December 02, 2007
Hugo Chavez declares victory in the rape of the Venezuelan Constitution.
The bully-boy from Caracas has bought the votes of the poor and uneducated via largesse from oil sales (but he has not significantly changed their lives because the infrastructure remains the same). Sadly, it will be sometime before the folk realize that they have been bamboozled.
In the anti-vote demonstrations Chavez showed his true colors with gunfire, intimidation, beatings and arrests of what could have been essentially peaceful demonstrations. No doubt Jimmah Cahtuh will be the first to raise a human rights issue now that the bully boy is triumphant.
I wonder who he will bring on as his Leni Riefenstahl? Michael Moore?
UPDATE: 9:00 PM CST - This may have gone up too early, perhaps the people of Venezuela may not have lost their minds. Reports coming in that Chavez may have lost the vote.
October 23, 2007
The following is a reprise of my post two years ago. The Hungarian Revolution was in many ways the start of the fall of the Soviet Union, it just took another 35 years for the rot that was the Soviet Union to fall apart. This is being reposted so that the heroes of the Hungarian Revolution are never forgotten, and that the enemies of freedom know what is ultimately in store for them.
Tuesday, October 23rd, 1956. Stuttgart, Germany. Morning, a school day for me, like any other day; up and at 'em. Breakfast, grab the lunch bag, kiss mom and dad, off to catch the bus for school. But it wasn't an ordinary day, slightly over 600 miles due East from where I played in the forest, from where on the weekends I wandered about in the little town of Vaihengen near 7th Army Headquarters, war was breaking out.
It was not much of a war as wars go, but it was a war fraught with danger for the world and for the next several weeks, a war of ideas, of freedom as much as a war of bullets, tanks and death. Imre Nagy had been ousted as Prime Minister of Hungry for being insufficiently Communist and too liberal and the people of Hungry in general and Budapest in particular were upset, angry and willing to say so. Demonstrations began in Budapest, soon numbering thousands and tens of thousands. They marched, chanted, and demanded the restoration of Nagy.
The demonstration began as a march of solidarity with Wladyslaw Gomulka the Polish leader ousted for being "too liberal" and ended as a call for freedom and removal of the Soviet's from Hungry. As the crowds grew, Ernő Gerő, First Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party, and someone known for his hard line stances, went on the radio to say that demands for separation from the Soviet Union were lies and rumors. But the people of Hungry said otherwise. As the crowds grew, the demands became louder and louder, and they marched on the radio station to force a retraction. A heavy truck was used to try to batter a way into the station. Police opened fire and skirmishes between the demonstrators and armed police took place throughout the city. According to the BBC:
A running battle began to clear the crowd away from the building, while clashes between demonstrators and armed police broke out elsewhere in the city.That night, the Communist Party of Hungry met in emergency session and reinstated Nagy as Prime Minister. But the fuse had been lit, and the count down to revolution had begun.
When the crowds refused to disperse despite police opening fire on them, Mr. Gerő ordered Soviet tanks onto the streets.
The demonstrators, however, are showing no signs of giving up their protest, which is continuing into the night."
In less than 48 hours, the people continued their demands, and Gerő's tanks stayed on the streets. As the confrontation increased, the tanks opened fire pointblank into the crowds.
With hundreds dead and dying, with many more hundreds wounded the Communists fired Gerő and installed Janos Kadar. The Soviets began pulling out of Budapest on October 30th but Krushchev, fearing a spread of the "will of the people" sent them back in on November 4th with orders to re-take the city and firmly establish Soviet control over Hungry. The people of Budapest reacted with Molotov Cocktails and bravery unseen in resistance to the Soviet's for some time. But they were no match for the Soviets and slowly but surely the Russians re-established control over the city and countryside.
Nagy took refuge in the Yugoslav Embassy but the Russians kidnapped him and put him in prison. Nagy was tried for treason in a secret trial and executed in 1958.
I remember seeing the photographs of the slaughter, I remember having our "bags" packed in case we went to war with the Soviet Union and had to be evacuated. I remember Eisenhower calling for calm and a de-escalation of tensions. But the shadow of fear remained for sometime afterwards.
Scenes such as the one to the left would be repeated over the years as peoples sought freedom from tyrany; in Prague in 1968, in Warsaw, in East Berlin in 1989, in Lebanon in 2005. In Beireut in 1983, American and French troops, trying to keep the peace in Lebanon were senselessly murdered by those that think freedom can be stifled. The bottom line is that the search for freedom and self determination can be stifled and smothered for a while, but it can't be killed. Freedom always wins in the end.
July 01, 2007
April 08, 2007
Ideas such as freedom, universal rights, one man one vote, end of governmental terrorism, freedom to travel and to think and to print your thoughts; all these and more are feared by the oligarchy that is China today. And yet, there are those fellow conservatives who relish the idea of being banned in China and display that banner on their websites.
I don't understand that. I've believed, since the early days of the Goldwater bid for the Presidency that conservatives have better ideas than liberals. That so called progressivism and liberalism is so much more about "I know better than you what is better for you," than it is about human growth, dignity and etc. In other words, from my perspective, conservatism is a better political ideology than liberalism or progressivism.
So, it seems to me that conservative bloggers would want their words to get to the "common man" in China, to further inculcate in that individual the ideas that man is inherently free, that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That the "government" is too often the problem and not the solution, especially in Red China. With our words, there will be ideas and with ideas, the formation of a sense that the Chinese can begin to assert themselves. That is what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989 a group of students believing that there was a "better way of life" and erecting a "Statue of Liberty" proclaiming their desire to be free. The idea was so upsetting to the ruling class of China that the demonstration was put down with soldiers and tanks. This is the power that the idea of freedom has in China, and why it is so feared.
So, fellow bloggers, be not proud that you are banned in China, be angry because your words will not have the chance to help lead a people to freedom and you don't get to play a big part in the rise of eventually a free Chinese people.
December 09, 2006
And of course, my good friend and fellow Texan Texas Fred is up for Best New Blog Fred has a unique voice (literally as well as figuratively) and has been a guest on GM's Corner on internet radio many times.
I was recently interviewed by my good friend Jeff Blanco over at Louisiana Conservative. Jeff is a great friend, and was constantly there supporting me in the early fight against cancer. Jeff's blog is a good one to add to your list of must read blogs.
Cinnamon Stillwell has a terrific post up at her blog concerning the threat of anti-semitism at AMERICAN colleges and universities. Go read!
I found this over at Mike Austin's The Return of Scipio.
A commander-in-chief who refuses to command. A Congress that is unable to govern. A political class that has lost the will to defeat America’s enemies. An entire subset of our own nation that actively works for her defeat.
Of what use is the ballot if the only men who come to power are of this type? We seek Andrew Jacksons yet find only Benedict Arnolds.
We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.—C. S. Lewis
November 24, 2006
November 17, 2006
Such a place is the one I just traveled to. The blog of my good friend the Assistant Village Idiot, whom I call AVI. He wrote Not Their Tribe and, friends, it has been a long, long time since I've read something so powerful. Go, now, read. I have commanded. And by all means, leave AVI a comment on this great piece of thinking and writing.
October 27, 2006
One local woman, who asked not to be named, said after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby.So, let me get this straight. You don't care enough about your
She said: "I am furious and very hurt. Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish."
A tip 'O The GM Derby to Jeff @ A Little More To The Right
September 11, 2006
Yet, let a shibboleth of the left be challenged (Clinton was a terrific - though perhaps oversexed president) and watch the fur fly. The reaction of much of the left is almost comical, nay, it is entirely comical and I'll take a few snippits from here and there to prove my point.
First up my friend Marc Cooper (a self identified "progressive") posts "The ABC's of Panderning" in which he states:
L.A. Times media columnist Tim Rutten perfectly nails the shameless shlockmeisters at ABC who think it's just spiffy to capitalize on the pain of the 5th anniversary 9/11 to broadcast one more manufactured piece of dreck -- a two part "docudrama" on the Twin Tower attacks powered by blatant right-wing spin.Now, Marc is a friend of mine, and my 'blogfather' if you will and I highly respect him and his blog (though that does not apply to some of his more vociferous commenters). But gee could the rhetoric be more appalling, could the prose be a little more turgid? Understand please, as a progressive, Marc is no friend of the Bushes or the Republicans, but having said that, he is no friend of the Democrats either.
More amusing (if that is indeed the word) are some of the comments from that blog entry. This one for example:
NeoDude Says:Oh gosh, "Right-Wing nationalists." Codewords for fascists perhaps? Oh, the humanity!
September 9th, 2006 at 9:14 am
When has Right-Wing Nationalists (SALUTE!!!), in any Western tradition, not exploit a national tragedy?
How about this one (if you are a fan of conspiracy theories you will LOVE this one):
r. l. c. Says:Can you say "off base?"
September 9th, 2006 at 10:14 am
It really is obvious what happened here. These projects don’t get made overnight and when ABC Entertainment (NOT the news division) OK’ed this Bush was riding high - just been reelected and had increased majorities in both houses of Congress. And what were the pundits saying? Why the GOP wiould be ruling the roost for a long time to come and the Dems were in “Disarray” (a town near Vegas, I believe). So why not get in bed with right wing crazies? They would be in position to help the Mouse with issues like Intellectual Property and Media Ownership. Its not personal, just business.
(Hell Robert Iger was a Clinton Contributor, as were a lote of ABC/Disney Execs)
Sure the Dems would complain but what could they do? Well its now two months from an election that will probably produce a tsunami for them and the miniseries don’t look so hot now does it? That is what happens when you listen to experts!
But Marc's commenters are rational compared to others (although that is obviously not saying much). For example, Ann Althouse has a terrific post on some of these left-wing rantings here and she has a link pointing to something called "AMERICAblog" with some suggestions to sue, boycott etc Disney, ABC and Apple because of the so called docu-drama. A sample:
Certainly we're going to be live-blogging the show, Sunday and Monday. I'd appreciate those of you in Australia and New Zealand, if the show does air there shortly, please give us feedback as to what they cut and what's still in the show? It will give us a window as to what defamatory material Disney/ABC insisted on keeping in the show, which will help the lawsuits and our organizing.Aren't these the same guys who "demand" freedom of speech on campuses and other venues? Does that apply only to speech from their side? Funny, I thought that speech was free for ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. I guess not. But I digress, as funny as the posting is, some of the comments (over 380 of them) are even funnier (or would stranger be a better word choice?) For example, this little bon mot:
Secondly, when the show airs in the US, if Disney/ABC still run it, I want to be sure a number of us are live-blogging it to list the defamation and the errors. If Disney/ABC insist on making a cartoon out one of the blackest days in America history, then we will hold them responsible."
I think iTunes is a really good place to hit Steve Jobs and Apple. It is direct and to the point, and it is not platform-based.Wow, but this is mild compared to:
It is OUTRAGEOUS that they are offering this as a free download.
They would notice immediately if there was a slack-off in sales.
I have already written to Steve Jobs and the iTunes crew about this.
samia | 09.09.06 - 6:38 pm |
It appears that the governments use of the MSM for propaganda distribution is becoming extremely transparent. If we, as Americans, cannot stop this from happening, or becoming any worse, then we have lost the control of our public servents, and more drastic actions must be taken. Boycotts/leaflets/emails/videos/ demonstations etc.Joe Danger, what a nom-de-pixel that is. Ok lets see, the government controls the MSM enough to make it a propaganda arm of the Bushies. So, how did the NYTimes sneak by with those "expose's" of our efforts to listen in to Al Qaeda or monitor financial transactions? Hmmmmm?
Joe Danger | Homepage | 09.09.06 - 6:43 pm |"
OK, how about this one:
As well as an organized and long-term boycott of Disney and ABC, we should use this opportunity to call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.OK, now that really is scary. The fairness doctrine was less about fairness than it was a way to silence the broadcasters (radio and TV) from airing any "political" speech because the so called doctrine would allow opposing views time on air. General Managers would have a scheduling nightmare and we'd loose talk radio and have to go back to elevator music. No thanks! One more reason not to elect Democrats or liberal Republicans. Oh, and by the way, the above commenter's nom-de-pixel is "nervesofsteel" More like "nerves-of-tinfoil." What a frightened little bunny!
nervesofsteel | 09.09.06 - 6:50 pm |"
The latest (well, maybe not the absolute latest) lefty "talking point" (I'm being generous here you understand) is that this is NOT the same as Michael Moore's fatuous "Farenheit 9/11" which everyone now says was a "polemic." A polemic?
WordNetReally, seems to me that at the time many on the left didn't see any controversy at all, it was truth and a terrific slam on the Bush Administration (note: Marc Cooper, always his own man, saw it different and the vast majority of his commenters agreed - at the time, not now; now it's just a polemic).
poÂ·lemÂ·ic (p-lmk): adj : of or involving dispute or controversy [syn: polemical] n 1: a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology) [syn: polemicist, polemist] 2: a controversy (especially over a belief or dogma)
Again, I digress, the whole point of this little exercise is to point out the utter insanity of the left in regards to this docudrama. Reminds me of the "revised" words of the Bard: "The left doth protest too much, methinks."
Cross posted at The Real Ugly American
Update, I've only scratched the surface of the left's response to "The Pathway to 9-11" but James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has looked at how "The Left Remembers 9-11." It's an excellent read and I'm in awe of his article.
August 27, 2006
Woodruff i was asking Gm Roper about a specific but very important claim he made which ive argued is not only totally false but also quite revealing in its dishonesty and historical ignoranceThe issue being discussed was the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians at the re-establishment of the State of Israel and the Arab treatment of Jews at the same time. I maintained at the time that while some 600,000 + Palestinians left Israel some 1,000,000 plus Jews were expelled from Arab lands.
Ahmed took umbrage at my characterization of the differences and claimed that I was being dishonest and historically ignorant. Woody, my blogging partner rose to my defense with the following:
When G.M. gets back in circulation, he can take this up further with you. But, rest assured, he discusses issues honestly and intelligently. If you dispute his facts, then clear those up. If you dispute his honesty, then that "fact" of yours is wrong. [emphasis added]
Ahmed, will, I'm sure, be understanding if I disagree with his assessment. But he has a point of sorts, there is a lot of misunderstanding about what happened at the founding of Israel, what happened to both Jewish and Arab refugees and what the history says, especially since I'm being accused of being historically ignorant. Well, Ahmed, here are a few facts. You will, no doubt, dispute the source of these, but there are numerous citations to back up the quotes as you will see, some Israeli sources, some Arab sources and some United Nations sources, but all with substantial agreement that a substantial number of Arabs left the burgeoning state of Israel for a couple of reasons, but were not forced out at the point of a gun or by the evil Israeli IDF thugs in jackboots. So, lets begin the recitation shall we. more...
August 06, 2006
August 05, 2006
Periodically, I feel the need to remind people of a few things:
1) This web site exists for the sole purpose of publicizing and discussing whatever interests me, whenever it interests me, for whatever reason it interests me.
This includes whatever quirky whim strikes my fancy, at whatever time it strikes my fancy.
By the way, we've been talking about you, and we think you're getting paranoid. I hope you can deal with that.
2) "Conservative" means the following:
A.) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from preconceived notions of some “Reality Based” world/Point of View.
B.) Favoring proposals for openness and honesty in government, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others except when those ideas and behavior intrude on the lives of others against their wishes (e.g., the tenets of islamo-fascism); broad-minded within the limits of being tolerant as noted above.
That is a Platonic ideal I strive toward, not a paradigm I claim to represent. If at any time you think I fail to meet that ideal, I invite you to say so. The more polite you are in saying so, the more seriously I'm likely to take you. But I ain't Socrates, and I ain't Bill Buckley. You'll just have to live with that.
3) If my definition of "conservative" doesn't fit in within the confines of what Al Frankin or Michael Moore tell you that "conservative" means, well, too freakin' bad. It's GM’s Corner, baby. You're just living in it.
4) So long as people remain reasonably civil, and make reasonable efforts to avoid ad hominem attacks, I'm willing to let them say damn near anything they want here.
5) I'm more tolerant of personal attacks on me than I am toward contributors. But I make no claims to perfection in either area. I do my best. But, I'd really rather you direct your heat toward ideas you don't like, rather than people who chafe your buttocks.
6) Don't get upset if you find me arguing with you. Don't get upset if several people argue with you. If you hang out here long enough, you'll find this can happen to anyone, at any time. Consider that you might be wrong, or, stand your ground and explain why everyone else is wrong.
There have been several times where I myself have been the only one defending my position against a dozen or more people who thought I was totally wrong. Other than hiring gypsy witches to put curses upon them and their progeny, I exacted no revenge at all unless they were so egregious I was forced (forced I tell you, yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking to it) to ban them (and even then, sometimes they use different ailiases and or IP addresses to get around the ban - that's ok, it only means that they were pretty clever at the time, not to say dishonest if you take my meaning.)
7) I freely confess to this completely arbitrary standard: people I'm familiar with will be cut more slack than people I'm not familiar with. Is that fair? Well, no. But I won't put up with trolls, or people who are abusive solely for the purpose of being abusive. My judgment on that point will, without apology, be tempered by how familiar I am with you and/or your writings.
Who's the final judge? Hey. It's GM’s Corner, baby.
8) I'll yank absolutely anyone's chain if I think they've crossed a certain line. Is the line always obvious, or set in stone? Nope. But regulars to this establishment respect it.
9) The longer you're here, the more slack you'll be cut. However, no one except my wife gets infinite slack.
So, does this mean I'll let The Assistant Village Idiot or Civil Truth or Marc Cooper or Texas Fred or Rick Calvert or Dr. Sanity or even Woody chew me out more than someone I'm not familiar with? Yep. Also, does that mean I'll let Shrinkwrapped or Too Many Steves or dougf rant more than I will someone I don't know at all? Yeah, it does. Them I've seen in action. You, I probably haven't.
Fair? Get your own web site, and we'll talk about fair.
10) Other than a few donations to fight my cancer that I've gotten now and then from readers, I get nothing for this. So, you know, if you don't like what you find here, don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
11) There is no 11. [for an explanation of this, I forthwith give you some of the comments on Dean's 12 rules]There is, in fact, an 11. I can understand why you choose not to mention it publicly, but to deny its existence is just COLD.
Posted by Gary Utter on September 22, 2003 at 3:52 AM
The first part of rule 11 is that you don't talk about rule 11!
Posted by Dean Esmay on September 22, 2003 at 4:10 AM
In fact, it is forbidden even to refer to "the rule between Rule 10 and Rule 12."
Or "the rule six down from Rule 5." Or "the rule whose number is a palindrome."
But "the rule that proclaims its own nonexistence" is permissible in certain very limited circumstances.
Posted by McGehee on September 22, 2003 at 9:49 AM
12) Argue. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell everyone else they're wrong. Play in GM’s Corner. Just remember whose it is. If you don't like it, you can appeal to GM, or you can just leave, and to be honest, I'd rather you left because I seldom grant appeals (big grin inserted here).
A tip 'O The GM Derby to Dean Esmay
July 31, 2006
July 22, 2006
It seems as though Dakota Fanning's
Mom Mother (cause she damn sure ain't no Mom) has decided to let Dakota star in an upcoming film called Hounddog. Dakota plays a 12 year old who gets raped because Mother has decided that the role had "Oscar" written all over it. Furthermore, Dakota gets to appear damn near nude with just her panties on. Cinematical says:
Though it's been done before, I was still somewhat shocked to read Dakota's mother and agent liked the explicit scenes, thinking they had Oscar written all over them. While that may be true, who in their right mind wants to see a 12-year-old girl stripped naked and raped on screen? Would you want to pay ten bucks for that?Well, who would? Pedophiles would, I'm sure, and those who are into child pornography if even only to pleasure themselves. It is damn sure not a movie I would want to see, nor should any self respecting parent.
A tip 'O The GM Derby to Ace of Spades HQ
July 14, 2006
NO HORSE SINCE 1933 HAS COME TO HIM FOR SHOESES.
The Democratic Party and the left (not always the same thing) have been agitating for a substantial raise, to a "living wage" the federal minimum wage law. Currently, and for many years, the federal minimum wage has been $5.15 an hour and the generic left (in which this time I'm including the Democrats) would like to see that raised. I've seen suggestions ranging from $6.00 an hour up to $12.00 an hour. When anyone suggests that price increases passed on by businesses and or job loss from small firms may result, the outcry typically is that Republicans and Conservatives (again, not necessarily the same thing) hate the poor and don't want the rich to have to pay anything out of their pockets. And, depending on the blog you go to, the language to describe generic conservatives (this time I'm including Republicans) is a whole lot worse.
Well, the fact of the matter is that there will be a tradeoff. Companies, large and small will either have to raise prices and/or lay folk off in order to keep profit margins within the realm of feasibility. What's that you say? No they won't? How silly, of course they will. No politician is going to pass a law limiting profit (unless it's big oil and a windfall profits tax - and you see how well the last one worked) because they know that the funds for re-election come essentially from the pockets of investors and owners of small and large businesses. So, ask for the moon, you have as much a chance of getting that.
But, I digress, back to the issue of the minimum wage. Many states and localities have already passed minimum wages for residents in their respective political subdivisisons, so why aren't the generic leftists prodding them for increases and the rest of the country to catch up? Simple really, again politics. To effectively "buy" votes for the Democratic Party, there needs to be a national stage for Democratic politicians to run from.
It just won't do to have a bunch of Democrats touting a higher minimum wage as a local issue (although they are doing so for state wide initiatives). Ahhhh, but "The Democratic Party forced the administration to raise the minimum wage can be a national cry and be much more effective. But, that is still not the whole answer.
The rest of the answer lies in the amount of the raise. If $9.00 an hour is "OK" but not where it should be, why stop at $9.00, or $10.00 or even $15.00? Let us go all the way to $30.00 an hour for all entry level jobs, regardless of skills, education, or experience. Those don't matter anyway, because a minimum wage is just that... the minimum that you can pay someone for work received. But, you know, I've never had a generic lefty say "OK, you bet, let's do it." They all say something along the lines of "Don't be ridiculous." But, I'm not being ridiculous! If that, or some other figure exceeding a figure of say $18.00 an hour is what it takes to reach the "livable wage" criteria, why heck, lets do it.
If we did however, while the Democrats could claim victory for that election's pandering, it wouldn't hold up over the long term. No, not even close, in fact the resulting economic displacement and chaos would be horrendous. You see, the Democratic party really doesn't give a damn my dear, about the "little guy" they only want policies that insure his vote. Look at all the "grand coalition" of special interest groups called the Democratic Party and where they are today. The Democrats ruled congress and the senate from 1954 through 1994, with a single exception of the U.S. Senate on the coattails of Ronald Reagan's landslide, and that only lasted a couple of years. Are those groups substantially any better off now than they were then? Blacks? The Poor? The Hungry? The Homeless? Labor? Or, as it seems to me the Dems are running on the same issues that they have always run on? Except of course when a Democrat is in the White House. Whole different ballgame then friends.
So, why not raise the minimum wage all the way at one time? Because they want to use that issue again, and again, and again. $7.00 an hour now, in a couple of years, another $0.75 then another a dozen years after that. Each time decrying the lack of a livable wage. Yeppers dearly beloved readers, a platform they can run on forever, and never be held accountable for. No wonder the horses haven't been to the smithy since '33, same old tired platform, same old tired policy.
Thoughtful comments from generic lefties requested. No vitriol please or I'll take your comment down.
More on the Minimum Wage and other egregious fibs from my good friend Donald Luskin on my blogroll, who writes "The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid." By the Bye, if Luskin isn't on your favorites list, he ought to be.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.