November 24, 2004 - November 17, 2004
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid! Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorant
UPDATE: Thanks unknown. An annonymous commentator left these URL's -- Jumbler and Cmabrigde.
Democracy -- Meaning Rule by Apes
Now, on to the future -- from 1996, anyway.
The year 2000. The year the will of the people was denied -- so, we've heard for the past four years
regarding the election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Here's how it turned out:
Now the BLUE States are RED! This wasn't universal, even in 2000. There are still Electoral College maps
out there that have the BLUE States BLUE and the RED States RED, but this eventually moved into general use.
And, let's not forget:
Above is the county-by-county map for the 2000 election. For now, just take a look at all that RED. Which,
as we've noted, should be BLUE.
All of this to get to the recent election in 2004. Now, the Democrats were going to set the record
straight. Now, everyone was going to show President Bush that he wasn't really the President and that a
proper election with the proper number of overseeing lawyers and litigators would ensure that the will of the
people would finally be heard -- and then:
So, what does it all mean? What it means is that the bulk of the country is fairly conservative. Most
people oppose abortion on demand and most oppose gay marriage. The other side is facing a moment of truth.
What will they do -- those BLUE States? The power held by these folks is formidable -- they control the
television networks, the movie studios, the public school teachers union, the newspapers, the magazines,
and most of the publishing houses. They've missed the boat with the AM radio having figured it was an
old technology and good for Bible preachers and Sports talk.
The Democrats may decide to move further left, which would be a mistake. But, without the left, who are they?
It is quite a pickle. The challenge to Republicans is to build rival institutions to those in control of
Democrats. Fox News is a start, as is AM radio and the internet. But, where are you going to send your
kids to college? Where are you going to send them to high school? What entertainment are you going to
enjoy? What music? What movies? What books?
There is a bunch of work to do and victory in a Presidential election cannot be seen as anything but a start.
The Killers Still Got the Best Food
Looking for something new for Thanksgiving? The Fat Guy has a great idea -- take a look.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Democracy -- Meaning Rule by Apes
To continue with our post-election
analysis . . .
In 1988, the Republicans moved more to the center with President George H. W. Bush (the current President's
father) who had served as President Reagan's Vice President for the previous eight years. Here is what
What happened here? Well, this guy made President Bush look like a full-fledged conservative:
Another Massachusetts Liberal -- in this case, a State Governor.
Then commeth 1992. What the heck? President Bush had just wrapped up the first Iraq war and nobody wanted
to run against him -- well, there were two guys that thought it was a good time to run. Bill Clinton and Ross
Perot -- here is what happened:
Interesting to see that Republican States are still colored BLUE, not RED. Some of our readers were
shocked to see that the Republicans were pictured as BLUE and, in fact, thought we had made some
sort of mistake. But, no. These color representations were in fact the ones used during the
coverage of the campaigns we're highlighting here.
1992 is a good point to pause and consider what happened. The Democrats ran to the right of their normal
party platform. President Clinton had spoken of welfare reform, increased support for law enforcement, and
other issues new to the Democratic party in 1992.
Ross Perot also ran on some very conservative issues -- particularly in the financial realm. What with
being a billionaire, back when a billion dollars actually bought a lot of influence. Mr. Perot received
19.7 million votes (i.e., 18.8%). President Bush received 38.8 million votes (i.e., 37.1%) and President
Clinton received 44.8 million votes (i.e., 42.9%).
Now, for all the hooting and hollering we had to hear from the Democrats from 2000 through 2004 regarding
"Al Gore winning the popular vote," you'd never know they had a President that actually had more people
vote against him than for him -- by A LOT -- 44.8 million FOR and 58.5 million AGAINST. Wow. They didn't seem to mind
back then and seemed to have forgotten all about it by the 2000 election . . .
President Clinton proposed a tax increase that passed by a single vote in the House of Representatives and
a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President Gore. Mrs. Clinton proposed a very elaborate federal health
care system and President Clinton jammed the Brady Bill through which put all manner of silly restrictions
on gun use in the U.S. The Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994 -- control of which they held
since the Second World War -- they haven't retrieved it yet.
So, it seemed that the Republicans were ready to move back to the White House in 1996. But, then, they
put up this guy:
Now, Ross Perot had run again, but this time only received eight million votes (i.e., 8.4%) and
Senator Dole received 39.1 million votes (i.e., 40.7%) to President Clinton's 47.4 million
votes (i.e., 49.2%). Again, more votes against President Clinton -- 47.8 million FOR and 47.1 million
AGAINST. No complaints from the Democrats about every vote counting. A win is a win. Notice,
BLUE is still for Republican and RED is still for Democrat.
And, let's not forget that Sen. Dole alienated many a conservative voter denouncing Pat Buchanan supporters
as radicals and unwelcome in his party. So, Sen. Dole was attempting to run to the left of his base
in hopes of capturing the election. He failed.
Next we'll review the latest elections for President in the U.S. But, for now, take a look and remember --
and, if it's news to you, you'll want to do some poking around the internet for some more information.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Democracy -- Meaning Rule by Apes
We thought we'd take a little time to do some of that -- what they call -- post-election analysis. On the big
networks, this has typically taken the form of a group of down-cast analysts wagging their heads slowly as the
question -- "What can Democrats do to win?" -- is batted around between commercial breaks.
Well, none of that here. Just a little information and a few observations, and you can be on your way. First off -- 1980.
For our 20 to 30 year old readers, you were a babe in arms back in these days . . . but, here's what it looked like when
the red-states were red and the blue-states were blue -- no editor in his right-mind would have associated RED with
Ronald Reagan in 1980. That is because RED has always meant the REDS or the Communists. You can remember this because
Communists called for -- and got -- a bloody revolution. And, blood is RED. Also, they had symbols, like their flag
for instance, which had a subtle allusion to the color RED and blood, like this:
There were also little sayings and bumper stickers like, "Better Dead than RED," which meant that people
with these stickers or T-Shirts wanted the REDS to know that they, themselves, would rather be DEAD than
RED. Meaning, DEAD instead of Communists. And, since the Communists preached the bloody revolution, these
Dead than RED guys wanted to be sure the REDS knew that they had to kill them because they weren't going to
be RED. The fact that Dead and RED rhyme is just a bonus.
Anyway these "Better Dead than RED" folks voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. This is what they got for their
See? All BLUE. Why? Because no one would have associated RED with President Ronald Reagan. "How could
this happen?," you might ask. Well, he ran against this guy:
And, this guy:
And, as it turned out, it was "Just Peanuts."
Then, in 1984, the Democrats fielded this:
And, this is what they got for their trouble:
President Reagan remarked to friends, "I think they stole Minnesota."
If you'd like to see more, just leave a comment. For now, you can digest this and we'll work on the rest.
Friday, November 19, 2004
What is Everyone Talking About?
This is our third weekend since the election -- 11/02/2004. What is everyone talking about?
A brief survey . . .
Lot's of stuff at InstaPundit, including
a space tourism discussion; Karl Rove;
the cost of mega-trials; his brother's blog;
and, he gave some blood.
Hugh Hewitt discusses the exile of the Salvation Army from
Target department stores. Evidently, he's been on this for a couple
of days now.
Michelle Malkin is commenting upon LIBERAL
RACISM AND CONDI RICE (we really don't like calling the good doctor, "Condi." It just seems overly-familiar.
We're probably just being a bunch of asses.); the appeal of Sheryl Hardy in THE
DEATH OF BRADLEY MCGEE; and, from last Saturday, the kid
smuggled into the U.S. in a piñata. Maybe that should be as a piñata.
Kos hasn't posted anything for the past couple of days, but DemFromCT seems
to be keeping the blog a-goin'. DemFromCT seems to be happy about problems
in Fallujah. And, LondonYank seems happy to see the weakening
of the U.S. dollar.
The Afro-Netizen is talking about the racist
language used at Ebay. And, how
much money it takes to run a blog. Speaking of money, you can always support the on-going operations of
InstaPunk via the Amazon Cup in the top left panel.
Thanks to everyone who has been so kind these many years.
American Digest is taking a break, traveling
to Chico, California
Andrew Sullivan is talking about
of a young Jewish man shot in the head on the streets of Antwerp and provides a link to a San
Francisco regarding the murder of THEO VAN GOGH.
Little Green Footballs has a post regarding Sears/KMart's acquisition
of France. They are also posting about Professor
Shearer’s class entitled "Topics in Foreign Policy — The Bush Administration,” a lecture that uses
the Professor's intimate knowledge of President Bush gained by living across the hall from him during their
Freshman years at Yale.
And, finally, Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly
hasn't posted anything since October 24th.
So, there you have it. A bunch of -- what? Not much. Which is kind of interesting in it's own way.
And, what are they writing about that Senator dude that ran for President? CNN/SI has him as
of the Year (Source
Archive). We can't add anything to all this. Have a great weekend.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
FOLLOW-UP: Nothing Worth Dying For?
MP sent in an interesting follow-up piece to our little commentary on
the murder of Theo Van Gogh. It seems
that there are other people that think it is important to look at the current war against Islamo-Facism as a --
don't say it -- religious war. Don't say it! It is a war on T E R R O R. Not R E L I G I O N.
It is a war on T E R R O R. Not R E L I G I O N.
Sorry, a little mind-control exercise. Back on topic. MP passed along an article entitled,
The assassin's master
sermon by Spencer (Source
Archive). The subject of the article, as the title betrays, is
the letter that the assassin
stuck to Van Gogh's chest with a knife. It was an open letter to Ayaan Hirshi Ali, a secular
Muslim, a member of the Netherlands' parliament, and the late Theo van Gogh's collaborator in a film
attacking Islam's treatment of women. Quite a resumé.
It actually gives Ali the chance to put her life on the line for her beliefs. Exactly the chance Wayne is
given in our headline link -- Beliefs, chapter 10ff.
Now, the question that everyone needs to ask is, "How can a book, written in 1991, have foretold just such an
encounter?" And, I hope everyone has taken the trouble to find out how Wayne faired. But, to find that out,
you'll have to read the book. Which is something that
may be difficult for some of you, but, if you really, really try, you can do it. If you don't want an
autographed copy of The Boomer Bible you can get the regular version at Amazon.com.
It should also be noted that there seems to be a bit of
controversy over who, exactly,
this Spengler guy is . . . check it out. Maybe
he'll contact us and clear it all up. Until then, we'll just have to interact with the writing . . .
UPDATE: Ayaan Hirshi Ali is a woman -- good call OldThumbs
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
We remember when Microsoft went after IBM. We all cheered. Now that Microsoft has become IBM we're always happy
to note when an underdog rises up to accept the challenge. How are they doing? A lot better as told by
Cynthia L. Webb in a piece in the Washington Post --
Internet Explorer (Source Archive). And,
it's FREE, which has to count for something.
We've used Mozilla here for years and encourage everyone we meet to
use it. We don't experience the little problems that IE users tell us about and we don't see all
the pop-up ads people seem to enjoy so much these days. But, we're contrarians.
It would also be a good time to point out other FREE products that can make your life easier. Even if you
don't do the programming yourself, you should make sure that your developers do -- especially if you're
paying the bills. Don't use Active Server Pages (ASP -- Microsoft) and Access (Microsoft); DO
USE PHP and MySQL. They're both
FREE and fully documented -- see PHP Manual
and MySQL Manual.
That feels better. Glad we brought it up.
Back to Archive Index
We've noticed that folks that come here from a Google or other search engine link are often just dumped
onto our main page -- they don't seem to track the permanent links that would bring you directly to what
you searched. So, we've put up a search feature here at InstaPunk. The search box in the left panel
should help you in your search for knowledge. Good luck.