Wednesday News Roudnup

Just another day in our world:

First, Bob Costas gave in to his severe case of BDS and stated on his radio show that:

I think it is now overwhelmingly evident, if you're honest about it, even if you're a conservative Republican, if you're honest about it, this is a failed administration. And no honest conservative would say that George W. Bush was among the 500 most qualified people to be President of the United States.

That's right: we can all have an opinion. If you disagree with mine - that George Bush is essentially a bumbling idiot - then you are one, too.

Next, on the Today show Matt Lauer did a public service announcement for everyone's favorite communist dictatorship - Cuba. He propped up how beautiful it was, how many tourists come, and how great Cuba is all around. What poor elitist Lauer fails to understand is that measly group of 2 million tourists that show up to Castro's island prison every year prop up the homicidal dictator, and thinking that the sunny beach they were allowed to film from is anything like the rest of Cuba is like assuming Cancun is like the rest of Mexico.

Finally, to wrap up entertainment news, the View, while now down a hostess after Rosie quit the show shortly after calling American troops terrorists, everybody's favorite unemployed actress - Kathy Griffin - claimed that Condi Rice is just a tool of the white man. Why? Because black people - especially black women - can't be conservatives! It's always staggering to me that in our progressive identity-minded world people can still claim to know more about who a person is than the person does themselves.

Why Not to Vote for Hillary Clinton

(As if you needed a reason?)

Hillary Clinton has a problem. For years she has believed, as did her husband (correctly, I might add) that the only way to win the presidency is to be a moderate. Hillary has taken this advice quite literally, unwilling to make a specific unified stance on anything from the war in Iraq to abortion. This week she suddenly and fundamentally changed course within this tactic and gave a speech at MIT. Within this speech Hillary calmly takes credit for carrying the torch of progressive economic policy, and single-handedly blames all apparent (or imagined) economic inequality solely on George W. Bush (that's called BDS, if you were wondering).

So why should we not vote for Hillary? Because she's a socialist.

Not only does Hillary believe that it takes a village to raise a child, she believes it takes the government to run the economy. Yes, that is called socialism. And in every country in the history of mankind it has ever been implemented it has been a total and catastrophic failure.

Hillary outlines 9 points of socialist economic policy she plans to implement as president:

1. Redistribute wealth from big corporations and force them to invest in government-controlled operations

2. Eliminate the ability to global and American companies to do business overseas.

3. Allow the government to be in control of wages in the private sector, especially in big companies among CEO's.

4. Raise taxes on big corporations.

5. Make college more affordable (The hilarious and constant rattle of the liberal left. Have they priced any state schools lately? Not everyone goes to Yale or Harvard after all...)

6. Encourage schooling for low-skill low-paying jobs.

7. Encourage unions, make unemployment more "affordable;" i.e. increase government support of the unemployed.

8. Universal health care. Also known as "HillaryCare." It's back, and it's bound the make the best healthcare system in the world resemble the dismal systems in western Europe, Canada, and Cuba.

9. Allow the government the rights and monetary support to research "new job opportunities for the middle class."

Hillary has finally made her stand, and it is - as far as economic policy is concerned - on the extreme left.

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.

I'm sure she does. I would rather prefer a "government stay the hell out of my wallet" society, but we won't have that with Bill and Hillary back in the White House.

Update:

Need another reason?
Not really, but seriously?

An Assault on Reason, Indeed

First, check out our friends at Amnesty International - who are in full BDS mode. They've posted a poll on their website asking people to vote for who they believe is worse on human rights: Darth Vader, "Hobgoblin," or Dick Cheney.

In other news, FoxNews' Jim Angle does a classic report on the ridiculousness of Al Gore's new book Assault on Reason, which, from all accounts, is truly right up the liberal left's alley - completely devoid of any connection with reality.

Elizabeth Edwards plays the "Black" card

Oh, what if a political election season could pass without a little racism and BDS! Elizabeth Edwards, on the circuit for $400 haircut-receiving hubby John, claims now that George W. Bush went to Virginia Tech right after the shootings, and waited to go to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because VT provided a "prettier picture" to the media (i.e. more white people). Not only should this be an indictment of the media and not the President but it is completely ridiculous. Let's not forget the derision towards President Clinton when he visited the site of a natural disaster for a photo op.

Elizabeth did say one intelligent thing, though:

"Issues that involve African-Americans in this country do not get the same amount of attention - it's in government things..."

That's right - the most diverse presidential cabinet in history is the one serving George W. Bush. What gets the headlines? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi...

What are the Democrats doing?

For all of those who voted for current members of the 110th congress I ask you: are you happy? Are you satisfied with your choice?

After the current Senate Majority Leader went on the national airwaves and proclaimed we had "lost" the war in Iraq, he's now saying that he plans to ignore the commander of American forces in Iraq, General Petraeus, if the general states that the surge of troops in Baghdad is working (and for all intents and purposes it is). Reid, in the same manner as Johnson and Nixon during the Vietnam war, believes that he as a politician is more intelligent and knowledgeable about war and peace than military officials, and that regardless of evidence or expert testimony he knows he is right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. How did this man make his way to the top of the Democratic leadership?

Next, after the President vetoes the unconstitutional troop funding bill that decrees our troops leave Iraq within a specific time table, the Democrats have promised to introduce another unconstitutional war funding bill that decrees American troops begin leaving Iraq on October 1st. Would the Democrats please read the Constitution (specifically Article II)?

Now, in the midst of far-left Democratic madness, Dennis Kucinich is introducing articles of impeachment for Vice President Cheney! What!? I watched an interview with Dennis on CNN, and he claimed that he is going after Cheney and not Bush because literally Cheney is worse! What are the charges? That Cheney:

...misled the nation about Iraq's having weapons of mass destruction; he had been deceitful about a nexus between Iraq and Al Qaeda and was being aggressive toward Iran "absent any real threat" from the Islamic Republic.

Dream on, Dennis. Did Cheney manipulate the Senate Intelligence Committee, French, Russian, and British Intelligence too? (Not to mention John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and others...) Was there not a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before 2003? Is Iran not a threat to world peace and security? Not to mention that are any of these items, if true, "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Dennis Kucinich, Harry Reid, and the Democrats in congress are rapidly proving to be not only inept, corrupt, and desperately political, but completely and inconsolably insane.

Update: Speaking of insane:

Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, said earlier that the "war is lost" comment was not in Reid's prepared text for the news conference last Thursday.

It has been almost a week since the majority leader uttered the unscripted remark...

Does it matter that it was "unscripted?" Yes, in that it shows what Reid really thinks outside of what his handlers allow him to say.

"I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog [Cheney]," Reid said, repeating "attack dog" three times.

Could you be considered certifiably stupid if in the same sentence you claimed to both not resort to "name calling" and call your opponent an "attack dog?"

Reid called Petraeus on Monday to offer his personal support for the troops fighting insurgents in Iraq, according to Reid's office.

Oh! Well, then! In that case Harry probably shouldn't have already said that regardless of what Petraeus says he still thinks the war is lost and the surge isn't working. Harry Reid, it would be best for everyone if you just stopped talking.

Global Warming deniers - go to Hell!

Vanity Fair magazine has pronounced its sentence: those who question global warming are going to Hell.

"Then there’s the final circle – hell itself – containing “Satan, and in his three mouths: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), former chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, tireless denouncer of global warming as ‘a hoax’ perpetrated on Americans by alarmist liberal media; President George W. Bush; Vice President Dick Cheney, former Halliburton C.E.O., convener of top-secret energy task force, which met with oil and gas executives.”

Satan, George Bush, and anyone who questions global warming in Hell together. Only the American old media...

Stupid People?

Are you conservative? Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004? Do you consider yourself a Republican?

It's come to my attention more and more that there are a wide variety of human beings on this earth that believe if you hold any of these convictions and beliefs you are simply unintelligent, uninformed, or manipulated by characters from your childhood.

There have been a number of times when myself or mrs. radar have been accused of ignorance, racism, or homophobia in connection to our political beliefs. It's also widely accepted that we are simply ignorant of how the world works, and we've been told that it's not our fault we're conservatives. It's ok - we'll figure it out someday!

I have to admit that this idea presents itself in a variety of times and places. However, I must say that the highest form of ignorance is believing that a contrasting view or opinion is wrong on the basis of your ignorance of it. It's enormously foolish to assume a person holding an opposite view on a subject simply doesn't understand said subject, as opposed to actually holding an informed ulterior view.

Indeed, sometimes this belief in another's ignorance can descend into outright disgust and hatred. Moving from "that person just doesn't know" to "that person is a raging idiot" is not too hard of a step to make. In fact, professional "journalists" can make a living writing spirited diatribes about how stupid a person is because they disagree with their views.

Take Mark Morford of the SF Gate - He wrote just that type of column today. Mark suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome, or an irrational aversion to the 43rd President of the United States. His first sentence from the column pretty much sums it up:

I mean, we sort of thought we knew, before, what kind of guy George W. Bush is, essentially our very own inept, inarticulate ex-alcoholic ex-frat-guy failed-businessman pseudo-leader who famously appeals to the most God-fearin' and least educated and least attuned among us because he is, well, one of them.

In one paragraph Mr. Morford manages to claim that Bush is unintelligent, based some proof of that on his verbal gaffes, claim his alcoholism is somehow included in his current persona, claims his fraternity-member status is negative, calls into question Bush's leadership abilities, and claims that Republicans and conservatives are both "God-fearin" and stupid - and he includes Bush in this category (I believe he claims that "God-fearin" and stupid are synonyms.)

I will not quote any more of the article, as it would be a waste of time and intellectual resources to put yourself through such pitiful drivel. Suffice it to say that Mr. Morford was paid (hopefully not too much) to whine about a President he disagrees with.

I bring this to your attention so that you might not put yourself in a similarly foolish position. One columnist and an entire university filled with liberal academics have plainly exposed to me an obvious truth. Insults, condemnations, and estimates of intelligence or a lack thereof get you nowhere in civilised conversation when posing an argument. Political differences have nose-dived in this country into hateful rants designed to paint one side or the other as idiots.

If you happen to be a conservative don't allow such statements to go unchallenged. George Bush is not an idiot, and neither am I. Claiming my opinion is based on ignorance or family history is false - and merely describes the lack of the other in the argument's ability to engage in intellectual discourse.

And if you disagree with me - you must be an idiot!

Update: In a stroke of irony, Lou Dobbs at CNN decided that since the US is at war, all Americans are stupid:

We Americans like to think we're a pretty smart people, even when evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Right. And how do smart people solve the crisis?

While the United States provides about $2.5 billion in military and economic aid to Israel each year, U.S. aid to Lebanon amounts to no more than $40 million. This despite the fact that the per capita GDP of Israel is among the highest in the world at $24,600, nearly four times as high as Lebanon's GDP per capita of $6,200.

Lebanon's lack of wealth is matched by the Palestinians -- three out of every four Palestinians live below the poverty line. Yet the vast majority of our giving in the region flows to Israel. This kind of geopolitical inconsistency and shortsightedness has contributed to the Arab-Israeli conflict that the Western world seems content to allow to perpetuate endlessly.

It's simple economics. Better fund the terrorists, and cut funding to the only democratic nation in the region. That'll stop the war - wait a minute...

...that's a horrible idea. But don't forget that it proves we're all stupid.

Personal Responsibility, Bush Derangement Syndrome, and a Health Dose of Conservative-Bashing

Forwarded to me through a valuable source, The Washington Post printed this story by an anonymous writer detailing the horrors of birth control in 2006.

The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want. Well, not literally, but let me explain.

This article is written by a woman suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (an irrational and illogical hatred of George W. Bush that causes a person to blame him for everything). To start the article off by claiming that George Bush is responsible for your abortion is amazing - to say the least.

I am a 42-year-old happily married mother of two elementary-schoolers. My husband and I both work, and like many couples, we're starved for time together. One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm.

Unable to get the "Plan B" emergency contraception pill, this anonymous writer goes on to explain the horrors of forgetting that unprotected sex with your husband can get you pregnant.

And I thought of the emotional upheavals that an unplanned pregnancy would cause our family. My husband and I are involved in all aspects of our children's lives, but even so, we feel we don't get enough time to spend with them as it is.

Oh the horrors of one more child! What ever can she do?

My anger propelled me to get to the bottom of the story. It turns out that in December 2003, an FDA advisory committee, whose suggestions the agency usually follows, recommended that the drug be made available over the counter, or without a prescription. Nonetheless, in May 2004, the FDA top brass overruled the advisory panel and gave the thumbs-down to over-the-counter sales of Plan B, requesting more data on how girls younger than 16 could use it safely without a doctor's supervision.

Apparently, one of the concerns is that ready availability of Plan B could lead teenage girls to have premarital sex. Yet this concern -- valid or not -- wound up penalizing an over-the-hill married woman for having sex with her husband. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

Evidently this statement, in combination with the fact that some doctors do not prescribe the "Plan B" pill due to personal moral convictions (which they are not required to explain) falls through the spiral of liberal illogicality into being the President of the United States' fault.

Upon attempting to pass the assertion that it is hard to find an abortion clinic in Virginia this anonymous writer goes on to say:

Finally, I decided to check the Planned Parenthood Web site to see whether its clinics performed abortions. They did, but I learned that if I had the abortion in Virginia, the procedure would take two days because of a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, which requires that you go in first for a day of counseling and then wait a day to think things over before returning to have the abortion. Because of work and the children, I couldn't afford two days off, so I opted to have the procedure done on a Saturday in downtown D.C. while my husband took the kids to the Smithsonian.

Did you catch that? This poor woman was further traumatized by her Bush-mandated abortion because she couldn't take two days off from work. Has she ever gotten the flu? Oh, and she doesn't forget to mock that waiting period consultation; I suppose she ignores the serious psychological implications of abortion on women.

I shuffled to the front door through a phalanx of umbrellaed protesters, who chanted loudly about Jesus and chided me not to go into that house of abortion.

Is she expecting us to believe that every day this DC abortion clinic faces protesters? Or is she merely claiming that on the particular day she went happened to be a day the clinic was being protested?

All the while, I was thinking that if religion hadn't been allowed to seep into American politics the way it has, I wouldn't even be there.

Eh? Non Sequitur anyone? How does religion in politics have anything to do with you remembering your contraception?

It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

You see, her constantly repeated point is that somehow Bush supporters or Bush (and the Evil Karl Rove) have somehow infiltrated the FDA and caused them to block over the counter approval of the "Plan B" drug. This assertion is baseless and silly.

The subject under which this was forwarded to me was "Personal Responsibility." Indeed.

It may be the New York Times' lowest point

Sunday the New York Times may just have reached its lowest point in history. Never has an American newspaper orchestrated such a masterful plan of deception and disinformation as the Times. Their Sunday editorial has more lies, half-truths, and distortions I halfway expected them to define what the word "is" meant.

And this president (The Times) has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his (their) political purposes. He (We) has (have) run one of the most secretive administrations (newspaper) in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress.

I took the liberty of editing the quote to add a dimension of truth. It's amazing to me that the Times would claim that they are any different than the Bush administration. The Times has reported so many stories poorly or just plain falsely that their corrections page is a running joke. Just recently they ran a completely false story claiming that FISA judges interviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee disagreed with the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution to authorize warrantless wiretapping. In fact the complete opposite was true, and would be evident to someone who was not an idiot, or interested in reporting the truth - neither of which can be claimed by the Times. "Consistently withholding information" would be an excellent way to describe this declining American newspaper. Ironic, isn't it?

This fits the pattern of Mr. Bush's original sales pitch on the Iraq war — hyping the intelligence that bolstered his case and suppressing the intelligence that undercut it. In this case, Mr. Libby was authorized to talk about claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa and not more reliable evidence to the contrary.

I wonder what evidence to the contrary the Times is referring to? Maybe Joe Wilson's editorial to the Times about his findings that Iraq was not trying to get uranium from Niger? That same editorial that directly contradicts Wilson's public testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee? The only "evidence to the contrary" is an article the Times itself printed that secured for all time both the Times and Joe Wilson's inability to report the truth.

About a month before, Mr. Bush rushed to announce that American forces had found evidence of a biological weapons program in Iraq — trailers that could have been used to make doomsday devices. We now know, from a report in The Washington Post, that a Pentagon team actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting the trailers had concluded two days earlier that they were nothing of the kind.

Discredited story of the week. This bit of bad reporting was so one week ago, and rehashes the rehashing of a story that is three years old. For some bizarre reason the Times uses this as evidence to corroborate their theory that George Bush is the Antichrist, and for some reason it is allowed to go on.

Then about the National Intelligence Estimate:

Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified.

Are these people idiots? What do they think the President can do? It's amazing to me that a individual can pick up this paper, read this editorial, and not conclude that the editorial writers are either stupid, ill-informed, or agenda-driven against the administration.

This messy episode leaves more questions than answers, so it is imperative that two things happen soon. First, the federal prosecutor in the Libby case should release the transcripts of what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney said when he questioned them. And the Senate Intelligence Committee must report publicly on how Mr. Bush and his team used the flawed intelligence on Iraq.

In this final slap of irony the Times claims that the Senate Intelligence Committee should report on the intelligence-gathering done in the run-up to the Iraq war. Not only have they done this a number of times on a number of different levels clearly stating that the intelligence about Iraq's WMD program existed and this same intelligence was reported by the European community and distributed throughout congress as well as within the administration, but the Times refuses to publish the fact that the Intelligence Committee received information contrary to what was published in their own editorial page about Joe Wilson and his trip to Niger! Why would the committee bother to report anything if the Times only prints what fits into their version of the "truth?!"

The Times, once a bastion of knowledge and reporting has fallen off the cliff of insane liberal propaganda, Bush derangement syndrome, and general dishonesty directed at discrediting this administration. A new low? How bad can this paper get?

Bush Derangement Syndrome on the Rampage

For those of you who haven't seen the Rocky Horror Show (I mean the play, not the movie) beware. It is quite a B play, but depending on your desire for participation and enjoyment of yelled obscenities you just might like it. If you don't know audience members are encouraged to yell humorous and/or obscene things at the actors during specific parts of the show. In other words, before an actor says in a scene "I think we can do better" someone might yell, "What do you think of your performance?!"

In this particular college production of Rocky Horror there were at least five instances when actors in the audience (known as audience phantoms) yelled anti-Bush blurbs at particular points in the show. As in the case above, the actor yelled, "What do you think of George W.?!"

While there's nothing really wrong with this, and my only compliant about it will be on this blog, I wonder why people are so obsessed with their hatred of George Bush? Has this ever happened before in US history? Living on a college campus I am constantly inundated with what is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS. This is a well-documented phenomenon of blaming George W. Bush for everything in the world that is bad. From hurricanes to tsunamis to a B play, all things negative can be blamed on Bush. It's ridiculous.

All in all, I have been and will be contesting examples of BDS in my graduate program. After all, if I didn't want to constantly hear how bad conservatives, Christians, and George W. Bush are I would never have gone to college.

Bush is an Idiot, Right?

Well, isn't that right?

I understand that working for an institution of higher education puts me right in the cross-hairs of one of the most liberal places in the United States. However, I do wonder why people forget that if you ASSume... well, you remember...

It seems to me that the liberal and intellectual elite have forgotten what it means to think for themselves. I was at an event last night when someone made a comment about the Supreme Court. "Well, it used to be fair." Realize, or course, that this comment was made in casual conversation and stated as an obvious fact. No one bothered to make a comment on the contrary (and maybe this person will truly realize how fair the Supreme Court was when her house is demolished for a shopping mall.)

My point is this - it seems that, at least where I reside, that liberalism is tried and true. Anyone who disagrees with this idea is obviously an idiot. That's convenient, isn't it? Surround yourself with people just like you and toss out unsubstantiated opinions as if they were the absolute truth. After all, isn't that why we went to college anyway - to never be challenged in our beliefs?

So the next time someone compares the President of the United States to a primate as if they saw it written like that in the encyclopedia, take a moment to correct them. It seems they may have been watching too much CNN.