BACK TO THE ELECTION AND ITS AFTERMATH

Both Henneberger and Gould have recent articles out which portray how frantic and extreme Democrat supporters now are in their hatred of Bush and of conservatives generally. Such fury is not the reaction of people who are quietly confident in the truth of their own beliefs. It is the derangement of people who know that they are wrong and who are steadily having their props kicked out from under them. How otherwise to explain the fact that such great preachers of "tolerance" cannot abide over half of their fellow citizens?

I guessed wrongly. It is the voting machines that Leftists are blaming for their defeat: "A large number of states already have electronic voting machines in place. A large number of those do not produce paper ballots at all. Since many pundits have already raised hell about the highly politically partisan Republican ownership and control of these high-tech companies, I won't rehash that here. If you haven't heard about it, you've been living on another planet. If you didn't hear yesterday that many of these machines already contained thousands of votes before Tuesday's polling places opened their doors, you've been relying on mainstream media for your news." [Odd that the machines worked fine when Clinton won! -- though I must say that the American voting system as a whole is a shambles. In Australia, all voters need proper identification to register and all votes are on paper. Leftist outrage might help to get a stupid system reformed].

No tolerance in SF: "The summer of love has given way to the autumn of fear in San Francisco, a liberal stronghold where residents bitterly disappointed by the Bush victory are in no mood to reach out and mend divisions..... Some are canceling plans to travel to neighboring "red states," where Bush drew most of his support. They are asking serious questions about the future of American democracy. And the usual post-election bravado about moving out of the country when a favored candidate loses is sounding different this year. It sounds a lot more serious..... Peace and tolerance have long been the words to live by in San Francisco, known for its large gay community, broad ethnic mix and frequent anti-war protests. But days after the election, many residents said they ... did not know how they could tolerate the Bush administration, or Americans who voted to re-elect him. "I have family in Idaho, but I told my wife we're not going to visit them now. It's all Republicans there," said Ron Schmidt, a public relations executive. "We have family in Indiana and I don't want to go there either.""

LOL: "The Bush political team intuitively understood the tone of the U.S. voters much better than the media did. To be honest, I still don't quite understand how certified media junkies like me could have been so wrong. I read the New York Times and the New Yorker religiously. I watch CNN and the networks' evening news programs as well as the gabfests on Sunday mornings, too. Go figure". [Wotta dummy! He probably believes in global warming too.]

Single women: "This year, the Bush and Kerry campaigns joined the media and various women's groups throughout this election to chase a hot new voter, the unmarried woman. Dubbed the "Sex and the City" vote... this elusive group of 22 million women was expected to turn the election in John Kerry's favor. But in the end it was George W. Bush who successfully wooed the single female voter. Bush increased his share of the unmarried women's vote by twenty percent over the 2000 election, more than increases in votes cast by unmarried men, married women or married men.... Today's unmarried woman is independent and mindful of the way in which political and economic issues affect her on a personal level. She wonders whether her investments and retirement accounts are safe from broad fluctuations in stock prices. She follows interest rates and real estate trends... A large part of her pay is taken each payday by government in the form of income and social security taxes to fund programs from which she receives few direct benefits.... Perhaps the Kerry campaign failed to convince unmarried women that the Bush administration has mishandled the economy".

Rare sense from Seattle: "It was Bush's progressive agenda that kept him in office.... The left's conservative policies of get-along diplomacy with dictators and theocracies have been rejected in favor of more progressive and proactive strategies of freedom and pluralism..... Bush's victory was due to the fact that nationally the majority of voters was tired of the status quo, tired of the knee-jerk conservatism of the left and wanted a progressive administration. Kerry wanted to take us back to the ideas, policies and attitudes that prevailed before the 9/11 attack.... The majority of Americans wanted a candidate and an administration with new ideas and a plan, and the Democrats offered an administration that was anti-everything.... . The left has shown itself conservative and reactionary on the domestic front as well, resisting in political lock step such progressive ideas as the testing, standards and performance required by the No Child Left Behind Act, against any reasonable limitations on abortion, against any and all aspects of "ownership society" such as partial privatization of social security or health care savings accounts..."

A good gal: "She'd already signed the precinct register when an election worker said her Bush-Cheney T-shirt amounted to illegal electioneering. So Debbie Dupeire pulled it off. Dupeire, who voted in a sports bra, exercise pants and flip-flops, said she was afraid she would lose her chance to vote if she left to turn her shirt inside-out.

There is a good article here on how adversely midweek voting affects American productivity. But I guess that the Australian system of voting on Saturday would be too big a change to ask for.

There is an excellent article on the electoral college system here. One excerpt: "It is precisely because of the Electoral College that the recounting of votes focused on one state instead of many. If the popular vote decided the winner, we would still be bogged down in questionable recounts in dozens, if not hundreds, of counties across the country. The potential for mistakes and abuse would have been enormously compounded, and the cloud over the eventual winner would have been all the more dark and ominous".

A good post on Chicago Boyz: "The core strength of "liberal" America resides in the descendants of Yankee puritans, a memetic "Greater New England" that sprang from the Yankee diaspora which settled the Northern tier of the country. These folks have been living uneasily with their fellow Americans for over 350 years. They have been trying to reform the rest of us for our own good the whole time: Revolution, abolition, prohibition, civil rights, environmentalism..." [He is right. The slightest knowledge of history will tell you that the Pilgrim Fathers were bungling communists. Their Blue State descendants are just a toned-down version of that]

Rush Limbaugh has some good commentary on the latest Leftist response to their election loss. They think the "Blue States" should secede and join up with Canada. They also claim that the "Red states" are parasitical on the "Blue States" anyhow. Rush gives some reasons why "it aint so".

Chicago Boyz also mentions the current Leftist talk about the Blue States seceding but, despite the obvious precedent of the civil war, seems to take it seriously. He somehow misses the way Anglosphere countries normally deal with territorial differences: States' rights. If Jeb Bush can be persuaded to stand in 2008, the Republicans will have America wrapped up until 2016 so a Leftist push to devolve power away from the Feds to the States should result from that -- which would be highly amusing considering past Leftist love of centralized power and hostility to States' rights.

"Republicans have bigger yards." --Tom Firey, explaining all that red space on the electoral map....

Favourite bumper-sticker: "First I voted for John Kerry and then I voted against him".

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

I think I will put election commentary on hold for today:

SOME POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY

Many conservatives have noticed by now that "projection" is very common on the Left: Leftists commonly accuse conservatives of what are in fact their own faults. This is particularly true of psychological diagnoses, as I have shown elsewhere at some length (e.g. here and here). Perhaps the most constant accusation of that kind is that conservatives are stupid -- where the only published survey on the question that I know of shows the opposite -- that it is in fact LEFTIST attitudes that go with lower average IQ.

Projection is classified in clinical psychology as a "defence mechanism" -- basically something used to prop up weak (and often inflated) egos. But it is in fact only a subset of a more general defence-mechanism: Denial. Denial of your own weak points can be accomplished by projection or in other ways. One of the other ways is familiar to all: Deception (often accompanied by self-deception), or claiming that you have virtues, assets or abilities that you do not have. A rather striking example of this is a claim that seems to have become common among Leftists only recently: The claim that they are "reality-based". That they are "realists" is of course a claim that conservatives have always made and Leftists were for rather a long time fairly happy not to deny that but to counter-claim that they were "idealists". But that strategy seems to have fallen out of favour lately. Why? At one level it is presumably an attack on Christians -- representing a claim that Christians are not realists (though one might ask how come Christians control two branches of the U.S. government in that case) but at the psychological level it simply creates a symmetry with projection: If you claim that your enemies have what are in fact your bad points it makes sense to go the whole hog and claim that what are really your enemy's good points are in fact your good points. One example of this self-identification is well-known Leftist blogger Matthew Yglesias -- who subheads his blog: "Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community". In his most recent post as of this writing, however (post of 9th) he twice uses "right" when he means "write" -- suggesting that his grip on reality is in fact pretty shaky. He is at least dyslexic.

*****************************

FROM BROOKES NEWS

President's Bush's victory is a win for common decency The true divide in America is not between those who vote Republican and those who vote Democrat. It is between those Americans who love their country and those who disdain it
China's feelings about the Bush victory Beijing believes that the more informed the American public becomes the more it will shift toward the Republicans
Bin Laden tape proof that President Bush is winning The Bin Laden tape was an admission that President Bush had beaten him
The American economy: recessions and tealeaves The fallacious belief that layoffs could be avoided by maintaining wage earners' purchasing power was responsible for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression
A George Soros myth lives on The myth that George Soros broke the Pound has been solidly entrenched. But that's just what it is — a myth

Details here

*********************************

ELSEWHERE

I suppose everyone is laughing about this: "France rolled out overwhelming military force Sunday to put down an explosion of anti-French violence in its former West African colony, deploying troops, armored vehicles and helicopter gunships against machete-waving mobs that hunted house-to-house for foreigners. In the second of two stunning days that stood to alter French-Ivory Coast relations -- and perhaps Ivory Coast itself -- French forces seized strategic control of the largest city, commandeering airports and posting gunboats under bridges in the commercial capital, Abidjan."

Great English election result! The English just want to be English: "John Prestcott's cherished dream of English devolution was shattered last night when voters overwhelmingly rejected an elected assembly for the North East. The Deputy Prime Minister, was shocked and humiliated when voters threw out his proposals for a directly elected regional assembly in yesterday's referendum by 78 per cent, with only 22 per cent in favour... Despite a huge push by the Labour Party over the last 48 hours to get out their vote, the higher turn out in the end favoured the "no" camp, which was backed by the Tories and UKIP.... The Government is now expected to tear up its twelve-year-old plan to create eight or nine regional assemblies in England to mirror devolution in Scotland and Wales.

More evidence here to suggest that Arafart is dying of AIDS.

Leftists routinely claim that the American economy "traps" many people in poverty. This article shows that few Americans are in fact stuck permanently in poverty and that those who are can scarcely blame others for it.

There is a good post here saying what I have always said about Michael Moore -- that he is simply a clever and well-paid entertainer of the Left. Perhaps because of that, Moore is careful to avoid outright lies -- relying instead on distortions and innuendo. As this post shows, however, official Democrat election propaganda was not so squeamish.

But Moore is a Johnny-come-lately in the Leftist-entertainment business. Noam Chomsky has had the same shtick for years -- with similar lucrative results. There is a good summary of how reality-defying Chomsky is here -- which also notes how useful Chomsky is to the incessant Leftist need to appear "different".

On 3rd., I commented here about the 100,000 post-invasion civilian deaths in Iraq that Leftists are at present claiming. Wayne Lusvardi has put together some additional commentary on the claim here.

I have a good crop of posts up on GREENIE WATCH today

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

BACK TO ELECTION 2004: MY COMMENTS

My first comment is on this plaint from a Left activist: "Contrary to my predictions, we had had a relatively fair election and the American people (or something over half of them) had democratically voted for an extremist Christian regime... In the other America, we believe that killing all those Iraqis (not to mention Afghanis and, indirectly, Palestinians) is not only wrong but also terribly hazardous to our own security.... More important, though, we had better take a good hard look at what is happening in the Christian extremist America, dissect it and try to understand it from the inside out."

She could start by listening to what GWB was saying instead of inventing a non-existent bogeyman. Read what GWB actually said about abortion in the Presidential debates and tell me he is a Christian extremist. He's more a libertarian on the issue, in fact. But she's an illiterate anyway: The people of Afghanistan are Afghans. The Afghani is their currency.

My second point is that to regain Federal electability, the Democrats are going to have to do what the Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party have already done -- marginalize the far-Left. The Dems know that of course or Kerry would not have presented himself as a GWB clone on practially all policies in the last election. But a last-minute conversion like that is just not convincing. There has to be real change, not cosmetic change. The British Labour party, for instance, was once the anti-nuclear and unilateral disarmament party. Now its leader is America's chief ally in the Iraq war. Quite a change! Just as is already the case in Britain and Australia, America's party of the Left needs to become just an alternative conservative party.

********************************

BACK TO ELECTION 2004: OTHER COMMENTS

"Love is stronger than hate. That is the lesson of the 2004 election results. Millions of Democrats and leftists have been seething with hatred for George W. Bush for years, and many of them lined up before the polls opened to cast their votes against him--one reason, apparently, that the exit poll results turned out to favor Democrats more than did the actual results. But Republicans full of love, or at least affection, for George W. Bush turned out steadily later in the day or sent in their ballots days before. They have watched the "old media" --the New York Times, the broadcast networks CBS, ABC, and NBC--beat up on Bush for the past year, and they have listened to the sneers and slurs directed at him by coastal elites for a long time. Now they had their chance to speak".

Rove speaks: "Kerry's decision to vote for the $87 billion in funding for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then deciding in October 2003 to vote against it, was a bonanza for the president's campaign, "the gift that kept on giving," Rove said. Bush's campaign featured the videotape in thousands of commercials around the country to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper. Rove played down the importance to the campaign of "moral values," which exit polls last Tuesday unexpectedly identified as a major consideration of many voters, especially those who voted for Bush. Rove said 34 percent of the voters were motivated by issues surrounding Iraq and the war on terror, compared with 30 percent motivated by moral values. "What essentially happened in this election was that people became concerned about three issues: first the war, then the economy, jobs and taxes and then moral values. And then everything else dropped off of the plate," he said... On one sideline row during the campaign, Rove said the president's tailor was devastated about a controversy over a box-shaped bulge in Bush's back that television cameras captured during the first debate. The mysterious bulge spawned speculation that Bush aides were feeding the president advice secretly through a radio receiver tucked under his suit jacket. "Nothing was under his jacket," Rove said".

A timely warning: "Democrats did well in the AAA league of politics, the state legislatures. Republicans have to pay attention not only to where they are gaining votes, but also to the states and demographic groups where they are losing them. Last week, more than 80% of the roughly 7,300 partisan legislative seats in the country were up for grabs, as elections for state legislators took place in 44 states. Before the election, Republicans had a narrow 60-seat aggregate nationwide lead in seats, the smallest any party had held since statistics have been recorded. Now the margin is even smaller, but this time Democrats are on top".

How the Catholic vote turned out in 2004: "Mr. Bush carried Ohio Catholics by 10 percentage points - 55 percent to 45 percent - over Sen. John Kerry.... Nationwide, the Catholic vote swung eight points from 2000, when 50 percent backed Al Gore to 47 percent for Mr. Bush. This year, it was 52 percent for the president and 47 percent for Mr. Kerry, a Catholic. "The change in the Catholic vote was crucial to the margin of victory," Mr. Cuccinelli said. .. Mr. Bush obliquely referred to the role Catholics and Protestant evangelicals played in his victory when he noted at a press conference yesterday that, "I am glad people of faith voted in this election." "

Overseas Leftists outraged too: "The re-election of President Bush dominated British newspapers Thursday, and many cast impartiality aside in reporting the result. 'How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?' the liberal Daily Mirror asked in a Page One headline. Inside, several pages of coverage were headed 'U.S. election disaster.' The Independent bore the front-page headline 'Four more years' on a black page with grim pictures including a hooded Iraqi prisoner and an orange-clad detainee at Guantanamo Bay. The left-leaning Guardian led its features section with a black page bearing the tiny words, 'Oh, God.' ... Across Europe, many newspapers expressed dismay at the prospect of another term for Bush... 'Oops -- they did it again,' Germany's left-leaning Tageszeitung newspaper said in a front-page English headline. The cover of the Swiss newsmagazine Facts called Bush's re-election 'Europe's Nightmare.'

The investor vote: "The largest demographic shift in this country over the past 25 years is not the number of Americans whose parents speak Spanish. It is the number of Americans who own stocks directly. In 1978 only 17 percent of American adults owned stocks. Today, more than 60 percent of adults and 70 percent of those who voted in 2002 own stock. The "investor voter" has already changed politics in the past 4 years.... Low stock market values make investors demand solutions from politicians that will increases their wealth. Kerry has chosen sides. In the 1995 debate on capital-gains tax cuts he said, "This week defines the difference between them and us." It's not so wise to define 70 percent of voters as "them." It shows your political age."

Heartening Massachusetts win: "In an unprecedented landslide, approximately 85% voted for joint physical custody of children on Fathers & Families' non-binding ballot question. The lopsided margin of victory was greater than that of any elected official in Massachusetts, including John Kerry, Barney Frank, or Jim McGovern..." The wording: "Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the court shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children"

There is a rather remarkable map here which shows that the Democrat vote came overwhelmingly from the big cities. By and large it was of course a "bought" vote: The vote of minorities bought with welfare dollars.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

Just for a change, I am going to do all-Australian posts today -- but if you need some post-election commentary to keep you going, there is an excellent post here. I understand that the author has already got hate-mail about it!



ANTISEMITISM IN THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY

Just a few excerpts from an article by Barry Cohen, a former ALP Federal parliamentarian


I have often been asked if my being Jewish was ever an issue during my 20 years in Federal Parliament. Not to the best of my knowledge. I cannot recall a single anti-Semitic remark from either side of the House. That did not mean that everyone agreed with my views on Israel. Nor did I expect them to. However, while my views remain the same, the Labor Party's these days are very different....

But gradually, Labor's Left and more extremist elements, such as the Greens and Democrats, became increasingly shrill in their denunciation of Israel.... That trend has infected the ALP. The handful of pro-Palestinian supporters has grown steadily as the party has become dominated by the education mafia; former public servants and party union apparatchiks....

I'm sick of the calumny heaped on Israel - most of which is a pack of lies... I don't want even-handedness when it ought to be obvious to all but the blind that there is no moral equivalence between a country that seeks to defend its citizens from thousands of terrorist attacks, and the terrorists themselves. I want to hear Labor MPs stand up and be counted. I want to see an end to well-known Labor identities marching behind banners equating Israel with Nazism...

Silence on these issues isn't good enough for me. If people want to criticise Israel, fine - plenty of Israelis do. But let it be reasoned criticism, and if they want even-handedness let them also berate the Arab world for its denial of basic human rights for any of its citizens. Let's hear the Labor feminists take the Arab nations to task for their abominable treatment of women. Let's hear those Labor supporters, who are so loud in their denunciation of homophobia, demand an end to the barbaric treatment of gays. Let's also hear civil rights activists bemoan the lack of basic freedoms available to most of the 300 million Arabs in the 22 Arab countries...

Before the Iraq war one of the most senior NSW right-wing MPs told me: "I understand and support Israel's position, but in my group, I'm the only one." Soon after I told a Labor legend: "Anti-Semitism is now rampant in the Labor Party." I expected a vigorous denial. His response confirmed my worst fear: "I know," he said. For better or worse my character and life were shaped by the anti-Semitism I experienced as a boy and a young man. I was proud to belong to a party that fought all forms of prejudice. Not any longer.

There is a collection of comments on Barry Cohen's article here. Note the claim to virtue from dopey Leftist spokeswoman Plibersek: "In addition, I am proud of my statements criticising the Taliban for its treatment of women in Afghanistan and the mullahs for their repression of democracy in Iran. I do not believe these criticisms make me anti-Arab". Since neither Afghans nor Iranians are Arabs, she was on safe ground there! (Comments via Fabian's Hammer).

**************************

ELSEWHERE

Australian politics have always seemed more class-oriented than American politics. Australia lacks the race factor and has never had any equivalent to the old conservative Southern Democrats. An article I have just put online is therefore interesting. It shows that by the 1970s even Australia had lost almost all the class polarization in its political system. Working class people by then were just as likely to vote conservative as Leftist. Cultural factors were already more important. In both America and Australia, of course, the process of change has since then progressed even further -- with the major Leftist parties reversing themselves completely -- now being parties of the social and economic elite rather than of the worker.

I said it first!: "A leading Indonesian scientist challenged the widely publicised theory that fossilised bones found on the eastern island of Flores were from a previously unknown species of human. Professor Teuku Jacob, chief palaeontologist from the state Gajah Mada University, will carry out tests to prove the fossils are from a sub-species of homo sapiens -- "an ordinary human being, just like us"... "It is not a new species. It is a sub-species of homo sapiens classified under the Austrolomelanesid race. If it's not a new species, why should it be given a new name?" the professor said." As soon as I saw the initial reports on this, I said that these Indonesian pygmies were probably relatives of the Northern Australian pygmies. See here and here for my relevant posts on the matter.

Welfare reform needed: "Of the 14 million Australians of working age, an amazing 14 per cent depend on welfare. Back in 1969 the figure was only 3 per cent. This affects the economy because these people are not contributing - they're taking money from those in paid employment. A majority of those on welfare are on disability or sole parent support pensions. To put it bluntly, many of them shouldn't be. Let's start with disability support. The numbers have more than tripled since 1980 - to 670,000 - and now account for a whopping $7.6 billion per year. Of course, many of these people are genuinely disabled and deserve our support. But many aren't - unless the level of disability has skyrocketed since 1980, and there is no medical evidence to suggest this is the case. What has happened is that it's been made much easier to get the pension. The two biggest categories are depression and bad backs, which are notoriously difficult to prove, or disprove.... The last Labor government began this increase around 1991, shunting people from unemployment benefits to the pension to make the unemployment figures look better.... This is not just about the economy. Working-age people on welfare for no good reason are more likely to be depressed. Their sense of self-worth is low. Their children, compared with children from working families, are far more likely to become homeless, to break the law, and to end up on welfare.

Australian book publishing is failing our society badly by publishing far too narrow and turgidly repetitive a range of viewpoints, especially on politics and foreign policy.... How can it be that here we already have a welter of biographies of Mark Latham, who has yet to achieve ministerial office of any kind but only one, highly unsatisfactory, biography of John Howard, soon to become Australia's second longest serving prime minister? In Australia almost every book dealing with foreign policy, especially Iraq, begins with the premise that Howard is bad, Bush is worse, the war on terror is a con, the war in Iraq was based on a lie, Australia's closeness to Bush hurts us in Asia, and so on. There is a reasonable amount of disagreement within those positions, but nothing to challenge the consensus... By accepting the absurd premise that there is something inherently evil about the Australian Government, publishers seem to drop all editorial standards. Any rhetorical and emotional excess is justified. There is no need to marshal facts for an argument. If there is any research in most of these books, it consists of assembling newspaper clippings to illustrate the predetermined thesis.... it's just a virulent and deeply unintelligent stream of abuse aimed at anyone on the conservative side of politics in the US or Australia. You have to conclude that Australian publishers have no standards of honesty, factual accuracy or elementary decency, that they will publish absolutely anything, no matter how bad, if the author is well known and is attacking conservatives.

There is a new Australian blog here written by Father Peter Wales, an Anglo-Catholic. I have corresponded with Peter for a while off and on and, unlike most of the Anglican clergy, I judge him to be a true man of God. His post here, however fills me with rage at American judges.

I rarely put up pictures or graphics of any kind but I have just put up here (or here) a picture of a man in a great hat!

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

Apologies for continuing to focus on the election but I think this was the election that will ensure that the Anglosphere wins the world war it is presently engaged in so I think that is kind-of important


THE "HICK CHRISTIANS" MYTH

I touched on this yesterday but I hope to sink it altogether today. For a start, I do NOT intend to dignify with any counter-argument the sickening denigrations of American Christians that have been spewing from Leftists in recent days -- describing these good people as "hicks", "ignorant", "jihadists" etc. I think the reality is too plain to need any defence from me. And how the sad souls of the Left think such language will help them win the Christian votes that they will need if ever they are to win power again entirely escapes me. So why should I do anything to stop American Leftists from destroying their own future? They are, in fact, an excellent example of the self-destructive nature of hate. How much better off Christians are with the wisdom of Matthew chapter 5 to guide them. I am an atheist and it still inspires me! Leftists claim to be idealists but they don't know what idealism is until they have read those words.

As I pointed out yesterday, the vote for GWB was a clear vote for solid conservatism so it is of great interest to see which demographic groups swung in that direction. I noted yesterday that Hispanics were one such group but have a look through the statistics listed here and you will see that the swings were just about the opposite of what the haters on the Left claim. The swing to Bush actually occurred in almost ALL large demographic groups, including Africans, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics and women -- with a notable EXCEPTION being Protestant Christians! (Down from 63% in 2000 to 59% in 2004). Polysigh has arrived at similar conclusions.

And so has David Brooks: "Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them. In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top. This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.... The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums."

And the Leftists call conservatives stupid! If conservatives are stupid, Leftists are fact-free! Not that that's any news.

Leftists have of course tried to console themselves in various other ways for their loss but one of the most amusing such efforts is the frequent claim that Bush's margin over Kerry was small (What's 3 million people to a Leftist? A mere bagatelle. It's the THEORY that matters, stupid!) and that America is still therefore roughly 50/50 divided between Left and Right. The Leftist talent for self-deception is legendary but that one takes the cake. It overlooks their candidate's ENTIRE campaign! Kerry presented himself as being simply a more skillful version of Bush. His proclaimed policies were virtually the same as Bush's. Only his history -- e.g. his Senate voting record -- identified him as the far-Leftist he is. So lots of people would have bought that bill of goods and voted for Kerry simply as an alternative conservative candidate. Lots of Kerry votes were therefore "stolen" conservative votes -- won by deception! The real Leftist candidate was "screamer" Dean and the Dems didn't dare run HIM against Bush. If they had run Dean, they would have seen that the Left/Right divide among Americans was MUCH more extreme than 50/50!

*******************************

OTHER COMMENTS ON THE ELECTION

The media lost: "Sen. John Kerry has gotten the white-glove treatment from the press, garnering more praise from journalists than any other presidential candidate in the last quarter-century, according to a new analysis of almost 500 news stories released today by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "It's not just that John Kerry has gotten better press than President Bush before this election, he's gotten better press than anyone else since 1980. That's significant," said Bob Lichter, director of the D.C.-based nonpartisan research group. "Kerry also got better press than anyone else in the days before the primaries as well," Mr. Lichter added. In October alone, Mr. Kerry had a "record-breaking 77 percent positive press evaluations," compared with 34 percent positive for Mr. Bush... But Mr. Bush didn't get the absolute worst press on record. With only 9 percent positive stories in 1984, President Reagan got the most negative treatment by news outlets on record, the study says."

The elitism never stops: "When President Bush's poll numbers surged in April after a press conference where his performance was derided by the press and the chattering classes, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was baffled ... He said with a sigh to one top staffer, 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.'"

Even the Leftist Nation says it: "The Democratic elite are out of touch, as Republicans claim. They have lost reliable connections to ordinary people, including some long loyal constituencies".

Jeff Jacoby: "Hatred lost. For four years, Americans watched and listened as President Bush was demonized with a savagery unprecedented in modern American politics. For four years, they saw him likened to Hitler and Goebbels, heard his supporters called brownshirts and racists, his administration dubbed "the 43rd Reich." For four years they took it all in: "Bush" spelled with a swastika instead of an 's', the depictions of the president as a drooling moron or a homicidal liar, the poisonous insults aimed at anyone who might consider voting for him. And then on Tuesday they turned out to vote, and handed the haters a crushing repudiation."

Anti-illegal immigration win: "Arizonans have voted heavily for the ballot initiative that aims to stop illegal aliens from receiving involuntary taxpayer subsidies, voting in elections etc. Proposition 200's grassroots triumph in the teeth of the united opposition of the entire political establishment and its media mouthpieces is, as with California's similar Proposition 187 ten years ago, a further illustration of the extraordinary power of the immigration issue."

Democrats up against it: "Of all the hard facts Democrats have to consider today, the mass mobilization of evangelical Christians must certainly be the most painful. It's easy enough for the party to produce GOP-clone positions on issues ranging from Iraq to education to "saving" Social Security. But the Democrats will never be able to turn out the anti-gay marriage vote (even as they lack the conviction to field a strong pro-gay marriage candidate). It's getting harder to see just what the Democrats can turn out. The party remains in thrall to unattractive special interests that don't matter anymore: unions, teachers, trial lawyers, and so on"

The Guardian loses: "Thank you, Lady Antonia Fraser! In 2000, Clark County, Ohio went to Al Gore. This time round, after the local citizenry were targeted by the Guardian to be the beneficiaries of Lady Antonia's voting advice, and John le Carr‚'s and Richard Dawkins's and many others, Clark County went to ...George W. Bush!"

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

MY ELECTION REFLECTIONS

The heavy-duty pontificating about what the election result means is already well underway so let me try to spoil the party by pointing out the obvious: In 2000 GWB tried to learn from Clinton's apparently very successful centrist policies and campaigned as a "compassionate conservative". He lost the popular vote by half a million but thanks to the small-state bias of the electoral college he still got the job. In 2004, by contrast, he campaigned on security and morality -- classic conservative causes. And what a difference it made! He won the popular vote by over 3 million. So can anybody doubt that in voting for Bush it was good solid conservatism that was being chosen and that the Anglosphere is basically conservative? It was the conservative element in Clinton's appeal that turned the tide for him; it is the conservative element in Tony Blair's appeal that will continue to win the day for him and it was certainly thoroughly conservative policies that recently won the day for John Howard in Australia.

The case of Australia is particularly useful in seeing how it all works. For over a decade the Australian Labor Party followed policies (privatization, tariff reduction etc.) that were in many ways more conservative than the policies of our nominal conservatives. And that got the Labor party a long term as the government of Australia. Eventually, however, John Howard came along with even more conservative policies and tossed Labor out. And he has recently won his fourth election in a row. Howard was never successful enough to gain control of the Senate, however -- until the last election. In the last election the Labor party took a lurch to the Left (more socialized medicine, attacking private schools, bringing home the troops etc) and got the lowest share of the vote for over 70 years. So now Australian conservatives DO control our Senate.

So what it all shows is that Leftist parties in the Anglosphere can only succeed at elections by being an alternative conservative party. Which is also why John Kerry pretended to be a gun-lover and a Christian -- when he clearly knew nothing about either.

The predominant Leftist "explanation" for the defeat of Kerry seems to be that it can only have been a big turnout by those dreadful religious "hicks" that did it -- virtually claiming that there is no such thing as an intelligent Christian and quite ignoring the fact that the born-again Christian in the White House has an MBA from Harvard. Let me note again that the Australian comparison is instructive. In the recent Australian elections, the conservatives did at least as well as George Bush -- even grabbing complete control of our Senate for the first time. But very few Australians are religious so there is no Left/Right religious polarization in Australia to explain all the new conservative voters. All the outspoken church leaders in Australia were in fact AGAINST John Howard, as far as I can recollect (Who noticed?). But if the major conservative parties were not particularly representative of Christians, there WAS another party that DID represent Christians -- the Family First party. And it got only 2% of the vote! So with such a tiny Christian vote, Australia should, on Leftist reasoning, have elected a bunch of near-Communists. In fact, of course, Australia is in many ways more conservative than the USA -- with BOTH major political parties (Left and Right) completely ruling out any form of homosexual marriage long before the election (as just one instance of that). So you DON'T need a big "homophobic" and "fundamentalist" turnout to get a big conservative win in Australia and it would be pretty surprising if the American result could realistically be explained that way -- given the great similarities between the two countries on everything but religion. The big swing to GWB seems to have been among the Hispanics, in fact. See below.

But let the American Left continue with their febrile Christian-bashing. It will only entrench them as losers -- and Christians have had 20 centuries of experience in putting up with ignorant abuse.

***********************************

MORE ELECTION REFLECTIONS

My vote for the most amusing post-election comment so far -- from the NYT, of course: "Caving in to depression and a sense of helplessness should not be an option when the country is speeding toward an abyss" (Thanks to Dick McDonald for the link)

There is another amusing NYT article by Garry Wills that is apparently very popular in Leftist circles. Wills claims that America is as intolerant, oppressive and irrational as the Muslim countries. Anybody who is so far out of touch with reality as that would have to be an American college professor. If he told such falsehoods about his own society in a real Islamic country he would be dead. As it is, I am sure he was handsomely paid for his delusions.

The Times of London shows a lot better perspective than the rubbish the NYT prints: "It is absurd to believe that Bush's re-election represents the triumph of a Christian fundamentalism... The world did not end on Tuesday. A great darkness did not descend across civilisation. America is not about to embark on a biblically-mandated jihad against the enemies of evangelical Christianity around the world. American soldiers will not be enforcing Washington's imperium on your towns and villages any time soon".

Hispanics: "The biggest reason for Bush's victory was that he finally cracked the Democratic stranglehold on the Hispanic vote. While Gore won 65 percent of the Latino community, holding Bush to a mere 35 percent, Kerry only carried the Hispanic vote by 55-45, paving the way for the Bush victory. Since Hispanics cast 12 percent of the vote in 2004, their ten point movement to the GOP gave the president an additional 1.2 percent of the national vote. Take a similar amount away from Kerry and the Latinos gave Bush a 2.4 percent edge in the general election balloting".

"Healing? "After conceding the election to President Bush, John Kerry encouraged the American people to "begin the healing" and said it was time for us to come together and unite. It is not that easy, Johnny Boy. Who are we suppose to unite with? The people who vandalized Republican headquarters around the nation? Those who sprayed bullets through GOP offices, hurled rocks and cinder blocks through windows, sprayed racist and anti-Bush graffiti on walls outside and broke laptops and other equipment inside? Or just unite with those large groups of unkempt hippies who attempted to overtake Republican headquarters around the nation? What about the people who vandalized and egged cars that had Republican bumper stickers on them, or those who slashed the tires of dozens of GOP Campaign vehicles election morning? Is this what we are suppose to unite with?"

Lots of people liked the county map of the election results. It shows that even within States, it is mostly the big city areas that voted for Kerry. The map is reproduced here together with some comments. Michelle Malkin has the map up too.

Hee hee!: "European leaders struggled to prevent tensions over Iraq and transatlantic relations flaring out of control last night as President Bush's election victory dominated an EU summit. While Tony Blair accused Europe of being in denial about America, President Chirac of France withdrew from a lunch with Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi leader, who accused France of being a "spectator" refusing to get involved in his country's reconstruction. President Bush's re-election has upset his critics in Europe, particularly in France, which had led the anti-war effort. Yesterday French politicians insisted that Mr Bush's re-election showed the need to turn the EU into a superpower to counteract the US."

The big "October Surprise" that the Left intended for the election was the story about the lost Iraqi explosives. The L.A. Times says that the "explosives" removed from Al QaQaa in Iraq "are powerful enough to detonate a nuclear weapon". A professor of chemistry, however, says that the chemicals concerned were not explosives at all. See here for details. Though why the Left ever thought a possible army stuff-up was the fault of GWB has always escaped me. Do they think he is there in Iraq every day supervising every single platoon of soldiers?

The election has put my Leftists as Elitists site into high gear. I have recently put up some more great quotes there.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

THE WRAP-UP

Just imagine how Michael Moore and George Soros are feeling now. Justice has been done.

We do live in a better world now. The Islamicists are pipsqueaks compared to the menace that was once posed by the old Soviet Union. And just look at this news item now: "Russian President Vladimir Putin led world leaders' tributes to George W. Bush's victory in the U.S. presidential race, saying it meant Americans had not allowed themselves to be cowed by terrorists. "If Bush wins... I can only feel joy that the American people did not allow itself to be intimidated, and made the most sensible decision," Putin said at a Kremlin news conference". I have always had great respect for the long-suffering people of Russia and it is a joy to see that the artificial antagonism between them and the people of the Anglosphere has now ended. It is a considerable irony that the two biggest Slavic countries -- Russia and Poland -- now seem to have greater affection for America than Western Europe does. Note the disgusting comment by the Swedish Prime Minister in the same news item.

There is a lot of talk in the media about a "divided" America. See for example this rubbishy article. But Polipundit notes what will be obvious to everyone but the media: "I don't think it's an "bitterly divided country" when: 1. The Republican president just won over 50 percent for the first time in 16 years. He won more raw votes than anyone ever has, including Reagan. 2. The GOP has 55 senators. 3. The GOP has over 230 House members. 4. There are at least 28 Republican governors, including those of the 4 largest states. 5. The majority of state legislators and legislatures are Republican. 6. The GOP has just performed miracles, like ousting a Senate caucus leader for the first time since 1952, and getting a Republican senator elected from Louisiana for the first time ever".

And as Neumayr says: "What does all this talk of division really add up to? Aren't reporters really just saying that they feel divided from the country they cover? If the country is as divided as they eagerly assert, why don't the Democrats control half the branches of government? Why did they lose, not gain, votes in Florida? Why did Bush improve on his popular vote numbers so significantly? The country-is-divided chatter is not a journalistic report, but a wish -- the media's attempt to create the appearance of division so as to create division which might obstruct the progress of conservatism in the country."

But there is nonetheless still a very clear geographical division, as this map shows. The people who think they are superior and the big-city welfare clients whose votes were bought got together to vote for Kerry.

I think John Kerry's concession was one of the few good things he has ever done. He certainly showed more class than his odious litigation-loving vice-presidential sidekick who seemed determined to spin the matter out forever. And he put himself well above Gore too. Note this comment on conceding defeat: "They say Nixon had no class, but in 1960 he put the good of the country ahead of his own ambition and conceded a very close and controversial election to John Kennedy. A shift of a few thousand votes in Illinois and Texas would have given Nixon the presidency. In both places voter fraud was legendary and always on the Democratic side. Until the day he died, Nixon believed he had won in 1960. It seems to be one of the few things he really believed sincerely. Nobody will ever know whether he was right. The election was too close to call and in Chicago they knew how to steal elections too well to be caught. It is not so much that we are in new territory with elections, but we have become much more litigious. Al Gore should have given up after the first recount for the sake of the country. Despite myths that have been repeated endlessly, he had no reason to believe in widespread Republican fraud. Democrats ran all the disputed counties and the infamous butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat. Any fraud is much more likely to have benefited them".

A good summary of election night here. Excerpt: "In a graphic demonstration of how strong the Republicans' lock has become on the South, only one generation ago the preserve of the Democrat Party, even John Edwards, Mr Kerry's running-mate, saw his own state of North Carolina vote for Mr Bush by 56 per cent to 43, the same margin of victory for Mr Bush four years ago. Mr Edwards's own senate seat, which he vacated to focus on his initial bid for the Democrat presidential nomination last year, went Republican by nearly 200,000 votes. Democrats lost all five of the Southern senate seats they were defending"

Some Democrat "clients" reject them: "But before the entire Bush constituency is dismissed as merely a collection of religious fanatics, armed to the teeth and living in the hills, it should be remembered that the army of secular Americans is about the same size as those for whom cultural conservatism is the essence of their politics.... The crucial additional building blocks in the Bush coalition were drawn from beyond the stereotype of the Republican electorate. Mr Bush performed notably better among three categories of Americans on Tuesday than he had done four years earlier. These were women, the elderly and Hispanic citizens. The Hispanic electorate has been wooed by the White House for the whole of Mr Bush's tenure. He reaped a substantial reward for his efforts, not least in Florida. The Democratic Party, once the ultimate "rainbow coalition", has thus lost its hold on female electors and its dominance over a rapidly expanding ethic minority".

Hey! How come he's not a "neocon"?: "Mr Rove can claim more credit for Mr Bush's re-election triumph than anyone other than the President. The strategist who masterminded Mr Bush's three previous elections, two for the Texas governorship, was always going to emerge from this presidential election as either an electoral genius or a snake oil salesman. The strategy and tactics were his alone. He shaped the battleground and crafted the message. He recruited and marshalled the troops and issued their orders. And he got it all just about right". [He doesn't sound like a Jewish intellectual recently converted from Trotskyism to me! He has no university degree, has been a Republican since age 9 and isn't Jewish. But silly me! If he has big influence he MUST be a neocon!]

Promethean Antagonist is from "flyover country" and comments: "A pompous weasel who collaborated with communists and established a record of having done absolutely nothing for the last 30 years, was defeated by the voters of "flyover country" -- those dreaded commoners who don't know names like, Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida have rejected George McGovern Jr. The Left and the international spoiled brat brigade will wring their hands in horror..... The greatest irony of Bush's win is that he may not have won if the phony renegades of Leftist elitism hadn't screeched their nonsense for over a year now. To folks like Michael Moore, Moveon.org, Steve Earl, Bruce Springsteen et al. (the list is really long), ya blew it! and you have only yourselves to blame."

Carnival of the Vanities is up again and this week's host voted for Bush so pay him a visit!

I have just put up on Leftists as Elitists some amusing excerpts from elitist reactions to Bush's victory.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

HOORAY!

The people of the United States have chosen a humble, sincere and moderate man to be their President again. Great to see both a solid red heartland and Bush ahead by a few million in the popular vote as well! My favourite media comment of the night? When the map was already very red, Dan Rather said: "Nobody is saying that Bush is not going to win this". How grudging can you get? The best comment from my readers so far? "The only shocking thing is that 48% of Americans could bring themselves to vote for that freak of nature, the gigolo"

And Daschle was defeated too. What a great bonus!

There were a lot of conservative bloggers and pundits who abandoned President Bush in the last six months or so. I wonder how all the anti-Bushies (Left and Right) feel now? I think the Leftists in particular should be conceding that GWB was right. In their amoral perspective, right and wrong is DEFINED in terms of power. The backpedalling among anti-Bush conservatives should be amusing too. And it's particularly nice for it to be clear that GWB owes his victory to the people, who voted for him despite huge opposition from the pundits and would-be manipulators in the media who think that they know it all. Reality has overcome theory, spin and lies.

And what about all those loonies who have been saying that GWB's policies are all the work of the "neocons"? I wonder if it might now occur to them that GWB did what he did because it was the right thing to do? Over half the American voting population seems to think he did. But I guess the people are just "rabble" to conspiracy theorists -- "manipulated" by those devilishly cunning Jewish neocons. It was exactly such paranoid thinking that started Hitler off. Read Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf if you doubt it. But I have commented at some length on the neocon myth previously.

Let me predict the predominant Leftist spin on this election result. It will be that: "Osama bin Laden won it for Bush". There is of course a glimmer of truth in that. GWB kept saying that Osama and his minions were a threat while the idiotic John Kerry kept denying it (insofar as anybody could work out what Kerry was saying). And then Osama popped up on TV saying: "I am a threat". That it was actually Kerry's denial of the obvious that made Osama's statement noteworthy will not be mentioned. The crazies will even say that Bush was "in cahoots" with bin Laden -- and bin Laden is really a Jew, of course.

**************************

ELSEWHERE

Good news from the Australian elections too: The Christian party has finally squeaked into our Senate, squeezing out the Greenies. "The fledgling Family First Party today made political history by winning a Senate seat. Steve Fielding was announced the winner of the final Victorian Senate place by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) about 12.15pm (AEDT) today. He emerged victorious after the distribution of final preferences by the AEC, more than three weeks after the October 9 poll. Mr Fielding, a manager with a superannuation fund, is the first person to be elected to federal parliament from the Christian-aligned Family First, which contested its first federal poll this year.... Flanked by his wife Susan and three children immediately after hearing the result, Mr Fielding declared it a historic victory. "This is an historic occasion in Australian political history with Family First being elected to the federal parliament in the Senate."

Historian Paul Johnson is good on the lessons from Iraq. One excerpt: "We have been reminded that France is not to be trusted at any time, on any issue. The British have learned this over 1,000 years of acrimonious history, but it still comes as a shock to see how badly the French can behave, with their unique mixture of shortsighted selfishness, long-term irresponsibility, impudent humbug and sheer malice. Americans are still finding out--the hard way--that loyalty, gratitude, comradeship and respect for treaty obligations are qualities never exhibited by French governments. All they recognize are interests, real or imaginary. French support always has to be bought. What the Americans and British now have to decide is whether formal alliances that include France as a major partner are worth anything at all, or if they are an actual encumbrance in times of danger".

Dennis Prager has some short sharp answers to a bit of superficial Leftist cleverness called: "Things You Have to Believe to Vote Republican Today." Three excerpts: "No Christian I have ever talked to ever said that either Jesus or they hate homosexuals. Only demagogues confuse opposition to same-sex marriage with hatred of homosexuals" and "Few big businesses have the best interests of the public at heart. No conservative has ever argued otherwise. But liberals believe that big government and big unions do" and "it is entirely dishonorable to charge President Bush with lying about WMDs in Iraq. Everyone, including Democrats and the intelligence services of Russia, Britain and France, believed Saddam Hussein had them. It is the great lie of our time that President Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. To act upon the knowledge one has at the time is not a lie. It is the behavior of a responsible leader."

Myths about the Crusades : "The Crusaders were not unprovoked aggressors, greedy marauders or medieval colonialists, as portrayed in some history books. In fact, Thomas Madden, chair of St. Louis University's history department and author of "A Concise History of the Crusades," contests that the Crusaders were a defensive force that did not profit from their ventures by earthly riches or land.... From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain. In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities -- these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core. And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest".

Inborn differences. How awful! "Healthy infants older than three months who cry incessantly for no apparent reason may be at risk for lower IQ and behavior problems in their childhood years, new study findings suggest.... This prolonged crying after the colic stage was associated with poorer results on tests that measured cognitive development both in infancy and at 5 years old, Rao and his colleagues report in Archives of Disease in Childhood. At 6 months of age, for example, infants with prolonged crying scored nearly five points lower on an intelligence test than those in the comparison group, who did not show any signs of colic at any age, and lower than those whose colic did not persist beyond three months. At 5 years old, the prolonged criers had lower performance and verbal IQ scores than the comparison group, and also performed worse on tests measuring eye-hand coordination, the report indicates. These children were also more likely to be hyperactive and to have discipline problems than their peers".

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

WHY NOVEMBER 2ND?

In Australia, we vote on Saturdays because most people have at least Saturday afternoon off work -- and that means that voting doesn't clash with normal routine. So why do Americans mess up their work routine to vote on a Tuesday? One of my readers researched it for me and advises as follows:

"The Tuesday after the first Monday in November was initially established by federal law in 1845 for the appointment of presidential electors in every fourth year. In 1875, lawmakers established this day for electing representatives in every even numbered year. In 1914, it also became the day for electing U.S. senators.

Why early November? For much of U.S. history, America was a predominantly agrarian society. Lawmakers therefore took into account that November was perhaps the most convenient month for farmers and rural workers to be able to travel to the polls. The fall harvest was over, (spring was planting time and summer was taken up with working the fields and tending the crops) but in the majority of the nation the weather was still mild enough to permit travel over unimproved roads.

Why Tuesday? Since most residents of rural America had to travel a significant distance to the county seat in order to vote, Monday was not considered reasonable since many people would need to begin travel on Sunday. This would, of course, have conflicted with church services and Sunday worship.

Why the first Tuesday after the first Monday? Lawmakers wanted to prevent election day from falling on the first of November for two reasons. First, November 1st is All Saints Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Roman Catholics. Second, most merchants were in the habit of doing their books from the preceding month on the 1st. Apparently, Congress was worried that the economic success or failure of the previous month might prove an undue influence on the vote!"

**************************************

ELSEWHERE

Much has been made of an article in The Lancet (summary reproduced here) which estimates that there have been more than 100,000 deaths in Iraq that were due to the invasion. Various conservative writers have criticized the study and various Leftists (e.g. here) have replied. Nobody, however, seems to have commented on the fact that the findings were a product of cluster sampling. The major fault I see with the study is that estimating low-incidence phenomena via cluster samples is inherently dodgy. I have had many findings derived from cluster samples reported in the academic journals so I know a little bit about it. You just have to get one or two clusters being a-typical (either by chance or intentionally) to arrive at totally distorted results. Basing such an important conclusion on a sample-size of only 33 is really quite ludicrous. I have used as few as 10 clusters in some of my surveys but I was concerned only to find whether some effect existed at all. I was not trying to estimate it precisely. All that aside, however, who doubts that wars kill people? And who doubts that the deaths in a war have to be offset against the deaths that might otherwise have occured if the war were not fought? If you believe that such offsetting should not be done, you would also have to say that Britain should have said "We surrender" to Hitler.

Gay Patriot has up a picture of a good doggy comment on the election.

Jobs: "Our unemployment rate, which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics put at 5.4 percent in September, is one of the lowest in the world and in our history. France's unemployment rate is 9.4 percent, Germany's 9.9 percent and Italy's 8.6 percent. Our Canadian neighbor's is 6.6 percent. The only reason for today's hysteria over jobs is because it is an election year, and one of the ways politicians gain power is to create fear among the electorate. The next time you hear a politician whining about our "awful" job climate, ask him which European country we should look to for guidance in job creation. The fact of business is that our country is the world's leader not only in job creation but in terms of where the world wants to invest its money.

Nazism lives: "As hard as they may try, some Muslim leaders in Western countries are unable to camouflage their hatred for Israel, even in public. Like an underground geyser, these feelings of animosity toward the Jewish state eventually burst their bonds and gush to the surface -- from behind the fa‡ade of tolerance and respectability these sham representatives know they have to adopt in order to operate in our societies. The most recent outburst of anti-Israeli enmity from a "respected" Muslim leader occurred only last week when Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, one of the largest and most influential Muslim groups in Canada, stunned television viewers with outrageous comments that supported murdering Israelis. Revealing his true colors toward the Jewish state, Elmrasy said, on The Michael Coren Show, that all adult Israelis of military age, including women, are legitimate targets for suicide bombers, since they are eligible for military service".

A Leftist's view of why he is in politics: "Although politics does not necessarily provide excitement or power, it does provide a ready-made identity, one where your sense of who you are is sharply defined against "the other". For anyone with an underdeveloped sense of self-esteem, this is a lifeline, providing a short cut to coherence and purpose. In the midst of all its supposed drama, politics provides a certainty that is enormously comforting".

Muslims a problem in China too: "Violent clashes between members of the Muslim Hui ethnic group and the majority Han group left nearly 150 people dead and forced authorities to declare martial law in a section of Henan Province in central China, journalists and witnesses in the region said today. The fighting flared late last week and continued into the weekend after a Hui taxi driver fatally struck a 6-year-old Han girl, prompting recriminations between different ethnic groups in neighboring villages, these people said. One person who was briefed on the incident by the police said that 148 people had been killed, including 18 police officers sent to quell the violence.

Conservative humorist Imre Saluszinski turns out to be an admirer of Bob Dylan. Not as strange as you think when you realize that Bob Dylan always rejected the Leftist embrace of him and was in fact in his heyday an admirer of none other than the very conservative Republican, Barry Goldwater!

Kevin MacDonald argues that members of America's majority culture should be just as keen to promote their rights and identity as members of minority groups are.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

LEFTIST DOUBLE STANDARDS AGAIN

Email from a reader

Here's another example-- as if you needed more-- about the ego-predominant locus of moral control among the left. Basically it is a parallel between Kerry's "outsourcing" comment about Tora Bora and abortion.

As you stated, if Kerry considers a third party as an "ally"-- collaborating, networking, dialoguing, "caring and sharing", etc.-- then the process is lionized and embraced. If he wishes to denigrate the contribution of a third-party ally, it's "outsourcing" and "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Never mind that the assistance from either type of ally may be identical.

With abortion the issue it is very similar. If a pregnant woman WANTS her baby, it's all about maternity leave, women-as-special, give me my paid time off (better to be for a year, as in Sweden), driving a minivan with "Baby on Board" sign in the window, play dates, preschool, and "my Devon is the most important little person in the world", etc. Let's do it all For the CHILDREN.

If this is an "undesired" pregnancy, it's just a "blob of tissue", "obligate parasite", "reproductive right" (for women only, of course), zero-population-growth, save-the-planet decision "between a woman and her doctor and her God". Never mind that these two "definitions" pertain to the same baby.

I believe the Left's incessant "For the Children" meme represents not only hiding behind the child-proxy to disguise their selfish policies, but also a reaction-formation against their desire to sacrifice a child for their own "lifestyle" AND a projection of their own childish self-absorbed desire to be protected from life's exigencies.

The Left lacks any core principle-- as you have maintained consistently-- other than solipsism. "It's all about MEMEMEMEMEMEME, and my definition of reality trumps yours. Only an idiot can believe differently from me." -- And if I change my mind tomorrow, only a rigid, inflexible idiot fails to understand my nuanced approach to life.


****************************

ELSEWHERE

Democrats -- the "fat-cat" party: "Democrats: the party of the little guy. Republicans: the party of the wealthy. Those images of America's two major political wings have been frozen for generations.... No more. Starting in the 1960s and '70s, whole blocs of "little guys"--ethnics, rural residents, evangelicals, cops, construction workers, homemakers, military veterans--began moving into the Republican column. And big chunks of America's rich elite--financiers, academics, heiresses, media barons, software millionaires, entertainers--drifted into the Democratic Party.... It is "becoming harder by the day to take the Democrats seriously as the party of the common man," writes columnist Daniel Henninger. "The party's primary sources of support have become trial lawyers and Wall Street financiers. It is becoming a party run by a new class of elites who make fast money--$25 million for 30 days work on a movie, millions (even billions) winning lawsuits against doctors...millions to do arithmetic for a business merger."... Federal Election Commission data show that many of the very wealthiest political players are now in the Democratic column.... And the money on the Kerry side has come much more from rich individuals, while Bush has relied on flocks of small donors. So which is the party of the people now?"

Australia's big Muslim neighbour: "Newly-elected Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said he would consider becoming a globe-trotting advocate for moderate Islam, promoting peace in hotspots such as the Middle East. Yudhoyono said he wanted Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, to be a model for moderate Islamic democracy".

Australians and Americans know how to work: "Australia is a land of workaholics, ranking with the US and rivalling the Japanese as the world's hardest workers.... the International Labour Organisation says one in five employees in Australia, New Zealand and the US works at least 50 hours a week. Australian employees work twice as hard as Europeans, with just a 10th of European workers putting in such long working hours. Only in Japan, where 28.1 per cent of employees work 49 hours or more a week and New Zealand 21.3 per cent, do people work longer."

There is now an academic journal of Ayn Rand studies

Anti-Protester thinks Leftists work harder for their cause and are better organized. Seeing that power is their sole aim in life, that figures.

Do you fancy 'a spiritual atom bomb of infinite power'? It's Mao's little red book, of course. Fabian's Hammer notes the still great reverence in the West for history's greatest mass-murderer.

Michael Darby is online again with some notes about the dishonest character of John Kerry and some history showing that Clinton too believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

AstuteBlogger notes: "The Left trots out ACTORS to be their leading lights; Ben Affleck, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Garofolo, Danny Glover, Jessica Lange, etc., etc., etc. and so on. WEIRD, AIN'T IT!? The Left criticizes real, experienced political leaders (Reagan had been a politician for decades before becoming president, and the Governor of California; Bush had defeated sitting governor Ann Richardson to become a two-term Republican Governor of Texas) - who lead boldly and who courageously confront and defeat tyranny, and the Left derides them for being mere "ACTORS.""

I have just put online an interesting article on the psychology of Jihad (Also here).

I have just put up on Leftists as Elitists some derogatory comments by Tom Wolfe about the Leftist elite of New York City.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me 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.

********************************

ENCORE MONSIEUR KOHN KERRY

John Kerry sometimes quotes the scripture: "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:17). This post points out that by that criterion Kerry's own faith is very hollow indeed.

Jeff Jacoby on Kerry's flip-flops: "Bush, unlike Kerry, has the courage of his convictions. He can take a strong stand and not run away from it when the political winds shift. On the big issues, the crucial issues, he is a decisive man who means what he says -- and who isn't afraid to say it even when his listeners disagree. For a nation going to the polls in wartime, no issue matters more than character. Kerry has much to recommend him, and Bush's flaws are many. But Bush has the character and backbone of a leader. And Kerry doesn't."

Daniel Pipes: "It has not been fully appreciated that, when it comes to the Middle East, Bush has systematically responded to the region's problems by dispatching decades' worth of accepted practices and replacing them with stunningly different approaches. In contrast, John Kerry unimaginatively holds to failed policies of the past.... It is easy to overlook Bush's radicalism in the Middle East, for in spirit he is a conservative, someone inclined to preserve what is best of the past. A conservative, however, understands that to protect what he cherishes at times requires creative activism and tactical agility."

Bigots for Kerry: "If George Bush had chosen the racist David Duke as a running mate, I'd have voted against him, almost without regard to any other issue. Instead, John Kerry chose the xenophobe John Edwards as a running mate. I will therefore vote against John Kerry. Duke thinks it's imperative to protect white jobs from black competition. Edwards thinks it's imperative to protect American jobs from foreign competition. There's not a dime's worth of moral difference there. While Duke would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of skin color, Edwards would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of birthplace. Either way, bigotry is bigotry, and appeals to base instincts should always be repudiated."

Bush did not lie: "President Bush couldn't possibly have lied about WMD unless he miraculously knew something that neither the CIA nor all the other world's intelligence agencies knew: that Saddam didn't have WMD. Now how could he have known that? Did he hire his own private investigators to dispatch some Farsi-speaking, cowboy hat-wearing paragon of erudition to comb its entire landmass to confirm there were no WMD? Frankly, it is nothing short of amazing that Democrats are still peddling this canard about Bush lying about Iraqi WMD. But they are. In the meantime we see that they really don't care about presidential lying about war, because it is they and John Kerry who are lying about it."

****************************