Curmudgeonalia
I see I taste I write Links What?
April 23, 2005

Inaugural issue of the five minute rant:

Why do the “progressive intellectuals” find it appropriate to deem the new pope--a wise, well read, informed and philosophic priest--wrong because he does not agree with abortion, euthanasia, and other “progressive” attitudes?

And would you believe that the Bishop of Rome favors recognition of the fact that European/Western civilization has its roots in Christianity? Or that he opposes the Muslimization of Europe? Imagine that . . . someone with an orthodox position which has been carefully thought out and masterfully defended.

Why is it that the liberals now pontificating upon these attitudes and expressed positions seem surprised to discover that he is, after all, Catholic? After centuries of repeating the old saw: “Is the Pope Catholic?” they are flummoxed by discovering that he really is! And not one like John Kerry, either.

Does the average American really understand that it is not the Republicans who are changing protocol in the Senate, but the Democrats? For the first time in history the filibuster is being used to block the appointment of a judge. And if they do not, why don't they?

And why don’t the Republicans actually make them filibuster, instead of just threatening? I can remember when the Democrats (yes, it was those enlightened souls of the Democratic Party who now preach about their concern for minorities) sought to block the Civil Rights legislation for days . . . commanding the floor in the well of the senate continuously. That is what a filibuster is supposed to be: blocking all activity by commandeering the floor and not relinquishing it to anyone for any reason. It didn’t work then, and likely won’t work now, but still the Republicans ought to make these dissidents actually do it.

Better . . . reinstate the centuries old tradition of not blocking judges. An up or down vote will do, as it has since the 18th century. Majority rules in a democracy. The Democrats seem unable to understand the fact that they have been ritually losing elections since 1994--are no longer in the majority--and the candy-assed Republicans are letting them get by with it. They’ve been in the minority for so long they don’t know how to govern.

On the other hand, they (the Republicans) certainly have learned to spend money like the Democrats. Seems they haven’t learned the right lessons.

Finally, have you heard that the Iraqis have yet to establish a sound democracy? Those on the Left, after grousing about the war, then the “quagmire,” then the “stolen treasures,” then Abu Ghraib, then the civil unrest (terrorism), then the absence of elections, then postponement of elections (which postponement they recommended), then the elections (more honest than those in South Dakota 2 years ago), and now . . . that there really is a government . . . they chastise it for not achieving in several months—with absolutely no history of freedom in Iraq—what it took us a millennium to perfect, and which is certainly not yet perfect.

Will nothing satisfy these people? Or is that a rhetorical question?

Posted by respeto at April 23, 2005 3:47 PM