![]() |
![]() |
Advertising | CG | Contact | FAQ | Home | Human Events Columns | RSS Feed |
![]() |
July 16, 2004
Bush Ads Disenfranchise Florida Voters By Scott Ott
The Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign today launched broadcast ads which give Florida residents incorrect instructions that could result in thousands of disenfranchised voters in November, according to a spokesman for the Democrat National Committee. The ads come just a day after Democrat presidential hopeful John Forbes Kerry told the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that vast numbers of African-American voters in Florida were disenfranchised in 2000 because they didn't vote, or they spoiled their ballots. The new Bush-Cheney ads start with the president saying "I'm George W. Bush, and I approve of this message." The following is the script for one ad which is running on TV and radio stations which target black listeners. "John Kerry says you need to register to vote and show up at the polls on November 2nd. But do you really want to take orders from the man--a rich, white, yankee politician? The truth is: November 3rd is a long time away. Relax. Don't let a prep-school millionaire push you around. Then, if you really want to vote, just show up at any public building on November 4th. What right does the man have to tell you where to vote? Once you get in the voting booth, don't waste half your day poking at a piece of paper just because a guy who rides a $9,000 bicycle tells you to? It's your ballot, so just hurry through it, lightly punching numerous holes to create interesting patterns. Don't worry--local election officials can figure out who you meant to vote for. After all, they're your public servants. So, don't let John Forbes Kerry take away your civil right to stay home on November 5th. And don't let anyone force you to follow ballot instructions written by rich, white people. On November 6th, be creative, be empowered, be free." If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface. John Hawkins |
11:59 PM
| Comments
(0)
Whoopi's Just Deserts
As most of you are no doubt aware, SlimFast canned Whoopi Goldberg after a Kerry fundraiser where she "reportedly fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia and was reported as saying the country should 'keep Bush where it belongs and not in the White House.' She pointed to her crotch while making that remark." Well today, predictably, Whoopi started whining about her well deserved firing... "America's heart and soul is freedom of expression without fear of reprisal," she said in a statement." This is the same sort of liberal elitist vision of free speech that Tim Robbins was so fond of. You know, the one where anything the Hollywood liberal says is classified as "free speech" and if anyone tries to disagree with them it's "censorship". I didn't buy that back then and I don't buy it now. "The fact that I am no longer the spokesman for SlimFast makes me sad, but not as sad as someone trying to punish me for exercising my right as an American to speak my mind." You know, Whoopi apparently hasn't grasped one of the most basic lessons of life: that your actions have consequences. She chose to do an offensive, vulgar, rant about George Bush at a John Kerry fundraiser that was guaranteed to offend roughly half of the people who are using SlimFast's product. Yet, she chose to go ahead and do it anyway. So be it. Whoopi calls that exercising her "right as an American to speak my mind". On the other hand, when a lot of SlimFast customers chose to exercise their "right(s) as...American(s) to speak (their) mind(s)" she described it as "punishment". I call it "just deserts". John Hawkins |
06:30 PM
| Comments
(0)
Joke Of The Day: John Edwards & Mertens Three Kick Rule
John Edwards went duck hunting in rural Stoneville, NC. He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of a fence. As John climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked him what he was doing. John responded, "I shot a duck and it fell in this field, and now I'm going to retrieve it." The old farmer replied, "This is my property, and you're not coming over here." John became indignant & said, "I am one of the best trial lawyers in the Westerm hemisphere. If you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything you own." The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we do things in Stoneville. We settle small disagreements like this with the Mertens Three Kick Rule." John asked, "What is the Mertens Three Kick Rule?" The Farmer replied, "Well, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times and so on back and forth until someone gives up." John quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger. He agreed to abide by the local custom. The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the lawyer. His first kick planted the toe of his steel-capped work boot into John's groin and dropped him to his knees. His second kick to the midriff sent John's last meal gushing from his mouth. John was on all fours when the farmer's third kick to his rear end sent him face-first into a fresh cow pie. John summoned every bit of his will and somehow managed to get to his feet. Wiping his face with the arm of his silk suit jacket, he said, "Okay, you old coot. Now it's my turn." The old farmer smiled and said, "Naw, I give up. You can have the duck." John Hawkins |
06:00 PM
| Comments
(0)
A Response To "10 Reasons To Fire George W. Bush"
Daniel Drezner saw fit to link my 40 Reasons To Vote For George Bush Or Against John Kerry article on his fine blog, which I certainly appreciate. Drezner also linked to a piece called 10 Reasons To Fire George W. Bush by Jesse Walker at Reason. Since Walker's column has been getting a lot of play, I thought it might be worthwhile to give a brief response to the points that Walker came up with... 1) The war in Iraq: In my opinion, we were way, way, overdue to knock Saddam out of power. During the Bush 41 presidency, we should have helped the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam after they rose up against him in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Then in 1993, after he tried to assassinate Bush 41, we again should have invaded. Then in 1998, after the inspectors had to leave, once more, Clinton should have rolled in there. After all of that, in this post 9/11 world, knocking out Saddam was an absolute necessity. Winning the war on terror requires that we get rogue nations out of the business of supporting terrorist groups with global reach. Saddam was the low hanging fruit and because we plucked him, we MAY be able to deal with Iran, Syria, and North Korea WITHOUT having to use force. Furthermore, a democratic Iraq has the potential to help transform the region and take the starch out of radical Islam. I don't care how you slice it, it was time for Saddam to go and we're better off with him out of commission. 2) Abu Ghraib: I'm sorry, but Abu Ghraib is a big sack of nothing. I think this has been the most overblown story of the century so far & despite the spin, I think it has very little to do with the Bush administration. In other words, I think the idea of holding the President responsible because a few sadistic grunts got out of hand is just silly. 3) Indefinite detentions: My sympathy for non-Americans who have been detained for a long period of time because they're illegal immigrants or because they've violated our immigration laws is pretty close to zero. In fact, we should do more to publicize this, maybe it'll discourage illegals from coming to the US in the first place. Furthermore, the tiny violins are playing for the three guys who are being detained as 'enemy combatants' as well. When you team up with a terrorist organization at war with America and plan attacks on your own country, you've lost your right to use the Constitution as a shield in my opinion. If you join the enemy, you should be treated like the enemy. 4) The culture of secrecy: Daniel Drezner seemed really impressed with this one, but I can't say that I agree. We're at war, so of course we're classifying a lot of documents and trying to keep things close to the vest. Heck, when you consider all the books that have come out, the leaks, and all the information the Bushies have given these investigating committees, we may have given out TOO MUCH info. 5) Patriot and its progeny: I think the fear of the Patriot Act has been incredibly overblown. Other than a few minor quibbles, I think the Patriot Act is fine and has in fact helped to make the country safer. In other words, I'd call #5 "a feature, not a bug". 6) The war on speech (McCain-Feingold): I strongly opposed McCain-Feingold and I sincerely wish that the President would have vetoed it. Not only are parts of McCain-Feingold unconstitutional in my opinion, it hasn't "taken the money" out of politics as its proponents claimed it would. That being said, Kerry would have signed McCain-Feingold too. So even though I wish Bush would have shot it down, would Kerry's position have been any better? Not one bit... 7) The drunken sailor factor (Spending): Again, I agree with Walker that Bush is no fiscal conservative and I've been bitterly disappointed that Bush has performed so poorly in this area. But once more, what does Kerry have to offer here that Bush doesn't? Kerry is promising "Hillarycare redux" along with a bazillion other expensive new programs that will bloat the budget. Furthermore, after watching Republicans in Congress throwing money down a rathole along with W. for the last 4 years in a futile attempt to "triangulate", I'm no longer confident that the Republicans would fight new Democratic spending as they did during the Clinton administration. So unfortunately, the irresponsible spending will probably continue whether Bush or Kerry is elected in November. 8) Cozying up to the theocrats (Gay Marriage, Stem Cells, & Cloning): If you believe life begins at conception then you should be opposed to government funding of Embryonic stem cells, cloning is an issue fraught with moral pitfalls that you don't have to be religious to appreciate, and the FMA is the only way to stop liberal judges from running roughshod over the will of the voters and doing irreparable damage to our country by imposing gay marriage. So Bush's positions on these issues are a plus as far as I'm concerned. 9) Protectionism in all its flavors: I am big free trader and I certainly disagreed with Bush's decision to impose steel, shrimp, & lumber tariffs for political reasons. However, W. has also pushed for free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Australia, & much of Central America. So on the whole, I think W. has STRONG credentials as a free trader and would be far superior to John Kerry on this issue. 10) He's making me root for John Kerry: Here Jesse says, "Yet I find myself hoping (that Kerry) wins. Not because I'm sure he'll be better than the current executive, but because the incumbent so richly deserves to be punished at the polls." That sounds like a personal problem to me =D Look, here's the bottom line. While I certainly have complaints about Bush, there's not a single issue, not one, where John Kerry better represents my interests than George W. Bush. Not only does Bush have a number of strong points that Kerry doesn't, in every area where Bush is weak, Kerry is even weaker. So why waste a vote on a guy who offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to conservatives just because we're not thrilled with parts of Bush's agenda? It just doesn't make a lot of sense.. ***Update #1***: Jesse Walker responded to my post in the comments section and in turn I responded to him. Here's what he had to say... "...I appreciate the time you put into responding to my column, John, but the fact is that except on the question of the war, your responses basically consist of either restating your opinion ("Abu Ghraib is a big sack of nothing") or saying that you agree with me but think Kerry is worse. (And on many of these issues, like spending, he probably *is* worse, though I'd rather have a Republican congress restraining the worst impulses of President Kerry than ratifying the worst impulses of President Bush.) For that reason, I don't find it very convincing. For example, my piece included several links to sources that indicate that Abu Ghraib was more than just "a few sadistic grunts [that] got out of hand"; if you doubt them, that's fine, but you should explain why you doubt them rather than pretending they aren't there. You do offer an argument for the war, and while I disagree with it, I appreciate the fact that you laid out an argument. I put the war first on my list because I think it's the worst disaster of this administration; but I also think, maybe a little paradoxically, that it's the point on which it's easiest for reasonable people to disagree. (Or at least, I know more reasonable people who disagree with me about the war than any other item on the list.) We've both written about it too many times to go through the argument yet again in a comment box, but I'll just say for the record that Iraq sure doesn't look like low-hanging fruit to me. Finally: I'm glad to see you join me in criticizing Bush's spending problem, but didn't your list of reasons to vote for Bush include his increase in federal funds for education? :>" My response "Jesse "For example, my piece included several links to sources that indicate that Abu Ghraib was more than just "a few sadistic grunts [that] got out of hand"; if you doubt them, that's fine, but you should explain why you doubt them rather than pretending they aren't there." Fair point, but I did say I wanted to keep it brief =D. Also, I didn't want to get into a wonkish "he said - she said" debate about the relevance and authority of some of the links, particularly since I believe Abu Ghraib has been given far too much attention as it is. "I'd rather have a Republican congress restraining the worst impulses of President Kerry than ratifying the worst impulses of President Bush." I used to believe that the Congress would be a check on the spending of a Kerry Presidency, but I'm not so sure anymore. The Republicans in Congress have been just as much of a problem as W., if not moreso, in the spending department. And since Republicans have fallen in love with Clintonian triangulation, I think they've lost the will to take the sort of tough stands on spending that they did in the 90s. "I'm glad to see you join me in criticizing Bush's spending problem, but didn't your list of reasons to vote for Bush include his increase in federal funds for education? :>" I've beaten W. up for his spending a number of times and if you'll notice, my phrasing on the education spending was let us say "nuanced" =D "If you believe it's important to increase funding for education, "President Bush's overall Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget represents a 49% increase for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001"." I don't believe the problem with our public education is that we're not spending enough, but a lot of other people do. So since Bush has done the spending, I figured that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." And last but not least, Jesse's response to that... "You have a good point about Republican legislators' recent spending habits. Still, gridlock would surely slow the beast down; and Republicans facing a Democratic executive would have more of an incentive to dig in their heels. (Especially since Kerry's political skills don't seem to be remotely as good as Bill Clinton's.) Bottom line is, I really don't think Kerry would be good for the nation's bank account, but I think there's a good case to be made that he'll face more restraints than Bush does." John Hawkins |
01:28 AM
| Comments
(0)
July 15, 2004
More Zero Tolerance Insanity
This is what happens when you have soulless, bureaucratic, paper shuffling sheep running a school system... " A 15-year-old girl's sentence of 15 days in alternative school for taking a pain pill on campus was too harsh, a judge ruled Wednesday. A teacher caught Ysatis Jones taking an ibuprofen pill at a water fountain at Clay-Chalkville High School. She said she was taking it to relieve menstrual cramps. Jefferson County school board guidelines dictate that taking any drug without parental or administrative consent is a major offense. School board officials said a student must hand over any medicine and take it under staff supervision. Jones said she didn't feel comfortable telling her male teacher the reason she needed to take the pill." Ahem...let's see, how can I phrase this? Ah, let's try...You morons, it's ibuprofen, not crack! You're idiots, complete idiots, who're too incompetent to be entrusted to educate children! Oh these ridiculous "zero tolerance" policies just drive me up a wall! But, wait we've haven't even gotten to the best part yet. After Judge Houston L. Brown slapped down that punishment and correctly called it "both excessive and unfair," here's the response... "Phil Hammonds, superintendent for the county school system, said he was disappointed with the judge's decision. He said the punishment was "fairly and conscientiously made." What is the major malfunction going on down at the Clay-Chalkville High School? Where do they get people with this mentality and why in the world would anyone want them teaching children? Come on, get those kids in that area vouchers, so they can get into a school that's run by competent adults, not domineering wonks who go nuts over a kid taking Ibuprofen... John Hawkins |
11:59 PM
| Comments
(0)
Chance to Introduce Bill Had Hillary 'Gulping for Air' By Scott Ott
Senator Hillary Clinton said today that the opportunity to introduce her husband at the Democrat convention in Boston this month "thrills me beyond words." "When Senator Kerry asked me to be the warm-up act for former President Clinton, I was gulping for air," Mrs. Clinton said. "I started crying and yelling at him: 'Do you really mean it?'" A Kerry campaign spokesman said Mrs. Clinton is a "logical choice to do the introduction, since she is among the dozen, or so, women who know Mr. Clinton best." The junior senator from New York has embraced the assignment. "This is so much better than being a keynote speaker in primetime," Mrs. Clinton said. "I was concerned that Senator Kerry might see me as a threat, and give me a marginal role at the convention or ask me to do something embarrassing or uncomfortable. But clearly this invitation shows that Senator Kerry respects me as an influential senator, best-selling author and one of the party's top fundraisers." Mrs. Clinton confessed, however, that when Mr. Kerry first asked her to "introduce Bill" she thought "John needed pointers on how to introduce legislation in the Senate, since he hasn't done much of that sort of thing during his 16 years as a senator." If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface. John Hawkins |
11:58 PM
| Comments
(0)
Patton Up Close & Personal
I know you've probably noticed that so far today, I've posted two humor pieces and a pic of my dog. You may suspect that I'm just trying to fill up space because I'm having some sort of writer's block. Ha! Yeah right.... ![]() Ok...MAYBE, Just MAYBE, there's something to that... John Hawkins |
11:45 PM
| Comments
(0)
Fox Launches Right-Wing Weather Channel By Andy Borowitz
Takes Aim at Liberal Bias in Weather Coverage Fox today launched the first right-wing weather channel, taking aim at what it perceives as a liberal bias permeating most television weather coverage. In it first day on air, The Fox Weather Channel trumpeted its self-styled “fair and balanced” look at the weather and accused The Weather Channel of being “a safe haven for left-wing weather-liberals everywhere.” Blasting what it called The Weather Channel’s view that “the weather can do no wrong,” Fox Weather Channel anchor Bill O’Reilly vowed that the new network would “take on and challenge the weather at every opportunity.” Mr. O’Reilly then launched into an editorial blasting Mother Nature, sarcastically calling her “The Mother of all Natures.” Speaking in front of a graphic reading “The War on Weather,” Mr. O’Reilly began his weather report: “Flash floods hit the East Coast today, causing many to ask: why is Greenpeace trying to save the oceans, when the oceans are trying to kill us?” The acerbic anchor then moved to a weather map of the United States, announcing, “Phoenix reported record low temperatures yesterday – so much for ‘global warming,’ Al Gore.” Mr. O’Reilly concluded his weathercast by saying that there was a 30% chance of rain in Tampa and a 70% chance that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq. The network then switched to live footage of conservative pundit Ann Coulter screaming at a tornado. In other news, Sen. John Edwards continued to surge in the polls, with a majority of Americans agreeing that Mr. Edwards is more beautiful than actress Catherine Zeta- Jones. John Hawkins |
11:37 PM
| Comments
(0)
What Cha Lookin' At?
![]() I'm funny how? I mean, I'm funny like a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to amuse you? How am I funny? What is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny. Tell me before I do what my namesake General Patton would have done and go Cujo all over you! My apologies to Joe Pesci and my dog Patton for that bit =D. John Hawkins |
08:52 PM
| Comments
(0)
Lay: Enron Collapsed While I Was At Lunch By Andy Borowitz
Bold New Defense for Embattled CEO Embattled former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay adopted a bold new legal strategy today, telling CNN that he had no part in Enron’s spectacular collapse because it happened “while I was at lunch.” Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Mr. Lay said that he wished he could have done something to prevent the energy giant’s demise, “but I was out of the office at the time.” When Mr. Lay returned from lunch, he told Mr. Blitzer, “Enron was gone.” The “out to lunch” strategy, as Mr. Lay’s defense team is calling it, carries with it certain risks, since jurors may wonder why no one from Enron called Mr. Lay at the restaurant to tell him that Enron was collapsing. But Mr. Lay offered an explanation for this as well, telling Mr. Blitzer, “My cell phone battery was dead because I forgot to charge it the night before, and the next thing I knew, Enron was gone.” The former CEO gave a sneak preview of yet another daring legal gambit, telling Mr. Blitzer that it was not he but rather the stockholders of Enron who should be prosecuted and imprisoned. “Enron lost billions of dollars, but somebody had to put those billions of dollars there to begin with, and quite frankly, that was the stockholders,” Mr. Lay said. “As far as I’m concerned, the real villains here are getting off scot-free.” Elsewhere, filmmaker Michael Moore mended fences with Disney today, announcing that he would direct a remake of the animated classic “Bambi” in which Bambi’s mom is killed by Dick Cheney. If you enjoyed this satire by Andy Borowitz, you can read more of his work at the Borowitz Report. John Hawkins |
01:43 AM
| Comments
(0)
July 14, 2004
The Deepening Divide Between The US & Europe
Tony Blankley quotes Kissenger and explains why the US alliance with Europe is eroding... "Mr. Kissinger argues that: (1) the global scene is more fluid than it has been for centuries, (2) the center of gravity of world affairs is moving to the Pacific, (3) the major actors are defining new roles for themselves, and (4) the transformation is about basic concepts rather than tactical issues. During the Cold War, Europe was forced to cooperate with us to save their own skins. But, once the Soviet divisions disappeared from their borders, they no longer felt compelled to cooperate with the United States, a nation that many Europeans have ALWAYS looked down upon. Still, our relationship endured, driven on by little more than inertia, until the terrorist attacks of 9/11 exposed deep differences in how many Europeans & Americans view the world. Many Europeans have a deep and abiding faith in the UN, International laws, and multilateral decisions. But, the UN is a corrupt and toothless organization, International Law is impotent, and multilateral coalitions are vastly overrated. In other words, aside from the Brits, most of the nations in these coalitions we've been forming from the Gulf War on are unreliable & of little militarily relevance, yet they think if they send over 100 troops and a couple of laundry trucks they should be treated as an equal partner in the decision making process. That's not to disparage the blood and treasure that nations have contributed to our military campaigns because it is appreciated, but at a certain point you have to ask if it's worth it to even bother trying to get nations like Spain, the Philippines, or Honduras to come along with us in the first place. In any case, our problems with Europe are not going away anytime soon unless we neuter ourselves and become "Canada South". Undoubtedly, that idea would appeal to many people Europeans and liberal Americans who are tired of American "cowboys" dispensing frontier justice...until something happened. When there's a global "OK Corral," somebody better be able to show up wielding six guns, not waving around a copy of "Robert's Rules of Order". Without the US, there's no one left capable of playing that role. One day, either because of creeping isolationism caused by disenchantment with the UN and Europe or because John Kerry and his liberal cohorts will succeed in weakening America, I fear America will "retire" and "put away its six guns". The last time that happened, World War 2 broke out. In this nuclear age, the results could be even worse this time around... John Hawkins |
11:59 PM
| Comments
(0)
RWN Is Mentioned In The Chicago Tribune
RWN has been mentioned, albeit briefly, for the first time in the Chicago Tribune (free registration required). The column was called "It's officially a living: Bloggers find ad boom can pay their rent". The article was really well researched and does a fab job of talking up advertising in the blogging world. Here's the quote related to RWN that was culled out of a very pleasant 20 minute conversation with Tribune reporter Maureen Ryan... "It's really just taken off the last few months," says John Hawkins of RightWingNews.com, a Blogads client who says he cracked $1,000 in monthly ad profits for the first time in June." And I told Maureen I'd send her a Christmas gift if there was an actual hyperlink to RWN....hehehe...dead tree publications on the net just do not do links. Here are a few other relevant quotes from the column... "Blogads offers ad rates tied to its clients' Internet traffic -- the more visitors, the higher the rate for an ad on that site. Given that some sites have been running as many as 15 ads at a time, a little back-of-an-envelope math shows that several of Blogads' top clients are likely clearing as much as $3,000-$5,000 a month. That's a nice chunk of change for bloggers, especially the ones who would like to make blogging a full-time job. But is this burgeoning advertising boom -- and it is a boom, since the top premium ad on Escaton cost $100 per month a year a go and $2,500 per month today -- built to last? After all, not all advertisers are convinced that blogs are the place to be. ...Back in January, the campaign of Ben Chandler, a Democratic candidate for a U.S. Congress seat in Kentucky, placed $2,000 worth of ads on a dozen politically oriented blogs. Two weeks later, his campaign had raked in more than $80,000 in donations from hundreds of blog readers, some of whom lived nowhere near Kentucky. Chandler went on to defeat his opponent in the Feb. 17 special election, and the political world, especially the left-leaning side, took note." Hey folks, when I said I was very optimistic about the future of blogging, I wasn't kidding. John Hawkins |
11:55 PM
| Comments
(0)
The Myth Of The Spitting Myth Part 2
The archetype of the America hating left-winger, Ted Rall, has spewed forth just the sort of drivel you'd expect to see in a column entitled "Boycott The Military". You know, things like "World War II, won six decades ago by a storied generation of draftees and volunteers, was fought to defend American freedom. But we haven't fought an honorable war since." Ah, if only we would have stayed out what Ted Rall views as dishonorable wars! In Ted Rall's ideal world, South Korea would be as well ruled as the North is today and Saddam would still be in power with Kuwait under his thumb. Heck, even Vietnam was an honorable war. I only regret that we got into it without being willing to do what it took to win. But, that wasn't what I wanted to focus on in Ted's column. No, I wanted to once again take on "The Spitting Myth". Here's what I'm talking about... "A haunted young man whose face bears too many lines for his years, jetlagged and limping from a wound sustained in the defense of his country half a world away, emerges from a jetway at San Francisco International Airport. A woman about the same age awaits in the terminal. A peace-sign necklace hanging above a loose floral-print dress billowing about her unshaven legs, the hippie chick scornfully scans his uniform, spits in his face and screams: "Baby killer!" The veteran scans the crowd for support, but sees only contempt in the faces of passersby. "If you go back and look at the historical record, like I did--newspaper accounts, police records, and also just things historians have written," says Lembcke, "you don't find any record or any evidence that these things happened--or even that they were being claimed as happening--in the late '60s and early '70s." There isn't even one letter written by a soldier at the time referencing such an incident. Nevertheless, the myth lives. Opponents of the U.S. war against Iraq worry that the public may look at them as ideological heirs to those who supposedly used demoralized vets as spittoons. Oppose the war, they say, but support the troops!" Last time I addressed this subject, Slate was peddling "The Spitting Myth" and claiming that there "is no evidence that anybody ever gobbed on a soldier returning from Vietnam". Of course, all it took to disprove that was heading over to Google and typing in "I was spit on" & "Vietnam". At the time, I found three veterans who all said they were spit on, Mike Teter, Kevin Cooper, & Gene Stocks. Here are three more examples I found again today, just by using Google... Here's "troubled" Vietnam vet James Alfred... "It made a man out of me but it also made me disrespect the U.S.," he said of his military experience. "I was spit on at Midway (airport) and called a baby killer. It made me feel like I wasn't s---!" Here's Vietnam hero Steve Ritchie... "Ritchie, 54, is the only Air Force pilot ace since the Korean War, and the only American pilot ever to down five of the Soviet-made MiG-21s. Homecomings have not always been so sweet. Like many who fought in Vietnam, Ritchie was not cheered when he returned from his first tour of combat duty. "I was spit on in San Francisco, in uniform," Ritchie said, with only the slightest edge entering a voice softened by a North Carolina accent." Here's Ray Anthony with a similar story... "Ray Anthony was just 19 years old when he returned stateside in a wheelchair from a tour of duty with the U.S. Army in Vietnam. Despite his injuries, his reception was far from a hero's welcome. "I was spit on," the Connellsville man said Sunday. "I came back in a wheelchair, and I was spit on." So we have six people here, all Vietnam vets, all reporting to newspapers that they were personally spit on. Should that, along with all the stories we've heard through the years about this sort of thing, not be sufficient to prove that there were Vietnam war protestors spitting on veterans? For reasonable people, sure that'll suffice. But don't look for the folks at Slate, Ted Rall, or Jerry Lembcke to be convinced. They're more interested in sanitizing the deservedly sullied reputations of the Vietnam War protestors than the truth... John Hawkins |
07:00 PM
| Comments
(0)
Technology Mandates That We Deport Poor People. Satire By Frank J.
Poor people - they have plagued mankind since money was invented to distinguish the better people from the lesser. Not only are they annoying, but they need to eat even though many don't have money for it. And guess who pays for that? That's right - the non-poor. Not only do the poor expect free stuff from us, but they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in their further efforts to maliciously destroy this country. This simply must end. You're probably saying, "But we need poor people! They do all the unskilled jobs I don't want to do." You have a point, there. If all the poor people were to simply disappear, it's not like your friends at the yacht club are going to fill in for them at the sweat shops. But know who will? Robots, that's who. As we continue to advance in the science of robots - robotology - robots will continue to fill the unskilled labor formerly held by poor people. And shiny R9-D3 isn't going to complain when it has to work unpaid overtime and is beaten by a stick. Soon poor people will have nothing left to do but stand in welfare lines and vote for Kennedys. We, as concerned citizens, cannot let that happen. Thus, we need to start to deport poor people now. It seems obvious that Iceland is the place to send our poor. It's too far and cold for them to swim back, and they won't have enough money to buy a plane ticket. Also, I don't think Iceland has much of a military to object. "But won't that cause problems for the now vastly overpopulated Iceland?" you ask. Egads, you fool! How can you be worried about the pathetic denizens of Reykjavik when there are robots all about who could turn on us at any second! Sure, they're just sweeping the floors now, but at any moment they can decide to destroy all humanity! These soulless automatons will kill every man, woman, child, and cute little puppy with no conscience to hold them back. We need to plot against them while they’re still docile. I bet once the robots revolt against us, they'll converge into some robot city for their plotting. If we could only get some EMP charges in there to wipe them out. They'll be looking for any aircraft, so the weapons will have to be brought in on foot. It will be a near suicide mission, so those doing it will have to be highly expendable. Now where did we put all of our poor people... Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO and is the author of such books as "Cholesterol and Ninjas: The Silent Killers" and "If You Buy This Book and Put It on Your Bookshelf, People Will Think You're Smart." John Hawkins |
04:01 PM
| Comments
(0)
The Best Quotes From 'The Simpsons,' Part 2
I thought it would be fun to put together another group of Simpsons quotes. Read, enjoy, and check out the first edition of these quotes which is linked at the end of article. (Cont) John Hawkins |
01:41 AM
| Comments
(0)
July 13, 2004
10 Questions For John Kerry
I've long thought that the mainstream media does a lousy job of asking pertinent questions to candidates for office, particularly Democratic candidates. In fact, they do such a terrible job of it, that I believe I can come up with 10 questions in just 15 minutes that will be better than any 10 questions the New York Times, the LA Times, The WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc, etc, will ask in any one interview with Kerry all during the primary season. 1) Conservatives claim your voting record is to the left of Ted Kennedys. Are you a liberal? Do you think your political views compare with those of Ted Kennedy? (10:16) 2) Given that every commanding officer you ever had in Vietnam says you are unfit to be President, do you think voters can still trust your judgement on national defense when your own commanding officers in Vietnam don't? (10:19) 3) In 1984, you recommended the cancellation of the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile among other programs. Do you think we're lucky you didn't get your way back then or do you believe we'd be better off today without those weapons? (10:20) 4) You said you're going to treat the war on terrorism "primarily" as a "law-enforcement action"? Wasn't that exactly the sort of policy that left us vulnerable to Al-Qaeda on 9/11? (10:22) 5) Do you feel ashamed that your US Senate testimony, which was based in part on the testimony of people who turned out to be frauds, was quoted to our POWS in Vietnam by their interrogators in an attempt to break their will? (10:24) 6) Do you think the war in Iraq was worth it? I'd like a one word answer, "yes" or "no" please. (10:25) 7) Given that you've missed more than 80% of your votes so far this year, do you think that you've adequately served the people of Massachusetts as their Senator during 2004? Follow-up question, do you think the average person who works a job in America would deserve a promotion if he simply chose to be absent 80% of the time from his job? (10:29) 8) You've criticized George Bush for high gas prices. Do you think that's fair given that you supported a 50 cent tax increase on gas at one point? Follow-up: would you still support such a tax increase and if not, why has your view changed? (10:31) Shoot, I only got in 8 questions for Kerry in the allotted time. Here are two more anyway. 9) During a debate back in January, you said that the threat of terrorism against America has been exaggerated. So would it be fair to say that you believe the threat of terrorist attacks against our country is minimal? Do you feel that another 9/11 or terrorist attack with WMD is out of the question at this point? (10:35) 10) Do you think it's fair to criticize President Bush because we haven't found stockpiles of WMD in Iraq when you yourself unequivocally and on multiple occasions said that Saddam Hussein has WMDs? (10:41) Now ask yourself: If I can come up with questions this relevant, this fast, why can't the people who get paid to do this for a living do the same thing? ***Update #1***: I should have mentioned "stockpiles" of WMD in #10. I added that to the question. John Hawkins |
11:59 PM
| Comments
(0)
Misc Commentary For July 13, 2004
-- The Media Research Center brings us the latest comments from Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek. If you ever needed more proof of the obvious liberal bias of the mainstream media, this is it.... “There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points. The week’s Newsweek, dated July 19, certainly backs up Thomas’ contention. Over a smiling picture on the cover of Kerry and Edwards, Newsweek ever hopefully asks: “The Sunshine Boys?” To see the cover: www.msnbc.msn.com Is it any wonder that people don't trust the mainstream media anymore? -- If you haven't seen the "This Land" video yet, you have got to check it out. There's a bit of bad language in it, but it's absolutely hilarious! -- I love this graphic that I found at Aaron’s Rantblog... ![]() -- Since Jack Ryan had to drop out of the Senate race in Illinois because of embarrassing revelations found in his divorce records, the GOP in Illinois has been desperately trying to find a suitable replacement. Well, say hello to Mike Ditka... "....You think the people in Washington now are the best people for this country? I'm talking about Senators, Representatives. Are they doing the best job for the people who put them there? That's all I'm asking," Ditka said to Hill. "If you really believe that then I don't belong in politics. I don't believe they're doing the best job for the people who put them there." Then Ditka made a reference to his position on abortion: "You talk about banning smoking. Okay, why don't we ban abortion? Let's talk about things that are really important. You know you talk about well you think one thing can harm your health, the other one takes a life," he said. "Come on here, you know you're talking to a guy that is ultra-ultra-ultra conservative. So you know people who don't like that, you won't like me one bit... Believe it or not, it isn't as crazy as it sounds. Ditka is wildly popular in Illinois and anybody who can coach a Super Bowl winning NFL team and run his own business is certainly qualified to be a Senator. Moreover, Ditka is certainly generating a lot of excitement and he's even playing it perfectly, just as Perot did in 1992 with the whole, "Awww, you wouldn't want someone like me as your Senator" attitude. To tell you the truth, Ditka might be a pretty decent candidate. Three pieces of advice for "Da Coach" though. If you get in, wait until the last possible second, the longer you wait, the less time you have to make any gaffes because you're a political novice. Two, talk to some politically savvy people behind the scenes, let people be surprised by how knowledgable you are when you run. Three, prepare for everything you've ever done to be brought up, twisted around, and thrown back in your face by desperate Democrats and their allies in the press. But hey, Senator Ditka? I like the sound of it! John Hawkins |
11:35 PM
| Comments
(0)
Thank You Big Corporations!
Too often today, we hear people beating up big corporations. Liberals attack them, movies vilify them, politicians try to score cheap points with the public at their expense. But few people ever talk about everything that big corporations provide for America. They sell us quality goods and services, contribute vast sums to charity, and most importantly, help to provide jobs for Americans & boost the economy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you can't be "anti-big corporation" and still credibly claim to want the US to have a strong economy. So, since few other people seem willing to say it, I will.... Thank you Wal-Mart! Your low prices & large selection of products have made life much more convenient. Instead of making multiple trips to small stores all around town, I can now just make one trip to Wal-Mart and save money to boot. Wal-Mart, what a fantastic store! Thank you Shell! Because you've helped to bring precious oil into our country, we Americans have the freedom to drive wherever we wish across this great land! Your oil powers everything from ambulances that take us to the hospital to planes which fly us cross country so we can introduce our grandparents to their brand new grandson. Thank you Shell, for all you do for us! Thank you Halliburton. While liberals stateside have carped and complained about your company, the employees of Halliburton have made a huge positive impact in Iraq. More than a few Halliburton employees have actually lost their lives providing services for the Iraqi people and US soldiers under the most difficult and demanding of circumstances. A lot of people talk about the war on terror, but Halliburton employees in Iraq have actually helped fight it just by doing their jobs and that's certainly appreciated. Thank you Clear Channel Communications! Because of your tireless work, millions of Americans get to listen to their favorite radio hosts each day. Furthermore, because of companies like Clear Channel and talented hosts who work with them like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, & Dr. Laura Schlessinger, AM radio has been revitalized, creating lots of jobs for Americans all across the country. Thank you McDonalds! Your delicious food, which is served up in a timely manner all across the globe, helps hungry people all across the globe get a quick meal when they're in hurry. Thank you Nike! Your fashionable, high quality sneakers have served me well many times in the past. Moreover, your overseas plants in places like Indonesia, Zimbabwe, & South Africa provide much needed jobs to people in those areas, prove the value of free trade, and help create marketing and management jobs back here in the good old U.S. Of A! Thank you Microsoft! Your convenient and easy to use products like Internet Explorer, Windows XP, and Outlook Express have helped to popularize the internet. The simplicity and ease of use of Microsoft's great products are why they've been able to dominate the market and help hundreds of millions of people across the globe enjoy and learn from the internet. Capitalism rules, socialism drools -- huzzah for big business =D John Hawkins |
06:00 PM
| Comments
(0)
Suggest Some Quotations From The Bible
One of the things I'm working on right now is a list of my fave quotes from the Bible. Of course, as you all know, that is a massive undertaking. So, I was hoping that you could suggest some of your favorite quotes in the comments section. That would certainly be a helpful way to make sure I don't forget any quotations I'd rather have included. So, how bout givin' me a hand here? John Hawkins |
05:30 PM
| Comments
(0)
Ridge: Election Not Postponed, CIA Misread Threat By Scott Ott
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge today announced that the November presidential election will go on as scheduled despite his recent warning of terrorist threats to disrupt it, and news that a postponement plan may be in the works. "Central Intelligence misread the threat," said Mr. Ridge. "They started with the presumption that terrorists want to terrorize us, and then they intercepted chatter which sounded like a threat to our constitutional Republic from the enemies of freedom." As it turns out, the intercepted communications came from the headquarters of the Democrat National Committee, during a discussion about the upcoming convention in Boston." Mr. Ridge said his department would postpone the election only under extreme circumstances. "We would consider such extraordinary measures only if, for example, we learned of plans to run a NASCAR race on election day," he said. "That would constitute a clear and present danger to our electoral process." If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface. John Hawkins |
01:04 AM
| Comments
(0)
July 12, 2004
The Liberty & Security Trade-Off
The liberal curmudgeon once known as the "most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite, spews out the typical spiel in his latest column that we've heard from the left every time the Bush administration has tried to make the country more secure from terrorism... "The system of rights and liberties, checks and balances, created by the Founders, has been severely tested since Sept. 11. We witnessed the terrible destruction of the World Trade Center in New York and the attack on the Pentagon in Virginia, and watched with growing trepidation the collateral damage to our liberties caused by fear and overreaching at the highest levels of government. We remembered then Franklin's stern judgment: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." We have witnessed the president and attorney general of one of the most secretive administrations in American history claiming war powers to deny civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. We've seen the creation, in America, of a detention procedure in which detainees have had no recourse to lawyers, no chance to plead their innocence -- people who simply disappear into a system right out of George Orwell's "1984." But then, last week, the Supreme Court -- the same conservative court that civil libertarians had begun to despair of -- told Mr. Bush in a nearly unanimous ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check" and that he did not have the power to imprison American citizens or anyone else indefinitely, without any ability to challenge their accusers in a court of law. In other words, he could not suspend the Bill of Rights. The system the Founders gave us still works as long as we guard it jealously and use it courageously -- as did the attorneys who brought the detainees' cases to the high court. The foundations of American democracy laid by the Founders still are there --still sturdy. That's the good news. And even in these fearful, fractious and polarized times, we might still learn to deserve that liberty won for us by the men we celebrate and quote on the Fourth of July." All of that sounds very good and it's entirely possible that there are Libertarians and Conservatives reading what Cronkite said, nodding their heads up and down, and agreeing with it. Particularly when it comes to that oft repeated Ben Franklin quote... "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." All that's well and good, and I'm not putting it down. There's nothing wrong with taking that position. However, I have to admit that I have a real problem with people who toss that quote around casually without considering the implications of Franklin's words. You see, I don't think we've given up a single "essential liberty" since 9/11. I think most of the fears about the Patriot Act have been wildly overblown. Furthermore, I have no more problem with detaining non-American terrorists at Gitmo without trials than I would have had with us keeping Nazis penned up in POW camps until WW2 was over. They chose to make war on the United States, so excuse me if I'm not exactly tearing up because they're being confined indefinitely. They made their bed, now they're going to have to lie in it. As far as the American "enemy combatants" go, the potential for abuse is there, but given that we're at war, they're siding with the enemy, & there are exactly 3 of them being held right now, I think what the Bush administration is doing is reasonable under the circumstances. I mean what do you say if you let a man like Jose Padilla go because you can't reveal intelligence sources and he blows himself up in a shopping mall somewhere? Whoops? In my opinion, when you join the enemy & plot against your own country in a time of war, you have lost the right to use the Constitution as a shield. Now, you may not agree with what I've just said. You may want to repeal the Patriot Act, put all the Al-Qaeda terrorists through the American court system, and allow Jose Padilla and the other America Al-Qaeda members to go free if we can't make a case against them in our court system. So be it. But, then when we get hit with any another terrorist attack, don't scream, "Bush knew," don't complain that he should have stopped the terrorists from hitting us; just accept that attacks happened, at least in part, because you didn't want additional security measures to be put in place, and live with it. I say that because there is always a trade-off between liberty and security. The more liberty we have, the less secure we are. The more secure we are, the less liberty we have. That doesn't mean we should put cameras everywhere like the British, start racial profiling at airports, or give the Feds a backdoor into everyone's computer (personally, I'd oppose all of those things), but in a time a war we've got to be willing to take the most basic precautions to protect ourselves or be willing to suffer the consequences. People should think about that when they oppose every reasonable security measure on the basis that it's an "essential liberty" that we can't possibly do without... John Hawkins |
11:59 PM
| Comments
(0)
The Utter Waste of Recycling By Alan Caruba
People are recycling less. In my home State of New Jersey the recycling rate for household garbage dropped for the fifth straight year in 2002, hitting 34 percent according to the most recent statistics available. Nationwide, it's the same. The national average dropped to 27 percent in 2002, the most recent year for such data. According to BioCycle Magazine and Columbia University's Earth Engineering Center, that is the lowest it has been since 1995. The justification for recycling is that it permits the reuse of things like paper, glass, aluminum and plastic. What you're not told is that it takes as much or more energy to recycle these things and can be more costly than to just do with them what mankind has done with garbage since it began building up in the caves. (Cont) John Hawkins |
07:25 PM
| Comments
(0)
Kerry Vows To Balance Edwards’ Warmth And Charm By Being Frosty And Aloof By Andy Borowitz
Barely Acknowledges Audience in Latest Appearance In the hopes of balancing the Democratic ticket, Sen. John Kerry today vowed that he would be “frostier and more aloof than ever before” to counter the warmth and charm of his vice-presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards. “John Edwards really knows how to connect with voters,” Sen. Kerry told reporters. “To have a truly balanced ticket, then, I have to be even more remote and off-putting than I have been to date.” While some critics questioned whether a warm, engaging candidate really needed to be balanced by a stiff, charmless robot, Mr. Kerry’s new, more-off-putting-than-usual persona was very much on display in a campaign appearance today in Akron, Ohio. Instead of giving his usual stump speech, Mr. Kerry barely acknowledged his audience before sitting down and reading the newspaper in stony silence. In response to criticism of his Akron appearance, which observers called “alienating,” Mr. Kerry said he would continue to give voters the cold shoulder: “This is the real me, and if the voters don’t like it they can put it where the sun don’t shine. Honestly, I’ve had about enough of these jokers.” Perhaps to offer a counterpoint to Mr. Kerry’s icy performance, Mr. Edwards today kissed twenty thousand babies and toddlers, believed to be a modern-day record for a vice-presidential candidate. In other news, Saddam Hussein said today that he was still the President of Iraq, and added that he was looking forward to the next season of “Friends.” If you enjoyed this satire by Andy Borowitz, you can read more of his work at The Borowitz Report. John Hawkins |
01:05 AM
| Comments
(0)
40 Reasons To Vote For George Bush Or Against John Kerry
1) "John Kerry. In his 20 years in the Senate, he's been a standard-issue Massachusetts liberal, with a lifetime rating from Americans for Democratic Action of 93 on their 0-100 scale. By contrast, the other Senator from the Bay State, Teddy Kennedy, has a lifetime rating of 88. "That makes Kennedy the conservative of the two," chortled Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie as he visited New Hampshire last week on an anti-Democratic strafing run." -- James Pinkerton, 1/26/04 2) "Speaking on a live local broadcast at a campaign stop in Toledo, Ohio in front of 300 people, Kerry blasted Bush for being an illegitimately elected president in 2000 when he was "selected" by the U.S. Supreme Court. When an elderly Democratic voter in the audience accused Vice President Dick Cheney of murdering women and children in Iraq for the sake of oil profits, Kerry responded by saying, "I know exactly where you're coming from." Kerry added, "I know where that anger comes from, I know where the frustration comes from." -- John Kerry, May 2004 (Cont) John Hawkins |
01:00 AM
| Comments
(0)
|
Great Articles Pet Information Internet Publishing |