QandO
Questions and Observations| « Eva Braun reporting.... | Main | Not everyone thinks Tillman's a hero » |
|
April 29, 2004 Blog Rolling When I really don't have that much to say, I take a spin around the blogroll to see what other bloggers are saying.... * David Adesnik... As for Kerry's inconsistent comments about the medals during his various Senate races, those aren't really worth bothering with. What really gets me is that on Good Morning America, Kerry tried to pin all the blame for this controversy on the GOP attack machine rather than recognize that his own questionable behavior was responsible for it.I'd agree with every word of that. The fuss over what Kerry did and said in 1971 is minor campaign fluff. His reaction, though..... * (via Oxblog) Thoughtsonline gets it right... It's not surprising that Clark would come to Kerry's defense, since they are both trying to do the same thing: use their service in the military as a shield against criticism of actions and positions they have taken and statements they have made after they got out. * Pejman.... I wish though that Glenn and others would stop entertaining fantasies of Condi Rice in the Number 2 spot. It's not going to happen this year, folks. Ditching Cheney would be a sign that Republicans are panicking, and there certainly is no reason to panic. It would also be a tremendous act of disloyalty...I'm really not sure that Cheney adds anything positive to the ticket, but I'm quite sure that Bush won't replace him. Whatever else Bush may be, he is loyal to his inner cadre. Also, for good measure: Hillary isn't going to be on the Democratic ticket; John Kerry will be. Can we please quit with the fantasy elections? * Captain Ed... Annan's remarks boggle the mind. He literally endorsed the entire idea of unilateral action by the Anglo-American alliance to enforce UNSC restrictions that the UN was clearly unable to maintain. In fact, what he says here is that the [Oil-For-Food] corruption can be blamed on the US and the UK failing to act, even without specific UN approval, when Saddam clearly was in violation of UNSC resolutions well before 2002.What did Annan say? "We had no mandate to stop oil smuggling. ... The U.S. and the British had planes in the air. We were not there. Why is this all being dumped on the U.N.?" So, we already had planes in the area, so we should have (without a UN mandate) gone ahead and enforced the resolutions by force. Uh-huh. What a load. This is the same Kofi Annan who said that Iraqi attacks on US planes patrolling those no-fly zones were not a violation of the UN resolutions. So, he blames the US for not responding to oil smuggling that was under UN auspices, since we had planes in the area......but also blames the US for the attacks on US planes patrolling the no-fly zones. And people wonder why we don't think a whole hell of a lot of the UN. * Bill Hobbs... Help me understand this: Instapundit charges $1,000 per month to run an ad on his blog and he's currently got what looks to be four paid ads (The Spirit of America ad is likely a freebie for a very good cause.) Yet yesterday for some reason several folks dropped cash in his tip jars. The rich get richer. If I was a Democrat, I'd be proposing a National Blog Tip Jar Fairness Act....I've thought pretty seriously about setting up Blogads here, but haven't take the dive. Yet. In the meantime, if you are so inclined, I'd remind you that there is a PayPal tipjar near the bottom of the sidebar. It would help defray the cost of this site. * John Hawkins.... So let me branch out: Why are comparatively so few female bloggers of note in the political blogosphere?This is all a bit silly. Statistically speaking, a lower percentage of women than men write/care about politics. So, it follows that a lower percentage of good political blogs are written by women. And this has nothing to do with sexism. "But", you might respond, "what about the male bloggers who often mention the physical attributes of female bloggers, rather than their political opinions?" Well, what of it? Men like attractive females. Sometimes, we mention that fact. In itself, that is not sexist. It only becomes sexist if we substitute a physical evaluation for an intellectual evaluation. I've got the impression that a set of sensitive * Kevin Drum... Can you say "suck" on the radio? As in, say, "George Bush sucks" (just to pull an example from a hat)?While this does outline the untenable and indefined nature of the FCC's "Community standards" rule in regards to broadcast standards (pop quiz: define "community standards". Pt 2: Define "community"), I would point out that the FCC has made no statement on the word "suck". It is simply the NPR lawyers being overcautious. "Sucks" has been in common use on the radio for nigh on 20 years now, and there's a vanishingly slim-to-zero chance that's going to change. In short: this has nothing to do with the FCC. Relax. * Ipse Dixit... Of course, the phrase "Pro-Choice and Anti-Capitalist" only makes sense in the semantic Universe of the lunatic Left. To everyone else, it's self-annihilating.I kid you not, somebody actually put both phrases on the same sign. He's got the picture. (Communists? Natch) I think a more accurate sign would be: "Consequences suck!"
“I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.”If you say so.... |
Jon: "Can we please quit with the fantasy elections? "
So my suggestion of replacing Dick Cheney with Zell Miller is right out?
Posted by: Pouncer at April 29, 2004 10:09 AM
Heh. Yeah, but it would be pretty effective, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Jon Henke at April 29, 2004 10:12 AM