10/23/2004 09:56:00 PM|W|P|SDG|W|P|Charlie Brooker writes in the left-wing UK Guardian:
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?Mr. Brooker's first nostalgic pseudo-hero, John Wilkes Booth, assassinated President Lincoln on the heels of America's most divisive conflict. Lincoln, of course, inherited a house divided against itself, took decisive action, returned the attacks waged against his country (in contravention of overwhelming world opinion), was challenged for re-election by a more militarily experienced man who advocated a cessation of further hostilities. He is now near universally regarded, with George Washington, as his country's greatest president.
Mr. Brooker pines for another Lee Harvey Oswald to blow out the brains of an American President. The last time that happened, the man felled had scared the world (much to its terror) by taking it to the brink of nuclear annihilation over a wretched Caribbean island, seeing that spot as a proxy for a larger conflict between good and evil. The man, with streets named after him around the globe, serves as the hero for even the current Democratic nominee.
And what of Mr. Hinckley, the lunatic hero? The man he failed to kill white-knuckled the rest of the world by insisting - beyond even what President Kennedy thought - that Communism not be merely contained, but defeated. Where his assassin failed, his intended victim succeeded. And today, even the left, grudgingly admits the obvious about him.
I'm not sure why, of all the assassination attempts, successful or not, Mr. Brooker chose these three. Perhaps he hasn't done his own homework. Perhaps he'd prefer to see blacks still enslaved or Communists in power. But I do find it telling that his plaint centers on men who were controversial in their times and who have been proven by history to have been right.
For my money, Mr. Brooker brings to mind Charles Guiteau, President Garfield's assassin. The former was a disgruntled political hack and possibly insane. Of course, the difference is, Guiteau, for whatever reason, had the courage of his
convictions. Mr. Brooker wants someone else to do his dirty work for him.
|W|P|109858323142011714|W|P|The Unguarded Guardian|W|P|10/07/2004 05:46:00 AM|W|P|SDG|W|P|Here's an LA Times article that manages to display the overwhelming left-wing bias in both the media and academia at the same time.
Headline: UC Employees Dig Deeper for Bush, Kerry Campaigns
From this, you might think that University of California employees were really turning out their pockets and looking under the sofa cushions to support the two candidates and - maybe, just maybe - the president was holding his own.
You could think that, but you'd be wrong.
According to the meat of the article:
University of California employees have given more than nine times as much money to the presidential candidates this year as they did in 2000, with more than 95% of it going to Sen. John F. Kerry.|W|P|109714289350848345|W|P|Bias? What Bias?|W|P|10/02/2004 01:03:00 AM|W|P|SDG|W|P|I happened to be channel surfing through and came across the movie Casablanca. I happened upon this memorable exchange, which seemed fitting, considering Sen. Kerry's current (as of publication) position that Iraq is worth it, but isn't worth it:
Rick Blaine: Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for.
Victor Laszlo: You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
Rick Blaine: Well, what of it? It'll be out of its misery.
Victor Laszlo: You know how you sound, Mr. Blaine? Like a man who's trying to convince himself of something he doesn't believe in his heart.It may not be as memorable as some of the other other lines, but it sure is relevent.
|W|P|109669013020094765|W|P|Casa Blanca|W|P|10/01/2004 03:49:00 PM|W|P|SDG|W|P|Everyone else is commenting on the debate, so I suppose it's time to type at my computer what I screamed at my TV set last night (in no particular order):
On the whole...call it a win by a field goal for Kerry (or maybe a two-point win for a safety on one of Bush's fumbles).
|W|P|109666077114665518|W|P|The Body Blows Bush Didn't Land|W|P|
- After Kerry's comment about nuclear proliferation being our greatest thread, Bush should have pounced with something like this: "Sen. Kerry just identified nuclear proliferation as our greatest security threat. But that's true in a September 10th kind of way. The real nightmare is nuclear and biological weapons in the hands of terrorists. Terrorists will try to strike worldwide and will use these weapons worldwide if they can find them. That's why our coalition is in Afghanistan and Iraq and it's why we've changed the way we do things. It isn't September 10th anymore. We can't go back to thinking like that."
- At some point when Kerry blabbered about unilateralism, Bush should have put him on the spot: "My opponent continually belittles the 40 some countries who are with us in Iraq. Earlier in this debate he all but mocked the contributions of some countries. We keep hearing about how he'll do better. I'd certainly love to hear him identify a country that isn't already at the table that he would bring and I'd like to know the specifics of how he'll do it."