25 July 2007

A Humorous Email

I received this joke by email.

Actually, I do not think that this applies to Nancy Pelosi, about whom the original email joke was told. I consider Pelosi profoundly misguided, but I think she has skills.

The joke does, however apply to Harry Reid ... so I changed it.

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year-old Nevada rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Senator Harry Reid and his elevation to Senate Majority Leader.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Harry is a post turtle."

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a "post turtle" was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor dumb animal get down."

24 July 2007

When People Die Democrats Lie

This is a cleaned up and embellished copy of an email I sent some so called "progressive" relatives, who have immediate family who are refugees from the Communist takeover of Vietnam.


I simply cannot get this OpinionJournal.com piece out of my head. (Link below.)

I will accept that it is a reasonable position to hold that George Bush lied about Iraq. (I disagree, but I will, for the purposes of this post, stipulate that it is a reasonable position to hold.)

However, no matter how much one may believe that he did so knowingly, it is hard to prove.

Here is demonstrable proof that the other side will say whatever it takes to gain some political advantage. What is most striking to me about this is that this is a matter which affects your own family directly, and yet no one seems unhappy with it.

First, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Mooland) had this to say on Meet the Press yesterday:

MR. RUSSERT: You were—used the word redeployed. John Burns, the bureau chief in Baghdad for The New York Times, who’s lived there for some time, offered these words this week: “It seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence. And I find that to be widely agreed” among “Iraqis, including Iraqis who strongly opposed the invasion.” Is—are you concerned that we leave behind violence, catastrophe, genocide?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Let’s be clear what we have now. We now have cataclysmic violence. That’s the status quo. It is possible that things would get worse if we left; it is possible that things would get better.[Emphasis added.]

(I'll ignore the fact that the violence, as terrible as it is, is nowhere near cataclysmic.) Never mind, most of all what the people on the ground have to say, says Senator Feingold, I believe something else is possible!

And the person on the ground is a New Orc Times employee. The NYT is hardly a neo-con war-mongering publication.

But it does not stop there! To prove that the Lower House can lower the bar of caring for our fellow man too, my own congressman, David Obey, had this to say last week:
But many acknowledged that Iraq could first plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the kind of ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago and is now afflicting Sudan's Darfur region. Yet they flatly rejected the use of U.S. troops to stop the killing. "I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who has helped lead the drive against the war. "The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that."
There will be horrendous killing, but it is not our problem, even though we have the troops there now to stop it. (And there is evidence that the "surge" is working.)

You want to know why the Arab street and much of the brown-skinned world thinks white America doesn’t care about them? Because the Democratic leaders make it clear that they do not.

Given the utter lack of Democratic objection to the commitment of U S troops to Kosovo by then President Clinton, it does all beg the question, why does the left only seem to care about the deaths of white people?

Perhaps the answer lies below. Senator John Kerry does not, apparently, consider the deaths of a couple of million people in Cambodia, South Vietnam or Laos as even having happened! I guess when the Democrats are doing the counting, brown people don't count unless they are going to vote.

This is from OpinionJournal.com.

'It Didn't Happen'
We suppose it was inevitable: Four and a half years after Congress authorized the liberation of Iraq, some observers are comparing the situation there to Vietnam, where America lost a war after its will faltered. It turns out at least one congressman actually served in Vietnam, so he ought to be particularly qualified to help us determine the lessons of that conflict for this one.

Meet John Kerry, junior senator from Massachusetts. Some say he looks French, others call him haughty. But everyone agrees on one thing: He served in Vietnam.

After returning from a tour of duty that lasted an astonishing four months, Kerry also became an antiwar activist. In 1971 Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Vietnamese were a simple people, too simple to care about freedom or oppression:

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart.

Kerry's side prevailed. In 1973 the U.S. withdrew its troops from Vietnam, and in 1975 Congress, its Democratic majority expanded by the post-Watergate election of 1974, voted to cut off aid to the South Vietnamese government. That year Saigon fell to the communists.

What happened then? Not much, according to Kerry, quoted in the Chicago Tribune:

"We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen," Kerry said, dismissing the charge out of hand as he argued that the American presence only makes the situation worse every day.

In 2001, California's Orange County Register published an investigation of communist re-education camps in postwar Vietnam:

To corroborate the experiences of refugees now living in Orange County, the Register interviewed dozens of former inmates and their families, both in the United States and Vietnam; analyzed hundreds of pages of documents, including testimony from more than 800 individuals sent to jail; and interviewed Southeast Asian scholars. The review found:

* An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.

* 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.

* Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.

* Prisoners were incarcerated for as long as 17 years, according to the U.S. Department of State, with most terms ranging from three to 10 years.

* At least 150 re-education prisons were built after Saigon fell 26 years ago.

* One in three South Vietnamese families had a relative in a re-education camp.

According to John Kerry, "it didn't happen."

Things were even worse in Cambodia, as the Christian Science Monitor reported in 2005:

When the Khmer Rouge victoriously entered Phnom Penh 30 years ago, many people greeted the rebels with a cautious optimism, weary from five years of civil war that had torn apart their lives and killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. . . .

During the nearly four years following that day--April 17, 1975--Cambodia was radically transformed. . . .

Everyday freedoms were abolished. Buddhism and other forms of religious worship were banned. Money, markets, and media disappeared. Travel, public gatherings, and communication were restricted. Contact with the outside world vanished. And the state set out to control what people ate and did each day, whom they married, how they spoke, what they thought, and who would live and die. "To keep you is no gain," the Khmer Rouge warned, "To destroy you is no loss."

In the end, more than 1.7 million of Cambodia's 8 million inhabitants perished from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution in a notorious genocide.

But don't worry. According to John Kerry, "it didn't happen."

Last week, as we noted, Kerry's colleague Barack Obama opined that genocide in Iraq would be preferable to America's continued presence there. But John Kerry has shown the way. If genocide, or some lesser horror, does occur in the wake of a U.S. retreat, Obama can simply assert: "It didn't happen."

Prominent Democratic officeholders are willing to deny or countenance crimes against humanity in order to justify a popular political position. Doesn't this shock the conscience of Democrats?

Of course, as I have pointed out before, Kerry is not the first prominent Dem to try historical revisionism so he can ignore the inconvenient truth that our troops are doing good in Iraq.


So, dear friends and family, you want to know why I am a Republican voter now? One big reason is because when people die, Democrats LIE. Especially to cover up the fact that it was we Dems who abandoned them in 1973-5.

20 July 2007

Uhhh, Bob, Stop! Think!

West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd had a few things to say about the Michael Vick dog-fighting case.

Personally, I think that Vick is, if guilty, a moron and at least slightly sub-human.

Quoth the Byrd:

Byrd called the activities described in the Vick case "sadistic" and "barbaric." At one point, Byrd began shouting and pumping his fist.

"Barbaric!," he yelled. "Let that word resounding from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, and valley to valley across the broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric!"

Byrd, 89, said he would not prejudge the men's guilt or innocence, but he left no doubts about his sentiments.

"I am confident that the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt," he said.

"One is left wondering," he said. "Who are the real animals: the creatures inside or outside the ring?"

On a televised newscast, he also said that he would not object to electrocuting dog-fighters.

Given that Vick is a wealthy (uppity?) African American, and given that Byrd once publicly referred to black men as "race mongrels", two questions come to mind:

First, hasn't someone in the Democratic leadership figured out that it might not be the best idea to have a former Exalted Cyclops of the West Virginia Ku Klux Klan talking about handing out killing black men and tried to rein him in?

Second, what is this man doing in the Senate leadership of the Democrats anyway?

18 July 2007

James Taranto may not be omniscient after all

Opinionjournal.com's editor and columnist (Best of the Web Today) James Taranto is usually a pretty good prognosticator. And his humor amuses us.

As does his use of the royal plural.

In the 2004 election cycle, he got in the habit of writing poems, which he called Bye-ku's (inspired by Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone) for each of the Democratic candidates as they dropped out of the race. This year he is doing them for the Republicans as well, it seems. (This link contains the one for Jim Gilmore - 2008 Republican Candidate from ... Who knows or cares?). He also had them for 2004 for John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Carol Moseley Braun and Bob Graham.

Here is where is fortune telling skills have fallen down. On October 28, 2003, after penning the first of these for Graham, he said:

Who's next? We're guessing Kerry, after New Hampshire. As luck would have it, "served in Vietnam" is five syllables.

This Guy Ripped Me Off

According to this FoxNews report, StreetWars, a game where you receive instructions to assassinate a fellow player and then take thier it, and you keep playing until there is only one agent left, was
created by New York securities attorney Franz Aliquo — and though it has police in Chicago worried, it began there on Monday as planned, so far with no arrests.

BS. We did this in college!

I ran the game for two quarters my senior year, 80-81, and I think I stole the idea.

"Created by" my foot!

14 July 2007

If you're not conservative when you are old ...

Writing on a report about changing attitudes towards abortion, James Taranto at BOTWT comments

As it happens, there has been a similar, though slightly less dramatic, shift, in the attitudes of 30- to 49-year-olds. In 1992, 27% of women and 23% of men in this age group described themselves as "strongly pro-life"; in 2006, 38% and 34%, respectively. For "strongly pro-choice," the proportions declined from 38% to 26% of women and 34% to 21% of men.

The 30- to 49-year-old cohort in 2006 includes those who were 18 to 29 in 1992, so one may surmise that this group has moved in the "pro-life" direction. This would be consistent with the self-interest hypothesis: As young adults age, they tend to get married, and therefore to become less worried about unplanned pregnancy.

I do not completely discount this possibility, but I think he is missing out on another important piece. The older we get, the more conservative we tend to become. There are a variety of reasons for this. part of it is self-interest, but part is also that we have seen some goofy liberal attempts at fixing things (including things that are not broken), and they often just don't work.

Also, the older I get, the more valuable life seems to me.

So I do not think that this is just self-interest, I think there is a practical and spiritual component here.

The interesting question is whether, over time, this same right-shift phenomenon will affect aging younger populations who currently seem to favor normalization of homo-erotic activity.

11 July 2007


Once again, the Pope shows why the doctrine of infallibility is a sham.

Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

The audacity of telling Jesus who he has called ....

Try reading the Augsburg Confession, Article 7, Benny.

To its absurd conclusion ...

I consider extreme feminism an extraordinarily silly enterprise.

This article simply proves my point:

Women demand female Pamplona bull run, with cows

Of course, the serious part about this has to do with different standards for the same job. A number of years ago, a would-be firefighter in Washington State got a judge to throw out the physical fitness test for the department that had refused to hire her because she could not lift x number of pounds because she was a girl. Never mind that there were other women on the force who had passed the test. And never mind that the inability to lift a certain amount of weight meant that you could not handle a firehose properly, and therefore would endanger yourself and other firefighters.

If you want a run with the bulls girls, run with the bulls. But don't run with cows and call it a bull run.