mmmmm. toooolerance and diverrrrsity. isn't it great?

Condoleezza Rice is more hated by some than even Dick Cheney is. I had long thought how I'd love to see Condi as Vice President ever since Andrew Sullivan first suggested it, but recently I reconsidered that idea on the grounds that it would be _extremely dangerous_ for a President ever to do such a thing. Better to have Cheney, for the same reason that it was so good for Nixon to have Agnew.

But, now, I've reconsidered my reconsideration. In the event that if something untoward should happen to Cheney (and it should not!), then appointing Condi might be a good idea after all. Her enemies would not dare make such a woman President -- a Negro woman who is so intelligent -- and is also a Republican -- the overwhelming cognitive dissonance of that would intolerably discombobulate the whole Weltanschauung of Politically Correct Leftism.

If you're a worker, a Negro, a woman, a homosexual man or woman, a Jew -- and if you deviate from the Party Line, you'll be hated more venomously than if you were a rich "straight" male member of the White Citizens' Council.

I wrote this in a comment in Eric Scheie's Classical Values:

The various "oppressed groups" (homosexuals, women, Negroes, Jews, workers, etc.) that seem to make up "the Left" -- are any of them truly integral?, essential?, to what Leftism is?

Native Americans -- the very first Americans? When do we hear about these Americans any more except on certain ritual occasions? Are they integral to the Left?

Jews? Jews were once almost entirely on the Left of most spectrums. Jews have been disproportionately predominant in most intellectual movements in the modern West, from Marxism to Freudianism to Objectivism, but definitely so within the Left. That was one of the favorite smears of anti-Semites on the Right, that Jews were Communists.

Today, however, anti-Semitism is found mostly on the Left, increasingly so and ever more virulently, and Israel is hated more than any other nation, save the United States itself.

Homosexuals? We're seeing how Leftists regard Andrew Sullivan, even after he voted for Kerry. Any homosexual who deviates from the Party Line in any way, whether it be Sullivan, the Boi from Troi, the Gay Patriot, Tammy Bruce, Camille Paglia, Jeff Soyer, Eric Scheie, will draw their hatred. Homosexuals will be dropped like a hot potato by the Party whenever they get in the way of what is politically convenient, whenever they seem to be too controversial or unpopular, whenever it takes any courage to stand by them.

The Communists "outed" homosexuals who opposed them back in the 1950s, from Roy Cohn to Whittaker Chambers. Homosexuals have been persecuted in all Communist regimes, from Russia to China to Cuba to North Korea. Homosexuals are persecuted in all the Muslim countries the Left appeases today, from Palestine to Iran to the Sudan to Saudi Arabia.

Women? Women are also abjectly subordinated in every one of those Muslim countries, more so than ever in the West. Misogyny on the Left is evident whenever a strong woman emerges on the Right, e.e., Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher, Ann Coulter, Camille Paglia.

Negroes? Again, as long as they toe the Party Line they are accepted. But the moment they deviate, e.g., Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell, Manning Johnson, George Schuyler, Perry Smaw -- then they become "niggers". "Workers of the World Unite -- For a WHITE South Africa!", was a Communist slogan in the 1920s.

Workers? The poor? For the last 30 years at least, blue-collar workers have been vilified as "know-nothing" "hard hats", "Archie Bunkers", "racist, sexist bigots", etc., by the "limousine liberals". Thomas Sowell has abundantly documented how Leftist policies hurt the poor.

So -- who's left on the Left? Or, what's left of the Left? Anything left of the Left today but a nihilistic drive toward entropy? Hmmm....

posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist on 11.13.04 at 01:29

Rosemary,

I commented on this over at La Shawn's page, but here I have to say: "Yup, what Steven said".

Say what you want about editorial cartoonists---by nature of the format, they tend to be shallow and lowest-common-denominator---can anyone here tell me that Dr. Rice isn't a complete and total incompetent?

She ignored and belittled the threat of terrorism until 9/11/01. Since then her catastophic failures have left us with airports and harbors more vunerable than ever before and diverted resources away from terrorism and into a for-profit oil war.

My question: How the hell can you defend her unbroken string of failures?

Say what you want about editorial cartoonists---by nature of the format, they tend to be shallow and lowest-common-denominator---can anyone here tell me that Dr. Rice isn't a complete and total incompetent?

She ignored and belittled the threat of terrorism until 9/11/01. Since then her catastophic failures have left us with airports and harbors more vunerable than ever before and diverted resources away from terrorism and into a for-profit oil war.

My question: How the hell can you defend her unbroken string of failures?

Don,

I never mention your unbroken string of failures, to persuade or inform, that is.

Yours,
Wince

Wince:

My failure to penetrate the faith-based rock of your ideological worldview---while annoying and distressing, I admit---won't get anybody killed.

Dr. Rice's blunders and inepitude has lead to the death of tens of thousands.

You DO see the difference...right?

So again I ask: How the hell can you defend her unbroken string of failures?

OK Don,

I actually gave some thought to having an adult debate with you on the points you made about defending her "unbroken string of failures" (huh?) until you threw in the "for profit war for oil" line.

Then I realized that you sir, are a "moonbat" of the most illogical and dangerous persuasion. To even attempt to address what you have raised in the guise as some sort of legimate offer of debate, would be a waste of time at the keyboard.

You live in a fantasy world of your own that is out of touch with the reality of today's current events, and I'm sure that no one here will be able to talk some sense into you.

Well...perhaps Rosemary could, but it wouldn't be very pretty!

Don,

Your comments are so consistently ridiculously one-sided and hyperbolic that they invite neither changing one's mind, learning or even discussion. Your current take on Dr. Rice makes me sure you will eventually ask me, "When did you stop beating your wife?" And then you will be indignant when I don't answer.

Do you actually believe Dr. Rice has been responsible for an 'unbroken string of failures'? If you do, you don't have the necessary perspective to be worth talking to.

Your question is not designed to be answered. It is designed to berate. Behold, I have been berated. Was your goal to discuss? Ah, you have failed.

Yours,
WInce

Montie:

How could you NOT know about Dr. Rice's failures---for example, the way she completely ignored al Qaeda?

And do you REALLY beleive no one is making a profit on the current war?

I realize that you and I live in very different worlds (mine is reality-based while yours is faith-based, for example) but surely even you have realized how badly this administration has bungled the fight against al Qaeda at every juncture.

Airports, harbors, and nuclear power plans are still sitting ducks, homeland security is a color-coded joke, and Osama bin Laden laughs in the face of Dubya's impotence.

Let me turn the question around: can you list and Bush Administration successes against al Qaeda? (NOT in Iraq---it's not the same thing).

Don,

Much better. How about the alliance with Pakistan? How about taking down the Taliban? How about all the Al Quaeda terrorists we actually have caught? I'm sure there have been failures, but not an unbroken string of them.

Yours,
Wince

Wince:

Same thing---can you list anything Dr. Rice has done right?

Would that include getting caught lying under oath to the 9/11 Commission?

Wince:

How about the alliance with Pakistan?

That's your idea of a good alliance? PAKISTAN? They're still selling nuclear material out the back door to Iran, for christsake!

And you forgot POLAND (Oh wait...they're pulling out of the coalition...never mind)

How about taking down the Taliban?

A perfect example of a job started but left unfinished. The provision puppet gov't in Afghanistan exists primarily on paper---warlords and the Taliban are creeping back into power.

How about all the Al Quaeda terrorists we actually have caught?

A drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of insurgents radicalized by US bombs.

BTW, Wince, your "did you stop beating your wife" dodge is hard to take from someone who thinks the Duelfer Report vindicated the Bush White House.

Clearly, you have a long way to go before you can lecture me about being "ridiculously one-sided and hyperbolic."

Don,

If you think that someone who disagrees with your conclusions is engaging in ridiculously one-sided hyperbole, you are engaging in ridiculously one-sided hyperbole again.

The Duelfer Report vindicated the war. It did not vindicate the intelligence. It's nuance. I know as a Republican I'm not supposed to have it, but darn it, Democrats keep leaving it lying around while they scream "Lies, lies, lies!" and "Murder, murder, murder!' so I thought I'd put it to some use. You can have it back, but only if you're going to use it.

Yours,
Wince

"That's your idea of a good alliance? PAKISTAN? They're still selling nuclear material out the back door to Iran, for christsake"

Proof? Link?

"A perfect example of a job started but left unfinished. The provision puppet gov't in Afghanistan exists primarily on paper---warlords and the Taliban are creeping back into power. "

Did you see that on the "news", read it on Kos? Link it. Prove it.

"A drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of insurgents radicalized by US bombs."

Yawn...Prove it. Link it.

Don, I won't be reading your posts until you start backing up your opinions with evidence.

But Phi, Don has FAITH in his beliefs! He doesn't need proof, or evidence, and the absence of any just bolsters his deep conviction that its all a conspiracy, directed against left-wing people named Myers.
I stopped paying attention to him a long time back, except for the occasional *whap*. But he convinced me he was innately unserious when he argued for repealing the 2nd Amendment and said the government was untrustworthy in the same thread.
But he is kinda funny, and squeaks if you poke at'im.

Poli-toons are usually hyperbolic, but I don't always understand them. The "brown sugar" one was absolutely racist. The one with young Condi standing in Powell's big shoes was easy to decipher but not racist. In the nursing nanny I understand the aluminum tubes reference but thought the nanny part was racist, tasteless and absurd.

However, I don't get the parrot. They draw the president as a pirate. And they could draw any of the cabinet members as a parrot on his shoulder. But was there wasn't anything racist about it. Or am I forgetting some old racist reference?

Enlighten me please. Thanx.

Honestly, even though I really, really can't stand Dr. Rice, most of those cartoons are offensive. When Bush nominated her, I was really conflicted. The feminist in me is happy about the black woman being secretary of state thing, but the rest of me is very upset that the woman in question is Condoleeza Rice.

The cartoons are idiotic.

Condi's performance as NSA is pathetic.

Don Meyer asks:My question: How the hell can you defend her unbroken string of failures?

(raises hand) me! me!

Because we think you're wrong Don. That's the hell.

Al-Q routed in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Phillipines, in record time. The Taliban can't provide security for the most threatening stateless enemy we faced, Syria is looking over her shoulder, Libya says "we want to be good again". Isolating Arafat has taken the steam out of the intifada (along with that wall).

Those are things we call "successes". No one here asserts she is perfect. But an "unbroken strong of failures" is merely the opinion of a partisan who thinks blaming her for 9/11 is a reasonable argument. Feh.

Ara, repition doesn't make reality. On her own merits, she's been a pretty good NSA. Compared to previous administration, she's outstanding.

But he convinced me he was innately unserious when he argued for repealing the 2nd Amendment and said the government was untrustworthy in the same thread.

John is a funny, funny little man. He interpeted my arguments for common sense gun control as an attack upon his manhood* and he's been all pissy about it ever since.

*insert the phallic reference of your choice here

I dont own a gun, currently, Don. My manhood is quite safe. I'm also not a little guy, standing around 6'1".
Your ideas for "common sense gun control" are as ridiculous as the rest of your statements, straight from acidland.

I have several guns Don. A couple of them are bigger than my dick.

Well, the .45. Barely.

My Grandmother is over eighty and still doesn't need glasses. Drinks right out of the bottle. Henny Youngman (1906 - 1998)

Gee Don,

I really hate it that I was away from the computer for the last couple of days. I missed out on your sparkling wit. However, it seems as if there were plenty of people ready to take you on.

The problem is not that you live in reality based world and I in a faith based one (purely an assumption on your part I might add). The problem is that your PERCEPTION of reality is skewed by your obvious liberal bent.

In any war, the suppliers of war materials are likely to make a profit. That's just the way it shakes out. Somebody has to supply the "beans and bullets". To say that we undertook the war in Iraq simply to boost profits for those companies is simplistic, childish, and really has nothing to do with your "war for oil" claim.

To say that we haven't made headway against the "fundamentalist Islamists" (a much better description that simply "Al Quaeda" or "terrorists") is to ignore reality. There are plenty of dead and captured fI's to show for it.

Now, I tend to agree with you when you say that we are not finished. When this whole thing started, I thought it would be a long hard slog. Perhaps on the order of ten years or more. One of the crippling things in dealing with this threat is the fact that we have allowed Political Correctness to creep into our warfighting (an ongoing problem since the Korean "police action"). We will never be able to achieve the type of victory that would truly make this country safe, because we will always be fighting with one hand tied behind our back. Hence the problems you mention in Afganistan, and the ongoing problems in Iraq.

While things are bad in Iraq, at least as far as what we are presented with in the major media, I would much rather everybody who might have an inkling of possibility of becoming a jihadist to be inspired to go ahead and commit to it while we are there. Better they throw themselves in front of our soldiers guns in Iraq now, rather than at our civilians here at home, some time in the future.

As far as the borders, etc., once again I can point to, if not political correctness, then certainly political expediency, as the factor preventing our taking full action to secure those vulnerable areas here at home. After all, if we did what we need to do, somebody might get offended.

Where did this concept of evaluating all our actions up to and including those actions required to insure our own survival through the lense of political correctness?... Why, from liberals like you, Don.

PS: I thought I would also comment a little on the "common sense" gun control bit you mentioned.
I own several guns also. Some, are tools I use on my job (law enforcement, 19 years worth), some I have just because I like them. In a free society I have every right to own them as long as I don't misuse them. In a similar vein, I also like fast cars. I have one that is a tool for my job , but I have owned several vintage musclecars well capable of far more than the legal limit of speed and/or acceleration. Once again, I should be able to own any car I want as long as I don't misuse it. What's the difference?

The problems with "common sense gun control" is that it is usually pushed by people like yourself, who suffer from a lack of common sense to begin with.

Montie,

damn I miss the 67 Camaro.

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968),

7693 http://www.top-texas-hold-em.com

texas hold em

1053 http://www.i--cialis.net
Offering Cialis with overnight delivery. Also, If your looking for generic cialis this is a good site to visit.