Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/22/2002 12:29:00 AM (Archive Link)
So I was thinking the other day about the report the CIA put out saying that Iraq may not be as big a threat as we thought… at least currently. Immediately, all sorts of people jumped on it as the reason for why action against Iraq was wrong-headed. It was heralded, lifted-up and praised. What I thought was odd about this is these were the same people who were mercilessly criticizing all of America’s various intelligence agencies after the 9-11 attacks. With one favorable report, the CIA went from being backwards, inept, and ineffective to being spy masterminds!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/22/2002 12:28:00 AM (Archive Link)
There’s an article here on CNN.com concerning the North Korean situation. Nothing too enlightening. What I loved, though, was the very last part:

“Clearly disdainful of Clinton administration overtures to Pyongyang, one of the [Bush administration’s] senior officials said, ‘They could have learned from past experience that bad behavior gets rewarded. That is not something this administration is into.’”

Nice.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/22/2002 12:28:00 AM (Archive Link)
You may recall about a week ago, San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Terrell Owens pulled a little stunt in the game against the Seahawks in which he immediately pulled a pen from his sock after making a touchdown, signed the ball, and gave it to his financial advisor. He’s been derided by some in the media for his ostentatious action. Owens, though, defended it thus, “You have a white guy as an announcer and sportscaster. Me, I’m black. I do it and I’ve already done some stuff in the past. Were (African-Americans) more expressive than the white guys. You look at the skilled players. We’re the ones that get into the end zone. We get in the end zone more than they do.” Simply put… it’s a race thing. The white guys just don’t understand the celebratory spirit of black players. You will recall that Terrell Owens is the same guy who spiked the ball on the Cowboys’ midfield star during a Thanksgiving Day game… twice. It’s unfortunate that Owens has to cover up displays of classlessness and vulgar pomposity with the excuse that he’s black and that’s what black people do. He’s actually serving to establish a stereotype for all black players. I don’t recall Barry Sanders ever doing something like this after a touchdown. I don’t see Priest Holmes doing it now. Players score touchdowns every week without behaving poorly. It’s like the old saying, “When you get in the end zone, act like you’ve been there before.” Anyway, Owens’ comments can also be construed as racist… what do you think the public response would be if Brett Favre said something about how white guys tend to be the quarterback more often?

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/18/2002 02:25:00 AM (Archive Link)
Ah, it warms my heart to read about Iraq going through a democratic election. It was a chance for the people to decide whether they approved of a despotic, tyrannical regime or if they feared it too much to say otherwise. The ballots themselves only had two choices concerning Saddam Hussein’s reelection: yes and no. I imagine the question could have been rewritten as, “Do you not want to risk the secret police turning your life into a living hell or ending your life altogether? Yes or no?” A “no” vote, of course, would be irrelevant as it would enter a new ballot box that’s more commonly referred to as a trash can. Is the election laughable? Absolutely. It was absurd even before it began. Several years ago, a similar election netted Saddam only 99.96% of the vote. This time around, the election officials declared they were shooting for 100% and, lo, they got it: 100% of eligible voters voted and they voted yes for Hussein. In fact, they announced this long before it was logistically possible for them to be even remotely sure. I’m sure many of those in Europe who support Iraq wished that Saddam’s crew would have shown a little restraint in skewing results. If it had been reported that only 80%-85% supported Saddam, then at least the pro-Iraq folks could have pointed that out as proof of Saddam’s popularity and “legitimacy” since the election would have retained a slight shred of statistical believability.

One thing I’ve been interested in but haven’t read anywhere is what are the parameters used to define an eligible Iraqi voter? Apparently, there are 11,445,638 such people but I don’t know what makes them valid.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/18/2002 02:24:00 AM (Archive Link)
Just recently, the singer, Harry “Banana Song” Belafonte, said some rather unpleasant things about Secretary of State Colin Powell. Specifically, he said, “There’s an old saying. In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and there were those salves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master… exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him.” Several days later, to “clarify” himself, he said, “The idea that you work in the house of the master is almost in itself its own opportunity to do some mischief and made a difference, but when you are in that place and you help perpetuate the master’s policy that perpetuates oppression and pain for many others, then something has to be said about it. And the master in this instance, of course, was the president of the United States.” He was claiming that Powell’s current position in Iraq is nothing but foot-shuffling obedience to the mass’r, George Bush. He also referred to Powell as a sell-out and he lumped Condoleezza Rice into the same category. This absolutely disgusts me on several levels. Let me count the ways…

First, and I’ve stated this before, I think it’s outright shameful how many in minority groups tie racial identity to political positions. For example, you’re not truly black unless you support affirmative action and slavery reparations, vote Democratic, and think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are swell guys. If you don’t agree to the above qualifications, then you’re a self-loathing, race-hating, sell-out Uncle Tom. It’s as if you’ve been excommunicated from your race because of what you think. It’s horrible that one’s sense of self must be tied to what others have decreed it must be. To make it worse, when they disagree with the person, they merely slap on the Uncle Tom label and leave it at that. No effort is made to debate the merits of the argument… they merely label them as an “other,” a non-black… and worse, an anti-black. This is precisely what Belafonte is doing to Powell. He refers to him as nothing but a mere house slave who won’t speak his mind. He even makes the connection that if Powell were truly black, he’d actually “do some mischief” from a political standpoint. The assertion is that Powell’s race dictates that he must do these things. The race is the political. Horrible.

Second, I think the manner in which these minority leaders cut down those of their own race is utterly self-defeating. Here you have Colin Powell, a man who rose through the ranks of the army, became the most powerful military man in the world, currently holds the highest position in Bush’s cabinet, and, if he had chosen to pursue it, would have been a serious presidential candidate. You also have Condi Rice who holds some serious educational and policy credentials and is one of the President’s closest advisors. Forget Jesse Jackson, forget Al Sharpton, forget Michael Jordan and Harry “Shake Senora” Belafonte… these are the two foremost African-Americans out there. These are two folks who beat the odds, beat the system, and have reached the paramount of prestige and power. These are the true role models for young black kids out there. And yet here’s Harry “Day-oh” Belafonte trying to rip them down, trying to put them in their place, and trying to destroy their accomplishments and racial identity. “You don’t want to be like them, kids… they’re not really black… they’re not really like one of us.” Agony!! It’s as if the African-American “leaders” ran civil-rights as if it were a totalitarian, Communist entity (redundant, I know). You must stride lock-step according to their rules. If, in this field of wheat, a plant or two seems a little different or if a plant rises taller and stronger than the others, then it must be cut down and made to be like all the rest. I’ll call it Racial Totalitarianism. This is why the civil rights groups frustrate me so. They demand diversity in everything except their own group’s thinking.

Third, let’s say that Powell privately doesn’t like Bush’s policies. Let’s say he is toeing the Bush line. So? That’s politics. Race has nothing to do with it. Bush is the President and Powell is Bush’s representative to the world. That means that Powell needs to be representative of Bush’s policies as well. To do otherwise means he is a rogue element and doing a horrible disservice to the President and his country. If he has a strong enough conflict with Bush, then he’s free to resign at any time. This is politics, this is a job… and like any job, you sometimes have to do things you don’t necessarily agree with because your employer says so.

So yes, it infuriates me when people like Harry “8-Foot Bunch” Belafonte come out and make accusations against true role-models like Powell and Rice. It’s unfair, unwarranted, and counter-productive.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/18/2002 02:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Condi Rice, I read an article on NationalReview.com that mentioned her running for president in 2008. I found my reaction surprising… It occurred to me that I probably would vote for her if she ran. Now I don’t want to sound sexist, but before this, I really couldn’t see myself voting for a woman for president. It’s not that I set this up as a general rule or that I’m against the idea… it’s just that I couldn’t think of any female politicians for whom I would care to vote when it comes to that office. Rice, though, I like. She’s sharp as a tack and wonderfully articulate. Eight years (that’s right, eight) of cutting her teeth in the Bush administration and I think she could be a viable candidate.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/18/2002 02:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
You’ve probably already read in the news that North Korea has been developing its nuclear program for some years now and has been doing so in direct violation of an agreement with the U.S. Not so shockingly, this seemed to take nobody by surprise. The “Agreed Framework” was a 1994 appeasement agreement in which the U.S. gave North Korea fuel-oil, food, and “non-threatening” nuclear power plants and in return, North Korea would cease its nuclear weapons program. International blackmail at its finest. They tell us they’re going to develop the bomb unless we give them what they want. And we did. Love that Bill Clinton… yet another example of how he tried to sweep a problem under the rug instead of facing up to it. He’s the classic personality who says, “At least let there be peace in my day.” We should never provide any aid to a nation like NK. The country was on the ropes anyway and couldn’t support or feed itself and we only helped to prop up the dictatorship. If we can’t fight a country militarily, then we can at least let it destroy itself from the inside. True, there would be an unfortunate humanitarian toll involved, but keep this mind… it’s the government in power that is creating the depressing conditions. In the short term, aid helps the people there, but in the long term, you’ve damned far, far more people to continued tyranny and starvation by helping the government survive.

At any rate, NK now considers the Agreed Framework dead. I rather like to think of it as being still-born. I can just imagine Kim Jong Il and his cronies (or was Kim Il Sung still around at that point in ’94?) trying to suppress uproarious laughter as the papers were being signed. The NK officials have also indicated they’ve got more nasty stuff around than just possible nuclear weapons. It will be interesting to see how Bush handles this situation, especially in relation to the present Iraq affairs. One thing is definite… Bush was right on the money when he included North Korea in the axis of evil.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:31:00 AM (Archive Link)
Plenty of new stuff! Also, if you ever have comments, feel free to e-mail me at danman78ks@yahoo.com.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:30:00 AM (Archive Link)
You’ve probably already read about the recent events in New Jersey. Current Senator Robert Torricelli withdrew from the election for the express purpose of not endangering the Democratic majority in the Senate. The polls showed he was a sure bet to lose, so “the Torch” ducked out while he still could and let a better candidate take a shot. The problem was that the move was illegal. According to New Jersey law, you can’t fill vacancies after the 51st day prior to the election. When Torricelli left the race, it was well after that. The state’s Democratic committee came up with a replacement and the case went before the N.J. Supreme Court who said it was ok. However, they didn’t give any more of a reason than that they were liberally interpreting the law. What’s sad about this is they went against the very purpose of the law. It was constructed so as to prevent somebody from dropping out and being replaced just because they’re doing poorly in the polls. It was also meant to provide a smooth election process for the counties when it comes to ballots. The Court, however, threw all this out the window and appointed themselves the new Legislature by utterly recreating the law. It’s sad. The Democrats have given the excuse that the Court was right in its decision because it allows a fair fight between two opponents. They act as if Torricelli died or dropped out due to illness instead of dropping out so he wouldn’t lose. They had a fair fight and they were afraid to face it. It disgusts me, really.

Another aspect of this ordeal that is particularly abhorrent is that all the justices on the N.J. Supreme Court had conflicts of interest. Every one of them fit into one of several categories: A) they contributed directly to Torricelli’s campaign B) they contributed to his PAC C) they contributed to past campaigns for replacement candidate Frank Lautenberg D) they contributed to a PAC that contributed to Torricelli’s campaign or E) a combination of the preceding options. You can read about it here. Simply put, the fix was in. In a proper judiciary world, they would have all recused themselves and sent the case to Federal court. What’s really surprising (or maybe it isn’t) is that this information has gotten zero notice in the mainstream media. Personally, I think it’s the most galling aspect of it all.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:29:00 AM (Archive Link)
I watched President Bush’s speech tonight (if you missed it, read it here) and I have to say that I was quite pleased. As usual he said all the right things. He essentially went through, point by point, each of the criticisms that have been leveled against action in Iraq. As he did in his UN speech, he carefully detailed Saddam’s history, behavior, and WMD fetish and development. He listed the atrocities Saddam has committed, the lies he’s told, the weapons he’s developed, and made it clear that the Iraqi people will be better off without him. I think it’s something the American people need to hear. I love the way Bush uses the Bully Pulpit. Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed that the networks couldn’t take some time out of their vapid sitcoms in order to broadcast the speech. Yeah, the world’s changed, but let’s not interrupt Drew Carry.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:28:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Bush and speeches, I have to say that I like his (and his speech writers’) word choice and content, but his delivery is sometimes a little dry. I like to entertain myself by watching his eyes slowly go from the teleprompter on one side over to the middle and then they’ll dart over to the teleprompter on the other side so he can read the next line.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:27:00 AM (Archive Link)
I find the Arab world an amazing place. Popular opinion over there considers America and it’s populace to be corrupt, apostate, stupid, and overall inferior to themselves. Despite this, however, they blame the U.S. for all of its woes. Their culture is going downhill because of America, their unemployment is high because of America, America is militarily oppressing them. It must create a tremendous psychological strain that a country which you consider to be so far inferior to your own is actually so far superior in every measurable aspect; that you create this dichotomy in which you haughtily look down on this lesser being but also denounce it for its powerful oppression over you. It’s interesting.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:26:00 AM (Archive Link)
Check out this article on NationalReview.com. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. A few of the criticisms you’ll frequently read concerning the Israelis is that their practicing apartheid by holing up the Palestinians within a few locations, that they’re encroaching on Palestinian land, and that Palestinians aren’t allowed to become Israeli citizens. In this article, though, you’ll read about how Jews aren’t allowed to become citizens anywhere in the Arab world, which covers about 750 times as much geographic area as Israel, but that it’s almost pointless since the vast majority of Jews were scared off years ago. As I’ve said before when people claim the Israelis are committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians (a despicable Jew-Nazi reference that they think is clever), let the Arabs have the upper hand in the Mid-East and you’ll truly see a Holocaust. Considering their slander, invective, and shameless hate-mongering towards Jews, the Arab countries would kill them all if they got the chance.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:25:00 AM (Archive Link)
I often read complaints about America’s use of force and its willingness to use its military in situations. They, especially the Europeans, walk around feeling superior because of the peace they have and which they’ve achieved through their own diplomacy. This is nonsense. The entire world is currently living in the Pax Americana. The global population is experiencing a period of unusual peace and stability because the United States is here to provide it. America’s force and threat of force (real, implied, or imagined) keeps those with violent ambitions at bay. Rest assured, there would be far more war and suffering in the world if the aggressors didn’t have an outright fear of America’s might. This is true as it applies to Iraq or even China. If the U.S. were to dissolve tomorrow, the planet would be plunged into chaos as formerly timid nations went on the offensive against their neighbors and old rivalries were reignited. Those who only talk and credit their talk for peace fool themselves. Aggressors don’t respect talk… but they fear force.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:24:00 AM (Archive Link)
The other day, I read in the paper about some anti-war protestors. One of them was quoted as saying, “People are out of the practice of ‘screaming for peace’ – for doing the socially unacceptable thing. I think people haven’t quite regeared. They haven’t quite readjusted to the idea of being uncomfortable with institutions by being willing to speak out what is not popular.” I think this brings up something very odd about the movement. She clearly thinks that the protestors are not espousing a popular opinion and that it’s an opinion that goes against the majority. She takes great pride in being in the minority. The majority consists of the ignorant brain-washed who must be educated (re-education… well, I’m sure some of the protestors have Communist leanings). The movement then has one of two courses that it can take: either it remains in the minority or grows so large that it brings the majority over to its side. In the first case, they wind up battling the majority and the tacit will of the people. They contradict the very people they claim to represent. In the latter case, they themselves become the majority they previously resented and they can no longer be anti-establishment as they have become established. At this point, however, they would stop taking pride in being the minority and would shift to taking great pride in being the majority; they adopt the pride they denounced in their former opposition. It seems like a good set-up for self-hate to me. No wonder they always feel so guilty for everything.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
About a month ago, I was watching a D.C. rally on C-SPAN for Federal slavery reparations. I won’t go into details, but it was packed with lies, hyperbole, and false trauma. I couldn’t help but think that if they all put forth half as much time, energy, and money on improving their communities’ cultural, economic and capital well-being as they did on trying to get a thousand bucks from the government, they might actually accomplish something meaningful.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:22:00 AM (Archive Link)
From time to time, I read letters to the editor from well-meaning people who say we shouldn’t attack Iraq because we don’t want the innocent Iraqi civilians to suffer. I just have to ask these concerned citizens how they think these folks are faring now. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who treats his people as expendable pawns. He keeps vital goods and services from them so he can build up his WMD and war machine while also allowing him the PR plus of whining to the international community about the suffering he has inflicted on them but he blames it on sanctions. America once was considered an ideal that should be shared throughout the world. It was thought that all humanity would benefit from democracy, from free speech, from freedom of religion, etc. Somewhere along the line, though, we lost it. Do we not care that others are oppressed? Do we not care that there are people living under brutal dictatorships? Do we not care that a madman has placed an anti-aircraft battery atop an elementary school in Baghdad? Do we not care that some children must learn how to make grass-soup in North Korea? Do we not care that Chinese tanks run over democracy activists in Tiananmen Square and the Party claims not a single person was killed? When did we stop caring? The spread of the American ideal can’t be a defensive battle; it must be offensive. Unfortunately, that sometimes means war, but to remove oppression from the citizenry’s shoulders, it may be necessary.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:21:00 AM (Archive Link)
On a related topic, the U.S. has often been criticized by the liberal intellectuals for subsidizing certain dictators in the past… or so they say. They complain that America followed the SOB principle: he may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB. They claim that was bad, but what we do now is not bad, i.e. leave the SOB alone or contain him… as long as we’re not aiding him. It’s as if a man is beating a woman a few feet from you. It’s bad if you give him a baseball bat, but it’s perfectly ok if you just keep you and your bat to yourself… just don’t get involved. Isn’t it a greater sin not to use your superior bat against the man in order to free the woman?

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:19:00 AM (Archive Link)
Concerning the ongoing negotiations for readmitting inspectors to Iraq, the Iraqi regime constantly claims that this or that will violate their national sovereignty. Does anybody else find this term, “sovereignty,” unpalatable? Iraq shouldn’t have any sovereignty. They were defeated in a war and likely will be defeated again soon. It’s just one more example of how the Persian Gulf War was poorly executed at the end. A war that is correctly pursued doesn’t leave a sovereign state in the immediate aftermath. It leaves a conquered, temporarily occupied country that is then rebuilt. Generals of history past would be appalled that we stood at the gates of the enemy capital with an overwhelming force, but then yawned and walked away, leaving the chief perpetrator of the war still in power. Sovereignty… does Iraq have it? Yes. Should it? No.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/06/2002 07:39:00 PM (Archive Link)
I've noticed recently that this blog of mine tends to center about current events and other such related fare. So I've decided to start up a second blog... Dangerous Dan V2. This one will focus more on religion and philosophy once it gets going. Go there now if you wish, but there's not much there to see at the moment.

And don't worry... this blog will still get plenty of attention.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/06/2002 02:54:00 PM (Archive Link)
In a previous post, I talked about how the Chiefs' Priest Holmes was a good role model. Did I mention he's also a good chess player? See here.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/04/2002 12:44:00 AM (Archive Link)
An interesting observation came to me today while I was reading this CNN.com story about North Korea. It really doesn’t involve the article itself but the picture at the top. I was looking at that statue and realized that I had seen that pose before. The day before, there was a picture in the newspaper of a Baghdad park. At the center of this park was a statue of Saddam Hussein… in the exact same pose. Here’s a different statue of him getting in on the act. I also remembered seeing Lenin positioned the same way in bronze as you'll see here. It just occurred to me that repressive countries seem to like representing their important people this way… tall and proud, looking off into the distance with their benevolent right hand outstretched towards the future. Propaganda through metallurgy.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/04/2002 12:40:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you don’t keep up on football, let me point you towards this ESPN.com article about Kansas City Chiefs running back Priest Holmes. The man is very much a role model.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/01/2002 11:32:00 PM (Archive Link)
It appears that the formidable Johnnie Cochran has decided to take on the NFL. He’s claiming that the league’s hiring practices discriminate against blacks and he’s even come up with a plan to rectify the situation. The plan involves the stick and carrot approach with regards to draft picks. If a team develops a “diverse front office,” that team gets an extra pick. If a team refuses to interview minorities for a head coaching position, they lose a first round pick… a third round pick for lack of consideration for assistant coaching jobs. He’s also stated that if the NFL doesn’t take action, then he’ll sue ‘em. I’m assuming he’ll come up with some catchy phrase like, “If you don’t hire, you’ll feel the fire.”

I can’t stand Johnnie Cochran. In this matter, he’s using a “study” called, “Black Coaches in the National Football League: Superior Performance, Inferior Opportunities.” The report notes that black coaches win 1.1 games more per season than white coaches and reach the playoffs 67% of the time compared to 39% for the pale folks. That sounds like a good point until you find out the statistical aberration… there have been only 5 black head coaches since 1986: Art Shell, Dennis Green, Tony Dungy, Ray Rhodes, and Herman Edwards. This is also brought up to support Cochran’s analysis, but it weakens the previous argument. 5 men hardly compose a large enough sampling on which to base the coaching performance of an entire race. Oddly enough, Cochran is stereotyping… these five black guys did well, therefore all black guys will do well! What I think is really strange is the playoff percentages he drags out. Statistically speaking, most of the NFL head coaches are white. Therefore, white coaches would obviously compose the bulk of those sitting at home during the postseason.

Cochran also whined that black coaches are held to a higher standard, aren’t given a chance to prove themselves and are fired after one year. Let’s examine this, shall we? Art Shell coached the Raiders for five years. He got plenty of time, but was a little inconsistent after going 12-4, winning the AFC West and reaching the AFC championship game in 1990. After finishing 9-7 and 3rd in the AFC West in 1994, Al Davis let him go. Dennis Green got a big nine seasons with the Vikings (you know… that team with the Nordic mascot) and was let go after the 2000 season. He had performed very well in that time but couldn’t last through the playoffs. Nine years is also too long for any head coach in one place and he was having trouble controlling his players. Tony Dungy coached the Bucs for six seasons, was mediocre and was let go after several disappointing playoff loss seasons. Ray Rhodes helmed the Eagles for four years and they had the following records: 10-6, 10-6, 6-9-1, and 3-13. Hardly flattering. He also led the Packers for one season and went 8-8. Herman Edwards led the Jets to a 10-6 finish last year… nice but still third in the AFC East… and he’s off to a miserable 3-1 start this season in which the Jets have scored 13 points in the last three games. So what we see here is that black coaches have gotten plenty of time to prove themselves and are no more prone to being fired than any other head coach in today’s high-pressure NFL.

That leaves the question of whether or not the league’s owners purposely discriminate against blacks when it comes to hiring and interviews. I have trouble believing this. The NFL may have a bunch of old white men as owners, but they’re rich old white men and they like getting richer and they like the ego boost of a winning team. They’re businessmen and that means business comes first. I just don’t buy the idea that they’d refuse to consider a qualified minority coach if they thought the individual would help the team win and the franchise to make money. It’s like they say… people may be white, black, brown, red, or yellow, but the money’s all green.

Simply put, Cochran’s “proof” is nothing but a hype-filled, race-baiting game of smoke and mirrors. Nevertheless, he’s trying to intimidate the league, saying, “We can litigate this. We can bring a lawsuit. I think the NFL is reasonable. They understand that this can end up in the courts, and they’d rather not see that happen. But let’s see if we can have a dialogue. You only litigate after you’ve done everything you can to negotiate.” I imagine this prompted a big yawn from the NFL. The league is too powerful, too wealthy, too popular, and in too good a legal position to be intimidated by the likes of a shyster like Cochran. They are not in a risky legal, moral, or PR position. Johnnie’s taking on a little more than he should this time.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/01/2002 12:47:00 AM (Archive Link)
Sorry for the recent dearth of posts. I've been busy trying to set up my own personal website. Even after I get that up and running, though, this blog site will remain.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/01/2002 12:46:00 AM (Archive Link)
In the news recently, three congressmen are taking a little vacation in Iraq and meeting with Saddam Hussein. You can read about it here. One of them, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Washington), has suggested that Bush and company come on over and see if Saddam is honest about his efforts. By his statement, McDermott apparently thinks he is. In another comment, he opined that he thought the president would purposely mislead the American public in order to go to war with Iraq. White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was right on target when he expressed his disbelief that a U.S. congressman was more willing to believe Iraqi dictator/murderer/liar Saddam Hussein than President Bush. As I’ve noted before, I’m often amazed at how many people, especially those on the left, are more willing to believe and cater to closed tyrannical regimes than they are open democratic governments whether it be their own or others such as Israel. They honor that which they would abhor if it actually existed in the U.S. Truly, truly amazing.

A fun connection to this is that Trent Lott said that the congressmen should come home and shut up. McDermott’s response: “I'm speaking for the peace process. Lott is talking from absolute ignorance of what's going on on the ground. I think he ought to be a little more careful about what he says in a country where we value free speech. Dissent is an American right. Without it, it's not a democracy.” Feel the irony.