Our friends on the Left are miffed

We've joined in the air strikes of Libya and the usual subjects on the Left are taking it none too kindly.  Don Surber has a roundup of reactions from Andrew Sullivan, Robert Dreyfuss, Louis Farrakhan and Michael Moore.  Honest righteous indignation from the Left or just their typical "I'm so important that everyone is waiting to hear my opinion" claptrap?

I've heard rumors that Michael Moore is so distraught over the bombings that he couldn't even eat is normal ten meals before breakfast.  Sullivan has had a bad case of the joneses since first he laid eyes on Barry and on the odd occasion that he does see fit to criticize his pet he typically lays the ultimate blame elsewhere.  Now he's calling for a congressional vote-in all likelihood believing that a vote will give his beloved cover.  Dreyfuss is blaming the women in Obama's life.  Hey, we're all Delilha's at heart.  Only Farrakhan managed to sound genuinely pissed-"Who the Hell do you think you are?"  I think Obama had an epiphany somewhere between the third and forth hole, turned to his caddy and said, "I think I may be president of the United States."  Just a guess.

For all the rumbling, what is the Left going to do?  Refuse to support his re-election campaign?  Actually vote against him?  Nope.  This is just lipservice and this too, shall pass.

No War for Oil

Remember all those people who claimed that the invasion of Iraq was really just Cowboy Bush's way of stealing Iraq's bounty of oil and giving it to his buddies "Big Oil"? It seems that Michael Moore and Viggo Mortensen have moved on to tackle other evils (for the anti-America crowd there will always be something). Still, I wonder how they and their ilk react to this little bit of news:

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."

Of course, most thinking people realize that if the invasion of Iraq had really been about taking over the oil fields we would have just done it. You can't argue that America is a vast military-industrial complex bent on world domination and ignore the fact that a no point did we make any attempt to take over Iraq's vast supply of oil.

History will judge the war and President Bush based on the ideology of whomever writes it. One thing is certain-there was no "blood for oil."

They're Just Not Like Us

Via Memeorandum:

John Nolte, writing at Big Hollywood makes the point that it has been a rough week for our friends in Hollywood:

Tough times for leftie Hollywood. Nothing’s gone right this week. None of
this is their fault, of course. In order to understand that it might not be
a good idea to rally around a child rapist, bash religion in a religious country or
trash capitalism in a capitalist country you have to live in the real
world.

What is the thing with people in Hollywood that they are so removed from reality? Is it the result of huge sums of money being 'handled' by uneducated and undereducated people? Is there something that leads one to be 'artistic' that also leads one to be easily led? So often, people in Hollywood take positions that not only defy common sense (and common decency) but also seem unhinged. Take Janeane Garofalo's latest rant:

"...It's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers,
the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy – they
are clearly white-identity movements. They're clearly white power movements.
What they don't like about the President is that he's black – or half black
(applause) – and they, what also is shocking is that people keep pretending that
that's not really the case with these people.I'm not talking about people that
do have problems with his policies, that's fine. ..."

Tell me that rambling isn't a prime example of NUTS. I cut the blather off at that last sentence because I found that sentence interesting. Ms. Garofalo would have us believe that she is fine with people who disagree with President. So, if ten people are gathered at random in a room who all disagree with the President, how would Janeane determine which are racist and which are not? Answer: If you disagree because you believe that the government has no business being involved in your health care, you are a racist; if you disagree with the President because he isn't pushing hard enough for a single payer system, you are a patriot.

Nolte is writing about a different nut, Michael Moore. Capitalism has been very, very good to Mr. Moore despite the multi-millionaire's claims to the contrary. But, in his defense, he's surrounded by multi-millionaires who hate the very system that brought them their wealth. Ungrateful? Sure, but the inability to be grateful and recognize the blessings in life is, for want of a better word, NUTS. Now that Moore's film, Capitalism: A Love Story has officially bombed, will Moore rethink his position? Fat chance.

The people in Hollywood aren't "just like us." We don't share the same views on politics, religion, morals. They represent a tiny fraction of our population yet they believe we are on the fringe. They are nuts and maybe, if we ignore them they will just go away.