Turning 50 years old....
Godzilla, 50 years and 29 movies......here.
Federalism, Free Markets and the Liberty To Let One's Mind Wander. I Am Very Worried About the Fate of Liberty in the USA, Where Government is Taking people's Lives ____________________________________________________________________________________________ "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater-
Godzilla, 50 years and 29 movies......here.
Sometimes it is best to not be serious...
The Al Jazeera Network's phone lines were jammed with angry calls when an episode of the highly rated television series, Al Zarqawi's Funniest Decapitation Videos, was interrupted to broadcast gruesome footage of a U.S. Marine shooting an unarmed Iraqi prisoner in a Fallujah mosque.
"I love Funniest Videos!" said Iraqi businessman, Khamid Ali Sayid. "When they play that one of the fat infidel squealing like a crusader pig as his head is removed according to the Holy Koran's instructions, I laugh so hard I nearly plotz. Then they break in with Americans shooting sick old man in our Holy Shrine, and my heart is breaking. How can they be allowed to do this?"
As told by BlameBush! Because Bush is to Blame for Everything. An excerpt from our PC world....
So when your naive, pasty-faced brats come home from school this week wearing their cute little construction paper pilgrim hats, gently take them aside and explain the truth about this evil holiday: Thanksgiving dinner is not a reenactment of a bountiful harvest feast shared with friends, but the symbolic consumption of a murdered Indian's flesh to celebrate the cannibalistic genocide of the indigenous peoples.
Faced with starvation, the colonists unanimously agreed to eat the Indians. For the next six months, they ate the Patuxets, the Narragansetts, and the Erectorsets almost to extinction. They justified the hideous crime by convincing themselves that the dark-skinned savages posed an imminent threat, and had arrows of mass destruction. This pleasant fiction lasted until the NicNacs and the Paddywacs banded together with the Mohawks and the Pompadours, exacting revenge on the pilgrims and inflicting severe casualties.
At a wine dinner tonight, I had to again endure European commentary about the United States...of course indirectly and directly aimed at the administration of George Bush and his policies.
1,420 calories of bliss, here. US$ 5.49 only. I wonder if I can buy this at the Hardee's here in Hong Kong.
Here's how they build it:
Two-thirds of a pound of beef ... 664 calories
Three slices of cheese ... 186 calories
Four pieces of bacon ... 150 calories
Mayonnaise ...160 calories
Butter ... 30 calories
Bun ... 230 calories
Add it all up and you get a massive 1,420 calories with 107 grams of fat.
Yummy, my arteries can hardly wait!
When I hear all the blithering in the press and with the politicians on high drug prices, it really gets my blood boiling.
All told, prescription-drug spending in the United States rose 9.1 per cent last year. Only three of those percentage points were due to price increases, however, which means that inflation was about the same in the drug sector as it was in the over-all economy.
It is not accurate to say, then, that the United States has higher prescription-drug prices than other countries. It is accurate to say only that the United States has a different pricing system from that of other countries. Americans pay more for drugs when they first come out and less as the drugs get older, while the rest of the world pays less in the beginning and more later. Whose pricing system is cheaper? It depends. If you are taking Mevacor for your cholesterol, the 20-mg. pill is two-twenty-five in America and less than two dollars if you buy it in Canada. But generic Mevacor (lovastatin) is about a dollar a pill in Canada and as low as sixty-five cents a pill in the United States. Of course, not every drug comes in a generic version. But so many important drugs have gone off-patent recently that the rate of increase in drug spending in the United States has fallen sharply for the past four years. And so many other drugs are going to go off-patent in the next few years-including the top-selling drug in this country, the anti-cholesterol medication Lipitor-that many Americans who now pay more for their drugs than their counterparts in other Western countries could soon be paying less.
As far as I am concerned the whole debate on drug prices is just another crass money grabbing attempt by seniors to get something for nothing.
Is the system broken? I say no. Can it be improved? Why should it be improved? Will the government be able to improve it? Chances are very slim that they could. They may make things a little cheaper over the shorter term but will 'dumb-down' the system so that innovation will decrease, fewer new drugs will be developed for when we are older and some basic discoveries may not be achieved.
Get a life America. Stop trying to steal other people's assets for your own benefits. And if it saves your life, what is too expensive about that?
Interesting piece on the rotting core of the American left and GWBush's advancement of secularism.
So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine-disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO-described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).The whole piece by Christopher Hitchen's can be read here. The rot at the core of the American liberal left flows from the inability to hold people accountable for their own actions. Poor people in the USA get a pass since they grew up in poverty. Murderous thugs in the Middle-East get a pass since they grew up in poverty or just didn't know better. Jeesh.
Bush, voting in Texas, said, "I've given it my all." Kerry, still campaigning in Wisconsin, promised to take the nation "to a better place."
A San Francisco Chronicle article on the myth of black voter disenfranchisement arguing against the oft repeated charge can be read in its entirety here. The column is a regular piece called the 'View from the Right.'
Keep in mind two basic facts: the same voting system had been in place for well over 20 years in Miami-Dade County, without incident. No one claimed conspiracy when Clinton was elected by the same voters from the county using the same system. Also, remember that it's the local elections chief in each county who determines the local voting system, including all the details, from the type of voting machine to the location of the polling stations.
In Florida, all but one of the 25 counties that experienced the greatest ballot "spoilage" during the 2000 election were controlled by, you guessed it, Democratic election chiefs, and the one remaining county was controlled by an independent.
Of the two official investigations conducted immediately following the 2000 election to investigate conspiracy theories of black disenfranchisement, one was done by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, led by Mary Frances Berry, an African American.
It found that "potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers,
antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations and other barriers to exercise their right to vote." So, what else is new? That's going on all over America. However, the commission went on to say, "Moreover, even if it was not foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred." (emphasis added)
In addition, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department conducted its own investigation into the Florida voting "irregularities." Its conclusion? The office reported that it "found no credible evidence in our investigation that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election."
Walter Cronkite reading himself after his comment on Rove being behind the binLaden tape....
If they are challenged at the polls, as they line up to go into the polls, they may fear having to answer all those questions. Particularly if they do have anything wrong about them and shouldn't vote.Read it from Powerline here. It kind of makes sense that illegal voters shouldn't be allowed to vote. But of course some people may be worried about being hassled since they are immigrants and don't fully understand the system. that is ashame. so maybe the registration of false voters and the attempt of fraud is really a net negative to what the fraudsters intended.
I have read that the challenger generally gets better press than the incumbent...read about it here. But this is the 2nd most lop-sidded ever. Of course its important to mention that it is the right leaning Washington Times that is reporting on this self described non-partisan study.
Sen. John Kerry has gotten the white-glove treatment from the press, garnering more praise from journalists than any other presidential candidate in the last quarter-century, according to a new analysis of almost 500 news stories released today by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "It's not just that John Kerry has gotten better press than President Bush before this election, he's gotten better press than anyone else since 1980. That's significant," said Bob Lichter, director of the D.C.-based nonpartisan research group.
In October alone, Mr. Kerry had a "record-breaking 77 percent positive press evaluations," compared with 34 percent positive for Mr. Bush, the study states.
But Mr. Bush didn't get the absolute worst press on record. With only 9 percent positive stories in 1984, President Reagan got the most negative treatment by news outlets on record, the study says.
Is Kerry relevant to 2004 election?
I contacted several Democrats who have criticized Kerry privately to me in the past. They shrugged off Kerry's obsession with the explosives. They confirmed that the senator is regarded inside the party as largely irrelevant to the election of 2004. This is an election about George W. Bush. Democratic leaders talk a lot about how their "ground game" -- getting out their voters -- will elect Kerry Tuesday, and seem uninterested in what he has to say.
Why dig into the divorce court papers of former Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan and not demand a full disclosing of JFKerry's military records? How about pernicious media bias? Read it here...
Digging into Jack and Jeri Ryan's marital sex life ought to embarrass the mainstream media. But failing to dig into John Kerry's military records ought to embarrass them more. If John Kerry is elected, he will take office with unplumbed secrets that directly relate to his fitness to be President, and that the mainstream media have willfully and consistently ignored.
But no one can seriously argue that Sen. Kerry's military record-including the mysterious circumstances of his discharge-are insufficiently related to his fitness to be Commander in Chief. Sen. Kerry himself acknowledged the public's legitimate interest in his military record by posting carefully selected documents on his website. But he's brazenly stonewalled efforts by the SwiftVets and others from outside the mainstream media to pressure him into releasing all of his records. And the mainstream media have not only let him get away with that, they've allowed it to go largely uncommented upon.
An epitath for RReagan. Although the article ends with the thought that RReagan defeated this bizarre behavior, it is returning with a vengence carried by such people as Michael Moore.
I will post a copy of the piece on punitive liberalism that my rant refers to.
This is absolutely amazing. Discussing eliminating voters that die between the time that they cast their absentee ballots or early voting and the actual election day.
GHOST VOTERS: An untold number of absentee and early ballots cast before Election Day by people who later die will be counted. States differ on whether they count such votes and what they do to weed them out.
GETTING WORSE: New in-person early voting used by millions in at least 30 states makes it harder to retrieve ballots after a voter's death.
Questioning JFKerry's character from none other than the extremist and partisan Boston Globe, here. The money quote:
On Jan. 9, 1991, as the crisis over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was building to a climax, Kerry received a letter from a constituent, Walter Carter of Newton.
"Dear Senator Kerry," it began. "I urge you to support President Bush's request that Congress approve the `use of all necessary means' to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. To deny the president's request would encourage further aggression."
On Jan. 22, Kerry replied.
"Dear Mr. Carter," he wrote. "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the Bush administration's additional deployment of US military forces . . . and to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On Jan. 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president immediate authority to go to war."
Nine days later, he replied again.
"Dear Mr. Carter," Kerry's second letter said. "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush. . . . From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and
. . . our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
As his glaringly inconsistent responses to Carter -- both form letters, of course -- make clear, Kerry's habit of coming down firmly on two side of controversial issues didn't begin with his presidential campaign. It has been a hallmark of his political career.
But Bush, unlike Kerry, has the courage of his convictions. He can take a strong stand and not run away from it when the political winds shift. On the big issues, the crucial issues, he is a decisive man who means what he says -- and isn't afraid to say it even when his listeners disagree.
For a nation going to the polls in wartime, no issue matters more than character. Kerry has much to recommend him, and Bush's flaws are many. But Bush has the character and backbone of a leader. And Kerry doesn't.