I don’t understand why you get so worked up about people you disagree with. The ‘unhinged left’? ‘Celebrity moonbats’? It all seems contrived to keep people focused on irrelevant stories (Michael Jackson, OJ, anyone?) while your Republican government is busy eliminating the ethics process, denying active military the right to file bankruptcy, passing midnight tax cuts to corporations while the deficit explodes, passing an energy bill unlikely to reduce dependence on imported oil, suspending the monitoring of international terrorism, and proposing ‘fixes’ to Social Security that do not address the stated problem. All while ignoring the stumbling stock market, rising inflation, looming ‘peak oil’, 44 million uninsured Americans, the threat to democracy in Mexico, and, of course, genocide in Africa.

In any case, I don’t really see how this scholarship is any way deserving of outrage. It seems a bit self-promotional and petty to attack the administration of the university that prohibited him from speaking. But, really, what difference does it make?

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 10:20 am

Simple…the stories that you think I should be ‘outraged’ by (some of which do piss me off) are adequately — if not overly — covered by the liberal MSM. Besides, I’m not ‘outraged’ by the scholarship…I’m ridiculing it.

Much like conservative talk radio—which has blossomed and boomed (unlike the flailing Air America) — my blog is my outlet for discussing the things that I think are under-reported or outright ignored by the MSM.

DailyKos, Wonkette, and CBS News cover the Liberal slant on the news well enough.

Also, I don’t think the political agenda of Michael Moore is that insignificant…after all, he helped get President Bush elected.

I think that clowns like Moore, Ward Churchill, George Soros, Barbara Boxer, and their ilk need to be held up for ridicule at every opportunity.

As far as stories being ‘irrelevant’…I get enough of the MSM deciding what stories are and are not irrelevant for me already. I doubt the children molested by MJ or the families of Ron and Nicole think those stories are ‘irrelevant’.

I fully support President Bush, the US Military, and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That does not mean that I think President Bush or his policies are beyond criticism. I’m just not going to do it on my blog.

Unlike Fox News and CBS News, I make no claims of fair and balanced coverage (even though those two are each as unfair and unbalanced as I am…if not moreso).

Left by Robbie on April 21st, 2005 at 10:55 am

Damn…

Almost let you get away with blaming President Bush and the US for the genocide in Africa.

Isn’t the UN over there taking care of that little problem (like they were also supposed to be handling the genocide that occurred in Iraq under SH)? I’m sure the moment the US does begin sending troops over to Africa, the Left will begin their ‘occupying force, illegal-war’ cat calls.

Left by Robbie on April 21st, 2005 at 10:58 am

I don’t mean to tell you what stories are important- though the ones I’ve mentioned are high in my book (and just current). And I certainly don’t want ‘fair and balanced’ coverage- I stop here because I’m interested in a conservative opinion. But I do think that there are dozens of stories that have more importance in your life and the life of people in your community than what Michael Moore, George Soros, Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson are up to.

I do find it interesting that you refuse to criticize the Republican Congress- public criticism and debate is simply fundamental to the democratic process. But the fact that you interpret my call for issues-oriented blogging as being somehow itself a critique of Republicans suggests you might be in the wrong party. I was actually imagining your _support_ of one Republican issue or another- but if you can’t bear to support Congress, come over to our side- the Scoop Jackson Democrat still lives.

I see the Ward Churchills (who, again?) and Michael Moores as strawmen that the right uses to unify its side in lieu of actual issues but I would expect the rank and file to have personal issues are more dear to their hearts than these distractions even if they are not addressed by the Republican Congress.

BTW- I’m not ‘blaming’ genocide on President Bush, but I would expect some leadership on the issue. That doesn’t mean US troops in Sudan- but it should mean _something_.

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 12:17 pm

Michael Moore, Whoopie Goldberg, George Soros (especially him) etc and loudmouths like Barbara Boxer, the ACLU (for sure them) as well as judges who are REINTERPRETING the constitution are exactly WHY i am a Republican and exactly WHY the DNC went down in flames last November.

Left by dianne on April 21st, 2005 at 12:36 pm

Those judges were appointed by Republicans.

I’m sorry, it doesn’t sound like a strong basis for being a Republican. I don’t care what Hollywood thinks either- that’s why I don’t listen to them.

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 12:39 pm

It would appear that there are plenty of ridiculous liberal stories to go around. The fact that the left thinks it is their place to tell which stories should and should not be discussed is typical. I am sure they probably did not want Rathergate discussed either. (How trivial.)

Preston brings up the typical lib argument that Judges were appointed by Republicans. First of all, thank God, and secondly not all. The other fact that seems to be missing is that during the Reagan years who exactly do you think controlled Congress? There was no way that true conservatives could have been passed thru. Does Judge Borke come to mind?

Then we get the litany of the typical Lib dribble … tax cuts for the rich, foreign oil dependence, SS, blah,blah,blah. Maybe a Lib can explain what the Energy policy was during the 8 years of Clinton? How about the terrorism policy during those same 8 years? Funny the Libs uber President also said SS need to be fixed. Hmmm… go figure.

“genocide in Africa”???
Seems like the first black President of the US, Clinton dropped the ball on that one too. Robbie is correct in that this was supposed to be a UN mission. The UN, that bastion of competence and virtue. That same place that Libs want the US foreign policy to run from.

Preston - “I see the Ward Churchills (who, again?) and Michael Moores as straw-men that the right uses to unify its side in lieu of actual issues”

???

Exactly what issues have Democrats had in lets say the last 5, 6,7 years? GWB, although I may not agree with all does have many big issues: SS, Medicare reform, tax reform, war against terrorism, energy bill , etc. You may not like these issues but that does not mean they do not exist. This is a far cry from the “smallness” of the Democrats that seem to think that “hate” and “obstruction” is some how a policy.

People like Ward Churchill and the Stay-Puff Marshmallow man Moore are not straw-men, they are examples of what happens when on gives liberal any power. Tom “I’m now fishing in SD” Daschle was another such one.

You have effectively whined of all that Republicans have done, yet what is the alternative? What is the Dem’s energy plan? Ride bicycles? Plans are incremental in nature. No one thing can solve the energy crunch, but small slices will be a good start. Ever wonder why there are no new refineries built in the US? The problem is not one of supply, its distribution. Enviro’s passing ridiculous different standards from county to county let alone state to state is an issue. Uniformity would go a long way. In the mean time, the more we can do with anything to become less oil dependent should NEVER be argues against. Conservation does not produce.

As for Michael Moore here is a reson to mention Twinkie Boy

Good job Robbie … Give ‘em hell.

Left by Red on April 21st, 2005 at 1:44 pm

Red-

My point wasn’t to ‘force’ Robbie to address issues that I feel are important. It was to hear what he actually thinks is important- I have a hard time believing that when he talks to his wife or his family they talk about how their greatest problems are related to Ward Churchill. I had never heard of the guy before a month ago.

You somehow think that I will defend Bill Clinton for not taking a stand against genocide in Rwanda or for not fostering energy independence. (of course, any talk of a BTU tax was met with howls of derision- whether it was revenue neutral or not) But I, for one, will call a spade a spade- if a Democrat behaves in a corrupt or distructive fasion- I’ll prefer to stick to my principles. For the record, I’ll also criticize Clinton for passing the 1996 Telecommunications Act limiting the number of different voices on publicly controlled airwaves. And I’ll criticize him for not going back to the health care problem even in a more modest way after 1993.

I guess I would expect the same principles from conservatives- or do you support the actions of the Republican Congress that I listed earlier? Do you have aspirations or goals of what you’d like this country to be? If so, why not talk about them instead of Ward Churchill? Is that liberal?

(By the way- do you really think that energy independence is liberal dribble? How many times do we have to be kicked in the “shins” by OPEC before we learn? Have you heard about ‘peak oil’? It’s something we should be ready for.)

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 2:35 pm

I have a hard time believing that when he talks to his wife or his family they talk about how their greatest problems are related to Ward Churchill.

Interestingly enough, my wife is almost completely apolitical, and most of my closest friends are either more liberal than I am or also mostly apolitical.

So, I don’t get to discus the issues that bother or concern me too much, which is another reason I enjoy blogging and the discourse I have with those who share their thoughts here.

Left by Robbie on April 21st, 2005 at 3:07 pm

Ahh torture! If my girlfriend wasn’t willing to listen to my political rants I’d explode!

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 3:18 pm

Preston,

“do you really think that energy independence is liberal dribble?”

Nope, not at all. Liberals are not serious about energy independence. If so what is their plan? Conservation is not an energy plan. What I am saying is that this is not the first time OPEC has done this. Nor the last. Democrats had control of the Congress for years and did nothing except create a bigger problem. The environmentalist have all but destroyed the energy situation in this country. Oil is evil, nuclear bad, coal … Their answer wind & solar (oh yeah that’ll work). Too bad the blue blood libs in New England wont let wind power happen on Martha’s Vineyard because it will affect their view.

An energy policy must account for the following:
1) Short Term: Anwr, fuel efficiency, eliminating multiple fuel refinement requirements.
2) Mid range goals: Refineries, rebuilding infrastructure
3) Long Term: Alternative fuels
4) Conservation
5) Growth & Production

“Do you have aspirations or goals of what you’d like this country to be?”
YES, for the government to stay out of our business and let individuals control their own futures. The Govt does provide goals for this country, ITS PEOPLE DO.

Please do not tell me you believe in Government Healthcare? In any form its a terrible idea. BTW, which part of country are you? Age? Are you for SS or do you like the present situation that is a hapless failure?

Left by Red on April 21st, 2005 at 4:45 pm

Red:

Actually, Reagan had a Republican Senate (they confirm judges) from 1981 to 1987. But lets’ say they didn’t. You state that Reagan’s appointees can’t be conservative because of the ‘Democratic’ Congress. Then it should follow that Clinton’s appointees can’t be liberal because of the Republican Congress.

If it takes control of both branches to install judges that are conservative enough for you, I’ll suggest that philosophy might be out of the mainstream.

What Frist and DeLay are proposing are a radical rethinking of the role of the judiciary- a relationship between the separate branches that has at its roots the right of judicial review established in ‘Marbury v. Madison’ in 1803. I understand how temporary political desires cause us to think that drastic solutions are suddenly feasible- but that’s a lot of precedent to overturn.

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 5:16 pm

Red-

OK- now we’re talking. Instead of presuming what ‘liberals’ want it makes sense to put up some proposals and see if they stick. In fact, I agree with much of what you’re offering.

To me, oil is a national security issue. If I were a Democrat in Congress I would have traded the rights to drill in the Artic Wildlife Refuge for increases in fuel efficiency- I think many other Democrats would have too but that wasn’t the offer. The Republican Senate (and the Democrats from car-producing states) agree to more efficient cars even though it would compell US automakers to build technologies that would make their cars more appealing exports to high-gas-price countries.

I also agree that the US should be encouraging alternative fuels. I believe John Kerry proposed a plan to research this.

I also agree with the idea of conservation. But (here’s the part you won’t like) I would put economic teeth in this goal and implement a tax on fuels: say, a 50 cent gas tax. I would make that revenue neutral- so if we taxed Americans, say 100 billion dollars, we could reduce income taxes by the same amount so it doesn’t cost Americans but it encourages people to maybe make one trip instead of two. (It may be an American ‘right’ to travel in their cars endlessly but is it worth giving our money to dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan?)

I differ with your statements on refineries. Pollution is a tax we all bear while the producer collects the money. I am receptive to better ways of promoting clean refineries but it doesn’t make sense to allow them to pollute indiscriminately. In fact, there is speculation that the refineries have been gaming the system by ‘closing for maintenance’ allowing supply to be just under demand and pushing prices upward.

About the second part: we are the government. It is simply a tool to do things that we can’t do as individuals (like provide for the national defense).

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 5:41 pm

Preston,

Do not completely agree with what Frist is proposing. However, in no way agree with what the Dems are doing by using the filibuster against a nominee vs. legislation. My personal strategy would be to hold the vote and have Dems blocks it. Dems would then be on record for having “obstructed” once again GWB. Do not think I would do the nuclear option as the Dems would have cut their own throat by be obstructionist’s. Just ask Tom Daschle what such acts of partisanship do?

Whether you voted for or against GWB, you must realize he did win. So did many Republicans in the Senate & House. If the Dem’s keep it up with their petty ankle biting, no nuclear option will be necessary in the future.

Preston, how old are you?
“Actually, Reagan had a Republican Senate (they confirm judges) from 1981 to 1987.”

You do realize that it was these Republican Senators that gave rise to Country Club Republicans, right? Ronald Reagan had to battle those idiots in his own Party as much as he did the Democratic ones. It was the first time Republicans were in power in Senate since 1954.

Something does need to be done with Judges, they are just 1 of 3 branches of Govt, they are not God, nor allowed to create law. The idea that members of the SCOTUS actually looked to International law to determine “death penalty” reversal for juveniles is chilling. There is a Constitution of the US, not the world.

The truth of the matter is that only thru the judiciary can Dem’s actually control anything these days. They certainly cannot win elections. There is a reason why they are 0-3 and have Dean as their party chair. They could not do the Republicans more favors. Dean, the face & mouth of the party until the Dems nominate someone, brilliant. Until Hillary, the most polarizing figure for the Dems, more brilliance.

I say let the Dems just keep blocking and obstructing, 2006 is right around the corner. One day this party will figure it out. Until they actually come up with ideas that benefit this country, no one will take them serious.

Preston, what you do not realize is that middle of the roads & Independents get turned off by a Party that panders to Michael Moore, MoveOn.org and Soros. It scares the living hell out of people that any of these entities would have a say or an ear to the Dem party.

Politics is perception.

Left by Red on April 21st, 2005 at 5:51 pm

The reason that the whole judicial filibuster is a consideration is because the Republicans changed the rules that had stood for years allowing home state Senators a veto over nominees. Now they’re changing the rules for the ethics process- clearly they’ve let the power go to their heads.

Just as Bush is using the will of the majority as justification for what he does (even though he campaigned on very little of his domestic agenda) each Senator received the majority of their state’s vote. To ask them to bow down to the President in defiance of their states’ wishes is a perversion of the separation of powers. (and something I’m inclined to believe you didn’t aspouse when Clinton was President).

Sure, there were country club Republicans but there were Southern Democrats in the Senate under Reagan. Either Senators will voting on party or ideology- either way Reagan had a majority.

I have to guess you are an avid Rush or Hannity listener- I don’t think most Americans see Democrats as ‘obstructionist’. (I certainly wish they were more so.) It was preposterous that Rush was labeling Daschle as ‘el diablo’- I’m ecstatic that his kow-towing ass is gone.

The reason Democrats are 0-3 (or 0-2, I might contend) is 9-11.

If you don’t mind I’ll keep my age and location to myself for a while. I’d rather talk about the issues with you without the ability of you to dismiss me because I’m just some old man in Alabama or just some teenager in California. I’ve lived enough places that my current location doesn’t particularly mean anything anyway.

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 7:32 pm

Oh, and about Social Security… I don’t have any more information than anyone- the fund starts paying out more than it receives in 2018 and it can only afford 75% of payments by 2042…

That to me is a problem. But if it’s a ‘crisis’ then Medicare which blows up in 7 years must be in a league of its own.

So I agree something needs to be done but I support the Democrats in not trusting George Bush to do it. The President has shown himself not to be a bargainer in good faith at least 3 times: for No Child Left Behind- which he subsequently underfunded, for the Medicare Prescription Drug Supplement: of which he lied about the cost, and the war in Iraq: where he declared that the resolution was ‘necessary for peace’ then proceeded to remove inspectors after a few months to begin the invasion.

Furthermore- the proposal of the President does not solve the problem it identifies: instead of paying out more than it takes in in 2018 it would pay out more in 2006. WHAT?!? Already Americans have much of their retirements tied up in investments that are subject to the variations in the economy- typically their house and an IRA or pension. It just makes sense to provide a ‘third leg to the stool’ that isn’t subject to economic collapse just before retirement.

So- the best idea I’ve heard is to provide an _ADD ON_ investment fund for each American worker while _raising_ the age for collecting Social Security. The add-on investment account will be used just a few years- from retirement till 72 or whenever we allow people to collect Social Security. If their investments do well they can retire early- if not they might have to keep working for longer. Raising the age for Social Security will make it solvent indefinitely providing a safety net for _everyone_ regardless of how their investments did.

This would cost money- but I’m willing to give up my 300 dollar tax break.

Sorry if that’s confusing, I tried to keep it brief. I can elaborate or direct you to the places I stole the idea from.

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2005 at 9:36 pm

Michael Moore says ya must have a 2.5 GPA in order to get his “scholarship”..guess he don’t want no flunkies..and you gotta submit the form by May 15 ..gee only gonna give his “scholars” a couple more weeks to “fight for issues of students rights”. Wonder what he expects em to do in too weeks…steel the final exams? After all, them exams must contain sublingal military messages from Bush or sometin.

Left by dianne on April 22nd, 2005 at 6:35 am

Preston, Preston, Peston…

You were doing so well until you had to throw out this misleading and erronious charge:

he lied about the cost, and the war in Iraq: where he declared that the resolution was ‘necessary for peace’ then proceeded to remove inspectors after a few months to begin the invasion.

You’re implying that ‘a few months’ before the war in Iraq (an Invasion? you think we’re the bad guys?) we sent some weapons inspectors over to Iraq, but then pulled them before they had time to do their job…

And that is absurd.

From the 105th Congress, 2nd Session — S. J. Res. 54, Joint Resolution, January 27, 1998:

Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full extent of its weapons programs, and has systematically made false declarations to the Security Council and to UNSCOM regarding those programs, and has systematically obstructed weapons inspections for seven years;

Whereas in June 1991, Iraqi forces fired on International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and misled UNSCOM inspectors…

Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct the installation of monitoring equipment, and failed to comply with UNSCOM orders to allow destruction of missiles and other proscribed weapons…

Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture…

Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq violated the southern no-fly zone, moved surface-to-air missiles into the no-fly zone, raided a weapons depot in internationally recognized Kuwaiti territory and denied landing rights to a plane carrying United Nations weapons inspectors….

1998? Who was President, again?

The truth is, Saddaam Hussein has been obstructing weapons inspectors since we left Iraq in 1991, up until the time that President Bush and Congress finally authorized the use of force two years ago. The weapons inspectors weren’t pulled ‘after a few months’ they were pulled after many years of being shot at, denied access, and stonewalling.

Since you imply that weapons inspectors should have been allowed to continue their ‘inspections’, how much longer do you propose we should have let them continue—beyond the 12 years that they were already at it?

Left by Robbie on April 22nd, 2005 at 7:57 am

Robbie- of course they were pulled out in 1998 (I believe the President at the time was this guy from Hope…)

George Bush, to his credit, got the inspectors back into Iraq in 2002.
George Bush, to his shame, essentially forced the inspectors to leave in 2003.

To the extent, that the weapons inpectors were successful- because there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION- I would have let them stay indefinitely.

The war had the positive effect of removing Saddam, proving for certain that their were no WMDs, and allowing meaningful elections for the first time in some 30 years. But this came at a cost that we do not yet know the full extent of (that I’ve already listed elsewhere: dispersal of explosives, potiential for theocracy, alliance with Iran, yadda yadda).

Left by Preston on April 22nd, 2005 at 8:43 am

Dianne- maybe y’all are just having a bit of fun, but I don’t get it. Surely, liberals are allowed to fund scholarships just as much as conservatives (one, completely unverified, report I read totaled conservative scholarships at about 88 million dollars. Mr. Moore has some catching up to do to establish that Vast Left Wing Conspiracy)

I’m the first to admit that Moore is a self-promoting propagandist. But, so? There’s no crime in self-promotion- if there was, Arnold Schwarzenegger surely wouldn’t be Governor of California.

Perhaps you don’t like the mission of rabble-rousing? (Which, I’m pretty certain, wouldn’t include stealing final exams). I’ll admit that much student protest against school administration can be petty- but thank God for them. Don’t you want kids to have questioning minds? If the administration can’t defend their policies shouldn’t they be challenged?

Well, sorry if I’m being too literal…

Left by Preston on April 22nd, 2005 at 8:54 am

Feeling lighthearted today. Love rabble rousers.

Gotta run…gotta go dust off the Ten Commandments statue in my front yard.

lol

Left by dianne on April 22nd, 2005 at 9:57 am

Ha ha.

Watch out, I’ll tell some college kids you live on publicly-owned land and they’ll be in your lawn picketing in 20 minutes…

Left by Preston on April 22nd, 2005 at 10:12 am