Marshall Fields, Dillards, the internet
6. Most Used Words: brilliant, jackass, doesn't follow logically
7. Favorite Pizza Toppings: pepperoni, sausage, black olive
8. Favorite Cartoon Characters: Bucky Katt, Bill the Cat, Dilbert
9. Movies Recently Watched: Mona Lisa Smile, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
10. Favorite Fruits & Vegetables: Cherry, Strawberry, Spinach
And, I'm adding this one:
11. Favorite smells: Cinnamon, "Coco" by Chanel, and a toss-up between "Polo" by Ralph Lauren and my husband's brand of deodorant.
Chrenkoff is in excellent form this morning. He's in a snit (not that I blame him at all) over Kerry's comments denigrating our partners in Iraq.
Having personal attachments to two members of the "unreal coalition" (Australia and Poland) I continue to find Kerry's denigration of America's current allies to be tiresome and disappointing, but most of all laughable. John Edwards talks a lot about "two Americas", but it seems that there also "two universes"; the one where most of us live, and the one inhabited by John Kerry. The Kerryverse is a surreal, looking glass world where concepts are inverted on their head and meanings get twisted into cosmic pretzels of nuance. Thus, the 30 or so nations that have actually put their troops on the ground in Iraq constitute an unreal alliance, whereas the countries that right from the start were working to stop the United States from going into Iraq and a year and a half later are still refusing to contribute any serious military assistance to help stabilize the country - even if John Kerry becomes the President - are the real alliance.
Mr. Free Market has great commentary this morning. It's brilliant! I really dig this guy. I've said it before, I know, but he reminds me of a mixture of Galen Winter's character Major Nathaniel Peabody, USA Ret. and me papa. Don't miss this. As they say in England, it is brill!
I really like the idea of a futures market for RPGs, IEDs, and cyclosarin.
Back not so long ago, many out there were characterizing Tony Blair's England as George Bush's labrador retreiver. They said that they would do whatever the US wanted. Yeah, right. I neither subscribe to that characterization nor endorse it. However, I kept thinking that a President Kerry would turn things around a bit. Instead of walking the dog, the US would be the Paris-Hilton-purse-puppy of Jacques Chirac & Gerhard Shroeder. And THAT is unbearable! We are nobody's lap dog. Voting for Kerry means we'll be eating kibble and the rind of a wheel of brie for four years.
Moreover, the fact of the matter is while they need us, we are entirely able to live without any help from them. Between Germany & France, I'm not sure they could repel an invasion of Versaille. Anyway, that's what's been rolling over in the front of my mind this morning since I got out of the shower.
You know, I've had just about enough of the belly-achin' over those MIA WMD. You want to know the truth? Without any technology at all, Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction himself. Just by being.
All of those other mass graves are proof enough, but this article just proves that hell is too good for that villain!
A mass grave containing the bodies of children, babies and their mothers has been unearthed in Iraq.
Shocked investigators reported finding "thighbones the size of matchsticks" at what they believe is the site of one of Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Among the findings-were the skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys.
A baby had been shot in the back of its head and was found still being clutched by its mother, who had been shot in the face. One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men. "The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks," said a US investigating anthropologist. "Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick."
I hope Bush brings this up in the debate. Letting this stand is unconscionable. We have a duty, and M. Kerry would just as soon turn his back on it. Sometimes, doing nothing is so wrong it is a crime. This is one of those times. No WMD in Iraq? I say Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and Chemical Ali all fit the description. The bastards deserve worse than eternal hellfire. And I think I'm being nice.
This article seems to suggest that Saddam loyalists in Fallujah are now turning on their foreign fighter brothers-in-arms.
Relations are deteriorating as local fighters negotiate to avoid a U.S.-led military offensive against Fallujah, while foreign fighters press to attack Americans and their Iraqi supporters. The disputes have spilled over into harsh words and sporadic violence, with Fallujans killing at least five foreign Arabs in recent weeks, according to witnesses.
Fantastic, I say! If they begin to kill each other it lightens our work load! It goes on...
Several local leaders of the insurgency say they, too, want to expel the foreigners, whom they scorn as terrorists. They heap particular contempt on Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian whose Monotheism and Jihad group has asserted responsibility for many of the deadliest attacks across Iraq, including videotaped beheadings.
"He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near," Abu Abdalla Dulaimy, military commander of the First Army of Mohammad, said recently.
Adnan, the taxi driver who moved his panicked wife and four children to another town, said attitudes toward the foreign fighters have changed dramatically since they poured into Fallujah after the Marines' siege ended in April. "We were deceived by them," he said. "We welcomed them first because we thought they came to support us, but now everything is clear."
Among the tensions dividing the locals and the foreigners is religion. People in Fallujah, known as the city of mosques, have chafed at the stern brand of Islam that the newcomers brought with them. The non-Iraqi Arabs berated women who did not cover themselves head-to-toe in black -- very rare in Iraq -- and violently opposed local customs rooted in the town's more mystical religious tradition. One Fallujah man killed a Kuwaiti who said he could not pray at the grave of an ancestor.
Residents said the overwhelming majority of Fallujah's people also have been repulsed by the atrocities that Zarqawi and other extremists have made commonplace in Iraq. The foreign militants are thought to produce the car bombs that now explode around Iraq several times a day, and Zarqawi's organization has asserted responsibility for the slayings of several Westerners, some of which were shown in videos posted on the Internet.
They seem more and more likely to crumble from within. Egggsellent [said with an eyebrow arched, petting my strangely menacing fluffy white cat with its diamond collar, and sipping my Knob's Creek]
Finally, after much shaking, quaking, and steaming, magma has broken through at Mt. St. Helens. It isn't flowing yet, but at least Mother Nature is doing something new. It almost seems like it would be a relief if some of the building pressure was released.
From my cozy perch here in the heartland, dare I say it? Volcanos are cool.
Hurricanes bad...sister in the islands.
Tornadoes bad...anybody can be taken out on a whim
I've long been a fan of Mark Steyn's writing. He has a clear, concise, and in-your-face kind of truth. He calls 'em like he sees 'em, and I respect that. In this piece, he explains why he has been censored at this time, and lists the offending piece. It is today's must read.
To his well elucidated commentary I would add only this:
It is okay to be sad. It is okay to cry. But when you are done crying, it is better to be angry. Really P-Oed. Because it is only with righteous fury that we will have the stamina for this fight. It is so easy to retreat when your children are threatened. You would naturally do anything to save them. The problem is, we are not really dealing with kidnappers. We are dealing with murderers. They can't be reasoned with or negotiated with. And when we begin to try to do so, we legitimize their behavior and paint it as acceptable. We can't do this. WE MUST NOT DO THIS! Remember all of those who have fallen and let them not have died in vain. Fight on! Fight On! Until the peace of victory brings closure to the pain. But do not wilt in fear. We can not let their deaths go unpunished, nor the loss, so difficult to bear, be forgotten.
This has me pissed enough to respond to M. Chirac's whining in the following letter.
Dear M. Chirac, French Elitist Jackass In Chief:
In your recent visit to Hanoi, Vietnam, you spoke about what a "catastrophe" it would be if the United States' cultural hegemony went unchallenged. You said that France was right to stand up for cultural and linguistic diversity. You warned that the cultures of the world were being "choked" by US values, and that the world's preoccupation with the English language would cause a "real ecological catastrophe." You made mention of Hollywood's domination of the world film industry as an example and indicated that filmmakers in other countries could only do their work with the aid of government assistance. And you said all of this to a country that used to be a French colony because few of them speak French anymore and more and more speak English as their second language.
I wish to respond.
First of all, perhaps you don't understand the United States. We are the great melting pot. We'll take anybody with pure intentions as a citizen. Once here, they are free to do as they please so long as they do no harm. They can worship their cats, belly-button lint, or even the almighty dollar and no one will care. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and people representing lots of other religions. We have French-speaking citizens, Spanish speakers, Portugese, Dutch, German, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, etc. The list goes on and on and on.
We do not pass laws forbidding certain garb, traditional to some cultures, from our schools. This would be a prohibition of freedom of expression, and we don't do that here. Of course, France does. You won't let little girls cover their hair in schools because it is an overt expression of Islamic faith. Who is trodding all over culture now, M. Chirac?
By saying the cultures of the world are being "choked" by US values, I assume you are defending the nations who are enslaving people, commiting genocide against their own people, denigrating and abusing women, etc. Bravo, sir, you really are championing the good guys. Sir, you are a jackass to suggest that cultures can make no room for personal freedoms.
I'm not sure how the English language could lead to an "ecological" disaster. I have never seen a tree fall down because of someone speaking in public. I've never seen ground waters become contaminated because someone said something. I've never seen wetlands drained or forests cleared or mountains crumble because someone spoke in English. However, I could see how the French whining and braying about their increasingly marginalized importance in the world sphere could add to greenhouse gas emissions. I've always held the theory that the French military was as useful as a fart in the wind. That would get us to methane emissions as well.
Your last two contentions, those about Hollywood and the prediliction for English in Global business...perhaps you could use a few lessons. Hollywood is about making money. They do it well by appealing to what their audience wants to see and actually entertaining. Perhaps the filmmakers in other nations should start making movies people actually want to see. You think? Consider where the largest population of movie-goers are. Then, appeal to that market. Anybody who has ever sat in an Econ 101 class could have told you this. As to English as the dominant language in business, this only makes sense. The world's largest economy is in the United States. English is the language spoken by a majority of Americans, though a large majority of us also speak a second language. This is so we can work with other trading nations. Again, this is just good business. Perhaps if you concentrated more on being better in business and less on participating in the raping of the environmental resources of the Iraqi people and propping up evil dictators you could get more people to speak French. Just a thought.
One more thing...culture is like voting. You get to choose what you want. Apparently people like the more inclusive nature of American culture better than your stuffy, government-knows-best, NO RELIGION FOR YOU, have some more cigarettes, wine, and cheese culture. No matter what, it is still a personal choice.
Monsieur Chirac, vous êtes un porc xénophobique desuccion d'élitiste! Vous êtes complicit dans les horreurs visitées sur l'Irakien par le bandit Saddam Hussein, du burineur en bois, pour violer, au vol. Là vous l'avez, un acte d'accusation et l'insulte dans le votre possèdent très la langue d'une jeune femme américaine. Cadeau enveloppé pour votre plaisir. Maintenant, obtenez bourré !
Something I read over at Chrenkoff this morning has me aching to post and clear up a few things. Chrenkoff draws a parallel between Gareth Evans' comments about unilateralism and calling Bush "you know whom" and says this equates to Bush equally Lord Voldemort.
Let's be clear here, I have read the Harry Potter novels so many times I could teach a course, but I don't really think the story applies to every aspect of life. Having said that, I will now contradict myself and draw the aforementioned and ridiculous parallel.
In the world of Harry Potter, Lord Voldemort is a hateful, despised creature. He actively advocates a cleansing of the magical world, enjoys tormenting, torturing, and killing non-magical folk (muggles), and suggests that mixed heritage folk (non-magical parents, 1 magical and 1 non-magical, etc) or "mudbloods" are equally abhorent. He feeds on hatred and sees love as weakness. He has a loyal band of murderers at his beck and call whom he calls "Death Eaters." The Death Eaters do his heavy lifting for him...they are the ones that kill, torture, and generally run amok. In this world, people have lived in fear of where Lord Voldemort and his minions will strike next. Simply put, Lord Voldemort is the ultimate evil...preying on the weak, the innocent, the defenseless, and of course children too.
If one takes this to reality, the only parallel that fits is that Osama bin Laden is Lord Voldemort. He is the one advocating the destruction of the innocent for no other reason than their existence. It is his minions - Al Qaeda and their affiliates like Saddam Hussein- who do the wet work. In Beslan they murdered children. In Sudan they are working on the "cleansing." On September 11th, they fired their big guns into the heart of this country, attacking the innocent for no reason other than hatred.
Now, the other characters in the series also have parallels. Professor Dumbledore is the flighty and quirky professor who knows more than he lets on but is unwavering in his determination to keep the innocent safe and not only check the rampage of Lord Voldemort, but also to put it to an end. Who else fits the bill for this but President Bush? He is a bit of a bumbler, but at least we know which side he is on and that nothing bad will happen so long as we are united.
Dumbledore is assisted in his efforts by a loyal band known as "The Order of the Phoenix." These brave witches and wizards stick their necks out daily in the business of stopping Lord Voldemort's rise to power and his reign of terror. In the real world, this amounts to the Coalition and partners in the global war on terror and the troops out there on the front lines on a daily basis.
Dumbledore is twarted in his efforts by the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge. Fudge simply doesn't believe the truth about Voldemort and his renewed threat. On one hand, this is a head-in-the-sand, can't-be-true way for him to remain living in his happy place. On the other hand, Fudge knows that he isn't the right man to lead the magical world through a new reign of terror, and so works to destabilize Dumbledore in an effort to hold on to his own power. This analogy just leaps off of the page. Cornelius Fudge is the UN: corrupt, embittered, turning a blind eye to the proof of genocide in the Sudan, terrorism in Russia, Gaza, New York, DC, Italy, Spain, Australia, etc. They do not see the vipers they hug to their chest - Fudge clings to donor Lucius Malfoy who is a Death Eater and is using his connections to wreak havoc - while the UN lets Sudan be responsible for Human Rights and enables the destruction and torment of the Iraqi people through their graft and the UN oil-for-food scam.
Fudge is assisted in his efforts to twart Dumbledore by his unctuous and vile assistant Delores Umbridge. She works tirelessly to muzzle Dumbledore and Harry Potter, to disastrous and tortuous ends. Today's Umbridge is none other than John Kerry. He is not evil, nor are Umbridge, Fudge, or the UN. The problem is he can't see the real truth of terrorism and believes it can be kept in check via diplomacy, better international relations, and law enforcement. He isn’t the enemy…but he isn’t helping solve the problem either.
The biggest character of the novels is, of course, their namesake Harry Potter. Harry is the hero. He is caught off guard by the reality of Lord Voldemort and his campaign of hate. He is unaware until the age of 11 that someone wants desperately for Harry to die. He is both hero and victim. His beliefs and love for others is what drives him to the fight. In parallel, Harry is the American People and the victims of terror worldwide. We came awake on September 11, 2001 to the realization that we were at war, that someone out there wanted us dead. We are the hope of the world in ending the scourge of terrorism as Harry Potter is the only one who has the power to destroy Lord Voldemort.
Harry’s best friends are Ron and Hermione. Ron is steadfastly loyal, even when certain members of his family (Percy) urge him to distance himself. He is willing and able to assist in the fight in any way that he can. Hermione is the voice of reason, the planner, the intelligence of the group. She is equally allied to Harry and also willing to put her life on the line to stand beside him. Ron is paralleled by Tony Blair and the UK. We have no better ally, as Harry knows the first guy he can go to is Ron. They don’t always get along, but they always are on the same side. Hermione is easily the support of the endeavor. She is the FBI, CIA, and the Condi Rice and Pentagon of today’s world. They are out there getting information to help us fight back smarter and more efficiently and gaining the upper hand through intelligence gathering.
Harry is ever mindful of how he got into this position. He knows that his parents fought a similar war against Voldemort in their time. His father, “Prongs” or James Potter, his father’s bestfriend Sirius Black or “Padfoot”, his father’s other close friend Remus Lupin “Moony”, and the last of the four friends Peter Pettigrew, aka “Wormtail” were all members of the original Order of Phoenix. In my mind, James Potter’s equivalent is Ronald Reagan, chief leader of the last big fight, the Cold War, and leader of the free world when Terrorism was making its baby steps. Sirius is our close friend, and because he dies giving his life to the cause, he is our troops who have fallen in our attempts to secure our freedom. Moony is more of the Coalition and Hermione characters, while Peter Pettigrew is the turncoat. He betrayed the Order and gave Voldemort the information he needed. If there is an equivalent to this in reality, my mind instantly thinks of the French, Germans, and possibly Russia. They were tied to the bad guys in Iraq and helped Saddam promote his terror network and the crushing of the Iraqi people.
This makes more sense than Bush equally Voldemort to anybody who has read the books.
If you needed more depressing news and evidence of our "allies" true love, read this.
It speaks for itself. But, here is a brief snippet to wet your whistle:
The report says oil was given to key countries: “The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime . . . allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.” The report also details how the regime benefited by arranging illegal “kickbacks” from oil sales.
This is ridiculous. Via Michelle Malkin. The very idea that a controversy would erupt over the mere presence of a picture of the President of the United States in a classroom, next to the Constitution has me so mad I want to spit nails.
In case anybody was wondering, there is an election around the corner. Our children should be aware of this, among other things. If you ask me, there isn't enough current events in our school curriculum. Nothing is damaged by helping children to identify our national leaders, nor in their understanding of the electoral process. If you needed evidence that such education is needed, look at what one of the students said to the teacher, "'You like George Bush? He's killed people,'."
Absolutely ridiculous. This isn't political correctness, folks, it is the suppression of our children's education. What are your children being taught?
Okay. I didn't watch the debate to preserve my marriage.
My prince, charming as he is, is not perfect. No man is. However, I am very vocal about politics and abhor people who quote the latest sound-byte or headline without reading the article, doing any independent investigation, or getting the rest of the story. I love him, but I don't consider him to be an informed citizen. He doesn't watch the news and only reads the sports section of the Sunday paper...and then only the articles about the Wisconsin Badgers. I doubt he will even vote, he certainly didn't vote in the primary. He's an adult and he's entitled to his apathy.
Now, here's the problem. I am a political animal. I want to debate, I want to know what other people are thinking. I prepare myself by investigating a lot and looking into each issue as much as I can. Some of my positions are based on logic and emotion, but mostly I was raised to think for myself. I despise people who can't make a logical argument or do any independent thinking.
Prince Charming despises GWB. He can't tell me why, only that he doesn't "like him." I have pressed him and he has nothing more to say on the matter. Prince Charming's solution to the Middle East, Al Qaeda, Iraq, Syria, and Iran? "Nuke the bastards and let Allah sort out the bodies." I don't see this as a viable solution. I see it as emotional claptrap. He doesn't see the War on Terrorism as anything but wag the dog. I see it as a struggle for our right to exist. I worry what kind of world our children will grow up in, he's worried about health care.
When we talk about politics, terrorism, etc, I make lucid arguments cited by facts. Prince Charming refuses to give my facts any weight, refuses to allow me to even make the argument. As someone who grew up encouraged to debate and think for myself, this stifling of my opinion and even the intellectual exercise aggravates me to no end. I'm a smart woman, and in every other respect Prince Charming is Prince Charming, but when it comes to this...I swear to god he's a caveman attempting to tell the little lady to shut up because she doesn't have any idea what she's talking about.
When we have wrangled in the past, I have tried to give him the evidence so he could read it, investigate it, and decide whether or not to stick to his argument. Once he contended that second-hand smoke can't kill. I said, "Dude, where have you been? Of course it does." He said, "Prove it!" So I went out, investigated it, and brought him back the research. First, he refused to read it. Second, he later claimed that what he really wanted proof of was someone inhaling the second hand smoke and dropping dead inside of 30 seconds, like it was a WMD.
So, I know that I can't win, because that's idiotic and I'm apparently not entitled to an opinion.
The good news is, I'll be the one helping the kids with the homework, I'll be the one helping the kids with current events, and I'll be the one encouraging our children to think for themselves. Thank god.
Well, I only caught the end of the debate for reasons I will rant about in another post.
I don't want to talk about who won, who lost, or body language. I'd like to talk about one thing that seems to clearly quantify for me how idiotic M. Kerry is.
M. Kerry made two points that seem diametrically oposed to me. Namely:
1. We need to get our world respect back, stop doing Iraq unilaterally, and bring our allies back to the table to do their fair share.
2. We should go it alone with North Korea. We should give in to Kim Jong Il's demands for bi-lateral talks, effectively cutting Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea out of the discussion.
WARNING...FULL-ON RANT AHEAD...WATCH YOUR HEAD
M. Kerry is running against an incumbent, so he has to say The President is doing things wrong. That's a given. However...you should probably do more than say you are going to do things better. Tell me how, dammit. Furthermore, we do not invade Iraq unilaterally. A large number of nations joined us, including but not limited to Great Britain, Australia, Poland, etc. To still be suggesting that they contribute nothing is a slap in the face to those countries and denies the sacrifices made by their militaries, families, and citizens.
If the idea is to be "stronger at home, and respected in the world" I suggest we stop insulting the nations who have proven to be strong allies, and of course this would include not calling Allawi a puppet with a hand up his shirt. What Kerry and his krowd are really upset about, to this day, was the lack of France, Germany, and Russia in the coalition. The fact of the matter is, France and Germany were NEVER going to join us. They were doing too well under Saddam to suddenly change teams.
Everyone in the world agreed that Saddam had WMD, President Bush didn't make that up, even Putin admits that he gave Bush damning intelligence about Saddam's agenda. To this day, France and Germany deny any possibility of sending any troops to Iraq. They have said it doesn't matter who the President of the United States is, that isn't gonna change. So be it. I contend they are not really allies. They are diametrically opposed to us, intent on gaining power for themselves. We did not "rush to war" in Iraq as Kerry likes to say. There were 12 years of diplomacy, sanctions, UN resolutions, and containment by way of no-fly zones. It was time, LONG PAST TIME, that Saddam was dealt with by the world. If the three pussies don't want to get involved, fine. Better men than they are ready for the fight.We can, and we will finish it.
Now, somebody tell me why "unilateral action" in Iraq is bad (using Kerry's words here, not mine, I've clearly argued how it was neither unilateral nor rushed) but "unilateral action" in North Korea is advisable.
Kim Jong Il is just another bully holding the world hostage. He wants to talk solely with the US because we are the ones he wants goodies from. However, diplomacy would suggest that China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia all have an incredibly vested interest in the discussions. For god's sake, they are the countries most at risk. Were George Bush to concede to cutting out these countries...how the heck does that make nice with the international community? It doesn't! Besides which, Kim Jong Il needs to be shown that THE WORLD is against him, not just the US.
John Kerry is suggesting a strategy that is foolhardy, diplomatically suicidal, and hypocritical.