Showing posts from November 5, 2006

Two Dates to Remember

The Insurgency wins

An alarmist headline to be sure. You'd think it was from Ann Coulter or even Stephen Colbert but no. It's from The Guardian and they're celebrating the fact.

At this point the insurgency knows it has won, however long it takes the occupying power to go. Retreat in good order is the best hope. An era of ill-conceived, belligerent interventionism has come to an end - by democratic decision, thank goodness.

Translation: Screw you Iraqis, we can't be bothered to help anymore. Oh, and all you other people around the world living under the thumb of a dictator. You're on your own.

They broke it, you bought it.

Suddenly people are noticing that Democrats have corruption problems equal to, and in some cases better than Republicans. Now that they've won the media is now free to discover those problems. Reason, no friend of either party, makes a point about appropriations here. That would make two felons on committees before they even drop the first gavel.

Tim Noah has been co-opted by Karl Rove's mind control beams. How else to explain his call for the absolute sure fire way to destroy the democratic minority: Socialized medicine.

Sane people can argue whether healthcare is broken. I think a strong case can be made that it is, but socialism is, in no way, the solution. See: England, Canada et al.

Similarly, now everybody has plans for Iraq. Previously we were entreated to vagaries about what was going wrong and how changing those running things would magically fix everything. I kept asking what "real security" meant. I never found anyone blogger or politician who wou…

Rule by the Offended

Students in (where else?) California have banned the pledge of allegiance before their meetings. Why, you ask?

"That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me," student trustee Jason Bell, who proposed the ban, told Reuters. "I am an atheist and a socialist, and if you know your history, you know that 'under God' was inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy my ideology."

Well. That settles it, doesn't it? Someone is offended by something the solution is to ban it. It's not like this kid is ever going to run into this sort of egregious offensiveness anywhere else in life. (Come to think of it, California is well on it's way to eliminating any double plus ungood things so who knows?)

Irony abounds in that his ideology was directly designed to destroy my ideology.

Chaos = Safety?

That might be overstating things but the article in question is here.

The premise is that traffic controls do not make us safer. Rather, they make us more at risk. Why? People drive like idiots because all the controls on them are external, not internal. Seatbelts and airbags make you feel like you could drive into a wall and everything would be fine. (You probably would be) The result is that people drive faster and more recklessly. Traffic lights make you either floor it and jam on the breaks (God help you if you do the former and the guy in front of you does the latter). It would be very interesting to try this in small doses here.

Quick Notes

Hearings ad naseum on the horizon. It's going to make the Iran-Contra hearings look like a amphetamine riddled squirrel escaping a rabid wolverine.

"Now who will they kick around?" asks Slate. Now that Bush is a lame duck, he's not the boogeyman they can pin the blame on now. Where will their next target be?

Be careful what you wish for says Victor Davis Hanson. Explaining that the tree of victory often yields bitter fruit.

The note that DonViti linked to as evidence of all going right is
evidence that things have gone horribly wrong according to Tim Blair. I'm gonna go with Tim on this one.

Four coming policy battles after Rumsfeld. All of them began with or predated him and will be fought long after Gates is gone. Specifically #1 and #3.

Summing up the election

Reason #234,576 why I love Mark Steyn

When he zings people, he does it better than most.

The party of the rich

Yes, its the Democrats.


Yesterday, the poll for the House vote in the East showed that the 25 percent of the electorate making over $100,000 went big for Democrats overall, 57-42, compared with a 49-48 margin in 2004. In 2006, those making between $150,000 and $200,000 voted for Democratic candidates by a whopping 63-37 majority, and those making more than $200,000 went Democratic by a slim 50-48 margin. That's a huge shift from 2004, when Republicans took the $150,000 to $200,000 demographic 50-48 and rang up a huge victory among the over $200,000 set: 56-40.

Broken down by region and demos, the Democrats now show leads among the wealthy. What does it mean? Why would people vote against their own economic interests? It's hard to figure out. Moreover, I'm interested if that is going to drive the party's platforms in any meaningful fashion. I'm not so sure it will in the short term but it may have long term implications. I'll be damned if I have any…

In a fit of naked thievery....

I'm posting today's lyrics of the day:

I'd Love to Kiss the Bangles

I wouldn't kiss Bruce Springsteen,
Jackson Brown or Leonard Cohen.
But I know someone who'd love to shift
The drummer in Status Quo.
And I wouldn't drop the love on Bono,
There'd be far too many legal wrangles.
But Jesus Christ Almighty, I'd love to touch the Bangles.

I wouldn't kiss AC/DC
Or Lemmy from Motorhead
I wouldn't kiss Tom Petty,
Tina Turner or the Grateful Dead.
And I wouldn't kiss Mr Tambourine Man
No matter how he jingled or jangled
But Jesus Christ Almighty, I'd love to kiss the Bangles.

I'd love to have it off with Suzanna Hoffs.
I'd love to have it off with Suzanna Hoffs.
I'd love to have it off with Suzanna Hoffs.
Err ... my favourite's Vicky, actually.

I wouldn't kiss Liam O'Maonlai,
Guns & Roses or Muddy Waters.
I wouldn't kiss Brian Wilson
Or his lovely yankee daughters.
And Shane McGowan is not my type
Because his teeth are green and mangled


Pyrrhic Victory?

Is last night's win a pyrrhic victory for the Democrats?

They will now have to put their money where their mouth is. They will have to:

Give us "real" security
Have a plan for either winning or leaving Iraq
Raise taxes or cut spending. (One guess which they'll chose)
Provide show trials to keep the Kossacks happy

They won't have anyone to blame in two years time when things are the same in Iraq and the economy takes a beating from higher taxes and a downturn in the real estate market. They've inherited a very strong economy which the MSM will finally realize just how great it's doing. However, if the real estate market continues to soften, it could lead to a slowing or even a minor correction which will only be exacerbated by the coming tax raises. The Democrats can't help themselves and will probably have the shortest lived victory in memory. That's assuming, of course, the GOP realizes that they've gone horribly astray from the Party of Re…

Now What?

Now that Rumsfeld has been sacked retired Andy's blog is now down to one topic. If Robert Gates does away with torture he will be down to zero.

Post Mortem

My sentiments exactly.

What Democracy Should Be [John Podhoretz]
Happy or suicidal with tonight's results, something colossal and profoundly important has happened in the United States beginning in 2000 — the re-engagement of the American people with politics. We have had four enormously consequential elections in a row now in which voters have cast their ballots in numbers that we were told we'd never see in our lifetimes. I don't see how you can view this as anything but a wondrous development for the United States.
Posted at 11:06 PM

Ken Brockman also echoes my thoughts

Republicans did a very bad job of stealing the election. I fully expect Democrats to continue doubting the validity of the election results.

Hugh Hewitt is blaming John McCain. I am not making this up:

Handed a large majority, the GOP frittered it away. The chief fritterer was Senator McCain and his Gang of 14 and Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, supplemented by a last minute throw down that prevented the N…


I am required by the Laws of Blogging to compel my reader(s) to go out and vote.

Whatever your party, vote against the incumbent.

Quick notes

Fox reporter gets waterboarded. Given that his experience is quite distant from those at Gitmo or elsewhere this test has marginal utility but it does prove that it is a psychological tool, not a physical one.

Vanity fair lies to its sources. If they'd lie to a source what makes you think they'd tell you the truth?

Here's film about radical Islam. Hawks will nod and say, "Well, yes." doves will whine and moan and talk about root causes and stirring up racism and the like.

Can the Democrats stay afloat?

Just when partisan Democrats were finally allowing themselves to revel in the expectation that they would sweep the House and maybe win the six seats needed for control of the Senate, two national polls released Sunday seemed to sound the first ominous notes from the theme music from "Jaws."

I'm not sure I share that opinion. This is going to be close. If Rove is as upbeat as they say and he's right it will confirm that he is, in fact, the Prince …