A COMMON THREAD IN SEVERAL RECENT EVENTS

Within the past two weeks or so, there were a number of different events that made the news. Working backward from the Iraqi elections held on Jan. 30th, there were also Ted Kennedy's speech; the confirmation of Condi Rice; the Oscar nominations; and Bush's inauguration and his inaugural address.

THE ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS
Let's start with the most trivial. Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" were not nominated for anything in the Academy Awards. Perhaps Hollywood/The Academy recognized that Moore and "F 911" probably contributed to getting Bush re-elected, and thus chose not to reward this effort.

Of course, Hollywood being what it is, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was also not nominated for anything except musical score (a very peripheral attribute relative to the movie as a whole). Apparently the Academy felt (in spite of the fact that the two films had nothing in common except that the same far leftist zealots who cheered "F 911", also roundly condemned "The Passion") that somehow these two slights would 'cancel each other out', and would thus make it appear that the Academy was 'fair minded'. No way.

* THOUGHTS ON THE MOVIE 'The Passion of the Christ' (03-02-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10MAR02

* UPDATE ON THE MOVIE 'The Passion of the Christ' (04-05-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10APR08

Maybe Moore recognized what his 'work' really was, better than the Academy. He did not enter "F 911" as a documentary, suggesting that he thereby admitted it was an agitprop piece consisting of a cinematic pastiche of over 56 deceits and out and out lies, assembled for the explicit purpose of hurting Bush's prospects for a second term.

* 56 DECEITS IN FAHRENHEIT 9/11
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Moore was entirely correct in recognizing that this work of pure leftist political SPAM could not be classified as a documentary. In any event, this agitprop piece seems to be either a faithful reflection of, or the 'mother' and basis of, the foreign policy views of the DEMS and the Main Stream Media (MSM) Mendicants and Academia and the Pundit Pukes (not just the NYT and Dan Rather and Ted Koppel, but even Zarqawi and Bin Laden parroted back some parts of "F 911" in their pronouncements), and all their critiques and ad-hominen attacks on the Bush administration's foreign policy, and more specifically its Iraq policies. "F 911" embodies the essence of the foreign policy perceptions and prescriptions advocated by these entities (think of them collectively as the 'idiocracy'). Expressions of these same criticisms and prescriptions pop up in the context of the other events that happened in these past weeks, and represent a common thread.

* ANOTHER PERCEPTUAL MAP (07-18-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp11.html#PART11JUL09

BUSH'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS
Chronologically, the inaugural address was the first of these events. The one thing that most people who heard it seemed to agree on was that it was idealistic, lofty, ambitious, and unspecific. Because of this, the address seemed to be almost like a Rorschach Ink Blot into which different people read different meanings which ultimately ended up representing their own biases and predilections rather than the meanings intended by Bush.

Of course, the naysayers of the 'idiocracy' even critiqued the non-specificity, but others pointed out that the State of the Union is a more proper venue for specifics than the inaugural address. This particular inaugural address posed a direct counterpoint to 'realpolitik'. The 'idiocracy' would have us forget that 'realpolitik' is a tactic rather than a strategy or an ideal or an end in itself.

The thing that's really scary is that if one parses and categorizes the "F 911" style foreign policy reactions of the 'idiocracy' to the inaugural address, one gets the clear impression that these people are somehow against FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, and that the US has no business espousing such ideals, let alone using them as a guiding light in our foreign policy. This is nothing new. All of this has been around for quite a while.

* DEMS ARE AGAINST FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY (11-03-03)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedpt9.html#PART9NOV01

* SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is an OXYMORON (01-05-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10JAN02

* LIMITS TO POWER (01-16-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10JAN04

* WHOSE STATE DEPARTMENT? (03-01-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp10.html#PART10MAR01

THE CONDI RICE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
These same themes were repeated by people like Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden and other leftist zealots (to Boxer, her fellow Democratic Senator from CA, Diane Feinstein is probably a Right Wing Extremist... maybe Boxer's outburst was intended to make liberal 2008 wannabe Hillary look like a moderate by comparison) during Condi Rice's confirmation hearings. They were among the devil's dozen (the thirteenth was quisling Jeffords) who voted against Condi's confirmation and called her a 'liar' (that's rich, coming from the radical weatherman faction of the DEMS, the 'Party of Perjury'). Perhaps the DEMS and their camp followers think it's OK to be racist as long as the target is GOP and/or conservative (SEE: Clarence Thomas). The other 87 Senators disagreed with the DEM's 'new mainstream gang of 13' and voted to confirm Condi.

* FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedix1.html#foreign

TED KENNEDY'S SPEECH
Then there was more of the same in a speech given by Ted Kennedy. A few days before the Iraqi election, he denounced our policy in Iraq as being a "catastrophic failure" and a "disaster". The rest of the 'idiocracy' chimed in. Boy did THAT make prospective Iraqi voters feel good, not to mention its effect on our armed forces stationed in Iraq.

ELECTIONS IN IRAQ
When the Iraqi elections were finally held on Jan. 30th, the Iraqi people responded to all this nattering negativity by giving the 'idiocracy' a blue finger (they needed to have a finger marked with blue ink to show they had voted). Although the exact figures are still not in, it appears that the Iraqi voter turnout equaled if not exceeded the 60% voting here in the US, who unlike the Iraqis, went to the polls last November with no death threats to deter them.

The 'idiocracy' was proven wrong about their claim that absolute disaster and a miniscule turnout would happen if the election were not delayed (indefinitely?). Does anyone think this election would have taken place if Kerry had been President or if Bush had listened to the advice of the 'idiocrats'?

It would almost seem as if the 'idiocracts' were disappointed that more people had not been killed thus resulting in a smaller turnout. Someone pointed out that the number of people said to have been killed during the election (35 according to the NYT, though it turned out to be more at a later time), is less than the average of 47 people per day in the US killed by drunken drivers (are you listening Ted?).

The 'idiocracy' will now be shifting their story to:

"An election does not equal democracy, but on the other hand we need a specific exit timetable. The election was not legitimate because not enough Sunnis voted".

Most people won't argue that the election is an end point, and democracy has been fully secured in Iraq. They certainly don't assume that after the election, all terrorist activity will stop. The election is more likely to be seen as a milestone (one of many) in the democratic process. However, if that is true, then demanding a specific timetable for our departure (the terrorists would surely be happy if we supplied them with one... they can then just wait us out) does not make sense.

If the election is only part of a longer process, then why should it result in specific plans for our departure? It would be foolish to try to forecast exactly what will happen next and when it will happen, and we must tailor our support for Iraq's democracy to the situation as it evolves. Having taken things this far with notable success (Iraq is no longer a WMD threat to its neighbors, its people have been liberated from Saddam's tyranny, and Iraqis have a good start toward being on the road to FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY), this is no time to 'cut and run'.

It's hard to imagine what the 'idiocracy' version of 'legitimacy' is. Apparently they don't seem to have a problem with bogus elections in places like Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Russia, Chechnia, Belarus, the FIRST Ukrainian Election before the re-vote, and the Gubernatorial election in Washington State. In the Washington election, the DEM candidate (Gregoire) had a winning margin of 129 votes (after 2 dubious hand recounts) which was smaller than the number of votes for Gregoire being cast by voters who were subsequently found to be dead, and certainly smaller than the 737 Gregoire votes that were shown to be cast by either dead people or convicted felons. Of course these 'idiocrats' are the same people who are still trying to question Bush's winning margin of over 100,000 in Ohio.

As for the 'Sunni representation deficiency issue', there are a few things to keep in mind. First of all, there was a good turnout of Kurds, and most of them are also Sunnis. Secondly, even if ALL the Sunnis voted, the outcome of the election would not have been all that different because the Shia represent a substantial majority of the population. The TERRORISTS (they should NOT be called 'insurgents') who killed many Shiites and Kurds before the election are the same Saddamites and Baathists who were 'wagging the dog' of Iraq and butchering Kurds and Shiites as a minority under Saddam.

There is NO way they will ever regain the power and privileges they had under Saddam. While many (perhaps most) of them are secularists, the rest just incidentally happen to be Sunnis. What's more, if they chose to boycott the election because they can't accept their reduced influence in the new democratic order, that's their option (they were no more at risk than the rest of the Iraqis when it came to going to the ballot box). It is they who are responsible for their own marginalization if they choose not to participate. Their choice not to vote is not the fault of the election (the electoral process was not rigged to deny them access to the ballot box), and it does not 'delegitimatize' the election.

Of course, the fact that the Sunnis and/or Baathists and/or Saddamites had equal opportunities to vote is not enough for the 'idiocrats', and in the same procrustean fashion that they have tried to superimpose Vietnam on the Iraqi Liberation, they are also making noises that another of their conundrums, 'quota systems', should be applied to this particular minority. Never mind that they had their chance to vote and will have other chances in the future. According to 'idiocrat' thinking, they should be allocated a quota of seats in the new assembly whether they voted or not. That surely would be the 'affirmative' thing to do, according to them.

CONCLUSION
It has been said that insanity can be described as someone repeating the same action over and over, yet expecting a result different from that obtained in previous tries. This kind of behavior pattern characterizes the 'idiocracy' to a T.

Perhaps they believe that 'IDEOLOGY, LIES, JUNK science, and JUNK logic is the opium of the masses', since these masses have been sufficiently 'dumbed down' by our education and/or media and/or entertainmet establishment (the MSM INFORMATION OLIGOPOLY and the POP CULTURE CARTEL). Perhaps they feel that as a result of this 'dumbing down', people will swallow their ideology and lies and faulty logic and underhanded tactics without question or critical examination.

* EMPIRICISM and MATH/SCIENCE EDUCATION (12-17-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12DEC02

Over the past four years there has been a palpable increase in their lying, cheating, hypocrisy, and other outrageous behavior, accompanied appropriately enough by electoral defeats. Yet they somehow feel that as a result of more of such behavior they will do better in the next election. It looks like Howard (Dr. Demento) Dean might become DNC chairman. The 'idiocracy' insists on being Megasphincters. It's almost as if they are saying:

"We have failed. Let us continue. What we did, didn't seem to work before, therefore we must redouble our efforts and continue to do even more of it."

This is a combination of hubris and bad karma. If it continues to accumulate, all the members of the 'idiocracy' will increase the likelihood that someday they will be reincarnated as rolls of toilet paper.

* THE 'A FACTOR' (11-11-04)
http://members.fortunecity.com/veritas1/aopedp12.html#PART12NOV03