Has it really been more than a month?

The short answer, yes. During the last month, President George W. Bush was re-elected to the dismay -- and panic -- of those on the left. Indeed my own sister-in-law wants to move out of the country. That or she wants NY to succeed from The Union.

Amusing.

Not to wallow in the opposition angst, but it is really amusing. If they win, we are "out of the mainstream" and that we need to get over it"; if we win, they want to leave the country.

The vast majority of John Kerry (D-MA) voters are no doubt honorable people of good will who simply disagree with the sitting president's priorities. However, there is a large and very vocal cadre that are explaining away this election's results as being nothing more than a manifestation of ignorance and bigotry of those in the less developed hinterlands of America. Here's a comment from author Jane Smiley, posted at Slate:

"I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. . . . My relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority".

Here's a great tidbit from Maureen Dowd of the NY Times:

"The president got reelected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule".

Mercy.

Want I like best about all the Left's rationale for losing this election is that it seems to fall into a pattern where they can find fault with the other side for winning, while still maintaining their moral and intellectual superiority. It allows them to feel good about themselves while regarding the rest of America as ignorant bigots with whom they no longer wish to have any attachment.

The example I'm certain my sister-in-law will use is the Defense of Marriage constitutional amendments that passed in 11 states last week. She'll say this is the perfect manifestation of what she's talking about: people in red states just hate homos. And that's how Bush won, he mobilized the anti-homosexual / bible-thumping pitchfork brigades.

And that would be right, if the measure had not also won in the very Blue States of Oregon and Michigan, both states that Kerry won.

No, the deeper logic is this: the people that voted overwhelmingly for these constitutional amendments don';t fear or hate homosexuals, the fear and hate busybody Massachusetts jurist that issue decrees overturning everybody's culture. They resent being told by their so-called East Coast superiors that they have to change the way they live their lives by the way of judicial fiat.

And that's what the folks in Red State America think and feel. That also explains the success of the Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Red State America is sick and tired of being preached to by self-appointed know-it-all busybodies.

dpny

Memo to Andrew: Times change

This from Andrew Sullivan's site today:

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also then the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq." - vice president Dick Cheney, 1992. If John Edwards doesn't use this in his debate, he's nuts.

Andrew, times change. It was once okay to just keep Saddam in his box. September 11th changed everything. As a resident of of the NYC metropolitan area, I can not wait for a threat to materialize and threaten my life, my wife, my kid, my home.

No.

Saddam Hussein was dangerous delusional nutcase who could have cause very real damage to me and mine. And it's a damn good thing he rots in a prison as I type these words. Next, on to syria and Iran. (Syria first, thus isolating the mullahs).

If this is real...

There is some information our out of Iran today that fighting has erupted between the ruling theocracy and pro-democracy forces. If this is the case, the world is about to change.

Let's keep our fingers cross, shall we?

dpny

Today's Reading List:

The Fall: A bankrupt generation is fading away -- V.D. Hanson, NRO
The Whining Windsurfer -- John Podhorestz, The NY Post
Who Knew? -- The American Thinker
The 'Lion of Baghdad' - Washington Times
A Turning Point for Kerry? - Scot Lehigh, The Boston Globe
Allawi speaks truth to America -- The NY Daily News

Kerry finds his voice

Overall, it's an amusing view from this chair. Presidential future loser John Kerry (D-MA) has finally found his voice and it's what's most of us suspected it was all along. The years of posturing for political expediancy appear to have come to an end and -- lo and behold -- he's a squishy anti-war guy.

Hold on, lemme stop and give Jane Fonda a call.

Given the man's horredous betrayal of American soldiers during and after the Vietnam war, I (and others) more or less knew that leopards can't change really change their spots. Kerry was and is a UN-style whimp, where multilateral dialogue and discussions are always preferred to any action, especially if it involves American military muscle.

Perhaps the most illustrative example of this for me came in an exchange between former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich and Senator Kerry's foriegn policy maven Richard Holbrooke on one of the network morning shows. Holbrooke stated to Gingrich (and I'm paraphrasing here) that unlike President Bush, Kerry would "get tough with North Korea". Gingrich took the offense and asked Holbrooke point-blank if that meant that Sen. Kerry was prepared to invade North Korea. "No," Holbrooke responded after some initial envasions; Sen. Kerry would sit down with them and do some "tough negotiating."

Translation: more talk. But what do you expect from lawyers?

The other big canard of the Kerry Foriegn Policy is that of multi-lateralism; that is, he wants the UN on board for anything we do, as well as our "allies" the French and the Germans. The big question is why? Is it because he's concerned about our standing in the world? Maybe. Is it because the French and Germans are military powerhouses that can help shoulder the expense of an invasion? Of course not; both have militaries that are little more than make-work bureaucracies equipped with sidearms.

But I want to posit a different motivation: risk management. If all our "allies" are on board, then everybody thinks success is assured (meaning "risk exposure is minimized"). More importantly, it spreads risk so that it's not just the United States that takes the brunt on any downside activity. Indeed, limiting exposure is what I pay my lawyer to do everytime he draws up a contract for my software company. That's why any risk in Iraq is too much. This is also why former President Bill Clinton favored cruise missile strikes to boots on the ground anywhere but Somalia (that was a humanitarian mission, right?) Risk managment seems to be the central credo of the lawyerly class. And it's also the reason lawyers typically make lousy presidents.

The American people are starting to realize this as well. Poll after poll in "battleground states" are trending toward President Bush. They seem to realize that the road to any "War on Terror" ran right through Baghdad. We couldn't avoid the risk of Saddam. It was a matter of choosing which risk to take: risk of leaving him in place to sponsor terrosim and create WMDs, or the risk of casualities by taking him out. In a post 9-11 world, President Bush it was better risk that Saddam be captured or toe-tagged.

No, the world is way too dangerous for spaghetti-spined lawyers like John Kerry to be elected president of these United States, who somehow think legal documents and "tough negoiations" can keep Americans safe.

dpny

Gallup has Bush up by 13 points

USA Today (USAT) is reporting in their latest USAT/CNN/Gallup Poll that President George Bush has opend a 13 point lead of challenger Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in surveys taken during the beginning of this week. A separate survey has Bush leading Kerry in the battleground state of Pennsylvania by either 3 or 4 points, depending on the survey.

In this space yesterday, it was reported that Bush lead Kerry in New Jersey and has significantly tightened the race in NY, Minnesota and Maine.

Observation: As Bush pulls ahead, watch for people to "vote their hopes" and defect to Green Party Ralph Nader. These voters rationale: they are the Anybody but Bush (ABB) people who latched onto Kerry once it was clear that Howard Dean (D-VT) was not ready for prime time. This will pull Kerry down in a few states with a huge Michael Moore faction of the democratic party (read "NY and California"). Bush still tales at least 40 states will a good chance to run the table.

Okay, so I was wrong

I figured Dan Rather (D-TX) would take the principled way out of his current mess with the forged Texas Air National Guard (TANG) documents he so carefully showcased on 60 Minutes II on September 8th. I honestly thought that he would realize that the gig was up and that if wanted to teach at one of the major J-Schools in his retirement, he would turn on the source that set him up and attempt to salvage some teeny-weeny piece of his credibility.

Not so.

In a tersely worded response from Andrew Heyword, the President of CBS news, the network stated:

The CBS News report was based on a preponderance of evidence: many interviews, both on- and off-camera, with individuals with direct and indirect knowledge of the situation, atmosphere and events of the period in question, as well as the procedures, caracter and thinking of Lt. Col. Killian, Lt. Bush' squadron commander in the Guard, at the time.

Moreover:

In light of the questions about that original 60 MINUTES Wednesday report, CBS News states that it will redouble its efforts to continue reporting aggressively on all aspects of the story, in an effort to resolve those questions.

In other words, we're not backing off the story and standing by Dan [italics mine].

Yesterday, I wondered when the adults at CBS where going to step in and explain to Dan that his little quixotic crusade against President Bush is doing damage to the company. I figured CBS President Les Moonves or Mr. Heyword would simply take Dan aside and tell him it was time to take his meds and catch a bus to the dog track. Money, in the end, would win.

Well, according to Brother Drudge, CBS execs are now "concerned" about ratings fading in major markets. From Drudge:

NIELSEN numbers this week show Rather fading and trailing his rivals in every Top 10 city, other than San Francisco, with audience margins in some cities of more than 6 to 1 against CBS...

Indeed, one CBS radio affiliate in Houston, Texas is dropping the network's news feed and instead opting for the fledgiling FOX radio network.

It's too late for Dan to do a mea culpa. Somebody in a suit is going to pink slip Dan in a week's time. If they were smart, they'd to try to blame it all on "The Kerry Camp" or "Kerry operatives", or some such nonsense, and try to save the network's reputation through this election cycle.

It really is an ugly situation for the viewpoint of CBS executives. One the one hand, the face of CBS News is becoming or has become unmoored from reality with regards to the Bush / TANG story and has already become a public embarassment. On the other hand, if you deep six him, you run the risk that he does indeed do weapons-grade Howard Beale meltdown on live national television, either on your network or someone elses.

Either way, CBS will be hard pressed to get it's reputation back, ever.

BTW...

The Kerry Campaign appears to be cratering. The latest numbers show Kerry behind Bush in New Jersey by 4 points and behind 6 in Florida. And Kerry's June 28 point lead in New York is down to a mere 6 point lead now.

Wow.

A beautiful reposte from Duncan Maxwell of the NRO

And by the way, even if you're a journalist, the right to forge documents isn't covered by the First Amendment.

Gee, now CBS is announcing it's moving the press conference to 5 pm

What gives? The plot thickens.

So why is CBS delaying the "explanation"?

According to Matt Drudge, CBS has delayed their "Rather Embarassing" press conference with regards to the bogus 60 Minutes II documents relating to President Bush's servcie in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG). Originally scheduled for 12 noon EDT, they pushed it out to 3:30 EDT.

Why?

Well, I suppose we'll find out soon enough. However, As Andrew Sullivan opined, this little dustup has the potential for doing a lot of damage:

WHY ARE WE WAITING? This Rather story has the potential to become huge. We can have a few ideas about what's going on behind closed doors at CBS. Rather is refusing to apologize or quit. Or he's threatening to bring others down with him. Or the sources for the forgeries are political dynamite - whether they're connected to the Kerry or the Bush campaigns - and so decisions have to be made about whether to expose them. It's like a good Washington thriller. And it has the potential to transform the election.

I disagree about the political damage even possibly being from the Bush campaign. Indeed, why would Dan Rather (D-TX) not immediately disclose that the forged dosuments where from the Bush Camp. This would simple add to the mythology that Karl Rove is the sinister genius puppetmaster pulling the string of both the President and the country at large and by extension amke Dan into a knight in shining armour saving we the down-trodden from the clutches of the barbarians. If he could do it, it would have already happened.

No, Davespeak breaks the possibility of the revelation into two pieces. They are:

1. Dan hits the fan.
2. The forged documents in question came from John Kerry's staff.

CBS picks the later if they want to save their sinking reputation (and keep Bob Schieffer on the Presidential debate panel). Here, they could blame the entire thing on Kerry and walk away from the table, knowing he was going to lose anyway. That way Dan could keep his job until he retires sometime next year. If Dan hits the fan -- and pulls a full-tilt-bogie Howard Beale -- CBS still gets their reputation back, up to a point. But who wants a loose cannon rolling around?

Either way this shakes, CBS is in the toliet. The only variable left is whether or not revenge is on the mind the Andrew Heyword, the head of CBS news. Then the good Mr. Heyword would want to hammer the buckethead that put him in the mess to begin with. If this is the way things break, Mr. Kerry might as well cash his check.

So the "Bush documents" are clearly forgeries. Now what?

Why doesn't Dan Rather (D-TX) and CBS just admit they were hoodwinked and move on with life? Dig this from Stanley Kurtz at the National Review Online:

If CBS were to admit that the documents were forgeries, it would have no grounds for protecting its sources. In fact, CBS would have a positive obligation to do everything in its power to expose the malefactors behind the forgeries. If the trail led back to the Kerry campaign, president Bush's reelection would be assured. Dan Rather has been at pains to derogate those who are interested in where the documents came from. This sounds suspiciously like Rather is concerned about what a revelation of his sources might mean. Certainly, if Rather personally received the forgeries from a Kerry operative, it would be a disaster for Rather. That alone might seem to be sufficient to explain CBS's refusal to admit its error. (It now appears that CBS News may well have received the documents from a partisan and highly questionable source.)

So, what are we to summise from this posit? That brother Dan and his cronies have been in the tank for John Kerry (D-MA) since the beginning? That would explain all the attention that dishonest hacks like Richard Clarke -- proven to be a liar by the 9/11 Commission Report -- were given on 60 Minutes before their books hit the Barnes & Noble. But this actually begs a bigger point.

What if all that noise about the Mainstream Media (MSM) being an arm of Democratic Party is true? Personally, until now I just thought they were fellow travelers who thought that anyone outside their universe were stupid. If Dan was indeed in the tank for the Dems and was actually doing their dirty work, well a sort of tipping point has been reached.

For the longest time, CBS was the heir to Edward R. Murrow's genius for journalism; a brutally non-subjective stance that allowed the consumers of news to draw their own conclusions and devoid of any partisan spin. The news business in America was not a partisan affair, like in, say, the UK, where a newspaper's political affiliation is well known. News organizations had an obligation, nay, a divine calling to "get the facts" and to get to the bottom of of a story. My first editor Lee Barnes, said, "if your mother says she loves you, check it out".

Alas, that's gone, replaced idealogues whose only interest is the advancement of their agendas. The MSM famous claim of "objectivity" will probably die in the coming years and that's not a bad thing either. This will force Americans to actually think about the source credibility of a story before they actually believe it. The art of critical thinking might actually come back into vogue.

And now that everyone with a computer can create a blog and create their own versions of the truth. So we really don't need Dan and his ilk to be our gatekeepers anymore, filtering out the noise and deciding what's news and what's not. The truth will come cascading through cables at light speed and news-consuming public will separate wheat from chaff.

Which is the way I like it.

So Dan, thanks to your vanity in so shamelessly promoting John F-ing Kerry, you did us all a favor: you showed the world your true face. You also exposed the fact that weblogs can kill a falsehood real-time even if it's shown on 60 Minutes.

Game over.

The Rather Implosion

It appears that CBS news anchor Dan Rather (D-TX) has been duped by someone into showing forged documents on 60 Minutes II on wednesday night. Mr. Rather, to his defense, states:

MANY OF THOSE RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CBS DOCUMENTS HAVE FOCUSED ON SOMETHING CALLED SUPERSCRIPT... A KEY THAT AUTOMATICALLY TYPES A RAISED "TH". CRITICS CLAIM TYPEWRITERS DIDN'T HAVE THAT ABILITY IN THE 70S. BUT SOME MODELS
DID....IN FACT, OTHER BUSH MILITARY RECORDS ALREADY OFFICIALLY RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF SHOW THE SAME SUPERSCRIPT. [sorry about the ALL CAPS]

Indeed, defenders of these documents state that they could have been done on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter. Okay, they could have. One problem though: in order to justify text, the typist would have to type the text twice; once to set the justification, and another to load the text.

Improbable.

So Dan is left sputtering to high heaven that the documents are real. And the good people at the Kerry camp are demanding that President Bush come out and address the charges.

Ladies and gentlemen, as the good people at Powerline point out is where the wheels fall off of both Kerry/Edwards and CBS.

The bounce

Okay, I was wrong. The protesters on NYC were far better behaved that I expected. But it seems in retrospect, that their reasonable good behavior was driven by a fear of NYC finest coupled with the distinct impression that they were standing on the deck of a sinking ship. The President's bounce actually started before the convention and continues to this day. The always interesting Dick Morris, stated for the record this week that the polls showing Bush up only by 5 to 7 points are wrong and explained why:

The difference is because pollsters disagree about whether or not to weight their results to keep constant the ratio of Republicans, Democrats and Independents in their sample. Some polling firms treat party affiliation as a demographic constant and, when they find that their sample has too many Republicans, they weight down each Republican interview and assign an extra weight to each Democratic response.

So, couple the Swifties -- who did so much damage to Mr. Kerry during August -- with the terrorist mayhem in Russia and Dan becoming unhinged and you have a trifecta for Mr. Bush.

At least 40 states go for Bush in Novemeber, with a possibility of running to table if these forged documents came from the DNC or an allied 527 group [read " libel","actual malice" and "actionable"]. This has shades of being a Democratic Party Watergate. And after the election, the Republicans will be in no mood to play nice.

The coming implosion

Rasmussen Reports has posted numbers for the day and they show George Bush ahead of John Kerry by one point. Is this a big deal?

You bet. Kerry has had a bit of a lead on the President for most of the last few months. Never very much of a lead -- only a point or two -- but enough to trick the public (and the Democratic Left) into thinking that their boy could actually win the the election. However, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that is pushing John O'Neill's new book, Unfit for Command, seems to have damaged Mr. Kerry. Mr. War Hero appears to be much less than meets the eye -- at least according to the guys that were there at the time. Combine Mr. Less-than-War Hero with Mr. Anti-War Hero -- remember all the war atrocities he "confessed" to when testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 -- and you've just pissed off almost every Veteran in the US.

(I'll avoid the obvious "taking on water" jokes. Indeed, as an aside, I really didn't think this rehashing of Vietnam would turn into much. The Vietnam War ended when I was 13. I'm more concerned with coming war with Iran that 30 year old history. I apparently, was wrong.)

So Bush is up by a point this week. So what?

The what is simple: nobody really supports John Kerry of President. The Democaratic faithful might not like Bush (they almost certainly hate him), so they're voting for the Un-Bush. And as long as it's percieved to be close and Kerry could possibly win, Democrats will hold their collective noses and pull the lever for Senator Waffle. However, should Mr. Bush build a real lead (remember, Rasmussen's polls are three day moving averages so this number will almost certainly shift more in favor of the President), look to the Dems to come completely unhinged and start cannibalizing this generation's "JFK". We got a whiff of this back in the spring, when the reliably Communist Village Voice was openly complaining about Kerry after their annointed, Howard Dean, freaked out on national television and death spiraled into oblivion.

The implosion is only now beginning. Rage will fill their little rodent brains. They will blame everybody other than themselves for the mess they've created. But that rage will not stay bottled up long. Indeed, if the President's numbers tick up significantly before and during the Republican National Convention next week in New York City, expect a violent, anarchistic mess from all those nutty Democratic-fringe Hate Groups.

Bad mojo. Flickering images of Chicago in 1968 when Mayor Daly's cops gave protesters wooden shampoos amongst clouds of tear gas every night on the news. Even I remember those days and I was only 8 years old. And you better believe that the Kerry Campaign will get stuck with this second millstone around it's neck as well. These are Kerry's people after all. Very bad mojo, indeed.

Disgusted that they chose supposed electability (Kerry) over principal (screaming Howard), the Democratic faithful will stay home.

And Mr. Bush will roll to a much bigger victory than anybody is predicting now.

Iran, the enemy

I've said this before, Iran is the wellspring of most of the world's terrorism. Now Time is reporting that the 9/11 Commission will be reporting that Iran had closer ties to those attacks than Iraq.

This is actually good. I've been saying it for a while as has such luminaries as Michael Ledeen. And note, we have hundreds of thousand of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, effectively surrounding Iran. Perhaps now, if President Bush can vanquish Senator Lurch, I mean Sen. John Kerry in the November election, th US can finally undo that most lasting of Jimmy Carter's stain on America, the Iranian hostage crisis.

Martha Stewart (Penitentiary) Living

Of all of the useless New York celebrities exports to flyover country, Martha Stewart has to be the worst. This dominatrix of domesticity has empowered the tastelessly upwardly mobile to clad themselves in a veneer of faux New England-ness. Never mind that what she did was a felony (darling, didn't you learn from Bill Clinton that you can't lie to The Feds?).

So now she goes to jail in Danbury, Connecticut. You do the crime, you do the time.

But now, in an ABC - Barbara Walters interview, she compares herself to -- get this -- Nelson Mandela.

Now lemme get this straight: Nelson Mandela was jailed because he stood up for racial equality under the law. You went to jail because you lied to the feds about a crooked stock trade.

I guess that she will never know that her real sin was hubris. As was true with Bill, she has yet to learn that laws aren't for other people.

A brilliant distillation of the 2004 Presidential race

From Real Clear Politics:

We've seen the same pattern from most Democrats this time around. First, we saw near universal acceptance of US intelligence estimates (which we've since come to learn were badly flawed), followed by grandiose speeches in late 2002 full of sharp rhetoric and talk of consequences for Hussein, followed by.......absolute and utter outrage at the President of the United States for actually taking action.

That is indeed what it comes down to: a choice between somebody who would actually take action in a crisis and somebody who would waffle and try to triangulate his way out of the problem. President Bush gambled everything to do what he and everybodty else including the Democrats thought was the right thing: whacking Saddam Hussien.I argued persausively in this space that it was the right thing to do regardless of the WMD arguement.Sen. John Kerry once voted for the war in Iraq, then came out against the war on 60 Minutes Sunday night. In a post-9/11, post-Clinton world, being a thoughtful "intelligent" wimp, is not going to cut it in Flyover America. The world is too dangerous.

A genuinely interesting view of Islamic fascism

I always wondered why the American Left so hates President Bush and so opposed the wars in both Afganistan and Iraq. I mean, they were both oppressed people living in poverty. The Afgans were living in the kind of religeous theocracy that the Left always complains Republican want for the US. As of Saddam's Iraq, well, that was the sort of place Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to create here as well. So why do they bitch so?

Well, maybe the Left and Osama Bin Ladin are kindred spirits: both are Marxist that think that the west is totally corrupt and should be destroyed in order to purify it. It would also go a long way to explain why the French are so hesitant to get involved (aside for the river of cash they were getting from Saddam) Great quote:

MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against America"--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor, Che Guevara. According to Cairo journalist Issandr Elamsani, Arab leftist intellectuals still see the world very much in 1960s terms. "They are all ex-Sorbonne, old Marxists," he says, "who look at everything through a postcolonial prism."

Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return to a foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism purged of the corruptions of modernity, and just as Pol Pot wanted Cambodia to return to the Year Zero, so does Osama dream of returning his world to the imagined purity of seventh-century Islam. And just as Fanon argued that revolution can never accomplish its goals through negotiation or peaceful reform, so does Osama regard terror as good in itself, a therapeutic act, quite apart from any concrete aim. The willingness to kill is proof of one's purity.

And why the French didn't support our efforts, going back to Ronald Reagan's attack on Libya for the 1984 disco bombing in germany in which one American Serviceman died:

THE RELATIONSHIP between postmodernist European leftism and Islamic radicalism is a two-way street: Not only have Islamists drawn on the legacy of the European Left, but European Marxists have taken heart from Islamic terrorists who seemed close to achieving the longed-for revolution against American hegemony. Consider Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, two leading avatars of postmodernism. Foucault was sent by the Italian daily Corriere della Sera to observe the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Like Sartre, who had rhapsodized over the Algerian revolution, Foucault was enthralled, pronouncing Khomeini "a kind of mystic saint." The Frenchman welcomed "Islamic government" as a new form of "political spirituality" that could inspire Western radicals to combat capitalist hegemony.

Read the whole thing here.

An incredible fisking of Michael Moore

This is terrific screed from James Lileks hammers Michael Moore in fashion I've not seen elsewhere. A must read (hat tip to Andrew the Genius).

Of Yellowcake, Jospeh Wilson and Lies

This piece in the Washington Post basically says that Joe Wilson is a liar and a partisan hack. Check this:

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Kerry and Michael Moore: a prediction

For the record, let me state that I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and never will. It's not because I think it's director, Michael Moore, is an Anti-American scumbag who thinks the jihadists are right and the victims of 9/11 actually deserved it. No, it's because I don't go to movies at all, ever. That stated, John Kerry (D-MA) has a bit of a problem on his hands. The teeny-tiny fraction of the electorate that has seen it, supports it. Okay, great, score that for the Kerry Camp. But the vast majority of the American people who vote, haven't seen it and won't. Think of them as The Passion of The Christ audience.

Now, say whatever you want to about the veracity of Mr. Moore claims, the point remains: a lot of people are more offended by F9/11 than think it's the gospel truth. So what happens to Sen. Kerry when asked about the movie. Does he:
A) Agree with it and state for the record that the House of Saud owns the Bushes;
B) Have "Sistah Soljah" moment and whack Mr. Moore as a vile pig who should be thrown out of the back of a speeding car, or
C) Issue some mealy-mouthed statement applauding Mr. Moore's 1st amendment rights, while weasling out having to make a committement one way or the other?

I think that the only way he can win is to realize that the self-referential left lives in a world so blinkered that they have no clue how the vast population in flyover country live and think. Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton (the last two lawyers elected to the Presidency, incidently), understood that you have to run to the center after the nominating process. With the selection of Gooberhead John Edwards (D-NC) (more on that later), that process is now over. And Mr Kerry will need to make that center run if he really wants to win. His spectacular flip-flop over when life begins is only the beginning that I don't think anyone is going to believe.

Prediction:
If Kerry doesn't denounce F9/11 and he's not ahead by more that 10 point on August 15th, look for the Bush blowout I've been talking about for months.

More on the Unhappy Dems: a great post from Matt Taibbi, in The New York Press. Money graf:

[The Democratic Party are] money junkies. And as anyone who's had any experience with junkies will tell you, junkies cannot be trusted. They'll say anything you want them to say about going straight, but at the critical moment, they'll still steal your television and shoot it straight into their arms.

The only way to deal with a junkie is to change your phone number or, if you ever find him in your house, chain him to a radiator. If you're feeling generous, you might consider bringing him hot chocolate and chicken broth during the three days he spends freaking out and writhing on your floor. But the one thing you can't do is keep giving him that one last chance. That only guarantees that he will come back again very soon, covered with mysterious bruises and needing 200 bucks to pay for—tchya, right—a Hepatitis shot.

Shit, just look at what's happened since the last election. The junkies got kicked out of office, which ought to have been a wake-up call, and what did they do? They went out and almost unanimously voted for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act and two wars.

And now here they come, four years later, and they say: "We need all your votes right now or we're fucked." Am I the only one laughing?

That said, I understand the Democrats' point of view. I used to take a lot of drugs, too. And when you take a lot of drugs, absolutely nothing matters except getting off. In the quest for drugs, any kind of behavior is excusable. You will be standing with a nice fat gram firmly in your fist and you'll still stare your best friend right in the eyes and swear to him that you couldn't find anything, either. And the funny thing is that later, when he finds out that you've been smacked out watching Starship Troopers for three days, he won't even be mad. He'll laugh. Because he would've done the same thing to you.

That's junkie morality. That's why, from the Democrats' point of view, it makes perfect sense to nominate a gazillionaire missile-humping aristocrat who'll have more corporate logos pasted on him than a NASCAR driver when he gets into office. What's the difference? We got off! Why is everybody complaining?

The dems I know hate Bush but really don't like Kerry either. I don't understand why they don't just which parties and enjoy politics for a change. Read it all here.

Iran

It looms. This bit about Iraqi security picking up Iranian agents in Baghdad with explosives is actually good news. I think that honest people are slowly understanding that the term "Iraqi insurgients" is really wrong. I figured after we kicked over Saddam, the mullahs would be freaked out figuring that they would be next. This from Ali at Iraq the Model:

Anyway, I think this issue is very serious and it shows clearly that Iranian authorities attitude is a clearly aggressive one and they don’t seem to be keen on at least keeping their efforts to hinder the progress in Iraq a secret. They seem to be very frightened (and they should be) by the democratic changes in Iraq that they have lost their caution and are not considering how dangerous it is what they’re doing.

And Iran's meddling are not limited to just Iraq; they're expanding as is pointed out here by Ilan Berman. The basic premise of the piece -- and you should read the whole thing:

Over the past year, Iran has become a major cause of concern in Washington. The Islamic Republic has been discovered to possess a robust nuclear program, of a scope well beyond previous estimates. It has also made substantial breakthroughs in its ballistic missile capabilities. Less noticed, but equally significant, has been Tehran's growing activism in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus, and Iraq....
Under the rubric of "deterrent defense," Iran is exploiting U.S. preoccupation with Iraq to build capabilities that will establish its hegemony in its immediate neighborhood and enhance its role across the Middle East. Iran's moves, if unchecked, will create a grave and growing challenge to U.S. aims in the region. At stake are nothing less than the geopolitical balance in the Middle East and the long-term achievement of U.S. goals, from stability in Iraq to regional peace.

It all began with Jimmy Carter, that maven of malaise. It looks like we'll need to take care of the mullahs sooner rather than later.

WMDs

When is the world going to realize that they were there? We just moved more than a ton of enriched uranium out of the country. Couple that with the Polish Army discovery of missiles armed with Sarin gas warheads and I think we have a pretty compelling argument that WMDs were there and we found them. Yet the silence is percussive. Am I the only one who sees this?

dpny

Why you can't trust Democrats

From Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), speaking in San Francisco:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Who's common good are you refering?

Why I say we're winning in Iraq

This from Iraqthemodel (by Ali):

The speech was impressive and you could hear the sound of a needle if one had dropped it at that time. The most sensational moment was the end of the speech when Mr. Bremer used a famous Arab emotional poem. The poem was for a famous Arab poet who said it while leaving Baghdad. Al-Jazeera had put an interpreter who tried to translate even the Arabic poem which Mr. Bremer was telling in a fair Arabic! “Let this damned interpreter shut up. We want to hear what the man is saying” One of my colloquies shouted. The scene was very touching that the guy sitting next to me (who used to sympathize with Muqtada) said “He’s going to make me cry!”

Then he finished his speech by saying in Arabic,”A’ash Al-Iraq, A’ash Al-Iraq, A’ash Al-Iraq”! (Long live Iraq, Long live Iraq, long live Iraq).

I was deeply moved by this great man’s words but I couldn’t prevent myself from watching the effect of his words on my friends who some of them were anti-Americans and some were skeptic, although some of them have always shared my optimism. I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She’at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, “So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?” My friend smiled, still touched and said, “Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes. God bless him.”

Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, “I must admit that I’m beginning to believe in what you’ve been telling us for months and I’m beginning to have faith in America. I never thought that they will hand us sovereignty in time. These people have shown that they keep their promises.”

What's amazing -- beyond the picture of the cake -- is that we are starting to undo years of propaganda. This doctor was amazed that we keep our promises.

This is a good day.

Improvements

Things seem to be improving in Iraq to the point that protesters across the world will soon be seen as merely irrationally anti-Iraqi -- or anti-American. From Omar at Iraqthemodel:

:: This morning, Al-Hurra TV reported that the IP succeeded in locating and disarming a big bomb placed in a car in the crowded Al-Jihad district in Baghdad. The bomb was made up of more than 50 kilograms of highly explosive materials together with some artillery shells.
The report also showed pictures for the car and the explosives.

:: Al-Sharqiya TV reported that the IP forces in Basra made a successful arrest of the largest oil-smuggling gang.
The report said that the IP arrested nine members of the gang and found 24 tankers loaded with oil and ready to be smuggled outside Iraq.

:: Al-Sabah paper reported that the IP has arrested the biggest abduction and assassination gang in Baghdad.
There was a fierce fight and heavy gun fire exchange before the IP could arrest the gang with their chief and there were no casualties among the IP.
The gang is believed to have connections outside Iraq.

The Iraqis are starting to take care of business. And for all those oh-so-fashionable protesters, your embarassing end is coming soon. And you will have been proven wrong for the whole world to see.

And finally, this from the new Iraqi PM: Dr Iyad Allawi:

As Iraqis, we thank the coalition for the sacrifices made by its soldiers and its people for the liberation and rebuilding of Iraq, and for the contributions by all the countries, international organisations and NGOs that have braved the risks to assist Iraq in its time of need.

'Nuff said.

And these are the snivelling whiners that hate us...

A great piece in today NY Daily News by Bob Drury really points out the widespread hated of American abroad. The lead:

They don't hate you, they loathe "your President." They don't despise us, they deride "our government." From Belfast to Bali, Trieste to Tadzhikistan, and in France, of course, the disdain reserved for the United States' "adventurism" in the Middle East is beginning to trickle down to individual American travelers.

Mr Drury then compiles of a list of ancedotes that atart to resemble data of the ourse of the piece. However, he slides this in as the payoff line:

Yet beneath this veneer of open animosity, there is among many a resolute belief in the ultimate goodwill of American power.

Roshan Khadivi, an American of Persian descent who has worked with international aid agencies throughout central Asia, says her contacts universally believe only the U.S. can really save them.

They hate us, yet, we're the only folks who can save them. Heaven help them when we finally have had enough of the continous complaining.

And from Andrew the Genius:

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "But there is an added technique for weakening a nation at its very roots ... The method is simple. It is first, a dissemination of discord. A group - not too large - a group that may be sectional or racial or political - is encouraged to exploit its prejudices through false slogans and emotional appeals. The aim of those who deliberately egg on these groups is to create confusion of counsel, public indecision, political paralysis and, eventually, a state of panic. Sound national policies come to be viewed with a new and unreasoning skepticism ... As a result of these techniques, armament programs may be dangerously delayed. Singleness of national purpose may be undermined. . . . The unity of the state can be so sapped that its strength is destroyed. All this is no idle dream. It has happened time after time, in nation after nation, during the last two years." - FDR, May 26, 1940. I wonder what Roosevelt would have made of Michael Moore, don't you?

So there were connections between al Qaeda and Iraq

From the Washington Post:

Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

Later in the piece though, you get to the interesting part:

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.

So when the NYtimes ran a page one headline saying there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, it had evidence that there was and it was from an Iraqi source.

Newspaper of record my ass.

Interesting point about the attacks in Iraq

From IraqTheModel:

The attacks in the last few days illustrate the spots of the terrorists presence and activity whom foreigners represent a high percentage of their count because of the close proximity of Diyla governorate to Iran and the close proximity of Anbar and Mosul governorates to Syria, the two countries that have the greatest interest in the failure of the democratic process in Iraq. That’s why those spots must be dealt with in a special way but for a very limited time. Besides, there should be active communications between the authorities and the people who live there and there should be also a strong presence of the security forces.

Suggests to me that the folks on the ground -- in this case Mohammed -- know who the real culprits are in this whole bloody mess. I wonder of CNN would ever change from calling the perps in these attacks "insurgents" and start calling them "Syrian and Iranian backed murder squads intent on overthrowing the government".

Despite what you may have heard on NPR, Kerry’s in trouble

I was doing a bit of research on the Electoral College when I ran across this little tidbit: In every election since 1972, the following states have always voted with the winner – Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky and Ohio.

For those paying attention, Bush has solid leads in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Ohio and is slightly ahead in Missouri

What does this mean? Probably nothing, other than history generally repeats itself and has in every election since 1972 in these states.

My prediction stands: Bush takes 40 states minimum with a chance to max out.

Genuine Progress

From IraqtheModel

Some of the readers told me on a previous occasion that they wish to see Iraqis play baseball.
This wish is coming true; last week I saw a report on the Iraqi Al-Sharqiya TV about the first baseball championship in Baghdad. Honestly, I wasn’t aware that we had baseball teams until I saw that report, moreover, it appeared that we also have a team or two for ladies who the channel made a report about.
Anyway, I hope that one day I can understand how this game works!.

It's a good sign. Soon, we may have iraq supersatrs playing for the Yankees.

I think I've discovered why I don't write more often

Kid-vid.

For the last few months, the resident Princess of the homestead has demanded -- and received -- Buzz Lightyear or Chicken Run or some other such nonsense as part of her evening ritual. Last night, however, through the grace of God the DVD machine crashed and adult television reigned.

FoxNews. CNN. CNBC. Even the History Channel and Emeril were available for viewing. It made for a splendid evening of adult fare.

Brewing problems

There are a few things that make me nervous and they will need to be addressed, preferably sooner rather than later. They are, in no particular order:

Iran
The Possible collapse of The House of Saud
Al Qaeda changing tactics

With regards to the first, this link to a troops massing on the Iraq - Iranian border should scare you to death, especially if they have or get nukes. There are a few possible outcomes:

1. They stay put until the US leaves, at which point they overrun the country. A victory in November by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) would all but guarantee this.
2. They start pushing against the Iraqis after the election but before we pull out. If John Kerry wins, the Iranians fight a UN-type force. Smart money says the blue helmets get butchered in a few weeks and diplomats sue for peace as fast as they can, conceding most of Iraq to the Mullahs.
3. They push the Iraqis after an election that George Bush et al. win. We open up a can of whoop ass and get rid of the Original Sponsor of Terrorism in the Middle East. This would be a good a thing.
4. George Bush wins and the Iranians chicken out, preferring instead to continue the game they're playing now.

I'll let others comment on which is the preferable outcome, but I have my favorite.

As for the House of Saud, if they don't do something quick, they're toast. Osama Bin Ladin has always said that regime change on the Saudi Arabian peninsula was his ultimate goal. This bit from James Robbins is particularly erudite:

September 11 was a foolish move on [al Qaeda's] part, it put the United States on the warpath in ways they could not imagine or cope with. But now they are targeting the petroleum industry, one of the least-loved institutions in the U.S., and the dominant commercial sector in Saudi Arabia. Attacks on oil targets may inflate prices and inconvenience us, but in Saudi Arabia they constitute a threat to national survival. Removing American troops to Qatar had only symbolic value to the terrorists, if even that. Driving out the Western engineers and oilmen who keep the Saudi petroleum industry running could bring the whole country down.

Scary, and it segues nicely with my last concern which is al Qaeda's shifting tactics. Today, a couple of oil pipelines in southern Iraq were torched, probably by Iranians of Iranian-backed agents. And this may bring the US and Iran closer to blows than ever before. But they are the New Soviet Union, an Evil Theocracy hell-bent on power and the subjugation helpless millions and we will vanquish them.

We do indeed live in dangerous times...

After yet another hiatus...

I'm back and hope to be a bit more consistent during the 2nd quarter.

The collapse of John Kerry continues

All of my Democrat friends are depressed to the point that they won't have discussions with me anymore and it's easy to see why. The economy -- which I predicted would take off for the moon during Q3 last year -- is booming. Despite the mess that Iraq has become, more American support President Bush and his policies on Iraq than ever before. But worst of all, is that the presumptive nominee from their party Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), is a waffling loser with zero charisma and a condescending attitude.

Okay, so Republicans get to laugh a bit about the tiff on GMA Tuesday when Charlie Gibson told Sen. Kerry that he personally witnessed him throwing "medals" over the White House fence, contrary to what Kerry had just said mere seconds before. And the last bit, after the cameras where turned off but the audio mike was still on, was the best. Kerry accused GMA of "doing the work of the Republican National Committee".

Priceless.

But what to do if you're a Democrat? If my bets are right, Kerry loses in a 50 state landslide and the Dems are off to the political wilderness. While 6 months ago, my rants were considered Republican claptrap in an "evenly divided" country, today even the Dems are starting to freak because they are seeing this future too. The best evidence for this is a piece in the reliably Communist Village Voice. The lead sums up their despair succinctly:

With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

It goes on to say that the moronic braintrust of the Democratic Party will "be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean".

So what happens? Is Hillary called up in an "open convention"? Do the big money people at the DNC cut off the spigot, much in the same way venture capitalists pull the plug on a failing startup? Pray that the President has some calamity?

Sometimes it's good to be a Republican.

Re: "Government dictates cannot move economics"

I'm sorry to inform the good doctor that we use tax policy, subsidies, government contracts, bond offerings, and especially THE FEDERAL RESERVE to dictate or "move" economics all the time - local and national. There's a yellow history book in DP's study. It tells one all about the gilded age. Perhaps DP should review what happens under a poor regulatory environment. One can surely attribute prosperity to entrpreneurship, but ignoring sound regulatory policy only tells half the story.

Let's use subsidies as an example of the benefits of artificially supporting the price of a commodity with taxes. In this case your income taxes support a price above and beyond the "real price" of a good. The subsidies allow purchase and storage of a bumper crop, so that in lean years (which often follow bumper crops) there is adequate feed in the system. It all works quite well to stabilize commodity prices so as to insure there's a wealth of corn to feed the tasty livestock on Turco's shelves. Evidently our republican administration is quite aware of this, having fully supported recent farm bills.

A more appropriate example (or analogy) is cigarette taxes. In this case, the price is supported way, way above the real price of the good. Many will testify from personal experience (author included) that the policy helps to reduce participation in an unhealthy practice. The secondary benefits of increased productivity should also be realized. On the other hand, freezing taxes, a la proposition 13, can have a negative effect on an entire industry, stifling growth by inflating real estate prices, thus restricting incentives to relocate. Even the paragon of business virtue, Mr. Warren Buffett himself feels that this is poor public policy.

Western Europe has been taxing petrol heavy for decades. I don't see revolution in the streets or heads on pikes. Instead I see more fuel efficient cars, and more mass transit. Mmmmm, how can this be?

Perhaps DP should be reminded that CAFE standards worked until industry lobbyists created loopholes - convenient blinders I suppose. So the law of unintended consequences has intended effects after all.

Instead of acknowledging and accepting what is patently obvious to an inductive thinker, DP launches on an unsolicited history lesson waxed with political side stories and contributory effects, but sorely deficient in the truth. The Irish starved because the potato crops failed! it was unsustainable! They relied on a single means of nourishment instead of diversifying and planning. Sound familiar? Jesus.

Then it's back to the walk the walk deal: please refer to AAS's previous posting, thank you. The author wishes not to engage DP in a stupid pissing match on who's lifestyle is ecologically sound, that's not the point. Please quit the silly bear baiting.

DP seems prone to embellishment. As for a "mind bending" depression, prove it! This writer knows that DPNY is not an economist. Furthermore, DPNY would have one believe that AAS advocates draconian imposition of $2.00/gallon taxes, immediate confiscation of wealth, and fair redistribution to the proletariat. DP will not paint AAS as an anarchist, communist, socialist, etc. The truth is that AAS has voted republican since his first election in 1980. It seems moreover that DPNY has diverted himself recently at a right fork in the road (after over-correction on the left shoulder) and has embarked on a libertarian-utopian 16-lane into an ugly place. And all the while the radio is blaring vehement diatribe about the pernicious plans of the "wacko environmentalists".

OK, that's enough. The author has stated his piece. And like O'Reilly, DP can have the last word.... Go ahead, dig yourself deeper.

Congratulations Dr. S. You actually did offer a real suggestion as opposed to mere mindless ravings you’ve been pushing out lately (althought your ad hominen attacks smack more of blind rage than serious discourse). There is only one problem with a massive Federal intervention to change American behavior vis a vis energy consumption: they haven’t worked.

The CAFÉ standards are the most notable example of the Law of Unintended Consequences manifesting itself. Change the laws and make cars more fuel efficient. Great. Then people switch to trucks because these cars do not meet their needs.

Government dictates can not move economics. Price controls – and imposing taxes above and beyond the “real price” of the good or service is price fixing – never work. The actual cost of a barrel of crude from Saudi Arabia without OPEC’s intervention is about $2 a barrel. Raising taxes on fuel – Al Gore’s mantra for almost decade – would plunge the US and most of Western Europe into a depression the likes of which hasn’t been seen in 70 years. Even if such a measure were attempt, it would result in revolution, and the tax raiser and their advocates would end up with the heads on pikes.

However, advocacy of such a position is wonderfully attractive as it is essentially cost-free. Such a thing would never happen so its supporters can scream all the want to without ever having to face the consequences. It’s easy for one to be for if one never has to pay for it.

As for suggestions that mass transit could somehow replace the car, this is patently impossible. Even in Japan, an island nation far more congested than America, people still have cars and still drive them. Gas prices hover at .90 cents per liter, or $4 per gallon. And these people have no petroleum reserves at all.

Government dictates are not always benign and are frequently detrimental. The rise of fascism in Europe, was a function of government intervention. The French (and Woodrow Wilson, that distinguish academic) demanded that Germany pay reparations to the victors of the Great War, an act which bankrupted the country and set the hyper-inflationary cycle we are both familiar with. Germany did not melt down from within, but from without. The Irish had plenty of food during the famine years, but the government in London forced the Irish tenant farmer to export what they could produce for the mother country and the expense of the Irish countryside. And the Irish haven’t forgotten this to this day.

As for this little piece

If condescention [sic] cloaked in piety is ineffective, then will pleading work? I doubt it. Will calm statement of the facts and stern warning with real dialogue work? No, because the hat trick is always, "then go off and do your thing" or "walk your walk". As if there is no moral obligation whatsoever to nature, neighbors, or future generations. Sorry, we're not going to let you dam the stream and take the water.

If you really wanted to do you part, then you would lead by example, rather than rant that everyone else has to change their ways in order to conform to your vision of the world. I heat my house with wood, and will add solar this year if market conditions allow. My wife takes mass transit to work daily and I work from home. Great. If my neighbor drives a Hummer, fine. I might think him a pig, but this is America, and he can do as he pleases.

Look, conservation is good thing. Plowing resources into finding alternatives is also a good thing. Launching the country into a mind-bending depression through government dictates to assuage the boomer guilt concerning undeserved prosperity does not in any way resemble the common good. It is merely one set of people telling another set of people how to live.

Pushing pistons is the way the world works. Until there is a real economically feasible alternative (as opposed to one offered in light of artificially inflated energy prices), petrol will be the fuel that powers the wheels of industry.

dpny

Like Messrs. Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, etc. - DP retreats to his tried and true rhetorical model - dismissal of conservation as "kooky", and insertion of personal and unfounded judgements (little insults in essence), all for rationalization of his myopic views to a like-minded audience. DP always wins this way! The insertion of "Taliban" into this discourse was so lame.

Comparison of ludditism to resource conservation is fallacious and a poor red herring. Neo-ludditism is oxymoronic and is only used by DP's ilk. Besides, what should be smashed is the old-existing machinery, not the new technology!

If condescention cloaked in piety is ineffective, then will pleading work? I doubt it. Will calm statement of the facts and stern warning with real dialogue work? No, because the hat trick is always, "then go off and do your thing" or "walk your walk". As if there is no moral obligation whatsoever to nature, neighbors, or future generations. Sorry, we're not going to let you dam the stream and take the water.

Laws, tax policy, and environmental policy exist for a reason. It's called the common good. It's surprising and sad that libertarians only have hindsight and no foresight. It's as if all environmental, tax, and social policy from this point forward is unneccesary and overly burdensome. It's as if DP believes we have reached true enlightenment and can progress no further in terms of social and environmental policy. This is myopia.

DP deserves only one more mulligan. In a momentary lapse of knowledge DP dismisses Malthus. He might as well dismiss Adam Smith, or elementary ecology. Hello? Irish potato famine? Ethiopia over and over again? Bangladesh? What about 20th Century Europe? You know, the big H. What could have possibly manifested that? Was it pure hatred only? Could it possibly have been a lack of resources? No, It just hasn't happened to DP personally so it doesn't exist! Myopia.

Innovation. Yeah, real innovation, I'll say. it seems to me we're still pushing pistons - going on 200 years.

For the umpteenth, and last time, this is the solution. You tax fossil fuels to the point of establishing self- sufficiency, or at least a ceiling consumption. You then use the proceeds to subsidize alternative mass transportation development, alternative technologies, and telecommuting technologies/policies. We may even be able to reduce income taxes with the proceeds.

Does that sound like rolling back the clock to you?

Malthus sounds good but has been wrong for more than two centuries. Innovation changes things. We were once dependent upon whale oil, until we found petrol. When it becomes cost effect to do so, we’ll switch to something else. Until then, neo-Ludditism solves nothing and only makes you angrier.

Look, I know you want to save the planet and you’re surrounded with wasteful pigs that have overdeveloped your personal paradise. But condescension cloaked in piety is both ugly and ineffective. If you prefer to live you life in a perfectly sustainable fashion, feel free. This is America and completely do-able. Go buy some land and live in a solar power yurt. Indeed, give me pointers as it is my goal to do something similar (I prefer stucco blockhouse surrounded by a forest of solar panels). But all your railing about fatheads in Florida driving Hummers with cell phones glued to their foreheads is cheap and makes you sound like a crackpot, complete with an aluminum foil hat.

Solutions, man, solutions. Going back to the 18th century is no better than being a member of the Taliban. Rolling back the clock is not an option. We have to deal with reality as we find it, not how you wish it to be.

dpny

Yet more invective from the good doctor

Biodiesel? My response: 1st Law of Thermodynamics........

Corn requires nitrogen fertilizer, nitrogen fertilizer comes from the Haber process, which requires natural gas.
Corn and soybeans require superphosphate, superphosphate fertilizer comes from reacting mined phosphate rock with sulfuric acid, and sulfuric acid requires burning mined sulfur at high temperatures.
Corn and soybeans require potassium, K requires mineral mining.
After processing you must transport the fertilizer by rail and truck to the field.
Then you must apply the fertilizer with a diesel-driven tractor.
Oh, and you have to apply pumped water with a diesel-driven centrifugal pump.
Then you must harvest the corn with a diesel-driven combine.
Then you must process (esterify) the crop, oil, and waste, and that's not cheap.
It's a treadmill.

In the meantime, you have all this cheap available reduced carbon "goup" in the ground, and a vast majority of it is in the middle-east, and all you have to do is pump it out and it burns, baby! People will be fighting and dying for that oil for generations, and it is not going to be pretty.

Nice Try, but the truth won't go away. Our society (as we know it) is completely dependent on fossil fuel combustion. Nuclear, hydroelectric, wind power, geothermal, etc. is maybe 20% of total energy usage, and that's only in the developed world. Without the goup, you become third world, almost immediately. You got no propane, no electricity, no wood (chainsaws and wood-splitters), no gas to drive around and lull Izzy to sleep with, no plastic containers, no fresh tenderloin, etc. etc., ad nauseum. You and all your neighbors out there would quickly deforest your cliffside retreat. Surely to God, you know this.

Without a significant change in thinking, Malthusian reality will come with a vengeance in probably 10 generations And people do not change, nor do organisms really evolve, without first adapting to stress.

70's thinking? What about the truth?

AAS

From Dr. S, in a picque of rage regarding SUVs in Florida:

Numnuts:

I took the bait. This is unretractable, so you now have a copy which you may post (or repost) anywhere you see fit, just give me credit.

Environmentalists run amok? Sounds like another emotional response gleaned from the stuff you're reading. No, the truth is out there for you, and I trust that you have the intellect to read and make an informed decision. Just do a search on CAFE standards. I think you will find that it's purely special interest lobbying that created the loophole that Subaru is unfortunately using in order to compete. History is repeating itself here. Twice as many people are driving and average fuel economy is going down. Mass transit projects are stalled, and roads seem to be in a continual state of construction to increase capacity. I honestly scratch my head and wonder if we've lost our collective memory. I guess we have since a generation has passed.

I would agree that CAFE standards are not the way to go. If you're going to write a law that says you cannot kill rabbits with a rifle, but it's OK with a shotgun, then what's the sense of writing the law in the first place? Let the market make the correction. Either stop importing Arab oil, or tax the shit out of it! I personally believe that you and I should pay roughly twice the current price for fuel - plain and simple. I really don't care if people want to drive Abrams tanks down the road, it just shouldn't be subsidized in any way by the federal government. Oh, that includes military operations to secure "strategic interests".
Neither can I be convinced with myopic platitudes (a la Sean Hannity), that it's all gonna be OK, because technology is going to save us. Fuel Cells - Bullshit. Where the hell are you going to get the energy to reduce oxidized hydrogen (i.e. water)? Magic dust? Are we gonna construct huge solar panels over the ocean? People who cite fuel cells as saving grace have absolutely no understanding of redox chemistry and thermodynamics.

One can justify people's preferences, but that doesn't make it right. All you're really doing is putting on blinders and pretending that everything's OK. This is all consistent with my current understanding of the Republican mantra: natural resources are inexhaustible, oil reserves in the middle-east are imminent domain, the earth magically sucks up pollution, trade deficits and budget deficits don't matter, might makes right, and habitat destruction/species extinction have no real ecological or quality-of-life impact - just an unfortunate price for progress. All this rationalization for what? For a perceived unalienable right - as an American - to drive the largest metal box down a highway? Why is it so hard for people to see that an economy fueled primarily on the consumption of crude is unsustainable?

Finally, If Cowboy's administration allows mining interests to resume "mountaintop removal" to get at coal seams in the Appalachians, then he'll never get my vote - that's the straw.

Sounds to me as if that Florida sun has finally cracked his melon.

Earth to Dr. S: telling other people how to live their lives is fascism. Look, we can convert to bio-diesel and cut our defendence on Mid-East oil (BTW, we get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, not Kuwait , Iraq or Iran.)

Not that not buying another drop of crude from the Mid-East would stop our problems there. They hate us for who we are, supporters of freedom in general and Israel in particular. All those co-ed you see sashaying down the beaches in St. Augustine in skimpy attire are nothing more than the manifestation of Satan to these clowns. And they have a demostrated proclivity to want to kill Americans in America.

Sorry. Green is good idea that I practice in real-life. Yeah, I heat my house with wood and am doing so right now. But if you think all SUVs are superfluous planet killers, then maybe you should move to somewhere where they are a necessity: like upstate NY.

dpny