Saturday, November 08, 2003


This rainy afternoon I am working at home and listening to one of the great all-time albums (yes I still call them albums even though they aren't vinyl anymore) that nobody ever heard of - Seam's Are You Driving Me Crazy?.

Absolutely fabulous droning guitar rock. Special favorites are "Tuff Luck", "Broken Bones" and "Port of Charleston". Great cover art too - just a photo of an enormous wave crashing (like you'd see in an episode of Hawaii Five-0).

Also rotating on the platter this week - Electr-o-pura by Yo La Tengo and The Jayhawks' Hollywood Town Hall. Helps me get through the transition from Indian Summer to Fall.

Friday, November 07, 2003


The Washington Times reports a political miracle:

"The Rev. Al Sharpton implored Senate Democrats yesterday not to filibuster President Bush's nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the nation's second-highest federal court.

Justice Brown, who is black, has come under intense criticism by liberal black groups, such as the NAACP, and by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel plans to vote this morning on her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

'I don't agree with her politics. I don't agree with some of her background,' said Mr. Sharpton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. 'But she should get an up-or-down vote.'

Wow...how refreshing. A sensible word coming out of Al Sharpon's mouth. I've got to complement him on his lucidity. Really though, he's right - whether or not you agree with a nominee's political philosophy the Senate owes her (or him) a vote on the floor if the nomination clears the Judicial Committee.

I just wish that Sharpton felt that white or Hispanic nominees should get the same courtesy.

"Mr. Sharpton's comments not only complicate the vote for several Democrats on the panel, they also are a stark departure from some of the best-known black groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said Justice Brown is 'hostile to civil rights and civil liberties and ill-prepared to sit on the nation's second-highest court.'

'The president's penchant for choosing extremist minority judicial candidates is an exercise in cynicism of the worst kind,' Mr. Bond said. 'Clothing extreme views in color is designed to make them more difficult to oppose, but judicial selections should be based in principle, not in pigment.'

Right Mr. Bond...she isn't the "right kind of black" - she doesn't agree with you that the Constitution guarantees special status and preferrences for blacks.

Born into a poor, sharecropping family in segregated Alabama, Justice Brown made her way through law school as a single mother. After serving in former California Gov. Pete Wilson's administration, she was named by him to the California Supreme Court.

At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bond and other black leaders portrayed Justice Brown as a 'far right-wing extremist' and 'outside the mainstream.'

They were asked how Justice Brown could be described as a right-wing ideologue when 76 percent of California voters cast ballots to return her to the bench in 1998, the highest percentage of any justice in that retention election.

'It's inexplicable to me,' Mr. Bond said. 'I cannot think of a response. But nonetheless, that election does not invalidate any of the things [we] have said.'

Right. Don't let the facts get in the way Julian. I mean, really, we all know how conservative and out of the mainstream California is.

'We've got to stop this monolith in black America because it impedes the freedom of expression for all of us,' Mr. Sharpton said in a television interview conducted by Sinclair Broadcasting yesterday. 'I don't think she should be opposed because she doesn't come from some assumed club.'

Exactly. I never thought the day would come that I agreed with Al Sharpton about anything but he is exactly right. Black, white or brown she's owed the respect of getting a vote in the Senate.

Mr. Sharpton compared the filibusters to the same sort of 'pocket vetoes' used for so long against blacks.

Wade Henderson, director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who attended the anti-Brown press conference, was later asked about Mr. Sharpton's remarks.

'I don't believe it. That can't be true,' he said as he headed to a meeting in the Democratic leadership office. 'It would be shockingly surprising.'

Yeah Wade, how shocking that anybody could think beyond political demagogy and actually treat a person fairly on the merits. How shocking that Rev. Al isn't in there hurling "Uncle Toms" with the rest of you at a black that doesn't buy into the party line.

Al Sharpton has said and done a lot of horrible things in his lifetime - a brief bout of sober thought doesn't make up for them, but it's a good start.

Thursday, November 06, 2003


Poor Babs, the Ashcroft Brigades have finally busted down the doors to the mansion:

"I am deeply disappointed that CBS, the network that in 1964 gave me complete artistic control in creating television specials, now caved in to right wing Republican pressure to cancel the network broadcast of the movie The Reagans. (And I say MOVIE - because this is NOT a documentary - it's a television drama.) The movie will now be aired on Showtime, where the difference in viewership is in the millions."

Wait a minute...was CBS going to publicize that the movie was FICTIONAL? In that case, no problem. I don't think so Babs - it was going to be presented as an inside look at the Reagan family...with a little character assassination thrown in.

"One can only imagine the kind of pressure that would compel CBS to take such an extraordinary action. This was an organized Republican spin machine at work. Remember the Dixie Chicks controversy? It wasn't the larger general public that called in to radio stations and burned CDs, it was a small group of right wing activists. In fact, now the band is more popular than ever, with a sold out summer tour."

The horrible "pressure" was called loss of revenue. Since when is it a bad thing that the public puts pressure on entertainment conglomerates to be responsible for the veracity of the "historical" dramas that they present. If CBS had cut a biography of Martin Luther King portraying him inaccurately as a homophobic bigot I bet you would have been front and center in the throng to have the "art" shelved. But then again, you wouldn't have had to make a fuss since you and your buddies can influence what gets presented behind the scenes.

I don't believe Democrats often, if ever, try to muscle the First Amendment like this. For example, in 1983, no one stopped NBC from airing Kennedy, a biopic that portrayed President Kennedy and other members of his family and administration as deeply flawed, even though the movie could have potentially been hurtful to Jackie Kennedy, who was still alive to see it, as well as to her children.

Wait a minute...have... to ...stop...laughing.....so....hard.......must stop....hurting....now.....OHH NOOO, no Democrat ever called a Republican a Nazi for speaking out for Reagan! David Horowitz didn't have liberals trying to silence him on college campuses. I bet no one in Hollywood is ever afraid to say that they are a Conservative. Get a grip on yourself...leave the compound...ask the opinion of a - gasp - Republican sometime.

This is censorship, pure and simple. Well, maybe not all that pure. Censorship never is. Due to their experience with the restrictive English government, the framers of our constitution specifically included a ban on prior restraint in the First Amendment, which is an attempt to stop information from getting out there before the public has a chance to see it at all - exactly what is going on in this case. Of course, CBS as a company has the legal right to make decisions about what they do and do not air. However, these important decisions should be based on artistic integrity rather than an attempt to appease a small group of vocal dissidents. Indeed, today marks a sad day for artistic freedom - one of the most important elements of an open and democratic society.

What about accuracy? Truth? Do you think that biographical pieces that are full of lies should be aired over broadcast television? Even if you think a blatant propaganda piece like this should be aired, is it censorship that people who happen to disagree with your political point-of-view point out the inaccuracies and protest to the network? The answer, you idiot, is no...it's called the exercise of free speech and free assembly. If I don't like what you are doing (and what you are doing is legal), I have no right to forcibly stop you. But if I can get enough other people to agree that my cause is just and get them to boycott your product (or threaten a boycott) then I am exercising MY free speech rights.

If you think that the product is such an important example of artistic expression then why don't you and hubby purchase it and show it at independent movie houses across America? Hell, get Michael Moore to kick in - he's made a fortune off of distorting the truth.

Tuesday, November 04, 2003


Jeez, all of these Democrat "debates" are giving me tired head....every time I turn on the TV, it seems, I see Howard Dean's rolled up sleeves (who really rolls up their sleeves unless they are in the South in the summertime?), John Kerry's big hair (I pay $75 for a haircut and am married to a multi-millionairess...by the way did I tell you I'm a WARHERO?), Dennis Kucinich's alien head, and Al Sharpton's ...?.

The fashion news for tonight, however, was Wesley Clark's Johnny Cash outfit...so hip! Clark still looks (and talks) like a wax figure though.

And I realized today for the first time that the National Organization for Women endorsed Carol Mosely-Braun for president. Are they really insane?

The bigger question really is this - who except hardcore party loyalists can stand to watch these "debates"?

Monday, November 03, 2003


One half of the Democrat formula for winning control of the White House is to repeal the Bush tax cuts which, according to the Tax Foundation has had the following effect:

"For the median family with two children, earning $67,000 per year, the Bush plan would mean a tax cut of $1,133 this year, erasing 22% of their current tax liability. A family earning $40,000 will see 96% of their tax liability erased, while a family earning $200,000 will see just 9% of their tax liability erased.".

I'm just a dumb architect, but when people go to the voting booth I don't think that a man making $40,000 a year for his wife and two kids is going to be real upset at Bush for reducing his federal tax bill by 96%.

" ... this year, 35.8 million tax filers (representing 69.6 million people) will have a zero tax liability. That is 26.7 percent of the roughly 133 million expected tax returns this year. The Bush plan will take 3.8 million more tax filers off the tax rolls".

Exactly how would the Democrats change the system as Bush and the Republican Congress have structured it? 27 percent of tax returns don't owe anything. Is this unfair? The remaining 73% of us have to pay ALL of the taxes - progressively more as our income increases. If the Dems think this is so unfair, as they obviously do, they ought to propose an alternative.

But that wouldn't do for them, would it? Since campaigning on raising taxes is political suicide.

Zell Miller was on Scarborough tonight and made a good point - that the Democrat candidates have combined the most disastrous policies of failed nominees George McGovern and Walter Mondale. Those policies being a tax hike and unwavering pacifism.

How many states did Fritz and George win between them? Well George won exactly one state, Massachusetts (no, the District of Columbia is NOT a state) and Fritz M. won exactly the same number of states (although he couldn't even carry the People's Republic of Mass. - only his home state of Minnesota).

The Democrat Party is headed for a train wreck of historic proportions because they have marginalized themselves with a message that responds only to the extreme left of the spectrum. Howard Dean at least has a whiff of a clue about this but was stupid enough to express himself in an incredibly offensive way ("I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks"). Kerry and the others just can't figure it out at all. Dean was being honest - and realistic - he can be condemned for stereotyping southerners as racist rednecks but his basic point was that Democrats have to shape a coalition beyond New York-Vermont-Massachusetts to have any chance to win.

Of course the utterly excrable Kerry weighed in with this: " (I would) rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA." Very inclusive, assnugget. Kerry's ambition to become president has apparently overwhelmed any common sense or humility that he might have had. He is on an all out race to be become "Demagogue of All-Time". This signals the depths of his desperation - good, I hope he follows Bob Graham(cracker) into oblivion.

The Democrats should just throw in the towel now and raise money for 2008. Unless Hillary will throw her garter into the ring in which case things may get a little more "innarresting".

Sunday, November 02, 2003


There is more tragic loss of life today in Iraq with the downing of Chinook helicopter near Baisa.

First, I express my sympathy to the family and friends of the soldiers that were lost. I know that the sorrow of your fellow citizens is little consolation in a time such as this. But those brave soldiers, just as those who died before them and those who are yet to follow them, gave their lives in defending the the freedom not just of their fellow Americans but of 25 million Iraqis as well.

Make no mistake, the success of our mission in Iraq is crucial to the our future as a country. No other reason is acceptable for the sacrifice that we ask our troops and their families to make. This is a battle in a war that smolders across the globe, only occasionally erupting into "classical" warfare. When you see Palestinians and Islamofascists throughout the Middle East rejoicing at 9/11 or at the murder of American troops as they did today how can you question who our enemy is and what we must do?

I'm not worried about having created new enemies by invading Iraq; if we rebuild the country properly we probably will have converted 20 plus million Iraqis to the pro-US side. What worries me more is that we won't stay the course in this struggle. That's what the Arabs count on - that America can be defeated by a few casualties, that they can send waves of suicide bomber at us, as they do at Israel, and we will withdraw into isolationism because we have no stomach for war.

The war already has reached our shores - there is no guarantee that it won't be here again regardless of our foreign policy (unless we agree to accept Sharia as our law). We can't stop until the enemy is defeated...totally and unconditionally. Anything less dishonors the men and women who died today.


Why does this asshole feel the need to drag Chief Wiggles through the mud? Our media could at least report on purely humanitarian efforts by individual soldiers and citizens without referring to it as "boosterish" as though any good impulse to offer help to those suffering were designed in order to get Iraqi oil.

Memo to Rod Norland: the effort to bring self-rule to Iraq and rid the world of the menace of the mass-murdering devil Hussein has been conducted because it is in America's self-interest (not to mention the FACT that it is in the interest of all humanity and the Iraqis themselves). So call it "boosterish" if you hate America so much that you hope this battle in the war against radical Islam will fail; I call it another small proof of the goodness of the American people and the righteousness of our cause.

Ohh...and lest I forget...F-you, Rod, you tool.

(Thanks Instapundit for the heads-up.)

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=