Between the Coasts

Standing Tall With Ed Koch

As the convention opens and it appears as if the RNC is an island amongst insanity, I was reminded of Ed Koch's endorsement of Bush:

Now, for the first time in my life, I am going to vote for a Republican candidate for president, the incumbent, George W. Bush. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I was one of the few Democratic leaders who supported Gore in the 1988 presidential Democratic primary when Michael Dukakis received 45 percent of the primary vote in New York City, Gore 7 percent, and Jesse Jackson carried the City with 46 percent.

With his endorsement of Howard Dean in this year’s primary and his strident speeches calling President Bush a liar, Gore has certainly demonstrated that he has moved considerably to the left since his defeat.

Why have I endorsed George W. Bush when I don't agree with him on a single domestic issue? Because I believe the issue of international terrorism trumps all other issues. I don't believe the Democratic Party has the stomach and commitment to deliver on this issue.

I believe terrorism will be with us for many years to come. So long as Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd are considered major leaders of the Democratic Party, and so long as we have radical candidates like Howard Dean, whose radical-left supporters have been described by the press as "Deaniacs," the Democratic Party will be limited in its ability to serve the country well in times of crisis.

Two Americas - Fighting Some of the Elitism

John Leo writes about the "exasperation" of Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas." I can tell you from living there that there are many things, but clearly not the things Mr. Frank writes about.

I enjoyed Mr. Leo's closing thoughts:

The late critic Christopher Lasch, who is best described as a Marxist with conservative leanings, got it right in his 1995 book, The Revolt of the Elites. He wrote that the elites are contemptuous of ordinary Americans, are dangerously isolated from them, and are “deeply indifferent” to the prospect of national decline. He found the elites dismissive of religion and supportive of a therapeutic culture and an “analytic attitude” that developed into “an all-out assault on ideals of every kind.” Most of this has become totally obvious since Lasch wrote. The wonder is that liberals like Thomas Frank think it’s weird that people would use their votes to do anything about it.

Kerry Cannot Possibly Have Any Principles

The Flip-Flopper strikes again:

''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.

The confusion illustrates a persistent problem for Kerry as Republicans exploit his 19-year voting history to paint the Massachusetts senator as a waffler on major foreign-affairs questions such as the Iraq war, Israel's security barrier and intelligence funding.

He's a waffler and none of his actions have any sort of foundation on a vision for America's place in the world. His 71 congressional testimony is the only vision I've ever heard and that was based on lies.

Chirac Doesn't Play the Game, Claims Victory

Chirac is easily the most dishonest leader on the world stage today. Today's Crimes article about his hypocrisy, feigning these world leadership qualities by France in Iraq when there are none, is so completely astonishing, I don't know what to think about this guy, but he surely isn't an ally.

{you don't need it, but the emphasis is mine.}

"The U.S. presidential election is due to take place in a few weeks' time," Mr. Chirac said toward the beginning of his speech.

"As a friend and ally of the United States for over two centuries now," he said, "France believes that, today and tomorrow, a balanced and dynamic trans-Atlantic partnership is essential to meet our common challenges."

He made no mention of either candidate, although it is no secret that he and President Bush are not at all close.

Nor did he criticize the war that overthrew Saddam Hussein last year, lavishing praise on the United Nations for restoring sovereignty to Iraq and portraying France as a participant in the process.

What planet has this guy been on??

"France, which supported the restoration of a sovereign Iraq, fully integrated into its regional environment, wants to accompany it on its road to recovery," he said.

The Security Council resolution transferring authority to a new Iraqi government "commits us all to the same objective: namely the forming of a democratically elected government and return to civil peace in a unified Iraq," he added.

Mr. Chirac said nothing about the violence and terror in Iraq, except to say that the restoration of sovereignty was "merely the start of a long and what is proving to be an arduous and hazardous process. But at least we have embarked on it."

By contrast, at a news conference with Mr. Bush before their dinner at Élysée Palace to celebrate the 60th anniversary of D-Day in June, Mr. Chirac described Iraq as a place where "disorder prevails,'' adding that he did not share Mr. Bush's view that the liberation of Iraq from Mr. Hussein was comparable to the liberation of Europe from the Nazis.

"History does not repeat itself," he sniffed.

But Mr. Chirac is a thoroughly practical leader, and France was once one of Iraq's largest trading partners and arms suppliers.

[...]

Mr. Chirac has described Iraq as a "potentially rich country" despite its debt and said France would be willing to support what he called a substantial reduction in the Iraqi debt, but only about 50 percent. The United States, by contrast, has urged a 90 percent debt reduction for Iraq, while Japan and Britain favor about 80 percent.

Mr. Chirac has opposed giving NATO a meaningful role in training the country's military and police on the ground in Iraq.

France is not eager to see NATO personnel - perhaps including French troops - coming under United States command, nor does it want to further internationalize the current force in Iraq.

At a news conference at the summit meeting of the Group of 8 major industrial nations at Sea Island, Ga., in June, Mr. Chirac warned against the risks of NATO "meddling" in Iraq.

Without mentioning the Bush administration, Mr. Chirac delivered a scathing criticism of the absence of a negotiating process to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians, saying, "It is essential that the international community assume its responsibilities, that it acknowledge the disastrous results of its inaction."

And without mentioning Israel, he criticized its policies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, saying, "Occupation and settlements are unacceptable and must stop."

Chirac only does what is easy for him and France, and then he lies about it later. There is a clear anti-semitism in his goals, and why does he expect everyone else to assume these responsibilities he alludes to?

The only positive thing that guy has contributed is lies about how great his contributions are. He is the fullest definition of a hypocrite and most unfortunate, he is the kind of guy to whom Kerry wants to acquiesce.

As the saying goes, "With friends like this..."

UPDATE: An interesting aspect to this article that I did not note before is that the reporter, Elaine Sciolino, seemed to have an obvious anti-France, anti-Chirac bias, and though for once, the bias was agreeable to me, if we are going to complain about bias in the reporting media, we should complain about all of the bias...My favorite part was when she said that Chirac "sniffed" out a sentence because he really is the world's biggest whiner on top of all of that hypocrisy.

The Kerry Dims Are So Proud

Highlights of the fabulous accomplishments so far:

9:04PM Dozens of arrests at 34th Street & 7th Ave. She recounts "less than friendly" treatment by police.

9:01PM Instersection at 34th & 35th has been cleared, 34-35 have been arrested. According to a street reported, several have alson had their bikes confiscated.

9:00PM After a very festive bicycle ride, police, with the use of blockades are forcing cyclists to split up.

8:58PM More arrests near the Lincoln Tunnel.

8:56PM Arrests also at 35th & 7th Avenue and 35th & 9th Ave.

8:52PM Seven arrested at 14th Street & 7th Avenue. NLG and many witnesses on the scene. Police may attempting to coral cyclists.

8:48PM Police have blocked 7th Avenue, cyclists are being forced to ride against traffic.

8:46PM Estimates of 10,000 bikes total.

8:45PM Hundreds of people at Wash Sq. South, going east.

8:35PMMarch is 45 blocks long (!). Heading south on 7th Ave. on 22nd St.

8:30PM - Where's Critical Mass? Check out Live NYC Webcams to find them.

8:24PM - Ride is passing Madison Square Garden from Times Square.

8:21PM - The two rides that were split by the cops have met up and are heading towards Time Square.

8:18PM - Two arrests on 43rd and Broadway.

8:04PM - At the corner 6th & 30th, caller reports that a couple hundred bikes seem to have broken off. This ride is HUGE.

7:58PM - Group split in 2, one group going on Madison at 40th heading North, other on 6th at 51st.

7:54PM - There seems to be a blockade, ride spontaneously rerouted. Going west on 30th now.

7:44PM - Bikes are in the air at 34th and 6th (Harold Square), cheering.

7:41PM - The end of the ride just left! Front is at 30th St. and Broadway.

7:37PM - White SUV plowed through ride, created hole in ride, injured 1 rider, damaged several bikes, medics on the scene. Caller: "impossible to judge" size. White SUV driver was allegedly Foxy Brown.

7:31PM - At least 5,000. There is a really loud response from pedestrians, waving, riding, cheering "shut it down." There is great support, they are lining the sidewalks.

7:28PM - Latest crowd estimate 3,000 - 5,000. Heading northbound on 6th Ave.

7:24PM - Broadway and 4th, heading Southbound. The march is so long that we are getting reports both that the march has left and that it hasn't left yet. Cops on bikes too.

7:16PM - Critical Mass has departed. Over 2000 cyclists.

7:05PM - West side of 3rd avenue, b/w 13th and 14th, there is a substantial police presence. Along the whole West side of 3rd Avenue there is a whole row of parked police vans. Police have handcuff ties.

6:51 PM - Report from Union Square: 1000 bikes there already, 31 police scooters on the Eastern face of the park. Helicopers overhead. Bikers ready to go.

These folks really need a job or something.

Wild Card and Wild Racing

When I first went out to the Kansas track and became an instant NASCAR and IRL fan, I was not enthralled by short track racing, but I have come around on it recently.

There are 3 races left to determine the final 10 in the new points system, and I think anyone who questions the system now is insane. It's made this mid-season extremely exciting, and tomorrow night may be the pinnacle of that.

Bristol is a place that breeds short tempers and with all of the pressure on the 6-16 place drivers, it ought to run to a furious boil tomorrow night.

Saturday night's race will be the 24th of 26 that will be used to select the drivers who will be eligible to compete for this year's championship. With time running so short, and with the standings as close as they are, bringing that battle to the .533-mile Bristol bullring seems like a recipe for fireworks.

Two of the three races left to the championship cutoff, in fact, will be short-track events. After Bristol this weekend and California next week, the 26th race will be at Richmond. With only 70 points separating 10th from 15th in the standings, that seems like adding two big dollops of hot sauce to five-alarm chili.

DJ has had a rough season, but the big reason I am a big and faithful fan is his approach to the sport:

Dale Jarrett said a tight points race isn't necessary to have fun at places like Bristol and Richmond. He thinks having up to 30 cars capable of competing for a good finish is a recipe for a crazy night.

"I am not sure the format is going to make Bristol and Richmond any more wild than they have been," said Jarrett, who enters the Sharpie 500 in 14th place in the standings, 58 points behind 10th-place Kasey Kahne. "I think it's the competition that's going to do that."

[...]

Jarrett said he doesn't know how to answer when he's asked what his team can do to try to move up into the group that will race for the title over the final 10 races.

"We can't try any harder, first off," he said. "We're doing everything we possibly can."

Jarrett does have a very direct answer when asked if he believes the race to get a shot at the championship will turn ugly over the next three weeks.

"I think everybody is trying to make it like we're going to Bristol and going to Richmond and hunt down whoever is ahead of us (in the points) and take them out," he said. "Well, if that's the way I have to get into the top 10, then I'll quit.

"I am going to race them hard ... and if we can go into the next three races and outrun everybody we're racing back there and somehow get into the top 10, that would be great.

"We're going to race hard, and it may come that guys in eighth, ninth, 10th and 11th are all in the same accident or are banging on each other. But that's not going to be because of the point system, it's just going to be because of the nature of the race track and how close the competition is."

Here's to the 88 Team!!

Allowing Great Thinking In the 04 Vacuum

The media excuses itself for the gross hyperventilation of the Vietnam topic and the campaigns oblige, but I hope that we can have some seriousness back next week from a small part of New York City.

Instead of Vietnam that was all the rage in Boston and with the media and the campaigns ever since, maybe we could have a discussion about the survival of our country and our freedoms. We are in World War IV and it is time to wake up to that.

The Swift Boat Vets have an experience with one of the candidates as we all did with him when he returned to grandstand in front of congress, and the vets deserve kudos for the bravery to stand up for their convictions and to expose things that some would never have known about, but I need a break from that and I found it with 2 pieces - big time.

1 - Charles Krauthammer

Ms. Rosett had a wonderful piece on Vietnamania and in it directed us to a brilliant piece by Krauthammer that I had missed back in February, but I am very glad I read it today.

I can't help but throw out a couple of highlights, but you should certainly read the whole thing:

Of course it would be nice if we had more allies rather than fewer. It would also be nice to be able to fly. But when some nations are not with you on your enterprise, including them in your coalition is not a way to broaden it; it’s a way to abolish it.

At which point, liberal internationalists switch gears and appeal to legitimacy--on the grounds that multilateral action has a higher moral standing. I have always found this line of argument incomprehensible. By what possible moral calculus does an American intervention to liberate 25 million people forfeit moral legitimacy because it lacks the blessing of the butchers of Tiananmen Square or the cynics of the Quai d’Orsay?

Which is why it is hard to take these arguments at face value. Look: We know why liberal internationalists demanded UN sanction for the war in Iraq. It was a way to stop the war. It was the Gulliver effect. Call a committee meeting of countries with hostile or contrary interests--i.e., the Security Council--and you have guaranteed yourself another twelve years of inaction.

Historically, multilateralism is a way for weak countries to multiply their power by attaching themselves to stronger ones. But multilateralism imposed on Great Powers, and particularly on a unipolar power, is intended to restrain that power. Which is precisely why France is an ardent multilateralist. But why should America be?

[...]

In October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we came to the edge of the abyss. Then, accompanied by our equally shaken adversary, we both deliberately drew back. On September 11, 2001, we saw the face of Armageddon again, but this time with an enemy that does not draw back. This time the enemy knows no reason.

Were that the only difference between now and then, our situation would be hopeless. But there is a second difference between now and then: the uniqueness of our power, unrivaled, not just today but ever. That evens the odds. The rationality of the enemy is something beyond our control. But the use of our power is within our control. And if that power is used wisely, constrained not by illusions and fictions but only by the limits of our mission--which is to bring a modicum of freedom as an antidote to nihilism--we can prevail.

2 - Norman Podhoretz

After reading the Krauthammer, I had this wonderful fortune of linking to RealClearPolitics and finding a link to David Skinner's column, with the title and subtitle of, "Nota Bene - Norman Podhoretz's latest opus retrains the mind onto the true stakes of the current election." I am grateful that I trusted Mr. Skinner's advice and spent the good time that I did with Mr. Podhoretz's article. Again, you will enjoy the whole thing when you have time, but I have a couple of highlights:

In that sense, bin Laden did for this country what the Ayatollah Khomeini had done before him. In seizing the American hostages in 1979, and escaping retaliation, Khomeini inflicted a great humiliation on the United States. But at the same time, he also exposed the foolishness of Jimmy Carter’s view of the world. The foolishness did not lie in Carter’s recognition that American power—military, economic, political, and moral—had been on a steep decline at least since Vietnam. This was all too true. What was foolish was the conclusion Carter drew from it. Rather than proposing policies aimed at halting and then reversing the decline, he took the position that the cause was the play of historical forces we could do nothing to stop or even slow down. As he saw it, instead of complaining or flailing about in a vain and dangerous effort to recapture our lost place in the sun, we needed first to acknowledge, accept, and adjust to this inexorable historical development, and then to act upon it with "mature restraint."

In one fell swoop, the Ayatollah Khomeini made nonsense of Carter’s delusionary philosophy in the eyes of very large numbers of Americans, including many who had previously entertained it. Correlatively, new heart was given to those who, rejecting the idea that American decline was inevitable, had argued that the cause was bad policies and that the decline could be turned around by returning to the better policies that had made us so powerful in the first place.

The entire episode thereby became one of the forces behind an already burgeoning determination to rebuild American power that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan, who had campaigned on the promise to do just that. For all the shortcomings of his own handling of terrorism, Reagan did in fact keep his promise to rebuild American power. And it was this that set the stage for victory in the multifaceted cold war we had been waging since 1947, when the United States under President Harry Truman (aroused by Stalin’s miscalculation) decided to resist any further advance of the Soviet empire.

Few, if any, of Truman’s contemporaries would have dreamed that this product of a Kansas City political machine, who as a reputedly run-of-the-mill U.S. Senator had spent most of his time on taxes and railroads, would rise so resolutely and so brilliantly to the threat represented by Soviet imperialism. Just so, 54 years later in 2001, another politician with a small reputation and little previous interest in foreign affairs would be confronted with a challenge perhaps even greater than the one faced by Truman; and he too astonished his own contemporaries by the way he rose to it.

[...]

The 527 Government Mess - Part II

It's a shame that Bush is talking about going to court to stop the 527's. He should have vetoed the campaign finance law, and now that it's too late for that, going to court to stop a few ads that are in his favor after getting slaughtered doesn't seem right. He's fighting on a solid principle, but I don't see why the 527 groups can't have their rights of free speech just as Michael Moore does.

D.C. is constantly slashing our freedoms and the campaign finance laws are nothing but a clear indicator of this kind of horrid government. I'm all for the disclosure rules, but all of the rest of it is pure crap. I like how my friend, TK, put it:

It's like any other problem we face...The Dims create the problem and then whine about it when someone tries to fix it, or funnier yet, act as though they are the ones who can fix it! They are no different than an unscrupulous mechanic who breaks your car worse when you take it in for a minor problem, then tells you it'll cost you a grand to fix it...

I know that everyone's favorite bipartisan, McCain, was behind much of the mess, but it sure wouldn't have hurt to veto the crappy legislation that only created a bigger problem - The solution is definitely the problem this time.

Kerry Eating the Softballs, Fumbling Footballs - I'll Take My CARBs for the War on Terror

Ironic that the Crimes shows Kerry doing what his campaign is doing in a figurative sense:

Senator John Kerry fell while retrieving a fumble at a practice session with the West High School Wildcats in Green Bay, Wis.

Via Times Watch, Wilgoren of the Crimes accidentally poked fun at her hero for setting up his own softballs:

At the Philadelphia event, Mr. Kerry poked fun at the president, whose campaign has been accused of only inviting volunteers to events and vetting their questions, by asking the audience whether anyone had to sign a loyalty oath or had been fed questions. The crowd hissed, "No!" but the steady stream of softballs that followed could have come from a pitching machine.

There was the woman laid off after 19 years because of outsourcing who inquired about importing drugs from Canada, a staple of the Kerry health-care plan.

Then there was the man from Montgomery County who sounded as if he were parroting Mr. Kerry's stump speech and then asked, "What can we do for you?"

"Ninety-eight days,'' said Mr. Kerry. "Every day, every single one of you can win votes."

Reminded afterward that just 69 days remain until the election, an aide joked that Mr. Kerry was preparing for a possible recount.

I am hoping that a) He gets his ass whipped so badly, the only recount will be to see if Nader beat him, and b) his campaign is as bad as his math and he starts the final push 70 days from now.

The Crimes also talks about this no-carb thing that the Dims are chanting.

Mr. Rumsfeld, along with Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft, is a frequent foil for Democratic audiences. Mr. Kerry has been greeted on the campaign trail several times by hand-lettered signs advocating a "No CARB diet: No Cheney, No Ashcroft, No Rumsfeld, No Bush."

I think without the CARBs in our national security diet, our butts are toast.

Hillary Welcomes Those From Flyover Land

Everyday, some Dim gives me comfort in my decision on the name for this blog. Via The Federalist Patriot, today it was Hillary:

From the "Village Matriach" Files: "I hope that in New York that not only the visitors, the Republicans who come to the city, but New Yorkers will be out and around, eating out, and watching the Republicans walk by. We've never had so many Republicans in Manhattan, so I would urge all New Yorkers to come from everywhere, and enjoy the scene. They'll get to see a Republican. Maybe it's the first Republican they've ever seen in their lives." --Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Rodham

For the Republicans, most will treat it like a walk in the zoo - Mayor Bloomberg will be wishing that they were in cages...

Dims' Economic Policies Based On Great Logic

Instapundit caught this lovely Kerry quotation:

"The truth, which is what elections are all about, is that the tax burden of the middle class has gone up while the tax burden of the middle class has gone down," he said.

There is no wonder these guys want to raise our taxes.

UPDATE: More on the leftist lunacy:

A Washington Post review of Kerry's tax cuts and spending plans, in addition to interviews with campaign staff members and analyses by conservative and liberal experts, suggests that they could worsen the federal budget deficit by nearly as much as President Bush's agenda. If projected savings from unspecified cuts do not materialize, Kerry's pledges could outstrip those of the president, whom the Democrat has repeatedly accused of unprecedented fiscal recklessness.

Outstrip, my butt. He would not cut anything and would spend a lot more than he is promising, and none of that increased spending would be on your safety.

Wictory Wednesday - Stay On a Roll

We're running toward the convention and the Dims are on an offensive defense on the Vietnam war. It's time to remind the American public that the election is about defense of freedom in 2004, not questions about behavior in the 60's and 70's. We've see that behavior on both sides may be questionable, but we know who has done what over the last 4+.

Even if Kerry persuades the public that the campaign is about Vietnam, I appreciate the WSJ's view on that:

In any case, anyone who spends five minutes reading the Swift Boat Veterans' book ("Unfit for Command") will quickly realize that their attack has nothing to do with Mr. Bush. This is all about Mr. Kerry and what the veterans believe was his blood libel against their service when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971 that all American soldiers had committed war crimes as a matter of official policy. "Crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" were among his incendiary words.

Mr. Kerry has never offered proof of those charges, yet he has never retracted them either. At his recent coronation in Boston he managed the oxymoronic feat of celebrating both his own war-fighting valor and his antiwar activities when he returned home. This is why the Swifties are so incensed, and this is why no less than World War II veteran Bob Dole joined the fray on the weekend to ask that Mr. Kerry apologize for his unproven accusations.

As Bill Lannom of Grinnell, Iowa, one of the Swifties, told the Washington Post last week: "He's telling untruths about us and his character. He's talking about atrocities that didn't happen. And then he's using that same experience to promote himself. He can't have it both ways."

[...]

The "war crimes" canard isn't so easily handled, however. It relates directly to our current effort in Iraq, where U.S. constancy is as much an issue now as it was in Vietnam. Mr. Kerry's denunciation of the U.S. at that time presaged a career in which he has always been quick to attack the moral and military purposes of American policy--in Central America, against the Soviet Union, and of course during the current Iraq War that he initially voted for. It's certainly fair to wonder if Mr. Kerry will have the fortitude to fight to victory in Iraq if he does win in November. Or will he call for retreat the way he and so many other liberals did when Vietnam became difficult?

The irony here is that a main reason Mr. Kerry has focused so much on Vietnam is to avoid debating Iraq and the rest of his long record in the Senate. He wants Americans to believe that a four-month wartime biography is credential enough to be commander-in-chief. But a candidate who runs on biography can't merely pick the months of his life that he likes--any more than a candidate who makes Vietnam the heart of his campaign can confine the resulting debate to his personal home video.

Today is Wictory Wednesday - Every Wednesday, dozens of bloggers ask their readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign - Donate again if you already donated. This is the last week for donating to the campaign.

Kerry, a Republican Plant?

Mark Steyn does a nice job with Kerry's recent buffoonery:

I said a couple of weeks back that John Kerry was too strange to be President, and a week or two earlier that he was too stuck-up to be President. Since I'm on an alliterative roll, let me add that he's too stupid to be President. What sort of idiot would make the centrepiece of his presidential campaign four months of proud service in a war he's best known for opposing?

[...]

Still, he's doing his best. After going around huffing and a-puffing that, if Bush wanted a debate about Vietnam, "Here is my answer: BRING. IT. ON," he's now gone to ground and is demanding Bush call it off. Meanwhile, his lawyers are threatening suits and the campaign's complained to the Federal Election Commission to get the Swift vets taken off air.

His hagiographer Douglas Brinkley, after an intriguing interview with the Telegraph's David Rennie, seems to have entered the witness protection programme. If this campaign were any more inept, Michael Moore would be making a documentary claiming Kerry's a Republican plant secretly controlled by Karl Rove and the House of Saud.

Morons Get Advice From Morons

I forget whom to credit for this article, but it is nice to see that Nugent has some rational company with Alice Cooper:

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

Despite his strong insistence that rock has no place in politics, Cooper is one of just a handful of high-profile musicians who've proclaimed support for Bush.

This advice would go for DJs also.

Who Is the More Likely Socialist?

The Federalist highlighted a piece from Walter Williams that can only serve to remind us of the bottom line. Problems on both sides of the aisle, but one side is certainly closer to Socialism than the other:

"What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well. Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget. Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another. The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American."

--Walter Williams

OT Pay, Nice Squabble

Edwards, the hypocritical freak on the issue:

“Taking away the right to overtime pay and doing nothing while paychecks shrink and jobs go overseas makes sense only to someone who does not understand American values and does not respect what work means in this country,” Edwards said.

That boy is one who has shrunk all of our paychecks...This statement is probably a much better reflection of what occurred yesterday:

“This attack is another example of the Kerry campaign trying to mislead American workers,” said spokesman Matt McDonald. “The only loser under this reform is the trial lawyers who have created an overtime lawsuit industry that costs our economy $2 billion per year.”

Is It the Paint Job? Is It the Number?

The NASCAR race on Sunday was OK, but a couple interesting items about numbers and paint jobs:

Jeff Burton made the kind of mistake during Sunday's race that, one day, he'll laugh about. Coming down pit road on one occasion, he drove right past his pit stall. Over the radio, he admitted to the crew on the No. 30 Chevrolet - the car he's now driving - that he was looking for the No. 99 Ford team's sign. That's the car Burton had been driving since 1996.

Six cars were carrying special paint schemes Sunday centering on the Justice League comic book heroes. Four finished in the top 10 - Greg "The Flash" Biffle, Mark "Batman" Martin, Kurt "Superman" Busch and Carl "Green Lantern" Edwards. Ryan Newman's "Justice League" car was 14th after some early problems. And in another example of obvious male chauvinism, the "Wonder Woman" car driven by Ricky Rudd finished 24th.

Often on the radio, you hear spotters talking about other cars by their numerical designation rather than by the driver. I am thinking that Burton's crew will be calling him by his number for the rest of the season: "OK, #30, come into the pits now; OK, 30, you're 7 cars in, 5, 4, 3, 2, OK, 30, stop now, good job, Jeff..." Seriously, if you are paid as much as these guys, how do you forget the change?

It'd be nice if Biffle could keep the Flash paint, but he will be back to the National Guard scheme, and many of us will be proud of that.

In the more exciting race on Sunday, the IRL race, Tomas Scheckter, the hardest working driver in the league talked about how his new #4 might be bad luck, and I am starting to believe it might be true. What was funny there is the ABC announcer spent a full day with Tomas and when he was calling the race, he kept calling the #4 driver as last-year's Hornish. You'd think the announcers are professional enough not to make that mistake. Oh well - I think the driver's should be able to keep their color throughout their career, regardless of what team they're on...