Saturday, September 13, 2003
Babies smile, cry, blink in womb
As Southern Appeal points out, this new technology is going to push the public even further in the pro-life direction. As I reported back in July, public opinion is already headed our way.
As Southern Appeal points out, this new technology is going to push the public even further in the pro-life direction. As I reported back in July, public opinion is already headed our way.
Howard Dean is now officially the frontrunner
Dean is being assaulted by almost all the other candidates -- and this is just the beginning. I'm more sure every day that the Democratic nominee is going to be very bloodied by the time he emerges. Advantage: Bush.
Dean is being assaulted by almost all the other candidates -- and this is just the beginning. I'm more sure every day that the Democratic nominee is going to be very bloodied by the time he emerges. Advantage: Bush.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Ed Koch to vote for Bush
“I think [Bush has] been terrific. And I have never voted in the past for a Republican president. ... But I am voting for George Bush this time around. And I will tell you why. He has created what is now known as the Bush Doctrine, equal to the Monroe Doctrine, and what is the Bush Doctrine? That we will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. And he’s kept his commitment, unlike anybody else in the world. And certainly unlike any of the nine or so Democratic candidates for president. And the worst one is Howard Dean. I mean, that’s McGovern II.” (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 9/11/03)
This is just one more piece of evidence that New York is going to be competitive in 2004. The Democratic nominee is going to have to spend a lot of time and money competing for a state that he would normally have locked up. Adding to the Democrats difficulties is the fact that the 2004 GOP convention will be in New York City and Pataki and Giuliani are going to work very hard to make New York a red state in 2004.
Update: I should have gone further and said that it is almost impossible to construct a scenario where the Democratic nominee loses New York and still wins the election. If you'll pardon the expression, New York is going to be ground zero in the 2004 election -- if Bush wins, it's all over.
“I think [Bush has] been terrific. And I have never voted in the past for a Republican president. ... But I am voting for George Bush this time around. And I will tell you why. He has created what is now known as the Bush Doctrine, equal to the Monroe Doctrine, and what is the Bush Doctrine? That we will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. And he’s kept his commitment, unlike anybody else in the world. And certainly unlike any of the nine or so Democratic candidates for president. And the worst one is Howard Dean. I mean, that’s McGovern II.” (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 9/11/03)
This is just one more piece of evidence that New York is going to be competitive in 2004. The Democratic nominee is going to have to spend a lot of time and money competing for a state that he would normally have locked up. Adding to the Democrats difficulties is the fact that the 2004 GOP convention will be in New York City and Pataki and Giuliani are going to work very hard to make New York a red state in 2004.
Update: I should have gone further and said that it is almost impossible to construct a scenario where the Democratic nominee loses New York and still wins the election. If you'll pardon the expression, New York is going to be ground zero in the 2004 election -- if Bush wins, it's all over.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Bill Clinton's third term
So, it turns out that the story about the Dean/Clark ticket was wishful thinking on the part of Howard Dean. The Clintons seem ready to firmly get behind the Clark candidacy. This would be a risky strategy for Bill and Hillary, but it could ultimately prove successful.
If I'm reading the signs properly, Clark is going to be a first-tier candidate because he's going to have the support of much of the Democratic establishment. It has now become obvious that Dean is unlikely to lose to Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, or Edwards -- so it is possible that people could get behind Clark in huge waves to beat Dean. (At least, this is no doubt the way Wesley Clark is imagining events will unfold.)
So, it turns out that the story about the Dean/Clark ticket was wishful thinking on the part of Howard Dean. The Clintons seem ready to firmly get behind the Clark candidacy. This would be a risky strategy for Bill and Hillary, but it could ultimately prove successful.
If I'm reading the signs properly, Clark is going to be a first-tier candidate because he's going to have the support of much of the Democratic establishment. It has now become obvious that Dean is unlikely to lose to Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, or Edwards -- so it is possible that people could get behind Clark in huge waves to beat Dean. (At least, this is no doubt the way Wesley Clark is imagining events will unfold.)
A long war
James Lileks says it well:
Two years later I take a certain grim comfort in some people's disinterest in the war; if you'd told me two years ago that people would be piling on the President and bitching about slow progress in Iraq, I would have known in a second that the nation hadn't suffered another attack. When the precise location of Madonna's tongue is big news, you can bet the hospitals aren't full of smallpox victims. Of course some people are impatient with those who still recall the shock of 9/11; the same people were crowding the message boards of internet sites on the afternoon of the attacks, eager to blame everyone but the hijackers. They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers - and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:
But.
And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who's going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.
I've no doubt that if Seattle or Boston or Manhattan goes up in a bright white flash there will be those who blame it all on Bush. We squandered the world's good will. We threw away the opportunity to atone, and lashed out. Really? You want to see lashing out? Imagine Kabul and Mecca and Baghdad and Tehran on 9/14 crowned with mushroom clouds: that's lashing out. Imagine the President in the National Cathedral castigating Islam instead of sitting next to an Imam who's giving a homily. Mosques burned, oil fields occupied, smart bombs slamming into Syrian palaces. We could have gone full Roman on anyone we wanted, but we didn't. And we won't.
Which is why this war will be long.
James Lileks says it well:
Two years later I take a certain grim comfort in some people's disinterest in the war; if you'd told me two years ago that people would be piling on the President and bitching about slow progress in Iraq, I would have known in a second that the nation hadn't suffered another attack. When the precise location of Madonna's tongue is big news, you can bet the hospitals aren't full of smallpox victims. Of course some people are impatient with those who still recall the shock of 9/11; the same people were crowding the message boards of internet sites on the afternoon of the attacks, eager to blame everyone but the hijackers. They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers - and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:
But.
And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who's going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.
I've no doubt that if Seattle or Boston or Manhattan goes up in a bright white flash there will be those who blame it all on Bush. We squandered the world's good will. We threw away the opportunity to atone, and lashed out. Really? You want to see lashing out? Imagine Kabul and Mecca and Baghdad and Tehran on 9/14 crowned with mushroom clouds: that's lashing out. Imagine the President in the National Cathedral castigating Islam instead of sitting next to an Imam who's giving a homily. Mosques burned, oil fields occupied, smart bombs slamming into Syrian palaces. We could have gone full Roman on anyone we wanted, but we didn't. And we won't.
Which is why this war will be long.
Dean/Clark 2004
You'll apparently be seeing the bumper stickers soon, because it looks like a done deal that Gen. Wesley Clark will be Howard Dean's running mate. I don't think that Clark is really stupid enough to believe he can win the presidential nomination, so he doesn't have a good reason to do anything other than sign on the dotted line right now. The only possible reason that Clark would nix a deal would be if he thought that someone else was going to be the nominee.
I think Clark will be a huge benefit to Dean in addressing his perceived weakness on defense and national security. I think that many voters who would otherwise be scared to vote for Dean will be comforted by the fact that his right hand man is a retired general with real war experience.
Bringing Clark on board will also lend an aura of inevitability to the Dean campaign. Once that snowball gets rolling, everyone wants to be a part of it. It's the same reason that Bob Dole got the GOP nomination in 1996. The only problem, of course, is that the Democratic establishment is still against him. But will Bill, Hillary, McAuliffe, Gore and company make a big effort to stop him? I don't really think they'll put up that much of an effort, no matter what conspiracy theories Dick Morris comes up with.
You'll apparently be seeing the bumper stickers soon, because it looks like a done deal that Gen. Wesley Clark will be Howard Dean's running mate. I don't think that Clark is really stupid enough to believe he can win the presidential nomination, so he doesn't have a good reason to do anything other than sign on the dotted line right now. The only possible reason that Clark would nix a deal would be if he thought that someone else was going to be the nominee.
I think Clark will be a huge benefit to Dean in addressing his perceived weakness on defense and national security. I think that many voters who would otherwise be scared to vote for Dean will be comforted by the fact that his right hand man is a retired general with real war experience.
Bringing Clark on board will also lend an aura of inevitability to the Dean campaign. Once that snowball gets rolling, everyone wants to be a part of it. It's the same reason that Bob Dole got the GOP nomination in 1996. The only problem, of course, is that the Democratic establishment is still against him. But will Bill, Hillary, McAuliffe, Gore and company make a big effort to stop him? I don't really think they'll put up that much of an effort, no matter what conspiracy theories Dick Morris comes up with.
More smut directed at teenagers
A new fragrance from the brand "FCUK" is called "Scent to bed" and is being marketed to teenagers.
This kind of thing could be stopped very simply if people who didn't want teenagers getting pregnant and catching STD's (which you would think would be a large group) would simply refuse to shop at department stores that carry the product. All it usually takes is 5-10 letters per store for the store manager to realize that he's going to lose money carrying the product. I'm going to be looking for the stuff and promise to write a letter to the first store that I see with it -- I hope you'll do the same.
A new fragrance from the brand "FCUK" is called "Scent to bed" and is being marketed to teenagers.
This kind of thing could be stopped very simply if people who didn't want teenagers getting pregnant and catching STD's (which you would think would be a large group) would simply refuse to shop at department stores that carry the product. All it usually takes is 5-10 letters per store for the store manager to realize that he's going to lose money carrying the product. I'm going to be looking for the stuff and promise to write a letter to the first store that I see with it -- I hope you'll do the same.
My take on the attempts to ban gay marriage
Eugene Volokh posts a letter he sent opposing the Defense of Marriage Act. While I strongly object to same-sex marriage, I basically agree with his argument that this is an argument for each state to decide. As a society, we've always left it up to individual states to define who can marry and who can't (except when states tried to deny interracial couples the right to marry). Of course, the federal government has made so many intrusions into states' rights (continued by our current President's massive expansion of the education bureaucracy) that it seems almost quaint to take such a position.
I also oppose the proposed federal marriage constitutional amendment for another reason -- it won't work. States will simply pass laws that create "civil unions" with the same privileges as marriages. Then liberal media will start calling them "marriages" so as not to "discriminate" against gays. Liberal churches will "marry" gay couples (well, actually, they already do). Every show on network TV will have "married" gay couples. Then it won't matter that we have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, because society will have accepted it. The constitutional amendment is a waste of time and effort.
UPDATE: All this said, I would probably still vote for the amendment if I had the chance. It would simply be making a statement, though, not something I really thought was going to accomplish anything.
Eugene Volokh posts a letter he sent opposing the Defense of Marriage Act. While I strongly object to same-sex marriage, I basically agree with his argument that this is an argument for each state to decide. As a society, we've always left it up to individual states to define who can marry and who can't (except when states tried to deny interracial couples the right to marry). Of course, the federal government has made so many intrusions into states' rights (continued by our current President's massive expansion of the education bureaucracy) that it seems almost quaint to take such a position.
I also oppose the proposed federal marriage constitutional amendment for another reason -- it won't work. States will simply pass laws that create "civil unions" with the same privileges as marriages. Then liberal media will start calling them "marriages" so as not to "discriminate" against gays. Liberal churches will "marry" gay couples (well, actually, they already do). Every show on network TV will have "married" gay couples. Then it won't matter that we have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, because society will have accepted it. The constitutional amendment is a waste of time and effort.
UPDATE: All this said, I would probably still vote for the amendment if I had the chance. It would simply be making a statement, though, not something I really thought was going to accomplish anything.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
The Falling Man
This story in Esquire is the most interesting 9/11 story I've read this week -- very moving. Thanks to The Power Line for the link.
This story in Esquire is the most interesting 9/11 story I've read this week -- very moving. Thanks to The Power Line for the link.
The Angry Dean
The Big Trunk makes a good point about Howard Dean -- anger may sell to a majority of Democratic activists, but it isn't a philosophy that will sell to most of America. Dean's attitude is the opposite of that of Reagan and Kennedy, who (like Dean is attempting to do) swept into office on ideological issues. "Morning in America" this ain't.
The Big Trunk makes a good point about Howard Dean -- anger may sell to a majority of Democratic activists, but it isn't a philosophy that will sell to most of America. Dean's attitude is the opposite of that of Reagan and Kennedy, who (like Dean is attempting to do) swept into office on ideological issues. "Morning in America" this ain't.
Roy Moore may be removed from office
As Terry Eastland points out, Roy Moore could have resigned to avoid having to remove the Ten Commandments monument he put up. If he had done so, he would have done Christian conservatives a favor. Instead he chose to assert that he was above the law.
As Terry Eastland points out, Roy Moore could have resigned to avoid having to remove the Ten Commandments monument he put up. If he had done so, he would have done Christian conservatives a favor. Instead he chose to assert that he was above the law.
Should a voter pick the lesser of two evils?
Spoons and I get into it again in his comments section.
Spoons and I get into it again in his comments section.
Another symptom of Christian-hating?
Nope. Not this time, Bob Riley. No matter what you'd like to pretend, nobody has a "Christian duty" to pay higher taxes so you can take their money and give it to someone else. Congratulations to the people of Alabama on their victory.
Nope. Not this time, Bob Riley. No matter what you'd like to pretend, nobody has a "Christian duty" to pay higher taxes so you can take their money and give it to someone else. Congratulations to the people of Alabama on their victory.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
BBC still lies
In spite of the situation the "news" organization finds itself in, the BBC still has the temerity to continue it's blatant bias.
This article reeks of criticism of President Bush, but I noticed the following statement:
But the draft resolution has already been criticised by France, Germany and Russia - countries which also opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq - who complain it does not give the UN or the Iraqi people enough power.
Of course that statement is false. According to the AP, the Russians "support" the draft resolution.
Fortunately for the civilized world, the BBC's wishing for their lie to be true doesn't make it so.
In spite of the situation the "news" organization finds itself in, the BBC still has the temerity to continue it's blatant bias.
This article reeks of criticism of President Bush, but I noticed the following statement:
But the draft resolution has already been criticised by France, Germany and Russia - countries which also opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq - who complain it does not give the UN or the Iraqi people enough power.
Of course that statement is false. According to the AP, the Russians "support" the draft resolution.
Fortunately for the civilized world, the BBC's wishing for their lie to be true doesn't make it so.
Edwards rules out reelection to US Senate
Conservative Republicans continue to get good news about the US Senate. Hopefully, 2004 will free that body from the control of a few "Republican" moderates who've been preventing the President and the House from passing the few conservative reforms that they've mustered the guts to push for.
Conservative Republicans continue to get good news about the US Senate. Hopefully, 2004 will free that body from the control of a few "Republican" moderates who've been preventing the President and the House from passing the few conservative reforms that they've mustered the guts to push for.
