Tuesday, January 1, 2013
2:00 am
Daniel J. Summers
Welcome to “2012 Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.” If you're reading this as they're posted, it's backwards; but, if you're reading back through the blog archives, they're in order.
2012 has been quite a year. We survived 3 ends of the world, by my count. That's pretty ridiculous, true, but our very existence here means that they must be, so we won't waste any more words on that. What did make the cut?
The “War on Women”
That this tops the list should not surprise my regular readers; several of my posts this year (including this one and that one when it first broke) dealt with it. Now, the “war on women” is not to be confused with the “war on a woman”; that I addressed in 2008 (first item). No, in yet another display of Democrat projection, this one was an accusation against Republicans.
It started with a strange question in the Republican primary, shot to the forefront with Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, and continued throughout the campaign. The Obama campaign created a horribly insipid animation called "The Life of Julia," where their heroine (um, victim?) displays her dependence upon government at every stage of her life. It was presented as if it was a good thing; the government as boyfriend, husband, business partner, and health insurance provider. To me, the suggestion that women need, or would want, something like that is truly offensive and sexist.
Granted, the Republicans didn't help themselves against these charges. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, both running for the US Senate, answered questions about abortion by emphasizing their “no rape exception” views - clumsily. Akin should have removed himself, but did not, and squandered a gift-on-a-platter opportunity to remove a senator who has not been that helpful to her home state. Mourdock was a Tea Party Republican who defeated a long-term incumbent in the primary, yet went down to defeat in a state that Romney took 54/44.
Really, the war on women was nothing more than the “they want kids to starve” meme from the late 80's and 90's, where ridiculous charges were made against Republicans, and those charges went unanswered. This year, as well, the response was tepid. What Republican wants to take away health care? The charge is ridiculous, and should be addressed as such. Otherwise, they'll continue to make these outlandish statements "They're gonna put y'all back in chains!", said our vice-president. They took “binders full of women” out of the context of people-to-hire and somehow turned it into a negative. “You didn't build that” - oh wait, that's just poor sentence structure. Please! There is no poor sentence structure in a pre-written campaign speech!
The main problem with all of that, though, is that it worked. Which brings me to my next item…
Barack Obama Reelected
When Obama was elected in 2008, that fact made the “bad” list for that year. Looking back at that post, in view of the past 4 years, I see that I was being way too generous. He presided over 4 of the toughest years in recent memory, making things worse with every decision (or indecision). His party hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years now, and one of his was so unrealistic that it was defeated 96-0 in the Senate. We lost our top credit rating, and that cannot be blamed on George W. Bush; S&P downgraded us because of our lack of a plan of paying back our debt, not the size of it. This administration has brought us economic time bombs in the form of Obamacare mandates and repeated “debt ceiling”/“fiscal cliff” showdowns, one of which is staring us down even as I write this.
But, all of the above is not the ridiculous part; it just proves that I was right to put his election on the bad list 4 years ago. No, the ridiculous part is that the American people, seeing all of the above, put him back in office for another four years. My countrymen are playing the part of fools, falling for the ridiculous claims about their opponents, while failing to see that their own are the ones leading us down the slide to mediocrity. They're behaving like little kids; what little kid wants to vote for the guy who says “Hey - we've got to pay for all this free candy we've been eating”? No, they vote for the guy who promises even more free candy, while demonizing those who generate enough wealth for our government to skim the top of it to provide the free candy. They cheer when the rich get poorer, not noticing that this does not make them richer, it only diminishes the overall wealth of our nation.
The National Park Service has signs in several forests warning against feeding bears, because they will become dependent on that food, lose their hunting skills, and become aggressive. Yet, the very people who suggest that this applies to human beings as well are branded as hate-filled and greedy. America needs to wake up, and do the hard work of dealing with the withdrawal symptoms of this free ride coming to an end, or the country itself will find itself in decline. Sadly, I don't see this generation as one willing to sacrifice its own comfort to secure the comfort of future generations.
Reactions to Mass Murder
Again, I get to fault my fellow citizens. Sadly, our nation endured two mass murders this year; one at a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, and the other at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. On my first visit to Facebook after learning about the Sandy Hook shooting, I was greeted with lots of “Don't Take Our Guns!” images. Really, guys - that's the way you show compassion for 25 families who lost their kids a scant few weeks before Christmas? And, the other side is just as bad. “Why are these guns on the street?” is not the question (although “because, Constitution” is the easy answer). Confiscating every gun in the Union would not bring an ounce more comfort to those families who lost their children and adults that day.
The proper response to something like this is sorrow and compassion, then anger, then punishment (if applicable), then speculation on prevention measures (within the parameters of our founding law). Jumping to #4 dehumanizes the response. I fault the gun-grabbers with having the non-Constitutional lead in this; but, while I did fault people above for not responding to ridiculous charges, there is a time for those sorts of debates. While the dead bodies are still warm is not that time.
Year-In-Reviews in Early December
On a lighter note, when did December become not-part-of-the-year? How can you review a year with nearly an entire month remaining in that year? Unless you're covering NASCAR or the college football regular season, the first week of December is way too early to be publishing retrospectives (and, for the latter, you'd better wait until the conference championships to write it up). Look at the newsworthy events this year - Sandy Hook, the deaths of several notable people, and George H. W. Bush's hospitalization, just to name a few. Don't review a year until it's over.
There you have it. I'm sure I'll have no problem filling out another one of these in 2013.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
6:04 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Last weekend, Claire McCaskill's (D) opponent in the Missouri Senate race, current Representative Todd Akin (R) went on a television show, and the discussion turned to his views regarding abortion. He is on record as not supporting a rape exception as part of an abortion ban. He explained himself thusly:
Charles Jaco, Interviewer: Okay, so if an abortion can be considered in the case of, say, tubal pregnancy or something like that, what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.): Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, “Well, how do you - how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question.” It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.
To say that the middle sentence in his reply got a lot of attention would be the understatement of the week. As someone who shares his overall views, that sentence made me cringe. There are two ways to address the “what about a rape exemption” question, and neither one are that.
First off, he's wrong on the biology. What he wanted to say was that significant emotional distress can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, or can cause hormonal changes that can trigger a miscarriage; since rape is such an emotionally devastating event, the body may very well take care of it itself. This is something that I've heard anecdotally (from real people, not a website), but I'm not aware of any sort of study that can confirm that. Even if there is an increased likelihood that an egg fertilized during rape will not turn into a pregnancy, though, it in no way “shut(s) the whole thing down.” A risk factor is not the same as a bodily function.
Secondly, he's wrong on “legitimate” rape. One he knows what he meant by that; he's later clarified to say that he meant “forcible” (as opposed to statutory), but still - what a horrible choice of words! What is the world is a legitimate rape? I'd wager that all of them are illegitimate acts of violence against the other party. Some might excuse it as a slip-up, but this man has been a legislator for longer than Obama's been in politics - he should darn well know how to articulate his views without giving the left a Scooby snack! Rush Limbaugh, in his denunciation of these remarks and call for Akin to get out of the race, speculated that he surrounds himself by only those who agree with him, so he hasn't had to articulate it very much.
This gets to the crux of why he should remove himself from the race. Mr. Akin, you have misrepresented the position, discredited yourself and your party, and you're down over 10 points in Missouri polling. All Republican party groups, including the Romney/Ryan team, have distanced themselves from you and your remarks. I personally have learned to silently roll my eyes when the sneering liberals group me with what they call anti-science religious zealots, but I absolutely hate it when they're right. You have single-handedly dealt the pro-life cause a serious blow, and by continuing to stay in this race, you are doing little more than twisting the dagger. People of principle are loyal to the principle, not the person. You may be right on principle, but by continuing to force yourself as the leader of that cause, you are making it about you instead of the cause of life. No one wants you to go down with the ship; if you step aside and let another lead, the ship may not go down at all.
Tangent #1
He did hit the first way to address the “what about rape” question toward the end of the excerpt above; it's not the baby's fault. The other is an equally simple response; either all life is sacred, or it is not. If abortion is unacceptable because life is sacred, life created through violence is no less sacred, and should be afforded the same protections. He sort of hit that earlier in his interview when discussing tubal pregnancies, even using the term “optimize life.” That's a good way to put it, IMO.
Tangent #2
Mike Huckabee, you need to get out of this too. You lost to Mitt in 2008, and revisiting your grudge in 2012 is going to do nothing but give us 4 more years of Obama, with no chance of repealing that health care monstrosity. If that happens, public tax money will be used to fund abortions and abortofacients, and religious organizations will be forced to provide them against their convictions. I know you don't like the idea of voting for a Mormon, but the only rallying that needs to be done is the one that will drum Akin off the ballot.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
2:11 pm
Daniel J. Summers
When George Stephanapoulos brought up a birth control question in one of the Republican debates, Mitt Romney was taken quite by surprise, as were most of the other analysts and pundits. This wasn't an issue; why was the question posed? As it turned out, this was the first rumbling of the “Re-Elect Barack Obama 2012” narrative - “The Republicans hate women!” From Sandra Fluke's testimony, Rush Limbaugh's criticism, and the resulting fallout (which I thoroughly dissected in the post immediately preceding this one); to the framing of the debate on Obamacare; to the sneering condescension shown by more than one person towards Ann Romney, stay-at-home wife to her husband Mitt; the narrative has been plodding forward.
Part of this is based on the quite-successful efforts against Planned Parenthood, in the wake of revelations that many of their offices were caught covering up for underage sexual abuse, failing to report what they were legally required to report. However, cutting back on Planned Parenthood might cut back on abortions, the 2nd Sacrament of Liberalism, and we simply cannot have that. With the stakes so high, the Great Uniter Himself can't just leave the battle to his surrogates:
If a Republican candidate made such a claim against a person or party, he or she would rightly be taken to task by media watchdogs for making false claims. Just THINK about this claim. Now, let me ask you this. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO “DENY” HEALTH CARE TO ANYONE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER? I am a Republican, I have many friends who are Republicans, and I have never heard any of them talk about denying anyone health care.
This is the lunacy behind this question. But, their lunacy is enabled by the alternate dictionary through which they view the world. This is a different lexicon that we were taught in school. Here, if the government isn't paying for something, it's being withheld or denied; if the individual in need can't get something because they can't afford it, and you don't believe the government should pay for it - well, why do you hate them? There is also no distinction between necessary and elective procedures; “health care” must cover them all. Your objections to this can't possibly be motivated by your morals, or your belief that there is a better way; they must be motivated by hate. Therefore, Republicans are hate-filled bigots who want you to die.
I can assure you that any health care plan that covers breast cancer will also cover mammograms; if it doesn't, I would stay away from that company! The cost of a mammogram far outweighs the cost of oncological care, and since the insurance company's job is to save as much money as possible, they would rather pay for mammograms than pay for cancer treatments. If they did not cover mammograms, they would also be at a competitive disadvantage to companies that do.
Will the media call out this lunacy? Probably not; they'll just leave us to bask in the warmth of this toasty, smoldering straw man.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
10:50 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Contraception has been in the news quite a bit recently, culminating this week in testimony before Congress and calls for Rush Limbaugh's microphone over his response. Let's look at the timeline and how we got here, then I'll share my thoughts on the whole thing. (If you're in a hurry, skip to the last 2 paragraphs; but, if you have the time, read the whole thing, as it goes deeper than I have seen most analysis go.)
This issue came to the forefront of popular discussion when the Roman Catholic church expressed their opposition to the provision of the health care reform bill (AKA “ObamaCare”) that required employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptive care. Official church doctrine regards this as sin, and requiring their hospitals and other organizations to provide this, they claim, is a violation of their religious beliefs. The fact that Rick Santorum, a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is a practicing Roman Catholic (and has lived these beliefs for years), has brought this issue even into the primary process.
Some legislators, seeing this as a legitimate complaint from the church, presented legislation that would amend this requirement, allowing an exemption for employers who have religious objections to these requirements. To help combat this, a Georgetown University student named Sandra Fluke testified to Congress about how important she held contraception, and how she felt that free contraceptive coverage was an integral part of health insurance coverage. Rush Limbaugh, long known for “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” (his term), seized this testimony and ran with over-the-top commentary, using terms to describe Ms. Fluke that have people calling for his job.
Those are the facts as they now stand. Let's dig in, shall we?
The first thing we need to discuss is the term “contraception;” the literal definition is “against the fertilization of the egg” (contra = against, con-ception = fertilization of the egg). A popular synonym for contraception is “pregnancy prevention,” but that is a much broader term. Some feminists define contraception as “that which prevents birth,” an even broader definition than pregnancy prevention. There cannot be an agreement on contraception until we can all agree on what that means. We'll leave abortion out of it, as the view of abortion being contraception is a minority one, and it's not part of this mandate.
What is part of this mandate, however, are drugs that are collectively termed abortofacients; these are techniques or medicines that do not prevent the fertilization of the egg, but they prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg onto the uterine wall. RU-486, the “morning-after pill,” and certain intrauterine devices (IUDs) fall into this category. These methods of “contraception” violate not only the Roman Catholic views against contraception, but the evangelical churches' beliefs that life begins at conception - it is equivalent to an abortion. This greatly expands the pool of those organizations which would be required to provide coverage which violates their moral beliefs.
Some would say that the argument of “it's against my religion” has been made spuriously in the past, and they would be right. However, the prior misuse of this argument cannot be used to strip away the principle, long recognized in this country, that we generally do not create laws that force mainstream religious organizations to violate their consciences. I personally do not hold to the belief that contraception is wrong; however, I do hold to the belief that life begins with conception. This is described in Scripture, and has been validated with medical advances over the past few decades. So, I believe that this law is a bad law because, among its other many problems, it forces religious organizations to either violate their conscience or face criminal prosecution. In a nation founded on the principle of religious liberty, this is not something we should do.
Now, let's turn our attention to Sandra Fluke and her testimony before Congress. Her testimony brought a valuable insight into the mindset of many of her generation. She said “Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” Let's ignore the math of that statement ($1,000/year?) for now and look at what she didn't say. Implicit in this statement is the fact that she feels entitled to not only practice sexual activity as much as she wants, but to be free from the consequences of that activity. That is one of the lies that now permeated a second generation. They have been told that their sexuality is best expressed by using it repeatedly, and however they choose to do it, that defines who they are. The sexually “repressed” have been ridiculed or even shunned, while the sexually “liberated” are celebrated. Thanks to contraceptive methods, they can express themselves free from the traditional consequences of sexual activity.
This is a lie. “Liberated” sexuality does not empower women; rather, it strips them of their power, instinctively inherent in the human race. It is no secret that the male of the human species is inordinately preoccupied with this aspect of his life from adolescence forward; traditionally, while the female may have wanted the same thing, she would hold back, which encouraged men to make a commitment they might not otherwise make. The old adage “Why would you buy a cow when you can get the milk for free?” illustrates this principle quite vividly. 40 years out from the sexual revolution, commitment has taken a nose-dive into near non-existence. Cohabitation, hooking up, friends with benefits, and no-fault divorce now provide avenues for sexual activity that were not available to men in the past. So, rather than commit to one person, and do the hard work of changing themselves to become better mates in order to earn this gift from their brides, men can just float from one partner to another. If a partner sees something in him that, were he to change, would make him a better man, he has very little motivation to endure that change. This has led to weaker men and weaker women, and in two generations has brought us to the place where over 50% of babies born to women under 30 are now born out of wedlock.
Yes, we're getting deep into this, but it is crucial that we do so, because this begins to get to the biggest problem with the Fluke generation (heh - I should copyright that). We can expect nothing different, because they simply haven't been taught, and they did not see it modeled in anything but generations so old they'd never dream of mimicking them. They see no reason for people to have a problem with this. This is also why there is such a visceral reaction when these beliefs are challenged. That doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to seek out and evaluate whether what they believe is right, but it helps to understand their thought process.
Notice also that I am not judging the character or intentions of the generation as I described it above. Even with parents teaching their children these things, and living them out in front of their children, people will make choices that are less than optimal. The above should be read as a commentary on society, not as a condemnation of its participants. Besides, assigning blame to people is counterproductive; we need to look at the decisions that were made, where they have led us, and determine what decisions we should make to get us to where we need to be. My goal is to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society.
(Wow, what a rabbit trail. OK, back to my point from 4 paragraphs ago…) Although I doubt she sees it this way, what she expressed in her testimony was a desire to choose to act however she wants, but be free from the negative consequences of her actions. This is what has provoked such a reaction from her detractors - why should I (through government-funded insurance programs) pay for your decisions, or for shielding you from the consequences of your decisions? Engaging in sexual activity is a choice; you don't just “catch” sex. (We're ignoring rape with this statement - but what kind of attitude do you have to have to always have contraception for fear of rape? That doesn't apply in this argument.)
This brings us to Rush Limbaugh, who used absurdity to greatly ridicule Ms. Fluke. He said some things that he knew were over the top; that's what he does, both to illustrate points and to garner ratings. Predictably, there have been calls for his job, and some advertisers have pulled their spots from his show. Since I started this post earlier this morning, he has apologized to her for the incendiary words that he used. (Interestingly, one of those words has been used triumphantly by feminists to describe themselves, as a celebration of their sexual freedom; if she truly is a feminist activist, one might think she would take that as a compliment. Sadly, the double-standard discussion will have to wait for another time, or this post will never wrap up.)
Just as we looked at the Fluke generation, think about the Limbaugh generation. Rush is part of the first generation that began, in large numbers, to shed the morals and values that had been with us for hundreds of years. He is now seeing the results of this, and is flabbergasted that things have gone so far so quickly. He also enjoys getting people riled up, particularly the “femi-nazis,” a group that is pretty easy to tick off. So, when we look at his statements, considering his history and background can help put his comments into their intended context. As has been proved by both the right and the left, an out-of-context sound bite can be made to say whatever one wants; however, the truth, whether exculpatory or damning, can only be determined by evaluating the statement as whole.
Are there any of you who feel that Limbaugh should have been censured, who also feel that, now that he's apologized, all his sponsors should return to his program on Monday? Now you're starting to see it. He may very well have to live with the negative consequences of his actions, even though he has apologized for them. Should his insurance company produce the lost revenue from these advertisers? Of course not - he would be crazy to suggest that they should. This is the exact same principle we evaluated above! Maybe seeing it turned on someone less sympathetic will help you understand the issue more clearly.
Personally, I believe that shielding people from the negative consequences of their isolated bad actions can be beneficial, particularly if they are allowed to experience part of those, and have to expend some effort in ameliorating the remainder. (I'm not talking about Limbaugh here; this is a general statement.) As the adage goes, “Good decisions come from experience; experience comes from bad decisions.” People are not perfect, and they are going to make choices which bring negative consequences. Notice, though, that I started this by saying “personally.” Forgiveness is a personal virtue, not a government policy. However, even with forgiveness, it is often neither possible nor desirable to shield the person from the consequences of their actions. What people like Sandra Fluke want is for the government to spare no expense in its attempt to shield her from whatever consequences she deems undesirable. A government policy of forgiveness, paired with the equal application of the law, amounts to a tacit approval of the activity. It is not fair to forgive or shield one person and not another; some would argue that limiting it to one instance would not be fair either. It just simply does not work.
Sexual activity is certainly not the only area where we see this mindset at work. One of the major sparks behind the Occupy movement was frustration from people who got a college education, but could not parlay that education into employment. They wanted their school loans forgiven - and, with the value they were seeing from that piece of paper, who could blame them? But, again, actions have consequences. They chose to get the education in certain degrees, and at a pace that incurred debt. Their demand that others pay to shield them from the negative consequences of those decisions was met with some sympathy, but mostly derision from people who saw them as a bunch of freeloaders, protesting their poor state from their iPhones and iPads.
Let's distill all of the above down to five main points. First, the contraception provision in ObamaCare is wrong, and inconsistent with our legal traditions; it becomes more so as the definition of the term contraception is widened. Second, the nuclear family is the most beneficial for society, and provides the greatest motivation for both man and woman to improve themselves as they grow closer to one another. Third, while people like Ms. Fluke may not see it, they are expecting others to pay to shield them from the negative consequences of their actions, and this is what many people, myself included, find distasteful. Fourth, consider the context from which both sides originate when analyzing arguments, particularly those which generate a strong reaction; it may not make their argument any more believable, but it will help reveal not just what they are saying, but what they want. Fifth, while forgiveness is a positive personal character trait, it is incompatible with government policy.
I hope my analysis has helped you evaluate this issue; it goes way deeper than sound bites can convey. At its core, this is about respecting religious convictions and accepting personal responsibility. I hope and pray that my nation chooses to do both.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
10:49 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I haven't been this disgusted with my fellow Americans in 16 years.
For those of you who voted McCain / Palin, congratulations on seeing through the empty platitudes while not overlooking the past of our now President-elect.
PUMAs? Where were you? I'm gonna call you PUMAMAs. You gave up on your principles just so your party would be in power. Luckily, Sarah Palin came and saved your bacon; otherwise, you'd have set women's achievements back nearly a decade.
To blacks who voted for Obama just because he's black - fine, you've had your achievement. Next time, let's drop the identity politics and pay attention to policies, okay? Why you, as a voting bloc, continue to blindly support candidates who placate you during the campaign then keep you suppressed the rest of the time, is beyond me. A sinking tide brings down all ships.
To the media - thanks for nothing. Your objectivity, long in question, is now completely gone. You should hope along with those in talk radio that the Fairness Doctrine is not resurrected, as you're now in jeopardy of falling as far to the left as Rush Limbaugh is on the right.
I'm praying that, for the next four years and two months, each one of the nine Supreme Court justices enjoy the best health of their lives.
And, to my fellow Americans who voted for Obama - I truly hope you get the change you deserve.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
12:27 am
Daniel J. Summers
employment. It turns out that July turned out to be a really bad month for teenage employment - the typical person seeking minimum-wage employment.
Last month, President Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling, and crude prices dropped $10/barrel almost overnight. We can't drill our way out of this situation, we kept being told (Morgan Freeberg makes mincemeat of that ridiculous phrase); but, when one of the two restrictions on offshore drilling are lifted, the price plummets.
The Godfather points out an AP release in which, all of a sudden, they determine that “trickle-down economics” actually exists! When “rich” people don't get as much money, they don't give as much, or they don't hire as much.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
11:08 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Through this post on a blog called “Grouchy's Liberaltopia” (which I found through a blog-of-a-blog-of-a-blog), we get an insight into the left-wing hate machine. Here's the third paragraph (numbers are mine, for further dissection)…
In just the past few weeks, the true derangement of the Bush Christopublican neocons has shown its raving, wild-eyed, insane flap-jawed moron face with (1) Anal Cyst Draft Reject Rush Limbaugh slapping any member of the military, including combat vets, as “phony soldiers” if they don't agree with his chickenhawk war scat; (2) Der Leader-hosen's Loyal Bunker Honey Ann “Mannish Boy” Coulter flashing her anti-Semitic roots by generously threatening to ‘perfect Jews’ by overhauling them into Godless uber-Christians like herself; (3) Ailes' Fox News Brain Trust Billo discovering them mother-effin' darkies up in Harlem can run a restaurant just as well as drunken Irish O'Fays; (4) Corporate Roach Motel Desk Clerk Laura Ingraham unironically and hilariously titling her new colostomy bag of political bile “Power to the People”; (5) various Rightie Jock-Sniffers trying to make their bones by attacking 12-year-old accident victim Graeme Frost and, not satisfied with that wincing scuminess, even going after a 2-year-old girl with heart problems cured by the S-CHIP funds that Boy Bush just vetoed.
Wow - sounds a like a rough few weeks! Let's see what really happened…
First up is Rush Limbaugh. He used the term “phony soldiers” to refer to the people who claimed they were in the military, but were not. There have been at least two of these folks who have been thoroughly discredited. The Senate even decided to get in on the fun, writing Rush's syndication company a letter asking them to censure him. Rush decided to auction the letter on eBay, with the proceeds going to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, and he promised that he would match the winning bid, and challenged the 41 signers of the letter to make the same pledge. (At this time, none have.) The auction ended this past Friday, with the letter going for $2.1 million, for a total donation to MC-LEF of $4.2 million!
Second is Ann Coulter. I already linked to Dennis Prager's article about Ann. Since when do liberals care about anti-Semitism - aren't they the ones who are constantly demanding that a sovereign nation give up more and more of its territory to a group who has no claim to any of the land anyway? Saying that Jews would be perfected by converting to Christianity is anti-Semitic no more than someone telling me I'd be better if I grew some hair and lost 20 pounds is anti-Daniel.
Third is Bill O'Reilly. A good summary of the whole flap is up over on the ABC News website. I can't help but feel for Bill in all this. The first two we've discussed are a result of statements taken out of context, so I can't help but believe that this is the same thing. In fact, that's what Bill was saying. He has been at the center of racial issues before - people cried racism when his reporting led to Pepsi ditching Ludacris as a spokeman. One defense given of this horrid, offensive rap music is that its purveyors are “keeping it real”. If you're offended, you're a racist, because it's just reality. How was Bill to know that he wouldn't hear that kind of language in a predominantly black restaurant in Harlem?
Fourth is Laura Ingraham. Her new book Power to the People has done pretty well. In fact, after a quick 7-minute interview on Rush's program, the book went from 61st to 2nd on Amazon.com. I think this one is borne out of envy, but let's see what Publisher's Weekly (via Amazon.com) had to say about it.
Taking an approach that makes mutually exclusive groups out of those “working and taking care of their families” and the “protest culture,” Ingraham's message is loud and clear: “they're coming for you.” Specifically, “they” means the Lifetime network (brainwashing women to “swear off men and family”), the growing ranks of “Team Atheist” (including Dan Brown), “family deconstructivists,” illegal immigrants and Islamic jihadists, among others.
Yep - sounds like something a liberal wouldn't like.
Finally, we have Graeme Frost. The Democrats got this 12-year-old boy to read their address about S-CHIP, and held him up as the example of the people the expanded programs was supposed to help. However, his family is not as needy as they would have us believe. Mark Steyn has some details, and Michelle Malkin has a big round-up. This is yet another issue with symbolism over substance (we're not supposed to look at the details, because it would benefit this poor, pitiful kid), but it had the benefit of exposing the problems with the program - the Frost family, it turns out, doesn't need S-CHIP as much as they sounded.
So, we've got a pretty good week for Republicans, and embarrassment and failure for Democrats. I could see why the liberals would be upset with that. Here's to many more weeks like that! I'll tell you what else we're seeing. Republicans have done everything the other side has asked, and all it gets them is a great big bunch of nowhere. They're no longer worried about apologizing, or who they offend. Get used to it…
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
3:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
He's at it again. The 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Blythe (Slick Willie, Bubba) Clinton, has resurfaced to promote his new book. Some folks fault him for not accepting the Sudan's offer to give us Osama bin Laden several years ago. In his defense of himself, he's providing many of us a reminder of just how grating he is to listen to. Did he admit that he had dropped the ball on that particular occasion? (Come on - are you kidding?) Did he adamantly deny this charge? He tried - he said "There was a story, which is factually inaccurate, that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."
That's not a denial, folks; that's an assertion. “Factually inaccurate” means that the story could have the wrong date, or inaccuracies in the timeline - the phrase sounds nice, but it had a different meaning than “substantively inaccurate,” which is how I would describe something like that. (Actually, I probably would have called it a “pack of lies” or something like that…) And to his next phrase - he can't bring himself to say “I didn't do it,” he uses the cop-out “There's not a shred of evidence of that.” (If you'll recall, he's used that phrase before - when speaking of Mark Rich, the fundraising of Charlie Trie (paragraph 3), even when describing his own life. I saw that one person said “The proper way to parse that statement (“There's not a single shred of evidence”) is 'There are many shredded pieces of evidence.'” And, as if that's not a wishy-washy enough statement, he preceded it by saying “as far as I know.” Does this mean he's not sure whether there are shreds of evidence (or maybe even whole pages his staffers missed)?
This is the sort of pedantic double-speak that makes Clinton so dear to his party, and so frustratingly annoying to those not in his party. I would think that someone who was trying to rehabilitate their reputation would start talking straight. Ladies, think about it - if you accused your husband of having an affair with someone, and he said “As far as I know, there's not a shred of evidence that we ever had an affair,” would you be satisfied with that answer? What you would hear is something like “We did, but we covered our tracks really well, I think.” Back when the Godfather (Rush Limbaugh for those in Rio Linda) came into popularity (way back during Bush 41's presidency), one of his most common themes was that “words mean things.” (Sounds like a no-brainer, right?) Through Clinton's use of terms like this, and his creative narrowing of common terms such as is and sex, he harmed the moral fabric of this country immensely.
This mysogynistic, impeached rapist, who was held in contempt of court while seated as this nation's top executive officer, needs to go back into the shadows from where he came. The policy differences some folks have with our current President are nowhere close to Clinton's pattern of personal corruption, abuse of power, and illegal activities. Let's just hope against hope he doesn't become our first “First Gentleman”…
First off, he's wrong on the biology. What he wanted to say was that significant emotional distress can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, or can cause hormonal changes that can trigger a miscarriage; since rape is such an emotionally devastating event, the body may very well take care of it itself. This is something that I've heard anecdotally (from real people, not a website), but I'm not aware of any sort of study that can confirm that. Even