Here is the latest:

The new troops include Task Force 121, a unit of elite Navy SEALs and Delta Force soldiers led by top intelligence analysts involved in the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Key personnel from the unit have now been transferred to Afghanistan.

The new hunt will be the biggest such operation in 18 months and will also include British elite forces, along with contingents of Afghan soldiers in a huge sweep of mountainous border areas where the terrorists are believed to be hiding, reports the London Observer.

Posted by John Climacus at 02:13 | Permalink

The Academy Awards are a joke, and the people who take them seriously are joked upon. Laugh at the vanity of it all, and cringe at the extent to which we legitimate them.

This is the time of year when bunches of (A) people in tuxedos grant to (B) others in tuxedos their "due" according to whether the A people feel like the time is right to congratulate the B people for "masterpieces" produced for the supposed advancement of culture. [Note: The A crowd and the B crowd are all in the same industry, and the vast majority of the audience are not.]

This is the time when we, at the Alpaca Burger Forum, say the whole ball of yarn is bullsh*t.

There are numerous good cultural enterprises being conducted in the present day. Some of them happen to be films, but most are not. There are also many really bad projects, and a whole lot of these happen to be in the "entertainment industry." Taken together, entertainers do not represent the species well. The good ones among them hardly compensate for the many, overexposed majority who not only reflect badly on their trade but also drag humanity down a notch.

If there was a rationale for awards for the American film industry, it would be subject to general standards of common sense. This is not the case at the present time. Let these self-important geniuses give themselves awards. Nobody else cares.

Posted by John Climacus at 01:18 | Permalink

In an interesting recent e-mail exhange there was discussion of why the administration is remaining so very mum about what is being learned about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and stockpiled weapons. When David Kay delivered his report the most striking conclusion seemed to be "the situation was more dangerous than we thought", while what played in the mainstream, unsurprisingly, was "we were all mistaken". As Angus Hemmingway asked last month: Why hasn't the administration spoken up any louder on this, except the periodic whispered reminder "we're still not convinced they won't be found".

1). One possible conclusion, as we are reminded every day, is the argument for war on the basis of Iraq having WMDs was all a scam and/or total incompetence. There were never any weapons programs and certainly no stockpiles. Saddam was a victim of bad information, if he even believed he had these weapons, and ultimately was no more of a threat to the rest of the world than any tin pot dictator anywhere else. There are plenty of blue-state folks who believe this and plenty of their political leaders hoping like HELL no weapons are ever found.

2). On the other hand, maybe the administration is just playing rope a dope. According to this theory, they remain extremely circumspect until the opposition has bloviated on the topic to the point of no return, when there are at least 700 videotaped hours of John Kerry and the rest of the motley weasel brigade holding forth on how "this president lied about the weapons of mass destruction" and how the U.N. should have had veto power over any U.S. military actions. Then, all is revealed, or at least the administration speaks up loudly to paint the true picture, and they run campaign ads for the next 7 months reminding everyone how the Democratic leadership has been essentially wrong on everything.

As the story unfolds, I will continue anticipating scenario #2.

9 Iraqi scientists murdered in past 4 months

U.S. believes killings effort to conceal scope of Iraq's nuke program

Former CIA weapons inspector David Kay said in October that two Iraqi weapons scientists who had been cooperating with the U.S. military were shot, and one of them was killed.

The murdered scientist was shot in the head outside of his apartment.

"We think it was because, in fact, he was engaged in discussions with us," Kay said.

If Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, or was working feverishly to acquire one, shouldn't the Bush administration then say, "Uh, in fact here is the reason we went to war and probably should have gone to war earlier, and at very least would go to war again over; and incidentally, the recent explosion of calumny about our intentions with regard to Iraq proves that the Democratic Party is being led by weasels"??

The whole big lie aspect of it, where facts are not allowed to get in the way of the discussion, does give one the feeling the world is insane.

Sanity does prevail in some places, however. Here is a wonderful place to go when you're feeling like everyone is out of their minds.

During his visit, Ranger Rick had several discussions and meals with real, actual reporters all of whom wanted to know why things were going so badly in Iraq.

Ranger Rick, being unarmed, patiently explained that things were NOT going badly in Iraq. In fact, he argued, if a reporter had been told a year ago - February 2003 - that by February 2004 there would be an active and peaceful debate over the form and timing of elections to establish a permanent government in Iraq the reporter would have laughed so hard that the BEER HE WAS DRINKING ON RANGER RICK'S TAB WOULD HAVE COME SHOOTING OUT OF HIS AND/OR HER NOSE!

[Thanks to Instapundit for the link.]

Another point the Bush administration would make forcefully, were they to follow scenario #2, is that the U.S. has not only been made safer by the war, the entire world has been made relatively safer ("relatively" because you're never going to be as safe in the Congo as in Kansas but the point remains). As I read somewhere recently, there is a belief among some of the Arab leaders that Bush is "batshit crazy" which has made them very very nervous and more willing to play ball with the West.

Here is more evidence that regardless of how Bush is preceived, the direction things are going as a result of the war is a positive one so far.

Intellectuals Petition for Democratization and Reform in Syria

The historic turning points meant nothing to the Ba'ath Party thinkers and leaders. Only the American occupation in Iraq, the fall of the Iraqi Ba'ath, the threat of military attack on Syria, and regime change have created the need and the calls for change, as the concern and fear about losing privilege are what motivate thoughts of development and renewal today – not a reading of history…

And now this:

Libya to Destroy Chemical Weapons

Libya will start destroying its chemical weapons on Friday as the small Arab state tries to win back the confidence of the United States and Europe after agreeing to pay damages over the 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing....

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Libya had agreed to the dismantling of a sensitive uranium conversion plant and, as a goodwill gesture, to convert a research reactor from weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to one using low-enriched fuel.

Lifting the travel ban will allow U.S. oil companies to travel to Tripoli to negotiate deals for the day that U.S. trade sanctions are lifted.

Posted by John Climacus at 07:34 | Permalink

Age, apparently, trumps talent, intelligence and wit, so in spite of the fact Andy Rooney has none of these he still has a home on 60 Minutes.

Andrew, you have the eyes and ears of a lot of people. I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos.

This is one of those cases where it's hard to decide which side to take: I never watch 60 minutes, and you probably couldn't pay me to sit through any news program on CBS....well I take that back - for a price I would watch CBS News, but the price would be high. Anyway, 60 Minutes generally sucks, and with the same rationale that causes me to try not to run over squirrels that dash in front of my car - because leaving the stupid ones alive will gradually lead to the degradation of the species - I am tempted to say: Leave Andy Rooney on, ha ha, so that ye may suck that much worse.

But on the other hand, and I hope this is not a presumptuous statement, it annoys me just having the knowledge that he is still allowed on the air. I'd rather have the knowledge, say, that he was humiliated one morning when the entire world woke up and realized he was a moron, and he was unceremoniously bounced off to wherever the heck he came from, there to finish his days on the local free access cable channel, blathering to whoever cares to watch him at 5:00 am.

Did you ever wonder why old people like me can get away with saying all kinds of stupid crap and as long as it's offered in a "folksy" tone of voice people give it credence? If one of you young people out there tried to get away with a lame schtick like mine you'd be laughed out of the studio. But because I'm an old man and I was sort of humorous 40 years ago, they will just let me keep on keepin' on, as we used to say. Did you ever wonder what happened to bag boys in the grocery store? I just noticed that they're gone: When I go to the grocery store now the cashier bags all of the items herself, or else another woman steps in and helps. But what happened to the boys? Did they all grow up and become grocery store managers, or did they go off to fight in Iraq? I'd really like to know. Did you ever wonder who makes all the decisions at one of those fancy restaurants? Y'know, like what color the napkins will be and whether they put salt shakers on the table or make you ask for one? Is there some kind of majordomo of good taste who gets to impose his taste on everyone else? And if so, where did he learn it? Is there a College of Good Taste or is it something you inherit, like red hair or your daddy's mansion...

Posted by John Climacus at 01:50 | Permalink

It is official - he has the French vote. One would surmise there was some cringing at the Kerry campaign this morning:

Kerry boasts French support

ST.-BRIAC-SUR-MER, France — Sen. John Kerry is not running for president here, but if he were, he would clinch the town's vote...

"Honestly, I don't like Bush's politics," said the 29-year-old newspaper-shop owner, who moved to St. Briac three years ago. "Mr. Kerry seems quite nice. And he's got this French background."

The son of a U.S. diplomat, French-speaking Mr. Kerry spent part of his childhood in Europe, attending boarding school in Switzerland and spending holidays here, biking and fishing with a flock of cousins.

In case you are waiting for the themes of the upcoming debate, please file the following:

Anti-war antihero:

Kerry's anti-war record suggests not high idealism but crass calculation. It takes courage to come home and fight against the slander of your fellow soldiers in a hostile political environment. He did not use courage. Instead, he cynically led a radical America-hating parade of protest, and let his Viet Cong-loving protester buddies use him for sport. The clean-cut soldier changed teams to build a political career in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Kerry's Tax Plan to Create Jobs Doesn't Add Up:

"What is he proposing?'' asked Bill Beach, director of the center for data analysis at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "Is he going to roll back the dividend tax cut of 2003? The small business expensing and accelerated depreciation? Does he plan to repeal the repeal of the estate tax?"

For example, when New Yorkers go to vote next Tuesday, they cannot help but be influenced by Kerry's victories in Wisconsin last week. Surely those Wisconsinites knew something, and if so many of them voted for Kerry, then he must be a decent candidate. But the voters in Wisconsin were just as influenced by the decisions of voters from the previous round of primaries, who were in turn influenced by the round before theirs, and so on. Before any given primary, if all previous votes have resulted in an even split among candidates, then the prospect for independent thinking still exists. But as the sequence of primaries progresses, the likelihood of successive even splits rapidly diminishes, and one candidate inevitably starts to look like a winner. At that moment, the cascade starts, and all subsequent votes then become exercises in rubber stamping.

And further, and most damningly, a potential shovel-to-the-head by the Left (and do make time to follow the link and read all of this one):

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

Finally, some excellent analysis of what should be common knowledge by now:

Also under the “documents” section at WinterSoldier.com is a particularly incendiary VVAW flyer with the screaming, all-caps headline, “A U.S. INFANTRY COMPANY JUST CAME THROUGH HERE!” Just below, the top line reads, “If you had been Vietnamese--” and it is followed by eight lines of increasingly inflammatory charges. Each line begins with “We might have” and then finishes with such doozies as “burned your house,” “shot your dog,” “shot you,” and “raped your wife and daughter."

At least he served his country and did not slink off to the despicable National Guard.

Posted by John Climacus at 01:00 | Permalink

Cleaning out a desk drawer, I found this clipping from an old issue of the Washington Times. Now that we are gearing up for battle, it is useful to have a realistic understanding of our foe. Here is how they were thinking in 1995:

Courtesy of the Clinton White House Counsel's office:

The internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication. The internet can link people, groups and organizations together instantly. Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all. The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.

This is excerpted from a 331-page document researched by Chris Lehane (recently Kerry campaign manager; then Clark campaign manager; then Kerry-and-the-intern rumor leaker), co-produced by the Democratic National Committee at taxpayer expense and discovered by the media in 1997 (a quote can't do it justice so please go over and read the entire page). Getting their behinds kicked in November of 1994 apparently sent them searching for the culprits, and with a peace dividend to spend there was little need to prioritize. Additionally, Osama bin Laden was on the run from law enforcement, so terrorism was well under control

Here is the Washington Post coverage.

And some good commentary from WorldNetDaily is here.

Next time you meet an angry Democrat on the street, bear in mind how they must feel three years after the 2000 election. The sheer desperation and the extent to which it can make a person lose touch with reality could be a major asset for the Republicans in November. Our opponents have to twist reality to make their arguments while we get to simply live in it. Which is nice.

Posted by John Climacus at 09:22 | Permalink

A recent visitor to our odd little realm of typing has speculated about the admittedly fantastical idea of a challenge to the Bush nomination, as well as the less remote possibility of a change in the GOP ticket. Both of these suggestions, in my view, merit contemplation.

The initial suggestion was that a challenge to Bush by one such as Giuliani would make the current contest at least as interesting on the Republican side as the Nader challenge will undoubtedly be on the Democratic side. I could not agree more. But my interest in the idea is not centered solely on the possibility that the former Mayor could in some other reality challenge for the top of the Republican ticket. What of the idea that Rudy could actually be considered for the Vice Presidential slot for the GOP in 2004?

The brazen protestations that might have rung out in 2000 would have to be somewhat muted at this point in time. What, exactly, has our good President Bush done in the intervening years to convince us that he is in any sense so conservatively principled that allowing a "soft" conservative such as Rudy in his camp would represent a compromising of "true" conservative principles? As far as we know of Mr. Bush from his public presentment in the past few years, the standpoints that may have differentiated him from Mr. Giuliani several years ago seem now to have all been left open for compromise. On a number of issues, you'd be hard pressed to discern a practical difference between the two men. Bush has not exactly been an impermeable bulkwark against liberalization within his circle of influence. The base is still waiting on his last-hour-of-the-Alamo statement regarding gay "marriage". The base is still stung by his immigration policy and by his attempt to fix the Medicare crisis by throwing truckloads of cash at it.

And on the issue of the day: Is there anyone in America who could doubt that Rudy would be as effective as W in prosecuting the War? No there could not. If the public sentiment and ideology leans toward those who are concerned primarily about national security, Rudy Giuliani would be an asset on the GOP platform. This is a no-brainer. He had the soot on his face on September 11, 2001.

Posted by hemmingway at 09:01 | Permalink

We hark back to our dizzied anticipation of a month and a half ago, when the folks at what Allah calls "the world's most alarmist Web site", were reporting IMMINENT danger to the continental U.S.

31 January 2004-- A confluence of information and events appear to be making the next 72 hours perhaps the most critical time for terrorist attacks in the US since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. The next 72 hours is the IMMEDIATE window of concern, although our short-term concern extends through the end of the Islamic year 1424 (February 21st, 2004).

Then, we note the lack of homeland devastation combined with what appears to be a rash of pleasant, good and potentially very good news (for everyone except, ahem...no let's just leave that point aside for now) on the War front:

US and British special forces have cornered Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a mountainous area in northwest Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, the Sunday Express newspaper reported. Quoting "a US intelligence source," it said Bin Laden and "up to 50 fanatical henchmen" were inside an area16 km wide and deep "north of the town of Khanozai and the city of Quetta."

But just when you think we could be out of the woods - those crazy Taliban are at it again:

"The untrue and false propaganda that the Americans have spread about our leaders and authorities - that they will arrest them by the end of the year - is all nonsense....

"The leaders of the Islamic movement (Taliban) and the military commanders - and of course our special guest Osama bin Laden and (Egyptian al-Qaeda leader) Ayman al-Zawahiri - are in Afghanistan and are alive, busy planning anti-American operation plans."

But you have to wonder, could it not be the case that these bad guys are all losing badly? Mark Steyn has an excellent point to make on this notion:

Meanwhile, there's this whole other war going on, the one Mr. Bush has to attend to while everyone else is on cable TV talking about the early '70s. This war has an ambitious aim: the transformation of the most dysfunctional region of the world. You can't do it overnight. But, 10 months after the Iraqi liberation, it should be possible to discern a trend. And right now all the Middle Eastern dominoes are beginning to teeter in the same direction....

What's happening is that most countries in the region are moving toward the American position; the only variable is the speed. Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi decided to throw in the towel completely. This time last year he was still beavering away on his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program. Did you know he had one? The International Atomic Energy Agency — the body John Kerry and the Democrats place so much faith in — were blissfully unaware.

In other words, the "coalition of the willing" has effected more positive change in the last 10 months than the multilateral establishment has in the last 10 years.

Good news, for most of us. Thank you, men and women of the international military coalition. Our sincerest thanks to everyone who is doing this dangerous work. Thank you, W. Thank you, Mr. Blair. Thank you, Rummy. Thank you, John Ashcroft. And heck, thank you, Mr. Tenet - I happen to think your hands were tied when the really dumb stuff was happening.

Posted by John Climacus at 05:37 | Permalink

There are a number of stops on the information highway that every thinking person should make on a daily basis. Chief among these is the periodic column by Mr. Hanson at NRO. Agreeing or disagreeing with him is really immaterial, because the man speaks the truth, and he is a Democrat for goodness sakes, so we would not be recommending him unless he truly had a bomb to drop on the totality of it all.

The Coming of Nemesis:

Instead, they floated old accusations that a twenty-something George Bush, who strapped himself into something as dangerous as an obsolete, fire-belching, and occasionally explosive F-102, was somehow near treasonous. Young Bush may have been impetuous and he apparently missed some roll calls, but anyone who rides the stratosphere a few inches above a jet engine is neither a coward nor a man who shirks either danger or responsibility.

Now the Democrats who thought up this low hit on the president will reap what they have sown — as Kerry's entire (and ever-expanding) record of ancient slips and slurs will unnecessarily go under full scrutiny, the sometimes shameful words of a rash and mixed-up youth unfairly gaining as much attention as once brave deeds. By August the American people will be sick to death of Kerry's pandering to veterans — or perhaps as indifferent to his medals as they were to the equally stellar record of sometimes-failed candidates like Bob Dole, Bob Kerry, John McCain, or Gray Davis.

Unless the Bush White House has been smoking crack, they are going to crush Mssr. Kerry on the war issue, if Mssr. Kerry is foolish enough to make it a key argument against another 4 years of George W. Bush as president.

Posted by John Climacus at 02:10 | Permalink

In light of the difficult and fractious political conflicts rending the American cultural landscape, we at the Alpaca Burger Forum would like to ask the citizenry to step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and consider the Big Picture of democracy in America. Yes, it is seemingly important to dwell on our partisan loyalties, even to the extent that our sense of community is compromised. Yes, we feel obligated to support "our" candidates running for political office because of their token recognition of our ideals, despite their often craven renunciation of those ideals when select demographics are at stake. But is there not a time when we can follow the better angels of our allegiences? Have we lost the ideals that have motivated so much positive change in this country?

We would like to think that all is not lost, and there is still the dream of a better society. Most importantly, we would like to think there is still room for all Americans in the political process.

While Commissar McAuliffe may be working to discourage idealism in America, we believe there is a better way.

We believe the Ralph Nader candidacy for president of the United States will open doors to millions of young and disaffected voters to become a part of the political process. We believe from the bottom of our collective hearts that leaving these emotionally charged individuals out in the cold, with nowhere to turn but to Lyndon Larouche, would be a crime against democracy. We believe that Ralph Nader belongs in the 2004 presidential campaign and that his presence will enliven the debate over the most pressing issues of the day and make it possible for millions upon millions of idealistic Americans to become players in the political process.

There are those who would like nothing more than to see the presidential campaign limited to a choice between the establishment candidates, but we believe such obvious manipulation of the political process would endanger the heritage of freedom which characterizes American democracy. We believe America deserves better.

Posted by John Climacus at 01:32 | Permalink

Tom Daschle had not been among the few Democrats we respect until just moments ago. He is going to face a tough fight to keep his seat this time around, and he is apparently not a stupid man nor entirely disingenuous.

Daschle satisfied with war progress:

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

Daschle told state chamber of commerce representatives meeting in the South Dakota capital that he is satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq.

"I give the effort overall real credit," Daschle said. "It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country."

Such talk could get one bounced right out of the Democratic primary field, obviously, and if Mssr. Kerry is the nominee he'd be hooted right off the stage making this type of statement: But just imagine if John Edwards could somehow take that message to the general public this fall, along with a righteous critique of the Bush administration's mistakes. It could spell big problems for the president. Luckily, thanks to the brilliant, insightful power base of the Democratic Party, there's no way such a thing will ever happen.

Posted by John Climacus at 05:41 | Permalink

It's time for all of us, as Americans, to work together.

I am beginning to think: If Mssr. Kerry can survive this initial grilling, he may be the best possible candidate for the purposes of ensuring a Bush landslide, which deep down is undoubtedly what every American wants. Nobody, not even the most hard-core, Eurocentric, Oscar-worshipping, bicycle-riding, somebody-please-kill-me-because-I-just drew-a-paycheck Leftist wants to endure 4 years of this lurching gloom on their television sets. So let's just all make a deal with the devil, shall we, and conspire to keep W in office. Those of us on the right will be happy, and those on the left will be angry, and everyone will have something to do.

Kerry - the man, the legend - on his hallowed brothers (are we paying attention - let's all please link to this, ok?):

These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Responding, this is WFB, Jr., from a 1971 speech at West Point (and obviously we all want to link to this as well):

The point I want to raise is this: If America is everything that John Kerry says it is, what is it appropriate for us to do? The wells of regeneration are infinitely deep, but the stain described by John Kerry goes too deep to be bleached out by conventional remorse or resolution: better the destruction of America, if, to see ourselves truly, we need to look into the mirror John Kerry holds up for us. If we are a nation of sadists, of kid-killers and torturers, of hypocrites and criminals, let us be done with it, and pray that a great flood or fire will destroy us, leaving John Kerry and maybe Mrs. Benjamin Spock to take the place of Lot, in reseeding a new order.

[The above two links courtesy of K-Lo at The Corner.]

In case you were wondering what the high powered media engines of the European economic-military-intellectual dynamo think about all this:

Kerry is the likelier winner but the bottom line is this: whoever emerges as the Democratic standard-bearer should have the support of all those Britons who want the world to be a safer place.

For the outgoing Dr Dean got one thing right: he said Bush had proved "the most right-wing President in my lifetime." The impact of that fact has been felt far beyond the US.

It has led to an aggressive, go-it-alone stance that has seen America stand aside from the rules and treaties that bind the rest of the world's peoples.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. We all want John Kerry to run, and lose. For that to occur, we need to bury some of this hatchet-job stuff for approximately 30 more days. Can we do that, people? Let's all work together now, for a brighter future for everyone.

Posted by John Climacus at 12:55 | Permalink

We offer these modest contributions, gleaned from today's press, not remarkable but some that may interest our fellow man or woman.

Peggy Noonan:

What may turn out to be the Republicans' secret weapon, or the secret ingredient of their success? I think that, as always, it comes down to issues. People want higher taxes or lower, seek more personal authority over their social security accounts or not, support the effort in Iraq or do not. But there will also be their sense of who the candidates are as men, in terms of character, personality, gifts and predilections. And that will factor in too. I was asked this week why the president seems so attractive to the heartland, to what used to be called Middle America. A big question. I found my mind going to this word: normal...

Someone said to me: But how can you call him normal when he came from such privilege? Indeed he did. But there's nothing lemonade-on-the-porch-overlooking-the-links-at-the-country-club about Mr. Bush. He isn't smooth. He actually has some of the roughness and the resentments of the self-made man. I think the reason for this is Texas. He grew up in a white T-shirt and jeans playing ball in the street with the other kids in the subdivision. Barbara Bush wasn't exactly fancy. They lived like everyone else. She spoke to me once with great nostalgia of her early days in Texas, when she and her husband and young George slept in the same bed in an apartment in Midland. A prostitute lived in the complex. Barbara Bush just thought she was popular. Then they lived in a series of suburban houses.

George W. Bush didn't grow up at Greenwich Country Day with a car and a driver dropping him off, as his father had. Until he went off to boarding school, he thought he was like everyone else. That's a gift, to think you're just like everyone else in America. It can be the making of you.

Gary Aldrich:

You cannot win with these people. They will never agree with our logic, and they will never like us, no matter how hard we try to compromise with them. There is only one way to deal with Hard-Left Democrats if you wish to protect this country during a time of war.

You must do everything reasonable to keep them out of power. They will hate you for that, too. But they’ll hate you either way. Good advice to my polite, Conservative friends is to get over it, and get on with the business of winning.

And the polls say:

Bush's slip coincides with growing complaints about slow job growth, accusations that he shirked his National Guard duty in the 1970s, failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and stalled efforts to establish democracy there.

His score for honesty and trustworthiness is at the lowest point of his presidency.

Just 42% said the president has a clear plan for solving the country's problems.

Less than half said he did his duty for the country in the Vietnam War. However, 80% said that will make no difference in their vote. Of the 15% less likely to vote for Bush because of it, most are Democrats

Sagging, sagging approval ratings. Music for the mainstream.

Posted by hemmingway at 01:41 | Permalink

This is a great theme for a whole yachtload of reasons.

Jonah Goldberg:

Scene: In the caves of Tora Bora, Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their aides are watching TV. The cave is illuminated by the light from the screen.

Cut to clip from Wisconsin Democratic debate:

Questioner: Senator Kerry, President Bush … described himself as a war president. He said he's got war on his mind as he considers these policies and decisions he has to make. If you were elected, would you see yourself as a war president?

KERRY: I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president and also an environmental president. ….So I would see myself as a very different kind of global leader than George Bush.

Cut to Omar and Bin Laden high-fiving each other and wearing John Kerry for President T-shirts.

Fade to black.

Graphic: Re-Elect George W. Bush. The leadership America needs now.

Tony Blankley:

Consider the following hypothetical situation. In September 2005, the president is informed by his CIA director that they have concluded that there is a one in two chance that North Korea will transfer five nuclear bombs to Osama bin Laden within the next month, and that, after the transfer, despite our best efforts, the CIA judges that it is more likely than not that bin Laden will succeed in detonating at least one of them in a major American city, resulting in 1 million to 3 million deaths. Should the president consider taking pre-emptive military action? And let's assume that the president is named John Kerry....

....regarding Mr. Bush's Iraq diplomacy, Mr. Kerry has already provided some specific words at his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in December. They are revealing.

Lileks:

We've been manipulated into a state of fear, Gore shouted. Really. Which administration spent most of 1998 warning us about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, only to launch some missiles and walk away? ...Does Gore think we don't remember everything Democrats said about Saddam and WMDs, when they felt responsible for the nation?

As for that state of fear, well, anyone out there feel afraid of Saddam today? Didn't think so.

Gore should give this speech at the convention. Why not? Why not stand up and give vent to all the poisons hatching in the muck? Why not tell America that Bush lied about everything, that he took the country to war for reasons he knew would be discredited, just so Halliburton could make another buck or two?...

At least we'll have a clear choice in November. Bush is serious about the war. The Democrats are serious about the war against Bush.

Of course, if one of the current potential leaders - and the word is used loosely - within the Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Party should receive a cold slap in the face and suddenly sober up from the 3-year AngryFest, and take as a point of departure this type of reasoning by Thomas Patrick Carroll, then capitalize on Bush's blatantly inadequate funding of border and port security, Bush could certainly be beaten in November:

The plain truth is this. We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam in order to change the Middle East. The Iraq campaign was, and continues to be, part of a global strategy to kill the threat from militant Islam by pressuring (and even transforming) the nations and transnational systems that support it. That is the deep, relatively unarticulated strategy behind Operation Iraqi Freedom....

The Middle Eastern rulers knew full well there was more to America’s intention than simply getting rid of mustard gas. This is why, for example, we saw a state like Saudi Arabia, even before the invasion was launched, talking openly about the need for more responsive and democratic institutions. The Arab rulers saw the handwriting on the wall. (Not without significance, the very name eventually chosen for the invasion – i.e., Operation Iraqi Freedom – pointed beyond simple WMD eradication, toward the Bush Administration’s grand strategy)....

As for the critics, they need to get serious about their responsibilities in this national debate. If they have an alternative strategy, they should articulate it. If all they have are inanities – like John Kerry’s vapid assertion that the terrorist threat is primarily a problem of intelligence and law enforcement – then they should be big enough to say so.

Praise Bush for the obvious things he has done right, and excoriate him for the mistakes. Of course, the only one who may have picked up on this angle and taken the opportunity to run to Bush's right on national security was bounced out of the primaries some time ago. Lieberman is back in the Senate, exiled from the presidential campaign by a Party that will doggedly take the path of least resistance on protecting the country so long as its public stance works to George W. Bush's disadvantage.

Posted by John Climacus at 07:31 | Permalink

We began this web log in December with a semi-consistent, and in retrospect some might say, cruel, focus on the one they called Mr. Furious. He didn't give us any scandals - well, hardly any - but he sure could be scary and funny at the same time.

Then, after his head finally exploded and the fun ended, we had to turn our attention to the solemn, non-screeching French military standout Jacques Ker-ray.

Now, with Mssr. Ker-ray starting to take some vigorous pummelling and serious lumps, we must assume this primary campaign will continue. And give credit where credit is due: The Party of Weasels may get a bunch of things wrong, but they have delivered a campaign with serious drama and entertainment value. It is downright interesting.

So attention will next turn to the lovable trial lawyer, John Boy himself. I don't know much about him and neither does anyone else, except that he is very wealthy and at the same time viscerally concerned for the little guy, as is of course the case with all trial lawyers. He is not going to run for a second term in office because he knows he would be trounced, so it's the White House or nowhere, in the sense that "nowhere" means making scads of money off the little guy's misfortunes.

But what if John Boy should falter? The press has barely had time to catch its breath from the Kerry-intern story and still has pages full of "Howard Dean" entries in the front half of its notebook, so the investigation of Edwards has not begun. Perhaps the golden boy has a shining past and will actually be able to offer a campaign focused on the issues. If something messy comes up, though, watch out. The next choice for 2004 will not be named Sharpton or Kucinich; it will be another first-term Senator. From the Clinton standpoint, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Posted by John Climacus at 06:39 | Permalink

Regarding the presumed chimera of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, some background.

'We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.' - Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002...

'Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein ... The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.' - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Jan. 23, 2003...

'With respect to stockpiles, we were wrong, terribly wrong.' - Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 3, 2004...

The jury is still out on the 'stockpiles,' to be sure. It will be interesting to see the final definitive analysis of that claim, whenever we reach such a point in history where it can be made. What we can say with assurance is, a whole bunch of beautiful geniuses are hoping like heck that point in history does not arrive prior to Nov. 2, 2004.

Why make such an impudent statement? Not because we have any knowledge about stockpiles, but because everyone knows what Saddam Hussein was up to. If it had been President Kerry initiating war against Iraq, that point of view would be the news of the hour. You'd be hearing all about how much damage a suitcase full of anthrax could do. (And undoubtedly, the paleo-cons would be carping even louder against the war).

But as it stands, 'Bush lied' is the news of the hour. Very well, let the liberals enjoy their moment and yell their victorious chant. George W. Bush is an evil dummy. Sure he is. When the myopia clears, however, history will speak even more loudly. The Boston Globe, for goodness sakes, recognizes this already. It will be interesting to see, when it all comes crashing down, whether the tower of bozos can ever be rebuilt.

Posted by John Climacus at 10:52 | Permalink

Poor John Kerry is going to need every citizen of MA, VT, RI, HI and NY at the polls in November, because he's going to have a tough time attracting a lot of folks in the remaining states. How do we know this? Because with absolutely no prompting or coercion he took it upon himself to criticize the president's appearance at the Daytona 500 on Sunday, thereby taking the lose-lose fork on No Win Road.

"I believe we need a president who doesn't just say 'start your engines,' but says 'we're here to start the engines of the economy by putting America back to work.'"

I once remarked that Michael Jackson should be jailed regardless of any criminal offenses he may have committed, just on the general principle that he is an idiot and we do not need such people roaming the streets. I will now make a similar observation with regard to Mssr. Kerry: Maybe he deserves to lose the November 2004 election just on the basis of being a tin-eared dope. (Or maybe he is taking the good advice and writing off the South?)

Memo to the candidate: Most of the 50 million people who saw George Bush in Daytona Beach thought he did a pretty good job in terms of a public appearance. His photo ops and interviews played extremely well, regular-guy well, and you really had no way to profit from the event. By ignoring it, you would have merely let the president have his day in the sun. By railing against it, you solidify the impression that you are "not from these parts." Just like Howard Dean's observation that Jesus Christ was an admirable historical figure, your comments reveal your distance from a good portion of the populace (and likely the only segment of the population who would have any direct interest in the topic in question). Anyone who saw the race now knows that A). You probably did not watch the race; B). If you did watch it, you did not see the same thing the rest of us did; C). If you see any opening to criticize George Bush because of his appearance there you are probably the type of person who would try to shut down the sport entirely to ward off global warming.

And what irony, to step in the slop bucket at the beginning of the week he wraps up the nomination!

Posted by hemmingway at 08:48 | Permalink

In case anyone got the idea that humanity has "progressed" over the past couple-few generations, get that idea out of your silly head right now:

The New York-based World Jewish Congress charged the head office of 'intellectual dishonesty and moral treachery' in handling anti-Semitism. It claimed the European Commission censored a study highlighting the involvement of Europe's Arab minorities in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe in recent years, while commissioning a 'flawed and dangerously inflammatory' opinion poll, putting Israel at the top of a list of nations seen by Europeans as threatening world peace.

But you don't have to live in Europe to be a total frigging idiot. No sirree. Odd as it may seem, we've got buckets of idiots right here in the U.S., and some of them are in positions of power.

You could even say, perhaps we do not deserve to live. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the news this week that the United States, presumably a country with a majority-sane population, has been releasing bad guys to go fight against our troops. We were under no pressure to release these guys, excepting some criticism from the "Left", whose credibility is right up there with the stray puppies.

"Hi there, Mr. Puppy, do you think we should hold these Islamofascists in detention indefinitely, or just let them go so the liberals will stop yelling at us?"

"Woof! Woof!"

"But if we let them go, they may come over to America and kill our wives and children."

"Woof! Woof!"

"Ok then, we'll just let them go. But please tell the funny, smart people of Hollywood that they should start liking us now."

"Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof!"

At the same time, our Executive branch is releasing the Executive's driving records from the 1960s, because, um, because apparently, um, someone on the Left has asked them to in the hope there will be something embarrassing and thereby allow us to fire this president and have a crapweasel as president next year. Thank goodness the White House is responsive to these requests! One can imagine a world in which the government might say,

"Hey, dumb-*ss liberals, we're going to ignore you from now on, because if we listened to you we'd be:

-in negotiations with the Taliban,

-funding an Islamic Studies mandate from the Department of Education,

-sending our sons and daughters off to fight under the command of the mighty United Nations,

-asking North Korea for permission to defend California,

-providing blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants and no improved border security." (Whoops!)

But such frankness from the government is just too horrible to imagine.

Posted by John Climacus at 10:45 | Permalink

...you make the cover of the Rolling Stone. Oops, sorry, I meant the National Enquirer.

Andrew Sullivan speculates whether the Kerry-Intern story is a GOP hatchet job. Doesn't seem like that would've been necessary at this point, nor that the story would be guaranteed to accomplish its presumed purpose of smearing the candidate. It's just as likely to gain sympathy for him. There are plenty, plenty, plenty, plenty, plenty of better angles from which to attack the likely Democratic nominee.

The big question is, is this really news? We should know in the morning. By then, of course, we may have realized there is more to life than following the run for the Democratic nomination.

But isn't the prospect of a Dean resurgence worth all of this?

Before you answer that question, please note that the Washington Post wing of the Democratic Party is in full campaign mode. Expect to see scores of additional push-polls and millions and millions more lines of text like this in the coming months:

Most Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey results, which also show declining support for the war in Iraq and for Bush's leadership in general, indicate the public is increasingly questioning the president's truthfulness -- a concern for Bush's political advisers as his reelection bid gets underway.

On another note, it's getting hard to view Max Cleland with sympathy while he leads the charge against the president's National Guard service. It seems like the former senator is being used. Now he's being skewered, rightfully, and he brought it upon himself:

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls 'weekend warriors.' Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

In closing, it is always poignant to read a truly heartfelt fundraising letter.

Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. By god, this is suffocation! We will be on the roads again.

(Thanks to Instapundit for the link).

Posted by John Climacus at 07:20 | Permalink

As his first "campaign" appearance of 2004, the president's interview on Meet The Press apparently had scores of opinionators watching with extreme anticipation. Expectations must have been feverishly high, because the reviews are all over the place and sort of breathless.

Here's the full text.

Tech Central Station: Why Bush Held His Own with Russert.

The Corner is Carping, its readers not so much. Scroll down.

Sullivan skewers him on the answers related to the economy (gives passing grade on war-related).

Tom Shales sees a poll uptick for Bush as a result.

BULLETIN: The NY Times is far from reassured.

Just fine, says American Spectator.

Robust defense, reports Knight-Ridder.

Dana Milbank offers another lesson in yellow journalism for you would-be propagandists. Note the excellent phrase-mining and strategically quoted words.

And Al Gore says "YEEAAAGH!!!"

Posted by John Climacus at 04:00 | Permalink

[This President George W. Bush Report is the second issue of a new online periodical published by the communications staff of Joe's Original Alpaca Burger corporate headquarters and the authors of newcounterculture.com.]

[This occasional newsletter is directed solely to President George W. Bush, carrying news and information of which we believe President George W. Bush really ought to be aware.]

The President George W. Bush Report

Vol.2

February 6, 2004

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH COMMUNICATIONS TEAM:
MAYBE A BIG PICTURE ORIENTED RHETORICAL SLAP IN THE FACE WOULD BE A GOOD THING RIGHT ABOUT NOW

The conservative base may not be getting the message, and the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the conservative base - this is today's message for the President George W. Bush communications team.

This reporter attended a Townhall.com Meet Up

this past Tuesday evening and heard some interesting opinions. This opinion stood out: An intelligent, dedicated conservative opined that, given President George W. Bush's decidedly unconservative positions in the areas of immigration, Medicare and overall spending-like-a-drunken-Democrat proposals, perhaps it would be best for conservatives to sit out the 2004 election, let the Democrats take over the White House and the Congress and the whole ball of wax, let everything go to hell, and then let the country realize why "true" conservative ideas are a good thing.

The message of this Report is: Maybe someone should be explaining why conservatives really do need to get that silly idea out of their heads ASAP. And maybe that someone should be headquartered in a place of considerably more influence than Alpaca Burger Tower. Perhaps, the communique should come from someone in the White House.

A distinguished reader of the Alpaca Burger Forum asks the following:

"Does FoxNews have a conservative bias (which my lefty friends claim)? Or is the fact that Fox occasionally presents something so NOT liberal and/or starkly contrasting to Dan, Peter, Tom, and CNN creating an illusion? The color gray can look black when the background is snowy white."

No, Fox does not have a conservative bias. The egregious felony of Fox News is they allow conservative opinions to be heard - and not shouted down if they happen to be accurate.

Let us tie these points together, pointedly. Please make note of a possible core message for the coming months.

President George W. Bush may not be all things to all conservatives, but those in the conservative camp need to understand the stakes. President George W. Bush is going to advocate policies far more favorable to all of the conservative ideologies than any of his opponents in the upcoming election. The other side will be fighting tooth and nail on everything from here on out. If Kerry wins the election, think of the "nuclear option" on judiciary appointments if the Democrats also take the Senate. Think of Executive Orders. Think of regulatory initiatives.

Think of the overall issue that has risen like a spectre of hell itself for those on the comfortable Left: The non-mainstream media. Make no mistake, the liberals are aghast that such opinions as those allowed on Fox and talk radio and among the multitude of conservative writers are EVEN ALLOWED TO BE HEARD.

They think opinions from the Right are hate speech. Give them four years of governmental control and you are going to have a situation to make the early 1990s look like a game of patty cake. The Left's horror at the orgy of free speech in America is at a level that most people do not realize. But you can get hints of it by observing the whirling-dervish craziness of their rhetoric. Think about the current criticism of the President's military service by former officials of the Clinton administration. Look at the newspeak spin being applied to the WMD issue. Tempers have flared. Given the power, the Left would silence our voices. This is 2004, not 1994, and things have changed.

The question for conservatives is not whether President George W. Bush is the ideal "conservative," however that term is defined. The important question is: Would you rather be exercising your right to free speech at the polls in November, or on the streets in 2006. There are going to be big knives brought to all future debates by those on the Left. Those on the Right can leave their knives at home, if they continue to have the greater influence in the halls of government.

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

THIS CONCLUDES THIS ISSUE OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH REPORT

Posted by John Climacus at 02:02 | Permalink

Point One: I don't know if this is going anywhere, but I'll be keeping an eye on it. It is necessary again to say, if you are not watching Fox News you are missing out. Not because Fox is the most comprehensive - which it is, by far - but because Fox is also by far the most entertaining. If you've been a news junkie in the DC area for over 25 years, as I have, you can appreciate that there's not enough "new" under the sun. Fox is getting it done. Here's my take. Last night, on the election coverage, Carl Cameron noted with an entirely straight face that Kerry's numbers "lurched" ahead. I think these guys are going to have fun with this until they are called on it.

Shep-a-roh, I've got my eye on you.

And on the Boston Globe.

And on the Post.

(Do a search on "kerry" and "lurch" and you'll see what I mean.)

Ok, that's just one of our areas of amusement. Moving on to more concrete issues, let's quickly review the liabilities of the presumptive Democratic challenger.

This is something: Kerry Blocked Law, Drew Cash

This again is something: The senator who has raised the most money from lobbyists over the past 15 years is none other than Mr. Kerry

This also is something: Kerry lost the South

This is quite something more: New Al Qaida statement warns of major attack on U.S. (noting that in Kerry's view all of this is Bush-inspired propaganda)

I'm going to catch some flack on this but here it is anyway. Is our society advanced, or decayed, when we have to contemplate the fact that harsh measures will not be employed to find out everything this person knows. Nat Hentoff, I love ya baby, but does this give you pause? Can you answer the Michael Dukakis question here? If it was your kid missing, would you support shooting a gun next to the a**hole's ear? Or is that just too uncivilized for you?

Posted by John Climacus at 02:22 | Permalink

John, I see, has not yet delivered on his promised essay on religion, although we are willing to go a little ways with the "It's the thought that counts" dispensation. A little ways, that is all. Dr. Turner has been prevailed upon to loosen his iron grip on the store and I am pleased to announce that John Climacus will be permitted to upload his "pointed" points with one caveat: Dr. Turner requests that each angry item be accompanied with a more constructive item. Therefore, John, if you are listening I am the bearer of good news. You can create more of your t-shirts provided you say something positive every time you say something negative. Bring them forth in parallel, demonstrating synthesis and antithesis, all working together toward the final glorious culmination. Hegel and amen.

I look forward to your offerings and hope this is a welcome return to the Catholic school mindset for you. We await your thoughts with our rulers tapping nervously in the meantime.

And on to the news:

Be still my heart, Ann Coulter is back with her latest.

Democrats think they invented war heroes, but being a war hero didn't help Bob Dole. It didn't help George Herbert Walker Bush. It didn't help John McCain. The Democrats didn't invent war heroes. What they invented is the scam of deploying war heroes to argue for surrender.

How we love that woman.

Howard Dean, he of the outrageous quote, goes on record with another: "Certainly my military record was fair game and I think the president's is as well."

Any publicity is good publicity, or so they say.

And courtesy of Allah, is this refreshing note that the mainstream is terminologically waking up. Well, sort of:

So the Star Tribune, which has maintained a 'non-judgmental' refusal to call Palestinian terror by name, determined that the King David bombing was, in fact, 'Zionist terror'. This, despite the fact that (unlike any Palestinian terror) the Irgun issued specific warnings of the impending strike against the British command at the hotel, and that civilians were not intentionally targeted.

Finally - and I admit I am not contributing much tonight, but I will be out on the water before sunrise so must end this missive - I noted that the Janet Jackson breast photo was the most-searched-for file on the Internet. Have I missed something about breasts on the Internet? Because they do seem to be everywhere. If you search google on "breast" and then search on "finger", I'm betting you'll get better breasts than fingers without even trying. At my age, the prospect of a single breast is hardly worth focusing a morning's browsing on, there being relatively few surprises in that category. But even if it were so, that this particular breast was reputed the breast to send a thousand ships to sea, should there not be many disgruntled cyber breast-bearers out there saying, "Wait a minute, WE have breasts too. We show them freely. We're not even wearing tassles. Don't we count?" The inordinate attention to Janet Jackson seems to us unfair, and we await some righteous indignation from the women's public interest groups. Someone has not been getting the word out.

Posted by hemmingway at 01:15 | Permalink

The general trend of sentiment being, hide not ye opinions under the bushel-barrel, we're going to proceed full blast as if the strange mellow intermezzo of BLAH from this weekend had never happened.

To that end, we go on our merry way reporting the unusual and unexpected.

Even if you were expecting news on the shark front to be less than shark-friendly, note the sad news that the white tips are really diminishing.

If you were on the fence about the human-shark question, you might want to take a position.

And if you are following the progress of the bozo-bus, here are the latest stats:

Kerry Kerry Kerry!

In the meantime, again, please do take a note of the facts that might actually mean something.

Posted by John Climacus at 02:22 | Permalink

Kudos to Turner for the big wet blanket. While I understand the intention, here's my problem with it:

For those who want to inspire the masses, I say go ahead and do it. I have no beef with them. I'd like to hear what they have to say. I am not one of them, is all I'm saying.

When we started this little web log, the idea was to have an outlet for the type of banter we'd have when Angus and I are debating the issues of the day over coffee down at the fish camp. No-holds-barred, just say what is on your mind. Maybe no one reads it, but who cares? We brush up on our typing skills.

Now the request seems to be for a more positive, or at least nuanced discussion, where we don't say what we think but rather what might play well before a mixed audience of varied political beliefs, presumably expecting nothing more pointed than a cereal commercial.

What this results in, is an atmosphere less like banter at the fish camp, and more like my second grade in Catholic school when we'd get slapped in the back of the head for slumping in the pew at church. Yippee! Thank you, Sister, may I have another?

I understand the value of nuance. If I was collecting a paycheck from CNN or the New York Times or the BBC, I'd be nuanced. But lo! no such checks are in my mailbox. I'd be more nuanced if I was hoping for an invitation to a Georgetown cocktail party. But in fact I am not. Certainly I'd be nuanced if I had not made up my mind on the issues and was splayed out on the ideological Twister board trying to cover every side of every issue. But as you can see, there are no more spins and I'm just standing here, one-legged on the red dot.

I know, there are those who will say we should take all points of view seriously or we cannot communicate with anyone who does not march lockstep with us, and to some extent this is true, and I will keep this in mind. But those who do collect the paychecks and go to the beautiful parties have to do things that I would not ever volunteer for.

Careful analysis of John Kerry's latest statement on his Iraq position? Thoughtful review of whether John Edwards has in fact fought for the little guy his entire career, and if not, why on earth he would ever make the claim? Probing discussion of Joseph Wilson's earnest desire to protect his wife's privacy? I imagine there is a circle of hell where you have to do stuff like this all day long for eternity, and if that is where I am destined to end up I will get involved in these discussions when I get there. But for now, while I have a choice, I reserve the right to say, "This individual will say anything to further their personal ambitions, and therefore I take his words with a grain of salt." No brain energy will be spent on you Mr. Kerry, until you say something we feel obliged to discuss. And if there are things occurring that we find more interesting, we'll leave the topic of "you" to the folks who get paid to think about "you."

And for the record, I think Dr. Turner's "message" t-shirt is, well, nice. Like free peppermint candies when you leave the restaurant.

The good doctor has brought up the question of religion, and I am not sure where he would expect us to go with that one or whether either Angus or I are going anywhere with it here. I tend to think not; however, maybe we will consider more constructive themes when they arise. I am going to address a related question in the next Recent Topic, which may be posted tonight if I have the energy.

Posted by John Climacus at 03:31 | Permalink