The Associated Press is following their long-standing habit of presenting any news that the White House or its components are claiming executive privilege by presenting it as "obstruction". In an article posted on the Yahoo News site today, Pete Yost intially plays it straight by saying that the Justice Department says the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
However, Yost then proceeds to quote from no one who might be able to support the Justice Department's claims. Instead, he quotes the Administration spokespeople, then immediately focuses on groups that are hostile to the Administration, such as the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and the National Security archive. Both of these groups are offered free space to attack the Administration, though no countering information is presented. Both of these groups are clamoring for unfettered release of information that has not been tied to any criminal issues, such as the federal prosecutors' firing, but were strangely silent when it was the Clinton White House claiming executive privilege. I don't recall them pressing for more information regarding Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's bribery issues either, though Jefferson has been caught literally red-handed.
For myself, I do not know whether the Justice Department's claims are meritorious or not. However, for the AP to publish a piece offering only one side of the story is shameless and only provides more evidence that the AP is not providing journalism, but propaganda.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Fluff of the Day
I have seen some ridiculous things on the Internet. But stiletto high-heel racing definitely takes the cake. I have to agree with Manolo, who says,
"It is still madness!"
Yes it is. But fun to watch.
Hat tip to little green footballs.
"It is still madness!"
Yes it is. But fun to watch.
Hat tip to little green footballs.
NY Times scare stories on US Healthcare
It is strange how studies by groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) are trumpeted by news organs like the New York Times when said findings advance the preferred views of the news organ itself. It is even stranger when studies that do not represent the preferred beliefs of news organs, or corrections that make a moockery of a story (such as Duff Wilson's fantasy-laden stories about the Duke Rape Hoax) are hidden on the back page, or not published at all.
A case in point is the recent study by the WHO that finds US healthcare is only the 37th best in the world. Naturally, the Times put these results on the front page, without bothering to invetigate how the WHO reached them. This is relevant because as John Stossel points ou in his excellent rebuttal of the WHO study on TownHall.com, the study is fatally flawed in deteremining what amounts to "good" healthcare as opposed to "bad" healthcare.
According to Stossel, the WHO put high emphasis on life expectancy. Since the US has a much higher murder rate and auto-accident death rqate than virtually any other advanced country, this has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of healthcare one receives, it would perhaps have been nice if the Times had mentioned this. It did not. In addition, the WHO graded countries' healthcare system according to how socialist they were. As Stossel writes, "The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The excellence of care in this country thus was downgraded because not everyone has totally free access to it! This little point also did not make it into the Times' story, though it did make a point that our system is "unfair".
American healthcare certasinly does need fixing. But it would be nice if the media would cease their scare tactics in pursuit of a system like Cuba or Canada. Having lived in a country (Japan) that does have a central healthcare system, I am well aware that Japanese pay more for their system than I do for mine- even when I paid for my own. I also have a wife who is a registered nurse, and have had to pay some calls to doctors for treatment, so I have seen our system up close and personal. In the end, our system is not perfect, but it contains more positives than almost any other I have experienced. Too bad the Times can't focus on some of those positives, instead of trying to scare Americans into adopting a system that consistently does worse.
A case in point is the recent study by the WHO that finds US healthcare is only the 37th best in the world. Naturally, the Times put these results on the front page, without bothering to invetigate how the WHO reached them. This is relevant because as John Stossel points ou in his excellent rebuttal of the WHO study on TownHall.com, the study is fatally flawed in deteremining what amounts to "good" healthcare as opposed to "bad" healthcare.
According to Stossel, the WHO put high emphasis on life expectancy. Since the US has a much higher murder rate and auto-accident death rqate than virtually any other advanced country, this has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of healthcare one receives, it would perhaps have been nice if the Times had mentioned this. It did not. In addition, the WHO graded countries' healthcare system according to how socialist they were. As Stossel writes, "The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The excellence of care in this country thus was downgraded because not everyone has totally free access to it! This little point also did not make it into the Times' story, though it did make a point that our system is "unfair".
American healthcare certasinly does need fixing. But it would be nice if the media would cease their scare tactics in pursuit of a system like Cuba or Canada. Having lived in a country (Japan) that does have a central healthcare system, I am well aware that Japanese pay more for their system than I do for mine- even when I paid for my own. I also have a wife who is a registered nurse, and have had to pay some calls to doctors for treatment, so I have seen our system up close and personal. In the end, our system is not perfect, but it contains more positives than almost any other I have experienced. Too bad the Times can't focus on some of those positives, instead of trying to scare Americans into adopting a system that consistently does worse.
On Media Seriousness...
The US media is justifiably reviled for its political pandering, its readily apparent bias and its refusal to actually report on news that might (gasp) make the sitting President look better than the media wants him to. However, at least the US media has not completely gone into fairyland, unlike its Japanese counterpart.
When American pledge drives or other charity auctions occur, they are normally filled with things that evoke a wide variety of feelings- baseballs from a 700th home run, valuabnle artifacts and so on. However, the Japanese network Paradise TV has a slightly different focus- on pornography. And of cours the Japanese journalistic world is only to happy to cover said fundraiser- in detail.
The Shukan Taishu (週間大衆) reports that Paradise is planning to host a wall-to-wall porn giveaway for its annual fundraiser, including,
At least our media has not yet descended to the depths that necessitate reporting on this kind of thing, despite their incomprehensible interest in the affairs of nobodies such as Paris Hilton and other "celebrities" of that nature.
When American pledge drives or other charity auctions occur, they are normally filled with things that evoke a wide variety of feelings- baseballs from a 700th home run, valuabnle artifacts and so on. However, the Japanese network Paradise TV has a slightly different focus- on pornography. And of cours the Japanese journalistic world is only to happy to cover said fundraiser- in detail.
The Shukan Taishu (週間大衆) reports that Paradise is planning to host a wall-to-wall porn giveaway for its annual fundraiser, including,
Among the features of the telethon will be "Oppai Bokin (Tit Collection)," where contributors to the charity fund are permitted to knead the breasts of an adult movie actress; and the Tekoki Jinja (Hand Job Shrine), where a cash handout will be returned with a hand out of an entirely different kind.
At least our media has not yet descended to the depths that necessitate reporting on this kind of thing, despite their incomprehensible interest in the affairs of nobodies such as Paris Hilton and other "celebrities" of that nature.
Hot (Pants) in Japan
Japanese girls have been noted in recent times of falling for all kinds of fashion fads. Some of these included the body-conscious (ボディコン) girls of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the "T-back" craze of the mid-1990s and the '70s retread craze of the early 2000s. It appears that Japanese girls now love to wear hot pants, or very short shorts. And this has apparently irritated the fashion police in Japan.
As reported by the Sunday Mainichi newspaper (毎日新聞), fashion critic Ichida Hiromi is unhappy with this turn of events. Ichida complained to the Sunday Mainichi that,
I suspect that Ichida may be jealous of the women who can wear such attire, or perhaps she genuinely yearns for the days of the kimono. While I confess to a secret appreciation for a lovely Japanese girl properly dressed in the traditional kimono (I consider kimono one of the most lovely forms of clothing ever developed), I also appreciate the difficulty most modern Japanese women have in actually wearing said attire. Not only is kimono exceedingly difficult to wear, it is an increasingly rare Japanese woman who actually knows how to put one on, and often requires the assistance of others to get properly worn. I can remember my own wife, on our wedding, required her mother's assistance in order to get her kimono properly draped and tied.
Ultimately however, Ichida's complaints ring false. If the Japanese women are not suited for hot pants, then their friendswill surely let them know. In the meantime, I am certain that the male population is enjoying the fad while it lasts. And the media, as always, is milking it for all it is worth. After all, an excuse to run pictures of gorgeous women in skimpy clothing justifies any minimal "journalism" such as this piece by the Sunday Mainichi.
As reported by the Sunday Mainichi newspaper (毎日新聞), fashion critic Ichida Hiromi is unhappy with this turn of events. Ichida complained to the Sunday Mainichi that,
Ichida says Japanese aren't suited for skimpy hot pants.
"If Japanese women were built like their Western counterparts, it wouldn't be so bad, but hot pants just don't suit Japanese," she says. "It's the same as ultra-mini skirts. They were first brought here from Europe and Japanese adopted the fashion, but it's not so easy to adopt body shapes. I really want the women decked out in revealing clothes to take an objective look at their bodies. It's going to take another three or four generations before Japanese have similar proportions to Westerners. It's still premature for Japanese to go around talking about beautiful legs," Ichida tells Sunday Mainichi. "I can understand if the women were wearing hot pants over a swimsuit when they went to the beach, or something. In fact, in those cases, they're quite cute. But these girls are wearing the short shorts everywhere. And I can't stand it!"
I suspect that Ichida may be jealous of the women who can wear such attire, or perhaps she genuinely yearns for the days of the kimono. While I confess to a secret appreciation for a lovely Japanese girl properly dressed in the traditional kimono (I consider kimono one of the most lovely forms of clothing ever developed), I also appreciate the difficulty most modern Japanese women have in actually wearing said attire. Not only is kimono exceedingly difficult to wear, it is an increasingly rare Japanese woman who actually knows how to put one on, and often requires the assistance of others to get properly worn. I can remember my own wife, on our wedding, required her mother's assistance in order to get her kimono properly draped and tied.
Ultimately however, Ichida's complaints ring false. If the Japanese women are not suited for hot pants, then their friendswill surely let them know. In the meantime, I am certain that the male population is enjoying the fad while it lasts. And the media, as always, is milking it for all it is worth. After all, an excuse to run pictures of gorgeous women in skimpy clothing justifies any minimal "journalism" such as this piece by the Sunday Mainichi.
Electoral Change in California
Ed Morrissey has been following the Democrats' attempt to sabotage the Electoral College over on Heading Right. As he has noted, Democrats were unhappy that George W. Bush won the 2000 election depite not winning the overall national popular vote. They have proposed several semi-legal solutions to this, including having states agree to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of assigning the electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote as has been traditional.
However, Democrats nationwide are not too pleased about California's plan to address the situation. As reported by Captain Ed, California voters support a plan to split the electoral vote between the winners of the various counties. Two electoral votes would be given to the winner fo the state's popular vote, but the remaining 53 would go to the winners of the state's fifty-three counties. And a plurality of Californians are in support of this idea, including half of all Democrats.
This seems to me a good idea both for fairness and for the effect it would have on the two political parties. Since California is dominated by the far-left enclaves of San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles area, the more-conservative Central Valley is often forgotten, and Repoublicans rarely spend much time or effort in the state, knowing that the liberal blocs in the cities guarantee Democratic wins in the state. If this change were to take effeect, then Republicans would need to spend time in california, benefitting both Californians and ultimately, maybe the Republican Party as well. Even Democrats might be benefitted by some competition, as they currently own California in a one-party system.
Captain Ed also pointed out that California has often been a "harbinger of political movements" and I agree with him that this change has nothing but positives for both parties. Instead of a winner-take-all result, now both parties, and even some third parties have reason to compete. The downside is that it does encourage small parties like the Greens to muddy the waters, and the last thing we need is an arrangement like much of Europe, where no single party can gain enough seats to govern., Fortunately, the fact that our Head of State is NOT the Head of the Winning Party in Congress helps us to be somewhat immune to that sort of madness.
Of course, this also means that if the ballot proposal passes, a Democratic nominee for President would face a much more difficult time of winning the national election if California's fifty-five electoral votees were not gauranteed to go to the Democrat. Hillary has problems now, and without all of California's electoral votes, I don't think she stands any chance of winning at all. But the best effect would be to allow the voters to choose- not some party operatives working in the back-room darkness.
However, Democrats nationwide are not too pleased about California's plan to address the situation. As reported by Captain Ed, California voters support a plan to split the electoral vote between the winners of the various counties. Two electoral votes would be given to the winner fo the state's popular vote, but the remaining 53 would go to the winners of the state's fifty-three counties. And a plurality of Californians are in support of this idea, including half of all Democrats.
This seems to me a good idea both for fairness and for the effect it would have on the two political parties. Since California is dominated by the far-left enclaves of San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles area, the more-conservative Central Valley is often forgotten, and Repoublicans rarely spend much time or effort in the state, knowing that the liberal blocs in the cities guarantee Democratic wins in the state. If this change were to take effeect, then Republicans would need to spend time in california, benefitting both Californians and ultimately, maybe the Republican Party as well. Even Democrats might be benefitted by some competition, as they currently own California in a one-party system.
Captain Ed also pointed out that California has often been a "harbinger of political movements" and I agree with him that this change has nothing but positives for both parties. Instead of a winner-take-all result, now both parties, and even some third parties have reason to compete. The downside is that it does encourage small parties like the Greens to muddy the waters, and the last thing we need is an arrangement like much of Europe, where no single party can gain enough seats to govern., Fortunately, the fact that our Head of State is NOT the Head of the Winning Party in Congress helps us to be somewhat immune to that sort of madness.
Of course, this also means that if the ballot proposal passes, a Democratic nominee for President would face a much more difficult time of winning the national election if California's fifty-five electoral votees were not gauranteed to go to the Democrat. Hillary has problems now, and without all of California's electoral votes, I don't think she stands any chance of winning at all. But the best effect would be to allow the voters to choose- not some party operatives working in the back-room darkness.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
More Liberal Obfuscation
The liberal media is at it again. The meme of "liberals are smarter than conservatives" has been a constant for some time, especially since the election of George W. Bush, whom liberals like to portray as an idiot. Now the Associated Press has decided to try this one more time, running a story that claims liberals read more than conservatives because they are "want the hole picture".
The story quotes the president of the American Association of Publishers on the topic, and her words are unkind at best and insulting at worst to conservatives.
Of course, Schroeder's comments should be taken with a large grain of salt- she used to be, as even the AP has to admit, "one of Congress' most liberal members" during her time as a democratic Representative from Colorado. The White House was quick to fire off an amused response, saying that Schroeder confused "quantity with quality". And the AP also admits that Karl Rove is known as a prodigious reader.
As a voracious reader myself, I have to laugh a the entire "news story". Liberals may indeed read more than conservatives. However, just because one person reads more bulk than another carries absolutely no significance as to intelligence, wisdom or any other meaningful markers of personality. I have read Kipling, Shakespeare, the Bible, a great deal of literary fiction, and a fair amount of science fiction from the Golden Age. However, the only books I have read in the past year are the Harry Potter books and a few old favorites by Douglas Reeman, CS Forester, Dick Francis and Ngaio Marsh. Although I have re-read some of the classics, such as Mahan's Influence of Sea Power Upon History and Plato's Republic (in translation- my Greek is nonexistent).
My wife on the other hand has confined her reading to several Japanese novels by Miyabe Miyuki (宮部みゆき). Does this mean she is less intelligent? Of course not. The volume of one's reading is immaterial to one's intelligence.
One can also make the argument that conservatives read less because thy have actual jobs and families to occupy their attention, while liberals tend to be children of privilege (meaning no nine-to-five job to keep them busy) and less inclined to have children (which may come back to haunt them one day at the ballot box).
However, in the main this is merely more evidence that the Left has become the party of elitism and privilege, while the conservatives (should be) the party of normal people. If only the black vote could figure this out, Democrats might actually have to enunciate a real policy as opposed to tired old bromides like this one.
The story quotes the president of the American Association of Publishers on the topic, and her words are unkind at best and insulting at worst to conservatives.
The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."
Of course, Schroeder's comments should be taken with a large grain of salt- she used to be, as even the AP has to admit, "one of Congress' most liberal members" during her time as a democratic Representative from Colorado. The White House was quick to fire off an amused response, saying that Schroeder confused "quantity with quality". And the AP also admits that Karl Rove is known as a prodigious reader.
As a voracious reader myself, I have to laugh a the entire "news story". Liberals may indeed read more than conservatives. However, just because one person reads more bulk than another carries absolutely no significance as to intelligence, wisdom or any other meaningful markers of personality. I have read Kipling, Shakespeare, the Bible, a great deal of literary fiction, and a fair amount of science fiction from the Golden Age. However, the only books I have read in the past year are the Harry Potter books and a few old favorites by Douglas Reeman, CS Forester, Dick Francis and Ngaio Marsh. Although I have re-read some of the classics, such as Mahan's Influence of Sea Power Upon History and Plato's Republic (in translation- my Greek is nonexistent).
My wife on the other hand has confined her reading to several Japanese novels by Miyabe Miyuki (宮部みゆき). Does this mean she is less intelligent? Of course not. The volume of one's reading is immaterial to one's intelligence.
One can also make the argument that conservatives read less because thy have actual jobs and families to occupy their attention, while liberals tend to be children of privilege (meaning no nine-to-five job to keep them busy) and less inclined to have children (which may come back to haunt them one day at the ballot box).
However, in the main this is merely more evidence that the Left has become the party of elitism and privilege, while the conservatives (should be) the party of normal people. If only the black vote could figure this out, Democrats might actually have to enunciate a real policy as opposed to tired old bromides like this one.
Marine Music & Nuclear Submarines
This is one in a series of posts on the history of the United States Navy.
On this day in 1800, the United States Marine Band gave its first concert in Washington, District of Columbia. This was the first in a long and continuing tradition of great musicians providing music to the public, including such luminaries as John Philip Sousa, who led the Marine Band from 1880 - 1892. This tradition continues today, as "The President's Own" band continues to provide superb music for all State occasions and many public concerts.
And also on this day in history in 1951, the first contract for a nuclear-powered submarine was awarded to the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. This award paved the way for the Navy to enter the nuclear era with the launch of the U.S.S. Nautilus (SSN-571) in 1954. Today, Nautilus, named for the famed submarine in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in which he predicted nuclear power among other things, can be found at Groton, Connecticut, near the huge submarine base of New London, Connecticut.
On this day in 1800, the United States Marine Band gave its first concert in Washington, District of Columbia. This was the first in a long and continuing tradition of great musicians providing music to the public, including such luminaries as John Philip Sousa, who led the Marine Band from 1880 - 1892. This tradition continues today, as "The President's Own" band continues to provide superb music for all State occasions and many public concerts.
And also on this day in history in 1951, the first contract for a nuclear-powered submarine was awarded to the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. This award paved the way for the Navy to enter the nuclear era with the launch of the U.S.S. Nautilus (SSN-571) in 1954. Today, Nautilus, named for the famed submarine in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in which he predicted nuclear power among other things, can be found at Groton, Connecticut, near the huge submarine base of New London, Connecticut.
Model Health Care?
I am not a supporter of government-run health care. Nor am I a proponent of universal health care, a la the Hillary Clinton model or any other socialist scheme. That being said, however, there is no question that the United States health care model could use some improvement. I would fight against adopting the Canadian (or God forbid, the Cuban) model that Hillary and other rich hypocrites like Michael Moore want to foist upon us. But there may be a viable alternative or two out there.
With that in mind, former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, who is currently Chairman of the Romney for President Domestic Policy Task Force, has written an article praising Romney's reform of the Massachusetts health-care industry. While the source must be considered, if Talent's article is correct, then this may be one possibility for reforming the national health=-care system as well. But I still have a few concerns:
First, we need to ensure that illegal aliens cannot access any new national health-care system. If they need medical care, they need to pay up-front for it; they should not be allowed any of its benefits otherwise.
Second, we need to ensure that government gets its nose out of healthcare. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy involved in our health-care system. Deregulation is essential if any real reform is to succeed. The key, as Talent says in describing Romney's reforms,
Competition, not over-regulation, is the key to success. If everyone is concentrating on producing the best product for the least amount of money, and the consumer is able to choose, then many of the current issues will go away in my opinion.
Finally we need to get lawyers out of the equation. too many doctors and medical institutions are so fearful of these ambulance-chasers that they will do unnecessary tests, driving up sots, so as to avoid deadly lawsuits. We need to cap malpractice awards and also to eliminate the ability of people who have actually never suffered to gain from class-action lawsuits. Get lawyers out of healthcare and I think we will find that healthcare becomes affordable again. Maybe if doctors refused care to lawyers that might be a start?
Talent's article does not provide enough information to make a truly informed opinion on the success or failure of Romney's reforms in Massachusetts. But is does provide a possible path for national reform, if taken judiciously. Read the whole thing.
With that in mind, former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, who is currently Chairman of the Romney for President Domestic Policy Task Force, has written an article praising Romney's reform of the Massachusetts health-care industry. While the source must be considered, if Talent's article is correct, then this may be one possibility for reforming the national health=-care system as well. But I still have a few concerns:
First, we need to ensure that illegal aliens cannot access any new national health-care system. If they need medical care, they need to pay up-front for it; they should not be allowed any of its benefits otherwise.
Second, we need to ensure that government gets its nose out of healthcare. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy involved in our health-care system. Deregulation is essential if any real reform is to succeed. The key, as Talent says in describing Romney's reforms,
Finally, Governor Romney recognized that competition is the key to the success of any market – so doing what no one had ever done before, he created a new market where consumers can go to pick the health care plan that suits them best.
Competition, not over-regulation, is the key to success. If everyone is concentrating on producing the best product for the least amount of money, and the consumer is able to choose, then many of the current issues will go away in my opinion.
Finally we need to get lawyers out of the equation. too many doctors and medical institutions are so fearful of these ambulance-chasers that they will do unnecessary tests, driving up sots, so as to avoid deadly lawsuits. We need to cap malpractice awards and also to eliminate the ability of people who have actually never suffered to gain from class-action lawsuits. Get lawyers out of healthcare and I think we will find that healthcare becomes affordable again. Maybe if doctors refused care to lawyers that might be a start?
Talent's article does not provide enough information to make a truly informed opinion on the success or failure of Romney's reforms in Massachusetts. But is does provide a possible path for national reform, if taken judiciously. Read the whole thing.
Bully Russia Tries Again
Russia is no fan of the proposed U.S. missile defense system. This is for very good reason. If the U.S. successfully implements its missile-defense system, then Russia's major weapons are essentially useless against the United States. And Russian influence will become even less than it is at present.
Therefore, it is no surprise that Russia is trying to bully her neighbors into refusing to host pieces of the missile defense system. One of those neighbors is the Czech Republic, which has some experience with being betrayed by the West and dominated by Russia. Today, Russia's military Chief of Staff added to the pressure, incidentally taking sides in the upcoming 2008 Presidential election in the United States as well. And surprise, surprise, he subtlely hinted that Russia would prefer to see a Democrat in the WHite House.
This should provide additional evidence, if any were necessary, that Democrats are widely seen as being surrender-happy, and that most nations correctly understand that Democrats have neither an understanding of defense nor do they have the intestinal fortitude to actually pursue a strong defense. They would rather turn troops into policemen and base American defense on vague ideals of "peace".
And it presents even more evidence that Russia will stop at nothing to return to its formerly prominent position, possibly including the re-occupation of those Eastern European countries that were for so long under its iron fist.
Therefore, it is no surprise that Russia is trying to bully her neighbors into refusing to host pieces of the missile defense system. One of those neighbors is the Czech Republic, which has some experience with being betrayed by the West and dominated by Russia. Today, Russia's military Chief of Staff added to the pressure, incidentally taking sides in the upcoming 2008 Presidential election in the United States as well. And surprise, surprise, he subtlely hinted that Russia would prefer to see a Democrat in the WHite House.
We say it will be a big mistake by the Czech government to put this radar site on Czech territory," said Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian military chief of staff, after meeting the Czech deputy defense minister, Martin Bartak.
He said the Czech Republic should hold off making a decision until after the U.S. presidential election, scheduled to take place in late 2008. Incumbent George W. Bush will not be running.
"A decision will be made by the Czech side only after the evaluation of all conditions, technical and otherwise," said Baluyevsky.
"I and my Russian colleagues simply ask that that process continue through to October-November of 2008, and I think you can all guess why."
Asked by a reporter to clarify, he said: "I do not exclude that a new administration in the United States will re-evaluate the current administration's decisions on missile defense."
This should provide additional evidence, if any were necessary, that Democrats are widely seen as being surrender-happy, and that most nations correctly understand that Democrats have neither an understanding of defense nor do they have the intestinal fortitude to actually pursue a strong defense. They would rather turn troops into policemen and base American defense on vague ideals of "peace".
And it presents even more evidence that Russia will stop at nothing to return to its formerly prominent position, possibly including the re-occupation of those Eastern European countries that were for so long under its iron fist.
About that Democratic Congress...
You probably won't see many reports of this in the mainstream media, but it appears that despite the media shilling for Democrats, the Democratic-controlled Congress is not particularly popular with the American public. According to a new Gallup poll, Congress' approval rating has matched a historic low- only 18 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.
In contrast, President Bush's approval ratings are holding steady in the low 30 percent range. The same Gallup poll reports that Bush has an approval rating of 32 percent. While Bush's low approval rating can be traced to the unceasingly negative coverage of the Iraq campaign as well as his stumbles on immigration and other policies that upset his core constituency, Congress does not have that excuse.
Democrats took Congress, as Gallup mentions, on voter disgust with Republican profligacy and scandals. But Pelosi and Company have proven even more corrupt and than the Republicans they replaced. Perhaps if Congress would concentrate more on the job they are supposed to be doing- such as cleaning up the pork-laden members of the new Democratic majority- and less on trying to manufacture scandals that do not exist, they might be able to hang on to their majority in the next elections. At this rate however, Nancy Pelosi's reign as Madame Speaker may be short.
In contrast, President Bush's approval ratings are holding steady in the low 30 percent range. The same Gallup poll reports that Bush has an approval rating of 32 percent. While Bush's low approval rating can be traced to the unceasingly negative coverage of the Iraq campaign as well as his stumbles on immigration and other policies that upset his core constituency, Congress does not have that excuse.
Democrats took Congress, as Gallup mentions, on voter disgust with Republican profligacy and scandals. But Pelosi and Company have proven even more corrupt and than the Republicans they replaced. Perhaps if Congress would concentrate more on the job they are supposed to be doing- such as cleaning up the pork-laden members of the new Democratic majority- and less on trying to manufacture scandals that do not exist, they might be able to hang on to their majority in the next elections. At this rate however, Nancy Pelosi's reign as Madame Speaker may be short.
Creeping Sharia
I cannot imagine any scenario where a "Christian-themed" private school would be allowed to open without furious outcry from most of the media and many Democratic politicians. the ACLU would be in the forefront of the fight, filing legal challenges to keep it from recieving any kind of public funding whatsoever. And virtually every news outlet in the country would be editorializing that American was becoming a thoecracy.
Yet these same organizations apparently have no problem with an Islamic-themed public school opening in Brooklyn. In fact, according to the New York Department of Education,
A school that will "teach Arabic language and culture"? And it is being sponsored by the New York Department of Eduction? If the separation of church and state means anything to the usually-fierce opponents of religion, then this school should not be allowed to open. Unless of course the New York Department of Education is prepared to open similar schools teaching "Hindi culture and language", "Jewish culture and language" and maybe even "Christian culture". But I suspect that there will be no such schools opened by the New York Department of Education. For some reason Islam, the religion that openly calls for a combined church/state structure is OK but all other religions, which have a long-established separation between the political and the religious, are not.
One can only wonder when the mavens of "diversity" will finally realize that the very forces they are so closely allied with- the forces of radical Islam- are those that they ought be most fearful of, for "diversity" is one of Islam's first targets anywhere they achieve a majority rule.
Yet these same organizations apparently have no problem with an Islamic-themed public school opening in Brooklyn. In fact, according to the New York Department of Education,
Khalil Gibran International Academy is a new public middle school that will teach Arabic language and culture while adhering to all state academic and legal standards. This is a non-religious school and will be open to all New York City students. The school will be housed in the Sarah. J. Hale building at 345 Dean Street in Brooklyn and will enroll 60 6th graders in September.
A school that will "teach Arabic language and culture"? And it is being sponsored by the New York Department of Eduction? If the separation of church and state means anything to the usually-fierce opponents of religion, then this school should not be allowed to open. Unless of course the New York Department of Education is prepared to open similar schools teaching "Hindi culture and language", "Jewish culture and language" and maybe even "Christian culture". But I suspect that there will be no such schools opened by the New York Department of Education. For some reason Islam, the religion that openly calls for a combined church/state structure is OK but all other religions, which have a long-established separation between the political and the religious, are not.
One can only wonder when the mavens of "diversity" will finally realize that the very forces they are so closely allied with- the forces of radical Islam- are those that they ought be most fearful of, for "diversity" is one of Islam's first targets anywhere they achieve a majority rule.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Deeds, Not Words
Liberals love to talk. They are the masters of words. Conservatives as a rule are not great talkers. They prefer deeds. This has been evident for some time.
Today, Eric at the Tygrrrr Express has posted a wonderful article about liberals' words versus conversatives' actions. While I find it difficult to improve on Eric's essay, I would like to point out the following:
Liberals like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter sat down with their opponents and talked. Once in a while, they are fortunate enough that their guests have plans that they can take credit for. This happened to Carter when he hosted Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin. They signed a treaty. Carter provided a location.
Conservatives on the other hand, are not usually great talkers, with Ronald Rreagan begin the rare exception. Conservatives prefer to act, not talk. When Kim Il Sung, backed by Red china, invaded South Korea in 1952, Harry Truman did not talk- he acted. the result is a free South Korea. When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, he faced a deadly enemy in the Soviet Union. He realized that they could not possibly compete with us, and we proceeded to win the Cold War. tTe result was a free Eastern Europe and an end to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, George H.W. Bush acted- he sent the United States military to dislodge Hussein. The result was a free Kuwait. When George W. Bush saw that Iraq was a problem in the global war on radical Islam we are currently fighting, he also acted before the problem could get worse- he sent in the United States military. The result, if the Democrats and the Left fail to convince us of defeat, will ultimately be a free Iraq.
Liberals' plans for a better world seem to involve lots of Big Government and the lessening of actual choices for ordinary people like most of us- children of privilege like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards somehow seem to expect that their ideal State will leave their massive wealth somehow intact.
Conservatives' plans for a better country usually involve getting government out of people's pockets and allowing more personal choice. While many liberals are undoubtedly well-meaning people, they lack an understanding that we live in an imperfect world and the only way to ensure our own survival is to be strong enough to fight and win when our lifestyle and our culture are attacked. Talking to a Stalin, a Hitler and a Mao Tse-tung (or a Saddam Hussein, for that matter) never works unless the dictator is frightened enough to do as you ask. Only strength can dissuade would-be conquerors. Ask the men and women of Constantinople- their weakness and that of their allies allowed Islam to conquer one of the oldest Christian cities in the world, and turn the greatest church in Christiandom into a mosque.
Liberals keep talking, but it is conservatives who guarantee them the freedom to do so. Keep that in mind the next time a liberal starts talking about how we can make the world a better place.
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
Today, Eric at the Tygrrrr Express has posted a wonderful article about liberals' words versus conversatives' actions. While I find it difficult to improve on Eric's essay, I would like to point out the following:
Liberals like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter sat down with their opponents and talked. Once in a while, they are fortunate enough that their guests have plans that they can take credit for. This happened to Carter when he hosted Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin. They signed a treaty. Carter provided a location.
Conservatives on the other hand, are not usually great talkers, with Ronald Rreagan begin the rare exception. Conservatives prefer to act, not talk. When Kim Il Sung, backed by Red china, invaded South Korea in 1952, Harry Truman did not talk- he acted. the result is a free South Korea. When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, he faced a deadly enemy in the Soviet Union. He realized that they could not possibly compete with us, and we proceeded to win the Cold War. tTe result was a free Eastern Europe and an end to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, George H.W. Bush acted- he sent the United States military to dislodge Hussein. The result was a free Kuwait. When George W. Bush saw that Iraq was a problem in the global war on radical Islam we are currently fighting, he also acted before the problem could get worse- he sent in the United States military. The result, if the Democrats and the Left fail to convince us of defeat, will ultimately be a free Iraq.
Liberals' plans for a better world seem to involve lots of Big Government and the lessening of actual choices for ordinary people like most of us- children of privilege like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards somehow seem to expect that their ideal State will leave their massive wealth somehow intact.
Conservatives' plans for a better country usually involve getting government out of people's pockets and allowing more personal choice. While many liberals are undoubtedly well-meaning people, they lack an understanding that we live in an imperfect world and the only way to ensure our own survival is to be strong enough to fight and win when our lifestyle and our culture are attacked. Talking to a Stalin, a Hitler and a Mao Tse-tung (or a Saddam Hussein, for that matter) never works unless the dictator is frightened enough to do as you ask. Only strength can dissuade would-be conquerors. Ask the men and women of Constantinople- their weakness and that of their allies allowed Islam to conquer one of the oldest Christian cities in the world, and turn the greatest church in Christiandom into a mosque.
Liberals keep talking, but it is conservatives who guarantee them the freedom to do so. Keep that in mind the next time a liberal starts talking about how we can make the world a better place.
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
Dhimmis at the BBC
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), like many other so-called "mainstream media" outlets, has been one of the worst offenders in groveling to anything Muslims wish, while doing their utmost to assist in the defeat of the Western culture that they exploit and which pays their bloated salaries.
Today, the BBC made yet another step toward dhimmitude, as they cancelled a proposed fictional terror attack in order to avoid offending Muslims. According to the This is London entertainment guide at the Evening Standard,
It appears that the BBC caved due to fears of Muslim's reactions to the proposed show. One wonders if they would have had the same reaction if the proposed show had featured Christian extremists setting off a bomb?
The BBC is well on the way to full dhimmitude. It only remains for them to follow Dutch Bishop Tiny Muskins and call God "Allah" in their public pronouncements. Or maybe they can wear large crosses on their raiment as Muslims have traditionally required non-Muslims to do. Surely the fine progressives at the BBC would not protest- after all, they have already surrendered in the culture war between Islam and the West.
Today, the BBC made yet another step toward dhimmitude, as they cancelled a proposed fictional terror attack in order to avoid offending Muslims. According to the This is London entertainment guide at the Evening Standard,
The first show of the hospital drama's new series was to have featured a storyline about an explosion caused by Islamic extremists.
Now the bomb will be set off by animal rights campaigners instead.
It appears that the BBC caved due to fears of Muslim's reactions to the proposed show. One wonders if they would have had the same reaction if the proposed show had featured Christian extremists setting off a bomb?
The BBC is well on the way to full dhimmitude. It only remains for them to follow Dutch Bishop Tiny Muskins and call God "Allah" in their public pronouncements. Or maybe they can wear large crosses on their raiment as Muslims have traditionally required non-Muslims to do. Surely the fine progressives at the BBC would not protest- after all, they have already surrendered in the culture war between Islam and the West.
(Illegal) Immigration Issues
An example of all that is wrong with our immigration system was on display today as 32 year old illegal alien Elvira Arellano was arrested in Los Angeles and processed for deportation. All while Arellano's son, a legal US resident, watched. This is wrong on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin.
First, how did Arellano's son gain legal US residency, when his mother arrived illegally? Because anyone born in the U.S automatically is a citizen, regardless of how they got here. This needs to change, so as to eliminate the "anchor babies" so many illegals depend on to muddy the waters of their own illegal actions.
Second, Arellano herself is a multiple offender. She has already been deported once, and has returned anyway. She has been staying in a church in Chicago in defiance of a deportation order for the past seven months. Why did the government not obtain a search warrant and seize her from her illegal sanctuary? Churches have no legal basis to defy the federal government, especially in cases like this, where there is no question of the woman being mistreated.
But most of all, this is an example of how badly our immigration process is broken. Illegal aliens like this woman push themselves in front of those who have done the process legally, and that is a Bad Thing. Why should we lavish any pity on Arellanes and her illegal cohorts when far more qualified and law-abiding people wait on the Department of Homeland Security capricious and time-consuming process for legal admittance to this country?
It's time for this country to get serious. Remove the anchor baby process first. Anyone born here must be of at least one American citizen parent, and if the baby is born to a foreign parent, they must apply for citizenship- it should not be automatic. Second, we need to stop this invasion of illegals from our southern border, no matter how desperately the corrupt government in Mexico desires this state of affairs to continue. But most of all, we need to convince our representatives in Washington of our seriousness. And if they cannot or will not listen, maybe it's time to send a few of them home for good.
First, how did Arellano's son gain legal US residency, when his mother arrived illegally? Because anyone born in the U.S automatically is a citizen, regardless of how they got here. This needs to change, so as to eliminate the "anchor babies" so many illegals depend on to muddy the waters of their own illegal actions.
Second, Arellano herself is a multiple offender. She has already been deported once, and has returned anyway. She has been staying in a church in Chicago in defiance of a deportation order for the past seven months. Why did the government not obtain a search warrant and seize her from her illegal sanctuary? Churches have no legal basis to defy the federal government, especially in cases like this, where there is no question of the woman being mistreated.
But most of all, this is an example of how badly our immigration process is broken. Illegal aliens like this woman push themselves in front of those who have done the process legally, and that is a Bad Thing. Why should we lavish any pity on Arellanes and her illegal cohorts when far more qualified and law-abiding people wait on the Department of Homeland Security capricious and time-consuming process for legal admittance to this country?
It's time for this country to get serious. Remove the anchor baby process first. Anyone born here must be of at least one American citizen parent, and if the baby is born to a foreign parent, they must apply for citizenship- it should not be automatic. Second, we need to stop this invasion of illegals from our southern border, no matter how desperately the corrupt government in Mexico desires this state of affairs to continue. But most of all, we need to convince our representatives in Washington of our seriousness. And if they cannot or will not listen, maybe it's time to send a few of them home for good.
Friday, August 17, 2007
And the Answer is....
I'm a turkey sandwich!
Hmmm, I always thought I ought to be a ham sandwich, considering how much I like ham. But I agree that tuna fish and I are not particularly friendly, though I do love maguro and toro in a sushi place! Ah well. If you want to discover what kind of sandwich you are, please see the What Kind of Sandwich Are You Quiz.
Hat tip to The Anchoress.
| You Are a Turkey Sandwich |
 Conservative and a bit shy, you tend to stick with what you know and trust. You are very introverted, and you prefer to blend in whenever possible. Though you may be hard to know well, anyone who does know you considers you a true friend. Your best friend: The Ham Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Tuna Fish Sandwich |
Hmmm, I always thought I ought to be a ham sandwich, considering how much I like ham. But I agree that tuna fish and I are not particularly friendly, though I do love maguro and toro in a sushi place! Ah well. If you want to discover what kind of sandwich you are, please see the What Kind of Sandwich Are You Quiz.
Hat tip to The Anchoress.
Is Hillary a Socialist?
Not according to her! As reported by the Gateway Pundit, Hillary Clinton reacted angrily to a question on her universal healthcare ideas at the National Association of Black Journalists Convention. The questioner had the gall to actually ask her why she was trying to bring socialized medicine to the United States, and stated that it would hurt black communities the worst.
Hillary responded by flat lying, saying angrily (quote courtesy of Say Anything)“Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists hear that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years, and it is wrong.”
As Gateway Pundit, Say Anything and The Anchoress all correctly pointed out, this is a complete falsehood. In her husband's first term, Hillary was charged with and ultimately produced, what everyone agrees was a model of socialized medicine on the lines of Canada and Great Britain. This was so far out of line with American tradition, that even her own party, which controlled Congress at the time laughed at her and refused to pass it.
Now as a Presidential candidate, she is still advocating socialized medicine, in that she expects to take from the top 50 percent of tax-payers in order to transfer wealth in the form of health care to the bottom fifty percent. (And on a side note, many of the uninsured in America are in this country illegally and who definitely should not have their health care paid for by us in any case). In any event, this is wealth redistribution, and definitely qualifies as socialism.
Hillary may not like her socialistic tendencies to be brought into daylight, but there can be no doubt, based on her public utterances, that she is a committed socialist, who longs for the days when she can further socialism in the United States. And if that day ever comes, we will all be much worse off- socialism has a nasty way of first removing rights, then replacing them with strictures and punishments. Except for the rulers, who Mrs. Clinton so badly wants to join.
On a side note, best wishes for a speedy recovery go out to The Anchoress, who is currently experiencing some health issues of her own. We send our prayers for a quick recovery.
Hat tip to The Anchoress.
Hillary responded by flat lying, saying angrily (quote courtesy of Say Anything)“Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists hear that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years, and it is wrong.”
As Gateway Pundit, Say Anything and The Anchoress all correctly pointed out, this is a complete falsehood. In her husband's first term, Hillary was charged with and ultimately produced, what everyone agrees was a model of socialized medicine on the lines of Canada and Great Britain. This was so far out of line with American tradition, that even her own party, which controlled Congress at the time laughed at her and refused to pass it.
Now as a Presidential candidate, she is still advocating socialized medicine, in that she expects to take from the top 50 percent of tax-payers in order to transfer wealth in the form of health care to the bottom fifty percent. (And on a side note, many of the uninsured in America are in this country illegally and who definitely should not have their health care paid for by us in any case). In any event, this is wealth redistribution, and definitely qualifies as socialism.
Hillary may not like her socialistic tendencies to be brought into daylight, but there can be no doubt, based on her public utterances, that she is a committed socialist, who longs for the days when she can further socialism in the United States. And if that day ever comes, we will all be much worse off- socialism has a nasty way of first removing rights, then replacing them with strictures and punishments. Except for the rulers, who Mrs. Clinton so badly wants to join.
On a side note, best wishes for a speedy recovery go out to The Anchoress, who is currently experiencing some health issues of her own. We send our prayers for a quick recovery.
Hat tip to The Anchoress.
Dhimmitude Creep
I have never understood why Christians should be expected to be submissive to Muslims. It was not Christianity that has spent over a thousand years murdering its way across two continents. It is not Christianity that has tried time and again to conquer ancestral homelands of Muslims. On the contrary, Islam has a bloodier record and a longer history of imperialism than any single other organized group of belief.
However, this appears to be unknown to at least one Christian official. Bishop Tiny Muskins of Breda in the Netherlands has suggested that Christians should call God 'Allah' to "foster understanding".
This has to be the most ridiculous suggestion I have heard yet. Why don't you renounce your diocese, Bishop Muskins, give up your raiment and become a practicing Muslim? This is what you are suggesting, that Christians should basically convert to Islam. I think the response by one of the Bishop's potential parishioners is the best.
I couldn't have said it better myself. If you are determined to become a dhimmi, then I would be the last to stop you. But if you, like me, believe that Western culture and history contains far more shining examples of goodness than does Islam, then we need to stand up and defend our own civilization. Islam, save for a short period in the Middle Ages, has always been a barbarous religion, displaying neither mercy nor equality to anyone other than its own. Christianity, on the other hand, has a long history of tolerance, though like most other religions, it also has its dark stains- the Inquisition come to mind relatively quickly.
Islam is determined to conquer the world. It has tried many, many times before and the current popularity of al-Quaeda and other similar organizations indicate that jihad and imperialism once again are popular with many Muslims. Only a strong defense , both verbally and militarily will overcome this jihadist fervor. We have a culture and history to be proud of. Our nations are responsible for many gifts to the world, including the ideas of equality and freedom- something Islam cannot claim. We do not live under Sharia, and the only way to ensure we never do is to promote our own culture- not denigrate it to "reduce tensions". We did not start this- Islam did. It is their responsibility to "reduce tensions", not ours.
Hat tip to SFB.
However, this appears to be unknown to at least one Christian official. Bishop Tiny Muskins of Breda in the Netherlands has suggested that Christians should call God 'Allah' to "foster understanding".
This has to be the most ridiculous suggestion I have heard yet. Why don't you renounce your diocese, Bishop Muskins, give up your raiment and become a practicing Muslim? This is what you are suggesting, that Christians should basically convert to Islam. I think the response by one of the Bishop's potential parishioners is the best.
"Sure. Lets call God Allah. Lets then call a church a mosque and pray five times a day. Ramadan sounds like fun," Welmoet Koppenhol wrote in a letter to the newspaper."
I couldn't have said it better myself. If you are determined to become a dhimmi, then I would be the last to stop you. But if you, like me, believe that Western culture and history contains far more shining examples of goodness than does Islam, then we need to stand up and defend our own civilization. Islam, save for a short period in the Middle Ages, has always been a barbarous religion, displaying neither mercy nor equality to anyone other than its own. Christianity, on the other hand, has a long history of tolerance, though like most other religions, it also has its dark stains- the Inquisition come to mind relatively quickly.
Islam is determined to conquer the world. It has tried many, many times before and the current popularity of al-Quaeda and other similar organizations indicate that jihad and imperialism once again are popular with many Muslims. Only a strong defense , both verbally and militarily will overcome this jihadist fervor. We have a culture and history to be proud of. Our nations are responsible for many gifts to the world, including the ideas of equality and freedom- something Islam cannot claim. We do not live under Sharia, and the only way to ensure we never do is to promote our own culture- not denigrate it to "reduce tensions". We did not start this- Islam did. It is their responsibility to "reduce tensions", not ours.
Hat tip to SFB.
On Joining the Military
Liberals love to tell those who support the war against Islamic extremism that if they support the war they must join the military, otherwise they are a "chickenhawk". Leaving aside the fact that most liberals and leftists were wildly in favor of Bill Clinton's non-UN-approved excursions into Kosovo but were unwilling to join a that time, there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in their current demands that supporters of the military campaign join the Armed Forces.
Mark Noonan over at Battle Born Politics has a wonderful essay on why this question is both disingenuous and impractical. Among other things, Noonan writes,
Noonan also points out that the all-volunteer force we currently posses is better trained, better equipped and better motivated than any conscript force could possibly be and that a surfeit of warm bodies encourages commanders to be profligate with those bodies, as we saw in the World War I slaughters on the Western Front. Noonan says that human lives are too valuable to waste. I absolutely agree.
Noonan's fellow blogger Matt Margolis also wrote a post on his own personal views on the question of joining the Armed Forces. Read the whole thing.
In conclusion, leftists and liberals have very little understanding of the makeup of the United States Armed Forces and virtually no expertise in using these forces. If a liberal asks the question, you can try to educate him or her, though the odds are that he or she is too submerged in their fever swamp of choice to actually listen. For the Left, Truth has long been superceded by Desire of What Truth Should Be.
Mark Noonan over at Battle Born Politics has a wonderful essay on why this question is both disingenuous and impractical. Among other things, Noonan writes,
Leaving aside the fact that even if support for the war is at 33% then there are 10 million military-aged males in the United States who support the war (and, thus, no room for even 20% of them in the military), what the left is doing is revealing its own, totalitarian mindset - that liberal concept, first thought up in the French Revolution, that the State has absolute claim on our lives and property in a time of national emergency. No conservative can actually support such a view - even at times of national emergency, people have right to not participate - that isn't a libertarian position (though libertarians hold to it, as well), but an understanding that while society does have a claim on us, its claim is not absolute..
Noonan also points out that the all-volunteer force we currently posses is better trained, better equipped and better motivated than any conscript force could possibly be and that a surfeit of warm bodies encourages commanders to be profligate with those bodies, as we saw in the World War I slaughters on the Western Front. Noonan says that human lives are too valuable to waste. I absolutely agree.
Noonan's fellow blogger Matt Margolis also wrote a post on his own personal views on the question of joining the Armed Forces. Read the whole thing.
In conclusion, leftists and liberals have very little understanding of the makeup of the United States Armed Forces and virtually no expertise in using these forces. If a liberal asks the question, you can try to educate him or her, though the odds are that he or she is too submerged in their fever swamp of choice to actually listen. For the Left, Truth has long been superceded by Desire of What Truth Should Be.
Honesty About Chavez
The left-leaning political circles in the United States (and around the world as well) have a long-standing love affair with authoritarian, anti-American dictators such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein. However as we have long thought, despite the fever swamps, there are some honest, objective liberals who are courageous enough to admit when they are wrong. One such is Jeb Koogler, who writes for the The Moderate Voice. I regret to say that I have no previous experience reading Mr. Koogler, but I shall be making him a regular stop from now on.
In today's Moderate Voice, Koogler writes of his disenchantment with Presidente-for-Life Chavez, saying,
Koogler is one of a very few members of the liberal and Leftist political persuasion who is both honest and principled enough to write something like this, and he should be applauded. Chavez' reign of terror in Venezuela should have been obvious from the very beginning, but his strident anti-Bush rhetoric and his claims to act "for the people" have understandably blinded many. However, it is time to cast off the blinders and see Chavez for what he is- a tinpot dictator who entertains visions of regional hegemony and cares not a whit for the actual people who voted him into power.
As Captain Ed writes,
I cannot agree more- both with Mr. Koogler's eloquent disavowal of Chavez' ambition and Captain Ed's excellent analysis. If only the socialist sycophants within academia, the so-called "mainstream" media and the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill could display similar moral fortitude.
Hat tip to Ed Morrissey.
In today's Moderate Voice, Koogler writes of his disenchantment with Presidente-for-Life Chavez, saying,
For a long time, I’ve defended Hugo Chavez. I thought that he was fighting a worthy battle against greed and corruption, against years of foreign domination and cronyism. I thought he was trying to improve the lives of poor people, while establishing a strong economy, an independent and self-respecting nation, and a vibrant democracy.
But now, after watching events unfold in the past few months, I’m ready to admit that I was mistaken.
Koogler is one of a very few members of the liberal and Leftist political persuasion who is both honest and principled enough to write something like this, and he should be applauded. Chavez' reign of terror in Venezuela should have been obvious from the very beginning, but his strident anti-Bush rhetoric and his claims to act "for the people" have understandably blinded many. However, it is time to cast off the blinders and see Chavez for what he is- a tinpot dictator who entertains visions of regional hegemony and cares not a whit for the actual people who voted him into power.
As Captain Ed writes,
Koogler's reconsideration is well worth reading. It's not easy to admit error as Koogler does in this piece, and he explains his change of heart very clearly and rationally. The sooner that the American Left follows Koogler's advice, the sooner we can start working to help the Venezuelan people free themselves from Chavez' megalomaniacal grip on power. Be sure to read it all.
I cannot agree more- both with Mr. Koogler's eloquent disavowal of Chavez' ambition and Captain Ed's excellent analysis. If only the socialist sycophants within academia, the so-called "mainstream" media and the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill could display similar moral fortitude.
Hat tip to Ed Morrissey.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Media Mistruths
There have been a number of media malfeasances in the past few years, including Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' attempt to throw the 2004 election to John Kerry, Jayson Blair's racially-protected reign of falsehood at the New York Times and most recently Scott Beauchamp's anti-American propaganda for the New Republic. However, that is not all, by far. The American Thinker's Randall Hoven has done a yeoman's job of digging and has come up with a list of most of the recent offenders. And a very interesting thing is that almost all of them are of liberal or Leftist political views.
I'm not sure whether the preponderance of Leftists on this list speaks to an essential disdain for truth or whether it speaks to Leftists' well-documented belief that the ends justify the means. In either case, it is instructive that the Right seems to respect truth more than the Left, if these examples are any guide.
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
UPDATE: The always-wise Victor Davis Hanson has weighed in on the online pages of the National Review, advising the media mavens that "anonymity is a vicious but seductive Siren that lures its heedless listeners to shipwreck on the shoals".
I'm not sure whether the preponderance of Leftists on this list speaks to an essential disdain for truth or whether it speaks to Leftists' well-documented belief that the ends justify the means. In either case, it is instructive that the Right seems to respect truth more than the Left, if these examples are any guide.
Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.
UPDATE: The always-wise Victor Davis Hanson has weighed in on the online pages of the National Review, advising the media mavens that "anonymity is a vicious but seductive Siren that lures its heedless listeners to shipwreck on the shoals".
TSA Whiffs Again
As a frequent business traveler, I am not an admirer of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration). I regard it as inconsistent, largely incompetent and staffed with people who should definitely not be allowed any authority, let alone responsible for their fellow countrymen's security and safety. This is not to say that airport security is a bad idea. However, the implementation into one more needless government bueaucracy is a disaster. If terrorists have been unable to strike the United States since September 11, 2001, most of the credit should go to our intrepid military, not to the bunglers of the TSA.
Now we find even more evidence that the TSA is a disgrace and should be disbanded immediately. According to the San Diego Union-tribune, TSA officers not only lost track of a bad containing suspicious substances, but couldn't even identify the bag's owner.
According to the report,
And then of course, TSA tried to blame their own incompetence on the traveler! According to spokeperson Nico Melandez anyway, who said, "“If this passenger didn't have those liquids, none of this would have happened."
Um, no, Mr. Melandez. If your agency weren't so ridiculously inept none of this would have happened. It is not the traveler's fault for losing the bag, nor is it the traveler's fault that your agents were unable to identify the passenger in question, thus forcing many innocent people to be seriously inconvenienced. If the TSA could perform its duties in a consistent and professional manner, maybe even using some common sense, then I would have much higher respect. However, as it is, the TSA's record is worse than the DMV's. At least the DMV eventually gets things done. TSA can't even do that.
Now we find even more evidence that the TSA is a disgrace and should be disbanded immediately. According to the San Diego Union-tribune, TSA officers not only lost track of a bad containing suspicious substances, but couldn't even identify the bag's owner.
According to the report,
Security officers tried to find the passenger and the bag but they did not have a good description of the person and didn't know the destination of the bag.
Officials decided to evacuate several hundred travelers in the terminal and have them go through security once again, Melendez said.
The security breach caused delays for flights on U.S. Airways, America West, Continental, and Delta.
And then of course, TSA tried to blame their own incompetence on the traveler! According to spokeperson Nico Melandez anyway, who said, "“If this passenger didn't have those liquids, none of this would have happened."
Um, no, Mr. Melandez. If your agency weren't so ridiculously inept none of this would have happened. It is not the traveler's fault for losing the bag, nor is it the traveler's fault that your agents were unable to identify the passenger in question, thus forcing many innocent people to be seriously inconvenienced. If the TSA could perform its duties in a consistent and professional manner, maybe even using some common sense, then I would have much higher respect. However, as it is, the TSA's record is worse than the DMV's. At least the DMV eventually gets things done. TSA can't even do that.
Light Blogging
As you probably know, I have been traveling on business for the past few weeks. As a result, blogging has been much lighter than usual. However, I am now back in the country, and expect to return to my more usual rate now that I am done with travel for a bit.
Guilty As Charged
Breitbart News reported that Jose Padilla was found guilty on all charges today by a jury in Miami. According to the article,
This is very good news, as it justifies the Bush Administration. Despite the idiocy of allowing terrorists and accused terrorists access to our legal system, the trial results deliver harsh reality to the folks who have claimed that Padilla is merely a misunderstood American- folks who include much of the mainstream media!
Let us hope that this conviction is the beginning of a long line of terrorists meeting their richly deserved fates. Padilla is a traitor and deserves everything he gets.
Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.
This is very good news, as it justifies the Bush Administration. Despite the idiocy of allowing terrorists and accused terrorists access to our legal system, the trial results deliver harsh reality to the folks who have claimed that Padilla is merely a misunderstood American- folks who include much of the mainstream media!
Let us hope that this conviction is the beginning of a long line of terrorists meeting their richly deserved fates. Padilla is a traitor and deserves everything he gets.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Media Distrust
The mainstream media has been beset for some time with attacks of partisanism and inaccurate reporting. Incidents such as CBS' use of forged documents to attempt to throw the 2004 election to John Kerry and The New Republic's recent use of false reports from a soldier in Iraq merely accentuate the Press' many problems both with accuracy and with objectivity.
A new Pew poll is a real eye-opener, however. The poll reports that well over half of Americans believe the US Press Corps is biased, inaccurate and uncaring. The poll reports that,
To me, this is vindication. The MSM has done an abysmal job over the past few years, and their uncalled-for attacks on the current Administration are of a viciousness heretofore unseen in American politics. I also find the report that 53 percent are unhappy with the media's stand toward their own country interesting. It seems that these oh-so-clever members of a "world citizenry" are joining a world citizenry at the expense of the respect of their fellow Americans. And no member of the Press can claim that the media coverage of US efforts anywhere in the world ahas been favorable at all. MSM outlets are always happy to interview high-ranking terrorists, or people who shout "Death to America", but are strangely afraid to publish reports that reflect well on the US troops who are so bravely protecting these reporters.
Maybe this will being to make these false reporters think about where their true loyalties lie. And maybe they might even rethink how they report events to more accurately portray their fellow countrymen and women.
A new Pew poll is a real eye-opener, however. The poll reports that well over half of Americans believe the US Press Corps is biased, inaccurate and uncaring. The poll reports that,
More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.
And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.
More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.
More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".
To me, this is vindication. The MSM has done an abysmal job over the past few years, and their uncalled-for attacks on the current Administration are of a viciousness heretofore unseen in American politics. I also find the report that 53 percent are unhappy with the media's stand toward their own country interesting. It seems that these oh-so-clever members of a "world citizenry" are joining a world citizenry at the expense of the respect of their fellow Americans. And no member of the Press can claim that the media coverage of US efforts anywhere in the world ahas been favorable at all. MSM outlets are always happy to interview high-ranking terrorists, or people who shout "Death to America", but are strangely afraid to publish reports that reflect well on the US troops who are so bravely protecting these reporters.
Maybe this will being to make these false reporters think about where their true loyalties lie. And maybe they might even rethink how they report events to more accurately portray their fellow countrymen and women.
Travel
I have been somewhat silent of late, due to the demands of my professional career. I have but recently returned from the great state of North Carolina, where I spent a week on business. I regret that pause in my blogging, but I fear that it may remain intermittent during the duration of this month, as more travel looms and work also remains a very high level of demand as well.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Democratic Defeat
The Democrats and their allies in the so-called mainstream media have long been working to ensure that the United States does not prevail in the Iraqi Campaign, while they simultaneously tell us that they "support the troops". This work was revealed for all to see today by House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, who admitted that a strongly positive report by General David Petraeus would "impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war".
Clyburn was at least honest in admitting that the Democratic party has become without apology the party of defeat. They cannot bring themselves to put the national interest over their narrow partisan goals, and they above all cannot and will not root for American success. if the United States goes to battle, you can count on most of the Democratic Party (including their mouthpieces in the national Press) to do all in their power to make sure America loses.
The Washington Post newspaper reported of Clyburn's comments:
I have a couple of problems with this. First, why does General petraeus carry weight only among the Blue Dog Democrats and not among the rest of the party? Is this because most Democrats do not respect military leaders, or because they simply will not listen to anything that might support the continuance of the campaign?
Secondly, where is the disapproval from Americans that a national political party has dedicated itself to the defeat of its own people? For that is what the Democrats and their Press allies seek. For some reason they seem to feel that defeating George Bush is more important than defeating Islamic imperialists. Let me remind Democrats that Islam despises most of the causes Leftists and Democrats hold dear, including abortion on demand, gay and lesbian relationships, a free Press (though how much Democrats actually support a truly free Press is in doubt), and an open political speech (here again, how much Democrats really support free speech is in question).
I thank Representative Clyburn for his openness and honesty. However, I am truly amazed that this clear declaration of the Democratic Party's determination to work for the defeat of their own country does not prompt outcry and maybe even criminal charges. Clyburn's comments are an admission that much of the Democratic Party is working to assist our country's enemies. Didn't that used to be called treason?
Clyburn was at least honest in admitting that the Democratic party has become without apology the party of defeat. They cannot bring themselves to put the national interest over their narrow partisan goals, and they above all cannot and will not root for American success. if the United States goes to battle, you can count on most of the Democratic Party (including their mouthpieces in the national Press) to do all in their power to make sure America loses.
The Washington Post newspaper reported of Clyburn's comments:
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
I have a couple of problems with this. First, why does General petraeus carry weight only among the Blue Dog Democrats and not among the rest of the party? Is this because most Democrats do not respect military leaders, or because they simply will not listen to anything that might support the continuance of the campaign?
Secondly, where is the disapproval from Americans that a national political party has dedicated itself to the defeat of its own people? For that is what the Democrats and their Press allies seek. For some reason they seem to feel that defeating George Bush is more important than defeating Islamic imperialists. Let me remind Democrats that Islam despises most of the causes Leftists and Democrats hold dear, including abortion on demand, gay and lesbian relationships, a free Press (though how much Democrats actually support a truly free Press is in doubt), and an open political speech (here again, how much Democrats really support free speech is in question).
I thank Representative Clyburn for his openness and honesty. However, I am truly amazed that this clear declaration of the Democratic Party's determination to work for the defeat of their own country does not prompt outcry and maybe even criminal charges. Clyburn's comments are an admission that much of the Democratic Party is working to assist our country's enemies. Didn't that used to be called treason?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Wetzel on Race
In the aftermath of Michael Vick's indictment on animal-cruelty charges, Yahoo! Sports columnist Dick Wetzel wrote a column stating that the case highlighted a racial divide. He's right in that it seems that most of Vick's supporters are black and maybe he is right that the animal-rights extremists who were there to protest against Vick were mostly white, but I think he completely missed the bigger point.
Why is it that African-Americans get the benefit of the doubt where whites do not? If Wetzel was truly concerned about racial divides, he might have done something to quiet the rush to justice in the Duke lacrosse case. But he didn't In fact, I cannot recall Wetzel writing anything at all in favor of those falsely accused players- accused by Crystal Mangum, a black woman. And I can only guess it was because those defendants were white men. No need to grant them any due process.
And that is the tragedy. It shouldn't matter what the defendant's color or sex might be- the Constitution promises due process for everyone. I have no idea if Michael Vick is innocent or guilty, and in any case it is not my place to guess or to tar him with accusations that may be untrue. I hope for hiss sake that he is innocent of everything except bad judgement in friends. But it is interesting that reporters seem to feel the need to call for restraint when the accused is black, yet do not grant that same privilege to white defendants. Did Wetzel call for restraint regarding the three (falsely) accused lacrosse players? No, he did not. He may not have fanned the flames, but he certainly did not make any effort to smooth them either.
I think it is time that the United States stopped pointing racial fingers. Race should be irrelevant to a crime that is committed- it is a matter of perpetrators and victims. If a crime was committed for racial reasons, whether by the Ku Klux Klan or the Black Panthers, then the penalties should be doubly harsh- no matter the color of the accused. And whether it is three white men falsely accused of raping a black woman, or a famous black man accused of killing dogs, we need to grant both of them the very privilege mandated by our Constitution- innocent until proven guilty.
It is a pity that our media has not yet learned that simple fact, but then they have long wanted to highlight excesses as opposed to restraint- evil over goodness and death over life. it is a pity that they can't be somehow put into the dock with Mr. Vick, for they are as guilty of exacerbating the situation as are those who actually killed the poor animals in question.
Why is it that African-Americans get the benefit of the doubt where whites do not? If Wetzel was truly concerned about racial divides, he might have done something to quiet the rush to justice in the Duke lacrosse case. But he didn't In fact, I cannot recall Wetzel writing anything at all in favor of those falsely accused players- accused by Crystal Mangum, a black woman. And I can only guess it was because those defendants were white men. No need to grant them any due process.
And that is the tragedy. It shouldn't matter what the defendant's color or sex might be- the Constitution promises due process for everyone. I have no idea if Michael Vick is innocent or guilty, and in any case it is not my place to guess or to tar him with accusations that may be untrue. I hope for hiss sake that he is innocent of everything except bad judgement in friends. But it is interesting that reporters seem to feel the need to call for restraint when the accused is black, yet do not grant that same privilege to white defendants. Did Wetzel call for restraint regarding the three (falsely) accused lacrosse players? No, he did not. He may not have fanned the flames, but he certainly did not make any effort to smooth them either.
I think it is time that the United States stopped pointing racial fingers. Race should be irrelevant to a crime that is committed- it is a matter of perpetrators and victims. If a crime was committed for racial reasons, whether by the Ku Klux Klan or the Black Panthers, then the penalties should be doubly harsh- no matter the color of the accused. And whether it is three white men falsely accused of raping a black woman, or a famous black man accused of killing dogs, we need to grant both of them the very privilege mandated by our Constitution- innocent until proven guilty.
It is a pity that our media has not yet learned that simple fact, but then they have long wanted to highlight excesses as opposed to restraint- evil over goodness and death over life. it is a pity that they can't be somehow put into the dock with Mr. Vick, for they are as guilty of exacerbating the situation as are those who actually killed the poor animals in question.
Illegal Visits
Although the U.S. federal government doesn't seem to understand the idea that a sovereign state has a right to decide who comes to live within its borders, Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona doesn't seem to have any problem understanding the idea. Already well-known for some of his unique ideas on dispensing justice, the sheriff announced today that illegal aliens are not allowed to visit relatives incarcerated in his jail.
The sheriff intends to run background checks on every visitor, and all visitors will have to prove their identity. Should an illegal try to visit, it appears that they may just wind up inside with the one they were visiting. The sheriff shrugs off criticism, saying simply, "I run the jail. I decide who goes in there."
I'm sure that the illegal-alien industry will scream bloody murder, but I can find nothing but approval for the sheriff's actions. Illegal aliens, by definition, are illegal. They are breaking the laws of the United States, and I personally do not understand why we should be making any effort whatsoever to pander to them. They should have access to no services in this country. They should have no ability to work in their native language and they shoud definitely not have access to US courts. Illegal aliens should be arrested and sent home whenever and wherever they are found.
Why can't Congress understand this simple fact? Illegals are illegal.
The sheriff intends to run background checks on every visitor, and all visitors will have to prove their identity. Should an illegal try to visit, it appears that they may just wind up inside with the one they were visiting. The sheriff shrugs off criticism, saying simply, "I run the jail. I decide who goes in there."
I'm sure that the illegal-alien industry will scream bloody murder, but I can find nothing but approval for the sheriff's actions. Illegal aliens, by definition, are illegal. They are breaking the laws of the United States, and I personally do not understand why we should be making any effort whatsoever to pander to them. They should have access to no services in this country. They should have no ability to work in their native language and they shoud definitely not have access to US courts. Illegal aliens should be arrested and sent home whenever and wherever they are found.
Why can't Congress understand this simple fact? Illegals are illegal.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Judges Strike Back
It would seem to most people that they have the right to decide who can live in their town, and if there are illegal aliens hiding, then the townsfolk should be able to tell their police to round them up and hand them over to the federal government for removal. Unfortunately, it seems that judges either have no common sense or are too blinded by their desire to destroy the United States and turn it into Mexico, Junior.
Today, federal judge James Munley struck down Hazelton, Pennsyvania's anti-illegal alien law on the ground that it infringed on teh federal government's prerogatives.
This is truly sickening. Judges have no problem letting the federal government walk all over the rights of the States and the People, but when municipalities try to help out (especially when the Fes are lying down on the job as they are in this issue) then judges have no problem telling the municipalities that they cannot step in. And what was this judge thinking? Municipalities have a perfect right to police themselves, so this is not in the slightest infringement- it is helping out. Maybe Judge Munley simply doesn't want to give up his Mexican housekeeper or his garden boys?
It is time that municipaliites rise up and demand action. Sovereign nations have a perfect right to protect their broders, and towns and locals have a right to determine who can enter. These illegals are, well, illegal. What doesn't Munley understand about this?
This decision is an embarrassment. However, this will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court, in the end, though I think it is time that Congress removes the issue of rights for illegals from the purvey of the federal judiciary. They have proved they cannot be trusted, either on POW or on illegal alien issues.
Today, federal judge James Munley struck down Hazelton, Pennsyvania's anti-illegal alien law on the ground that it infringed on teh federal government's prerogatives.
This is truly sickening. Judges have no problem letting the federal government walk all over the rights of the States and the People, but when municipalities try to help out (especially when the Fes are lying down on the job as they are in this issue) then judges have no problem telling the municipalities that they cannot step in. And what was this judge thinking? Municipalities have a perfect right to police themselves, so this is not in the slightest infringement- it is helping out. Maybe Judge Munley simply doesn't want to give up his Mexican housekeeper or his garden boys?
It is time that municipaliites rise up and demand action. Sovereign nations have a perfect right to protect their broders, and towns and locals have a right to determine who can enter. These illegals are, well, illegal. What doesn't Munley understand about this?
This decision is an embarrassment. However, this will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court, in the end, though I think it is time that Congress removes the issue of rights for illegals from the purvey of the federal judiciary. They have proved they cannot be trusted, either on POW or on illegal alien issues.
A Voice of Reason
...on environment. Investors' Business Daily published a much-needed blast of fresh air through the emotion and illogic of climate-change, pointing out that If scientists can't get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?.
This is an excellent question. The editorial goes on to point out a few other common-sense truths regarding the entire climate-change hysteria, including:
- Local weather forecasters cannot predict more than ten days in advance, and even those predictions are often sadly wrong
- Short-term predictions of worldwide temperature changes have never been accurate. As evidence, IBD uses NASA scientist James Hansen's prediction that the world would warm up by .45 degrees from 1988-1997. He was wrong; the world warmed just .11 degrees.
I cannot forget as well that most of the same folks (including much of the global media) who are claiming we face a cataclysmic warming now were clamoring that we faced a coming ice age less than fifty years ago. They were wrong then, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any more correct this time around. Setting aside the fact that virtually none of the green crowd are very good at logic, they aren't very good at predicting much of anything- almost every single one of Greenpeace's claims regarding the environment has proven at best overblown and at worst plain false. As Investor's Business Daily concludes their article,
"The formula for a climate of fear, though, requires nothing more than a lot of thunder and a bit of heat generated by political activists."
I could not agree more.
This is an excellent question. The editorial goes on to point out a few other common-sense truths regarding the entire climate-change hysteria, including:
- Local weather forecasters cannot predict more than ten days in advance, and even those predictions are often sadly wrong
- Short-term predictions of worldwide temperature changes have never been accurate. As evidence, IBD uses NASA scientist James Hansen's prediction that the world would warm up by .45 degrees from 1988-1997. He was wrong; the world warmed just .11 degrees.
I cannot forget as well that most of the same folks (including much of the global media) who are claiming we face a cataclysmic warming now were clamoring that we faced a coming ice age less than fifty years ago. They were wrong then, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any more correct this time around. Setting aside the fact that virtually none of the green crowd are very good at logic, they aren't very good at predicting much of anything- almost every single one of Greenpeace's claims regarding the environment has proven at best overblown and at worst plain false. As Investor's Business Daily concludes their article,
"The formula for a climate of fear, though, requires nothing more than a lot of thunder and a bit of heat generated by political activists."
I could not agree more.
More MSM Misinformation
One would think that CBS had hlearned that deliberately reporting false information was not a good idea. However, in the wake of President Bush's July 25 speech it appears that CBs at least is still determined to present their own opinions and bias as news.
Some examples are provided by the folks over at Power Line:
When, oh when will we see the federal judiciary start to force news organizations to be a little more careful in lying to the public? There are laws to prevent this kind of thing, and esecially in cases where the "news" organizationss are clearly lying to the public. Why can't they be used. A few hefty fines and (for the leakers at the New York Times, some hard time in jail, might convince these enemies of the American people that they would be better off being less overt in their antagonism towards an elected President.
CBS, CNN and the other members of the Old Media have made it their business to destroy this PResident and his Administration from the moment that they tried to throw the 2000 election to Al Gore. They have never been fair, nor have they made any real attemtp to report the actual news- they have instead reported their own slant, becoming bolder as it becomes clear that for some reason Republicans fear the media. If this had been the Clintons, Janet Reno and the Justice Department would have undoubtedly been on the case by now- recall the vicious attacks promulgated on anyone who dared to criticize the Clintons.
In any event, it becoming clearer and clearer that the mainstream media need to have their teeth pulled, and the only way we can do that is by turning off our televisions and closing forever the pages of these tired propagandists. Time to let network news and the liberal Press go the way of the dodo bird- into rightly-earned obscurity and poverty. Faster, please...
Hat tip to Power Line.
Some examples are provided by the folks over at Power Line:
CBS's attack on Bush is remarkable. The network essentially called the President a liar. Here are some of CBS's key statements; let's take them one by one:
President Bush appealed today for more time for his Iraq strategy to work, but this time with a new rationale. *** President Bush's rationale is clearly shifting, from policing sectarian violence to targeting al Qaeda.
As the White House pointed out today, the President has talked about the threat of al Qaeda in Iraq in more than 40 speeches and other public appearances this year. It's interesting, too, that CBS thinks the old rationale was "policing sectarian violence." I'd be interested to see a single instance where President Bush has said that our mission in Iraq is "policing sectarian violence." CBS continued:
The President linked al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq directly to Osama bin Laden...
Bush: Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil.
But this is a clear contradiction of the January speech setting limits on U.S. involvement.
First, what Bush said is obviously correct. The leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have indeed sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. CBS doesn't directly deny this fact, but claims instead that it somehow contradicts Bush's speech on January 10. CBS next shows a clip from that speech, in which Bush says:
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister, and Iraq's other leaders, that America's commitment is not open-ended.
How on earth are these two statements in conflict? Bush said in January that our commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. He said yesterday that the leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And CBS calls this a "clear contradiction?" This can only have left viewers scratching their heads.
When, oh when will we see the federal judiciary start to force news organizations to be a little more careful in lying to the public? There are laws to prevent this kind of thing, and esecially in cases where the "news" organizationss are clearly lying to the public. Why can't they be used. A few hefty fines and (for the leakers at the New York Times, some hard time in jail, might convince these enemies of the American people that they would be better off being less overt in their antagonism towards an elected President.
CBS, CNN and the other members of the Old Media have made it their business to destroy this PResident and his Administration from the moment that they tried to throw the 2000 election to Al Gore. They have never been fair, nor have they made any real attemtp to report the actual news- they have instead reported their own slant, becoming bolder as it becomes clear that for some reason Republicans fear the media. If this had been the Clintons, Janet Reno and the Justice Department would have undoubtedly been on the case by now- recall the vicious attacks promulgated on anyone who dared to criticize the Clintons.
In any event, it becoming clearer and clearer that the mainstream media need to have their teeth pulled, and the only way we can do that is by turning off our televisions and closing forever the pages of these tired propagandists. Time to let network news and the liberal Press go the way of the dodo bird- into rightly-earned obscurity and poverty. Faster, please...
Hat tip to Power Line.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
China's NBA Problem
When Yao Ming was chosen as the number one overall pick in the 2002 NBA Draft, China successfully used its influence to ensure that Yao ended in a situation that benefited both him and China. China was pleased with the success of their not-so-subtle machinations that resulted in Yao playing in a city that boasted both a heavy Asian influence and no competition for playing time from an established American player.
Fast forward to 2007. With the Number 6 pick in this year's draft, the Milwaukee Bucks franchise took Chinese forward Yi Jianling, who has been touted as the next great Chinese player. Neither Yi's agent nor the Chinese government was pleased, as Milwaukee does not have a large Asian population, and there are a number of other players on the Bucks' roster who could potentially be a bigger star than Yi- which in turn would limit Yi's playing time and thus his opportunity to get better against NBA-caliber competition. These handlers are pushing to get Yi traded to a city where he would be able to play more and have a more Asiatic audience.
China has always been one of the more overtly racist countries- in fact a good friend who is of Chinese origin states bluntly that Asia is the most racist area in the world. they have also been accustomed to throwing their weight around with few consequences, as the only nation with the power to counter their moves has been reluctant to do so. However, this may teach China the limits of their ability to influence foreign events, and could potentially backfire catastrophically on them.
The owner of Yi's Chinese team, Chen Haitao, apparently has stated that Yi would not play for Milwaukee. The Beijing Times reported that,
Well, that may be irresponsible to the Chinese national team, but American teams are not required to consider the Chinese government's wishes in drafting players. They draft to improve themselves, and if Chinese players want to play in the NBA, they cannot dictate to American sports teams- and neither can the Chinese government. NBA teams draft players based on their own decisions of how to improve. Milwaukee thought that Yi might be of some use, so they drafted him. His obligations to the Chinese national team, or China's desires do not enter into it. From the Bucks' perspective, if he is good enough, he will play. If not, he will sit. China's desires do not enter into the situation at all.
There is also another factor to consider. the owner of the Bucks is United States Senator Herb Kohl. As a member of the United States government, he is well-placed to resist any outlandish demands from China about Yi, and China can ill-afford to offend the United States. And of course, if Yi refuses to play for Milwaukee, then Milwaukee can simply keep him from playing at all, and Yi will neither improve nor be able to play for any other US team. And future Chinese players will be tarred with the Yi brush. Just as Darko Milicic's failure made European players less popular, as this year's draft clearly showed, Yi's refusal to play where he was drafted may rebound negatively on China. And that is something China does not want.
Ultimately, I believe that Yi will probably play with Milwaukee. China's leverage in this case, unlike with Yao, is not strong enough to force the Bucks to trade Yi, and Yi's own actions make him less attractive to other teams. Nor does he have the track record of success that would convince a team to take a flyer on him. But the entire situation may end up being a black eye both for Yi and for China- something that neither can afford.
Fast forward to 2007. With the Number 6 pick in this year's draft, the Milwaukee Bucks franchise took Chinese forward Yi Jianling, who has been touted as the next great Chinese player. Neither Yi's agent nor the Chinese government was pleased, as Milwaukee does not have a large Asian population, and there are a number of other players on the Bucks' roster who could potentially be a bigger star than Yi- which in turn would limit Yi's playing time and thus his opportunity to get better against NBA-caliber competition. These handlers are pushing to get Yi traded to a city where he would be able to play more and have a more Asiatic audience.
China has always been one of the more overtly racist countries- in fact a good friend who is of Chinese origin states bluntly that Asia is the most racist area in the world. they have also been accustomed to throwing their weight around with few consequences, as the only nation with the power to counter their moves has been reluctant to do so. However, this may teach China the limits of their ability to influence foreign events, and could potentially backfire catastrophically on them.
The owner of Yi's Chinese team, Chen Haitao, apparently has stated that Yi would not play for Milwaukee. The Beijing Times reported that,
"The national team and the Olympic Games are now our key considerations," Chen said. "If Yi goes to a team where he can't compete, that would be being irresponsible to the national team."
Well, that may be irresponsible to the Chinese national team, but American teams are not required to consider the Chinese government's wishes in drafting players. They draft to improve themselves, and if Chinese players want to play in the NBA, they cannot dictate to American sports teams- and neither can the Chinese government. NBA teams draft players based on their own decisions of how to improve. Milwaukee thought that Yi might be of some use, so they drafted him. His obligations to the Chinese national team, or China's desires do not enter into it. From the Bucks' perspective, if he is good enough, he will play. If not, he will sit. China's desires do not enter into the situation at all.
There is also another factor to consider. the owner of the Bucks is United States Senator Herb Kohl. As a member of the United States government, he is well-placed to resist any outlandish demands from China about Yi, and China can ill-afford to offend the United States. And of course, if Yi refuses to play for Milwaukee, then Milwaukee can simply keep him from playing at all, and Yi will neither improve nor be able to play for any other US team. And future Chinese players will be tarred with the Yi brush. Just as Darko Milicic's failure made European players less popular, as this year's draft clearly showed, Yi's refusal to play where he was drafted may rebound negatively on China. And that is something China does not want.
Ultimately, I believe that Yi will probably play with Milwaukee. China's leverage in this case, unlike with Yao, is not strong enough to force the Bucks to trade Yi, and Yi's own actions make him less attractive to other teams. Nor does he have the track record of success that would convince a team to take a flyer on him. But the entire situation may end up being a black eye both for Yi and for China- something that neither can afford.
Bush 1, Plame 0
Valorie Plame's attempt to sue the Bush Administration for leaking her identity as a CIA covert operative was shot down in flames today, as federal judge John Bates dismissed her case against the Bush Administration. Judge Bates found that Plame's suit could not continue on jurisdictional grounds, but according to Yahoo! News, he also seemd to agree with the Administration and not Plame.
This seems absolutely correct to me. Plame's identity was initally disclosed to the Press by Richard Armitage, no friend of the Bush Administration, following Plame's husband Joe Wilson writing an opinion colomn in which he falsely claimed that the Bush Administration, particularly Vice-President Richard Cheney, had sent him to Niger and then lied about his findings of Iraqi attemtps to purchase uranium there. However, Administration officials then debunked Wilson's claims by pointing out (correctly) that Cheney did not in fact send Wilson- he got the job through his CIA wife's efforts, Valorie Plame. The Congressional Committee on Intelligence further found that it was Wilson, not Cheney or Bush, who lied about what he reported.
Finally, for Plame to claim that the Administration somehow leaked her CIA identity is somewhat ridiculous, seeing as how Wilson was a former Ambassador and Plame was in "Who's Who" with him- identified as a CIA employee! Never mind the fact that even Special Investigator Fitzgerald fuond that no crime was committed in the whole affair- Libby's prison sentence came for obstructing justice, not from leaking a CIA employee's identity. The New York Times has done far more leaking- with far more serious results, I may add- than anyone in the Administration.
This whole affair has beeen a tempest in a teacup, with absolutely no wrongdoing by anyone, other than Lewis Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice- though not what Fitzgerald wass investigating! Let us hope that this represents the final whimper of the Left's hopes of somehow inventing criminal conduct to pin on Bush, Cheney, or anyone else highly placed in the Administration. Compared with the previous Administration, Bush's has been almost unbelievably free of scandal, depsite the best efforts of the Press and the Democratic Party to manufacture one.
While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.
This seems absolutely correct to me. Plame's identity was initally disclosed to the Press by Richard Armitage, no friend of the Bush Administration, following Plame's husband Joe Wilson writing an opinion colomn in which he falsely claimed that the Bush Administration, particularly Vice-President Richard Cheney, had sent him to Niger and then lied about his findings of Iraqi attemtps to purchase uranium there. However, Administration officials then debunked Wilson's claims by pointing out (correctly) that Cheney did not in fact send Wilson- he got the job through his CIA wife's efforts, Valorie Plame. The Congressional Committee on Intelligence further found that it was Wilson, not Cheney or Bush, who lied about what he reported.
Finally, for Plame to claim that the Administration somehow leaked her CIA identity is somewhat ridiculous, seeing as how Wilson was a former Ambassador and Plame was in "Who's Who" with him- identified as a CIA employee! Never mind the fact that even Special Investigator Fitzgerald fuond that no crime was committed in the whole affair- Libby's prison sentence came for obstructing justice, not from leaking a CIA employee's identity. The New York Times has done far more leaking- with far more serious results, I may add- than anyone in the Administration.
This whole affair has beeen a tempest in a teacup, with absolutely no wrongdoing by anyone, other than Lewis Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice- though not what Fitzgerald wass investigating! Let us hope that this represents the final whimper of the Left's hopes of somehow inventing criminal conduct to pin on Bush, Cheney, or anyone else highly placed in the Administration. Compared with the previous Administration, Bush's has been almost unbelievably free of scandal, depsite the best efforts of the Press and the Democratic Party to manufacture one.
Policies of Leaking
The New York Times has done it again. Leaked, that is. Before the heavily guarded launch of one of the most eagerly anticipated literary conclusions ever- the Saturday release of JK Rowling's seventh and final book in the Harry Potter series, the Times managed to obtain a copy and publish a review of the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
However, the Times, in the person of reviewer Michiko Kakutani, was kind enough to maintain the secrecy and avoid giving away any vital plot points, such as who exactly dies, who lives and how the final conclusion plays out. It appears that the Times has a policy of leaking. When dealing with literary releases that, while they may be eagerly anticipated around the world have no real impact on people's lives, the Times is more than willing to protect information that may otherwise disappoint millions of fans.
However, when dealing with United States government programs that may end up being the difference between life and death for millions of Americans, the Times has no compunction about revealing any and every detail that may hurt the U.S. government's ability to defeat the enemies of all of us. Equally, they seem surprised when informed that their leaky mouths might actually end up killing people- and helping the Muslim terrorists.
I find the Times's priorities disappointing, but unsurpirsing. Like much of the rest of the Press and the Democratic Party, the Times decided long ago that it was more important to destroy the Presidency of George W. Bush, no matter how much harm that may bring the nation, than it is to actually help protect the lives of this country's citizens.
However, the Times, in the person of reviewer Michiko Kakutani, was kind enough to maintain the secrecy and avoid giving away any vital plot points, such as who exactly dies, who lives and how the final conclusion plays out. It appears that the Times has a policy of leaking. When dealing with literary releases that, while they may be eagerly anticipated around the world have no real impact on people's lives, the Times is more than willing to protect information that may otherwise disappoint millions of fans.
However, when dealing with United States government programs that may end up being the difference between life and death for millions of Americans, the Times has no compunction about revealing any and every detail that may hurt the U.S. government's ability to defeat the enemies of all of us. Equally, they seem surprised when informed that their leaky mouths might actually end up killing people- and helping the Muslim terrorists.
I find the Times's priorities disappointing, but unsurpirsing. Like much of the rest of the Press and the Democratic Party, the Times decided long ago that it was more important to destroy the Presidency of George W. Bush, no matter how much harm that may bring the nation, than it is to actually help protect the lives of this country's citizens.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Galloway Punished at Last?
It has been apparent since the fall of Saddam Hussein that most of his erstwhile defenders were in fact on his payroll. The governments of France and Russia who worked so hard and so long to prevent the United Nations from enforcing the fourteen separate resolutions finding Iraq in non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire had under-the-table sweetheart deals with Iraq. As for appeasers at the U.N., the entire Oil-for-Food boondoggle was designed to enrich the top officials at the U.N.and allow Hussein to continue his weapons programs- not put food into the mouths of the oppressed Iraqi people.
The loudest and most despicable of Hussein's apologists has been George Galloway, Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Now, a new report released by Parliament finds Galloway took money for Hussein in return for using his position to delay sanctions and military action against Iraq. The report recommends that Galloway be suspended from Parliament for a month.
while none of this is exactly news, it is nice to see Galloway get some punishment for his activities. In my opinion, the disciplinary committee should have thrown Galloway out of Parliament and stripped him of his citizenship. Accepting money from a foreign power with which your country is at odds is disloyal at best and treason at worst. And no country in the world extends legal protection to traitors- Member of Parliament or not.
Hat tip to Power Line.
The loudest and most despicable of Hussein's apologists has been George Galloway, Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Now, a new report released by Parliament finds Galloway took money for Hussein in return for using his position to delay sanctions and military action against Iraq. The report recommends that Galloway be suspended from Parliament for a month.
while none of this is exactly news, it is nice to see Galloway get some punishment for his activities. In my opinion, the disciplinary committee should have thrown Galloway out of Parliament and stripped him of his citizenship. Accepting money from a foreign power with which your country is at odds is disloyal at best and treason at worst. And no country in the world extends legal protection to traitors- Member of Parliament or not.
Hat tip to Power Line.
Racing Toward Defeat
Democrats have long been trying to force the United States to lose the Iraq Campaign in the global war against Muslim aggression and terrorism without being forced to bear the consequences for said loss. While they do not have the intestinal fortitude to end the war the one way they indisputably have the Constitutional power to use- end funding for the troops- they have tried a variety of methods to allow the Islamist forces to win.
Now, The Politico is reporting that Democrats have issued orders to "blitz their states with anti-Bush messages" as they prepare for an overnight session in the Congress that just happens to coincide with nationwide rallies pro-Muslim groups such as MoveOn.org.
The Politico reports,
Obstructionism? Coming from the Democratic Party, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Let us not forget that it was Democrats who used the obstructionism tactic to block many initiatives by the Republican majority in the previous two Congresses. As a single example, Democrats filibustered to block Republican-nominated judges from receiving an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
Republicans, on the other hand, have yet to filibuster anything in this Congress. However, they are perfectly justified in blocking legislation with which they disagree. That is the method by which the Founders set up the system- checks and balances. If the Democrats wish to pass legislation, they will have to work with Republicans- just as Republicans had to work with Democrats when they held the majority.
However, the tactic I find most repugnant is the Democrats' willingness to use rhetoric that has no place in these United States. When did it become acceptable to equate a sitting, twice-elected President who has clearly broken no laws with an appointed dictator who used street gangs to consolidate his power, as Representative Keith Ellison recently did? Since when is it acceptable to paint one's opponent as a criminal, as the Democrats seem to have no problem doing to George W. Bush?
I would hope that we can disagree without descending into the fever-swamps of hate. During the Clinton years, while there was plenty of anger among some talk-show hosts, no Republican called Clinton a criminal, nor did anyone make any comparisons to illegitimate regimes, though some of Clinton's actions- notably the seizure of Elian Gonzalez against a court order- certainly were borderline illegal. But Democrats seem to think that this kind of rhetoric is acceptable when used against Republicans, though when conservatives point out Democrats' own questionable alliances- such as Ellison's long-standing relationship with the terrorist-aiding Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Democrats scream bloody murder.
It's time that we the people put our foot down. There is no place for this kind of speech in American politics, and any politician who engages in it ought to be shown the door immediately. Whether it is Republican or Democrat, one should be able to disagree and argue the issues on their merits without engaging in the kind of character assassination that the Democrats have made part of their arsenal since the 2000 election.
And a word for the media as well- the arena of ideas is one in which issues should be presented for the people to determine. It is not the media's job to try to tell us what to think. Lay out your opinions, by all means, but straight news is straight news. I fear too many of our so-called journalists have forgotten that simple fact.
Now, The Politico is reporting that Democrats have issued orders to "blitz their states with anti-Bush messages" as they prepare for an overnight session in the Congress that just happens to coincide with nationwide rallies pro-Muslim groups such as MoveOn.org.
The Politico reports,
Leaders are instructing Democratic lawmakers to blitz their states with anti-Bush messages as the Senate gears up for an all-night debate on Iraq withdrawal, according to an internal memo provided to The Politico by a Democratic official.
“We need every Senator’s help throughout the next two days to amplify our message and highlight Republican obstructionism,” says the memo from the Senate Democratic Communications Center, part of the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “This is a caucus-wide effort and your help is needed.”
Obstructionism? Coming from the Democratic Party, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Let us not forget that it was Democrats who used the obstructionism tactic to block many initiatives by the Republican majority in the previous two Congresses. As a single example, Democrats filibustered to block Republican-nominated judges from receiving an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
Republicans, on the other hand, have yet to filibuster anything in this Congress. However, they are perfectly justified in blocking legislation with which they disagree. That is the method by which the Founders set up the system- checks and balances. If the Democrats wish to pass legislation, they will have to work with Republicans- just as Republicans had to work with Democrats when they held the majority.
However, the tactic I find most repugnant is the Democrats' willingness to use rhetoric that has no place in these United States. When did it become acceptable to equate a sitting, twice-elected President who has clearly broken no laws with an appointed dictator who used street gangs to consolidate his power, as Representative Keith Ellison recently did? Since when is it acceptable to paint one's opponent as a criminal, as the Democrats seem to have no problem doing to George W. Bush?
I would hope that we can disagree without descending into the fever-swamps of hate. During the Clinton years, while there was plenty of anger among some talk-show hosts, no Republican called Clinton a criminal, nor did anyone make any comparisons to illegitimate regimes, though some of Clinton's actions- notably the seizure of Elian Gonzalez against a court order- certainly were borderline illegal. But Democrats seem to think that this kind of rhetoric is acceptable when used against Republicans, though when conservatives point out Democrats' own questionable alliances- such as Ellison's long-standing relationship with the terrorist-aiding Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Democrats scream bloody murder.
It's time that we the people put our foot down. There is no place for this kind of speech in American politics, and any politician who engages in it ought to be shown the door immediately. Whether it is Republican or Democrat, one should be able to disagree and argue the issues on their merits without engaging in the kind of character assassination that the Democrats have made part of their arsenal since the 2000 election.
And a word for the media as well- the arena of ideas is one in which issues should be presented for the people to determine. It is not the media's job to try to tell us what to think. Lay out your opinions, by all means, but straight news is straight news. I fear too many of our so-called journalists have forgotten that simple fact.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Sense On Environment
At last. After much hyperbole from most members of the media regarding global warming- a topic that no reporter has any real knowledege of and which is certainly still controversial at best- a reporter injects a little common sense into the debate. Doron Levin, a Michigan-based reporter for the Bloomberg News wrote a colomn on July 10 noting that while the command-economists are rightly ridiculed, the global-warming crowd seeks exactly the same thing.
Levin wrote,
This is completely true. Most environmentalists are the same as the groups who want to ban all luxurues and who wish to cripple Wesstern ecomonmies though somehow they have no provblem leaving much greater-polluting Third-World economies alone. COuld it be that this is because said Third-World countries actually can enforce restrictions on what these do-gooders want? Or is because the population of he third world contains violent fasnatics who are willing to kill to reach their desires- such as is common aomng Muslim countries? in any event, it is telling that the green crowd only tries to enforce their restrictions on wealthy countries where they have access to a Press who supports their goals.
One can only hope that the American people will read Mr. Levin's comments, as opposed to those of hypocritical bloviators such as Al Gore.
Levin wrote,
The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use.
Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards.
Planet in Peril?
Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal.
Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth?
The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're approaching a point of no return.
This is completely true. Most environmentalists are the same as the groups who want to ban all luxurues and who wish to cripple Wesstern ecomonmies though somehow they have no provblem leaving much greater-polluting Third-World economies alone. COuld it be that this is because said Third-World countries actually can enforce restrictions on what these do-gooders want? Or is because the population of he third world contains violent fasnatics who are willing to kill to reach their desires- such as is common aomng Muslim countries? in any event, it is telling that the green crowd only tries to enforce their restrictions on wealthy countries where they have access to a Press who supports their goals.
One can only hope that the American people will read Mr. Levin's comments, as opposed to those of hypocritical bloviators such as Al Gore.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Congressional Concerns
We discussed in a post earlier in the week the fact that the new Democratic Congress is now enduring popularity ratings far lower even than those of President Bush. In fact, as at least one Gallup Poll reported, Congress' approval may be as low as 14 percent.
As a result, as Reuters reports, the Democrats in charge of Congress are beginning to feel the pressure of actually governing. While they were in a minority, they were free to snipe at will, secure in the knowledge that there would be no consequences, as their minority status, coupled with their free propagandists in the mainsstream media would ensure that their message was spread to the American people without the necesssity of producing specifc plans for change. Unfortunately, elections do have consequences, and the Democratic victory in the 2006 mid-term elections has now forced the Democrats to try to come up with a trategy that will make their nutroots happy, whiloe sparing them the responsibility for a massive defeat in the war against Islamic Agression.
All of the pressure has Democrats worried. According to Reuters,
I think that ultimately, Democrats need to focus on delivering something to the American people, and forcing a defeat in Iraq may backfire on them, as polls consistently show that while Americans are tired of the war, they also still support achieving victory by a wide margin, and do not want a retreat or defeat. This places the Democrats in a tough position, and unless they can somehow deliver either a Republican scandal or a legislative victory, they may find that the same voters who turned against Republicans in the last election may turn on them in turn in the next one.
As a result, as Reuters reports, the Democrats in charge of Congress are beginning to feel the pressure of actually governing. While they were in a minority, they were free to snipe at will, secure in the knowledge that there would be no consequences, as their minority status, coupled with their free propagandists in the mainsstream media would ensure that their message was spread to the American people without the necesssity of producing specifc plans for change. Unfortunately, elections do have consequences, and the Democratic victory in the 2006 mid-term elections has now forced the Democrats to try to come up with a trategy that will make their nutroots happy, whiloe sparing them the responsibility for a massive defeat in the war against Islamic Agression.
All of the pressure has Democrats worried. According to Reuters,
Experts attribute the woeful rankings to an inability to force a change in direction in Iraq, the priority Democrats campaigned on to gain power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in last November's elections.
But that is not all. There has been little to show on other priorities, including a change in Social Security and other entitlement programs that will run out of money in the years ahead, in addition to overhauling a health care system that has left millions uninsured and a broken immigration policy.
"I think Americans were expecting a great deal from the new Congress, and Congress has always been held in low esteem, but Congress really hasn't delivered on what it promised, especially on Iraq," said Paul Light, a congressional expert who is a professor at New York University.
I think that ultimately, Democrats need to focus on delivering something to the American people, and forcing a defeat in Iraq may backfire on them, as polls consistently show that while Americans are tired of the war, they also still support achieving victory by a wide margin, and do not want a retreat or defeat. This places the Democrats in a tough position, and unless they can somehow deliver either a Republican scandal or a legislative victory, they may find that the same voters who turned against Republicans in the last election may turn on them in turn in the next one.
Sheehan for Congress!
It is hard to believe that the nutroots lurking in the fever swamps of the hard left can possibly belive that somehow Nancy Pelosi is not a sincere enough believer in the bnutroots preferrred strategy of retreat, surrender and defeat in the face of Muslim aggression. However, it seems that at least one nut does indeed believe exactly that. Acccording to Breitbart News, Cindy Sheehan will challenge Nancy Pelosi in the 2008 Congressional elections.
Sheehan's reasons for challenging Pelosi are that she claims Pelosi isn't working hard enough to hand the Muslim terrorists victory in the Iraq campaign. Breitbart reports that,
However, those are not the only reasons Sheehan has decided to run for office. She also says that,
These statements show such an incredible lack of understanding that is it hard to know where to begin. Her claim that Bush "misled the public" has been debiunked often enough thatr we should not need to do it again here. However, for anyone who somehow has managed to completely close their ears, let's recap. Bush used Hussein's proven possession of weapons of mass destruction as the main rationnale for his removal of Hussein, based on analysis from every single intellignce agency at the time. In addition, every major Democratic leader had made similar statements prior to Bush's election, and the U.S. Congress, on the basis of information that was less alarming than that showed to the President voted to give Bush the authority to proceed against Hussein. No one was misled, though the aftermath clearly showed that our Intelligence either was seriously in error or Hussein managed to successfully hide his wepons program before his removal. In either case, acting on the best information available at the time, no matter whether it was correct or not, does not constitute "misleading".
As for the Geneva Convention argument, let us remind Ms. Sheehan of the following:
That anyone would even make this argument shows that they are entirely ignorant both of the terms of the U.S. Constitution, and also the terms of the actual Geneva Conventions signed and ratified by the United States. So let me remind Ms. Sheehan of the actual text of the Constitution on the topic:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
The preceding refers to the fact that the President may sign a treaty, as President Carter did in 1977, but that without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Sernate, it is not legally binding. Although President Carter signed the Protocols, the Senate refused to ratify, thus the protocols do not bind the United States. If Ms. Sheehan wishes to become a member of Congress, it might behoove her to actually know the text of the document she swears to uphold.
As for Sheehan's accusations of torture, she has a curiously narrow definition. Apprently it is only torture when it is done by Americans to Muslims? However, I find her thoughts on the subject difficult to take seriously until and unless she condemns the actions taken by our enemies with as much fervor as she uses to condemn her own countrymen. We have not beheaded anyone, nor have we forced them to plead, or forcibly converted them to any other religion. All of this has been done by the Mulsims we are fighting, yet i do not recall Sheehan or anyone else on the Left issuing condemnations. Have they forgotten the rapes of the captured Supply Corps soldiers? Or is it that the dignity and rights of the Muslim terrorists are more dear to them than the dignity and rights of their own countrymen and women?
Finally to address her last accusation, that of the President "crossing the line by commuting Lewis Libby's sentence". Ms. Sheehan, the constitution specifically give the President the power to do precisely that. While I do not necessarily agree that he ought to have intervened in this case, he absolutely has the power to commute and even pardon anyone other than those impeached and removed from office. Thus to claim that he somehow "over-stepped" shows again a lack of familiarity with the powers specifically granted to the president under the Constitution.
If Sheehan wishes to run against Pelosi, she is welcome. One far-left hypocrite replacing another will not affect the balance of power in the House. But her lack of familiarity with her own Constitution and her self-serving moral equivalency make her more a buffoon than a serious contender.
Sheehan's reasons for challenging Pelosi are that she claims Pelosi isn't working hard enough to hand the Muslim terrorists victory in the Iraq campaign. Breitbart reports that,
Sheehan, a Californian, officially announced that she intends to run as an independent against Pelosi in 2008 if the San Francisco congresswoman doesn't move to impeach Bush by July 23, the day she expects to reach Washington.
However, those are not the only reasons Sheehan has decided to run for office. She also says that,
Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention with the torture of detainees and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
These statements show such an incredible lack of understanding that is it hard to know where to begin. Her claim that Bush "misled the public" has been debiunked often enough thatr we should not need to do it again here. However, for anyone who somehow has managed to completely close their ears, let's recap. Bush used Hussein's proven possession of weapons of mass destruction as the main rationnale for his removal of Hussein, based on analysis from every single intellignce agency at the time. In addition, every major Democratic leader had made similar statements prior to Bush's election, and the U.S. Congress, on the basis of information that was less alarming than that showed to the President voted to give Bush the authority to proceed against Hussein. No one was misled, though the aftermath clearly showed that our Intelligence either was seriously in error or Hussein managed to successfully hide his wepons program before his removal. In either case, acting on the best information available at the time, no matter whether it was correct or not, does not constitute "misleading".
As for the Geneva Convention argument, let us remind Ms. Sheehan of the following:
- The United States signed andd ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which specifically restrict their scope to organized armed forces and specifically exclude groups such as Hezbollah and al-Quaeda from its protections.
- The additional Geneva Protocols of 1977, which did extend the protections of the Geneva Conventions to terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Quaeda, were signed in 1977 but never ratified by the United States, thus per the United States Constitution those Protocols do not bind us, despite what some judges may think.
That anyone would even make this argument shows that they are entirely ignorant both of the terms of the U.S. Constitution, and also the terms of the actual Geneva Conventions signed and ratified by the United States. So let me remind Ms. Sheehan of the actual text of the Constitution on the topic:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
The preceding refers to the fact that the President may sign a treaty, as President Carter did in 1977, but that without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Sernate, it is not legally binding. Although President Carter signed the Protocols, the Senate refused to ratify, thus the protocols do not bind the United States. If Ms. Sheehan wishes to become a member of Congress, it might behoove her to actually know the text of the document she swears to uphold.
As for Sheehan's accusations of torture, she has a curiously narrow definition. Apprently it is only torture when it is done by Americans to Muslims? However, I find her thoughts on the subject difficult to take seriously until and unless she condemns the actions taken by our enemies with as much fervor as she uses to condemn her own countrymen. We have not beheaded anyone, nor have we forced them to plead, or forcibly converted them to any other religion. All of this has been done by the Mulsims we are fighting, yet i do not recall Sheehan or anyone else on the Left issuing condemnations. Have they forgotten the rapes of the captured Supply Corps soldiers? Or is it that the dignity and rights of the Muslim terrorists are more dear to them than the dignity and rights of their own countrymen and women?
Finally to address her last accusation, that of the President "crossing the line by commuting Lewis Libby's sentence". Ms. Sheehan, the constitution specifically give the President the power to do precisely that. While I do not necessarily agree that he ought to have intervened in this case, he absolutely has the power to commute and even pardon anyone other than those impeached and removed from office. Thus to claim that he somehow "over-stepped" shows again a lack of familiarity with the powers specifically granted to the president under the Constitution.
If Sheehan wishes to run against Pelosi, she is welcome. One far-left hypocrite replacing another will not affect the balance of power in the House. But her lack of familiarity with her own Constitution and her self-serving moral equivalency make her more a buffoon than a serious contender.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Congressional Priorities
The Democratic majorities in the 110th Congress clearly took their victory in the last election as a mandate to try to find evidence of misdoings by the current Administration. And, according to Ed Morrissey over at Heading Right, they have indeed so far spent most of their time looking for said evidence.
Unfortunately for them, these efforts have both distracted them from their Constitutional duty of passing legislation and have turned up no evidence of any wrongdoing. And it appears that the Administration is finally getting tired of the entire circus. As the White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel reminded the media yesterday, Congress has launched over three hundred investigations since taking power in January. And he also reminded reporters that the White House has so far turned over 200000 pages of documentation regarding these many investigations. But while Congress has been steadfast in their investigating, how many pieces of legislation have they passed? Six. Yes, you heard that right. Six- and that includes the troops' funding that took them almost two months to put together.
According to a July 5th article in The Hill newspaper,
Personally, I agree with the Heading Right commenter "Skip" who wrote, "Let’s rephrase that. Would the American people rather have them passing laws, or investigating? For me personally, having them spinning their wheels in meaningless investigations is just about optimal, rather than passing bad laws. I take it as a given that passing good laws is out of the question."
Unfortunately, with the recently postponed immigration boondoggle, together with the threats about the Fairness Doctrine (which we all know would never be enforced against the hopelessly liberal media like PBS), and the not-so-veiled threats to try to force the U.S. military to surrender to the Islamists, I must agree with Skip. I also would rather Congress spend their energies investigating crimes that exist only in the nut-roots' collective imagination than actually passing bad legislation. However, the investigation strategy does hold some element of risk for the Democrats. I agree with Captain Ed, who writes,
In my opinion, the sooner the better, so long as a Democratic loss of Congress doesn't translate into President Hillary. That really would be a disaster.
Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.
Unfortunately for them, these efforts have both distracted them from their Constitutional duty of passing legislation and have turned up no evidence of any wrongdoing. And it appears that the Administration is finally getting tired of the entire circus. As the White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel reminded the media yesterday, Congress has launched over three hundred investigations since taking power in January. And he also reminded reporters that the White House has so far turned over 200000 pages of documentation regarding these many investigations. But while Congress has been steadfast in their investigating, how many pieces of legislation have they passed? Six. Yes, you heard that right. Six- and that includes the troops' funding that took them almost two months to put together.
According to a July 5th article in The Hill newspaper,
Bush spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters during the daily briefing that the White House has been subject to an average of about six oversight hearings a day since Democrats took control of Congress. In that time, he added, the administration has turned over 200,000 pages of documents.
Said Stanzel: “I would raise those issues because it raises the question, what does Congress want to do? Do they want to pass legislation for the American people or would they rather investigate and have politics be the course of the day?
Personally, I agree with the Heading Right commenter "Skip" who wrote, "Let’s rephrase that. Would the American people rather have them passing laws, or investigating? For me personally, having them spinning their wheels in meaningless investigations is just about optimal, rather than passing bad laws. I take it as a given that passing good laws is out of the question."
Unfortunately, with the recently postponed immigration boondoggle, together with the threats about the Fairness Doctrine (which we all know would never be enforced against the hopelessly liberal media like PBS), and the not-so-veiled threats to try to force the U.S. military to surrender to the Islamists, I must agree with Skip. I also would rather Congress spend their energies investigating crimes that exist only in the nut-roots' collective imagination than actually passing bad legislation. However, the investigation strategy does hold some element of risk for the Democrats. I agree with Captain Ed, who writes,
By the time of the next election, Democrats had better show some heads on the wall with these multitude of investigations, or some significant legislative victories, or both. If they have neither, they can kiss their majority good-bye..
In my opinion, the sooner the better, so long as a Democratic loss of Congress doesn't translate into President Hillary. That really would be a disaster.
Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.
Journalism 101
Reporters are not known as experts in much of anything. This lack of knowledge is increased by the fact that many journalism departments are esentially places for honing one's writing skills at the expense of analysis and hard study in more demanding areas. Reporters-in-training take little or no mathematics, statistics, history or any discipline where actual research and analysis is required. With such a weak background, is it any wonder that so few reporters, unless they are among the few who have trained in a real discipline, can actually report complex stories with both accuracy and objective analysis?
The Washington Post newspaper provided a perfect case study with their July 5th article claiming that the body count in Baghdad has increased during the surge. Unfortunately for the Post and their incompetent staff, the real numbers do not support this story at all. In fact, as documented by John Wixted at Back Talk, the numbers clearly show that the body count among civilians has dramatically dropped since the surge began. And the Post itself published a story contining completely different numbers.
This is yet another example of reporters who understand neither statistics nor military strategy taking numbers from a non-official source that happen to support their particular agenda. While this behavior is understandable in the context of the Press' blind hatred of Presiden Bush and their desire to see his Administration destroyed, it is neither professional nor is it good business. This kind of pseudo-reporting is easy to debunk, and Wixted does a fantastic job, with plenty of corroborative evidence.
This is simply another nail in the coffin for the reputation of the mainstream media. They have shown us their bias, their incompetence and their unprofessionalism too many times. The only question remaining is why anyone still actually buys their increasingly pathetic product.
Hat tip to Power Line.
The Washington Post newspaper provided a perfect case study with their July 5th article claiming that the body count in Baghdad has increased during the surge. Unfortunately for the Post and their incompetent staff, the real numbers do not support this story at all. In fact, as documented by John Wixted at Back Talk, the numbers clearly show that the body count among civilians has dramatically dropped since the surge began. And the Post itself published a story contining completely different numbers.
This is yet another example of reporters who understand neither statistics nor military strategy taking numbers from a non-official source that happen to support their particular agenda. While this behavior is understandable in the context of the Press' blind hatred of Presiden Bush and their desire to see his Administration destroyed, it is neither professional nor is it good business. This kind of pseudo-reporting is easy to debunk, and Wixted does a fantastic job, with plenty of corroborative evidence.
This is simply another nail in the coffin for the reputation of the mainstream media. They have shown us their bias, their incompetence and their unprofessionalism too many times. The only question remaining is why anyone still actually buys their increasingly pathetic product.
Hat tip to Power Line.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Independence Day
Today is the 231th anniversary of the independence from England of the United States of America. I hope that we all enjoy ourselves on this FOurth of July, and thank God that we live in the greatest, freest country on Earth. Remember, freedom is not free, and if no one stands up to defend our beliefs, our culture and our nation, we will all be wearing the marks of the dhimmi sooner or later.
God bless the United States. Have a wonderful Independence Day, everyone.
God bless the United States. Have a wonderful Independence Day, everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
