The Chapin Nation


Gus suggested

The feminist agony right now stems from the fact that there really are differences between men and women and the are not created by society.

Actually, the feminist agony stems from getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I think it’s important that I try to talk about two different types of feminists here: The radicals, who were hardcore lesbians, communists, or ideologues and the typical mainstream women we encounter (including many housewives) who love the idea of women getting a bigger paycheck and voting rights but aren’t into those getting-shot-at-in-war and paying-the-dinner-bill things.

Naturally, there was lip service in the early days of women getting around to these things (and a few women doing them individually) now trumped around during women’s history months but for the most part most women simply cannot handle what men do everyday to earn their “equality”. The problem with equality is that there is no way for women to marry up. I pointed this out to a Baby-Boomer friend of mine who was complaining about her dating situation and she argued “I have nothing against househusbands! You can become one if you like! I just don’t want to marry one! But YOU can fight for that and I support you!” Why, shucks, thanks a lot.

Gus is VERY astute at pointing out the implications of one equality agenda affecting another. For years, the feminists cleverly rode on the backs of other agendas: Poor families and race relations. As a coalition, they have been a powerhouse.

The troublesome fact is this: Years after MLK’s “dream”, blacks and whites are still more or less segregated. Blacks moved out of the poor backwaters of the south and into the newly created slums of the inner cities pushing whites into the burbs. The liberals VERY cleverly lied and claimed that fatherless black homes were a creation of slavery. Wrongo. On the contrary, there’s nothing like a man, any man’s, paycheck to make him valuable and before welfare and affirmative-action black marriages were on par with whites. In some ways, moreso because black families had a greater financial incentive to stay together.

Overall, if Europeans and Americans were oppressive, it’s only because they were liberal and open-minded enough to bother feeling guilty. Every other great “diverse” culture that their people are fleeing for here don’t bother with apologies after the police lock up people for no reason whatsoever.

Posted by PolishKnight @ 6:45 PM


To put it right out there, I’m sick and tired of these articles about children and families that fairly reek and drip with jargon, statistics and studies.

Ever since 1968, I have been bombarded with all kinds of exhortations to be “sensitive” and “in touch with my feelings”.

The writers of theses articles I would honestly have to say, are not. Whatever their academic credentials or intellectual or verbal skills may be, their real life experience sounds wobbly.

They sound like tone-deaf people writing about music. At the intuitive level, the most important in this discussion, they “just don’t get it”.

Let me narrow the discussion because families and children is a huge topic.

Discussions about “same-sex marriages” and “civil unions” rarely if ever mention the fact that a child is a product of the union of a certain man’s sperm (let’s call him “the father” just to make up a term) and a woman’s egg (oh, we’ll call her “the mother”)


This is not trivial or insignificant.

There is a past that cannot, and should not, be ignored.

He or she is profoundly and intimately connected to these two human beings who made his existence possible.

This is not going to be over-ridden by our touchingly naive faith in environmental control called behavioral modification.

In my opimion it is ridiculous, arrogant and naive to suppose that we can shuffle children around in order to suit “adult needs”and not have a huge social price to paid later by these children.

We seem to forget that the children who grew up in the era of social experimentation that began in the 60’s are going to grow up.

Having gone through profound emotional chaos in the interest of “political correctness”, they may not see things the same way their parents did.

Bonnie Erbe, the moderator for PBS’s “To The Contrary” wrote a rancid column not long ago chastising the young women of Gen X for not following the lead of the 60’s feminists.

She may remember that Gloria Steinem herself bailed out for the same reaesons that the Gen X women are bailing out: the experiments didn’t work.

My over-all impression of the writers of these articles is that they have a IDEA of what children are like (as a test, I would like to hear how good they can imitate Donald Duck, a good test of how well you can relate to real flesh and blood children.) and a theory of what the world should be like.

So did Hitler, Lenin, Mao and the founders of the Prohibitionist Movement.

The problem comes whe the theories collide with reality.

You can fake for a while but sooner or later, the facade crumbles and we are left with one more mess to clean up. There has been a unspoken conviction over the past 35 years that we can re-design human nature any way we care to.

The Greek word “hubris” comes to mind.

The feminist agony right now stems from the fact that there really are differences between men and women and the are not created by society.

Once again in my opinion we are going to have to face the same question about homosexuality and heterosexuality

Social consequences will be the final arbiter, not the Harvard-Wellesley Psychology departments.

And this problem has one other deeply troubling aspect to thinking and feeling human beings: what if races are not equal? What if no amount of social engineering can even things out and inequality is the permanent state?

What then?

Posted by Gus @ 1:06 PM

Now This Is A Great Ad!

Posted by Fire @ 8:45 AM

The Founders of the Men’s Movement!

Posted by Fire @ 8:43 AM

Play with Feminists and Get Burned (Even if you’re a feminist).

Here’s some short proof from the Opinionjournal:

In the film “Erin Brockovich,” Julia Roberts played a working-class mom with a penchant for short skirts who, despite being constantly underestimated by men, ultimately manages to secure the largest class-action settlement in American history. But according to the Wellesley News, an all-female jazz band hired locally during the filming of Ms. Roberts’s latest film has filed a gender discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the actress and her production company, saying that they were paid half what an all-male band was getting in the same film. As band member Jeanne Daly told the paper: “I find it amusing that we have to ‘Erin Brockovitch’ Erin Brockovitch for [the] hypocrisy of gender discrimination.”

Posted by Fire @ 8:39 AM

Jonathon Kozol, Lefist Lying B-tch.

Here’s Master Robert’s critique of Jonathon Kozol’s

Savage Inequalities


Please remember Rob actually had that the cajones to actually turn this in for credit–and no, he doesn’t smoke anything anymore.

Jonathon Kozol has written a passionate book about the institutionalized injustices of public education in the United States. He is angry about a system that unequally distributes money to school districts depending on their location. His book is an indictment of school funding based on property taxes which give the children of wealthy school districts incredible advantages over those in poor areas. He has a point and few would argue that money doesn’t matter. Some districts receive as much as three times that of others [although many of these are the poorest ones like DC, NY, etc]. Kozol advocates massive federal financing of our nations schools akin to a new educational ‘Marshall Plan’ that would equalize these substantial differences.

I am put off by his tendency towards hyperbole and emotionally satisfying yet statistically unsubstantiated arguments. At times one wonders, during one of his rants, whether he might be just as happy cutting the budgets of wealthy schools to equalize the playing field. Even still, this is a legitimate argument and so therefore is cutting the budgets of urban conglomerates like LA and DC, but the emotionally laden depiction of the absolute worst schools in the country to make his point makes one wonder whether he’s stacked the deck. I mean the argument could be made without resorting to a comparison between the absolute worst classroom in the worst school district with the richest in the state. Such comparisons threaten his credibility and leave a critical reader with the impression that he’s been duped. I mean any number of emotionally based arguments can be made that have nothing to do with real budgetary concerns.

For instance follow Kozol’s worst case schools in East St. Louis or the Bronx with arguments for universal health care or massive funding for Housing and Urban development or AIDS research or foreign aid to places like Angola that make East St Louis look like Beverly Hills. This is the problem with these relativistic arguments. One can always find a more noble cause. This isn’t to say that schools in East St. Louis are fairly financed but simply that a ‘the sky’s the limit’ attitude towards the federal budget is naïve and unfair. One must discuss what programs to cut (i.e. defense….) or whose taxes to raise (probably the wealthy) without sending the economy into recession or without impinging on individual rights. For instance let’s say we gave every school 10,000 dollars per student per year, putting aside the aforementioned budgetary concerns; what is to stop wealthy districts from passing tax hikes that would give students 20,000 dollars per year or even 30. As far as leveling the playing field would anything have been gained? Kozol also conveniently ignores the fact that pouring money into schools doesn’t always work as in the case of Washington D.C. which has one of the worst school systems in the country backed by one of the highest per student budgets. The issues are far more complex than Kozol would like to admit and tired arguments about racism really don’t do much except raise the pitch of his ranting. Without addressing the serious issues of poverty and the nature of capitalism we often feel ourselves running in place. Unfortunately if we accept capitalism which could be the worst economic system aside from all the others, we may be forced to accept some inequities. Essentially Kozol often obscures a realistic picture by tugging at heart strings and composing an exceptionally unrigorous analysis of the unfairness inherent in our nations schools.

Posted by Fire @ 8:36 AM

Saturday Morning Cartoon.
Celebrating 35 years of baby-boomer tyranny.

This is from Reason and the best part is the cartooninst’s “I bash because I care” between his first and last name.

Posted by Fire @ 8:25 AM

Pete Mayer’s California Report

I recently attempted to give the readers a little glimpse of life aboard “Flagship California” (Clintonism: “flagship of America”, in reference to our state during his first campaign… what a joke, he sold us – and the rest of the nation – out). This state has so much going on it was impossible for me to capture everything (read: I’ve got and endless supply of material). I would be remiss, however, if I forgot the – read with low voice and big echo: “Arrest of the Century”. As you may or may not know Mr. Tommy Chong was recently sentenced to 9 months in a federal prison for – get this – selling glass bongs on the internet. Not drugs, not possession, not dealing – No! For selling a benign piece of glass. Please read Deroy Murdock’s excellent article on the issue at:

I wrote to Mr. Chong through a website called: I doubt they will actually free him since he will have been released by then, but the goal to de criminalize the sales of paraphernalia (I can’t believe this is a crime) is achievable, and would clear Tommy’s record. Here is said letter:

Dear Mr. Chong,

I hope you are doing ok, all things considered. The injustice you were dealt is a sad testament to the upside down world in which we live. You were incarcerated for what? Selling bongs! Forget the murderers, the thieves, the rapists, the drug dealers… let’s bust a 64 year old actor and entrepreneur, that’ll learn ’em. What a collar the federal storm troopers did make, they really sent a message — the only message I heard is “we are so incompetent and impotent in every way that all we can do is surf the net for bongs and bust law abiding citizens.” Low hanging fruit indeed! As if the so called War on Drugs wasn’t bad enough, now my tax dollars are at their busiest to pay for these statists, lock-stepping, jack-booted Nazi’s. Court time, jail time all cost money – We the People’s f—in’ money – a concept with which the beauracrats have long ago lost touch. This agenda isn’t working and its only purpose is to perpetuate itself. You are a (I hate to use the word) victim of the War on Drugs Machine. The truly insane part of it is that you weren’t even busted for drugs! The irony would indeed be laughable were it not for the fact that an innocent man sits in jail. I hope this doesn’t make you bitter, you always seemed like a pretty happy guy, but if it did I would understand. Justice is something I thought the government is supposed to provide us – or at least try – it’s one of the things we pay them for. Sometimes it seems they go out of their way to give us quite the opposite.

Take care and may your time pass quickly, Pete Mayer

I know this is yesterday’s news for some if not most, but for Tommy Chong it’s a daily reminder of how big government – run amok – can ruin lives. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Houghton’s statement that Mr. Chong got rich “glamorizing the illegal distribution and use of marijuana” is pure drivel. Doesn’t she understand satire? Chong played a stereotypical, burn-out buffoon (and very well, almost too well for Ms. Houghton, is that what they call method acting?), hardly what anyone would call Glamorous.

Posted by Fire @ 3:06 PM

The Prime Time propaganda Machine

I’m in a different time zone from my normal home of Chicago right now so my sense of time is a little screwed up. Tonight, or yesterday, I’m not sure which, I suppose it really does depend upon where you are, I had the displeasure of sitting through an episode of “ER” for only the second time in my much too long life if this keeps up.

On the show, one of the doctors was in some G-d forsaken unnamed African country, trying to cure a child of some unnamed incurable African disease, insinuated to be AIDS. As the sickly child lay dying a heart wrenching death, the “ER” doctor bemoaned to the full time bush doctor that there was nothing he could do without the proper drugs that the hospital was too poor to afford. The bush doctor, with aching passion in her voice proclaimed, “If you want to do something, tell your President that we need access to cheap drugs! Tell your drug companies that their prices shouldn’t be so high!” or words that affect. (In Hollywood high drama fashion, the “ER” doctor then went out into the rain and screamed in agony. Who actually watches this shit?)

As another World AIDs day is but a few days behind us, the message the writers of “ER” is sending the mindless masses watching this top rated show is clear: the U.S. should foot the medical bills for the rest of the world. What the writers of “ER” are not telling us is that the U.S. already is footing the medical bills for the rest of the world. That bill is in the form of research and development and it comes to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The reason Europeans have the cheap drugs that “ER” wants Africa to get is because European governments subsidize drug cost. In other words, the drugs are artificially cheap. We pay the bill, and cousin Pierre reaps the benefit. If Africa, quite frankly, got its shit together and quit having civil wars every two and a half weeks, maybe a stable government could be formed that would raise taxes to to the same suffocating levels of Sweden so they too could cheaply get the drugs they so badly need. But that isn’t going to happen.

Instead, the democratic party shills in Hollywood would rather sell us an hour’s worth of propaganda, and like any good propaganda, not tell the whole story. Unfortunately, this being America, the 20 million viewers that “ER” gets each week probably are too stupid to recognize what they are being fed. The Democratic party couldn’t ask for better advertising. And now, as we head into yet another exciting presidential election cycle, many of those viewers are probably only going to remember “cheap drugs” and “president” and blindly start following along with those economic stalwarts who are proposing national health care, i.e., cheap drugs. After all, that’s how propaganda works.

Fortunately, this is America so of those 20 million viewers, maybe only a couple hundred will actually make it to the voting booth come next November. But I’m sure that isn’t going to keep my TV from telling me how to think. We really need to be careful about what we watch.

Posted by CommonSense @ 1:38 AM

Fine, I Guess We Don’t Have to Go Out Tonight.

Posted by Fire @ 8:15 PM

Master Robert’s New Education School Report:

Here’s something from my friend of 25 years writing from NYC where he is taking teacher certification coursework at present. He, believe it or not, handed it in as an assignment and sensitively titled it:

Jane Roland Martin Is an Idiot

The award for the most shockingly perverse essay of the class, without doubt, goes to Jane Roland Martin for her inept views in ‘The Ideal of the Educated Person’. We know we are in for when she begins by shocking us with her denunciation of the sexist use of man rather than person by scholars. This is about the height of her originality and logic. It is all downhill from here and the rest of the essay alternates between incomprehensible newspeak, not unlike that in Orwell’s 1984 , and truly dangerous rhetoric advocating historical revisionism. In one of the most absurd passages in part III, ‘Genderized Traits’, Martin seems to deny that men and women are different while simultaneously using these nonexistent differences to argue sexism. This is a classic example of post-modernist doubletalk. She can’t have it both ways. Either we are the same or we are different. She refers to these differences when she’s denying them as the ‘androcentric fallacy’. When she bashes our male dominated view of history she uses this very same ‘androcentric fallacy’ to show that women have been ignored in history textbooks. Which is it? Are the stereotypes about the sexes true or aren’t they? Women can’t be nurturing, intuitive and empathetic when it suits her argument and then indistinguishable from men when she’s making a different point. At one point she suggests inventing a history that would include women’s roles simply to raise the self esteem and confidence of girls. The truth of history seems to be secondary or irrelevant to the feminist agenda she is pushing. Apparently Martin would like to see Eva Braun’s role in the holocaust placed on equal footing with Hitler’s. History as a story of power and change seems to have been lost in all of this. I mean what is the point of teaching history anyways? According to Martin it’s primary purpose is to provide girls with self esteem regardless of the truth. It is unfortunate that women have not held as much political and economic power as men in the history of western civilization but this is changing and we are making new history as we speak. Does this mean that we shouldn’t teach it because some people may feel bad? The same argument could be made to refrain from teaching about slavery or the Civil War lest southerners or blacks, for that matter, feel bad. If the main goal in all of this is to build people’s confidence, it might be better to not teach history at all.

In the end Martin provides us with neither solutions nor evidence. She doesn’t cite one study or survey and provides virtually no documentation. Perhaps the scientific method is also an ‘androcentric fallacy’. Her arguments are almost all specious or

incomprehensible as she contradicts herself repeatedly. Most of what she writes, we are supposed to accept, simply because she wrote it down. The fact that she has been taken seriously and given space in a sociology textbook is perhaps most disturbing. At best Martin is illogical and incomprehensible; at worst she’s a true believer trying to ram a dangerous agenda into our public schools. In the bizarre world of Jane Roland Martin facts seem to be irrelevant and everything is driven by a strange feminist agenda.

Posted by Fire @ 8:10 PM

Quality Art!

Posted by Fire @ 7:57 PM

Feminazis Invade Science to the Hilt.
Now it’s climate change. This is just diabolical


“Simply stating that both men and women are affected by climate change does not bring out the fact that women in many cases are more vulnerable, and also less involved in the technological changes proposed to mitigate climate change,” this incredible statement read. “Climate change is not a gender neutral process and this needs to be explicitly recognized and dealt with.”

No, they’re not corrupting everything; we’re just imagining it!

Posted by Fire @ 7:55 PM

Angry White Male and the Horse He Rode in On.

Rick Biesada is a local Chicagoan who put out a book with that particular title and it’s available online. He sent me a free copy over the summer and I will review it but have not yet. I was reminded of it when my friend Vic saw it laying on my coffee table and said, “Man, that looks good.” I know it will be.

Take a look at his site if you get a chance.

Posted by Fire @ 7:49 PM

Coulter on Vegans:
Here’s the newest one from the blonde (way too thin if you ask me) Republobabe.

Who can figure out the Democratic Party? It’s awful tough. I know Coulter gets ripped on a lot, but I love her panache. Yes, she overdoes it sometimes and goes nuts, yet her wit can really brighten one’s workout–as it did mine today.

Posted by Fire @ 7:45 PM

Chicks Dig Bloggers!

(Well, at least in our minds)

Posted by Fire @ 10:08 PM

The Best Cheap Book You’ll Ever Buy!

It’s David Horowitz’s harcore


It’s 15 bucks at B&N; but only $5.95 at Amazon. I’m 40 pages in and loving it. For six bucks, you cannot go wrong. The reason it’s so cheap is, I believe, due the original Heterodoxy magazine now being defunct. Also, as it was published in 1994 but the PC university stuff, along with a stellar attack four chapters long on radical feminism, makes it must gaze material–in my humble, run-on sentence opinion.

Posted by Fire @ 10:06 PM

The “Not All Americans Are Stupid” Quiz!
Test your own general knowledge base

(long-term memory as assessed by fund of general information–as we say in the business). Here’s a website that shows we, in the Etats Unis, have as much aggregate capacity as those in lands. It says over 80,000 people have taken the test so far. I did and it was pretty fun as far as this stuff goes. Try it.

Posted by Fire @ 9:57 PM

First Hand Account by Captain of Bush Visit.

[From this week’s Weekly Standard]

THE WEEKLY STANDARD closed early last week because of Thanksgiving, and thus we missed the chance to applaud the president’s trip to visit the troops in Baghdad. The email excerpted below from a captain in Iraq who attended the dinner is eloquent on the meaning of the trip to the soldiers serving in Iraq.

We knew there was a dinner planned with Ambassador Bremer and [Lieutenant General] Sanchez. There were 600 seats available and all the units in the division were tasked with filling a few tables. . . . Soldiers were grumbling about having to sit through another dog-and-pony show, so we had to pick soldiers to attend. I chose not to go. But about 1500 the G2 [division intelligence officer] . . . came up to me and with a smile, asked me to come to dinner with him, to meet him in his office at 1600 and bring a camera. I didn’t really care about getting a picture with Sanchez or Bremer, but when the division’s senior intelligence officer asks you to go, you go.

We were seated in the chow hall, fully decorated for Thanksgiving when aaaaallllll kinds of secret service guys showed up. That was my first clue, because Bremer’s been here before and his personal security detachment is not that big.

Then Brigadier General Dempsey got up to speak, and he welcomed Ambassador Bremer and Lieutenant General Sanchez. Bremer thanked us all and pulled out a piece of paper as if to give a speech. He mentioned that the President had given him this Thanksgiving speech to give to the troops. He then paused and said that the senior man present should be the one to give it. He then looked at Sanchez, who just smiled. Bremer then said that we should probably get someone more senior to read the speech.

Then, from behind the camouflage netting, the President of the United States came around. The mess hall actually erupted with hollering. Troops bounded to their feet with shocked smiles and just began cheering with all their hearts. The building actually shook. It was just unreal. I was absolutely stunned. Not only for the obvious, but also because I was only two tables away from the podium. There he stood, less than thirty feet away from me!

The cheering went on and on and on. Soldiers were hollering, cheering, and a lot of them were crying. There was not a dry eye at my table. When he stepped up to the cheering, I could clearly see tears running down his cheeks. It was the most surreal moment I’ve had in years. . . . Here was this man, our President, came all the way around the world, spending 17 hours on an airplane and landing in the most dangerous airport in the world, where a plane was shot out of the sky not six days before. Just to spend two hours with his troops. Only to get on a plane and spend another 17 hours flying back. It was a great moment, and I will never forget it.

He delivered his speech, which we all loved, then he looked right at me and held his eyes on me. Then he stepped down and was just mobbed by the soldiers. He slowly worked his way all the way around the chow hall and shook every last hand extended. Every soldier who wanted a photo with the President got one. I made my way through the line, got dinner, then wolfed it down as he was still working the room.

You could tell he was really enjoying himself. It wasn’t just a photo opportunity. This man was actually enjoying himself! He worked his way over the course of about 90 minutes towards my side of the room. . . . As he passed and posed for photos, he looked me in the eye and said, “How you doin’, captain.” I smiled and said “God bless you, sir.” To which he responded “I’m proud of what you do, Captain.” Then moved on.

Posted by Fire @ 9:51 PM

Reform in Cook County

On Monday, I wrote about how screwed up local government is in the Chicago area. For those who don’t know, bascially all Democratic power in the state of Illinois, eminates from the Chicago Mayor’s office. Yup, that’s right, da Mayor, as he’s known, controls the City, the County, and the State. So in the face of rising taxes and most likely unspoken payoffs for the Cook Country President, I am happy to announce that a group of reformers have stopped the Machine! (Which is also the name of my hockey team and judging by our 1-8 record this year, we’re not that hard to stop. But that’s another story.) To read more about reform in Cook County, click here.

Posted by CommonSense @ 12:52 PM

The Democratic Brain Trust

Last night, Jimmy Carter was on the Jay Leno Show speaking his mind – to use a term loosely.

Carter said it was a mistake for Bush to go into Iraq without unilateral support but he never said why. Do we have to presume that the remaining Iraqi insurgents for some reason would not attack Russian, German, or French troops? Would those countries somehow bring the peace that English, Italian, Polish, and U.S. troops cannot? I doubt it.

The problem with the “without unilateral support” argument is it acknowledges that the War should have been fought without really saying so. Those people know Saddam Hussein was an evil man. Hell, recent reports say there are 263 mass graves throughout Iraq containing over 300,000 bodies – many are women and children with bullets through their skulls.

What the “without unilateral support” argument really says is either a person doesn’t have the balls to stand up to the face of tyranny or a person doesn’t care about tyranny. And judging by the ever present cackle from the left that screams “unilateral support” even as more evidence of Hussein’s horrors are uncovered, I’m guessing the people really don’t care. Which is ironic because these are supposedly the same soft spoken, warm hearted liberals that care about people, that want to nurture people and tell that everything will be ok, big daddy government will take care of them. Well, it looks like Hussein’s big government really did take care of the people.

Instead, Carter and his ilk, these great humanitarians, would rather have seen the Iraqis suffer a few more years under the yolk of fascism as the French, German, and Russians, no enemy to fascism and tyranny themselves, pussyfooted around. In retrospect, maybe those countries couldn’t lend their support to the cause because it would have been betraying their own legacies?

Unfortunately, it appears the “”without unilateral support” crowd has forgotten the lessons of history. When we say “Never Again,” we mean “Never Again.” And we don’t need unilateral support to stand up for what is right.

Over on ABC. . .

Over on ABC, there was some Democratic presidential candidate pow-wow. John Kerry, who doesn’t think fighting communism thirty years ago was a worthy fight, was speaking on the issue of Iraq. He said that with the Americans, leadership is lacking. Never mind that Kerry’s plan is to build an Iraqi army, write a constitution, and then hand rule back over to the locals. Hmmm . . . his plan sure does sound similar to that of the present LEADERSHIP.

Kerry did make the point that the problem in Iraq is really a regional problem, not an Iraqi problem. Kerry couldn’t be more correct. But again he showed his incredible ability for mimicking our lack of leadership by saying the U.S. should work within the region to solve the problem. Let’s see, Iran is backing off of its quest for nuclear arms, Syria is starting to get in line with its own Baathist party, and Egypt is attempting work as a mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Saudis are even cracking down on extremists. So how is it again that the U.S. isn’t leading in the region?

Would John Kerry, or Al Gore, or any other Democrat for that matter have been able to put a lasso around the epicenter of terrorism in a mere two and half years? Or is Kerry and his nodding cohorts on stage idea of leadership waiting for “unilateral support” so we could have squeezed a few more years of terrorism out of the middle east? Should we have waited to pressure Iran and Syria to after the French, Germans, and Russians sold them the materials necessary to spread terrorism?

I’m not clear, are we lacking leadership from the White House, or any idea in how to lead from the Democrats?

Posted by CommonSense @ 12:43 PM

Has George W. Bush pulled off a “Homer?”

If you’re a fan of the Simpson’s, you know that to “pull a homer” means to succeed despite incompetence. Fire argued that Bush truly is a lesser evil especially when we consider what could have happened. I am in Poland and Ukraine twice a year and I have seen firsthand the results of socialism unbound. Let’s examine the current situation:

The U.S. economy is hobbled by deadwood both in the workplace and government but even so, it’s hobbled less than most other countries. I have friends in Germany and France who would happily lie through their teeth to come here. European socialists have long hated the states being a reasonably decent place to live despite doing everything wrong. When Clinton visited Poland 2 years ago, a young socialist threw eggs at his jacket. Yes!!! Clinton!!!

So looking at it in perspective, we’ve had a lucky past decade. Clinton wanted to screw up the economy and give us national healthcare and daycare at the same time therefore plunging this nation down the toilet. He failed due to a republican congress and his own sexual appetites. I laugh when I hear Clinton supporters argue that a great economy and budget surplus was what he wanted all along. The danger is this: Leftists succeed by failing. If the economy plummets and they get more power to rescue their victims, that’s the system working as designed. FDR wrote the book.

Ok, got all that? Now consider: Bush is bribing the geezer vote. He blew 400 billion (actually more) to give them their fix (literally). The geezers have a lot in common with social conservatives. Many of them are now seeing their grandchildren wind up childless due to social leftism. This candy might be enough to bring some of them to his side (assuming they don’t vote for Pat Buchanon by mistake.)

Then, there’s another “Homer” angle: The money blown on Senior drugs isn’t coming back and the leftists know it. Dean and Gephart haven’t forgotten about national daycare and healthcare. But they know that to impliment it, they need spare mullah. With the geezers popping pills, that money is already spent before the economy recovered. Compare it to your mother blowing dad’s 401K payoff on expensive shoes: It prevents Dad from going out to buy beer and smash up the family car. It’s a loss, but with this electorate, maybe a managed loss. The geezer vote has been appeased and national daycare and healthcare is pushed off by another 10 years at least.

Remember what I said about survival? The eastern bloc nations are seeing incredible growth and already causing trouble for the EU (Poland and Ukraine both are nations that spent the last thousand years fighting for recognition.) Switzerland just elected a so-called “hard right” government into power. Even France is doing some rethinking (check out Sabine Herold. Pensions are going down the toilet for the “old Europe” western nations (Poland privatized their social security system 10 years ago!)

Ronald Reagan thought that a winner needs to be an optimist and that’s what I try to be. There’s much to be optimistic about. Especially when you have a philosophy that relies upon optimism and life itself. Do not give up!

Posted by PolishKnight @ 9:07 AM

Can You Hear the Matriarchy Exploding?

Posted by Fire @ 5:30 AM

Deconstruct This Butch!

Posted by Fire @ 8:26 PM

Pete Mayer’s California Report

As I decorate my Christmas tree, I reflect upon the past year in our Golden State, and a little on how we got here.

I guess the biggest news was that We the People of the Once Great State of California kicked out one idiot and hopefully didn’t replace him with yet another. Not only did we kick out an incompetent, we didn’t even wait for him to become an incumbent. No matter how you feel about the slippery slope of endless recalls, you must realize that this sends a message, and it comes in the form of a pink slip for poor performance. Although I can always claim that “I voted for Mclintockâ€?. Not that I wasn’t happy with the outcome (elated would be more the word). It’s just that Bill’s message to the voters – to vote with their conscience and not to just vote for the obvious winner – reminded me of why I ever voted in the first place (more later). I must admit that if I thought the race would be close I would have toed the party line. The real landslide was actually precipitated by the dems themselves: in their fervor to thwart the election itself by claiming we aren’t up to date in our polling stations they lost all lasting shreds of credibility. What did they think we were, idiots? Don’t answer that! I am sorry to report, however, that our newly elected Governator is already being hamstrung by the state senate and assembly, the dems have circled their wagons and the people wait.

We also saw a husband kill his wife… allegedly (is this newsworthy in anyone’s opinion? Please tell me why). I grew up in northern California; I know the Berkeley Marina area, and if you ever go… good seafood at a decent price.

An X pop-rock star (king?) with a fantasy complex has been caught – again – with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar… maybe. I heard that the mom of the accuser is one of those lawsuit happy types. The boy/accuser “told allâ€? to his shrink – excuse me – “therapistâ€?. I wonder if he’s one of those repressed memory kinds of therapists….hmmm. I can hardly wait to see how it ends (read: don’t give a shit here).

Kobe Bryant… what can I say, but that he fucked up. On that, I think we can all agree. Look at his beautiful wife, and then look at the slut he admittedly fucked (wow, twice in as many lines, that’s a first for me). Still, I give him the benefit of the doubt: the fact that he bought his wife a ring worth more than both my cars combined – in some feeble attempt at repentance – shows me that he is a naïve, gullible, idiot. An extremely talented one, for sure (this years Lakers will win again – just a prediction on my part).

We’re currently suffering under a Grocery workers and Teamster’s strike. It’s all about health insurance for the clerks. Neither side is talking. Oh my G-d, no 7-Up! I guess I’ll just have to make due with Sprite, oh the hardship. I honored the picket line for awhile, shopping five miles away at a place called Stater Brother’s that was not affected by the strike. That got old, real quick. I break the picket line at my neighborhood Ralph’s now (actually there are no more picketers as they were all moved to the Albertson’s downtown). My roommate got a part time job at Ralph’s, yes… he’s a scab. Seventeen bucks an hour, not bad, and I might get a Christmas present this year.

Aerospace is picking up, again. I measure the state’s success by this because, well, it’s My success. Welcome to Pete’s world: if it’s good for Pete, it’s usually good for the State and, indeed, the Country, and the World. This may sound crazily self-centered, but it’s not, not really. The aerospace industry should be considered an indicator of growth and prosperity, not the only one, but it’s a one that made this state, and especially this region of southern California, prosper. Hollywood shmollywood, its guys like Jack Northrop, Donald Douglas, Howard Hughes, and Bert Rattan – to mention a few – that have made us a leader.

Unfortunately, we as a state are in danger of self destruction. We cannot support the influx of illegal immigrants (oh, did he say illegal? didn’t he mean undocumented aliens?) and then treat them to the privileges we pay for, for our own citizens. Why this isn’t obvious to everyone is completely beyond me. This is not the only problem, don’t get me wrong, I just don’t have time to dwell on all the negatives, unfortunately, they are legion. And while I’m at it – just to mention, before I forget – a long time ago a senator name Hiakawa (sic) ended his career by proposing – get this – English only government forms; Voter ballets and info, driver tests… everything. He was crucified as a racist, a Japanese American. This was my first taste of the inversion/devolution of society the PC machine creates, and certainly not the last. In the same vein, Shmooze Bustamanti celebrated a victory (talk about spin) when a certain proposition 54 that would have eliminated racial identification on government forms was defeated. I guess he was already reconciled to the fact that soon he would be out of a job so hey! At least he can look at the bright side (Did anyone else catch his “I don’t give a damnâ€? attitude at the one (best) debate that was widely televised ‘cause Arnold was there?).

Fire bloomed this last fall in southern California. My friend’s home in Running Springs was threatened, really threatened. She had to evacuate and her home would have probably lost it had it not rained. I must ask the question that was never asked: why right before Halloween? Most fires were either confirmed or suspected arson; does anyone else see a connection here? Oh well, I largely blame it on the anti forest management special interest groups. The trees in the Lake Arrowhead area were a sea of red death due to bark beetle infestation long before the fires. [Some edification: People up there refer to us as flatlanders, they are extremely independent, and there are a lot of them. They used to be liberal, tree huggin’, pot smokin’, gun toten’, truck drivin’, snow skiin’, crippled-baby- bird-rescuin’ idiologists. In other words, just plane folk. If I could live up there, and do what I like to do, I’d do it.] Recently they were pushing hard for the exact legislation the so-called environmentalists were trying to stop. A liaise fair policy may be ok for trade, but when applied to the care-taking of our forests, disasters like this are the result. And did the radical environmentalists learn from this mistake? I guess that question is extremely rhetorical… of course they didn’t. I just read where some groups are still fighting forest management legislation that – if already in place – would have averted much of this disaster.

This morning I got back from skeet shooting with my friend, John. We always reflect on the fact that we are exercising our second amendment rights — it’s like golf on testosterone. I’ve got the Prado Olympic Shooting Park ten miles from my house, California does have much to offer. When I invited another friend, he said he doesn’t like guns. I asked him why he is so obsessed with the video game “Medal of Honorâ€?, but that when it comes to real life shooting… he balks. He has no answer, John and I agree that reality surpasses fantasy, and it goes far beyond video games. Our rights, and freedoms are constantly being threatened and at times it seems the threats from without are easier to defend than those from within. The former can be dealt with through superior firepower and strategery (I think it should be a word). The latter must be dealt with by us… you and me, no matter where we live. Take the fight to the level from which it was spawned, with words and actions, be it local, state or national, anyway you can. Once I get to know someone I always ask a basic question, “do you vote?â€? Well, do you? I have since I was 18 when they gave us the right (read: earned). You see, up until then you could die for your country and not have the right to vote. This happened in my lifetime, and I ain’t that old. We have come far, let freedom ring.

Posted by Fire @ 8:24 PM

You Want New Vargas–You Got It!

Three readers emailed compliments on the pics from Saturday so here come the rest!

Posted by Fire @ 8:19 PM

The Chinese Double Standard

China is blowing hot air again over the possibility of Taiwan declaring independence. Bejing says if their foes off shore formally seperate, a war will take place. Our hero in the White House, standing up for democracy and freedom everywhere, says that Taiwan shouldn’t declare itself free of the mainland at this time, and the status quo shoud be maintained.

Let’s stop with the rhetorical bullshit. Taiwan has been doing its own thing for the past 50 years. For all intensive purposes, Taiwan is its own country and should tell the commie bastards to ease their egotistical small dick fears and leave them the hell alone. The only reason ol’ Shrub is half heartedly standing with China on this one is because he’s the first president that has had to face the economic reality of 1.1 billion people with money in their hands for the first time.

Let’s face it, China has gone capitalist. And they’re gonna help make a whole bunch of Americans wealthy. We’re ignoring the human rights violations and the ecological nightmare known as Chinese industry, not because the #41 on the menu is to die for, but because we love the 30 cents per hour labor costs. Don’t believe me? Since China was given most favored nation trade status, the Mexicans of all people, remember them? They’re those shifty bastards that stole our jobs with NAFTA. Well, the 90 cent an hour jobs in Mexico that replaced the $12 per hour jobs in the U.S. are now headed east, well, actually west, but to the land we call the East. And manufacturers don’t want to rock the boat and pay out anymore bribes to local officials when their factories all of a sudden get decalred unfit. And those manufacturers are the ones that line the reelection coffers of our great nation’s leaders.

Basically, I think Bush is being a pussy on this one. The Chinese are getting what they want: jobs, U.S. currency, and American cigarettes. Leave Taiwan alone. Chang Shi Check, or however you spell his name, and his band of thugs went to Taipai because they didn’t want anything to do with the Reds back in the day and the people still don’t want anything to do with the Reds. If Taiwan were to declare independence, it will not effect China in the least. It won’t spur a great democratic uprising that can’t be crushed by the army and it won’t cause a flood of immigration because the borders can be closed by anytime. Ah, the beauty of totalitarianism. And we’ll still have slave wage laborers making DVD players.

Let’s stops talking out both sides of our mouth and support Taiwanese independence once and for all. Who knows, maybe our support for democracy will spur democratic movements in other parts of the world.

Posted by CommonSense @ 5:27 PM

I’ll Stand with George W. Bush.

Like most readers, I observed this year’s battles within the conservative ranks with profound discomfort. In my mind, there are far too many real enemies out there to waste time and print fighting one another.

It seems that the world of conservatism has been split up between the “conservatives” and the “paleo-conservatives” or between the “conservatives” and the “neo-conservatives.” Both sides present themselves as the bona fide article and the other side as the one in need of a prefix.

Personally, I just want to spit up this strife the same way the bleachers of Wrigley Field do the opposition’s home run balls. This qualifies as a “which side are you on boys” issue. It is my goal to conserve America’s wonderful, non-living Constitution, and to forever preserve the personal and economic freedoms that embody our way of life. If you agree with me about these basic propositions, then you’re on my side and the rest of your views are of secondary concern. Simply revering the spirit of the Founding Fathers puts you in the top 50 percent of the population on the Chap-o-meter.

Not only is an inter-journalist, inter-intellectual, conservative civil war fruitless, it is also detrimental to the nation as a whole. The country needs all of our efforts just to have a chance of mitigating the damage the culture war has wrought.

Our daily resistance may be the biggest obstacle to the federal pacman swallowing up fifty percent of the economy. We cannot afford to bicker amongst ourselves. The odds are too great. Obsessing over who said what about Taki, Buchanan, Frum, Lowry or any of the other public figures who make up the American right is counter-productive.

The neocon/paleocon debate is as bewildering as it is petty and misguided. Sadly, some conservatives now feel more comfortable with leftists than they do their own kind [I know of one who astonished me by saying that he regards the American Enterprise Institute as “The Death Star”]. Certainly, internal disagreements are to be expected, but they are trivial in comparison to accepting the positions advocated by the other side of the political spectrum. Socialism, cultural Marxism, white guilt, and radical feminism are eternal obstacles to advancing society. Other conflicts pale in importance when compared to them.

I propose that we abandon slurs like paleo-con and neo-con. Instead we should all evolve into “Logicons.” The Logicon refuses to slash at the brethren who march alongside him because maintaining some level of public harmony is the only logical way in which we will succeed. Logicons realize that our fighting strength should not be diluted by internecine combat.

Much of the controversy currently centers around President Bush and whether or not one approves of his job performance. I’ve written here and elsewhere how much I personally admire him, but I also acknowledge that certain criticisms have been valid. Those who label him a big spender are correct in their assessments. He has not used his veto to curb the size of government and has developed a habit of hugging Ted Kennedy’s voluminous appropriations.

While this is unfortunate, to pretend that Bush is not the best bet for advancing the country’s interests is shortsighted. There are many conservatives out there who could do a better job of slashing outlays, but it is highly unlikely that any of them could get elected by our emotive and squishy electorate. On our side, George W. Bush “feels their pain” better than anyone. He brings in moderate voters the way my old Erie Dearie lures used to bag walleyes .

The problem is one of perspective. We can spend time complaining about steel tariffs or the administration’s pathetic capitulation on affirmative action last summer. Yes, I would have been greatly pleased if he disseminated a Michigan Law brief of his own after the decision entitled “O’Connor a Known Fruitcake,â€? but the fact is that he didn’t and there’s nothing we can do about it. However, we must keep our outlook global by remembering what the alternatives are.

What would Al Gore do with affirmative action? How about Howard Dean, the neurotic would-be-king, with Al Qaeda? Makes you shudder doesn’t it? After the election, Al Sharpton would take his standup around the world as our Secretary of State and we’d hear Patricia Ireland lambasting “patriarchal textbooks� in her role as Secretary of Education.

In actuality, my examples really aren’t all that farfetched. The radical left has been carrying the Democratic Party since 2001 and, now, if the Democrats win, bills will need to be paid.

Rather than fantasize about an ideal future, conservatives need to think about how things can, and will, get devastatingly worse, should Bush lose. Be it Dean or Kerry or whatever burrito they decide roll out of the Taqueria next summer, the fate of the country will be in jeopardy. By this time in 2006, there will be a foreign policy coward in every pot and a benefit check in the hands of every college drop out. Think France, think Germany, and then be grateful we have a president who doesn’t spit after saying “tax cuts.”

Besides, the Bush Presidency has produced many hidden benefits. His appointees may well be our salvation even though he backs obese budgets. In the latest issue of The New Criterion, we see that his appointments to the National Endowment of the Arts have had a wonderful effect. Under Dana Gioia, the agency is sponsoring Macbeth for military bases and has resurrected traditional Shakespeare at the national level [Shakespearean plays are now staged as in the days of old which means brothels and bath house scenes are no longer mandatory].

I don’t care if you insult him or trade in Karl Rove conspiracy theories, but, in November of 2004, this particular rightist is going to stand by George W. Bush just as the bumper sticker on my car promises. Our hopes for a better tomorrow rest in the White House on his bed. We must support him because heady days await and also because his reelection keeps the Democratic Party headless. Let’s proudly stand by our man as he loudly subsumes the popular positions of the left while promoting many of ours in the shadows though his judges, appointees, and minions.

Posted by Fire @ 4:50 PM

Wake Up! Insomniacs Unite!

Posted by Fire @ 3:13 AM

“Walter Cronkite on Steroids and Viagra.” Now how’s that for a website motto? Just met these fellows the other day when they linked up to some MND stuff for their blog. It’s a most unique site as it offers, news, analysis, and naked women. We can’t do that here as Pete reminded me last week. He told me that this is a PG-13 region. Yakov and I discussed the other day that we don’t know “R” from “PG-13.” Well, we know “X” and we can’t go there (luckily for all concerned–although CS’s new roomates will be disappointed).

Posted by Fire @ 3:11 AM

Gore Backs Dean!

Now if we can only get Jimmy Carter to come out for him as well. Then we’d really have something…Yes, and what about McGovern? He could sign on to the whole ugly process before the primaries even begin and Bush could sublet the place in Midland for another 4 years.

Posted by Fire @ 3:06 AM

Raymond’s Blog.

Some of you already know Ray Cuttill of the Men’s Hour internet program.

He now has his own blog he’s been running.

You’d do well to give it a look. He’s got an awesome shot of a gender neutral urinal here and a few good links.

Posted by Fire @ 3:03 AM

pic taken down to protect scumbags like me

Posted by Fire @ 2:58 AM

The War on Social Drinking.
Cato is now offering a 28 page position paper on this dispicable phenomenon.

Recall the disappointed words of the old Irish drunk in the classic film, “The Quiet Man.”

America? Pro-ha-bish-on

Yuck. Why does anybody listen to these Bloombergites anyway? The author’s calling it the backdoor to prohibition with increased taxation and bans on advertising. F— these people.

Posted by Fire @ 2:44 AM

Overturn the Solomon Amendment.

This is an amendment requiring universities to allow the military to recruit at their facilities or be denied federal funds.

Well, they don’t like that now because the military has not got in line to worship homosexuality as the colleges have.

They’re suing to get the Solomon Amendment overturned. Although truly liberal, as opposed to leftist pseudo-liberal, professors wanted this thing passed in the sixties as a way to force universities to accept civil rights legislation.

Posted by Fire @ 2:38 AM

Christopher Hitchens, On Iraq.
More specifically on the whiners who criticize anything we ever do if it doesn’t work out exactly how they expect.

Hitchens is one of the brightest lights on television whenever he graces a program. Independent of his physical presence, his writing is always clever and skilled.

Posted by Fire @ 2:30 AM

The Local Government Leviathan

Often, the ire of conservatives is directed towards Washington. And often, I think that ire is misdirected. The problem of bad government starts at home. I love Chicago and wouldn’t want to live anywhere else. But our local government is mired with 1,200, yes that’s 1,200 seperate tax districts. The public sector is the largest employer in the nation’s third largest city. To read more about how messed up local government is here in the Windy City, click here.

Posted by CommonSense @ 12:07 PM

Energy security depends on fuel-efficient vehicles

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-Ill)

Forgive me posting something by a -gasp- Democrat, but I am more concerned with good policy and good government than which party a person belongs to. Durbin has some very valid and important points for all the SUV driving gas guzzlers.

December 8, 2003

Washington — The Tribune ran a letter to the editor on Nov. 30 from Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) in defense of the federal energy bill. Hastert and Shimkus wrote: “In September, our nation’s oil imports hit 66 percent–the highest level ever. The energy bill’s single goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic energy production.”

In addition to the objectionable MTBE section pointed out in the Tribune’s Nov. 18 editorial, the bill’s greatest omission is its failure to address energy conservation in the one area where we consume oil the most: our cars and trucks.

The U.S. holds only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves and uses 25 percent of the world’s produced oil.

According to Fortune magazine, it costs deep-well drillers in the Gulf of Mexico $6 to $8 to produce a barrel of oil, but producing oil in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait costs $1 per barrel or less.

Even if we increase domestic oil production, our oil simply cannot keep up with the demand created to fuel our gas-guzzlers, and we will not be financially competitive with the oil-rich Middle East.

Cars and light trucks account for 40 percent of U.S oil use–8 million barrels a day as of 2001.

Raising fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon would create more than $45 billion in net savings to American consumers over about 10 years.

The big three automakers bemoan the costs of building more fuel-efficient vehicles, but they ignore the benefits.

During the energy debate, I offered an amendment to increase U.S. fuel economy standards. That amendment was shot down 32-68 in the Senate–clearly a triumph for the special interests who opposed it but a defeat for Americans who believe, as I do, that increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks is essential to our nation’s energy security.

Posted by CommonSense @ 12:02 PM

The Socialist Shroud

In Saturday’s Chicago Tribune, Erich Marquardt, Managing Editor of The Power and Interest News Report states that the international community’s handling of Iran’s quest for nuclear arms is based on a double standard. Marquardt asks why nuclear weapons for some countries are tolerated but not for others. After all, countries will flaunt international law if their own self-interests are at stake. As evidence of this, Marquardt points to Israel’s hiding of evidence of its own nuclear weapon program in the 1960s.

The Power and Interest News Report website states:

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is a global organization that provides analyses of conflicts and other international events. We are currently independently funded giving us the freedom to analyze objectively. PINR seeks to provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. We approach a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader.

Judging by Marquardt’s statement, I have to ask, where is the objectivity that the website promotes? Marquardt’s analogy of equating Iran with Israel is flawed at best and borders as a shroud of progressive left propaganda at worst.

First, one has to ask why a country would pursue nuclear power. Israel has no energy sources of its own and is dependent upon allies such as the United States and South Africa for gas, oil, and coal. Nuclear energy provides a means of reducing that dependency. Israel has been attacked once a decade since 1947 and endures on going assault by terrorists. Furthermore, over 200 million hostile people surround Israel and have the explicit goal of destroying it. Nuclear weapons clearly act as a deterrent.

Iran, on the other hand, does not have any energy needs. The country has the second largest proven natural gas reserves in the world and has over a 90 billion barrel oil reserve. Iran burns off more natural gas that could be used for energy as waste from its oil industry per day than the energy the nuclear reactor will produce. Additionally, Iran simply does not have the security concerns that Israel has. Iran’s archenemy, Iraq, has been rendered impotent for the next few generations thanks to two wars with the U.S., international embargos, and its own war with Iran. Afghanistan does not pose a threat either now that the Taliban have been removed. Pakistan may engage in a diplomatic war of words with Iran over oil and gas pipeline construction, but neither country has the means for attacking the other. Simply, Iran has no need for nuclear weapons.

Iran is, however, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. The country’s ruling mullahs wish to export their brand of extremist Islam that calls for the destruction of Israel and all things “western.� They wish to shift the Middle Eastern power structure and place themselves in the dominant position by playing the nuclear card. They are terrorists through and through. Yet Marquardt wishes to equate Iran with Israel.

Why is Marquardt trying to equate Israel, the lone democracy in the Middle East, with Iran, a theocratic oligarchy that supports terrorism? This is an equation that the progressive left/ anti-war movement has been making for some time – that there is no difference between Israel and the totalitarian countries that surround it. It is because people who make this argument favor the socialist underpinnings that support totalitarian regimes.

Israel is on the front line in the war on terror. This is a war that must be fought if we are serious about insuring world stability going into the 21st century. This war, thanks to 9/11, has carried itself to Afghanistan and Iraq, and when the job is done there, should take itself to North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Indonesia. It is a just war. But not everyone feels that way and that has brought the war home to the United States.

Organizations such as, the International ANSWER Coalition, and now PINR, if Marquardt represents his employer, either explicitly state or infer that the war on terrorism should not be fought. They do not feel the war is being improperly fought, as Vietnam was, in a just war against the evils of communism, they simply feel the war itself is unjust.

When the war on terror is won, it will mean the expansion of democracy, capitalism, free trade, and global markets. MoveOn and ANSWER are explicitly socialist organizations. They are for socialist governments that oppress and repress their populations. They are for elimination of individual rights in the name of societal good, and they are for income redistribution. The failure of the Soviet Union and the evidence of what life is like in North Korea and Cuba are not enough to deter these ideologues. That is why these groups are against the war on terrorism. They are ideologically opposed to what the United States, and Israel for that matter, represent. That is why Israel is equated with Iran. It is a subconscious effort to stop the war on terror.

And when Marquardt says that Israel and Iran are one in the same, he is falling lock step and barrel with the socialist arguments of MoveOn and ANSWER. It is a veiled attempt to gain sympathy for the socialist agenda. Unfortunately, most people will not recognize this. That is why when we do recognize this argument, if we are serious about winning the war on terrorism, and refuting the socialist arguments, we must call people like Marquardt on the carpet. We must not let the agenda of MoveOn and Answer slip further into the American psyche. We must point out that MoveOn, with its recent multi-million dollar donation, will use those funds to promote candidates like Howard Dean who will move the country further to the left. They will use those funds for PR campaigns and community rallies demanding that “The Troops Be Brought Home.� And they will use those funds to plant the seed that questions why the international community is upset that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Marquardt’s statement and his cohorts at and International ANSWER are detrimental to the war on terrorism and the American way of life. While we live in a tolerant society, there is no reason we should tolerate anything that wants to destroy us from within.

Posted by CommonSense @ 11:51 AM

Common Sense’s New Roomies.

Yakov, in an attempt to save money, has allowed 4 wayward girls to move in, although it’s not quite clear that they’ll be paying rent (but you can’t have everything).

Posted by Fire @ 5:28 AM

Steve Deluca Gets the Final Word on Unisex Toilets.

In a period of history where women define what is sexist, what is appropriate, what is fair and what is equal, from work issues to sexual issues to family issues, we can add another issue to the list. Parity for pissing. And while working for pissing parity we still are silent about the 94% higher death rates for men on the job, or the five times higher rates of suicide. Hey, it’s just men, we have more important things to focus on, more bathrooms for women.

And again, we find another “parity” issues as seen only from a woman’s point of view.

Today’s Sunday paper.

Sheryl McCarthy wrote, in today’s Press Democrat, Santa Rosa California – an article titled “At the front of the bathroom parity line”

She starts out with “The idea came to New York City Councilwoman Yvette Clarke about a month and a half ago when she found herself in one too many public places where she had to stand in a long line to use the women’s restroom… the lack of restroom parity between men and women is what prompted Clarke, a Democrat, and about a half dozen other City Council members to announce that they’re introducing a bill in the council that would require public venues to provide twice as much restroom space for women as they do for men… The restroom equity bill would apply to arenas, auditoriums, drinking places, meeting halls, movie theatres, public dance halls, stadiums, theatres, and amend the city’s building codes to require a 2 to 1 toilet ratio …Existing restrooms would be required to reassign restroom space to provide women with twice the toilet space as men…”

The article discusses the costs but also sums up the issue with:

“Still, how could even the most flinty hearted New Yorkers oppose such a bill? Where restroom parity is concerned, you don’t even need to mention the issue of sex discrimination. This is about good sense and good will.”

End of story. I mean, how could anyone not see it that way?

Let’s see if there might be two views about this. I will interview the nearest man I can find, opps, guess I am the only one here. O.K. My thoughts. I don’t mind women having more toilets. Like most men I am used to women having more. Ask the next couple you see how many feet of closet space he has compared to her. Ask how much space in the bathrooms, or laundry rooms goes to her. Ask how many shoes he has, or shirts, compared to her shoes and blouses. As a man all I ever asked for is credit, value, as a man. We men give to women, so notice, stop whining about all the details, look at the bit picture. We build the roads, houses, made the music, art, made the work place safe enough to include our daughters (Oh, you thought that women flooding the work place after central heat, better public transportation, shorter hours was just a coincidence? Hate to burst your bubble but where men and women protected our daughters, as much as we could, while making our sons work, when it seemed safer to go outside we “let” our daughters go still hoping some man would take care of her to take over from where we left off)

We men simply accept giving what we have, time, money, labor, … we are only grumpy when women start taking: Our children, homes, cash, jobs. We men need our jobs because we need to give, to our families and lovers, we don’t spend much time thinking about “parity’ and we have not made parity an issue. We men still stand when women come into a room, we still think getting on ones knees for marriage, or kissing a hand, is romantic. when women would not see other women on their knees as anything other than what it is, a act of submission, period. Men in the past, and today, almost always try to give women whatever they ask for. But in the past men were seen as noble, or generous for doing so. Today women think men owe it.

In the last year or two I have heard that women in Sweden want men to be required to sit down to pee because standing is messy and reflects something about the subjugation of women by men trying to show superiority by standing. (My view, teach your son to aim, and clean up when he misses, but don’t penalize the rest of us because some dude can’t hit the side of a barn.)

Posted by Fire @ 5:12 AM

Fire’s Girlfriend Speaks!

Posted by Fire @ 5:08 AM

He Has Lived!

And lastly from the new


, comes

a review



the autobiography of Richard Pipes. You know I had the editor from STR reject one of my pieces about a book of his called


because the editor confused him with his son, Daniel, who he hates. The father crusaded against communism and the boy crusades against militant islam. That’s a fine family, if you ask me, and this sounds like a notable read.

Posted by Fire @ 5:05 AM

Ugly Anti-Americanism.

France, the more I read about them, the more I want to invade.

A Frenchman, of all things, has just put out this spirited defense of America and its people.

The reviewer here complains that the author, Revel, may be too critical of France in comparison, but I don’t know how. Just consider the 35 hour work week restriction– any toddler could tell you how that’d strangle an economy.

But a rational assessment of the pluses and minuses of American power is hardly what French politicians and intellectuals wish to disseminate. As Revel writes, “The principal function of anti-Americanism has always been, and still is, to discredit liberalism [i.e., capitalism and free trade] by discrediting its supreme incarnation.” To this end, the French public is provided with a picture of America as a den of iniquity, where limousines glide past famished indigents, Muslims are pursued by an implacable secret police, only the rich have health care, and the President, a naive religious fanatic, is controlled by oil companies.

Posted by Fire @ 4:58 AM

Biography of Donald Rumsfeld.

It seems an odd time, due to his having so much more work to do, but a concervative biography has now appeared about one of the few guys on the planet who has no trouble handling the press.

Midge Dector writes about the Secretary of Defense who NR has labeled a “stud.”
DECTER’S SECOND theme is that the life of this Illinois native is emblematic of a long but now largely forgotten American tradition, grounded in the pragmatism of the Midwest, in which allegiance to family, to country, and to a code of moral behavior is seen as not only essential to the health of society but “manly”—i.e., virtuous—in its own right. In this regard, Decter also argues that there is a lofty sort of male sexiness inherent in the septuagenarian Rumsfeld—how else to account for his sudden popularity last spring with women of all ages?

Posted by Fire @ 4:52 AM