Taking on the Pundits;The Bird Fellows;TV -The Oscars!

 Posted by Hello

Pat Buchanan-Time for This Man to Go
Besides being a "spoiler" on the great butterfly ballot battle in Florida during the 2000 election, Patrick Buchanan might well be totally unknown to the young and upcoming politicos in the surround.

The man has always been an ultra-conservative and a bit off the way even in that realm. Thus when The Wise I sees this man on the political talk shows I must sniff. Tim Russert would do better to have The Wise I wax wise on his vaunted "Meet the Press" than this Buchanan relic.

This past Sunday his presence with Russert and Russert's other guest, a Mr. Sharansky, whose credentials elude me, really gave me umbrage. I do know Mr. Sharansky advocated President Bush's aggressive stance on spreading democracy. Whereas Buchanan, lovely man, took the position that the US has no right to foist our version of democracy on the world and that plenty of dictators and despots have worked just fine with America.

MR. PAT BUCHANAN: All right. Well, let's take Israel's situation.
Mr. Begin signed an agreement to give back the Sinai to Egypt with Anwar Sadat, who is the successor of a military dictator, Nasser. He was not a Democrat. The Israeli government signed an agreement with Hafez al-Assad, a dictator of the worst kind, for a truce on the Golan Heights, which has held. What I am saying is this, Tim. You do not need a democratic government in order to achieve a success.

In Mr. Bush's first term, he cut a deal with Qaddafi, state sponsor of terror whereby Qaddafi would give up his weapons of mass destruction, his support for terror in return for the United States letting him out of the penalty box of sanctions. Qaddafi remains a state sponsor of terror. He was. But we cut a deal with him, and it was a successful deal on the part of the president of the United States. He is to be commended for it. That is realism in foreign policy. It is not idealism, but it is realism.

First, Israel fought a WAR with Egypt and Syria. And then only when it was attacked first. During that war, Israel gained control of the Sinai and other territory after wresting the territory from its attacking enemies.

But besides this, hey Pat, damn straight any fool government can give the dictators and despots of the world land or money or arms or food. I'm not sure this could be considered a "success" unless we're too far apart on our definition of the word. If I give an armed robber all my cash have I successfully dealt with the thief? Or have I done the only thing I possibly could given the circumstances?

For to pontificate that a country's action of appeasing a dictator is a "success" and proof that democracy is not required for such deals is a waste of good logic.

Which brings me to another major point about Pat Buchanan and I'm going to say it here and say it loud.

The man hates JEWS!


Plenty of folks in the world think it but rarely do they lay it on the line as The Wise I has above.

I don't know why he hates Jews. So far as I know he's had no major run-ins with Jews in his lifetime. He is a devout Catholic but hey, plenty of Catholics around here don't hate Jews.

Of course Mr. Buchanan would deny such a charge as he would have to. His words and actions speak way louder than his denials.
"The president now plans to hector and badger foreign leaders on the
progress each is making toward attaining U.S. standards of democracy.... This is a formula for `Bring-it-on!' collisions with everyautocratic regime on earth, including virtually every African and Arab ruler, all the `outposts of tyranny' named by Secretary [of State] Rice, most of the nations of Central Asia, China and Russia. This is a prescription for endless war."


MR. RUSSERT: Prescription for endless war?

MR. BUCHANAN: Certainly it is. Look, the United States of America--I dissent strongly from my friend. The United States of America has always been free and always been secure. There have been despotisms from time in memorial. There are 22 Arab states, not one of which is democratic, and the United States has not been threatened by any of them since the Barbary pirates.

In my judgment, what happened on 9/11 was a result of interventionism. Interventionism is the cause of terror. It is not a cure for terror. The idea that the president of the United States, as he said in his inaugural, is going to help democratic institutions in every region in every nation on earth is a formula for permanent war, Tim. And look, the president of the United States has no constitutional authority to do this. Where in the Constitution do we get the right to intervene in the internal affairs of countries that do not threaten us and do not
attack us? If they don't, their internal politics are their own business. As Quincy Adams says, "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion of freedom everywhere, but the vindicator only of her own."

 Posted by Hello

Whew. A lot going on here what with quoting Quincy Adams and everything.

From the first quote above, Buchanan asserts that there's nasty dictators and undemocratic sorts across the planet. To "hector and badger" them about democracy is effectively waging war against them, so says Buchanan.

Come on. One does not have to wage a full blown war against these nasty despots, mullahs and dictators that abuse their citizens. America is a right big country and hey, a little of not buying this, a lot of public posturing of disapproval of nation-states that are guilty of human rights abuse, a little voting for this here, a lot of dealing with anti-dictator insurgents, boom, no need for war.

What DOESN'T work is kowtowing to these thugs in that manner of Bill Clinton who wanted to be loved by everyone no matter how many people they've murdered or freedoms they've squashed.

Yasser Arafat, avowed terrorist and murderer of many Jews, was the number one foreign guest in the Clinton white house. Bush refused to ever even meet with the man.

Sometimes an obvious snub such as this does more to bring dictators around than any threatened military action. Dictators and the like are vain people. Surely feting them and smooching their wives for photo ops doesn't give them the shame of their actions they deserve.

Then Buchanan goes on to say that there's been thugs and thieves running nations since the beginning of time and they haven't bothered us.

Pat doesn't think Hitler wouldn't have eventually taken a shot at America given a chance? Or the very nice Saddam, a man who schemed to smuggle in sarin gas in our perfume bottles?

9/11 caused Americans to regard those foreign and exotic countries that they'd paid little attention to in the past. To discover that the methodology of their thuggish leaders to keep the populace in line was to direct their citizens' hatred at their unfree lot to another source. First, Israel because God knows that little country in the middle of the desert about the size of New Jersey HAS to be the source of all the problems across the planet. Then, well America, because, hey America likes Israel.

Mr. Buchanan says pshaw to this new American realization and declares that the attack on our soil happened because of what he calls "interventionism". The Wise I doesn't know what this means and ole Pat never explains it.

As for his silly question about where in our constitution does it allow for America to intervene in the affairs of another state, well you must read the text Pat. There's that bit about the Commander in Chief waging a war WITH the backing of the duly elected congress and senate. There might not be specifics of when wars can be waged in that constitution, Pat, because that's why we elect leaders as President, Representatives and Senators. It wasn't for Quincy Adams to list only those times we can boycott a country, for example, or deal with it diplomatically, or wage and all out war if determined necessary.

Yeah. It's all there right in the constitution, woven in that document as part of our government's responsibility to prevent our own demise through actions considered and debated then acted upon by our elected representatives.

And finally, more anti-Semitism from ole Pat.
MR. BUCHANAN: ...defending the frontier of Gaza. The question is: What are 8,000 Israeli settlers doing on that Palestinian land? They are the cause why Hamas won a 70 percent vote. You have got to stop occupying countries. That is the cause of terrorism. : Would you let the Palestinians who lived in Israel before 1948 in a peace agreement return to their homes in what is now Israel?

The Wise I says, Mr. Buchanan, there are not 8,000 settlers on Palestinian land. Those Israelis are there because Israel WON that land after it was attacked by Syria and Egypt. The Israeli army fought the invaders and once pushed back, Israel took over those areas from which it was attacked because those areas were considered a weakness in Israel defense. The Palestinians, by the way, had nothing to do with it, like defend their own land or anything.

As for your question as to whether to allow Palestinians to return to Israel when they, or their ancestors were allegedly ousted in 1948, what, are you nuts?

The land named Palestine was a creation of the post WWII coalition that, for whatever rightful or wrong-headed reason, divided up that land in the Mideast and carved out the tiny country of Israel. As to what "Palestinians" supposedly lost their "homes" to create Israel, please, Pat, tell me you are not that stupid.

There has NEVER been a land called Palestine and there is no such thing as a Palestinian. The Palestinians still living in that God awful area in slums and squalor are mostly Jordanian criminals banned to this new land called Palestine to get them out of Jordan. Besides, Jews PAID big money for many of those Arab homes and land.

Which is not to say there might not been an innocent nomad or two camping out along the Gaza strip that suddenly found itself displaced by all the activity of the post world war coalition.

It's a small, essentially non-existent issue Buchanan brings up here. Something that will never fly AND is not even requested by the so-called Palestinians themselves.

Does Mr. Buchanan really believe that Israel should make the call for all Palestinians who lost their home in 1948 to please come back, we want you here? As if every Arab with no hope won't come running, demanding return to the "homeland" and with no right to anything at all. Then the Arab dictatorships will join in the chorus because they're always happy to beat on Israel, indeed use such as propaganda for their citizens to hate Israel even more.

This way the citizenry leaves the thugs and thieves alone.

To even suggest such a thing is as illustrative of Buchanan's hatred of Jews as anything else he's ever said.

Sure, he'll deny it.

But he's a snake that doesn't deserve any time on Meet the Press and for sure he's no icon of Conservative values.

 Posted by Hello

Excerpt from My Book "Everything You Need to Know About Being a Woman Can Be Learned in the Garden"

Baby Cardinals

It was a balmy day when the cardinal came to visit the gardens. This guy is not only very handsome, he is also very fertile. For his first set of this year's children are all about and he is starting a new nest with his lovely wife. The young cardinals are now on their own but return faithfully to the feeder as taught by their parents.

For a bird that grows up to be so beautiful, they sure do have to pay a price in their adolescence. Youngcardinals are among the most ungainly of birds.

One of the sons stops by every morning. How sad does this guy look? He has one feather to form his beautiful cardinal tuft. It sticks straight up in the air from the center of his head. The feather looks like an "Alfalfa" cowlick.

With this feather looking like a caricature of a true cardinal tuft, the young guy must also wear some sort of weird red-orange coat. Parts of him are pale orange and parts are bright day-glo orange. Throughout this color configuration, red streaks slash through at random angles.

by Pat Fish Posted by Hello
He looks like he has survived a serious fire and is on a slow mend.

The daughters do not look quite so unsightly. Their feathers do not turn red so they don't wear the Technicolor coat of their brother. Their little tuft, however, is cuter than his. They don't have the one feather sticking up. They do have a series of very small, almost wisps of feathers that forms a very, very tiny head tuft. They have learned how to raise and lower their tuft, in that manner of the cardinal. But the thing is so small it looks like they have little spider webs on their head!

All of them, sons and daughters, land awkwardly at the feeders. Some of them go on the bars and some land on the squirrel-baffle that has never baffled the squirrels. They then look around to ascertain where, exactly, is the food.

Somewhere along the line they have figured it all out. There are two daughters and a son. Each of them come to the feeders now on their own. Just a few weeks ago, they always came with their father. He, however, is now busy in his relentless quest to fill all the county's cardinal needs from his own sperm bank.

It just keeps on going.

 Posted by Hello

American Idol, The Apprentice, The Really Big TV Event This Coming Week

On Weds, Feb. 23, @ 9pm, Fox’s American Idol will have its first audience elimination of this series. According to the hype, TWO men and TWO women will be eliminated.

On Thurs, Feb. 24, @ 9pm, NBC’s The Apprentice airs again. According to the hype:
The Writing on the Wall
The candidates are challenged to a corporate graffiti advertising task for a new video game.

The Wise I will, as expected, come up with her own committee of one’s scenario for this challenge.
Big TV Event of the Week
…would be Sunday, Feb. 27, @ 8pm, ABC presents The Academy Awards.

Best Picture
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby






Oscar Fashion Critiques
Of course with the Oscars we must critique the dress. I don’t know why, seems to be some kind of American rule.

On Monday, Feb. 28, @ 8pm, ETV will have its fashion police.

On that same night, @ 9pm, Style will have a fashion critique as well.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

1) Being critical of some of the policies of the State of Israel isn't the same thing as hating Jews. The charge of anti-semitism against Mr. Buchanan is nonsense.

2) Interventionism itself is the cause of terror. The tactics of Al Qaeda are evil, but surely you must recognize the obvious political motive behind the attacks?

Osama Bin Laden, in his 1998 proclamation, listed 3 main reasons for the Muslims of the world to rise up against the USA.

1) US soldiers on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia
2) US's uncritical support of Israel
3) US sanctions on Iraq that were crippling their economy.

Therefore, when Pat says that interventionism is the cause of terror, he's absolutely correct. Were we not over there, the terrorists would not be over here.

There would be no mass movement against America if we were not so entangled with the internal affairs of the Middle East.