Sunday, July 31, 2005

Knowledge is Power?

Question: Is "Knowledge is Power" a useful philosophy?
Answer: Yes and no.

No one can doubt the value of knowledge. We seek it, we create it, we pay for it, we desire it. So why do I bristle when I hear that particular saying. Because it's dangerous. Let me explain.

The phrase "knowledge is power" is incomplete. First, the "power" portion is not defined. In fact, the real power does not come from the knowledge itself but from the ability to act on the knowledge. The easiest way to explain my point is to toss up the example of a smoker. Most, if not all, smokers know that smoking is bad for their health. They have seen the films, read the articles and heard the warnings. And yet many smokers continue to smoke. In fact, many smokers will die from their addiction. Why? Because they lacked the ability to act on their knowledge. Their knowledge had no power (or insufficient power) to change their actions.

Second, the "knowledge" portion of the phrase isn't defined. Here are a couple of examples to make this point. When you're a child, you learn that crossing the street can't be done without an adult and that "knowledge" keeps you safe. In other words, knowledge can be relative. Those distributing the "knowledge” can also be wrong. Remember the media frenzy over oat bran and its effect on cholesterol? Someone was wrong in that case but what if false information is distributed intentionally. It happens all the time. Anyone from a small time con man to a power hungry politician can use knowledge to manipulate people for nefarious reasons. So the phrase "knowledge is power" is incomplete and without real meaning.

The biggest problem I have with the phrase is that it sets someone up to rely solely on "knowledge." This generally turns off a person’s intuition and makes them susceptible to incorrect/incomplete knowledge or susceptible to those that would manipulate them. Operating under the notion that this false knowledge is still "powerful," they will make incorrect decisions.

The next time you hear someone say "knowledge is power," let this post run through your mind and ask yourself these questions.
1. Does the knowledge fit into what I have already proven to be true and useful?
2. Does acting on this knowledge improve my life in a meaningful way?
3. Does my acting on this knowledge help me or does it help someone else for some undisclosed agenda?

Open a critical eye when you hear the phrase "knowledge is power." You'll be better for it.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Poor Helen Thomas!

From PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science - Helen Thomas Threatens to Kill Self if Cheney Runs:
"If Helen is trying to dissuade Cheney, wouldn’t the more efficacious threat be that she would appear nude if Cheney ran for President?"

Good point! (hee hee)

If you think that this post is cruel or inappropriate please see my post earlier today titled Mom!! They're Making Fun of Me! and, "Grow up!"

Mom!! They're Making Fun of Me!

Question: Are jokes about a public figures appearance "fair?"
Answer: They're big boys and girls. They chose their profession. They can handle it.

Jannette of Common Sense Runs Wild and Jody of Steal the Bandwagon got into a bit of a tif about the propriety of making fun of public figures. Jannette likes the humor and Jody feels it degrades the discussion. Jody says:
[I]f we as society allow our media to continue to judge people on their "June Cleaver" hair cuts and their make-up application techniques, we'll be the ones to lose out as a result. Turn off the station that mentions the candidates hair and clothing. Refuse to buy the paper that insults the "fashion sense" of the educator. Stop reading the blog with the continued references to appearance when arguing against a person's position.

Cheap shots about someone's appearance is easier and usually better read than well calculated arguments against their position. With the possibility of one or two candidates for 2008's presidential election being women, I think it might get very ugly. I say, we take a stand now in the blogosphere to refuse to degrade a woman or man on appearance and degrade them the right way. On their qualifications.

Anyone with me?

To which Jannette replies:
Well not me, obviously. I don't consider it a function of my blog to offer straight serious political analysis. Oh sure, I throw some in every now and then but for the most part I spend my blogging time trying to make certain that you see as much humor and irony on the world of politics and the media as I do. At least I'm honest enough to admit that sometimes I am distracted from what Nancy Pelosi is saying because I'm trying to detect any movement, any at all, by her eyebrows.

Now I read both of the these feisty female's blogs and I wouldn't want to get in the middle of a real tussle (looks like they made up already anyway) but I really must agree with Jannette. There is a place for some really down and dirty humor at the expense of public figures. It keeps them real for us and it lets them know we are still watching. Most public figures realize that all publicity is good. To the ones that get angry I say, "Grow up!" The rest of the world learned to deal with ridicule in about the 3rd grade!

If you would like to read Jannette's post, it's titled
Common Sense Runs Wild: Thou Shalt Not Mock Helen Thomas.

Have a good laugh on me

Thursday, July 28, 2005

John Roberts's Thesis as a Window into His Judicial Philosophy

An article by Christine DeLucia in George Mason University's History News Network seems to indicate a man who focuses on the facts at hand and tries to seperate facts from political wrangling. His thesis concerned the rise and fall of the of the Liberal party in England. From the article:
"The thesis attempts to break new ground on several fronts. Roberts criticizes several previous interpretations of the Liberal Party's rise and decline, noting that the history of interpretation had often been warped by partisanship. Those sympathetic to the Liberal Party blamed the Party's decline on vague historical contingencies. Labour historians argued that the Liberal Party inevitably would be replaced by one focused on the working man. Roberts has little patience with such partisan approaches. He prefers, he says, the interpretations offered by historians who pursued a “more detached view than the partisans had.” (p. 10) "

Ms. DeLucia's article is well written and gives me hope that a strict constructionist has finally been appointed to the bench. Read the whole thing at What Does John Roberts's Harvard History Thesis Tell Us About Him?.

(hat tip to Political Yen/Yang.)

Duck Fudge Revisited II

As you all know, I’m a great fan of fudge. I’ve even posted a recipe (Duck Fudge) that helps the new or inconsistent fudge maker get it right every time. In that post I encouraged everyone to experiment with their recipe. That is why, in the spirit of "doing as I say...", I must report an experiment that FAILED! Let me give you the whole story.

Hershey's Special Dark chocolate hits a particular sweet tooth that just cannot be satisfied by another flavor. Recently my sister sent a full can of Special Dark cocoa. I was so excited I shed three tail feathers as I opened the package! I have never seen it in stores (maybe it's available where you live) but she had picked it up in Hershey, PA. What a treat! You can bet that your friendly ignited drake waddled off to make a batch of "Special Dark" fudge as quickly as possible. I gathered the sugar, evaporated milk, vanilla and corn syrup from the pantry and placed them on the counter. My measuring cups and spoons joined the ingredients. Then I opened the refrigerator to a most horrible sight. I had only 5 1/2 tablespoons of butter left!

After yelling at the ducklings for using my REAL BUTTER on their cinnamon toast (sheesh!), I had a decision to make, either postpone the fudge batch a full 24 hours until I could get more butter or risk using slightly less in the recipe and using a spray non-stick coating (PAM) on the dish. Considering that I had just sacrificed three tails feathers, I choose the latter.

Everything went well. The dry ingredients blended well. The wet ingredients were added without a problem. The mixture heated without burning and the boiling occurred just as in previous successful batches. The temperature hit exactly 235 degrees, which is where I like my fudge. The batch cooled without being disturbed and the beating of the batch all went according to plan. Even when pouring the mixture into the greased dish, nothing seemed amiss.

The problem is that it never really hardened. The only clue that I have is that the edges seem to have remained "looser" than the middle. Not quite syrupy loose but loose enough that you can't take out a finger full without it slumping into the open space.

There were three variables that I changed; the new cocoa, the slightly less butter and the PAM on the dish. I can't imagine that the cocoa had anything to do with it. The lack of butter may have contributed but I think the major culprit was the PAM. PAM is a vegetable oil based spray. My guess is the oil seeped into the edges of the batch and prevented it from setting. Conclusion to this experiment? Vegetable oil based cooking spray is NOT an acceptable substitute for greasing a fudge dish. Use butter only!

Bummer! Now we have to eat a whole batch of fudge with spoons. But it gives me a good excuse to make another batch!

Ya Gotta Love it!

My post titled Karl Rove is NOT GUILTY... comes up FIRST (at least as of 28Jul05) when you google 'Karl Rove is guilty' (without the quotes). Ya gotta love it!

Google Search: karl rove is guilty

Monday, July 25, 2005

Stopping the Homocide Bombers

Question: Are religious zealots driven by political motives?
Question: Are political radicals driven by religious motives?
Answer: It seems that terror masterminds may employ a variety of techniques to recruit homicide bombers.

I have been under the impression that homicide bombers were sacrificing themselves because of religious fanaticism. There have been several reports recently that I may be off track in such thinking and that homicide bombers were more driven by a political desire to stop foreign occupations. That notion struck a bit of a chord with me because it dovetails nicely with the IRA bombings in Ireland. The nationalism viewpoint can also be used to explain the bombings in Iraq.

But the bombings in London, by native born Muslims, put a twist into that theory. I find it hard to believe that a British born person would be as susceptible to a call to commit bombings for some kind of Arab nationalism. I feel that some sort of religious call to arms would be more persuasive. Case in point would be Richard Reed, the infamous shoe bomber, whom I believe was a religious, rather than nationalist, fanatic.

So what is the driving force behind suicide bombers? Is it religiousor is it political? In the worst case scenario, it may be individualized. One bomber may do it for religious reasons. One may do it for political reasons. This "mixed motives" theory is probably the closest explanation and the problem now becomes, "How do we kill the beast with two (or more) heads."

At first glance, this could be a devastating blow to our efforts to stop terrorism. We now must divide our efforts between radical religious AND radical political fanatics. There are thousands of such groups in the world with hundreds of thousands of members. How can we expect to stop them all! The key is to find the commonality between them.

The common link see is the fact that such groups use people as a weapon. But a potential bomber is not your average person. Homicide bombers are uniquely susceptibleto radical ideas and so malleable that they can be persuaded to "sacrifice" their life in the ultimate action, killing innocent people (and themselves) in the name of a cause. Since we cannot wage war against the type of person used as a bomber (it's not a crime to be stupid), we have to wage war against those that would manipulate the would-be bombers. In other words, we have to seek out and kill the leaders of the groups.

I realize that people far smarter than I have already figured this out. In fact, I can say that I even more fully support the efforts of the Bush administration and the coalitionthan I did before this epiphany. There is no way to stop all of the bombers. We have to stop the people that persuade the bombers.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

More London Bombings?

Morning Drive Breaking News

Sketchy news reports are coming in about London emergency crews responding to London subway stations. Wish I had more but, as I said, details are sketchy at this point.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Bush Follows His Conscience

Question: What is behind a decision that surprises all the pundits?
Answer: Usually a good, sound conscience!

Political pundits, by definition, form their published perspective from a consistent political perspective. That is what they have found to be successful. That is why the media seeks them out. That is how they make a living selling books, columns and articles. So what does it mean when the outcome of a decision doesn't fit neatly into ANY political pundit theory? It means it was an APOLITICAL decision!

Dr. Taylor at Poliblogger nailed the "theory" behind the Roberts nomination.
Why can’t the assumption be that Bush picked Roberts because Bush thought Roberts was the best for the position at this time given the various factors in play at the moment? (and by “best” I mean from Bush’s POV)
This is the only "theory" that answers all the angles around Judge Roberts nomination.

PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science � The Politics of Nominations

Read the whole post.

Open Source Disk Cloner

Normally, I don't post about IT items but the geek in me just couldn't pass up an open source disk cloner that works for all operating systems. Don't thank me. Thank Paul for his Wizbang post called
Cloning Hard Drives w/ FreeBSD Linux Windows NetBSD OpenBSD Made Easy (no really).

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Power Line: I'm over the moon

On the John Roberts announcement, Paul at Powerline says, "I'm over the moon."

Good things being said by good conservatives. I'm encouraged.

Information on Nominee Roberts

Dr. Steven Taylor has a couple of good posts on John Roberts.

PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science

Go read them.

Justice John Roberts

Justice John Roberts. Has a nice ring to it. I don't know much about him so...

Let the confirmation begin!

Monday, July 18, 2005

A Day-By-Day to Think About

Took me a second but then I understood (I have been a little slow all day).

Iraq Flypaper

(hat tip Bad Example)

Preventing a "Roveing."

Question: How can one prevent being falsely accused of a crime?
Answer: By making sure all the facts are released before the "Roveing."

Before someone attempts to ruin my reputation, it is possible that I have two acquaintances who may have been in the CIA. (as we used to say in the Navy, this is a real 'no shitter' meaning 'I'm not joking.')

Acquaintance #1
I have a friend who confided in me that his father was a spy plane pilot. He said that he never knew when or where his dad's next flight was going but that he hated not being able to know what his dad did for a living. I met his father once but I cannot remember his name. I have not spoken to these gentlemen for 22 years so I can't say if his occupation is still the same.

Acquaintance #2
I graduated high school with a friend who went to college and majored in "Russian Studies." At various high school reunions he was very secretive about his career, only saying he "traveled abroad." I haven't spoken to him in 15 years.

For the record, I cannot confirm that these gentlemen are, or ever did, work for the CIA. I have disclosed within this post all the information I have about these two individuals. I am not going to name these acquaintances because it appears that I have a closer connection to them than Karl Rove has to "Joe Wilson's wife" and I don't want to risk being accused of outing an operative. I just hope that this post shows that I am not trying to cover-up any important information.

I would urge anyone else who has acquaintances who might be in the CIA to come clean also! Protect yourself from a possible Roveing.

"Rove:" A New Word

In the grand tradition of creating a new word out of high profile incidents, ala "Borking" from the Robert Bork congressional judicial hearing, I suggest we create "Rove" to be defined as follows:

Main Entry: 1Rove
Pronunciation: 'rO-vi[ng]
Function: verb
Etymology: Modern English, arising from the Karl Rove incident
1: To search incessantly for a crime against tremendous odds that none has been committed. {He Roved for several days through thousands of White House files.}
2 : To imply a crime has been committed without fact. {The citizen was Roveing the Councilman after he spoke about the indescretion.}

But my favorite potential application is as an adjective.

Main Entry: 1Rove·ing
Pronunciation: 'rO-vi[ng]
Function: adjective
Etymology: Modern English, arising from the Karl Rove incident
1: one who Roves. {I have seen enough Roveing "watch dog" groups in my time.}
2: inclined to grasp at straws. {The Roveing District Attorney lost another case.}
3: inclined to make incorrect conclusions from inadequate facts. {The Roveing reporter did not wait until all the facts were disclosed.}

(Bwahahaha =;^O)

Friday, July 15, 2005

Friday "Food For Thought"

Happy Friday.

"'War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

.... John Stuart Mill

Great Questions of Life

Question: Why do all the "good" nuts float to the top of a can of mixed nuts?
Answer: Do you know the answer?

Just What I Was Thinking!

I just finished a couple of posts, one agreeing with a succinct definition of terrorism and one that defines our options for dealing with terrorism as one deals with snakes, when I happened upon a post by Jay Tea at Wizbang which dovetails nicely. His post does a good job of tying those two posts together into one coherent idea but he lays out the thought process better than I did. Read it and tell me if you think Jay Tea is starting down the same path that Shakey Pete and I have.

To the Crux of the Matter (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series, I linked to to a piece by Jeff at Protein Wisdom that helps us understand how to define terrorism. Part 2 links to a post by Shakey Pete that uses a few more words to help us understand why we MUST kill terrorists and some possible unsavory options. It's not a matter of politics, or revenge, or hatred, or lack of understanding. It's a matter of defending you and yours. From the post Shakey Pete's Shootin' Shack: Sometimes I Kill Snakes, A Lesson For Islam:
When I kill a snake it's not out of hatred, I actually think snakes are kind of cool... My rule is a simple one with snakes, if they aren't dangerous to me or mine, they go about their snakey business unmolested by me. If they are dangerous, I kill them. Without hatred, without anger and without regret. While I will kill the snakes that endanger me or mine, I'm equally aware of the role they play in nature. Kill them I will, though...

Here's how this relates to Islamic terrorism. Snakes are easily recognizable. I can tell a venomous snake by sight. Most, like the Rattlesnakes of my home range, have a peculiar head shape. Others, like the Coral snake have a distinctive color scheme and there ain't nothin' but a Cottonmouth that looks like a Cottonmouth. The trouble with Islamic terrorists is that they have no such distinctive appearance. If they did, it would be very easy to root them out. They don't have a distinctive head shape, nor color scheme. This is how they manage to present a danger. Unfortunately they don't just present a danger to us Infidels. There was a time, before we learned to differentiate between venomous snakes and harmless ones, snakes, of any kind, were killed on sight. If there was no easy way to distinguish the harmless from the venomous, they still would be.

Let's hope that by using all of the ability (covert intelligence, precision strikes and military might) that we have today we can kill the terrorism "snake" by chopping off it's head because terror is like the cottonmouth. It comes after you even if you don't disturb it.

My biggest fear is that the situation is as characterized by some of my liberal friends (we will never stop terrorists from perpetuating the hate) then we may have no alternative but to protect ourselves. And if we cannot identify the terrorist from the peace loving Muslim, well then... No, I am not talking about exterminating Muslims (that was your thought, not mine) but if the threat comes from flooding rivers you have to building dikes and dams.

This is why it is SO important for the Muslim community to stand up and shout, "We hate terrorists and we will not stand for that influence to be perpetuated." Only someone on the inside can stop the rot occuring on the inside. But I am heartened by one bright spot. The recent Islamic demonstrations in London give me hope that this situation can be solved with out resorting to the "worst case" option.

To the Crux of the Matter

Some people just have the ability to distill complicated subjects into easily understood pieces. Jeff at Protein Wisdom displays that talent as he analyzes terrorism. From the post
The first step to understanding root causes is identifying those causes—which, after much consideration, I believe I’ve been able to do: TERRORISTS WHO BLOW SHIT UP.
See what I mean! Now go read the whole post.

(hat tip WitNit)

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Karl Rove NOT GUILTY...

...according to the facts as I see them. You see, the first step in charging a criminal is to determine what crime they committed. That determination is based on comparing the situation under investigation to all of the criteria included in the statute. Unfortunately for the administration's enemies, it appears that the statute under which Rove might be charged is so narrowly crafted that the situation just does not fit the criminal definition. (Sorry, but that's not my unique idea. I got it from Dr. Steven Taylor's post On Plame and Criminality)

What I really want to address is those who say the "Rove not guilty..." perspective is "clintonesque" and smacks of "determining what the definition of 'is' is."

To them I say, "Give me a break!" The parsing that Mr. Clinton engaged in resulted in losing his law license for a year. It is readily apparent to all that Mr. Clinton's situation actually DID fit a criminal definition. Karl Rove's situation DOES NOT fit a criminal definition.

And no amount of liberal whining is going to make it so!

BTW. While your at PoliBlogger, read the other Rove posts. Maybe you will come to the same conclusion that the whole Rove issue is really much ado about nothing.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Cool Milestones!

A couple of cool milestones for the Flaming Duck. First, 3000 Sitemeter visits on the ticker.

Next, Flappy Bird status on the TTLB.

Not much by some standards but more than I expected.

Woohoo! Life is good!

"Stop the Presses!"

Question What does one do when he finds himself on the wrong side of history?
Answer Rewrite the history, of course.

So much of what is bad about the Untied States is a direct result of a political "rewrite" of history. Activists with significant hidden agendas have chosen to bolster their warped view of the world with an equally warped view of past events.

Take for example our current Supreme Court. Five activist justices "rewrote" the constitution in Kelo v. City of New London when they continued the "reinterpretation" of the constitutional phrase "public use" as "public benefit."
Astute readers will quickly note that the phrase "public benefit" is far broader than the constitutional words "public use." That latter phrase clearly covers only two situations. The first arises when land is taken to build government facilities, such as forts, or to construct infrastructure, such as highways, open to all. The second covers those cases where property is taken by, or conveyed to, private parties who are duty bound to keep it open to all users.
Now I need only keep my lawn neater than my neighbor and I can ask the local governing body to condemn my neighbors home and give it to me.

The political left did it when they stated that "no one really won the cold war."
Professor Steel seems to regret the end of the cold war; he writes, "In its perverted way, the cold war was a force for stability."
Yes, let's all go back to the days of the Cuban Missle Crisis!

Now Al-Jazeera is trying to do it by equating all religions with the current radical Islamic terrorists.
There are terrorists in every religion and nationality. Perhaps, by chance, there are Muslims who carry out some of the terrorist operations at this stage, but Jews carried out terrorist operations in the past, and Christians have carried out terrorist operations as well. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism.
Are they Muslims or are they terrorists? I have Muslim friends. All terrorists are my enemy.

The activists will continue to try to change history but there is a difference. We now have a blogosphere filled with people living the events that will soon be recorded as "history." Our current daily history will be recorded by those who lived it, not by some activist removed by several decades from the event itself. There will be differing opinions written and preserved for all time on blogs of all political stripes. The average duck now has the opportunity to stand up and say, "Wait! No one speaks for me! That historian DOES NOT express my view. Listen to me. Weigh it with hundreds, if not thousands, of other experiences and thereby REALLY understand the events that are shaping this world."

Read each of the articles and then see how your own blog fits into the bigger picture.

Epstein on KELO

Richard Epstein has a great summary of Kelo v. City of New London. I will move aside and let you read the article.

(Hat tip Professor Bainbridge)

Monday, July 11, 2005

London Bombing
52 Confirmed Dead

An Open Letter to the Citizens of London

My condolences on the recent Al Qaeda bombing. My sympathy may be somewhat misplaced because the United States is actually the “Johnny-come-lately” as a terrorist target. Both the United Kingdom and Israel have suffered the cowardly attacks for many more years than the US. Still, I feel the need to express my sympathy. Whether it is one innocent life, or 52 innocent lives or 3000 innocent lives, the pain is still very real.

But with my sympathy I would like to offer a bit of hope. In a way I am heartened because, for all their bluster, Al Qaeda has shown it's weakness. The promises of bringing the United States to its knees have not been fulfilled. The incredible threats against all civilized countries have only resulted in two significant bombings outside of Iraq, one in Madrid and now one in London. Al Qaeda is choosing it's targets very carefully but they have proven almost impotent.

Can we boast that the lack of attacks is the results of our own fine efforts? I don't think so. The United States is still as vulnerable as ever. Do the terrorists lack the resources to complete large-scale attacks? Not hardly! The London bombings could have been accomplished with a few pounds of high explosives and a handful of people. It only took 20 radical fundamentalists to level two of the largest buildings in the world. Is Al Qaeda preoccupied with the "insurgency" in Iraq? Maybe. But that's one of the Bush administrations goals (and it may be working).

So whom can we credit with the lack of attacks? I think we should thank the media and the liberal left. The goal of any terror attack is to instill fear. The American media has continued to show the political left wing of the United States crying and whining about our safety when the reality is that there have been no further attacks on our soil. Most Americans feel reasonably safe but that's not the picture that makes it back to the Al Qaeda leadership. For them, we are a nation cowering; shrinking from the deadly blows and there is no reason to attack again when the fear still exists.

I say let the media do what they are best at, presenting an incorrect picture. Let them broadcast stories about people scared of their own shadow. Let your British media give Al Qaeda a reason to move elsewhere with their attacks.

I say let an ever-increasing number of countries tally innocent victims killed by the cowardly terrorists. Those countries will then join the fight. As Saudi and Jordanian Muslims see French and German Muslims killed by fundamentalist attacks the pressure will build from within and the tide will turn.

I say, remain vigilant but return to your daily lives. Be cautious but don't cower. We stand with you. Together, we will prevail.

Saturday, July 09, 2005

What a Week!

What a week to be out of touch. Al Quaeda bombs London and rumors of Justice Rehnquist's retirement run rampant...and me without a computer! Oh well. I'll try next week.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

The REAL George W. Bush

From the UK Times Online:
"In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media."

Those that voted for him have seen it all along!

(hat tip Americans for Freedom)

Cox & Forkum: Gasaconda

As we get ready to leave for a week in New Jersey (yes, on purpose!), this Cox & Forkum cartoon rings true! It's almost cheaper to fly 6 people than to drive 8 hours.

My Duck Conscience is Clear!

Question: Has politics become the high art of slander?
Answer: Truth is generally the best vindication against slander. Abraham Lincoln

On Thursday, I posted a quick note about a new poll. The poll, conducted by Democracy Corps, indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats. The clincher in the article was a finding that said:
"the slippage [is related] to voters' perceptions that Democrats have 'no core set of convictions or point of view'."
Since writing that post, I began to wonder about the "cause" of that perception. Is it true that liberals have no core set of values? I actually have several liberal friends who have a great set of values. It just seems that they can't translate self-indulgent values like concern about family, health and environment into self-less values like god, honor and country. I just find it amazing that they are still more worried about the horrors of fast food than they are about the safety of this nation. Still, I value their friendship none the less. My greatest concern was that somehow, by pointing out the differences between the value sets in the political arena, conservatives had unjustly saddled liberals with this "valueless" reputation.

But then Rick Moran, at Rightwing Nuthouse, publishes an article called THE LEFT’S “WORD DEFICIT” and suddenly everything snaps back into perspective. From the article:
In the House, the International Relations Committee last week voted overwhelmingly, 32 to 9, to call on the White House to develop and submit a plan to Congress for establishing a stable government and military in Iraq that would “permit a decreased US presence” in the country. Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D/CA)—along with 41 Congressional progressives, including Woolsey, John Lewis, Charles Rangel, Jim McGovern, Rush Holt, Marcy Kaptur and Jan Schakowsky—has just formed the “Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus.” Its sole purpose, Waters says, “is to be the main agitators in the movement to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.” And Rep John Conyers’ impassioned efforts to bring attention to the Downing Street Memo—on Thursday he held hearings on Capitol Hill and then delivered to the White House letters that contained the names of more than 560,000 Americans demanding answers to questions raised by the British memo—has reenergized and refocused opposition to the war.

All in all, the left thinks that they’ve got the Bush Administration on the run. But in all the celebratory encomiums and congratulatory backslapping, there’s not a word about what they believe the enemy thinks about their campaign to deliberately undermine the war effort. This is no accident as there has been a “word deficit” on the part of the left since the War on Terror and especially since the war in Iraq began.

The article shows "precisely" why the citizens of the United States have begun to feel that liberal values are not real values. Republicans only need to repeat the liberal tirades. No embellishment, no exaggeration, no overstatement needed. My conscience is clear. Go read the whole article.

Friday, July 01, 2005

O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

Bwahahahhaha! - Politics - O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court