Reasonable Nuts

Sometimes nuts. Always reasonable. We are REASONABLE NUTS.

Friday, September 30, 2005

hello, Kettle. yeah, Pot here. um... you're black.

so just the other day, as my cohorts and i here at Reasonable Nuts are discussing who and what to permalink over there on the left side of the page (subject to change), i sorta dissed Ann Coulter as "too nutty" for officially pimping her work here. she is indeed a nut. but do you see the irony? hello, Kettle. yeah, Pot here. um... you're black.

she is indeed reasonable - unlike many (most?) of those about whom she chooses to write. i find that she is strangely at her most reasonable when she is agreeing with me. ;-)

such was the case yesterday, when tangentially making the case that our President is far from the conservative he claims to be, when judged by his endorsements. take for instance these observations:
In 2002, Bush backed liberal Richard Riordan in the Republican gubernatorial primary in California against conservative Bill Simon. This triggered a series of events that culminated in Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming the governor of California. But I don't think even liberals would claim Karl Rove had a plan for California voters to elect Democrat Gray Davis, erupt in a rage at him, and demand a recall election in which a famous Hollywood actor would enter the race and beat the sitting governor.

In 2004, Bush backed liberal Republican Arlen Specter over conservative Pat Toomey in the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania. Bush still lost Pennsylvania and, worst of all, Specter won. So that worked out well.

In 2004, Bush backed Mel Martinez for the open Senate seat in Florida and asked the magnificent Katherine Harris not to run against him, so she graciously bowed out. Martinez has since called on Bush to shut down Guantanamo. What's Spanish for "buyer's remorse"?

This year, rumors have it that Bush is again discouraging the magnificent Harris not to run for the Senate. Here's hoping she ignores him. How much would Bush's support be worth to Harris at this point anyway? If Bush really wants to keep Katherine Harris out of the U.S. Senate, maybe he should just endorse her.

Also this year, Bush is backing developmentally disabled Lincoln Chafee over the only Republican in the race, Stephen Laffey, Harvard MBA and mayor of Cranston, R.I. Chafee opposes Bush on taxes, Iraq, abortion and gay marriage. This man is literally too stupid to know he's a Democrat. If Chafee hadn't inherited hundreds of millions of dollars, he would be living in a shack tending weeds. In the last election, Chafee famously refused to vote for Bush, instead writing in Bush's father.
her overall point is not to lambaste Bush so much as to lay the case that strategist Karl Rove is not the conservative genius he is believed to be:
Karl Rove is Bob Shrum with a good cause. (Shrum has run eight presidential campaigns; number won: 0, number lost: 8.) Bush calls Rove the "architect" of his 2004 victory. In 2004, America was at war and the Democrats ran a gigolo to be commander in chief. The nation hasn't changed so much since Reagan was president that the last election should have even been close.
but in the process she casts serious doubt on a President who would:
  1. hold conservative values in his mind and heart, yet go against those values at the behest of his political handlers. [animal most resembling: jellyfish]
  2. as above, but not understand what sort of politicians this would lead him to endorse. [animal most resembling: any, fossilized]
  3. merely claim to be conservative, while actually at root a neocon (short for neo-conservative or, in my estimation, NO-conservative. hmmm - nocon... it has a ring to it.). this would be something far more akin to his father (with his "new world order" mantra) than one would ever have thought when he intoned the name of Jesus Christ on stage in a debate. [animal most resembling: weasel, the animal most politicians resemble]

Thursday, September 29, 2005

take that, che lovers!

communism killed 100,000,000 people and all i got was this lousy shirt.anthony daniels (no, not the actor who played C-3PO in the star wars films) writes of the recent fascination with Guevara:
The latest and propagandistically most powerful product of the Guevara cult is a film of Guevara’s Motorcycle Diaries by the Brazilian director Walter Salles. It relies for its effect upon the fact that audiences will all know a minimum about Guevara: for example, that he was a social revolutionary who died in the jungles of Bolivia, and never made a penny for himself. But they will otherwise know little of his actual opinions or actions, and will not have read his tedious and inflexibly dogmatic speeches and writings. It is as if someone were to make a film about Adolf Hitler by portraying him as a vegetarian who loved animals and was against unemployment. This would be true, but again would be rather beside the point.
even the liberal Slate magazine has this to say of Che:
The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination.
a far more humorous article is found in the archives of from 2002.

"a forum for conservative thought on film"

i happened across an interesting site recently: libertas, which promotes itself as "a forum for conservative thought on film". it's spearheaded by writer/director Jason Apuzzo, who has a PhD in Germanic literature among his accomplishments. have any of the other nuts come across this site before? it's quite interesting. the first entry of discussion today is a dialogue between NY Times film critic A.O. Scott and Apuzzo. take for instance, this comment regarding the marketing to conservatives taking place:
As you seem to acknowledge, we’re probably at a very early stage of this. An example that comes to mind: this summer’s The Island. A good friend of ours who works routinely with Michael Bay advised Bay to aggressively market the film to conservative audiences, due to the film’s ‘pro-life’ implications. Bay apparently did not take the idea seriously until it was too late - although it’s unclear whether Dreamworks would’ve gone along with that kind of thing, anyhow. The point being that the conservative sensibility - or whatever we’re calling this - is not something routinely factored into studio thinking in the same way that, say, studios aggressively cater to comic book fans. Conservatives are not a ‘demographic’ or ‘niche’ market that the studios seem particularly interested in, a few recent films notwithstanding. There is obviously some movement here with respect to Christian audiences, but that only represents the tip of the iceberg with respect to the overall conservative community.


"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."

i've seen the above quote attributed to both Albert Einstein and Admiral Hyman Rickover. anyone got a clue which is is (if either)?

Matt Towery has a good idea and it's all about that word: idea.
Ideas are the power of any political party. In 1980, Ronald Reagan took advantage of the public's general frustration, and the high economic "misery index," to usher in bold new ideas about the economy and to rebuild the national defense.

Newt Gingrich's "Class of 1994" didn't win Congress based on Gingrich's charm -- or, back then, the lack thereof. He did it with his Contract with America, a fresh and fleshed-out policy agenda.

So now we must ponder whether the GOP's battered leadership will embrace bold and inventive new ideas, or simply tread water.
in my opinion, the leadership of the house and senate must go, for they have a serious credibility problem given their personal issues, spendthrift ways, and as Towery aptly puts, their lack of ideas. so with whom to replace the ousted leaders? it's not a whom, but a what - a series of whats - which Towery suggests... ideas. here's one he suggests, with which i concur (having written about at TIFI):
Readers of this column know that I have been following the unique and exciting proposal in Congress known as "The Fair Tax." Another long explanation of the proposal is not needed. Let me simply note that a well-conceived consumption tax could end the income tax as we know it.

I find it interesting that while a book about the tax has soared to the top of the New York Times best seller list, the proposed tax seems to be generating little excitement in Washington.

Interesting, yes. Surprising, no. Congress and Washington aren't places to embrace new and needed ideas. And it's no secret that the very existence of many Washington trade associations and governmental affairs firms hinges on their ability to win tax breaks for their clients. If there's suddenly no convoluted tax code, there are also no big fees for them.

drunken sailors: part 8 - some sobriety among sailors

from Robert Novak:
The Senate was up to its old tricks Monday evening. It prepared to pass, without debate and under a procedure requiring unanimous consent, a federal infusion of $9 billion into state Medicaid programs under the pretext of Katrina relief. The bill, drafted in secret under bipartisan auspices, was stopped cold when Republican Sen. John Ensign voiced his objection.
further detail on the bloc of remaining fiscal conservatives in the senate:
Fear has enveloped Republicans who see themselves handing the banner of fiscal integrity to the Democrats. The GOP is losing the rhetoric war, even though Democrats mostly push for higher domestic spending, because Republicans, while standing firm against tax increases, have also declined to cut spending. Fearing the worst in the 2006 and 2008 elections, Republican senators who would not be expected to do so are looking to McCain to lead the party back to fiscal responsibility.
i know little of Ensign, but of McCain i know too much. am i willing to accept his socially liberal ways and his sometimes very bad legislation (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform) for his fiscally responsible ways? what about you?

scumbag muckrakers

as a victim of identity theft, this P's me O quite seriously:
Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a rising star in the party, is considering a Senate bid for the Maryland seat being vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes next year. Apparently threatened by the prospect of a strong, popular, black Republican candidate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee got down and dirty. Two of Schumer's staffers on the committee, including a former top researcher for David Brock's left-wing "think tank," obtained Steele's confidential credit report by using his Social Security number, which they had reportedly culled from court records.
the responsible parties must be punished and done so in a way which serves as a strong deterrent to those (with any political axe to grind) who would consider such crimes.

doubleplusgood news from the AppleBig front

Your attention please!
A newsflash has this moment arrived from the AppleBig front!
Our forces in north america have won a glorious victory!
I am authorized to say that the action we are now reporting
May well bring the war within measurable distance of its end.
Here is the newsflash...:
Governor George Pataki has cancelled plans to build the controversial International Freedom Center at the World Trade Center site - and representatives of the center say the location change has forced the entire project to be scrapped.

The center had drawn criticism from some 9/11 victims’ family members because it would not focus exclusively on the terror attacks. Family members also said the IFC could potentially contain exhibits that were anti-American.

Pataki said Wednesday that he’s given the center a chance to clarify its intentions, but there’s just too much opposition.

In a statement, Pataki said: “The creation of an institution that would show the world our unity and our resolve to preserve freedom in the wake of the horrific attacks is a noble pursuit. But freedom should unify us. This center has not.”

The governor asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to work with the IFC to explore other locations for the center, but representatives of the center have decided to scrap the idea completely.

In a statement, the IFC said: “We are deeply disappointed that the will could not be found to continue the development of the International Freedom Center at this hallowed site. We do not believe there is a viable alternative place for the IFC at the World Trade Center site. We consider our work, therefore, to have been brought to an end.”
sorry to George Orwell and the Eurythmics for the lame misappropriation of their work. :-)

here's background on why this is a glorious victory for our forces.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

drunken sailors: part 7 - drunk sailor dunked

Sep 28, 2005 — HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) - The second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, said on Wednesday he would step aside temporarily from his leadership post following an indictment on a campaign-finance charge.

A grand jury in Travis County, Texas, indicted DeLay on a single felony conspiracy charge related to fund-raising activities by a political action committee he created, CNN and the Austin American-Statesman newspaper reported.

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County District Attorney today," DeLay said in a statement.
like a New Orleans levee of late, perhaps the political dam is finally breaking and the corruption of conservative values within the Republican leadership is being washed away.

let it flow!

"euphoria": euphemism for "irrational exuberance"?

i just commented the other day - in part 2 of my 74-part series, "drunken sailors" that Fed chairman Alan Greenspan had let slip to a French minister the comment that the legislature and executive of the U.S. gov't had "lost control" of the deficit and that those comments sounded to me much like his "irrational exuberance" comments of December 1996, regarding the run-up of valuation in equities. now come the following comments, delivered yesterday:
Sept. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said asset prices often fall after long periods of stability and ``euphoria,'' echoing warnings he's issued over the past year that investors may be too complacent about risk.

``A decline in perceived risk is often self-reinforcing in that it encourages presumptions of prolonged stability,'' Greenspan told the National Association for Business Economics in Chicago today. ``Extended periods of low concern about credit risk have invariably been followed by reversal'' in asset prices.

While the Fed chairman didn't say which asset prices concern him, the speech came just one day after he said speculators may be driving up housing prices and creating a risk because so many Americans rely on home appreciation to support spending. Earlier this year he called the rally in bond prices a ``conundrum,'' given that the Fed is raising interest rates.
Greenspan is but a man and it must be pointed-out that his comments re: "irrational exuberance" were followed by another 4 years of significant increases in equities values. but it should also be considered that Greenspan's recent "slips" are certainly not slips at all, but carefully worded warnings - and that well-respected economic thinkers (and actors) such as former Fed chairman Paul Volcker and uber-investor Warren Buffet are saying quite similar things.

drunken sailors: part 6 - or - with "conservatives" like this, who needs liberals?

i liked the dialogue between queen_spoo and myself regarding Bill Maher's recent verbal meltdown concerning First Lady Laura Bush - especially how i somehow managed to morph the discussion back into my current talking points concerning the utter lack of fiscal restraint among the leadership anywhere in the federal government. :-)

thus, i post that dialogue here as the 6th installment in the series "drunken sailors"...
queen_spoo said...

I saw this article earlier today as well, and it shows such the double standard today that liberals are excused in saying things of this nature with hardly a blink, but if a Republican/conservative/etc. said it, they would be roasted in the media and the call for firing would begin.

This comment by Maher is particularly scary: "but the idea that we somehow humanize any person because somebody else loves them is ridiculous." Is he implying that he denies human qualities to someone he hates, regardless of if they're loved by others? That's a dangerous position...

Perhaps you are right about the mental disorder--it should be added to Axis II diagnoses: Liberal Personality Disorder.

9/27/2005 10:34 PM


xopher (the kola nut) said...

spoken like a true mental health professional! ;-)

well, that's Savage's assertion - not mine - that liberalism is a mental disorder. it's a cute saying for those of us on the right, but they seem fighting words, with little chance of winning converts. and there's a good point in that phrase... "winning converts"... my desire to see leftists rightists is motivated by a deeply-seated conviction that they are causing themselves, their families, and their society grievous injury with the actions based upon their thinking (feeling). it's far more that than a desire to see more members on "my team". shoot - i can't even figure out what "my team" is! ;-)

but back to that point (liberalism as a mental disorder): it does appear to me that the actions of liberals do not always (or often, in the case of many) square with the core of their ideology, which to me would seem a tell-tale sign of delusion or denial - which could be termed a form of insanity, though i don't pretend to be fully versed in the terminology of the DSM-MCXVIII.

not that "conservatives" hold to the core of their ideology very well today - which is precisely what has me so irked (and having written the 5th part of a series entitled "drunken sailors"). conservatism is innately more difficult than liberalism, for it entails firmly believing (and living) the desirous, but difficult lesson (which should be) learned in childhood: sometimes "no" is the correct answer, no matter how hard an answer it may be.

such is why i love the comment of "Cavalier" i quoted in part 5: "With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?" one could as easily add, "with conservatives like this, who needs liberals?"

9/28/2005 8:49 AM

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

drunken sailors: part 5 - the wrath of khan

as i continued to read the discussion on's C-Log re: what to do about the Republican party, i ran across this fine set of points from poster "Cavalier". i snip the salient bits here:
The problem is clear. Self-proclaimed conservatives either won't or don't want to get out of the shadow of the GOP. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? Can it be that liberals are willing to challenge their leaders, but conservatives are not? It's possible. We are in denial, folks. And if the comments of the President and Mr. Delay don't cause people to become outraged we have to ask why? Is it because the moment anyone questions this President his mouthpieces suggest you're a liberal or traitor?


No, it's the GOP that's the problem. Beware of those who constantly tell you that without the Republicans the country is ruins. It's an excuse for absolute LICENSE! I remind you that 3/4 of the time Bill Clinton was in office Republicans were supposedly up on the Hill defending our interests. Bull!

To restore Conservatism some pretty unconservative methods are going to have to be employed. For those who can tell the difference between limited government and just less-liberal-than-the Democrat it's going to take an end to "Winner-take-all" elections. We don't need any more than two permanent parties, but those that are MUST be distinct from one another and accountable to their electorate. This business of playing to the base then moving to the so-called Center (which remarkably resembles defending everything the Dems have ever created) is the fruit of Winner-take-all. And that includes the eleven liberal Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents compared to 3 who actually do the right thing. (One of those just died.)

And since the Democrats are the reason for this mess in the first place we know this means A Third Party. And if there is only one thing such a party can do that the Reps and Dems can't, it's legitimately revoke all the Campaign laws that do more to protect Incumbents than purify them. Until these happen Conservatism is merely a punchline to a very bad joke.

But to get them done a new movement has to stand for something more than process. People have forgotten what it means to be Conservative and that there are Republicans who just aren't. Liberalism was started when the 16th and 17th Amendments were added to (or rather first repealed) the Constitution. The only time this has been done constitutionally. If Conservatism is to win, it's adherents must not only tackle the Dems they have to take on those who aren't willing to lose one election in order to win two that really matter. The GOP can win the next 8 elections by doing what they're doing. I'd rather split them 4 a apiece if it meant actually tackling the tough choices.

You say a Hurricane flooded your city because you needed to pay for welfare and free-healthcare instead of a new levee, then maybe your city shouldn't be rebuilt at taxpayer expense. In order for a new party to work at-least a third of the country must really believe in a tough-shit stance. I think that's what Americans expected 1994 was gonna be about, but didn't get. If not, then it's already over.

To get Conservatism, Federalism must be returned to the Senate and the Federal Income Tax must be revoked (perhaps creatively). Once limits are reimposed on the politicians then they can fight it out over what is really compassionate and what is playing to their basist instincts in order to win elections.

(And if you give me a line about the difficulty of amending the Constitution then you really aren't getting my drift.)
i love the comment "With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?"

drunken sailors: part 4

i am actually becoming rather encouraged by the discussions brewing on some of the better conservative websties regarding the spendthrift ways of the republican leadership (in both houses of congress, as well as in the executive offices). Dan Mitchell posts on the C(Conservative)-Log "soapbox":
Townhall columns from Jonah Goldberg, Jacob Sullum, and Mona Charen should make any conservative nauseous. They expose a Republican Party - at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - that has cast aside principles in an effort to buy votes. At some point, conservatives probably will realize that the long-term interests of the nation are best served by a GOP defeat. Can anyone suggest another approach to cleanse the ideological corruption that infests the Republican Party?
he then summarizes each of their fine posts.

interestingly, thought not unpredictably, the comments following Mitchell's post have turned into a discussion regarding libertarianism and the Libertarian Party (LP). that often seems to be the (rightful) first place fiscal conservatives turn when fed-up with the Republican Party. however, the current LP is beholden to special interests that are out-of-step with mainstream desires - notably drug legalization / decriminalization.

i suggest there could be breakaway elements of the Republican and Libertarian parties which might recombine into something which holds to fiscal responsibility and a certain set of conservative core social values. the Libertarians would have to give up their more controversial issues as would the Republicans. though personally i am in favor of drug decriminalization and against all abortions, i would be willing to lay down both issues for the time being - in order to stabilize our runaway government.

that's good imagery: a runaway government. what does a governor do? it regulates a system - be it a machine or an administration - by applying a dampening or attenuating effect on that system. a runaway governor would do so to the point of causing that system to cease functioning efficiently or perhaps even completely. does anyone really desire this, save for the few true anarchists among us? well, yes - they and their self-loathing America-hating brethren. but even most of those - if truly pressed - would have to admit that an America with no money is an America which can't undo the "wrongs" they believe it has perpetrated. in order to redistribute wealth, there must be wealth to redistribute.

i call on all clear-thinking leftists, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians to band together for the purpose of supporting legislators and an executive which would:
  1. take off the current budget all entitlement (social security, medicare) revenue. this would have the effect of showing the true federal receipts.

  2. balance the resulting budget with REAL figures (estimates agreed upon by a non-partisan agency).

  3. allocate some portion (10-20%) of that budget to debt retirement (eliminating the $8 trillion national debt over time).

  4. pass a constitutional amendment requiring the budget to be henceforth balanced except in time of national emergency (requiring a supermajority vote).

THEN and only then can we reasonably talk about dealing with entitlement spending. so long as it is mired in the current-year budget, the true picture is near impossible to envision.

are ye with me?

drunken sailors: part 3

Bruce Bartlett chimes in with comments right along the line of what i've been posting here at Reasonable Nuts:
I explained that I am not particularly a deficit hawk, nor do the size of the Bush tax cuts bother me. What really bothers me is the orgy of spending by Republicans. It is just appalling that the recent highway bill had 5,000 “earmarks” in it. These are almost without exception, utterly unjustified pork barrel projects.

I am further appalled by President’s Bush’s unwillingness to use his veto pen to maintain some semblance of fiscal discipline. He is the first president to serve a full term without vetoing anything since John Quincy Adams, who served from 1824 to 1828.
for more info, see:
drunken sailors: part 2 and
drunken sailors

perhaps liberalism is indeed a mental disorder

Steve Malzberg details the (unfortunately not particularly) shocking assertions made by Bill Maher recently on one of his shows. read this exchange between Maher and guest Christopher Hitchens:
After the photo display, the host was taken to task by guest Christopher Hitchens, who decided he was going to make an attempt to defend the president: "It must be to his credit he got Laura Bush to marry him. She's an absolutely extraordinary woman."

But Hitchens was interrupted by Maher who blurted out: "Oh, come on. That's like Hitler's dog loved him. That is the silliest reason. ..."

At that point Hitchens jumped in: "I think tomorrow you might be sorry you said that. Laura Bush is very gentle and talented."


Maher then said, "That's not what I'm saying, of course she is, but the idea that we somehow humanize any person because somebody else loves them is ridiculous."

Hitchens then said of Laura: "She got him to give up the booze, and he owes her for that. I think it's nasty to be mean to Laura Bush."

Of course Maher denied that he was. Instead he claimed that he was directing his meanness in the direction of the president. But Hitchens wasn't amused: "You're being ungallant about Laura Bush, you've compared her to Hitler's dog. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that."

Then Hitchens added this closing shot on the issue: "Hitler was everything you want. Hitler was a teetotaler, a vegetarian and a non-smoker."

yes! i am glad to see someone point out the fact that Hitler, oft forcibly aligned with those on the right of the political spectrum, was in fact an extremist in a vein similar to modern leftists, in his authoritarian top-down dogmas re: environmentalism, animal rights, health and whatnot.

back to Maher - i am not one to be quick to label dialogue "hate speech", but can someone explain to me precisely how this is not hateful? Maher seems to be justifying Michael Savage's position that liberalism is a mental disorder; Maher has been descending ever further into the angry abyss of futile loathing.

(then again, Savage himself has said quite a few things i'd consider hateful. but that's just me - i'm thenthitive like that.)

Monday, September 26, 2005

drunken sailors: part 2 - or - why i'm back to voting libertarian

as i wrote the other day, republicans have become every bit the spendthrifts democrats have been for decades. now Bob Novak details the scourging that one member of congress has taken for publicly challenging the republican leadership in its complete lack of fiscal restraint.

whenever i hear that we will balance the federal budget in X years, i am forced to think "why X?" i can understand a bad year. so we have a shortfall and thus a deficit one year. we (humans with but a subtle tinge of logic) adjust our prognostications downward for the following year, assume we'll take in less revenue - and thus adjust our budget downward, to adjust to the shortfall. the really responsible among us will even devote part of that budget to eliminating the debt we took on in the previous year's shortfall... squaring the books, as it were.

but logic fails (often) in DC. pork prevails. good people seem not to care. many of these good people fail to balance their own checkbooks, budgets, finances - so how can i expect them to care?

now Alan Greenspan joins the chorus (publicly!), commenting that the U.S. has lost control of its deficit. recall what happened to the NASDAQ equities market not long after his comments re: the "irrational exuberance" prevalent among many at the time.

[insert simultaneous gasp and groan here.]

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Apparently, abstinence is "inhumane"

According to some people from the liberal bent, teaching abstinence before marriage is not only unhealthy--because teaching abstinence is the "healthiest choice for teens" as being an imposition of values, not facts--but it's "irresponsible" and "inhumane." Additionally, according to Congresswoman Barbara Lee, (D-CA), we might as well be animals because "Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms." Either that, or she advocates rape.

Using this logic, since when was keeping people more emotionally and spiritually healthy, free from diseases and unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, and a host of other difficulties brought about by having sex without a lifetime, monogamous spouse in marriage "irresponsible?" Perhaps it is "inhumane" to teach people to have self-control and respect for others and themselves, and not to use sex indiscriminantly with others to avoid most of the plagues that have become more and more rampant in our nation (AIDS, abortions, disease, single parenting, etc.). Hmmm, who are the ones that are "imposing" their values on others: the people with true concern for others' health and well-being, or those who are pushing for their ultimately destructive agenda under the guise of "freedom?"

Exposing our own who are hurting us...

Here is what appears to be a well-needed, well-timed book out--that I'm sure you've all heard about already--whose aim appears to be to educate Americans that the "elite" of our country are really not helping us at all, but rather using their reputation and power to advocate views that probably very few of the public at large actually hold. He includes categories such as the America Bashers, the Hollywood Blowhards, the TV Schlockmeisters, and the Intellectual Thugs, to name a few. I'm not sure that everyone has been duped by these (generally) liberal naysayers, but it's a darn good time to expose those who have been doing America the most harm. Read an excerpt.

Friday, September 23, 2005

drunken sailors

read a great quote from Thomas Sowell recently:

When Ronald Reagan said that the government was spending money like a drunken sailor, he apologized to the sailors, who were after all spending their own money.

which seems all the more relevant today, given the laughable recent comments from house (Republican) majority leader Tom DeLay:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.

Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.

"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.

Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

so that's the take of the leadership of those empowered to spend our money. what's the President's take on such spending? check out this strong statement:

Our president is very generous with other people's money. Worse, he is generous with the money of people who are in no position to object, either because they are too young or because they haven't been born yet.

so, is it true? the author goes on:

Heritage Foundation budget analyst Brian Riedl estimates the federal deficit, which was projected to be $331 billion this year before Katrina hit, will rise to $500 billion in 2008 and $873 billion in 2015, largely due to hurricane relief and reconstruction, together with spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Riedl cautions that "even these estimates could prove overly optimistic."

Without serious spending cuts, Bush's promise of no tax hikes is a fraud. Taxes will go up, since ultimately that's the only way to finance federal spending. It's just a question of when.

Either the burden will be imposed on current taxpayers (and the repercussions felt by current politicians), or it will be dumped on our children and grandchildren.

and people wonder why i am loathe to term myself a Republican?

an open letter to Those Who Control Our Weather

i (xopher, the Kola Nut) read a humorous blurb yesterday on and commented about it on TIFI. seems a weatherman in Idaho has been making something of a stink with his commentary on his personal weblog, concerning manipulation of U.S. weather by unnatural sources. he posits this has been going on since the mid-70s and that our lack of understanding of the electrical and other physical forces behind this technology is due to a critical error in oversimplifying mathematical calculations done over a hundred years ago - and now accepted by nearly all of western physics. here's his take:

Even in the standard CEM/EE model, one is free to change the magnitude of the potential of a system (thus changing the potential energy of that system) freely and without work. It's called “re gauging” and is assumed and used by all electrodynamicists.

The hooker is that, in 1892, Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already sharply curtailed Maxwell-Heaviside equations. He did it just to get simpler equations, easier to solve without numerical methods.

In so doing, he arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Nature did not discard them, and does not discard them. Lorentz did. This is why western science just cannot see how this task can be accomplished, even with the evidence staring back at them.


read his (poorly written) article on Katrina. personally, i find it quite difficult to wade through the writing of someone who wishes to be taken very seriously, when that writing is filled with a legion of spelling errors, misused words, incomplete thoughts and whatnot. of course, the author could argue that "Those Who Control The Internet" have modified his original writings.

not a specifically political issue, but the author makes myriad assertions concerning the current and past administrations, government and the economy in general, and certain individuals in specific:

It is my humble opinion that Katrina was, at some level, an inside job. Possibly planned and carried out by the power Elite, not necessarily the Bush Administration but certainly knowledge was held by elements within, to introduce an element of change into American society; only time will tell as to the full extent of changes that they desire.

plenty to address there. go to it.

Thoughts on the Chief Justice vacancy

Here is an excellent commentary that reflected some thoughts I (queen_spoo, the Macadamia Nut) had when I heard that Chief Justice Rehnquist had died. Although not traditional or usual, I would have promoted one of the Associate Justices, and then filled the two remaining Associate positions. In my opinion, Antonin Scalia would have been an excellent Chief Justice, and then someone else could have been nominated for his position, while keeping John Roberts' nomination in place for O'Connor's seat. I suppose time will tell who will comprise the new court and determine what its leanings are.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

The Rule of Law

i (xopher, the Kola Nut) must concur that Batchelder would appear an excellent choice for O'Connor's seat on the high court.

maintaining a society established on the rule of law means hard choices, the hardest of which is sometimes saying "no", simply because the rule of law demands it. Batchelder understands this.

i've heard it said that the primary difference between a liberal and a conservative is this ability to say "no" when faced with a difficult situation. i've also heard this described as one measure of what it is to be an adult.


from an e-mail to another member of this blog, giving some background as to its genesis...

i was thinking a nice contrasting name would be an attention getter. dissonance, as you know works well sometimes. in that vein, i was thinking "Reasonable X", where X is some somewhat derogatory term, such as Morons. the thought is that this is what we're going to be called anyway, so why not preempt the slurs? ;-)

here's a list of synonyms for idiots... the least-derogatory of which is probably "nuts". maybe each of us could take a "nut" moniker. like, i'd be "Mr. Pecan" or something. just a thought.

Entry Word: idiot
Function: noun
Synonyms blockhead, cretin, dodo, dolt, donkey, dope, dork [slang], dumbbell, dummy, dunce, fathead, goon, half-wit, ignoramus, imbecile, jackass, knothead, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numskull (or numbskull), pinhead, simpleton, stock, turkey
Related Words booby, fool, goose, loony (also looney), lunatic, madman, nut, zany; loser; gawk; featherbrain, scatterbrain; beast, boor, cad, churl, clown, creep, cur, heel, jerk, skunk, snake, stinker, villain
Near Antonyms egghead, intellectual, sage, thinker
Antonyms brain, genius

The original email which spawned it all...

Hey Everyone:

I thought about, after this guy went off on Spoomonger's commentary on the attitudes of Hurricane Katrina , since he blogs with a group of people touting the liberal political spectrum all on one blog, perhaps we should get together and have a group conservative blog.....In order to participate, you would at least need to have a login with Let me know if you're interested, if you have others you think who would be interested in joining, and if you have any name suggestions for the blog.