Friday, October 21, 2005

Ok, I admit it...

The theory implied by my prior post is a conspiracy theory. As I explained in its comments section, the theory if reduced to bare bones would be:
What if Bush actually wants the Miers nomination to be rejected by the Senate? For that to happen the conservative base would have to tell their Senators to vote "no." If Miers were defeated by the "right" [or a coalition from both the left and the right] that would make it much easier to nominate someone like Janice Rogers Brown for the Supreme Court, and if the demonrats filibuster, no one could blame the republicans for using the nuclear option.
Ok, the theory has flaws, or at least the strategy has flaws which I pointed out - it's why I don't like it (too much uncertainty). Maybe you're right TVE. Maybe I've just "dealt with the vile left long enough" to have been warped by their conspiracy theories. You're probably right in that things are exactly as they appear to be. But I don't have to like it. And by the way, my loyalty is to my own reason and logic first. I'm not in the habit of accepting any assertion on blind faith, but I'll be happy to wait until the November 7 hearings before commenting further on the Miers nomination, though I probably won't have time to watch them.

P.S.: I said the "Harriet Miers's Blog" is a spoof. Sorry if there was any confusion about that. It did serve as a starting point for my post last, this morning I mean. I have also read some things Miers has written at the site, which I also linked to in this morning's post. I guess I should have changed the title of the post after writing it. Hey, I'm human, and yesterday was another long day at work. I'd say TGIF but I have to work tomorrow, too. I'm not sorry about the post itself though - it wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed on everything.

I have just one final thought to share on this subject: I just can't help wondering whether we've become so used to liberals constantly blaming Bush for everything, so used to lefties claiming failure no matter what the outcome of any decision made by "this administration," that we defend Bush no matter what. Why aren't the lefties attacking Miers like they did Roberts? If they are happy with the pick, I'm not happy. LiberalLooneyLefties have been constantly denouncing George W. for not having godlike powers to stop hurricanes or land Air Force One on the Superdome and part the waters of Lake New Orleans like Moses, for not preventing 9/11, for not making gas prices lower, for not having better information than all of the intelligence agencies of the Western European countries as well as our own CIA, etc, etc. Well, guess what? He's human. George W. does what he thinks is the right thing to do, and I like that about him, it's why I trust him, but he can be wrong and saying so is not disloyalty. Saying Bush was wrong about everything is just deranged, BDS is a suicide cult, but I'm at least willing to consider the possibility that Bush could be wrong about this.

Miers and Conservative Behavior

Maybe we've dealt with the vile left long enough to forget how to treat honest political disagreements.

An Oct. 6-10 Pew Research Center Poll found that just 9% of conservative Republicans want the Senate to reject Miers' nomination -- a modest increase on the 6% who opposed John Roberts, Bush's earlier choice for the high court. Only 14% of GOP conservatives worry that Miers won't be sufficiently conservative once installed on the bench.

Overall, 54% of conservative Republicans want to see Miers confirmed -- a tepid number that's significantly below the 76% who backed Roberts. But that's understandable, given that nearly half of the voters queried say they don't yet know enough about Miers to decide.

So, conservatives, instead of slinging around Kos Kid rhetoric and using hyperbole against supporters of a Republican President's Judicial nomination, perhaps we could remember that the people you are opposing (Bush, Miers, and anyone who supports her nomination to the Supreme Court) are not some shit for brains leftist dirt bags that actively cheer for our defeat in the war in Iraq, think state funded abortion on demand is peachy keen, want to outlaw guns, or harbor any other vile leftist characteristic. These are the people you fight with in support of the vast majority of your ideals. Trash them and you risk doing permanent damage to more than just Harriet Miers chances of ending up on the Supreme Court. I'm not saying we shouldn't disagree on things. I'm asking that you pull it back a bit. Letting reason reign over passion is a small price to pay for loyalty.

The "Harriet Miers's Blog" and a wasted first round draft pick

This has got to be a spoof. Whoever is writing for "Harriet Miers's Blog" would get a C in college English. Talk about weak! My daughter can write better, and she's in grade school. If Miers is confirmed, she will be writing opinions that will shape law and be taught in law schools across the country for decades to come.

Ann Coulter, in a particularly good piece, explains why the Miers nomination is bad for our respresentative democracy and makes lawmaking by our "judicial theocracy" more likely rather than less. As far as I can tell though, nobody is thinking in a "Rovian" way - could there actually be a method to this madness? Assuming Bush is a smart guy and a crafty executive, why would he have nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?

Could it be that Bush's intent with Miers' nomination is to "be a uniter not a divider" - to get republicans and democrats to finally set aside their partisanship and all vote the same way (which they haven't done on anything of consequence since they authorized the Iraq War)? The entire Senate should vote NO on Miers. I suppose the Democrats might support her in the belief that a weak conservative would be preferable to a strong constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. Don't forget also that Harry Reid actually praised the Miers pick right after it was announced. Reid is the leader of the demonrat senators, and Bush did vet his candidates for the position with senators. Presumable, Miers was either approved by Reid or was on a list of potential nominees that was approved by Reid as acting as the Senate Minority Leader.

"But she'd vote to overturn Roe" you say? So what? Granted, the confirmation hearings for Roberts were mostly about "upholding a woman's right to choose" for the democrats, making them look like a single issue party, but they knew he would be confirmed and were just putting on a show for their base. I'm surrounded by lefties at work and I'm telling you that all they really care about is getting back in power - they believe that if Roe were overturned there would be a popular backlash that would sweep them back into power. So I guess at least the Miers nomination might force the dems to take off the mask for a minute. Oh, and their strategy has shifted recently -- instead of blaming everything bad in the world on Bush, they are now blaming everything on "those *insert derogatory adjective here* republicans." See if you can notice it in the MSM, their propaganda arm.

But still, even if the Miers nomination is a set-up, why duck a fight? Why the deception? Why look stupid? Why couldn't Bush just nominate a Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada or J. Michael Luttig or Edith Jones or Karen Williams or Michael McConnell? There are so many great picks to choose from. If not a judge but just a really good female lawyer who can write well, then why not Ann Coulter - like Harriet she is a good lawyer, but a much better writer than Miers, and we KNOW how Ann would vote on key issues. Instead we get an unknown commodity and we're just supposed to trust Bush because she's his friend and he's known her for a long time? Yeah right, like we were supposed to believe that he had looked deep into Putin's soul and found a good man and strong ally. Russia has been stabbing us in the back at almost every turn since Putin became its president.

To those who say, "To hell with the Supreme Court," I say this is really, really important! From Roe to Kelo, our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been getting shedded. If we continue to allow our courts to usurp legislative powers, we will soon lose the liberties and rights we take for granted. As a Justice of the Supreme Court, Miers' lack of expertise in Constitutional law and general mediocrity in expressing her opinion will hurt us for decades or centuries. Her opinions, as recorded opinions of the court, will serve as the basis for future rulings; sloppy writing or unsound reasoning, anything not firmly grounded in the US Constitution (not Belgium's) will cause more Roes and more Kelos - more "let's make it up as we go along" style judicial meddling. I don't want our country to become another haven for socialism. Tolerating more socialism would be almost as bad as accepting Sharia law, so yeah - I'd put this right up there with the GWOT.

And those people who say that criticizing Miers' qualifications is "sexist" are just patronizing women. If it has to be a woman, why such a mediocre nominee? Couldn't find anyone better? With a proven track record? She has no background in constitutional law whatsoever, and she's never been a county, state or federal judge. Picking Miers is like the Washington Redskins picking Tiger Woods with their first round draft pick - he's very talented and might even turn out to be a decent football player if he works hard, but he hasn't played football previously and it is unlikely he would be a great player. Could you imagine the outrage from Redskins fans if the team's owners selected Tiger with their first round pick and justified it by saying he was the best black athlete they could find? DC would look like Toledo only worse.

Up to now I've been a pretty strong supporter of Bush, but this Miers nomination just makes Bush look like what the DU asshats and Kos kids have been saying about him for years: that he likes his cronies and rewards his friends with positions in high places, that he surrounds himself with people who agree with everything he says, that he is dumb, and (this is the big one) that he is dishonest. Granted, Bush won't be running for reelection again, and republicans voting against his nominee would show voters that they have principles and standards, and that they are not a rubber stamp for the President, but the cost just seems too high. Up to now I had thought that Bush was one of the smartest and most honest politicians we've ever had, but now I am forced to choose between dumb and honest, or very smart but dishonest. For now I'm thinking smart but dishonest in a poker player's sort of way.

P.S.: Sorry I've been gone so long. My job has kept me extra busy these past couple of months.

Oh, and a belated Happy Birthday to Dave! The way my kids sang it to me was:
Happy Birthday to you.
Happy Birthday to you.
You look like a monkey,
And smell like one, too.
And a belated Happy Anniversary, too! My ninth is coming up soon. Any suggestions on what I should get the Mrs.?

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Still Topical

Something from November 2003, reincarnated just in time for Halloween 2005:

Oh, and this is still good.

This, too.

All together now....

Happy Birthday to me
Happy Birthday to me
Ah crap, I've got grey hair and wrinkles,
Happy Birthday to me.

I remember when getting another year older was a good thing.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Quashing Dissent at DePaul

This is a great story.

DePaul University in Chicago has invited Ward Churchill to its campus to speak on--of all things--human rights. The college's Republicans have tried to mobilize opposition to Churchill's visit, but have been blocked by the college's administration. Amazingly, the Republicans were denied the right to post flyers criticizing Churchill's visit on the ground that the flyers were "propaganda"!
Follow the link to The Mental Ward and read a bit.

In the Policies section of their web site, DePaul has codified rules regarding the posting of flyers on campus. One of the rules addresses "propaganda". The "Flyer Posting Policy" section of their DePaul Student Life Policies and Procedures web page appears below.

19 Oct 2005

Fair enough, right? The rules are vague, to be sure, but that's academia. DePaul has a right to establish their own rules, natch.

But here's the thing -- that page has changed in the past ten days. Here it is on 10 Oct 2005:

10 Oct 2005

I have cropped the images to show bits of the preceding and following sections to show that was is depicted is the entire "Flyer Posting Policy".

Amazing, eh? DePaul University changed their rules so Ward Churchill could give a speech while being protected from the speech of others.

Found at Power Line

The Mental Ward

DePaul Student Life Policies and Procedures: before and after.

UPDATE: May 18, 2005 - DePaul Professor Suspended Without a Hearing After Arguing with Students on Middle East Issues

Putting some stang on it

Ok, Tim. You have my attention.

So I checked and sure enough, troll slapped here and here.

The first link is to a discussion of how that hopeless hapless Bush forced soldiers to regurgitate talking points in a tele-conference. Except he just gave them a heads up and they decided who would answer and what they'd say and practiced their delivery.

This is "Alabamagirl":

I've got to be honest, it looked bad. Especially with the girl from DOD even saying something about following the script beforehand. But I still love W!

Posted by: alabamagirl at October 14, 2005 10:10 AM

And I (remembering previous contributions left under the Alabamagirl handle) responded:

Then we have repeat leftist troller "alabamagirl" who pulls the same crap in another thread with "Yeah! Rove HAD to silence Wilson". Which we know is a load of sh*t, but I'm sure this dipsh*t thought their ploy was clever until I smacked the crap out of them there as well. Thusly:

"I've got to be honest,"

You couldn't if you tried.

"it looked bad."

No it didn't.

"Especially with the girl from DOD even saying something about following the script beforehand. "

Who said what?

"But I still love W!"


Posted by: The Valiant Elephant at October 14, 2005 05:02 PM

This is what I referenced at the beginning of that reply (from the second link):

I am so sick of hearing about all "the bad stuff" that republicans are doing. Democrats should realize that making sure that Joe Wilson didn't get out of hand was necessary. The evil-doers cannot get an upperhand on us. SO WHAT if there's not uranium or whatever. I'm sure there would be soon! I say GO SCOOTER and GO KARL. At least our people know how to play ball. Sometimes you have to take the law into your hands and thank goodness we do!

Posted by: alabamagirl at October 13, 2005 10:07 AM

To which I responded:

"Democrats should realize that making sure that Joe Wilson didn't get out of hand was necessary. "

Out of who's hand? He's been "in hand" of the left since his burst into the news cycles and he's been "out of hand" of the Bush administration that the lying Wilson tried to smear.

"The evil-doers cannot get an upperhand on us."

That had nothing to do with the un-outable Valerie Plame. The question was why Wilson, idiot and liar, was sent to "sip tea" in Niger. The answer was his wife. And then came the leftist hissy fit out the outing of the un-outable Plame.

"SO WHAT if there's not uranium or whatever."

I suggest you get informed on this matter. There was yellowcake uranium. That was not the point. Saddam, according to WILSON'S OWN FINDINGS (not the pack of lies he wrote in the times, but the report he turned in to the CIA), DID try to purchase yellow cake Uranium from Niger. Wilson LIED. He LIED and said Saddam never tried. The British also investigated the claim made by the President in his State of the Union address that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Their conclusion? The claim was well founded.

"I'm sure there would be soon! I say GO SCOOTER and GO KARL. At least our people know how to play ball. Sometimes you have to take the law into your hands and thank goodness we do!"

No one is "taking the law into their own hands". No one was "playing ball". They were pointing out why that hack Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate a claim. Wilson claimed that Cheney sent him. He didn't. It was his wife. The Senate investigation proved Wilson a LIAR on that one too.

Posted by: The Valiant Elephant at October 13, 2005 01:18 PM

And then this turns up in our Guest book:

"Name: Jonathan "

Could it be ths Jonathan? I've given him enough grief at GOPbloggers, but I have my doubts. I'm pretty sure it wasn't this Jonathan. Most likely, that isn't this individual's name.

"Home Page: "

It has no place to call home. How sad.

"Date: Sat Oct 15 12:41:48 2005 "

Check the dates on those comments.

"Referred By: Reverand Scaramonga "

I know this is bullshit, I asked him.

Let the fisking begin! :)

Mr. Valiant Elephant, You are a mean,"

Awwwwwwww. I should be a cute and fuzzy bunny!

"hateful person"

I know you hate me.

"and should be ashamed of yourself."

Not a chance!

"Alabamagirl gave her opinion on blogs for bush"

Maybe if she traded in facts.

"and you cruelly called her a "troll"

But she is! :) There is nothing cruel in stating facts.

"and implied that she shouldn't be posting."

Quite an implication, eh? Where was it again? Oh! My bad. It was pure projection on our "guest's" part.

"Conservative blogs already have a reputation for stifling debate"

Leftist trolls do not come to Conservative blogs to debate. They come seeking validation and to stir shit and I send them packing with a sore ass.

"and practicing thought control."

Better grab your tinfoil helmet!

"I wonder why you keep shooting yourself in the foot"

Hard to keep doing something I never do in the first place.

"by limiting debate to those who wholeheartedly support everything Bush does? "

Not true. Cutting out the kool-aid chugging moveondotnever contingent actually allows for debate, not the other way around. That just wastes our time educating those who have no desire to learn.


Lying and acting like an asshole = Bah Bye, stupid leftist fuck :)

"You have no legitimacy."

I'm 2 Legit to Quit, B!

"Do you want it?"

Not with you. Let me repeat that just so we are perfectly clear! I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER YOU FEEL I'M "LEGITIMATE" OR NOT!

"Or do you want to remain a marginal third-rater in the world of blogs?"

Jealous much?

"Your choice, chief."

To your chagrin you pathetic obsessed stupid little troll. So by my very response, I have "stifled debate". I guess that's a defense mechanism for not having a decent retort.

Attention Valiant Elephant! Attention Valiant Elephant!

You should be ashamed of yourself.


A Spanish judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and one other, a court official said Wednesday.

Bush and Bono do lunch. I actually like Bono and how he presents himself. He seems honest to me. When I see Susan Sarandon or that doof Janeane Garofalo or P Diddy waxing political, I know I am watching half lunatic and half actor. Bono is well spoken and, in my opinion, sincere.

Oh, and the Jews felled the Towers.

But you knew that.


What Saddam is charged with (for starters):

Officials at the Iraqi Special Tribunal set up to try the former dictator and his top aides have said they expect to put him on trial by the end of the year in the deaths of nearly 160 men and boys from Dujail, all Shiites, some in their early teens. Some were shot dead in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt, but 143 - 9 of them ages 13 through 15 - were executed three years later by Mr. Hussein's revolutionary court. Townspeople say that many others remain missing - at least 200, by some counts - and that they hope the trial will reveal at least something of their fate.
A Town That Bled Under Hussein Hails His Trial

The New Mumia does have grounds for a countersuit, alas:

"The Abortion Debate No One Wants to Have"

Not much to add to this.

At a dinner party not long ago, I was seated next to the director of an Ivy League ethics program. In answer to another guest's question, he said he believes that prospective parents have a moral obligation to undergo prenatal testing and to terminate their pregnancy to avoid bringing forth a child with a disability, because it was immoral to subject a child to the kind of suffering he or she would have to endure.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Excellent search from yesterday

"reasons to hate seattle"

How sick is the NFL?

Here's the headlines stories for the Yahoo! NFL coverage:

What happened to Venus?

It's so hot, so dry, so barren.

What happened?

"Runaway global warming" happened, that's what.

What are you, ig'nant or somethin'?

Veteran's Day...

...has been cancelled in Berkeley.

Crunching numbers

John Cross does some figuring and adding with the national debt. You might be interested to see what he came up with.

Oh....some other numbers:

Average deficit 1993-1995: 3.0% of GDP (post-recession)
Average deficit 2001-2003: 1.16% of GDP (in recession, 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq)

The deficit, as a percentage of GDP, is also decreasing as we speak.

As a percentage of GDP, outlays under this administration will peak at 20.3%, and have averaged 19.86% the Clinton years, they averaged 20.16% of GDP.

To make it all the more sensical (because Congress spends the money), between 1950 and 1994, the average amount of spending as a percentage of GDP was 19.43%. That was a Democratic-dominated legislative branch. Since the Republicans took over, the same measurement yields a percentage of 19.25%...including Bush’s War on Terror.

Now granted, I STILL think the government is spending way too much of our money. However, the Donks are simply trying to use Republican spending as a political tool. Do you honestly think the Democrats would be any better? If you do, go to the end of the line, because you're a dumbass. Look a the planks of the Democrat Party. And then look at what they propose. Handing control of the government to Democrats would be like handing booze and car keys to a teenage boy (with apologies to P.J. O'Rourke).

Who woulda thunk it?

Criminals running amok causes law-abiding citizens to buy guns. No shit, Sherlock. When the people or items set up to protect society fail, it is up to the citizens to protect themselves.

And let's be clear: At some point, the people and mechanisms set up to protect society will fail. It's not that the police don't try hard enough, or that lawmakers don't pass enough laws (for g-d's sake, they pass too many damn laws), it's that the police cannot be everywhere all the time. They can't stop a mini-mart from getting robbed. They can't prevent a woman from getting raped. People cannot expect to have round-the-clock protection 100% of the time because it's just not possible. YOU are responsible for protecting yourself.

Did I mention that Ammo Day is coming up? It's actually ammo WEEK, November 12th to the 20th. Buy one hundred rounds of your favorite ammo. That's at LEAST one hundred rounds. More is better. Much more is great. Although, since I'm in the People's Republic of Puerto Rico, I may have to substitute a NRA or GOA membership for those 100 rounds. Grrrrrrrrrr.....


Sorry about the lack of posting lately, I've been a busy boy. But I just wanted to share that I have officially been married to the most wonderful woman in the world for one full year, as of yesterday.

Although, it only feels like six months, with all the activity that's been going on in our life.

So here's to many more years, eh?

Supporting the Troops - Leftist Style!


Intrepid MediaCitizen reader "lebkuchen" Googled some of the soldiers who were used as stooges before Bush and the cameras on Thursday and found another GI who didn't pass the smell test.
Cool, but my favorite part is this:

There's much more at DemocraticUnderground.
Ain't that the truth.

Great work in the comments as well:

Killing babies for oil has long term pyschological affects.
There's no arguing with that, after all.

MediaCitizen: Soldier Propagandist

Found via Michelle Malkin: Another Soldier Talks Back

The World has a new Top Intellectual

It's Noam Chomsky. But you knew that already.

Off to a nice start in Iraq

Good election turnout and now this regarding Saddam Hussein's upcoming trial:

Last week, the New York-based Human Rights Watch warned that the tribunal "runs the risk of "violating international standards for fair trials."

"In Iraq's fragile political climate, the legitimacy of the court will be in question," it said in a statement. There have also been demands that Saddam be tried before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari rebutted these complaints, arguing that Saddam's crimes were mostly against the Iraqi people, so he should be tried by Iraqis.

"Why cannot a man who committed crimes against his own people be tried by the same people? Iraq's judiciary is just."
Advising the Internationalists to go piss up a rope -- a great sign for a fledging free nation. - First Saddam Trial to Begin Wednesday

Monday, October 17, 2005

Staying with this genre....

The Rott has an example of asshatted fuckwittery that just has to be seen. If you STILL have any doubts that the Left in this country is desparately hoping for Iraq to fail, you have GOT to see this.

Juan Cole, the Hollow-Headed Halfwit, has managed to find a way to disparage Iraq's election of a constitution before the results are even in! You've got to go read it. You can almost see Cole in pink bunnie jammies, red-faced and screaming "IRAQ CAN'T WORK! IT CAN'T! IT CAN'T! IT CAN'T! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I WANT MY MICHEAL MOORE DOLL!"

Cheers for Mugabe