Sarah Baxter, on the moral and intellectual confusion of the “anti-war” left (both “feminist” and otherwise).

The peace movement lost a foe in Reagan but has gone on to find new friends in today

I’m not sure what this means, but I think that Fidel is telling us that he’s kicked the bucket. Too bad it couldn’t have happened a lot sooner.

One of the down sides of life extension is that creatures like this will avail themselves of it, too.

I’m not sure what this means, but I think that Fidel is telling us that he’s kicked the bucket. Too bad it couldn’t have happened a lot sooner.

One of the down sides of life extension is that creatures like this will avail themselves of it, too.

I’m not sure what this means, but I think that Fidel is telling us that he’s kicked the bucket. Too bad it couldn’t have happened a lot sooner.

One of the down sides of life extension is that creatures like this will avail themselves of it, too.

…to learn that Moonbat McKinney’s supporters are blaming the usual suspects for her election loss.

Oy.

…to learn that Moonbat McKinney’s supporters are blaming the usual suspects for her election loss.

Oy.

…to learn that Moonbat McKinney’s supporters are blaming the usual suspects for her election loss.

Oy.

If I had more time, I’d have more to write about the noble creatures who are concerned that we might interfere with continuing dictatorship in Cuba. As it is, I can only laugh. While crying.

By the way, while I’m sure that this crowd will profoundly mourn it if true, I think that the monster is probably pushing up palm trees.

And to my current leftist trolls, was that an “unlibertarian” thought?

Martin Peretz on Ned Lamont and the “netroots”:

Mr. Lamont’s views are…not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: “We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.” Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that “Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.” And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?

Martin Peretz on Ned Lamont and the “netroots”:

Mr. Lamont’s views are…not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: “We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.” Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that “Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.” And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?