Friday, December 22, 2006

Here it comes again

Just a while ago, while driving home, I passed a van that had the following bumper sticker on it:

President 2008

Yippee. Already people are supporting him, and I doubt the woman (surprisingly, she was white) could name any solid reason to vote for him.

I assume that one would agree "He's Black" is not a valid reason to vote for him. On a less likely note, let's assume for the sake of argument that "He's a democrat" is also not a valid reason. The only thing I've ever heard of him doing is giving speeches. And over the last few months (at least leading up to the last elections), his most common theme seems to have been "elect more blacks to the Senate, since I'm getting lonely."

Wow. Brings a patriotic tear to your eye, doesn't it?

Ah well. Perhaps someday he'll propose a piece of legislation, or make a coherent and interesting speech that'll tell us more about him. At this point though, he seems to be running (or not. One never knows, do we?) [Note: I typed that last sentence with a straight face. I can do that for the bitch from New York also!] on the theme of "I'm young, black and charismatic. Elect me your next president because I deserve it."

Sadly, while I don't ever vote straight Republican, since I don't always agree with them, I never vote Democrat, since I swore them off after the clinton impeachment, when they lied their asses off about the lack of evidence, overturning elections, etc.. And at this point, it appears that we're gonna be stuck with liberal Republicans (read: mainstream Democrats), and whacked out leftists masquerading as mainstream Democrats.

Looks like '08 could be a Mickey Mouse kind of election, no?


Thursday, December 21, 2006

Interesting thought

As I was meditating this morning on the death of Saparmurat Niyazov, leader of Turkmenistan, I had a sudden, largely unrelated thought. We all know, since the loonies constantly remind us, that Bush is Hitler redux. Right? Bush=Hitler, yadda yadda, from the geniuses on the left.

So today this thought came through. Who is the "worst" dictator, Hitler or Stalin? Yes, we know all about Hitler's hatred of the Jews, Roma (gypsies for the politically incorrect), Gays, etc. The Holocaust was the "final solution" for about 10 million people overall.

And Stalin? Who the hell knows what his numbers were? Most likely though, they were enough to show Hitler as an amateur. And while Hitler at least went out of Germany to find his victims, Stalin committed genocide against his own.

Little aside here. While I'm writing in kind of an offhand fashion here, I'm not belittling these deaths. It was horrible, though also a set of numbers that is largely incomprehensible.

Alright then. Hitler killed 7-10 million, not counting the dead of the War itself. Stalin killed 50 million plus. Mao probably more.

So who is the worst dictator? By this single measure, Hitler was a slacker. Isn't it then an understatement to compare Bush to him? Bush is the biggest mass murderer in the world, right? So why not write the formulation Bush=Stalin? Or Bush=Mao?

Hmmmm. I wonder if it might not have a connection to the fact that the latter two were Communists, and therefore "leftists". Hitler being a Fascist, was on the far-right, was he not? Notwithstanding that "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "National Socialist".

Bush, if I'm correct (and I am) can't be compared to Stalin or Mao because the people making the comparisons would regard that as a compliment to Bush. Bush=Stalin would belittle Uncle Joe, whom the really truly radical leftists still consider a hero. So you pick the man everyone knows to be evil, and equate Bush to him. After all, given the ignorance of most people in the US today, nobody knows Stalin was a butcher, so why not carry his picture and hold him up as a hero.

I'm pretty disgusted right now. Next time there's a pro-Kyoto march, sponsored by the hardcore Communists, and you see them out there with their Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Mao Tse Tung, and Che Guevara posters, perhaps ask them why they don't carry a Hitler sign. My guess is that he was much more a friend of the environment than any of that bunch.


No smoking allowed!

So it seems that the leader of Turkmenistan has gone to his final reward. One would question whether he believed it was possible, given his clear megalomania, but whatever. He was weird, but that's not illegal.

One thought came to mind as I read the article linked above. He had heart surgery a few years back, and thus quit smoking. Once he did, he ordered government people to follow suit. So that brings up a question in my mind: What would the wacko left think about that? They're anti-smoking, which is fine. So are most reasonable conservatives. The difference is that the latter believe that one should be allowed to kill oneself in peace, if they so desire. Leftists would favor banning all smoking, since they're opposed to it. "I don't like this, so you can't do it" is their motto.

So what would a Loonie think of this guy? On the plus side, he was anti-smoking. On the negative side, he didn't allow any dissent. Also tortured prisoners, etc.

I may try a little test. Find some leftists (not hard in my town), and ask them how they'd feel about a leader that made his closest advisors quit smoking. Then ask how they'd feel about the same leader banning dissent, and chasing opponents out of the country. My guess is that they'd shrug off the latter, and sing the praises of his brilliant anti-smoking policies.

After all, many of the pro-Kyoto nutjobs parade down the street holding posters of Stalin and Che, two of the most anti-environmental bastards of the last hundred years.

Guess we'll see.