Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Just how hypocritical do Democrites want to get?

I have yet to comment on the Mark Foley scandal mostly because (a) it doesn't interest me much, and (b) it seems like a poor excuse for a scandal.

As I understand it, a congressman sent some suggestive e-mails and had some suggestive online chats with a male page who was under the age of 18. He was found out and has resigned. Have I missed something?

And, yet, Democrites (Democrats + hypocrites = Democrites) - and their media accomplices, smelling blood in the water of the upcoming, mid-term elections, have tried to keep the story alive.

In my opinion, the big story is the hypocrisy of Democrats (only their media accomplices won't make THAT a story, will they?). Well, that and how stupid they must think the average voter is.

Do they really think that none of us will remember all the preaching they did during the Clinton impeachment about sexual conduct being a private matter between two people? Of course they will claim this is really about "the children". But, do you really think there is that much difference between a 16 year-old page and a 23 year-old intern? Isn't there the same suggestion of subtle coercion due to the imbalance of power between the two? Isn't there the same abuse of office? I happen to think there is. In fact, the big difference between the two scandals is that Foley had the good taste to resign.

Even worse is the Gerry Studds precedent. Haven't heard of Gerry Studds? I'm shocked that the media haven't told you about him because his case bears a lot of resemblance to the Foley scandal - except that it reflects badly on a Democrite and Foley is a Republican.

Gerry Studds represented the 10th District of Massachussetts in the House of Representatives. In 1983, Studds admitted to being homosexual (making him the first openly gay member of Congress) and to having had an affair with a 17 year-old page in 1973. Apparently the age of consent for this young man was 17 which made the relationship legal, providing it was consensual which, evidently it was. (This was also, coincidentally, very fortunate for Studds.)

So, let's recap: Foley exchanges some provocative e-mails, is discovered, and resigns. Studds actually has sex with a 17 year-old page, is unrepentant, and goes on to serve seven more terms.

This is reminiscent of the story of Bob Livingston. You don't remember Bob Livingston? Livingston was a congressman from Louisiana who was chosen to succeed Newt Gingrich as the Speaker of the House. During the height of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, it was revealed that he had had several extramarital affairs prompting him to resign. To recap, Livingston, numerous affairs, resigns. Clinton, numerous affairs (come on, you don't really think that his and Monica's relationship was confined to oral sex, or that Monica was the only one, do you?), refuses to resign, serves out his term.

I've said it before, but my own private theory is that in order to be a Democrite, you have to have your sense of shame surgically removed. And, again, none of this would be possible without the complicity of the media.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

An Unreliable Ally

In my opinion, South Korea is our most unreliable ally. Just this week, in the wake of North Korea's [failed] nuclear test and the US' push for UN sanctions, Seoul announced that they would not cooperate and temporarily sever economic ties.

Franky, South Korea's behavior vis-a-vis Pyongyang is positively schizophrenic. In the 1950s, the US and the UN saved South Korea from a Chinese-backed invasion by the north. Now they act as if the North is not a threat to them. And yet they don't seem to mind having American troops risking their lives to protect their country from - wait for it - the North Koreans.

So, why are the South Koreans fighting us so as to maintain economic ties that prop up the most brutal and sadistic regime on the face of the earth?

Fatuous Argument Against the War in Iraq

I just caught the last minute of Andy Rooney's schtick on "60 Minutes". (I know - that was my first mistake.) Rooney was whining about Iraq. I'm not going to go on at length about Iraq. You've already made up your own mind about the war and don't need me to tell you what to think.

I happen to think we have nothing to apologize for deposing a murderous dictator who was going to install his equally murderous sons after he died. I do acknowledge that mistakes have been made in Iraq. That is why strategies are reviewed and revised.

Instead, I'd like to comment on a tired argument that critics of the war keep repeating. Namely, that the "world" doesn't support us.

Excuse me, but isn't this the opposite of the argument you used to get from your parents that "If so-and-so jumped off a bridge, would you?" I mean, by definition each country has its own interests and while some overlap or coincide, many do not. It's easy for a France or a Germany to urge inaction. They aren't seen as representing an entire culture and political philosophy ("the West" and "democracy", respectively) and hence aren't the lightning rods and targets for the malcontents of the world.

A mugger may not support my decision to not walk down a dark alley where he lies in wait. Does that make it wrong?