And not in that funny can't stop the laughter sense. Nope. They are more hysterical in the way the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz was right before he had to reveal he was an ordinary guy. Today David Limbaugh returns to an old buggy-boo popular during and before the war.
"The more the Democratic hopefuls say we're losing the war, thereby weakening the American people's commitment and the morale of our troops, the more likely we are to allow our victory to be undone. But it's not just about Iraq. If we retreat there, we might as well surrender in the War on Terror." So basically, once again, if Liberals would just be good Conservatives and support the President while trying to unseat him. Oh, and if we liberals would all please get a machete and hack ourselves on the back of the legs just above the knees, that would be extra patriotic.
He also accuses the Democrats of obstructionism. An unusual claim, and one worth mentioning. For one thing, how does Howard Dean or Al Sharpton obstruct the president? They don't have any hand on the purse strings do they? Nope. And Congress seems posed to give President Bush the $87 Billion he asked for. So either this charge is to scare Congressional Democrats into voting for the $87 Billion, or its just a big word that sounds ominous.
Friday, October 31, 2003
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Steve Bartman
I don't know who this dude is, except that he apparently caught a foul ball and ended a play that could have won the game for the Cubs or something. I'm not too big on sports, as you may or may not have guessed, and when I do get interested it's usually baseball.
Anyway he's started a weblog, but it's not all that coherent. Apparently he's been getting death threats and was supposed to go into the witness protection program. Let me stop for a moment to comment on how full of crap some dude must be before they decide to threaten someone for messing up a baseball game. Anybody who would send a letter like that needs some valium. Or possibly he should listen to DJ Mark Farina.
Mr. Bartman also seems to have a beef with the tax system, at least as near as I can tell. That didn't stop him from cutting and pasting my discussion earlier today of Cal Thomas (scroll down to see it). Cal Thomas wants to lower taxes further for the wealthy and I'm not so big on the idea. I don't necessarily want to raise taxes on anybody, but I want a sound budget policy.
Anyway hope Mr. Bartman pulls through ok. And I hope those people who are hassling him knock it off.
Anyway he's started a weblog, but it's not all that coherent. Apparently he's been getting death threats and was supposed to go into the witness protection program. Let me stop for a moment to comment on how full of crap some dude must be before they decide to threaten someone for messing up a baseball game. Anybody who would send a letter like that needs some valium. Or possibly he should listen to DJ Mark Farina.
Mr. Bartman also seems to have a beef with the tax system, at least as near as I can tell. That didn't stop him from cutting and pasting my discussion earlier today of Cal Thomas (scroll down to see it). Cal Thomas wants to lower taxes further for the wealthy and I'm not so big on the idea. I don't necessarily want to raise taxes on anybody, but I want a sound budget policy.
Anyway hope Mr. Bartman pulls through ok. And I hope those people who are hassling him knock it off.
I am going to write Cal Thomas a letter!
Today in his article Cal Thomas takes on the issue of the economy's speedy recovery. Yep the economy is recovering. Those of you who are working at McDonalds today and worked at a nice job two years ago; the economy is recovering speedily. Those of you who can't find work; the economy is recovering speedily. This will console you, realizing that for many the economy has recovered.
Anyway then Thomas goes on to make this statement. "Under Lieberman's plan, the top tax rate would increase 5 percentage points to 43.6 percent. This would send many wealthy (and some who just want to be wealthy, but aren't there yet) back to their tax shelters from which they are only now beginning to emerge. These shelters, along with a reluctance to sell stocks when they are high because of previously large capital gains taxes (also lowered under the Bush administration and Republican Congress), would again deprive government of revenue."
What's funny about this is that conservatives are always telling us that environment plays no roll in crime. If a crime is committed it is because of the poor moral fiber of the criminal, not because of any need for money to eat or a desire for drugs to ease the pain of daily life. Nope.
But these unpatriotic selfish bastards who put their own profit ahead of America are doing it strictly because of environment. If they didn't have to pay such high taxes, they would be happy to pay their taxes. In other words, one of these guys, who's already got his money in an off shore tax dodge is going to say, "Hey, you know, now that only have to give up 38.6 % of my money as opposed to 43.6%, I'm willing to be a patriotic American and pay my taxes.
So I am going to write Cal Thomas a letter and ask him if he as any proof that a) people are putting money back in the US from tax dodges and b) they would put that money back off shore if their taxes were raised. We'll see what kind of response I get.
Anyway then Thomas goes on to make this statement. "Under Lieberman's plan, the top tax rate would increase 5 percentage points to 43.6 percent. This would send many wealthy (and some who just want to be wealthy, but aren't there yet) back to their tax shelters from which they are only now beginning to emerge. These shelters, along with a reluctance to sell stocks when they are high because of previously large capital gains taxes (also lowered under the Bush administration and Republican Congress), would again deprive government of revenue."
What's funny about this is that conservatives are always telling us that environment plays no roll in crime. If a crime is committed it is because of the poor moral fiber of the criminal, not because of any need for money to eat or a desire for drugs to ease the pain of daily life. Nope.
But these unpatriotic selfish bastards who put their own profit ahead of America are doing it strictly because of environment. If they didn't have to pay such high taxes, they would be happy to pay their taxes. In other words, one of these guys, who's already got his money in an off shore tax dodge is going to say, "Hey, you know, now that only have to give up 38.6 % of my money as opposed to 43.6%, I'm willing to be a patriotic American and pay my taxes.
So I am going to write Cal Thomas a letter and ask him if he as any proof that a) people are putting money back in the US from tax dodges and b) they would put that money back off shore if their taxes were raised. We'll see what kind of response I get.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Coulter Pictures
I couldn't post the picture as a picture of the Coulter Doll, but now I can. Here goes.
Bad Moon Rising
Go read this.
I don't read Atrios all that much--he's got good info, but just don't get around to him as much as I'd like. But whether you are far left or far right or somewhere in the middle, it's not hard to see the dialogue-chilling effect this attempt at a nuisance suit will have on the blogging community.
Not to mention message boards; what if this sort of pain-in-the-ass lawsuit could be brought against them? Anyway hope this ends up being an nothing story, but we'll see.
I don't read Atrios all that much--he's got good info, but just don't get around to him as much as I'd like. But whether you are far left or far right or somewhere in the middle, it's not hard to see the dialogue-chilling effect this attempt at a nuisance suit will have on the blogging community.
Not to mention message boards; what if this sort of pain-in-the-ass lawsuit could be brought against them? Anyway hope this ends up being an nothing story, but we'll see.
For those who haven't seen this
There's a new doll coming out.
Coulter
I particularly like this bit. "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster." I think President Bush should come out and say this, and I wish every right wing politician and pundit would repeat this mantra ad naseum.
But I guess that's not likely.
Coulter
I particularly like this bit. "Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster." I think President Bush should come out and say this, and I wish every right wing politician and pundit would repeat this mantra ad naseum.
But I guess that's not likely.
The False Choice Revisited
Linda Chavez isn't usually this crazy or deceptive. She starts by comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler (nobody's ever done that before) and saying that if the current crop of Democrats had been in charge in the 1940s we would have given up.
This only works if you believe, as Ms. Chavez does, that Saddam was a direct and immediate threat to the United States. If you believe, against the evidence, that he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. And if you believe he would happily hand such weapons over to terrorists.
And if you believe the democratic presidential candidates would immediately cut and run, despite the fact that most have specifically stated they wouldn't.
On the other hand, if you believe that the war in Iraq looks like it was sold to the American people on false premises, that Saddam was not a direct threat to the US and that we could have worked with the UN to contain him, well, then maybe Ms. Chavez's argument doesn't hold together.
This only works if you believe, as Ms. Chavez does, that Saddam was a direct and immediate threat to the United States. If you believe, against the evidence, that he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. And if you believe he would happily hand such weapons over to terrorists.
And if you believe the democratic presidential candidates would immediately cut and run, despite the fact that most have specifically stated they wouldn't.
On the other hand, if you believe that the war in Iraq looks like it was sold to the American people on false premises, that Saddam was not a direct threat to the US and that we could have worked with the UN to contain him, well, then maybe Ms. Chavez's argument doesn't hold together.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Quote Page Updated
Hey, updated the quotes page, as promised. Also revamped the Interview with the Founder of this Website.
One Year of Commentating
Today, as referenced before, is the one year anniversary of "Make me a Commentator!!!" I started this website as "Make me a Commentator" but decided I needed the extra exclamation points for pizzazz.
A year ago I wrote, "You may wonder what qualifications I have to commentate on the news of the day. I donÂ’t have any, really. I read commentators often, and I have a MA in American History, but besides that my only real qualification is that I have the overwhelming arrogance to believe that my view points might matter to the random reader." That's still largely true. I've read a lot more commentators, though.
One year ago, I also cut off a sentence in mid thought, and now I can't remember what I meant to say.
There is a growing scorched earth policy between our two political parties. Some Liberals and Conservatives want to defeat their political rivals completely. Eliminate them from America. I'll say that I see this tendency more on the Conservative side but I have Conservative friends who believe completely the opposite. I guess it's easy to believe that a victory for the principles one believes in requires defeating those who hold opposite view points. And I guess there's enough anger on both sides to make that seem reasonable. Even rational.
I find myself drawn into it at times. Imagining an apocalyptic war between Conservatives and Liberals for the Soul of America. But that's nonsense. I believe that most of the fighters on both sides of the ideological divide believe in America as much or more than they believe in their individual ideologies.
The words of Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural have great meaning today. "Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . . every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."
A year ago I wrote, "You may wonder what qualifications I have to commentate on the news of the day. I donÂ’t have any, really. I read commentators often, and I have a MA in American History, but besides that my only real qualification is that I have the overwhelming arrogance to believe that my view points might matter to the random reader." That's still largely true. I've read a lot more commentators, though.
One year ago, I also cut off a sentence in mid thought, and now I can't remember what I meant to say.
There is a growing scorched earth policy between our two political parties. Some Liberals and Conservatives want to defeat their political rivals completely. Eliminate them from America. I'll say that I see this tendency more on the Conservative side but I have Conservative friends who believe completely the opposite. I guess it's easy to believe that a victory for the principles one believes in requires defeating those who hold opposite view points. And I guess there's enough anger on both sides to make that seem reasonable. Even rational.
I find myself drawn into it at times. Imagining an apocalyptic war between Conservatives and Liberals for the Soul of America. But that's nonsense. I believe that most of the fighters on both sides of the ideological divide believe in America as much or more than they believe in their individual ideologies.
The words of Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural have great meaning today. "Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . . every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."
Were We Lied Too
David Limbaugh takes on the Presidential Candidates again; quelle surprise! He takes the tack that it's hypocritical for John Kerry to criticize a war he voted for. "Senator Kerry, the fact is that you did not condition your resolution on any kind of an international coalition. If you think it was irresponsible of President Bush to go to war without the precise coalition of nations you say -- after the fact -- you prefer, then it was irresponsible of you to cast your vote authorizing him to go without that coalition.
Yeah, maybe that vote wasn't the best move Senator Kerry ever made. But at the time you and other Conservatives presented it as a way to force Saddam to let inspectors back in. Then Saddam let inspectors back in. And we invaded anyway, without much of a delay and without the support of the United Nations (although, to be fair, we did have a coalition of the willing made up largely of nations who feared we'd cut off aid if they refused support, and Australia, Great Britain and Poland).
But of course you duck the WMD question, don't you?
Let me tell you a parable. Once upon a time there was a guy who bought a used car. He took it home and realized that it was a piece of crap, and that the dealer had lied to him when he said it was a great car and dependable. So the guy took the car back to the dealer.
Dealer says, "Hey you hypocrite. You were satisfied with the car when you left. How can you come back now and complain? Why should anybody believe your complaints are real if you are this inconsistent?" Well, the guy got angry at having been deceived, but even angrier at the deciphers gall. So he went to the bank and with the support of the people bought out the car dealer and set the dealership back on the course to honest government that at least pretends the American people aren't total morons.
Yeah, maybe that vote wasn't the best move Senator Kerry ever made. But at the time you and other Conservatives presented it as a way to force Saddam to let inspectors back in. Then Saddam let inspectors back in. And we invaded anyway, without much of a delay and without the support of the United Nations (although, to be fair, we did have a coalition of the willing made up largely of nations who feared we'd cut off aid if they refused support, and Australia, Great Britain and Poland).
But of course you duck the WMD question, don't you?
Let me tell you a parable. Once upon a time there was a guy who bought a used car. He took it home and realized that it was a piece of crap, and that the dealer had lied to him when he said it was a great car and dependable. So the guy took the car back to the dealer.
Dealer says, "Hey you hypocrite. You were satisfied with the car when you left. How can you come back now and complain? Why should anybody believe your complaints are real if you are this inconsistent?" Well, the guy got angry at having been deceived, but even angrier at the deciphers gall. So he went to the bank and with the support of the people bought out the car dealer and set the dealership back on the course to honest government that at least pretends the American people aren't total morons.
One Year Anniversery Spectacular
Well, it was exactly one year ago today that this website opened its metaphorical doors to the public. In celebration of that anniversary I am creating a special page dedicated to the woman who started it all, sort of. Ms. Ann Coulter.
Anyway it's essentially my reaction to Ms. Ann Coulter's articles over the past year, the ones I responded to anyway. In one convenient location.
Enjoy!
Anyway it's essentially my reaction to Ms. Ann Coulter's articles over the past year, the ones I responded to anyway. In one convenient location.
Enjoy!
Monday, October 27, 2003
Final thoughts on New York
Wrote this on Friday, but didn't get around to posting it till today. Assuming my vanity holds out, I'll probably combine the posts with some other pictures and make a page for them. But that will have to wait--tomorrow is my one year anniversary and I have a special page to get ready. Look for it to appear tomorrow.
Written from the JFK Airport Terminal, listening to REM. Well it’s been an interesting week, no doubt about that.
Yesterday I went to the Museum of Modern Art, mainly to confirm that it had moved to Queens. But I did go to the museum of art and design store. And then I went shopping. An all American experience. And I saw School of Rock which was surprisingly fun. So that was a full day.
Rode into the airport today with a Ukranian Taxicab driver—who described himself as Russian. We talked about Gambling and agreed that some get carried away gambling. Hard to deny, actually.
One thing I’ve noticed while being here. Ann Coulters book, Treason, which is apparently hugely popular in my home town, is not nearly as popular here. I am basing this strictly on the fact that I see copies of Treason everywhere in Tallahassee, prominently displayed, while other best sellers from Liberal authors are not nearly as prominent. Well the opposite is true. And since I consider Ms. Coulters work largely fictional and crap—well, it’s a positive move in my mind.
Also there are a lot of great restaurants in New York. Had Tibetan and Korean Food, both of which were good. Had some lousy food too, but mostly from places I didn’t expect a lot out of (where I was trying to stretch my budget to accommodate more CDs.
Bought a ton of CD Singles—including the new Bad Day Single by REM, the Golden Path by The Chemical Brothers, Girl by Pepe Deluxe (great, GREAT band), Staging the Plaguing of the Raised Platform by Cornershop, and Just a Few Things that I Ain’t, by the Beautiful South (another Great band, but one I’m resigned to the fact that I’m the only one (in the USA) that likes them.
So over all—I like New York.
Written from the JFK Airport Terminal, listening to REM. Well it’s been an interesting week, no doubt about that.
Yesterday I went to the Museum of Modern Art, mainly to confirm that it had moved to Queens. But I did go to the museum of art and design store. And then I went shopping. An all American experience. And I saw School of Rock which was surprisingly fun. So that was a full day.
Rode into the airport today with a Ukranian Taxicab driver—who described himself as Russian. We talked about Gambling and agreed that some get carried away gambling. Hard to deny, actually.
One thing I’ve noticed while being here. Ann Coulters book, Treason, which is apparently hugely popular in my home town, is not nearly as popular here. I am basing this strictly on the fact that I see copies of Treason everywhere in Tallahassee, prominently displayed, while other best sellers from Liberal authors are not nearly as prominent. Well the opposite is true. And since I consider Ms. Coulters work largely fictional and crap—well, it’s a positive move in my mind.
Also there are a lot of great restaurants in New York. Had Tibetan and Korean Food, both of which were good. Had some lousy food too, but mostly from places I didn’t expect a lot out of (where I was trying to stretch my budget to accommodate more CDs.
Bought a ton of CD Singles—including the new Bad Day Single by REM, the Golden Path by The Chemical Brothers, Girl by Pepe Deluxe (great, GREAT band), Staging the Plaguing of the Raised Platform by Cornershop, and Just a Few Things that I Ain’t, by the Beautiful South (another Great band, but one I’m resigned to the fact that I’m the only one (in the USA) that likes them.
So over all—I like New York.
On the Economy
Conservatives would like you to remember that the economy is recovering.
Bob Herbert at the New York Times isn't so convinced. "The administration can spin its "recovery" any way it wants. But working families can't pay their bills with data about the gross domestic product. They need the income from steady employment. And when it comes to employment, the Bush administration has compiled the worst record since the Great Depression."
Herbert mentions that the job figures disguise the fact that millions aren't looking for work, and millions have moved from full time to part time work. So the situation is worse than it appears.
But, still, if the Stock Market goes up a little today (and I hope it does), conservatives will want you to take that as proof that the economy is recovering, and ignore all these niggling questions.
Bob Herbert at the New York Times isn't so convinced. "The administration can spin its "recovery" any way it wants. But working families can't pay their bills with data about the gross domestic product. They need the income from steady employment. And when it comes to employment, the Bush administration has compiled the worst record since the Great Depression."
Herbert mentions that the job figures disguise the fact that millions aren't looking for work, and millions have moved from full time to part time work. So the situation is worse than it appears.
But, still, if the Stock Market goes up a little today (and I hope it does), conservatives will want you to take that as proof that the economy is recovering, and ignore all these niggling questions.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Public Urination; A Modest Proposal
Here is my proposal. Any body making over $500,000.00 a year or worth over $5,000,000.00 should be immune to any penalties imposed by a municipal, county, state or federal ordinance prohibiting Public Urination.
Some of you might think that this proposal makes no sense; I would argue that it is a necessity for America to remain strong. You see the Wealthy drive this country, drive our economy. They are necessary for the machinery of capitalism to work. And if we deny them the right to pee as and when they like, they may leave this country. And thus they must be exempt from public urination laws.
Some might say that we are nation of laws and not men. Balderdash. Do laws make the wheels of industry turn? Do laws make water come out of our facets or power come out of our generators? Do laws provide us the food we need to survive? Have laws ever made a car, an airplane, a tank? No! It is men who have done these things. Wealthy men. And if a little public urination is what it takes to keep them working for America, than that is a sacrifice we should all be willing to make.
Some might say that it is unfair to enforce laws on the poor and the middle class and exempt the rich. Think if the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year on lawsuits already. Everybody knows that the American Justice System favors the rich. Why not, in this instance, cut them out. I admit the wealthy may not be guilty of many counts of Public Urination, but if we can lessen the burden on the court even a little, isn't it worth it?
Some of you might think that this proposal makes no sense; I would argue that it is a necessity for America to remain strong. You see the Wealthy drive this country, drive our economy. They are necessary for the machinery of capitalism to work. And if we deny them the right to pee as and when they like, they may leave this country. And thus they must be exempt from public urination laws.
Some might say that we are nation of laws and not men. Balderdash. Do laws make the wheels of industry turn? Do laws make water come out of our facets or power come out of our generators? Do laws provide us the food we need to survive? Have laws ever made a car, an airplane, a tank? No! It is men who have done these things. Wealthy men. And if a little public urination is what it takes to keep them working for America, than that is a sacrifice we should all be willing to make.
Some might say that it is unfair to enforce laws on the poor and the middle class and exempt the rich. Think if the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year on lawsuits already. Everybody knows that the American Justice System favors the rich. Why not, in this instance, cut them out. I admit the wealthy may not be guilty of many counts of Public Urination, but if we can lessen the burden on the court even a little, isn't it worth it?
Saturday, October 25, 2003
A Public Service
For those interested in the Democratic Candidates positions on Iraq--Mahablog has posted a very helpful list of their positions. Check it out!
Well I'm back.
I'll post my last New York Journal in a bit and maybe some other stuff too. So hold onto your socks.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Well, this is interesting
Both Gen. Wesley Clark and Sen. Joe Lieberman have decided to forgo the Iowa Caucus. That has traditionally been a key factor in determining the Presidency, but Clark and Lieberman believe they can pick up enough momentum in the Febraury 3rd contests. They also argue, particularly Lieberman, that both Iowa and New Hampshire are liberal strongholds and therefore not good at providing candidates who can challenge in the national race.
New York Journal #7
Well I went to the theater last night, and I thought I’d tell you a bit about it so that if you ever go you can be prepared.
First of all, surprisingly enough, the best time to show up is about 3 minutes after the performance is due to begin. They are always a little late anyway, and the full seats makes it easier to find your seat (it’s the one that nobody’s sitting in (usually)).
Secondly, you might be concerned that the actors do not hear your specific applause during the performance—well I’ve got a solution to that. Wait until the applause dies down, preferably during one of them long winded speeches. Then start applauding with all your might. I guarantee the actors will respond.
Went to see the Lion King at the New Amsterdam Theater—let me clear one thing up right away. It’s not a cartoon—it’s actually a play. You better know that before you go. I was lost for the first ten fifteen minutes.
The New Amsterdam Theater is beautiful. Nice balconies and lovely seats. The only deficiency is that the stage is only 4 ½ to 5 feet across. Made it very hard on the dancers.
Also had a strange experience in the middle of the play. One of the cast members signaled to me that they wanted me to get up onstage. I didn’t really understand at first, but then he used that signal again. So I got up on stage. Well you wouldn’t believe the ruckus that caused. Once I got up there, those lying lions claimed I’d never been asked on stage and that I was ruining the play. Plus people threw stuff at me.
So my advice? Don't get up on stage even if they are pleading with you to do so. It's a trick.
Other than that, enjoy the theater. And it goes without saying that this entire article is full of crap. But hopefully enjoyable crap.
First of all, surprisingly enough, the best time to show up is about 3 minutes after the performance is due to begin. They are always a little late anyway, and the full seats makes it easier to find your seat (it’s the one that nobody’s sitting in (usually)).
Secondly, you might be concerned that the actors do not hear your specific applause during the performance—well I’ve got a solution to that. Wait until the applause dies down, preferably during one of them long winded speeches. Then start applauding with all your might. I guarantee the actors will respond.
Went to see the Lion King at the New Amsterdam Theater—let me clear one thing up right away. It’s not a cartoon—it’s actually a play. You better know that before you go. I was lost for the first ten fifteen minutes.
The New Amsterdam Theater is beautiful. Nice balconies and lovely seats. The only deficiency is that the stage is only 4 ½ to 5 feet across. Made it very hard on the dancers.
Also had a strange experience in the middle of the play. One of the cast members signaled to me that they wanted me to get up onstage. I didn’t really understand at first, but then he used that signal again. So I got up on stage. Well you wouldn’t believe the ruckus that caused. Once I got up there, those lying lions claimed I’d never been asked on stage and that I was ruining the play. Plus people threw stuff at me.
So my advice? Don't get up on stage even if they are pleading with you to do so. It's a trick.
Other than that, enjoy the theater. And it goes without saying that this entire article is full of crap. But hopefully enjoyable crap.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Run that by me again
This Gen. Boykin story is just getting warmed up. It’s got everything the right likes to see in a story. Religion being persecuted. Political correctness run amok. Men in uniform. Now if they could just work in an anti Clinton angle.
Anyway Tony Blankly took much the same tack as Cal Thomas yesterday; i.e. Muslims are evil so what Gen. Boykin said was correct. Frank N. Gaffney takes a different tack; total distortion.
First of all he repeats the theory that “Even if there are only a small percent of Muslims that are evil that could still millions.” Not sure what anybody expects us to do with this information. Except, of course, vote for President Bush as the only man who can protect our children.
He does add a new spin to that particular theory. Apparently that number is growing. Not by anything America is doing of course. America, that most blameless of countries, is unable to increase the number of Muslims who hate us by our actions. No, it is the preaching of Saudi Arabian and Iranian Clerics that is increasing the numbers who hate us.
Gaffney does recognize a difference between the “Islamists” who hate us and the rest of the Muslims. Apparently Gen. Boykin does as well. Although his comments would seem to be directed at all Muslims (particularly when he suggests that they worship a false god; an idol), Gaffney assures us that we are misreading him. He really only meant those bad Muslims.
The most frustrating thing about this debate is that it seems like the Muslim people aren’t being heard. I don’t know if its just that sane sensible Muslims don’t make good TV or if it’s due to something more sinister. Anyway I can’t really go fishing being on the road and all, but when I get back home I’m going to see if I can round up some good moderate Muslim sites.
Anyway Tony Blankly took much the same tack as Cal Thomas yesterday; i.e. Muslims are evil so what Gen. Boykin said was correct. Frank N. Gaffney takes a different tack; total distortion.
First of all he repeats the theory that “Even if there are only a small percent of Muslims that are evil that could still millions.” Not sure what anybody expects us to do with this information. Except, of course, vote for President Bush as the only man who can protect our children.
He does add a new spin to that particular theory. Apparently that number is growing. Not by anything America is doing of course. America, that most blameless of countries, is unable to increase the number of Muslims who hate us by our actions. No, it is the preaching of Saudi Arabian and Iranian Clerics that is increasing the numbers who hate us.
Gaffney does recognize a difference between the “Islamists” who hate us and the rest of the Muslims. Apparently Gen. Boykin does as well. Although his comments would seem to be directed at all Muslims (particularly when he suggests that they worship a false god; an idol), Gaffney assures us that we are misreading him. He really only meant those bad Muslims.
The most frustrating thing about this debate is that it seems like the Muslim people aren’t being heard. I don’t know if its just that sane sensible Muslims don’t make good TV or if it’s due to something more sinister. Anyway I can’t really go fishing being on the road and all, but when I get back home I’m going to see if I can round up some good moderate Muslim sites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)