This page is from the original Don't Let Me Stop You blog. We have moved to a new site: Visit DLMSY on WordPress.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

You Might Be a Moonbat II

Back by popular demand.* You might be a moonbat if:
  • You can't understand why those ignorant red-necks in the Red States insist on imposing their traditional values on everyone else.
  • You think voting machines in the US are rigged, because Bush won, and the ones in Venezuela are fair, because Chavez won.
  • You're convinced that Cindy Sheehan would make a great presidential candidate, and you're not a Republican.
  • The thing you really hate about Chimpy McBushitler is that he's a "divider" rather than a "uniter."
  • You believe that:
    "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not... Iraqis should be doing that.'" (HT: BotW)
  • Quotes like the above bother you a lot less than hearing "newkewlerr."
  • You think it's criminal the way the filthy, stinking Repukes are so damned intolerant, and they all should be killed.
  • You can see clearly that the US is getting very close to a declaration of martial law or a military coup by the Republicans.
  • You think that the electoral process has been hijacked and violence may be necessary to re-establish what should be the will of the people.
  • You're sure there's an indictment of Karl Rove just around the corner, or that Karl Rove wants you to believe there's an indictment of Karl Rove just around the corner, or that Karl Rove wants you to believe that Karl Rove wants you to believe ...
  • You're convinced CBS fell into a trap when they broadcast the Killian memos, which were actually authentic, but doctored by Karl Rove to appear fake.
  • You think "myopic zeal" is distinctly different from bias.
  • You think that Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous than Muslim fanatics because the Christians want to turn the US into a theocracy. [Thanks, Monica]

* Not really, but we did think of some more.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Global Warming Hits Lincoln

We've had two days of snow and very cold weather here in Lincoln. We even had some trouble getting our garage door open, as it was frozen shut. This cold weather is a direct result of Global Warming, as we all know. Global Warming is predicted to result in hotter than normal weather in some places, colder than normal in others, and normal weather in still others.

There's no way to predict exactly which areas will be affected. However, if your weather is colder or hotter than normal or just average, take that as definitive proof of the urgent need to Take Action against the Greatest Danger Facing Us Today.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Iraq Story

Via UnklB:
A U.S. Marine squad was marching north of Basra when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist, badly injured and unconscious.

Nearby, on the opposite side of the road, was an American Marine in similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. Seeing each other, we both took cover in the ditches alongside the road. I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable lowlife scumbag, and he yelled back that Senator Ted Kennedy is a fat, good-for-nothing, left wing liberal drunk.. So I said that Osama Bin Ladin dresses and acts like a frigid, mean spirited woman!

He retaliated by saying "Oh Yeah? Well so does Hillary Clinton."

"We were standing there in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us."

Monday, December 05, 2005

You Might Be a Moonbat, If...

You might be a moonbat, if...
  • You think Murtha is a "hawk" and Kerry is a "war hero."
  • You think Hillary is a "moderate," and it really makes you mad.
  • You regularly use the phrase "Speaking Truth to Power."
  • You think there are not enough American troops in Iraq to do the job and also too many.
  • You think Global Warming is the greatest danger facing us today.
  • You were opposed to the early transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, the elections that were held too soon, the constitution that was drafted too quickly, the elections this month that are premature, and you believe we need to turn things completely over to the Iraqis more quickly. Bonus points if you still think the transfer process has been moving too fast.
  • You believe that Iraq has nothing to do with al-Qaeda, which has nothing to do with al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has nothing to do with Iraq.
  • You're disappointed that all you got was a lousy scooter for Fitzmas.
  • You think the MSM are completely biased in favor of Chimpy McBushitler.
  • You actually considered moving to another country when Kerry lost, but you don't believe he really lost.
  • You think "exit polls" are more accurate than real poll results.
  • You think Hugo Chavez just might make this Communism thing work after all.
  • You think Howard Dean is doing a superb job as chairman of the Democratic Party, and you're not a Republican.
  • You think that punitive taxes on oil companies will result in more oil and lower gas prices.

World's Worst Job

Per Scott Adams' The Dilbert Blog:
"Yet another 'third highest ranking al-Qaida leader' has been killed, this time by a rocket attack from an unmanned drone. There are a lot of jobs that I wouldn't want, and 'third highest ranking al-Qaida leader' is right at the top. But I can tell you for sure that if I ever got that job, the first thing I'd do is narc out one of the top two guys so I could move up a notch. Apparently one of the perks of being in the top two is having a really, really good hiding place. The number 3 through 10 leadership guys are pretty much scurrying between mud huts and looking at the sky a lot."

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Peace Studies

Looking over Viper's options for social studies classes next year, we spotted "Peace Studies" on the course list. Count us among those in favor of peace. Who isn't? However, we don't have much patience with the moonbattery that occurs under the banner of the "peace movement" (e.g. Cindy Sheehan), and we don't have much use for the Nebraskans for Peace organization.

The problem, of course, is that these people think that good intentions and a willingness to split differences will automatically solve any conflict. It follows from that (in this way of thinking) that everything would be fine, if the US (or Israel) would just stop irritating our enemies and listen to their concerns. Sadly, their main concern is often a desire to kill us or rob us, and talking it through with them is just going to get us killed or robbed. There is evil in the world, but the "Peace Movement" thinks it's all in the White House.

According to the blurb, the Peace Studies course:
"... offers an intellectual grounding in the methods, history and practice of peacemaking. The course is theoretical as well as practical. The peacemaking skills of Gandhi, King and history's other proven peacemakers will be discussed."
We have great admiration for Gandhi and Dr. King, but an absolutely essential element of their success was the underlying good of the governments they were facing. Against the ruthless tyrants of the world, where speaking up gets you killed, different approaches are needed.

What this course really needs is a thorough analysis of the peacemaking skills of Neville Chamberlain. Compare and contrast Chamberlain's legacy vs. King and Gandhi. Why did Chamberlain's policy, which he called Appeasement, become the very definition of failed negotiations? It comes down to who they were negotiating with. Chamberlain's failure to recognize the nature of his adversary was enormously costly. Churchill and others could see that the Nazi regime could not be trusted, but Chamberlain refused to see it.

We haven't taken the Peacemaking course, of course. Tycho didn't take it, and Viper won't be taking it either. Perhaps it does cover how to recognize the cases where a purely "peacemaking" approach is bound to lead to ruin. Perhaps.

Term Limit Lawsuit

The details of the lawsuit filed by three Nebraska state senators have been made public. Their best hope appears to be an argument that the law has an ambiguity that no one noticed, even though it's been in effect since 2000: "The argument is drawn from one sentence of the three-sentence term limits law crafted by a national group that advocates term limits. It defines a term of service in office as anything 'more than a half-term' -- or just more than two years.

'Because ineligibility occurs when any senator in his or her second term has served 'more than half of a term,' approximately 20 of Nebraska%u2019s current state senators ... are right now vulnerable to disqualification as they are beyond the middle of their second term,' says the lawsuit crafted by Lincoln attorney Alan Peterson. 'By the literal terms of the (term limits law), they appear to be ineligible even to finish out their present four-year terms.'"
Well now we know why they didn't file the suit earlier. This interpretation seems to be a stretch to us. If it's so ambigous, why didn't anyone see it that way before? They also included the 14th Amendment argument, but that is considered unlikely to prevail:
"In at least two other states, there have been challenges that argued term limits violated the U.S. Constitution, but the challenges failed in federal circuit courts.

Arguments related to the half-term language in the Nebraska lawsuit may be a 'new wrinkle' in term limits court challenges, said Michael Pitts, a visiting professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who specializes in election law.

'Federal constitutional challenges to term limits have not been successful in the past, and this will probably be an uphill battle,' Pitts said of the lawsuit.

'Courts have not found term limits constituting a severe burden on either voters or candidates.'

[Neb. Sec. of State] Gale did not criticize the court challenge, calling it part of the Democratic process."
That "Democratic process" seems to be a bit of a Freudian slip on the part of the Lincoln Journal Star. Of course Gale said, "democratic process," but trying to find a court to overturn the results of elections does seem to be part of the Democratic process these days.

Blogging Blahs

Ryne at Panhandle Pundit comments on what we might call "bogger burnout." The original impetus for Ryne's post is this one at Begging to Differ.

We've been suffering our own "blogging malaise" lately. We're not sure if it's ignorance or apathy. Actually. we don't know and we don't care. :^)