Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The Crimes of Jews

From Fred Columns [http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm]

The Crimes of Jews
Pottling and Kettling

July 30, 2007

I get a steady rivulet of strange mail telling how horrible Jews are. Apparently there is no crime of which they are not guilty. I find myself wondering: How do they find the time to be so evil? Are they on amphetamines or something?

A curious odiousness runs through it. I don’t care whether you like Jews, but these birds need their heads examined. Anyway, here’s me on the horribleness of Jews.

They can’t compete with Christians.

The history of Christianity has been one of murder, torture, and Stalinism, of witless intolerance of things not intolerable and an utter refusal to mind its own business. Look at the record. Look at almost any part of the record. The question is how to choose.

During the witch hunts of 1450-1700, god knows how many tens of thousands of women were tortured savagely and then burned alive, for the sin of having a wart. This demonstration of God’s love and Christian charity was perpetrated not just by Christians, but by the church.

Jews can’t play in this league. They are outclassed.

Then there was the Inquisition, run by that infamous Jew Thomasberger Torquemadastein. (For recent graduates of American universities, there wasn’t really a Jew by that name.) For centuries countless people screamed for days as their shoulders were torn from their sockets, before they were burned alive, in Jesus’ name, amen. This too was a church operation, supported by such as their Most Christian Majesties, Ferdinand and Isabella.

I’m making a list of thousands of Christians tortured to death by Jews. Wait. I’m thinking….

Much of this churchly barbarism has had Jews as its target. Christians were always trying either to kill Jews or to convert them. Why they thought it was any of their business what Jews believed, or Cathars, or Moslems, I do not know. If you didn’t agree with them, they would burn you. Just like Jesus said to do.

If a king decided to go on a Crusade, which is to say an explicitly Christian war, he started by robbing the local Jews to pay for it. (Christians allowed Jews to work only as bankers and moneylenders, and then complained that they were bankers and moneylenders. The logic scintillates.) The army, typically a mob of illiterate louts, massacred Jews along the way and, if they took Jerusalem, they burned the synagogue with the Jews in it. Jesus loves me, this I know….

The sordid tale of Christian compassion continued through the Reformation and beyond. In 1692 the unpleasantly Christian people of Salem, Massachusetts killed 21 (if memory serves) people for being witches. The victims weren’t Jews, probably because the good people of Salem couldn’t find any. In the American South, the Christian churches of the time upheld slavery as God’s will, and these were preachers who saw what slavery really was. We have since romanticized it as happy nigras pluckin’ de banjo and grinning a lot. In fact it was godawful. Check the Spanish Christianization of South America.

Certainly as late as 1882 the Catholic Church was saying that the killing of Christian children by Jews at Easter was “a common practice” and that for the sacrifice to be effective the child had to die “under torment.” (Giuseppe Oreglia de San Stefano, SJ, quoted in Hitler’s Pope, by John Cornwall, page 42 in the Spanish edition. If Pius XII wasn’t an ally of Hitler, he sure simulated it well.) This is sick, evil stuff, and it runs through Christianity like marbling in steak.

By comparison, Jews are pikers. You might as well compare a shoplifter to the Boston Strangler.

Then there’s Israel. I don’t like what the Jews are doing in Israel, and neither do a lot of Israelis, but it is amusing to compare the crimes of Israel with those of, say, the US. America has caused the death of far more people in Iraq than Israel has killed Palestinians, and with far less excuse.

Note the double standard. When Israel kills kids in bombing attacks, it is a crime, but when the US regularly does the same thing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, it’s just collateral damage, necessary to bring democracy to people who didn’t ask for it, and anyway it didn’t happen, and besides it was an isolated incident, meaning one that was detected, and of course the dead were all terrorists, toddlers and all. Throw in the carnage in Vietnam, another American war started on lies, and the rise of Pol Pot, directly attributable to the war next door, and Israel looks like a pretty wet squib, crimewise.

Judge both countries by the same measure, say I.

Few do. Countries are built on bullshit. Part of Israel’s bullshit is that the Palestinians left in 1948 because they wanted to, Jews being highly moral and incapable of atrocities or ethnic cleansing. Part of America’s bullshit is essentially identical: Americans are highly principled people and do not commit the atrocities that, for example, they documentably commit daily in Iraq. You might ask the Indians about ethnic cleansing. I note that Israel’s Arab citizens are better treated than American blacks were in 1950.

I’m always willing to believe the worst of people, and it’s certainly the way to bet, but Jews do not have the solid credentials of savagery that Christianity does. I guess they just lack spirit.

Yet still I get the strange mail. I have wondered why the weird hostility to Jews. It is weird. I loathe a lot of people, and constantly try to add to the list, but I’m not obsessive about it. People who worry about Jews are obsessive. It eats them up. They see Jews peeking from everywhere. When the New York Times, a Jewish paper, supported Bush’s war on Iraq, as did almost the whole country, it was on orders from Jerusalem. When the Times turned editorially against the war, as had almost the whole country, it was to Stab Our Boys in the Back. You know, the leftwing anti-American Jew media. Everything whatever is controlled by Jews, with malign purpose. Why?

Charles Murray, who isn’t, is the coauthor of The Bell Curve. Writing in Commentary, a Jewish magazine, he notes the following:

In IQ the average American Jew is at the 75th percentile. Six times as many Jews as others have an IQ of better than 140. .The imbalance increases for still higher IQ’s. In 1954, on an IQ test given to all kids in the public schools of New York, of those scoring above 170, 24 of 28 were Jews. This is neither new nor debatable. Those who study such things, most of whom are not Jewish, have known it for decades.

Writes Murray, “In the first half of the 20th century, despite pervasive and continuing social discrimination against Jews throughout the Western world, despite the retraction of legal rights, and despite the Holocaust, Jews won 14 percent of Nobel Prizes in literature, chemistry, physics, and medicine/physiology. In the second half of the 20th century, when Nobel Prizes began to be awarded to people from all over the world, that figure rose to 29 percent. So far, in the 21st century, it has been 32 percent. Jews constitute about two-tenths of one percent of the world’s population. You do the math.” Uh…yeah.

If you say on the web that Jews are smart, you get furious mail saying no they aren’t, no they aren’t, no...they...are NOT, in a rising scream. This leaves the writers in the interesting position of saying that Jews control publishing, television, the press, retail, wholesale, Hollywood, Wall Street, international banking, the research institutions, the schools, and the universities. But they aren’t very smart. (I forgot planetary motion. They control planetary motion.) (And watermelon futures. Never forget watermelon futures)

In my experience of Jews, which is considerable, they aren’t just bright but, worse, they respect intelligence and scholarship, in anybody. If you speak three languages or play a good game of chess or made high scores on your GREs, they are likely to say, “Geez, that’s really good.” With Jews, being a nerd doesn’t carry the opprobrium it does elsewhere. Maybe nerds dress funny, but they’re smart. Jewish women are unmistakeably attracted to smart men. (They seem to prefer smart Gentiles to smart Jewish men, but that’s another matter.)

This sets the stage for trouble. The United States is a profoundly anti-intellectual country, and Jews are a profoundly intellectual people. They tend to look like space aliens to much of the country. In America, (or Mexico, for that matter) smart is tolerated, barely. If a Gentile kid pops high on his SATs or grabs a Merit scholarship, he can still be socially accepted as long as he shows that he didn’t really mean it. Any bright kid runs into this. Jews don’t see things this way.
And of course Jews are usually urban. Take people who are bright, culturally inclined towards things intellectual, who live in cities and have a cosmopolitan outlook, and you get people who are fluently conversant with books, the arts, politics, other countries, and such like. They regard this fluency as very much a good thing. So do I. What exactly is the problem?

Being smart, they rise, especially in a brain-intensive civilization, and then seem to control things, and to an extent do, and the rest resent them. (Hitler detested Jews as a genetically inferior people who dominated German intellectual life.) It is easy to hate what you feel inferior to. This is why people who disliked the Russians hated the French, why people who merely dislike blacks hate Jews. It was impossible to feel inferior to Russians, who wore bad suits. Just as in the band-saw shriek of feminists, “We are too equal,” there is audible a fear that maybe they aren’t, in the anti-Semites insistence, “They did it by conspiring,” there is a worry that maybe they didn’t.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Separated At Birth

The same squinty glare, the same I-don't-give-a-f*ck attitude.... Uncanny!

Two of these pictures are from Cute Overload, can't remember which ones...

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Mondialisation linguistique - Je suis contre

Ze French

Il fut un temps aux États-Unis, avant la dictature Bush, où il était de bon ton pour les Américains qui voulaient paraître civilisés de glisser quelques expressions françaises dans leurs discours. Cela me faisait râler à chaque fois, parce que ces expressions étaient soit désuètes, soit complètement incongrues : zut alors!, peste!, cherchez la femme, toujours l’audace, et autres conneries de ce genre. Les publicités aussi versaient dans la francophilie. Je me souviens d’une campagne de publicité pour je ne sais plus quelle voiture qu’ils appelaient «Le Car». Renault, je crois. Ils auraient plutôt dû choisir: «Ze voiture».

En France, c’est le même phénomène, mais pire. Les Français aiment bien glisser des mots anglais dans leurs conversations, pour montrer qu’ils sont civilisés. Sauf que, tout comme les Américains francophiles, les Français utilisent un anglais incorrect, ou des mots anglais auxquels ils donnent un sens différent du sens original.

J’ai relevé les exemples ci-après dans Le Monde d'aujourd'hui:

« Cow-boy's hat »par Pierre-Olivier Labbe [au lieu de Cowboy Hat]
« French Think Too Much » par Corine Lesnes [The French think too much]
Editorial du Monde: « Happy end » en Libye [Happy ending]
Le "speed dating" ou dix minutes pour décrocher une embauche

Et ce texte, tiré d’un article de l'édition d'hier du Monde, sur ce que les Français appellent « tuning » quand ils veulent dire « pimping (a ride) » :
"J'avais un délire. Je voulais faire de ma caisse un sex-shop roulant", assure son propriétaire, Julien Blanc, 25 ans… Samedi 21 et dimanche 22 juillet, plus de 50 000 personnes se sont rendues sur le circuit de Magny-Cours (Nièvre) pour la 12e GTI tuning international. Le plus grand rassemblement d'Europe de voitures tape-à-l'oeil. "Le tuning, c'est adorer sa bagnole et la montrer, explique Denis Bordier, un passionné. C'est surtout le reflet de la personnalité de son propriétaire, prêt à tout pour se faire remarquer."… A la base, les "tuners" récupèrent une voiture banale. Quelques milliers d'euros plus tard, le véhicule devient plus agressif avec une carrosserie "customisée" dans des couleurs "flashy".

Ze voiture customisée

De plus en plus, je me sens comme un de ces vieux schnoques qui ne cessent de se plaindre: "De mon temps, on n'était pas aussi con...bla bla bla ...."

Ze fingueur

Friday, July 20, 2007

Friday Videos

via: Cynical C [http://www.cynical-c.com/]

The 1,500 plus CPDRC inmates of the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center, Cebu, Philippines, are fulfilling my lifedream: dancing Michael Jackson's routine "Thriller"!

(My other lifedream is doing "Beat it!" - I'm still working on it.)

One of my favorite videos, if not THE favorite: Days go By, by Dirty Vegas:

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

The new Harry Potter

If you can't or don't want to buy the last installment of the Harry Potter saga, the whole book is available online.

Go to: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/07/17/the-latest-harry-potter-book-hits-bittorrent/

I already ordered my copy, but I must confess, I still haven't finished the previous one (Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix), and they already made it into a film.

Ballerin et Ballerine chinois

via Semantica. Merci Lulu!

Faut toujours qu'ils fassent mieux que les autres, ces Chinois. Grrr!!

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

"Bill O'Reilly is incensed that some unidentified someone [..] at Daily Kos once referred to the Pope as a 'primate'. Now if that droll commenter meant to cast aspersions on the Bishop of Rome by comparing him to our simian president, I can understand the offense. But it's worth pointing out that even such a disrespectful remark would be technically correct. Human beings, just like gibbons, lemurs, and George W. Bush, are technically 'primates'. And the Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City is a human being, is he not?

But it is also possible that the Daily Kos commenter was merely referring to the Pope by another one of his titles.
pri·mate -noun 1. Ecclesiastical. an archbishop or bishop ranking first among the bishops of a province or country.
Either way, the Pope is a primate, both going and coming. What the Pope is not, is a monkey. "

Exactly! After all, do you see me complaining because my tenant downstairs, B-girl Lynx, is a thespian? And a professional one, too! Anyway, I wanted to warn my son about her, but I caught him masticating in his room! I'm telling ya!!! What's a parent to do? (sigh) ...

Monday, July 16, 2007


From: Media Matters- Altercations by Eric Alterman [ http://mediamatters.org/altercation/]

Many will recall that on July 8, 1947, witnesses claimed that an unidentified object with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and the federal government.

However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of March 1948, exactly nine months later, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Condoleezza Rice, and Dan Quayle were all born.

Otakuthon 2007

The Otakuthon 2007 (August 4th & 5th) will feature many events, of which the most important is the Sukoshi Yoshi Band.

Sukoshi Yoshi performs with the stated goal of bringing the love of Japanese music to Montreal. Formed in October 2005, and the band did house parties at first but have since performed at various events, including Otakuthon 2006. They've changed members over the years, and today the band consists of two vocalists, Meiko and Khoa; a guitarist, Thany; a bassist, Thana; and a drummer, Nebu. Sukoshi Yoshi is proud to be performing at Otakuthon 2007, playing several anime hits and classics.

What? You want more details about the Okatuthon 2007? Go here: http://www.otakuthon.com/en/location.html

Monday, July 09, 2007

Giving to Beggars

Stephen Chow demonstrates the "Sleeping Kung Fu" in King of Beggars

The other day, I was reading Asparagus' postings about beggars [http://www.nebupookins.net/] and it reminded me of something similar happening to me.

Normally I don't give to beggars, especially if they have a dog with them, but I don't try to look away or avoid eye contact when I walk past them either. Last week-end, I was shopping at Kim Phat, a popular Oriental grocery store, when I noticed a Caucasian woman motioning me to approach her. She was disheveled and stoned looking, and even though it was very hot and humid, she was wearing a dark full-length cowboy duster , which I assumed - maybe unfairly - she was using to hide the stuff she has been shoplifting. I approached her and she said: «I'm looking for frozen cuttlefish.»

Now every non-white will tell you that whiteys in ethnic restaurants or stores have a habit of ordering around non-whites that happen to be walking by or standing near them, cause they expect us all to be staff and not customers, so I wasn't that surprised or upset. I just picked up a slab of frozen cuttlefish and handed it to her.

She just held it with an embarrassed look and said: «I don't have any money». I thought: For crying out loud! Of all the dummies in this store, why'd you have to pick me!? But I simply said:

- Is this what you want? The cuttlefish?
- Yes, I want this.
- If I give you five dollars, will you be able to buy it?
- Oh yeah, five dollars' s plenty.
- OK, then here's five dollars. Enjoy your cuttlefish tonight.
- Thank you! Thank you!
- It's ok, don't mention it.

I turned away and continued my grocery shopping. My friend Elton John (not his real name) who was with me said: «I bet you she's gonna buy drugs with it». I didn't really care. Then, as we were walking to the car with our groceries, the cuttlefish woman ran after me and cried out: «Can you give me some money for the bus?». I burst out laughing: «Man, you're gonna squeeze the lemon till the last drop? Sorry, ask someone else.»

So to the question du jour: «Should one give to beggars?», the answer is yes and no. In a rich country like Canada, whether you give to beggars or not depends on your mood. Nobody will starve from a lack of alms. But in Third World countries, the few coins you refuse a beggar can mean his or her one meal of the day. Or it could mean that they have something to give to their begging pimp and will be spared a beating that day. So by all means, give a few coins to anyone who asks. And when you run out of coins, don't feel guilty.

Otakus... I mean.. Otters In Love

YouTube clip sent by Sam. Thank you Sam!

Oh My God! She posted our video on the Internet!

Friday, July 06, 2007

Nostalgic Musical Friday

Dueling Banjos scene from "Deliverance"
via Cynical-C Blog http://www.cynical-c.com/

Love Me Please Love Me - Michel Polnareff

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Olbermann to Bush: F*CKING RESIGN ALREADY!!!

Keith Olbermann

From: Crooks & Liars [http://tinyurl.com/2jlzvf]

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on what is, in everything but name, George Bush’s pardon of Scooter Libby.

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

That — on this eve of the 4th of July — is the essence of this democracy, in seventeen words.

And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The man who said those seventeen words — improbably enough — was the actor John Wayne.

And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier. But there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice.

The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may “prosper” as a nation, not that we may “achieve”, not that we may “lead the world” — but merely that we may “function.”

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne is an implicit trust — a sacred trust:That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and far earlier than most. And in circumstances more tragic and threatening.

And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped “our” President in 2001.

And those who did not believe he should have been elected — indeed, those who did not believe he had been elected — willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and sharpened it to a razor-sharp point, and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete…

Did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice…

Did so despite what James Madison –at the Constitutional Convention — said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president…

Did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder:

To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish — the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens — the ones who did not cast votes for you.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President… of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party.

And this is too important a time, sir, to have a Commander-in-Chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics.

The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing — or a permanent Democratic majority — is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove.

And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government.

But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain… into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment.

The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and “quaint.”

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws.

The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor…

When just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable “fairness” of government is rejected by an impartial judge…

When just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice…

This President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but instead to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of you becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Mr. Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously:

“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

But in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate — instantaneously — became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law. Of insisting — in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood — that he was the law.

Not the Constitution.

Not the Congress.

Not the Courts.

Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy… these are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush — and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal — the average citizen understands that, sir.

It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one — and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency.

And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history.

Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush.

And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney.

You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday.

Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters.

Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them — or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them — we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time — and our leaders in Congress, of both parties — must now live up to those standards which echo through our history:

Pressure, negotiate, impeach — get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

And for you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task.

You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed.

Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.


And give us someone — anyone – about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

Good night, and good luck.