Loathing the military [ad campaign], and other Liberal inanities

The headline of this article caught my eye, "As Final Four Nears, Military Ads Will Decline," because I couldn't figure out its relevance to Sports, but the article masterfully demonstrates Liberal elitism.

Peace/Appeasement activists are wringing their hands over the Army/Marine/whatever ads being aired during the NCAA mens basketball tourney. The critics assign some nefarious intent to the ads and complain that they can't offer anti-war advertising (one Lib, in fairness, says, "They don't trust President Bush. Why would they trust a 30-second commercial" (speaking of marketing genius, how 'bout that slipping in the Bush Lied mantra?). Of course, that begs the question of whether they would rather have a) a draft or b) no military at all. Superficial policy is the hallmark of Liberalism, so they probably don't know the answer to that question; or they're afraid to tell us.

Gran Backlash in the works

Is it just me, or does it seem politically stupid for illegal aliens to be demanding things via large demonstrations across the country? I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment I read somewhere (perhaps Daily Kos?): Gran March, Gran Backlash.

The following editorial over at NationalReviewonline.com resonates with me on this issue along with providing a good overview of the two main immigration reform proposals currently on the table.

Here's an EXCELLENT op/ed on this issue by the Orlando Sentinel's (my old hometown paper) Kathleen Parker.

Socialism hurts.

Great article about the travesty that is "socialist" political theory.

"Hate" crime in Seattle . . . or a true golden rule murder?

I am deeply disturbed by the Seattle murders last week--especially the total spite for human life demonstrated by the murderer (I also can't believe that parents of a 14-year-old child call "3 a.m." a "curfew" and hadn't a) already found her or b) already called the police by 7:30 a.m. when these murders occurred). But the following statement by a Seattle councilman is astonishing, as well.

"Last week was a pretty tough week for the citizens of Seattle," City Councilman Tom Rasmussen said.

He also asked whether it was possible that this was a hate crime of some sort.

"At this point, all possibilities are being investigated," [Seattle Police Spokesman] Kimerer replied. (Emphasis mine)

Do ya' think there was any hate involved, councilman?

It took you long enough . . .

Well, the National Dems are prepared to announce a national security agenda tomorrow . . . I think I recall nearly six months ago that Howard Dean assured the media that he and his comrades had such an agenda. I guess it just took 'em a while to do all the focus grouping and polling to figure out how to "lead" on the issues.

"Big Love" . . . expanding our minds and moral parameters

HBO's polygamy-isn't-so-abnormal show, "Big Love," is getting a lot of attention lately (by the way, I refuse to use the term "polyamory" which, like the term "gay," is a self-selected euphemism). I have believed that this type of show just pushes back the moral borders a little (and handily makes room in the mind of Americans for homosexual marriage). Well, as I read a NY Times article (registration required) about the show I came across this quote that demonstrates that two homosexualists, good ol' Tom Hanks, (and some other guy) are the creators/exec producers/whatevers of the show . . .

The creators of "Big Love," Mark V. Olsen and Will Scheffer (who along with the actor Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman are the executive producers of the series), said in a telephone interview that they were hearing all the criticisms and compliments. The show was conceived as a prism through which to look at the "struggle for the common good over the individual good" that exists in any family, Mr. Olsen said. He and Mr. Scheffer are partners in real life. (emphasis mine)

Stockholm Syndrome?

I just read a great "shout out" to Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) concerning her bid to be the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate--I completely agree with pollster Kelly Anne Conway, the author. As I read the article, I thought of the "Stockholm Syndrome" and how Conservatives, particularly Republican Conservatives, so frequently adopt the views of our captors--to wit, the MSM, when it comes to "popular opinion." I say phooey on those in the GOP who are so eager to "pick winners" and pitch principle in primaries--Sen. Lincoln Chafee comes to mind. Why is that Republicans so often look like battered women, abused children or kidnapped brides when it comes to supporting candidates?

Invading Iraq . . . right decision then and now

This op/ed nicely undergirds Dubya and his genetic tendency to "go wobbly" on the war in Iraq.

Christian convert's potential execution in Afghanistan

Nina Shea lays a two-by-four to the Administration's response (particularly, the State Dept's response) to reports about a Christian convert's possible death sentence for not being a Muslim in Afghanistan. By the way, as an attorney recently starting a private practice, I found it not surprising that this man's troubles began in a domestic suit with his estranged wife over the custody of his children.

"Conscientious objector" vs. "Hippy Loser"

This is an inspiring story about the death of Desmond Doss, an 87 year old conscientious objector from WWII. Contrast his story with contemporary "anti-war" types who will appease, capitulate and even despise America in the interest of saving their sorry behinds.

"Study" says: Liberal=good; Conservative=crazy

Upon checking Drudge this morning, I came across this report of a study in California that found whiny, tattle-tellers in nursery school turned out to be politically Conservative as adults while self-assured, confident toddlers turned out to be Liberals.

There are so many ways to puree these "findings," (e.g., kids of "Liberal" parents probably were daycare veterans by the time of nursery school) but Jonah Goldberg demonstrates that this "study" is most remarkable for wanting to "prove" that Conservatism is a psychological deficiency.

Splitting conservative base

Here's a report of the primary results for Illinois governor which demonstrates the potential problem with having too many "Conservatives" in a primary . . . the squishy candidate cruises to victory like a lackluster speed skater after the leaders crash and burn.

Unfortunately, the GOP primary for U.S. Senate could turn out the same way.

"Gay Marriage" vs. Generativity

I just came across a great resource on the issue of homosexual marriage . . . www.marriagedebate.com. Here's a killer quote from a great article ("Europe's Marriage Crisis, And Ours") considering the impact of demographic and cultural changes on the institution of marriage--the author, Maggie Gallagher, communicates profoundly, I think:

Cultures deeply committed to "generativity" -- to the importance of men and women getting married and having children as a social norm -- tend to find the idea of gay marriage deeply disturbing, if not incomprehensible. Conversely, societies in the midst of devaluing the norms that sustain the generative family (in the name of attractive alternative values such as increasing expressive individualism and moral autonomy) will find gay marriage a natural fit, an idea that both expresses and reinforces their deepest moral preferences.

History in Iraq is being written by the losers . . .

This detailed article discusses the hard figures (vs. soft impressions or insinuations) about the progress being made in Iraq--that is, the progress toward establishing a friend to democracy in the Middle East. The bottom line is that negatively slanted reporting (motivated by ignorance, naivete or malice toward Dubya) is perverting the "history" of this war.

Here's a quote from the article:

Everyone knows that the history of war is written by the victors. But the war in Iraq has shattered that truism. In Iraq, history is being written by the losers. Baathist kidnappers and jihadist bombers are planning their operations not to win the war in Iraq, but to win it in America. To that end, they are assessing what American news organizations are willing to cover, and what American reporters are willing to risk. As an immediate result, many of the feeds on the nightly news are coming from Arabic sources that are either non-professional in their journalistic standards or hostile to American policy aims. As a long-term result, the American public is broadly misinformed on a war that Coalition arms and Iraqi democrats are, in fact, winning.

A challenge to the extremist party

In a nice op/ed at NationalReview.com, Fr. Tom Williams responds to the proclamation recently released by some Catholic Democrat Party House Members attempting to defend their allegiance to the abortion-is-okay party. A great line from the piece:

I would like to make a counterproposal. Rather than asking Catholicism to embrace its antithesis, why not forge a true “big tent” Democratic party where all are welcome, even those who are pro-life? Better yet, why not return to that noble strain of politics that prided itself on its defence of the most vulnerable members of society? Why not forego the precious support of abortion power-brokers and rediscover the roots of the Democratic party? No number of “historic” statements could match the impact of a lived commitment to true social justice.

Homosexual arts agenda

I've posted recently--in the context of discussing Brokeback Mountain, about efforts by those on the Left (particularly, the homosexualist lefties) to transform public opinion through the arts. Well recently I've been seeing ads about the HBO series on polygamy (Big Love) and tonight I stumbled (surfed) upon an A&E expose on polygamy, so I read with interest this op/ed about the homosexual PR agenda. A great line in the article:

So if conservatives treat Big Love as a serious attempt to deconstruct the American family, rather than as a harmless drama with no cultural, legal, or political implications, they are simply taking the creators and stars of the show at their word.

Of particular note is the fact that radical Feminists and the ACLU and others are willing to support polygamy (which is demonstrably patriarchal or chauvinist) with a view toward basically defining away the institution of marriage.

Does a man's "right to choose" end at the bedroom door . . . ?

Enlightening story from Michigan about a man claiming he can't be made to pay child support, etc. to a sexual partner who assured him that she could not conceive a child.

This development (read the legal arguments raised by his attorneys in the article) helps clarify the problem with saying a woman has a "right to choose" but a man doesn't. I think men should take responsibility for their actions, but in this case, it appears the woman is not taking responsibility for her actions. Of course, if everyone would take responsibility--as well as realize that abortion is the willful ending of an innocent human life, then sex outside of marriage would become obsolete.

The author of the article concludes that men need to be sure and carry condoms; I say, they shouldn't have sex with someone unless they are willing to become a parent.

Speaking of the Tar Heel Terrorist

I just read an article about the Tar Heel Terrorist, (from the NY Times):

He also told investigators he had been thinking about taking some kind of retaliatory action for two years and had been planning last Friday's attack for two months, the warrant said. He said he was disappointed that more people were not in the commons around noon, when the area is typically crowded, and he told a detective, Matthew Dodson, that he rented the four-wheel-drive vehicle so he could inflict as much damage as possible.

and then,

On Monday, Mr. Taheri-azar smiled as he walked into the Orange County Courthouse, where he was charged with nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and nine counts of assault with a deadly weapon. Mr. Taheri-azar, who is being held on a $5.5 million bond, told the judge he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah," The Associated Press reported.

This fool came up with a great plan, huh? I'm sure Allah would be proud. But more importantly, he didn't know who would be in this courtyard when he did this, so I suppose it is Allah's will to kill wantonly? And please tell me again what is inaccurate about portraying Mohammed with a bomb-shaped turban on his head?

What an idiot . . . and an Islamofascist

Just read an account of today's proceedings in the trial of failed terrorist (but terrorist conspirator nonetheless) Moussaoi. He appears to be an idiot as well as an Islamofascist, as he roots for terrorists in front of the jurors.

The blow-by-blow recitation Tuesday by prosecutor David Raskin of the hijackings - a stipulation of facts agreed to by both sides - did nothing to link Moussaoui to the plot, but nonetheless provided an emotional wallop. Raskin quoted a radiophone call by flight attendant Amy Sweeney just before her plane became the first to strike the World Trade Center: "We are flying very very low," she told ground controllers. "We are flying way too low. ... Oh my God, we are way too low!" Then the phone went dead. Moussaoui pumped his fist after hearing Raskin's account.

Hearing about Moussaoui's courtroom behavior makes me think he is enjoying the attention (and even the scorn--boy, compare American "scorn" to the "scorn" you'd experience in a Muslim country). The idiot in NC makes me think of the same thing. Too bad we can't give them a (speedy) Jihadi martyr's death they say they want.

In the vein of Oscars-bashing

Anthony Hopkins, whom I think most people would agree is a legendary actor, has let loose some profound criticisms of Hollywood and many in the movie business. A couple of his better observations in the article:

Sir Anthony said of [his latest film, The World's Fastest Indian]: "No sex or violence, and that's refreshing.

"I'm also tired of the camera moving all over the place, with car chases so cut and edited you don't know what's happening.

"It's condescending. Audiences aren't so mindless as movie-makers think." He added: "If you look at The Shining or Fargo, they photograph it and let actors tell a story. That's the old-fashioned way. I hope it comes back."

Where's the story?

Over at Googlenews (typically my first stop when I get online), I came across this story, "8,000 Desert During Iraq War." "Wow," I thought, "how sad that this unpopular war (for Oil!) is driving service people to such dishonorable actions."

Then I read the actual article and learned a couple of interesting facts: the rate of desertions has "plunged" since 9/11; the rate of desertions is lower now than before the Iraq war; there has only been ONE desertion in Iraq; 58% of deserters return to their post. Kind of puts it in perspective, huh? Kind of begs the question, "where's the story?"

To show you the impact of such non-news stories (which are printed simply because they may suggest that Bush is the worst president in history), do you think it is a coincidence that the top two journals running the article (without most of the facts I cited above) are two RED Chinese newspapers? Our enemies love the Mainstream Media.

Last thoughts (perhaps) on Oscars

I was surprised, frankly, to see that Brokeback Mountain didn't win "Best Picture" honors, but it is interesting to see how homophiles across the spectrum are lashing out at Crash. Roger Ebert made a great point in response to the virulent Crash critics:

The nature of the attacks on "Crash" by the supporters of "Brokeback Mountain" seem to proceed from the other position: "Brokeback" is better not only because of its artistry but because of its subject matter . . .

"Innocence Project" takes 5th

I was channel surfing over the weekend (sorry, I was trying to find a good College b-ball game) and I happened upon a "CNN Presents" show featuring the Innocence Project. The show was very interesting and much of the Innocence Project's work is honorable. Unfortunately, they also traffic in rhetoric that cavalierly undermines public confidence in our legal system. No question, our system isn't perfect, but when the blah-blah-blah assertions of defense attorneys trying to free their clients is the motivation for an organization (frankly, I think that is true of Innocence Project--"OJ is innocent!!!") or it is the typical fare from an organization, then criticism of the system is unfair and detrimental.

Now a story about a man--Steven Avery, who was freed by work of the Innocence Project appears to be guilty of a rape/torture/murder in Wisconsin. I don't know enough about the original conviction to comment at this point, but it sure is an interesting situation. Demagoguery by the Innocence Project is not beneficial, no matter how many handfuls of cases they manage to overturn.

Update: Here is an even-handed analysis of Avery's first conviction (it's the State's press release admitting his "exoneration"), and it is reasonable that he was convicted on this evidence (read: no evil gov't or sloppy crime lab or "framing" here).

Wow, no sinister motive goes unspoken

I wasn't sure why there was so much attention being paid recently to Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan several years ago until I read the first lines of this report on the matter:

By yesterday, his death had been transformed into a serious embarrassment for the US Army and a symbol of America’s flickering fortunes in the War on Terror.

NOW I understand; embarrassing the military as well as Dubya clearly makes this a frontpage story. Later in the article we hear that Tillman's parents are accusing the military of "using" their son--by not quickly revealing the questionable circumstances of his death, to "promote the war." First, bad things happen in war, and a group of soldiers stupidly shooting their own is definitely bad. And covering up circumstances is wrong. As a family member, I would be outraged, too, but hooking my cart to the Michael Moores or moveon.orgs is not understandable. Pat Tillman's story--volunteering to serve in Afghanistan instead of playing for millions of dollars in the NFL, was heroic and laudable regardless of how he was killed.

Disturbance over Blair's reference to God

The Left is apopleptic about Tony Blair's use of the words "God," "judgment" and "Iraq" in the same sentence.

The Chicago Tribune opens its article this way:

LONDON -- Prime Minister Tony Blair has indicated that he believes God will judge his decision to commit British troops to fight alongside U.S. forces in Iraq.

Well, anyone who believes in God has to believe that He will judge (oops, I guess many purported Christians have jettisoned that concept) our actions, so it should not be news that Blair believes God will judge his decision to take out Saddam Hussein. The quotes from post-Christian British politicians are interesting, and ignorant.

Bush treated differently overseas . . .

It appears that the President has been received differently overseas than he is received here in the States. You don't think it matters that the media in those countries aren't dominated by the attack yorkie Dem Party?

There were no questions about the Dubai ports deal. There was little talk of Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a fellow quail hunter. The words "Iraq" and "Katrina" hardly came up at all.

It's amazing how trivial your criticisms and concerns become if you're trying to tag something--anything, on the man and party routinely whipping you at the polls.

If only we had listened to the Left and Old Europe . . .

A fascinating story about the head Iranian nuke negotiator and his boasting that Iran duped Europe while making great strides in their nuke program.

One of the best things that our local talk radio personality says is the Left (and liberals) cannot be trusted with control of our foreign policy, and the story above demonstrates that.

More on Hollywood's agenda . . .

I know many over the decades have complained of the "Hollywood Agenda," and aside from the WWII movies, I think much of that complaint is unfounded. Now, however, it is increasingly clear that various parties are coagulating around artistic tools for social change. I was talking at a family gathering this evening about Mississippi Burning and how it powerfully spoke about the issue of desegregation in the South. But I think that the new agenda is markedly radical, not positive. Well, in this Washington Post story, entitled "And This Year's Oscar Goes to . . . Social Issues," I found the following quote:

"North Country," as well as "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Syriana," were financed by Jeffrey Skoll, a Canadian and the billionaire co-founder of eBay, who has taken his profits to Hollywood to make movies that first and foremost contain what he calls "a message for social change." He believes that "North Country" had a direct impact on policy.

Deep thoughts about the Oscars

Here's an interesting op/ed about the state of Hollywood today. Two great lines from the piece (and not directly related to the theme, frankly) are,

Three of this year's agenda-driven films — Good Night and Good Luck, North country, and Syriana — come from Participant Productions, whose vice president, Meredith Blake, has been quoted as saying, "Our product is social change, and the movies are a vehicle for that social change."

There was a better time when Hollywood's product was not social propaganda but entertainment, and if its movies made America feel better about itself along the way, so much the better. Too many of today's movies are just Air America, the liberal radio network, with popcorn.

I have seen several stories or references to the fact that the Left has recently set out to transform our culture through the arts. That bothers me, and it will certainly drive me away from their product. I just hope that the viewing public is alert to the strategy.

The AP "clarification" about Bush and "breached" levees

Drudge Report has posted an AP "clarification" (which no other online journal is carrying, as far as I can tell . . . hmmm) stating that it had inaccurately reported the Bushitler/Katrina/levees story. Since you might have a hard time finding it anywhere else, here is the full text:

AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO
Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET
Clarification: Katrina-Video storyASSOCIATED PRESSWASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials. The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking. The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

And isn't it interesting to see how much of a rock-star (to Liberals) Michael Brown has become now that he is self-interestedly pointing fingers at Bush and Chertoff?