Sine Qua Non Pundit

And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good -- Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? ------ ------ ------ ------ E-mail: charlesaustin@earthlink.net

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Saturday, January 11, 2003
 

The Road To Hell

So Illinois Governor George Ryan has commuted all the death penalty sentences in Illinois, claiming that the application of the death penalty is:

"... arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral"

Since ungorgeous George is probably headed for the hoosegow soon enough anyway for arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral, abuse of his office, maybe he thinks this somehow absolves himself as well. I cannot express how little I think of George Ryan as an elected official. I may not agree with his apparent stand that the death penalty is immoral, but that's a matter for him and his conscience and I won't intrude there. What I cannot abide is this last-days-in-office-Bill-Clinton-like abuse of the authority of his office to override the good faith efforts of the police, the prosecutors, the judges, the juries and the memory of those who were so brutally butchered by these animals.

Rot in jail George. Hopefully you'll soon get to share a cell block with some of the murderers and child molesters whose sentences you just commuted. I'm as sure that they'll have imaginative ways to express their gratitude as I am that the guards will find just as imaginative ways to express theirs.



 

Back-handed Insult

I agree with David Broder that George Bush has let us down when it comes to decreasing the size and influence of government. But the problem with hearing it from David Broder is that you just know he wants the government to be even bigger and even more intrusive.



 

Sure I'm Paranoid, But They Are Out to Get Us

Does anyone else think it's strange that North Korea decided to talk to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson? After all, Bill Richardson was the Clinton Administration Secretary of Energy when some bad things happened regarding the security of our nuclear secrets in ... wait for it ... New Mexico.



 

Hear Here

Read about our favorite blog punk artist, or get in your car and listen to some blogpunk on your Blaupunkt. Or get on your BMX and listen to MTX. Ok, I'll stop now.



 

The Scourge of Richard Cohen, Vol. LXXIV

(Ed. -- The following is a bit of mean spiritedness that will be an on-going feature of this blog. Normally the author will endeavor to be reasonably fair, but this is an exception.)

Let’s see if I can guess what Richard Cohen’s New Year’s resolutions to improve his columns weren’t:
• Give up class warfare rhetoric
• Give up necrophilia (otherwise known as f***ing with the dead) and let his grandfather rest in peace with his dead ideology
• Use logic
• Abandon ad hominem attacks
• Write original material instead of recycling columns on the evils of capitalism, the death penalty, what a great guy Bill Clinton is, gun confiscation, and the implementation of an illiberal utopia.

Let’s see how I did in Dead on the Money:

The moment George W. Bush announced his new tax plan, I knew I would be losing a good night's sleep.

At least Richard waited until the plan was released to begin his criticism, unlike virtually all the usual suspects. But I think the first non-resolution just bit the dust.

Sure enough, just as I dozed off last night, I heard my bedroom window open, the curtains stir and a pair of feet hit the floor.

Uh oh, Richard wrote his “I wish I had a gun to protect myself, but I’m an illiberal fool who wouldn’t dream of actually having a gun instead of merely depending on the government to defend me, so I’ll call the police and wait until they get here in 30 minutes and meanwhile hope the burglar isn’t armed and just goes away, because my good intentions are what really matter” column last year when he was burgled.

It was my long-dead grandfather. "Hey, you, wake up!" he suggested.

Oh, uh, so much for the second non-resolution. But why would a non-corporeal spirit’s feet make a loud enough noise upon entering the room to wake up Dick? In fact, why would a non-corporeal spirit find it necessary to open a window to enter the room? There goes the third non-resolution. Damn, they’re going fast.

"I was expecting you," I said. I reached for the text of Bush's economic speech and various articles from the Wall Street Journal to rebut my grandfather's outdated ideas. "You're here on account of the president's tax program."

Sorry Dick, but taxing the dead was a Clinton tax initiative.

"No, I'm here because I want to meet the Bachelorette.

Hmm, what’s the inverse of necrophilia when they dead want to get busy with the living? Act your age, and your metaphysical state.

Of course I'm here for the tax program. The boys sent me down to talk to you. 'Go see your grandson, the hot-shot columnist,' they told me.

George Bailey gets Clarence, and Richard Cohen gets his communist grandfather. I must admit that I am worried who’ll be sent down for me when the time comes. But maybe, Richard’s grandfather annoys the boys in Heaven as much as Richard annoys the living and they just sent him away to get some peace. Hmm, that gives me an idea.

'Talk to him about fairness.' They're right. With Bush, the rich are going to make out like bandits -- which they already do, of course."

Sigh. There goes the fourth non-resolution. The rich are bandits, otherwise they wouldn’t be rich! Eat the rich!

"I know, I know," I said wearily. "It's true that most of the package, about $364 billion, would go to the rich when the tax on stock dividends is eliminated."

Oh yes, I forgot that if you own stock you are rich – and therefore deserve to be eaten.

"But that would make the stock market surge and create jobs and, besides, the rich pay most of the taxes already."

Sometimes, Dick tries to say something that makes sense, but he just cannot leave well enough alone. As my Dad says, “hide and watch.”

My grandfather's eyes glowed with contempt. "Of course they pay most of the taxes. They have most of the money."

Note the word “have”. Not earn, but have. Since the sum total of what my wife and I have inherited in our lives is about $2,000, can we be taken off the rolls of the rich to be eaten?

"Who else is going to pay most of the taxes -- the poor, the working man?"

So the working man can’t become rich? Did Richard Cohen’s grandfather come from some medieval feudal state?

"Now the rich who live just off their investments are going to pay no taxes -- not a thing!"

One of my investments goes off at 0600 each weekday and sometimes on weekends. Funny, it still seems like I’m paying taxes even though I have investments.

"This Bob Gates -- "

Dead and dumb.

"Bill."

Or “#%**(&^# !” as Larry Ellison calls him.

"Bill, Shmill. Who cares?”

No reason to let the truth get in the way.

“This Gates owns more than 600 million shares of Microsoft.”

I wonder who he stole or inherited them from. Isn’t Dick’s whole argument predicated on this? I mean, if Bill Gates created the wealth then what is Dick talking about? Oh, and Microsoft doesn’t pay dividends, stupid Dick. I wonder what Dick imagines poor Bill Gates lives on without dividends.

“If the company should decide to pay a dividend of just $1 -- one lousy buck -- he would make $600 million a year and not have to pay a dime on it."

Yes, sort of, but Microsoft has already paid taxes on those earnings. Earnings though, not inherited wealth, not ill-gotten gains by banditry (though some might dispute this), but taxed earnings. Heavily taxed earnings incidentally. And it seems as though Dick may not be distinguishing between a one-time dividend that might be used to reduce their cash on hand with an annual dividend, which I bet Microsoft might be loathe to do for various reasons. It’s awfully convenient for Dick to just ignore the fact that existing tax law has helped to create some of the mess and tax avoidance schemes in existence today.

"But he's an entrepreneur. He created a company, jobs."

He took risks, and was wildly successful. But creating jobs is the government’s job, not Bill Gates. Is that what Dick is trying to say?

"Okay, forget Bob Gates.”

How convenient. When your arguments fail, there’s no apology and no change in Richard’s assumptions. We’ll just leave the accusations, lies, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks out there and move on to the next victim.

“How about Bush himself and his cronies -- that Cheney and the others. What jobs did they ever create? Bush used his family's money and his father's connections and still couldn't make an honest dollar. And that Cheney, he went to work for Halliburton and made millions. Name one job he created -- just one! This is the rich taking care of the rich."

Sorry, but I’m not wasting time addressing obvious lies and foolishness. (Ed. Then why bother to begin with?)

"Oh, no," I objected. "These are the men who made America great. These corporate executives -- "

Some of them are. Can we resurrect Bill Gates for a moment? Whatever else you may think of Bill Gates and Microsoft, has anyone else (other than perhaps Andrew Grove) done as much for America in a practical sense in the last 20 years? But a whole lot of people that aren’t corporate executives contribute to making America great. What’s obvious to somebody like me in corporate middle management is that Richard Cohen is a blithering idiot who hasn’t the faintest idea of the skill and effort necessary to be a corporate leader and the sacrifices made by these people for success. And, no doubt, Richard Cohen would be surprised to find out that most of them are decent, honorable people.

"Stop. Don't make a fool of yourself, college boy.”

Too late.

“You got stock?"

Got stock?

"Yes."

Prepare to be eaten, rich boy.

"In a 401(k)?"

I guess the long dead keep up with current tax law. Who knew?

"So your dividends are not taxed now. But they will be when you retire and cash out. But this Bob Gates, his dividends will never be taxed.”

Wrong. They have already been taxed at a corporate tax rate higher than the highest marginal personal rate. And it's still "Bill", not "Kate", sorry I mean "Bob."

“You know what I call this?"

Double taxation?

"Trickle up."

Dick trickle.

"Very funny."

You think Dick Trickle thinks so?

"Funny? I'll tell you from funny. A single guy making $500,000 a year -- say a lying Wall Street analyst or a thief from Enron or maybe a hip-hopper with 10 pounds of chains around his neck -- is going to pay almost $10,000 less in taxes under this plan. What's he gonna do with his $10,000? He's going to take another day's vacation or take out another floozy or maybe buy another chain for his neck. This is fair? The money should go to the poor, to the working man."

Have you hugged a communist today? Note that in Richard’s grandfather’s netherworld, no one can possibly make $500,000 a year without being a liar, a thief, or a gang banger. Wouldn’t it be, oh, I don’t know, fair to mention how much this single guy would be paying in taxes before bitching that he’d have to pay $10,000 less?

"But everyone's taxes are going to be reduced, Grandpa. That's why this plan is so marvelous."

It can be difficult to sustain class warfare arguments if everybody benefits.

"What did you study in college? For this, your parents scrimped and saved? A guy who has one kid and makes $40,000 is going to pay $400 less in taxes.”

Isn’t Dick assuming that someone making $40,000 a year is in fact paying $400 a year in taxes? Or at least substantially more than $400?

“You call that money?”

Yes, I do. And I make more than $40,000 a year too. I guess Richard's grandfather starts with the assumption that all the money belongs to the goverment, even if you are one of the richest 80% that make $40,000 a year.

“That's nothing, chicken feed.”

In fact, 4,166 pounds of chicken feed.

“What's $400 going to do for a working family?”

Feed them for a month? Provide all the gear necessary for a camping vacation? Buy a new home computer?

“Send a kid to college? Get them out of the ghetto? What are we talking here? We are not talking social justice."

So, apparently sending the kids to college, getting people out of ghettos, and social justice are all the responsibility of the $750 billion Bush Tax proposal. Nothing anywhere in the rest of the budget to deal with this, not to mention anything in our neighnorhoods, all the extant religious orgnizations, philanthropy, the business community, or just plain individual responsibility to act morally and ethically. Is social justice for sale? I hadn't realized it was all about how big the budget was. It seems to me that a lot of our domestic problems are caused by trying to bring about social justice through the tax code.

"Listen, Mister Know-It-All," he went on.

And on and on and on.

"For this, to make the rich richer, the government is going to go deeply in debt.”

Or we could cut spending growth! Note that I didn’t even say cut spending, just cut the growth in spending. And what's wrong with making the rich richer, since so many of us are now considered rich by our current tax policy. Or what's wrong with making everyone -- including the rich -- richer?

“It would be one thing if it was doing that to help the needy or to increase social services. But it's not. Write something in protest."

To each according to his need creates nothing but needy people. But you can’t teach a dead dog new tricks.

"I'll be accused of class warfare."

Guilty as charged. But there's something else extremely subtle going on here. Notice that Richard is most afraid of being accused of something, whether he's actually guilty or not. This must be an unintended consequence of hurling accusations for decades as though the accusation itself was all that mattered.

He smiled indulgently. "Look, boychick, it's always been this way. When the rich take from the poor, it's called an economic plan. When the poor take from the rich, it's called class warfare."

And when Richard Cohen writes something like this, it’s called absolutely typical. And redundant. Yet again.

He smiled again. "Give my love to your mother and tell her she's still my little girl," he said. Then, with a stirring of the curtains and a closing of the window, he was gone -- and, like much of America, I slipped into a deep, forgetful sleep.

Hence the repetition of the same tired DNC talking points to keep class warfare front and center, no matter how much Richard has to lie and tell half-truths to accomplish his goal. While it’s going to take a few more weeks for Dick to completely blow through his final non-resolution, he’s off to a totally expected start. Looks like I’ve got a long year ahead of me.



 

Grow Up

We just returned from watching The Wild Thornberrys movie. Its a fun little film. Two seconds after it was over, a 3-year old girl behind me said, "I want to see it again!".

But even while surrending to the escapism of a child's animated movie, I cannot escape the real world. At one point when Eliza is explaining to her friends in the boarding school the terrible things the poachers have done and are about to do in the jungle, her friends exclaim, "That's terrible! Shouldn't we write letters or something?". Now, this is a perfectly reasonable response for a gaggle of 11-year old girls in boarding school. But when adults and government leaders respond the same way to, say, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the best retort I can think of is, "Don't you think it's time to stop acting like a gaggle of 11-year old girls in boarding school?".



Friday, January 10, 2003
 

... But Does Nothing

World Condemns North Korea's Decision

As Eowyn said, "Those without swords can still die upon them."



 

Global Warming

On another planet apparently:

Home heating demand and utility bills are expected to soar as a blast of Arctic air sweeping over the United States will create the coldest two-week period from the Rockies to the Atlantic coast since the winter of 1995-96, forecasters at AccuWeather Inc. said on Friday.



 

Our Friends, The Australians

Welcome to the fray and thanks for the support mates:

Hundreds of Australian troops and airmen could be on their way to the Gulf within weeks after the federal government approved a forward deployment to countries around Iraq.



 

Time's Up

The clock is ticking down to zero rapidly:

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed orders to send 35,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf region, where the U.S. continues to build up its forces for a possible war with Saddam Hussein. Nearly 80,000 U.S. troops have been ordered to the region.

William of Normandy is known as William the Conqueror primarily because King Harold Godwinson had to dismiss many of his troops who he had kept beyond their required service so they could go and collect the fall harvest. It was William's blind luck that the winds did not become favorable for a Channel crossing until after these troops had been released. William also had another bit of unplanned luck with the invasion in the North by King Harold's brother just before WIlliam set sail. Had either of these fortuitous (from William's perspective) events not transpired, the world might be a lot different today.

It is expensive to keep troops in the field, and dangerous. To paraphrase what the Catwoman once said, "I'm not just pussyfooting around this time, bad man."



 

Ramsey's Son?

Gregory Cark writes in the Japan Times:

Western and Japanese reactions to North Korea's recent nuclear activities and warnings have been strange.

Pyongyang makes it clear that its main aim is to get a nonaggression treaty with the United States and to revive the dialogue for normalization of relations that was promised in 1994. In that year Pyongyang agreed to mothball its plans for a plutonium-based nuclear-power facility, in exchange for the dialogue and for U.S. cooperation in providing a light-water reactor-based nuclear-power facility.

U.S. foot-dragging on both issues, especially since the arrival of the Bush administration, would normally mean a return to the pre-1994 situation. Pyongyang's gradual escalation of its nuclear announcements would normally be seen as steps to put pressure on the U.S. to go back to the 1994 promises.

But the reaction in the West and Japan has not been normal. Each escalation is denounced as unacceptable nuclear blackmail and further proof of Pyongyang's irrationality.

In one sense Pyongyang has been irrational. It failed to realize the pugnacious, make-my-day irrationality of rightwing policymakers in Washington and Tokyo who are only too happy to find excuses for further anti-North Korean belligerency. It naively assumed there would be a sensible response to its carefully calibrated actions.

Fortunately there have been rational responses from Beijing and from the incoming South Korean regime. Neither want to see a nuclear-armed North Korea. Both realize that Pyongyang's call for dialogue and a treaty should be taken seriously and seek some compromise.


What else would explain this deluded perspective?



 

ABC News: Moral Equivalency Propogandists for Hire

I have no bloody idea whether the people at ABC News believe the following intro to this story is fair or not:

Who's the bigger terrorist, the guy who lights a firebomb under SUVs in an auto dealer's lot, or the guy who drives one home?

But who cares? The fact that they can pose the question as legitimate tells you all you need to now about what they think of people making free choices in a free society compared to people who feel that the ends justify any means. They could have covered this story as the outright crime that it is. Instead they offer some half-assed justification of this behavior by writing that some think that SUVs are more dangerous than the people who will set them on fire. The article helps to hype an ad campaign by Arianna Huffington, who has at least found something to do now that Bill Maher is off the air. I look forward to Arianna's next appearance as a "conservative" on some talk show where she can explain how these ads are consistent with the Declaration of Independence's inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

ABC News is apparently run now by bullshit slinging pomo cowards. And you can quote me on that.



 

Where There's Smoke, There's a Spent Bullet Somewhere

You know what the real problem is with waiting for a "smoking gun" to be found in Iraq? In order for a gun to smoke, it had to have been fired. Remember that as you read those advocating another UN resolution that is dependent on the existence of a "smoking gun".



Thursday, January 09, 2003
 

The Scourge of Richard Cohen, Vol. LXXIII-A

(Ed. -- The following is a bit of mean spiritedness that will be an on-going feature of this blog. Normally the author will endeavor to be reasonably fair, but this is an exception.)

Sorry for any confusion caused by the title, but it wasn’t really fair to move on to Scourge LXXIV considering that I never even got to a link to a Richard Cohen column with the last, um, Scourge. So I have modified the title to reflect that this isn’t really Scourge LXXIII, nor is it Scourge LXXIV. “A” is not a Roman numeral so far as I know, so I think I’m ok with this title.

Got through the holidays just great, even stayed away from work an extra day at the request of the kids who where having far too much fun at my parent’s house. The vertigo seems to have subsided, but I’ve got an appointment now with a specialist as soon as he can see me – in three months -- since it ain’t exactly normal to experience this, as I have twice last year. Thanks to all who inquired. But as Dante said, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” That’s Little Steven playing Silvio Dante quoting Al Pacino playing Michael Corleone in the execrable The Godfather: Part III, to any Googlers who popped by looking for a term paper on Dante Alighieri, so you should move on to the next query result now. Just when I was beginning to reacquaint myself with the family, three more proposals reached up from the foul depths of the fourth circle of Hell, where the avaricious spend eternity, and wrapped their rapacious tentacles around my (replaced by word that is close in spelling to tentacles). Having me by the short hairs, I have been quite the compliant nose-grinder of late, so, I haven’t been posting much the last few weeks. I also feel bad about neglecting my many friends and acquaintances in the blogosphere, and I have been very, very bad about responding to e-mail for a while. I’m even being taunted now in an effort to get me to post. The blogosphere may have my heart and mind, but, well, those tentacles can exert an awful lot of pressure, even if I am condemned to useless labor like others before me guilty of avarice. But, I digress.

I’ve got eight Richard Cohen columns queued up, not counting today’s column, most of which I haven’t even read yet, but something has happened that must be addressed. I don’t like to do this, but I have to step out of order a little for this Scourge, since various otherwise reasonable people have expressed the opinion that Richard Cohen deserves praise for his column Tuesday thwacking Al Gore about his race-baiting in 2000. To this, all I can offer is … bullshit. I mean, sure, its great that Richard now sees what has been so bloody obvious to anyone paying attention for a long time, but all I can give him credit for now is for being slightly less self-delusional than he was before. If Al Gore had won in 2000 do you think Richard would have ever written this column?

Let’s get the real story straight from the horse’s, er, mouth in Tacitly Racial:

Having written back-to-back-to-back columns on Trent Lott, I received a bushel (or a peck) of e-mails from outraged readers accusing me of selective amnesia.

I guess other people must loathe you a bushel and a peck. But I've been accusing you of selective amnesia for almost a year now.

When it came to racial outrages, why didn't I ever mention what certain Democrats had done? Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) was cited because he had once belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and more recently had publicly used the N-word. I kept waiting for someone to really drop the other shoe, but it never happened.

Always letting someone else do the heavy lifting.

So let me drop it myself: Al Gore.

That’s more like dropping a bad habit than the other shoe, but what took you so long?

Of course, Gore is no racist, and it is not even remotely possible that he ever used racially offensive speech.

Never? Not even remotely possible? Puhleeze.

But for a long time he has been the personification of a Democratic Party that has found it impossible to move off the racial dime, often staying silent or complicitous when others waved the bloody shirt of ol' time racism -- usually just to propel African Americans to the polls.

Of course, they have all stopped now. Right?

This is precisely what happened in the last presidential campaign when the NAACP all but placed the body of James Byrd Jr., the victim of a racial murder, at George W. Bush's doorstep. Byrd's daughter, Renee Mullins, narrated the commercial and said, "So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again."

Every time I hear criticism of President George W. Bush’s new economic plan, I feel like I’m being taxed all over again.

This tasteless ad, …

No, this ad still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

… run just before the presidential election, was not denounced by a single prominent Democrat. It tried to link Byrd's gruesome murder to Bush's opposition to hate-crime legislation.

That’s right Dick, not one.

That was pretty close to, if not indistinguishable from, calling him soft on racism.

I think it was a little stronger than accusing him of just being soft on racism.

Gore was the presidential candidate and had an absolute obligation to denounce the ad.

But he didn’t.

(So did Bill Clinton.)

(Let’s not get our hopes up. But as the first “black” president, it would have been a meaningful gesture.)

He did not, because in its own way the Democratic Party is just as likely to play the race card as the Republican Party.

Just as likely? I won’t deny that some Republicans have stooped quite low at times in past election cycles or that they won’t again in the future. But, the current copyright on race-baiting seems to be firmly held by the DNC.

Take a principled stand against this or that civil rights program and you're going to be denounced as a racist.

Yes. Principled stands require leadership and courage. So why did Dick expect Al or Bill to speak up again?

Hate-crime legislation is an example. Why it is needed is beyond me. Byrd's killers were hardly going to be daunted by such legislation, as what they did -- murder -- was already a capital crime. (Two of the three killers have been sentenced to death and the third to life in prison.)

What, no rant on the injustice of the death penalty? Is Richard practicing his own brand of racism here?

The town of Jasper, Tex., where the murder occurred, hung its head in shame. Yet, the entire ugly incident -- an aberration, really -- was treated as if the era of lynchings was not over and something had to be done quickly. To think otherwise was somehow racist.

I still can’t understand why Richard gets credit for noticing all of this just now.

It's the same with affirmative action. Say you oppose it -- believing it is a worthy end but achieved by dubious means -- and you stand a fair chance of being accused of racism.

If you consider 100% fair.

Gore himself came pretty close to that when, in a 1998 speech, he likened opposition to affirmative action to a duck blind. "They hide behind the phrase ['a colorblind society'] and just hope that we, like the ducks, won't be able to see through it."

Meanwhile, Al Gore and the Democrats hide behind race-baiting and hope black Americans won't see through it.

Yes, that is sometimes the case. But opponents of affirmative action include quite a few blacks, who cannot be reasonably accused of racism.

Whites too, Richard.

No matter. The prospect of having to defend yourself against what amounts to the most powerful charge in American politics is enough to make anyone just shut his mouth and, if he is in Congress, vote the way of political correctness.

Perhaps because nationally syndicated columnists will withhold any criticism of the offenders until after it would have any effect on the elections. Or is it coincidence that Richard didn’t adopt this stance until Al Gore dropped out of the 2004 race?

This race-based politics is not as odious as, say, Lott's.

Yes, it is.

(This country's racist past must never be ignored.)

(But apparently, we can never concede that progress has been made.)

The moral clarity the Democratic Party feels on race is rooted in nostalgia.

And as they have gotten older, their memory of things that never were has grown stronger with the passing of time. Yes, many Democrats fought long and hard to help bring about a measure of justice in the civil rights struggle. And so did a lot of Republicans, though without the fanfare.

The former Senate majority leader was like "Otzi," the 5,300-year-old iceman recovered in 1991 from a receding glacier in the Italian Alps. Here was the past surfacing in the present -- and Democrats watched with glee as Republicans moved quickly to sweep Lott and the era he represented into history's proverbial dustbin.

Glee? Isn’t it telling that Democrats don’t seem to want Republicans to improve the perception of their views on civil rights?

Now, though, the Democrats must deal with the present.

Only now? As opposed to the utopian fantasy land and time they usually inhabit?

And that means dealing with complex issues, such as affirmative action and hate-crime legislation, that to many Americans seem far removed from lynchings or segregated drinking fountains.

I’m still waiting for a major Democrat to “deal” with these issues in anything but a reprehensible manner.

Yet too many Democrats -- and Gore has been one of them -- are quick to draw a line and ask: Which side are you on?

Classic utopian illiberalism. But which Democrats have we failed to name? Let’s see, there’s Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Gephardt. I wonder why Richard didn’t see fit to mention any of their names in this column.

It makes others ask a different question in response: What era are you living in?

So imagine walking a mile in a Republican’s shoes in this era of politically correct fascism, Dick. Don’t worry though, I don’t think anyone is going to hold their breath waiting for any apologies.





Wednesday, January 08, 2003
 

Checkpoint Charlie

Because no one else I've read has used this moniker for Representative Rangel representing for the draft.

FWIW, I'm all in favor of reinstituting the draft, but for entirely different reasons.





Tuesday, January 07, 2003
 

I Triple Dog Dare You!

In the face of growing international pressure, North Korea said Tuesday that economic sanctions against it would amount to an act of war.

What if... the US, in full global hegemon mode, forbid the reentry of UN Nuclear Inspection Teams to North Korea to deprive them of one source of hard currency?

Maybe somebody besides the US could take their turn in the barrel being damned if they do and damned if they don't, which is especially easy in this case since there isn't any place on earth more damnable than North Korea.





Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com