Sunday, October 31, 2004

A Pro Bush Feminist?

Yes sir. Tammy Bruce is a strange bird. She still calls herself a Democrat, Progressive and Feminist, but she voted for Bush in this election, encourages other Dems to do the same, voted for Reagan, and regularly opposes her now corrupt party and its corrupt ideology. She is a good example of what I have been calling for. In Reason, Cathy Young tries to explain her, but as usual she gets it only partly right-- still it is interesting. She is a contradiction to be sure, but the fact that raving liberals and their political sheep loathe her is a good sign.

See? I told you there is room for two pro-American political parties. It is a shame more Democrats do not have the independence and courage of Tammy Bruce.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

What should we do to recruit more soldiers?

Of course, some of us have debated before whether we actually do need more troops for our current mission. I am undecided, but tend to lean toward the "more troops" side. (Remember, though, we are training Iraqis and our greatest weakness is NOT troop strength; it is the Liberals here at home, just as it was in Vietnam.)

We all know the draft scare is stupid as it is. But, the so-called back-door draft seems to be a real issue. On the one hand, that is in fact what they signed up for. On the other hand, it is not customary and many reservists (et al.) did not expect year long assignments.

Further, if we are to take a more active military role around the world -- Like Nial Ferguson and Tom Barnett suggest -- then we will need more troops.

Now, the military is not having trouble meeting its current recruiting goals, but I am suggesting that those goals are too low. I am also suggesting that we should not be using the reservists (et al.) for more than a year at a time. We should, moreover, have raised these goals so that we can send these guys back home. This seems like a good idea if only for its political impact.

Yes, this is a criticism of Bush. I think after 9/11 we could have dramatically increased troops numbers. I think the Rummy desire for a small military is wrong. I think he is right to streamline it but I don't mind spending money on a large and efficient military. I mean, if we had another 100,00 troops here at home, how do you think Iran or Syria would feel right now? [For fun imagine that we also had political unity behind the Bush doctrine]

So, what should we do to get more highly qualified recruits?

Kerry lied about meeting with Security Council

Joel Mowbry in The Washington Times

I do not expect that anyone is suprised by this either. I just wanted to make my case that Kerry is the same lying traitor that he was in 1970-1.

I chalk this up to the Leftist ethic of utopian-fantasyland-unrealistic ends justify any means.

Honestly, how can regular Democrats continue to support Clintons, Gores and Kerrys? There are real Americans in the party. I know republicans who would have voted for Lieberman or Zel or the like. If they would just purge the Leftist ideology from their party!

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Bush has higher IQ than Kerry

This is fun and from the NYT to boot. It has Kerry at 120, Bush in the mid 120's and Gore 10 points higher than Bush. That seems fair. I like Meehan's response:
The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure.

OK, but Bush is the President.

More on Winning the War of Ideas: Kerry is a plagiarist

The Left has a long history of outrageous lying. We are all familiar with the deceit of Environmentalists and, now, it is well known that out media has been lying to us for years. Both groups do this because to face the truth would discredit their entire culture.

Academia is, of course, the heart of this problem. The very place where we are supposed to learn about intellectual honesty is rife with flagrant dishonesty. We still hear about McCarthy with no mention of Venona. The slaughter of 2.5 million men, women and children after we abandoned Vietnam to the Communists somehow fails to indict the anti-war movement in texts and lectures.

High schools still teach I, Rigoberta Menchu even though the book has been proven to be a fake. The incomparable Dinesh D'Souza discusses this here.

Remember the anti-gun fake Arming America by Bellisales? The good news is that he was exposed by many including other academics and forced to retire. What is weird is that he thought he could get away with it. If an argument has to resort to deception, what does that tell you about the argument?

Now we have John Kerry exposed as a plagiarist. We are supposed to vote for this guy? He would be kicked out of school for this, but, no, the Presidency is OK.

New documents prove Kerry was a traitor!

OK, not quite. More like a useful idiot and it is a breaking story so it may not even be true.
Read this for the main story.
Read this for a timeline and analysis of Kerry's visits to Paris and the media coverage of that story.

You know, it is too bad that Kerry has such a low opinion of Americans. In reality, we are the noblest people on the planet (as a whole of course). If Kerry would just clearly, honestly and totally repudiate his disgusting anti-war activities and reform his politics accordingly, Americans would forgive and forget. After all, that is exactly what we did with Bush. He was a stupid, irresponsible alcoholic. But, then he repudiated that and reformed his entire life. We love him for it.

The problem with Kerry is that he is the same person he was back then.

The 380 tons of stolen explosives

We have already destroyed over 200,000-400,000 tons of weapon material and there are hundreds of thousands of tons more.

Yes, 380 tons of high explosives are missing. Come on! As we have been trying to say, this is a war. It is messy and difficult. Remember "it's hard work"? This is what we were talking about. It is totally stupid to pretend that this indicts Bush's war plan. It is to be expected in war. Yes, it may be a mistake. No, it does not mean that the Bush plan in Iraq is flawed. That Kerry seized on this like a jackal only points to his low character and small mindedness.

Kerry said today that this loss was due to incompetence and tried to blame it on the Bush administration. He went on to say again that we should have used the best trained force in Tora Bora instead of outsourcing the job. Uh, dumbass, it is precisely this same force that was responsible for creating the plans to secure this stuff. Which is it? Is the military great or incompetent?

Also, all or some of it may have been stolen before we entered Iraq and after the IAEA left. Now, consider this: The IAEA allowed Saddam to have these explosives since they may be used in quarrying. OK, but they can also be used to make Nukes! Read this. This is exactly why we went to war. As Duelfur made clear, Saddam had figured out a new strategy to gain WMD’s and this is another example of him doing it.

Would you really be suprised if we find out that Saddam snuck these explosives out and buried them or sent them over to Syria right under the IAEA's nose?

Finally, I note that the problem is supposed to be that terrorists will use these explosives. Honestly, do you think that al-Qaeda and the other terrorists are really having trouble finding bomb material? I'm sure that if terrorists got these explosives, they will kill people with them. But, they have been killing innocent people and soldiers for years without RDX or HMX.

Tommy Franks sets the record strait on Tora Bora

In the NYT , no less.

John O'Neill, Lawrence O'Donnell and the War of Ideas

We are winning the War of Ideas. How do I know? Check out this "debate" between SwiftVet John O'Neill and Lawarnce O'Donnel on Scarborough Country.

Ann Coulter's third rule from How to Talk to a Liberal (If you Must) is "Outrage the Enemy." Well, the sputtering, name calling outburts from O'Donnell seem to prove that this works.

O'Neill is a true patriot and has faced many Liberals who virulently and disgracefully scream invective at him. As I have pointed out before, and as he does towards the end of his appearance, his arguments are good and most certainly have not been refuted. Kerry has offered testimony to counter the SwiftVets, but the SwiftVets both have more testimony and better textual arguments. The fact that O'Donnell resorts to this sort of childishness is proof that he can not stand up to O'Neill's arguments.

Tonight Pat Buchanan, again in for Scarborough, announced that O'Donnell's "manner" "crossed the line" and was "disrespectful" to the audience. He said that O'Donnell's "insults did not forward the debate." Pat assured us that this would not happen again. He also said, to O'Donnell's credit, that O'Donnell agreed with all this. It was a sort of apology, but not quite. I will try to add the transcript of it when available.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Republicans should stop being so nice!

Democrats will do and say anything to get elected.

Today they harangued Cheney for getting a flu shot. This is, of course, perfectly consistent with what Bush said the other day (which was, btw, a great example of leadership). Cheney is one of the "most vulnerable Americans." So is Bill Clinton. Cheney getting a flu shot is setting the perfect example. Either they can not see this -- in which case their judgment is unfit to lead this country -- or they are lying for political gain. [Yes, Frist set up a clinic for congress to get it too. Duh. I sure as hell do not want my congressman to sit idle, wasting tax money, due to a flu which he could have prevented. This is not Republican elitism; it is responsible governance]

This follows on Teresa patronizing Laura Bush and saying "But I don't know that she's ever had a real job." She apologized later for this remark: "I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a schoolteacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children." Even CNN put "forgot" in ironic quotes in the headline.

And need I mention the disgusting, but revealing, Lynn Cheney remarks. If you think that these remarks were "off the cuff", you're nuts. At least you have to admit that the second, Kerry's, was on purpose. I mean Edwards' was all the talk for days! Remember, this is the guy who promises that he is so "sensitive" he will be able to create stronger alliances. Well, so far he seems like an insensitive prick. [Compare to Bush who actually does make friends with foreign leaders: Putin in 2001 and even through the strain after Iraq in 2003]

How about the draft? This is the stupidest thing I've seen in presidential politics. I argue that the whole draft issue exists merely to remind people of Vietnam and make them associate it with Bush and Iraq. Sadly, MTV idiots believe this ridiculous lie. There a some Democrats and some Republicans supporting it, but they are wrong and/or stupid. Besides, Kerry is the one explicitly saying that he will add more soldiers. Thus, there is more chance that Kerry will draft us than Bush. Besides, it is fairly easy to get more volunteer soldiers by other means -- pay, college etc. Volunteers make better soldiers anyway and in this kind of War we need committed volunteer soldiers. Bush, Rumsfeld and others have said explicitly "No! There will be no Draft."

They promised that if you elect them people like Christopher Reeve would walk again. That turns my stomach. What a low and base tactic. They should sell a miracle snake-oil cure too...oh, wait, they are. Read Krauthammer's take -- not unlike my own.

Finally, now we hear "God" and "faith" more from Kerry than from Bush. What a joke! Even stalwart lefty Lawrence O'Donnell does not believe him. [In this he takes comfort] I am not religious, but this kind of cavalier disregard for and manipulation of American's deep felt and guiding faith is disgusting. How could someone of faith, whatever the kind, vote for a man so insulting of it.

[some brilliant text indicting leftists and a cool "Crispin's Day" speech lost to Blogger]

Why are Dems willing to be so dishonorable and deceptive? It is because
Leftist ideology took over the party 40 years ago. Leftists believe that their utopian ends justify ANY means. This is the classic defense for evil.

The Soviet collapse shook the leftist ideology to its core. 9/11 may destroy it. The Left knows that it is in a fight for its very life. If the Bush doctrine proves successful overseas, it will simultaneously destroy Leftism at home.

Tolerance is a core conservative idea. We must not, however, tolerate that which will destroy tolerance itself. We should believe in our American ideals enough to speak out in clarion tones against America's enemies -- even when they are Americans. Democrats should reject leftism and reform themselves. The current conservative party is large and varied enough to split into a Republican and modern Democrat party. Then we could have real, honest and honorbale political debates.

National ID Card and The 9/11 Bill

Shannon wants input on this issue -- I am particularly interested in Milewski's ideas.

What the GOA has to say:

The bill: (Thanks to Steve L.)

What Steve L had to say about it:
The bill mentioned does not seem to be as bad as it is advertised on the GOA site.

As far as the criminal history database goes, the bill contains plenty of restrictions on who is required to submit this information and who is authorized to obtain it. The Attorney General is allowed some powers in gaining this data from industries that are critical to our nation's infrastructure but it is a distortion to say that it could be anyone/anywhere. Of course it would not exactly be a secret that you would have your name checked when they take your fingerprints.

Also, the ID card is not being issued by the feds, it is still issued by the states. They just want a certain minimal level of information and verification to go into each state's records. Nothing about the ID cards will contain information we don't already have to reveal about ourselves already.

As far as the national airline database goes, that does bother me a little bit because it could delve into much more personal details although it doesn't really mention that fact in the bill itself. It appears that its main function will be to create profiles of people that are using air transport to help identify terrorists and criminals. However, it does offer the suspect the right to appeal his status and correct any wrong information in the system. The capacity for abuse of this information is pretty high and they need to have some really strict controls on who can gain access to it.

The bill does seem to restrict the rights of foreigners to obtain asylum and reduces the judicial oversight of deportation cases in general. That may be more fuel for the fire of the human rights groups but that is an issue that is too political anyway.

When identity theft is rising in volume every year, the bill seems to be helpful in providing security to our personal ID. I don't want someone else walking around spending my money or implicating me in any of his crimes and this bill seems to be a good measure for reducing that possibility.

Stephen L.
The devil is in the details, but it is often illuminating to think of how different administrations would use such powers. Would you feel comfortable with Janet "Waco/Elian" Reno enforcing this bill? This same argument can be applied to the USAPATRIOT. Even though there have been many lies about it and virtually no civil rights violations from it, I expect that others may try to abuse it.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Petitio Principii OR The Politics of Solipsism

Hardball asked a bunch of college kids what “what do you want to hear your candidate say tonight?” A Kerry supporter answered that she wanted to hear specifics adding, “I believe in him, now I want to hear it.”

This is one of my complaints about Liberals. They assume the conclusion and go looking for the proof. Of course, I have more examples to prove my case.

The Dan famously proved this point recently. He basically, but not actually, admitted that those documents were forged. He was careful to point out, though, that nobody has been able to disprove the main thrust of the story – the story backed up by the false documents.

Paul Krugman said on Tuesday

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about … The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

He also said on 7.2.04
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain…

What allows them to commit this classic logical fallacy, the Petitio Principii? I submit that they do not understand the opposing position, the conservative position, at all. Instead of actually trying to understand it, they just reject it and that only leaves their own position. Now if they can just find facts to make it seem true…

Monday, October 11, 2004

"Americans in Hell" a poem

Volume I, Issue 2 Poems

Chuck Lipsig

Americans in Hell

The Devil said unto the Lord, “You’ve played a nasty trick.
Not since you flung me down here have I ever felt so sick.
For you’ve condemned all sorts of folk to my eternal care,
But now you’ve sent Americans. Good God, sir, is that fair?
For all you’ve sent before them were no trouble, for the most:
Hardly the sort of fighters that long ago were your host.
It’s kings and queens and emperors and dictators they’ve served,
So when it comes to face me down, they hardly have the nerve
To protest when I torture them. Oh, they are my delight:
Broken down in lifetime, they have no hope to see more light.
But Americans condemned to me, I can’t understand.
Did you change the formula, when you made them for that land?
They won’t give in to torture: When I burn them, they make ice.
When I freeze them, they make fire. Whenever a demon tries,
To slice them up, they will fight back, and three times out of four,
For all the pain that they sustain, they give back even more.
Now they’ve taken my brimstone and set it aside to cool
And my demons’ swords and pitchforks, they’ve reforged into tools
To build bridges in my valleys and cities in my hills
And half my lava rivers with clear water they have filled.
I try to reason with these souls and get them to give in,
They say, ‘What else can you do, whether this be grace or sin?’
And now they’re building something new, these dead, eternal souls:
New roads and war machinery: I fear that their next goal
Is to lay siege to my towers, my castles, and my halls.
Good God, who has cast me down here! Where have I left to fall?
There’s but one hope I have for them: That is, when they are through
Taking over my Hell from me, that, God, they’ll come for you.”

Edwards Bulldog and Explainer

In addition to his role as attack dog (which both vice presidential candidates share) Edwards now seems to have the role of Explainer. At the second debate when Kerry stated he was going to lower taxes on the middle class and at the same time implement some wonderful programs. Most people I have heard talk about it agree that the money from "taxing the rich" just won't pay for all the programs. The other day Edwards was interviewed saying that if the revenues weren't there then they would cut back on the programs (it wasn't said which ones). Point is, the campaign advisors are having Edwards make this statement and not Kerry. Anybody seen any other examples. To be fair, I think Bush's secretary of war fulfills some of the same function with his recent troop level in Iraq comments that Bush's campaign people don't want him to be the one to say.

Internets, yes it can be plural

I know that virtually everyone thinks that Bush used a Bushism when he said internets. Guess what. My dad had a lot of old system manuals for his Industrial Control computers and that is where I first learned about networking. I am pretty sure that there was frequent use of both singular and plural. I found in my first search a definition from 1982 (about right) that uses plural:

1982: INWG establishes the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP), as the protocol suite, commonly known as TCP/IP, for ARPANET. This leads to one of the first definition of an "internet" as a connected set of networks, specifically those using TCP/IP, and "Internet" as connected TCP/IP internets

Yes this is "old school", but so is "Nucular". Nucular is a common pronunciation in the Pentagon.

Geoffrey Nunberg says:

I once asked a weapons specialist at a federal agency about this, and he told me, "Oh, I only say 'nucular' when I'm talking about nukes." In the mouths of those people, "nucular" is a choice, not an inadvertent mistake -- a thinko, not a typo. I'm not sure exactly what they have in mind by it. Maybe it appeals to them to refer to the weapons in what seems like a folksy and familiar way, or maybe it's a question of asserting their authority -- as if to say, "We're the ones with our fingers on the button, and we'll pronounce the word however we damn well please.

I am suggesting that Bush is talking to same kind of people, pentagon types and "old schoolers" and their mannerisms may suit him fine. I bet someone he knows uses the term "Internets".

Keep your chin up: The media is changing

Yes they are biased, but things are changing too. As Galen has pointed out, the College Republicans are flourishing even in the midst the crazed leftists at U.T. The internets and the bloggers are forcing changes (aside: I'm talking about The Dan). FoxNews is huge. Despite the recent and very, very stupid/biased memo form ABC's Halperin, ABC's Gibson conducted a fair debate, maybe even one that favored Bush: Read this.

Old Story: Military Tribunals, Polls, Democracy

I was reading the new Coulter book and she mentioned that there were no polls (as of the writing of her November 28, 2001 column) asking Americans whether they favored military tribunals and so on. Well, that very day ABC had released such a poll and NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School had just conducted one too -- probably also released around the 27th or 28th). Guess what. The worst numbers constituted a majority in FAVOR of the tribunals and mostly the support of them against terrorists was around 2/3.

I don't remember a lot of talk about these polls do you? Yes, there was a lot of talk about the issue but I don't remember hearing often that most to a super-majority of us supported them. Is this bias or am I just a flake?...Steve shut-up, Galen shut-up, Shannon shut-up.

Saturday, October 09, 2004


They say all politics are local. Ok, fine. Voting that way is right and good. In fact, when we vote based on what we think might be good for "the other guy", that is, beyond our own experience or knowledge we often make mistakes. When I was still a liberal, I supported Democrat Tsongas for President because I thought he would be good for businesses. I know better now.

The Democrats promise to help people and many Americans vote for them in order to help others. They believe the Democrats when they say that things are bad for this or that group. Of course, some group of people is always doing worse than another -- that is always true, by default, since the argument is by comparison. Moreover, there will always be some group of people which needs help. We should be careful, though in voting one group of people the power over us in order that they might help another group.

Outsourcing is one these issues. If you or you someone you know has lost his/her job to outsourcing, then you have a reason to support democratic policies intended to remedy this. I do not beleive that these policies will work. I am just saying that you would be voting locally and that is a good start. But, we should all try to vote with some understanding. Outsourcing affects far fewer of us than it seems from the media coverage and it is not always a bad thing anyway. As usual, the liberal take on the issue is wrong and panders to our protectionist instincts. I submit the following:

Why We Have Nothing to Fear from Foreign Outsourcing

The United States continues to enjoy tremendous advantages in global IT competition. Our domestic economy is one of the most free, flexible, and open in the world. Our telecom, transportation, and utility systems deliver dependable service. Our talent pool of scientists and our university research facilities are second to none. Entrepreneurs can obtain financing for their ideas and intellectual property protection once they are developed. Relative to many other systems of government, ours is transparent, predictable, and dedicated to the rule of law. Our domestic market is the largest in the world. Those inherent advantages of doing business in the United States cannot always be offset merely by lower labor costs elsewhere and are especially important in those aspects of production that require creative freedom and specialized skills.

U.S. companies are also discovering the limits to outsourcing. There are perfectly good, market-driven reasons why U.S. companies will continue to do most of their IT work onshore if not in-house. Foreign outsourcing can generate costs of its own, such as the need for more travel, training, and management oversight. Depending on the type of project, those costs can eat into if not entirely erase the costs savings from lower wages abroad. Sending work abroad can also risk the loss of control of sensitive personal and financial data and copyrighted material. It can mean the loss of control over time-sensitive aspects of a project or becoming too reliant on outside firms. As some U.S. companies have discovered, it can result in reduced quality of service if the providers are not sensitive to cultural differences or lack specialized information expected by customers.

The increase in outsourcing is neither and unemployment is low

Another non-issue sure to grow tiresome in a few more months is the maniacal anxiety about imports of business services -- a trivial pursuit that would have gotten no attention at all had it not been deviously mislabeled as "outsourcing." That is not what outsourcing means. Outsourcing means having business services done by specialist firms rather than inside a manufacturing or financial firm.

What uninformed politicians and journalists mean by "outsourcing" is importing services. They would have you believe the United States has suddenly been importing many more services. Yet the increase in service imports last year was precisely zero. From 1997 to 2000, by contrast, U.S. service imports grew 9.7 percent a year.

If Sen. John Kerry had hoped to make a big political issue out of an unemployment rate that is likely to be below 5 percent by election time [It is actually 5.4 now], he had better start trying to change the subject as soon as possible. And his never-ending wisecracks about Herbert Hoover could backfire, too, because Hoover enacted the same policies key Democrats now recommend -- namely, higher tax rates and tariffs.

Outsourcing is good for America

If a capable radiologist in India can read x-ray pictures at a quarter of the cost of doing so domestically, important health care services can be delivered at lower cost to everyone, putting a brake on exploding medical costs.

The outsourcing of services to India counts in the U.S. balance of payments as an import of services. If we are going to start importing large amounts of such services, these imports must be paid for by exports of something. The dollars being spent by firms to purchase these services will come back to the United States either in the form of demand for U.S. goods (our exports to India) or foreign investment in the United States. As McKinsey has noted, "[service] providers in low-wage countries require U.S. computers, telecommunications equipment, other hardware and software. In addition, they also procure legal, financial, and marketing services from the U.S

If unemployment is still way low, then how bad could job loss overseas be? And, they say that the jobs which are replacing the lost jobs are paying less. But are they? The ITAA says (among other positive things) that real wages have and will continue to rise due to off shoring jobs since the effect is to make our home economy better.

Conservatives know that the free market works only when it is adaptable. We are the party of change; we are the party that believes in the future. Yes, some will have to find and possibly train for different jobs. This flexibility is what makes the American market so damn good. Embrace it. Remember, America is the greatest force for good the world has ever known. Our poorest jobless citizen is rich beyond belief compared to most of the world (and compared to most of human history too). In this country if you lose your job and are willing you can find another one. It is our free market which allows this. It is our free market which allows us to be that force for good. We should protect our economy against leftist policies because in so doing we protect ourselves.

Friday, October 08, 2004

John Kerry and the Duelfer Report

You can't see this, but I'm waving good-bye to Kerry's foriegn policy as it flies out the window. What are he and John Edwards along with the media saying about the Duelfer report? Ha!- There absolutely are no WMD's in Iraq. Really? We' ll see in ten or so years when they can actually do a thorough search. And who says Saddaam's weapons are even in Iraq? Anyway, I digress. John Kerry is in trouble, but you won't hear about it from the liberal media who are hungry to see Bush's head on a chopping block The only story on the Duelfer report that we are hearing is the shocking news that stockpiles of nukes were not found. The Dem's will act like this was the only reason Bush had for invasion. What we won't hear much of is the reported corruption of the United Nations and the "oil for food" program headed by Saddaam. Or of the charge that French nationals and businesses took bribes from Iraq. Saddaam allegedly paid millions of dollars in cash and petrol vouchers to France in exchange for their help in ending the U.N. sanctions there. These are the organizations Kerry wants us and the Iraqis to trust and to align ourselves with. And now France and Germany have declared that they would not join the coalition even if Kerry is elected. What's your "secret plan" now, Senator? I guess we will never know.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Here is why this is a private blog

This is an email thread started by one of our members -- jmason, aka Shannon.

Has anyone else noticed that everything (except Health Care Reform, and Outsourcing) that Kerry has said he would do so far is already being done by the current administration, except that Kerry wants to spend more money to do it faster, despite the current budget problem. How? I refuse to believe that a 20 year Senator doesnt know the limiations of the budget.

It is obvious that the reformation of the Health Care System, which in the short-term is an impossibility (unless we give the decision as to who gets what care to a bureaucrat with a budget), will be a hard road or else it would have been done by now. It will be a process that will take a minimum of 8 10 years to accomplish, and that is wishful thinking.

The outsourcing problem: Is anyone up on that subject? I cant see how the problem can be fixed without throwing up barriers to free trade which would force other countries to retaliate. I understand the taxing side of it, but that will barely scratch the difference in the cost savings of outsourcing. Since the savings are so great, any reasonable taxes applied to it will make very little impact. The problem lies in the value of the dollar in the countries that receive most of the outsourcing, and effectively controlling that is out of our hands.

I welcome responses by those with more factual knowledge on these subjects than I

  • Anne replies
you know i usually stay out of these political discussions.
this time, i'm gonna say something, just to be clear.
i used to be an activist. i used to try to get laws changed, go to protests, and make my voice heard. the current administration, and their "martial law" changes to our basic rights and freedoms scare the hell out of me. for the first time ever, i am afraid to have my voice heard, my name noted. they are systematically taking away all of our rights.
and do a little research on the bush administrations plans for privatization of all public lands and public holdings. how would you like Halliburton managing our parks and wilderness areas?
the current folks are super scary.
i really hope everyone gets out and votes. i don't know how much more we can afford to lose.
Kerry isn't perfect, but he's no bush.
  • Dave Williams,
I'm with Anne. In my case, I'm voting for Kerry, not because of what he's said he will do, but what he's said he won't do. Bush did widen a deficit with tax cuts. That is NOT conservative, and it is NOT responsible. My daughter will help pay for Bill Gates' tax cut 10, 20 years from now. The Bush administration did rush to war in Iraq. Bush did alienate many allies. Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists. We have lost many more American lives in Iraq since Saddam's regime fell than he ever killed during his reign.
To Shannon's specific question, I'm not well enough informed to answer. I don't know enough about the ramifications of protectionism, or how to fund health care reform. Other issues have already decided this election for me.
  • Craig said,
Annie, I concur. I stay out of these things too, but there is something to be said when I am more "afraid" of our own government than I am of some outside threat. I am not convinced that these so called terrorists are not feeding their families with our tax dollars...or the profits of the renewed bumper crop of Poppy (mostly eradicated under Taliban control)in Afghanistan which helps to fund the "non-existant" Black Budget.

I haven't the time or the energy to do the research for anyone but
myself. I must agree, it is very easy to go through life with blinders - accepting everything I am fed without question. Bush/Kerry; in my humble opinion they're both the same. The agenda has been set, and the puppet we "elect" president...well, who knows the dance of a different puppet. At least Kerry can construct a coherent sentence.

Hey Galen, I have a present for you.

Hey Galen, I have a present for you.

Here it is . . .

Cheney did NOT link 9/11 to Iraq!

This is pissing me off. After the VP debate, the major criticism of Cheney was that he directly linked 9/11 to Iraq. He did not. He linked Iraq to terrosim. 9/11 was a terrorist attack. So, yes there is a connection and no Saddam did not help the 9/11 bastards. I mean does nobody remember what the Bush doctrine is? We will prosecute this war on terrorism in every way we can agaisnt anyone or any nation who aids terrorists. This is the lesson of 9/11. We can not afford to wait around until we are attacked. What is frustrating as hell is that Kerry/Edwards says they will use pre-emption but then argue that Iraq did not attack us. Duh. That is why it is pe-emptive.

Here is the text that Liberlas use to prove that Cheney has linked 9/11 to Iraq:

But he did say in 2003 that if efforts to establish democracy in Iraq succeeded, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Sandiego Union-Tribune

Uh, are you daft? He links Iraq to terrorists not 9/11. By their logic, the war on terrorists is only a war agaisnt the 9/11 culprits...oh wait, they support a war against al-qaeda, no wait that does not work either since Iraq did have some sort of relationship to al-qaeda, but no, they claim to support the war on terror so what they hell are they on about?

P.S. I am little druink'

Alignment: Liberal-Evil

Lately like all other conservatives, I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the homosexuals known as "liberals." And I don't just mean the homosexuals who refer to themselves as homosexuals, I mean ALL Liberals. What are some noticeable patterns in dirty liberals? I'm glad I asked...

Liberals are the ones who cause trouble. You very rarely hear about conservatives doing destructive or absurd things for attention. Just a few things that I have myself witnessed recently include: plucking up every one of the American flags that were set up just before the anniversary of 9/11 by the College Republicans at UT and replanting them to spell out "THE WORLD SUFFERS." There are photos on the link of it. Last week a liberal stood in front of the table that the College Republicans had set up to register voters and read the Communist Manifesto and then (as I witnessed) galloped across the street screaming, "No blood for oil" over and over. The CR's later informed me that it was good for business. Just last weekend I passed what I knew to be a Bush/Cheney yard sign, but someone had draped an American flag over it which had been cut lengthwise down the middle.

One that I didn't witness, but haven't heard much on the news about is that some pathetic liberals smashed the window of the Bush/Cheney HQ and stole three laptops containing a lot of vital information on their campaign strategy. Understandably that is less interesting than a giant farting mountain.

Another common trait amongst Liberal frogs is their tendency to fall for any conceivable conspiracy theory. My brother, who knows nothing but regurgitates everything, not-so-long-ago informed my dear mother that Bush flew the bin Laden family home immediately after the 9/11 attack by stinking Muslim terrorist scumbags. That's because liberals are all a bunch of drama queens. They aren't happy unless there is some terrible thing. Of course they are never happy because they are a bunch of losers.

More to come on rapist-loving Liberals...

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Andy Rooney

Andy Rooney is sometimes fun and sometimes not. He has neat job suggestion at the end that any business or government organization should have.

Botox---The Ultimate Debate Prop

Critics of the debate have had alot to say about Bush's body language. The Kerry-Edwards website has had an ad featuring a handful of unflattering snapshots of Bush held up as evidence of his bad attitude.

Some critics (ie: Terry McAulliffe) actually saw fit to interpret Bush's "body language" as meaning he was irritated that he had to be at the debate ahving to answer questions. Some (only on the left that I've noted) have treated Bush's behavior as equal to Gore's huffing and puffing in 2000. As if there was no middleground between quiet expressions and exaggerrated petulance.

Of some of the pictures, I can honestly say I don't see anything negative. They put up a picture of Bush rubbing his eye. For crying out loud, I hope people aren't examining me so closely I don't feel free to rub my eyes.

That being said, I think some of the other pictures did show negative emotion. But rather than say that Bush didn't want to be at the debate, I can point easily to more likely causes.

Kerry accused Bush of serially misleading Americans during his presidency and even during the debate.

He accused Bush of war profiteering in league with Halliburtin.

He accused Bush of not knowing that it was Bin Laden and not Hussein who attacked us on 9/11/01.

Not to mention that throughout his campaign, Kerry himself has called Bush AWOL in the Vietnam War and a liar about WMD's (he cowardously claimed in the debate to only have used the word "misled", not "lied"--but he actually has said Bush "lied")

Of course Bush was irritated! Kerry was flinging out baseless and vitriolic assassinations of character. When Lehrer asked Bush about Kerry's character, Bush took the high road.

Many believe Gore's unprecedented huffing cost him the election and they want a comparable indicator in this election.

But was Bush inappropriate? I submit that the Bush we saw on 9/30/04 is the same Bush we've always seen. At best, the criticisms are arguable (unlike the Gore situation). We may never see such outrageous behavior in a debate again, just as no one will ever repeat Nixon's mistakes in his debate with Kennedy. But perhaps Kerry, in avoiding Gore's mistake, has repeated Dukakis' mistake.

No one can deny that Kerry came off cool and collected. But did anyone consider whether Kerry showed enough expression? Also, I've heard no one comment that sometimes he nodded in agreement while Bush was criticizing him (that is, in an up & down motion,a gesture of agreement, not my interpretation) .

And while Kerry's representatives deny that he's had Botox, I think it's worth noting that his once furrowed brow is now smoother that a baby's bottom. If he did have Botox, then what does that mean about his expressions in the debate? He would've removed our ability to apply the same scrutiny to him as Bush.

As you surely have ascertained, I saw no impropriety in Bush's debate demeanor. His expressions were natural and reasonable, and passionate when called for.
But if you want a president who can maintain a cool facade, then let me say . . . Kerry is your mannequin.

Monday, October 04, 2004

Pat Buchanan, Paleo-conservatives and The Future

Paleo-pithicus conservativus: an early form of conservative ape who refuses to adapt and will thus die out.

Buchanan is a bigot. He hates the neo-conservatives so much that his judgement is affected. Brian Birdnow writes a brief review of his new book for the Claremont Institute. Here he basically lists the problems with Buchanan's argument.

As a paleocon, Buchanan desperately wants to maintain his traditional political views and what he thinks is the tradition of American society. The problem is that he is wrong about what those things are. The conservative position, true, is one that rejects progressive ideas, but that does not mean that it is stagnant.

On the contrary, American conservativism is different from traditional Western conservatism in this very important way: it attempts to conserve the American Revolution. (Thanks to Dinesh D'Sousa and others for this concise description). It is at heart a deeply modern conservatism that has revolution as its founding moment. Contrast this with English Tory conservatism which tends toward monarchy, or at least toward maintaining the class distinctions of olde (true this is somewhat unfair, but that is for another post).

Conservatism is not, however, progressive. Conservatives believe thatpolicy must pay considerable deference to human nature or disaster will follow. Some will look toward their religion for this nature, and in America we are free to do this, even when making public policy. We argue that the Great Society and New Deal will always be failures since these programs violate certain natural principle of human society. Property ownership makes the world go 'round. Welfare reform was successfull precisely to the degree that it recognized this idea. People need to work and own and thus have a stake in their own success.

The Founders realized that certain aspects of traditional governance were out of step with the natural human character which is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." So they undertook to conserve those rights by means of revolution.

Modern conservatives want to ensure that government maintains its focus on this idea. Change is life when it has nature as its guide, but when men decide how men should change the result will be death.

A change in the demography of America is of little consequence as long as America remains true to its core values. Likewise, foreign nations have little to fear from American influence as long as that inluence is consistent with these values. This influence may look like some modern Empire, but it is not. Or if we must call it that, then it is a good thing. An Empire which does nothing more than provide the structure within which humans grow and succed should be embraced by all.

American Indians who remain insulated from this influence decay and die. Worse, they are mostly ignorant of their own rich heritage. They are taught much about their past, but mostly it is false (many, like Gore, think that Chief Seatlle is real). The result: they are imprisoned by their own isolation. However, Indians who leave the reservation and adopt the American lifestyle are free to succeed (and, by the way, they are healthier too). They have access to the truth about their own people's history and, more importantly, they can share that knowledge with the rest of us. They are not forced to give up their culture; rather, in America they are free to live whatever style of life they wish, provided it does not conflict with our core values. This is a lesson Muslims could learn well.

This is what conservatives want: a great society of free people each leading his own life, not a melting pot. Legal immigration makes America stronger and so will the spread of American values into other countries. This is the revolution of founders writ large.

Viva la American Revolution!

Bush and the First Presidential Debate

One week following the first presidential debate, we are still hearing reviews of President Bush's "performance". Many repubs are frustrated and disappointed by his apparent lack of interest. Others feel that he simply was tired from a day of meeting with hurricane victims. (John Kerry is said to have had manicure and facial while memorizing fresh flip-flop statements.) As someone new to the art of politics, I really want to know everyone's thoughts on the first debate, particularly on Bush's part. Why did he debate the way he did?

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes are neither

See this post on Michelle Malkins blog:


I saw a guy on Cspan ranting and raving about intolerant Muslim hate crime 9/11 backlash and I thought to myself, "Hmmm, really?" Well, that instinct turned out to be right.

Saturday, October 02, 2004

Kerry's campaign slogan should be "Hell No We Won't Go!"

If John Kerry had an ounce of moral fiber, wouldn't he be running as the anti-war candidate? We all know, from his voting record, how anti-war he really is. His sister is currently in Australia campaigning with their president's opponent, giving out the same flip-flop garbage. He said he would have U.S. troops out within the first six months of his presidency, and yet he also stated that we must stay until peace is achieved there. Is he really that dissollusioned? Or is he that confident? Perhaps he would actually be ahead in the polls if he would just promise to do what he really wants; remove troops the day he swears in and leave Iraq and the U.N. to clean up the mess.

Muslims for Bush

Watching the Dennis Miller Show, I saw a wonderful guest he had on tonights's Varsity Panel. His name is Muhammad Ali Hasan, and he is the co-founder of an organization of Muslims who believe Bush is better for Muslims. He's very charismatic, very fun, and makes his case well.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Why Kerry is Unfit to Lead America Part Three

Kerry seems to think it gets him off the hook that he only voted to give the President authority to war, that he didn't actually vote to go.

Is he in the habit of going around signing blank checks?

There's a reason only congress has the authority to declare war. His vote, with the others was consent if not a declaration. If he didn't think we should've invaded, then why did he consent?

Is it really that he meant for Bush only to scare Saddam? So he gave away great power that he didn't want anyone to use? Is that the calibur of judgement you want protecting the country? (This runs an interesting parallell to his plan for Iran--Give them nuclear material and expect them to be good.) (Oh yeah, and signing foreign court treaties and hoping they don't prosecute Americans unfairly). (Oh crap, I could go on, but I'm getting scared enough to piss myself.)

I think he voted away authority because it absolves him of responsibility. He couldn't risk his campaign by committing to or dissenting against the war. So he sold his vote in exchange for political flexibility.

Those who were committed to doing the hard, unpopular work of fighting terrorists and their supporters took the burden he couldn't handle.

Why Kerry is Unfit to Lead America Part Two

Debate critics may have thought it was unsophisticated of Bush to keep harping on Kerry's "mixed message". Some critics felt that Kerry has settled of a position. I for one, honestly have no idea where Kerry stands in terms of commitment to the success of this war.

He says he wants to close the boarders to Iraq to stop the importation of terrorists.

Why does he think that is a good thing? As I see it, that's right where we want the terrorists to be. I'd rather have terrorists fighting our troops in Iraq than our civilians on planes.

I supose Kerry's argument would be that we created more terrorists by invading Iraq. How does one go about proving or disproving such a thing? Did he happen to know the number of terrorists around the world prior to the fall of Bagdad? Does Kerry think these were otherwise nice people who are so outraged now about Sadddam that they decide to kill not just soldiers, but innocent children in a country that is not even their own?

We know that based on the information we had, we had to overthrow Saddam. If we had found WMD's as we expected, the terrorists would be pouring in now just the same. I mean, I don't think they're avenging Saddam. They're coming to take advantage of the power vaccuum. Is it a viable argument to say that we can never overthrow any regime because the power vaccuum will draw murderous opportunists?

Besides, if we close the Iraqi boarders, then perhaps that's where the terrorists will engage us. The fact is that they'll engage us wherever it is easiest. If they fight us at the boarders, then what will he do . . . just pull out?

I think Kerry sees stability as the goal, the outcome by which this war is judged. I think that's why he thinks this is the wrong war. I think he doesn't value democracy enough to see it through.

I'm frightened by his lack of purpose.

Why Kerry is Unfit to Lead America Part One

I'll start with his most rediculous statement of the night. It was also one of his few clearly stated plans among others that seemed only a little less stupid.

His plan to disarm Iran is to provide it with fissile nuclear materials, then wait to see what they do with it.

So, if I understand this right, Kerry is planning some amazing sting operation that he just announced on TV.

And what if Iran decides to keep the material for evil deeds. Then what'll we do? Ask him nicely to stop? Impose sanctions that worked so well on Hussien? Peasefully go in and get it? If we have to attack, will it pass the "Global Test"?

Can someone please comment on this post with evidence that this is not monumentally stupid? I'd have to laugh, but then I remember that he's serious, so surely there's more to this than I understand.

$87 Billion Soundbite vs Substance

In the debate last night, Kerry was asked to explain why he first voted for the $87 billion for our troops, then against it.

Instead of clarifying the meaning of that, he gave a snappy come-back.

That would be cool if we were in the eighth-grade.

Paraphrased, he said . . .["I made a mistake in the way I talked abouth the $87 billion. But isn't that better than the president's mistake of going to war?"]

This really cleared the air according to the likes of Alan Colms and Mr. Lockhart. The problem is, I still don't know why changed his vote.

On a school debate team, it's your job to win the debate. If this is how one wins a debate, how does that help us choose a leader?

War, Memory and 1984

The democrats are the Ministry of Truth. They rewrite history as they see fit. I remember what Bush said in the past, but somehow many do not. Dems often say things like "the president told us that Saddam was an imminent threat." Bull. He did not. Worse they are doing it right now about the present. They say "Bush tells us that the war is going well, but the truth is that it is going badly." What a lie. He has never said that. On the contrary, he says often that it is "tough" and "hard work."

Moreover, what the hell do you think he means by saying that the war is tough and hard? Of course people will die and there will be trouble spots and give and take: it is WAR. This is why we say "war is hell." In fact, one could argue that this is, even considering all that the Democrats complain about, the least deadly war the world has ever seen. What do they mean by "badly"? Compared to what? I submit that they don't mean anything. Their purpose is to say it enough that people begin to believe it.

Orwell knew that Leftists must control the facts. Without this they have nothing. Nevertheless, 2+2 is 4. The American people are common sense folks. True, many of us have been corrupted by the Left, but the majority have not been. In an age of the internet and Bloggers, it is impossible to control the facts. There can be no Ministry of Truth. Bishop Rather has been defrocked. It is a protestant revolution: the people themselves are able to know the facts!