Delusional Liberal Kook of the Week

We've missed Sean Penn lately! But he's back with this great award "acceptance" speech. Can you imagine if Republicans whined this much whenever someone like Sean Penn called them a name or disagreed with their policy? Wow. This is one angry individual, folks. Forget Hillary and Obama - Sean Penn should run for president! He has all the great ideas.

Personally, I'd like to see him reconnect with his creative side and focus more on acting than things he doesn't know what he's talking about. (Fast Times 2 - Spiconi Returns. If he actually smoked the pot to get in character for the role, I think it would benefit him immensely...) Or perhaps he could take a few classes in Constitutional law so he wouldn't sound like such a jackass. See, lying under oath - that's an impeachable offense. Going to war against an oppressive, murderous dictator who violated countless UN resolutions and the provisions from the treaty signed after the first Gulf War, who was actively trying to purchase uranium from Niger for the bomb and gave money to terrorist homicide bombers, in addition to letting terrorist training camps flourish in his country after we faced the worst attack ever on American soil by like-minded terrorists is not an impeachable offense.

But let's take a look at where this genius is coming from. I found this to be his most revealing statement:

I'm sure many people who I met in Baghdad, both in my trips prior to and during the occupation, now similarly cannot just look forward. With lives so entirely shattered by a violence of occupation - an ongoing U.S. war effort and the civil war that it has catalyzed. All on the back of a crumbled infrastructure, following eleven years of devastating U.N. sanctions...

So in Sean's view, not only is our "occupation" (you know, how our soldiers are putting their lives on the line so that the people of Iraq can build back their infrastructures, train their own army and police department, and flourish as all people deserve in a democratic system) wrong, but so were the "devestating U.N. sanctions." Apparently, he was cool with Saddam taking over Kuwait and didn't think we had any right to help an ally that was invaded by another country. (which -ahem,cough- has been U.S. policy since post WWI) Furthermore, Saddam should have suffered no reprecussions for his agressive invasion of Kuwait and all of the money spent and lives lost in the succeeding war. No, we were just supposed to ignore the provisions of the peace treaty that we signed with him. And shame on the U.N. for those sanctions, trying to stop a man who had already shown he had no qualms over going to war against his neighbors from acquiring bigger and badder weapons.

This isn't Neville Chamberlin, folks, this is a severe case of delusion. I would go so far to say that Penn's anger has started (or rather furthered) to affect his brain activity. Keep an eye on this one - he's liable to do something crazy(er).

Democracy in Iran

Found this to be an interesting article. Now that he's actually allowing opposition candidates to run, the Freak of Iran's party has been suffering some losses in recent local level elections. More surprisingly, he's facing protests at universities across the country.

Makes you wonder --Maybe Bush should talk to the guy; they've so much more in common now... (Except that opponents to our president don't have to go into hiding and fear for their lives afterward.) Seriously, they could set up a counseling session moderated by Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy to discuss how being called a "dictator" and other hurtful terms affects their psychie and ability to lead. Then Pelosi and Kennedy could have Democratic voters speak about why they think President Bush is more like Adolph Hitler than the Holocost-denying Ahmadinejad...

Iranian student activists who staged an angry protest against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week have gone into hiding in fear for their lives after his supporters threatened them with revenge.

One student fled after being photographed holding a banner reading, "Fascist president, the polytechnic is not for you", during Mr Ahmadinejad's visit to Tehran's Amir Kabir university. At least three others have gone underground after being seen burning his picture. Vigilantes from the militant Ansar-e Hezbollah group have been searching for them.

In a startling contrast to the acclaim Mr Ahmadinejad has received in numerous recent appearances around Iran, he faced chants of "Death to the dictator" as he addressed a gathering in the university's sports hall last week. Several hundred students forced their way in to voice anger over a clampdown on universities since he became president last year.

"He threatened us directly, saying that what we were doing was against the wishes of the nation," said Babak Zamanian, a spokesman for Amir Kabir university's Islamic students' committee. "After that, the students protested even more sharply, calling him a lying religious dictator and shouting, 'Forget America and start thinking about us!'

If We just TALK to him...

How can you talk to a leader who's starting point of negotiation is the destruction of another country?

Latest from the Freak of Iran:

"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.

"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added

His words received warm applause from delegates at the Holocaust conference, who included ultra-Orthodox anti-Israel Jews and European and American writers who argue the Holocaust was either fabricated or exaggerated.

If you were Jim Baker, you'd be asking this nut for help with Iraq. Alrighty then.

Baker v. Rice

Someone ought to tell James Baker and his Surrender Study Group that he was not appointed Secretary of State. Last I checked, that was still Condi.

The point has been made that the Iraq Study Group's recent findings basically pit the views of Baker and Rice against each other.

One of their primary points of disagreement is whether or not we should talk to our enemies. Apparently Mr. Baker is under the delusion that our enemies (namely Iran and Syria, the same countries sending aid and support to the insurgents killing our soldiers and other Iraqi citizens) would somehow want to help us if we just talked to them. Or, perhaps less naivly, but still idiotic, that we would be able to compell their help in Iraq by appealing to some goal of theirs. But unless Baker's for the destruction of Israel and all U.S. troops, embassies, etc. pulling out of the Middle East, he's been sleepwalking through this report.

Human nature is human nature, it hasn't changed much over the last thousand years. Since the dawn of countries, there has been war. And since the dawn of countries, strength has kept the peace. Notice how Egypt, the Saudis, and other more friendly Arab nations were supporting the U.S. and condemning Hezbollah back when they still thought the U.S. had a spine. Years of relentless Democrat whining and attacks on our president and his policies (and cries against the Iraq war when the nation wasn't completely rebuilt and casualty free within two weeks of taking Bahgdad) have eroded our perception of strength throughout the world. Now, after just one Democratic election victory, they sense our weakness.

Let's look to the recent past for an indication of how talking to our enemies will help us here. It sure worked well for Neville Chamberlin, didn't it? Yep. He held off WWII for at least a few years by those helpful talks! And how about Bill Clinton and Kim Jong Mentally Ill? Really glad Clinton had those one-on-one talks with Krazy Kim! They couldn't have managed nuclear reactors without them! And how about Kennedy and Kruschev? Yeah, talking went a long way to ending the Cold War... Oh, wait, it was Reagan sayin' -I ain't talkin' I'm building a missile defense system and if you can't keep up with our arms race we will bury you.

Let's Talk

Democrats are big on talking, not on acting. They're sort of the anti "Speak softly but carry a big stick" party and more of the "Communicate, talk, compromise, back-down, threaten if necessary, but carry a water pistol" party. The results of their misguided diplomacy throughout history backs this notion up.

You may have noticed I haven't blogged much on Iraq lately; that's frankly because I'm exasperated with it all and can't comprehend the mess in Washington. Everyone seems to agree things are "going badly" over there, but when the party of doves that supposedly owes their latest election victory to the American public agreeing with them that we need to pull out of Iraq asap, it's interesting listening to them now calling for more troops and backing away from any timetables they might have demanded pre-November.

And just as Ted Kennedy thought he could thwart Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War by holding secret vodka binges with Russian officials, apparently the Democrats are at it again. Granted, the source of this information is Hamas, not exactly your most credible source, but then I wouldn't put it past some Democrats to have secret meetings with the terrorist group in order to thwart Bush's efforts to win the war on terror.

Update: Learning from the past. Some exerpts in that Kennedy link are worth calling out for their relavence today (Once a liberal, always a liberal; their thinking hasn't changed):

"The letter speaks to the degree of opposition and the lack of understanding liberals like Kennedy had toward Reagan's policies," said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

"Reagan knew we had to build up our armed forces before we could apply pressure to the Soviets." The notion of fighting to win the Cold War was an alien concept to liberals like Kennedy, Edwards added, because they had grown accustomed to the policies of containment.

Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, told Cybercast News Service Kennedy's activities were in "clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and at the expense of presidential authority."

The secret overtures to the KGB during the Reagan years were particularly insidious, Dunn said, because Tunney and Kennedy were working to undermine what ultimately proved to be a very successful policy that brought an end to the Cold War.

"If another country gets the idea that it can deal outside of official channels then that undermines presidential leadership," he said.

What's Next?

Back in May, I had a post ("Because we need others to tell us how to live our lives"), in which I asked the question - what the hell is next? In this post, I was griping about Detroit banning the use of cell phones while driving and wondering what the government would try to ban next.

That's been answered in NY, a place many of these reformist, know-it-all, misguided do-gooders start this crap. They've banned trans fat. So who cares? you might ask - trans fat is really bad for you. Granted. But where are you going to draw the line when you start letting government regulate what people eat? Are we headed toward a society only allowed to eat fruit and vegetables? Will they ban chocolate? How about sugar --because sugar is really bad for you and can make you fat. Let's mandate the South Beach Diet for all Americans!

I've got news for those New Yorkers -- it's not the trans fat's fault there are fat people in your city. It's about will power. It's about personal responsibility and deciding whether or not you want to follow a healthy diet. And as free Americans, that is our decision. Just like it should be our decision whether or not we want to exercise, whether or not we want to drink, whether or not we want to smoke, whether or not we want to own guns, whether or not we want to keep our old ocean-front house, or sell it to a condo developer who could improve the city's tax base. The point is - the information is out there. More and more Americans are consciously making the decision to live healthier lives - to quit smoking, exercise and eat better, based on what we read or hear is healthy or unhealthy. And that's great, when people willfully make that choice. I'd like to see the "pro-choice" crowd really stand up for Americans' right to choose.

Wake up, America! Stand up for your freedoms.

Drop the "C"

Because the "B" and the "S" already say it all. Florida whined their way into a #2 spot and the opportunity to get clobbered by Ohio State in Glendale.

On Nov. 26, the Wolverines led the Gators by 86 points in the Harris Poll and 30 points in the USA Today poll. By Sunday morning there had been a 154-point reversal in the Harris poll and a 56-point swing in the USA Today poll...

What can you say? The coaches essentially voted that the #1 team shouldn't have to play the #2 team again, since they already beat them (by 3 points, at home), and that rather than the exciting rematch of the #1 and #2 team, the country would rather see Ohio State beat a team by at least 20 points in the championship game. (If Florida even loses by as close as 8 points, I'll eat my hat) So there you have it. A team that could hardly beat the Gamecocks of South Carolina is ranked #2 and playing for the national title.

Some things never change -- the Rose Bowl will still be the best bowl game to watch.