PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

In political polemics, symbolism is everything. Objectivity and facts may fill in the spaces, but beliefs are emotionally based and nothing can rally the emotions like a good symbol.

Decades after its advent, the symbol of starry eyed rebellion still holds sway in the image of Che Guevara. A combination of good looks, and the good luck of a photo moment, have produced the deceptive symbol for a thousand T-shirts and college dorm wall posters.

I've commented on Che and his type before. As someone who favors liberty and knows what a contrived rebel symbol can actually stands for, I'm not so impressed with the gaze that launched a thousand spoiled brats.

Che Guevara is the perfect icon for a new generation of barely educated radical wannabes. Even some folks in the Left of Center crowd (one's who are a little more honest about what they hope to stand for) will occasionally note the reality behind the symbol. This is the case with Paul Berman's essay on The Cult of Che (a link I had found inThe Tanuki Ramble).

Thomas Jefferson was a revolutionary. Che Guevara was no more than a dogmatic ego-maniac with a pretty face --hardly the symbol of rebellion.

************************************************************

In other news with a Latin flavor, Oliver Stone -- paranoid misogynist Leftist and movie director -- has cranked out another sham documentary honoring the cult of authoritarian one-party ideology.

It appears that Stone has had too many movies get by the American capitalist "censors" and accumulated too much cash from that market economy he despises.

Film and image are important. Symbols are everything, but that doesn't mean that they're always honest or bare the slightest correlation with objective reality.

Some symbols should be feared -- or laughed off as mere exercises in delusional con-artistry.

I realize that posts such as the following take away from attempts to offer a more "professional" format. But...I can't resist.

This is another one of those unprofessional e-mails I've received caricaturing the Democratic contender to the American throne of nonsense. I've added considerably to the list I had received to spark up the humor content. I realize that such exercises in polemic are not objective arguments, but in this case I think a degree of accuracy comes through none the less regarding the social-ist Democrat's Presidential candidate, John Kerry.


I AM JOHN KERRY
I was against the first Iraq war, I am against the second Iraq war, but I voted for it. Now I'm against it but I was for it. I support the UN. I'm against terrorism and against the Iraq war. But I voted for the Iraq war. So, I voted against the first war and supported the second war. What is the sound of one hand clapping?...or was that two hands?

I'm against gay marriage but for gay unions. I support gays but think the SF mayor is wrong. I support gay marriages. No, wait, gay unions. I'm for the teacher's unions and gay unions but I oppose teacher marriage.

I'm Catholic. Wait, I'm Jewish. My dad was Jewish. But I was raised Catholic. What am I? Sometimes I'm God, so I can have any religion I want.

I am for abortions, but wait, I'm Catholic, and Catholics are pro-life. But I might consider putting pro-life judges in office, but I'm not sure. I do know I voted for a pro-life judge, but I stated that it was a mistake. Who's to be the judge.

I went to Vietnam. But I was against Vietnam. I testified against fellow US troops in Vietnam, threw my medals away and led others to do the same. But I am a war hero. Against the war. Actually, I didn't really throw my medals away, just the ribbons. I threw someone else's medals away.

I stated I threw my medals away then I threw my ribbons away. I then revealed that I threw my ribbons away but not my medals, then later I stated that I threw someone else's medals away and never threw anything of mine away. I believe ribbons and medals aren't the same thing. Medals come with ribbons, so now I believe that ribbons and medals are the same thing besides the fact that ribbons are cloth and medals are metal. I'm reporting for duty. I cut my finger the other day and will likely receive a medal...and perhaps a ribbon or two -- which I will throw away.

I wrote a book that pictured the US flag upside-down on its cover. But now I fly and campaign in a plane with a large flag right-side up on it. I'm patriotic. I love the Communist Party of Vietnam and Castro's Cuba. I love their flag. I support Communist marriage.

Yasser Arafat is a hero and a statesman. The Israelis shouldn't kill Palestinian terrorists, but they should stop terrorism. Yasser Arafat is a terrorist supporter. I support Mid East peace. We shouldn't kill terrorists but issue them citations and force them to perform community service. Bush hasn't found Bin Laden but I think I know where he might be. Help me find Bin Laden and you will win a prize.

I am for the common man, unlike Bush. I am against the rich. But my family is worth 300 million dollars has a jet and many SUVs. I am the common man, but if you're the common man, you might be greedy, selfish, and mean-spirited. I speak French...wazzup dude? I'm a common -- French -- man.

I am against sending jobs overseas. My wife is a Heinz heir (Waiter, there's an heir in my ketchup). Heinz has most factories offshore. I am against rewarding companies for exporting jobs as long as it is not Heinz. I want to help the world's poor, I just don't want them to work for American companies -- except Heinz.

I own Wal-Mart stock. I believe Walmart is evil by driving small business owners out of town. I am a capitalist and I own part of Walmart but I am a good guy for small corporate America. I hate the rich, so I don't want to be one anymore. Pass the ketchup.

I am pro-gun. I'm a Marxman, I can shoot guns and I like what Karl Marx had to say about rich people like me.

I own SUVs when I talk to my followers in Detroit. Teresa owns SUVs, I don't, when I talk to environmentalists.

I have a campaign jet that gets 1/3 mpg, which is great fuel efficiency. I would never campaign in an SUV. SUV's can't fly but if I'm President they will. George Bush has failed to make SUV's fly. I have documents to prove it. Please stay tuned for my moveon.org ad that will tell you about Bush's failed plan to make SUV's fly.

I am against making military service an issue in presidential elections.

I defended a draft dodger, Clinton, and stated that all serve in their own capacity whether they dodge the draft or not. Bush was only in the national guard. I had a hole the size of a grapefruit blown in my stomach. I threw the grapefruit away, but not the medals. Clinton served in the Soviet propaganda effort against the war and Bush only served in the national guard. My hair is cool and I play hockey. Can you play hockey? Only common people play hockey.

Did I mention, I served in Vietnam and am a hero?

Are you questioning my patriotism? I served in Vietnam. Even General Giap of the North Vietnamese Communists said I was very helpful with his efforts in Vietnam.

I served, my opponent didn't. I have three purple hearts! I am a hero. I am qualified to run this country since I served. I hardly ever showed up to senate committee hearings but I'll show up at the White House because, if I was President I would live there so, no problem.

I am John Kerry. Do you like white or red wine?

I speak French, I can ski. George Bush is bad. I'm good. I sometimes change my mind. This is called nuance. I look like Herman Munster but I would make an effort to not vote for those items that had been voted for after. Then of course I could wait and perhaps do better.

I'm John Kerry. There's two America's, yours and mine but I want to change that. Peace Bro.

I think the English newspapers here in Japan are pretty representative of what one finds around the world. News items from wire services like Reuters and Associated Press are regularly used in news publications far and wide. In my last post I had mentioned my impressions of George Bush's speech before the United Nations. I'll state again that I thought it was a masterpiece; eloquent and even profound. One could hardly find themselves taking issue with a speech that emphasized the value of expanding human freedom and prosperity in the world. But, of course, many who listened to the President's speech were merely "considering the source." I'm sure there were more than a few who actually didn't agree with the ideas that were stated in the speech. The UN is not exactly a body dominated by freely elected democratic representatives.

The Daily Yomiuri, one of Japan's English edition newspapers, had a brief article on its front page regarding the President's speech before the UN. As is often the case, Reuters was the source of the "objective news" item. Remember, Reuters is the wire service that stated it will not use the word "terrorists" to describe...terrorists. The absolutely ridiculous stand was taken by Reuters' head saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," (we at least know he "takes a side" and who's side he takes).

Many people probably didn't read Bush's recent speech in it's entirety. One can imagine the impressions one would get from the Reuter's overview (some quotes follow):

"...U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday defended the U.S.-led invasion..." A few sentences in Bush's speech could be interpreted as such, but there was no outright "defense of the U.S. led invasion" in his speech, and to say so conjures a view of the speech that is far off the mark from what he actually said and what the overall tone of the speech was about (references to Iraq were actually very brief in the overall theme of the speech).

"In a U.N. speech with election-year overtones, Bush made no apologies about his decision to go to war against Iraq in 2003 without U.N. Security Council backing based on claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were not found." Again, this is front page "news" coverage of Bush's speech? Forgive my own bias, but I don't think this sounds like objective "news." This is an editorial pure and simple. It would be a fair claim -- in an editorial -- that Bush is running for president and is aware of statements he makes in that context, but to state what Reuters has stated is blatant bias. It would be like quoting John Kerry and then saying, "don't forget, this guy is running for President, so don't take his statements seriously for what they are." And, what's this crap about making "no apologies about...[Iraq]" with all the extra nonsense about unfound weapons of mass destruction (one of many reasons for having gone into Iraq). Can one imagine a speech on foreign policy by John Kerry where the reporter adds, "Kerry made no apologies for having supported the Viet Cong communists during the Vietnam war and failed to prove he was actually injured when receiving medals that ultimately got him out of fighting in a mere four month period."

Another classic issue in the bogus "news" article was, "Bush's 21 minute speech was met mostly with stony silence, save for polite applause at the end." As the dreaded FOX News Channel pointed out, it is part of regular UN protocol to not applaud during a speech and to keep applause at the end of a speech restrained and "polite." In any event, the normal "silence" that accompanies such speeches was described as "stony" silence for Bush's speech. Give me a break. These arrogant media clowns have the nerve to insist they are not biased?

In further " facts and information" regarding Bush's speech to the UN we get, "He appeared at the United Nations at a time of rising violence in Iraq, with suicide car bombings and beheadings, and some lawmakers in his own Republican Party are questioning his Iraq policy. Democrats warn of a quagmire for U.S. troops." This is the objective report Reuters gives us regarding the President's speech at the UN? I recommend reading the actual speech to decide if you think this pervasive sprinkling of editorial comment is an objective report regarding Bush's speech on the value of freedom and democracy (what most of the speech was really about).

I really believe that more and more people are becoming aware of just how absurd and obvious the "mainstream" press has become in its left of center bias. The examples I noted above in this one particular article are typical of those I see every day in most mainstream sources. Sometimes they're subtle and open to debate. Often they're blatent and non-apologetic. Add to this, the capitalist villians typically depicted in so many hollywood movies, the publishing industry's marginalization of conservative or libertarian perspectives, and the education monolith of unions, Ed Schools, and state bureaucracies.

Of course, such blatent bias and propaganda is seen as justified because everyone knows..."Left=good, right=bad" -- or so we are told.

First, some more media insights after the last couple weeks of Dan-Scam and his forged 60 Minutes advertisement for the John Kerry campaign. (A presidential election will be held very soon. Why not do a special report on a mediocre issue that could harm the incumbent's chances? This would of course be an objective exercise in journalism. Well, ...maybe not).

The truth is, Dan-scam is just the culmination of a long history of bias by Dan the Democrat and his associates of pampered elitist social-democrats. Some interesting inconsistencies in Dan's world of one-sided journalism can be found at ratherbiased.com.

Another revealing expose' of left-media in general (no, CBS isn't alone in this nonsense) can be found in The Media Research Center's compilation of recent opinion passed off as news. Some, like myself for instance, may view the examples given as clear and obvious example of bias -- but, what do we know. Our job is to listen and obey.

The President's speech at the United Nations was excellent. This of course reflects well on the skill of his speech writer. The fact that Bush himself approved and read the speech at least indicates he values the ideals expressed in it. Neal Boortz's comments on "Bush's cool reception..." perfectly capture my own feelings regarding the speech and it's context. What Boortz said so well in words, I tried to capture in drawing.

And finally,
an excellent trailer to a new movie that takes on Michael Moore and the Moorites -- CELSIUS 41.11

If anyone has attended college or kept abreast on the views of our intellectual betters, they would find a pervasive consistency of skepticism among the elites of the intelligentsia. These are certainly wise folks. They're smarter than us and probably drink better wine. In their eternal battle for recognition, many of these esoteric snobs have come to despise the country that bestows reward most upon those who "serve the customer." The citizen/customer in capitalist society has typically not chosen to shower adulation upon winners of coffee shop poetry competitions or woman's studies doctoral candidates -- so, they're pissed! Oh well.

While the brain caste looks down their noses at us inferior bourgeoisie drones, the cash and the power keeps flowing to the real world champions of achievement, entrepreneurs and common citizens who may choose to read Sartre, write novels, or raise a family, drink beer, and go bowling.

The high polished self-inflated egotist of the intellectual Left despises the United States -- they always have. They will never acknowledge the country's value or goodness until we plebs acknowledge our own "inferiority" and obey a state erected under one of their own pet philosophies (hint - it won't be a free market constitutional republic).

Socialism is, and always has been, the vehicle for the establishment of rule by intellectuals. There are no cases in history where a businessman has slaughtered millions. Indeed the most violent purges in history have all been the work of poets, philosophers, failed artists, and "thinkers" (with a few lawyers thrown in for good measure) hoping to create the latest utopian cage. With this in mind, it's no coincidence that the Leftist intellectual is so sympathetic to dictators and authoritarian government whether it be Castro's Communism or Hussein's Fascism.

(see related link)

There are of course many intellectuals who have no such admiration or aspiration for dominance and destruction. There are some who do not possess the envy so characteristic of many among their caste, but when an intellectual spouts praises to Marx and a collectivist social order take that as a warning. That little dweeb in the corduroy jacket has a vision that can kill, and his or her "insights" into America's "injustice" are no more than what one should expect from a character that despises free, open, and diverse society.

THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL OF OUR TIMES.

Dan Rather's recent "apology" didn't really read like an apology to me. An honest apology would have spoke for the mainstream media as a whole and said the following:

"There is considerable evidence that questionable behavior has occurred in the backgrounds of both contenders to the Presidency. We apologize for only concentrating on George Bush. We're coastal elites who despise the common citizens who comprise most of America. We yearn for the day when we can reign them all in with a more powerful and politically correct government. We are supporters of the Democratic party and Leftist political thought in general. We deliberately skew the news to support our favored position and will continue to omit, lie, distort, and manipulate information to depict Republicans and Conservatives as corrupt and mean-spirited while depicting Democrats and Leftists as noble, just, and 'caring.' We're full of shit. -- sorry."

Lai Changxing is my hero! To understand why, read my dispatch and accompanying link in:The Crimes of Free Choice at Bureaucrash.com

The mainstream media isn't biased...really, it isn't...

Like many people, I often receive lists of banal cliché’s which caricature or distort a given political viewpoint or personality. These can sometimes be witty or vaguely insightful, but usually they’re meaningless and tell us more about the writer than the object of their scorn.

The incumbent President has weathered an unusually pronounced amount of venom from the sympathizers for socialism and terrorism. It's become quite common for strangers to just mouth off their skewed view as a truth carved in stone..."how could anyone support Bush?"

I recently received the following list which seeks to "prove" the usual, that Bush and Republicans in general are cruel, evil, mean- spirited, and Fascist. If they would only see the goodness of high taxes, big government, more regulation, and "dialog" with the terroritst "community."

The hyperbolic rage of the Left accomplishes the opposite of thier intentions in many cases. This election, and its broader philosophical overtones, have put me in the embarrassing situation of having to – often – defend George Bush, someone who I ordinarily wouldn’t be particularly sympathetic to. I actually voted for Clinton in his first run for president against George Bush’s father (not because I thought he was especially good). Since then I’ve always voted for the Libertarian Party candidate as a sort of protest vote (realizing, of course, that they wouldn’t be elected). This year, I’m going to vote for “W” – Seriously! I may later be embarrassed for having done so (though I doubt I'll look back thinking that Kerry would have been a better option). Bush certainly doesn’t embody many of my political values, but…

Am I “stupid, cruel, selfish, mean-spirited, lacking compassion…?” Actually, I think, none of the above.

"How could anyone vote for Bush?" The cocky arrogance of some in asking such a question is one reason. I’m sick of hearing people who just assume that others should agree with them or be assumed to be “stupid, cruel…”

As it turns out, Bush is just some guy. He’s conservative on many issues, and would make a 60’s Democrat proud on many others. The Iraq issue is something pervasively argued and will continue to be argued at least into the next century. If you merely believe Bush “just wanted to help his big oil buddies,” than maybe you might actually be “stupid” yourself, or at least are overlooking an incredible amount of information.

The main reason I’m going to vote for Bush is because of the nature of the arguments and tone I continually hear against Bush. It seems that every dictator, terrorist, totalitarian sympathizer, pampered Left-Wing authoritarian egotist, and elitist Euro-snob is thoroughly against Bush. That gets him some automatic points with me already.

Another good reason for defaulting to Bush is his opponent. John Kerry is now a newly reformed “hawk?” – pleeeease. Are you kidding?! Saying "John Kerry, for a stronger America" is like saying "Hamsters, for home security."

The biggest accusation against Kerry is not true. He doesn’t “flip-flop.” He merely sounds like he’s “flip-flopping” because he’s telling people whatever he needs to win the election. His genuine “convictions” I’m sure are sound as ever, and you can see them in a long record of votes in the Senate (those rare times he actually attended) and actions he had taken publicly in the past. He was a hero to the Vietnamese Communists before they moved into the South to perform the usual mass slaughter that is typical of Communist Parties in History. Then there's the minor issue of his leadership in the far Left group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that had seriously discussed the possibility of assassinating some US Senators -- but hey, youthful indescretion. (Dan Rather won't be doing any 60 minutes reports on this issue of course).

What follows is an e-mailed list I've responded to, of some typical cliche' Leftist whines regarding Bush, Republicans, and Conservatives in general. My responses are certainly not a definitive or professional attempt to address each point. In essence, most of what I’ve written is merely an off the cuff exercise in well deserved counter-sarcasm.

("their" writing is in bold type)



IT'S HARD TO BE A REPUBLICAN IN 2004

Somehow, you have to believe that:

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
No, just Hillary...

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq.
No, the UN should get out of our faces. Tell them to push their authority after someone actually elects them and their assembly, preferably when it's no longer a mere soapbox for tyrants and police states.

3. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
Great urban myth. More jobs from overseas have been "out[in]sourced" to America than visa versa. By the way, whatever happend to your "concern for the world's poor?"

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
A woman (or anyone else) can't be trusted to choose her own pension system? People can't be trusted to educate their children as they see fit? etc. etc. I still don't know what Microsoft or Starbucks has done to "affect" or hurt my life. I can think of plenty of harm caused by bureaucrats and the lover's of state who love them... Abortion appears to be the only thing a leftist is "pro-choice" on.

5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Straw man (most of these fantasy proclaimations are). Republicans, like everyone else, have a variety of opinions regarding drug use, addiction, or whether or not it was okay for one guy, who happens to be a talk radio host, to have used them.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Another (Democrat) urban myth. The Republicans have consistently been the most supportive of the military in general since the 70's, while most Democrat followers have typically held anything associated with the military in disdain (while they "establish diologue" with our enemies). The Democrats have merely wised up on the PR front and now realize the value of feigning "support for our brave troops." It's good to know that the Communist North Vietnamese priased Kerry's organization for helping them win the war before slaughtering hundreds of thousands of "enemies of the people." Veteran's benefits were not slashed -- I wonder why most veterans are Bush supporters?

7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
At this point, I'm almost a Republican, and I'm going to vote for Bush. Where can I get a bag of weed and where can I find a chamber of several indulgent ladies for a night of leisure excess? Your statement is meaningless...

8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
They said that!? (actually no one has said that. Some Republicans just don't think the tax funded public schools are places to promote wanton indulgence for young people – a debatable but fairly reasonable stance).

9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Exactly two of our "allies" -- dominated by socialist political leadership -- refused to make good on UN resolutions
(from the organization they supposedly adore) and later deliberately tried to save the ass of a brutal tyrant who would clearly one day seek to kill millions of Americans and others by himself or in concert with other Social-Fascists. Also, why don’t we hear much about Hussein’s oil for food kickbacks to these “allies?”

10. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
No, government bureaucrats have our interest at heart which is why we should all be forced to submit to their will against our own free choices. Canada and England's bureaucrats care so much about their ward's interest that many of their citizens go to have surgery elsewhere because they're sick of waiting in lines for socialized medicine. It's not the role of a corporation to be Mother Teresa anymore than an charity volunteer should strive for higher profits. Health care has already been regulated into a mess. the classic statist progression of events. Exacerbate a problem, then say more regulation is needed to "solve the problem."

11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Stealing from anyone and then making someone else use a limited product is monopoly socialism -- anywhere. Government never
"provides" anything without first coercing others to submit to the dictates of the state. Providing health care to Iraqi's is their business. One bureaucrat's ideals is not the "beliefs of republicans."

12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
(Fundamentalist Christians are a mere faction within the Republican party, just as communists are a mere faction in the Democratic party). Have you noticed that the more a Leftist is concerned about the influence of Christian fundementalists, the less concerned they are about Muslim fundementalists? Regarding fears of Christian influence in the schools, I've got an idea. Lets have the parents keep their money and send their kids to the school they'd prefer, then creationism or evolution won't even be an issue. I don't remember hearing Republicans saying there was no link between tobacco and cancer (a few people who were likely Republicans and Democrats may have argued that). But yes, the beliefs shown in stupid mass propaganda films like "the day after tomorrow" are junk science. Global warming and cooling in far more pronounced degrees has occured throughout the Earth's history. In the last 100 years, average temperatures have risen one degree -- not exactly something to kiss the feet of the buro-state over. And, the Kyoto treaty is indeed seriously flawed. Sober investigation is one thing, blind allegiance to international wealth redistribution schemes is another.

13. It is okay that the Bush family has done $millions of business with the Bin Laden family.
This just means that your only source of information is Michael Moore, and also means you're not very perceptive. Lots of American families (including many Democrats) have done business with the hundreds of people in Saudi Arabia who are relatives of Bin Laden (most of whom have disowned him). Oh yeah, I never understood why the Democratic party took those contributions from Communist China under Clinton. (I'm sure you know about that, don't you?)

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
You mean Bush hasn't been looking in the right places for Bin Laden? Those daily plane trips to Pakistan must be rough on a President. I'm sure Kerry will look harder. Saddam was never a "good guy" to anyone (except a few Democrats and other socialists who have had more sympathy for him than our soldiers or his own citizens who he tortured). The realpolitik of confronting a former enemy, Iran, through proxy alliances is something too difficult for most Democrats to understand (whatever happend to "nuance?") Also, how come your boys in the media have kept so quiet about the oil for food kickbacks and bribes from Sadaam to UN officials and leaders in Germany, Russia, and France?

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
No, a president lying before a grand jury in a civil case is impeachable -- yes, it is, really. A president taking a stand against a ruthless dictator is the stand of a man of integrity. Lying before congress and helping the North Vietnamese enslave the South (as your man, Kerry did) is despicable.

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The constitution is very clear exactly as to what the powers of the federal government are (note particularly amendments 9 and 10), which is why Democrats always oppose the appointment of strict constructionists to the court. The constitution gives no powers to the federal government over gay marriage, the internet, or anything else beyond the defense of an individual to live and act as they choose -- something the Democrats fully oppose on a variety of issues.

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade are none of our
business.
George Bush is probably one of the most "investigated" people on the planet. To suggest that he's been cut slack by the media, congress, or anyone else is ludicrious. We know his dental records from years ago but can't seem to find out if Kerry really was wounded enough to earn five medals over a four month period before being sent home to help the Communists win the war in Vietnam.

18. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
It's the responsibility of the States and citizens in general to resist and oppose any action by federal officials to impose
"initiatives" of any kind. I'm no fan of Ashcroft, but I'd take my chances with a Republicn over a Democrat when it comes to keeping the Federal government out of my affairs. Actually, neither one is going to roll back the Federal encrochment but the Republicans are definitley the lessor of evils on this issue.

19. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
No, the lifestyle and life choices one has made at anytime are worthy of consideration when judging the quality of any individual seeking the nation's highest office. Regarding past indescretions or moral lapses by Bush or Clinton -- the record speaks for itself.
Fortunately, the voter is the one who decides such things and not self-righteous Leftists control freaks.

20. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
No, trade with anyone by anyone is the essence of free-market capitalism (something Democrats in general despise). By the same token the government itself should not be dealing with ruthless one-party dictatorships on the same level as dignified open and free societies. The pathetic Democratic stance simply looks at all (specifically Left-wing) dictators as "people we can talk to." Sounds nice but get a clue...and, Stop giving Kim Jong Il food and oil in the hopes he might honor agreements made. Whattaya stupid?!

21. Affirmative Action is wrong but that it is ok for your Daddy and his friends to get you into Yale, the Texas Air National Guard, Harvard Business School, part ownership of Harken Oil, part ownership of the Texas Rangers, the Governorship of Texas, and then have the Supreme Court appoint you President of the USA.
One can of course thoroughly analyse the 2000 election issue. Even Gore had sued and it turns out that the Supreme Court "appointment" accusation is just another great Democrat urban legend. In the end, Gore just didn't have the votes. But we must remember the people who believe sound bites of myth are typically the same ones who think Michael Moore is a good reference (a guy who defends and sympathizes with tyrants and terrorists and clearly despises eveything about America and Americans -- "the stupidest people on the planet" in his words). Michael Moore is the new face of the Democratic party and the stance they now take on a variety of issues is the reason they'll soon be fading from the scene since a new generation of young people appreciate the value of limited constitutional govenment and free-market capitalism.


I'm not a Republican, but I've definitely become rather sympathetic to them in their confrontation with the new Socialist-Democratic party. There are plenty of valid attacks that can be made against many individual Republicans and Republican positions but for overall defense of the country and respect for limited de-centralized govenment and non-interference in individual's lives, the Republicans beat the Democrats hands down. If you're a Democrat, you have nothing to be proud of. Move to France, it has a double digit unemployment rate, a vast population of socialist slackers and a massive bureau-state that "cares." You’ll definitely be more comfortable among your own kind.

The psychologist Carl Jung defined immaturity as thinking that everyone sees the world the same way as you do -- or should. In the usual rants and cliche' diatribes I hear from the Democrats and the Left in general, there's an assumption that there is only one possible take on things. To them, it is simply inconcievable that anyone could possibly come to different conclusions. If they do, they can only be mean-spirited, greedy, cruel, or who knows what else. In the real world, some people think Terroism should be directly confronted -- with military force. Some people believe self-government is superior and morally sounder than centalized state authority. Some people just want to be left alone and not be forced into the latest communal scheme to validate someone elses self image as a
"compassionate," caring, 60's flower child (or communist party reeducation camp commander).

Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, and Bush supporters are people who have come to conclusions some may not like -- I guess the Left will just have to deal with it.

So, just what is it about George Bush that ties him so closely to the Hate America phenomena of our time?

Opinion polls and mass media the world over make it clear, "the world" hates George Bush.

I won't attempt a tedious scientific inquiry to quantify the good and bad attributes of America to determine if it really is some anomaly of all-around badness. Suffice it to say that such analysis could be performed on any country, and with the exception of a very few (Iceland comes to mind), they'd all come out wanting in a contest of national moral perfection.

There does appear to be some truth to the conclusion that increased hatred for the U.S. is closely linked to hatred for the current president. So, what exactly is so remarkably horrid about George Bush? He comes from a wealthy family. No, that can't be it. Lots of people in politics are "rich." In general, people who hate Bush, adore John Kerry, and he's a master in the cash accumulation crowd. The idea that wealth and power go hand in hand certainly isn't a new concept. Castro and Kim Jong Il probably don't show up on paper (or in photographs) as very wealthy but for all practical purposes, they own entire countries. Okay, Bush has some cash, for the sake of argument lets say we should hate him for it.

I've heard one particular argument against Bush made more than once. Some variation on, "I hate that face that he makes." One of the reasons GWB spawns vicarious hatred for the U.S. is because of some "face that he makes?" Somehow, I'm not convinced.

Personally, I can't think of a political figure that should elicit more neutrality or indifference than "W." I don't think there's anything in particular about him to either love or hate. He's just some guy. Of course this guy has made some critical decisions in some critical times. Are people that mad that he removed a nice guy like Sadaam Hussein from power and refuses to hand Iraq over to a bunch of Islamo-Fascist thugs? How about the Taliban? Maybe he should have been nicer to them. I mean, he tells them to close down terrorist camps and hand over the head of Al Queda or the U.S. would come in and do it for them -- and then he actually does it! Yeah, that's it, the response to 9/11. He should have let it slide. 'Just a couple of big buildings. What I don't get though, is that Russia was in Afghanistan the better part of a decade with massive destruction and civilian casualties. Russia's been in Chechnya too, for years, and has committed some deliberate gruesome violence against civilians that far exceeds anything done by America in Iraq. How come no world wide protest against Russia? Oh yeah, I forgot, America took away Russia's dictatorship as well, they had to respond in some way so, lets not fuss over war if Russia's involved, and massive world protest against those wars are definitely out of the question.

...So, what exactly are the logical, objective, and fair reasons for despising George Bush? Every president and world leader has supported and opposed domestic and international policies that are controversial. Could it be that he's just not trendy enough in his general take on things to garner the affections of those who love the "compassionate" State, dictatorship, and socialist bureaucracies?

It seems that along with a world that hates George Bush and America, there has coincidentally been a world media that has reported a particular view of the U.S. and Bush. The movers and shakers of international news, entertainment, and education (the so-called "international spokespersons") have rather consistently presented a view of events that depict both targets of scorn in less than appealing light. To watch a Hollywood movie or attend a high school class today, it would be difficult not to see the U.S. and its president as anything but fonts of pure evil and "injustice."

Everyone knows of course, that in America only a few rich capitalists lord over millions of poverty stricken unemployed slaves (that's why America is the wealthiest country in the world with a 5.4 unemployment rate -- its all in the "distribution").

Everyone knows that GW secretly planned the terrorist acts of 9/11 so he could invade Iraq and steal food for oil kickbacks from France, Germany, and Russia. ("International Spokespersons" don't talk about the food for oil kickbacks much).

So, it's all pretty clear. The "world" has its facts strait, the "world" is objective, and the "world" hates America, mostly because Bush is president,...and partly because of "that face that he makes."

Poverty rates, income gaps, and tax rates "for the rich" are old staples of the Socialist obsession. In our own times, the tamer kindred spirits of the "revolutionary" cause continue their rants on the injustice of living in the wealthiest country in the world. As it turns out, in non-dictatorships there are actually a variety of incomes, including "rich" and "poor" (how "unjust!").

Each year, statistics are trumpeted in the press suggesting to the reader that vast numbers of us are poor, hungry, oppressed, and cheated on our rate of tax burden. Compared to a few decades ago, most of us now have computers, cell phones, and varieties of other
conveniences (some which didn't even exist in earlier years) but, somehow it's all purchased on lower incomes? Those tallied as poor, in the agenda-laden world of statistical analysis, live better than most humans have in most of human history. Because of such horrors of improvement the happy days of non-stop work and early death are long gone.

The Left needs the class rant. The more miserable we are, or think we are, the more they can impose the "helpful" authority of the true ruling class -- armchair philosophers, politicians, and demagogues.

As it turns out, more than a few economists (those with less love for the state) occasionally set the record strait on such matters. Thomas Sowell is one, whose insights and writings on a variety of subjects is required reading for anyone who's suspicious of perennial claims that we live in a society of mass "economic injustice."

Another economist who respects honesty and accuracy in his analysis is Walter Williams who often reveals to his readers the fallacies and urban legends of our economic times.

Guess what? The "poor" don't pay income taxes…at all! You wouldn't know that basic fact from the "Two Americas" speech of John Edwards or most of the whining screeds from Journalism-world.

Income Inequality is one of many articles in which Walter Williams brings some insight and justice to the real world of our economic times. If we're not groveling in destitution there is no need for the "help" of politicians. Maybe they'd have to get real jobs and mind their own affairs. Don't count on it. Remember, there's "Two America's" -- and some people actually believe it.

I took a one-semester course in the history of the Middle East over a decade ago. That makes me no expert on affairs of the region but, when I come across certain references to Islam and the Middle East I’m often reminded of the larger contexts at play in the current “war on terror” which, lets face it, is a war with a radical ideology. There are certainly a variety of sources available to anyone seeking a better understanding of such issues.

I recently came across a very concise and rather objective overview of Islamic history and the specific issue of radical Islamic Jihad.

If information overload has discouraged you from seeking a basic understanding of information surrounding who or what we are currently at war with, then I recommend the following quick and easy overview (about seven pages); Bin Laden’s Rage: Why He and His Followers Hate The United States.

(Don’t be misled by the prominent flag and eagle that headline the article. It’s not a cheesy patriotic tirade). The free world is not at war with bullets, bombs, or “terrorism.” We’re at war with a radical ideology that is disciplined and fervent. It’s not going to go away if we address some fanciful “root causes” or tell its followers we’re sorry we have bigger houses than them.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but this time you better bring both.

Blogland is certainly well stocked with inquiry and commentary regarding Michael Moore’s latest exercise in deceit and fabrication – Fahrenheit 9/11. This site has expressed views on the Moore issue about one and a half times thus far.

Moore’s often witty con-schemes can sometimes raise valid questions. Although one certainly couldn’t “volunteer to sacrifice” their children to save Fallujah, as Moore simplistically suggests while harassing members of congress, it would be fair to ask just how much one would be willing to sacrifice for a particular war effort.

A novel and perhaps more valid question has been raised by The Tanuki Ramble. My friend John, up the road in Nakajo (Japan) asks, “Would you sacrifice your child for peace?” It sounds like a mere counter-argument, but actually offers up some profound food for thought.

"Who Will You Give?" -- a very insightful and well written commentary at a time when burning issues have too often been reduced to mere soundbites.

I’m not sure how this fits into their rants regarding “free speech,” but the whining Jacobin clique’ has appeared to take a more active role in adjusting the flow of information.

I periodically check out the Bush and Kerry campaign sites. Neither is very convincing, but it’s interesting to see what they’re up to.

It may be a temporary glitch, but I’ve found that if you do a search on most search engines, the Kerry campaign information comes up easily. When I’ve clicked on the link to his official campaign site or blog, no problem. Doing a search for the Bush Campaign however calls up a couple genuine official sites, but along with them you also get a huge list of mock sites – designed to appear as legitimate Bush sites. Along with those, one can also find a rich assortment of clear and obvious anti-Bush sites high on the list. Trying to get through to the real sites for the Bush campaign has recently become impossible.

I don’t want to sound like some McCarthyite conspiracy theorist, but I think this whole scenario is quite typical of the Left’s methods in general.

They’re so convinced that they’re on the side of “justice” and moral goodness that they’ll perform all manner of malice and dishonesty.

Bush just happens to be a guy who’s been president and is running for reelection. Kerry is just some guy who’s running against him. I think it would be nice if we could access information about either candidate without the usual rabble forcing their issue with such rabid fervor.

I confess that I actually resent the fact that some self-righteous preachers from the church of Leftist rage have continually sought to undermine awareness of the underlying issues and realities in the current race for the Presidency.

The Left has gotten virtually everything they’ve wanted in the past several decades, a massive central government power that showers huge amounts of extorted money on social schemes and regulations yet, they’re madder than ever that we haven't yet reached full "equality" (true communism). What must we do to please these pampered elitist Latte-rebels?

You can be certain that if Bush wins the election, the supporters of appeasement, socialism, and government growth aren’t going to accept the votes of their fellow citizens. There will be massive protests and Hollywood performers will threaten to move overseas (which would actually be a good thing).

Bottom-line: The left, with all their rambling about free speech and democracy, actually despises freedom if it dares manifest outside of their own personal control.

I don’t know what’s going to eventually transpire in the world of campaign Internet searches, but it’s clear which side is the more fair and honest.

A few NON-"mainstream" news sources have begun to note the odd absence of Terrorists, or more specifically, Islamic Terrorists from the vocabulary of the regular "mainstream" media. The euphemisms used by traditional news sources to describe Islamic Terrorists often border on the comical. Guess what? Most "freedom fighters," "rebels," and "activists," really are Terrorists, and in recent decades their actions are typically done in the name of erecting a Fascist Islamic Police state. Try telling that to the intellectual dweebs who rule much of academia, entertainment, and the "mainstream" media. Of course we must remember, this is the same mentality that often refered to Communist autocrats as "agrarian reformers" and "revolutionaries." If their thoughts were as refined as their "way with words" they might just notice the nature of differences between free and open societies and the ruthless authoritarian systems they so often show their sympathy for. Get a clue...

Current news in the campaign for the presidency supplies this quick update to the previous post.

Dan Rather didn't plan out his actions in stealth bias very well this time. It appears that he may be taking his beloved Kerry presidential campaign with him.

Some more commentary on the current emergence of a free-market media can be found here.

The new social-[ist]-Democrats are starting to show their desperation.

Earlier this year you may not have been aware of the concept, "527's" – tax exempt private political groups dedicated to partisan politics and the stealth support of specific candidates. Ultimately, such groups were made to legally circumvent new laws on campaign financing. Earlier this year, such organizations were principally the work of well-financed left-wing groups. Along with such orchestrated media maneuvers were a host of well-timed books trashing the incumbent President, complete with wild media fanfare and adoring interviews.

Michael Moore spread his Moorist / Marxist manifestos in print and film and 527’s like, billionaire financed Moveon.org orchestrated bitter hyperbolic attacks against the Bush administration.

There were clear and obvious connections between some of these groups and the Democratic Party but, hey -- "free speech," right? Most of Hollywood and a host of contrived rebel millionaire musicians have taken the same stand -- "Bush is Hitler." No problem.

The "mainstream" media finally took note of such maneuvers after the Swift Boat Veterans for truth came out with their book and media ads (specifically when such actions began having a clear impact on John Kerry's credibility).

For decades, the top three commercial news networks and the dominant print media (i.e. The New York Times) pushed the world as the coasts see it mentality. As enlightened thinkers, our intellectual and moral betters were simply guiding us to the knowledge that we and our free economic system might be bad and a few one-party states and dictatorships might be worthy of some sympathy.

In recent years things have begun to change and, as could be expected, the left is now furious that there has now emerged opposing intellectual and moral disobedience -- some critical momentum away from their beloved state and the talking heads who have traditionally sought to dominate it.

The Internet and blogosphere has brought true diversity, both corrupt and refined, to anyone seeking information. Fox News has dared to imply that they actually like our country while network journalists that clearly hate it continue to pretend their scorn is an exercise in objectivity. Whatever degree of conservative bias Fox may exhibit, it’s ultimately an appropriate counterbalance to what ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, PBS, and Al Jezeera had thus far offered. The real horror, in the Left's eyes, is that FOX, like McDonald's and Microsoft, is successful as a result of the free choices of individual citizens.

When the Democrat’s National Committee chairman had earlier suggested that Bush had been AWOL during his period of service in the National Guard, the media demanded answers from Bush -- "questions still remain." The President eventually released records pertaining to his military service years and the dirt some had hoped to find simply wasn't there. When some Veterans of the Vietnam War suggested that John Kerry's self-promoted "heroic war record" may be distorted or contrived, did the "objective" mainstream media go after him demanding answers? Well... no. Kerry still refuses to clear up the matter by giving permission for the release of his records, while his pals at the New York Times and most powerful news outlets have turned the burden of proof back to his accusers (something that clearly did not occur when Bush was the target of accusations).

The Democrats and some of their far-left allies continue to screech their mantras suggesting that we have somehow “lost our freedoms” because Congress voted to support Bush in removing the regime of Sadaam Hussein and his fascist Baath party. Kerry continues to be described as "defending himself against aggressive attacks." Bush and company, on the other hand, is always "on the offensive" with “bitter attacks.” A wealthy Republican supports some Viet Vets in getting their message out and it's a conspiratorial scandal. A left wing billionaire (George Soros) forks millions over for over a year to the cause of socialist propaganda and it’s, "free speech."
Numerous Hollywood entertainers use their celebrity as a soap box for radical politics and some dare to boo them, leave their concerts, or stop buying their CD’s, and its described as “censorship.”

The founding fathers of American knew that in the free system, factions who sought to dominate would eventually be countered by the spontaneous emergence of opposing factions. The Left is furious that such institutions as the Fox News Network, talk radio, and conservative or Libertarian blog sites are allowed to exist and challenge the domination they had held over public discourse for decades. The Left's worldview has dominated education and entertainment for decades as well, and continues to do so. (Only under coercion as a required college text could socialist screeds like those of Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky become “best sellers”).

For decades, a Conservative couldn't even get a book published by a major publisher. In recent years some publishers have finally noticed that there's a lot of money to be made when they actually acknowledge some of their customer's political reading interests. The Left has never liked the idea of a free economy where the common citizen dictates what will be produced by their personal choices and preferences.

A free market and free society, with free speech will be one where a variety of viewpoints can emerge and state their cases before the court of public opinion. The backlash against decades of Left-Wing propaganda has only begun. The Left can squirm and whine all they want. They have only themselves to blame for what's transpired in recent years. They never seem to get it, that some of us just don't want to join their compulsory commune, not because we’re "greedy," or "lack compassion," or because we're, "mean-spirited corporate oppressors.” This is the standard “argument” that the Left conjures when making their case for a more powerful and centralized government authority. Remarkable as it may seem to to the average Leftist, some of us simply appraise the facts and arrive at different conclusions. Such conclusions are often not the same as those that the haughty drones of "mainstream" media would restrict us to. Freedom means being able to say "leave me alone." In an open market of ideas, the source of information on events in the world should be a matter of one’s choosing – and such choices may differ from the clique’ that has dominated thus far. They’re just going to have to deal with it.

If you like Michael Moore but think you're above a blue-collar fashion facade, you'll love Noam Chomsky!

Of course those who are fairly well read and current on such things as political controversy and philosophy are already quite familiar with the Hate America sage from MIT.

The best selling intellectual is well know throughout Europe and has a cult following among our intellectual and moral betters in the US as well.

I could spend the next hour or so rambling my personal counter-Chomsky tirade (it's been done before). Suffice it to say that, I really hate this guy. He truly is an equal to Michael Moore in his hypocrisy, inconsistency, and bitter hatred for the country that has given him, and many others, a pretty good life.

It must be acknowledged that Chomsky is smart, and can manipulate a phrase or idea with slippery finesse'.

Like Moore, his witty evasions and slick thought editing fail to mask a stealth support for the authoritarian Leftist worldview.

Chomsky, like many Leftists, is required reading in more than a few college campuses. In the incestuous world of Left-land's various propaganda spheres, Moore -- I mean, Chomsky -- has drawn considerable enthusiastic following. Fortunately, not everyone is so impressed with this socialist whiner and his one-track tirade on the evils of America's existence.

There are a few well-written rebuttals out there that unveil the nonsense behind this Jacobin clown's manipulation of history and current events. One of the most concise I've come across can be found in George Shadroui's
Dissecting Chomsky and Anti-Americanism. He covers it all better than I could. If you know about Chomsky already, this is one of the better overviews. If you don't, the article is a good introduction to another popular mouthpiece to the Anti-American fad. If you confuse Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, Chomsky is the one who showers and shaves.

The "People's" one-party dictatorship of China has "intensified its battle against Internet and moble phone pornography by threatening distributors with life in prison."

Curious that religious fundementalists, some sects of feminism, and socialists all share a disdain for pictures of naked people.

In the recent Chinese version of such nonsense, here's the real clincher: "A pornographic Web site that had been clicked on more that 250,000 times would be considered a 'very severe' case that could warrant a life sentence for its producers..." Meaning; the more popular something is to private citizens, the more the state will punish it.

China is obviously still a follower of the Socialist worldview.

If you don't like "pornography," drugs, McDonald's, Microsoft, ...or the color blue -- don't buy them.

Now if they could only get those "pornographic" thoughts out of our heads that we harbor every day (minute?).

Media responses to the Republican convention and its list of speakers have afforded yet again a revealing view of the coastal elite's objectivity in journalism. I must first note that I'm not a Republican and am not sympathetic to many of George Bush's policies. My own views are also far removed from the factions within the Republican Party that are motivated by religion or collectivist dogmatism. That said, I can't hide my more pronounced disdain for the continued phony cries of "mean-spiritedness, racism," and other conjured appraisals pervasively directed at people who often want no more than greater restraint on government growth and regulation.

The "mainstream" media's take on what transpired at each convention has become a caricature of bias reporting. Note some interesting critique’s of this nonsense here and here.

I clearly remember reading transcripts of the speeches made at the Democratic convention (particularly Jimmy Carter's) and don't see where their aggressive "mean-spiritedness" was any less than their opponents.

Between the "protestors" outside the Republican convention and the official opponents in the Democratic Party, the invective directed towards the current president has reached absurd levels. Bush is not Hitler, he doesn't push old ladies in wheel chairs down staircases, and people who favor a less intrusive government or pre-empting the clear threats of tyrants aren't followers of the Anti-Christ.

The pampered elitists who think their own views so noble that they should be imposed on others by a bloated bureaucratic state, just can't fathom the fact that not everyone agrees with them, and of those who don't, not all are "selfish, greedy, rich, oppressive, racists....etc."

The absurdity of the Left's attacks in recent years will help to virtually guarantee Bush's reelection -- and the Leftist clowns who helped make it happen will wallow in bewilderment...what utter fools.