Monday, June 06, 2005

    Tid Bits for a Rainy Monday

    Was William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International, biased when talking about Guantanamo and the "gulag" comment? Does the fact that he is openly anti-Bush have anything to do with Amnesty International? Does it matter that he contributed the maximum amount he could to the Kerry campaign mean he has his own political agenda and will use Amnesty International (and his cronies at the top there) against the USA? Gee, duh!
    Simoncat1010 has a good post today titled "Real Men Moisturize", and how our tax dollars were used by the State Department to convince Arab males to exfoliate, get manicures, pedicures, facials, and accessorize. I guess some (gay?) person at the State Department thinks this will persuade Arab men from wanting to stone women and treat women like slaves, suppose to take their minds off of killing and maiming women and children and innocent people, and might even make them stop going wacko-stupid-berserk over a disposable book. Think not. Go read her post as well as her other posts as well. She (a Canadian) knows more about the real American political activities than John Kerry!
    Who will Hollywood rally behind for the next presidential candidate? Hillary the-morphing-crime-boss Gotti - oops, I meant to say Clinton. From the L.A. (Latino Activist) Times: "Mrs. Clinton is someone who has been a fighter on Democratic issues," said Chad Griffin, a former Clinton White House staffer who is now a political consultant in Hollywood. "She has been seen as someone who has been willing to stand up and speak her mind on the issues, and stand up to the president."
    In other words, Mrs. Clinton will cave in to organizations like Amnesty International, will trade the priorities of the USA for those of the U.N., will take more of the hard earned monies from the productive good people in the USA and give it to anyone that crys they were wronged by the USA - sorry, facts won't matter.


    Pundit said...

    As anybody who has read my past posts knows, I'm beginning to think that the Republicans are asking for trouble. They spend too much time cooperating with Democrats just so they look nice. It's getting hard to feel sorry for them.

    : JustaDog said...

    When there are two parties there needs to be cooperation or government stands still. On the other hand the people that elected them into office expect that a promised direction take place. If that direction is altered very much then there could be problems. They won't look so nice then.

    As far as I know the judges that Republicans have wanted have been approved - so far. It might be too early to tell on all the other items.

    simoncat said...

    A good government always works best in an adversarial system: keeps everyone somewhat honest and on their toes. However, I have never seen such a polarization of ideology and behind the scenes machinations as I have lately. Then, we have never been such a small world as we are now. Or perhaps, these things were always going on, we just were not as well informed..
    The big thing that frightens me the most is the internal time bomb ticking away in both the USA and Canada: a large segment of the population determined to disembowel its own society. The current illogic that parades as (you insert the buzzword: tolerance, plurality, compassion yada yada)but looked at logically, spells the end of the free and democratic society we have worked so hard to maintain.
    At least the way I see it. Collectivism has worked well for the Asian countries, perhaps this is the natural evolution of mankind?

    Pundit said...

    Simoncat hit the nail on head with one hell of a whack. I have been complaining about polarization for a long time. Polarization is NOT the same thing as the adversarial systems the framers envisioned. the adversarial system FORCES compromise. What we are seeing is not compromise--it is the pattern of factions that the framers wanted so hard to avoid. Everything in Washington now is all about power---who gets it, how they can get it, and how they can keep it. And as for judges--we haen't seen the issue applied to the Supreme Politburo yet. Only federal district judges. time will tell. and for teh Republicans to take the reins is not out of order. The constitution allows each house to make its own rules, and a simple majority--51--is constitutionally corrct for that house to function. A 2/3 majority is only required on treaties, impeachment, and censuring another member for conduct. Everything is is constitutionally fair game by majority. The Republicans are laying down on the job.

    Pundit said...

    BTW--is that really a true quote from AI? If so, it really is an eye opener.