Democrats At It Again

OK, I really mean they're at it still. Another hole to dig, another bone to chew. This time, the story is that revealing the name of a CIA operative was deliberately done to punish a correspondent for digging too deep.

K, it would be bad to reveal a person like that, just like it's bad to lie under oath, especially when the perjury is designed to prevent investigation of the one committing the perjury, and just like it's bad to allow missle targeting technology to be sold to China, just because they have a vested interest in your continued occupation of the executive mansion, just like it's bad to bomb aspirin factories in Sudan to draw attention from your legal woes. Yup, all of these are bad, illegal and downright shameful.

So I guess if three of the four don't "rise to the level of impeachment", the fourth doesn't, either, right? And if it's not an impeachable offense, why are we worried about it?

There are two axioms to watch for in politics: 1) When someone politics, always follow the money, and 2) When a Democrat points a finger, dig deep enought to find out when he was guilty of the same or worse.

I was once accused by a (former) friend of cheating on my wife, about a year after he confided to me that he had done that very thing to his own wife. I have to tell you, besides being shocked at his accusation, It occurred to me that the only reason he thought it possibble that I could do such a thing was because he had done such a thing. (P.S. I didn't do it, just so you all know.)

The only reason Democrats believe the Bush Administration could reveal the name of a CIA Operative for political gain is because the Dem's would do such a thing for political gain. Don't believe me? Don't worry, I'll do the digging for you.

Proveable Treason

Steven Den Beste at USS Clueless has a great dissertation explaining a lot of why I think Ted Kennedy is a traitor.

Kennedy + Open Mouth = TraitorSpeech


So, Edward Kennedy opened his mouth again and accused President Bush of Treason!

Well, that's a little strong, what he said according to FoxNews was, "...the case for going to war against Iraq was a fraud "made up in Texas" to give Republicans a political boost." Kennedy also postulated that the money for the war is being used to bribe foreign leaders to send troops.

You know, this isn't surprising. I mean accusing the Republicans of something only Democrats would be tempted to do is nothing new for these guys. The sad thing is, the only reason they come up with these accusations is because they actually think it would be possible strategically for a party to do them successfully!

During the previous administration, the leader of which shall never be named in this blog, there were cries of foul from both sides, but I do not recall a single instance where GH Bush ever made a public statement criticizing his replacement in the White House. Ted Kennedy was never so noble, or self restrained.

At last, President Bush spoke to the unpatriotic comments lavished on him by Democratic figurehead, Ted, but stopped short of calling Kennedy by the name he deserves. No, the rather civil, restrained, respectful President called Kennedy's comments "uncivil".

It reminds me of the miserable showing Dan Quayle made in his appearance opposite Lloyd "That's Not The Way It Works In Washington" Bentsen in the 1991 VP debate. When young Dan recited his resume as being more accomplished than that of one John F. Kennedy when he ran for President, Bentsen let loose the seemingly practiced line," I knew Jack Kennedy, and you're no Jack Kennedy." Touche' -but only because Quayle shied from the obvious response. Here's what he should have said:

"No, Mr. Bentsen, I'm nothing like Jack Kennedy. I have never put a Naval crew under my command at risk through my inattention to our situation. I have never left friendly soldiers at risk of certain death or capture by recalling air cover intended to protect them. I have never put my country at risk by allowing nuclear weapons to be positioned within minutes of our shores, and through miscalculation allowed that situation to exist for decades, and I have never put my relationship with my wife at risk by philandering with other women.

No, Lloyd, you're right, I guess, I'm nothing at all like Jack Kennedy"

There is always the right answer, even if it is not kind. Conservatives have let the ball roll away by not saying the right thing when the situation calls for it. The President used very civil tones in expressing his concern over the comments uttered by the loathesome Kennedy. I have a different opinion of what should be said:

Ted Kennedy is a TRAITOR. We have troops in harms way right now. Any public comment by a public official with constituents in the field who utters any comment not expressley designed to strike fear into the hearts of our adversaries is unquestionably, inarguably and unforgiveably UNPATRIOTIC and Treasonous in that it aids and comforts our enemies, prolongs the conflict and creates risk for our troops.

The proper way for a politician to express his attitude towards and event of national security is to keep comments which could aid the enemy PRIVATE since we know they have secret committees that they can speak openly in. Any public figure, especially of national office who openly challenges a current policy regarding operational aspects of our military must logically, then, be using the forum for personal political gain.

Now am I arguing that any contrarywise comments are treasonous? No. I disagree STRONGLY with the opinions of the "So Called Michael Moore", but I do not argue with his right to speak, film, publish or distribute his opinions, any more than I think news or radio or individual speech should be checked, including things like so-called "Hate" speech. Michael Moore is a liar, not a traitor.

Elected politicians are a different story. They have a constitutional obligation to do and say things publicly to enhance our military's strengths, whether they believe in GOD or not. Once politicians are on the side of a military victory, there is plenty of room (in private) to question the direction and cost of the mission. But public criticism like this is so obviously rooted in self-interest. It also exposes a great misunderstanding of what it takes to successfully manage a military operation, and that goes for all the current Democratic Presidential candidates.

Is anyone surprised that Ted Kennedy or any of the rest of them might be using the forum for personal political gain? Ted Kennedy is a Traitor, and that, my friends is the definition of unpatriotic.

Dude! Where's your Brain?

So, the ficticious filmmaker Michael Moore has another book coming out entitled "Dude! Where's my Country?" How sad. One imagines Michael wanders around his neighborhood in Flynt (Flint?) singing to himself "If I only had a brain..."

Well I wonder about that, anyway. The real answer to his question is really simple! Michael Moore's country is Palestine! He is obviously an oppressed refugee, hated by Jews and the American Government, so it's obvious that he is just as authentic a Palestinian as say, Yassir Arafat, and he's just about as pretty.

Too bad there really is no Palestine. It's as ficticious a place as Michael's work.

Only an A.. would've thought of something stupid like this...

HOW.FUNNY!

Apparently the DNC folks haven't seen my graphics -yet. Yes, I am on the subscriber list of the DNC. I subscribe to PC World Magazine for basically the same reason, 'cause I like the comedy section -you know, where they publish this month's virus or security threat announcements.

Imagine how amused I was to get my email announcement of the new official Daily Democatic Blog:

- - - - - - - - - -

"Introducing Kicking Ass: Your Source for Daily Democratic News

Dear Rich Willis,

With the Bush administration deceiving the American people and committing new outrages every day, it's getting hard to keep up with the news. Add that to the California recall circus, and it's almost impossible to find the important stories in the midst of all the noise.

We want to help. So today we are launching the official blog of the Democratic National Committee: Kicking Ass.

Kicking Ass is your source for daily news about how Democrats are fighting for you -- and what the Bush administration is up to."
- - - - - - - - - -

What a STUPID name for a Democratic site! I could see the 'Pubs using it for something they created, but isn't it odd that Democrats would admit to having their Ass Kicked? Or maybe they're referring to their "Ass Kicking". No, that doesn't make sense either. Wait! Maybe it was thought up by an otherwise unemployed union employee who was too poorly educated to notice that his bumper sticker should read,

"Proud to be a Member of a Union", instead of the ridiculously improper "Proud to be Union" (Ever notice how some people just must broadcast their ignorance?

So, since they're already too dumb to notice the slam they're aiming at themselves, you think they'd be any more likely to grasp that my graphic represents an Ass getting Kicked, just as their newsletter title implies?



Nah, look they got running for president!

"Horrible" Horowitz"

I just saw David Horowitz on Fox News, and after enjoying the spitting interruptions of the liberal oppositon invited to hammer him, (yes, I realize Hannity interrupts, too, but he doesn't spit), I went to google and entered the name. Looky what I found!

It doesn't surprise me to read these things. Democrats seem to have the habit of pointing at others while loudly accusing them of the very things things that they are guilty of. Last week I was treated to the theory that the current administration squelches free speech by threatening arrests. Well, the acts may be correct, but the culprits seem to be the other guys. How predictable.

By the way, the court case in California's election is not relative to the case raised in Florida two years ago. The Supreme Court ruled relative to the Constitution's equal protection clause because standards for recounting ballots were disparate from county to county, not because the standards for counting ballots were different. Unless every county in every state is required to use the same model voting mechanism with the same number of selections on each page, the standards for counting votes will always be different from county to county. However, the standards for reviewing ballots on recount must be consistent, based on the nature of the mechanism used in each county. And for the record, if you are incapable of accurately using a punch-card voting ballot, perhaps you should consider turning in your driver license, since you obviously have a combination physical, visual and psycological limitation which puts all of us at risk. May I suggest an absentee ballot, unless you are in the military service overseas.

Reasonable Proof

-or proof through reason


So I got an e-mail which got me thinking. Many things can get me thinking, even e-mail, generally more of a distraction than a stimulus for thought. Anyway, contained in the body of the message were ramblings, big words, references to "the same arguments repaeated ad-nauseum"* (paraphrased -honestly, the diatribe was so laboriously tedious, it made no sense to memorize it).

I guess the gist was, if you're not an intellectual, a practiced and certified dispensary of quality reason, you have nothing of interest or importance to say.

First of all, let me make perfectly clear, none of any of this is written to impress, convince or convert anyone but me. But to propose that my ramblings contain any shortage of logic and convincing reason is to be in unredeemable error.

Follow this contorted logic if you can, (unless you find it beneath you...)

Arguably the most reasonable of all historical figures, of whom we have record or reference, was one we know as Jesus of Nazareth, who was either exactly who he claimed to be, or he was a master charlatan whos skill far exceeded Moses, Mohammed, or any other infamous figure in history. Either there is a God, whom Jesus claimed to reveal, or there is a deity whom Jesus did not reveal, or there is no deity or afterlife (leaping a bit for brevity), and Mohammed the prophet and all the other prophets are liars. If a liar, Jesus was a better liar than all the other prophets before or after him, for the world's primary system of chronology is based on his lifetime, a legacy of his (warranted or not) claims to be the wealthiest religeon on earth (Roman Catholic) and his homeland is still fought over more than that of any other historical figure.

Now this Jesus did not dispute that in his lineage was one known as Solomon, the source of our knowledge of him calling him the wisest man to have ever lived (we presume excluding Jesus, if he is who he said he was). The writings attribued to Solomon are truly meritorious and worthy of consideration for their simple messages and subtle complexity. And yet in his wisdom he didn't boast or insult those who were arguably inferior in intellect.

Saul of Tarsus, educated at the feet of the Rabbi Gamaliel, later known as Paul, an apostle of Jesus, published in the same collection of writings where we are informed of both Solomon and Jesus, wrote this: "To the weak, I became as weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

Paul was not known as the wisest man ever to have lived (that would be Solomon), nor was he the genesis of a fabulous new religeon or cult. But this Paul guy was at least smart enought to know that the best way to get your message out is to speak TO your audience, not to attempt to impess or speak down to your audience.

Ignorance of this simple, fundamental truth generally broadcasts loudly that which self-appointed intellectuals seem to fear the most, that is full disclosure to the listener that there exists little, if anything, of any importance worthy of listening to. People won't listen to or give heed to vain babblings or wordy speeches. Even less likely that they'll ever try to memorize and repeat your words, therefore people of reason must conclude that wordy academic-speak, unless conversing with other academians must be done solely for the benefit of the speaker, and that can never serve any useful purpose. That would therefore make it a public demonstration of ignorance.

Since I am a reasonable guy and know better than to talk over the heads of my listeners, I already know you get the point. But since it's so much fun to drive it home with a one-liner, here goes:

Don't talk down to people -you apparently don't possess the vocabulary.

Comments, Anyone?

Sooo.. like its not like millions of people visit the site, but the counter says a few of you do, and the e-mail validates my opinion of the counter.

Of course, then one must assume there's anything posted worth commenting on for one to expect a comment, so lets just say from the get-go that the expectation for comment participation is understandably low.

K?

Comments, Jerry Jackson and 9/11

So yesterday I was re-acquainted with Jerry Jackson, a fellow photographer, train enthusiast and political opinion-spouter. We were at a high school in Central Florida, taking photos of all the kiddies for their yearbooks. You haven't lived 'til you've spent a day in a high school outsmarting all the tough-guy juniors and seniors, psyching them out and making them smile when they are dead-set against it.

Of course the most productive work came today when we started work on a mutually conspired book about analogy. The beginning excerpts follow:

"The Book of Analogies.

“Writing this book was like my last coloscopy – Painful, but reassuring, nonetheless”
– Jerry Jackson

“Working with Jerry is like watching a coloscopy:
-Rich Willis





Chapter 1: Like Buttah

Have you ever had one of those days that felt like you were pulling an SUV out of sugar sand? You know, you jumped up revving at 90%, immediately bogged down and spending the rest of the day digging yourself out? Me too.

Analogies are like salad bars. You can always find one in a quality place, most of the items fit, but some will never quite go together – like Bleu Cheese Dressing on a Caesar Salad.

Writing analogies is often akin to trying on shoes. Sometimes the fit is good, sometimes the shoes have to be broken in a bit, and sometimes they will never fit at all.

A world without analogies would be like a train without a horn or whistle – perhaps functional, but not complete.

An analogy should never be confused with sarcasm, which we generally refer to as an ananomaly. When one uses an analogy, intending to present sarcasm, it is known as dissancromoronism. Pseudopsychosacrocistic dissancromoronism, however, is merely an anomaly and should not be compared to or confused with either sarcasm or analogies."

So there's a lot more to do.

Last night at our FLMUG meeting a guy from the University of South Florida brought a remote search and recovery robot he and his team built and used in the search and rescue/recovery at the WTC on 9/12/2001 and following. Lots of slides in his powerpoint presentation, lots of memories, lots of anger building up inside of me. Tonight I'm watching the History Channel describing what it took to defeat Germany along the Atlantic coast of France. What pussyfooted pusses we've become in this current skirmish. Germany didn't do nearly to us what the Middle Eastern Terrorists have done, and look at the difference in action we've taken. (Anger continuing to well up inside)

I'm working to get comments reactivated so Jerry can puke all over my rants about Democrats. Who knows, maybe I'll learn something...

Hope your feet get to feeling better, Jerry. Nice chatting with you today!

Clueless

I see the Clueless (don't insult Southerners by referring to them as "Dixie") Chicks seem to want political careers after all. How predictable that idiot musicians cannot recall the trouble caused by their last brush with political commentary. Here the (what's her name?) banjo player comments, "[Arnold Schwarzenegger] is a great film star, but I find his run for governor absolutely insane." and "America should be governed by people who have a clue. I hope he doesn't win."

You know, in reality voting should be done by people who have a clue. I think the fact that people still listen to this sorry excuse for a band is "absolutely insane".

Sorry I personally can't do anything else to boycott these embarassments to America, as I deleted all their music from my library last time one of them made a stupid public statement. Well, ok I actually have forbidden my daughter to buy or listen to them. 'Cept I really didn't have to - she already thought they were idiots.

As long as you're reading...

You might as well read this.

Readin' "Treason"

So, I finally picked up Ann Coulter's book "Treason", and any of you who wanted a reason to get mad... Well, if you need a reason to get mad, you either need to drive more, or pay closer attention to the payroll deductions on your check. Anyway, it is amazing how when the Michael Moore film "Blowing columbine" was chronicled on the web for those of us who didn't wish to pay for his airline tickets to France, I spent a fair amount of time chasing down references to try to substantiate the claims and postulations made by his film. (I did this with "Roger and Me" a few years back)

It is enlightening to see the difference between the types of documentation between a real documentary and one which is merely promoted as one. Ann Coulter does an excellent job of footnoting nearly every claim made in her book, so unlike the recent David Brock revelation "Blinded by the Right" (though in his expose on Anita Hill, he seemed to remember how to document sources), it is possible to easily look up references to either prove or disprove her allegations. Brock, through his obvious omission of references, rather than make me want to believe he is forthright in his angst against conservatives, he forces me to discount all of his prior writings.

There are ways to prove right and wrong, truth and lies, honesty and deceit, even in the world of instant internet access. Though most people won't commit to it, the search for truth takes time, diligence and research. People like Michael Moore are good at what they do. That doesn't mean that they are right in what they do. Only when regular, ordinary people choose to do their homework do any of us stand a chance of making good decisions when the time comes to elect leaders. Doing nothing is the wrong thing.

So anyway, as far as the book goes, looks like Franklin and Harry were either idiots or traitors. I'm still doin' the research, but neither answer looks good to me. Of course, it could have been worse...

Jimmy Carter could have been re-elected...