24 November 2004

We Have a Winner!

Our First Commenter that we don't know or are related to

Seriously, we here at SupplySidePolitics have recently had a Commentier. I say, most succinctly: “WooHoo!”.

Alaiz, thank you for taking the time to not just read, but to leave commentary. You join a select few whom have actually bothered to post comments.

(For those of you who read but yet do not comment, take note: commenting can make you famous)

I would have rather replied to “Aliaz” via e-mail, but alas, no e-mail reply address was left in the Comment. That being, I will post an Open Reply to our friend, Aliaz.

First, Thank You for participating in the process. Please come back soon and your comments are always welcome. We’re interested in dialog here at SupplySidePolitics, and we value the opportunity to engage in conversation with those whom we may not see “eye to eye”. It’s the conversation that’s important, not necessarily the viewpoint.

Second, as my post was plainly offered as an opinion piece, I fail to see how I am misconstruing the facts. Please re-read my post with the mind-set of “this is one opinion” from someone who was there during the time period discussed and take the extrapolations for what they are. I shall not parse fine hairs in this forum. If you seek further discourse on the contents of my “Loathing” post; please e-mail me at heywoodblogger at yahoo dot com.

Third, your insinuation is that I have taken half-truths, overly simplified facts, and only told half the story to make my points. Ah-hem. I would direct you to a man whos’ selective use of facts and the malicoius twisting thereof has made him famous: michael moore.

And yes, I am always Right. It matters not with the subject at hand, as the “Loathing” post was opinion piece, not anything solid enough to nail to a wall.

Aliaz, please post a comment again or e-mail soon, As I said before, it’s all about the dialog

20 November 2004

My Long Term Loathing for michael moore

I have made mention in previous posts over the past several months of my long term loathing of michael moore. I think the time has come to explain myself. Please bear with me, this is about as autobiographical as I care to get.

Before your left knee starts jerking, let me assure you that this has nothing what-so-ever to do with Fahrenheit 9/11. I was done with michael moore long before F9/11 and his shenanigans during the recent election campaign. Long before our Country at large even knew about moore; before he was Hollywood’s darling and directly quoted by Osama bin Laden, I was finished with him and had dismissed him out of hand.

Our narrative takes us back well over twenty years, to the early 1980’s. The summer of 1982 to be specific. I was 19 years old, a few months shy of my twentieth birthday and circumstance found me attending the Flint, Michigan campus of the University of Michigan. You couldn’t swing a bookbag in the University Center without disturbing a copy of The Flint Voice, moore’s “alternative” newspaper.

I had heard of moore prior to then; I had caught him several times on the radio (WWCK 105.5FM in Flint); he had a talk show slot on those Sunday slack times on FM radio that in later years were occupied by the likes of Dr. Ruth Westheimer where he waxed eloquently about matters that were quite over my head at the time. What I remember of his radio days was the anti-establishment tone, the irreverence and his parodies of the local Flint, Michigan media ads.

So, sitting in the Student Union at UM-F in the sunny summer of 1982, I picked up a copy of The Flint Voice and started reading. It was the typical stuff of alternative papers: the Man (Ronald Wilson Reagan, at the time) was trying to keep you down, we’re all being persecuted, war is always wrong, pot should be legal, union good / big business bad, etc. Man, did I ever eat it up with a spoon; it was the kind of shit that a college freshman just accepts because it’s in print.

I was hooked.Even though it was free for the taking in the Student Union and at almost every liquor / grocery / drug store and gas station in Genesee County; I subscribed. Wrote a check and put it in the mail. Home delivery for me, thank you very much.

I was “on board” completely. Hell, I voted for Carter in my first Presidential election, and in retrospect I was still reeling from being disenfranchised by having the “other” side win. After all, that evil President Reagan was going to send me and my peers to the wharves and streets of Gdansk, Poland for the coin toss for World War III, didn’t you just know? So I kept on believing. Kept on believing my parents, moore, and all the Reagan bashing that the media was engaging in at the time. (Note: the bashing of GWB by the MSM was not unprecedented, Reagan took an enormous amount of crap from the MSM, as anyone over 40 should remember. What is unique about the treatment of GWB is the sheer magnitude of the vitriol and hatred.)

Then somewhere between the sunny summer of 1982 and the election season of 1984, something happened to me.I can not honestly say what it was that turned me in the right direction. It likely was a combination of factors: finally realizing that my parents were so full of shit that their eyes were brown, starting to think critically for my own damn self, seeing through the smokescreen that the MSM was fervently promoting. Whatever. It was any of these factors or any of a hundred others. Maybe I was a Reagan Democrat, or maybe I had finally woke up and smelt the coffee.

I was still reading michael moore’s paper in those days. I can’t honestly say that I was still a paying subscriber, but I was still picking up and reading a copy anywhere I found it. Funny, but by the election season of 1984, moore’s alt.news paper (which somewhere around that time had morphed from The Flint Voice to The Michigan Voice) had started to resemble the local “Weekly Shopper” that mysteriously showed up in the mailbox once a week, except the “Weekly Shopper” wasn’t laden with advertisements for NORML, the UAW / IBEW, head shops, tattoo parlors, and drunk driving defense attorneys.

While I’m not quite sure where I turned, I can say almost definitively where I broke faith with michael moore. Three words: Roger and Me.

Roger and Me. The film that put moore on the national map. His “break out” piece of work. But the mere premise on which he based his work was flawed.

Roger and Me was moore’s rage piece against General Motors in general and (then GM Chairman) Roger Smith in specific. You see, the evil GM Board of Directors had decided to close the Buick City facility of plants in Flint, Michigan and because of their evil and self-serving decision, you could stand on Saginaw Street in downtown Flint and literally watch the merchants go out of business in real time.

You see, in michael moore’s world, the sole purpose of any business is to provide jobs for the proletariat good union workers. In his world, it is General Motors’ moral obligation to provide employment for the masses in general and the people of Flint in specific above all other concerns or interests.

“I’ll take ‘Completely Fcuking Wrong’ for $1000, Alex”. GM’s Board (as well as the Board of any publicly traded company) has a moral obligation, indeed. Their obligation is to provide a return on investment for their shareholders. That is their mandate; their reason for being.

Contrary to michael moore’s way of thinking, if tomorrow morning the Board of Directors of GM were presented a plan by which they could reduce their workforce by 99.8% and still maintain or improve upon their current levels of cash flow, profitability, and return on investment it would literally be criminal for them to not exercise the option. That’s the responsibility of any Board of Directors, to act in a fashion that best serves the interests of the shareholders. Period.

(Note: yes, I know, I know; an employer the size of GM reducing force on that magnitude would siht-can the entire US and the global economy. Spare me. I managed to stay awake just enough in all my Economics classes to be cognizant of that fact and get a Minor in the subject. Yes, yes: “As GM goes, so goes the Nation”. Please accept the figurative point and let the literal point serve as illustration.)

So Roger and Me was flawed in premise. To moore’s credit, the film was promoted well. Reserving a seat in each and every theater for Roger Smith, the life-size cardboard cut-outs of Mr.Smith in each theater; all very well played. But the underlying premise was still flawed.

I’m no expert on moore’s films. I think there was a follow-up crocumentary to Roger and Me, but I’m not really sure and I’m already wasting enough hours of my life reliving this history to devote any time to researching it properly. As I’ve said in the past: “Do your own Google search, dammit”.

Then moore really kicked it up a notch with Bowling for Columbine. A film set out to illustrate that the prevalence of guns in our society is the reason for the violence in our society. If I may politely offer an opinion counter to the assertion of Mr.moore, and I say so most succinctly: BULLSHIT! Blaming the tragedy at Columbine on the existence of guns is the equivalent of blaming the existence of spoons for rosie o’donnell being fat. After all, if no one had a spoon, no one could snarf down a quart of Haagen-Daas whilst waiting for dinner to be served.

The distortion of facts by moore became readily apparent in Bowling for Columbine, at least to those of us not in the choir he was preaching to. The scene where he opens a bank account and is handed a rifle then he charges out the door of the bank into the street holding the rifle over his head in triumph? Completely staged. Yes, the bank did have an “open an account / get a rifle” promotion, but what you didn’t see was that the bank didn’t actually hand out the guns, they gave out a “gift certificate” for a rifle, redeemable at the gun shop down the street. But the facts never stopped michael moore. He filmed the whole scene on a Sunday morning, when the bank was closed as well as the entire downtown. Everyone seen on camera in those scenes were paid extras.

But what’s the difference, anyway? moore was out there bashing away at one of the lefts’ core issues: “guns are bad, m’kay?”. Hollywood didn’t give a tinkers’ damn about the unemployment rate in Flint, Michigan, but start pointing out how stupid the redneck gun nuts are gains moore instant golden boy status. Then enter GWB, and moore was all over him like white on rice. You know the rest, no need to recount the past four years.

So my dismissal of michael moore has nothing to do with Fahrenheit 9/11. Far from it. In my world, all of moore’s works have been based upon false premises, as evidenced by Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine. Given his track record, why would anyone lend any credence to anything moore has done or has stood for?

Oh, and BTW, moore is actually from Davison, Michigan, just east of Flint, not from Flint proper. Yes, I’m splitting hairs. Getting hardline on this little point would be like denying the people of Bellaire, Texas the right to say that they live in Houston, and that just wouldn’t be right.

Do your own MapQuest search, dammit.

I am so pissed off (or maybe I’m just having a bad day)

Chris Matthews is a total asshat. I actually feel re-affirmed in my decision to cancel my cable. What a fookin’ moron: “.....they’re not bad guys.....” WTF? Wanker.

I hope the Marine in question walks off unscathed from this incident where he was just doing his job. Just.Doing.His.Job. I hope, but I fear that he’ll be railroaded into the ashbin of society before his ordeal is over.

Just a heads’ up for all the lefties and the MSM out there: We’re at war. Deal with it. Ugly shit happens. Really, really unspeakably ugly shit. Deal with it. I think Limbaugh voiced it first: “the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things”. Well, no duh. Our hero was doing what he was supposed to do, and yes, it’s unimaginable to us sitting here in front of our computers, fat and happy, with a drink in hand and the dog at our feet.

[Note: I haven’t seen the video (I canceled my cable, remember?) but I’m hearing the audio from the tape for the second time today even as I type.]

Lemme see if I got this straight: the “insurgents” shoot a blindfolded and bound Margaret Hassan in the head and that’s OK; after all they’re “freedom fighters” defending their country? But one of our Marines offs an enemy combatant terrorist in a combat zone and he’s castigated for it?
Remember that Lt.Colonel who popped a few caps upside the head of the terrorist to get him to talk? In my opinion, he should have been boosted up to General. Instead, he got retired. Sad. Really fookin’ sad. Here was a man with the clarity of vision to do what had to be done to safeguard his troops, and for that clarity his career was cut short. If they called us all into the big conference room tomorrow morning and announced that Lt.Colonel as our company’s new CEO, I would follow him over broken glass into the fires of Hell with a five gallon can of gasoline, because he would do whatever it takes to see us all through.
The same goes for our young Marine friend, a man for whom any one of us would buy all the beer he could drink. I don’t know his story; maybe he intended to be a career Marine, maybe he was doing a stint because he wanted to serve, or maybe this was his ticket to college. Whatever. It doesn’t matter what his ultimate motivation is. The fact remains was he was Doing.It. Boots in the dirt, eating MREs and getting shot at. Wounded in combat, back into the heavy shit less than a day later. Dedicated. Motivated. He gets it; he knows, he understands. “The Marine has been withdrawn from the battlefield, pending this investigation” so sayeth the Corps’ spokesman. The Marine should be withdrawn from the battlefield to be paraded about as a hero, replete with ticker-tape parades and a multi-million dollar book and movie deal.
Clarity of vision. Dare I say, congruence with the requirements of his mission and the situation at hand. Orwell was absolutely correct: “We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
I’m sure you’ve seen the pic that’s been out there on the ‘Net the past few weeks, lefties dragging out the VietNam era banner “We support out troops when they kill their officers”? (I can’t remember where I saw it, I think Four Right Wing Wackos has a link. I’m blogging off-line, remember? No connecty, no linky. Sorry.) What if “embedded reporter” was substituted for “officer”?
Perhaps the clarity of vision was lacking months ago: Fallujah should have been MOAB’d back in April, and none of this would have happened. There is no problem that cannot be rectified by the judicious application of high explosives.

Fun ways to frustrate liberals

At lunch last Wednesday, I inadvertently found my self at the table with a true blue liberal. (WTF? When did liberals become “blue”? They were always “red”, as in “commie”, back in the day. But I digress.....) Good guy, not a sniveling knob wanker like you’d expect from a leftist.
The largely light hearted and friendly conversation turned to matters political because some nimrod started talking about billy jeff blythe clinton. I was not in the mood for serious poli-talk, after all, I was still magnanimously basking in the glory of the elections and they had just brought out a fresh pan of beef taquitos for the buffet and therefore I was just a little distracted.
So I sat and stuffed my face and chimed in with pot shots on the conversation. Some of my comments really pissed off and frustrated my most liberal friend. Presented for you here are a few examples of my contributions to the conversation, you’ll have to just imagine the course of the conversation at the time:
  • “I don’t care who the Bush administration bombs, as long as my Halliburton dividends get direct-deposited to my account on the first Monday of the month” (I thought his head was going to explode)
  • “Four more years of lower taxes and dead terrorists? I can live with that” (Special thanks to Frank J. @ www.imao.us for the clarity. Now go buy his T-shirt, dammit)
  • “Does anyone know where I can get a ‘I love Halliburton’ T-shirt” (His response was un-reportable on a family blog such as this)
  • “Oh, so Condi and Colin are in their positions merely as ‘lip service’ to minorities? I guess GWB can’t live up to billy jeff blythe clinton’s record for appointing minorities to Cabinet positions. No, wait......” (Guacamole came out of his nose, at least I hope it was guacamole)

The Saturday Evening Post

Again we meet after midnight.

I trialled the great off-line blogging project this week, I got the old 'puter up and running and sat down to do a post on my personal opinion of michael moore. Jebeezus, the end result was 12 pages in very small font MS Word and counting, I'm still retaining the right to revise and extend. It was like I morphed into Bill Whittle or something. The piece turned out to be somewhat autoboigraphical, after all it addresses why I don't like michael moore, so why shouldn't it be about me? Anyway, it was remarkably absent of vitriol and invective; I don't think I used the term "asshat" even once; nor did I mention moore's weight, or smell, or the fact that he has arafat's beard. I'll re-read it sober in the near future and post it if it's worthy. I gotta be careful with the "autobiographical" stuff though: the Witness Protection Program has a lot of time and effort invested and I wouldn't want to go dusting my cover.
BTW: Kudos to the IT guy at my new employer for his help in getting the old box up and running. It's amazing, the amount of good will that can be realized by springing for lunch at the all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet.....
So anyway, the events of the week (the week of the "duh?"):
arafat is (finally) pronounced dead. Big surprise, huh? He'd prabably been dead for a week before they announced it. Oh, and what a nice funeral for their revered leader. Shooting over the heads of his "people", running over them with trucks? Good riddance, I say. The Father of Modern Terrorism is gone, hopefully his followers will wake up and smell the coffee....
Scott Peterson is guilty. Like, dude: Duh? I could have told you that a long time ago and saved the tax payers a lot of money. I have to admit, I did not follow this story at all, I my opinion it was a local story that broke on a slow day for the national news and developed a life of it's own. Whatever. Peterson was found guilty, good; hopefully the jury doesn't go weak sister on us and they follow through by visiting the death penalty on the rat bastard. I have an interesting plan for a very slow and painfull evisceration that he would be just perfect for.....

It's good to see everyone in the blogosphere taking some much deserved time off, doing fluff pieces or dog-blogging or whatever. Very good indeed. Some people have completely gone missing, and haven't posted since 28 June 04. Rest up, my precious, for Hillary awaits and all our strength will be required.....

A whole lot of righteousness out there

Plodding about the blogosphere during lunch, I've stumbled across a couple of real gems:
First, Mark Steyn posted an e-mail he received regarding the election. It's about half-way down the page, entitled "Not Going Anywhere". Here's a taste:
".....if you hate America's politics under Bush and the Republicans, you have somewhere to go: just about anywhere on this planet but here. If you don't want to stay, go. You won't be missed. On the other hand, we who voted for W this last week had nowhere else to go. There is no country but this one that reflects our values, and for that reason we are pleased with the results of the election....."
The rest of the page is worth reading as well. Of course it is. It's Steyn.
Second, Ragin_Dave over at Four Right Wing Wackos pops the top on a fresh quart of harsh language and takes on some British knob (Paul Routledge of the Daily Mirror) who opined that we Americans are "stupid to re-elect GWB". All I can say is "Righteous, brother"
Go ye therefore and read, discuss it amongst yourselves, and return here to lend commentary.

19 November 2004

The Abortion Issue and the Issue of Abortion

The Abortion Issue and the Issue of Abortion

Just looking at that word on the screen makes almost everyone cringe. For many people, it’s the one issue that “pushes the button” and sends folks into fits of incoherent rage. On both sides. If you will bear with me, and take everything in context and hear me out, maybe I can shed my personal light on these two troubling issues.

“Two issues?” you may ask. Yes, two issues: the Abortion Issue and the Issue of Abortion. “Sophistry!” you cry. Not at all. There are two distinct issues at stake here, let’s explore them both. So go refill your drink (make it a double) or get a fresh cup of coffee or nuke some popcorn or whatever you do to bunker down. I promise to try to keep this as short as possible, after all, I don’t have Bill Whittle’s bandwidth.

First, let’s explore The Abortion Issue, the campaign plank that all political parties have. “Where do you stand on the Abortion Issue?” Candidates across the board are asked that question ad nauseum. It has even filtered down to the infinitesimally local level. We have a family friend who is the elected Clerk of our municipality. Being a good incumbent democrat, the first line in her campaign literature is that she in a “pro-choice township clerk”. I am not making this up, if I could post the image, I’d scan in her campaign literature and include it with this post. But, alas..... May I ask a (not so) rhetorical question? What does the township clerk’s position on the Abortion Issue have to do with their ability to do the job at hand? Really, WTF? I don’t give a damn what the dog-catcher’s views on the Abortion Issue are, just as long as there aren’t rabid dogs roaming the streets of suburbia. The Clerk’s job is to properly register voters (a really scary thought based on personal experience), record deeds, and other clerky type activities. The last time I checked, medical procedures do not fall within the jurisdiction of the local Clerk’s office.

Which illustrates the point. The Abortion Issue is defining. It instantly polarizes the audience, chiseling a line into granite that is difficult for anyone to cross. And just because the example presented is of a democrat hawking the Abortion Issue, don’t be fooled. There are an equal number of republicans running for Library Trustee or whatever who prominently display their position on the Issue.

Here’s the deal. Both sides profit from the Issue. Refer back to the previously unpublished “Heywood’s First Maxim on The Big Issues” as follows:

Never base your vote on an issue on which both sides have a vested interest in the status quo.

Simple, concise, right to the point. I like it. “But what do you mean, Heywood?” Good question, allow me to explain.

Every election cycle, particularly a Presidential election, this Issue is front and center. And why not? It’s a big generator of cash for both sides.

You see, dear reader, the republicans go out campaigning, preaching to the faithful, that they are “this close to ending the scourge of abortion forever”. Yes, if the republicans are elected, they’ll work day and night to make sure that not another abortion is ever performed in this country. “Righteous, brother” the faithful say, “How much do you need?” as they reach for their checkbook.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, the democrats are out campaigning that unless they are elected, the evil republicans are going to “take away the right to choose” and the nazi’s will take control and no one will ever be free to choose again. “Far out, man” their constituents say, “Dude, lemme write you a check”.

Both sides raise a tremendous amount of money hawking the Issue; if there was a way to quantify the take based solely on this Issue, I believe we would find that the two sides profits equally, dollar for dollar. Both sides would be financially crippled if the Issue was ever taken off the table. This is my point: if tomorrow the Issue was resolved one way or the other, carved in stone, and was no longer an Issue to be Campaigned Upon, what would happen?

Well, let me tell you what would happen. Both sides would see a ton of money up and disappear. Gone. Poof. Cash no more. “What, no more money? Whatever shall we do?”

Both sides would have to start coming up with realistic positions on real issues. Both sides would have to actually have to appeal to the collective voter’s logic and intelligence, rather that the collective Neolithic emotional appeal.

Since I bat from the Right side, I see this as being far more devastating to the democrats than the republicans. In my twisted world-view; no middle class working voter would ever vote for a democrat again, suddenly National Security / Defense, Education, Social Security, and relief from oppressive taxation would become real issues in a campaign, and quite frankly, the dems cannot compete in those arenas. Roughly half of the dems’ base is gone. Poof.

The republicans would suffer losses as well, although I can’t imagine on the same magnitude as the dem’s losses. Sure there will be the fundamentalist constituency who currently vote republican solely on the basis of the republicans’ stance on the Abortion Issue, who will start voting for the democrats because of their position on other social issues. But by and large, the people who vote republican because of the Abortion Issue are a smaller percentage of their base than the people who vote for democrats because of their position on the Issue.

I’ll say it again: Never base your vote on an issue on which both sides have a vested interest in the status quo. The current disposition on the Abortion Issue is the status quo.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“But, Heywood” you ask “where do you stand on the Issue of Abortion?” Good question, I thought you’d never ask. I present you with the Ultimate Position on the Issue of Abortion (or at least my ultimate position on the Issue):

Go get yourself another drink, and bring the bottle back with you.

“We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Familiar words, right? If not, go yea therefore to the next meeting of the School Board of the School District from which you graduated high school and beat senseless, with a shovel, the Members of the Board for failing you in your education. In my view, it is down-right criminal for schools to graduate students without a firm grasp of the concepts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But I digress......

I define myself politically as a Constitutional Conservative. The Constitution of the United States is THE WORD in my world. Go read it now and be prepared to discuss at length.

OK, you’re back.

Constitutionally speaking, once Life begins, said Life is endowed with the Constitutional Rights that you and I enjoy. Therein lies The Question: When does Life begin? At conception? At birth? Somewhere in-between? My answer is an unqualified “Yes”. Let’s explore our options.

We can all agree that Life begins quite some time before birth. (If you don’t see it that way, chances are you stopped reading by the fourth or fifth paragraph. Fine. Skitter off back to the Democratic Underground and start a thread about what a dangerous Fascist nut job that Heywood character is. Make sure the shiny side is out when you make your tin-foil hat and ditch your cell phone because, you know, they track you when you use your cell phone.) OK, that should take care of the whole issue of late term abortions, which are Just.Wrong. A procedure that was rarely performed in this country but yet the republicans made a big splash with some of their constituency by making it illegal and the democrats made a big stink about how the fundamentalist republicans were taking away abortion rights. Yawn. This isn’t China, where the practice is common-place. Late term abortions were never an everyday procedure in America. Period. The republicans’ late term abortion ban was nothing more than pandering to a certain faction of their base, so they could show the faithful that they are doing something about the Abortion Issue. Please refer back to Heywood’s First Maxim on the Big Issues. Nothing to see here, move along.

Here’s the leap that some of my brethren on the Conservative side of the aisle will have issue with: As Life begins some time before birth, it also holds that Life begins some time after conception.

After.Conception. I know that for a lot of you that cuts against the grain. Accepted. I’ve been swimming against the current my entire life. While I might not agree with your emotion or theology, I respect your position. Scientifically speaking, half of the “conceptions” do not result in pregnancy. You know that, I know that, so this whole debate over “conception” is a gray area.

So when does Life begin? At the first heartbeat? At the first brainwaves? When they start kicking? After the ultrasound? I honestly don’t know.

This I do know. Life begins long before birth. Life begins some time after conception. Clear as mud, right?

There are a number of popular arguments on when Life begins put forth by both sides. I do not have the patience or bandwidth to list them all. The problem with most of these arguments (and their rebuttals) is that they are based in emotion, theology, or pure narcissism. None of the various arguments are based on science or the Constitution.

Therein lies the problem. Until we can scientifically define when Life begins, this debate shall continue.

Let’s sum this up before I drop my bombshell.

· Once Life begins, that Life is endowed with full Constitutional Rights.
· We cannot currently scientifically define the precise point where Life begins.

Here’s the payoff: since we can not scientifically define when life begins and, without such definition, the point at which said Life is automatically endowed with Constitutional Rights is in question, the current laws in place on the Issue of Abortion are the Law of the Land and they should be upheld.

Once medical science has advanced to the point where the definition of when Life begins can be carved in stone, I will fully support an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America permanently banning the procedure after that point. Those of you who know me know of the sacred place that I hold our Constitution and my long standing position that there is no issue that merits it’s amendment.

I know, this should have been broken out into two seperate posts. Sorry.

07 November 2004

Another Saturday Night.....

Welcome back, amigos. Yet another monumental week goes into the books. Our thoughts and well wishes go out to Elizibeth Edwards, and we hope for her a speedy and complete recovery.

Programming notes: I've made little progress in getting the old 'puter up and running, I'm still searching for a keyboard for the old beast. If you've got a functional keyboard for a 1995 vintage 486SX100 box that you would feel free to part with, please let me know. Once I get the old box functional, the plan is to blog off-line in the evenings and up-load the post(s) at work during lunch-time.

So again, I'll run through a week's worth of emotion / insight / hysterical rantings in no particular order:
  • I'm striving to be very gracious about the big win(s) Tuesday last. I had a very odd Election Eve.....I was completely wiped out, fighting off some bug, so I semi-slept in front of the TV all evening. I'd wake up enough to see what was going on, then I'd lapse back into sleep. Finally called it a night around 3:40 AM Wednesday: saw that it was running 242-211 EV for GWB. Coverage observations? 1.) Judy Woodruff looked like she had just found her cat dead on the kitchen floor shortly after the polls closed in Ohio, CNN took way to long to face the fact that GWB had won Ohio 2.) Wolf Blitzer appearantly stayed sober all evening, but I can't qualify myself as an expert on sobriety 3.) the Dan Rather election coverage euphamisms montage that the evil VRWC talk radio people (I wonder if Hewitt or Gallagher have it linked on their blogs?) are running is absolutely hysterical. I hear that Letterman put it together originally
  • Would arafat just die, already? Bejeezus, everyone and their cousin knows that he has assumed room temperature and has ceased to be and is an ex-terrorist. Let him go. I got righteously pissed off late in the week when I read some Reuters piece about how some Arab cleric was complaining about how disgraceful it was that there had been some celebrations amongst Israelis on news of arafat's demise. Check me if I wrong, but didn't we see Arabs celebrating in the streets and hanging the burnt corpses of American (civilian) contractors from an overpass in some city in Iraq? Wasn't it Fallujah? The Israeli's are right to celebrate and deserve to do so. arafat has been a needless thorn in Israel's ass for longer than any of us can remember; his death is indeed cause for celebration. I just hope the Israeli's make full advantage of the "power vacuum" within the PLO; go ahead, we've got enough assets in theater to cover their six.
  • michael moore is a disgusting pig who hates this country. One of these days, I need to post my "official" position on moore; it goes back to the early 1980's, a very long time before he gained national attention.
  • Hopefully, by the time you read this at work on Monday, the city in Iraq once known as Fallujah will be just another smoldering crater in the desert. We should have MOAB'd that shit-hole in March. It goes back to the old adage that ".....there are very few problems in life that cannot be corrected by a judicious application of high explosives".
  • All this "the Right needs to reach out to the rest of the country" is just complete and total crap. Usually, the onus for "reaching out" is on those responsible for all the division and ranchor. Therefore I hereby call for the liberal leftists democrat moonbat types to come up to the Big House with their hat in hand and offer their apologies and ask what they can do to make it all better. Trust me, we'll accept the olive branch graciously. As Judge Smails once said, "We're waiting. Come on, while we're young!"

I really thought I had more to say, but it's late and I'm tired.

06 November 2004

A new twist on an old joke

Question: What would you call 100,000 liberal leftist types immigrating to Canada?

Answer: A good start.