Become Republican! Lose your soul, but win elections!

Thank god I'm not Republican. Did you know that Republicans are racists, bigots, and sexists that have no soul, cannot think for themselves, and are stupid and dishonest?

Enjoy for a moment some mindlessness that reveals how some who symbolically profess diversity, tolerance, and not stereotyping others are actually hostile to these virtues:

http://www.thefrown.com/player.php?/frowners/becomerepublican

A New Direction

I don’t get it: How could GWB have stolen the election in 2000 and 2004 but somehow let it slip away this time?

Nancy Pelosi spoke today on the subject of Iraq:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/pelosi_11-08.html

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Donald Rumsfeld is gone, just as you this morning and many Democrats had urged. Do you take this as a sign that President Bush really does want a new direction in Iraq?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I certainly hope so. Yesterday, the American people spoke very clearly that there's one place they want a new direction: It's in the conduct of the war in Iraq.

Sure, but too bad she nor Harry Reid can tell us exactly what that plan for a new direction is, though it seems to be what they sold the American public on. Actually, I can’t wait for the American public to get a dose of her as high profile leader of the Democrats for the next two years. For better or for worse it’s going to drive many back into the arms of the Republicans.

Another prognosis: Democrats are now in charge of both houses, something they haven’t had since before the explosion of the internet. Are they prepared for and able to cope with the instant scrutiny their thoughts and actions will bring upon them?

They are also assuming responsibility for an advertised shift in policy. I wonder what will happen to the reporting coming out of Iraq, and if there will be a corresponding change in tone and focus to reflect the new “good things” this new leadership is achieving. Be prepared to see the Democrats say, "See, all was needed was for Rumsfeld to go and a new direction taken. Our strategy is the reason Iraq is on the path to democracy."

Fun in Philly

This is mindblowing. You'd expect this kind of thing in a third world developing country, but here in the US?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-HK_VT81Pk&eurl=

Agitprop

If Cindy Sheehan speaks with absolute moral authority, then what do the mothers who have lost sons in Iraq yet continue to support the mission speak with? Can they get a card like this too?

" 'Harry, what the hell are you doing campaigning for that crippled son-of-a-bitch that killed my son Joe?' [Joseph P.] Kennedy said, referring to his oldest son, who had died in the war. Kennedy went on, saying Roosevelt had caused the war. Truman, by his later account, stood all he could, then told Kennedy to keep quiet or he would throw him out the window."

-"Truman," by David McCullough, Page 328

Ye Shall Know Them By The Company They Keep

Hamas Condemns Sentence

Sunday 05 November 2006: The ruling Palestinian movement Hamas has condemned the death sentence handed down to Saddam Hussein, recalling the help the deposed Iraqi leader gave to the Palestinian people.

"We as the Palestinian people support whoever supports our people and president Saddam Hussein was one of those," Fawzi Barhum, Hamas spokesman, said.

Highly popular in the Palestinian territories, Saddam gave money to the families of people killed by Israeli forces and relatives of bombers when the intifada, or uprising, broke out in September 2000, until he was toppled by the US-led invasion in 2003.

A Cartoon for Kerry

Foot in Mouth Disease

For me, Kerry’s comments to students about how, if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, you’ll end up in Iraq, keenly represent the elite, liberal intellect of the northeast. The insinuation is clear: if you’re not “smart” you’ll end up fighting in Iraq for a failed policy. Smart = belief that Iraq is failed policy. Smart certainly is not being a grunt with a gun.

It’s not enough to say that you disagree with someone’s prescriptions and policies and why; you need to categorize those that differ with your own position as stupid.

Here's some statistics on the academic education of those in our military:

— 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees; 39.4 percent have master’s degrees, 8.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 22.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees; 16.5 percent have master’s degrees, 5.9 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 85.4 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees; 70.7 percent have master’s degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor’s degree; 0.7 percent have a master’s degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.

What's discouraging is that this issue of Kerry's comments has been portrayed solely as partisan fight, as if someone has to be a Republican or a supporter of Bush or the war to find what Kerry said offensive. And if you take difference with Kerry’s remarks and believe they’re offensive towards the integrity of our troops (who are being shot at all the while Kerry is making these statements) then you’re falling for the spin of the “Republican hate machine” according to Kerry’s spokespersons.

Could Kerry be any more condescending to either the troops or the American public?

I’ve also found it interesting the biased way some of the media has covered this story. The focus has been on characterizing Kerry’s comments benignly as “remarks” and “criticisms”, while the Republicans have “unleashed a firestorm”, are “starting a stink”, ”hammered”, and gone on the “attack”.

But why wouldn’t it be fair to say instead that Republicans have responded with remarks and criticism? If you read Kerry’s rhetoric as of late while he’s been campaigning for the Democrats, his language and stance has been very aggressive, so why wouldn’t it be fair to describe him as unleashing a firestorm, hammering, and attacking Bush and the Republicans? The implication being of course is that people who “criticize” are supposed to be measured and thoughtful, but people who “attack” are angry and play to people’s fears and prejudices.

So, why the different character depictions from a press that's supposed to be objective as possible?