What Would Richard Pryor Do?

Richard Pryor via The Quotations Page:

I never met anybody who said when they were a kid, “I wanna grow up and be a critic.”

It strikes me in reading this quote that this is exactly the role that most bloggers take… critics… politics, and culture bloggers particualrly.  But given those subjects are also part of the usual fodder for Stand up philosophers (Oh, you mean bullshit artists!) (Mel Brooks, History of the world, part one) ..OK, Stand up comics, then… I have to wonder what a Richard Pryor blog would be like. Sadly, I don’t think we’re ever going to find out.

Now that Bolton’s out onto the floor for a vote, I have some thoughts to add.

Look, let’s call this resistance to Bolton going to the UN what it is; A political game, called ‘stall and smear’… a game the Democrats have done rather well with over the years. That party trick has lost it’s glow, however, in the last few decades… a point which was revealed in particularly pronounced fashion in 2000 and 2004.

This is not an argument about Bolton’s qualifications, since no serious arguments about these have been brought to the table.  The biggest argument that the objectors to Bolton can find is that he’s got sharp elbows.  This has proven ineffective because the majority think the UN has become, alternately, useless, and worse than useless, and who think that sharp elbows are just the thing.

In the end, Bolton’s nomination and ultimate confirmation… which, as I gather it, will come after the first of the month, now… comes down to an argument between those who think the United Nations needs reforming… and those who think the United STATES is the one needing the reforms. And the majority… dare I say this… the VAST majority think that the UN is the issue.

Of course he’s quoted as saying, “If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a difference.”

You can understand, I guess, how someone who thinks the UN is fine, and all is hunky-dory… that the UN is providing a public service…. and the Oil for Food scandal was all the fault of the US, would consider that statement to be incendiary.  But you’d need to be in a serious state of recto-cranial inversion to say that, much less believe it.

Since I’ve already brought it up, let’s talk about “oil for food” as an example;

Here we have a group of people at Turtle Bay, robbing the starving people of Iraq of on the order of $10 billion, and tossing up roadblocks to upstart nations like the US, who come in to among other things, rectify that situation.

Elsewhere, we see millions dying in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe.. and the supposed “Human rights watchdog” does nothing.  What can be said of an org where the worst of the worst in terms of human rights violations…China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and the afore-mentioned Sudan and Zimbabwe, hold positions on the UN’s Human Rights commission?

Some watchdog, eh? See also, Weasel, Chicken Coup.

So what are those working against Bolton actually working FOR? Well, I think it clear that they’re working to the end that the UN will continue on the path it’s been on for the last 40 years. No change. Status quo. The people they’re trusted to help won’t get any… the people with offices at the UN building will continue to rake in billions to their own pockets, and the US will get the blame for all of it.

Support of this status quo, has become a partisan battle. Shouldn’t be, but it is.

Why?

Well, notice, please, who it is who are working against Bolton.  Career Diplomats… and One- worlder socialist Democrats. People who have, over the years, gained much position and power though the UN. And in the case of the Democrats, people who see their one-world political views only coming to fruition though a central world power like the UN.  As a particularly bald example, notice that Bolton considers the communists in Cuba a terrorist threat to the US, while the Democrats in the Senate want us to normalize relations with Castro and his band of thugs.

It’s not hard at all to see why such people object to Bolton. But my friends, by their flimsy, paper thin arguments, ye shall know them.

And remember the simple truth….Cockroaches always run from the light.

Update:

Heh.
Boortz this morning asks the people arguing about the reported abuse of subordinates, if they’ve ever heard of Hillary Clinton’s flying ashtrays, and lamps in the WH.

The Telegraph has an article running, suggesting there’s new evdience that that total slimeball, George Galloway, the former Labour MP got tossed out of the Labour party, and…

… who started his own party, has denied fresh accusations from a US Senate committee that he received vouchers for millions of barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein.

In short…

The investigative committee cited several documents and interviews with former Iraqi leaders which it alleged showed Mr Galloway accepted oil vouchers under the oil-for-food programme.

Taha Yassin Ramadan, the ex-Iraqi vice president, gave testimony to the committee which stated Mr Galloway received the oil “because of his opinions about Iraq”.

I had an idea this would happen and shoulda called it.  (^%$&&%$!!!)

Why this slime is not under arrest, is a question which should be directed at Mr. Blair, I think.

Dennis Miller needs a show, since CNBC is closing his current one.So says KJL.

Sad; the show was working in it’s own element. This is a failure of the left-wing cesspool that CNBC has become, not of Miller himself.

Someone get this man another show.

Ann Coulter:

“When they weren’t claiming the Iraq elections would not take place at all ? and, even if they did, the people wouldn’t participate – liberals were telling us that if we let those crazy Arabs vote, the Iraqi people would elect extremist Islamic mullahs hostile to the United States.
Well, the Iraq National Assembly completed filling out the cabinet this week, and it can now be said that this was liberals’ laughably wrong prediction No. 9,856. (Or No. 9,857 if you count their predictions of ruinous global cooling back in the 1970s, which I don’t because that could still happen.) “

She also takes the time to skewer, as I did yesterday, Joe Conoson:

Winning the category of Most Wrong Predictions in the Fewest Words, Joe Conason predicted in the Sept. 27, 2004, New York Observer: “a series of horrifically violent confrontations in Iraq’s cities, a postponement of the January elections, a wider call-up of National Guard and Reserve units, or even a renewed military draft.” And if Bush won a second term, Conason said: “Beware the ‘November surprise’ that will begin to bring home the true costs of his feckless adventure.”

Conason’s feeble litany of harebrained predictions reads like a haiku of bum steers. No increase in “horrific” violence, no postponement of elections, no draft, no “November surprise.” (OK, there was one “November surprise” – but only for the Democrats. It happened on Nov. 2.)

Great stuff as always. A must read.

To my delight, Bainbridge gets in Conason’s face on Yalta and confirms portions of my previous posts on topic: (emph is mine)

As for Conason’s claim that only someone like “noted fabulist Ann Coulter” could have come up with President Bush’s remarks, perhaps he would like to explain that to the people of, say, Latvia, whose President Vaira Vike-Freiberga said on Jauary 15th:

In May of this year, Latvia will also be remembering three other important events. On May the 4th, Latvia will commemorate the 15th anniversary of its declaration of independence from the Soviet Union, following fifty years of occupation and oppression.

On May the 8th, Latvia will join Europe in celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany. However, unlike the case in Western Europe, the fall of the hated Nazi German empire did not result in my country’s liberation. Instead, the three Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were subject to another brutal occupation by another foreign, totalitarian empire, that of the Soviet Union.

On May the 9th, Latvia and 24 other countries will celebrate the 55th anniversary of the signing of the Schuman Declaration, which gave rise to what is now known as the European Union. These celebrations will be taking place in Moscow, on the same date that Russia traditionally celebrates its victory over Nazi Germany.

For Latvia, the jubilation at the fall of Hitler will be tinged with sorrow at my country’s further subjugation at the hands of the Soviet Union and the untold suffering that it imposed on our people as a result of inhuman persecution and mass deportations. But on May the 9th I will be expressing my sympathy to the Russian people as well for their losses and suffering. The Russian people played an important part in ridding Europe of one bloodthirsty tyrant – Hitler. But they, no more than people in Latvia and other countries, did not gain freedom from Stalinist tyranny and from the oppression of totalitarian Communism.

In attending the official events planned in Moscow on May the 9th, I will be extending a hand of friendship and reconciliation to the Russian people, while encouraging the present-day leadership of their country to denounce the crimes committed by the Stalinist in regime Latvia and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe. I believe it the duty of all democratic countries to urge Russia to condemn the crimes that were committed during the Soviet era in the name of communism. Russia must face up and come to honest terms with its history, just as Germany did following the end of the Second World War, and just as my own country is doing today.

Funny, but that sounds an awful lot like Bush’s speech to me.

So it does, Professor… So it does.

The reason, of course, that Conoson can’t admit this, is the Staurure of FDR in the Socialist Democratic Party then and since, up to today. They are all of one mindset. The entire way of thinking of these people is that fellow socialists can do no wrong… Stalin included.  Conoson’s spinning, is centered on that one point.

And of course we see where Putin has logded protests with about the President visiting and praising Georgia and yes, Latvia. Notice, please, that precisely none of the Democrats in this country… Conoson included… have made noise one about Putin’s protests, or about his statement a few weeks ago that the collapse of the USSR was a catastrophe. Can there by any other conclusion but that they… each of them… agree with Putin’s assessment?

I’m telling you, folks… and this is NOT going to be popular, I suppose… but..

You can’t fit water between the Democratic party of today, and the Communists. Every time they open their mouths, they prove that point.

Paul over at Power Line takes on Ed Whelan at NRO

In general, the Supreme Court has been getting more mileage than it deserves out of its decision in Brown. To its credit, the Supreme Court got on the right side of the civil rights issue about ten years before Congress did. Congress was hampered in this regard by the racist wing of the Democratic party and its use of the filibuster, which in those days could be sustained by one-third of the Senate.

Tell ya what, Paul… I’d go a step further, and suggest to you that the only reason Brown had to be brought at all was the result of a ‘living’ reading of the Constitution in Scott. I submit Brown reversed that error.

(Granted the Supremes would never label it as such, but there it is…)

The Constitution, I would argue, is a legal document.

Legal documents by their very definition, are not “living documents”, and are certainly not intended to be re-defined at need. If the need arises, legal documents are re- WRITTEN.  In the case of the Federal constitution, the founders were good enough to provide us with the means to do just that.. but made the process troublesome, so as to insure things weren’t just changed on a “whim” of the people. Their intentions were clearly spelled out on this point, in the minutes of the original constitutional convention and other sources.

The USSC, in the case of Scott and a goodly number of rulings since then, in creating rights out of thin air… have appropriated the right of changing the Constitution by whim, to themselves… certainly, a more dangerous and destructive prospect than forming a constitutional convention.

It has been noted that there is a serious backlash against the Judicary the last few decades, which is at, dare I say this, an all-time peak, today. This (mis-)appropriation of ‘ruling by judial fiat” by the courts is exactly WHY this feeling exists.

JunkYardBlog slices up Josh Marshell for a double standard applied.

Two years ago Marshall believed that the US decision to leave eastern Europe in the USSR’s hands was a “great betrayal,” and that it was “shameful.” “Inevitable,” yes, but still a great betrayal. Today he calls President Bush’s remarks on Yalta–remarks that more or less agree with Marshall’s own line from two years ago–“cheap posturing or folly.”

There is indeed some cheap posturing and folly going on. You’ll find it every day at Talking Points Memo.

….which is exactly why Marshall isn’t on my read list, unless i’m feeling particularly blue and need to laugh at a posturing fool.

Slant Point says Ed Cox will run against Hillary Clinton in ’06.

Given my earlier post on Hillary, he may have an easier time of it than most.

AOL news (As in Time Warner, of all people) passes on some interesting news on the PETA front: Peta Kills Animals.

Between 1998 and 2003, PETA put to death over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other creatures that the group publicly calls “companion animals.” Not counting those that PETA held only temporarily — for spaying or neutering — the group killed over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003.

“PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year,” said Center for Consumer Freedom research director David Martosko, “and much of it was from pet owners who thought their donations actually helped animals. Instead, PETA killed them — while spending millions on programs equating meat eaters with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting kids into a radical animal-rights lifestyle, and even defending arsonists and other violent extremists.”

Rush, did you see this?

They’ve actually got a site, too…

FOXNews.com is saying, from Zion Ill:

The man charged with stabbing his young daughter and her best friend to death was denied bond Wednesday during a court hearing. Authorities said he confessed to the crimes in videotaped interviews.

Jerry Hobbs, who had recently been released from prison on assault charges — told investigators he was angry at his 8-year-old daughter Laura Hobbs for breaking curfew when he tracked down her and her friend Krystal Tobias, 9, in a wooded park, prosecutors said Wednesday.

He punched Laura and then killed both girls, stabbing his daughter over and over again in the neck and eyes, prosecutors said during Wednesday’s hearing, the accused killer’s first court appearance.

Here’s a clue:The guy was just out of jail in Texas, where he’d been serving time for chasing residents of the Trailer park where he lived, around with a chain saw.

Ya know, when you’ve got a dog that’s foaming at the mouth, you don’t release it on probation. The Judicary still doesn’t get that simple, straightforward fact.

Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution notes United Airlines dropping it’s union pension plan… and with it about 134,000 workers… and muses;

Now, let’s review.  A large organization counts on its younger workers and continuing high revenues to fund the pensions and medical care of its retired workers but finds that rising health care costs, longer life-expectancy, and its own inability to control spending force it to cut pension benefits and switch to personal accounts.

Kinda makes you go hmmm…doesn’t it?

If you’re not getting this, think “Socialist Security”.

And by the way, we have the Unions to thank for this. They over-reached, casued the company to over-promise, and casued the collapse of the company.

And, ya know what? The same thing will be happening at GM, and Ford soon enough. In each case the pensions are the biggest headaches they have. Once again, the Unions are to blame.

And guess who the unions are, politically? The same folks who brought you Socialist Security.

Still think there’s no crisis?

Dick Morris in the NY Post, this morning:

Rosen has been indicted for deliberately reporting that the cost of an August 2000 Hollywood fund-raising gala was only $400,000 when the actual tab was $1.2 million — a step that let Mrs. Clinton spend $800,000 more in “hard money” for her campaign. (After Hillary and opponent Rick Lazio agreed to ban soft money, both camps were scrambling to maximize their hard money on hand).

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported on a transcript of a Sept. 4, 2002, audiotape of a dinner between Rosen and Ted Kennedy in-law Raymond Reggie, who was wearing a wire. Most news accounts have left out the fact that Rosen implicated himself with each bite of steak.

On tape, the paper reported, Rosen “acknowledges that the gala probably cost far more to produce than he reported on federal campaign forms.” Rosen says of the fund-raiser, “We woulda never done it if the guy [Peter Paul] said he spent $2 million. So now he’s [Paul] saying he spent $2 million on an event that raised $1.4.” Rosen goes on to agree that “he may have” spent the $2 million.

Reggie, whose sister is Ted Kennedy’s wife, will get no more than five years in prison on bank-fraud convictions in return for cooperation and testimony at Rosen’s trial.

Several things.

WASHINGTON —( AP )Congress has approved an additional $82 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and to combat terrorism worldwide, boosting the cost of the global effort since 2001 to more than $300 billion.

The Senate approved the measure Tuesday on a 100-0 vote. The House passed the measure last week. It now goes to President Bush for his certain signature.

…

Most of the money — $75.9 billion — is slated for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while $4.2 billion goes to foreign aid and other international relations programs.

The measure also requires states to start issuing more uniform driver’s licenses and verify the citizenship or legal status of people getting them. It also toughens asylum laws, authorizes the completion of a fence spanning the California-Mexican border and provides money to hire more Border Patrol agents.

This is likely the first really bipartisan thing the Democrats have actually done, this congress. But let’s break it down a bit and see what’s going on, here.

Did you notice the last part there? They’re putting up a fence on the border. The whole thing along the California line. Bush has promised to sign the bill, and the WH had pushed, I’m told, for that particular provision. Funny, though, how they tucked that little item away. Don’t want to break the myth that Mr. Bush isn’t doing much to protect the border, I suppose.

They made giving driver’s licenses to illegals, illegal.  All of them voted for doing so. Which should end the leftist cries of ‘oppression’. But of course it won’t.

And they all… every last one of them… supported the war effort. Every single one of them. A unanimous vote for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When it came down to it, every single Senator who has been spending all this time calling Mr. Bush a liar, every single one of them who cried loud and long about how this was only a war for oil… Every single one who spent hours and hours of media face time telling the American Public that the WOT is wrong… voted to continue the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Which oughta tell you something. If the left was really against the WOT, they’d have voted against it. But, they didn’t. One can only assume all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the WOT was just so much empty political posturing. The Democrats in seeking political advantage in and around the war efforts knew they were telling the American people untruths.

As I’ve been saying since before the war.

Nice to see Hanson reads my blog: (Yeah, right!!)

When we see Democrats speaking and living like normal folks – expressing worry that the United States must return to basic education and values to ensure its shaky preeminence in a cutthroat world, talking of one multiracial society united by a rare exceptional culture of the West rather than a salad bowl of competing races and tribes, and apprising the world that we are principled abroad in our support of democratic nations and quite dangerous when attacked – they will be competitive again.

Since they will not do that, they will keep losing – no matter how much the economy worries, the war frightens, and the elite media scares the American people.

OK, I’m kidding, of course…he doesn’t read this blog, so far as I know… But you’ve got to admit, he echoes I said a few days back:

….the Democrats have managed to work themselves into a proverbial corner; Every one of their big electoral issues is wrapped around radical cultural changes… changes which run directly afoul of the culture. Until either the Democrats change their tack, or the culture itself changes, the Democrats will continue to lose.

And cultures are not known to change quickly under any kind of stimuli.

Hanson’s article is, as always, well worth it.
But with so many saying pretty much the same thing, one wondersif the Democrats will EVER get the message?