Sunday, May 30, 2004
Michael Moore is Big Fat Liar
Who would have believed it? Listeners actually busted me for my comments about the RMWLA (Round Mound Whose Lies Astound), Michael Moore and his excessive adipose tissue. After reading an item about PETA's including him in their “Veg Eye for the Fat Guy” promotion—I’d love to be a fly on the wall when their little goody bag, filled with health and diet tips arrives---“What NO DORITOS!! He screams as it sails across the room--, I said that the only thing “Bowling for Columbine” documents is Moore’s close personal relationship with Krispy Kreme. Some accused me of a cruel personal attack because I suggested the possibility—just the possibility submitted for consideration—that his morbid obesity might reflect the same lack of discipline and integrity that is reflected by his deliberate dishonesty. Let’s face it: this is a man who has demonstrated his ability to ignore reality and distort the facts to present a view of the world that fits his ideological template. Is it such a stretch to suggest that he might look in the mirror and see something along the lines of one of his book covers, where miraculously a couple hundred pounds have been airbrushed away? (It’s amazing what they can do with Photoshop!) I think not. He lies to the rest of the world, so why is it wrong to say that he’s lying to himself about his need to grab the reins and get in shape? How can he watch the video of himself waddling around condemning other people and not get it?
Also, let’s remember that we are talking about a pampered, self-aggrandizing, multi-millionaire who rides around in a limousine with an entourage and lives a life of privilege on New York’s Upper West side, not some single mother with two jobs who has a tough time finding five spare minutes a week. Would it be so bad for this rotund crypto-commie sack of lying pond scum to get off his fat, lazy rear end and drop a few pounds? It’s not like it’s any harder for him to find the time than it is for the rest of us. I suspect, in fact, that it’s a lot easier.
My comments about Moore were intended to apply to him and him only. Regular listeners know that I do not believe in making global generalizations about any group of people, including large people, many of whom are obviously disciplined, honest, and admirable, unlike Michael Moore.
Finally, this is someone who is not only critical, but also openly hostile to the country that has given him the freedom to get very rich and to stay very fat. He openly praises and encourages our enemies, who he calls “The REVOLUTION, the Minutemen,” and relishes the defeat of our brave troops in Iraq (“their numbers will grow and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?”). I agree that our criticism of Moore should be substantive and about issues, and I have never neglected to provide that critique, but I’m sorry. I don’t regret anything negative I’ve said about him. If he comes on the air—oh, yeah, right, that’ll happen—I’ll try to refrain from asking “Hey, Tubby, have you ever considered hiring a personal trainer?”
Who would have believed it? Listeners actually busted me for my comments about the RMWLA (Round Mound Whose Lies Astound), Michael Moore and his excessive adipose tissue. After reading an item about PETA's including him in their “Veg Eye for the Fat Guy” promotion—I’d love to be a fly on the wall when their little goody bag, filled with health and diet tips arrives---“What NO DORITOS!! He screams as it sails across the room--, I said that the only thing “Bowling for Columbine” documents is Moore’s close personal relationship with Krispy Kreme. Some accused me of a cruel personal attack because I suggested the possibility—just the possibility submitted for consideration—that his morbid obesity might reflect the same lack of discipline and integrity that is reflected by his deliberate dishonesty. Let’s face it: this is a man who has demonstrated his ability to ignore reality and distort the facts to present a view of the world that fits his ideological template. Is it such a stretch to suggest that he might look in the mirror and see something along the lines of one of his book covers, where miraculously a couple hundred pounds have been airbrushed away? (It’s amazing what they can do with Photoshop!) I think not. He lies to the rest of the world, so why is it wrong to say that he’s lying to himself about his need to grab the reins and get in shape? How can he watch the video of himself waddling around condemning other people and not get it?
Also, let’s remember that we are talking about a pampered, self-aggrandizing, multi-millionaire who rides around in a limousine with an entourage and lives a life of privilege on New York’s Upper West side, not some single mother with two jobs who has a tough time finding five spare minutes a week. Would it be so bad for this rotund crypto-commie sack of lying pond scum to get off his fat, lazy rear end and drop a few pounds? It’s not like it’s any harder for him to find the time than it is for the rest of us. I suspect, in fact, that it’s a lot easier.
My comments about Moore were intended to apply to him and him only. Regular listeners know that I do not believe in making global generalizations about any group of people, including large people, many of whom are obviously disciplined, honest, and admirable, unlike Michael Moore.
Finally, this is someone who is not only critical, but also openly hostile to the country that has given him the freedom to get very rich and to stay very fat. He openly praises and encourages our enemies, who he calls “The REVOLUTION, the Minutemen,” and relishes the defeat of our brave troops in Iraq (“their numbers will grow and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?”). I agree that our criticism of Moore should be substantive and about issues, and I have never neglected to provide that critique, but I’m sorry. I don’t regret anything negative I’ve said about him. If he comes on the air—oh, yeah, right, that’ll happen—I’ll try to refrain from asking “Hey, Tubby, have you ever considered hiring a personal trainer?”
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Crusading Attoney General Has Some ‘Splaining to Do
Chicago Sun-Times editorial page (May 27, 2004) praises Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s grandstanding threats against Big Tobacco. In case you missed it, Ms. Madigan held a press conference on Tuesday, May 25 to inveigh against Brown & Williamson and its planned “Kool Mixx” marketing campaign, featuring a DJ contest at the Vic Theater on July 24. Perhaps before we all leap to our feet to deliver a standing ovation for Ms. Madigan’s self-righteous crusading, I have a couple of tiny, little questions.
Remember back in 1997-1998 when this tobacco litigation began? The ostensible rationale was that smoking imposed enormous costs on states in the form of preventable illnesses, costs that should not be borne by innocent taxpayers. That argument turns out to be total baloney. Numerous studies have shown that through taxes and premature death, smokers pay much more than they cost the rest of us. In truth, they subsidize the rest of us. So much for that noble goal.
In addition, state attorneys general and their ambulance chaser pals told us that the money they extorted from Big Tobacco would be used for health care and smoking prevention programs. That’s what they said. Here’s what really happened, at least in Illinois:
“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that the state of Illinois spend between $64.9 million and $179.0 million a year to have an effective, comprehensive tobacco prevention program. Illinois currently spends $12.0 million a year for tobacco prevention. This is 18.5% of the CDC’s minimum recommendation and ranks Illinois 31st among the states in the funding of tobacco prevention programs. Illinois’ spending on tobacco prevention amounts to 1.3% of the $913.8 million in tobacco-generated revenue the state collects each year in tobacco settlement payments and tobacco taxes. … Illinois is spending minimal amounts on tobacco prevention despite the fact that the state is receiving more tobacco-generated revenue than ever before as a result of a 40-cent cigarette tax increase that took effect July 1, 2002, raising the state cigarette tax to 98 cents per pack.”
http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/StateSettlement.php3?StateID=IL
Say what?!! One-point-three percent?! Thirty-first among the states in funding anti-smoking programs? Lisa Madigan may be correct when she argues that Brown & Williamson are violating the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) by marketing their evil, but still legal, product to children. I’m no fan of smoking, and I’ve never understood why anyone would start in the first place. The merits of smoking are not the issue. The disingenuousness of our attorney general is. Shouldn’t somebody ask her about those numbers?
It’s no coincidence that Ms. Madigan is pursuing this sort of demagoguery. Her role model is the king of the attorney general demagogues, New York A.G. Eliot Spitzer, a man who views the court system as a means to raise his profile as he seeks to become the next governor.
Here we go again: when politicians want money and power, they justify it as being ‘for the children.’ And let’s not kid ourselves. The litigation against the tobacco industry was about nothing but politicians and trial lawyers getting their grubby little hands on more money to buy votes (the politicians) and private jets (the ambulance chasers).
So here’s my MQ (Master Question): if the tobacco companies are supposed to be held to the letter of the MSA, shouldn’t the states be required to spend their windfall on the socially-beneficial objectives that they used to justify the litigation in the first place? If not, why not? Illinois spends LESS THAN TWO PERCENT of its tobacco-generated revenue on tobacco prevention? Thirty-first?! Care to explain why goody bags and little promotional radios, legal only if distributed to those over 18, are a bigger problem than that, Ms. Attorney General? Another question that occurs to me: if tobacco is such a dangerous drug, why are so many concerned politicians willing to happily spend this blood money?
Chicago Sun-Times editorial page (May 27, 2004) praises Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s grandstanding threats against Big Tobacco. In case you missed it, Ms. Madigan held a press conference on Tuesday, May 25 to inveigh against Brown & Williamson and its planned “Kool Mixx” marketing campaign, featuring a DJ contest at the Vic Theater on July 24. Perhaps before we all leap to our feet to deliver a standing ovation for Ms. Madigan’s self-righteous crusading, I have a couple of tiny, little questions.
Remember back in 1997-1998 when this tobacco litigation began? The ostensible rationale was that smoking imposed enormous costs on states in the form of preventable illnesses, costs that should not be borne by innocent taxpayers. That argument turns out to be total baloney. Numerous studies have shown that through taxes and premature death, smokers pay much more than they cost the rest of us. In truth, they subsidize the rest of us. So much for that noble goal.
In addition, state attorneys general and their ambulance chaser pals told us that the money they extorted from Big Tobacco would be used for health care and smoking prevention programs. That’s what they said. Here’s what really happened, at least in Illinois:
“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that the state of Illinois spend between $64.9 million and $179.0 million a year to have an effective, comprehensive tobacco prevention program. Illinois currently spends $12.0 million a year for tobacco prevention. This is 18.5% of the CDC’s minimum recommendation and ranks Illinois 31st among the states in the funding of tobacco prevention programs. Illinois’ spending on tobacco prevention amounts to 1.3% of the $913.8 million in tobacco-generated revenue the state collects each year in tobacco settlement payments and tobacco taxes. … Illinois is spending minimal amounts on tobacco prevention despite the fact that the state is receiving more tobacco-generated revenue than ever before as a result of a 40-cent cigarette tax increase that took effect July 1, 2002, raising the state cigarette tax to 98 cents per pack.”
http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/StateSettlement.php3?StateID=IL
Say what?!! One-point-three percent?! Thirty-first among the states in funding anti-smoking programs? Lisa Madigan may be correct when she argues that Brown & Williamson are violating the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) by marketing their evil, but still legal, product to children. I’m no fan of smoking, and I’ve never understood why anyone would start in the first place. The merits of smoking are not the issue. The disingenuousness of our attorney general is. Shouldn’t somebody ask her about those numbers?
It’s no coincidence that Ms. Madigan is pursuing this sort of demagoguery. Her role model is the king of the attorney general demagogues, New York A.G. Eliot Spitzer, a man who views the court system as a means to raise his profile as he seeks to become the next governor.
Here we go again: when politicians want money and power, they justify it as being ‘for the children.’ And let’s not kid ourselves. The litigation against the tobacco industry was about nothing but politicians and trial lawyers getting their grubby little hands on more money to buy votes (the politicians) and private jets (the ambulance chasers).
So here’s my MQ (Master Question): if the tobacco companies are supposed to be held to the letter of the MSA, shouldn’t the states be required to spend their windfall on the socially-beneficial objectives that they used to justify the litigation in the first place? If not, why not? Illinois spends LESS THAN TWO PERCENT of its tobacco-generated revenue on tobacco prevention? Thirty-first?! Care to explain why goody bags and little promotional radios, legal only if distributed to those over 18, are a bigger problem than that, Ms. Attorney General? Another question that occurs to me: if tobacco is such a dangerous drug, why are so many concerned politicians willing to happily spend this blood money?
Friday, May 21, 2004
Here we go again
I spoke too soon in my earlier post. John Francois Kerry has another new slogan. I think it’s the 9th one. I’ve lost count. This guy changes campaign slogans more often than J-Lo changes boyfriends. Let’s recall some of them—the slogans, not the boyfriends
Bring it on
Change Starts Here
A Fighter with Results
The Real Deal
The Courage to Lead
Courage to do What’s Right for America
Together We Can Build A Stronger America
A Lifetime of Service and Strength
The Latest—DRUMROLL PLEASE---“Let America Be America Again.”
When exactly did we stop being America? I didn’t get the memo. In his explanation of what it means, Kerry used the words ‘courage,’ ‘strength’ and ‘fighting,’ so apparently it incorporates all the other slogans, and will no doubt be equally effective. This guy still doesn't get it. A slogan is like a joke: if you have to explain it, you've already lost, and this slogan, like this campaign is turning into a bad joke.
When are these guys going to figure out that it doesn’t matter how good the ads and packaging are. If the dog food inside is lousy, the dogs aren’t going to eat it. The Kerry campaign is definitely barking up the wrong tree.
I spoke too soon in my earlier post. John Francois Kerry has another new slogan. I think it’s the 9th one. I’ve lost count. This guy changes campaign slogans more often than J-Lo changes boyfriends. Let’s recall some of them—the slogans, not the boyfriends
Bring it on
Change Starts Here
A Fighter with Results
The Real Deal
The Courage to Lead
Courage to do What’s Right for America
Together We Can Build A Stronger America
A Lifetime of Service and Strength
The Latest—DRUMROLL PLEASE---“Let America Be America Again.”
When exactly did we stop being America? I didn’t get the memo. In his explanation of what it means, Kerry used the words ‘courage,’ ‘strength’ and ‘fighting,’ so apparently it incorporates all the other slogans, and will no doubt be equally effective. This guy still doesn't get it. A slogan is like a joke: if you have to explain it, you've already lost, and this slogan, like this campaign is turning into a bad joke.
When are these guys going to figure out that it doesn’t matter how good the ads and packaging are. If the dog food inside is lousy, the dogs aren’t going to eat it. The Kerry campaign is definitely barking up the wrong tree.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
How Dare He Try to Catch Terrorists Who Want to Kill Us!
Last Sunday’s news reports screamed “It goes all the way to the top!” referring to Sy “my My-Lai-story-proved-America-is-always-wrong” Hersh and his latest New Yorker expose. It was his suggestion that the Abu Ghraib scandal would lead all the way to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that had the Left gleefully rubbing their grubby little hands together. Speaking of which, the members of the partisan media, who, despite their solemn pronouncements about ‘supporting the troops,’ would prefer nothing more than defeat for the military in Iraq if it would assure defeat in November for President Bush,.were ecstatic. For these baby boomer elitists, everything is Viet Nam, and is it any wonder? When they close their eyes, they return to a patchouli and pot-scented, pre-AIDS (not to mention pre-Viagra, right guys?) wonderland where they frolicked in their tie-dyed t-shirts and peasant blouses and pretended that their narcissism and lack of discipline were signs of superior insight and the rejection of their parents’ morally bankruptcy values. (If you don’t understand what I mean, rent the DVD of “The Graduate” for a tutorial.) So now that many of them have more hair coming out of their noses than they do on the tops of their heads, of course they wish they had a time machine that could transport them to 1969. Just go to one of these anti-war, anti-Bush scream fests the next time they hold one and take a look at some of these fossils and you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.
So for all the blah-blah-blah about supporting the troops—PULEEZE, everyone with a couple of functioning brain cells and the ability to be honest knows which side they are on, and it’s not America’s. Finally, with this Abu Ghraib story, they feel that they’ve got something that they can ride to victory, and they can almost taste it. That’s why they chose to distort the truth about just exactly what it was that Sec. Rumsfeld did. They understand that most people, upon hearing what he did, will say “What’s wrong with that?” Or even “good for him. It’s about time!”
Here’s the real 411, according to the muckracking Hersh, conveniently glossed over by our friends in the 4th estate. When Hersh appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, May 16, 2004, he said that after the war began in Afghanistan we began having “trouble just bureaucratically” arresting potential Al-Qaeda terrorists. Mr. Hersh’s actual article describes this “trouble” a little more specifically, as in Sec. Rumsfeld was ‘apopletic’ over the failure to kill Mullah Omar because a military lawyer wouldn’t sign off on it. Did he wring his hands? No, he decided to do something about it. No wonder so many (me included) love and admire this guy! He set up the ‘special access’ program that took off the handcuffs and gave the good guys the green light to grab these sleezeballs wherever they might find them. By mid-2003, this program was regarded by the Pentagon as a major success.
“It’s been the most important capability we have for dealing with an imminent threat,” a former intelligence official told Hersh. “If we discover where Osama bin Laden is, we can get him. And we can remove an existing threat with a real capability to hit the United States — and do so without visibility.”
So, Sec. Rumsfeld decided to make it easier for our Special Forces to catch those who are determined to murder every single American and we’re supposed to be upset about that because a few unsupervised dunderheads who watched too many episodes of “Fear Factor” decided to take things too far?
Hersh himself stated in that same “Face the Nation” interview that “I’m not saying Rumsfeld authorized what we saw in the last few weeks.” Bottom line: The abuses in the prison were just that, and they were investigated and prosecuted, not by the media or those blowhards in Congress, but by the U.S. military. Secretary Rumsfeld simply authorized the program to make it easier to capture terrorists, not what happened at Abu Ghraib. Even Hersh admits that. And most Americans, hearing the truth, would say ‘thank you.’ Why do you suppose Mr. Hersh let his fellow reporters continue to mischaracterize the story? Which side do you suppose he’s on?
Last Sunday’s news reports screamed “It goes all the way to the top!” referring to Sy “my My-Lai-story-proved-America-is-always-wrong” Hersh and his latest New Yorker expose. It was his suggestion that the Abu Ghraib scandal would lead all the way to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that had the Left gleefully rubbing their grubby little hands together. Speaking of which, the members of the partisan media, who, despite their solemn pronouncements about ‘supporting the troops,’ would prefer nothing more than defeat for the military in Iraq if it would assure defeat in November for President Bush,.were ecstatic. For these baby boomer elitists, everything is Viet Nam, and is it any wonder? When they close their eyes, they return to a patchouli and pot-scented, pre-AIDS (not to mention pre-Viagra, right guys?) wonderland where they frolicked in their tie-dyed t-shirts and peasant blouses and pretended that their narcissism and lack of discipline were signs of superior insight and the rejection of their parents’ morally bankruptcy values. (If you don’t understand what I mean, rent the DVD of “The Graduate” for a tutorial.) So now that many of them have more hair coming out of their noses than they do on the tops of their heads, of course they wish they had a time machine that could transport them to 1969. Just go to one of these anti-war, anti-Bush scream fests the next time they hold one and take a look at some of these fossils and you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.
So for all the blah-blah-blah about supporting the troops—PULEEZE, everyone with a couple of functioning brain cells and the ability to be honest knows which side they are on, and it’s not America’s. Finally, with this Abu Ghraib story, they feel that they’ve got something that they can ride to victory, and they can almost taste it. That’s why they chose to distort the truth about just exactly what it was that Sec. Rumsfeld did. They understand that most people, upon hearing what he did, will say “What’s wrong with that?” Or even “good for him. It’s about time!”
Here’s the real 411, according to the muckracking Hersh, conveniently glossed over by our friends in the 4th estate. When Hersh appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, May 16, 2004, he said that after the war began in Afghanistan we began having “trouble just bureaucratically” arresting potential Al-Qaeda terrorists. Mr. Hersh’s actual article describes this “trouble” a little more specifically, as in Sec. Rumsfeld was ‘apopletic’ over the failure to kill Mullah Omar because a military lawyer wouldn’t sign off on it. Did he wring his hands? No, he decided to do something about it. No wonder so many (me included) love and admire this guy! He set up the ‘special access’ program that took off the handcuffs and gave the good guys the green light to grab these sleezeballs wherever they might find them. By mid-2003, this program was regarded by the Pentagon as a major success.
“It’s been the most important capability we have for dealing with an imminent threat,” a former intelligence official told Hersh. “If we discover where Osama bin Laden is, we can get him. And we can remove an existing threat with a real capability to hit the United States — and do so without visibility.”
So, Sec. Rumsfeld decided to make it easier for our Special Forces to catch those who are determined to murder every single American and we’re supposed to be upset about that because a few unsupervised dunderheads who watched too many episodes of “Fear Factor” decided to take things too far?
Hersh himself stated in that same “Face the Nation” interview that “I’m not saying Rumsfeld authorized what we saw in the last few weeks.” Bottom line: The abuses in the prison were just that, and they were investigated and prosecuted, not by the media or those blowhards in Congress, but by the U.S. military. Secretary Rumsfeld simply authorized the program to make it easier to capture terrorists, not what happened at Abu Ghraib. Even Hersh admits that. And most Americans, hearing the truth, would say ‘thank you.’ Why do you suppose Mr. Hersh let his fellow reporters continue to mischaracterize the story? Which side do you suppose he’s on?
Saturday, May 08, 2004
WLS Blog, 5/8/04
An unintentionally hilarious article in the New York Times (May 2, 2004) reported that top democrat apparatchiks are privately expressing concern, as in bordering on sheer panic, over the failure of John Kerry to find a ‘defining theme’ for his candidacy. The Liberal Death Star mentions that by the count of one of Kerry’s aides, his latest “Together we can build a stronger America,” is his sixth slogan in eighteen months. I’ve counted more than that, but who’s counting? We are compassionate conservatives, so I want to help. I’m not crazy about this latest one. This guy can’t get his wife to give up even one of her three SUV’s and he’s talking about a strong America? He needs to butch up himself before anyone’s buying that line. Instead, I prefer Bill Mahre’s suggestion “Do Not Rusiscitate,” or failing that, one of the following:
Vote for me: I need an airplane bigger than my wife’s.
Ask a stupid question--hell, any question--and you’ll get an even more stupid question like “just who did you vote for?”
John Kerry: zero tolerance for deficit spending. Just ask the guy who sold me my yacht for cash.
If you say I flip-flop, I say you’re just dumb.
“Flip-flop” is the flyover country phrase for ‘nuance.’
John Kerry: Making the world safe one New York restaurant at a time.
John Kerry: Making American foreign policy by cutting out the middleman because he speaks fluent French.
Honor my service in Vietnam, even if I don’t.
An unintentionally hilarious article in the New York Times (May 2, 2004) reported that top democrat apparatchiks are privately expressing concern, as in bordering on sheer panic, over the failure of John Kerry to find a ‘defining theme’ for his candidacy. The Liberal Death Star mentions that by the count of one of Kerry’s aides, his latest “Together we can build a stronger America,” is his sixth slogan in eighteen months. I’ve counted more than that, but who’s counting? We are compassionate conservatives, so I want to help. I’m not crazy about this latest one. This guy can’t get his wife to give up even one of her three SUV’s and he’s talking about a strong America? He needs to butch up himself before anyone’s buying that line. Instead, I prefer Bill Mahre’s suggestion “Do Not Rusiscitate,” or failing that, one of the following:
Vote for me: I need an airplane bigger than my wife’s.
Ask a stupid question--hell, any question--and you’ll get an even more stupid question like “just who did you vote for?”
John Kerry: zero tolerance for deficit spending. Just ask the guy who sold me my yacht for cash.
If you say I flip-flop, I say you’re just dumb.
“Flip-flop” is the flyover country phrase for ‘nuance.’
John Kerry: Making the world safe one New York restaurant at a time.
John Kerry: Making American foreign policy by cutting out the middleman because he speaks fluent French.
Honor my service in Vietnam, even if I don’t.