Monday, August 30, 2004

Quote of the Day

He is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep in order to gain that which he cannot lose.

- Jim Elliot

Fried, Fried In His Memory

Originally posted 8:58 AM, 27 August 2004

Thanks for the Memory to Beaker's Corner:

A quote from John Forbes Kurtz Kerry regarding the death of the reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.:

"I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home - and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen."

-John Kerry, January 20, 2003

Very eloquent.

However, as Beaker points out, it's important to please bear in mind a couple of things:

1. MLK was assassinated on April 4, 1968

2. John Kerry was sent to Vietnam in November of 1968, 7 months after the assassination of MLK!

There's so much uproar over the implication that one of Kerry's combat wounds may have been self-inflicted, but given the way he continues to shoot himself in the foot, it should come as no surprise.

To quote Christian singer/songwriter Gene Eugene, The trouble with lies is that you start to forget where the real man hides.

Update 08/30/04:

Thanks for the Memory to reader George Turner at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

It turns out that while not yet on the Swift Boats, Kerry was aboard the USS Gridley pulling Plane Guard duty in the Tonkin Gulf during the Spring of 1968, so the accuracy of his memory here may not be as faulty as it would first seem. Waiter, I'll have the Corvus Au Vin, if you please.

On the other hand, like the Swift Boat vets, some of Kerry's former Gridley shipmates are less than glowing in their view of him.

No Torch Relay for Me, Thanks

Thanks for the memory to Brian at Tomfoolery of the Highest Order.

You may be familiar with the "Torch" theory(named for Democratic NJ Senator Robert Toricelli) regarding the Kerry campaign, which comes in two major variants: either the Democrats are waiting for Kerry to self-destruct, at which point a savior (Hillary Clinton is the most common name used) can step in and carry th day; or they're hoping Kerry will lose so that four more years of Bush makes the country ready for a Democratic President.

Apparently now an article on Opinion Journal by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson suggests that Republicans should take a similar tack -- he suggests that Bush is such a bad president that if he wins, the Republicans will lose power for a significantly long time. He further argues that defeating Bush will allow Kerry 4 years of mucking things up so badly that the American voting public will revolt in the other direction and establish a Republican dynasty.

Let's set aside for this post any discussion of the plausibility of the Democratic "Torch" theories, and address this one for a moment. And for the sake of this argument, let's set aside any discussion of how valid his view of the Bush presidency is. Let's even grant him the plausibility of his strategy.

What really about this screed is the attitude towards politics it reveals (an attitude, I must say, that while most prevalent on the left, is sadly by no means confined to it): Political power is its own end. Screw the country, think about what's best for the Party.

Thanks, but no thanks. While I'm sure there are those in leadership in both parties who think this way, I'd like to think that I, for one, vote based on who I believe is best for the Country. I realize that this is a fairly naive point of view, but there it is. This is the kind of thinking that leaves leftists hoping we'll fail in Iraq, or rejoicing in American soldiers' deaths because they hurt Bush's reelection chances, and is bordering on treasonous thinking. No number of years of power for ANY party is worth the potential harm to the country that 4 years of the wrong leader threatens.

Cue Soundtrack: Also Spracht Streisand, or "My God, It's Full of Sh**..."

Originally posted 9:18 AM, 28 August 2004.

Hollywood, that is. Oh, and for those who caught the reference, it is also full of stars. Interestingly enough, those stars are the primary source of the horsedollops that give the place its distinctive eau du merde.

Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for this link to a blog that tracks the latest contributions to the pasture patties that dot America's intellectual landscape:

Singer and actress Mandy Moore is furious at being "outed" as a secret Republican in the new issue of America's Details magazine.

The publication's upcoming September edition lists Adam Sandler, Freddie Prinze Jr., Jessica Simpson, Shannen Doherty and Moore as silent supporters of current US President George W. Bush who don't join the campaign trail and make their political views known, unlike loud and proud Democrats Ben Affleck and Barbra Streisand.

However, the A Walk To Remember beauty has angrily denied she supports Bush and his party. Her publicist tells American website Pagesix.Com, "Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican."

I've said it before, I'll say it here to be definitive:

I really see no reason to pay undue heed to the opinions, conservative or liberal, of people who get paid primarily to speak words that other people think of for them.

While some celebrities do prove themselves eloquent on their own merits, most of them are capable of nothing more than parroting the latest screeds handed down ex cathedra from their party affiliations of choice -- except they can do it with feeling.

Thanks for the Memory to Sir George at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Just when I thought they couldn't get any dumber in Hollywood, Tim Robbins opens his yap, and of all sources, the UK Guardian takes him to task. The best quote is this one: "He shows me a scene that he's editing from Embedded that is both pretentious and simple-minded - not a happy combination - and is reminiscent of the worst shouty agitprop."

Both pretentious and simple-minded. That's about the best description of Hollywood I've encountered yet.

Simply Indefensible

Being a good husband means, in part, enduring the Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games with your spouse. I made it, but just barely.

The inanity of it all was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Greeks seemed to actually enjoy themselves putting on this party (and the announcers made sure we knew, ad nauseum, just how good at partying Greeks are). What really got under my skin, though, was the portion of the ceremony concerned with turning the Olympic Flag over to Beijing.

OK, let's look past the canned-sounding Chinese National Anthem that sounded vaguely like the East German one from Top Secret!

Let's look past the Chinese Robert Palmer Girls with their pleasant to the eye but grating to the nerves combination of traditional Chinese miniskirts, Ancient instruments and 80's dance moves.

Let's look past the dance troupe Tai chi/Kung Fu dance number that was so very "Cultural Revolution."

What I CAN'T look past is the fact that the Olympics have been turned over to the Devil. Beijing is one of the most oppressive totalitarian regimes in the world, and their sports program both reflects and is intended to showcase the merits of that system. Children who show promise are taken from their homes and put in government-run training centers from an early age and there they remain -- separated from their families, wards of the state for as long as they can perform. If anything, the system makes the old Soviet system seem like Disneyland.

And you can bet that the games will be a showcase for the merits of a communist system as well -- well-run, clean, and efficient. But at what cost? How brutal will the crackdown be on dissenters to prevent any embarassment of China? Beijing 08 is going to be the Comunist world's answer to Berlin 36.

And I for one hope someone pulls a Jesse Owens.