Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Do, or do not. There is no 'try'. - Yoda

Thursday, January 26, 2006

A Question of Values
by Lee

It’s got to be tough to be a radical leftie asshat these days.  First off you have Osama bin Laden literally parroting the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan/MoveOn talking points, and now Saddam Hussein is doing the same thing.

Defence lawyers for Saddam Hussein Wednesday distributed copies of a lawsuit against President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for destroying Iraq.

The suit accuses Bush and Blair of committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction and internationally-banned weapons including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, notably in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar.

The Amman-based legal team had said Sunday that the ousted president intended to start legal action against the two leaders of the Iraq war in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but the text of the suit was made available Wednesday.

The suit also accuses the U.S. president and British prime minister of torturing Iraqi prisoners, destroying Iraq’s cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilization, and inciting internal strife.

Bush and Blair were also accused of polluting Iraq’s air, waters and environment.

Now, I ask you, honestly, how is this any different from the charges we hear daily from the radical left?  They’re exactly the same!  Bush and Blair are war criminals, the war was illegal, blah blah blah fucking blah. 

If there’s one thing lefties hate it’s when you accuse them of holding anti-American or unpatriotic views.  What the left needs to begin asking itself is this: If your opinions perfectly gel with those of America’s greatest enemies, isn’t this an indication that maybe, just maybe, there’s something seriously wrong with the values you hold?

Posted by Lee on 01/26/06 at 01:49 AM in Left Wing Idiocy  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Father of the Year
by Lee

Florida is a law and order state, so I seriously doubt they’re going to be able to find a jury anywhere which will find this guy guilty of anything.

A father marched into a classroom and punched a teacher’s assistant in the face after his teenage daughter accused the man of inappropriately touching her.

“I’m not real proud of what I did,” Dave F. Swafford, 42, told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “You have to protect your children, and my daughter does not lie to me.”

Swafford was charged with felony battery on a school employee after he hit the 35-year-old aide in front of a full class at Lakewood Ranch High near Bradenton on Tuesday, authorities said.

A Tampa radio station named him “Father of the Year,” offering Swafford and his family Daytona 500 race tickets.

The school placed the aide on paid leave Tuesday because of the allegation, district spokeswoman Margi Nanney said. The sheriff’s office is investigating.

Swafford said he came to school to meet with officials about his 15-year-old daughter’s allegations. When he saw that the aide was not at the meeting, Swafford asked his daughter to take him to the man.

They argued and “I lost control,” Swafford said. Swafford spent about 10 hours in jail before getting out on bail

Some pervert touches my teenage daughter, you can bet your ass I’m going to smack him around a little.

Posted by Lee on 01/25/06 at 02:34 PM in Life & Culture  • (2) TrackbacksPermalink

Borrowed Time
by Lee

When you ban guns, people who want them for criminal purposes or other reasons will always find a way to get ahold of one.  Like this guy.

A man shot and killed himself outside a San Carlos gun store Tuesday after having posed as a customer and then stealing a weapon, police said.

Timothy Singler, 41, of Redwood City apparently brought ammunition for the weapon with him when he entered Imbert & Smithers Inc. at 1144 El Camino Real at 10:40 a.m., police said.

Singler asked to see a handgun, then ran outside with the weapon and shot himself, police said.

Why, it’s almost like determined people who want a firearm will break any law to get one.  Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Posted by Lee on 01/25/06 at 09:39 AM in 2nd Amendment  • (1) TrackbacksPermalink

No More Mr. Nice Guy
by Lee

This is actually pretty sad.

Chris Penn, a younger brother of Sean Penn who played supporting roles in films such as “Reservoir Dogs” and “Starsky & Hutch,” was found dead in his Santa Monica home, authorities said. Police do not suspect foul play.

Penn’s body was discovered in bed inside the condominium on Ocean Avenue, said Capt. Ed Winter of the county coroner’s office. He said the actor’s housekeeper called authorities.

There were no obvious signs of foul play, Lt. Frank Fabrega said. Autopsy results were pending. Police said Penn was 40 years old, though several celebrity Web sites list his age as 43.

In a statement through his publicist, Sean Penn said, “I can’t help but think that this never would have happened were it not for George W. Bush’s misguided war in Iraq.”

Posted by Lee on 01/25/06 at 09:10 AM in Celebrity Idiots  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

YMCA Cop in the Navy
by Lee

There’s a Rogue Cop, and he’s armed and fabulous.

The original policeman from the Village People disco group decided not to face the music in a San Mateo County courtroom Tuesday.

Victor Willis, who co-wrote such hits as “YMCA” and “In the Navy” in the 1970s, once again failed to surrender so that he could be sentenced in connection with possessing cocaine, a probation violation and other charges.

A plea bargain in early September would have given Willis, 54, no more than 16 months in prison, but Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Willis has been wanted since Oct. 20, when he first failed to appear for sentencing, after being released on his own recognizance.

A $200,000 bench warrant for his arrest has been issued in connection with the drug charge, along with a no-bail warrant on the probation violation, Wagstaffe said.

All he has to do is get to the Canadian border.  A coked-out homosexual ex-cop?  Those Canucks guarding the border would run away screaming like little French schoolgirls.

Posted by Lee on 01/25/06 at 02:28 AM in Celebrity Idiots  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Run Away, Unarmed Hoser
by Lee

I have been quite amused lately by Canadian attitudes towards firearms.  I think the logic behind Canadian gun policies is deeply flawed, and the idea that the police are always going to be able to protect you is pretty naive.  Canadians are free to believe whatever they like, I suppose.  But, then you read a story like this.  (All items in bold are my emphasis.)

A police chase at the Canada-U.S. border forced the closure of the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver on Tuesday.

It also caused dozens of Canadian guards to walk off the job, fearing for their safety.

Yes, folks, you read that right.  The Canadian border guards actually ran away because they were scared.

The incident started when two men, both murder suspects, tried to get into Canada. Officials say the two men, 38-year-old Ishtiaq Hussain and 22-year-old Jose Antonio Barajas, are now in custody. They are wanted on murder charges in California.

But the arrest didn’t come easy. One of the suspects was wounded in a shootout with police.

U.S. sheriffs say the pair managed to make it to the check point about a metre before Canadian soil.

“They [drove] through the border and they almost struck two uniformed officers,” said Bill Elf, of the Watch County Sheriff’s Department.

The suspects continued northbound and struck the Peace Arch itself at one point.

Witness Bill Whittle didn’t see the ensuing gunfight but he heard it. “I heard about seven or eight gunshots on the other side of the Peace Arch,” he said. “One of [the suspects] was shot. [The police] got him out of the car.”

Officials credit a brave deputy sheriff for single-handedly stopping the pair, who were considered armed and dangerous.

(Bill Whittle?  The Bill Whittle?) So, let’s recap.  A pair of dangerous murderers were trying to get into Canada.  They were pursued by Americans with guns.  There was a shootout, which prevented the men from getting into Canada, and resulted in both being taken into custody.  But here’s the best part.

CBC News has learned that when unarmed Canadian border guards found out the murder suspects were coming their way they left their posts at four crossings along the B.C. border. Only two supervisors were left at each crossing to protect the Canadian side.

A spokeswoman with Canada Border Services says the guards have the legal right to refuse to work if they believe they are in imminent danger.

Let’s review.  The guards, tasked with controlling Canada’s borders, were unarmed.  They have the legal right to refuse to protect Canada’s borders if they feel they are in danger.  Two armed murderers were trying to get into Canada.  Since the guards were unarmed, they turned and ran away.  And Canada’s borders were thus protected by big, scary, gun-crazy knuckledragging Americans.

Seriously, you can’t make this shit up, folks.

Posted by Lee on 01/24/06 at 08:15 PM in Those Wacky Canadians  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Science Explains It All, Again
by Lee

How’s this for the ultimate irony:  science provides an explanation for why the ID crowd refuses to believe in science.

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that’s contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects’ brains were monitored while they pondered.

“We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning,” said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. “What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts.”

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

“None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,” Westen said. “Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.”

Okay, so this research was done on political thinking, but exactly the same dynamic is at work when it comes to ID.  Despite there being absolutely no scientific basis for ID, people vehemently believe in it.  It just so happens that these people are always fundamentalist Christians, the very people who have a vested interest in believing in it.

This also explains why so many Republicans on this site accuse me of being a Christ-punching leftist every time I dare to criticize something Bush has done.  As I have said countless times in the past, I have never been able to reckon why so many people vote for the GOP because that party claims to support a particular set of ideals, yet they still support the GOP when that party shits all over the very ideals they claimed to support.  Well, now I understand why.

God I love science.  Seriously.

Update: I suppose this also explains how someone could literally believe in a story like Noah’s Ark, despite the fact that doing what Noah allegedly did is physically impossible.  Logic and reason dictate that the Noah story could never have actually happened, but people whose religious beliefs dictate that this story must be true are more than willing to overlook logic and reason in order to bolster those beliefs.

Posted by Lee on 01/24/06 at 06:34 PM in Science and Technology  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Skirting the Rules
by Lee

Once again, the ACLU shows that it less concerned about protecting actual civil liberties and more concerned with advancing a radical left-wing agenda.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the school district in Bergen County has decided that Michael Coviello can wear skirts to class. The 17-year-old began wearing skirts to protest a district ban on shorts at school between October and April.

School officials initially objected when Coviello showed up wearing a costume-style dress. But the district’s superintendent advised him to purchase everyday dresses and skirts at a retail store. But after a few days of wearing the garments, the student was sent home and told he could no longer attend class if he wore a dress, kilt or skirt.

The state’s ACLU chapter told the school superintendent that all students—not just girls—are entitled to wear skirts.

The ACLU, always ready to destroy a societal norm, ya know, just for the hell of it.  Social nihilism at its finest.

Posted by Lee on 01/24/06 at 01:01 PM in Decline of Western Civilization  • (1) TrackbacksPermalink

Canadian Burn
by Lee

Michael Moore, January 20, 2006.

Oh, Canada—you’re not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That’s a joke, right? …

These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he’s a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C’mon, where’s your Canadian pride? I mean, if you’re going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don’t surrender so easily. Can’t you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete’s sake.

But seriously, I know you’re not going to elect a guy who should really be running for governor of Utah. Whew! I knew it! You almost had me there. Very funny. Don’t do that again. God, I love you, you crazy cold wonderful neighbors to my north. Don’t ever change.

Canada, last night.

Canadians installed a Conservative government in office for the first time in 12 years but with a limited mandate, signaling voters’ desire for change at a measured pace. …

“Each and every day, I will assure you of one thing—I will dedicate myself to making Canada more united, stronger, more prosperous and a safer country,” Harper told an ecstatic crowd in the Western Canadian city of Calgary after his win.

The result was a major triumph for Harper, a 46-year-old economist who created the Conservatives in late 2003 by pushing through the merger of two squabbling right-wing parties. He will be the first prime minister from the oil-rich Western province of Alberta for 25 years.

Thus one of the most consistent political axioms in history holds true.  If Michael Moore publicly supports your candidacy, you’re going to lose.

Posted by Lee on 01/24/06 at 08:51 AM in Those Wacky Canadians  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Forbidden Planet
by Lee

A few people have written to me recently saying that they can’t post comments, that when they try to they get a message telling them they’re not authorized to perform that action.  You haven’t been banned or anything, there’s something up with the latest version of Expression Engine.  To fix it, you need to delete all your cookie files, clear your cache, quit your browser, then relaunch it.  If you’re still having problems, let me know.

Posted by Lee on 01/24/06 at 01:33 AM in Etcetera  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, January 23, 2006

Drugs and Babies
by Lee

In the preceding post I asked the following question.

If it could be shown that a proposed ban on abortion would actually make life worse for women and, by proxy, the children they would be forced by law to bear, would you still support it?

In the ensuing discussion Yahonza remarked:

Lee asked if it could be shown that that fetus would have a better life having been aborted, would an anti abortionist still object to abortion.

My point is that its nearly incomprehensible that it could be shown that you would have a better life if you didn’t have a life at all.  I think Lee was being somewhat incoherent, and I think it is obvious that no one opposed to abortion would be troubled by Lee’s question for the very reason that they consider abortion the death of a baby, and it would be hard to show that a fate worse than death awaited a nonaborted fetus.

Its a little like saying that if it could be shown that the Jews were better off being sent to the gas chambers, would you still be opposed to Hitler?

I think this is an important point of discussion, so I decided to respond in a separate post.  Allow me to elaborate on my point.

I am against the war on drugs.  Not because I think drugs are a good thing, or because I think society is better off with drug use, but because I recognize the futility of the fight.  I also see the astonishing degree of harm that has been inflicted on society as a result of this war.  For example, look at the number of lives that have been ruined due to harsh prison sentences due to mandatory minimum sentencing rules for drug offenders.  How many young black men have done a long stretch in prison because they decided to sell a little weed when they were in their teens?  Then, after ten years, they get out, convicted felons, jaded toward the world.  As conservatives, we encourage communities to find solutions to their problems themselves, but this is quite hard to do when a significant portion of your able-bodied male population is either incarcerated or has a criminal record and is therefore unemployable in all but the most menial of jobs.  The war on drugs has done nothing but provide astonishing profit streams to criminal enterprise, which in turn inflicts untold amounts of damage on the social fabric.

Drugs destroy lives.  The drug war destroys lives.  It’s a matter of value judgments.  What cost are we as a society prepared to endure in order to fight against drugs, a product which a significant percentage of the population wants to indulge in?  Is the cure actually worse than the disease?  I think it is.  Opposing the drug war does not mean supporting drugs, it means that we recognize that drugs are a permanent evil in society, and that there are better, more intelligent ways they can be fought.  It is the pigheaded moral absolutism of our political establishment that has enabled a well-intentioned mission, to protect America’s youth from the scourge of drugs, to snowball into the massive liberty-destroying leviathan that we see before us today.

Which brings me to my point about abortion.  I consider myself pro-choice, not because I think abortion is a good thing or that I encourage abortion.  I have said many times that I find abortion a vile, reprehensible procedure.  If I were female I certainly would never choose to have one.  That being said, I think that we really need to have a serious discussion about the costs to society than an actual ban on abortion will bring about.  For example, there are going to be tens of thousands of babies born to low-income women, who have no spousal support.  These children are going to need public assistance money, which require a massive expansion of the welfare state, funded by enormous tax increases or copious deficit spending.  Welfare mothers are more likely to become pregnant than educated women from more affluent families.  With more welfare mothers getting pregnant, and abortion not an option, we’re going to end up with even more welfare mothers.  The chances of a young woman being able to work hard to get an education and get off welfare decrease significantly when she has a child she has to feed and raise at the same time.  So, one result of a ban on abortion will be a guarantee of decades of Americans mired in poverty, spending a lifetime suckling at the government teat.  Babies of welfare mothers will be more likely to end up on drugs or in a gang or in prison.  This damages society as a whole.  As mentioned above, this will result in even more numbers of young men incarcerated.  When they are incarcerated they are unable to provide for their children, nor provide a father figure role.  This will significantly increase the likelihood that these babies themselves will end up in prison.  Another self-perpetuating societal drain.

The notion of protecting the rights of unborn babies is a noble and just one.  It cannot be denied that there has been a great cost to the fabric of society due to abortion.  The question we face now is, what damage to society are we willing to endure?  To get back to my original question, if it could be shown conclusively that an abortion ban would result in a substantial degree of damage to society as a whole, far exceeding the damage currently done by abortion, would you still support the ban?  In other words, in your zeal to remove the evil of abortion from society, are you willing to confront the even greater evil of the consequences of all the subsequent unwanted births?

I don’t support legalization of drugs because I like drugs, and I don’t support abortion rights because I like abortion.  I simply recognize that, in both cases, society is choosing a noble battle and fighting it in exactly the wrong way.

Posted by Lee on 01/23/06 at 10:48 PM in Abortion  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Making Matters Worse
by Lee

You know how we always make fun of liberal social engineering programs, because they always end up making things worse?  Well, such is the war on drugs.

The New York Times reports that restrictions on the retail sale of pseudoephedrine, a methamphetamine precursor found in cold and allergy medications, have reduced local production of meth in states such as Iowa. But “the drop in home-cooked methamphetamine has been met by a new flood of crystal methamphetamine coming largely from Mexico,” with the result that consumption is no lower than it was before. “You can’t legislate away demand,” South Dakota’s secretary of human services tells the Times. Well, nobody saw this coming...except for anyone who gave the policy a moment’s thought.

While the hazards associated with home labs have been reduced, the Times reports, overdoses are on the rise because the Mexican meth is a lot purer than the domestic stuff local speed freaks were used to. It’s also more expensive than homemade meth, leading to an increase in burglaries. Iowa’s drug policy director suggests the risk of violence has risen because users who no longer make their own now must deal with armed traffickers. Although it’s hard to see a net improvement--especially given the burden imposed on cold and allergy sufferers--this policy of reverse protectionism is likely to go national soon.

I covered this once before.  The idea that I shouldn’t be able to go into a store and by Claritin D is ridiculous.  The drug war is useless and counterproductive, but it sounds good during an election campaign, doesn’t it?

Update: I didn’t mean to imply that the war on drugs is a liberal program.  I just mean that when we discuss liberal programs in the context of being failures, we should also be willing to apply that same level of criticism to the war on drugs.  Unfortunately, members of both parties, but especially the Republicans, are all too unwilling to admit what is painfully obvious, that the hysteria over drug use has done nothing but make the problem worse.

If making poverty worse is a good enough reason to abolish the welfare state (and it is) then surely making the drug problem worse is a good enough reason to abandon the war on drugs?

One other question, for those of you who are against abortion.  If it could be shown that a proposed ban on abortion would actually make life worse for women and, by proxy, the children they would be forced by law to bear, would you still support it?

Posted by Lee on 01/23/06 at 07:34 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Be Afraid…
by Lee

Be very afraid. 

DeadIssue just re-registered on this site.  I approved his membership.

Let the Battle Royale begin.

Posted by Lee on 01/23/06 at 06:24 PM in Left Wing Idiocy  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

It Pays To Be Gay
by Lee

The liberal left has been telling us for years that discrepancies in social status are nothing more than the end result of social oppression by a dominant group over a lesser group.  Which, of course, doesn’t explain this.

British homosexual men on average earn nearly 10,000 pounds (14,550 euros, 17,800 dollars) more per year than the male population at large, according to a study published.

Gay men working full time earn on average 34,200 pounds per year, compared with the national average for men of 24,800 pounds, according to a survey of 1,118 readers of Diva and Gay Times.

Lesbians meanwhile earn on average 6,000 pounds more than the national average for women, take two more holidays a year and spend 400 pounds a month on credit cards, said the poll by the marketing consultancy Out Now.

If the study had shown that gays and lesbians were paid less than their heterosexual counterparts there would immediately be calls for legislation to correct the imbalance, since the imbalance could only be explained by oppression by the heterosexual male patriarchy.  Since it’s obvious that the heterosexual male patriarchy is now the lesser group when it comes to salaries, should the heterosexual male patriarchy now claim abused victim status?

And, note how I resisted the obvious temptation to make a joke about gay men being pounded 10,000 more times than their straight counterparts, or about gay men kissing their boss’s ass.  I’m classy like that.

Posted by Lee on 01/23/06 at 03:15 PM in Europe and the UK  • (1) TrackbacksPermalink

by Lee

Ever wonder who uses iTunes?

The research revealed that teenagers aged between 12 and 17 years old made up a disproportionately large group of iTunes users. They were more than twice as likely to visit the music store than any other population group.

Nielsen also found a slight male bias in the iTunes audience as 54% of users were male.

Curiously, the market research firm also found that iTunes users comprise a readily identifiable audience in terms of their likes and dislikes for certain goods and services.

For instance, Nielsen said, iTunes users were 2.2 times more likely to own a Volkswagen than the average internet user. Audi and Subaru were also popular with regular users of the Apple store.

The research also revealed that the most popular alcohol drink was cider followed by imported beers. Top magazine among iTunes fans was hi-tech bible Wired.

Let’s see.  A teenage Volkswagen-driving cider-drinking tech dork.  Considering I’m a middle-aged Dodge-driving Jack Daniel’s-drinking right winger, I don’t think I’m part of the target iTunes demographic.

Posted by Lee on 01/23/06 at 03:10 PM in Decline of Western Civilization  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink
Page 3 of 11 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »