June 29, 2006 - June 22, 2006
Monday, July 18, 2005
Games of the Left
The negative is finally proven:
Salman Pak never trained al Qaida terrorists.
. I read Hugh Hewitt's weekend blog entry
the left's practice of distorting and misrepresenting evidence in
factual matters that pertain to politics. It's an excellent analysis of
the difference between propaganda and information, but he seems
flabbergasted that otherwise affable liberals are so willing to
participate. He sets about dissecting lefty blogger Kevin Drum's
rhetorical assault on the case for ties between Saddam's Iraq and al
...his blog this morning.. perfectly
illustrates the effect of lousy analysis combined with invective
combined with the assertion of a conclusion that will harden the left's
position that is untenable with the public, as has been proven by two
cycles of elections.
...but he can't help also observing that:
Kevin... by the way is a pleasant
fellow in person who in my two or three conversations with him has
never adopted the tone he routinely embraces on his blog...
From this beginning, Mr. Hewitt goes on to make several points. First,
he demonstrates that Kevin Drum is at least being disingenuous in the
construction and semantics of his argument that there were no
appreciable links between Saddam and al Qaida. Hewitt's conclusion:
I am not trying here to fight this
debate, but to note that in the lead pipes of the blogopshere, there is
no debate, no room for new information, or even the remote possibility
that on any issue related to the al Qaeda-Saddam connection, the left
could be wrong.
Kevin just happened to be writing on this topic today, and just
happened to perfectly illustrate my point. There's a Gresham's Law of
information and analysis as well as currency, and it is at work in the
left side of the blogosphere where lousy logic and terrible habits of
mind are being nurtured and praised.
After a praiseworthy golf interlude, Hewitt resumes his essay to
propose (my words, not his) 1) that the left's style of argumentation
is costing it the opportunity to make conversions among moderates, 2)
that what he calls center-right bloggers are much more successful in
proselytizing independents because they care more about facts and
honest analysis, 3) that this success is owed in large part to the
predominance of lawyers among the center-right bloggers, and 4) that
the center-right blogosphere (CRB) is having a greater impact on the
political scene generally because it demonstrates what might be called
superior character to the lefty blogosphere; i.e., it is more
professional, more serious-minded, more focused on ideas and their
underlying logic pro and
funnier, and -- by inference -- less ruthless in its treatment of the
positions and people on the left.
Presumably, Mr. Hewitt's gentlemanly assessment of Kevin Drum is
intended to be an example of such center-right superiority.
I agree that Mr. Hewitt is a gentleman, but I disagree at least in part
with all the points I've inferred above. It's true that I may be
putting words into his mouth, but it's not my intention here to set him
up. It's simply that so much of his argument consists of putting
forward examples of the good guys in the CRB that some, more succinct
inferences seem permissible.
Such as this one: I think Mr. Hewitt is urging us all to be fair,
objective, lawyerly, reportorial, and nice. I'll respond to this by
presenting a few objections to the items on the list and then offering
a platform of disagreement that encompasses them all.
1. The left's style of
argumentation is costing it the opportunity to make conversions among
. Here, I believe Mr. Hewitt is specifically suggesting
that the rape, pillage, and destroy mentality of the lefty bloggers is
also infecting the MSM and reducing its credibility. He's therefore
arguing that the Kos's and Atrios's and, perhaps, the Kevin Drums and
Josua Micah Marshalls as well are hurting their own cause not just in
the blogosphere but in the minds of the general public. He cites recent
Democrat election losses as proof. I would cite them as evidence of the
Overall, the left has never coalesced around so radical an agenda as
the one their issue-by-issue flamethrowing tends to obscure. The agenda
is to subject the President of the United States to an assault on his
abilities, motives, and character so continuous that mere antipathy can
be substituted for any meaningful set of policy alternatives. Beyond
its anti-Bush sentiment, the Democrat Party can offer no coherent set
of policies (beyond the antique trinity of pro-choice, higher taxes,
and socialized medicine) that could be construed by voters as a
positive and hopeful path to the future.
Despite this vacuum at the center of the liberal mind, the Democrat
Party has achieved one tie and one close electoral college outcome in
the last two presidential elections, and it has achieved virtually
identical outcome in the U.S. Senate. In addition, as a party lacking
the presidency and majorities in either the House or the Senate, the
Democrats have nevertheless managed -- with the help of the supposedly
"poisoned" MSM -- to prevent multiple Republican presidents from
establishing a truly conservative supreme court, to promote and advance
a secularist anti-Christian cultural change in both government and
private institutions despite an overwhelmingly Christian U.S. populace,
and to reduce popular support for the war on terror and popular belief
that there is a valid connection between the war on terror and the Iraq
War. To my mind, this performance is tantamount to a stunning victory
for a party that is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
How can this have been accomplished if the American people dislike the
bitter rhetoric of the left, doubt the credibility of the mainstream
media, and in many ways seem to be trending conservative? The answer is
that most people DO distinguish between the message and the messenger,
and the Democrats know it. It is the loudest and most uniformly
repeated message that is most likely to be believed, and the ferocity
of the message's advocates is also a contributing factor, even when
that ferocity is ugly, personal, and irrational. The old saying "where
there''s smoke there's fire" is an old saying because a lot of people
Furthermore, most people do not give enough of their attention and
analytical ability to public affairs. This is partly due to the nature
of mass media -- in your face today too close to back away from, so far
distant from view tomorrow that any effort to see it whole kens naught
but a tiny speck. All that's left after the usual MSM mauling of an
issue is an impression flavored by an emotional stink of some kind. It
was ugly... not good for the President... does he know what he's
2. Center-right bloggers are much
more successful in proselytizing
independents because they care more about facts and honest analysis.
Not really. They can be highly effective at elevating certain stories,
certain issues that the MSM wishes to twist or suppress. But they still
do not possess anything like a high-speed broadband connection to the
mind of the average voter. Given time and enough support among the
intellectual elite, Dan Rather's version of Rathergate (mistakes made
but not intentionally or negligently) will be accepted by a majority of
the body politic. This despite absolute
provided by the CRB that the documents he used and defended
were forgeries. It's possible the CRB played a role in shoring up
conservative and moderate support against the tsunami of propaganda
spewed by the MSM during the 2004 election, but given the polar nature
of the choice between candidates, Bush should have won a 45-state
landslide. He didn't come close. And since the election, popular
support for the U.S. military and its mission in Iraq has continued to
flag at a fairly steady rate. Impossible? The message is getting
through -- independents may disapprove of Kos, but a lot of them still
like good old Peter Jennings because he hides his "poison" behind
avuncular smiles. Against this kind of power, the CRB is still a skinny
finger in a dike made of swiss cheese.
3. This success is owed in large part
to the predominance of lawyers among the center-right bloggers
I've already disputed the success. Now I'll dispute the effectiveness
of a CRB dominated by attorneys. This is, by the way, a key precept of
Hugh Hewitt's book Blog, and I have made fun
of it in the past. That was probably mean, so I'll spell it out more
reasonably here. The entire purpose of a legal education is to train
formerly intelligent minds to analyze every question in accordance with
the narrowest applicable principle(s). This is supposed to ensure
airtight logic and create a debate position that is unassailable even
in the face of considerable emotional bias. That's why well trained
attorneys are good at winning both debates and court cases. It's also
why attorneys tend to make lousy leaders and inspire remarkably low
levels of general respect and personal allegiance. (Surprised to hear
someone say this? Give me your list of great American presidents who
were also lawyers; I'll spot you Lincoln, and you take it from
there...) The reason? They have a hard time understanding that you can
be right on the facts and the logic and still fail in your cause
because your opponent knows
he is right in the larger sense of things. There are times when facts
don't matter much if they matter at all.
The truth is, lawyers are generally awful at identifying the big
picture issues that would make their case easier to argue with the
"reasonable man" they pretend the law was written to reflect. The topic
Hugh Hewitt used as his prime example of faulty liberal analysis is
also an excellent example of my proposition. Every time a leftwing
shrike or a Democrat politician asserts that it has been proven there
were no ties between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, he is wrong --
absolutely wrong -- by the most elementary principle of logic. You can't prove a negative.
Everyone who has ever suffered from a bout of jealousy knows this. It
doesn't matter how high a pile of exculpating evidence you amass, none
of it can ever prove that he/she isn't cheating on you.
That's the only principle of argument that really matters here. The
Bush administration suspected, in the wake of 9/11, that Saddam
was a past and continuing danger in the war on terror because he hated
the United States, had shown a predilection for acquiring weapons of
mass destruction, and participated in multiple clandestine ways in the
murky, treacherous, and violent politics of the middle east. For anyone
to appraise the quality of that decision now in presumably factual
proof/no proof terms is an act of outrageous if not deliberate
intellectual and moral dishonesty. And it doesn't matter if -- like
Ambrose Bierce, the meanest journalist in history -- the perpetrator of
such an attempt is polite in the assembly hall. He's a blackguard,
dishonest from the git-go, and refuting the facts he places in evidence
serves to authenticate the validity of a nonsensical position. And
that's what they count on. They can argue badly, but if you argue back
at all, they win. Kevin Drum is a low-rent Iago.
And, as it happens, those of us who are not lawyers can be certain of
this judgment because the same lefties who claim proof of the negative
with regard to Saddam and bin Laden use the impossibility of proving a
negative in all their pejorative claims about the President, the
Republicans in Congress, and conservatives in the country at
large. They know that in the cut-and-thrust of domestic
politics all that's required is to make the heinous charge in the first
place. It can never be entirely disproven How many Republicans
still wonder, in their heart of hearts, whether Clarence Thomas really
did make dirty jokes about pubic hair with Anita Hill?
This is the basis of the whole left/liberal assault on the Bush foreign
policy. Make the charges, keep making the charges, disregard whether or
not the charges are mutually exclusive (war for oil? war for familial
vengeance? war for crusading fundamentalist Christianity? war for the
Zionist conspiracy? war to distract from the failure to get bin Laden?
war to disguise complicity in 9/11? All
true, by gum), and greet every attempt at reasoned rebuttal with
sneering, overweening contempt. Lawyers are powerless to win such an
engagement in the same way that those who seek to win the war on terror
by treating it as a law enforcement problem are. It's a function of
fundamentally misunderstanding the enemy and the nature of the conflict
he is waging.
I am NOT saying that the lawyer bloggers in the center right are no
good. They have many valuable contributions to make. But I AM saying
that the blogosphere is not some debating club or informal court of law
under another name. It is an electronic Hyde Park Corner, the sort of
venue in which Karl Marx convinced just enough intelligent people to
follow him in promoting what would become the most costly experiment in
human government the world has yet produced.
4. The center-right blogosphere
(CRB) is having (and ostensibly will have) a greater impact on the
political scene generally because it demonstrates what might be called
superior character to the lefty blogosphere; i.e., it is more
professional, more serious-minded, more focused on ideas and their
underlying logic pro and con, funnier, and -- by inference -- less
ruthless in its treatment of the positions and people on the left.
All of these attributes have their role to play, but these criteria are
not sufficient to constitute a complete set of Rules for Engagement.
The conservative side of this war -- and it is a war -- must include
voices who go beyond the Golden Mean into dangerous territory. There
must be voices of passion, stirring rhetoric, polemical cunning, savage
denunciation, reckless and bloodcurdling scorn, and a daringly
disrespectful sense of the absurd.
What does it take to bring down a Kos, an Atrios, a Joshua Micah
Marshall? Waves of warriors who are, yes, smarter than they are, but
also every bit as adept with the dirk and the flamethrower as they are.
World War II is the favorite historical example of the CRB. I'll remind
one and all that we didn't win that "just" war without Hiroshima.
The bloggers of InstaPunk use, and will use, all kinds of approaches to
defeat our enemies foreign and domestic. None of us went to law school,
and none of us is therefore guilty of the delusion that patriotism is
universal among the socialists, anarchists, marxists, and totalitarians
who find fault with every exercise of American power in the world. When
they're being reasonable, we'll be reasonable
When they're being vicious, we'll be vicious
in return. When they screw up, we'll be all
. When they're being absurd, we'll laugh in their idiot
. 'Nice' as a philosophy is about as ineffective as it is
boring and unimaginative. And someday, even a lawyer at the crumbling
barricades may turn and feel a moment's gratitude at being reinforced
by a band of cutlass-swinging buccaneers.
Or so we hope.
UPDATE: RattlerGator made an excellent comment here and a previous post at
may be helpful. For those who cannot read the essay off the link, it is provided in its entirety
by clicking the 'Continue' button.
Friday, July 15, 2005
COOL TV STUFF
the ravening Democrat
hordes have been hunting down Karl Rove, news from the entertainment
arena has been building to a climax. We are pleased to announce --
courtesy of Rita Cosby, late of the Fox News Channel -- that Valerie
Plame will be starring in an NBC television series based on her own
exploits as an undercover CIA agent. Rita, in her new capacity as
anchorman of the Big Girl News Network (BGNN) has learned that the
former spy is about to begin filming episodes for "Valerie Flame, DC
Undercover," which will debut on the fall schedule opposite Fox's "24."
NBC producer Mary Mapes says of the new series:
"Its advantage over "24" is that it's
real. R-E-A-L. Life as a spy in
the most dangerous city in the world. James Bond may jet off to Rangoon
and Pnom Penh, but Val has had to fight for her life on a daily basis
in Washington, DC. It doesn't get any rougher and meaner than that."
Thanks to BGNN, InstaPunk has obtained storyboards of the pilot episode
now being filmed, which you can see here
WARNING: It's definitely NSFW, much in the tradition of NYPD Blue and,
Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, is being played by the film legend
James Brolin. Asked for a comment, Wilson said, "I'm way too
nonpartisan to have an opinion. But if it's something Val wants to do,
I'm all for it. And I hope George Bush dies in the gutter and rots in
hell with an empty can of Drano in his hand."
Actually, we didn't ask him about about George Bush, but he volunteered
his thoughts anyway. We can only trust that the new series is as
nonpartisan as Mr. Wilson. And according to Ms. Mapes, it is. "No
politics," she said. "Just action. And sex. And violence. The idi--,
er, average American viewers will love it."
Let us know what you think.
We promised we would. Her necklace is
nicer than Laurie's.
The story that keeps going and going... A very good way to catch up on
the latest is to read Tom Maguire at
Just One Minute
. And for more InstaPunk storyboards, look here
Thursday, July 14, 2005
A new strain of Bird Flu appears to
affect the brain. Of certain people.
. Grave warning signs
of a potentially virulent U.S. epidemic appeared yesterday in the
online news service Alternet. Columnist Molly Ivins published the
following, apparently in response to a lambasting she had received at
the hands of Michelle
and other conservatives:
CROW EATEN HERE: This is a horror. In a
column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now
been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his
24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.
The only problem is figuring out by how large a factor I was wrong. I
had been keeping an eye on civilian deaths in Iraq for a couple of
months, waiting for the most conservative estimates to creep over
20,000, which I had fixed in my mind as the number of Iraqi civilians
Saddam had killed.
The high-end estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths in this war is 100,000,
according to a Johns Hopkins University study published in the British
medical journal The Lancet last October, but I was sticking to the
low-end, most conservative estimates because I didn't want to be
accused of exaggeration.
Ha! I could hardly have been more wrong, no matter how you count
Saddam's killing of civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein
killed several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. The massacre of
the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 killed at least 8,000; the infamous
gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja killed 5,000 in 1988; and
seized documents from Iraqi security organizations show 182,000 were
murdered during the Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, also
In 1991, following the first Gulf War, both the Kurds and the Shiites
rebelled. The allied forces did not intervene, and Saddam brutally
suppressed both uprisings and drained the southern marshes that had
been home to a local population for more than 5,000 years.
Saddam's regime left 271 mass graves, with more still being discovered.
That figure alone was the source for my original mistaken estimate of
20,000. Saddam's widespread use of systematic torture, including rape,
has been verified by the U.N. Committee on Human Rights and other human
rights groups over the years.
There are wildly varying estimates of the number of civilians,
especially babies and young children, who died as a result of the
sanctions that followed the Gulf War. While it is true that the
ill-advised sanctions were put in place by the United Nations, I do not
see that that lessens Hussein's moral culpability, whatever blame
attaches to the sanctions themselves -- particularly since Saddam
promptly corrupted the Oil for Food Program put in place to mitigate
the effects of the sanctions, and used the proceeds to build more
There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by
Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my
comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.
I was certainly under no illusions regarding Saddam Hussein, whom I
have opposed through human rights work for decades. My sincere
apologies. It is unforgivable of me not have checked. I am so sorry.
There's reason to believe Ms. Ivins erred again in using the word
'crow'; 'jay' might have been the better choice. Why? In the wake of
her apology, a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control in
Atlanta issued a statement requesting the columnist to contact her
physician and the CDC immediately. While no elaboration was offered at
the time, subsequent contacts with the CDC have uncovered an alarming
possibility -- that the long feared mechanism by which avian
flu might "jump" to human victims has been established.
Dr. Aldous Pennywhistle of the CDC, who asked to remain anonymous,
explained the details to XOFF News science correspondent Ernest
In order for such a jump to occur,
there must be chemical compatibilities at the cellular level. This
particular strain of Avian Flu infects the brain, and most human brains
have no commonalities with the avian brain. Or so we thought.
Unfortunately, it now appears that a considerable population of human
beings -- especially those of extremely advanced moral intelligence and
conviction -- share certain biochemical properties with the common blue
jay. We are very concerned that such humans can indeed be infected by
airborne particles from infected blue jays. The disease begins in the
base of the brain and spreads, causing the normally screechy and
bullying jay to become docile, submissive and, in avian terms, almost
polite. These are the signs we must be on the alert for in the
vulnerable demographic of the human population.
At our behest, Dr. Pennywhistle compiled
a list of "20 Warning Signs" which, if observed in the subject
demographic, would constitute proof that Avian 'B' had "jumped" to the
human population. This is important because however few or expendable
the initial victims are, they can easily transmit the disease to other
humans, even those who do not possess avian brain chemistry. And since
Avian Flu has been fatal in 50 percent of recorded human cases, we
should all be watchful. Here, therefore, is Dr. Pennywhistle's list of
1. Columnist and social butterfly Tina
Brown calls a press conference to confess that she is a parasitic
self-important snob who should never have been allowed within a hundred
miles of the once august and now despicable New Yorker. She announces
that she is moving to a suburb of Iowa City, Iowa, to learn about the
"other America" she has scorned for so long. While there, she will not
join the country club or found a chapter of the Junior League.
2. Washington Post columnist Maureen Dowd launches a series of columns
in which she enumerates all the half-truths, cheap shots, dishonestly
edited quotations, and specious reasoning she has inserted into her
political commentary since joining the Post. She discloses that she is
banning herself permanently from the field of journalism and will
pursue a career as a New York City meter maid instead.
3. New York Times economist Paul Krugman appears on the O'Reilly Factor
to announce his resignation from the Times and from his chair at
Princeton University. "I am a disgrace to my profession," Krugman tells
O'Reilly. "I have distorted statistics, twisted the most fundamental
economic principles into their opposites, and engaged in a species of
invective that has no place in the intellectual sphere of which I am
supposed to be a leading light. I have done all this in order to
further an extremist political agenda that is emotional to its core and
has no connection whatever with the field of expertise I pretend to
4. Bill O'Reilly responds to Krugman by acknowedging, "I, too, have
been a pompous, overbearing ass, exploiting every possible political
and cultural issue for my own aggrandizement. It's time I stopped
writing bad books and peddling them between every interview segment of
my obnoxious show." After this, O'Reilly and Krugman announce they
are going to be married at Andrew Sullivan's house Saturday and will
start an antique shop together in New Hope, Pennsylvania.
5. MSNBC wag Chris Matthews announces at the beginning of his TV show
Hardball, "I have been thinking about what I said. All of it. And I
find that in all the millions of boorish, blatantly partisan and
intellectually dishonest monologues I have spewed from this chair, not
a single word was worth uttering. From this moment on, I am taking a
vow of silence." Afterwards, MSNBC's Microsoft email system receives
so many congratulatory messages that the nationwide Microsoft mail
network crashes forever.
6. Matthews's MSNBC colleague Ron Reagan steals silently away into the
night, never to be heard from again.
7. Liberal bloggers Kos, Atrios, and their minions at Democratic
Underground issue one-paragraph apologies for everything they have ever
posted on their sites and then shut them down permanently. Fellow
blogger Joshua Micah Marshall begins a detailed apology for his own
blog and posts photographs of himself looking contrite, sorrowful,
ashamed, sad, humble... the apology and the photo album are expected to
be complete sometime in the year 2037.
8. Former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe holds a press conference to
apologize for wasting everybody's time with silly, overblown, and
needlessly vituperative charges all these years. He announces that due
to a sudden attack of conscience about his unearned $14 million
WorldCom windfall, he has decided to join convicted WorldCom CEO
Bernard Ebbers in prison and will serve out the entire 25-year sentence
with him. "It's about time I walked all my fancy talk about corporate
criminals," McAuliffe says before donning an orange jumpsuit and
handcuffs for his ride to the penitentiary.
9. Current DNC Chair Howard Dean issues a comprehensive new strategy
for the Democratic Party. In part, the document says, "It is time for
all Democrats to start finding the same kinds of excuses for our own
country's actions that we have always found so conveniently for the
despots, killers, fanatics, and enemies of freedom in the rest of the
world. Maybe we can't love our own country today or tomorrow, but if we
take it one day at a time, we may yet recover our sanity and learn
again to see the enormous benefits the United States has continuously
given to its own citizens and hundreds of nations around the world. It
may seem an impossible task for arrogant, narrow-minded twits like
ourselves, but we must have faith. Faith is the key." Dean is then
summarily fired by the Democratic National Committee.
10. Senator Robert Byrd resigns from the U.S. Senate in a tersely
worded letter to Vice President Dick Cheney. The text reads, "I am
resigning my senate seat, effective immediately, without any of my
usual ludicrous rhetoric. I was once a member of the K.K.K. I am a blot
on the history of my illustrious family name. There is no place in the
senate for me or anyone like me. I apologize to you, to the
President, and to all the Presidents and politicians I have pretended
to be superior to. Farewell."
11. Dan Rather ignores the teleprompter script on a 60 Minutes segment
to tell the folks, "I want to clear something up. I lied about the Bush
National Guard story. I was too blinded by hatred of the President to
recognize at the time that the documents were forged. But I do know now
that they were forged. I'm going home now. Cour--, uh, forget that. I'm
going home now."
12. Pinch Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, inexplicably
terminates publication of the paper. Hounded by reporters for an
explanation, he responds, "Oh shut up. You make me as sick as this
pitiful excuse for a newspaper. My daddy would understand."
13. In the midst of his regularly scheduled screed on Air America, Al
Franken suddenly lapses into his SNL Stuart Smalley character and
insists that the most important thing about American political life is
forgiveness. Soon he is on his knees blubbering and begging for
forgiveness from everyone he has ever defamed. The behavior is
infectious and he is soon joined by Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes
in an orgy of lachrymose plaints for absolution. From around the world,
other leftwing celebrities jet in to participate in a global event that
will come to be known as LiveAche. Subsequently a 4-CD set is published
featuring tearful apologies from the likes of Madonna, George Clooney,
Sean Penn, Whoopi Goldberg, Susan Sarandon, Sharon Stone, Barbra
Streisand and her dim bulb husband, Linda Ronstadt, and Rosie
O'Donnell. The CDs outsell the entire opus of the Beatles, and the
proceeds are donated to the Michael Moore Emergency Healthcare Fund.
14. Michael Moore is hospitalized after consuming 300 pounds of
birdseed in a single sitting. Doctors manage to save his life, but he
refuses to leave his bed and subsists thereafter on a diet of sunflower
seeds and suet.
15. Columnist Julianne Malvaux apologizes for calling America a
"terrorist nation." She tells her readers, "I can't explain why I said
it. I've thought and thought about it, and the only conclusion I can
reach is that I said it because I'm stupid, selfish, bigoted,
ungrateful, and obnoxious. I hope I'm wrong about that, what with being
so stupid and all, but I'm afraid I must be right. Which, to look on
the bright side, would be a personal first."
16. Former Vice President Al Gore publishes an autobiographical book
titled, "Thank God I Lost the Election," describing in meticulous
detail the disastrous policies of appeasement and economic strangulation he would have pursued had his attempt to
steal the 2000 presidential election succeeded. In the final chapter he
congratulates the voters for having had the wit to see through his
charmless personality to its empty core and issues apologies for his
recent oratorical excesses, including calling President Bush a
"betrayer." He declines the opportunity to go on a tour promoting
the book and instead moves back to Tennessee, where he opens a dollar
17. Defeated presidential hopeful John Kerry suddenly gives the Boston
Globe permission to publish all the details of his military career. In
a phone interview with Rush Limbaugh, he apologizes to the Vietnam
veterans who were offended by his antiwar activities and to George W.
Bush for a host of insults. Specifically, he acknowledges that it was
inexcusable for a licensed pilot like himself to pretend that there's
anything cowardly about flying fighter jets, that it was duplicitous in
the extreme to pretend that he was somehow smarter than Bush when they
got about the same grades at Yale, and that it was wrong to run for
president in the first place if you had absolutely no ideas what to
do if you won.
18. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein leave the Congress
without explanation to set up a homeless shelter in San Francisco.
19. Hillary Clinton resigns from the senate, divorces her husband, and
sets up a home for unwed mothers in Arkansas.
20. Senator Edward Kennedy is found wandering on the
riverbank at Chappaquiddick, incoherently imploring some unidentified young woman
to forgive him. He is eventually led away and put into a very nice
facility that deals with that sort of thing.
Now: if any of you observe or read about any of these behaviors, please
contact the CDC at once. All our lives might hang in the balance. And:
if any of you know of other warning signs not listed by Dr.
Pennywhistle, please forward them at once to our Comments section.