Batman Sucks

Talia (Ra's Al Ghul's Daughter: "And where will it end, Father?"
Ra's Al Ghul: "Where it rightfully should, Talia. With a healthy
planet no long abused by the Human Race."

That's Ra's Al Ghul in a nutshell right there. That's from an Issue of the Justice League of America and it accurately sets Ra's Al Ghul's agenda. He's an INSANE ECO-TERRORIST. Unless of course you go see the new Batman movie.

Movie Ra's Al Ghul: "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."

You see what they did? They took a nice eco-terrorist villain, a left wing tree hugging mass murderer and made him into right wing tough on crime nut, who wants to kill criminals rather than coddle them.

And some people think there's a liberal bias in Hollywood.

I am Rubber and You are Glue

Hi all! :)

I was listening to Rush while driving around at lunch today. Apparently before I started listening he said that us liberals were motivated by a seething hatred of President Bush (something he's said before). A nice liberal lady called in to challenge that statement. She said that we didn't hate President Bush, and referred to how the Republicans had talked about President Clinton.

According to Rush, he never hated President Clinton. His differences with President Clinton were over policy and over the fact that President Clinton lied. He didn't have any problem with President Clinton personally.

That's kind of nonsense. Rush seems to want it both ways. He and other Republicans can go after President Clinton with every weapon in their arsenal, and then say that there is nothing personal. On the other hand, when Democrats disagree with President Bush it can only be motivated by seething hatred. Kind of a rigged system Rush.

Maybe you'd be better off admitting that conservatives did have a visceral dislike of Clinton. And conversely acknowledge that Democrats have a few policy disagreements with President Bush (mixed in with all their "seething hatred").

Just something to think about.

Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

Yes once again it is I, Fictional 1910's Plutocrat, here to ride herd over these wild and wooly Liberal Coalition Members.

I apologize; my grandchildren took me to a wild west show last night and it has produced unfortunate giddyness and wild westism.

Anyway the first of our cowpokes is It's Craptastic, who has some words about the death penalty. The Republicans of your time are apparently in favor of something they call the Culture of Life. That's one of those phrases that seems to mean something until you think about it and it really does not.

Echidne of the Snakes has some words on Karl Rove and President Bush. I don't fully understand this Karl Rove situation, but he sounds like a bit of a bounder. And apparently President Bush is too loyal to let the bounder go. It is hard to discipline the help, but a smart plutocrat always does so. Better to solve a problem right off the bat than let it grow into a monster problem.

Consider this. The first time this Rove character lied and defamed a political opponent of President Bush's, President Bush should have taken him to the woodshed so to speak and gave him a taste of the lash. Then Rove would have learned not to act in a way that is displeasing to President Bush. Instead, President Bush, through a sense of misplaced loyalty, tolerated Rove's antics and is now in serious trouble because of it.

Rubber Hose has corralled up a bunch of links to articles on this situation on Karl Rove, although he does not seem to find it all that fascinating.

firedoglake finds the Rove situation more interesting apparently, and he has put together a list of links for those who are new to the Rove situation. Very interesting stuff.

Pen-Elayne on the Web has a section of reviews of Comical Books of the year 2000. Apparently they are still very popular, which is nice. I like Little Nemo in Slumberland myself.

Scrutiny Hooligans has a story on an agitator named Michael Moore who visited Utah and created some kind of ruckus in the community there. Apparently there has been a film made of it, so one can see what happened.

Speedkill has a piece on the 100 people who are screwing up America, and this Michael Moore person is first on the list. It is good to see that future America places an appropriate value on their plutocrats. In my day there were a lot of weak sister who would complain about how we treated our workers or safety or the like. In your future the people know better than to attack the plutocrats.

President Bush has done one thing that makes sense, according to THE NEWS BLOG. He has priorities the needs of the worlds Opium Producers. Opium, according to the latest scientific evidence, is a wonder drug. It increases muscle relaxation while enabling the mind to make logical leaps unheard of. I am surprised that this future world isn't enjoying the beneficial effects of opium constantly.

The Invisible Library has a story on night terrors that sit on your chest and keep you from moving. Apparently they aren't really monsters but some sort of disorder of the humors that keeps you from moving, and then your mind creates the monsters to explain why you can't move. This seems too complicated to me; I suppose you future people don't remember Occam's razor, but it says that the most simple explanation is most likely true. The simplest explanation is obviously that there really are a lot of monsters and hag sitting on people in the middle of the night. That's why I keep my night butler in my bedroom closet; to ally any potential night time problems.

At any rate that's another round of links. Go and read them. And then read this blog some more too. I'm going to mosey on off into the sunset now. Yippie!

Putting your Country First!!!

Hi all! : - ))

Just read a very inspiring post by Cenk Uygar over at the Huffington Post. Apparently Mr. Uygar used to be a Republican but he is dissatisfied over the direction his party is taking, just like a growing number of Americans. He feels like the war in Iraq was a disaster before it even began and he's angry at a party that supports such actions.

So, do I still call myself a Republican after all this?

Hell no. I care too much about my country to put a political party over the interests of our nation. Could there come a time again when I go back to supporting Republicans? Of course. When they go back to representing what we used to believe in and when they go back to representing the ideals of this country.

Anyway he's a sharp guy and worth looking at.

As for my comment earlier, about a growing number of Americans seeing through this administration, apparently only 41% of the American people give President Bush high marks for honesty; down 9 points from January. According to NBC and the Wall Street Journal.

Fired!

Hi Everybody! : )

Debra Saunders, conservative columnist, takes on the Rove/Plame fandango in her latest article. She admits that President Bush promised to fire the leaker, which is good.

I understand the front-page treatment in the Times and The San Francisco Chronicle when it came out that Rove spoke about Plame with Time’s Matthew Cooper. President Bush made the mistake of saying he would fire any staffer who leaked “classified” information -- a Clintonesque pledge and hedge. Bush owes the public an explanation. If he doesn’t fire Rove, he should explain why.

Most of her article though is about how the press treats Republican wrongdoing. Apparently she would like to see Republicans treated more gently in the future, and liberals (like Joe Wilson) treated more strictly.

I do think we Liberals need to be careful about Rove though. It's possible he has not actually committed a crime, and if not, well, I hope we aren't too far out on a limb when that information surfaces.

Defending the Undefendable

So Karl Rove is in trouble. Apparently repeating a well known TRUTH about a man who is LYING is now treason in Democrats eyes. I'll bet they had hit on this strategy during the Clinton Years.

Anybody who can still believe the phony balony nonsense Joe Wilson spouted clearly hasn't been paying attention to the media in the slightest. Even Daily Howler, normally a bastion of Liberal Media Criticism, has admitted that Wilson had no way to know if the story he was presenting was true.

This is what we’ve always told you—Wilson had no way of knowing if the 16-word statement was right or wrong. He had no way to debunk it! But throughout his thrilling and best-selling book, he calls this statement a “lie-lie-lie-lie,” over and over and over again. But then, grinding overstatement like that has been the problem with Wilson all along (as the three senators correctly note). And now, alas, Dems will start to pay a price for investing so much in his presentations.

Wilson claimed that Vice President Cheney sent him to Africa, so that he could claim that Cheney knew what he discovered in Nigeria. It turns out both of those statements are pretty false. It was Joe Wilson's WIFE (Valerie Plame) who got him that job in Africa (which is why I some times refer to him as the Gigelo Ambassador). Some in the Bush Administration clearly wanted to correct this LIE that Wilson was spreading throughout the land.

So I think Matthew Rothschild's article for the Progressive may be a little premature in its predictions.

When Rove’s attorney acknowledged to Newsweek that Rove had talked about this story with Matt Cooper of Time, even before Robert Novak published his hatchet job, Rove was left with little place to hide.

Even though Rove and his attorney appear to be doing some sort of Clintonesque dance about the naming of Plame--it depends on what the definition of “name” is--Rove finds himself in legal harm’s way.

He’s also in political harm’s way, as is his boss.

He goes on to repeat President Bush's desire to find out who the leaker was and take appropriate action. It's funny; usually Liberals react to the prospect of President Bush keeping his word with horror. See, for example, how they are reacting to his selection of a new Supreme Court Justice. But this is one promise they want him to live up to.

And I'm confident he will. If it is determined that there has been wrong doing on the part of Rove or any other member of the Bush Administration, I am confident that Bush will handle that problem. I am equally confident he is not going to take disciplinary action in the absence of firm evidence.

America in Black and White : A Round Up

Hi all! This is Cheery with a few stories that you might find interesting : )

Well let's start with the story that gives this post it's title; apparently the Donald is considering making Apprentice 4 a black and white thing. One team made up of white people, the other made up of black people. I could spend all day explaining why this is a bad idea.

Secondly, apparently video game "orgies" aren't nearly as much fun as you would think. They involve, well, playing video games.

Finally let us all take a moment and consider the sad case of Professer Mike S. Adams. Apparently a couple of years back he was accused of poisening one of his fellow professors at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. And now apparently he has recieved a bad performance review. These two events are connected, although Mr. Adams does not explain quite how they are related.

What I think is really lucky for Mr. Adams though is he has a voice with which to present his complaints to the year; otherwise the nation might not know he had recieved a bad performance review. ;-)

Get back to work, you SLACKER!

Everyday American workers waste more than two hours a day slacking off. More than two hours a day. Assuming 230 or so work days a year, that adds up to more than 460 hours a year (or more than 19 days). That's a lot of time the American Workforce is being paid for that they aren't actually working.

Maybe we should all remember this little fact the next time some liberal starts yammering on about unpaid overtime or low wages.

Anyway the slackingest State in the Union is apparently Missouri, although they dispute this, naturally.

I expect everybody who is reading this story at work to stay after to make up the time wasted reading this story!

This is Reality!

Hi All! : )

I must admit before writing this article that I do like some Reality TV. I particularly like the Apprentice, and I've enjoyed a few other shows. So I like Reality TV. But I have to admit it's kind of phony. I mean it's not like the people on these shows don't know that they are on TV, right? The people on the show might not be reading off of scripts, but it is edited in such a way as to tell a story.

But I still think Ben Shapiro, in his latest article, might be reading too much into a talk he had with a Hollywood insider.

The irony of the situation is that reality television is a hoax. It's no more real than "The O.C." or "Law and Order," and it's considerably more deceptive. It's also much more profitable. I recently spoke with Dave Bell, president of Dave Bell Associates; Bell is a veteran documentary filmmaker and a pioneer in reality television. His company produced the first "Unsolved Mysteries" specials, among other reality projects. He describes reality TV programming as "the most unreal situation for something called 'reality' that anyone could imagine." According to Bell, "most reality TV is for the most part scripted but not under the jurisdiction of the Writer's Guild, and acted, though not under the jurisdiction of Screen Actor's Guild, and directed, though not under the jurisdiction of the Director's Guild of America. A lot of the people who appear in reality TV shows are actors or wannabe actors or wannabe celebrities at least."

Well duh. They are putting people into an unreal situation; everybody knows that. That doesn't mean that the people in the show aren't real people. And as for wanting to be a celebrity, that's every American's dream. We all want to be celebrities (I know I do anyway).

His larger part is about how unfettered access to reality TV is corrupting America (he references a forthcoming show on the Sundance Network about transvestites). I don't know about this; but it seems like the first amendment might have something to do with protecting reality TV from Mr. Shapiro.

The Path To Victory Lies Through Defeat

At least this is what Salim Lone suggests in an article reprinted at Commondreams. We can't win the war on terror until we give up. It's kind of like a Zen Riddle. No wait, that's not it. What it is really like is TOTAL NONSENSE!

Action against terrorism is imperative, but will only succeed if accompanied by steps to address intense Muslim grievances, including curbing wars of aggression and occupation, which are among the central causes of the exponential growth in terror. But no one dares to put these items on the international agenda because of US power - and the support given to the US by Britain. Without that British support, the US would be comprehensively isolated and forced to reconsider its policies.

The greatest blow Bush and Blair could strike against terror would be to terminate the occupation of Iraq within a fixed time. This would profoundly affect the outcome of the coming elections, and forge peace through power-sharing with Iraqi insurgents.

First of all how ludicrous is Lone to think that CENTURIES of grievances in Iraq would melt away the moment the United States withdrew. I'm talking about both those grievances within Iraq that would tear that nation apart and grievances between the Islamic Nations and the West that drive Terrorists to kill as they did on September 11th in this country and on July 7th in London.

Secondly, Lone gives away his opinion of the United States when he talks about our wars of aggression and occupation. We are not an aggressive nation nor a greedy one. We went to Iraq, in part, to help the Iraqi people. Perhaps Lone has forgotten the rape rooms and Saddam's use of poison gas against his own people, but I can assure you we haven't. If Lone wants to see the liberation of an oppressed people as aggression, well, I think that says more about Lone's mentality than it does about the United States.

Update to the Format

We just made another update to the format - hope you like this. Also remember we are still hoping for comments and e-mails for next weeks Monday Mailbag. Send your e-mails to politicalcombryant@gmail.com

I'm Still Angry!!!!!!

And just a little puzzled.

Cal Thomas's latest article is one of a genre Bryant (the previous poster at this site) used to call "Muslim Menace" articles. Basically it covers how we should be afraid of Muslims because of the Terrorists. Fair enough although a little overdone. Certainly caution is never a bad thing. But it ends with this troubling paragraph.

There will be no detente, entente or peace treaty between the forces of darkness and those of light. As much as Western politicians may wish to avoid the true root cause of this war, they do so at the peril of their citizens. This is a religious war. The terrorists understand it as such. Too many in the secular and wimpishly religious West do not.

What does Mr. Thomas mean by this being a religious war? That doesn't sound very positive to me :-(

I'm not sure how you win a religious war. Should we adopt the tactics of annihilation our enemies are utilizing? I hope not. I think it's important to remember that the Muslims or the Arabs are not our enemies. Our enemies are terrorists; those who choose to use terror. Most Muslims are not terrorists. Let's try to keep that in mind.

Watching Our Words Part 3

Taking a page from Cheery's notebook.

I don't know how many of you are reading the Huffington Post. I check it out pretty regularly; there are often interesting articles there. But there's no denying it offers a venue for radical leftists. Apparently Andrew Sullivan recently pointed this out and came under some criticism from Richard Bradley.

But in a surprise move, Andrew Sullivan had some responses showing just how WARPED some of the Liberal Posters at the Huffington Report are. Take these bon mots from Tom Hayden. "Imperial fantasies, as shattered as the London transit system. The G-8 leaders feign innocence while the innocents die." As Bradley is forced to admit, these look like the words of some sixties hack protester (which, I guess, sort of describes Tom Hayden). But I have to say it's not surprising.

The Lefties in this country have never really gotten past 1968. Frankly one of the things they like about Iraq is their ability to see it as pretty much the same as Vietnam (Doonesbury even refers to it as Iraq-nam). All the old cliches and nonsense can be made to fit this new situation.

This would be amusing, if one forgets that their LIES and PROTESTS caused us to lose the Vietnam War. WE CANNOT AFFORD to lose in IRAQ! So I hope the American people will realize the danger these people represent and respond accordingly.

I'm Angry!!!

Hi all! I'd like to make a smiley face, but I'm too ANGRY to do so. :-[

I'm angry at Dennis Prager who, in his latest article, argues that Democrats do not support the troops. Nope. Democrats and liberals do not support the troops, because we do not support how those troops are being used.

In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq.

I don't know where Mr. Prager gets his statistics. I suspect they are basically assumptions.

I also don't agree with his argument that in order to support the troops we have to support how they are used. That's stupid. What Mr. Prager forgets is that Soldiers are Humans, with feelings and emotions just like his. Soldiers aren't objects and they aren't pawns. They are people! So it is entirely possible for a liberal or a democrat to support the person and wish that person well while disagreeing with the purpose for which that person is being used.

That's the root of Mr. Pragers problems there; thinking of people as things. :-(

I noticed, incidentally, how many times Mr. Prager states that he's not questioning Liberals patriotism. Of course he is, no matter how many times he denies it. Our Soldiers represent this nation, as much as the flag and the bald eagle. To oppose the Soldiers or to be anti-Soldier (as distinct from being opposed to a specific conflict) is to be opposed to America. So, Mr. Prager, I'm pretty sure you are questioning mine and other :iberals patriotism.

Meet the Press!

Some people like to claim that the Press isn't biased against this administration. I don't know how they can maintain that position, given the INCREDIBLE AMOUNT of evidence that the media is biased. Take this question from yesterdays press briefing.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

You can almost hear that reporter licking his lips at the idea of Rove suffering some sort of punishment for his "crime." You can also hear the GLEE with which he TAUNTS poor Scott McClellan.

Fortunately McClellan is more than up to the challenge. Look at that masterful reply. Of course he's not going to respond to these questions; he's been directed not to answer questions by the investigators. This administration (unlike some previous ones I could mention) obeys the law.

I wouldn't be surprised if McClellan wanted to reply. Previously he has been very clear about Rove's involvement in the Plame Matter, and it's possible (indeed, likely) that the White House Press Secretary knows a bit more about the situation than a reporter (particularly a reporter who is clearly BLINDED by his political bias). So I have to think that the end of this story may not be exactly what Liberals are hoping it would be.

Torture is Bad!

Hi all!

I know I don't have to convince any of you that Torture is Bad. One of the frustrating things about the torture debate is that we see commentators (usually liberal commentators, unfortunately) pretending like the debate is over whether or not torture is a good idea. I'm sure 99% of the conservatives are horrified at the thought of torture (just like Liberals). I can understand how a few might rather argue about the value of torture rather than whether or not any such torture took place. It is an easier argument to win; but it's also lazy.

Anyway Jeanne D'Arc, over at This Modern World, has a piece on where our soldiers might have learned to torture. Apparently they have to go through a training course in how to deal with torture - and in so doing, they learn how to torture. It's kind of a scary thought, really.

A Change is Going to Come

John Leo's latest article is half good. Certainly he's right when he comments on how Liberals rely on a CORRUPT COURT to impose their social experiments on the rest of us. His critique here is well worth reading and remembering.

That said his description of the type of judge conservatives want may lead to charges of false advertising.

No “agents of social change,” please, on the Supreme Court. We need a modest and nonideological justice who is determined not to impose his or her politics from the bench.

I can understand Leo's description of the kind of Justice he wants on the bench. In an ideal time I'd be agreeing with him. But these are hardly ideal times. The problems facing America and the Supreme Court are not problems that can be solved by modesty; they require someone willing to roll up their sleeves and dig in with both hands.

Watching our Words Part 2

Before I forget, our Monday Mailbag has been pushed back due to hurricane related troubles. It might come Wednesday or it might come next Monday. So send those letters and post those comments! ; - )

Last week I took a fox news guy to task for his foolish statements and today I need to take George Galloway, British member of parliament and popularizer of the Downing Street Minutes, to task. Debra Saunders, writing at Townhall, has the story.

Already, leftist darling George Galloway, a member of Parliament, released a statement reminding Brits that his RESPECT (Respect Equality Socialism Peace Environment Community Trade Unionism) Party had argued "that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings."

Galloway then urged the government to remove British troops, "as the Spanish government acted" by "ending the occupation of Iraq." After complete capitulation, Galloway concluded, "Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence."

This seems so obvious that I shouldn't have to write it but: There were no U.S. troops fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan on Sept. 11, 2001, and yet innocent people were killed.

Now I'm sure, as I was with Mr. Kilmeade, that Mr. Galloway didn't intend to suggest capitulation - but his words left that open to his enemies interpretation. By the same token, his words make it sound like the United Kingdom (and the United States) are responsible for these terrorist actions. I'm sure that's not what he meant, but the implication is there.

The problem with Passion

Apparently Newsweek is set to reveal that Karl Rove had a large and direct roll in the outing of Valerie Plame. David Corn writes about this in an article for Common Dreams, and, with traditional Liberal mean spiritedness, he chortles and chuckles his way through the story.

I hope this story turns out to be false, but for a moment let's assume it's true. And let's put it in the proper context. The United States is AT WAR with an enemy determined to see us COMPLETELY DESTROYED! President Bush saw that the next battlefield would be, and should be, Iraq! And Joseph Wilson, the Gigelo Ambassador, was making it harder for President Bush to do his job (for those of you who don't know, Apparently Wilson got his job, in part, because of his wife's connections).

So Karl Rove apparently let some information flow that he really shouldn't have. While he may have to suffer some consequences for his mistake, should we conservatives really get all that bent out of shape? He did what he did out of a love of his nation and a desire to support his Commander in Chief. So while he should take whatever lumps he's got coming to him, I think the Conservative Movement should continue to stand by and support Mr. Rove.

Besides, continuing to support Rove will DRIVE LIBERALS CRAZY! And that's just good fun.

New Look!

Hi Everybody! : )

We are experimenting with a new look - it's not completely done - we plan on adding a super cool graphic there where the title is.

We thought that changing our look would be a good way to show how this website has changed. This involved a lot of compromises, but i think it turned out pretty good.

Hope you like it ! : - )