Friday, March 18, 2005

March 18, 2005 - Coffee? Tea? Liberal Ideology??

Hello Thinkers!

After many feigned attempts and at least two broken New Year resolutions, I finally decided to heed the advice of numerous public service announcements, verbal 'nudging' from Mrs. Tuff and get my first physical in about 3 years. Before sending me on my way with the expected warnings on salt intake and exercise, the good doctor scheduled me for blood work the following day which required 12 hours of prerequisite fasting. The next morning at 7:30 I waited for the doors of the lab to open, upset that I was behind a dozen retirees who clearly had less planned for their morning than I did. It was close to another hour before my name was called and my arm was jabbed.

Leaving the facility, my hunger pangs were more than noticeable. Since I was late for work anyway, a stop at the nearby Starbucks was in order. It was a negligible detour on my commute. Entering the caffeine chamber, I noticed it was empty save for one customer at the register handing over her money for a tall white chocolate mocha with soy - or whatever it was.

Amidst this post rush hour lull, there were three women busily working. One at a contraption that reminded me of a steaming Jules Verne time machine, one wiping down the mini euro-tables working her way back behind the counter, and one at the cash register taking money from the aforementioned customer. I stopped and stood behind the patron as she collected her change.

The three employees, all in their mid to late 20's, were feverishly discussing the previous evenings antics between the table cleaner (now behind the counter and standing at the second cash register) and her date. Based on the rapid inter-employee verbal exchanges and individual body language, I deduced the date was a disaster. I was impressed at my ability to perceive the obvious, since hunger and my ongoing battle with sleep deprivation was taking its toll.

With a snap of the change purse, the customer ahead of me departed. The three worker bees, now all behind the formica hive, continued their riveting discussion, oblivious to my presence. Having long since learned never to attack, verbally or otherwise, someone who was about to prepare my food, I patiently waited and stepped forward, where I continued to wait.

Eventually I was served. I left Starbucks with my black sugarless coffee, not offended but a bit amused. Clearly, these women were so consumed by their coworkers story, snowballing within their own microcosm, they became completely unaware of their immediate surroundings.

And so it has also been with the political and activist left. The past few weeks and months have not been good to liberals, leaving them punch-drunk from a seemingly endless squall of disappointing events. Kerry and the democrats in congress, Daschle not the least among them, took painful losses last November. This is despite the hard work of media outlets across America doing their best to bash Bush and help Kerry get elected:

November 2nd, 2004 may have seemed like the bottom for the left, until they found a shovel and started digging.

Two of the casualties, Dan bin Rather and Eason Jordan crossed lines that might have never been exposed were it not for the fledgling blogosphere that both of these old media fossils likely dismissed in their glittering arrogance.

Elsewhere, in a dramatic change from the Clinton's position on drilling Americas natural resources, a major legislative roadblock to oil production in ANWR has been lifted. Tree fondlers from Cambridge to Berkley are up in arms over the decision. However, the residents of Alaska don't seem too upset about the idea:

"Oil exploration in ANWR would take place on just 2,000 acres of its 1.5 million acre coastal plain, which amounts to a tiny fraction of Alaska's protected lands. The land is on the coastal plain, a tiny sliver of the huge wildlife refuge."

Yet the overwhelming negative response from the arrogant, elitist left is typical. They know better than even the people who live in Alaska:

"The essential needs of Alaska's working families all across this vast and beautiful state depend on the responsible development of our natural resources. For us, environmentally responsible development oil and gas development in a tiny portion of the Arctic refuge means jobs, the opportunity to improve our schools and other public services. If oil exploration and development in ANWR is delayed, we ultimately hurt the Fairbanks and Alaska economy. We also hurt a trained work force from Fairbanks who work on the North Slope. The opening of ANWR to exploration would be the best economic news to hit this state in many years. It would mean thousands of jobs for Fairbanks families and billions of dollars for the state of Alaska in royalties and taxes.",1413,113~7252~2747942,00.html

The PETA panties are in a knot now.

Ruthlessly, Bush jammed salt in the open wounds of the minions by making two brilliant appointments. First, John Bolton, a harsh critic of the UN was named as our ambassador to this ragtag collection of banana republics. Second, despite the buzz among the MTV crowd that U2's Bonor might be appointed head of the world bank, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was selected for this role in a crushing blow to U2 fans everywhere. I can envision Bush and Cheney together, drinking 16 year old scotch in the oval office, doubled over laughing, slapping each other on the back as they watched the buffoons at CNN report that Bonor was in the running for a job they already had pegged Wolfowitz for.

The NY Times could not withhold their petty liberal bias over this matter:

"Despite the displeasure of some diplomats who had hoped that the administration would appoint a person without the almost radioactive reputation of a committed ideologue, they said that they expected Mr. Wolfowitz to receive the approval of the World Bank's board of directors in time for Mr. Wolfensohn's departure in May."

The supposed Waterloo for Bush, Iraq, may be showing a silver lining even among the liberal media. The 'Bush lied about WMD' crowd is letting the NY Times story of "massive looting" of Saddam's weapons facilities roll off their back like water off a duck.

This is what the NY Times calls "looting":

"In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms..."


"in four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 as teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site."

I can see these Iraqi "looters" now, on the streets of Fallujah:

"Hey Mohammed! Bitchin' ride - Allah be praised! Is that a Ford 350?"
"No Achbad! It's a Uranium 238!"
"Wow! Nice pipes!"
"They're aluminum!"

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this way:

And the Ted Kopechnes of the world must be watching in horror as positive changes are afoot in the Middle East. Days after Sen. Chivas made a speech claiming American military was the problem in Iraq, not the solution, millions of Iraqi's risked death to vote for their new leadership. I would link you to that speech on Teddy Kopechne's website, but it was removed. Since then the Lebanese have demonstrated in the hundreds of thousands for the removal of Syrian troops and occupation from their border, in defiance of Hizballah.

Afghanistan, now ignored by the MSM, are electing women to their legislature.

Need more proof that these are wonderful days? Check out the discussion boards at the Democratic Underground:


Yes thinkers, these are lousy days for the liberals and by definition, great days for America. Maybe they should relax and get a cup of coffee. Hopefully they are not in a hurry.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

March 10, 2005 - Dan bin Rather: A Profile in Bias

Hello Thinkers!

Last night I tuned in - albeit late, to Dan bin Rather's final broadcast as CBS Evening News anchor. To my surprise (and to the credit of modern day medication) Bin Rather did not choke up as the sun set on his platform of liberal bias. However, there was a tremendous irony in his final sign off. Bin Rather, for reasons unknown, spoke of courage. With a token tip of the hat to members of the military and victims of the recent tsunami, Bin Rather spoke of courage and explicitly addressed:

"To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means risking all."

To which journalists was Bin Rather referring to? Fox News reporters the exposed the UN Oil for Food scandal? John Stossel? The bloggers who discredited the bogus Bush-bashing TANG reports that Bin Rather drooled over in a 60 Minutes story just weeks before the 2004 election?

Look closely. Bin Rather saluted the courage of his "fellow journalists", meaning those who share his liberal, elitist prism through which he views the world. This prism, ratcheted to the extreme as Bin Rather has done, in conjunction with his utter and unmistakable disdain for things non-liberal, has pushed Bin Rather to the point of being a sociopath.

When confronted with the glaring reality that government issue typewriters from the 1960's cannot produce variable-width fonts and superscripts, Bin Rather exhibited his unique style of courage - stonewalling critics and towing the liberal party line. When the disinfecting power of daylight became obvious to even Bin Rather, his courage reached it's peak with the termination of his subordinates, a delayed retirement and the stunning admission that - OK, the documents may be fake, and the questionable source may have an agenda, but dammit the story is REAL!

Was it courage that made him be the only major media anchorman to avoid the Gary Condit(D) scandal? Was it courage that drove Bin Rather to be the keynote speaker at a Texas Democratic fundraiser?

Lets take a look at some other examples of "Bin Rather courage":

"The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor."
- CBS Evening News, March 16, 1995.

"There was no doubt Republicans in the House had enough votes tonight to pass another key item in their agenda to rip up or re-write government programs going back to the Franklin Roosevelt era. It is a bill making it harder, much harder, to protect health, safety, and the environment."
- CBS Evening News, February 28, 1995.

"The Republican convention opens in New York to re-nominate George W. Bush and showcase the party's, quote, 'moderate side.' Will voters buy it?"
- CBS Evening News, August 30, 2004.

"If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we'd take it right now and walk away winners....Tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we're pulling for her."
- To President Clinton, via satellite, at a May 27, 1993 CBS affiliates meeting

"I'm all news, all the time. Full power, tall tower. I want to break in when news breaks out. That's my agenda. Now, respectfully, when you start talking about a liberal agenda and all the, quote, 'liberal bias' in the media, I quite frankly, and I say this respectfully but candidly to you, I don't know what you're talking about."
- To Denver radio host Mike Rosen, November 28, 1995.

I'll bet he took alot of crap from his NYC cocktail party crowd for those comments! The meteor has struck Bin Rather's world of uncontested liberal bias. He can only gaze as the dark cloud of independent information sources descends to choke him into obscurity.

Courage! What a joke! Bin Rather has about as much courage as college professor making anti American statements in an ethnic studies class at Colorado University.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

March 3, 2005 - The Supreme Court of France Has Spoken!

Hello Thinkers.

I must be getting old - and maybe the word "getting" could be omitted. 15 years ago, a story like this would have been ne'er a blip on the radar screen. It would have been reported during my commute as I was listening for the traffic report and would have, at most, evoked an odd look at the radio.

But not anymore. Now my wrinkled ass is about as frosted as it gets on a news story. This week, a deconstructionist, socialist pig majority of SCOTUS members chose to usurp the will of the people in twenty states, redefine the Constitution, and ban capital punishment for convicted criminals under 18 years of age - regardless of the circumstances of their crime. Even if you disagree with the death penalty, you should be very concerned at the illogic used by the newly self-appointed Kings of the SCOTUS majority.

The case (Roper v. Simmons) involves Christopher Simmons. When he was eight months shy of his 18th birthday, Simmons terrorized and brutally murdered Shirley Crook. Mrs. Cook was abducted from her home, bound with duct tape and electrical wire and thrown off a railroad trestle into a river - alive and conscious. Prior to the murder, Simmons told his friends they could "get away with it" because they were minors. He was right.

Simmons overpowered Crook, and subjected her to his whims and amusement, and then destroyed her with utter contempt. Similarly, Kings John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy have subjected the US Constitution to their "living document" prism, subservient to the latest opinions from France, and the content of today's Montel Williams Show.

His Highness, Anthony Kennedy penned the opinion of the majority, basing his apologia on three points. First, execution of those under 18 violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause based on "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society". Second, a national consensus that those under 18 are less culpable than those over 18. And third (gag), "The overwhelming weight of international opinion."

To support his irresponsible opinion, King Kennedy writes the following:

"Defense counsel reminded the jurors that juveniles of Simmons age cannot drink, serve on juries, or even see certain movies, because the legislatures have wisely decided that individuals of a certain age aren't responsible enough." Yet later on that same page Kennedy concedes, "Simmons was absent from home for long periods, spending time using alcohol and drugs with other teenagers or young adults." So even though he is too young to drink (and by flawed implication too young to understand what it means to murder), he did it anyway. Knowing he could "get away with it" certainly indicates to me an adult understanding of murder.

In what is among the most maddening of Kennedy's prose, the Pasha of Pointlessness states, "To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual." So basically what this means is that a jury of citizens is, unlike the "Enlightened Five", too stupid to consider the severity of a crime, the age and condition of the criminal and the surrounding circumstances when determining punishment. Think about Kennedy's statement: "We have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of..." Yes, they know better than the peasants of the capital punishment states. This is amazing in its arrogance.

Get this - Kennedy then claims, "In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), a plurality of the Court determined that our standards of decency do not permit the execution of any offender under the age of 16 at the time of the crime." So fifteen years ago, SCOTUS decided it was OK to execute 16 and 17 year olds, but since then, the Constitution's meaning has changed drastically. Where is the standardized, reliable process of logic in reaching this conclusion? Do we as a nation feel safe doing ANYTHING that was legal 15 years ago if SCOTUS can turn on a dime like this? Again - regardless of your position on the death penalty, you should be tremendously alarmed at the lack of predictable procedural thought being followed in court opinions. Why does this court think that the Constitution was written to protect popular opinion? And you know that 21 will be the next "age of maturity".

As Justice Antonin Scalia points out in characteristically brilliant dissent, The opinion of the 'Red Five' rely on content from the American Psychiatric Association to conclude that "When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity." Yet Scalia points out, "In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), the APA found a 'rich body of research' showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement." It's good to be King Kennedy, huh? Just cherry pick the stats that support your current mood and you're done.

To support Kennedy's view of national consensus, the Sultan of Arrogance writes, "the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice provide sufficient evidence that today our society views juveniles, categorically less culpable than the average criminal." Yet does he take into account that murderers under 18 represent a small percentage of overall murderers? And why does he infer that because it is a low number, we must rule it out as an option, regardless of the heinous nature of the crime, in ALL cases? And if there is a national consensus against the execution of those under 18, why has no successful presidential candidate embraced this as a major component of their platform? Even Clinton didn't touch this one. Again, the voting peasants of America are too stupid and must have these important decisions made for them.

The flagrant disregard for the Constitution culminates with, "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." I wonder which international opinion the justices chose to kneel before. Could it be Islamic law? You know, the kind where an Iranian teenage girl gets a potentially lethal 100 lashes for having sex?

Or could it be the international opinion, again from Islamic law, that the crime of "Fasad fil-ardh" (spreading mischief in the land) requires death? This category of crime includes rape, adultery and homosexual behavior.

The global Muslim population is huge. Is this is the "overwhelming weight" SCOTUS refers to?

Subverting the Constitution and our national sovereignty is nothing short of a crime. But I suppose the Kings want to be well received when they visit Paris this summer.

And why does Ruth Ginsberg, who believes that 12 year olds are mature enough to consent to sex, believe that 17 year olds cannot adequately comprehend the concept of murder. Think back - WAY back. Which concept did you understand first? Death or orgasm?

In case you are curious, here are a few examples of "the evolving standards of decency" that mark our maturing society.

- Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal of Harris County (Houston), convicted with three others of the gang-rape and beating deaths of Jennifer Ertman, 14 and Elizabeth Pena, 16. Perez and Villarreal were 17 at the time. Pena's father, Adolph, on Tuesday wore a T-shirt with the girls' photos printed on it. "These people are animals," he said at a news conference held by Harris County murder victims' relatives. "They're the scourge of the streets. If they get out, they will kill again."

- Robert Springsteen of Travis County, convicted at 17 in 2001 of the infamous 'Yogurt Shop' slayings in which four teenage girls were bound, gagged and fatally shot in the head at a yogurt shop a decade earlier.

- Jorge Alfredo Salinas, who at 17 carjacked a man in Hidalgo County in July 2001, fatally shot him in the head, and left the man's 21-month-old daughter to die of dehydration and exposure strapped in her car seat in a brush area near the Rio Grande.

None of these ambitious youths will receive the punishment that a jury has decided for them. SCOTUS thinks we are too stupid to consider all the factors. Say good-bye to the rule of law. Say hello to the rule of man.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

February 28, 2005 - A Weekend in San Francisco

Hello Thinkers,

As you know, it has been a while since I've composed a rant. Between Tuff Jr's christening, preparing my taxes, a busy work schedule and another business trip to Than Franthisco (where I'm writing this from now), my opportunities for blogging have been a bit limited. However, on the night before my flight back home, which is now a race with a winter storm heading up the east coast, I have some moments to opine.

Than Franthisco is a nice city. The architecture is neat, the trolley cars are nostalgic and a decent cup of coffee is never far away. In fact if it wasn't for the people (most of them anyway), I'd actually consider living out here. However, I found myself particularly homesick when I walked past a crazy taking his Sunday shower at a drinking fountain on Market and Powell streets at eight in the morning. The streets were otherwise a ghost town.

And while being away from my usual internet connections has kept me a bit out of the loop for the past few days, it has also afforded me the opportunity to peruse the San Franciso Cronicle. The Saturday, Feb 26th edition had two stories I found to be of particular interest.

First, an Oakland man named Patrick McCullough was recently arrested. His crime? He shot a 17-year old who was part of a gang of approximately 15 'disadvantaged youths' who surrounded and attacked McCullough as he walked from his front door to his driveway. This crowd of young high achievers apparently was disenchanted with McCullough for disrupting their drug deals in front of his property. McCullough was punched, hit with sticks and saw the 17-year old in question reach for a gun when he discharged his own weapon, ending the attack. Bullets will do that, you know.

So somebody 'splain to me how this works. You legally own a gun. You are attacked by over a dozen drug dealers on your own property. They punch you, threaten you, one of them pulls a gun. By the grace of God, you get off the first shot, ending the encounter. Next thing you know, you are cuffed, jailed and released on $15K bail - and the deputy DA in Oakland is unsure whether or not he will press felony charges.

In a recent editorial (Gun Ban in San Francisco - How Gay is That?!), I told you that the single most effective deterrent to violent crime is to allow trained, law abiding citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. Now I will also tell you that gun control laws hurt the law abiding poor and minorities the most - despite what Babs Streisand, Ted Kennedy, Oprah Winfrey, et al, would tell you.

Partick McCullough is 49 years old, worked his way through college, is a navy veteran, and -oh yea- he's black. He and his wife cannot afford to move since they bought their home under a first-time buyers program to provide "neighborhood stability" to North Oakland and would lose any equity if they sell before 2014.

I wonder where the NAALCP stands on this issue?

The second rivetting story from Saturday's SF Chronicle is about Iris Rivera from Redwood City. She is apparently the third person to sue the bay area Gorilla Foundation, home of Koko the "talking" ape, and its president, Francine "Penny" Patterson. Koko cannot talk, but apparently she can perform some rudimentary sign language. What fascinating messages are we getting from a non-human who has been trained to communicate with us across the Darwinian chasm? Koko wants to see Iris' breasts. And apparently Iris disagreeably obliged Koko half a dozen times in a two month period last summer. Now, Iris is claiming pressure from her employer to appease Koko's mammalian requests.

Of the three women suing the Foundation, only Iris went to the extreme of exposing herself to her captive audience. Iris apparently reached her limits when Koko indicated that she wanted to spend some quality time with Iris. Koko's salacious message included "Let down your hair. Lie down on the floor. Show your breasts again, Close your eyes" This was apparently followed by (Koko's) heavy breathing. It is unknown if Koko was peeling off singles as enticement.

One of the other women suing Patterson and her foundation, Kendra Keller, specifies some interesting exchanges in her suit - which includes wrongful termination. One incident states "On at least two incidents in mid-to-late June 2004, Patterson intensely pressured Keller to expose herself to Koko while they were working outside where other employees could potentially view Keller's naked body. ... On one such occasion, Patterson said, 'Koko, you see my nipples all the time. You are probably bored with my nipples. You need to see new nipples. I will turn my back so Kendra can show you her nipples.' "

Thank God for the progressive left, huh?

Funny, I don't remember this part of the PBS special on Koko the gorilla who pets kittens and has a 1,000 word vocabulary in sign language. Can Koko be sued herself for this harassment? Has she ever signed hate-speech? Did Koko request a trip to MA with Iris for the purpose of marriage? Surely those who want to assign Constitutional 'rights' to animals or who want to sue on their behalf to stop things like sonar tests by the US Navy would want to know this before they open a can of litigious worms.

Just what *is* my neighbor's dog thinking when he craps on my yard?

Ironically, Koko the gorilla and Ted Kennedy have NEVER been seen together. Lois Lane and Jimmy Olson are getting suspicious.

Too much time on the left coast must be spiraling my mind to new depths. Maybe I'll take a shower before bed to clear my brain. I wonder if that drinking fountain is open on Market and Powell?