Monday, August 29, 2005


Hurricanes and oil

Mark Steyn nails our "watermelon" society in context with hurricane Katrina:

So the real test of this hurricane is whether, after the event, there's still the will to tackle the long-term questions. For example, as further refutation of the Diamond thesis, in 1981 America had 315 oil refineries in operation; today, it has 144.

Louisiana has 17 of them, operating - pre-hurricane - at capacity. Which is why petrol will be up 20 cents a gallon by the weekend. Why, in the middle of a war centred on unstable foreign oil regimes in the Middle East, is it still politically impossible to upgrade the capacity of the domestic oil industry?

As the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina demonstrate, mankind has got very good at responding to acts of God. We're not so hot at responding to the acts (political and cultural) of man.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005


Hateful, thy name is liberal

When you can't say anything to contribute to the dialogue, revert to the old standard of hatred and vitriol. The west coast papers seem unable to do anything else:

That's why, exposed by tough, smart, bereaved mother Cindy Sheehan, they retreat to the Bush-bunker and speak to their base - the greed-crazed tax haters, Christian ayatollahs, racists, gun worshippers and innocent but deluded souls who got Bush appointed in the first place.

Saturday, August 20, 2005


Dims and voter fraud

Richard Baehr describes the Dims and one of their flacks well:

The leftist clique that still cries about the stolen election of 2000 thinks that America had to move on quickly after the Clinton sex scandals (censure, not impeach). But they have not followed their own advice on how to deal with that controversy when it comes to the the Florida vote in 2000.

The best evidence we have is that Bush won Florida narrowly in 2000, very narrowly of course. But this is simply unacceptable to Bush haters. They can not let go. Much of the poisonous nature of the subsequent anti Bush rhetoric the last five years stems from the left's belief in the illegitimacy of his Presidency due to the 2000 race. Krugman is exhibit one for this failure to move on.

You win some and you lose some in politics. But when your leading pundits and voices are losers like Krugman, your party is not likely to make it to the promised land anytime soon.

Thursday, August 18, 2005


Opportunistic cowards

Today, even on FoxNews, the coverage of the Jewish expulsions from the Gaza strip shows by contrast the complete lack of coverage of Palestinian rioting which almost always results in deaths. Perhaps they only cover ths Jews because they are craven cowards afraid to leave their hotels when Islam is responsible.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005


Free speech

Jonah Goldberg takes on the doldrums of summer and describes what the chattering class does when there is nothing "better":

Look: It's deep August and Washington is about as hot and moist as the air pocket underneath one of those dudes you occasionally see on the evening news being pried from his bed with the jaws of life. So maybe I'm just being cranky. But, if you want to defend somebody's controversial statements, saying "so-and-so has the right to his opinion" doesn't get you out of the gate. It just sucks up air and fills space. Intellectually, it's got the nutritional value of Styrofoam. You might as well say "Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang" instead and then move on to your next point. It's not interesting, not smart, not insightful. Saying Cindy Sheehan has a right to criticize the president is like saying she's a carbon-based life form: True, but utterly beside the point.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005


Conservative vs liberal

Below is the best differentiation of the motives and effects of the conservative vs the liberal- the issue of who benefits most:

Finally, writes Joe McColgan Sr., of Philadelphia: "Having grown up in projects and poverty, my reason for declaring myself a conservative is: Liberals want to give you things; conservatives want you to earn things. Giving is most debilitating to the receiver and empowering to the giver."

Thursday, August 04, 2005


Hypocrisy and the ACLU

James Taranto summarized the latest hypocrisy of the ACLU (emphases mine):

"The American Civil Liberties Union has sued a school district on behalf of a 14-year-old rap music fan who was expelled after he posted lyrics on the Internet in which, according to police, he threatened to shoot up his school and named a potential victim," the Associated Press reports from Pittsburgh:

The ACLU said the songs by Anthony Latour, of Ellwood City, are protected speech, among other reasons, because they were composed at home and not brought to school. The suit says Latour's expulsion in May from the Riverside Beaver County School District violated his parents' right to control his upbringing.

"The school may not like Anthony's songs, but it is beyond their ability to dictate what he reads, writes or even raps at home," said Witold "Vic" Walczak, the ACLU of Pennsylvania's legal director. . . .

"It is our job, not that of school officials, to decide what music Anthony can compose and listen to in our home," Anthony's father, John Latour, said.

We tend to agree with the ACLU's position on this one, but we have to laugh at the idea that the group is an advocate of "his parents' right to control his upbringing." Would the ACLU support this principle if the Latours had a daughter and didn't want her to get an abortion? The question answers itself. Patriarchy is just fine, though, when the kid is a rapper or a husband wants to kill his disabled wife.

< type="text/javascript" src="">

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
free hit counter - Alabama Weblogs