Tuesday, February 24, 2004


I had a good laugh over Keith Burgess-Jackson's post about voting for Nader. I said yesterday that lots of idiots will vote for Nader but Keith says he will vote for Nader. So clearly some non-idiots will also vote for Nader. I think there is a rather overlooked possibility that some conservatives might vote for Nader as a way of registering their disgust at the big-spending ways of GWB. But I still think Nader is an idiot. Why? Because he is more of a danger to his friends than his enemies. Keith explains in detail why he votes for Nader here. I think Keith should think more about his reasons for rejecting the view that Nader is ego-driven, however. At least as far back as St Bernard of Clairvaux in the Middle Ages and Simeon the Stylite in Byzantium, material poverty and strong principles have been perfectly compatible with the pursuit and attainment of great fame and influence -- and fame and influence are the the egotist's chief desires. One of my readers commented about Nader's "Meet the Press" appearance: "He was just too funny. Nothing he said made any sense at all - and he offered NO SPECIFICS: Just blind rage against Reps and Dems and corporations and government. No amount of government oversight of corporations was ever enough for Nader."

Perhaps I shouldn't be amazed but I have discovered that "The Wall Street Journal's" chief editorial writer and I both think that old cars are a good thing. The car I drive at the moment was recently valued at $1,500! (Yes, $1,500, not $15,000). It works perfectly as far as I am concerned. Sheesh! Am I becoming a Ralph Nader?

Between a rock and a hard place: According to a study by the National Taxpayers Union, all the Democrat candidates for president propose spending tens, and in some cases, hundreds of billions of dollars more than Mr. Bush. The sad fact is at the moment the voters are left with a choice between bad and truly awful."

"It is a sad irony that the world's freest Muslims -- those who live in liberty in the West -- are so unwilling to publicly condemn the world's worst Muslims -- the militant Islamist fascists who believe in violent jihad, intolerant theocracy, subjugated women, and hatred of Jews and Americans...."

The Iraqi "resistance" seem more like Mafia crooks than traditional resistance movements: "Who's behind the suicide bombings, roadside attacks and prison breakouts in postwar Iraq? Whoever you want it to be, by the look of things. No Iraqi or Islamic group has claimed responsibility for the sporadic attacks, but there is no shortage of Western commentators, coalition officials and anti-war activists claiming responsibility on behalf of various groups and interests"

Sounds reasonable: "Britain will throw open its doors to workers from the former communist countries joining the European Union on May 1, but those that refuse to get a job will be denied benefits and thrown out, the government has pledged."

The Spectator has some good articles in their issue of 21st -- on what the British Tories need to do to regain power, on the "epidemic" of obesity and on Turkey's acceptance into the EU -- but they do not make it possible for anyone to link directly to their articles these days. You first have to register with them and even then you cannot get to the articles except via their table of contents. Registration is however very tricky and defeated me. I suggest you don't bother with it. I finally got to their articles by logging in as info@rationalreview.com with the password: rationalreview.

Melanie Phillips in The Guardian: "Anti-Semitism is on the increase and its roots are not in the Right but in the Sharon-hating Left"

There are a lot of short and to-the-point posts over at Texas Conservative


The Left have always wanted more spent on welfare and made "Fascism" a swear-word. President Bush deposed a brutal Fascist dictator and sponsored a big expansion of welfare. But instead of being admired by the Left, he is hated with a passion. What does that tell you about the Left? It tells you that they have no principles at all: That everything they have ever claimed to stand for is fake.

Two more examples of Leftist dishonesty: They blame the 9/11 attacks on "poverty" in the Islamic world. Yet most of the attackers were Saudis and Saudi Arabia is one of the world's richest countries! They also say that they oppose racism yet support "affirmative action" -- which judges people by the colour of their skin

Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


No comments: