Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Headline: "Sarkozy holidays as fresh violence hits French cities"

From the French al-Reuters, AFP:

President-elect Nicolas Sarkozy relaxed and strategised Tuesday on a luxury yacht in the Mediterranean, while back home “anti-Sarko” protests rumbled on into a third consecutive night.

OK, I’ll bite: since he’s the president-elect and thus not the acting president, just what in the name of escargot is he supposed to or expected to do? Continuing:

Sarkozy boarded the vessel in Malta with his wife Cecilia and their 10-year-old son Louis on Monday at the start of a three-day break to relax after the right-winger’s emphatic weekend election victory.

Not “conservative”, but the more loaded term “right-winger”. Nope, no liberal media bias!

OK, how about this gem?

Sarkozy, a tough-talking former interior minister, is hated in the high-immigrant suburbs after he described young delinquents as “rabble” and for his stance on law and order.

He’s hated by “immigrants” (that’s P.C.-speak for “Muslims”) for “his stance on law enforcement”? In other words, his stance on law enforcement is that he’s for it. You know, laws should be enforced and stuff? I know, that’s just heartless, unfair, cruel, and bigoted!

May 8, 2007 Posted by | France, media bias | Leave a comment

"We’re Paying War Reparations to Guam for What Japan Did"

P.C. idiocy continues. From the Freepers:

“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and his eight compatriots, all of whom have co-sponsored a bill that would require that America pay reparations to the people of Guam for – get this – the actions of the Japanese in World War II.

According to the bill (HR.1595, the “Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act”), the people of Guam:

suffered unspeakable harm as a result of the occupation of Guam by Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II , by being subjected to death, rape, severe personal injury, personal injury, forced labor, forced march, or internment.

For this reason (?), “the Secretary of the Treasury shall make payments” to WWII survivors and their descendants on Guam for the brutal actions of a third party.

Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? After all, the US is the largest aid donor on the planet; it’s only logical that we should rebuild, repatriate, and reparate every country that has been hurt by every war that we can find. Let’s not stop with Guam – let’s include everybody from Carthage on up to the present. Should we pay reparations to the Koreans for the Mongol invasions of the 14th century, and to the Spanish for the loss of their Armada in 1588? Why not?

And while this bill holds up $126,000,000.00 for the repayment of the people of Guam for what the Japanese did (as well as $5,000,000.00 for “the Secretary of the Interior [to] establish a grants program [to]…award grants for research, educational, and media activities that memorialize the events surrounding the occupation of Guam during World War II, honor the loyalty of the people of Guam during such occupation, or both, for purposes of appropriately illuminating and interpreting the causes and circumstances of such occupation and other similar occupations during a war”), our soldiers can’t even get a dime in supplemental appropriations.

Way to go, Democrats. Your “blame America first” (even for things we have nothing to do with), anti-US soldier attitudes, actions, and mindsets have just been taken to a new level.”

May 8, 2007 Posted by | political correctness | Leave a comment

Hillary: I’m not a socialist chick like that French loser!

The Hildebeast is in damage control mode. From the Washington comPost:

There was a time when advisers to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) looked abroad for proof that women can get elected to a top leadership role in the modern world: Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister; Angela Merkel, the German chancellor; and Michelle Bachelet, the president of Chile.

But as presidential candidate Ségolène Royal was defeated by a conservative man who had been France’s chief law enforcement officer, the Clinton campaign was quick to dismiss comparisons between their candidate and her Socialist counterpart across the Atlantic. “Other than the fact that they are both women, they don’t have much in common,” said Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director.

Yeah, aside from that whole recurring “taking your stuff for the common good” thing, they’re totally different, huh? Continuing:

Clinton advisers said that, if anything, Royal proved that a woman must run with a focus on her credentials. Clinton allies saw the race as evidence that the New York senator is running the right kind of campaign, a substantive one — even if it means she is sometimes accused of lacking charisma.

“Sometimes”? She’s about as charismatic as a bullfrog with gonorrhea.

Exit question: Do you think Shrillary’s handlers would be downplaying similarities if Segolene had won, crowing that Segolene’s win is good news for Her Highness as proof that voters aren’t afraid to support a “strong” woman as leader?

May 8, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, socialism | Leave a comment

Non-political post: Man falsely diagnosed with terminal cancer blows life savings

From Hot Air:

You know the punchline.

The 62-year-old said he was told by doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Treliske that he only had a short time left to live.
So he quit his job and stopped paying his mortgage, instead splashing out on a lavish lifestyle of hotels, restaurants and holidays.

Then the hospital told him that he was actually suffering from non-fatal pancreatitis.

Mr Brandrick said that in the year he thought he was dying he spent everything and now he faces losing his house.

He’s suing, naturally. The hospital insists there was no negligence, that when he was diagnosed it looked like pancreatic cancer.

Expect a modest settlement here, not because he has a case (he probably doesn’t) but because the bad publicity of not only a misdiagnosis but a misdiagnosis that ends up putting an old man out on the street would be horrendous for the hospital. They’ll probably pay off the mortgage payments he missed so that he can keep his house and then he’ll make up some of the rest in charity from people who read about him and want to help him out. Either that or he’ll end up in a cardboard box consoling himself with a bottle of whiskey and the fact that at least his pancreas is robust.

Obvious exit question: Should he win the suit? He’s got a potential action in equity, but he can’t show that the hospital knew (let alone intended or induced) that he’d go out and crack his nest egg. I think he’s looking at a little bit of jack and a whole lot of squat.

Put your lawyer-wannabe hats on for a moment and tell me what you think: does this guy have a case?

On the one hand, personal accountability should come into play, and this patient behaved irresponsibly. The doctor never told him to p#ss away his nest egg on booze and broads. On the other hand, there is an aspect of civil law called “estoppel by representation of fact” that seems to have occurred. The link to “estoppel by representation of fact” is here, but in short, it goes like this:

If A tells B something and A says it’s a fact, and B has reason to assume that A is factually correct, and A wants B to respond (or act) to the “fact”, and B acts to his detriment in reliance on the “facts” that A gave him, and A later tries to deny having ever told B of the “facts”…then A will be “estopped” from trying to prove he never presented the “facts” to B.

Sorry for the legalese, but it seems to me that the above scenario may have occurred: Doc tells patient he’s got terminal cancer (facts), patient blows his life savings (acting to his detriment based on relying on A’s “facts”), then we see that the doctor was wrong. I think the patient may have a case here. What do you think?

May 8, 2007 Posted by | non-political | Leave a comment

Pelosi trying to one-up DiFi on corruption

Not content to let DiFi serve as the only California Democrat using her office for personal gain, Nancy Pelosi decided to get in on the “culture of corruption” action herself. From MyWay News:

Republicans are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of including a provision in a water redevelopment bill that could benefit property her husband owns in San Francisco.

Aides to the San Francisco Democrat denied any connection, noting that the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco and the four rental properties in question are at least a mile away.

Republicans, who raised the issue more than two weeks after the bill passed the House, offered no evidence of benefit to Paul Pelosi’s real estate holdings.

“I don’t have any facts to say anything untoward has been done here,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

“She should explain to the American people what the earmark is all about and convince people there’s no financial benefit to her,” he said.

John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said that “on its face it appears to be a conflict of interest.”

Pelosi’s project was part of the $15 billion Water Resources Development Act that passed the House April 19 by 394-25 and pays for hundreds of projects around the country.

Pelosi’s measure would authorize $25 million to improve San Francisco port areas, and also would put some areas off limits to navigation so cruise ships could dock.

Her investor husband gets rental income from four buildings in a nearby commercial district.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said that she added the projects to the bill at the request of the Port of San Francisco and that her husband’s holdings were not a consideration. It’s “speculative at best” that they would benefit, Hammill said.

Between her and Harry “Land Shark” Reid and DiFi and William “Cool Cash” Jefferson, it looks like the “culture of corruption” label that the Dems used on the GOP last year is simply continuing under new management.

May 8, 2007 Posted by | corruption, hypocrisy, Pelosi | Leave a comment