Last night I dreamed I was John McCain’s running mate.

And we STILL lost the election!

Go figure.

Comments (1) | Permalink

Well, seeing the hypocrite Obama Hussein, er, Hussein Barack, um, well, you know that guy with three years of Senate experience who thinks he should be the leader of the free world, squirm over the NAFTA kerfluffle is quite entertaining.

So, the plan is to mend our relations with the world by unilaterally repudiating a multilateral treaty? Yeah, that will work. And I guess not being a lying politician (sorry for the redundancy) isn’t the kind of change Mr. Obama is talking about. Hell, I already had him pegged for a Carter-like weasel anyway.

No, what has been great has been the reaction up north. Our Canadian cousins are calling Barack out on his double talking, and the Obama-maniacs are taking it rather poorly. Noam Scheiber, Obama’s chief economist, wonders: What is it with these Canadians? Are they running some sort of entrapment operation up there? Why do they keep trying to torpedo Democratic candidates?”

HaHa! Yeah, just what are those wacky Canucks up too? Trying to get McCain elected?

Nah, Daniel Drezner has got it all figured out:

Based on my extensive experience with the people of the Great White North, I’ll be happy to answer Scheiber’s question. All understanding about Canadians are based on based on three very simply rules of thumb:

1) Canadians are the most polite people on earth. Really, compared to Americans, it’s just embarrassing at times. Canadians never lose their temper in meetings, ever. This is deceptive, however, because…..

2) Canadians are also the most passive-aggressive nationality on earth. For their entire lives, Canadians have had to cope with the fact that everyone assumes they’re essentially just like Americans — including Americans. The best way to make a Canadian blow a gasket is to mistake them for an American. There are other dyads that have this kind of dynamic as well (Russia-Ukraine, Australia-New Zealand), but among Canadians it leads to this kind of resentment boiling just beneath the surface that, if ever unleashed, would look like a scene from 28 Days Later.

This has a profound effect on Canadian behavior vis-a-vis the rest of the world, because just when you think a Canadian is on your side, s/he does something that completely gums up the works of a policy initiative. In the case of Canadian-American relations, this is compounded by the final rule….

3) Canadians are really schizophrenic about American attention. On the one hand, countries that are the focus of lots of American attention don’t necessarily fare all that well. Canadians like the fact that their country is often below the radar.

That said, I’m always surprised when, every four years, Canadians ask me, “So will Canada be an issue in the presidential campaign?” Every time, I say, “no chance in hell.” Clearly I’ve been proven wrong this year, but this is because the Canadians themselves lengthened the news cycle.

So to answer Noam’s question: the Canadians are doing what they’re doing because they don’t want any Americans taking Canada for granted. But they’ll do it as politely as possible.

Try applying these rules whenever one deals with Canadians — they’re easy, and fun!

I basically gave you lazy people who won’t follow a link all of Mr. Drezner’s piece (hope he forgives the violation of fair use), but click the link anyway because the comments are quite entertaining as well.

And to my Canadian buds here in Korea all I can say is pretty good stuff, eh?

Comments (2) | Permalink

Well, one of these days I’m gonna sit down and write about the presidential campaign. But this is not that day. Now that my man Thompson has dropped out I’m not sure where my loyalties lie (Huckabee being the only one I could not vote for). I presume regular readers know that Billary and Hussein would be nightmares. Anyway, all I know for sure is that a change is gonna come. Don’t believe me? Check out this video for proof:

Classic.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Now and again I come across a commercial that strikes my fancy. I mean if you gotta sit through the damn things, at least you should be entertained, right? A unique idea, interesting locations, good photography, wit and/or humor, and of course sex are all ingredients of a successful advertisement. It is rare indeed when all of these elements come together in a single ad. So, kudos to the folks at Scruff’s Hardwear, manufacturers of construction clothing in the UK, for this outstanding commercial.

Pretty well done, eh? Gotta hand it to the Brits on this one.

But, you may have noticed I tagged this post in the “humor” and “politics” category. If you are wondering why, I’m glad you asked. It seems that the attractive blonde woman in the first vignette went on to become an English teacher at an academy in Manchester. At least until some of her students recognized her from her work in television. She is currently under suspension while the school board decides her future at their institution of enlightenment. You can read about it here. Pretty f’d up in my view.

Speaking of ads, here’s a photo of a Target billboard in Times Square.

Believe it or not, this innocuous advertisement has the feminists loudly complaining that the model’s placement “objectifies” women. Umm, I don’t see that, do you? Amy Alkon has a good post on this subject that shines a bright light on the ignorance of our would-be liberal overseers.

As a commenter on Ms. Alkon’s blog notes:

I’m sure it’s a great comfort to the women in jail in the Middle East for the “crime” of being raped that Western feminists care so deeply about the placement of a well-paid, fully dressed model on a corporate billboard.

Precisely.

Comments (1) | Permalink

look at Mr. Lee…

The Republic of Korea elected a new president last night: Lee, Myung-bak. From the conservative Grand National Party, he garnered nearly 50% of the vote in a field of five candidates (his closest opponent was at 26%). That’s the biggest margin in the admittedly short history of democracy in South Korea.

Anyway, I’m no expert on Korean politics. I did want Mr. Lee to win as he is more pro-U.S. and less likely to bend over and take it up the ass from Mr. Kim, Jong-Il. By most accounts he did a good job as the mayor of Seoul. And he is the former CEO of Hyundai, so he knows business. The liberals are trying to conjure some scandal involving bribery and kickbacks, but the Korean public didn’t seem to care when they cast their ballots.

Two points I wanted to make with this post. First, I was astounded by the reaction of my Korean coworkers this morning. They were positively gleeful! Even the normally laconic Mr. Yi, Yong-in was going on and on about how happy he was that Mr. Lee had won because he thinks it will improve relations with the U.S. and make the economy stronger. What really surprised me was how much he hates the outgoing President Roh. I actually share that sentiment, as Roh is a cowardly leftist he has done much damage here in the short span of his five year term. I told Mr. Yi that I had memorized the Korean word for yellow by associating it with the soon to be former prez (roughly, no lang. which kinda sounds like no wrong. hmm, y’all know that Roh’s name is pronounced Noh, right?)

Anyhoo. I have three folks working for me with the surname of Yi. The funny thing is in Korean they are Lee’s, just like the new president. They are Yi’s now because USFK using a different Romanization convention and we actually require our Korean employees to spell their names the way we tell them to. Which is pretty outrageous, but there is supposedly a valid reason we do that. Perhaps I will write about that another day.

The other point of this post was to share with you the song that has been bouncing around my head all day. You remember the Bobbett’s, doncha?

One, two, three, look at Mr. Lee
Three, four, five, look at him jive
Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee
Oh, Mr. Lee
Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee
Oh, Mr. Lee
Mr. Lee

Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee
Oh, Mr. Lee
Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee
Oh, Mr. Lee
Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee
Oh, Mr. Lee
Mr. Lee

Comments (0) | Permalink

Comments (0) | Permalink

As part of the ongoing dispute over providing the funding necessary for our troops in harms way, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats have taken to calling it Bush’s war. Seems to me whatever your position on the merits of going into Iraq, it is America’s war. Our men and women are fighting and dying on behalf of all of us.

Anyway, here’s a short video that reminds us of the time when Americans spoke with one voice. It is worth a look.

Comments (0) | Permalink

How about them idiots in Congress? Makin’ life miserable for so many in ways that defy logic and belief. I mean, c’mon, not funding our troops in a time of war? What’s up with that?

Turns out that Congress is much less popular than the war they are so desperately trying to lose. Which led Don Surber to re-write the lyrics of that 1970 anti-war anthem by Edwin Starr:

Congress, huh, good God
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Congress-huh
Good God y’all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.

Yeah, we are talkin’ about you Harry and Nancy.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Although I am loathe to jump right back into politics, I got the following in my email today and thought I would offer it up for your consideration:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals
2. Conservatives

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed. Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservation movement. Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass. Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women.
Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, sailors, airmen, soldiers, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living. Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production.

Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today’s lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to hack them off.

So, there you have it.

Comments (2) | Permalink

Michael Moore, well known as a fat weasel and faux documentarian, goes on the attack after some Canadian journalists have the audacity to question a basic premise of his new film:

Michael Moore received a standing — and sustained — ovation following the screening of his latest documentary, Sicko, at the Cannes Film Festival Saturday. But some critics suggested that in censuring the U.S. health system, Moore was overly generous in his praise of other countries’. At a news conference, Canadian journalists harangued Moore for, as Toronto Star film critic Peter Howell wrote, making “it seem as if Canada’s socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo.” Apparently taken aback by the assault from the Canadian journalists, Moore said, “You Canadians! You used to be so funny! … You gave us all our best comedians. When did you turn so dark?”

Well, unlike many Americans, I actually know some real live Canadians, and trust me, they are not at all dark. In fact, they tend to be quite pale. Ok, so I’m not funny either.

But seriously, there are problems with healthcare in the U.S., no question. I was amazed when I visited a border town in Mexico last year and observed numerous medical clinics catering to American citizens. Not unlike what I understand to be the case in the U.S. cities along the Canadian border where folks from the GWN who can afford quality healthcare and don’t want to wait months to get it, receive treatment.

If I had been one of those reporters I would have noted that it is far better to be a “humorless”* Canadian than a fat** asshole. But that’s just me.

* Canadians in fact are very funny, check out their blogs if you don’t believe me.

** While I have no room to talk when it comes to being overweight, in comparison to Moore I am practically skinny. And I like fat people just fine, it is fat assholes that I despise. Actually, I don’t care much for skinny assholes either come to think of it.

Comments (2) | Permalink

Fred Thompson devastates Michael Moore in 30 seconds. Watch it here.

It’s early yet, but I’ve got to say the more I hear Mr. Thompson talk the more I like him.

Comments (1) | Permalink

I rather doubt that there are many people who visit LTG (and there aren’t many period) who do not also read a meaningful and well-written blog like The Lost Nomad. But on the chance that someone missed it, here’s an image taken of the Earth at night:

You will note that from this vantage point the Republic of Korea almost appears to be an island. That’s because our neighbors to the north are so bankrupt (financially and morally) that they lack the resources to provide adequate energy to light their cities.

Here’s a crappy zoom I did of the above photo to further illustrate the point:

It is easily forgotten the difference that freedom and democracy makes in the lives of ordinary people (yeah, yeah, I know China is pretty well lit up, but China is another story for another day). Of course, lacking abundant electricity is the least of the problems of the average Joe in the DPRK. Starving in the dark just underlines the misery.

I guess I’m still thinking about the remains of those six soldiers recently returned from North Korea. Their sacrafice did make a difference for 44 million people living in peace and comparitive wealth. And the soldiers today who are all too frequently disparaged while serving in a land far from home are here for only one reason: to keep it that way. It’s a good thing to remember.

Comments (0) | Permalink

An item in OpinionJournal quotes some “experts” who believe our success against the al Qaeda terrorist network is a cause for concern about our long term security. Here’s a taste:

Our favorite, though, is the closing quote in the piece:

IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke said the chance of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil has grown based on the militant network’s increasing references to the American homeland in public messages.

“Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11,” Venzke said.

There is no denying Venzke is right. If an al Qaeda attack is in the future, then it is closer now than at any point since 9/11. Venzke has stumbled onto something profound: the linear and sequential nature of time.

There are other disturbing implications as well. If you survived 9/11–and this is true no matter who you are–you are more than five years closer to death now than you were then. Reuters should look into this aspect of the story. No doubt they can find some experts to explain that it’s President Bush’s fault.

Not to mention that today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. (Where did I read that? Must have been one of those daily inspiration calendars).

Anyway, when success is spun as failure by the MSM it is certainly a brave new world. Or 1984.

Comments (0) | Permalink

What would Gandhi do? Apparently surrender.

Fred Thompson, former Senator and current Law and Order actor, as well as the man I would love to see make a run at the Presidency has a great post about the Code Pink peacenik crowd and their love of Gandhi up at NRO. Check it out!

Comments (0) | Permalink

From a band called The Right Brothers. It rocks! Have a listen.

Comments (3) | Permalink

My liberal wife and father take some issue with my position on the recent “unpleasantness” surrounding the publication of cartoons featuring unflattering images of Mohammed. The issue is not whether it was rude or disrespectful to render an image of Mohammed contrary to the alleged tenets of Islamic faith (although images have been created countless times over the centuries, including in the U.S. Supreme Court building). The issue is about the freedom to do so, and freedom of expression is one of the pillars of Western civilization. Perhaps my limited abilities as a writer prevented me from adequately articulating this point. Thankfully, Daniel Pipes precisely captures my thoughts in this regard:

The key issue at stake in the battle over the 12 Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.

More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones. Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?

***

The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos…they’re asking for my submission.”

Precisely.

Via PowerLine

Comments (11) | Permalink

Interesting controversy on the publication of cartoons depicting Muhammed. Seems some folks of the Muslim persuasion don’t care much for the exercise of free speech. Now, I understand that as a matter of faith these people believe that it is a high sin to render a depiction of Muhammed. I’m ok with that. But I ain’t Muslim. Also, I don’t see protests in the street when adherents of the Religion of Peace are publishing videos of beheadings. In fact, these “religious” leaders who are so incensed over the cartoons are calling for just that–off with the heads of any infidel who publishes the drawings of Mohammed.

Come and get me assholes.

Comments (7) | Permalink

Accused of changing the rationale for ‘his’ war, and hounded for mismanaging it. Derided as an uninspiring public speaker. Belittled as an idiot. Blamed for dividing the nation. Charged with incompetence in his administration. Accused of trampling on the Constitution. Engaged in censorship and manipulation of the press. Mockingly compared with lower primates. Pressured for a key Cabinet Advisor’s resignation.

Yep, it’s a historical fact. Damn Republican too.

Abraham Lincoln.

Read this fascinating history here. Lots of great links.

Comments (3) | Permalink

I’ve noted this week the words of mad Dr. Dean. Today I share these words from William Shawcross, writing in the The Spectator. Shawcross explains why “the struggle in Iraq really is between the worst of humanity and the best of humanity” and why America and Britain, being on the right side, must persevere”:

US and other coalition troops should and will be withdrawn as soon as the legitimate Iraqi government believes its newly created security forces can defend the country. Those who doubt the importance of the commitment should ponder the consequences for the world, not just Iraq, if al-Qa’eda and the Baathist terrorists should succeed in defeating the United States.

Iraqis will make sure that the new Iraq succeeds. The only thing that could stop it now would be if the US and Britain really did abandon the Iraqi people and withdraw prematurely, thus allowing the few thousand terrorists to destroy the future of 26 million people. The Nobel Peace Prize winner from East Timor, José Ramos-Horta, said recently that he too believes the Iraqis can create a decent society. ‘But they cannot succeed if they are abandoned. And the brave young American soldiers whom we today see cruising the treacherous streets of Iraq, sometimes battling the terrorists, sometimes conversing with ordinary Iraqis, will be remembered as the heroes who made this possible.’

You can read the whole thing over at PowerLine

Comments (1) | Permalink

Ok, I admit that like many Americans I know next to nothing about (aboot?) our large neighbor to the north. I think the Canadian government’s policies concerning the GWOT are short sighted at best. I also take some issue with Canadian criticism of U.S. foreign policy when Canada has grown feeble militarily while living under the protection of the American defense umbrella. I wish Canada had maintained the moxie of her Anglo cousins the Aussies and the Brits (ok, Quebec is French, but you don’t want to get me started on the French). To be honest, I guess I just don’t see the relevance of Canada in the grand scheme of things.

But I do tend to like almost all the Canadians I meet, and there are lots of them in Korea. Some of my favorite expat blogs are written by Canadians. I think I can even name most of the provinces (as I was challenged to do one night by some Canadians I was drinking with). I just wanted to be clear in distinguishing my criticism of Canada to my generally positive regard for the people who reside in that beautiful country (I’ve seen pictures).

I actually tried to visit Canada once but they wouldn’t let me in. It was 1974 and me and a friend had hitchiked from our southern California homes to Montana. For the return trip we thought we would enter Canada through Idaho, go west to Vancouver, and back down the coast home. We both had long hair and were looking a little scruffy from our time on the road. And the potato farmers in Idaho weren’t much on giving rides to strangers (at least strangers who looked like us). Which meant we had walked the last 11 miles from Bonners Ferry to the little border crossing of Eastpark (fork?).

The crossing closed at 2100 and we got there around 2050. The Canadian border guards asked us where we were heading, and we explained our objective. They seemed skeptical and were looking at us like the vermin many folks of the time considered long haired hippie freaks to be. Then they asked how much money do you have? I recall we each had 35 or 40 dollars, which in 1974 would have kept us fed for the week we expected to spend hitching home. The guard smirked and said “that’s not enough money to get into Canada”. After the aforementioned 11 mile march I was tired, hungry and in no mood to be dicked with. So I said, how much do I need, I will wire home and get it. The guard got right up in my face and said “son, you will NEVER have enough money to get into Canada.”

Well, I figured I would just wait till the border station closed and sneak in (it’s not exactly a secure border with barbwire fences and landmines like the one just north of Seoul). I guess that border guard was reading my mind because about that time the Bonner’s Ferry Sheriff just happened to arrive. After conversing with the Canadians he says “boys, I’m going to have to take you in and run a records check on you, so just climb into the cruiser over there”. He then drove us back the 11 miles we just walked to the Sheriff’s office. Of course, we had no wants or warrants. He even offered to let us sleep in the jail that night if we wanted. We declined and slept with the mosquitos alongside the Burlington Northern railroad tracks.

Anyway, I haven’t made it back to Canada since then, but when I do go I intend to cross the border from Idaho. It’s a matter of pride.

You may be asking yourself is there a point to this post? As if not having a point has ever stopped me before. But I actually do have a reason for regarding Canada today. I found this post at Assymetrical Information on the political situation in Canada fascinating. Which is saying a lot for me given my general who cares attitude about the Great White North. Give it a read and let me know what you think or even if you care. I would especially enjoy the perspective of my Canadian reader (that would be you Jenn).

Comments (3) | Permalink