Right Wing Nut House

The American revolution was, according to historian Page Smith a “logical extension” of the European Enlightenment. This was a period encompassing the mid 17th century to the late 18th century that resulted in an explosion of thought that radically transformed government, society, and the way people looked at the world around them. Writers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote brilliant treatises on the natural rights of man and the worth of individuals in society. These were the ideas that so affected people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and resulted in western civilization’s most important experiment in self-government; the United States of America.

The American constitution was written, according to Smith, at “the last possible moment in history” that such a document was possible. Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” was to soon be supplanted by Rationalism. Smith argues (most compellingly) that the tug of war between the rationalists and supporters of the enlightenment at the constitutional convention brought to fruition a document that melded the best of both worlds; individual rights were protected by a strong central government that was itself restrained by carefully enumerating those powers granted by the people.

As Ronald Reagan pointed out on numerous occasions, the government’s powers are defined by what the people cede to it, not by what rights the government decides to give to the people. Reagan also made clear that this was the basis of “American Exceptionalism;” a concept that has fallen into disfavor amongst the left over the past quarter century. More than anything else, it is this philosophy of government that separates us from other democracies in the world.

And that’s what makes the Groningen Protocols an object lesson in why our founders were right. The protocols have sparked outrage in the blogosphere even though nary a peep has been heard from the MSM about the Dutch preparing to expand the notion of euthanasia to include killing children deemed to be a “burden” to their parents and society. What’s so astonishing, worrying, and frightening to me is that because the Dutch believe that parents are “too involved (?)” in their own childs welfare, such a decision on killing the child should be left to a committee of doctors.

The fact that this is monstrous should go without saying. What’s truly frightening however is the lack of reaction by media in the US and Europe to this rebirth of the worst of Nazi euthanasia policies.

In William L. Schirer’s classic “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” the author points out that while Nazis encouraged “Aryan” women to have as many babies as possible, (even out of wedlock) non-Aryans such as Jews, gypsies, Slavs, and others were the victims of forced abortions and sterilization. It was but a short jump from those policies to the euthanasia practiced against the deformed, the retarded, and all who, in the opinion of the doctor, would be a burden on the Reich.

The Groningen Protocols eerily echo these policies and call into question the very nature of man’s relationship to government in a free society. When the most important right of all–the right to life–is put in the hands of a committee, it’s time for the Dutch people and indeed the entire euthanasia movement to rethink and reevaluate what they’re trying to accomplish.

How did we go from the idea that terminally ill people should decide for themselves whether to live with their suffering or end it with the assistance of their family doctor to this nightmare scenario of faceless bureaucrats deciding who lives, who dies, and on what basis those decisions are made? Is this the “slippery slope” opponents of assisted suicide have been talking about for years?

Hugh Hewitt links to a post by Mark Roberts where in the comments section. someone left this thought provoking note:

“I have a 14 y.o. daughter with the severe form of epidermolysis bullosa (EB) mentioned in this article. I’m devastated. I can’t believe that someone could decide to kill a child with any disorder. Yes, life is extremely difficult and painful for my daughter. And the amount of time that is spent on keeping her alive is astronomical, but I’m glad she’s mine…”

This courageous man would be denied any meaningful say in his own daughter’s life and death. How can that possibly be right? What insanity has gripped the minds of proponents of these protocols that would allow them the conceit to believe that their judgment was better than the child’s own family.

And Hindrocket from Powerline, in one of the most powerful and moving posts on this subject I’ve read on the net, weighs in with some extraordinary personal admissions:

“For most of my life, I thought that philosophers could generate intellectual systems, independent of religious belief, that would, on a strictly rational basis, reproduce all of the essentials of the 20th century system that has worked well for this country. I no longer believe that to be the case. It seems appallingly clear, now, that the secular path–the road that has been taken by the Netherlands and almost all of western Europe–leads inexorably to the view that men and women are cattle, and the only reasonable approach is to appoint a committee of wise men to decide when it is time for them to die.”

Compare Hindrocket’s views with this article that appeared in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, the bible of secular humanists:

“Can science and reason be used to develop ethical judgments? Many theists claim that without religious foundations, “anything goes,” and social chaos will ensue. Scientific naturalists believe that secular societies already have developed responsible ethical norms and that science and reason have helped us to solve moral dilemmas.”

This is revealing of a mindset that places rationality above reason. It may be rational to kill children for the good of all, but reason (which historically is based on a belief in some kind of deity) would restrain such a notion based on the idea that there are limits placed on man to interfere with another’s liberty; and that fundamental liberty–given by a deity to ALL men–trumps any and all efforts to deny such basic rights.

Captain Ed has some thoughts on why this story isn’t getting more play in the media:

“The lack of widespread horror following Groningen’s announcement betrays a world where human life only matters for its commercial value, not as a sacred or unique gift. Even the revelation that Groningen proposes to kill children it deems too inconvenient to live despite their parents’ wishes, up to age 12, fails to shock a world desensitized to humanity and wrapped up in its so-called secular “humanism”.”

The Capn’ also has some strong thoughts about the “greased chute” we’ve fallen into:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we have not just reached a slippery slope — we have hit a greased chute, which is what depresses me more than anything else. Now that Groningen has commenced killing the undesirables and the world has answered with a shrug, we will now hear from the chorus of statists telling us that in an era of limited resources, we need to make these hard decisions for the benefit of the families involved and the greater good of society. That child who may never walk or talk will be such a burden on his family, they’ll say; the parents are too close to the situation to make an informed decision, so we’ll make it for them — for their own good, of course.”

Is there a way we can alert people to this travesty? So far, only a few conservative magazines and right of center blogs have been talking about this issue. It may take an effort as Herculean as that which brought down Dan Rather…but it must be done.

It seems incredible but for some in the west, the goings on in the Ukraine are looked upon as nothing more than a CIA sponsored coup d’etat–an effort using slick marketing and western media manipulation to deny the “legitimate” winner of the election, Viktor Yanukovych, his rightful place as President. This column by the aptly named John Laughland is one example of how the moonbats (especially in Europe) have come to hate the idea of freedom:

“Whether it is Albania in 1997, Serbia in 2000, Georgia last November or Ukraine now, our media regularly peddle the same fairytale about how youthful demonstrators manage to bring down an authoritarian regime simply by attending a rock concert in a central square.”

“Two million anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a few tens of thousands in Kiev are proclaimed to be “the people”, while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression.”

To me it’s Laughable (pun intended) to compare 2,000,000 citizens exercising their right of free speech in a free country with a “few tens of thousands” (try several HUNDRED thousand) who are taking their lives in their hands by defying the police and governmental institutions which are not only “instruments of oppression” as Mr. Laughingstock mockingly puts it, but wholly owned and managed subsidiaries of a foreign power (Russia).

The fact that Laughingboy can’t tell the difference is revealing of a moonbat mindset that yearns for authoritarianism. These are the very same people who opposed overthrowing Saddam, embraced the now deceased Arafat, and coddle the socialist Venezuelan dictator Chavez who recently received a prize that Mr. Laughoutloud would appreciate; the (I kid you not) Gaddafi International Human Rights Prize, presented by that Champion of liberty, justice, and brown-shirted, jack-booted thugs everywhere, Daniel Ortega.

So what’s Laughaminute’s problem? Orange clothing!

“The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous.”

The only “duping” going on here is one of self-delusion on the part of Mr. Laughtrack and his fellow tin foil beanie wearers. Is the opposition organized? Yes, and that’s what makes them so effective. The spontaneity of several hundred thousand people braving winter weather (in Kiev, no less) and living from minute to minute with the idea that soldiers and/or police will start in on them with truncheons and rubber bullets should prove the point to even moonbats like Mr. Laughoff.

Is the west assisting and encouraging the dissenters? Gawd I hope so! Standing up and being counted with people who desire freedom used to be what the left was all about. And even though Mr. Yushchenko is not the ideal democratic vessel, there’s no doubt he represents a truly independent Ukraine; not the toady to anyone, be it Moscow or Washington.

Here’s Jesse Walker writing in “Reason” magazine:

“Thousands of Ukrainians establish enormous tent cities in Kiev, braving the cold to protest an election they say was stolen. Volunteers distribute stew and coffee, warm clothes and medical care, balloons for children. Students seize government buildings; the workers there feed them. The staffers at UT1, the state TV station, declare that they’re tired of “telling the government’s lies” and announce, live, that they’re going to join the protests. Outside the presidential administration building, demonstrators put flowers in the shields of the riot cops—an echo, surely deliberate, of one of the most famous images of the ’60s. Members of the central resistance group, Pora, urge the police to disobey if the authorities tell them to crack down. Thus far, the order hasn’t come—in part, Pora suspects, because the government is worried it will be refused.”

Walker points out that Pora has received assistance from some western financed organizations;

“Otpor, the group that overthrew Milosevic, received some funds from the U.S. government via the National Endowment for Democracy and the Agency for International Development. Veterans of Otpor helped train the Kmara movement in Georgia, the Zubr movement in Belarus, and the Pora movement in Ukraine. The revolutions they inspired—part Yippie street theater, part Gandhian resistance—got a hand from some of the same financial sources, including George Soros’s Open Society Institute. Washington has endorsed them warmly.”

The fact that the NED and AID receive money from Congress does not, by a long shot, make them tools of the American government. And anyone who thinks George Soros has any connection to the CIA or American intelligence doesn’t know anything about Mr. Soros’ megalomania. Soros has his own axe to grind in that part of the world and it doesn’t include letting America share in his dream of empire.

Besides, according to the Capn’, the Ukrainian Rada has now voted to oust the government:

“The vote also demanded that a new interim government be formed, one of national “trust” to shepherd the political crisis to an end. That means Kuchma will have to name a new PM, one that the inflamed Rada will accept, for the transition to either a recast second round of elections, which is what Yushchenko wants, or a rerun of the entire election, which is what Kuchma holds as his fallback position. It’s rather doubtful that anything except the former will convince the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians on the streets to disband.”

Unless you want to believe that the entire Rada has been bought off by the CIA, Mr. Laughriot and his cadre of barking moonbats are going to have to admit that using seed money to help organize an opposition is a long way from planning and executing a coup.

For my part, you couldn’t pay me ENOUGH to stand outside in the cold waiting to get bashed over the head for ANY politician in this country…but then, I don’t have to worry about being thrown in jail for what I believe, do I?

The New York Times is at it again.

Their target this time are Iraqi security forces. According to the Times, they’re underperforming:

MOSUL, Iraq, Nov. 29 - Iraqi police and national guard forces, whose performance is crucial to securing January elections, are foundering in the face of coordinated efforts to kill and intimidate them and their families, say American officials in the provinces facing the most violent insurgency.

The “American officials” are, of course, nameless.

“For those brave enough to come to work, “right now, all they’re doing is looking out the window and making sure the bad guys aren’t coming to get them,” said an American military official in Mosul, who did not want his name to be used.”

The nameless American military official is talking about Iraqi police, the weakest link in Iraqi security triumvirate of police, guardsmen, and army. But what of the army?

“American commanders praised the Iraqi commandos who took part in a battle to repel insurgents who attacked a police station here two weeks ago. But an American company commander who joined the fight, Capt. Bill Jacobsen, noted that of a force of slightly more than 100 commandos, 10 had been killed and 27 wounded.”

Notice the qualifier “but” when talking about the commando’s casualties. In a fight against fanatical terrorists where 37% of the Iraqi force were casualties why does the Times make it seem that this is a bad thing? Obviously, the Iraqi’s held their ground. And the American Captain had nothing bad to say about the Iraqi’s, just that they had suffered a large number of casualties. Why is this an example of Iraqi forces “foundering?”

“Given the weak performance of Iraqi forces, any major withdrawal of American troops for at least a decade would invite chaos, a senior Interior Ministry official, whose name could not be used, said in an interview last week.”

C’mon guys, give me a break! If we can’t train enough Iraqi police and troops in half that time to handle the job, one would have to start wondering how we got to be the most powerful military in the world. This “senior Interior Ministry official” is assuming that the level of opposition to the government would remain constant. Talk to the guy is 6 months and see if he says the same thing.

“Even where there have been apparent successes, there are complications. American officials in Mosul, for example, single out the 106th Iraqi National Guard Battalion as performing with professionalism. But in an interview, the battalion commander said half of his troops were Kurdish, not Arab.”

Isn’t that kind of like saying that half of an American battalion is from eastern states and half from the west? What the hell difference does it make? They’re Iraqi’s aren’t they?

“Marine officers here maintain that the police are improving. In the current military sweep, called Operation Plymouth Rock, an Iraqi SWAT team was given credit for a series of raids that rounded up numerous insurgent suspects.

“2100: Clown Car arrives,” the slide said, referring to the helicopters. “2101: Be ready for negligent discharges,” the entry continued, warning of accidental shots from the AK-47’s carried by many of the recruits. “Recommend ‘Duck & Cover,’ ” it concluded.”

Notice the writer goes from marine officers praising fully trained Iraqi SWAT teams to denigrating raw recruits. How can this be a “different assessment” of the capabilities of trained Iraqi police? What possible justification is there to juxtapose the two anecdotes except to deliberately denigrate our efforts and call into question the veracity of American officials?

This is a hit piece pure and simple. Par for the course from the Times.

What are the chances of terrorists using a nuclear weapon to attack America?

This is the question that keeps George Bush and other policy makers awake at night. Such an attack would represent the single most life altering, world shaking, nation changing catastrophe in the history of human civilization. Period.

Only the explosion of the volcano Thera 3700 years ago that destroyed several eastern Mediterranean civilizations would be comparable. That disaster was regional in nature. Given the globe straddling reach of the American economy, anything that would devastate America would cause untold suffering and upheaval in every country of the world.

According to Yossef Bodansky. the likelihood of such an attack has reached a virtual certainty. Bodansky, former director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post that all of the warnings we have today indicate that a “major strike – something more horrible than anything we’ve seen before – is all but inevitable.”

“I do not have a crystal ball, but this is what all the available evidence tells us; we will have a bang,” Bodansky told the Post, adding al-Qaida is “tying up the knots” for an attack.” (WND 11/29)

The belief by some that the “dirty bomb scenario” is more likely (the effects of which would be miniscule compared to a 10 kiloton detonation of a nuclear weapon) is hardly comforting. The scenarios involving the detonation of even a crude one kiloton weapon at street level in Manhattan at midday involve enormous casualties, devastating blast effects, and panic inducing radiation.

Nuclear Detonation Scenario —Event History

Contamination of fallout zone may require relocation and decontamination. (Courtesy of the Rand Corporation)

That’s just the bare bones scenario. Some specifics would include refugee numbers in the millions, a breakdown in law and order that no army or National Guard units could deal with, a trillion dollar hit to the economy with a resulting job loss in the tens of millions, deflation, panic on a scale never seen…just about the worst parts of the bible you can think of.

And this is the best case scenario.

Imagine what the US response would be. Who would we attack? If the nuke came from Iran, North Korea, or even Pakistan, we’d be under enormous pressure–nuclear threat—from Russia and China NOT to retaliate. Why? Fallout patterns from a US strike in all three of those countries would mean we’d be killing a lot of Russians and Chinese along with the perpetrators (not to mention friendly nations like S. Korea, Iraq, Turkey, and others). At the very least, nuclear tensions would skyrocket and we’d truly be “on the brink.” One miscalculation on anybody’s part and industrialized civilization would be destroyed, perhaps never to rise again.

It’s pretty obvious to even a casual observer like me that this scenario must be prevented at all costs. The loss of life, liberty, and property would be so great it’s doubtful that after emerging from such an attack, the United States would be recognizable to any one of us. And that’s something worth fighting to prevent.

News from the radioactive mullahs in Iran:

The NY Times reports on Iran’s latest success in pulling the wool over the eyes of our European allies about their nuke program. Desperate to avoid a confrontation at the UN over the radioactive mullah’s efforts to build nuclear weapons, the allies gave Iran an open invitation to cheat on the recently signed agreement that had Iran promising not to enrich uranium:

“The breakthrough between the Europeans and Iran came after Iran suggested a change in the resolution that would more specifically reflect the positive step Iran was taking in suspending its enrichment program, both Mr. Mousavian and a senior European official said. In exchange, Iran abandoned its demand to operate the centrifuges for research.

Mr. Mousavian said the 20 centrifuge machines would not be sealed but placed under camera surveillance, a face-saving move that the I.A.E.A. said would be acceptable in terms of its monitoring capacity.”

It may be interesting to note that the North Korean’s nuke facilities were also placed under camera surveillance…which didn’t stop Kim & Co. from building their own nuclear toys.

Since the agreement was reached last Wednesday, Iran has gone back on some of its provisions three times; each time requiring the Europeans to scramble to save the accord before they were forced to go before the UN and declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. For the EU, this situation just wouldn’t do. After all, it would be rather awkward to develop trade and commercial projects in Iran worth billions of Euros if the mullahs were so impolite as to openly flaunt their violation of non-proliferation treaties.

It’s pretty obvious that Iran is pushing the outside of the envelope of this agreement to see how far they can go in violating it before the EU puts its foot down. Obligingly, the Europeans have let the mullahs walk all over them, taking advantage of the EU’s reluctance for confrontation.

As I’ve written before, the EU will use this agreement as a fig leaf excuse NOT to take action against Iran when it becomes necessary to confront the mullahs over their nuclear program. It appears that when this confrontation occurs–probably later next year–the US will once again have to go it alone.

And in other news from the Muslim paradise:

Chad Evans at Backcountry Conservative has an interesting post linking this AP story regarding some unusual recruitment efforts by representatives of the religion of peace.

Not content with building weapons of mass destruction, the mullahs recently held a job fair for terrorists. Specifically, they went head hunting for suicide bombers.

The twist on this particular recruiting drive is, like any good employer, the murderous thugs who currently rule Iran gave their top prospects a choice of working conditions:

“The 300 men filling out forms in the offices of an Iranian aid group were offered three choices: Train for suicide attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, for suicide attacks against Israelis or to assassinate British author Salman Rushdie.”

And please use a no.2 pencil to record your answers…

Chad makes this excellent point:

Iran has been a spur in our sides inside of Iraq and nothing has been done in regards to this. The United States has let Iran continue to undermine Democracy in the Middle East without even as much as stern words. The Mullahs of Iran have a legitimate right to fear Democracy in the Middle East which is the main reason they have supported terrorism and people like al Sadr because they fear Democracy in Iraq will cross the border to Iran.

I have no doubt that part of the problem Chad alludes to is that PM Allawi can’t afford to antagonize Iran and has told Bush he’ll deal with the problem. According to Chad there are talks to close the border between Iran and Iraq which would help in stemming the flow of terrorists. But until the Iraqi people start getting serious about their own security, I doubt that much of a dent will be made in these suicide attacks on Iraqis and our own troops.

Events are slowly starting to spin out of control in the Ukraine.

Action on several fronts include:

Glen from Instapundit links to this excellent post from Daniel W. Drezner who paints a rather disturbing picture of what’s going on there.

“In a somewhat ominous development, the AP’s Anna Melnichuk reports that Kuchma is calling for an end to the protestors’ blockade of government buildings in Kiev, calling it a “gross violation of the law.” In Kiev, Post-modern Clog posts that, “Everybody is buzzing right now about martial law.” To be fair, he also notes, “at this point it’s only a report of discussions and nothing more solid than that.” Still, Yushchenko now seems more cognizant of this possibility.”

How involved is Vladimir Putin in these maneuverings?

Logically, given Russia’s keen interest in maintaining the Ukraine as a buffer state between it and the west, Putin needs a friend in Kiev. But how far is he willing to go to secure that friend? This from “Time” (via Drezner):

“Sources well briefed on Kremlin affairs tell TIME that as protests in Kiev gathered momentum, Putin urged the much-discredited outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, eager to secure a safe retirement amid charges of corruption and political violence, to declare Yanukovych the winner. The sources say Putin made it clear that Moscow would not accept a Yushchenko victory. If the Russian President sticks to that hard line, it could provoke serious trouble, abroad and at home.”

Putin seems to be making the classic error that all despots make when confronted with authentic democratic movements; they think that military force can somehow put the freedom genie back in the bottle. By threatening marshal law, Putin endangers his relationship with Washington in a way that his crackdowns recently on the press and his grab for power from other Russian states does not.

The US was willing to let Putin off with mild (some would say too mild) protests regarding his recent consolidation of power. But Ukraine is a sovereign state that has recently tried to move closer to NATO and the west. Forcing his hand-picked leader down the throats of the Ukrainian people will provoke outrage both here and in Europe; especially “new” European states like Poland. Already, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel have weighed in on the Ukrainian situation on the side of the protestors.

Can it get any worse? Yes:

“Regional leaders supporting Prime Minister Viktor F. Yanukovich, the embattled president-elect of Ukraine, pushed back firmly on Sunday against the opposition candidate’s quest for the presidency, signaling an intention for the eastern section of the country to seek autonomy next month if the political impasse persists.” (NY Times 11/29)

Secession would be an absolute disaster for the Ukranian people. If Putin were looking for an excuse to send in troops, there could be no greater casus belli for direct Russian intervention than civil war. If that were to happen, relations would cool considerably between Washington and Moscow just at the time when Bush needs Russian assistance more than ever in our war on terror.

It’s difficult to see at this moment how all of this is going to play out. If Putin is serious about not allowing the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko to be declared the winner, the chances of violent protest followed by marshal law are great. If Putin allows Yushchenko to take power, will he then encourage the breakaway of southern and eastern provinces thus precipitating a civil war necessitating Russian intervention?

Either way, Putin is in a box…a box of his own making.

When I was younger, I used to read “Rolling Stone” Magazine religiously. It was (and I suppose still is) the bible for contemporary music lovers. It also had some of the best feature writing around. It’s political commentary was cutting edge stuff. Some of the legendary writers who cut their eyeteeth at the mag were Ben Fong Torres, Cameron Crowe, Hunter Thompson, and P.J. O’Rourke.

That’s why the magazine’s retrospective of the recently concluded election is puzzling. Why in God’s name did they get the opinions of three mossback’s like Ruy Teixeira and Peter Hart — two analysts deeply grounded in public-opinion research and rather passe in Democratic circles–and David Gergen, a man who’s undergone a transformation of sorts: From conservative intellectual to wishy-washy muddleheaded centrist.

Deacon at Powerline links to the article and calls it worthwhile reading. Perhaps…but to my mind, it’s more instructive for what they DON’T say.

Teixeira credits Bush’s increased appeal to white voters while Gergen points to closing the gender gap. Hart gives something of a cryptic evaluation, pointing to an obscure statistic that since 1912, “whoever has won a plurality of states along the Mississippi has won the presidency.”

Well, duh. For the record, these states are Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. My guess is (and some enterprising blogger who has a little time on his hands may want to look into this) that you could take ANY 10 states in the country at random and make the same claim.

Teixeira comes closest to getting it:

“The bigger question is: What do the Democrats stand for? Democrats in this election ran against Bush. Kerry’s program was never very clear to voters. They didn’t get where he was coming from. Democrats have to have large and good ideas that people can recognize — ideas voters can summarize in a couple of sentences.”

One of the funniest and most prescient books of the last 25 years was R. Emmett Tyrell’s “The Liberal Crack-up.” Tyrell’s book skewers modern liberalism by pointing to its horrific inconsistencies on everything from the environment to freedom. Published in 1984, the book, if anything, is more relevant today as it shows the left learning absolutely nothing despite the shellackings they received from Reagan and both Bush’s over the last 20 years.

Tyrell’s thesis–that liberalism doesn’t stand for anything, it stands for EVERYTHING–is what Mr. Teixeira is talking about. Liberals can’t condense their message to one or two sentences…how can you explain the unexplainable? Liberal incoherence is the reason Democrats keep losing elections and the reason they’ll probably continue to get spanked by Republicans at the polls. How can you reconcile extreme environmentalism with creating a business climate friendly enough for job creation? How can you be FOR individual liberty while advocating a suffocating brand of political correctness?

Democrats may be able to comfort themselves with the notion that if they adopt “values” as a meme for their campaigns, they’ll be competitive with Republicans. But, in order to have a value-oriented party, they’re going to have to reconcile the massive internal contradictions that cause most of us voters to scratch our heads in wonderment and say “just WTF is he talking about?”

David Limbaugh links to this Jonathan Chait article in the LA Times regarding Democratic prospects for 2008. It seems our friends from Moonbatville still “dont get it.” When your three most promising prospects are a raving loon, a brain-dead stiff, and a wonkish harridan, it may be time to pass the kool-aid and commit an existential form of hari-kari. Here’s Limbaugh’s take on Dean:

“As for Howard Dean, Chait correctly argues that Dean is a mistake because he fires up the Democratic base and only the base, which isn’t enough to win the election…The base we’re talking about here, folks, is largely the antiwar crowd. Despite Kerry’s many “winks and nods,” the base was probably never really secure in their hope that Kerry would carry their antiwar water when he was promising, essentially, to do just the opposite.”

Limbaugh correctly points to the base being certified members of the conspiracy muck-mucks at the Democratic Underground whose looniness has been well documented on this and other more rational sites. It should go without saying that rationality and the “anti-war base” are mutually exclusive terms since the moonbats aren’t only anti-war; they’re also anti-globalization, anti-capitalist, anti-western civilization, and anti-anything-that-would-make-life-easier-and-safer-for-a majority-of-human-beings-on-the-planet. In short, they’re luddites (”one who is opposed to especially technological change”).

What about the Senator from Viet Nam?

“Chait is also correct that Kerry would be a disaster in 2008. Who knows, by that time Kerry might even be forced, by the continuous rise of the New Media, to sign form 180 to release his military records. That would end his dreams. Beyond that, Kerry was always a default candidate running on an ever-uncertain, shifting platform whose only common denominator was his narcissistic desire to become president — not for what he could do for the country, but for what he could do for John Kerry.”

Spot on. Someone is going to get a hold of those records in the next couple of years and write a book. And when it comes out that Kerry was in fact a willing accomplice to the murderous thugs of North Viet Nam by coordinating the activities of his anti-war group in America with the enemies of the United States, it will end his life-long pursuit of power.

And what of the Wicked Witch of the East? Whither Hillary?

“To me, her problem is that she is every bit as liberal as people believe/fear she is and is only pretending not to be to position herself. So she represents the worst of all worlds: an extreme liberal — a quasi-socialist actually — and a fraud. Like John Kerry, she simply won’t be candid about who she is. Will she be wearing a Yankees Cap in 2008 or one with a U.S. Flag?”

Republicans should be salivating at the prospect of a Hillary run in 2008. Can you imagine how much money could be raised by every Republican running for office from dog catcher to President? And Hillary may have her own “problems.” The Marc Rich pardon by her husband may come back to haunt her as Rich, along with several other prominent Democrats, are under investigation for campaign finance irregularities connected with her run for the Senate in 2000. This, however, may hurt her more in her Senate run in 2006 than in a run for the top spot in 2008.

The real problem with Hillary is her participation in the longest running and weirdest soap opera in American political history; her on again off again relationship with The Great Oxygen Sucker, the Gigantic Egotistical Attention Seeker, the Great Philanderer, her husband Bill.

I’d personally love to see Hilly get the nod in 2008. Just to see them on stage at the Democratic Convention would be worth all of the fawning, nauseating, breathless media attention these two low-life pond scum, vomit bags would get. And wouldn’t you just LOVE to see the the harridan’s face the first time someone suggests that Bill is getting more attention than her? She may put the “Dean Scream” to shame if some poor, unsuspecting reporter were to ask.

Anything can happen between now and the next Presidential campaign. All we can do is pray that the Democrats stay as totally clueless as they are now. If these three lickspittles are the best they can come up with, the obituary writers of the Democratic party would be wise to get a jump on the competition and start scribbling now.

Something rare and wonderful is happening in the Ukraine.

After a decade of Russian domination of its politics, the breadbasket of the old Soviet Union is beginning to find its own voice. The people have not only taken to the streets, but in tactics reminiscent of the best of the peaceful demonstrations in Eastern Europe leading up to the fall of communism, they have taken over key strategic locations in that nation’s capitol, Kiev:

1. The reformers have occupied not only the old Lenin Library, but also the first floor of the mayor’s offices, and the Oktabarskaya Palace. This has all been done legally, with the support of the mayor of Kiev, Omelchenko. He’s thrown in with us unreservedly, which is a huge boost.

2. There are small delegations from several foreign countries here supporting us. The Georgians are here in force, as well as the Belorussians — two countries which have suffered from similar governance to Ukraine’s. A mad Irishman was running around chanting this evening, and I saw an African man carrying his national flag. A Bangladeshi girl shared a table with us at McDonald’s tonight. (HT: Powerline)

Outside of Poland, there has been no sadder national story on the European continent than that of an independent Ukraine. Occupied at one time or another by Poland, Lithuania, Austria under the Hapsburgs, and finally Stalin’s Russia, the fiercely nationalistic Ukrainians have suffered one barbarity after another including the deliberate starvation of more than 5 million of its extremely productive peasant class in the early 1930’s.

Russia has always viewed the Ukraine as a buffer state, protecting it from invasion first from Poland in the 18th and 19th centuries and later Germany. And now, Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to have to learn to let go.

The recent elections in which reformist candidate Viktor Yushchenko ran on a pro-nationalistic platform was apparently rigged in favor of Mr. Putin’s hand picked choice Viktor Yanukovych. In today’s WA Times the story makes clear that even the Ukrainian courts (not especially known for their independence) may be siding with the reformists:

“The Supreme Court stopped the Central Election Commission from publishing the results of the vote until the opposition’s legal challenges are reviewed.”

Court spokeswoman Liana Shlyaposhnikova said the appeal would be considered on Monday. “This is only the beginning,” a triumphant opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko told a crowd of 100,000 people gathered in downtown Kiev in praising the court’s decision.”

The opposition has charged that massive vote fraud occurred, especially in the Russian dominated southern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, which largely handed Mr. Yanukovych a victory.

The United States and European Union have refused to recognize the election results, charging that the election did not conform to international standards.

President Putin has warned the west to stay out of the controversy. This may be difficult due to the Ukraine’s status as a friend of NATO.

“I don’t want my children to be ashamed of me when they ask me if I did something, and I didn’t,” said Volodymyr Petrenko, the owner of a BMW repair shop who volunteered his time to the opposition to maintain security on the plaza. “I’ve been here since Sunday. Now my friends are also here.”

With that kind of attitude on the part of the protestors, a showdown may be coming. And while Putin has made noises about allowing the Ukrainian people and courts to settle the election dispute, it remains to be seen whether Putin will actually allow a government as independent-minded as Mr. Yushchenko’s reformist party. No troop movements from Russia have been reported as yet and apparently, even some Ukrainian security forces may be on the side of the protestors:

“Demonstrations have so far been peaceful. Mr. Yushchenko seemed to win a major victory yesterday, when a number of officers from Ukraine’s security services, heirs of the Soviet KGB, appeared before demonstrators, pledging their support and calling on their colleagues to be restrained.”

President Putin is in a very difficult position. His government is becoming more and more authoritarian as he seeks to consolidate power in order to deal with Russia’s massive economic, social, and security problems. On the other hand, Putin desperately needs western assistance to modernize his country’s infrastructure and keep the flow of capital coming into his creaking economy. He can’t afford to alienate the west. Can he afford a truly independent Ukraine?

Before it’s over, Putin will probably have to let go of the Ukraine. But I would guess it won’t happen before he makes an effort to intimidate the protestors and the west into capitulating.

In the immortal words of Bart Mancuso, sub Captain in “The Hunt for Red October:”

“The hard part about playing chicken is knowin’ when to flinch.”

Let’s hope Putin knows the movie.

UPDATE: MOSCOW MOONBATS

Looks like the Russians have their own moonbats they have to keep their eye on.

Chrenkoff reports on some truly weird tin foil beanie wearers in Mother Russia:

“Zbigniew Brzezinski [President Carter's Polish-born National Security Adviser and nowadays an international affairs pundit], his sons, and the Polish government have created an Ukrainian opposition leader and promoted Yushchenko into that role, in order to prevent further integration of the European Union!”

“So says, Sergei Markov, well-known political scientists and director of the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow.”

What makes this less than funny is that evidently, Comrade Markov’s institute is closely allied with Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to Arthur:

” This post describes the Institute of Political Studies as “a Moscow think-tank closely linked with the Putin administration,” and this one describes Sergei Markov as “a man who reportedly enjoys close connections with the Kremlin.” Markov, by the way, was one of the paid Russian advisors on the campaign team of Viktor Yanukovych, the Moscow-backed “winner” of the Ukrainian presidential election.”

Chrenkoff is rightly concerned about the possibility that this type of conspiracy mongering that was prevelant during the old Soviet regime may indeed be the start of something ominous in our relationship with Putin’s Russia. Let’s hope that the explanation is something more mundane…like moonbats giving voice to their rantings.

Light blogging recently due to two things…

1. I’ve gotten extremely lazy. Consequently, my traffic is down about two thirds since the election. Back in the day, I was quite the comment spammer, leaving comments on a wide variety of topics at least a dozen or more times a day. Gotten lazy with trackbacks too. Fact is, as I’ve discovered, you have to work at this thing every day to see results. For those of you who DO visit, I’m grateful for your feedback and suggestions.

2. My makeshift, unergonomic computer station is actually causing me physical problems. Sitting at this desk 12-15 hours a day is causing my feet to swell, my back to hurt, and my eyes to burn. Thanks to our recent bit of incredible luck, significant Otherhawk and I have decided to get a brand new computer workstation. I’m also working towards getting off blogger and on to some real web hosting with professional design for the House. Hopefully, this will all be done by the first of the year.

I’m also in a quandary as to what this blog should evolve towards. Politics is my meat and potatoes. But the internecine battles in Congress bore me. That’s because in my experience, much of Congressional bickering is a question of personalities in conflict. Couple that with the fact that I’m NOT a policy wonk and political blogging becomes extremely limited. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I love the MECHANICS of politics…and that’s rarely interesting except during elections.

Space blogging is fun and I’ll continue to do that. I’d like to add some non-fiction book reviews and will also probably do that. I’ve never been a link whore but recognize its necessity while trying to build a site. Therefore, I’ll continue to link to other posts I find interesting and try to give my take on the current events they comment on.

The one HUGE variable here is Iran. I’m convinced that by mid-summer, George Bush will have to make the most important decision of not only his Presidency, but perhaps in the history of the US; he’s going to have to decide whether or not to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity before they can build a bomb. North Korea may resolve itself in the next few weeks (see this post by the Capn’ on some very strange goings on there). And we may yet have to take military action on the Korean peninsula to keep Pyongyang from using or transferring its ballistic missile technology. But Iran is the flashpoint.

BTW, I reject arguments that Iran or North Korea won’t attack us because they know we’d hit them back. In Iran’s case, deterrence doesn’t work unless the people you’re trying to deter care whether they live or die. Do the fanatics in Tehran fall into the former or latter category? Do you want to find out the hard way?

As for North Korea, suppose they launched one nuke and hit Seattle? (See this post from John Little on Kim’s new toy.) The very same people who are pooh-poohing the idea of a nuclear attack by Tehran or North Korea WOULD BE THE FIRST ONES IN THE STREET SCREAMING THAT WE SHOULDN’T RESPOND IN KIND! There would also be enormous pressure on us not to retaliate from Russia and China…both of whom could be affected by fall-out patterns. This much is clear…if Kim or the radioactive mullahs believe they can get away with, they’ll attack us in a New York minute.

Which brings me back to this blog. If Iran or North Korea heats up, there’s no doubt that I’ll write about it voluminously. If not, see a kind of strange mix of politics, science, history and occasional flashes of humor that have been the hallmark of this site since it began.