"Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!"

Dedicated to exposing all manner of journalistic malfeasance and moral incontinence, while laboring in comfortable obscurity.

Location: Antarctica

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Just a thought...

Would it be, you know, racist of me to suggest the possibility that some (many?) of those who refused to evacuate from New Orleans in the face of an impending hurricane did so specifically because they fully intended to capitalize on the ensuing choas for their own criminal designs?

Decidedly NOT Stuck on Stupid

Jeff Harrell over at Shape of Days has a bullseye, right-on-the-mark article about negotiation versus capitulation with terrorists.

The annoyance of misinterpretation

The “let’s beat them by negotiating with them” school of thought can be thoroughly and definitely disarmed by reducing the question to a simple analogy. If I blew up a federal reserve bank because I wanted the government to spend more money on public schools, would you expect Congress to send a delegation to my house to hear me out?
Let’s try an even simpler one: If your two-year-old son murdered the family cat because he wanted a new Playstation, would the correct response be to drive immediately to the Toys ’R’ Us?
The solution to terrorism is not for us to negotiate with them. It’s for them to put down their weapons, turn away from violence as a political tactic, and negotiate with us.
Either that, or we can kill them all. Whichever comes first!

Stating the obvious like its cool.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

And you wonder why we call them the Loonie Left?

I just had to post this photo of a protestor's sign at the "big" San Francisco rally earlier this week(courtesy of ZombieTime).

This sign, more than any other I've seen, highlights the frustration that the rational debater has in trying to engage a Lefty moonbat in any kind of meaningful dialogue.

In the same breath that they shake their collective fists in, what's the word, uh, ANGER, crying for Pres. Bush's blood, and suggesting all manner of violent insurrectionist solutions to getting rid of the "Bush Cabal" and the "lunatic right," they then wrap it all up with a cry of, "Learn Compassion!!" All the while remaining completely intellectually blind to the screaming hypocrisy of it all.

Their signs and slogans cry, "We Want The TRUTH!" Which is kinda of funny, because what they really mean is, "We only want the 'truth' which fits into our neatly packaged 'Hate Bush' worldview!"

If you do manage to somehow wade through their vitriol, parse down their virulent language, and scale the rhetorical bulwarks to the point where you can lay actual, no-kidding facts (read: Truth) right before their eyes, the conversation almost always immediately devolves into something akin to, "Of COURSE you'd say that, you're a CONSERVATIVE! Ptooie!" Ad Hominem attacks are the last recourse of the intellectually stunted.

A perusal through the ZombieTime Anti-war photos shows you a group of individuals reveling in the unrestrained joy of the very same freedom of speech that they seem so intent on denying to the conservative voice. Suggesting that "Bush Is Satan" and "Decapitate Bush" is apparently "vocal activism," not hate speech. Yet, what if I were to replace "Bush" with "Cindy Sheehan" or "Muslims" or "homosexuals;" imagine the resultant frenzy! Veins would throb, tears would flow, cries of hate crime would fill the air! Where I come from, we call that "intellectually dishonest" or a double standard.

That is a concept which seems to escape the "Progressive" mind. Suggesting that you SHOULDN'T be saying something does not equate to saying that you should not be allowed to say something. Criticism of an idea does not mean revocation of your right to present that idea in the public forum, however distasteful it may be. Censure, does not mean censor.

The Progressive faction would have us believe that criticizing a sexual preference, a religious culture, or a political ideology constitutes "hate speech," yet strangely, that same standard does not seem to apply to them in their virulent condemnations of the "Christian fundamentalists," "heteronormatives," "right wing rethuglicans," etc, etc, ad nauseum.

And so we watch in bemused wonder as the Melting Pot of Diversity and Tolerance (*snurk*) swirls about the streets of San Francisco, all the while understanding all too clearly how "acceptable" it would be to this same lot of "activists" if the slogans and signs bore equally abhorrent rhetoric, but from a far right-wing perspective.

How do you debate with people who are so rapturously intoxicated with their own mercurial brew of emotional endorphins that they are essentially unreachable on any kind of intellectual level?

They aren't just stuck on stupid; they have become addicted to it.

It's all about "context"

A caption isn't really required, is it?

(Thanks to River Rat...you hilariously sick pup!)

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Defending the Indefensible - Partial Birth Abortion

I was reading a legal brief dealing with partial birth abortion infanticide over at Patterico's blog, and was reminded that the description of one type of this procedure includes, "puncturing the cranium and evacuating the brain" in order to collapse the skull, thus facilitating "extraction" of the, uh, "fetus."

People can debate when life begin, is it the zygote, blastocyst, when the heart first starts beating, when there's a spine and nerves. Whatever. Debate all you want, but what I want to know is, in all the hulabaloo about when life begins, sentience, etc., how do get to "puncture the cranium and REMOVE.THE.BRAIN", and then continue to defend this procedure with a straight face?

"Brain," people. A beating heart, and an active brain.

Try this one on for size: "In the news today, reports are coming in from the Superdome in New Orleans in that a suspected psychopath is stabbing people in the skull and removing their brains." AAuughh! The horror!!

Maybe the Weekly World News: "Aliens Attack Nation's Children! Puncture skulls and suck out brains!" Run for your LIVES!!

Crazy, right? And yet this legal brief carries on in the driest, most dispassionate terms about which of these types of procedures is "safer."

How do you get up in front of a podium and, with your composure intact, carry on about how it's important to preserve PBI because it's a woman's "right"? Paying a "doctor" to perforate and deflate your unborn child's skull is a RIGHT?!

I'm sorry, but if you can't see how this is plainly the most inhumane form of butchery, then you are seriously Stuck on Stupid.

Shut up and stay repressed. Or else!

Froggy Ruminations has a scathing yet insightful post about the institutional disdain show by the Left towards blacks and the poor; to include the way the media plays right into it. Here's a teaser:
Since these stories already fit nicely into the worldview and mindset of elite liberals and victim-identity hustlers, they are reported as a matter of fact without compunction or remorse. The theme that black people are incapable of acting humanely to each other under stressful conditions is not an actual news story, it is a script written long ago by patronizing liberals who sought to tame and care for these “unfortunate savages”. Treating blacks like animals in a Zoo is actually a perfect analogy to what liberal elites think of them. In a Zoo, animals are fed, housed, and protected from each other and more importantly the visitors, by benevolent zookeepers so that they can be observed and studied in an artificial habitat.
Definitely worth the time to read the whole thing.

H/T to Mudville Gazette for the link.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Hamas Lied, People Died.

Schools close as rockets fly
Palestinian attacks show vulnerability of towns near Gaza
Responding to a barrage of Qassam rockets fired at his town, the mayor of a large Israeli Negev community yesterday closed all schools, highlighting growing concerns Jewish neighborhoods near the Gaza border are vulnerable to ongoing Palestinian attack.
And this comes as a surprise to whom? You mean, giving the Palestinians the Gaza strip like they wanted not only didn’t stop the rocket attacks, but actually increased their frequency? Hmm. Whoda’ thunk it?

During the Six-Day war in 1967, Israel defeated a coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Syria as they strove to strangle Israel, and in the process Israel captured the strategically vital areas the
Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. (Wikipedia)

WHY were these areas “strategically vital?” Because they had traditionally been staging areas for attacks against Israel by its many enemies. The area comprising the "Gaza Strip" was owned by Egypt, and was used as an avenue of attack during the Six-Day war. The Golan Heights has a commanding overview of Israel, and was used to
lauch artillery attacks deep into Israeli territory.

are many who would argue (and do) that modern methods of warfare, as well as the changing face of middle-eastern poltics nullifies some of the historical strategic imperitives of these regions:

The global and regional changes which have taken place over the past decade have significantly reduced the both the likelihood and the destructive potential of a broad land-based attack against Israel by an eastern Arab coalition. The potential magnitude of this threat has diminished because of the relative weakening of Syria, Iraq and Jordan. Syria and Jordan have both failed to locate funding for the revitalization of their armed forces, while Iraq's military force was severely damaged during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and the sanctions in place since then have prevented it from rehabilitating and re-equipping its armed forces. It is fair to assume that Jordan and Syria will continue to suffer from weak economies, preventing them from growing in military strength on the basis of their own resources*
I beg to differ. Long-range bombardment can be used to attrit forces, break down an enemy’s will to fight, or strike specific strategically significant targets. However, no force or country can be considered “defeated” until a ground force moves in and takes the territory in hand.

We have seen in Iraq the consequences of failing to control your borders. Terrorist infiltrators can wreak havoc upon civilian populations. Kill one, another sneaks in to fill his or her place.
The Israeli’s wall proved to be an effective barrier against such incursions, reducing bus bombings and other suicide bomber attacks to almost zero. The very necessity of this wall lay in the close proximity of a group of people (the Palestinians) who have made no secret of the fact that they will accept nothing short of the complete destruction of Israel. In the words of a previous Hama leader,

"The main aim of the intifada [uprising] is the liberation of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, and nothing more. We haven't the force to liberate all our land," Mr Rantissi told the BBC in 2002. (My emphasis)
Read that again, “...liberate all our land.” This clearly includes a great deal more than "the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem." It’s every square inch of dirt that Israel claims as its own.

By ceding the Gaza strip to the Palestinians, Israel has enabled them to
launch their attacks that much closer to the heart of the country and reach more communities (read: innocent victims) than they could before.

Areas such as the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank were seized by right of conquest against historical blood enemies, and they were captured for a very specific and logical reason; to control potential staging areas and avenues of approach in order to prevent further attacks.

Ceding these areas back to your sworn enemies in the name of capitulationst politics is just plain stupid. Stuck.On.Stupid.

And believing that the Palestinians will ever, ever, EVER really put down their arms? Well, that’s just plain ignorant.

Pres. Bush Hitting the Sauce Again?

Well, consider the source.

The supposed lurid accusation comes from none other than that bastion of multiple layers of fact checking, the National Enquirer. According to a Dr. Justin Frank, Bush is likely hitting the bottle again. This is backed up with several quotes from “other sources” and “family sources.”

Shocking. Tragic. But wait. What say, in the interests of journalistic fidelity, that we take a little closer look at this article, shall we?

For starters, there is not a single named source for these accusations, save for that of Dr. Frank. Every other quote, assertion, accusation or suggestion is attributed to the amorphous “other sources,” "insiders," and "family sources."

"When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a shot," said one insider.
An insider who of course could not be named, I’m sure out of fear of recrimination.

Let’s think about this for a second. What Bush “family member” in their right mind would say anything at all to the National Enquirer?

And what about that one named source that they do throw in for “credibility?” Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President.” (read the review). As referenced on Media Matters For America website,

"According to the book's official website, 'At once a compelling portrait of George W. Bush and a damning indictment of his policies, Bush on the Couch sheds startling new light on an administration whose record of violence and cruelty seems increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center.'”
But wait, there’s more. Media Matters is, “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Hmm. I’m sensing a trend.

So what ELSE does the good Doctor have to say?

Prominent DC Shrink Diagnoses Bush to be a Paranoid, Sadistic Meglomaniac

Dr. Frank's expert recommendation? "Our sole treatment option -- for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office . . . before it is too late." (Capitol Hill Blue)
Ahh, like you didn’t see THAT coming.

So what about some personal information on Dr. Frank, you ask?
“A Democrat, he once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility”,
whose mission is:
“Recognizing that new dangers now threaten us, PSR has expanded its mission to include environmental health, addressing issues such as global climate change, proliferation of toxics, and pollution. Facing an epidemic of gun violence that kills 28,000 Americans a year, PSR also works to address firearms as a major public health menace."
Hmm. So, let’s recap. We’ve got unsubstantiated reporting from a scurrilous journal widely famous for stories like “Alien With Two Heads Ate My Grandmother,” incorporating several unnamed sources. The one ringer they do bring in to add weight to their allegations is a liberal Democrat with strong ties to a social “progressive” activist organization dedicated to opposing global warming, gun violence, and weapons proliferation. And his solution to this looming specter of Bush’s impending alcoholic rage episodes? Remove Bush from office. How handy THAT would be for the Lefties, eh?

And yet the lefty blogs parrot this nonsense like it’s gospel. If you take such blithering at face value, you ARE stuck on stupid.


Michelle Malkin has a piece slamming lefty gutter-mouthBILL MAHER for running with the story, and Crooks and Liars has the video.

Linked at Mudville Gazette, and Basil's Trackback Potluck.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Sen. Clinton Will Vote 'No' on Roberts

Why, you ask? Is it because he’s incompetent? Lack of experience? Nope.

In her words:
“I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf…”
In other words, I didn’t hear exactly what I wanted to hear, so rather than giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll vote against you just in case you might someday make a ruling I don’t like.

"My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills," she concluded.
In other words, "like the liberal that I am, I am going to let emotion trump logic." Read the words carefully here. What Sen. Clinton is unequivocally saying is that while Roberts is clearly intelligent, honest, and qualified, she has doubts that he will further the social engineering agenda “progressives” have worked so hard to implement.

This is a clear reflection of the Progressive mantra. Statements such as these codify the worldview of the Left which states that -- rather than serve as a watchdog, an interpreter and applier of constitutional principles -- the Supreme Court is instead an activist organization with a mandate to further social(ist) causes. Not to interpret law, but to create policy.

“That uncertainly(sic) means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service."
Once again, she laments that despite his clear qualifications, her “conscience” will not let her vote to confirm him.

The five Democrats voting against the nomination were Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois” uh…and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
If ever there was a better endorsement for a candidate, it’s to be opposed by the likes of these.

This whole process highlights to a glaring degree that these nominations are not about selecting the most qualified candidate for the position, but in determining who will best support an ideological position. Neutrality is not required or desired. Objectivity is not a factor. You MUST TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR.

Time and again his inquisitors tried to pin Roberts down with “Well, what if's”. And time and again, Judge Roberts replied with something akin to, “I can’t answer that without seeing the specifics of a particular case.” They wanted hypotheticals, he insisted on dealing with objective facts. They wanted to hear that, no matter what, he would rule in defense of a particular social agenda (theirs), not with respect to the rule of law. And not receiving such assurances, they felt “conscience-bound” to vote against him.

It’s clear that the Democrats, in the person of Sen. Feinbidennedyschurblinton, don’t want a dispassionate analysis of the facts, a cogent, solid ruling based on established legal precedents. They want someone who will further their social agenda.

To me, this is the single most dangerous aspect of the Progressive worldview: “I don’t care what the facts say, I know what I feel in my heart.” “Right” becomes not what the law says it is; it’s what you feel, at that particular moment, is the way things ought to be.

Jurisprudence based on mood swings. What a great foundation for a Republic. But then again, I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that the liberal Progressives don’t want a Representative Republic – the want a socialist pseudo-democracy ruled by the fickleness of social whimsy and swirling currents of the politically correct mores of the moment.

You, Senator Clinton, are Stuck on Stupid.