Hillary and the Truth

Those of us on the right are amused and puzzled at the left's recent discovery that Bill and Hill are world class dissemblers. They are, as we have long known, embodiments of the old joke
"Q: How do you know when a salesman is lying?"
"A: His lips are moving".

I wrote in an earlier post about Bill's craveness in this regard. A few months ago he loudly proclaimed that among Hill's first acts as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 around the world on a mission to repair our reputation, torn asunder by the execrable W. Of course, Bush 41 hadn't been consulted on his new mission and issued a prompt statement supportive of 43. Bill never even considered that in the Internet age his assertion wouldn't stand up for 5 minutes. He just didn't care.

Over the last few months Hill has been talking about her harrowing arrival in Bosnia in 1996 amid sniper fire. She described being hurried across the tarmac to her car and the cancellation of the scheduled greeting ceremony because of the danger presented by the snipers.

For reasons best known to the MSMers who accompanied her on that trip, filmed and reported on it, they waited months to contradict her. But contradict her they have. Showing her, once again (but perhaps for the first time to her loyalists) to be the craven liar she is. No snipers, no rush across the tarmac, no cancelled greeting ceremony.

As one commentator mentioned today, to her it likely isn't a lie. She may well have convinced herself it happened (think John Kerry and the Cambodian memory "seared, seared into my brain" that never happened). That is suggested as the only reason she would, in this age of instant verification, have described a version of an event witnessed in full by TV cameras, that never happened.

Rush has a better explanation and it is consistent with reality. The MSM rarely challenges Dems and they have become complacent in the knowledge that they can say almost anything and those who get their info from the MSM will never know that they have made it all up.

For some reason, after almost 4 months of sitting on it, the MSM finally got up the nerve to call Hill what she is: a liar.

Obama and the Truth

Barak Obama has demonstrated repeatedly throughout his campaign that he is among the most cynical politicians we have seen in a long time. His message is Hope and Change. The only thing he really Hopes is that we are all too stupid to listen to what he is saying. The only thing he wants to Change is his status, from Senator to President.

His most recent demonstration of Hope is that he Hopes we will not notice that when confronted about his pastor's outrageous anti-americanism he claimed it was news to him. The reason he Hopes we won't notice is that a few days later when his original explanation became completely untenable he confessed to being aware of it, but said that he didn't agree with it.

His most recent manifestation of Change is the changing description of his grandmother's comments about being afraid of black men on the street. The recent Change differs in very important ways from his description of the same event in his autobiography. In that telling she was afraid of one black man who she felt threatened by because of his particular actions. Which is the truth? Who knows and it doesn't matter.

What does matter is that Obama is a liar with Clinton-like loyalty (see earlier posts) who is perfectly happy to try and further his political career by trashing his still living grandmother's reputation branding her as a racist. The grandmother, by the way, who was his primary parent and support, according to his autobiography, in his growing up years. Disgusting.

Hillary's Democracy

I never fail to be amazed by Democrats' seemingly instinctive authoritarianism. I described in an earlier post John Edwards' apparent belief that as President he would have the authority to cancel the health insurance coverage of members of Congress and his Cabinet. It is possible that Dem's never waning assertion that Republicans favor an "Imperial" presidency is merely another case of projection.

In promoting her Universal Health Care Plan recently Hillary informed us that she would consider garnishing the wages of those who refuse to purchase health insurance in order to ensure the universality of the plan.

So here we have a proposal supposedly initiated to "help" the less fortunate. If they have the audacity to refuse to accept and pay for the "help" they will be forced to participate against their will. Oh, wait, she would only garnish the wages of those who could "afford" to pay for the coverage. Great, thanks Hill. So, you 18 million 18 - 30's who see that paying health insurance premiums is a waste of money for you, we're going to "help" you. Reminds me of Reagan's 10 words you never want to hear: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".

Of course she also wants to confiscate some or all of the profits of those nasty oil companies. You know, the ones who have vast investment programs to find and drill more of the stuff so we can keep driving. Its odd, but I don't remember any dems offering to give money to the oil companies when they were struggling and oil was $10 barrel.

She wants to prohibit medical insurance companies from screening for pre-existing conditions and she claimed last week in a speech at a GM Plant in Lordstown, OH that the companies spend $50 billion a year "trying to figure out how not to cover people".

She went on to say that, "I'm going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here's the new policy: No more discrimination period. So even if you have a pre-existing condition you can get the health insurance you need no questions asked".

Now there's an example of the rhetoric and mind set of a truly democratic person. Beyond the appalling spectre of authoritarianism raised by such dictats is the much worse and much more practical result of such stupidity.

If you are buying your insurance from an insurer that doesn't accept subscribers with pre-existing conditions (group insurance policy issuers have long since stopped screening for pre-existing conditions) and that company is now forced to accept them, your premium will simply be raised to pay for the inevitable rise in claims the company will have to pay. That is how insurance works. The risk is spread among the policy holders. More risk = more expense = higher premiums for all policy holders. So, what Hillary is telling all you individual policy holders is that you are about to be forced to subsidize your neighbors.

Not surprisingly, she didn't give any support or meaningful explanation for that $50 billion statement. Let's assume the figure, wherever it came from is accurate. What does it mean? It means that the combined budgets of insurance companies' claims departments is $50 billion a year.

Every claim has to be evaluated and some will be turned down. So what she could just as easily have said, although it probably wouldn't enter her mind to do so since the evil insurance companies must be vilified, is insurance companies spend $50 billion a year processing claims.

She leaves the impression, purposely, I'm sure, that the companies are spending $50 billion a year to ferret out claims for pre-existing conditions, nonsense obviously. To get an idea of just how preposterous this notion is consider that it would cost less than 50 billion annually to pay $100,000 in claims for 499,000 people. Most people accumulate less than $100,000 for medical care in a lifetime, never mind a year.

Why Shouldn't We Buy into the Global Warming Hoax?

Because the UN is telling us it is so.

The UN, the promoter of the worldwide Aids epidemic will shortly be reporting that their numbers are wildly wrong, according to the Washington Post today.

One of the reasons the numbers are so far off is:

"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." (emphasis added).

The same money driven agenda will be shown to be at work in the Global Warming Industry. It won't be long now. As Radar used to say in M.A.S.H. "Wait for it".

The Trouble with "Liberals" Part 98

Dear old Senator Ted Kennedy put his prodigious writing and reasoning skills on display for us today in a piece published in The American Prospect. His subject is those nasty right wingers, Roberts and Alito. His thesis is that they jobbed the system and somehow got onto the Court without having to share with the public what their views and intentions really were.

His example is a job discrimination case, Ledbetter. I won't go into the facts here. They are boring and Ted finds them irrelevant anyway. His critique:

"And for two judges who repeatedly proclaimed a concern for the real-world impact of their decisions, Alito and Roberts have turned out to be remarkably blinded to the plight of America's most vulnerable. "

It is neither the job nor the function of the SCOTUS to match outcomes to policy. It is both its job and function to apply the law as it exists. The outcome will be whatever the best legal, not policy, minds in America determine it to be. Whatever the "plight of America's most vulnerable" might be, it is up to Teddy and his friends to fix it. Not SCOTUS.

One of the commenters at The American Prospect suggests that in Kennedy's view the best outcome would be determined by examining the net worth of the parties to the suit and giving judgement to the less wealthy of them. A logical conclusion to a customarily stupid Kennedy/Liberal argument.

The Trouble with "Liberals" Part 97

Of course, it should read the "Troubles" with liberals, there are so many of them. When you preach the doctrine of "diversity" and opine that we should be non-judgmental contradictions flow so fast and hard that incoherence quickly results. If diversity is good why prevent conservatives from speaking on college campi? Non-judgmental? Not if it concerns vilifying conservatives for the sin of being conservative.

An NFL pre-game show was polluted with a bunch of PETA nonsense yesterday. It was so preposterous that I couldn't stop watching. The subject was PETA/Michael Vick. The story was about PETA's re-education of Michael Vick. A striking, although not unexpected aspect, was the PETA spokesman's (I don't recall his name) condescending attitude toward a repentant Vick.

Most striking, also not unexpected, was a line in a letter PETA sent to Vick's judge. I haven't been able to find a copy of the letter on PETA's web site (http://blog.peta.org/archives/vick/).
A sentence from the letter was shown, highlighted, during the show. As best I can remember it said something like Michael Vick should never have any contact with animals (that is on the web site) and that he should never (emphasis added) be allowed to own an animal. Imagine that. Never. What kind of mind conjures up a lifetime penalty for harming animals and finds no difficulty promoting the notion that a judge could/should order such an outcome.

Is this the product of a non-judgemental attitude? Of course not. What they mean by non-judgmental is that we ought not to judge anything they do nor criticize them for judging us.

Rush Limbaugh, a Small Fault

I am a big Rush fan and have been for years. I even bought some of his "Club Gitmo" T-Shirts. I don't subscribe to his newsletter or Rush 24/7. Both strike me as manifestations of greed. Maybe its just me.

Like so many others I am always amused when some dem starts talking about what a rotten, racist, homophobic, misogynist etc etc person Rush is. The amusement stems of course from the obvious fact that anyone who would make such comments has never listened to Rush.

Like most of the rest of us, he does have some faults. There are two in particular that have annoyed me over the years.

When we went into Bosnia Rush (and I) were demanding an "exit strategy". The fact that we didn't have one was an anathema. Any idiot knows you have to have one. On Iraq, no exit strategy required. To quote Rush, "Winning is the exit strategy". Why the double standard? Well, because we are human I guess. Doesn't make it right though.

Rush also talks a lot about leadership. About politicians and people who do what they think is right regardless of what the polls say. How many times did we nod in agreement as he scoffed at the Clintons whose every move was preceded by "wetting a finger and lifting it into the breeze"?

Now, however, on the issue of Driver's Licenses for illegals and immigration in general, the fact that 70% of the country oppose the licenses and the comprehensive approach to immigration reform is supposed to mean that politicians who oppose the will of the majority are out of touch elitists, not leaders. They may indeed be elitists but that doesn't mean they are not leaders. They are leaders who will live and die (figuratively) promoting the approaches to these issues they believe to be right.

What Rush really means is that, like most of us, someone with whom we agree is a leader and someone with whom we disagree is not. The majority does rule. It doesn't mean we are always right.

John Edwards, Constitutional Monarch Wanabee

I saw an hilarious video of John Edwards yesterday (if I could figure out how to link things I would). I know, they are all hilarious.

Here is what he had to say:

"When I'm president, I'm going to say to members of Congress, and members of my administration, including my Cabinet, I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."

It is possible, even likely, that Johnnie thinks a President could do that. It is possible, even likely, that he doesn't care whether a President could do that.

It is interesting to consider the mind of a person who would say such a spectacularly stupid thing.

Equally stupid are the two women seated behind him nodding their approval of his stupidity, not to mention the unseen audience applauding heartily.

For all of you, here are some facts:

1) Every American has "Health Care".
2) Every American does not have Health Insurance.
3) All but a very few of us have the free will to choose to live a healthy or unhealthy life.
4) There are said to be 47 million uninsured in this country.
5) Of those, about 18 million choose to be uninsured. Mostly young people who see no
reason to spend good money on insurance they are unlikely to need anytime soon.
6) Of the remaining 31 million there is an unknown number eligible for Medicaid or
Medicare who will not apply for it until they need it.
7) There are also an unknown number eligible for S-CHIPS who will not apply for it
until they need it.
8) The population of the group described in #4 above is constantly changing.
9) There is no reason, as in NO REASON, to dismantle the world's best (yes, I know,
its not perfect) medical care delivery system to accommodate the
needs of less than 10% of the population of this country. If we feel compelled to supplement the county medical system in place across the country to accommodate them we can do that without removing the profit motive from, and thereby wrecking, the existing system.

Can you think of any other situation in which otherwise rational people would
consider such a thing? Of course not. The real problems here are demagoguery
and a hopelessly misinformed political class.

Among the model systems these misinformed demagogues praise is Canada's. I grew up there and know quite a few people who still live there. The system is great of you aren't sick. There is now objective proof for that notion: private clinics are being opened. Cleveland Clinic is now open in Toronto providing American style health care and charging for it. They are doing great. Can't imagine why.

With Friends like these...

Way back when, in 2001, W came to Washington expressing his determination to bring about bipartisan co-operation there as he had in Austin, Texas. I don't think much of bipartisanship. In my experience it is usually shorthand for republicans abandoning their principles.

It wasn't long before W embraced Ted Kennedy and "No Child Left Behind" became the unfortunate law of the land. It wasn't long before Ted Kennedy was calling W a liar and making his usual bombastic, insulting remarks about W and everything he said or did. Declaring Abu Ghraib to have been re-opened under American sponsorship. What a sickening piece of garbage he is. It is astonishing that he is so shameless as to open his mouth on the subject of waterboarding. Mary JoKopechne was not available for comment.

A year or two later Hill and Bill were invited to the WH for the unveiling of their portraits. I listened to W's incredibly gracious speech. It wasn't long before Bill was travelling the world taking pot shots at W.

Fast forward to May 2007. The "Comprehensive Immigration Act" (or whatever that putrid piece of legislation was called) is cooked up in private among the Senators. McCain tells us it will be passed without debate in 48 hours because he's happy with it. Hill is a supporter. W is a supporter. The bill gets beaten to death by an informed public. McCain and W are both big losers with the republican base.

Fast forward to November 2007. The dem presidential candidates are having a "debate". Russert is moderating. He asks Hill about NY Governor Spitzer's licenses for illegals plan. She gives a typical Clinton answer but is eventually pushed to say whether she supports Spitzer's plan or not. What does she do? Blame the Bush administration for failing to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan thus forcing governors to try to do something.

W spent enormous political capital trying to push the Senate's legislation through. Its failure had nothing to do with the administration. Does Hill give W an ounce of credit for his effort? Of course not. These people have not a shred of loyalty or decency.

UPDATE 12/26/07. The Clintons are nothing if not consistent. A few days ago Bill proclaimed that the first thing Hill would do as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 on a world tour to repair the damage Bush 43 had done to our reputation.

Puts me in mind of a phrase credited to Benjamin Disraeli, speaking about William Gladstone:
"Nothing delights me more than the sight of an unsophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of his own natural verbosity".

Bill, in the instant info world of 2007, actually believes that he can pretend to have the co-operation of 41 in trashing 43! Amazing, but consistent. No fallout of course. 41 issued a statement supportive of 43 and no doubt will go back to calling Bill his "other"son. Just because the Bushes are too nice to hold a grudge.

Readers of the NYTimes probably didn't hear about 41's statement and are no doubt doubled over laughing at their dinner parties: "Even his own father thinks he's an idiot!"

Your Money as Viewed from the Left

Jonah Goldberg in today's NRO quotes Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton's chief economic adviser, as saying "The question is, should we be giving an extra $120 billion to the top 1%?"

Sperling's reference is to tax cuts. His perspective is instructive. Apparently everything we earn belongs to the government. The only question, in his view, is how much of it the government will let us keep.

It is difficult to quantify how far removed from basic American principles this view pushes the left. Sentiments like this dredge up images of Soviet Commissars concocting five year plans that were the laughing stock of the world while dooming millions to lives of desperation and never ending queing up for food.

What sort of egotism results in the view that a bureaucrat should take from a producer as much as he sees fit in order to spend it differently than would the producer of all this wealth? If I am so smart, lucky, rapacious or energetic as to place myself within the top 1% of all earners in the biggest, wealthiest economy in all of human history it is quite possible that I would spend it well. In fact, it is arguable that whatever I choose to spend it on would be spending it well and spending it more effectively than government would.

I took an economics course long ago about which I remember very little except the color of the text book cover, blue, and one nugget of information. The nugget is that spending by the private sector creates more wealth than spending by government. I don't remember the explanation for that bit of information. I do know that I have seen it repeated in real life twice. The tax cuts of the 80's produced a huge boom and dramatically increased tax revenues. The tax cuts of the 2000's produced a huge boom and dramatically increased tax revenues.

That the Congress, state, county and local governments have chosen to use most if not all of it to fund new programs and produce budget problems doesn't change the facts: Less taxation = more economic activity = more tax revenue.

The fruits of my labor do not belong to the government. They belong to me. I am willing to contribute a portion of what I earn to the government for the common good. I think that is the sentiment this country was founded on.

Buffet Continued

In my previous post I wrote about Warren Buffet's dubious determination to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. In my opinion, he really wants us, not him, to pay more taxes.

As I thought more about the issue I realized that he is right in one respect. People in the middle-income bracket pay too much in taxes. That is not because the rich pay too little. It is the result of misguided policies put in place by incompetent, corrupt politicians.

I have heard, countless times, of the dismal savings rate of Americans. Small wonder. The government confiscates 6.2% of our income, regardless of our income level, and forces us to "save" it in Social Security. How much do people really have left to "save"? Do you earn 6.2% more than you wish to use for living expenses? Few of us are so fortunate. As has been well documented, the Social Security Trust Fund earns nothing so the confiscated assets of every working American earn nothing. My theory on why it earns nothing is that it is invested exclusively in US Treasury Bonds that have to be repaid with tax money, the money we pay the Federal Government in income tax, for the most part.

If that is not bad enough, Social Security confiscations end at $92,500 of annual income. This is simply neither fair, nor right. It clearly places the heaviest burden for funding Social Security on those least able to afford it, although arguably those to whom it is most important in terms of retirement planning. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2007 , Table 673 about 17% of households earned more than $100,000 in 2004 (the latest year reported) and so had an advantage over those earning less in terms of the impact of SS confiscations on them. (Household income is not the perfect measure here but all I could find for now.)

So about 17% of households are less burdened by the current system than the other 83%. Should the misery be shared equally? No.

In my view Social Security and Medicare should both be means tested. For those of us in the top 5%, the idea that we "need" SS is ridiculous. If SS is going to continue as it is (a bad idea) then we should continue to pay to the $92,500 cap but not be eligible to receive any benefits.

What would be the impact on the system of removing me, Bill Gates, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy (oops, probably not in it since he has done nothing but "work" for the federal gov't his whole life), John Kerry (oops, same problem) and Warren Buffet from it?

Even though my skills are lacking, please consider the following:

If I received $14,400 annually ( $1200/month) and live to age 80 I would have received $216,000.

As of 2001 (Table 700, 2001 is the latest data available) there were 3,510,000 millionaires in the USA. If we were all removed from SS eligibility (how could any of us object in any meaningful way) and lived only to age 70 the system would save $252.7 billion dollars(based on the figures I used for my case and generalising them). If half of us lived to 70 and the rest to 75, $379.1 billion would be saved and so on and so forth.

The SSA site indicates that SS payments will be reduced, probably to zero, although it is hard to tell, by withholding SS benefits for all earned income over $34,400 (there are other numbers but this is the most common in my opinion). If I understand it correctly, $1 is withheld for every $3 earned.

Not surprisingly only ordinary income is included in the calculation. By 65, most, if not all of the income earned by the vast majority of the millionaires will be dividends, interest , capital gains or pensions. None of this income would reduce our SS payments. We get a break again. We don't need it in the first place. A retiree who has to work to make ends meet has his benefits reduced, but I don't? Ridiculous.

Please do not leap to the conclusion that I am a bleeding heart. I'm not. I realize that, for the most part, we end up where we end up through a series of choices. Generally speaking, those who end up with bad outcomes have made bad choices. That doesn't mean that I should be living off their misfortunes, earned or serendipitous. Nor does it mean that they should live off the fruits of my better choices. Given a choice between the two, however, I would rather contribute meaningfully to their well-being rather than force them to contribute meaninglessly to mine.

This post is long enough. I'll leave medicare to another day.

Silly Warren

Warren Buffet, among the richest people in the world, has declared that he doesn't think he pays enough taxes and that the rich should pay more. As James Tarranto pointed out in Monday's Best of the Web at http://www.opinionjournal.com/, he can always send in money to the "Gifts to the Treasury" address if he wants to pay more. Don't hold your breath.

In fact, Buffet is an excellent example of the "say one thing, do another" culture that makes the sanctimony of the left so amusing and annoying.

Buffet complains that he pays less federal tax, as a percentage of his income, than do any of his employees. No doubt this is true. The reason for this is obvious: Most of his income is either dividends (often not taxed at all) or capital gains, taxed at 15%. Neither of these sources of income is subject to Social Security taxes, which end at $92,500(a much greater percentage of his employees' incomes than his own) anyway. His argument is knowingly misleading. That makes him a liar, not an advocate. What he really should be saying is that he wants you and me to pay more taxes.

The hypocrisy does not end there. A year or two ago he announced that the bulk of his estate would be distributed to charitable foundations before his demise. There is one reason to do this: To avoid estate taxes.

How pathetic.

The Trouble with "Liberals"

I put the word Liberals in quotes because it is no longer an accurate description of the people it once described. Today's liberals are reactionaries.

It has become more and more difficult to engage in discussion with them because their arguments are fundamentally dishonest.

A column by Mark Steyn (www.steynonline.com) and comments on it by John Hinderacker (www.powerlineblog.com) explain the basics of the problem.

"Steyn: There's a kind of decadence about all this: If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it. Fantasy is a by-product of security....

Hinderacker: That is exactly right, I think. It is the luxury of knowing they are bull******** that allows American liberals to claim that their freedoms are going up in smoke and that dissent is being suppressed, when in fact, "dissent" is socially mandated in polite society from Manhattan to Marin County.

I would add this parallel: any survey of Europeans you look at will say that they think the United States is the biggest danger to world peace, worse than North Korea or the Islamofascists. But they don't mean it. If they did, they would be clamoring for their own countries to re-arm. But the very people who claim to believe that the U.S. is bent on world domination are the same ones who don't want their own governments to spend a dollar on defense. They are entirely content to let us keep the peace. Which means that what they tell pollsters about threats to world peace, like what liberals say about threats to their civil liberties, is, to put it politely, disingenuous."

There is the problem. The reactionaries (progressives?) are all over television, radio, the blogs, campus rallies and everywhere else yelling about the suppression of dissent. Is there any greater contradiction than that?

The Associated Press: Cheerleader for the Bad Guys

A near perfect example of the AP's determined effort in support of the Bad Guys, to undermine the public's confidence in the war effort and to minimize the accomplishments of the US Military is on full display in today's Arizona Republic.

Published on Page A8, the headline reads:

"Aide: Sadr could lift cease-fire amid anger over U.S. raids"

Indeed, the first paragraph of the story says just that:

"Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr could end a ban on his milita's activities because of rising anger over U.S. and Iraqi raids against his followers, an aide said Friday amid concerns about rising violence and clashes between rival factions in the mainly Shiite south"

Eight paragraphs later, in paragraph nine, we are told:

"Sadr nonetheless renewed his appeal to uphold the cease-fire and threatened to expel Mahdi army members who don't in what his office called a response to questions from supporters about whether the cease-fire still applied in the face of the U.S. crackdown."(sic)

Apparently rather than report the news (facts): Sadr renewed the cease-fire the AP reporter(s) preferred to report their hope(speculation): Sadr could end the cease-fire.

Obviously, if this was a news story the headline would have read:

" Amid anger over U.S. raids Sadr reafirms committment to cease-fire"

and the ninth paragraph would have appeared first, the first, ninth.

In addition to the nugget above, midway through the story we are told that the U.S. Army announced the discovery of a big cache of Iranian arms. We are then told:

"The military has announced a series of such finds in recent days as it seeks to bolster its claim of Iranian support for rogue Shiite fighters".

A real reporter, without an agenda, probably would have written the same information somewhat differently:

The military has announced a series of such finds in recent days bolstering its claim of Iranian support for rogue Shiite fighters.

There, now I feel better although I hate having to do the AP's job for it.

The Global Warming Hoax

We have all been subject to the nauseating spectacle that the Nobel Peace Prize has become. Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, good grief.

Now, "best" of all, AlGore. It has been noted by people much more accomplished than me that the work AlGore has been recognized for is supposed to be science. Why not the Science Prize? Well, because "An Inconvenient Truth" is as far from contributing anything to Science as Arafat and Carter were from contributing anything to Peace.

The central puzzle in the global warming debate, to me, is: where does the assumption that there is an ideal temperature range for the earth come from? As kids we all learned about the Ice Ages, some of us learned about the mini-ice Age (I didn't until recently). We learned that areas that were once lakes (Lake Bonneville) are now deserts (The Bonneville Salt Flats). On and on. During the time I was being taught about these things no value judgement was ever made about whether these dramatic changes were good or bad, at least none were shared with me. They just happened.

Turn the clock back to 1400 Europe. It was cold. People died from the cold. Then the earth began to warm. A continent flourished. Why? Global Warming. Is it the left's assertion now that it was bad? Who is to say that this round of Global warming, if that is what it is, won't produce desireable results? The models being used point only to catastrophe. Why? Because they want to.

Now the left, notable for their amazing and ridiculous apparant assumption that mankind is not "natural" have created a huge movement decrying the warming of the planet because mankind may be part of its cause.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is the superstar of this effort despite the fact that it has been thoroughly debunked many times over. See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/goreerrors.html for a long, elaborate, academically sound deconstruction of most of the movie's assertions.

The central notion of the environmental and global warming movements is that mankind is not natural. The goods and pollution we produce are not natural. How silly is that? How can anything capable of being produced by a product of nature be anything other than natural?

SoCal Wildfires

I saw a story a few minutes ago stating that the San Diego County fires have already caused 1 billion dollars in damage.

A billion dollars just isn't what it used to be folks. We bought a downtown San Diego condo recently. It is located in a property 3 years old, comprised of two 30 story towers. The combined value of the units in these two buildings located on about an acre, maybe 2, of land is about $350,000,000. That is one property and certainly not the most expensive in downtown.

Individual property owners whose homes are burning down are certainly being harmed and will feel the bite heavily. My sympathies are with them. The overall cost of the destruction is, mercifully, tiny.

There are wild fires every year and, as far as we know, there always have been. As Roger L Simon points out on his blog, having lived in Malibu for years, the fires happen in the same places, generally, year after year and we keep rebuilding in the same places, year after year. Can the outcome really be said to be surprising?

With every hurricane in the east and wild fire in the west we hear of constantly climbing dollar value destruction as though things are getting worse, hurricanes stronger, fires wilder.

How can the losses do anything but rise? How many more houses/appartments have been built in harm's way in Southern Florida and Southern California in the last 20 years? 100's of thousands probably. That means hundreds of thousands more properties and people in harm's way. Not to mention the impact of fabulous appreciation in property values on the ultimate calculation of the losses.

It is not remarkable that losses have increased steadily, it is entirely predictable. It is completely amazing that loss of life has decreased.

What would the Southwest look like?

There are stories out today regarding the abuse heaped on the USA contestant in the Miss Universe pageant that took place in Mexico City recently. In the ordinary course of things I wouldn't be much interested in news of this nature.

The immigration debate has managed to make me more sensitive to all US-Mexico stories so I took a look at this one.

Among the reasons for the abuse, and Mexican anti-Americanism generally, cited by a Mexican interviewed for the piece was that the Mexicans haven't forgotten 1848 and how the USA stole the Southwest and California from Mexico. I have read a fair amount about the Mexican - American conflict. I may be mistaken but I think that it was a young congressman, Abe Lincoln, who asked where, exactly, on the US side of the then border, the American blood that was the causus belli was spilled. No clear answer was forthcoming.

The argument can fairly be made that we did indeed extort the Southwest and California from Mexico.

If we hadn't, all it would mean is that in 2007 the incredibly vibrant and productive states of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California would look like the rest of modern day dysfunctional Mexico and millions more Mexicans would be fleeing to a smaller, but undoubtedly just as successful USA.

Natural Tensions

In an earlier post I had confessed that I am not an expert on anything military. I make the same confession with respect to Physics. In fact, if I recall correctly, Physics was one of two courses I failed in High School. I think the other was Geometry.

One concept I did understand, although only in the most basic fashion, was the one that described how surface tension is the force that allows a water droplet to exist in the form we know it.

I call the concept "Natural Tension". In my view, natural tension exists in all manner of relationships, physical or not.

For example, there is a natural tension between parents and their children. The children are expected to explore their limits, the parents are expected to resist at whatever point they consider appropriate. In our modern era, where it seems every natural tendancy that is obviously ordinary has suddenly become complicated, the natural tension between parents and their children is now monitored by thousands of laws and bureaucrats.

Remarkably, or not, millions of parents seem to embrace the notion that child rearing is just too complicated for them and welcome the intrusion of Federal ( School Lunch programs, No Child Left Behind Act), State (each one has a Secretary of Education), County (innumerable Child Protective Services bureaucracies) and local governments in the raising of their children.

I, for example, cannot take my child out of her High School and bring her back later the same day without a note from a doctor. Why is my determination that it is ok for her to be out of school for any reason I deem appropriate insufficient? Because the bureaucrats and the parents who elected and/or acquiesce in the appointment of them presume me to be an idiot and/or a predator. Unfortuantely it appears that the majority of my peers agree with that assessment of parents in general; not themselves, of course, just "other parents". For reasons best known to themselves they happily or unwittingly have placed control of their kids in the hands of people they don't even know and seem comfortable with the notion.

There is also a natural tension in our political system. The executive and legislative branches, for example, are involved in a constant battle with each other over any number of issues. The absence of tension leads to cronyism and corruption. Too much tension and the "water droplet" that is our system may break. The exacerbation of natural tension is one of the several explanations for the seccession of the South.

Today, in the same way that so many of us have abdicated our responsibilities as parents to bureaucrats, many of us appear to have succumed to the notion that there is something unnatural about the natural tension of politics. We hear endless demands from the left for more civility in politics that are reported as though they are sincere. In the same breath that they call W all manner of vile names, compare our troops to Nazis (Sen. Durbin), declare that our troops in control of Abu Grahib are no better than Sadam (Sen. Kennedy), and vilify the politicization of the post of US Attorney (Sen. Schumer).

What Durbin, Kennedy, Schumer et al understand is the natural tension of politics. The tension is essential. They pretend sincerety while throwing their verbal bombs, but they cannot be sincere. I am often surprised that they are able to keep straight faces while making their silly assertions.

Schumer, for example, knows that the position of US Attorney is a political appointment and that the US Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President". The President has unfettered power to dismiss them at any time, for any reason or no reason. He knows, but does not say that Bill Clinton dismissed all 93 US Attorneys early in his first term, they were mostly Republican appointees, so thier dismissals were entirely political.

He knows but does not say that US Attorney Lamm in San Diego served to the end of her term, indicted and convicted Red Duke durng her term and was not removed to thwart that investigation. The suggestion to remove her was made months before the expiration of her term and the determination made that she would be replaced at the end of her term. There was obviously no intent to influence the Duke investigation.

The natural tension in politics is stretched to the breaking point when politicians succumb to the temptation to put politics ahead of the good of the country. Unfortunately we may be seeing evidence of just such an event now. Dems and Rinos have decided that for political gain they are going to try to force us out of Iraq.

The same people who were patiently explaining to us in 2005 and 2006 why it would be such a bad idea to set a timetable for withdrawal (Reid, Biden, Clinton) are now advocating the opposite. We know that they are doing so purely for perceived political gain because they do not refer to their earlier positions and explain why they have changed their minds. The reason they avoid that is there is no reasoning, other than personal political gain for their reversals of position and we as a group don't look kindly on the placing of self-interest before national interest.

How do we win in Iraq?

The ISG report suggests that we involve Iran and Syria diplomatically as a major part of our effort to appear not to lose too badly in Iraq and that Israel is a major part of the equation. I think the report may be on to something: Yes, we should involve Iran and Syria; Yes, Israel is a critical element in the equation and the status quo must be altered.

Much has been said and written about the "fact" that our armed forces are stretched thin and we have no more troops to send to Iraq. Many are of the opinion, for differing reasons, that more troops in Iraq are not the answer.

I am no military expert. It does appear though that any overuse of our assets, if that is what it is, is limited to the Army and Marines. Our Navy and Air Force do not appear to be heavily committed in Iraq or in support of the troops that are there.

Here are a series of actions designed to capitalize on the ISG's recommendations with respect to involving Iran, Syria and Israel in resolving the problems plaguing the Middle East:

1) We park a carrier group in the Mediterranean off Israel;
2) We park a second carrier group in the Persian Gulf off Iran;
3) We inform Iran and Syria that their support of sectarian warfare and terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon will no longer be tolerated;
4) We inform Iran and Syria that we will begin strategic bombing of their countries immediately in retaliation for their activities in Iraq and Lebanon;
5) We inform Iran and Syria that the bombing will end when:
A) We can verify that they have withdrawn their aid and support for insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon;
B) We can verify that they have closed their borders with Iraq and stopped the shipping of arms to Lebanon;
C) They turn over to the USA all Iraqi Baathists and Al-Quada members in their countries as well as the assets of those people;
D) They issue unambiguous declarations in English, Arabic and Farsi that they recognize Israel's right to exist as a free and sovereign state and forswear any intention to attack her;
E) Iran issues a declaration in English, Arabic and Farsi that it will not now, or in the future, attempt to create nuclear weapons or attempt to acquire the materials to make them;
F) Iran invites US inspection teams into the country in order to facilitate the verification of E above and gives the teams complete freedom of movement.

What we are seeing now in Iraq and Lebanon are the fruits of our reliance on organizations like the UN and over-reliance on institutions like "International Law".

The UN is a failed concept. It is now clear to all but the most blindered of internationalists that elevating to the level of legitimacy any regime in the world just because it exists invites the barbarians into the dining room where they will, quite naturally, feast on the truly legitimate since the truly legitimate are constrained by the rules of decency.

You do not promote Human Rights in Libya by making Libya the chair of the Human Rights Commission. You promote Human Rights in Libya by denying membership in august organizations to Libya until Libya has demonstrated that its government will protect the Human Rights of its inhabitants.

The internationalists have somehow persuaded otherwise intelligent people that exposure to right minded people and invitations to high councils will cause the transformation of brutes into intellectuals while our human experience is exactly the opposite. You don't award a Harvard degree to a High School student in the hope that he will study hard and earn the degree. You have removed any incentive for him to study hard and earn the degree.

Similarly, we don't invite rogue regimes like Syria and Iran to sit down and discuss things with us. We drive them to the table begging for us to talk with them instead of shoot at them.

International law, like domestic law, only serves to inhibit those who are law abiding. Criminals really don't care about criminal law. Rogue regimes which, by definition, have spent their existence defying international law are obviously not constrained by it. Why should they be? There are no meaningful penalties for breaking it.

The road to victory in Iraq will be paved with stones made of courage and resolve. Not the courage and resolve of our forces already there, who have already proven just how courageous and resolute they are. The stones of courage and resolve needed can only come from an American public supportive of the truly liberal cause of spreading freedom and dedicated to the imperative cause of refusing to bow down to tyrants. Those stones are missing. They must be found.

ISG - Iraq Surrender Group

A colleague asked me on Tuesday whether I had seen anything definitive on the "Report" yet. I replied that I hadn't but that it really didn't much matter. From all accounts I have read it appeared likely to contain a prescription for abandoning the Iraqis who believed in us, the troops who sacrificed and died for the cause and those in the region who had cast their lot with us.

Now it's out.

I missed one essential element: Give Israel back to the Arabs. It never occurred to me that even someone as reputedly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel as James "F--k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" Baker would go so far as to recommend a "regional meeting without Israel so as to avoid pressure from the Jews" as has been reported. Sure, if we give the Golan Heights back to Syria Islamonuts will stop setting off bombs in Bali.

The report says that we should engage the Syrians and Iranians in talks to get their co-operation in stabilizing Iraq.

I heard a clip of Baker defending his view to Lieberman. Turns out his brilliant idea is to invite Syria and Iran to the table. If they say "no" then they will be exposed to all the world as obstructionists who are encouraging the de-stabilization of Iraq. Apparently there is someone in the world that Baker thinks needs convincing of this most obvious fact. Whoever that someone is, he must be living in a cave somewhere without access to any information at all. That being the case, how does Baker plan to inform him of Iran's newly confirmed intransigence?

Then, thanks to Rush, we get to hear Madeline Albright's sage advice on the subject. (I always have a problem with her name. Seems to me Aldumb would be more appropriate.) I will quote from memory as nearly as possible: "Of course we have to talk to our enemies, not only to our friends". Brilliant. As Rush said, "No, we don't have to talk to our enemies, we have to defeat our enemies". He went on to say that our talks with the Soviets became a lot more productive when we had Pershings in England pointed at their heads.

Happily, as W pays lip service to the report he spares no effort to make perfectly clear in a press conference today that, if anything, we will become more aggressive in Iraq.

The war isn't lost yet. Hundreds, if not thousands of American service personnel along with thousands of Iraqis have died needlessly. Sacrificed on the alter of the American left's hatred of America and W. It is impossible to look back at the progress of events in Iraq and not reach the conclusion that the bad guys were emboldened by the constant drum beat of the left and the main stream press for the defeat of America in Iraq. They knew, as OBL had pointed out shortly after Mogadishu, that as long as they could keep killing Americans for a couple of years the useful idiots of the American left would cheer them on and revel in the defeat of the country they so despise, a muscular and confident America.

The lefties have never felt so good about themselves as they did in the late sixties and early seventies when they last caused the defeat of America and the needless loss of thousands of American lives. Their actions (mine included at the time) ensured the murder and slavery of millions in Indo-China. In the eighties (I had been cured by then) they fawned over the Soviets and protested the placing of nukes in England and Europe. That the Soviets were running the world's largest and most brutal prison, enslaving hundreds of millions of people mattered not at all to them. Liberals? Not by any sane definition.

The Religion of Perpetual Outrage - Again

You have all read by now of the "Flying Imams" and the hurtful treatment they received at the hands of those dastardly Islamophobes, the Flying Public and US Airways.

The facts are fairly clear:

1) 6 Arab looking men were praying in or near the boarding lounge for the Minneapolis - Phoenix flight happily invoking the name of Allah;
2) All boarded together;
3) They sat apart; 2 in 1st class, 2 mid-cabin and 2 in the rear of the plane;
4) The 2 who sat in 1st class didn't have boarding passes for 1st class and had been told by the gate agent that 1st class seats were not available;
5) 3 of the 6 asked for "seat belt extenders". Most of us have never heard of these before. They are used to make it possible for the obese to strap themselves in comfortably. (I had the misfortune of sitting beside someone who actually needed one of these devices once on SW Airlines);
6) None of those who asked for the extenders needed them and they placed them on the floor beneath their seats;
7) The seat belt extenders can be used effectively as weapons to disable others.

Well, nothing suspicious about any of that is there? The "Imams" claim they sat apart so as not to alarm the other passengers. This explanation is a beautiful example of just how stupid they think we are. They are so sensitive to our perceptions that they split up after getting on the plane ( as did the 9-11 terrorists) but so insensitive to our perceptions that they hold a prayer meeting invoking the name of Allah in the boarding lounge. Makes perfect sense to me.

Now its a week or so later. CAIR has dutifully accused all of us of Islamophobia. "Imams" are holding protests at airports in Washington and at US Airways HQ in Tempe.

This is another test of our policy of "Tolerance". Do we tolerate obviously provocative behavior from third world nuts with a 7th century philosophy whose stated goal is to wipe from the earth any form of tolerance? Is it possible that the non-Islamists who are promoting our multi-culti nonsense policies do not understand that these people actually intend to accomplish what they so loudly proclaim as their goal? The "Tolerant" society these activists are so proud of will be extinguished if we extend our tolerance to those who loudly and constantly proclaim their intent to destroy Western Liberal Society? What idiocy.

On a more practical note: I have flown a lot over the last 25 years. A whole lot. I have never, ever, ever ,ever seen ANYONE praying before a flight. Not Muslims, not Jews, not Christians. That some of you may have would not surprise me but if it has been observed it is certainly an extremely rare event.

The leading "Imam" ( I have forgotten his name) gave an interview in which he says he "loves" US Airways. The implication is that he has flown often. The interviewer didn't ask the obvious question:

Q: Mr. Imam, sir, your holiness, since you are so fond of US Airways can you tell us what has happened when you and your colleagues have said your prayers in the boarding lounge before other of the many flights you appear to have taken? And a follow up- What has been the reaction of the passengers when you have to say your prayers during a flight? Unless you only take short flights and given the schedule of Muslim prayer, an observant person like yourself must surely have found himself in flight at prayer time on one occasion or another.

A: (Please note this is my answer, not that of his holiness): Allah is great and the infidels will all perish, it is the will of Allah. Why are you asking me all these questions. You hate Islam and the followers of the Prophet. Obviously the wrong-headed executives of US Airways are discriminating against all Islamic people because they have an irrational fear of Islam..........

When you vote with the enemy

Osama and various other real bad guys and less (Eurocowards)bad guys are thrilled with the outcome of the US election this past Tuesday.

I wonder what it feels like to have voted the way Osama hoped you would. Hopefully the dems won't have too much to regret during the next two years.

I think they are crazily, steadfastly and myopically wrong headed but I still wouldn't want them to be responsible for a catastrophe. Hopefully the Republican Administration will be able to keep the Congress from completely exposing the nation to the real bad guys' worst designs.

Rumsfeld Resignation

President Bush has just announced that Rumsfeld is leaving. I suppose I understand the strategy, removing a lightening rod and hoping to defuse some of the more time wasting activities that the Dem Congress would immediately undertake.

I predict that if the Senate goes Dem they will not confirm Gates in their zeal to keep Rummy where they can get at him. (Wrong again!) The Dems don't want to win the war, they want to bury Bush.

I have been embarrassed by W a few times. A few minutes ago he was forced to admit he lied to reporters in his office last week. A very poor performance indeed.

Post Election Post

I had predicted that we would hold both the House and the Senate. At the moment, I was at least half wrong (UPDATE: 100% wrong). We have definitely lost the House and may yet lose the Senate. Congratulations to the Dems. They win.

While I would have preferred a different outcome I think that there are many benefits that will flow from the outcome we have. In no particular order they are:

1) Lincoln Chaffe is gone and won't be heard from again;
2) Mike Dewine is gone and won't be heard from again;
3) Dems will be forced to show their true colors on National Security issues and my guess is that the electorate won't be amused;
4) Dems will be forced to come up with policy initiatives and my guess is that the electorate won't take kindly to higher taxes and more rights for criminals and terrorists.
5) Our 2008 nominee will not have to overcome the negative coattail effect that might have been produced had the congressional housecleaning not taken place yesterday.

John Kerry, Military Strategist

Below is a partial transcript of Kerry's appearance on Imus this morning. The transcript is copied from WSJ, OnlineJournal, Best of the Web.

It is absolutely astonishing that a man this stupid would continue to speak aloud. But thank goodness he does. We couldn't possibly make this stuff up.

"Centipede MouthHow many feet can John Kerry fit in that mouth of his? Here he is on "Imus in the Morning" today:

Kerry: These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn't send enough troops, who didn't listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book. . . .who didn't send

Imus: . . . Senator John McCain, he seems to think--he seems to agree with the Bush administration about your comments. And you know him, obviously, better than I do, but I know him pretty well. And he probably knows what you meant, too.

Kerry: I'm sorry that John McCain has said what he said. John McCain's been a friend for a long time. But I have to tell you, I think John McCain is wrong about this.

John McCain has been a cheerleader for a policy that is incorrect. John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there. First of all, we don't have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you send them over there, it's going to do exactly what's already happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own generals are telling us that it's the numbers of troops that are the problem.

So the administration didn't send enough troops and it sent too many troops? If only we had such a decisive, principled leader as president!"

What else can one say.

Contradictions on the Left

This morning my local paper ran an AP "news" story by Michael Rubinkam about the flight of "Latinos" from Hazelton, PA in anticipation of the implementation today of "...a tough, first of its kind law targeting illegal immigrants...". (Curiously the headline used the word "Latinos" to describe the victims of this latest white outrage but the "story" describes them as "Hispanic" and never uses the word "Latino".)

The story tells the tales of apparently "Latino/Hispanic" shop owners in Hazelton whose businesses have been adversely affected by the flight of the "Latinos/Hispanics ". The "evidence suggests", Mr. Rubinkam says, "many Hispanics, legal and otherwise, have already left". Not surprisingly, Mr. Rubinkam does not actually cite any evidence. Par for the course in the "Lame Stream Media".

There is an amusing contradiction raised by the anecdotal evidence he does cite; the business owners. Given that we all know that illegal immigrants are paid nothing by their slavish white masters, how could entire businesses be built on their purchases? In fact, according to the author, there is an "Hispanic business district" in Hazelton. Wow, all those business built on wages that no one can even live on. Imagine.

Elections: 2006

I have been paying close attention to our national elections since 1988 when I naturalized.

Like many other idiots I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and thereby elected Bill Clinton, to my everlasting shame.

I watched, horrified, as we nominated Mr. Viagra, Bob Dole, as our candidate in 1996 and voted for him anyway. I was re-horrified when Mr. Viagra graduated to doing Pepsi commercials drooling over Brittany Spears. I guess some people will do anything for money.

In 2000 I happily cast my vote for W and was thrilled when the election was rightly decided in his favor. About the only thing more distasteful than having AlGore in the White House would be having to watch another Bob Dole commercial.

In the aftermath of the 2000 election it was instructive to listen to the libs whining about not winning and ascribing their loss to all manner of right-wing conspiracies; butterfly ballots (approved by a dem election commission in Palm Beach); voter suppression in black areas of Florida; SCOTUS rigging and on and on and on. Coincidently I recently heard that lib genius, Barbara Boxer, state in relation to Roe v Wade that "when the Supreme Court speaks it is as if God has spoken". I wonder why she was so critical of Bush v Gore?

In the run-up to the 2002 mid-term election the conventional wisdom was that dems would win everything up for grabs. Finally the right wing nutjobs hold on national power would be ended and the world would be a better place for it.

I went jogging on election night and listened with glee as the results poured in through my Walkman. All was right with the world. That big dummy W had done it again and Republicans had managed an historically unprecedented win.

In the run-up to the 2004 election the pundits were at it again. W would lose big to John Kerry and the dems would take back the House and Senate and the world would once again love America.

I wasn't able to go jogging that night but was able to listen to the radio and later, watch televised coverage. For the first time in living memory I watched CBS. I wanted to see Rather forced to call another W win. I hope you all saw his face as he realized that the inevitable was about to happen again. Of course, the official call wasn't made until the next day but he looked as though someone was giving him a rectal exam as I signed off about midnight knowing, as everyone else did, what the outcome would be.

Now its 2006. All the same pundits are saying all the same things. The jig is up for Republicans. I am saying that they are wrong, again.

We will win in 2006 the same way we won in 2004 and 2002; Republicans will turn out to vote in huge numbers and dems won't. The party of whiners and self-loathing will do what they always do; fill themselves with conspiracy theories, read the NYTimes for their self-justification and figure they don't have to go to the polls, everyone else will and everything will turn out just dandy for them.

There will come a time when the dems will be right and they will win. After all, even a broken watch is right twice a day, just not this day.

Torture

One of my favorite writers, Mark Steyn, had occasion to use the following phrase in an online debate with a correspondent who equated Mark's description of Gitmo after a US government sponsored trip there to the disgraced 1930's NYTimes foreign correspondent Walter Duranty's description of Stalinist Russia:

"That is a corruption of language and meaning that makes communication impossible".

I have long been looking for a phrase to describe my feeling of frustration when engaging dems in debate on a number of subjects, notable among them, that we are "torturing" prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere. We seem to be speaking different languages. They seem to change the definition of any word they choose to as it becomes convenient to do so; it makes communication impossible.

Immediately below are the Merriam-Webster definitions of "Torture":


Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&rFunction: nounEtymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle1
a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY
b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument :

It is apparent that none of our described treatment of the bad guys conforms to (a),(b1) or (b2) unless you wish to describe the infliction on them of loud and cacophonous music as causing "agony". If that is your preference I refer you again to the Steyn quote above. Pain? Hardly.

For me, and I think for most honest people "the infliction of intense pain" is what we think of as torture in the context we are discussing. We are obviously not doing that to the prisoners we hold. If we were the IRC, the detainees' lawyers and their handlers, being Americans, would not tolerate it.

I do find it very amusing that the dems arguments on the torture issue in particular and many issues in general actually fit the description of (b3). Remember "it depends on what the meaning of is is"?. What a wonderful irony. Its them doing the torturing!

You're either with us or against us...

These famous words were uttered by President Bush in a speech delivered shortly after 9/11. His obvious intention was to inform the rest of the world of our position with respect to what would become the war on terror.

The well known liberal intellectual, Ted Turner, (formerly known as the Mouth of the South), shined a bright light on the thinking of the anti-American left in a speech earlier this week. He mentioned that he was troubled by the words, saying that "he still hadn't made up his mind" when W spoke them.

What Turner and the thousands of other anti-American leftists didn't understand, it is now clear, is that W wasn't speaking to Americans. He was speaking to the rest of the world, assuming, as would not be unreasonable for a real American, that Americans understood that we are the "us" referred to in the phrase.

This is an outstanding example of the penchant among libs and dems for a kind of world citizenship in a post-nationalist era. All countries are equal, all cultures are equal, all religions are equal and we are all citizens of the world.

Even a cursory examination of such a position reveals it to be, like most other lib and dem positions, entirely self-defeating.

If all countries are equal why are visas to emigrate to Somalia so easy to come by? Brazil? Mexico? Cuba? Russia? Libya? Egypt? China? Yep, waves of immigrants on the way to these shining examples of countries in all ways equal to that dismal failure, the USA.

If all cultures are equal why are all advances in arts and science produced by the Anglo-American culture. You can substitute Judeo - Christian if you prefer. Anyone care to point me to the accomplishments of any non Judeo-Christian culture? Any notable Buddhist accomplishments? Hindu? Muslim? Taoist? Communist? Socialist? No, none. Not one. Oh, wait, the ancient Egyptians gave us mathematics (oops, that pre-dates islam), the Communists gave us mass murder and slavery on a previously unimagined scale and the Socialists gave us socialized medicine. Wow.

Arizona anti-Smoking Ballot Propositions

Here in Arizona, Ballot Propositions are very popular. The most popular from the 2004 election was Prop. 200 which required reasonable ID for would- be voters. It passed with a 56% vote. It has just been put on hold by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Heaven forbid that someone should have to identify himself in order to vote. (UPDATE: SCOTUS reinstated the law so ID will be required in the 2006 election)

This year's bevy of Props includes two that address Smoking Bans. One would ban smoking in all public places. The other would allow bars to permit smoking as long as they had air evacuation systems to ensure that the atmosphere in the place doesn't get too smoky.

It is astonishing to me that otherwise normal Americans could possibly conceive any advantage in essentially appropriating the property of others so as to have it used in a manner they consider correct. Of all the "slippery slopes" long warned of this is, in my view, the most dangerous.

The market place should take care of issues like this, not the legislature and not the smoking police. If you don't want to come to my bar or restaurant because I allow smoking in it then go somewhere else. This is so uncomplicated and efficient that it causes me to wonder what the real agenda of the smoke banners is. But I don't wonder for long. No point in it.

Middle East Forecast

With the Israel-Hezbo war on hold for the moment a great deal is being said and written about the impact of the war and of the cease-fire.

I agree with David Frum that the biggest single lesson learned or issue made clear from this war is that neither the Palestinians nor any other Arab group or country considers a Palestinian state in the "Two State Solution" mode to be their goal. They consider Israel proper to be "occupied" territory and they are going to destroy it or die trying.

Israel "unoccupied" Southern Lebanon six years ago. At that time there was a lot of commentary on whether that would be interpreted as Israeli weakness or as Israeli generosity. The jury is now in: weakness. The opponents of that withdrawal pointed out that giving up territory for no concessions in the hope of being recognized as the good guys was a fool's mission.

Israel "unoccupied" Gaza last year. The same debate took place as did regarding the Lebanon pull out six years ago. The result was the same. A fool's mission.

Israel is, and will continue to come under attack until it eventually succumbs. I am hopeful that the battle to kill it will last 1000's of years, but the battle will never stop.

It is a bizarre world indeed wherein the fiction of a country of Jews being plopped down in the Middle East due to the guilty conscience of Europeans actually gains traction.

It is a bizarre world indeed wherein the only country ever created by UN Resolution (as far as I know) finds the UN unwilling to defend its existence and actively engaged in making it as difficult as possible for Israel to defend itself.

In January 2006 an official UN meeting on the subject of Palestinian relief took place in the UN building. A map of the Middle East was displayed. There was no Israel on the map.

Jews have been hunted down and killed like animals all over Europe and the Middle East for 1000's of years. We are long past asking what we have done to make everyone hate us. It doesn't seem to matter. They do. The arabs most stridently, at the moment.

For most of the 1000's of years of our being slaughtered by various arabs and europeans and slavs we did not defend ourselves. Happily those days are long over and killing off the rest of us is going to be a long, expensive and bloody task.

What I mean by "Anti-American"

I use the term "anti-American" quite frequently in my writing. It occurred to me that its definition is not universal and that I should make an effort to define it as I understand it.

My definition begins with the Merriam-Webster definition:

"opposed or hostile to the people or the government
policies of the United States"

It seems to me that the dictionary definition of the term can apply only to non-Americans. The UN is, for example, an anti-American organization as defined above. It routinely opposes US government policy. Iraq was an anti-American country under Saddam's reign. It routinely opposed US Government policy and threatened the safety and security of the people of the United States.

It would be difficult to assert in any meaningful way that domestic political opposition to US Government policy is anti-American. Dems have long been trying to convince the voting public that they are being labeled as anti-American for simply opposing government policy. They have not been persuasive because the voting public knows a convenient fig leaf when they see one.

In my lexicon an American becomes anti-American when he steps beyond the boundaries of ordinary political discourse and advocates positions that threaten America's sovereignty and/or security.

Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State, lamented the fact that the USA is a hyperpower and suggested that our overwhelming strategic advantage over the rest of the world was destabilizing and unwelcome. The solution to this "problem" in her view was the reduction of our advantage over the rest of the world. That, in the view from down here, is an anti-American position. Any position advocating the reduction of America's various economic, strategic or tactical advantages necessarily diminishes our sovereignty and security.

The position described above also has another unfortunate component; it necessarily implies that America is not deserving of its preeminence and that it will abuse its advantage to the detriment of other countries. That is manifestly untrue and and has been proven so for decades.

But for the determination, strength and generosity of this country most of the "free" world would be speaking German, Russian or Japanese today.

The countries of Scandinavia and Europe would not have been free to develop their welfare states if the USA had not taken on the burden of their defense for the past 60 years. Canada would be bankrupt if it had to defend itself. I am not suggesting that the USA has undertaken the defense of the west at its own expense for all these years out of charity. As we have all seen countless times, self-interest often has very charitable results.

That huge coterie of US politicians anxious to gain or re-gain the "respect" of the world community by begging their indulgence and ceding our prerogatives to international organizations are, in my view, anti-American. They have no confidence or belief in the goodness of America and seem to see almost anything we do as bad. This view is only possible if one chooses to ignore all the great things America has done and continues to do and focus only on our warts. For the most part, this view also requires one to ignore or be ignorant of history.

The French have been anti-American since immediately after WWll. Idiots like John Kerry seem to think that their disaffection for us is some new phenomenon. Any American who has traveled to Paris in the last 50 years knows better.

Debating foreign and domestic policy is an essential element of the American experience. Advocating the reduction of US sovereignty through the ceding of national prerogatives to organizations like the UN or allowing foreign governments to dictate the foreign policy of the US is anti-American.

It is also anti-American and completely counterintuitive to suggest, as Stephen Bryer is fond of doing, that foreign law should inform the interpretation of the US Constitution. The Constitution is a uniquely American document and trends, legal or social, in Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) must, by definition, be irrelevant to it. Whether or not abortion on demand is available in Liberia or England makes no difference to the interpretation of the US constitution. Whether the execution of juveniles convicted of murder offends the US Constitution as cruel and unusual punishment does not depend on what the laws of Holland and Sweden say.

Looking to sources like those listed above for guidance in interpreting our Constitution belies a lack of faith in the institutions and people of this country that can only be interpreted as anti-American.

If a Picture is Worth 1000 Words...

If a picture is worth 1000 words how much is a phonied up picture worth?

The developing controversy over faked Reuters photos and staged Reuters and AP photos begs the question.

The old saying regarding a picture's worth was coined to describe the phenomenal effect of presumably accurate photos on the human mind. Few of us have the gifts to enable us to compellingly describe even the most mundane of events.

Try describing the beauty of your child, the smile of your wife, the horrendous aftermath of a car accident or the horrendous aftermath of a wartime bombing. Most of us are simply unable to bring these scenes to life in a reader's mind no matter how many words we use.

Iraqi bad guys, Palestinians and Hezbollah have managed to geometrically expand the value added of a photo. Staging scenes of bombings and attacks that may or may not have taken place, doctoring photos to make the carnage of war appear a) to have happened at all and/or b) to be much worse than the actual events have become a common tactic. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014951.php

The tactic would be considerably less effective if the Western Media was not so guilt ridden that it has rendered itself credulous. It appears that any photo showing carnage perpetrated by Israel and/or the USA is fit to print regardless of its provenance and with no consideration whatsoever of its technical integrity.

It appears that when the photo editors of Reuters, AP and the NY Times et al see a photo that conforms to their anti-Israel and anti-US bias it is automatically fit to print.

On Sunday and Monday Reuters had to "Kill" two photos demonstrated to have been altered and then removed the entire body of work of the photographer from their catalog. The NYTimes, having published another of this photographer's works on its front page on Saturday, reported Wednesday on the Reuters scandal in their business section. The photo published by The NYTimes has created some controversy but the Times apparently didn't think that most of its readers ought to be informed.

The Western Mainstream Media appears to have been completely compromised in their determination to support their anti-Israel and anti-American views with whatever lies, distortions and half-truths come across their wires. Their work product more and more resembles the government controlled media of the Arab world. In this case it is not the government controlling the output. It is the insidious and pervasive anti-Israel and anti-American publishers, editors and journalists who have surrendered their outlets as propoganda outlets for the enemies of freedom.

Israel and Hezbollah

Like most of the rest of the world I have been watching, listening and reading as the fight has progressed over these last few weeks. Like most of the rest of us I have not had access to any secret source of information that gives me any special knowledge on the subject.

A few things have become obvious, even to those of us with only a view from down here;

1) The UN continues to be an anti-American, anti-Israeli and largely anti-Semitic organization. Mr. Annan wasted little time in condemning the "apparently"(his word) deliberate Israeli bombing of a UN observer post in south Lebanon. In his never-ending myopia he "apparently" didn't bother to consider how unlikely it would be that a civilized nation, a UN member in fact, would deliberately bomb a well known UN observer post.

I haven't heard anything on the subject from Mr. Annan since it was disclosed that emails from a Canadian soldier killed in the bombing informed higher-ups that Hezbollah was maintaining a presence so close to the post that it was endangering the UN observers. As usual, the blame for the incident lies at the feet of those brave and courageous Islamonuts who get as close as possible to unarmed non-combatants to protect themselves from us. Given their craven nature, the Islamonuts actually can't lose, thanks to the hapless western media. If the use of human shields works, the Islamonuts win and live to fight another day. If the human shields die the western media is only too pleased to show the graphic photos of yet another Zionist massacre.

2) During the run-up to the Iraq war we were encouraged to view the French as reliable allies with a different tactical view of the situation, not the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that they so obviously are. Today the French Foreign Minister is touting Iran as a great and good country that can help stabilize the neighborhood. How much more do you need to hear? Please tell me that this will finally convince you to stop buying anything French.

3) The million stories about the "new" Hezbollah that is giving the Israeli's fits is laughable. I can think of no better cover story for the Israeli's to put out. It serves their every purpose.

a) Makes Iran and Syria look even worse than they are by asserting that they have given the bad guys even more weapons and other equipment than we had thought;

b) Makes the inevitable complete destruction of Hezbollah an even greater triumph than it would otherwise have been;

c) Exposes the UN for the fraud that it is. Sooner or later, probably later, someone is going to ask what, exactly, UN observers are for. I don't think any of us assumed that their purpose was to watch Hezbollah import rockets by the 1000's and train fighters by the 1000's and build bunkers and tunnels by the 1000's all in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution #1559 which demands the DISARMING of the people the UN Observers watched arm themselves to the teeth. Did they tell anyone? If they did why are the Israelis so "shocked" at the amount of infrastructure and weaponry they are encountering? If they did relay that information to UN authorities did those authorities share the info with anyone? If so, who, and what did those they shared it with do with the information?

4) The great Qana Massacre will prove to be much like the great Jenin Massacre. Unfortunately, it appears people really did die in Qana. See Human Shields above. The Islamonuts win whether the shields live or die. That win, however is shortlived. The Israelis appear not to care anylonger what the silly western media thinks and I applaud them for choosing to largely ignore the editors and talking heads who refuse to see what is immediately before them: Good guys are fighting bad guys. Good guys are doing everything within their power to get the innocents out of harm's way. The bad guys insist on keeping the innocents in front of them. Some of the innocents get killed. This is hardly the fault of the Good guys. We are the Good guys.

5) Democrat politicians are so stupid that it is unlikely that they will return to power in the near future.

Howard Dean, in a speech calling for an end to divisivness, calls Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki an anti-Semite (also called Katherine Harris a crook and compared her to Stalin, but that is another story)for refusing to condemn the Hezbollah attacks on Israel. I guess he didn't know that 5 Dem Congressmen voted against the House Resolution condemning Hezbollah. He didn't call them anti-Semites.

On the otherhand, maybe this was just Dem pander politics as usual: the speech was in Palm Beach. I wonder what percentage of the audience was jewish?

Mr. Moron, John Kerry made one of his incredibly stupid comments. I quote, as nearly as possible from memory, "This would never have happend under a Kerry Administration". What an idiot.

NY Times Treason Cont'd

It has now been 10 days since the infamous publication of National Security Secrets by the NY Times and the LA Times. In that time the furor over the exposure of our secret funds tracking program has, thankfully, not died down.

The editors of the NY Times, LA Times and the reporters who wrote the story have been forced to defend themselves several times over. Although they have declined to appear on any critics' shows, they have appeared on friendly ones and the editors have issued serial written justifications of their traitorous decision to publish the story.

There are two possible explanations of the clumsiness of their collective defenses:
1) They are so unaccustomed to being challenged that they don't know how to respond;
and/or
2) They can't possible admit that they published the story because they hate this country and our committment to the GWOT so much that they knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.

All the parties involved are asserting the same justifications;

1) Everyone knew what the USA was doing and
2) That the press has an obligation to expose government programs that might be illegal.

They appear not to have noticed that their story insists that the program was secret ( the headlines screamed it) and was effective. Obviously if the bad guys knew what we were doing they wouldn't have been caught through this program.

They appear not to have noticed that their story reported that the program was legal and subject to appropriate congressional disclosure.

How, you ask, is it possible for them not to have noticed these obvious points that discredit their defense? Its not, of course. Therein lies the reason they won't face critics directly. They wouldn't be able to continuously assert positions refuted by their own story if the interviewers were persistent in their questioning.

They seem very fond of comparing this case to the Pentagon Papers case although they know(or should know) full well that the cases are completely different. In the Pentagon Papers case SCOTUS decided that the government couldn't restrain in advance the publication of classified material. SCOTUS also said that the ruling on the injunction to prevent publication in no way constrained the government from prosecuting the leakers and the publishers for publishing classified material.

In this case, as the parties know, prior restraint is not the issue. The issue is responsibility for publishing classified material from a legal and effective program. Hopefully, prosecutions will ensue.

NY Times Treason

Today the NY Times has seen fit to publish details of another classified US Intelligence operation. That they can do so with impunity is not really surprising.

We have been having a big debate over the past few months about illegal immigration and the status of illegal immigrants in this country. We have all noticed that these illegal immigrants hide in plain view and, in fact, march in the streets protesting the existence of the laws they are breaking. They do so with impunity.

It seems that we have reached the point at which our tolerance of dissent is threatening the existence of the USA. The New York Times commits serial treasonous offenses and faces no challenge from our government; illegal immigrants flout the laws of this country and face no consequences from our government.

The one slim hope I have is that the NT Times has actually published a planted story designed to deceive the bad guys.

The scenario below is borrowed from hughhewitt.com. Enjoy


"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"Did you see the New York Times report on how the infidels are tracking our money?"
"Yes Khalid. I sent a courier with a note to the financier, and he wrote back and assured me that he will route the transfers through a firm in the Bahamas and have the money laundered."
"That is good Achmed."
"It is easy. The infidel newspapers do all the hard work. All I have to do is sit here and write out notes."
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"How come you just don't call the financier?"
"Oh - that! Because the New York Times revealed that the infidels were monitoring our phone calls."
"Damn those infidels!"
"Thank Allah for the New York Times Khalid. Without them we'd have no secrets that weren't known to the infidels."
"Praise Allah for the New York Times."
"Indeed, praise Allah for the New York Times."

May 25, 2006

Dear President Bush,


The purpose of this letter is to try to persuade you that the policies you are pursuing in several areas, but particulalrly immigration reform, are mistaken and may very well lead to a change of stewardship in one or both houses of Congress and, perhaps, the Presidency. Placing the security of this nation back in hands of Democrat politicians will be a disaster. It is avoidable. It is difficult for those of us outside the corridors of power to understand the various pressures to which you must respond. Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to warn you of disaster on the horizon.


I have been a supporter of yours since you were governor of Texas. I had the good fortune to live in Houston from 1984 - 2000. Having “known” you so long it is not a surprise to me that you would have a very compassionate position with respect to the illegal immigrant issue. You have long made your views known and anyone who has been paying attention has no reason to assert that your current position is a surprise.


The fact that you have a consistent position for a long time does not, however, confirm that position as a good one. In this case your position has the twin liabilities of assuming the nation of Mexico, and its government, will respect any immigration laws put in place in this country and so angering Republicans that we are coming to believe that we have no voice at all.


As has been pointed out by intellects much greater than my own, the fact that the Mexicans coming here are “good people” and are just “coming here to work and make better lives for themselves and their families” differentiates them in no way from about 6 billion other people on the planet. Shall we open our doors to all of them?


For most of us the illegal immigration issue has little to do with immigration and everything to do with sovereignty, the rule of law and pride of ownership.

We cannot understand how we can address the issue of future illegal immigration without ensuring that our southern border is secure. In 1965 and 1986 we undertook large scale immigration reforms that were massive failures because they failed to address a
fundamental problem; We cannot count on the Mexican Government to provide a decent economic environment for its citizens. Since they, unlike Canada for instance, are delighted to see their citizens leave and send back billions each year the situation cannot be addressed by conventional American methods.

We prefer to resolve issues by reaching agreements. In this case there is no one to reach an agreement with. Either our border becomes practically impregnable or we will have no more control over illegal immigration after passing reforms than we did before.

For many of us it is impossible to simply dismiss the multiple breakings of our laws by the illegals. They knowingly cross the border illegally; they obtain identity documents illegally; they consume civic services illegally. In short, they show absolutely no respect for our laws and by pursuing the policies dictated by your position on the issue you endorse their view. To suggest that they will pay a fine is silly. We have neither the means nor the will to collect it.

Imagine the front page stories we will be treated to:“Hector and Maria Gonzales have been living here illegally for 10 years. Both are model citizens. They have three sons and a daughter in elementary school and both work hard to support them. In fact, Hector has 2 jobs. They can’t feed their children and pay the fines that would be imposed if they are to take advantage of the Immigration Reform Bill”.


There are two possible results for Hector and Maria: Countless “special” circumstances in which the fees will be waived or a push by moderates and liberals to reduce the fees so these fine people can afford them. Both these outcomes belittle the value of our laws and make a mockery of any attempt at reform. The Mexicans of the future know, just as the 1986 to 2006 version did, that they have no reason to worry about us enforcing our laws. We are too nice to do it. They are happy to take advantage of our generosity.

For many of us it is difficult to understand how well intentioned politicians like yourself can place so little value on American citizenship and sovereignty that you are not offended by people who ignore our sovereignty and you appear happy to give away citizenship to those same people.

We are sorely offended and our national fabric is damaged by the wholesale amnesty that results from policies like those you are pursuing. I am aware that you don’t call it amnesty. Here we run into the old saw that a pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It is amnesty.

Mr. President, with respect. Secure the Border and enforce our laws first. Reform the immigration laws later.


Yours truly,

__________________________
Michael Markowitz
Cc John McCain
Bill Frist