Saturday, August 24, 2002
Life Imitates SNL: In an old episode of SNL, there was an episode where Paul Tsongas, Bill Clinton, and the rest of the prospective Democratic Nominees for the '92 campaign engage in a debate in front of a group of trekkies, basically showing how pathetic all of the candidates were. Well, now we have a real life equivalent. Tim Hagan is running for governor of Ohio and is married to Kate Mulgrew, who played Captain Janeway on the show. So now Hagan did a big fundraiser with .a bunch of Star Trek Actors, including the One True Shatner. Supposedly he isn't doing too well in the polls. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, though. Who could trust the judgement of a guy who marries the most incompetent captain in StarFleet history?
McDonald's burgers I'd like to see: McFisk: Comes wrapped in sackcloth. Every time you bite it, it yells out that it understands that your eating the burger is a cry of frustration over years of oppression at the hands of the West. McEUro: Comes wrapped in the former currency of EU nations. Is free of genetically engineered beef, uses ethnically correct bread, and is topped with EU approved leeks. Tastes absolutely disgusting. McPalestinian: When you bite it, it explodes. When you don't bite it, it explodes. McArafat: When the McPalestinian explodes, the McArafat tells you it is your own fault for not paying attention to the McPalestinian's needs. McSaddam: Noone's ever eaten a McSaddam. Every time someone tried to cook it, it killed everyone in the restaurant with toxic fumes. McUSSR: You only get a bun. You are on a waiting list for the meat, which you will get in 5 years or so. McFrance: The most "complex" burger McDonald's has. Noone can stand it, but the Germans devour it every 40 years or so. McSaudi: Otherwise known as the Ingrate Deluxe with oil.
For the ultimate in weeniedom, check out the reaction to the McDonald's McAfrika burger. A hole bunch of holier than thou NGO have got a bug up their posterior because McDonald's patterned a burger after an African dish of some sort.(In reality, it is probably like all everything else from McD's a microscopic fraction of ethnicity added to the generic Big Mac). The EUroweenies are angry because they think it is "insensitive" for McDonald's to sell a McAfrica burger while Africans are starving. There are two big problems with this. First of all, whether or not McDonald's calls it the McAfrica, the McWeenie burger, or just plain Bob won't make a difference to any starving Africans at all, and renaming it won't put any food in their mouths. Secondly, and this is the real issue, is that protesting the McAfrica burger is probably one of the best examples of the racist quality of these organizations. The implication is that because they are Africans, they can't take care of themselves, and are doomed to starvation. That is simply a case of the white man's burden, and it is appallingly racist. Instead of targeting the thugocracies(Mugabe) and general lawlessness(Somalia) in Africa that creates starvation, they make the assumption that it is because, well, they're
colored people Africans, and naturally, colored people Africans can't take care of themselves. Therefore McDonald's is being appallingly insensitive, because it is so patently obvious that colored people Africans are congenitally incompetent, that for McDonald's to use African culture to make a meal is a form of mockery, akin to asking the mentally retarded to recite Shakespeare.
These are the same people who defend Arab regimes, and don't demand of them the same respect for human rights that they ask of the rest of the world. They engage in the worst kind of racism, the racism of low expectations.
Thursday, August 22, 2002
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
Time for another Fisking. I'm setting the fiskomatic at full auto, and aiming at Crazy Cynthia's "concession" speech.(Yes, I think scare quotes are warranted)
Quiet, please. Listen. Listen closely. That's the history train -- and it's still rolling -- no matter what happened today.And since you are history, you get the first class ticket on the history train to Loserville, with stops at Incompetentburg, and Apologist Junction.
I rode the history train to Congress in 1992, and many of you rode the train with me. And many more of you joined me along the way."Like you, Hamas, and you, CAIR, and especially you, Crazy Louie"
And while the tracks got a little rough this campaign, I am proud to announce: This train hasn't stopped. This train hasn't slowed down. We are going full speed ahead.Right into the brick wall built by the voters.
I want to congratulate Denise Majette. I may not agree with the kind of campaign she ran, but she will need all our prayers to face the coming storm. I spoke to her moments ago and congratulated her personally.Yes. What a horrible campaign. She didn't take money from a single Islamofascist, she actually said nice things about Jews, and worst of all, she actually courted the votes of white people. There oughtta be a law against that.
And assured her that I would not help the Republicans.By spouting her mouth off and turning the Democrat party into a laughingstock.
In Congress, doing what is right is not always easy. Sometimes you are faced with a choice between doing what is politically safe or doing what is right.And in her case, sometimes a choice that is neither politically safe or right.
Sometimes you have to stand up to seemingly unbeatable odds, speak the truth to the most powerful interests, to do what is right."But usually I don't do that."
Sometimes you win. And sometimes you lose.Thankfully for the country, it was the latter.
Tonight I have lost an election. But I maintain my spirit, my courage, my dignity and my commitment to the truth, to peace and to the future. And I want to assure you that:However, her commonsense, as always, is nowhere to be found.
But I am hopeful, because we are all here for a cause much, much greater than ourselves.Preventing Cynthia McKinney from being elected dogcatcher anywhere in the country.
I am confident that we will continue to make a difference in our community, be a voice for the voiceless and speak truth to power.Or in your case, spew mindless drivel to anyone in earshot.
I am optimistic that although I lost an election tonight I will continue to fight for truth, justice and the American way[big link], and I will continue to stand up to anyone who seeks to rob us of our rights and deny us the opportunity to succeed.Well that explains it. Cynthia, strange visitor from another planet who came to earth with idiocies far beyond the capabilities of mortal men. Cynthia, who can bend logic in her bare hands, twist the meaning of the word terrorist, and who, stuck as a congresswoman for another 4 months, continues her neverending struggle to Distort Truth, Justice and the American Way. Gee, Cynthia, if you are going to plagiarize, at least don't do it from comic books.
I am proud to tell you tonight that I'm not getting off the history train just yet."Because, me, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton are hoping the train will stop somewhere in Legacyville."
Somewhere tonight, a man is making himself a bed of newspapers and cardboard on the sidewalks of the city."That man is my campaign manager."
Today, even in defeat, I have been lifted. Lifted upon the shoulders of the people of Georgia.Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say "lifted OFF the shoulders of the people of Georgia." Noone has to hang their head in shame again at saying they are from the fourth congressional district of Georgia.
I have been lifted on the wings of hope and justice and peace.Give those wings back! You are wrecking them with the weights of leftism, appeasement, and the kissing of islamofascist butts.
We are all on the train called History -- and we are ringing the bell called Freedom.I don't know about you, but I'm on the train called the Future. You are going the other way, into history, just past Loserville, where you and Al Gore watch MSNBC and eat potato chips and say, "see, I could have done that."
And even though I won't be in Congress for a couple of years, I will continue to be a voice, a champion, a warrior and a challenger. I will continue to speak truth to power and put what's right, what's true, what's fair and what's just over all else.Great. She's going to come back. Just like Freddy Kreuger.
The BBC calls Abu Nidal a guerilla. They also said he was very cuddly and only felt happy when he was feeding orphans and caring for injured puppies.
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
U.S. to Seek Mideast Reforms Programs Aim to Foster Democracy, Education, Markets If this is true, then this is a policy that is long overdue. There are some bits in the article that sound like they might require some light fisking, but it's after midnight, and I want to do my fisking when I'm bright eyed and bushy tailed. Besides, I love the smell of fisking in the morning, it smells like victory.
Suman Palit talks about India/Pakistan relations(or lack thereof) and how long term we should be backing the Indians. He has a good point about that, though he is wrong about how American relations with Pakistan are simply a rehash of Cold War relations. During the Cold War Pakistan was for the United States the Asian equivalent to the "bastions of democracy" that littered Latin America during the 70's. Sure, they were SOBs, but they were our SOBs. They gave us bases where we could spy on the Russians, they let us use their territory for arming the Afghan Mujahedin, and were a hedge against India, who at that time had taken a significantly pro-Soviet tilt after the British left. After the Cold War ended, however, Pakistan's utility as an ally ceased. We weren't sending anything to Afghanistan anymore, the serious conflict between Russian and American interests waned, and India was no longer going to be an outpost for the Red Banner Fleet. India's relations with the United States warmed significantly, and the United States was no longer willing to be the protector for a nuclear armed Pakistan. Now fast forward to post 9/11 and look at relations with US-Pakistan relations today. The only reason Pakistan is not a smoking hole today is because Musharraf realized that if he did not align foursquare with the United States in attacking Afghanistan, he would wind up being attacked alongside Afghanistan. We did not give him the option of neutrality. India actually offered the use of their bases first, and we probably would have used them, but the cold hard reality is that the geography favored Pakistan for us. Sadly, we need to use Pakistan territory to keep our army properly supplied, and that will not change so long as Iran is completely hostile to the United States. The closest Indian base is still quite a bit farther from Afghanistan than the most remote Pakistani base, and that extra distance translates into more accidents, greater usage of fuel, and pilot fatigue. Also, even if Pakistan gave overflight rights in that situation, US aircraft will still be flying across a border that is functionally at war, and having American choppers get lit up by air search radars before it even crosses into enemy territory is a bad thing. Now the big question is if this is a permanent condition or not? That depends quite a bit on what happens in Iraq. Iraq is the first domino in the ME. When the United States topples Iraq, it will give the United States enormous strategic leverage over every other state in the region. Iraq also can act as a true bastion of democracy in the Middle East. This has strong implications on its next door neighbor, Iran. Iran is a (cliche alert)powder keg waiting to blow, and the example of a free Iraq may be the match to set it off. Eventually, there will be a revolution in Iran, and the Ayatollahs will be overthrown. If that happens, there is a quite high probability that the future Iranian government will be pro-American, and democratic as well. What is the importance of an Iranian revolution to India? The importance is that a pro-American Iranian regime means that a second country could open up a land route to Afghanistan. That obviates Pakistan's utility to the United States, and while we won't toss Pakistan overboard the way we will with Saudi Arabia(soon to be New Texas), we won't have to rely on Pakistan to supply American troops in Afghanistan. If Iran falls, then eventually Musharraf will go the way of Marcos, and a "helpful" United States will give him a nice comfortable place to spend the rest of his days in West Palm Beach. The biggest problem today is that there isn't a single representative government from the Jordan to the Ganges rivers. When we take out Iraq, there will be a chance for there to be nothing but democracies from the Jordan to the Ganges. And if that occurs, the world will be a far better place. Update:One thing that may also play into the mix is the role of China. The United States is going to need another country to be a foil to the Chinese, who are quite likely to be our enemies in the future. That means that we will need to go to India and Russia eventually to fill that role.
From the Divided Sympathies department: Who should I wish get struck by lightning? The nutjob artist who created this exhibit, or the Animal rights nutjobs who want it banned? Is hoping they both play in the same open field during a thunderstorm too much to ask?
Why is Phil Donahue's show tanking in the ratings? While Donahue is a grating blowhard, I don't think the ratings are tanking because of his style. If that were the case, Bill O'Reilly would be in the ratings gutter right alongside him. It is because of substance. Donahue sympathises with every crackpot leftist in the world, and puts them on his show. In the past week, he has had on Michael Moore, some Frenchman who thinks that we attacked Afghanistan to build a pipeline, and various and sundry others of the leftist tin foil hat crowd. The Donahue show is one continuous self-administered fisking.
Everyone thinks that the death of Abu Nidal by the Iraqis is an unquestionably good thing. I don't think so. The reason why the Iraqis plugged him was for payback from something Yassir Arafat has done or for something he is going to do in the future. The Palestinian/Israeli cease fire is part of that. Arafat is planning something big and he needs the IDF off of his back. Luckily for him, the addled asses of appeasement in the Israeli Labor party are pressuring Sharon to play kissy face with the Palestinians, which will give Arafat time to do something really painful either to us or the Israelis to draw attention away from Iraq. Sharon should have given Arafat a 5.56mm enema after the Passover bombings when he had the chance. A real scumbag was killed, yes, but that does not mean we are safer as a result. Possibly, we are less safe.
Monday, August 19, 2002
Palestinians Promise to Keep Peace In other news, Bill Clinton promised to stay away from White House interns today.
The New York Times has an article/editorial about how moslems fear an anti-moslem backlash over 9/11. One might think that moslem community tried to create moral equivalencies over 9/11, and played a lot of "Yes, it was evil, but..." games. Oh wait. I forgot. That actually happened.
OK, I promised last Friday that I would do a group fisking of all the columns that quote Brent Scowcroft prominently. I was hoping to catch Chris Matthews in one of his feminine vapors but alas, 'twas not to be. If he has another case of the feminine vapors, rest assurred I'll give him a proper fisking, and perhaps some prozac as well. First off, let's point the Fiskomatic 3000 in the direction of the New York Times:
Brent Scowcroft is a cautious, deliberate manSure he is a cautious deliberate man. He cautiously helped put us in an open ended commitment in the middle east, and he deliberately prevented our soldiers from protecting the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq. Yep, cautious and deliberate all right.
That Mr. Scowcroft would publicly question the current president on a matter as sensitive as Iraq is an extraordinary challenge to the Bush administration as it weighs whether to go to war to oust Saddam Hussein from power.I have a better challenge to the editors of the New York Times. Why don't you "challenge" Mr. Scowcroft about how the policy of letting Saddam live, a policy he and Colin Powell were extraordinarily complicit, helped to contribute to the September 11 attacks. Why doesn't Howell Raines "challenge" Neville Scowcroft about how if we had done so, our troops would have been home by now?
Since Sept. 11 President Bush has demonstrated strong leadership in his role as commander in chief. He must now resist the temptation to see Mr. Scowcroft's comments and other questioning as carping from the sidelines.Of course it isn't carping from the sidelines. Neville Scowcroft is secretary of--um, er, ok, so he is carping from the sidelines. Just don't say he is. That wouldn't be right.
Mr. Bush and his aides may yet be able to make a solid case for military action in one of the most volatile parts of the world.But not one that would be satisfactory to the left wing super-appeasers that publish the New York Times. Now we take the Fiskomatic to the Cokie and Steve Show("Say, 'I'm a left winger,' Cokie" "I'm a left winger, Cokie."):
The president has yet to argue either of these points effectively. Unless and until he does, he won't generate the support he needs ? from the public, the Congress or America's allies.This of course, explains the lackluster 70% approval for going to war in Iraq.
Even if Saddam has the weapons and the connections to attack America, does he have the will? Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, is among the doubters: "I think that he is not suicidal." Former Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a close adviser to President Bush's father, agrees: "This is not a man who will risk everything on the roll of a dice."This is what happens when columnists pick peaceniks and appeasers as their choice of sources. Here is a thought for you two lovebirds to ponder: Was the invasion of Iran by Iraq a shrewd act of geostrategy, or a bone headed strategy that put the country in an 8 year long quagmire? Here is another tidbit for you to contemplate: Would anyone in their right mind in 1991 believe that the United States would not go to liberate Kuwait if it was invaded, and would have no problem doing so against the likes of Iraq?
Perhaps the president can convince the American people, and his foreign friends, that those costs and risks are worth it. But he has not done that yet.Perhaps you should do some polling of the American people that consists of people other than you two lovebirds and Boy George Stephenopulous. After a quick reload, we point the fiskomatic at William Saletan of Slate.
Jordan. Turkey. Germany. England. Henry Kissinger. Brent Scowcroft. Dick Armey. Republican senators. The State Department. American military officers. The circle of governments, officials, and advisers openly critical of President Bush's Iraqi war plans draws ever closer to Bush and his family. Bush argues that his case for war is persuasive and that if he leads, others will follow. But increasingly, he is making that argument to a circle of would-be allies who are unpersuaded and aren't following. He is proving himself wrong.Read the polls Bill, OK? Has-been status quo ante Republicans and hate-America first leftists might agree with you, but the bulk of the American people already believe Bush has made his case. Jordan has let troops into its country. Special forces are operating out of Turkey. Henry Kissinger is in favor of the war. So far, your list is getting a little shorter by the minute.
The multilateralist view ? expressed in Thursday?s Wall Street Journal by Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Bush?s father ? is that allies are necessary and that we can?t afford to alienate them. ?[T]here is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time,? wrote Scowcroft. ?Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. ? [W]e simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation.?Bill, that isn't being multilateralist. That is putting one's head in the sand.
Bush can argue all day about the power of presidential leadership to rally the public, or about the power of American leadership to rally the world. As long as he?s having that argument with his political friends and allies, he?s refuting himself.Read the polls, Bill. Read the polls. Though it is really just too easy(like hunting ducks with a 5" AA gun), now lets point the fiskomatic in the direction of uber-illogician Maureen Dowd:
Bellicose Bushies have yet to offer a sustained and persuasive rationale for jumping Saddam, beyond yammering about how "evil" he is, as if he had a monopoly on that.As I've said before here, read the polls, Mo, read the polls. If Bush is unpersuasive, shouldn't the country agree with you, and not him?
Poppy bequeathed his son, a foreign affairs neophyte, his own trusted Desert Storm team, with Dick Cheney as surrogate father. But Mr. Cheney brought in Don Rumsfeld, an old rival of Poppy's, and he was joined at the Pentagon by Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. This group is far more conservative, unilateral, ideological and belligerent than the worldly realists: 41, Scowcroft, Colin Powell and James Baker.Let us not forget, O Queen of Comment by Invective, that your vaunted "worldly realists" created the mess we are dealing with today. Had we gone to Baghdad in 1991, our soldiers would be home by now, and we wouldn't be forced to deal with a rearmed Iraq. But of course, you couldn't trouble yourself with thinking about that, after all, you were too busy making these lovely zingers:
Who needs a war plan? We need family therapy.And that says all about Maureen Dowd that you need to know. Forget logic when neato zingers are far easier to write. OK. I'm putting away the Fiskomatic for now. Rest assured however, that I'll probably find some more of the appeasers-as-realists to fisk in the future. And every single one of them will quote Scowcroft.