July 30, 2004
Its no accident that liberals are called do-gooders. They mean well, but they usually end up making things worse. Their hearts bleed for the disadvantaged, but, by helping them, liberals create unhealthy dependencies, disincentives, and dysfunctions that end up harming the very people and communities they intend to help. Its tempting to conclude that liberals are stupid, but I think its more complicated than that. Theyre impatient. They want results now, not later. Theyre shallow. They view humans as sentient beings, not as rational, autonomous agents. Theyre impetuous. They dont think through the implications of their policies.
With all due respect to my liberal friends, these are not the traits of the wise. They are the traits of children. Not only are liberals not entitled to govern; they dont deserve to govern. They need to grow up, develop a more holistic view of the person, develop a more realistic view of human nature, and cultivate a sense of patience. They need to stop patting themselves on the back for being benevolent, compassionate, caring, and sympathetic. Benevolence is neither necessary nor sufficient for acting rightly. Caring, far from being a synonym for justice, is often an impediment to it. Its not for nothing that we say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals prove it every day.
Cues for taking your beershot:
1. Every time he says "when I served in Viet Nam."
#1 alone would have put me into an alcoholic coma. I can't believe that anyone survived all eight.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven't done so already. And if you have volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you. It's the only way to defeat the lying liberal media.
If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president's re-election campaign. Be sure to visit these fine participating blogs:
As to Ron Reagans convention speech, it was so opposite the truth as to resemble a photographic negative.
Far from blocking federal embryonic-stem-cell research funding, Bush specifically authorized it so long as it used existing lines of embryonic cells. But more remarkably, Ron Reagan made absolutely no reference to an alternative to embryonic stem cells that is decades more advanced and carries absolutely no moral baggage. "Adult stem cells" can be extracted from various places in the human body as well as blood in umbilical cords and placentas. They were first used to treat human illness in 1957.
By the 1980s, adult stem cells were literally curing a variety of cancers and other diseases; embryonic stem cells have never been tested on a human. Adult stem cells now treat about 80 different diseases; again embryonic stem cells have treated no one. Adult stem cells obviously aren't rejected when taken from a patient's own body, though they may be from an unmatched donor; embryonic stem cells have surface proteins that often cause rejection. Implanted embryonic stem cells also have a nasty tendency to multiply uncontrollably, a process called "cancer." Oops.
Regarding Alzheimer's specifically, drugs will probably provide the cure. But forget embryonic stem cells, as Ronald McKay, a stem-cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, recently told the Washington Post. He labeled claims of an embryonic-stem-cell cure for Alzheimer's "a fairy tale."
The only potential advantage embryonic stem cells ever had was the belief that only they could be coaxed into becoming all the different cells of the body. We don't even know whether that's true. Conversely, three different labs have now discovered it may be true of certain adult stem cells.
Read the whole thing.
July 29, 2004
1)"...and blacks had to go up to the balcony to watch a movie..."
WTF?! I felt like I'd entered a time warp to back before the Civil Rights Act had been passed. Like Edwards, I grew up in North Carolina. Unlike little John, I seem to remember that segregation ended some time ago. Am I saying that all bigotry has been erased in this country? Of course not; I'm not stupid. What I am saying is that this country has made great strides the last 40 years or so and John Edwards is purposely ignoring that. It couldn't possibly be some backhanded way of calling Republicans racist, could it? I dunno. My bullshit meter pegged the needle during that part of the speech.
2)"...minorities should have the save rights as everyone else and not be treated differently..."
Again I say, WTF?! I'm wondering if little John inhaled too many fumes working in the mill as a youth because his thought processes seemed to be stuck in that time period. Get a clue, dude. It's 2004, not 1954.
One final thought on the
Dog and Donkey Show DNC: any party that gives Al Sharpton a coveted, primetime appearance on national television during it's national presidential nominating convention, and does so willingly, should be ashamed of itself. However, we know how little shame many Democrats have. And I'm referring to the self-styled leaders of the party and not the rank and file, so no crap about how I'm tarring all Dem's. For the record, though, the number of Democrats who actually appear reasonable seems to be shrinking. I had trouble finding a handful during the 2000 campaign who would say that the James Byrd ad was completely reprehensible. My guess is that it would be even more difficult this year.
Now is a time of decision. We must choose who we are as a people. Voters will soon be going to the polls to actually pick a country. Sadly, most of us don't really know that in fact this is what we are doing. Some conservatives, preoccupied by legitimate complaints about certain Bush decisions, are actually thinking of "third-party" voting. In an election where every vote counts this would be a disaster, not just because a vote for a conservative third party candidate would be a vote for John Kerry (and age-old argument against third parties) but even more because George Bush is absolutely the right man for the job. I believe he is essential to our future. Here's why.
George W. Bush understands the choice our nation faces, just as Ronald Reagan understood it. I think President Bush knows that we have reached the pivot point in America's effort to reclaim itself from 20th-century secularism. In his farewell address, President Reagan further warned Americans that although there was a resurgence of patriotism in America, it would not take hold unless we institutionalized this "new patriotism." It couldn't last if it was only a matter of popular opinion because the entrenched secular establishment described above would resist. Reagan knew we had to fight for America. And now that fight is fully joined.
Go read it all.
Now I know how the Puppy Blender feels because I have the overwhelming urge to say "Heh" right now.
July 28, 2004
Unlike the management of the Aladdin hotel and casino, I couldn't care less what Linda Ronstadt thinks of Michael Moore. When I go out to enjoy an evening, though, I prefer not to have politics of any brand shoved down my throat, so I guess I'll just scratch Ronstadt off my list of performers I would like to see live.
However, I would like to say this: Ms. Rondstadt, I will take my head out of my mashed potatoes if you pull yours out of your asshole. That was such a condescending remark that I'm shocked a woman of your age would say something like that. If Americans need to inform themselves on issues, the last effing place they should be doing it is at one of your concerts or at a goddamm movie theater. At least you are benevolent enough to not dictate to your fans the way they vote. Thank you for your generosity on that count.
July 27, 2004
He sits down and sees his clothing in front of him, all clean and pressed.
Marty looks around the room and sees that it is in perfect order, spotless, clean. So is the rest of the house.
He takes the aspirins and notices a note on the table: "Honey, breakfast is on the stove, I left early to go shopping. Love you."
So he goes to the kitchen and sure enough there is a hot breakfast and the morning newspaper.
His son is also at the table, eating.
Marty asks, "Son, what happened last night?" His son says, "Well, you came home after 3 A.M., drunk and delirious. Broke some furniture, puked in the hallway, and gave yourself a black eye when you stumbled into the door."
Confused, Marty asks, "So, why is everything in order and so clean, and breakfast is on the table waiting for me?"
His son replies, "Oh that! Mom dragged you to the bedroom, and when she tried to take your pants off, you said, "Lady, leave me alone, I'm married!"
-- A self-induced hangover - $100.00
-- Broken furniture - $200.00
-- Breakfast - $10.00
-- Saying the right thing - Priceless
An Atlanta psychiatrist testified Sunday she doesn't think Dr. John Hall, a Cornelius dentist accused of injecting semen into the mouths of six female patients, has a psychiatric illness or an interest in deviant sex.
Let me repeat: WTF?!
Boston, Mass Mr. President, you said Bush cut your taxes. Have you paused to think that maybe the tax cuts, like at least a few other things in life, aren't about you personally?
You say the rich too want to "do their part." Do you know there might be ways to "do your part," to help others and the country, that don't involve handing money over to the federal government?
You say we shouldn't have attacked Iraq "before the weapons inspectors finished their job." When exactly would they have finished their job? In 2003? 2004? Ever?
How did your Iraq policy allow inspectors to finish their job? Were they going to finish their job from outside the country?
You say your policy was to take "deadly" assault weapons off the streets. How about all the "deadly" assault weapons that were not included in your miniscule and symbolic ban? Were they less deadly? Please explain why. Or are some deadly assault weapons better than others?
Do you know anything about what really caused crime to go down in the 1990s (beginning before you took office)? Aren't you at least a little curious?
You say Democrats will bring America a positive campaign. Some evidence, please? Do you realize your former operative Harold Ickes (a Democrat, yes?), among others, is savaging President Bush with millions upon millions of dollars worth of negative ads?
You say that we are having an argument over "the best way to build the safe, prosperous world our children deserve." Do teenagers deserve a safe, prosperous world? How about adults?
You say Republicans believe in concentrating wealth. Since the fabulously wealthy got even more fabulously wealthy during your time in office do you believe in the same thing?
You never took serious efforts to implement the Kyoto treaty or have the U.S. come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. So are you too a dangerous unilateralist?
You say that "for the first time ever" there were tax cuts while the U.S. was on a war footing. Is it your contention then that there were no tax cuts during the Cold War?
Isn't one of your finest legacies supposed to be your free-trade accomplishments? Was that really not so important, after all, now that you have become a demagogue on trade?
You say your time in office produced a cleaner environment. But hasn't the environment gotten cleaner over the last four years too thanks to George Bush? You say home ownership hit records during your time in office. Now it has hit even higher records so is Bush a better home-ownership president than you? You say you produced "more health care." But wasn't there famously a health-care crisis during your time in office? You take credit for a "modernized defense force." Now it's even more modernized so is Bush the better defense president? You boast of "strong efforts against terror." Haven't Bush's efforts, pretty inarguably, been stronger?
You take credit for the surpluses. What factor in creating those surpluses did you like more the unprecedented restraint in domestic discretionary spending or the stiff cuts in the rate of growth of Medicare spending? While we're at it, looking back, what was your favorite personal position on the deficit that it could never be eliminated, that it could be eliminated in ten years, in nine years, in eight years, in seven years, or that you were always in favor of its elimination and affected it almost single-handedly through your sheer budgetary genius?
If you are responsible for everything that happened in your time in office, why not mention the downturn of 2000 and the corporate scandals of the late 1990s?
Do you say all this stuff just because it sounds good? Never mind. We know the answer to that.
July 26, 2004
"Yes, of course you can find some legal activists who want to try and use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to nationalize marriage immediately. But they won't succeed; they have no legal precedents; and their legal argument is extremely weak - as even they often concede. Yet the default position of the far right is the notion that marriage in one state automatically means marriage in every state. That argument is the one with resonance around the country, and it's an argument designed to foment a sense of urgency about stopping any state from amending its laws now. It was the sole reason for the appalling Defense of Marriage Act. And it's phony.
...My argument was simply that legal marriage for all citizens in one state doesn't mean it will be automatically extended to every other state. I was trying to rebut that notion - very slyly inserted into the debate by the far right (and some on the left) for the past several years. Now to the broader point: there is a big difference between saying that if marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts, the Constitution will make it legal in every state because of the Full Faith and Credit clause; and saying that one day the Supreme Court might rule on the matter on the grounds of equal protection, invalidating all bans on same-sex marriage. Theoretically, the Court could make such a ruling even if there's not a single state with equal marriage rights. In other words, it's a completely separate issue. And as a matter of law and politics, it's very, very unlikely that such a thing will happen any time in the foreseeable future.
...I think the denial of marriage rights to 3 percent of the population is a grotesque denial of a basic civil right - more profound than denying the right to vote, in fact. One day in the distant future, SCOTUS may see that. But that doesn't make it likely, or even conceivable within the foreseeable future.
I bring this up because the legislature is finally performing a task which they have always had the authority to do: reining in judges by taking away marriage from their purview. And this had Andrew in a tizzy why? Because despite his federalist protestations against the FMA, he wants the courts to decide an issue which he knows he cannot win at the ballot box. I guess that consistency was too much to hope for.
Update: Stephen Green fisks Sullivan. Since Stephen actually agrees with Andrew on the issue of gay marriage, this should get Sullivan's attention. Sadly, it won't.
95 queries taking 0.2232 seconds, 288 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.