sub cultro

40 Children Killed in Violent Crimes

2009-10-07T07:39:00.003-04:00

Reported on CNN this morning: "Forty children have been killed in violent crimes across the city of Chicago so far this year."

Obama's Sleazy Sale of Health Care Reform

2009-08-26T15:52:00.008-04:00

When I was a very young woman, a slick salesman sold me a gym membership. Actually, he wasn't that slick, but he definitely had techniques, and I was very naive.

The fabulous package was all detailed in the 2 page fine print contract he slid across the desk to me. No time to think about it, no time to read the contract, it was urgent, urgent, urgent that I sign right away! And he was cool, didn't I want to be cool? Tomorrow could be too late! I would be healthy, I would look fabulous! What could be wrong with that!

I couldn't afford it. That's what was wrong with that.

I was caught up in the excitement and urgency. I signed.

The next day, of course, reality set in. Buyer's remorse prompted me cancel the contract. It wasn't easy, and I had to have help, but I got out.

Now I can see Obama and his allies using the same slick sales techniques.

The miraculous package is all detailed in a 1000 page, fine print bill. No time to read it, just sign the bill, hurry, trust us, we'll take care of you, we care about you, don't you trust us, aren't you cool, don't you care about the uninsured, we'll be healthier, we'll be fabulous, like Europeans!

But when America wakes up, there'll be no way out of this contract. And this contact can be changed almost at will by them, but not by you. Trust them. Go ahead, . . .

Healthcare v Post Office

2009-08-13T17:27:00.004-04:00

I couldn't have said it better than this. I wanted to, but . . .nope.

The only thing I would add is this: If you're not trying to make a profit, you're not running a business. If you're not running a business, you're not competing fairly. How can you lose? You're run by politicians. Political decisions will always trump efficiency and vision.

New Record Home Foreclosures

2009-08-13T16:57:00.005-04:00

Thank God we elected Obama to put out the foreclosure fires created by Bush.

I recall his supporters saying Bush started the fire, and if Obama's rescue methods seemed extreme, it was only because the circumstances called for it.

I recall thinking the fire was started decades ago by Democrats, fanned in Bush's administration, then Obama came and threw kerosene on it.

Government dole-outs don't solve problems.

It Doesn't Matter What's in Obamacare Now

2009-08-11T18:31:00.006-04:00

It doesn't matter because the legislation will change, in two years, four years, ten years, and on and on. Things will be added, things will be taken away.

Sometimes there will be big changes, as No Child Left Behind was big in education.

Sometimes there will be small changes that don't make the news.

Sometimes the changes will be hidden in totally unrelated legislation.

If any changes are unpopular, it'll be difficult to tell who's responsible as the two parties volley blame.

No matter who you vote for, you'll no more power over your own health care than you have ever had over foreign policy, education, or the economy.

Did You Know William Jefferson Got Convicted?

2009-08-11T16:36:00.010-04:00

Hooray! I had given up ever receiving the good news of Jefferson's conviction, and still, I almost missed it. Even still, this report makes no mention of his fishy behavior in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

Eunice Kennedy Shriver is getting more press.

Sarah Palin took more media heat for purchasing her campaign wardrobe on the RNC's dime.

My favorite line from the article: "If Marion Barry can be convicted of smoking crack cocaine on video and come back, then I think Bill Jefferson can have a second chance," [the Rev. Aubrey Wallace, a Jefferson supporter] said.

That's quite a message. What do these guys have to do to to be unelectable?

His sentencing is in October. Perhaps then this story will get the attention it deserves.

What's Wrong with this Pyongyang Picture

2009-08-10T09:59:00.008-04:00

What a strange collection of coincidences.

The news station who sent the reporters is "fronted by Clinton's former vice president Al Gore"?

One of the reporters is Laura Ling, desperate to duplicate the fame of her sister Lisa Ling?

A "Left-wing cable television network" is involved in a story that gives Bill Clinton revived legitimacy?

The reporters were suspected to be spies, but were well treated, allowed to receive correspondence and gifts from home?

Euna's husband is a struggling actor.

This "tragic" story seem loaded with prizes for every one involved except Obama. Don't you worry about him though. I'd bet he'll receive much praise for achieving a diplomatic solution, even humbling his status for the greater good. Please read the linked news report. Draw your own conclusions

Thanks Drudge Report and Mail Online

RobinHood and Progressivist Wealth Redistribution

2009-08-10T09:37:00.003-04:00

I really don't like when people compare wealth redistribution to the legend of Robin Hood.

Robin Hood, according to legend, stole from the rich (the "haves") and gave to the ("have nots").

That's where the similarity ends.

Robin Hood stole back the money that was taken from the overtaxed citizens by the oppressive Prince John and his lackey-thug Sherrif of Nottingham.

Also, I can't recall any part of the story in which he stole from people of average means to give to the poor.

It would make more sense to compare the Democrats (and progressive Republicans) to Prince John. Sure, they take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots". But the "have not's" continue to languish in poverty while the so-called Robin Hoods live lavishly.

Our modern Robin Hood (government) steals from all, gives a little to many, and keeps most for himself.

I Don't Understand the Express Jet Story

2009-08-10T09:13:00.004-04:00

This story, which I saw on Drudge, is very puzzling. I sure hope to see more about this, because it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Why would Express Jet claim the passengers had to be screened coming off the plane? That's obviously untrue to any one who's ever flown.

On the other hand, what was the motive for keeping the passengers on the plane all night? That had to be a nightmare for the flight crew as well. Furthermore, it's terrible publicity for Express Jet and Continental. What was there to be gained?

I hope there are private law suits by the passengers against the airline(s). I think a congressional hearing would be little more than publicity for politicians at tax-payer expense, resulting in legislation mixed in with other legislation and pork and no guaruntee of real solution, but you can address that is the next election cycle, but is that really going to be the issue that determines your vote . . .

Unions and Health Care

2009-08-09T07:51:00.002-04:00

What's with unionized workers and health care? I've read about incredible health care plans for members of some powerful unions. Surely nationalized health care would be a loss for them. Do believe their insurance company will be able to compete with the government, and therefore they will be able to keep their plan? At a time when the executive branch is turning legal contracts for "the greater good", how could they not be worried?

If Bush Were Still Prez, Would You Still Nationalize Health Care?

2009-08-08T12:59:00.004-04:00

To all supporters of nationalized health care:

You must be pretty confident you'll be able to trust all the future politicians in D.C.

Once the government has hold of your health care, you'll not get it back.

Remember how much you loved G W Bush?

What makes you think there won't be another like him?

Why would you want to hand over your very lives to the police state, knowing that one you despise as much as Bush could be at the helm?

If you don't care whomever gets elected, ever again, maybe nationalized health care is for you.

Moderacy is Highly Overrated

2009-08-08T12:53:00.002-04:00

Moderate politicians are lauded by many for their talent of compromise.

I say, the compromise between good and bad is bad.

The compromise between perfection and imperfection is imperfection.

The middle ground between friend and enemy is not friend.

The middle ground between smart and stupid is not smart.

You get the point.

Liberal Republicans Useless

2009-08-08T12:47:00.003-04:00

There is no point in voting for a liberal republican.

If you believe federal government intervention is where it's at, you're a leftist. Being to the right of Stalin or Marx is immaterial because you'll lead us to the same place, just maybe a little more slowly.

The only opposition to leftism is conservatism.

Healthcare Elitsm

2009-08-08T12:33:00.004-04:00

Our representatives in D.C, the very people who desperately are working to pass nationalized health care will not submit themselves to the same system. That is how even the stupidest, most naive collectivist should know that this plan in not about providing quality health care. Obviously, it is about extending and securing their own power.
If the only way to pass a nationalized health care were to lump themselves in with the rest of us, I bet they'd drop it like a hot potato.
The same way they don't fly commercial or send their kids to public schools.

President Obama Sends Jets to Pick up Actor Guests for Parties

2009-08-01T21:50:00.004-04:00

I'm watching "Get Shorty" on AMC. There's a host and hostess doing spots during the commercial breaks. They do a brief interview with Chris Messina. The hostess asks Chris about a super cool movie screening he recently attended. Chris tells the story of our super cool president who sent a private jet out for Chris and some other actors for a movie screening. I wonder how much of this goes on.

Moral Authority vs Justice

2008-08-06T07:52:00.006-04:00

What is the importance of U.S. moral authority or reputation outside our boarders? Wouldn't it be the same for the country as for the individual? As humans, we rely on our relationships with others to ease the struggles of life. On the world stage, countries protect their existence similarly.

What reputation do we want as individuals and nations? Of course, we want that which allows us to work cooperatively with others without being victimized. It's no better to be thought the doormat than the bully. We don't want others to ban against us because of our tyranny; neither do we want to invite attack because of perceived weakness.

It is with this balance I approach this story of a Mexican national who was executed in Texas this morning. Consider this excerpt from the story.

"It's important to recall this is a case not just about one Mexican national on death row in Texas," one of his lawyers, Sandra Babcock, said after watching him die. "It's also about ordinary Americans who count on the protection of the consulate when they travel abroad to strange lands. It's about the reputation of the United States as a nation that adheres to the rule of law."

What reputation has the U.S. created in this case, and what reputation does Babcock have in mind? Were we the bully? Should we have been the doormat? I'd say we were neither.

The defendant, Jose Medellin, moved to the U.S. when he was three, and was raised in Houston. One hardly can claim he was "[traveling] abroad to [a] strange [land]". Furthermore, the criminality of gang-rape and murder, of minors no less, shouldn't strike any one as an unsuspected quirk of local law the hapless traveler could not have anticipated.

Medellin lived his life in the U.S., and was tried the same as U.S. citizens. Indeed, the intervention of the Mexican Consolate would have been an extra protection. Certainly, that protection is just in many cases. In Medellin's case, it seems like a technicality and a Hail Mary Pass.

What effect has the Medellin case had on our reputation and therefore the treatment of U.S. citizens in the world? We neither railroaded a foreigner, nor abandoned justice. We were neither the bully, nor the doormat.

Congress Knows Best? Cell Phone Ban

2008-08-01T07:53:00.012-04:00

No surprise here, Congress is exercising its power over our personal behavior. Not any power granted them by our constitution, mind you, but that power which we allow them by not standing up for what's right.

You may agree with them regarding the cell phone ban, but your crazy if you think banning cell phone use will prevent people from annoying you on planes. All the people who've annoyed me on planes were intent on conversing not on their phones, but with me. Gazing at an open, nearly finished novel has not deterred them. Listening to music on head phones has not deterred them. Closed eyes and my head on a pillow has not deterred them.

Like many laws of this kind, the in-flight cell phone ban one will fail in its objective while punishing the innocent. In the close and terribly uncomfortable confines of airplanes, we will still be annoyed by annoying people, and polite cell phone use will still be banned.

Of course, as always, people will excuse this blatant overreach of power with the tired old rationale: Well, we don't need to use our phones in flight. Think that's true? Imagine you're away from home, and a loved one has been rushed to the hospital. You'll not be able to send or receive calls in flight to check on them.

Or better yet, remember 9-11-01 and the passengers of flight 93, who used their cell phones to speak their last words to their loved ones. Also, because of cell phones, they learned of the other attacks that morning. As we know, without this information they believed they simply were being hijacked. Because of what they learned on cell phone calls, those heroic Americans subverted their hijackers ultimate plan to crash them into hundreds more innocent people.

Are we in deep trouble?

2008-05-21T21:48:00.003-04:00

I know we all feel the same way about this election and probably we are all feeling blue about the future of conservatism. So, in order that we may commiserate, I share this from the Claremont Review:

Alas, it all comes to an end. Buckley wrote on December 31, 2005, "I regretfully conclude that ‘Notes & Asides' can't continue as a regular feature of National Review. The reason is: We aren't getting enough letters that qualify as ‘N&A' material—inquisitive, zany, confused, annoyed, piquant." Maybe they all grew up. Maybe it was the end of the conservative movement. There is much grousing these days about its loss of direction. Without Communism and, some say, without pre-Reagan levels of taxation to outrage and galvanize the Right, it wanders, confused, in search of its mission, or a mission. Or a leader.

Weird that I come across this at the end of the school year when I am naturally susceptible to its melancholy ... don't we all miss Buckley?

You Don't Need the Olympics

2008-04-15T07:44:00.003-04:00

The problem with the Left "helping" always is in the way they go about it.

It's because their methods for problem-solving don't derive from a value system that includes respect for the individual. Instead, they consistently operate from a utilitarian, "end justify the means" sort of approach.

There couldn't be a better example than the call for Olympic boycotts.

It means well. One can pat oneself on the back for being so politically aware and compassionate. Sending a message to the Chinese government justifies robbing the athletes of their Olympic dreams.

It takes from few to benefit many. Olympic athletes, like the wealthy "fat cats" are an elite few. The oppressed are many. It's a very simple utilitarian equation.

It takes from those who have, and gives to those who have not. World class athletic competition is a luxury, just like guns, wealth, and home schooling.

It's been done before; it didn't accomplish anything. The Left loves big end-justifies-the-means-projects, but the end results, if not glorious as intended, are beside the point. After all, doing something is always better than doing nothing, isn't it?.

What about the athletes, one might ask? What about their years of hard work and sacrifice toward their Olympic goals? The Left doesn't care about them anymore than they care about people who worked hard to become rich. The Left doesn't care about you either except to the extent you either are the source or the loyal recipient of their enforced charity. You are the means to an end, an object. You're feelings are irrelevant. Your very identity, like like that on an Olympic athlete, belongs to the glorious and benevolent bureaucracy.

Obama's Bitter Mistake-- My Two Cents

2008-04-15T07:15:00.007-04:00

Lest any think I failed to notice Obama stepping in it big time, here's my two cents. I have a couple of points to add that I haven't heard elsewhere.

First, let us review the quote: “So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” he concluded.

Besides the obvious, and very insulting implications of that statement consider these:
1. Turning to church is equated with turning to guns, and protectionism, and bigotry (when he says "antipathy", he means bigotry). It' s just one of a few ugly choices one could make when one has been cheated out of their entitlements.

2. This is how Obama sees the world, with government as the answer to our woes and the center of our world. If you're getting what you need from the government, there's no need for religion. Maybe that's why the Left has so much animosity towards Christianity. They see it as a competitor for the hearts and minds of the downtrodden.

3. This is probably Obamas relationship with religion. That would explain 20 years of attending a church where sermons are political rants. It's common for Leftists to accuse everybody else of doing what they do, thinking how they think.

So, elect Obama. He'll create a government that provides you with the happiness you seek. You won't want guns, you'll stop hating immigrants, and you'll get to sleep in on Sundays.

Everybody's got Something Good to Say

2008-04-13T16:07:00.000-04:00

I love this line from one of my favorite PJ Harvey songs, "Good Fortune": "Everybody's got something good to say". Even Barack Obama, with whom I usually disagree, has something good to say.

Obama is at least a socialist, if not worse. That doesn't mean I never agree with him. When he talks about parental responsibility, he is right on the money.

He's also right when he says that words matter.

However, actions speak louder than words, and there's a conflict between Obama's words and policies.

You can talk to a lapcat all day about personal responsibility, and they'll agree with you. But all you've accomplished, then, is to lead the lapcat to water (please pardon the mixed metaphor).

Next, you got to get it to actually drink. That will never happen, and here's why. Nobody will let them get thirsty, least of all the democrats with their entitlement policies.

Obama's words say "put away the video games". His actions, his policies say, "Don't worry, be happy".

Dean on McCain--Who Cares?

2008-04-13T16:06:00.002-04:00

Why would anyone care what Howard Dean has to say about McCain? (Link here)

They are political opponents. Are news consumers so ignorant they would be surprised that a political agent would have something negative to say about their opponent?

And hello, Howie, do you think this factor has escaped any one's attention? We can tune in still to SNL reruns lampooning Reagan's age.

Furthermore, McCain's "old fashioned values" are appealing to conservatives. By mentioning them, you risk strengthening McCain's support among the base.

The only people who should be concerned about his old fashioned ways are those disenfranchised Democrats who have decided to vote (out of spite?) in the general election against Hillary if she beats Barack, or Barack if he beats Hillary.

One thing I know about Democrats is that they can overlook a lot of sins once they've made a choice. And their hatred for their opponent can be quite consuming.

If a Democrat has decided that Hillary or Barack is their opponent, I don't think they'll be terribly concerned about McCain's views on birth control and sex-ed. After all, they already know he supports the war in Iraq, and surely they know he is pro-life. Wouldn't that bother them more? (By the way, condoms and birth control pills are cheap, and sex-ed is a matter for the states.)

Also, who's buying Dean's claim that the Democrats are above identity politics, and therefore will not be mentioning McCain's age? First of all, isn't that what he just did? Second, isn't this historic race between the first woman and first Black presidential candidates largely about identity?

The airing of Dean's comment reminds me of ads for Pro-wrestling matches. Trash talk between opponents is neither new nor newsworthy.

The kind of People We're Bailing Out

2008-04-13T16:03:00.000-04:00

Before you read this post, read this article.

I have been calling the subprime borrowers "lapcats". I intended it as an insult.

News of the aftermath of their stupidity informs me they are much worse. A lot of these folks are outright vermin. They're worse than vermin. They are at best brainless, at worst evil.

I believe you can judge an individual by how they treat the most vulnerable in their care. Well, I think a dog tied to a tree is pretty vulnerable. How about pets left in a garage with no one to check on them?

If a real estate agent ever walked into one of the foreclosed homes and found abandoned children tied to trees and locked in garages, then could America muster some communal outrage? These people should be facing criminal charges; are they?

I know the difference between pets and human kids; nevertheless, there is no excuse for leaving a pet defenseless, with rescue uncertain at best.

The article gives these human animals the undeserved kindness of describing their situations as sudden. Did it come as a big surprise to them that they weren't making their payments? How long did it take them to figure out they were living beyond their means?

Personal responsibility, and maturity of intellect are not merely superlative character traits, they are moral imperatives. They are what prevent us from harming others. That kind of growth,the ability and will to be good, cannot be bought with tax payer dollars. In fact, perpetual immaturity will result.

Neither will bail outs purchase purchase safety for any one. The ignorant and selfish will continue their destructive sprees until they're held accountable.

You don't always get what you want, but you always get what you choose.

Higher Standard for Iraq Than American Lapcats

2008-04-09T07:58:00.004-04:00

Nobody likes to be used.

Especially to the tune of 4,000 lives and trillions of dollars.

But is it fair to treat Iraq as if that's what's going on?

Demoralized, divided, and disenfranchised as they have been in the aftermath of Saddam's rein, should Iraqis just get over it, and work it out?

I'd say that's a far more rigorous standard than that to which we hold Americans.

We can't even be expected to avoid buying things we can't afford. We can't be expected to study and behave at our govnt schools. We can't be expected to avoid unwanted pregnancy or addictive drugs.

But Iraqis are expected to forget 24 years of complete demoralization and brutalization under Saddam Hussein's regime. They're expected to overcome their fears and distrust and just work together for a better tomorrow.

I think this an interesting concept. Previously, the anti-war left stipulated the Iraqi loss of life as an excuse for withdrawal of US troops. Now that violence is decreased, that stability is a viable dream, America wants to send them a bill, or abandon them to the chaos that will ensue.

Is it any wonder that Iraqi leaders have difficulty cooperating? How can they be fully invested in a united Iraq when at any time America may abandon them to the mercy of their opponents?

Have you ever been in a committee meeting where every body agreed with you until it was time to pitch your ideas/grievances to administration? I have. People immediately fall into their own self interest when the safety net is withdrawn.

Why would any one hold war-torn Iraq to a higher standard than privileged American lap cats? Because Iraqis can't vote for our next president.

Mortgage Lapcats

2008-04-06T10:46:00.002-04:00

The potential mortgage bailout lapcats comprise six percent of mortgage holders. That means we're having a national come apart over a minute portion of Americans who probably don't deserve our sympathy.

By the way, their lapse in judgment will be charged not only to the 94 percent who are making their mortgage payments, but also to the folks who didn't get a mortgage because they couldn't afford it.

The federal govnt never asks you if you can afford to subsidize some one else's problems. Worse, it taxes you based on the money you have made, not the money you have. If you did well last year, but are in dire straights now, tough.

Support the Fair Tax.

Hillary's pot/kettle thing

2008-04-06T09:57:00.002-04:00

"Obama can't win," she said. You can safely bet that in her mind she is thinking "I can't win." It seems that although Liberals have many different policy ideas, this is one of those things that they always do. It is basically transference and is another example of their immature mental state. They always charge their enemies with their own crimes and loudly so. "Republicans have a culture of corruption" Meanwhile, if you actually watch the news, their party is overwhelmingly more corrupt. Of course, you have to actually do research to find out when a politician caught in scandal is a democrat, but when you do you become a conservative.

Every single personal friend who is a Liberal is guilty of this without exception. That is astounding and is not true of my conservative friends. Weird, huh? I guess this comes from a lack of introspection which is common among children.

Anyway, knowing this problem allows me to say that this comment probably has much less if anything to do with race. Hillary and Hillaryites know that she can't win, say Obabma can't win, then people try to figure out why they have said such a thing and come up with this rationalized "race" reason.

Mortgage Lap Cats?

2008-04-04T07:43:00.004-04:00

Who are the people the government is trying to save from losing their homes in the mortgage "crisis"?

Normally, when there is a question of govnt intervention to rescue individuals from their sorry lives, said individuals are spotlighted in the media. This way, the rest of us can see how those victims of circumstance (or victims of evil fatcats?) are just like us, and that their plight could well befall us all, so therefore we should sympathize and hand over our tax dollars.

Why no images of noble, simple, hard-working folk who had no choice but to mortgage up to their eyeballs and accept adjustable rates to boot?

This "mortgage crisis" topic has been in the news for a long time, and I want to know just exactly who the govnt is trying bail out. Not names, but circumstances. If these people were defrauded, for instance, why no law suits?

The free market is not a perfect place. In the free market, people suffer for their "mistakes". When they do, the rest of us (are supposed to) learn not to make the same mistakes. What lesson will American borrowers and lenders take from the current govnt interventions? Do you really have to ask?

What is Greed?

2008-04-02T07:51:00.005-04:00

Who wants to apprehend and keep massive wealth?

Corporate fat cats.

Lottery Players.

Hollywood stars and hopefuls. Also top athletes, musicians, and the like.

Most everybody.

Not everybody who has massive wealth has earned it. Interestingly, the only ones incurring condemnation from the masses are those who apprehend wealth through the market, the folks most likely to have earned it.

When a truck-stop waitress wins $250 million in a lottery, folks are inclined to say "Good for her".
If a rich man's son goes to college, earns an advanced degree, and eventually becomes a highly paid CEO, people call him greedy. Even those who rise from poverty usually are lumped in with those who dared be born into affluence.

My theory is that a large percentage of Americans stopped developing intellectually after high school. They're still stuck in their teen drama, desperately desiring admittance to the "in crowd" while simultaneously scorning it, declaring unfair all that doesn't go their way.

The same thing happens to domestic house pets. Those who live life over a safety net get stuck in adolescence.

Americans who scorn fat cats are the government's lap cats.

A Prayer for Progressives

2008-03-25T07:34:00.006-04:00

A prayer for Progressives:

God grant them the serenity to accept that individuals will not be changed just because you pass a law,
the courage to refrain from restricting freedom just because they can,
and the wisdom to know that capitalism, like life, always finds a way.

See Daily Press , Local news: "Students turn a profit from candy sales", March 20, 2008

Bravo to David Mamet

2008-03-24T08:18:00.006-04:00

Bravo to David Mamet on this excellent post. (Sorry, if the link doesn't work.) The title of the piece is "David Mamet: Why I am no longer a 'Brain-Dead' Liberal" in The Village Voice.

Also, reading the comment thread, I'm reminded of mistakes I frequently hear from both Liberals and professional Liberal pundits. These are my favorites.
1. confusing everything Republicans do as coming from conservative principles
2. confusing everything any given Conservative does as coming from conservative principles
3. believing that Religious right is synonymous with conservatism
4. confusing Liberalism with liberalism
5. believing that wealthy people are uniquely or exceptionally self interested
6. believing Republicans/conservatives are uniquely or exceptionally hypocritical
7. believing Liberal politicians are selfless leaders who would never abuse excessive power that Liberals seek to bestow upon them
8. believing government can save us from ourselves
9. believing Liberals/Progressives and Religious Right operate from very different principles
10. Confusing compassion with condescension

Moral Authority--In the Eye of the Beholder?

2008-03-24T07:55:00.003-04:00

Liberals have clamored since 2003 that the U.S.A. lost its moral authority in the world when we invaded Iraq.
Conservatives know that you do what you think is right, even when others condemn you for it.
Nancy Pelosi is getting a taste. Will she lose sleep over China's criticism?

Stuff I Love

2008-03-23T16:26:00.003-04:00

Stuff White People Like
I love this site.
Especially this post about The Poor
I got a great laugh out of the comment thread on this post about NPO's. The more self-righteous the target, the more bitter and humorless the commenter. I especially like comment 36: this guy makes $11K/year in San Francisco. I wonder if he ever considered that he could live in Tennessee, get a $22K/year job at a for-profit company, donate $11K to a charity of his choice, and still have $11K/year left to live on in Tennessee where the cost of living is a lot lower? But then how could he get his mad props for being so progressive? (Unless it turns out the comment is ironic, but who can tell?)

Sheep and Wolves

2008-03-23T10:06:00.003-04:00

From the Iliad:" . . . Hector faced Achilles. He cried out to him, 'If I kill you I will give back your body to your friends and do you do the same to me.' But Achilles answered, 'Madman. There are no covenants between sheep and wolves, nor between you and me." (from Hamilton's Mythology)

Reading this passage reminds me of a current dilemma facing Americans. What is our legal relationship with the rest of the world?

Certainly, there are covenants that govern the interactions among nations. What obligation exists between parties who are committed to a covenant and those who are not? If a nation does not enter a treaty, or breaks one, how can it claim the benefits of said treaty? What if the party in question is not a nation at all?

In the end, doesn't it break down to "sheep and wolves"?

Through his rage, Achilles sees all as sheep beneath him. Who are we? Who are our enemies?

In the war between the West and Radical Islamic Terrorists, one party targets school girls, beheads civilians, stores ammo under the beds of its own children, and sends mentally disabled "martyrs" where the able minded are increasingly unwilling to go.

She is Awesome

2006-10-22T10:35:00.000-04:00

We just saw this great lady on Cspan. She has no confusion about who the enemy is and why we must fight them.

As for moderate Muslims, she says we ought to judge them on their deeds. Do you see vigorous protests? I don't.
Brigitte Gabriel / American Congress For Truth

Corker is big fat liar., Vote Bryant

2006-08-01T21:01:00.000-04:00

Flattery Will Get You Nowhere - FactCheck.org

Fact Check is most certainly not without a liberal bias, but it is also most certainly the most reliable source for this sort of thing and they are really pretty good.

Bryant is a cool customer and exudes the confidence that comes with expertise.

Indians, Blacks and Liberal warfare

2006-06-26T08:53:00.000-04:00

It's odd that the Left spends so much time describing how Whites destroyed Indian culture, which they savagely did, of course, but can't learn the right lessons from it.

Lakota author Joseph Marshall III, talking about the last "battle" of the Indian Wars, Wounded Knee, explains what eludes them:

There was a period of traumatic change over a period of a few years when one kind of lifestyle ended and another began. There was no more purpose to hunt because the government was going to provide all the annuities in the form of beef and flower and all the other things they were providing. There was no more need for protection because the wars were over. So what the government did was effectively render obsolete the societal role of the male that had existed for thousand of generations. (The Real West: Wounded Knee, History Channel)

Please don't be sophomoric and complain that the analogy is false, a favorite tactic of the dull witted. Instead, try to learn from what similarities there are.

Whites are basically doing the same thing to Blacks today. Of course not all Whites are trying to destroy Black, just Liberals. To be fair, since the (often hidden) core of Liberalsim is nihilism, they are trying to destroy everyone who is Other. Also, not all Blacks are the targets of the destructive policy, just those least able to defend against it -- just like the Indians vs. the Hotchkiss gun.

It is not the army which destroys culture; it is Leftist government policies like those we used against the Sioux et al. For many years, most major inner-cities have been under Liberal policies and we all know how that is working out. The Great Society is a dismal failure as are our schools. Liberals are not waging a war on poverty; they are waging a war on the poor.

An interesting note: the reporters at Wounded Knee lied about the war just like ours are doing today.

This should give you pause

2006-06-07T08:50:00.000-04:00

[this was accidentally posted to another of my blogs in April]

lgf: Orwellian Image of the Day

Of course, they are just happy for the cheap energy.

Considering Partition of Iraq

2006-06-06T17:09:00.000-04:00

I'm mulling over the proposal that Iraq should be partitioned. Some aspects of it are appealing to me, but I have reservations also. My primary concern is that partioning Iraq would mean undoing the newly elected government. What do we say to the Iraqis? "Hey, we're real proud of y' all for risking your lives to vote, but we have a new plan".

Anyway, here are the more thoughtful posts on the subject that I've seen:
By mparent7777 at live journal
By Bill Steigerwald at Kurdish Media
By Juan Cole (Professor of History at the University of Michigan) at Informed Comment
By Steve Sailor at V DARE
"Don't Purposefully Partition Iraq" By Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch

History in the Making? One Can Hope

2006-05-28T18:44:00.000-04:00

I went to the first Fair Tax ralley which was held on May 24th, and let me just say, it was truly awesome!

Wednesday mornong, I drove to N. Carolina to pick up my sister, we drove to Deluth GA, and we waited in the hot sun for 2.5 hours to get in. It's a good thing we got there when we did, because over 2 thousand people were turned away due to arena capacity.

The drive, the wait, the heat . . . all worth it! It was a stunning demonstration of people with the will to make a real and lasting change. The ralley was so successful, it earned a presidential sit down for its sponsor in the House, John Linder. I felt like I was part of history in the making. One can hope.

Also, I have never been in a crowd of such polite, considerate people. Fair Tax supporters are nice people.

Go here for details on the ralley. Go here for details on the fair tax . . .or better yet, go here.

Critical Thinking and the Duelfer Report

2006-05-28T18:31:00.000-04:00

Stephen,
Upon review of the Duelfer report, not just Annex D, but including Annex D, I came to the conclusion that the decision to invade is vindicated. It only reinforces what I had already heard and read regarding the threat posed Saddam's defiance of the UN sanctions.

Your conclusion that "experts" determined the trailers to be "useless for producing bioweapons" is not supported by Annex D or any other part of the final ISG report. Also the ISG pays more respect to the second team which you describe as "analysts or officials".

A second examination was undertaken by a team of scientific experts, after Al Kindi personnel suggested the trailers were for hydrogen production. Their report concluded, “The trailers have equipment and components possibly compatible with biological agent production and/or chemical processes that might include hydrogen production.

It seems likely to me that the final team is probably even more specialized than the second team and was brought in to do an even more thorough examination. However, this does not mean that the other teams should be casually dismissed.

At any rate, what the ISG actually concludes in Annex D, is that the trailers were very unlikely to have been used for BW (bioweapons), and consistent with hydrogen production. That is not the same as impossible or useless for BW, or exclusively useful for Hydrogen. Also, it should be noted the interviews with the "Highly Valued Detainees" reported in annex D did not support the hydrogen model.

The third team concludes that the trailer (they only report an examination of one trailer) would have required major and costly modifications for BW use.

This assessment focuses on Trailer 1 because it appeared to have a complete set of equipment.

Though I mention they only examine one trailer, I did not overlook their explanation for doing so. While the ISG reports that the level of completion of the unexamined trailer is consistent with Iraqi documents, nevertheless, the report does not include a focused assessment of that trailer. Furthermore, other parts of the report note that both trailers had been looted. They don't say what the extent of the looting is, or that it is even knowable. While it may not be the ISG's mandate to speculate on everything that could have been removed, there may be a gap between what Al Kindi produced, and what the ISG was able to examine. This is not irrelevant, given the Regime's long history of dual use technologies.

There is another element missing from the ISG report. It is an unaddressed discrepancy between the findings of the first team, and this report.

On 19 April 2003, Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) elements confiscated a tractor and trailer near a checkpoint at Tall Kayf in northern Iraq. The trailer was stolen by a looter . . .US forces then moved the trailer to Irbil air base for further investigation. . . The gooseneck trailer has two rear axles and accommodation in the frame for a third also at the rear. A telescoping rod, which could raise roughly nine meters, was located at the rear left corner of the trailer. Roughly three to four inches of a solid light brown material beneath a one half-inch liquid layer was inside. Despite wearing protective mask, an ammonia odor was noted. The pH of the material was fourteen. A rusted hand shovel was located at the base of the reaction vessel. . .

It mentions liquid and solid material “inside”. How surprisingly vague that is. "Inside" what, the trailer? Does this mean on the floor of the trailer? Also, the DIA paper noted that material within the [alleged] fermentor was tested positive for azide and urea (inconsistent with hydrogen production) along with other substances. Other substances were mentioned in the ISG report, but not the azide or the urea, not even to say they are insignificant to the judgment.

In May 2003, analysis was carried out on seven samples taken from key equipment locations on the trailer, including powder and slurry taken from the ‘reactor vessel’. No evidence of BW organisms was detected. The complete absence of proteins and the minute amounts of phosphorus and sulfur present were deemed inconsistent with normal bio-production.

Shouldn’t they have mentioned it, even if it was human waste, given that this report is written by experts for the benefit of non-experts? (Do you honestly think it likely the azide came from human waste)? Was the first team wrong about azide and/or urea not being consistent with hydrogen production? If so, why didn't the ISG include it in their findings that support the hydrogen model?

The following excerpts pertain to various parts of the Duelfer report, they are not all from annex D, nor are they specifically in regard to the trailers.

Consider the contradiction between two sections in the report. The first statement is in the key findings regarding Biological Weapons in volume III. The two statements after are from the key findings for Finance and Procurement in volume I.

The years following Desert Storm wrought a steady degradation of Iraq’s industrial base: new equipment and spare parts for existing machinery became difficult and expensive to obtain, standards of maintenance declined, staff could not receive training abroad, and foreign technical assistance was almost impossible to get. Additionally, Iraq’s infrastructure and public utilities were crumbling. New large projects, particularly if they required special foreign equipment and expertise, would attract international attention. UN monitoring of dual-use facilities up to the end of 1998, made their use for clandestine purpose complicated and risk laden.

Throughout sanctions, Saddam continually directed his advisors to formulate and implement strategies, policies, and methods to terminate the UN’s sanctions regime established by UNSCR 661. The Regime devised an effective diplomatic and economic strategy of generating revenue and procuring illicit goods utilizing the Iraqi intelligence, banking, industrial, and military apparatus that eroded United Nations’ member states and other international players’ resolve to enforce compliance, while capitalizing politically on its humanitarian crisis.

Saddam’s increasing illegitimate revenue and profits from UN oil sales compensated for legitimate revenue loses. Illicit oil revenue provided Saddam with sufficient funds to pay off his loyalists and expand selected illicit procurement programs. From 1999 until he was deposed in April 2003, Saddam’s conventional weapons and WMD-related procurement programs steadily grew in scale, variety, and efficiency.

Note the very equivocal language of the 1st quote in relation to the very decisive language in the last two.

Note here, the pressure Saddam was exerting against the UN to lift sanctions:

November 27, 2001 Iraq rejects a call by U.S. President George Bush to let United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country to determine whether it is building weapons of mass destruction. An Iraqi spokesman states that, before asking Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to return, the United Nations should lift the 11-year-old sanctions on Iraq and the West should abolish the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.

Saddam had reason to believe the UN was weakening in its commitment, not just because of back door deals, but also because of open proposals to policy change.

December 17, 1999 The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1284 on returning weapons inspectors to Iraq. Under the Resolution, sanctions could be suspended if Iraq were to cooperate with the inspectors over a period of nine months. Iraq has stated that it does not accept the Resolution, which also creates the new United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) for Iraq.

Here we see the weakening commitment, with Saddam holding out for a better deal. Note his refusal to cooperate for even 9 mos. in exchange for lifted sanctions. Clearly, this man felt more threatened by inspections than sanctions.

The sanctions and inspections were not holding Saddam. Perhaps they were slowing him down, but it's irresponsible to think they would have held indefinitely. He was defying the sanctions, and to this day, no one can account for all that Saddam was required to declare. The best we can do is speculate.

You can assume, if you like, that the unaccounted materials were destroyed, or have naturally degraded. Or were they transported out as suggested by David Kay?

"There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said.

And Kay is not the only source for this argument. Refer to this post from Endymion, entitled "Yet Another Reason to Believe Saddam had WMD" from March 27, 2006. Follow the links from there as well to get the complete evidence.

You can assume, if you like, that Saddam evaded inspectors because he was preserving the illusion of WMD capability as a means of self defense. Or, was that a ruse, to rationalize his misbehavior? We may never know. We do know that by failing to hold him to the inspections and sanctions, we rendered those devices practically useless. Consider this excerpt from the ISG report:

They had anthrax seed spores right up to the time of the invasion. Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al ‘Azzawi, head of the bacterial program claims she retained BW seed stocks until early 1992 when she destroyed them. ISG has not found a means of verifying this. Some seed stocks were retained by another Iraqi official until 2003 when they were recovered by ISG.

Iraq would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a significant dual-use capability—some declared—readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover,Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientific know-how of its BW cadre.

Kinda like his nuclear mujahadeen, huh?

Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course.

Not finding his intentions is not the same as him not having them. Besides, I wonder what he kept the anthrax seed spores for, his scrapbook?

In spite of the difficulties noted above, a BW capability is technically the easiest WMD to attain. Although equipment and facilities were destroyed under UN supervision in 1996, Iraq retained technical BW know-how through the scientists that were involved in the former program. ISG has also identified civilian facilities and equipment in Iraq that have dual-use application that could be used for the production of agent.

So, go ahead and quibble over an over enthusiastic reaction to some disappointing evidence. It seems true the president erred in overstating the importance of the trailers. But what kind of ridiculous apology is, "I'm sorry that the trailers probably, but not definitely, are not mobile BW labs, and might be for hydrogen, but that's not definite either". Stephen, you yourself either overstated the findings of the ISG, or placed too much faith in Warrik's unverifiable sources. Your behavior is not so different from that which you criticize. Your comments are the kind of hindsight rhetoric that discourages weaker politicians from taking risks in order to defend the country and defeat tyranny. It is irresponsible for a citizen to prioritize public relations to a level that overshadows the good that has been done and should be done.

What Strategy?

2006-05-18T15:15:00.000-04:00

I challenged Stephen to declare his strategy for winning the war and show how it would have succeeded where Bush has failed. Here are his responses, block quoted and bolded, along with other references he has made about strategy in Iraq. My rebuttals follow each blockquote.

I thought I provided [my strategy and argument of its validity] with the report on Nation Building

No, you did not. Here is what you provided:

The parts that are relevant are contained mostly in the executive summary and lessons learned and include: the intensity and length of the war phase, how homogenous the population is, the troops levels used to establish security, the building of judicial and police power, the cost spent per capita in rebuilding the economy, transition time for creating local governments, longer time for holding national elections.

The above is a not a report on nation building, it is list of topics. Even its source is not a report, so much as it is a BOOK. And if you have read more than the executive summary, or knew the arguments within the book, your comments have not reflected it. I gleaned more information from press releases on the book than you have given in your comments.

It's not enough to just say that there's a book that outlines a strategy, and it is not what Bush did, so therefore the Iraq War is a disaster. Why don't you show how they're right, and Bush is wrong? How can you even examine Bush's strategy when you don't begin by acknowledging he has one? I wouldn't be so frustrated, except I know you know better. I don't intend to read this book. I have neither the time nor money to buy and read every book that disagrees with Bush anymore than you do every book that does otherwise (hell, you couldn't be bothered to read a post I liked to). If we're going to discuss this book, you're going to have to bring its arguments here, not just a list of topics.

What they should do is stop thinking that "stay the course" is a legitimate strategy.

In fairness, you have already responded to my previous rebuttal of this assinine comment, in which I asserted that "Stay the Course" is not really a strategy so much as a slogan. It proposes the opposite of "Cut and Run" supported by the likes of John Murtha. And here is your response:

"Stay the course is not a strategy." Exactly. What we need is a strategy, and a proactive one that defines what victory is.

Don't be rediculous, Bush has a strategy. If you don't recognize it, that doesn't mean it does't exist. Experts meet on a regular basis to discuss strategy without your awareness or approval. Your characterization of our leaders as "idiots" who sent troops into Iraq with no plan is beneath this discussion. I love a sarcastic quip as much as the next guy, but this comment sounds like what you get from teenagers on pot.

And how about this? We are victorious. Saddam is being prosecuted. His oppressive regime is destroyed. His twisted, sadistic sons are dead. His Baathist allies are fighting for their very existence. All that's left to do is restore stability. That's not to be taken lightly, but consider post war Germany. For more than two years after the end of WWII, Seigfried Kabus was still carrying on an insurgency. It didn't mean we didn't defeat Nazi Germany. It didn't mean VE day was premature. We don't call Eisenhower, and Churchill idiots, even though they left us with Stalin. Maybe you don't call that victory, but I do. What do you call victory?

An official declaration of war through Congress

This is not a strategy for winning the war, nor was its lack an act of dishonesty. Congress gave its overwhelming approval for the use of force in Iraq. Everyone knew there was going to be an invasion. You yourself said you initially supported it. Were you unaware at the time, there was not an official dec. of war; or was it okay with you at the time, but not now?

a draft

This is a TERRIBLE idea. Our modern warcraft is more suited for highly trained units with high tech weaponry. Consider this quote from a Global security article by Dennis O'Brian.

Another key factor in improving a soldier's chances of avoiding injury is better training.

"In some ways, it is like a football game," says Frederick Kagan, a professor of military history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "The training, experience and skill level of your forces are all crucial."

Kagan says today's military is better trained than its counterparts were in both world wars. In those conflicts, he says, some U.S. casualties can be attributed at least partly to having inexperienced troops who entered the wars late and fought German armies that had several years of battlefield experience.

"We had to put green troops up against the Germans who had been fighting for years," Kagan says. "You're not going to walk into a situation like that and clean their clocks."

You'd have a hard time convincing me that a mass of minimally trained soldiers would do much more than make a bigger target. Basic training alone would take at least 6 mos; that's twice as long as the initial phase of the war. Even if we redefined the initial phase to include the capture of Saddam, that would only have been 9 mos. Plus, how well do you think these conscripted (and perhaps bitter) young soldiers would interact with the Iraqi people?

400,000 man army for the initial phase of the occupation

Is more necessarily better? This article has something to say about that. We have the best military in the world. If you think we need 400K troops for any given ground war, then we might as well hang it up. I'm not sure we could support an army of that size in peacetime, and draftees do not make a superior army. As much as you and your polls say the Iraqi's hate us, imagine them being surrounded by 400k minimally trained, not professional, US soldiers.

The total cost, had security been established, would have been around 200 billion.

How do you know? That's an estimate which I presume came from the book. It's possible this is right, but few projects in the private sector come in on budget, and I've never heard of a government endeavor that did. Also, it depends on what you're buying. You wanted to seal the border. That may have been cheaper, but I like the strategy of drawing in the non Iraqis that wanted to fight us. Financially, it might be more expensive, but it roots out people that would've preferred the extension of Islamofascism into Iraq, or the continuation of Saddam's defiance of the UN resolutions which were aimed at protecting the region and the world.

We are well past that number right now and no clear end in sight

We are past that number, true. And maybe there's no clear end in sight. But there's an end in site. Iraq is getting more stable as time passes. Saddam is in prison. Iraqis have held their elections. Insurgencies are weakening. We are making progress.

retaining what was left of the Iraqi Army

Please clarify this. You seem to mean we should've kept the Iraqi army intact and reassigned them to work with our soldiers. I don't think this is such a good idea, since some number may have remained loyal to Saddam, or just hated the US, or just may not have wanted to be soldiers anymorel. That seems like a good opportunity for such folks to do us harm. The ones who want to join the security forces can do so, and I'm sure, have done. BYT has commented on this topic in his chaotic way, and at the time, I thought that he meant for us to recruit the Iraq army. I argued against it at that time. But in a later comment he made it clear that he thinks we should have detained them. Perhaps that's what you mean, also, but I think that's an even worse idea. I think that detaining a mass of people for no crime except serving in their country's army could hardly help us win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Besides, to arrest them, you'd have to fight and capture them. How is that better than just fighting the ones who decided to become insurgents.? I think the best idea was to let them go. Those who don't want to get ivolved with the fighting may abstain. Those who wish to fight the insurgency, can join up with the new Iraqi forces doing so. Those who oppose democracy in Iraq can face the allies who defend it.

securing the border

That's one strategy. Here's a better one. Let terrorists in so our soldiers can engage them in Iraq. That way, we don't have to invade someone else to get them, and they're not free to plot against the US. Bush has spoken often of this strategy. Are you unaware of it, or or just not acknowledging it? I'm guessing the latter.

rebuilding their infrastructure

We are.

giving the UN a prominent role in the diplomatic/political effort with security provided by the US

Perhaps you can be more specific about exactly thier role would be. This is extremely vague.Why have them doing something unless we couldn't it do ourselves? After all, they couldn't even support us in enforcing the terms of the very resolutions they created. Also, whatever they offer, does it justify adding some one else for our troops to protect before the nation has been stabelized? The UN has had its own problems their safety in Iraq, and their plans are not always the best. Some in Iraq considered them to be just a mouthpiece for the US anyway, and Iraqi people didn't really appreciate the sanctions that were starving the infrastructure and the people themselves. The insurgents don't seem to see a great deal of difference between the US and the UN. The new Iraqi government and the UN may interact as they please. That's not up to the US.

open judicial system . . .

What does this have to do with the war? Besides, that's for the Iraqi government and people to establish in their own time, per the terms of their own constitution. It cannot be Bush's failure, as the choice does not belong to him.

. . .with a competent police force

We have been training the Iraqi security forces since 2003. Are you proposing a different force? Beyond leaving someone behind who can keep peace, how far do you think the US should go in micromanaging Iraq's affairs?

By what standard would you judge their competence? After all, not every one can live up to the esteemed reputation of the UN peacekeepers in Kosovo. Police work is very difficult, and no force is without its embarrassments. I hope you're more fair in your judgement of the Iraqi police than you are to the Bush administration.

local elections held within the first year, national elections held in the second year

Actually, "by February of 2004, democratic elections, under the supervision of the CPA, had already been held at the municipal and city level in some of the southern and northern provinces" according to this report. The same report further states that the national elections took place on Jan 30, 2005, not within 24 months, but 34 months. Your timeline is arbitrary in the big picture. It's more important that it happened successfully. Sooner is better, usually, for anything in life, but later is not necessarily incomptence. Consider that the Iraqi people had to overcome a certain threshold of confidence that the US would protect them in spite of the fact that many within the US predicted failure, and still do.

This would work because it worked in Kosovo,

This is rediculous statement! Only a small fraction of what you describe has anything to do with Kosovo. In one breath you're calling for a largely conscripted army of 400,000 troops, in the next, you want to do it like Kosovo. The Bosnian conflict was almost entirely an air war. It didn't depose Milosovich. He was left isolated, but nevertheless ruling Yugoslavia. We had to wait for his own people to hand him over for prosecution when they got tired of being isolated. We'd already tried this in Iraq with Desert Storm. Saddam was left isolated and sanctioned, but ruling Iraq. The problem was that the Iraqi people couldn't get rid of him. He squashed two rebellions after Desert Storm, and continued his cruel reign, refusing the inspections, scamming the sanctions while torturing and starving his people, keeping anthrax seed spores, and maintaining his WMD expert teams. By definition, what worked in Kosovo had already failed in Iraq. As a side note, all was not perfect in Kosovo, either. Bombing the Chinese embassy didn't exactly enhance America's reputation, did it? Intelligence isn't always correct, is it?

which was in the midst of a civil war when our intervention started.

That doesn't necessarily mean the job was harder, there. In fact, I think that probably made it easier, mostly because the people were ready to oppose Milosovich. This was not at all the case in Iraq. The Iraqi people were utterly subdued by Saddam.

If Bush is going to fight the war on terror by invasion of other countries, (which is a dubious strategy at best)

I don't see how it can be done any other way. The governments who harbour terrorists ARE our enemies. They don't give them up just because we ask nicely. They like them. And sanctions were essentially ineffective against Saddam in any respect.

Of course, there is a certain degree of discretion that must be exercized in terms of who we take on and when. One should only start a fight they have a chance of winning. But that doesn't mean it's not the right strategy. Of course, we could return to our pre-911 way of dealing with terrorism: Place all hope in the chance of capturing intelligence about an attack before it happens; of course gathering our intelligence without upsetting anybody's understanding of what they think are their civil rights; and then capturing and prosecuting the would be attackers where ever they may be, but without invading anyone.

Stephen, your ideas really are not bad, but your argument doesn't rise to the level of showing the war to be a failure, or its management, incompetent. If Bush didn't prosecute the war the way you would have, that's not to say he deserves the redicule and scorn you have heaped upon him and his administration. There are experts who disagree with the path you would have taken. That's a judgement call, not a failure. I'm not saying everything has been done as well as it could have, but nothing ever is. The book you cite, though surely written by good historians/ strategists, is not the sum total of strategic expertice. Your 20/20 hindsight scrutiny is shallow, unjust, and over dramatic.

P.S. I thought I had finished this post when I ran across this bit of brilliance form the Euston Manifesto. It takes me back to Stephen's accusation that I place partisan concern over the welfare of the country. Though the insult is grievous to me, I had judged it to be beneath response. After all, anyone of intelligence can see it for what it is. Here is a very appropo quote from this group of truly reasonable Liberals.

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.

Revisiting Warrick

2006-05-12T20:30:00.000-04:00

The links I provide serve two purposes. One is to show evidence to back up my arguments. The other is to make an argument I would have made if I had thought of it first. I could, as I would in a research paper, reprint quotes and provide citations. But instead, I link. It’s easier, and it gives credit where it's due. By saying I agree with their argument, it becomes mine too in a way. Not addressing my link is the same as not addressing my argument. Stephen has refused to respond to a particular, very important link.

If I hadn’t stated specifically in my Warrick post that reading the Seixon post was essential to understanding my position, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But I did. Then I did again, in comments. It’s true, I don’t respond to every single one of the numerous links provided by both Stephen and BYT. That would, if properly done, consume every minute of my free time. But I do what I can, and I certainly wouldn’t refuse to consider a link that one pointed out as the centerpiece of their argument. Let’s observe Stephen evading my argument.

Since I have no idea what Seixon's qualifications are, if any, I will assume he is as much an expert on this issue as the rest of us. The important thing for this story is that the third team was the only technically proficient team to inspect the trailers.

The important thing for this story, is that Warrick is a liar. He absolutely lied about how old the report was. If you’d read Seixon’s post, you’d know that.

Let’s dissect Stephen’s comment.

Since I have no idea what Seixon's qualifications are, if any, I will assume he is as much an expert on this issue as the rest of us.

When did we start engaging only the arguments of experts? I’m not and expert on WMD, and neither are you, Stephen. Well fortunately, it didn't take a WMD expert to expose Warrick as a liar. Just a good memory, and common sense. Since you refuse to follow the link, I'll bring the crucial part to you, substituting my own bolds for emphasis.

Warrick writes breathlessly:

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

Boy, that sure was a lot of hot air. You might say you could fill an entire weather balloon with it. Sorry Mr. Warrick, I have an archival memory, and I will call you out and beat you over the head with several facts. Let's rewind to June 2003, June 8th in fact, and a story in the Guardian across the pond in the UK:

A separate investigation published by the New York Times yesterday discloses that the trailers have now been investigated by three different teams of Western experts, with the third and most senior group of analysts apparently divided sharply over their function.

Dang, the New York Times scooped Mr. Warrick by almost three years. By whom? Well what a shocker, Judy Miller. She wrote the following, 7 June 2003:

In all, at least three teams of Western experts have now examined the trailers and evidence from them. While the first two groups to see the trailers were largely convinced that the vehicles were intended for the purpose of making germ agents, the third group of more senior analysts divided sharply over the function of the trailers, with several members expressing strong skepticism, some of the dissenters said.

Ouch. Warrick claims that this mission had not been made public until now, yet it was made public by our darling Judy Miller three years ago. Not only that, both the Guardian and the Times point out that the third group, of which Warrick is speaking, were sharpy divided. I don't find "unanimous" under "divided" in my thesaurus, do you? Warrick claims that this third team had nine experts from the US and Britain. The Washington Post writes:

Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized.

Six people who participated or knew about it? In other words, there is every possibility that we are getting a minority report about a minority report here. The Washington Post is selectively choosing those experts that did not think the trailers were for biological purposes, leaving out the others . . . and presenting the entire group as "unanimous". The previous articles by the Times and the Guardian show that to be completely false.

And, don't forget what Stephen said,

The important thing for this story is that the third team was the only technically proficient team to inspect the trailers.

That is a false conclusion. In the official report by the third team, they say they were not the only proficient team, but that they were preceded by a team of scientific experts. More accurately, they seem to be the final, and most proficient team. Furthermore, their report does not support the claims of Warrick’s sources (which do not appear to be the actual scientists of the team). We can only take Warrick’s word about statements that are at best, anonymous hearsay.

So, Stephen, I don't see why we should place more trust in anonymous sources in this case, than in the official report. Why should we even believe in Warrick's anonymous sources when we know he lied about the timing of the report? Doesn't he owe you an apology?

Big Fun at the Polls

2006-05-03T14:08:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, for the first time, I searved as a poll official in the Knox county elections.

In the week leading up to the election, I had begun to regret my promise to fill in as a voter registrar for my neighbor who normally does the job. I felt a little weighted by the imagined tedium of a redundant task that would go on for thirteen hours. I felt a little anxious at the propsect of assisting belligerantly passionate voters, fired up by their civic calling to get the right guy in or the wrong guy out.

The reality of it is that it was fun. It was nice. I really enjoyed meeting all the people. Thanks to two new friends who taught me to play Sodoku, the tedium of slow times was never an issue.The precinct I worked is the largest in Tennessee, I was told by the experienced officials there. Some of the voters were very pleasant. Some were very brusque, with no desire to be social (would a smile have been out of the question?)

Some volunteered their grievance with this candidate or that. Regardless of their political axe, I just smiled quietly. Because of my physical appearance, my style of hair and dress, many people mistake my political affilliation. I think that frees some people up to say things they might not if they knew I was a conservative. I'll just leave it at that.

Regardless of their party, or lack there of, I was proud of voters and their commitment to their civic duty.

The other election officials were great. I was impressed greatly by their commitment to fair and honest procedure. Their behavior was impeccable.

Special thanks to June, for getting me involved, and to Gail and Deloris, for taking me under their wings.

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part IV

2006-05-03T12:35:00.000-04:00

Warrik's WaPo article is ludicrous.

Immediately, the following question occurred to me:

1. Why a mobile hydrogen factory for weather balloons, instead of transporting tanks of hydrogen in regular trucks? Is that SOP?
2.The Jefferson team was 9 civilian scientists. The anonymous whistleblowers for the WaPo article were 6 government officials and weapons experts. So, why not the actual scientists; and by the article's own admission, some officials/experts who may not have even been there.
3. If the mobile labs were made for hydrogen production, could that have been a WMD application?
4. Seeing how this is a case of some opinions vs others, what would be your basis for believing just the ones that support your position?
5. Do you require that any one who makes a claim not 100% supported by 100% of the experts should apologize and accept defeat, or just your political opponents? Do all the Democrats who said Saddam had WMD also owe us an apology, given that they voted for Bush to intervene to disarm Saddam, and knowing full well that would be military intervention? Should they step down for making a mistake?
Some of the questions are rhetorical. If you do not find them addressed below, they were not meant for you to answer. Of course you may answer them, if you like. But before you do, you should ask them to yourself, with all gravity and honesty. They're good questions.

Any way, those were the questions that occurred off the top of my head, the easy ones that should have occurred to anyone with an open mind. As I commenced to investigating my questions, I found that someone else already addressed some, and had quite effectively debunked Warrik’s article. Please see SEIXON's post of 4/12/2006, Hydrogen Warfare. Endymion and I so enjoyed his site, we added him to the blogroll. I considered researching all his points before posting myself, but I barely have enough time to do what I already do. I checked out some of them, enough to satisfy my trust of the author. If my debaters wish to debunk this post, they can do so on their own. I can't do all their research for them. If they just disregard the post without due consideration, I’ll know this is not an honest debate.

So what it boils down to is this. Saddam has not been proven (as far as we can tell) to possess WMD at the time of the invasion. Neither has he been proven otherwise. There is evidence of WMD that is circumstantial, but compelling. The case for disregarding this evidence is weak given that such a position creates a burden of proof that hamstrings our ability to defend ourselves against devastating attacks.

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part III

2006-05-03T11:21:00.000-04:00

In his comments on my previous related posts, BYT wrote,

First of all, shrub and his cronies tried as hard as they could to associate Iraq with 9-11, which was never true. They made Americans believe bin-laden hit New York, he and Saddam could hit anywhere USA with WMD, including nuclear weapons.

In the CNN article provided by BYT, the facts (Bush quotes) do not support BYT's argument that Bush tried to make Americans believe that Saddam was involved with 911. Bush's opponents used to criticize action in Iraq, based on the fact that Iraq wasn't directly involved with 911. This was a very weak criticism, in that it in no way addressed the threat of any other enemies. The fact is, if Al Qaida was able to attack us, some one else might be able to as well. If that someone had WMD, the devastation could well top that of 911. At the time, Saddam was vigorously defying UN weapons inspectors. That made him a gathering threat. You can disagree that was the case, but I and many other Americans didn't want to take the chance.

Actually, not having anything to do specifically with 911, has nothing to do with what makes some one a threat. Whole Al Qaida cells exist without ever having had anything to do with the 911 plot. This does not make those cells less our enemies.

When BYT wrote " . . .made Americans believe Bin Laden hit New York, he and Saddam . . .", I assume he meant to write " . . .[if] Bin Laden hit New York, he and Saddam . . ." There is good evidence that Saddam was working with Al Qaida, our undisputed enemy. It is unreasonable to say that if Saddam was developing any WMD, he wouldn't collude with whomever he could to use it in the USA. The sanctions against Saddam were regarded by many in the international community as part of the "US agenda", and wanted to repeal or limit them. If Saddam felt the same, why would he not support an attack in the US? He sure didn't regard us as friends or allies. And it is true, that we have been attacked before, eventually, we could be attacked again. We can try to prevent that on our end. That failed on 911, for a number of reasons. In a country that values civil liberties, it is difficult at best to detect imminent attacks in time to prevent them. At times, it's true that the best defense is a good offence. Go after your most threatening enemies, in the order of their ability to threaten you, and with the consideration that some, like N Korea, have obtained so much weaponry that military action is unwise.

Moreover, the statements by Bush et al in regard to Saddam and WMD have not been proven to be wrong, they just have not been proven to be right. Was Saddam a WMD threat at the time leading up to the invasion? The argument that he was, is based on material and circumstantial evidence. The argument that he was not a threat is based on the inconclusive nature of the evidence. One side evaluated the evidence and said "This is too much to ignore". The other side did the same, but concluded, "This is not enough to warrant the use of force".

The evidence at the time was in my opinion, too much to ignore, enough to go to war, even if we never find more.
It's like when a cop shoots a perp who holds up a gun. If the gun turns out to be a toy, that doesn't mean the cop made the wrong choice. He made the best choice he could given the evidence and the risk, at the time.

It's like when a surgeon does an appendectomy on some one who had all the signs and symptoms of appendicitis. If it turns out the appendix was not the problem, that doesn't mean the surgeon made the wrong
choice to operate. He made the best choice given the evidence, and the risk, at the time.

If a woman is being stalked, there is little the police can do until the stalker commits a crime. The first crime the stalker commits may be the time he rapes or even kills the woman. Until that time comes, what recourse does the woman have? Hire body guards? Take a self defense class? Invest in security devices? Those things may or may not work, assuming she has the financial resources for them any way. One sure way to protect herself is to eliminate the stalker. Under US law, she cannot choose to eliminate her stalker. To do so would undermine the very foundation of law in the US.

But there is no world law. There is no law between nations, only contracts, and the enforcement of them. Iraq broke its contract with the US and the UN. There are no world police to whom the US can appeal for help, only friends. There is no reason the US cannot eliminate those who threaten her.

She is only restrained by her ability, her will, and her conscience, all which I'd stack against any other nation in the world.

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part II

2006-05-03T11:15:00.000-04:00

BYT regards accusations by Paul R. Pilar (in this WaPo article) as damning evidence. I think Pillar's accusations should give us pause, but it is unreasonable to give them more weight than that. Time and time again, BYT gives more weight to those with whom he already agrees, with no other discernable criteria for validity. Pillar was a man of high rank, yes, but so is the Pres., VP, Sec of Defense, etc. BYT supports his argument of Bush lies with the accusations of Pillar. Fair enough, but then but then his argument that Pillar's side is more valid than Bush's side? Here is some opinion on Pillar for better, (strike that, I got tired of trying to find better opinions of what Pillar said; they are not abundant) or worse, or worse, and also worse. Here's more, with an interestingly trivial note that the author was Pillar's roomate in the past.

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part I

2006-05-03T08:51:00.000-04:00

The topics of the next three posts are in response to three articles sent to me by my debater burtyoutires (BYT). He thinks he's exposed Bush, his cronies, and the war for the frauds he thinks they are. What I find in his arguments is a willingness to accept accusations as evidence of misconduct.

There would have been four articles to which I'm responding, but some of the addresses provided by BYT led to error pages. In the case of the WaPo article by Warrik, I was able to find it by googling the topic. I'm assuming it is the article to which BYT referred. There was also a BBC article, but the address didn't work, and BYT did not provide enough info for me to find what article he meant.

I'm breaking the post up into separate posts for each article. I hope this will keep the comments more manageable. Kudos to BYT, btw, for keeping his last comments concise and reasonably focused.

Welcome Back, Stephen

2006-04-28T08:11:00.000-04:00

Stephen,
Pursue: to strive to gain or accomplish. I most certainly did read the Dulfer report, and found Saddam to be "striving to gain or accomplish" nuclear weapons capability. Keeping your scientific base intact is pursuit of a renewal of the program. Just as Bin Laden was "Intent on striking in the US" so was Saddam intent on obtaining nuclear weapons capability.

Dulfer's testimony was given1/28/2004. I wonder if Dulfer would give the same odds now that new evidence has emerged. We know that Russian operatives helped Saddam move something out of Iraq, and into Syria. Why would Russians help Saddam move something benign? New evidence indicates that WMD were being moved.

As for the sanctions, it's nice that you trust them to last forever or until the good guys are running Iraq. The European Journal on International Law, however, has not viewed them as particularly effective, and has proposed instituting time limits on sanctions. Read their 2002 proposal matter at www.ejil.org/journal/Vol13/No1/130093.pdf. It seems to me that Saddam had a light at the end of the tunnel. Besides, the sanctions were corrupted. When thugs have wealth and power, they always find a way to use it. The only way to defeat that is to remove the thug. The only way to remove Saddam, was militarily.

* Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

Nevertheless, after 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Senior Iraqis—several of them from the Regime’s inner circle—told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended.

As for your link to the book, I have to say this is not up to your usual standards of argument. First, you link me to info that, if done properly, would take considerable time to respond to. Certainly, you already have read the book, and you could've pointed out the pertinent ideas . I read two reports on the book, then followed the news link. What I found is not enough to support your claim that consequences speak for themselves.

One report stated,

Success in Iraq will require an extensive commitment of financial, military, and political resources for a long time. The United States cannot afford to contemplate early exit strategies and cannot afford to leave the job half completed.

Isn't this exactly what the Left wants to do?

The other read,

UN missions are nearly always undermanned and underfunded, with uneven troop quality and late-arriving components. But despite these handicaps, the UN success rate among missions studied-seven out of eight societies left peaceful, six out of eight left democratic-substantiates the view that nation-building can be an effective means of terminating conflicts, insuring against their reoccurrence, and promoting democracy. The authors conclude that the UN provides the most suitable institutional framework for nation-building missions that require fewer than 20,000 men-one with a comparatively low cost structure, a comparatively high success rate, and the greatest degree of international legitimacy. American or other major power leadership is, by contrast, needed for operations which require forced-entry operations or force levels in excess of 20,000 soldiers. Unfortunately, the United States has been less successful than the UN in learning from its mistakes and improving its nation-building performance over time, and this is reflected in the lower success rate among US-led missions studied in this series.

It does not say that the US is ineffective where <20k soldiers are required. It says that the UN model, typically "undermanned" was nevertheless, historically successful. I thought you were trying to make the argument that undermanning the effort would end in failure. The left calls for more troops, and early withdrawl, neither supported, as far as I can tell, by the authors of the book.

This was the only thing I thought supported your argument at all.

# Relying on its soft power attributes of impartiality and legitimacy, the UN is sometimes able to succeed in stabilizing post conflict societies with remarkably small forces sizes. The U.S., more reliant as it must be upon hard power, has had less success in Afghanistan and Iraq when employing the characteristic UN approach of the small footprint, or low profile.

Stephen, please explain what the authors mean by legitimacy. I question the legitimacy of a body that levels sanctions that it can't protect from exploitation, and resolutions that it won't defend from defiance. Also, please show how the US attempt at small footprint (which I presume to mean less troops) has created the larger number of casualties, and not some other cause. Also, why must the US rely on hard power, unlike the UN?

# The review of U.S.-led operations suggests that the higher the proportion of stabilizing troops to population, the lower the number of casualties they suffered and inflicted. Significantly lower force-to-population ratios in Afghanistan and Iraq, in contrast to Bosnia or Kosovo, have been accompanied by much higher casualty levels. Accordingly, the authors recommend that the U.S. abandon efforts to emulate the low profile, small footprint approach to nation building that has traditionally characterized the UN approach, and return to supersizing the missions America leads, as it did throughout the 1990's.

Here, the authors have pointed out the correllation been high troop numbers and lower casualty rates, but have not proven the cause and effect relationship. Were there other correllations? I see this mistake often, the confusion between correllation and cause. It's unlikely the authors are making this mistake, but you are, and I'd like to know what their opposition thinks. And when did this book come out? A couple of weeks ago, I heard on the news that US casualties have been decreasing since last december.

As for your quote of Wolfowitz, I'd like to see it all, and in context, and from something other than a Left wing blogger saying that's what he said. I think they're not lying that he said it, but I believe he meant that the oil would pay Iraq's expenses. Otherwise, we would have to have confiscated their oil to pay our expenses. Furthermore, Iraq's facilities are not at full capacity, and it's new government is very young. Oil deals in long run could still pay off for the US. Way to think in the short term, guys. Lack patience much? This has not been a long war by historical standards.

And no, my friend's experience is not a joke. Why do you insist on coming to my site to insult me? I am not a liar, nor is my friend. I trust Larry's personal account of his experiences over your poll any day. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what question the poll asked. For instance, did it ask "Would you like to have all US forces out when you can run your own country"? Or did it ask, " Do you want all US forces to leave right now, so you can handle the threats on your own"? Why, I think my answer would be different depending how the question was phrased. That's why I'm distrustful of polls, and refrain from using them.

Stephen, how long did it take you to pump out that shit? It took me 4.5 hours to expose it for what it is. Thoughtful work takes time. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me much time to deal with burnyourtires who has not learned to edit his ideas into concise, cohesive argements. Don't worry burnyourtires, your spanking is forthcoming. I addressed Stephen ahead of you because though he is wrong, he is lightyears ahead of you in the skill of argumentation. I considered him a higher priority.

And now, if you'll excuse me, my lawn needs to be mowed.

Thanks, Gateway Pundit!

2006-04-27T12:05:00.000-04:00

How fortunate for me! As I was seeking information to debunk arguments of my not-at-all insulting friend burnyourtires, I ran across someone who already has! This really shouldn't have surprised me, since, fortunately, burnyourtires offered nothing new or original.

This brilliant post by Gateway Pundit has already done the work, and I couldn't have done it better. Any lunacy left unadddressed in the post is likely to be found in the comments thread in which an anonymous moonbat barks the usual underdeveloped points. Also be sure to follow his links to similar posts.

Off the top of my head, without even having to try, here is a defense of the "mistakes" by Bush, Rummy, et al, posted by burnyourtires. I just hope he's still reading. His words, alleged Bushie mess-ups, are in bold.

" . . .Greeted with flowers". I have a friend whose son Larry served in Falujah. He loves the Iraqi people, and he says they love marines. This doesn't mean every Iraqi feels the same. Just the liberated ones do. Larry says the problem is with imported terrorists. But what does he know, he was only there.

"Republican Guard let go". You don't know this was a mistake. How do you know they wouldn't have stayed united under another Baathist oppressor, creating a new enemy to depose? You don't know. Experts disagreed, and still do, but you think you know. This isn't even as good as 20/20 hindsight, because in hindsight, we still don't know what would've happened if the Republican guard was left intact.

"No WMD" Wrong again. The latest translated documents show that WMD were being moved out of Iraq prior to the invasion. We've posted on that here: (Yet another reason to believe Saddam had WMD), be sure to follow the links. There's more in Gateway Pundit's post by him and his readers.

"No Iraq govnt set up in 2003, when it should have been"--I'm going to take your word that a Bushie said it would be. Any way, ooh! Heads should roll for this! What difference does success make now, when there was no Iraqi govnt in 2003?

"Not enough troops" Prove it. BTW, a quote of someone else's opinion has weight, but it is not proof. If high-ranking general so-and-so disagrees with high ranking govnt official, it's still a matter of opinion until we know the facts. So please, show me the data that says that sending more troops would've reduced casualties or expense. Show me the data that says we didn't need those troops on reserve. Remember, Bush was criticized for not having troops available for stateside deployment in the hurricane Katrina crisis.

"Iraq oil would pay for the war and the rebuilding"-- Actually, it wasn't promised the oil would pay for the war. How nice would that be? "Here's your freedom! BTW, you owe us $300 billion. Oh, and we're leaving. Good luck with the remaining Baathists, and the foreign terrorists vying to fill the power vacuum!" Is this the brilliant diplomacy of the Left? The oil is meant to pay for the reconstruction. It hasn't yet, but you're right, we should get out now, before it does. Do you play the stock market with that buy high, sell low mentality? How very short-sighted.

"mushroom clouds over Knoxville" How can you read and watch so much news and still be so uninformed? The Bushies never said we'd find nukes. They did say Saddam had a history of having and using WMD, none of which could be shown to have been eradicated. The Dulfer report showed that Saddam did indeed have WMD programs and was pursuing nuclear capability. Who wanted to wait until he's up and running before trying to stop him?

I wonder what burnyourtires thinks of the mistakes of the last sitting democrat president? Did he make mistakes? Some think so, and they don't even work for FOX.

Shrill as I Want to be

2006-04-24T12:22:00.000-04:00

Sub Cultro is an outlet for expressing ideas. Sometimes, our ideas are about how certain other ideas are stupid. By extension, and to the extent they hold those ideas, people are stupid. To paraphrase Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid [thinks]".

If you find yourself reading this blog, and feeling insulted, you have options:

1. Make a valid argument showing that we're wrong. Whining about mean words is not a substitute for a good point. Valid arguments contain evidence, and a logical conclusion. If your logic is faulty, or your evidence unreliable, we'll point that out, but we can't promise not to call you stupid.

2. Don't read my blog. This may be the only reliable way to avoid ever feeling stupid.

3. Grow a pair. Dare to feel stupid, I do. Embrace intellectual humility. Stop whining.

4. Throw out the baby with the bath water. You're not obligated to really consider the ideas here, especially if you don't like their shrill packaging. Refuse to take us seriously. Repeat this mantra brought to us by the ever gracious, never insulting Al Franken: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggonnit, people like me".

Here is an option you don't have: whining that we call people stupid. That will induce us to exercise our least favorite option, deleting your comment.

Mean or shrill language does not invalidate an idea. "Insulting" is not synonymous with "wrong". Deal with it.

Helicopters in my Backyard

2006-04-23T09:57:00.000-04:00

Here is a cell phone video of the silver maple seed pods helicoptering down into my yard. Despite the problems these trees cause, this is a beautiful spring event.

Republicans are not Conservative

2006-04-16T12:46:00.000-04:00

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Free speech on life support by George Will - Apr 16, 2006:

Candice Miller, R-Mich., said that restricting 527s would combat ``nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship.'' Oh, so that is what the First Amendment means: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless speech annoys politicians.

I have tired to use the terms Democrat, Left and Liberal to make distinctions such as Democrats are OK, but liberals are not and Leftist are the Enemy. The same goes with "The Right." There are two major kinds of Conservatives: Religious and philosophical. Libertarians have a similar dichotomy: libertines and Libertarians in the mold of Charles Murray and Boortz. Republicanism is a way that some on the right align themselves for the purpose of political party voting, but that does not mean that we agree philosophically.

These distinctions aside, there is a major difference between Dems and Repubs -- or there should be. The Dems a party of people whose political ideology stems from Relativism. They do not always know that, of course, but that is the philosophical foundation. The Republicans are the opposite -- or should be.

This bill is a Liberal bill. It abandons good valid principles to adapt to a unique situation to affect a result that is good for a minority. It is controlling, paternalistic and disgusting.

What will happen this fall? The best we can hope for is another crop of R-politicians like we had in '94. That is unlikely since we are the Majority. Probably people will vote for candidates who say the right things, but have no chance of winning and we will lose the Majority in the Senate. If this happens, though, maybe that will allow some Conservatives to win the next round.

Rumsfeld, The Generals and Tom Barnett

2006-04-16T10:47:00.000-04:00

I was in the smoke shop yesterday and a very interesting conversation was in the air. When the topic turned to the generals who are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, one of our friends pointed out that they are Army generals.

Now, if you have not made yourself familiar with Tom Barnett and his book The Pentagon's New Map, you are way behind the curve. His plan, which Rumsfeld supports, drastically alters the role of the Army. Note that you don't hear many Airforce generals complaining.

Although our "smoking man" was quick to give credit for this idea to Krauthammer, he seems to have inside knowledge himself. You see, a classic gentleman's smoke shop often attracts a certain kind of client. (There is one in particular who proves the point best. He is well known among the long-time regulars to be CIA, however, he will not admit it.)

It was clear yesterday that my interlocutor was an expert of sorts. He did admit to having inside information about the Navy's new submarine plans and that these Navy based these plans on exactly the roles laid out by Barnett.

You are likely to hear the moron brigade discuss this issue without this context as they do here. Again we have an example of Conservatives as the party of fluidity and adaptation and Liberals as backward looking, calcified idiots.

Censoring South Spark

2006-04-15T13:09:00.000-04:00

I am disgusted by the stupidity of Comedy Central and the other Liberal morons who agree with them. This is another case of Liberals accusing Conservative of the very thing that they do themselves. They have been crying that this administration is destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet here we have a real example of exactly that and they applaud it.

I am happy that some liberals agree with South Park, but all Americans should cherish Free Speech. As Kyle said, it has been easy to be "for Free Speech" for decades, but now, when it is difficult, is when it matters.

America does not negotiate with terrorists. This is not really any different. Besides, if you think that airing or censoring an image of Muhammad really changes anything, you are a fool -- pehaps I should say "useful idiot."

Easter Giggles

2006-04-14T18:54:00.000-04:00

Cream of the Crock: Happy Easter!

This is a bit scary

2006-04-13T20:10:00.000-04:00

lgf: Orwellian Image of the Day

This is the same Iran that may be on the new Human Rights council at the UN -- you know, the one with no more HR violators. This is the same Iran that wants to "wipe Israel off of the map."

Honestly, they really believe in the 12th Imam and this is exactly how the feel about The Bomb. It is their salvation. Moonbats think that Bush wants to start Armeggedon. Well, these guys really do.

Perception, and What Really Matters

2006-04-05T16:49:00.000-04:00

Watching Michelle Malkin speak before students at her alma mater, Oberlin College, I heard some disturbing commentary.

Many students there disagreed with Michelle that there have been great strides in the civil rights movement. They denied there had been any progress at all. Apparently the attendees of this very good private college have it just as bad as this woman did.

Honestly, they couldn't admit there's been any progress since this.

They claimed that this sort of thing is just as bad.

Where would they get ideas like that?

I could be wrong. After all, there are still plenty of underprivileged black children who are denied access to the schools that might help them.

Wisdom from Eleanor Roosevelt

2006-04-05T16:31:00.000-04:00

Great minds discuss ideas.

Average minds discuss events.

Small minds discuss people.

Conservatives Progress Liberals Stagnate

2006-04-05T12:56:00.000-04:00

Girl on the Right

Even though my dishwahser erased the logo from her mug from Cafe Press, we still like her.

Isn't interesting that the Progressive party isn't. They are so calcified that they can not adapt to the changing world whereas conservatives are willing to make huge changes in public policy -- breaking with tradition, mind you -- to suit new situations. When you argue from principles which are time tested, you are not blinded by rhetoric nor are you bound to certain ideas.

Sometimes you have to change the rules. The changes cannot be without merit, of course. The problem is that Liberal Thought is incapable of producing meritorious ideas (except by accident).

It takes wisdom to change well and the Left is unwise.

Victimization as a Claim of Entitlement

2006-03-28T09:01:00.000-05:00

To what are victims entitled?

Does victimization give one dominion over someone else's life?

A woman is raped, and demands an abortion or she'll kill herself and unborn child. Presumably, a compassionate person grants her an abortion.

It's a 13 week fetus. Do you grant her demand?

It's a 20 week fetus. Does that change your position?

It's a 30 week fetus. Does that change your position?

Is her suffering inversely proportionate to the gestation of her pregnancy?

A woman is raped, and demands the execution of her rapist immediately, or she'll kill herself. Does a compassionate person grant her demand?

What if the accused already has been investigated and released on insufficient evidence?

I felt compelled to ask these questions by what I read in the comment thread on the March 24th post at chez Diva. Here is only a fragment of the comment by Nigel Humphries:

I recently saw a documentary about women who suffered in the Ârape campsÂ in Serbia. One of these women dissolved into a weeping, bawling mess describing how, when rescued, she had yelled and screamed in a hospital in order to have a 3rd trimester abortion - eventually only
getting one because she informed the doctors if they did not do it, she would walk into a minefield.
I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and anguish in all of this.

The author of this comment claims he cannot imagine the pain and anguish. That's a cop-out. The implication of his comment is that if one has not experienced a particular tragedy, one must defer without question to those who have. Such irrational thinking cannot hope to find truth or promote justice.

Of course we can begin to imagine the pain and anguish. That's how we know it's appropriate to extend her our compassion. The woman did not have to convince us she's experienced pain and anguish from her rape, we can imagine it. That which we've experienced informs us on how to react to that which we've not. I've never been raped, but I've been treated with contempt. I've never been beaten, but I've been abused and credibly threatened with violence. I have believed my life was in danger, and I have been so depressed I felt ready to die. I've certainly experienced physical pain. All this and more I have experienced, and I have witnessed more still. I can apply my experiences to her situation, even though hers obviously is more extreme.

Besides, the demands of victims aren't automatically just. A victim has a right to justice, though it is not always found. A victim has no right to commit injustice, though it is often done.

An abortion is not justice. The woman's pregnancy may exacerbate her suffering, but the abortion will not cure it.

Once again, the argument comes down to whether a fetus has personhood. That is the only question that matters, but let's face the fact that we don't know when personhood begins. If a third trimester fetus is a person, then an innocent person was murdered to comfort a rape victim. If a third trimester fetus is not a person, then there is no right to deny any abortion. How arrogant it is to act as if we know . . .to grant or deny abortions based on, let's face it, popular opinion. The only moral position is to protect the very right to life that we all enjoy.

Ask yourself one more question: If a scientist could prove definitively that personhood begins at 11 weeks , would you still support abortion on demand?

Yet another reason to believe that Saddam had WMD

2006-03-27T20:56:00.000-05:00

Fmr. Saddam General Georges Sada On The Daily Show; Says WMDS Existed, Were Moved (VIDEO)

We have been saying this from the beginning:

The Left, in fact must deny and work against any conclusion from the right since its existence threatens their epistemology. This is why they continue to deny the facts while they say loudly "there were no WMDs." Of course there were; it is just that understanding this is complex. The Washington Post had another article today putting this in question.

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

If you follow our link and read carefully you will find this (sourced from the Washington Times):

The highest-ranking Communist bloc defector, Ion Mihai Pacepa (defected from Romania when it was still Communist) has warned that Russia has an interest in having Iraq's WMDs disappear. He explains that Russia had a key role in Saddam receiving the weapons initially, and had a secret operational plan to make them disappear should it become necessary. The plan was called Sarindar, or, Emergency Exit. Pacepa played a key role in Operation Emergency Exit in Libya. The goal of the plan? To remove all WMDs from any third world ally that was being invaded by the West.

OK, so this idea -- that Iraq had WMDs removed before we could find them -- is not new at all. The fact that Stewart was clearly surprised by this idea is revealing. Liberals are not well informed. Here is a comment made on another blog:

If this were credible, and we're talking about viable weapons--not the expired crap from the late 80's and early 90's--then you'd think that this "vindication" would be all over the MSM.

(I'm sure Faux is doing it, aren't they? I can't bring myself to watch them to find out for myself.)

I guess that pretty much sums it up. They don't know because they do not want to know. As I have said before, conservatives consider all ideas but liberals refuse to actually entertain conservative ideas.

This explains why they ignore the mounting evidence that Bush was right all along.

[update 4/26/06] You should also check out Hitchens on Joe Wilson

Accounts And Accoutnability

2006-03-26T08:18:00.000-05:00

Edwin Feulner, author of Getting America Right, in a lecture on C-Span's "Book TV", proposes that all appropriations bills should be posted on line at least 24 hours before they are voted on.

We think this is a good idea, but I say there should be two versions posted. One should be the detailed version that our leaders presumably read before voting. The other should look like a credit card statement. Read the statement, look up any questionable items in the detailed version, contact your representatives. If the detailed version is unreadable by lay people, then we citizens should demand otherwise.

It's outrageous how little we citizens know about how our money is spent. Would you use a credit card company that didn't send you statements? Would you send that company checks without knowing where your money went?

Mr. Feulner cited in his lecture, a waste of $110 million by the Pentagon on unused airline tickets that could've been redeemed, but were not. This is the nature of spending in a system where individuals are not accountable as they would be in the private sector. Of course, our military is not an example of the many govnt. programs that could be privatized, but how about a little disclosure?

We conservatives can moan about the democrats' support of big government programs. The democrats can whine about tax refunds and the cost of war. They fillibuster judicial appointments, but never spending bills. Nor has our President ever vetoed any. This is a bipartisan problem that can only be fought by a vocal watchdog citizenry.

Pressure your representatives to reduce government spending. Don't just speak with your vote. Call them. Blog against them. Tell them what it takes for you to elect them. Tell them you expect less spending, and for God's sake . . .not everything you like needs to be funded by the federal government.

Buckley, Money, a horrible monster and Catan

2006-03-25T18:46:00.000-05:00

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Funding democracy by William F. Buckley - Mar 24, 2006

Bill considers the huge money already in Hillary's coffers. This must be in preparation for the Presidential election. Hillary as president is truly a frightening proposition - scary enough that I don't think it possible.

Anyway, he is worried that democracy is up for sale. No news there. But, as he says,

A few years ago we attempted financial reform, and more or less gave up, on the grounds that reform was inconsistent with individual liberties ... It all conduces to a queasy suspicion that the democratic ideal is up for sale.

This is akin to what Boortz has been saying for years. He thinks he got it from De Toqueville, but it seems to come from Alexander Tytler. I found it on Andrea Shea's quote page a site which I intend to examine further:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787 Alexander Tytler, a Scottish history professor had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

This is the inverse but not the opposite of what Soros and the like do. They buy their special influence both political and social whereas the poor must vote it. But, in our system money is not really that different from votes. Money in some way represents the ordered chaos and so son in a free market of ideas. The rich are so because people make them so by giving them their money. To give money is in some way to give assent.

We play Settlers of Catan. If I trade my resources with you and then you use them to build a road to my severe disinterest, well, that is my problem. I tacitly gave my assent for you to use those resources to do whatever you will. I have no right to complain.

Soros is a moronic fool. But, he should be free to use his money however he wishes, even to our severe disinterest. If he wishes to try to elect the Medusa, so be it.

Like all heroes, good people must fight the monsters evil men conjure.

My tiny little cubicle

2006-03-25T15:14:00.000-05:00

My cubicle at Central is smaller than the one I had at Days Inn Reservations. For scale, notice that the brown boxes on top are Kleenex.

Note too how many of these are packed into an already too small room. The chiar with the coat is mine.

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

2006-03-25T15:06:00.000-05:00

Wow. Science is neat!

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter: Multimedia

She flies in beauty through the night of starry skies

2006-03-25T03:59:00.000-05:00

This makes me so proud!
Tammy Bruce: What Their Grandmothers Couldn't Do

Liberals are more guilty than Cons

2006-03-25T03:46:00.000-05:00

I am a bastard when it comes to plagiarism. I'll hand out zero's like there is no tommorow if I think students have plagiarized. It is serious. It seems that Domenech plagiarized. Michelle and NRO think so too. I can't tell what happened over the years, but that stuff at NRO is pretty bad. I say admit it and move on with your life. Your character and inner life are more important than any job or what people think of you.

Anyway, I have noticed anecdotally that political crimes are way more common among Liberals. I mean I watch alot of TV and I see shows about corrupt politicians. Of course, I have to go to the internet to find out when they are democrats -- republicans are usually identified in some way -- and I have found that they are more often democrats.

Malkin (again) has the latest example and it seems to put Demenoch's problem in perspective.
Michelle Malkin: DIRTY DEM TRICKSTER: GUILTY

apropos our abortion discussion

2006-03-25T03:27:00.000-05:00

reading about the charge of plagiarism at redstate
led me to this post: chez Diva » Quiet Reflection

make sure to scan the comments wherein you will find the same old tired arguments so easily refuted but not killed. Liberals are like horror movie monsters.

Spring means Bunnies and Lowlands

2006-03-24T11:15:00.000-05:00

I know it is spring, not because of our cold and rainy weather, but because I am drinking a Lowland Malt and I saw bunnies doing it in my backyard. I have discovered that these bunnies are squatting in my burn pile (pictured to the left). Now, I can't just burn it down since there could be baby bunnies in there, so I have to deconstruct it and look for them before I light it up. Oh, wait, I'm conservative and TV tells me that means I hate nature (despite the fact that conservation is conservative). I guess I can burn it down -- I will just do it while drinking my spring whiskey and everything will be just fine.

Whiny Kids study Grossly Biased

2006-03-24T10:59:00.000-05:00

Wen we read this latest study here we knew it was biased. Take this line:

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

Here they are trying to be fair, but look how they view the world: "Recognition" of complexity. I have dealt with this before, but this pissed me off. Conservatives are not introspective. Give me a break.

No, better, just take a look at the last discussion here. Late Bloomer gave the issue serious and long thought whereas her interlocutors responded quickly and without even considering what she had said.

Worse, the implication is that the world is complex exactly in the way that liberals believe it to be, but not in the way the Conservatives do. Of course we know that thge world is complex -- that is one of the core reasons that we want to encourage free markets. We just also recognize the aspect of our world which are not complex. Specifically those parts which deal with morality. Evil is Evil and is fairly easy to spot and is not complex in itself. Yes, of course, the facts surrounding any event are complex. Wisdom is knowing how to weed out information (complexity) that is irrelevant.

But, we did not know just how stupidly flawed the study was. See This:

Michelle Malkin: SCOOP: WHO ARE THE WHINY KIDS?

Arbiters of Rights

2005-12-05T09:05:00.000-05:00

Nobody knows when a fetus attains the status of personhood.

It's possible that the pro-choice community has drawn the line appropriately, at the end of the first trimester.

It's also possible that they have drawn it too late, and are killing persons.

If fetuses are persons, they have a right to life.

There is no right to choose to kill a person for their burdensome presence.

The right does not materialize, just because someone is willing to risk life and limb to make it happen (as in the case of the "back-alley" abortions.

It's possible that I draw the line too early (conception). I only do this out of ethical and intellectual humility, the admission that I know that I do not know. I can't say when it's okay to kill a fetus because I don't know when it attains personhood.

Those who support abortion laws based on developmental stages as determinants of personhood have assumed an arrogant role as arbiters of inalienable rights. Developmental stages are not proof of personhood, or the lack thereof. If you say that a woman has the inalienable right to choose what she does with her body, why should that be any different after 12 weeks. There's no proof personhood begins then. Either she has the right or she does not. If you draw the line, you are assuming you have enough knowledge of fetal personhood to revoke a woman's right to choose, or sentence a fetus to death, as you see fit. If medical science gave us the ability to fully gestate a baby independent of a woman's body, then what? No longer a burden to women, would it then have the right to life? Who would decide, and how?

You don't have to believe personhood or moral value begins at conception. The fact that you don't know should be enough reason to oppose abortion on demand. But to support abortion on demand, you must be willing to say to yourself,"It's okay to take the chance that persons are being murdered, so that women have the right to choose not to be burdened with them in their bodies".

Once you're willing to take that step, I don't see how you can limit or qualify that right. Why do women have to carry a 20 week pregnancy any further, if they don't want to? There's no proof a 20 week fetus has personhood, and people vary in their opinions. If some think 20 weeks is too late to have an abortion, why do they have the right to dictate that to any one else? For that matter, why should viability matter? Is that proof of personhood? Is it enough to revoke that inalienable right to choose to have an abortion?

I know a lot of people think my position is extreme. That doesn't bother me because I think most people put more careful thought into their cell phone plans than they do ethics. The right to life is for all men. That right does not hang on opinion, though obviously, its protection does.

Finally, My response to Burnyourtires Last Comments

2005-11-29T16:22:00.000-05:00

"you'll have to show me what you mean because I made a point in my post not to change the subject from Dems are the party of abortion. I don't believe this is a valid statement Latebloomer.
You're taking up "the fetus is a life" argument. It is you who is changing the subject.

Fair enough. I went back and reread my Party of Abortion post, and I can see that it was more about me being perplexed about your reaction to the label than it was about how the label fits. Furthermore, I never made my arguments as to how Democrats are the party of abortion. As for taking up "the fetus is a life" argument, I did that because it's the only reason I can think of to regret the pro-abortion label. If it's a life, then abortion might be murder. If it's not a life, then it's no big deal. You've never told me why you bristle at the label.

When I said you changed the terms of the argument, it's because you chose the label you preferred rather than show that Dems are not the party of abortion. Also, you didn't address my argument that it's irrational for you to bristle at the label. Also, "The party for keeping government out of our lives" is extremely vague, and not well applied to the Democrats or the Republicans. If Democrats are not the party of abortion, it's not enough to just reject the label, or blow it off as pandering. You need to support your argument.

It doesn't matter what you or I . . .[say]. The courts (at this point) say abortion is legal, and therefore, rebutting any argument you have as meaningless.

I hope you don't really mean this, that one's ideas are meaningless if the courts have already handed down a decision. My arguments are not given meaning by other peoples decisions, nor are yours or any one else's. Arguments are valid, or not. Besides, courts decisions are made by people. They are neither infallible, nor above criticism; Nor are they unchangeable. Why would anything ever change if no one discussed their ideas? Galileo argued that the earth is not the center of the universe. His arguments were not rendered meaningless by the Church who opposed him, nor meaningful because he believed them. His arguments were valid and supportable. Also, they were important to the future of mankind, though that would have been difficult to see at the time.

Furthermore, this isn't about just my arguments. Anyone who participates in this discussion has the opportunity to change my mind.

If the Neo-Cons and their big donors (churchs) . . .

You should check into the history of Neo-Cons, and the Religious Right. They are two very distinct groups among conservatives. (Actually, the Religious Right are conservative in demeanor, but arguably conservative in political philosophy). They both vote Republican by and large, but that doesn't mean they have the same agenda. It just means that neither are liberal. Besides, one doesn't have to be part of the Religious Right or beholden to them to be pro-life. I am agnostic, and have no stake in the Religious Right's agendas. I, and others like me, have given the issue deep and rigorous consideration, and have come to our own conclusions. Your insinuation, that a politician who promotes pro-life must be either a zealous religiofacsist, or in their pockets, is beneath you and this conversation. The are a handful of pro-life Democrats, given 100% voting records by the NRLC. Do you also accuse them of pandering?

. . .have their own way, they will rewrite one's right to have an abortion.

No news flash there; that's the whole point of the pro-life movement, just as the point of the pro-choice movement is to preserve abortion on demand. Does that mean they're not playing by the rules? I get the feeling you think Reps have some sinister and insidious plot in the works. The pro-life agenda is quite out in the open.

Dems . . .do believe in one's freedom to choose to have an abortion. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. What matters is not letting government decide for us what one does with their body.

Reps also do believe in personal freedoms, but not the freedom to take some one else's life just because it causes you a great degree of difficulty. It's easy to say it's all about the woman's body if you dismiss the possibility that a fetus is a person with a body of its own. You have yet to address the question of person hood within these posts. Do you think personating is a matter of personal opinion, or that even if it is a person, it has no right to live within someone else's body? Have you thought about whether it's a person?

Also, I'm going to need you to explain how right and wrong don't matter. Do you believe that right and wrong are not relevant to the recognition of one's rights?

It is the Right Wing that has labeled the Dems the party of abortion.

The legitimacy of a label is not determined by who issued it, or whether you like it. It's accurate, or it's not. I say there's no effective difference between being pro-choice, or pro-abortion. I see leading Democrats pushing to extend abortion rights even further by seeking tax payer funding of abortion, seeking to grant the right to minors to have an abortion without their parents knowledge, and supporting partial birth abortions. More Democratic politicians support such measures than not.

This is as fair as labeling Reporklicans deficit spenders.

Republicans are deficit spenders. I guess you mean that pejoratively, but that doesn't make it untrue. I don't reject the label, nor do I reword it to in a way I think sounds better.

I can't say it any clearer than this. It doesn't matter what you or I think about abortion. It is the inalienable right of a woman to do with her body what ever she pleases. It's not our right or the court's right, or the church's right to take that away from her.

You don't have to say it any clearer. My disagreement is not due to a lack of comprehending your point. But again, you do not address the possibility of there being another person's body to consider. By the way, no one has an unlimited right to do with their body as they please. It may please me to get plastered and drive a car, but I don't have a right to do it. It may please me to light up a cigarette in a school bus, but I don't have the right to do it. One's rights do not extend past the point that they infringe on the rights of others.

Reporklicans want to dictate to a person many things.

I bet I could make at least as good a list of Democrats doing this as you can Republicans. The philosophy of the modern Left is heavily influenced by the tenants of Karl Marx, not John Locke. If you're so for personal liberty, are you sure you're not a Libertarian?

Does that mean Reps are the party of Fascists and Dictators, deciding for Americans what laws will be enforced without acknowledging the wishes of the people?

Whoa, whoa! Be reasonable. The pro-life movement, and its support by Republicans (or Reporklicans, as you please) works within the system of our democratic republic. This is neither fascist nor dictative. Laws are written and passed by the legislature. Their constitutionality, if challenged by the people, is determined by the supreme court. Those in power to pass laws and choose the Supreme Court judges, are elected by the people. The people elected Bill Clinton and in doing so, entrusted him with the supreme court nominations. By electing a pro-choice president, they expressed the collective willingness for a pro-choice judge to be placed to the Supreme Court. The same goes for pro-life president, George W Bush. That's how the system works. (By the way, only three Republican senators voted againts the confirmation of openly pro-choice Ginsberg. So much for the litmus test).

If you want to label the Democrats the party of abortion, then so be it.

You use the word "label" as if it is a bad thing. All words are labels for the things to which they refer. Some Republicans find pro-abortion more descriptive than pro-choice. I happen to think pro-choice is adequate, since every body knows what it means. When people hear either labels, they can decide for themselves which are more accurate. If the label doesn't fit, tell me how.

Just like you chose to think you made a good argument in your last post...

I do not choose what I think. I examine the evidence before me, and accept the conclusion that seems truthful and real. If I could choose what I think, I would choose to think I am the talented and beautiful, Gwen Stephani. But given the evidence, it seems that I am actually a short, cute-ish, red-head of modest income and prone to sing off key.

Seriously, if you want to persuade me to your point of view, you'll have to provide me with evidence that you're right.

Don't you see? This is the real world, not some sterile think tank.

What do you think think tanks do? Do you think they occupy their time with trivia, making no contributions to the lives of real people, in the real world?

Women are gonna have abortions whether they're legal or not, and regardless of what you or I think.

I don't think laws should be determined by whether people abide by them . . .

Another reason for legalized abortion is to have a clean, safe place for a woman to have one.

. . . If I did, I'd say we need to create a safe transport system from Mexico to the USA, so that illegal immigrants don't get hurt or killed on their way here. Maybe we could give long range missiles to Jihadists, so they won't get hurt when they're killing infidels. People break all the laws we have, and enforcing them can be dangerous, even to innocent bystanders; maybe we should eliminate laws, to reduce the risk of high speed car chases and gun fights.

Surely you don't think I was unaware that women risked their lives getting back alley abortions. I used to find that argument compelling until I thought about it in more depth. The life of an innocent person is not forfeited just because another person is desperate to eliminate it, even if their willing to risk their own life.

Of course, if it is your opinion that a fetus does not qualify as an innocent life, with moral value, you probably find my argument non compelling. You appear to believe we have the right determine the moral value of a fetus and kill it, because its existence is a burden.

So much is vague . . .I believe a person has the inalienable right to choose whether or not to have [an abortion].

Exactly! So much is vague! I couldn't have said it better. But I'm only betting against 9 months in a woman's life; you're willing to bet some one's entire existence.

Before RvW became law, abortion was illegal in all states. What makes you think this won't happen again?

It's a chance I'm willing to take as long as no woman is forced to maintain a life-threatening pregnancy. Besides, do you think it's likely? People have gotten pretty accustomed to abortion on demand. Many people vote pro-choice. There's a large scale public voice in defense of choice (much of it by celebs). Our democratic republic will bear out the will of the people. Check out this fresh perspective on RvW. It's pretty interesting.

This is Gonna Take A While

2005-11-22T14:51:00.000-05:00

I want to respond to all the comments you guys left on the last post, but it's going to be rather time consuming. I'll take it in installments, starting with Stephen's comments. Please wait to comment further until I have responded to all the comments. That way, I hope to avoid some insane, unworkable cascade of undressed points.

First you start off by confusing moral agency with human life

Actually, I don't. To be fair, you may have thought that by "moral agent" I meant to imply that a fetus could act with moral consequences. That would be stupid. You're right that I used that term incorrectly, but I have to say, it didn't occur to me that anyone would think that's what I meant. What I meant is that there is moral relationship that exists between a fetus and the rest of us, or that a fetus has moral value. I mean this in the same way that mentally disabled people are not moral agents, but they have moral value; we have a moral relationship with them. A six month old baby is the same; it is not a moral agent, but it has moral value, we have a moral relationship.

More importantly, I recognize that moral relationships or value are a matter of philosophical and/or religious point of view. Really though, I believe that a fetus is a human life, and that it has moral value, but it isn't my intention to convince you of that. However, you don't know, anymore than I do, at what point a human begins to possess moral value. I only hope to convince you that it is arrogant to draw that line based on opinion. It's possible I'm wrong, and if one day that is proved, I'll have no regrets. It's possible that you're wrong, and if you are, then you and our government have endorsed murder on an epic scale.

Inalienable rights are not opinion based. They are assumed for all humans.

There was a time in recorded history when slavery was not even considered a moral dilemma; in which it sucked to be a slave, but no one questioned whether it was right or wrong. Now we look back upon that history with shame and disgust.

Second, the projection of yourself onto a zygote or fetus is irrelevant.

I did not project myself onto a zygote or a fetus. It was an illustration of how one glosses over the argument by exclusively considering a woman's right to choose. It completely glosses over even the possibility of the fetus (or zygote) having any right to life. It presupposes that a zygote or fetus is equivalent to a woman's appendix, or ovaries. A fetus or zygote would be better described as a parasite. A parasite is not part of one's body. A fetus has its own DNA. It is not its mother's body part; it it's own body which is dependent on hers. I conferred a voice upon the fetus, not out of some cartoonish delusion that a fetus experiences it's loss, but as a simple means of making this point.

Third, the desire to overlook developmental stages doesn't change the fact that they occur. If potentiality is equivalent to actuality, then your argument becomes pointless.

Developmental stages occur, it's true. I don't desire to over look this fact; I looked at it, and found that it does not answer the question of when life or moral value is present. No one can deny there is a lot of difference between a clump of cells not even visible to the naked eye, and a 12 week gestation fetus. Again, that would be stupid. This is the second reference overall that you've made to developmental stages. I assume that you have come to a conclusion regarding fetal life/ moral value based on criteria drawn from the stages of development. I would be interested in knowing what criteria you used, and when you think a fetus should be considered to be a life or to have moral value.

As to the question of potentiality, and actuality, I'm guessing you mean that a zygote or fetus is a potential, not actual person. What I know is that it is a physical being with its own DNA. The potentiality or actuality of its personhood is a matter of one's philosophical or religious point of view. It is a matter of opinion. I have decided to assume actual personhood because I can't know for sure. Neither does the government know, and therefore should err on the side of the superior right to life over the right to privacy on which Roe v Wade is based.

Or perhaps you are referring to the potential right of a fetus to live vs the actual right of a woman to choose. That presupposes that a fetus' or zygote's rights are only potential. If a fetus or zygote has personhood, then its right to life is actual and cancels any right to choose to kill it.

Inalienable Right or Right Wing Bias?

2005-11-21T07:47:00.000-05:00

Thanks, guys for the comments on my last post. As usual, they were very helpful. I am once again using a post to respond to the comments of the previous post (particularly Burnyourtires). I like this style of response, as it keeps the ongoing conversation very visible. Also, I'd like to define a term I'll be using for the sake of this discussion. I'll use "Human life" to include moral agency, though I recognize that these are not interchangeable. That is a deeper discussion beyond the scope of this post.

In my last post, I stated as a point of common ground that Americans believe life to be foremost among human rights, regardless of their political party. Burnyourtires wants to know "Where did [I] get this"? I get this from the the Declaration of independencee (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and the UN Charter . What rights do we have if not the right to life? If you don't think life is the foremost among human rights, Burnyourtires, then I suggest you are not as mainstream as you think. Are there any moderated Democrats or human rights organizations out there that don't prioritize life over other rights? In the aftermath of genocides in Rwanda, did human rights groups lament the loss of religious freedom, free speech, or same sex marriage? No, the outrage was that these humans were robbed of their most precious right. For without the right to live, there are no other rights. Try practicing free speech after rigor mortis sets in, it's a bitch!

What are inalienable human rights? Let's start with the word " inalienable": incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another. Okay now,the word "right": something to which one has a just claim. Life is an inalienable human right. Without inalienablility, our rights are granted at the whims of people, which would be okay if good people always had the power. As we know, that is seldom the case. Without inalienability of rights, even democratic forms of government are nothing more than mob rule.

If a fetus is a human life, then it's rights are inalienable as are the rest of ours. This is not rationalization or speculation, it is simple logic. A plus B equals C. If (A) a fetus is a human life , plus (B), life is an inalienable human right, then that equals (C) a fetus has the inalienable right to life. If a fetus is not a human life, then this exercise of logic no longer applies to a fetus. Therefore, I must restate that the question comes down to whether or not a fetus is a human life with the status of moral agency.

Burnyourtires said that the point of this argument is "keeping the government out of our lives". First of all, the point of the last post was whether Democrats are the party of abortion. That's the only topic I took up in that post, and I think I made a pretty good argument as to how they are. You can't refute an argument by changing the terms of the argument. Burnyourtires still has not made an argument that the Democrats are not the party of abortion. If he means to use the words "keeping government out of our lives" to stand in for being pro choice, I think that's pretty misleading. The government interferes in our lives in a number of ways, some of which come from the Left. Let's try to be specific.

Besides, when you say "Keep the government out of our lives" whose lives do you mean? Here is your bias. You mean keep the govn't out of some of our lives, the lives you choose, which are non-fetus. You ask that the government find that others have the right to kill a fetus. If I were a fetus, and I could talk, I'd call that a pretty big interference in my life! The only way that is not a bias is if a fetus is not a human life. So which is it, burnyourtires, life or not life?

This brings us to another facet of our discussion. Who gets to decide whether a fetus is a life? Who gets to decide what a human life is? Should the government interfere in one's right to determine who has the status of a human life? Do you think you have the right to make the determination? I think government rightly interfered when slavers and bigots determined that other races were not human, as a rationale to deny them their rights. I say rationale, because they rationalized rather than use reason to determine the personhood of, for example, Blacks and Jews, in order to satisfy their own needs. They started with the outcome they needed, then picked the facts they needed to support it. I don't do that. I start with facts and reason, and let them determine the outcome. I don't start with the outcome that abortion on demand needs to exist or not exist. I used reason to guide me and have ended with this conclusion: a fetus appears to be a human life. It has its own human DNA. It's level of development or ablilty are irrelevant to me, because those are not factors I would use to judge someone outside the womb. It's capacity for thought or the experience of pain also are irrelevant to me for the same reason.

Since I believe life to be the greatest of our inalienable rights (for which I'd gladly accept the usually pejorative term "radical right winger"), and I have found no reasonable exclusion for fetal humans, I must protect their right to life.

If all humans don't have inalienable rights, then no humans do. Rights that are given by humans can be revoked by humans.

P.S. Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't outlaw abortion. Abortion would revert back to being a state decision.

The Party of Abortion

2005-11-14T09:05:00.000-05:00

My Democrat friend wants to assure me that his party is not the party of abortion.

This post is an exploration of his statement and what he means by it. I think he means to say that Liberals want abortion to be available as an option, but are not hoping for the opportunity to abort fetuses.

DUH! I don't think conservatives generally regard Liberals as having a blood lust for non-viable babies. I do think, however, that Liberals generally perceive Conservatives as overly interested in the reproductive rights of women. What conservatives actually are interested in, is protecting the lives of those they believe deserve protection. I'll address the legitimacy of that position in another post. Right now, let's stick with the issue of the characterization of parties if regard to abortion rights.

First, let me say that the two sides of the issue are aptly named. The pro-life movement is about protecting lives of fetuses. The pro-choice movement is about protecting the right to choose to abort fetuses. And let's agree for the sake of this discussion to lable each party as such, since generally that's how the voters allign themselves. We know that pro choicers and pro lifers cross party lines, but that's not helpful to this discussion. Each party represents one side of the issue, and the agendas will follow.

I like to think that regardless of party lines, Americans believe that the right to life is the greatest of human rights.

If you accept that a fetus is a human life, then you must treat it as such. For you, abortion on demand is not negotiable. Notice I wrote abortion on demand. Most pro-lifers do not demand a woman face death to protect her pregnancy, they just don't tolerate it as a form of birth control. The republican party represents this platform, regardless of the fact that not all Republicans are pro-life, and not all pro-lifers are Republican.

If you do not accept that a fetus is a life, then you must consider that abortion is an acceptable escape route for those with unwanted pregnancies. The Democratic party represents this platform regardless of the fact that not all Democrats are not pro-choice , and not all pro-choicers are not Democrats.

The democratic party may not be the party of abortion, but it is the party of abortion on demand. Now I ask you, what is the difference?

If you accept that a fetus is a human life, but you are pro choice, then you must accept that you have placed a greater value on the desires of the born than on the life of the unborn.

If you do not accept that a fetus is a human life, then you should have no qualms with abortion. In fact, it seems irrational for you to feel badly that abortion occurs. Therefore, it is irrational for you to object to the term "the party of abortion". Indeed, it makes more sense for you to convince others that abortion is not wrong.

I know it feels good to empathise with those who face unwanted pregnancies. An unwanted pregnancy is a heavy burden, and not always the result of irresponsibility. Regardless, it is not my position that the right to not be pregnant trumps the right to live? Is it yours? Have you rigorously examined your decision to be pro-choice? If you are troubled with the title "the party of abortion", then I suspect you have not.

Thank you, Burnyourtires . . .And Now My Response

2005-11-11T09:49:00.000-05:00

Good comments, and very helpful. You see, I regard this site as a practice medium for what I hope will be my future career. Your comments , particularly expose the lack of clarity in my writing. My criticism is not that Democrats require investigation into Bush et al.'s treatment of intelligence regarding Saddam's weapons programs. You were right to point out that the only investigation specific to that subject is still in progress.

However, can you explain why Reid called for a closed session of congress to demand what is already ongoing? That was the bee in my bonnet that day. It has resulted in yet another bipartisan commission, this one apparently to investigate the (bipartisan) investigation. Surely you understand that costs tax dollars.

I have a number of other responses to your comments;

Republicans spent more money chasing Clinton than Democrats have on Libby . Yes, I admit that Republicans were out to get Clinton. It cost a lot of money. However, it's unfair to compare the cost of a completed investigation with one that is ongoing; or a campaign against one man with many. While Libby's expenses are unlikely to exceed Clinton's, remember that there seems to be a campaign to indict Republicans wherever possible (how many grand juries did it take to indict Lott, four, or five?). This link regarding process in grand jury hearings is the most important one in this post).

For the 10 millionth time, the Clinton thing was not all about sex. In fact, Starr's investigation started with Whitewater which followed travelgate. There was good reason to investigate too, lest you feel inclined to just blow off these scandals. Don't forget that two of Clinton's Ark. pals died during the course of the investigation (one in prison just when he was announcing a willingness to talk). A third also spent time in jail rather than speak. At the time, Starr was convinced Clinton was committing perjury, but he had insufficient evidence of it. When Paula Jones brought her suit against Clinton, Starr extended his investigation into Jones' allegations, at which time Clinton proved himself a perjurer. He was censured, fined, and impeached in the House for that, not for sticking cigars up a subordinate's ying yang (it should be noted that while not all Republican senators voted "guilty" on Clinton's charge, all Democratic Senators voted "not guilty").

It is not my position that intelligence regarding the war should not be investigated. It is my opinion that the investigation is a red herring to avoid responsibility for giving the President authorization for use of force against Iraq. I think the Democrats saw that the outrage expressed by public officials against Clinton hurt the Democratic party. They have internalized that lesson and are using it now against the Republicans. But adding committees and calling for investigations are not without cost. So without letting Republicans off the hook for going after the Clintons, I think we can still examine the Libby and Lott issues.

First Libby: It is unclear that Libby broke the protection of identities law. First, Plame's status for protection under that law is unclear. Second, one would have to prove intent which is very hard to do. Considering the odds in grand jury hearings are so stacked against the defendant, I think if there was a chance of convicting Libby for outing Plame, the grand jury would have found it. As for the indictment for obstruction of justice, etc., it could be real; or Libby could have been tripped up. After all, the defendant does not have his lawyer present to defend him against badgering, or other tactics. I think that's something to consider. It's a far cry from a rehearsed lie stated on television and in a trial with defense representation present.

Now let's consider Tom Delay. There's no denying the Democrats have been after Delay for some time. Some of the allegations against Delay are ones that could be applied to the likes of that paragon of partisan Democrats, Nancy Pelosi. By the way how many grand juries did it take to finally come up with an indictment against Delay, four, or five? (And don't forget that indictments seem incredibly easy to get, and that grand jury shopping is extremely unusual). What do you think that's costing tax payers in Texas?

Regarding your comment that democrats are not the party of abortion. I no more consider Democrats the party of abortion than I do Republicans the party of anti-choice. But the result of one's actions are as important as one's intent. This is a topic for another post which will be forthcoming.

Misled into Iraq War

2005-11-02T12:30:00.000-05:00

Bush lied to trick us into his illegal war with Iraq. That's what Demo-rat-tic leadership wants you to accept without proof. They don't need proof. By merely perpetuating conspiracy theories, they are off the hook for their own votes in favor of the " illegal" war.

They had to vote for the war. No reasonable leader would have continued to take the risk of letting Hussein defy the UN resolutions against him. The stakes were too high, and the evidence against Hussein substantial if circumstantial.

But Demo-rats can't take responsibility for that because they believe the anti-war moonbats speak for their party (maybe they do, I personally don't know any moderate Demo-rats). They need a defense for when their constituents threaten to take their votes to someone truly anti-war. (Note war-protestor Cindy Sheehan's speaking out against H. Clinton). There's nothing like the prospect of splitting votes with a third party candidate to make you listen to your base.

But if you think indictments and commissions are news in themselves, you are allowing yourself to be manipulated. They're just noise (expensive noise). The Wilson-Plame business has accounted to next to nothing, certainly no charges of conspiracy or treason. The 911 commission found no evidence that Bush's administration lied or exaggerated intelligence. It's all just noise to keep the myth alive.

I have a suggestion to reduce government spending. I call upon the Demo-rat-tic leadership to stop these government sponsored investigations that are nothing more than campaign projects. Instead, proudly proclaim what you've always stood for: socialism, condescending to minorities, protecting abortion, and yes, the occasional war.

What I've learned About Diversity

2005-09-08T15:44:00.000-04:00

This month I got some good diversity training. I learned the difference between an efficiently run corporation, and a system mired in government bureaucracy. I work for the former, my husband for the latter.

I will receive my first pay check within 2 weeks of my hire date.
Nick will receive his almost 2 months from his hire date.

I have the option of declining benefits in return for a higher wage (Which I will use to buy the insurance I prefer).
Nick has no options; just a use it or lose it benefits package which includes an FSA. (No one likes FSA's; HSA's were created because FSA's are stupid.)

My diversity training acknowleged that prejudice is a natural feeling, but we individuals can and must behave appropriately at work. It made clear that intent is an important component in determining where harassment exists.
Nick watched this laughable scenario in a training video:
Man and pregnant co-worker accidentally back into each other:
Man: "Whoa! We should attach warning lights to you ! 'Wide load'. My wife couldn't wait to spit our baby out. Maybe we should put you on the fork lifts to shake that little tyke loose. Hang in there!"
Woman: uncomfortableble smile
Narrator: " That may seem to you like friendly banter, but that kind of banter could invite a law suit."

COME ON! A civil trial because some dork is tact-impaired? I wanted to sue over the film's implication that women are gutless and thin skinned to the point of incompetence.

My employer is providing aid to the victims of hurricane Katrina.
Nick's customers are providing aid to the victims of hurricane Katrina.

I am a registered nurse in the labor and delivery unit at Covenant Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center.
Nick is a Latin teacher for the Knox County school system.

Blame Anyone But New Orleans

2005-09-07T18:51:00.000-04:00

I have long labored under the apparently mistaken notion that the president is not omnipotent. According to the numerous babble holes lapping up their 15 minutes of opportunism, it is President Bush who is responsible for the suffering in New Orleans. Not Mother Nature. Not the New Orleans city officials. Not the Louisiana state government. And most assuredly, not the able-bodied looters who continue to impair the rescue process.

Here's the thing. Not every problem can be laid at the door step of one man. This F"d-up dialogue convinces the ignorant masses that they have one central figure to blame, and that if they could just get the right guy, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. It is this kind of sophomoric thinking and scapegoating that has allowed New Orleans to become what it is. The remains of a community that placed its trust in parasitic bureaucracy.

P.S. While Bush was ruthlessly criticized for a 3 Minute pause after the 9-11 attacks, few remember that Kerry admitted that he was unable to even think for 35 minutes. If you work that out proportionately to the Katrina crisis, would there yet be a rescue in progress?

Politicized of New Orleans tragedy

2005-09-01T16:23:00.000-04:00

Hey everybody, remember me? I haven't felt like blogging for a long time; I've hardly even watched the news for the past two months. The news coverage in general is too shallow and biased; it always leaves me with questions they don't even ask . But today, I heard something that shook me out of my political catatonia, and back into blogging.

Live, from New Orleans, an ABC news correspondent took his opportunity to play Left against Right, to thumb his nose at conservatives as hurricane victims suffered around him. He commented on the Sean Hannity show this afternoon that Liberal radio talk show hosts had been very generous in fund raising/ relief efforts. He jibed, [I don't know what conservative radio hosts have contributed, but I'd like to start a competition . . .]. (Brackets indicate the slightest paraphrase).

Now wait just one minute! I wasn't born yesterday! I'm sure he would have kept his innuendo to himself if he new that statistically, Red states contribute more money to charities than Blue states. He didn't bother to find out what Conservative hosts were up to, but he was confident that we Hannity listeners would be impressed that Lib radio hosts gave to charity at a time of great media coverage.

This guy is supposed to report the news, not try to persuade us to like Liberals (few of which are passing up this opportunity to begin campaigning).

Welcome back, me! Thanks!

Reading Liberal blogs is a waste of time

2005-04-18T18:43:00.000-04:00

Atrios at Eschaton is one of the most widely read Liberal bloggers and reading him is like sitting on top of a shit heap during a tornado. Here is his post on Time's article on Ann Coulter. Read the comments. They are largely crazed, ugly and stupid and these are the so-called informed Liberals. I looked at the Ann Coulter criticism when I read Slander. I checked up on the original sources and the claims made by her critics. I did it again when I read Treason. They are simply wrong. The criticisms are not valid.

Liberals are Liberals because they have not developed the skill of critical thinking. They can not seem to make good judgments about evidence and argument. They are often very good and complex thinking which sounds critical and they are always impressed by it, but it rarely comport with reality. Compare the weak charges they have made against Tom Delay to the charges against Clinton. Delay seems to have been doing business as usual, the same things Barbara Boxer has done, whereas Clinton actually did commit perjury and sexual harassments. Somehow, Liberal make excuses and obfuscate the facts surrounding the myriad Clinton problems, but can see very clearly the crimes of Tom Delay (not Boxer, though). They, of course, have it backwards.

I think that this is only possible because they approach the debate with a preconceived world-view which informs them about reality. The problem is that this world-view is wrong. That is why they are so willing to believe weak, faulty arguments which happen to agree with the Liberal world-view and ignore the obvious problems with it.

I am not saying that Ann's arguments are always right nor that Conservatives are always right. Indeed, here I show that a Conservative was wrong about Ann Coulter. What I am saying is that reading Liberal blogs is a waste of time. We do it, of course, but it rarely yields anything of value. On the other hand, Libertarians, Neo-Libertarians, religious conservatives and non-religious conservatives, et alia, debate current issues with an openness and rigor that puts the left to shame. It is very rewarding and fruitful. Remember, Clinton's greatest achievements were conservative ideas. Right now, there is more debate about SS reform and real tax reform than ever before -- and it is all coming from the right.

Since Liberals do wield political power (demagogery always does), we have to spend alot of time refuting them and therefore explaining the positions to which we object. So if you read good rightish blogs you will inform yourself of both sides. It is truly laughable to read a Liberal who tries to explain the conservative position on anything. They have no idea how we think - how many times have you heard that Conservatives don't care about the environment?. On the other hand, we know very well how they think. Many of us used to be Liberals and nearly all of us were educated in Liberal thinking.

Whether you think Liberalism is a religion, a mental disorder, or, like me, an immature state of personal development, reading their blogs is mainly a waste of time.

Hypocrites Attack Bolton

2005-04-17T18:13:00.000-04:00

The Democrats are throwing the word "abuse" around like monkeys fling crap. It's effective, stinky, and won't come back to stain them. It's a vague, risk free accusation that truly can be leveled against any one who's ever had any authority.

It's the primary indictment against John Bolton, and honestly, I'm extremely comfortable with that. I mean really, is that the best ya got, Biden? You're concerned that he doesn't work well with others? 'Pot calling the kettle black, much?

I might be compelled by the "abuse" complaint if I'd never seen a senate hearing, or any news debate show ever. Our leaders and experts yell over and at each other all the time. Or if Id never had a job ...

Have you ever worked under a manager who shied away from conflict with their subordinates? Sure, you have. It's hell, isn't it? Bad workers get away with being bad, while good workers pick up the slack. And the reward for picking up the slack, is more slack to pick up.

But I digress. The point is, leaders sometimes have to yell, or threaten. Some people need to be yelled at and threatened because they do crappy work or are inappropriate. Why would you want a leader who never yelled at any one? Are we to assume that no one at the state department has ever done crappy work?

At least Bolton tries to get rid of people he thinks are bad. I watched Joe Biden call Condi Rice a liar even while telling her he planned to vote for her confirmation. What is that?

P.S. The word "abuse" has a serious context to any one who has ever actually been abused. How very sensitive of the Democrats to use the same word to describe Bolton that we use for adults who beat their kids.

P.P.S. Is it abusive to go around calling some one abusive? And what's the difference between Bolton trying get rid of people, and people trying to get rid of Bolton?

John Bolton's Bedside Manner

2005-04-17T17:28:00.000-04:00

Imagine you're quite ill, and you need to choose a physician. When the shit hits the fan, and your life is on the line, what are the criteria you would use?

Would you eliminate an M.D. from your list if he said uncomplimentary things about the hospital administration or other doctors? What if yelled at nurses, or intimidated them? What if he occaisionally insulted patients or hurt their feelings?

I can tell you I have worked closely with three doctors who've done all those things, and they're the best three doctors I've ever worked with. When I had a patient in crisis, they're the doctors I wanted around.

I don't like their nasty attitudes, but these three doctors can be depended upon to get the job done, and do it well. I believe they save people where other doctors would have failed. But if their presence depended upon their popularity with the nurses, they might have a hard time finding work.

Now, a good bed side manner is important and helpful, but it's not the end all. In the end, you want to be healthy. You want to live.

It's the same with John Bolton.

Wu Li Blogging and Joe Jackson

2005-04-14T04:17:00.000-04:00

We took a 2:00 AM drive tonight under a crystal clear night sky, listening to Joe Jackson's haunting and lovely Steppin' Out. When we got back home, I googled "joe jackson stepping out lyrics." The first response was a post from Right Thinking Girl dated April 3rd which was also the date of our last post. Coincidence? I prefer to think like a Dancing Wu Li Master. There is some mysterious mist hiding the lines which connect our minds with electricity so fine.

We are always very happy when people we like like the same stuff as we do. We have always been huge fans of Orson Scott Cards' Ender's Game, one of the best SciFi books ever. We could barley contain our joy when we found out that he is not a moonbat. There are others too, like Alton Brown who appreciates the beauty of (the old) Junkyard Wars and does not sound like a Liberal to us either. The list, thankfully, goes on.

I am tempted to attribute these connections we share to "spooky actions at a distance" especially now. Better, though, is the simple truth. It is not surprising that people who think clearly often agree. The real world has honed our minds in a similar manner. Ender's Game is great because Card is true to human nature.

Well, I could go on, but my comfy bed beckons and I absolutley must have an Ouzo.

Zogby Schiavo poll makes me sick

2005-04-04T02:03:00.000-04:00

Michelle discusses the new Zogby poll on the Schiavo matter. Zogby's poll suggest that a plurality of Americans in fact agree with us:

43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.

I argue that the numbers are actually higher and are artificially low due to the massively biased and shoddy, but overwhelming media coverage.

A perhaps more important consideration is what this means for our court system. Judges are now being told that an "evolving national consensus" is the guide by which they are to rule. That is offensive enough anyway, but what about the dangers of divining this "consensus?" This poll certainly suggests that may be very tricky indeed. Yes, I know that is why the Court appealed to an "evolving" consensus, one that has developed over time so as to even out these kinds of things.

But, really, do you think that works? First, think about how much time went by concerning McCarthy. Certainly any judge would have been on safe ground assuming that the national consensus was that he was a raving lunatic who falsely accused people of conspiring with Communists. How about Julius Rosenberg? I was taught as a fact that he was falsely executed by our government. Surprise! Along came VENONA proving that Julius was a spy and that McCarthy was right; there were spies in the State department. Many people still think McCarthy was wrong (and basically evil.)

"National consensus" has nothing to do with truth or justice. Terri may very well have been killed because the judges who had the chance to stop this travesty felt that they were carrying out the national consensus. Surprise! There was no consensus.

This poll did not make me feel justified. It made me feel sick.

Bill Press is an idiot

2005-04-03T18:55:00.000-04:00

Now, we are not religious, but we can recognize atheistic bias when we here it. Judge Roy Moore was on After Words with Bill Press. Moore explained his position that the U.S. is a Christian nation. He explained how this does not in anyway mean that it is so by "establishment." Press simply would not here it and kept on complaining that to say that was in contradiction of the establishment clause.

This, of course, is dumb. Press has an anti-religion bias that prevents him from hearing anything which to him suggests that America was and is a Christian nation. Moore was very reasonable and appealed to the actual words of our various founding documents and early Supreme Court texts which all prove to any reasonable person that the Christian faith was taken as granted among all citizens and even in our documents like the Declaration. The genius of the founders was that despite this, they prohibited the governments from actually establishing any particular sect or religion by law. Somehow, Press takes this to mean that the founders were describing a nation without any religious character, a nation whose laws and institutions must not contain anything remotely religious.

What infuriates me about this is the bigotry. We just saw it in the Schiavo case where people who themselves do not want to live like that were biased against any arguments from the other side. Here we are again. Press does like religion and thus he can not allow any argument which favors it to have merit.

America is a free country and that means we are free to exercise our religion. The only limitation to that exercise is that such may not hinder another's religious exercise. That is the point of prohibiting the Federal government from establishing one religion in law. (Of course, states should be free to do just that, but let's not go there.) There is nothing in our Constitution which says you are protected from hearing or being near another citizen while he or she is engaged in religious exercise. Indeed, as we often say, the cure to odious speech is laudable speech, not a restriction of speech. The same must apply to religious exercise.

It is stupid and dangerous to think that federal institutions must be cleansed of religion. They must allow for free religious expression; that is the point of the establishment clause. Just because Bill Press is offended by silent school prayers does not mean that the school has established Christianity as the official state religion. It is absurd to think that a Jewish or Muslim student's right to free exercise of religion is in any real way diminished by this. Also, school prayer is not the law and no school has ever attempted to enforce any sort of conformity of school prayer. As usual, the religious right is far more tolerant than the Left.

Atheism, Leftism and Liberalism are, in fact, religious in nature. It's not that they have moral value like many religions, but that they appeal to man's religious nature. (Need proof? Just talk to them. Why do you think they all act like they are in a cult? It's because they are.) Anyway, I think that it is man's natural religious tendency which is to blame for Liberalism surviving despite it very obvious corruption. (This is not to say why Liberals themselves adopt Liberalism. On that issue I still like my earlier explanation: immaturity.) Naturally, Press and other Left cultists are perfectly happy to enforce their own religious views on others.

Just to be clear, this is not the first time I've examined Bill Press. He debated somebody on C-Span just before the election making arguments from his book. I took notes and began to analyze them. I gave up because it was not even worth my time. It was another example of the above. He refused to accept the validity of arguments which proved him wrong.

Liberals do this sort of thing all the time for the same reason that they hypocritically impose restriction on others they would never accept on themselves. They believe that they have special insight, gained by their "education" (read indoctrination), as to the future. They believe in a political heaven. Yes, it is the old utopia which the rest of us have left behind along with our blanky and teddy bears. They may not call themselves Marxists or Communists any more, though some still do, but they are the same. They have seen the light and they will bring you with them whether you like it or not. In fact, they have to bring you, because they need your labor to make their paradise work. All is in the service of Progress. History and human nature be damned -- full speed ahead!

Have I Been Self-Righteous About Terri?

2005-03-31T23:28:00.000-05:00

First, my condolences to all those who loved Terri Schiavo.

My self-riteous attitude in the Schiavo case got taken down two notches when I read this article by Cathy Young at Reason H & R. I learned a lot about the case that I didn't know before. Hat Tip Damnum Absque Injuria 3/29/05.

Then I read the comments on her article, and found myself partially vindicated.

Read the article, and this is very important, read all the comments. That's the only way to get the full flavor of the kind of people who sided with euthanasia. If you decide to skip any, don't skip the comments by Xrlq and CodeBlueBlogMD. They quite effectively discredit much of C. Young's arguments.

I'm no lawyer (like Xrlq), or doctor (like CodeBlueBlogMD), but I know enough to make what I still believe to be the most important argument.

We don't know what Terri wanted. That's it. Some claim to know, but evidence is not very reliable.

It is reasonable to suspect Michael Schiavo's motives. Thinking up possible explanations for his behavior shouldn't be a substitute for reasonable judgment. It's more than possible that he has ulterior motives. As for the sanctity of marriage, I'll just say I'm glad my ex-husband was never given unquestioned authority over my fate. And lest you think it unfair not to be as skeptical toward the Schindlers, they're not the ones erring on the side of death.

Furthermore, I find in the article and among the comments, people who give MS a pass are quite willing to ascribe sinister motives to the Schindlers.

Further-furthermore, I think people are being pretty flippant about end-of-life decisions. It's very problematic to apply context to Terri's alleged words, then hold her to them with the ultimate penalty. Also, some people think they know how they couldn't bear to live, only to change their minds when the time comes. Take, for example, people dying of lung disease. As a nurse, I've known of people who've reversed their formal wishes when death was imminent. They'd been on a ventilator before, and swore they'd never do it again. They knew they could never be cured, and that even the ventilator might not even save them. But when the shit hit the fan, they fought to live.

As for myself, I can honestly say that I am not appalled at the prospect of living in the state of consciousness in which Terri did for 15 years. Nor would I expect anyone to agree with me. For Libertarians, C. Young and her readers seem to lack true respect for an individual's choice.

The Left Knows What You Want

2005-03-30T18:22:00.000-05:00

What do Terri Schiavo, U.S. soldiers, and the people of Iraq have in common? The Left knows what's good for them, and wants to speak for them.

Corporal Michael Oreskovic of the US army lost his left arm in combat, and he wants to go back. He says there's a lot of amputees who want to go back.

He also says that soldiers who go home to the US on leave often are anxious to get back to their unit in combat. He says there are two reasons. One is out of guilt and loyalty to the men who are not on leave. The other reason is that they get tired of people expressing their disapproval of the war.

Now that's quite a statement. Many soldiers would rather return to war than be subjected to the naysayers who don't respect a soldier's job.

You see, the Left knows the soldiers feel betrayed and want to come home, because that's how the Left feels. (Link to this Not in Our Name pdf and start at page 14. Compare this to Oreskovic's own words at cspan.)

The Left knows Terri wouldn't have wanted live like she does, because they wouldn't want it.

The Left knows that the Iraqi people wish we hadn't come to fight for their freedom, because the Left hates war.

The Left knows what you want, because they know what they want. And if you don't want what they want, well you should, and they'll demand it for you because they know better than you.

Thanks, Instapundit!

2005-03-30T00:39:00.000-05:00

Link here for spring photos from my hometown, Knoxville, TN.

Meanwhile, I languish in winter's cruel, icy grip in Concord, New Hampshire. I was excited this week because the daily highs have exceeded 35 degrees, the snowbanks are fewer and smaller, and three bugs hit my windshield.

I love Concord, but ... aah, Knoxville.

I Can't Believe I Still Have Questions About Terri Schiavo

2005-03-29T19:53:00.000-05:00

1: Would Terri have wanted an autopsy? People speculate that she would want to die, or that she would want privacy, not publicity. But, apparently, she wouldn't want food.

2: Why an autopsy after she's dead, but no MRI while she's alive?

3: Did Michael Shiavo piss his pants when that wacko put a hit on him? Did he ever think he might pay a price for acting so badly?

4: Does anyone believe that Terri is being medicated with Morphine for her parent's benefit, not because she's in pain?

5: If Terri's braindead, why surround here with music and flowers? If she can appreciate those things, why would you kill her? If you think it's for her family's benefit, don't be stupid.

6: You think congress intervened? Remember Elian Gonzales? The Florida courts ruled he could stay, then Janet Reno sent an armed force in the night to arrest and deport him.

7: Attn same sex marriage advocates: The "Progressive" definition of marriage allows your partner to starve you to death, even if that partner behaves suspiciously. Good luck with that.

8: If Terri had died at her initial collapse, wouldn't Michael have been a murder suspect?

I thought I was done posting about Terri. I was exhausted and depressed. But she's still in the press and the conversation is still woefully lacking. I have serious questions. The people who have the access to the information aren't coming close to addressing them. If it wasn't for other bloggers, I'd believe I'm alone. I'd question my own sanity. Even Fox News has really let me down.

Commentary on Birdnow's Conservatism

2005-03-29T02:13:00.000-05:00

Timothy Birdnow has a good article:
The American Thinker: "It's a Brave New World after Terri Schiavo dies"

In his landmark novel Brave New World, Aldous Huxley conveys the vision of a technological nightmare in which man is forced, through conditioning and eugenics, to happily serve as a cog in an utopian socialist machine. Those things which we see as important - family, close friendships, love, individualism, faith - are removed from the individual through brainwashing techniques, so as to create hollow vessels better suited to a life of consumerism and service to the State. Motherhood is abolished in favor of factory production of children, and the elderly and disabled are “taken care of.”

The important thing to understand about this brainwashing is why it works. Humans are individuals and members of families and communities all at the same time. All of these relationships are equally important facets of human nature. It is absurd to argue for a concept of human nature which denies one or more of these relationships. Individualism is just as wrong as statism. Conservatism is basically a response to ideologies which assert that one of these facets is the most important. (Libertarianism is often, though not always, characterized by over emphasizing the individual.) It is possible to screw up human society because it is possible to construct a false worldview by overstating one of these facets. In the Brave New World, the communal facet is emphasized to the exclusion of family and individual.

He has lots more to say, most of which is good. But, he seems to equate Christian religion with conservatism. This is not true in my view. Although we have much in common, conservatism is not just Christian values in the political sphere.

If you want to read the rest of my self-indulgent rambling commentary, well you'll have to ask me for it.

When Friends Aren't

2005-03-26T22:43:00.000-05:00

Link to Girl on the Right

I'm in the same situation as Right Girl.

My best friend is a Bush-hating Democrat. That is to say, she oozes vitriol, and her face contorts at the mere mention of his name.

While nothing can erase our history, our future is dim. We can't discuss politics, and that's a lot harder than it sounds. This friendship is going to be a lot less meaningful if we're not free to discuss our beliefs.

What is it about Canadians?

2005-03-25T03:49:00.000-05:00

They are just so damn funny and so damn nice too. Remember our halcyon friend? Well her husband's a jokester.

Anyway, read her take on the Schiavo situation here, but don't miss this either:

Common Sense Has Prevailed!

The Canadian government has denied refugee status to former U.S. Army paratrooper Jeremy Hinzman, a major blow to a handful of U.S. military deserters who have fled to Canada rather than fight in a war they claim commits atrocities against civilians.

Such as democracy, free will, and dozens of other similar horrible afflictions...

The military attracts many young recruits with job skills training and programs that help pay for university.

But it's right there in the ads - we'll pay for college, and you'll fight for your country. No one is misled...

Out, out, out. I can barely support myself [despite her shiny new job] and my chosen immigrant [the funny guy from before] - I am not supporting you and your four freakin' kids, just because you are too much of a sissy to tdo the job you volunteered to do. Out!

Turns out she lives in Toronto (the source of all funny, e.g., Albino Black Sheep), but she is from Montreal. Now that is a fascinating, beautiful, strange city. You can get lamb kebobs at 3:00AM and fresh crepes in the mall. You can also freeze your ass off -- your choice.

Back on topic, though, this guy is our fault really, we should take him back. We should take him back and "re-educate" him. Where is Patton when you need him?

Patton: Well, hell, you're nothing but a God-damned coward.
[Soldier start sniveling]
Patton: Shut up!
[Slaps him, once forehanded, then backhanded on the rebound]
Patton: I'm not going to have a man sitting here *crying*! In front of these brave men who have been wounded in battle!
[Soldier snivels some more, and Patton swings a vicious forehand slap, knocking his helmet away]
Patton: *Shut up!*
[to the doctors]
Patton: Don't admit this yellow bastard. There's nothing wrong with him. I won't have a man who's just afraid to fight *stinking up this place of honor!* You will get him back up to the front.
[to soldier]
Patton: You're going back to the front, boy. You may get shot, and you may get killed, but you're going back to the fighting. Either that, or I'll stand you up before a firing squad. Why, I ought to shoot you right now, you...
[pulls his service automatic. At that, the doctors leap forward and hustle the soldier out of the tent. Patton keeps shouting at the soldier's back]
Patton: God-damned bastard! Get him out of here! Take him back to the *front! You hear me? You God-damned coward!*
[Takes deep breath]
Patton: I won't have cowards in my army.

[edited to reflect comments below]

MSM Bias In Schiavo Case

2005-03-24T15:42:00.000-05:00

At 3:00 this morning, I was on my lunch break at work. ABC news was reporting their latest rebuttal vs. life.

Specifically, they rebutted Jeb Bush's statement that "the neurologist's review indicates that Terri may have been misdiagnosed and it is more likely that she is in a state of minimal consciousness, rather than in a persistent vegetative state."

In a straight news broadcast (not editorial), they reported that the neurologist "has ties to Christian organizations".

There was exactly zero mention that neurologists who diagnosed Terri with PVS had associations with right-to-die organizations, or the Hemlock society. There was also no mention of Felos' creepy messiah complex.

This is the reason I almost never watch network news.

[Endymion adds that Power Line is covering ABC's "Republican memo" here, here, here and here.]

Enemies abroad and at home

2005-03-24T03:18:00.000-05:00

Bill has a nice post about the culture wars we find ourselves in. I have argued this before, but he's better at it.

The nihilism of the Left -- its denial of value and true being to anything that actually exists and provably works -- may be turning in upon itself. Unable to destroy Western civilization under its own steam, it aligns itself with Islamists, who, were they to attain power, would of course mercilessly exterminate all leftists. A curious sort of Selbstaufhebung.

So perhaps I was a bit hasty in my intitial schematization. The major war, of course, is against militant Islam. But if liberals keep moving to the Left, then the minor war against liberals may become indistinguishable from the major jihad against the Islamo-fascists.

The war metaphor is apt. This is war and the Left, in all its forms, is the enemy. We have to fight them as such. Leftism is not just another way of looking at the world, it is an evil and deadly way. As I have said before, America needs at least (and maybe only) two parties. I'm not against debate and I am not suggesting that Chomsky and other deranged nihilists be censored. But, we should not imagine that they are harmless. They wish to dismantle the very ideas that make Western civilization great. It is no surprise to me at all that many Liberals end up cozy with radical Islam; American values are the antithesis of both.

2-1 Against

2005-03-23T04:56:00.000-05:00

DRUDGE REPORT 2005®:
My Way News: "In its 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said the woman's parents 'failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims.'"

Wow! I guess one judge can ruin your life with an egregious fact finding mistake and you really do not get any chance for a second opinion. If Scalia is right, we have to accept this. We should focus our energies now on our legislators and alter our laws and perhaps the Constitution so that a person can get a de novo review of the facts of his/her case.

At least one of these judges got it right. I need to consider his dissenting opinion (which starts on page 11), but mistress Chartreuse beckons.

Anyway, Beth at MYVRWC is a great source for info. You should go there and read because this case will be argued for awhile and mastery of the facts is important (e.g. here for a CT Scan analysis)

Poor Excuse For Discussion of Schiavo Case

2005-03-22T22:14:00.000-05:00

I've been following the Schiavo case for approximately 3 years. I'm really happy that enough people are aware of the case now that I can participate in a vigorous discussion.

My problem is that I'm getting a lot of discussion from people who have the most minimal awareness of what's going on. The following comments are from one blog (HobbsOnline), but I find them typical of the general discussion. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

" Terri Schiavo chose Michael as her husband. She gave him the right to be her voice and make her decisions for her in these kinds of situations. How can we say that we believe in the sanctity of marriage but say that a spouse does not have the right to make these kinds of decisions?"

"Like Bill said, we do not know this Michael guys motives." " ... But were it my wife, I could not stand by thinking she was trapped in there

It's true we don't know what Michael Schiavo's motives. That doesn't put him on equal ground with all husbands. There is a lot more reason to question him than what you've seen on the news. There are some REALLY nasty allegations of things he's done to Terri. Do your research. Marriage is not a suicide pact. Some people marry the wrong person. They need a means to appeal when their spouse is questionable.

"What I find very strange about this argument is the people who say starving to death is inhumane, but then want to keep her alive in the state she is in. Imagine if you were trapped in that body."

How do you know she's trapped? By the extremely brief shots of footage taken of her years ago? What you know does not constitute a diagnosis or prognosis. Neurologists who examined Terri are in disagreement.

" ... do not tell me anyone sane would want to go on living like that for what? another 30 years? Starvation is inhumane but I would take that over the alternative. She has been an invalid for more then 10 years already."

Who are you to judge that no sane person would choose that? Your choice has nothing to do with hers. Do you presume that all "invalids" (a loathsome term) wish to die? I submit that neither Stephen Hawking nor Christopher Reeves chose death, in spite of severe disabilities. Neither would have had a voice if technology had not given it to them. Michael Schiavo denied his wife therapies that might (in the opinion of some neurologists) have enabled her to swallow, and possibly speak.

" ... I could not stand by thinking she was trapped in there, while her mother refused to let go. I would fight to end it in anyway I could. To do otherwise would be inhumane."

Terri is either capable or not capable of suffering. She cannot be both. If she is incapable of suffering the pain of starvation, then she is incapable of suffering the pain of being "trapped" in her living shell. And if Terri's not in there, then there's no one to suffer, now or ever.

Also, it's true that Terri's parents shouldn't subvert Terri's wishes. But you can't accuse them of that until you know what Terri's wishes are. Don't let your feelings for her parents direct you to a knee-jerk solidarity with the "husband".

" There is no medical expert who will testify that Ms. Schiavo will recover. Nothing, today, will bring her back."

Actually, there are at least two neurologists who have examined Terri and concluded that she is NOT in a persistent vegetative state. They have testified on her behalf, to this effect, and that she could benefit from therapy. She'll never be the Terri she was before the event, but that's not to say she'd be better off dead.

Terri has never had an MRI. I've read that a diagnosis of PVS without an MRI and several days of observation is essentially malpractice. Yet this is the level of evidence Judge Greer has accepted in issuing what amounts to a death sentence.

"... if Terri woke up everyone would be happy - but now we have lost a large portion if not all our privacy rights...because congress can now single you out and stick a feeding tube in you..."

Congress did not have her feeding tube reinserted, as evidenced by the fact that it remains out. What congress did do is protect Terri's constitutional right to federal appeal. The federal courts already hear appeals on criminal cases. What is it about Terri's case that makes it interference in states rights or privacy rights?

And finally, (I have no quote for this myth), but a lot of people say that this case has already been appealed by plenty of judges. But only one judge examined the physical evidence regarding Terri's case. The rest only did reviews to determine if proper procedure was followed. They did not review the evidence of the case.

Get back to me when you've done your research, assholes. Oh, yeah, I said assholes. If you guys want to put your voice out there with a woman's life on the line, you should put more effort into what you say.

No respect for Life, Facts, or Congress

2005-03-22T17:45:00.000-05:00

Andrew C. McCarthy on Terri Schiavo on National Review Online

Here, it bears noting that Whittemore was placed on the federal bench by President Clinton in 2000 after spending a decade as a judge in the state courts of Florida. His opinion is a staunch approbation of the integrity of Floridas procedural framework, and extremely deferential to the performance of his former state-court colleague, Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer. Essentially, Judge Whittemore reasons: Floridas procedures are fair and designed to achieve a just result, there is no basis to suspect that those procedures did not produce a just result here, and, therefore, federal due process has been satisfied without any need to revisit (i.e. , conduct a de novo review of) the facts that were actually found here under those fair procedures...

But most disturbing about Judge Whittemores opinion is its refusal to delve into the questions that impelled Congress to act in the first place: Whether Terri is really a PVS case and whether she really evinced an informed desire not to be sustained let alone to submit to two weeks of starvation and dehydration, which is unquestionably torture for a person who is responsive to stimuli and aware of pain.
Not only does Whittemore decline to get into the heart of the matter. In the one fleeting footnote in which he alludes to it, he blames Terris parents and their attorneys for this dereliction: Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits of health care professionals regarding Theresas medical status, treatment techniques and therapies which are available and their opinions regarding how and whether these treatments might improve Theresas condition. Plaintiffs have not, however, discussed these affidavits in their papers and how they relate to the claimed constitutional deprivations. (Italics mine.)

What an asshole. Is he pissed that the Schindlers did not actually tell him what to think? Is he that divorced from the reality of his job?

Congress is the heart of the republic and the courts should give it due respect. Whittemore ruled on Florida's process but not he facts. This is a extreme offense to the de novo request of the Congress. In the end it is about the facts of the case, not the process alone. Our courts seem to have removed themselves from the real world where the rest of us live. Now, I am with Scalia on the Due process issue

the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. Its a procedural guarantee.

So, I have a dilemma. Due Process was followed -- I think. But an extreme injustice was committed by the courts and no respect was shown to the facts of the case.

What do you do when one branch of government secedes from the union by seceding from the real world? Take up arms? Maybe, but let's try voting first. Again Scalia:

My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think its a bad idea persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens its a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite persuade them the other way. Thats flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce rigidity. Abortion, for example, is offstage, ... its no use debating it anymore now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, dont like it because it provides flexibility.

Social Security verbo ipso

2005-03-22T00:18:00.000-05:00

I have been meaning to say this for awhile now, but this guy beat me to it. So, here it is from what appears to be our doppelganger (I guess I should say that we are theirs since they have been at it longer. Also, Lee seems to be smarter than I am. Also, they are more religious and they have some different links -- otherwise, the same.)

verbum ipsum: A Layman's Stab at Social Security Reform: "The deceit at the heart of Social Security has always been that by paying FICA taxes you are 'investing' for your retirement. But this is nonsense. Decades of government propaganda notwithstanding, SS is a wealth transfer program like welfare. It takes money from one group of people (young workers) and gives it to other groups of people (retirees, the disabled, their dependents, etc.). There may have been compelling reasons for pitching it as an investment plan, but basic honesty compels us to admit it ain't so.

Now, it seems to me that two things fall out of admitting that SS is a welfare program of sorts. First, there's no reason, in principle, it couldn't be funded from general tax revenue (sales, income, personal, corporate, or whatever). Second, it could be given only to those who need it. Once you've given up the fiction that people are investing in their own retirement, you no longer need to maintain that they're entitled to a return on their 'investment.' Eligibility for SS could be determined based on need (and 'need' could be defined more or less generously), which makes sense, since the whole purpose of the program was to keep the elderly out of poverty. Retired millionaires don't need that extra couple hundred bucks a month.

Funding SS out of general tax revenue would also address another problem: the FICA tax is one of the most regressive taxes we have (especially when you take into account the cap on income that is susceptible to FICA taxation). A progressive income tax (or even a flat tax) would be fairer and simpler.

I assume (contra libertarians and many conservatives) that it is meet, right, and just that society should provide assistance to those who need it. There's no shame in admitting that Social Security is a program by which we extend aid to those in need. On the contrary, the fact that it has for so long been portrayed as a kind of investment "

That just makes sense to me. I doubt that there are really many conservatives who do not think it meet to provide for the needy via government in some manner. I think it seems that way mainly because we are forced to oppose it in practice so much. Even some Libertarians are not totally against government aid (some are, of course). The debate is in the nature and amount of aid, the definition of needy and the method by which the aid is collected and distributed. But that debate is for another time.

While we are at SS reform, if we do not adopt Lee's suggestions, we should at least return the program more to its original intent. The retirement ages, for example, should be raised commensurate with actuarial changes. People live longer. It's simple and fair.

I can't find it now, but somebody wrote a piece recently about private accounts. Remember the Lock Box? Well, private accounts are the ultimate Lock Box. The government cannot get their greedy hands on the money if it resides in my Vanguard 500 Index. (Which, BTW, has earned 11.24% avg over the last ten years, the same ten years which include the horrible "crash.")

The Fetus Monologues

2005-03-20T21:15:00.000-05:00

Mike S. Adams: Blind feminists find nut, details at eleven:

Same excerpt, different take:

"“If your vagina got dressed, what would it wear?”; “If it could speak what would it say?” and; “What does your vagina smell like?”"

What if in each of those sentences, we replaced the word vagina with the word fetus? It is considerably more reasonable to anthropomorphize a fetus than a vagina, seeing as how a fetus actually has the potential to talk someday.

The elitists of my gender want you to empathise with my vagina, but try to empathize with a fetus. I promise you, they will go ballistic!