The Noble Pundit

Senate Democrats Take Stand On Judges

Senate Democrats Take Stand on Judges

When I saw the headline, I had such high hopes. Maybe they have taken a stand against activist judges usurping the proper role of Congress. Or maybe they had tired of the holes in the federal judiciary. But, alas, my hopes were misplaced.

No, forget about activist judges or even a lack of them, the Senate Democrats are instead upset about recess appointments and are threatening to block all nominees until they get the proper "I'm sorry" from Bush.

"The president's use of recess appointments to circumvent the advise and consent process puts a finger in the eye of the Constitution," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Perhaps if there had been an effort to advise and consent, we wouldn't be in this position. But instead, we are in a position where nominees are getting stonewalled and blocked for nothing more than partisan bickering. The Senate Democrats have, to a large extent, refused to uphold their end of the bargain. Our system of checks and balances says that if Congress refuses to advise and consent, the President has the power of recess appointments.

Such high hopes, dashed by reality. Damn.

And Vice Versa

"I don't tell church officials what to do," [John Kerry] says, "and church officials shouldn't tell American politicians what to do in the context of our public life."

Just listen to a Vatican official, who is an American: "People in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there's a problem with John Kerry, and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion."

John Kerry has already publicly stated his problems with the Catholic Church, and now the Church seems to be stating their problem with John Kerry.

I really have a problem with Kerry's statement that I quoted above. He is correct that we observe a separation of church and state (we have no State religion), but all that I keep seeing is the Church reminding politicians of the teachings of the Church and of the consequences of acting contrary to those teachings.

Religion is a personal matter. John Kerry's Catholicism is no different. It is a matter between himself, the Church and God. If he chooses to be pious, that is his decision. If he chooses otherwise, that is his decision also. The burden of the decision - and of its consequences - rest solely with John Kerry.

What the Church keeps reminding Kerry is that there are personal consequences to his public positions and votes. His two lives do not exist in separate vacuums. They are intertwined and a decision in one life can, will and does affect his other life. And therein, I believe, lies John Kerry's biggest problem with the Church.

He knows that having a religious grounding is going to be important this year, so he's doing everything he can to present himself as a pious Catholic. He just doesn't want to follow all those pesky rules and teachings of the Church.

He wants to be able to gain the benefit of being photographed taking Communion, but he doesn't want to live within the guidelines required for earning the right to take Communion.

And yes, Communion is a right. The principle of separation of Church and State says that there is no reason why Kerry should be granted the right of Communion without earning it like every other Catholic. Freedom of association says that we have a right to associate with those we want to associate with - and that we cannot be compelled to associate with those we find distasteful or disturbing.

"All you need is a picture of Kerry going up to the Communion rail and being denied, and you've got a story that'll last for weeks," says Father Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America.

It may pain John Kerry to realize this, but if his public actions as Senator or politician violate the teachings of the Church, then in his private life, he is opening himself up to being subjected to this punishment. Given recent statements by Church officials (Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley: politicians who do not vote in line with church teachings "shouldn't dare come to Communion." and St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke publicly warned him "not to present himself for Communion") I would venture to guess that Kerry is coming closer and closer to crossing that line. I think that the Church is being very generous with their prewarning of Kerry about the potential consequences of his public decision on his personal life.

I don't believe that it's going to matter, however. I fully expect that we'll see some priest, somewhere, deny Communion to John Kerry. Kerry's beliefs run counter to Catholic doctrine. Kerry wants to be viewed as devout, but he wants nothing to do with actually showing anything more than a token devotion. Kerry is a "flavor of the month" Catholic - so long as it is popular, he wants to it, too. I believe that will come back to haunt him at some point.

This election is going to come down to, more than anything I think, the perceived integrity of the two candidates. The hardcore supporters of both candidates are already made their positions clear. The folks still on the fence are going to look to the honesty of Bush and Kerry as a measure of their believability in the strength of their positions.

And this is where campy Catholicism is going to kill the Kerry campaign. When he struts around professing his staunch Catholicism and gets denied Communion or even excommunicated, it's going to raise questions about his integrity. He claims to be a good Catholic, but the Church disagrees? Hmmmm.......

I see this problem getting worse for Kerry. He's not going to change anything. Eventually he's going to have to reconcile his public and private lives and understand that, like the rest of us, he has but one life to live.

Links To Kerry Questionables

This morning before I left with the other half and the kids to go to Rock Springs (you can also go here for more excellent pictures) for the afternoon, I was perusing the Free Republic message boards and came across a series of links to media stories about our good friend, John Kerry. I'm not going to show the whole list, as I think that a few of the points are somewhat irrelevant to the election at hand, but I did want to pass along a pretty good list of sites to search when questions arise.

Poor Decisions: Kerry On the Losing Side of History (quotes included) - Kerry comments on communism amongst other things.

Kerry Leads Senate in Special Interest Donations - But he's not going to be beholden to them.........Rigggggghhhhhhttttttttt.

Kerry's wife made killing from 'corporate inversion' - So the Kerry's never told their trust fund advisors to not invest in "Benedict Arnold" companies? Curious oversight, methinks...

Kerry Donors Include 'Benedict Arnolds': Candidate Decries Tax-Haven Firms While Accepting Executives' Aid - Well, that would explain the oversight in my last snide comment. Apparently his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

John Kerry Blasts Wal-Mart for "Destroying Communities" - Shhh. He Owns $1 Million in Wal-Mart Stock - OK, it's not John. It's really Theresa, but it just goes to show that hypocrisy seems to run pretty rampant in the Heinz-Kerry household.

Meet John Kerry - His Voting Record - and while we're at it let's look at it overall: Kerry Voting Record Analyzed as Most Liberal in US Senate by Democratic Group, his attendance to important votes, explaining his position on the Iraq war, and his stance on matters military.

While we're looking at his voting record, let's attempt to look at some of his positions: Multiple Votes Supporting Partial Birth Abortions, Terrorism Happening in America is "Exaggerated", Kerry Prepared to "End the War on Terror", Kerry Assures Jewish Groups He Supports the Wall of Israel - Tells Arab Group He's Against It, and Senator Kerry Emphasizes Direct Talks with Iran.

Of course, Iran isn't his only fling with evil regimes: John Kerry Courts Communist China Approval in Launching First Government Approved Campaign Site, Kerry's Soviet Rhetoric, and Kerry Boasts French Support.

And then finally we have the Kerry Vs. Kerry archives:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Oh yes, and let's not forget his heritage: Excuse me Senator ... but, you do not have Irish ancestors ...

Kerry's Foreign Boosters

John Kerry is claiming to have support among a few foreign leaders, although he is avoiding any questions regarding his overseas admirers.

Now I can understand Germany and France deciding that they would prefer someone other than Bush in office, given the "old Europe" comments and the general disagreement about everything except the day of the week. But I found this quote from Kerry to be quite interesting:

"I'm talking about our allies, I'm talking about people who were our friends nine months ago," Kerry said while campaigning Sunday, adding he would not identify leaders he spoke with.

Kerry, who speaks French and some German, said they told him: "'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy'."

I have a real problem with Kerry not seeing an issue with that statement. As President his job would be to formulate and direct US policy, regardless of the opinions of other nations. France, Germany or whoever made that statement certainly would like to see a new policy in Washington.

But just because they would like to see a new policy does not mean that we should grant that wish or even entertain it. US policy is designed to promote the interests of the US first, foremost, and only.

The President shouldn't give a rat's behind whether or not anyone else agrees or disagrees with our policy. He is beholden only to the American electorate, which make quotes like this pretty useless in the end:

A survey Monday of German voters published by Focus magazine found that 65 percent want Kerry compared to 11 percent for Bush, five percent for neither and 19 percent undecided.

The problem with this statement is that the opinion of the German electorate doesn't matter in the US general election. The quote tells us nothing of any value. It is almost as the media is so desperate to get rid of Bush that they will seize on any favorable bit of information that might help their cause.

But again we end up coming back around to the same basic fact. The President works for the American people and only for the American people. Given Kerry's pride in the endorsements of the foreign leaders and his acceptance of their desire for a new policy in Washington, I don't think that he quite understands who his employer would be.

And it is absolutely critical that you understand who your real employer is before taking on any new job.

A Small Defense of John Kerry

I spend a lot of time, electrons, and disk space taking shots at John Kerry, but there are times when I think some things are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed without deep introspection.

JB Corrigan is reporting on an article that indicates that the Kerry Kampaign in Florida may be considering hiring a man who, during Vietnam, explicitly advocated political assassinations. The post ends with:

So tell us Senator Kerry, is this how you plan to 'stop' George W. Bush from being re-elected?

That's a heavy duty charge. One that should require some decent substantiation. But that seems to be lacking in this case.

Simply because this man, Scott Camil, once advocated political assassination does not mean that he is a political assassin. The fact that he is unrepentant does not mean that he is going to go assassinate the President. The only thing we know about Scott Camil is that he is an unrepentant Machiavellian idiot. To imply anything otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Kerry is a menace to this country that has to be kept out of office, but come on. We got to do it right.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Kerry bashing.

Is The Bible Ambiguous On Homosexuality?

I may have to start a new category just for inane statements coming from the Democratic candidate for President.

WorldNetDaily is reporting that John Kerry recently suggested to a Mississippi crowd that the Bible is less than clear when it comes to homosexuality.

I don't know what Bible Kerry has been reading (he says "Well, I know the deep beliefs, I respect, I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible, and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways. I'm not here to argue that with you." (emphasis mine)), but the ones that I have read and studied most don't seem to carry any references that indicate that homosexuality may be anything less than an abomination in the eyes of the Church.

Does the Bible acknowledge the existence of homosexuality? Yep. Does the Bible give us clues into the historical role that homosexuality played during the period when the traditions were developed? It gives a small window into that world. The Bible doesn't refer to the general level of homosexual acceptance during the time, but while it paints a religiously biased picture, it also does not gloss over this part of life.

Remember, the final straw that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was when the men of the town tried to force their way into Lot's home calling for him to bring out his male guests so that the townsfolk might better "know" them. The term "know" at that time had a bit more hardcore meaning. The men didn't want the guests to come out to discuss the current state of political affairs or to make proper introductions all the way around. No, they wanted essentially to gang rape the guests. The men of the town turned down Lot's daughters in order to take the male guests. The implications against homosexuality are very evident, to all those excepting those who wish not to see.

Leviticus 18:22 is even more clear. The only problem I have with Leviticus is that some parts of it have been rendered obsolete (the sections dealing with slavery, for example) with the passing of time and advancements in our level of humanity. Quoting only Leviticus leaves open the valid charge that if some passages are no applicable, how is the determination made as to which rules to follow and which are ignored as ancient curiosities.

But no matter, nowhere do I see the Bible condoning homosexuality. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, you cannot deny the facts. The Bible condemns homosexuality. You may not agree with the conclusion, as Kerry obviously does not, but that does not mean the Book doesn't clearly say what it says.

When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible is about as clear as ancient texts get.

I shudder to think what Kerry might do if handed something written by a devious lawyer....

John! Bring These Jobs Home!

John Kerry has expressed his concerns about the outsourcing of jobs that Americans are quite capable of performing.

Here would be a good place to start on the fight to bring American jobs home for Americans, John:

HEINZ EUROPE
Established 2000
Hayes, Middlesex, England

H. J. HEINZ FROZEN & CHILLED FOODS LIMITED
Established 1993
Dublin, Ireland and (1999) Hayes Park, Hayes, Middlesex, England

H. J. HEINZ COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
Established 1996
Dublin, Ireland

H. J. HEINZ FROZEN S.A.R.L.
Established 1979
Paris, France

HEINZ IBERICA S.A.
Established 1987
Madrid, Spain

HEINZ POLSKA Sp. Z.O.O.
Established 1994
Warsaw, Poland

HEINZ C.I.S.
Established 1994
Moscow, Russia

HEINZ GEORGIEVSK
Established 1994
Georgievsk, Russia

CAIRO FOOD INDUSTRIES SAE
Established 1992
Cairo, Egypt

HEINZ REMEDIA LIMITED
Established 1999
Tel Aviv, Israel

H. J. HEINZ BELGIUM S.A.
Established 1984
Brussels, Belgium

H. J. HEINZ Southern Africa (Proprietary) Limited
Established 1995
Johannesburg, South Africa

H. J. HEINZ (Botswana) (Proprietary) LTD.
Formed 1988
Gaborone, Botswana

REFINED OIL PRODUCTS (Pty) LTD.
Formed 1987
Gaborone, Botswana

CHEGUTU CANNERS (Pvt) LTD.
Established 1992
Chegutu, Zimbabwe

HEINZ SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD.
Established 1995
Johannesburg, South Africa

HEINZ SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.
Established 2001
Republic of Singapore

HEINZ-UFE LTD.
Established 1984
Guangzhou, People's Republic of China

HEINZ COSCO
Established 1999
Qingdao, People's Republic of China

HEINZ KOREA LTD.
Established 1986
Inchon, South Korea

HEINZ WIN CHANCE LTD.
Established 1987
Bangkok, Thailand

PT HEINZ ABC INDONESIA
Established 1999
Jakarta, Indonesia

HEINZ UFC PHILIPPINES
Established 2000
Manila, the Philippines

HEINZ HONG KONG LIMITED
Established 2000
Wanchai, Hong Kong

This is a listing of overseas corporations formed by the H.J. Heinz company over the course of the last 25 years. It does not include companies that were purchased or otherwise acquired during that time (that wouldn't have been fair). And it doesn't take into account that it often make sense to establish a presence in country in which you do business.

Personally I have no problem with the idea of outsourcing if it results in more wealth generation here. More wealth gives us an opportunity to create different jobs that would be better at improving our overall standard of living.

But how many of these new operations cannabalized from the core US operations and reduced the amount of product exported? How many jobs were lost (or not created) because of the reduced export demand? How many of the jobs that are currently being performed by folks overseas could be done back here at home, thereby providing needed jobs for Americans?

Wouldn't it be ironic if John Kerry was directly benefitting from the very trends he is so opposed to? For John, stopping outsourcing should start at home.

John Kerry: Keen Observationist

"Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Kerry said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

One great thing about John Kerry being the presumed Democratic nominee: he says something incredibly stupid almost every single day. The AP is reporting on Kerry's above quote referring to the Bush Administration and the Kerry campaign's attempt to spin the meaning.

I was going to make a snide remark about how it is painfully obvious that Kerry must not have paid attention during his time in Congress, but then I rememberred: he only makes token appearances anyways.

Now he also confused me with his "new math" surrounding the costs of the Bush tax cuts.

He claims that Bush's tax cuts have driven up costs for working families. OK, I don't agree, but I can sort of see some brand of twisted logic at play in that statement. He then says that he is going to give the middle class a tax cut -good, good - by raising taxes on those making more than $200K a year? Whoops. Now I'm lost.

According to Kerry a tax cut made my cost of living go up (even though my take home is higher) and he plans to rectify this situation by cutting my taxes by leaving them the same and simultaneously raising taxes on extraordinarily well compensated individuals.

So my taxes stay the same and my neighbor's rise and this is a tax cut? Even twisted logic can't reconcile that one!

Oh, and his $50 billion fund to help provide relief from state and local taxes? Worthless to me living in Florida. We don't have state and local income taxes. As far as I'm concerned that empty campaign promise is nothing more than a very thinly veiled attempt at redistributionism.

"Kerry has voted for higher taxes 350 times and his numbers for new spending don't add up," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "His campaign-trail promises mean he is going to raise taxes by at least $900 billion."

Alrighty then. A number is out there. Right or wrong an attempt has at least been made at quanitfying the cost of Kerryism. I would be interested in seeing the numbers that the Kommie Kerry Kampaign can come up with as a rebuttal.

I have trouble believing Kerry when he says that he wants a tax cut for anybody. What makes this time different than any of the last 350?

Probably not a thing. It's just another empty campaign promise.

Of course, that might make Kerry a crooked liar.

Guess "it takes one to know one."

They're Mad; They're Motivated & Apparently They're At Happy Hour

Today was the big day in Florida, the Democratic Primary, the first opportunity for the Democrats in Florida to prove that they're mobilized, motivated and mad.

Unfortunately, the turnout seems to indicate that they were motivated to go elsewhere. In Orlando, which had its mayoral race today, they are anticipating a turnout of just 18%. Yep, that sounds most motivated to me.

Of course, that is better than the 11.4% national turnout.

For supposedly being so motivated to get GWB out of office, you would think that the Party could put up at least slightly better numbers than these. Heck, Bush is generally getting around a 6.6% turnout - and he's the only real candidate on the ballot! This is the first week in which Kerry has basically run unopposed. Despite all that, despite the grassroots movement for Dean, the motivated Party apparatchiks, Kerry's Kousins, Edwards Efforts and whatever other clichés you want to think of, 11.4% is pitiful.

Happy hour has a better turnout than the supposedly competitive Democratic primaries. That is pretty sad.

Now I know that I'm sitting here taking shots at the Democrats for talking one story and walking another, but this is more than just a single party issue. Too many people practice self-disenfranchisement. Too many people abdicate their responsibilities as citizens.

Voting in the primaries is not an issue of life or death. The truly critical election is coming in Novemeber.

But the primaries do often have other important elections. For instance today Orlando elected its mayor and city commissioners. Folks who didn't bother to show for the election today will now have no say in the governance of their city. Many will complain about the results, but they didn't bother with making their voice, no matter how small it might be individually, heard.

In November we of course elect the President, members of the House, 1/3 of the Senate, state officials of varying descriptions and countless pieces of referendum legislation. Today's elections were important, but November will set more of the tone for the nation.

11.4% turnout is not motivated. It is pitiful. I know that many people blow off the primaries, but come November we have a responsibility, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Commie, Libertarian, or whatever party affiliation, to show up and make our voices heard. In 2000, the residents of Palm Beach County, Florida in particular, proved the importance of each and every vote. My entire life before then, I had never seen an election where each vote was so important. I may never see it again (boy do I hope not!), but I will hereafter vote as though my vote will be the one to decide simply because it has been proven that it may very well be.

For what it's worth, however, I did not participate in today's election. I would have had an opportunity to vote in exactly one uncontested race today. Having just started a new job, that fact kept me from asking for the time off from work (as I am entitled to) to cast a single, solitary vote in an undisputed election. Not exactly in line with my above rant, but....

Kerry Makes A Fool Of Himself, Again

John Kerry was down stumping in Hollywood, FL today and came up with a real gem of a quote. The AP is reporting on his quote about Bush being a divider, not a uniter, but on the local news tonight, I saw an even better one.

Bush was out in Texas, at a rodeo. Kerry decided to take his shots, saying (I wish I could find an article with this statement, but so far I've only seen it on a video on WFTV's 5 pm newscast in Orlando):

(paraphrased due to lack of quote transcription) If George Bush has enough time to go to a rodeo for a day, he certainly has enough time to give a Homeland Security commission on 9/11 more than one hour.

The exact wording may be off, but you get the gist of the quote. Kerry is claiming that by campaigning for reelection that Bush is somehow being derelict in his duty. That seems like it could be a fair criticism (although I would argue that since he was only at the rodeo for an hour, and he was on Air Force One while in transit, he probably did manage to get a few Presidentially-like things done), so how does John Kerry's record show that he would stack up in the responsibility department?

Let's see, according to his hometown Boston Herald, Kerry came to work approximately 36% of the time last year, and hasn't bothered to make a working appearence yet this year (he did show up for a token soundbite vote on gun control however).

Well, gee. That is certainly a much better record than Bush with his 4 hour foray (if that) to Daytona for the 500 and an hour at a rodeo!

I know that my employer would just be thrilled if I managed to drag myself to do something a little more than once every three days. I'm sure that they would be fine if come March I hadn't bothered to show up to actually do anything worthwhile yet this year. And they would certainly be most understanding if I told them that the reason I wasn't doing anything was because I was out pounding the pavement and pressing the flesh looking for another job. Yeah, they'd understand.

Meehan said Kerry has missed no roll calls in the past 14 months in which his vote would have altered the outcome.

You know, up until 2000, I had never voted in anything in which my vote would have altered the outcome. Is Senator Kerry so prescient that he can foresee the value of his vote on any given issue? Or his simply gambling that he won't miss the most critical vote of the year?

Senators are employed and paid to debate and deliberate about pressing legislative matters before them and then to pass judgment on those issues by voting. Kerry's spokesman was correct when he said the voting is just one...part of being a senator. Unfortunately, he included the word "small" in the sentence, and voting is not a small part of being a senator - it is the very reason for being a Senator. We elect senators to vote in our stead. When John Kerry goes off campaigning instead of voting in the Senate he is disenfranchising his constituents.

Kerry needs to get a clue. He is not so important as to live by different rules than the rest of us (his desires notwithstanding). Anybody else with his job performance would have been fired and deservedly so. By US Code, he should have been docked pay, but that hasn't happened either. And I can't recall having seen any mention of the Senator returning any of his ill-gotten gains, despite the fact that he is one of the servants (yes he is nothing more than a public servant. Oh how that word must chap his hide....) who needs it the least.

Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones....

One More Reason Not To Like John Kerry

Kim Jong Il does.

Gees, will Saddam and Osama publically back Kerry next?

Or even more politically damaging, Al Gore?

Keep racking up the endorsements, John! You're off to an excellent start!

Why The World Doesn't Vote For President

The Independent in the UK has a wonderful little column on their website which I found to be just a regular riot.

If the human race as a whole, rather than 50 states plus the District of Colombia, could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide.

Unfortunately for President Bush-haters around the world, only the 200 million United States citizens of voting age will have that right...

Well, how 'bout that? Only Americans can vote for the American President. How quaint!

The problem that I have with columns and articles like this is that, in this matter, the opinion of the rest of the world doesn't matter. The President of the United States is elected to promote and defend the United States of America, period. He is not chosen to be the head global citizen. He is not chosen on his ability to get along with others. He is chosen to work for America first - and only.

Now quite often our goals line up with the rest of the world's and the President can find ways to work with others and to generally be a nice, multilaterelist guy. But in the end, he still needs to watch out for America's interests and only America's interests.

Listening to John "I'm-not-a-Frenchman,-I-want-to-be-the-second-black-President" Kerry, I don't think that he's capable of putting America first. I think that the idea of coalition and conference is so ingrained in his being that he would be wholy incapable of dealing with another 9/11. He is a wuss when the office demands a warrior (Before running off with the Vietnam stuff, read my opinion on it here. Pay particular attention to the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. Thank you.)

The rest of the world - they like John Kerry because they know that, unlike President Bush, he won't put America's interests first. In an attempt to prove himself to be a great internationalist, he will sell this country's interests up the river when it comes to global issues.

It is up to us 200 million voting Americans to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Super Tuesday

Super Tuesday is finally here and it looks like John Kerry is going to sweep the day, virtually ensuring that he will be the Democratic candidate in the fall.

For the Bush campaign that has got to be thrilled about the this. Defeating Kerry will be much, much easier than Edwards (more stupid stuff to harp on).

Plus, Kerry helps the Republicans with brilliant quotes like this:

President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second," he told the American Urban Radio Network.

At least he didn't refer to himself as African-American given the uproar when his wife was correctly referred to by that term. But maybe, just maybe, his handlers should point out to John Kerry that he's, well, white.

Or maybe it would be better to let Kerry just continue to make an idiot out of himself...

This Is Useless Campaign Schtick

President Bush has begun courting the Cubans of South Florida by annnouncing a tightening of the rules regarding travel to Cuba. His plan basically makes it illegal to leave from any port, not just Miami, to head off to Havana.

The media is, as to be expected, blathering on about how this is going to further strain relations between the US and Cuba. They also go on and on about different issues that, on the surface, appear to be contributing to the deterioration.

What they don't realize is that the travel restrictions only stop those who don't really want to go. Anyone with half a brain who wants to visit Havana is already going through Nassau, Caracas, or El Salvador. The boaters are simply going to change their plan and instead of sailing straight from Ft. Lauderdale or Key West to Havana, they'll instead make a detour through the Bahamas on the way. The travel restrictions serve absolutely no practical purpose.

As for the deterioration in relations, well how can they really deteriorate much further than they are already are? Is Cuba going to invade South Florida? Are they going go to the UN to complain? Will they slap a trade embargo on us?

This has got to be about the most transparent political gambit ever undertaken. There is no practical effect to it (other than to get the media in some sort of Castro loving frenzy). It won't end travel to the island. It won't put any more pressure on Castro's regime. Nothing changes.

I'm not even sure how this is going to play among the Cuban-Americans of South Florida. They are not a slow people. I can see this being taken as patronization, but I can also see it being taken as a great statement, so what do I know?

I wish that the President would do something meaningful again. It just seems like he's been marking time for a while now. Maybe that's part of lying in wait for his foe. But it just feels like it is time for him to go back on the offensive, to do something worthwhile.

A transparent sop to one group is less than inspiring.

I Thought He Was The Environmental Candidate?

Gee, John Kerry is trying to position himself as the environmental candidate:

Throughout his career, John Kerry has been a top leader on the environment, fighting to clean up toxic waste sites, to keep our air and water clean, and to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other pristine wilderness areas....

We owe it to our families, our communities, and to our planet to elect a president who will unapologetically pursue our environmental values.

So given his supposed environmental commitment, why is he flying around on a 727?

The 727 is a relatively old airplane. It uses 3 JT8D engines - not exactly the most fuel efficient or cleanest burning of engines out there. By contrast, the 737-200, which is just about as readily available as a 727 uses 2 JT8Ds, with nearly the same range. And the 737-300, which is fairly easy to come by uses the CFM56, which is very fuel efficient, quiet, and clean burning - all with greater range and payload.

The JT8D also suffers from not exactly being the most quiet engine in the aviation market. The roar of the JT8D is part of the reason why there are noise restrictions at some airports and why the aviation industry has to work under Stage III noise regulations.

So what is John Kerry, the great environmentalist, doing flying around on one the most noise polluting, gas guzzling, and clean-air unfriendly airplanes still flying? About the only way he could have made this worse is by renting a 707, with 4 JT8Ds.

As for the rest of the story, if Kerry doesn't want to see The Passion, that's fine. I can understand that. It's an honorable position to take.

But he needs to watch with throwing around the accusations of potential anti-Semitism. That is a pretty powerful charge. Because of the potential damaging power of such an accusation, Kerry should probably use a little more tact before throwing it out so cavalierly.

I also found it interesting that he is too conservative for his daughter's tastes. That has got to be just about one of the scariest propositions out there. If he's not liberal enough, she must be out there in full-blown Marxism.

Another Anti-Kerry Site

Ed Flinn of MonkeyWatch and HobbyBlog has pointed me to another anti-John Kerry site, WinterSoldier.com (please note that the address is http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/ not www.wintersoldier.com).

The site focuses on Kerry's actions after he left Vietnam and in particular during the period of his participation in Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Another good post, via Jay Solo, can be found here. I think that it is so funny simply because you can actually visualized it happening.

Kerry & The Fence

John Kerry is continuing his consistent inconsistency by attempting to have it both ways when it comes to the fence that Israel is building to keep the Palestinian terrorists out.

Back in October, Kerry said:

"We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."

Then Monday he comes back with:

"Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."

OK, now the two statements don't explicitly contradict each other, but their tone is most certainly contradictory. In the first statement I cannot believe that Kerry meant anything other than to attempt to place blame squarely on Israel for the fence. Now, he is most certainly attempting to spread the onus to the Palestinians (where it should have been in the first place).

But this does leave the question, what does John Kerry really believe regarding the fence? Does he truly believe that Israel is entitled to protect itself? Or does he believe that the fence is unacceptable?

I don't think that this is a minor issue. I think that it actually gets to the heart of Kerry's stance on terrorism. The fence is a microcosm of the war on terror. Israel is attempting every mean short of all out war to protect itself from an enemy that desires only its annihilation. Does Kerry believe that every mean should be used? Or does he believe that uncomfortable measures should be avoided if they might upset someone? I want to know the answer to these questions.

John Kerry challenged President Bush to bring it on relating to national security issues. Well, the question is out there.

What is John Kerry's real position on the fence? Is he ok with it, or does he find it to be an obstacle to peace?

A New Site To Check Out!

Perusing my referrer logs this evening I came across a site: NoJohnKerry.org.

I found out about the site because they linked my post on John Kerry and Gay Marriage from way back when.

To be honest, I'm kind of stunned to be listed on a page with the Boston Herald, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Scotsman and several other high profile sites.

Go over and take a look at the site. For those of you who detest John Kerry, like I do, it is a great site.

Bring It On!

Oh, what fun! Ralph Nader has announced his intention to contribute to the reelection of George W. Bush by running as an independent.

Apparently, Nader has chosen the indy route because even he believes that he will have a hard time garnering the Green Party nomination.

Now if you can't get the backing of such a tiny fringe group as the Green Party in the US, how on earth can there be any expectation of success? Doesn't the lack of support amongst the fringe goups demonstrate just how far out of the mainstream Nader is?

Nader had his day - years ago. At one point in his life he contributed something positive to society. But now he is a joke. His candidacy is about as useful as trying to take down the Great Wall of China with but a single firecracker. His ideas are about as dated as he is.

The only good thing that comes out of a Nader campaign is that it will siphon off votes from the Democratic candidate, particularly if that candidate is Johnny K.

Bring it on, Ralphy! I'm sure that Bush is just quaking in his boots awaiting your opening assault.

The Presidential Sales Campaign

I don't often watch too many of the talking head shows, but for some reason tonight, I decided to watch a little bit of Hannity and Colmes on Fox. Their guests tonight were JC Watts, former Congressman from Oklahoma and Tony Coelho, former Congressman from California.

Normally I like listening to JC Watts. He has always struck me as being a very bright man for a Congressman. And for most of the show, he didn't disappoint. But towards the end of the debate, Alan Colmes asked a question about the President's recent prediction of 2.6 million new jobs. Now maybe Mr. Watts isn't the best person to direct that question to, but it is a valid question. But instead of answering the question, even with an "I don't know," JC tried to dodge, to spin, and to ignore the question, instead talking about other related issues, but never directly addressing a perfectly legitimate question. For what it's worth, I think that the question could be easily answered (if this is true) by saying that the President shot off with his mouth before making sure that the numbers he was throwing around were right. From the reactions of his economic advisors, I'm guessing that that is what happened. If so, it needs to be admitted, and then we can all move on.

Now I thought that Sean asked probably the most important question that could be asked: what would the Johns do differently than the President? What differences would we see in the war? What differences would we see in economic policy? We keep hearing about how they hate Bush, but they still haven't really said how they would be different?

So far as I've been able to tell, about the only two positions in which the Johns seem to really have taken a stance against Bush: taxes and the war, they are trying to back away from their positions, claiming that they are misstatements.

As best as I can remember, both Johns have said that they would try to rollback the tax cuts. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that is tatamount to a tax hike. Maybe the phrase "rollback" sounds better, but the end effect is still that taxes will go up. If they believe that a tax hike is the best course of action, fine. I can live with that. I'd like to hear the reasoning, but it is an acceptable position (although not one that I would even consider voting for. Instant disqualifier for me). I just don't want to waste my time, or the nation's, in debating the semantic difference between a tax cut rollback and a tax increase.

I also seem to be under the impression that both Johns would be trying to bring our men home from Iraq as soon as possible after taking office. Both men seem to be backing away from that position.

Now if they disapproved of the action in Iraq (which John Kerry has been ever since his last vote supporting it), they need to be man enough to stand up and be counted for their beliefs. If they really think that thinks are being handled improperly, tell me what would be done differently under the Administration of John. So far, all I hear is "We disapprove! We're not happy about it! Something needs to change!" But no alternate course of action ever seems to be proposed.

There are really two things I want to hear from someone who wants my vote. I want to hear true, unwavering beliefs and I want to hear alternatives to the status quo. If you think the guy in power is doing a poor job, don't just tell me that you think he's doing a bad job, tell me you will do differently.

So far, I don't hear anything. I hear a lot of sniping and whining, but I don't hear anything I can hang my hat on. Politics is sales. In sales you identify a problem, propose a solution, explain the features, advantages, and benefits, and you must always be closing.

The Johns are identifying a "problem" (Bush's job performance, in their estimation) and they are constantly trying to close by pursuing my vote, but they are leaving out the whole sales part of the sales process. I have heard no features, advantages, or benefits to a government run by them.

Until those questions are answered, why should I even consider voting for anyone other than Bush - a known quantity?

Edwards Campiagn Posters That Didn't Quite Make The Cut

Allah the Most Merciful (except when it comes to this) has granted us kufr a rare opportunity to view some of the potential campaign posters of John Edwards.

Before heading over there, do realize that beyond the first poster, most of them are not exactly family friendly. But then again, did we really expect any less from Allah?

And So The End Begins

It's Tuesday, February 17, the day that will very likely mark the end for Howard Dean as a candidate for President of the United States. Today the voters in the Wisconsin Democratic primaries go to the polls, and if the early polls are any indication, they plan on handing Howie another stinging defeat.

It's been a long strange trip for Mr. Dean, but one that is coming to an end. It really is time for Dean to bow out gracefully. Failure to do so will relegate him to Sharpton/Kucinich laughingstock fodder - just like the Iowa speech did.

How concerned is current front-runner John Kerry about the other Dems? Not very. He apparently took one of the lamest shots at the President I have ever seen:

Chiding Bush for taking time out Sunday to attend the Daytona 500, the Massachusetts senator said the country was bleeding jobs while the president posed for a "photo opportunity." Bush had donned a racing jacket to officially open NASCAR's most prestigious event in front of some 180,000 fans.

"We don't need a president who just says, 'Gentlemen start your engines,"' Kerry said. "We need a president who says, 'America, let's start our economy and put people back to work."'

"America, let's start our economy and put people back to work"? When it comes to lame slogans that has to rank right up there with the worst of them.

I can understand Kerry's aversion to the President going out on the campaign trail. I can understand Kerry's concern that Bush might actually have a good time at the race - which would help him to connect with the NASCAR Dad.

But what action, what critical decision, does Kerry think that Bush missed while spending two hours at Daytona International Speedway? The slogan is lame, but where is the alternative idea from Kerry? It's nice to say things are wrong, but where is the idea to fix them?

Communism should have proved once and for all that government by sloganeering doesn't work. When things aren't working, a pithy saying won't fix them.

And so today, the tone of the Democratic debate turns from rage and anger to whining and complaining. I've heard a lot from Kerry about everything he thinks Bush has done wrong. But I still have yet to hear, outside of taxing us into prosperity, what John Kerry would do different.

Move Along! Nothing To See Here

In another fit of "everything is going just peachy and we intend to keep fighting" Howard Dean has expressed his confidence in his campaign staff by canning his national chairman.

Doesn't strike me as a real confidence inspiring move. Actually seems to smack of a bit of desperation on Dean's part. If things really are still viable, why make the change?

Watching the death throes of the Dean campaign is becoming really painful. Ever since the meltdown after Iowa, Dean has been an also-ran. He is not really contributing to the debate. He is not really driving any positions. He's just simply there, standing around looking all wooden and Al Gore-like.

I think it's time for Dean to bow out gracefully. He has already helped the Republican cause as much as he possibly can by defining the issues of the Democratic primaries and debates in terms that heavily favor George W. Bush.

Dean is not going to win Wisconsin. He is not going to win California. He will not win Florida. At this point, he may not even win Vermont. It's time for Howard Dean to face the truth: this is not the year of anger.

It's time for Howard Dean to bow out gracefully instead of continuing this charade.

NASCAR Dads

Over the last few days, particularly since the run-up to the Daytona 500 today, I've been seeing more and more articles in the political realm that refer to the looming importance of the NASCAR Dad in the upcoming election. For the uninitiated, the NASCAR Dad is a white male who generally votes Republican, but can be convinced to vote Democrat depending on the issues and positions. NASCAR Dads are most prevelent in the South and the Midwest.

Alright we have a nice clinical definition of the NASCAR Dad, but why is he going to be so important and every bit as importantly, is he recognized by both sides?

To answer the second question first, he has been recognized by both parties. Bush has obviously recognized the NASCAR Dad with his show at the Daytona 500 today. Circling the track with Air Force One; having his motorcade drive along the track; spending 2 hours at the race. Bush's trip was meant as much to watch the race as it was to reinforce to the NASCAR Dad just how in tune the President's beliefs are with his own.

Howard Dean also made an obtuse sort of reference to the NASCAR Dad when he suggested that he wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags and gun racks in their pickup trucks. He was attempting to reach out to NASCAR Dad, but at the same demostrated a complete lack of understanding about what makes him tick. And with his backtracking and waffling on his statement, Dean completely lost any hope of garnering the vote of the NASCAR Dad.

What the Democrats seem to be missing about the NASCAR Dad is that issues really are important. Schtick, like Dean's anger streak, is seen as being transparent. Defense is important. Integrity is important. Being plain spoken is important. Patriotism, fiscal responsibility, and decision making are all important.

But while the NASCAR Dad likes a leader who can make a quick, difficult decision and then stick to it, even in the face of consequences, he will not make a snap decision of his own about who his choice for President will be. I believe that one of the reasons that we are still seeing such a large undecided component in the polls is because of the importance of the NASCAR Dad this election. He is not willing to commit to any candidate until he's heard all the positions and all the issues.

Now just because Bush seems to fare well in all the important issues to the NASCAR Dad does not mean that the President will automatically get his vote. The NASCAR Dad has concerns about Bush, particularly when it comes to the budgets that have been proposed. The tax cuts were a good idea and helped to stimulate the economy. But then Bush went a massive spending spree, chock full of questionable spending items. And that fiscal irresponsibility has made put the NASCAR Dad vote for Bush in question.

But how would the Democratic contenders stack up?

Kerry wouldn't fare too well with the NASCAR Dad. His military record would be a neutral item. His commitment to defense can be legitimately questioned based on his voting record. His integrity is questionable, again based on his voting record, too many flip-flops. Straight talking? Uh-uh. But given the right issues that have yet to emerge in this election, he still has an outside chance of garnering a decent portion of the NASCAR Dad vote - which might be all he needs.

Edwards would probably connect best with the NASCAR Dad crowd. Edwards is from the same stock as most NDs. He doesn't have the voting record of Kerry to search for inconsistencies. Being a trial lawyer works against him, but he may be able to make enough of a personal level connection to nullify the President's advantages.

Dean really has no hope with the NASCAR Dad crowd. It was Howard Dean that really invoked the NASCAR Dad and it was he that showed the least in the way of character traits that might be desirable to the ND. His anger seems to be a charade, designed to tap into the resentment against political correctness felt by the average white male. His positions were about as far out of line with the NASCAR Dad's as was possible.

So while Bush hasn't sewn it up, the odds don't look all too hot for the other guys either. Like the soccer moms who helped to elect Bill Clinton, it will be the NASCAR Dads who elect or re-elect the winner of this next election.

Bush made the first real attempt of reaching out to the NASCAR Dads today and I'm guessing that it will pay dividends for him down the road. Whereas Kerry comes off as an aloof elitest, and Edwards as a slick trial lawyer, Bush can actually end up coming off as a man not all that dissimilar to the NASCAR Dad.

But ultimately it will still come down to issues and leadership. Being a man of the people is not the same as being a leader of the people. Talking like the people want to hear is useless unless you act in a similar vein.

Today in Daytona they ran The Great American Race, but another great race also started today - the race for the votes of the NASCAR Dad. How will the father/son parallel play out in the election? Earnhardt, Jr. followed in his father's footsteps by winning the 500. Will Bush chalk up another victory? Or will he become a one-termer like his father?

It's looking more and more like the NASCAR Dad will decide.

Pro-Market Vs. Pro-Business

Via the Flemish Beerdrinker

Bruce Bartlett over at Townhall.com has written an excellent article that points out that the normal conservative reflex of pro-business is not always pro-market. As similar as the two terms sound, they are not the same. In fact, many times they end up opposed to each other.

Now Ivan over at the Flemish Beerdrinker does a pretty good job of looking at the relationship between pro-business and pro-market over the last decade (I don't appear to be able to link directly to the article so look for the one datestamped 14/02/2004 - 14:42:13 and titled: Is being pro-market conservative?).

I believe that the lessons of pro-market vs. pro-business can be best illustrated by one of my favorite industries - the airline industry.

From it's earlier beginnings the airline industry was largely unregulated. The barriers to entry were simply buying an airplane, getting a pilot's license, and finding some passenger that wanted to fly from point A to point B. Some folks managed to do well and were buying bigger, faster airplanes and were building mini-aeronautical empires, but by and large, the industry was very much pro-market.

Right on up until 1934 and the Spoils Conference of Postmaster Walter Folger Brown. Brown was a man who hated disorder and inefficiency, so he organized a meeting between the airline chiefteins in which they swapped mail routes, with the Big Four: American, United, TWA, and Eastern organizing with the first three being east/west airlines and Eastern flying north/south.

Brown was happy, as were the heads of the Big Four, but the public was outraged. Pro-business was the watchword of the day. Overnight the airlines had gone from one extreme to the other.

Now, as a reaction to the Spoils Conference, the airmail contracts were reawarded, with the Big Four maintaining most of the contracts, although a few other smaller airlines: Delta, Continental, Braniff and Northwest notably, picking up a few of the routes. But the die had already been cast. Brown had effectively set up significant governmental barriers to entry as mail was the most significant profit cargo for the early airlines.

Another pro-business, anti-market institution that was formed around the same time, at the behest as the airlines, was the Civil Aeronautics Board or CAB. The CAB became quite literally the biggest barrier to entry in the airline industry as it approved new routes and new pricing. The only way for an airline to form without the explicit approval of the CAB was to become an intrastate carrier. Since there were few states (California, Texas and Florida were the real exceptions) that could support an intrastate carrier, there was no real way to enter the market.

The CAB was the ultimate pro-business, anti-market entity. It maintained the competitive positions of the Big Four. It set pricing so that the weakest airline in a market made money. The CAB wasn't interested in allowing the market to work. It was interested in maintaining the status quo.

Now the CAB was sunsetted out of existence, one of the few governmental organizations to have actually disappeared. And once it went away, along with its barriers to entry, competition exploded in the industry. It became even safer to fly, more passengers fly and at lower prices than under government regulation. In short we have gone back to a more pro-market environment in the industry, and while everything is not perfect, it is certainly better than it was in the 1970s.

So what's the lesson to take away from the experience of the airline industry? A pro-market economic environment responds better to the needs of the marketplace than does a regulated pro-business one. Pro-market is best for the consumer and the nascent business; pro-business is the desire and wish of the existing businesses. The two are not the same.

Generally, the convential wisdom is backwards. The Democrats, preferring regulation to market pressure, tend to take more true pro-business positions. Republicans tend to be more pro-market. The Bush Administration, though, tends to take a more true pro-business stance than most Republican administrations (although it can also be argued that what they are doing is simply a continuation of the path started down by the previous administration), which is a bit disappointing, but still much better than the alternatives being proposed by the Democratic candidates.

We really need to start swinging the pendulum back towards the pro-market side of the spectrum. When the market is relatively unfettered is when our economy performs best. We have the most innovation and the best profitability (along with generally the highest employment) during periods of laissez-faire policy by the government.

All in all, I thought the article by Bartlett was pretty interesting. Definitely well worth the read.

The First Salvo At Kerry

Looks like the Republicans have finally decided to start the anti-Kerry offensive with this short video Unprincipled, Chapter 1, detailing some of the hypocrisy in the Kerry campaign.

The video isn't bad, especially as a first shot, but it's definitely going to need to get stepped up a couple of notches here pretty soon. It's good, but it's not victory material.

It is nice, however, to see the Republicans finally starting to make an effort at taking Kerry down a peg or three.

Kerry To Sharpen His Message?

The AP is reporting that John Kerry is looking to sharpen his message, whatever that means, and is also taking a page from the Al Gore manual for victorious campaign advertising.

You know, I'm sure that Kerry would have a much easier time sharpening his message - if there was one there to sharpen. I have, as of yet, to find a single concrete position of John Kerry, well, except maybe for his love of the Vietnamese Communists.

He voted for the war in Iraq, but seems to be rather shocked that it involved real fighting, by real soldiers, with real consequences.

He was against Saddam Hussein, but doesn't seem to believe that he really needed to go.

I'm sure that Kerry is the kind of guy who would tell us that 9/11 was a tragic event, but that that Osama guy really isn't too bad once you get to know him.

(All of the above are personal conjecture. Has he actually said these things? Probably not, but please provide a link if he did. I just happen to believe that they are all real possibilities to come from the mouth of John Kerry.)

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that Kerry gets it. He doesn't seem to realize that national security is not the issue for him to run on. There are few Presidents who have done a better job in the national security realm than George W. Bush. Trying to fight this battle is kind of like bringing a tank to battleship duel in the middle fo the ocean. It seemed like a good idea at the time....

Almost like his decision to take a page from the Al Gore How To Campaign In Florida book (Chapter 1: Get Pat Robertson on the butterfly ballot near your name. Have Palm Beach County voters take to the streets claiming functional illiteracy if the vote doesn't go your way.).

Just as Gore ran ads in Orlando, Tampa and West Palm Beach while Bush saturated all of Florida, Kerry's spending will have to be selective and smart, aides said.

Gee, if I remember correctly, even after the seven thousandth recount by every organization that could pronounce "chad," Bush still won Florida. "Selective and smart" advertising was not all that bright. Gore's message didn't get out to all the people in the state. How much do think Al Gore would have paid to swing 1000 votes from the Bush camp to his? You think he wishes that he had been a little more aggressive with his spending?

I do love this. Sharpening the message and being smart and selective with the advertising dollars. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Also indicates that maybe Kerry's message, while resonating amongst the Party faithful, is not striking a chord with the average American. It's one thing to win the Party. It's another to win the nation.

Oh yeah, for a little more fun go over to the Politboro Diktat and take a look at the Commissar's collection of potential Kerryisms. Some of them are pretty good.

The Kerry Cavalry Charge Continues

Well, it looks like the Kerry campaign is gaining momentum with wins in Virginia and Tennessee, along with another in Maine over the weekend.

To steal a phrase from Kerry: bring it on.

Kerry is not the best candidate to go up against Bush. He is the epitome of everything that so many people dislike: he is the quintessential Washington insider, he is about as far left-wing as anyone in Congress, he has a record of flip-flops and backtracks in his voting record. John Kerry will the easiest candidate for the Republicans to turn into the next Michael Dukakis.

The worst part of this is that in this election year, Bush is vulnerable. He is an excellent wartime President. He handled the post 9/11 events very well. But he has also blundered badly. His immigration amnesty plan is offensive enough to make me have seriously considered voting for someone other than Bush. I probably would have ended up voting for Bush in the end, but still, I believe that Bush is vulnerable.

And the Democrats, rather than nominating an electable candidate like Joe Liberman, are instead going to send up John Kerry to be the sacrifice to pave the way for Hillary in '08.

The Kerry campaign looks to be gaining an almost unstoppable momentum. Tonight almost ceratinly knocked out Clark knocked Clark out of the race. Edwards is on the ropes. Dean is going the way of Kucinich and Sharpton.

But the Kerry campaign has also not met any real resistance from the Bush camp or the RNC. Once the Republicans begin their offensive, I believe that the gap between Kerry and Bush will begin to widen again.

Kerry is making a big mistake by thinking that his primary victories are an indication of a general feeling in America. He is polling well among the Democratic faithful, but how will he fare in a general election is still yet to be seen.

Are African-Americans Black?

A few days back, there was a little bit of a flap over at OpinionJournal.com regarding the proper way of defining Teresa Heinz Kerry's heritage. Opinion Journal referred to her as "African-American," a completely accurate term given her birth in Mozambique and her later naturalization as an American citizen. Many, however, took offense to the statement of fact and attacked James Taranto, accusing him, among other things, of targeting Democractic bigots.

In my many rants about the loss of distinction in the English language I have kept saying that eventually words would not mean what they actually mean. This whole flap is proof positive. "African-American" is no longer a term to describe American citizens whose heritage is African. Instead, it has been reserved for a few select African-Americans who have a higher degree of skin pigmentation. "African-American" does not mean African-American anymore. It means black.

But, of course, not all African-Americans are black and not all blacks are African-American. One of my teachers in school was African-American. Very pigmentationally challenged, she was an Afrikaaner from South Africa. But she was certainly more African than the black history teacher I had who was of Jamacian descent. Yet, he was the one referred to as "African-American." How does it make sense that the one who is, cannot be referred to that way and the one who is not, must be?

And are we to extend this? Here in Florida, we have very large Cuban-American and Puerto Rican populations. To the uninitiated, they look similar, both having a somewhat darker complexion. They speak a similar language (two different dialects of Spanish). But, if you ever want to have a good rumble in the parking lot, just go up to a Puerto Rican and refer to him as a Cuban-American. Or vice versa. Just because they are similar does not mean that they are the same.

The worst part about all this is that even the most ardent supporter of the black people in the US understands the difference. Am I talking about the National Association for the Advancement of African-Americans (NAAAA)? Of course not! Look at the name of the NAACP. It is the National Assocation for the Advancement of Colored People. I generally think that the NAACP is way out in left field with most stuff, but when it comes to defining who they are, and to be inclusive to those they wish to include, they have hit the nail right on the head with their name.

We are on the verge of losing the actual meaning of a term, African-American, if we haven't already. I understand that OpinionJournal can sometimes inflame passions, but in this case, they merely spoke the truth. And the weight of the PC establishment is trying to come down on them with righteous indignation.

How much of our language must we lose to the PC cops before we revolt and try to salvage what little is left?

Did Lieberman Drop Out Due To Jewish Anti-Semitism?

Did Joe Liberman have to end his run for the Presidency due to the Jews turning their collective back on him? That is the theory being put forth by Jewsweek.

While I find the Jewish anti-Semitism argument interesting, I really don't think that it holds too much water. I don't deny that Lieberman's Orthodox beliefs may have turned off some people. I don't deny that there is a large segment of the US population that would have trouble with electing a President who was Jewish.

But I believe that the real reason behind Lieberman's failed candidacy lies in his relative moderateness. This campaign is becoming more and more defined by extremeism. Why was Dean successful? Is there anyone who really believes that it was because of his consensus building? What about Clark? Sharpton? Kucinich? Even John Kerry? Doesn't he have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate?

This is developing into an election of extremeism. Liberman, being a relatively classy act, was completely ill-equipped to thrive in such an environment. More than any other factor, it was his personality, his congeniality, that kept him from succeeding in this election.

The media likes the outlandish. The media likes the anger. Lieberman's even-keeledness really served to keep him out of the national spotlight, He was too much Michael Jordan; not enough Dennis Rodman. In the circus environment of today's politics, that was the effective kiss of death.

Surely Lieberman's religion played a part in the events that led to his failure, but I don't think that it was the deciding factor. I also don't believe that the reaction of the Jewish community in the United States was a big factor. It was the lack of momentum, which was caused by his lack of lunacy on the campaign trail.

It's time to face facts, Liberman lost because he was, well, normal. He was soft-spoken, reasonable, moral, and religous. In short, he was much like a large swath of America.

Unfortunately the electorate just doesn't seem to be ready for a normal candidate, yet.

A Defense Of John Kerry

By now it should be pretty clear to most readers that I am not a fan of the Kerry Crusade. I think that he is just about the worst possible choice for President, possibly with Kucinich excepted.

However, I recently read this article "What You Don't Know About John Kerry" over at NewsMax.com and I found one particular point that I feel is simply wrong.

In his testimony, Kerry claimed there was no communist threat and said: "In 1970 at West Point Vice President Agnew said 'some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse,' and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion, and hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country...."

OK, here I go: a defense of Kerry's statement.

When I read that statement, I see not a slam at the men in Vietnam, but rather the exhibition of a trait which I think is severly lacking in John Kerry: humility. It was probably the last time in his life that Senator Kerry thought that he might not be the end-all of end-all men. It was probably the last time in his life that he was possessed by a smug, arrogant, all-knowing attitude. I, quite frankly, am surprised to discover that the Senator has ever felt a sense of humility.

I'm not trying to take away from the efforts that our men in Vietnam put forth. Under the political restrictions and contraints, it was amazing that we were able to do as much as we did. If Johnson and Nixon had let the troops loose to prosecute the war properly, things would have ended up much differently. Did some bad things happen in Vietnam? Sure did. Vietnam was a war. And war is hell.

Walk up to any veteran and ask him if he thinks he's one of the best men in the country. Chances are he's going to say "no." Why? Because he has humility. He has lost a lot of the hubris and bravado that comes with youth, and has gained the wisdom and humility of experience and age.

The rest of the article is pretty accurate and informative. Kerry is not the same man that he is trying to portray himself as out on the stump. But in this one case, I think that he is unfairly being criticized for humility.

Approaching 40,000

I got to say that I like John Kerry doing so well in the primary season. Every Wednesday, I get another massive influx of Google hits for folks searching "John Kerry + gay marriage." Because of this push of hits, I'm going to go over 40,000 hits before my first blogosversery (coming up later this month).

With today's ruling out of the Massachusettes Supreme Court that will make gay marriage legal, I've been getting an even higher number of hits looking for stuff on the topic.

I still support the basic idea of gay marriage, but I do have concerns about the way it is being dictated to us by the judiciary. I would much rather see there be a national debate on the topic than to have a bunch of holier-than-thou judges sitting on high trying to bring culture to the great unwashed masses (which is the impression of their attitude that I get from reading excerpts of the ruling. Maybe I'm wrong, but....).

This whole issue is very dangerous to our system of government. We have overreaching judges, law makers who are afraid to exercise their Constitutional authority for fear of maybe being overruled, and executives who want to change our Constitution from limiting the rights of government to limiting the rights of the people.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens from here. I wish that the debate had been allowed to occur at a natural and reasonable pace, but it seems the debate is being forced. Hopefully we can still pull it off without deepening the divides between us.

Super Tuesday

Well, Super Tuesday is coming to a close for the Democratic Party and with it, so appears to be several of the campaigns, at least on a practical level.

Kerry appears to have had another solid evening, winning Delaware, Missouri and Arizona pretty handily. Edwards took South Carolina, and is also showing strong in Oklahoma. North Dakota and New Mexico are both holding caucuses but no one really seems to be paying them too much mind.

Dean has once again failed to win anything. Lieberman bet it all on Delaware and appears to have come up snake eyes. Clark was respectable at least in Oklahome, and will likely officially take over the angry white man candidacy from Howie. Sharpton, well, Revrend Al showed miserably in South Carolina. Not good for the man who was betting it all on the southern minority vote.

Bottom line, Super Tuesday has functionally limited the field to Kerry, Edwards, and Clark as the dark horse outsider. Dean, Lieberman, Sharpton: all toast.

It will be interesting in watching the fight between Kerry and Edwards as it develops. Edwards is going to have to start tearing down the Kerry facade. Kerry is going to have to start defending and attacking against both Bush and Edwards. Watching them change their tactics which have worked well up until now should be fun.

I've said it many times before, and I'm going to say it again, Lieberman dropping out will be the greatest tragedy of the whole campaign. He was the most reasonable candidate the Democrats had. Watching Joe bow out with class and dignity was a definite contrast to the rest of the group. It is truly a disappointment.

Well, we've gone from 9 candidates to 3 real ones, one of whom is questionable. Next week we should get a couple more of official dropouts and possibly the functional elimination of Clark.

The field is narrowing and with the choices that are being made, so are the Democratic hopes of winning the Presidential election in November. This election may be one of the most clear deliniations between liberal and conservative that we've had in years.

Break The Law For Five Years & Win?

It was bad enough that George Bush came out and proposed the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Now in an effort to differentiate themselves from Bush, all eight Democratic candidates have begun a battle to see who can make the program the worst of all worlds.

Not content with issuing work permits as under the Bush plan they have gone as far as John Kerry's proposal to grant immediate citizenship to any illegal who has managed to avoid deportation for five years.

It's a matter of human rights, a matter of civil right, a matter of fairness to Americans..." said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusettes.

How does that represent a matter of fairness to Americans - by which I use the loaded assumption of citizenship? There is no fairness to Americans, only to the law-breakers of other countries.

Now would someone please explain the difference between any of the candidates when it comes to immigration reform? Because I certainly don't see much.

UPDATE: Oops. There is no date on the article, but it appears to be at least pre-Iowa, as Gephardt is still involved. The fever I've got must be affecting my ability to catch the obvious. Sorry.

John Kerry: Inconsistant Candidate

I've not been a fan of John Kerry since I started this site and started paying a little more attention to his pronouncements and his actions. I also believe that he is, quite possibly, one of the most dangerous candidates the Democrats have running. He has enough political savvy to build coalitions to push through some of his more risky platform planks. He is also suffciently unmoored politically to basically propose anything from a moderate agenda to the Kuncinich plan.

He flip-flops on issues without a concern. He backtracks seemingly without consequence. He is nothing more than an opportunist - which makes him a very dangerous person given enough power.

So we know that he is currently against the war in Iraq. We know that he claims that he never authorized the use of force - only the threat of it's use. Here are but a few examples of his waffling around - and quotes that are at odd with his current positions:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

He enlisted in the Navy and became an officer. After training, Kerry volunteered for Vietnam. His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers. "It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby.

On Jan. 3, 1970, Kerry requested that his superior, Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr., grant him an early discharge from the Navy so that he could run for Congress.

On April 23, 1971, Kerry led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. (but not his as he wore tham during his Senate testimony that same day.)

The cover of his book in The New Soldier raises questions about his true commitment to the American soldier:

In the Senate debate itself, Kerry, rather than embarass Vietnam by demanding the truth, launched a highly publicized diversionary investigation of the POW/MIA families and activists, who were demanding an honest accounting. Kerry labeled them "professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos" who were only involved in the POW/MIA issue for money.

Source for the first three quotes: The War room. Source for the other material: Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry

Kerry is not the principled politician he claims to be. I think that Ann Coulter's description of him as a "gigilo" and a "kept man" is probably a little over the top rhetorically, but not completely untrue either.

The man is not, and never has been, Presidential material. He is dangerous and disingenuous and should be treated as such.

Is Dean Surrendering?

Howie Dean decided yesterday to replace his campaign manager, Joe Trippi. Today it comes out that he is all but surrendering next Tuesday in an effort to focus on other, more delegate important state, like Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin.

I'm sorry, but if your campaign is on the ropes, you do not voluntarily give up any states. Especially when it is absolutely critical for you to build some kind of momentum. How many more losing efforts, or non-efforts, can Dean really stand? Not too many I'm guessing.

The really ironic thing is that Joe Trippi was dismissed, if the rumors are to be believed, for suggesting just this strategy. So in comes Al Gore's former campaign manager and shakes things up to the point where they follow the exact same plan. The more things change....

I think that this plan is the death-knell for the Dean campaign. He'll certainly stick around for a while and will make some waves. He may even help to dictate some of the positions taken in the Democratic platform for November. But this all but assures that he will not be the first name on the ticket.

Pulling ads in the seven caucus states this week may have been a good rational decision. Unfortunately, not everything surrounding a Presidential campaign is rational. Emotion plays a big part. Momentum and excitement are important, not quite as much as actual positions, but certainly no campaign is going to succeed without them. By pulling ads, Dean is ceding momentum and a large degree of the excitement that had surrounded his campaign. At this point, after the Iowa and New Hampshire debacles, I don't think that his campaign can stand another such blow.

Final Thoughts On New Hampshire

Well, the next to final numbers are in from the primary in New Hampshire and it looks like John Kerry has stomped all over Howard Dean's Presidential ambitions. So I'm going to wrap up my anaylsis with this:

1.) In his speech to supporters, Dean sounded like some kind of a Jim Bakker cult-leader up there. His was talking like a preacher talking about the hellfire and damnation that is facing all the pornographers, perverts and other sinners of the world.

2.) I was glad to hear Lieberman say that he was going to stay in the race. At least there is one reasonable candidate still left.

3.) That being said, I was also glad to hear that Kucinich was staying in the race. Between him and Sharpton we've got all the comedy relief we'll ever need.

4.) Clark is done. For all his efforts all he could pull off was a virtual tie for third with Edwards? Clark might as well pack it in and quit wasting other people's money.

5.) Edwards still has a shot, but he certainly needs to win outright in South Carolina this week.

6.) I just heard Greta Van Sustern ask John Kerry if it was time for a Vietnam vet to be President. Well, we already had one that dodged it...

Oh, yeah, don't forget to read this piece about Kerry and Vietnam. It's rather interesting. Kerry's memory about the war is a bit, er, clouded?

Someone Must Have Missed The Memo

"...the inability of undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses -- and the resulting lack of transportation -- is one of the biggest problems facing the island's Latino community."

Well, duh! I still want someone to explain to me why an illegal - forget the "undocumented" euphemism, call 'em what they are - immigrant should be entitled to any of the benefits associated with living in this country, beyond life-critical health care. They are breaking the law. We're not going to just issue a driver's license to a citizen fugitive willy-nilly, what makes the illegals special?

"These people come to work. They are doing a very good job."

You know, I'm guessing that they could find an American worker who would do the same - and likely not have the transportation issues. I'm guessing that the American worker would pay more in taxes. I'm guessing that the American worker would be more integrated into society, increasing the flow of money through the economy, thereby improving things for everyone - except, of course, for the illegal.

Bell said it's not the state and local governments' responsibility to question whether residents are legal immigrants -- that's the job of the federal government.

Let's see. What's that certain branch of local government called? It's part of the exective branch....Oh, yes! It is called LAW ENFORCEMENT. Note that the word "selective" is missing from name.

Does Mr. Bell really think that local law enforcement should completely ignore anything that might have federal jurisdiction? I wonder if he would feel the same if his child was kidnapped? Or maybe if his car was stolen and taken to Georgia - does he think that the Georgia State Police should just let the guy go?

The problem with all of the illegals driver's license arguments that I've ever seen is that they all require a degree of condoning of illegal behavior. It's always a "yes, but..." situation. There is no "but" involved. The illegals are here illegally. And as such there is absolutely no justification for granting them any special privileges or exceptions under the law. The only benefit they should get is a free ride back to the border from whence they came.

And They're Off In New Hampshire!

So today was the day for the folks in New Hampshire to cast their all-important primary votes. According to FOXNews (and Drudge) Kerry appears to be leading the exit polls by about a six point margin over Howard Dean, who in turn is leading over Edwards, Clark and Lieberman.

Kerry or Dean managing to win the nomination of the Democratic Party would be a great boon for the Republicans. Neither man is truly electable in a mainstream, nationwide election. Kerry has a wonderful propensity for picking very stupid fights: complaining about the Pope wanting to dictate morality to the Catholic Church? That is the Pope's job! Oh, and let's not forget his April call for a regime change - in Washington. And how could we ever forget his Presidential use of language? Howard Dean? Well, do we really need to go back any further than his I-want-to-be-the-candidate-for-guys-with-Confederate-flags-in-their-pickup-trucks-Rebel yell? The man is a political Three Mile Island, primed for a catastrophic meltdown.

What was really disappointing was the report (no link) on Drudge that Lieberman may be considering "suspending" his campaign. The only electable Democrat, and he's about to drop out. What a shame.

As I write this, we have a little less than two hours left until the polls close in New Hampshire. Right now, I'd have to say that the voters are setting up for a Republican landslide in November. Does anyone know where Dukasis left the tank?

A Sad State Of Affairs In Mocking

Political columnists have really got to come up with a little better creativity in creating their headlines. Look at these two outstanding examples:

From the Calgary Sun: Sad state of union

And from the Washington Post: State of Gay Unions

Well those are certainly just jump-out-and-grab-you headlines, now aren't they? To create such wonderfully cliched headline must have taken all of 5 seconds of thought. Why don't writers and editors of these papers put more effort into coming up with something original?

Probably because originality doesn't pay. Cliches work because the average person doesn't want to think beyond that level when reading the paper. And with the outstanding education our children are receiving any more, it is highly unlikely that things are going to be changing in that regard anytime soon.

All-righty then, time for everyone to go searching the archives to find all the cliched titles I've used so that you can call me a hypocrite!

Howard Dean - Way Out There

Via Drudge: Howard Dean Says Iraqis Worse Off Now

Let's see. Saddam is gone. They have food and medicine that the regime once withheld. Kids are going to school. People are debating the nature of their new government - actually debating and protesting and voicing real opinions - instead of cowering in fear of the torture chambers. Their economy is even improving via an infusion of capitalist beliefs.

And still, Dean claims that "their standard of living is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

Huh?

Look at this description from Thomas Foley, the man in charge of rebuilding Iraq's economy (link via Electric Venom):

there is pent-up consumer demand in the nation. Iraqis are buying everything from cell phones to satellite dishes. New stores are opening with goods flowing onto the street and trucks frequently making deliveries (emphasis mine)

So tell me, is that the sign of an economy in decline? Not by any traditional means of measurement. Is it the signal of a declining standard of living? Absolutely not.

Even if his argument was something along the lines of the Americans mismanaging the oil economy of the nation, take a look at this article from AMEInfo (again from Venomous Kate):

The fiscal deficit of Iraq in 2003 is expected to increase sharply due to the sharp decline in oil production and exports, according to Global Investment House. But with the expected restoration of oil production levels, Iraq is expected to report a fiscal surplus in 2005.

Life in Iraq still isn't up to the standards that we expect in the United States. But it is by no means worse than it was before. For Dean to claim it is is completely preposterous.

A Dirty Tricks Campaign Against Dean in Iowa?

Howard Dean is upset.

Yeah, yeah I know. Big surprise there, huh?

Specifically, he's upset over what he perceived as a series of dirty attacks against him in Iowa.

Apparently, he is upset of the campaigning techniques of his opponents.

He has accused the John Edwards campaign as portraying Dean as an "elitest from Park Avenue in New York City." Now if I remember correctly, everything after the word "elitest" is a biographical fact.

He also accused the other candidates of having "their folks really beating up on the people who went in, trying to get them to change their minds..."

He even railed aginst "the phone calls and all that stuff under the table..." as "not particularly good for democracy."

"I never dreamed that would happen," Dean said. "And I don't think that's a healthy thing for democracy. It's enough to have it go on for weeks and weeks in the press, but when it goes on inside the caucus, I don't think that's good," he said.

OK, the Edwards campaign attack of Dean as elitest does expose the Edwards campaign as slightly hypocritical, as they claimed to be running only a postive campaign.

But the phone calls and, I'm assuming that when he describes campaigners "beating people up" that he means that they are campaigning right up until the people get to the door, not they actually, physically beat them up, are both simply part of the campaigning process. The whole idea of politics is to sell the voter on the concept that your ideas are better than the other guy's. In regular sales, the selling ends when the deal is closed. In politcs, the selling stops when the vote is cast.

Dean needs to get a little thicker skin if he's seriously planning on going all the way in this campaign. What he has seen in Iowa is but a little taste of what the rest of the campaign will be like.

Politics is nothing more than the sale of ideas for a vote. In sales, you sometimes have to deal with rejection, even when you absolutely believe that you have the better offer because your opinion isn't the one that counts - it is that of the consumer (or the voter in this case) that counts. The voters are telling Dean that they didn't like his message. Instead of whining about it, he needs to spend more time trying to figure out how he might better close the deal.

Is Political Speech Protected?

The North Dakota Attorney General is looking in allegations that Gen. Welsey Clark's campaign may have violated the state's do-not-call list by conducting an automated phone poll of 50,000 registered Democrats without first having a live operator ask for permission.

Now I am certainly no friend of telemarketers, and I certainly do not think that they should be allowed to use such tactics, but this is different. This was done in the furtherance of a political campaign - a Presidential campaign no less.

Political speech is on a much different level than telemarketing. It may be just as offensive, but it is part of the national discourse - something that telemarketing is not.

Yes Clark was simply conducting a poll, but it was designed so that he would know how to better focus his message in North Dakota (must be easier than staying consistent in his beliefs). As such, it should be unconditionally protected - even to the point of seemingly violating laws that would slam telemarketers with huge fines.

In this case I have to side with the General. The calls shoud be legal. He might, however, want to get his people a little more on the ball. "I'm sure it's been checked out," just isn't good enough. A political campaign should know beyond any doubt. Shouldn't the man who wants to be President at least make sure that he follows the law in getting elected?

I'll Bet Dean Is Just So Happy

Last night Howard Dean claimed that there were no al-Qaida operatives in Iraq.

Today, it is being reported that we have, in fact, got an al-Qaida operative captured in Iraq in custody.

I'm guessing that Dean will not be happy about this latest development....

Oh yeah, they've been in custody for over a week now.

Now, if only the Bin Laden rumors are true (thanks to AllahPundit for the link!)

Final Thoughts On The Democratic Debate

After a night to digest everything learned during the Democratic debate last night, I have come to the following thoughts and conclusions:

1.) The only guy up there who I thought might be electable in a general election was Lieberman. He had some ideas that we're all too great, but he at least has dignity, intellectual thought, and consistancy. I believe the assertation that he would provide the greatest challenge to Bush is accurate.

2.) I saw a number of people who referred to Kucinich as being the Democratic representative from Space. While seemingly accurate (he would scare Lenin and Marx as being too far to the left), I don't think that it's a good idea to continue to refer to him in this way. Reason being that as soon as the Martians get done downloading porn on the Mars Rover links, if they ever find out that we're trying to blame Kucinich on them, the may make Orson Wells' War Of The Worlds look like kiddie play.

3.) Edwards has a ways to go before he is truly a viable candidate. He's simply too green to be running yet. You can't fumble that many attempts and expect to win. I also get concerned about his stance on the Second Amendment. I like that he admitted that the Second does guarantee the right to own a gun, I did not however like his assertation that somehow there was a caveat in the wording that allows only certain types of guns to be owned. I still have yet to see the word "but" in the language of the Second Amendment.

4.) Last night was the first time I saw Clark speak. I now understand why some people have described him as the candidate for the folks who didn't want to vote for Dean because they hated moderate Republicans. When your best endorsement to date is Michael Moore I think that that just about seals the fate of your campaign.

5.) I was really disappointed with Al Sharpton. Usually he's a pretty sharp and not too terribly unreasonable. Last night he seemed out of it and also seemed to be pandering to the audience. I felt like he was out to prove that he could be every bit as lefty as the rest of the guys up there. Only one good one-liner. Disappointing.

6.) Kerry and Dean both did a pretty good job of not really saying much of anything. I did find Kerry's two new divisions proposal to be very odd, though. I agree we need two more divisions (more than that really). but temporary? I was under the understanding that the Reserves and the National Guard were in place specifically to address temporary needs of the standing military. The over-reliance on them simply proves that we need more soldiers on a permanent basis.

I think that raising two divisions in the standing Army now, only to disband them in a few years is a major mistake. It essentially means that as those units are being disbanded, the Army will be trying to create forced attrition. It also means that they'll be turning away highly qualified potential volunteers for a temporary lack of need. As a result, they'll end up with a hole in the seniority ranks, something that many businesses are struggling with now. Success is predicated on an availability of qualified personnel at any given time. A hole in the seniority ranks threatens that availability.

7.) Dean really didn't say much, but I noticed that when he was standing up there, he seemed to be leaning back a little, with a forced wooden smile on his face quite a bit. Looked almost to be a ventriliquist's dummy at times. I don't think he hurt his cause any last night, but I also don't think he helped it any - and it was in dire need of a boost. He'll stick around for a while, but I think last night sealed the fate of his campaign.

So now I'm down really to only paying attention to two candidates: Lieberman and Kerry. I've expressed my distaste for Kerry many times in the past and Lieberman is just a little too socialist for my tastes, but we'll watch and see. Tracking the campaign just became a lot easier for me.

CAPPS 2 And Civil Rights

The other issue that came up during the debate that I thought was interesting was that of CAPPS 2, an experimental screening system that Northwest Airlines was assisting the government in testing. It apparently was proving to be pretty effective until word got out the NWA was participating. Then the ACLU and privacy people came out screaming and threatening until NWA withdrew from the program (a good business move for NWA).

As I understand it (and possibly I'm wrong here) CAPPS 2 was taking general information: name, address, itinerary - all the basic stuff that you tell the airline in order to buy a ticket - and runs it through essentially an agency check. They compare your name against a number of databases and critereon in order to better focus our security resources to identify terrorists and other threats.

I'm sorry, but I really find it hard to believe that for the airline to share manifest information - information you have already freely and willingly parted with as a condition of travel - in an effort to make your travel experience more pleasant (relatively speaking) and more safe (hopefully) is part of some great Orwellian plot by the government to direct your life.

There is a lot of information I don't want the government collecting about me. But I don't mind them running information against existing security threat databases. It only makes sense. If they start collecting the information and maybe handling the accounting for the airline frequent flier programs then I'll have a problem.

CAPPS 2 is not Big Brother. It is a legitimate governmental activity and expense as a quick comparison of information against known threats is an issue of national defense. Everything in life is a matter of balances. Security must be balanced against privacy and liberty. CAPPS 2 does not push that balance out of whack.

Even if the ACLU says it does.

The Democratic Debates

Been watching the Democratic debate on Fox here and there over the last hour. So far:

Edwards sounds washy. Nothing specific that I can remember, he just seems to be weak. Also see Drudge here. Interesting stuff on Edwards.

Kucinich just sounds wacky. Free education from age 3 through college? For some reason I don't think we'll be able to afford that plan.

Kerry sounded weasely; Sharpton sounds like a Francophile surrender-pacifist. Clark hasn't really said much of anything.

Liberman is the only one who sounds halfway reasonable. Some of his plans like Medikids are too socialistic for my tastes, but he's the only one that seems to be sticking to trying to convey a positive message.

Haven't heard Dean yet. He must have spoken while I was doing homework with the youngest.

UPDATE:

Edwards just came out supporting the extension of the Brady Bill and of limiting the scope of Second Amendment. Don't like that.

UPDATE 2:
Acutally, I was typing while Clark was talking about the Patriot Act and he sounded (tone of voice only here - didn't catch the actual words) incredibly arrogant. Not good.

UPDATE 3:
Lieberman just talked about prescription drug costs and went on about foreign price controls, unfair treatment of Americans, and of some of the quirks of the prescription drug bill. I don't think he understands the root problem (a post to come).

UPDATE 4:
Dean is claiming that there is no al-Qaida in Iraq. I guess he must not have been reading the news stories from months ago claiming such.

UPDATE 5:
Liberman just took a pretty smack at the denials of some of the other candidates as to the threat posed by Saddam.

UPDATE 6:
Clark wants to get ACLU pre-approval before instituting systems, like CAPPS 2, that may actually provide much greater security with very little civil rights intrusion (I'll post why I think CAPPS 2 really is not a great concern for me at some point)

UPDATE 7:
Sharpton thinks we should talk to the Iranians to expedite the fall of the thugocracy. He also believes the UN is the best way to go in replacing the regime. A bad idea followed by a worse one.

UPDATE 8:
OK, they just seem to be getting worse and worse, not even bothering to even pretend to answer the questions. I'm done.

What I Would Like To Hear In The State Of The Union

Bush is slated to give the State of the Union address tonight and speculation is already rampant about what we can expect to hear: more money for Homeland Security, more money for job training, defending the war in Iraq, and maybe even proposing to send a man to the moon again. The speculation is all well and fine, but I thought I might throw in my two cents as to what I'd like to hear.

First of all, Iraq. I want to hear about the good things that we're doing over there. All the crap about WMDs and credibility in the world community and the staging or effectiveness of Saddam's capture - well that's just all a bunch of bunk. I don't think that there is a person alive who could look at the pictures of the mass graves, who could see the pictures of the medications that were deliberately withheld, who could see the pictures of and hear the stories from the torture chambers and not say that Saddam was an evil demonic man and that the world is a better place with him awaiting his fate, rather than determining the fate of others (well, ok, Howard Dean basically questioned it, but then he's not real high on my list of favorite people these days). So far as I'm concerned, Iraq is a non-starter as an issue. Things could be better - they could always be better - but by and large, in less than a year's time, we've done a pretty good job.

What I would rather hear about is how we're supporting the students in Iran. Or maybe how we're trying to neutralize the threat that is North Korea. Let's talk about the plan for the threats that still exist rather than Monday Morning Quarterbacking the threats that have already been contained.

One area where I'm not real happy with Bush is in the area of increased spending. More money for Homeland Security, for job training, for additional Social Security or Medicare payments or whatever can be dreamed up can all be defended on a item by item basis (usually). There is no shortage of good ideas that could justify funding. There is a limited supply of money for the excellent ideas that really require funding. Somewhere along the way, the government seems to have lost the ability to prioritize spending. The gravy train has to stop at some point.

I won't argue that more money for Homeland Security isn't important, but I would like to know why it is more important than say more defense spending. I don't disagree that more spending for job training would be a good thing, but why is it more important than better border security? I really want to know why these items, singled out for special attention in the State of the Union are so important and why they should be a priority. There are lots of good causes to fund; what makes these special?

And finally, I don't want to hear about sending a man to the moon again. We've already done that. Sending a man to the moon isn't the inspiration, the reach for greatness, that it once was. It's almost passe.

That isn't to say that I think that there shouldn't be a manned space program. There absolutely should be. It's just that going to the moon isn't a real goal. It's just redoing something we've already done. You want to inspire me? You want to get me excited?

Send a man to Mars.

That's a stretch. That would push a lot of our technological expertise. It's new. It's different. It's a real goal.

The biggest problem I have with the man-on-the-moon-again schtick is that there really isn't any risk; there are few hurdles to be overcome. We could simply recreate the Saturn V and off we go. Where's the inspiration in that? Where's the potential for technological advances? I thought 60s retro came and went a few years back. NASA needs a real challenge, not a re-creation of its glory years.

That's what I'd like to hear. Unfortunately, I already know that I won't hear any of that. Instead we'll get the usual SOU fluff and we'll be left thinking that we just missed another good Tuesday night of reruns.

UPDATE: Didn't really like it. On foreign policy issues I thought it was good; on domestic issues I thought it was a complete bomb. I'll try to expand on that some more tomorrow when I'm not suffering from NyQuil.

The Dean Meltdown & What It Means For The Blogosphere

Last night was not a good night for many. I had (and still have) the flu and Howard Dean got spanked in Iowa - an event which precipitated a mini-meltdown by the candidate. So given Dean's poor showing and his apparent political tone deafness, where does the race for Bush's opposition stand?

Dean is, in my estimation, as good as done. For all his effort in Iowa he walked away in third. With the runner-up selection of John Edwards in particular (but also with Kerry to an extent), the voters sent a pretty clear message that they want to see a positive campaign: one built on ideas and positions, not on anger and mud slinging. Dean's temper tantrum at the end of the night was the absolute wrong message to send. With it he proved that he is no more than a one-trick pony - and that he is therefore unsuited for the Presidency.

Kerry is a bit more interesting. I personally think that he's pretty clueless (and I've ripped on him more than once in the past for some statements that I thought were pretty dense), but he does seem to be gaining some momentum. In terms of sensing the shift in the politcal winds away from anger and more towards positions, I've noticed that Kerry has caught on relatively well. He is much more astute on the national stage than is Dean, which is most likely a product of having been in the Senate rather than simply working at the state level. A Kerry/Bush campaign would be interesting, but I think that Kerry is just a bit too far out to the left of the mainstream - and while not as bad as Dean, still too prone to political gaffes that would sink his candidacy.

John Edwards provides the most interesting opposition of any of the Democrats, I think. I'll admit to having basically ignored him up until now, but I'm going to have to take a step back and look at what he brings to the table. The fact that he has been running a positive, issues based campaign has probably worked against him to this point, but it does make the job of researching his positions much easier - he actually appears to have some! I would most like to see a the Democrats come up with an Edwards/Lieberman ticket as it might actually provide a real and worthwhile campaign to follow come September and October.

For what it's worth, I still think that Lieberman is the best of the Democratic bunch combining a degree of name recognition with an understanding of the system and a fair amount of reasonableness. I don't often agree with him, but he at least gives me something to think about most of the time. And he understands that the nation is more important than the party - a simple fact that seems to escape most politicians any more.

Getting back to the Dean debacle for a moment, I expect that the significance of his defeat in Iowa will be blown all out of proportion to what it really indicates. Dean was a product of the national media. The media made him, and now the media will tear him down. And I've got to give the big media boys credit, they may have figured out a very Machivellian way to slam him, while protecting their own turf.

As we look back at the fawning articles we've seen about Dean over the last few months, there is a great deal of discussion of about the "grassroots" Internet campaign and in particular about the effect that blogs have been having on his run for the White House. It's almost as if the media has been trying to build up this aura around the Net as having created an invincible mass of support that would carry Dean to victory.

But I'm also pretty sure that the media was aware that Dean's support was nowhere near as widespread as assumed. Knowing this, they allowed the perception to persist (instead of attacking blogs as they have in the past) with the, as it turns out well-founded, belief that Dean would get crushed in Iowa and the supposed effectiveness of the Internet in creating momentum (rather than supporting it) would take a hit as well. As Dean's campaign took a hit, so did the credibility of the power of the blogosphere to influence national elections. Blogs were shown to be a tool, not the tool, a very important distinction and one that plays very well into the hands of the major media.

The more I look at the Internet and the way it is viewed by many, the more I think that it is akin to the way that people think of military air power. For years, some of the brightest military minds have theorized that air power alone would be enough to win a war. Only over Kosovo has air power been enough to dislodge a ground force from territory it held. There still is no replacement for the soldier on the ground. Similarly, the Internet is still not a replacement for the mainstream media. The Net can influence the course of the campaign, but ultimately, the entire battle cannot be waged online.

Iowa was an interesting place last night. A surprise runner-up, the unions were all but ignored, and the "power" of the Internet was again shown to be limited. So the question becomes, what happens in New Hampshire? I think that we're going to see more of the same. Dean should poll better, but he's got a lot of credibility to make up. He has really hurt himself with his outbursts and his other gaffes. But I think that last night showed that even the Democrats want something other than the establishment choice.

And that's a good thing. Politics, as they have usually been over the last few years, were beginning to polarize society and to turn the country into a negative and cynical place.

"We must get rid of Arafat"

In this case, Bush would be dead on right. Arafat does need to go on his merry way if there is ever to be peace in Israel and the Territories. To hear of the American President evenallegedly making these remarks would be a nice step forward.

I'm a little less than confident in the veracity of the article, seeing as how it is secondhand information and it describes a "Christmas drinks party" which is a very unusual description, to say the least. Somewhere, something isn't quite right with the story, I just don't know what it is.

But still, Arafat is the biggest obstacle to peace in the region and he does need to go. The sooner we acknowledge that fact, the sooner a true and lasting peace will be achieved.

Saddam's Capture Was A Conspiracy!

Or so goes the inane ranting of Baghdad Jim McDermott D-Washington.

Now I know that I'm not a political spinmeister the likes of Karl Rove or Dick Morris or James Carville, but it just seems to me that if you were going to stage the capture of Saddam that you would probably want to do it a little closer to the general election. It's not like Bush is in a fight for the party nomination. It's not like the Saddam bump is going to bask for 11 months.

If we were 6 months from the election, I might buy (a little) the suspicous timing argument. But we're not, and I don't.

Why can't these "I Hate Bush"™ crowd just simply admit that our military and intelligence community had a major score this weekend? Why can't they accept that it was hard work and perseverence that brought Saddam to his "I look like Fidel on a bender" mugshot glory? Is their hatred of Bush so great that they cannot find it in their hearts to feel good about the job the guys in the field did?

The timing here was not suspicuous. But the politicizing of the timing is despicable.

Tune In To The NRA Channel?

John Kerry has written a letter to the FCC urging them to deny the NRA the ability to purchase a media outlet so as to get the news organization exemption from campaign finance laws.

If the NRA wants to start the NRA Channel and wants to run a news program that presents news from the gun lobby's point of view, they should be able to do that. That is free speech. John Kerry, nor anybody else, has the right or ability to determine what is or is not news. News, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

If the NRA wants to run ads on network TV or in national newspapers endorsing one candidate or attacking another, they should play by the same rules as everyone else. That is fair. But if they want to purchase a media outlet of their own for the same purpose, they should be allowed to do so without hinderance. After all, if someone tunes into the NRA Channel they should have a reasonable expectation of hearing the NRA party line. They have the option of not ever turning that station on.

There is a difference between an ad slamming John Kerry during Everybody Loves Raymond, on network TV where you have tuned in for (hopefully) humor and an ad slamming John Kerry during Gun World Daily News on the NRA Channel, where you have tuned specifically to hear the NRA message.

Sorry, Kerry, but the NRA Channel should be (in my opinion) a go.

Am I Mistaken?

I'm sorry, but I was always under the impression that one of the tenets of leftism in America was a religious belief in the absolute goodness and virtue of colorblind and religiously neutral equality. So it goes without saying that I was rather surprised to see displays such as these over at IndyMedia - the home of the loony left:

First they take their shots at Condoleeza Rice. Then the take on the fact that there are actually some people in the world who are opposed to anti-Semitism.

Now the first post is distasteful in the extreme, but I can understand it to an extent as Dr. Rice is in fact a political figure.

But the second....How can there be any justification for such tripe? How can you explain that as anything but pure, unadulterated hatred? How? Someone please tell me.

The more I see the extremes of the extremes that are forming in this country, the more I wonder if they won't end up being the death of all of us.

Both links courtesy of the Allah Pundit, again.

John Kerry - Proof Of My Point

How many times have I ranted here about the coarsening of language and how it is leading to a general decline? Well, at least three times (and I know more, I just don't have the ambition to go find them all): here, here, and here. And now, John Kerry is proving my point, to an extent, by reaching out to younger voters by swearing - dropping the F bomb. It didn't work too well. The College Republican National Committee is blasting Kerry in a recent press release about the statement (I couldn't find a link to the original release on the CRNC website so here is a link to a reproduction of it at Stars 'n Stripes.)

Kerry dropped the bomb because he felt that it was needed in order for him to "connect" with younger voters (as was his admission of pot use). It never occurred to him that as a person in running for the ultimate role model position in America (and a large chunk of the world also) that he might want to present a more educated, more refined persona.

What purpose did his curse serve? Did it really add anything? Did it enrich his statement? "Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did?" Does that communicate his idea more effectively than say "Did I think that President Bush would act in a manner so contrary to what I believe?"

Read his statement with both phrases in place.

First the original:

"When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country...Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."

OK. He sounds like he's pretty upset. He sounds like he is mad at George Bush. But does it really express why? Does it really tell us anything about what John Kerry would do if he were in that position?

No. It merely expresses his anger at what he perceives as a failure on the part of President Bush (a feeling not shared by many Americans). It tells us virtually nothing about John Kerry the man, except that he has a temper and has a lack of intellectual and linguistic self-control.

Now read his statement with my suggestion substituted for the F-bomb:

"When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country...Did I think that President Bush would act in a manner so contrary to what I believe? I don't think anybody did."

So what about it? Does it express a similar train of thought? I think that it still captures Kerry's anger at what he perceives as a betrayal. But, I think that it also would have told us something about the man.

Had Kerry made this statement we could have deduced that he had an alternative plan for Iraq. We could have deduced that he maybe had a viable policy alternative to President Bush's foreign policy. We could have deduced that he felt anger at what he perceived as betrayal (which is not a bad trait in American politics - or in American foreign policy), but that he had the self-control to figure out the best course of action, rather than simply lashing out in a vulgar attempt to score a few cheap political points.

In short, we would have learned something about Kerry or at least been able to identify some reasonable lines of questioning to help in learning more about him. His actual statement teaches us nothing and shuts down any reasonable question about his statement beyond "So I can take it that you're mad, huh?"

What good does it really do us as voters to know that John Kerry is just hopping mad about something, mad enough to swear, if we can't be made to understand, or he's unable effectively communicate, the reasoning behind his anger? Are we to simply take his word when he says "Assad of Syria has f---ing pissed me off and we're going to take care of this once and for all!" or do we have a right to know why he feels this way, what his intentions are, and so forth. If Kerry were to be elected, would we still be a of the people, by the people, and for the people or would John Kerry use language (or a lack of language skills) to effectively shut down public debate and discussion of his policies and positions?

The fact that the interview was in Rolling Stone magazine and that he probably swore less than any other interviewee in that issue is irrelevant. If Kerry wants to be President, he needs to recognize that there is a dignity and responsibility that goes along with the office. Dropping the F-bomb in a magazine interview is not in line with that.

Kerry is trying to stifle debate or questioning of his position by swearing, stonewalling, and posturing. If this is allowed to be successful, it will become more commonplace as politicians trying to use cursing as way of debasing our language to the point that we simply accept their expressions of emotion as grounded in reality, regardless of what reality might be.

How To Effectively Lose An Election

The Democrats running for President this year seem to be making a real effort at losing this election before they even get nominated. Every time they open their mouths they show themselves to be out of touch with the values and beliefs of the average American.

It's pretty bad when even the liberal commentators are saying that this year's election is starting to look like McGovern or Mondale against Reagan. It's bad when they point out how Dean could very well be positioned by the Bush campaign as a combination of McGovern and Mondale all rolled into one arrogant, distasteful package. At least Gephardt doesn't have the McGovernite smell to him.

But why is it like this? Why can't the Democratic contenders get it together to create, as Bob Graham (not exactly my favorite person, but pretty observant in this case) said, "an 'optimistic' set of alternatives to Republican policies"?

Well part of the reason is their latent anger. Rather than come up with positive policies, they try to out-hate each other on President Bush. Rather than to propose an optimistic agenda, they wallow in the morass of the recount fiasco. Rather than to come up with a winning strategy they whine about how Gore "should" have won in 2000.

Now given a choice would you prefer to vote for someone who has proven that they have the strength of conviction (whether you agree or disagree with that conviction) and has helped to lead - not to guide, not to steer, but to lead - the country through a very difficult coming of age for a large segment of the population or would you prefer to vote for a hateful, whiner, who is preaching doom and gloom, and who is a waffler whose most concrete stance is repealing the tax cuts?

The Democrats this time 'round have no plan; they have no core set of beliefs with which people can make reasonable decisions about whose positions they most agree with. They are assuming, in a very elitist manner, that the American people are capable of being swayed with a message devoid of content, but full of negativity.

If they persist in this course, McGovern and Mondale may end up looking like winners at the end of this election. Even DC might decide that Bush isn't all that bad a choice.

Hate is not the path to victory.

Babes Against Bush

You knew it was coming. A group of, at best, mildly attractive women have gotten together to create a calendar devoted to using pinup (?) photos to help raise funds for defeating Bush in '04. I guess they needed to find a new way for the Democrats to appeal to the male voter.

Now I realize that this isn't some party funded promotion (I'd hate to see that calendar), but that doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than cheap shtick. Instead of arguing issues or attempting to differentiate themselves from the Republicans, Bush specifically, they instead have chosen to use soft porn to try to win.

The problem with the "sex sells" tactic in a Presidential election is that issues really do matter still. Cheesy photos of scantily clad women or not, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and friends still have to come up with some kind of a real position, they still have to convince the American people that they are a better choice than four more years of Bush. And so far, I don't see that happening. They keep seizing on issues that are melting away. One of the biggest problems I have with the current crop of candidates is that they seem to stand for things that I personally find objectionable.

They are usually anti-war. They are usually in favor of higher taxes. They favor the UN and a smaller military.

They manage to make highly objectionable statements. They manage to come off sounding like smug elitists. And these women think that posing in various states of undress is going to change my mind?

I don't think so.

Gephardt Winning Friends Among The Unions

Now this is the height of arrogance. Dick Gephardt's campaign is apparently so full of itself that it has taken to threatening unions if they support Dean instead of Dick.

Kind of makes you wonder how much of his support is truly support and how much is coerced. It also says something about the viability of the Gephardt campaign if he is being reduced to threatening his own constituents in order to ensure his nomination.

And what is Gephardt's reaction to the whole brouhaha? A generic statement supporting collective bargaining for public employees. No response to the accusation, just a general "leave me alone until this goes away."

I almost feel bad for Gephardt. But then I remember that I don't like him politically and that's the end of that.

Another Outstanding Protest

Chuck over at You Big Mouth, You! has a great series of photos of today's utterly underwhelming protest against VP Dick Cheney.

His "ironic photo of the day" is, well, extremely ironic. It looks like an example of what happens when a protest group tries to hire someone to protest for them. Whatcha wanna bet that they were the first one to jump up and yell: "I'm a lesbian!"?

Go take a look. Some of them are a riot.

Is Dean Too Liberal For The South?

Dixie Democrats consider Dean 'too liberal' to win

As for the intraparty squabble among the presidential candidates over Mr. Dean's recent remark about reaching out to white Southern voters who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flags on them, very few of the state chairmen were offended by his remark.

"I understand the point he was trying to make, but I don't know if he knows exactly how tall an order recruiting those voters would actually be," said Mississippi Democratic Chairman Rickey Cole.

.....

"I don't think he plays that well in North Carolina. I don't think he will play well in the South, period," she [North Carolina Democratic Chairwoman Barbara Allen, an Edwards supporter] said in an interview. "I'm speaking personally, but I don't think he knows a lot about the South. His remark about going after voters in pickups with Confederate flags rubbed people the wrong way here."

I really think that Dean made a huge error with his handling of the Confederate flag on pickup trucks issue. Basically he grabbed the attention of virtually every white male in the South and proved that he had no spine. For someone who desperately needs the South if he plans on getting elected, it was a blunder on the level of a winter invasion of Russia.

The DixieCrats are right, Dean can't win the South. If they want any hope of winning in '04, they will need to nominate someone else who might be able to carry a state or two down this way.

Let's keep hoping that Dean stays the Democratic frontrunner!

Cool New Site

For those of you who just can't get enough of the upcoming Presidential election, there is a new site Fundrace.org, dedicated to tracking the fundraising of the candidates in most every category.

Want to know who has the most repeat donors (Dean)? How about the wealthiest donors (Lieberman)? The most donors (Bush)? They even have a map of the US where you can gauge the degree of support for any one candidate, or you can view the map in terms of red vs blue, just like the last election with all the red states and blue states.

Definitely a site for every political junkie to bookmark.

Not Another Coinage Carnival

Today I was introduced to a new blog, Earthly Passions, by way of an email from the writer Mark Pierce. I spent a while at work today reading through the main page and found the site to rather interesting.

One post in particular caught my eye. He had a satirical post on the new nickel. Funny in and of itself, but curiousity got the best of me. I clicked on the link on the image to get to the article from the Dayton Daily News that talked about the change, seriously.

Look at these pictures:

First the new designs:

Now, a Roman Coin, pay particular attention to the reverse on the right hand side of the photo:

And this one, again paying attention to the reverse:

(Photos taken from the VCRC)

Notice a similarity? The first Roman coin is a Concordia Militvm, or peace with the military. It is supposed to represent peace and the understanding between the emperor and the military. Looks quite a bit like the Spring release, huh?

And look at the galley coin. It was supposed to remind the holder of the coin of the power of the Roman Navy. Looks an awful lot like the Fall release now doesn't it?

I find it interesting how, in the US Mint's quest for interesting coinage, they harken back to designs nearly 2000 years old.

Now all that being said, I am not a fan of the multiple reverse designs that we've seen on the quarter and now coming soon to a nickel near you. In my opinion it reduces the dignity of our money. The new state quarters, while interesting to collect and to look at, just don't seem the same as the old eagle quarters. The new nickels will be a nice novelty, but we'll lose the dignity of Monticello.

The Romans used their coinage for propaganda which is why they had multiple reverses. While our coinage is a reflection of who we are, it is not a propaganda piece. Our coinage should reflect a certain dignity.

Multiple reverses take away from that dignity. That's why I don't really like the state quarters or the new nickels. They look nice, they're interesting to collect, but I don't really think that they are a good representation of who we are as a nation.

Changing the coinage is a decision that should not be taken lightly. It should happen only after a significant deliberation and the design - not designs - should reflect some piece of Americana or our history.

Of course, this is why I'll never be given a position in the Mint.

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black

The NAACP is accusing the President of "playing the race card" because he has nominated a black woman for the US Court of Appeals for DC.

I really believe that the NAACP has lost the moral authority to stand up and claim discrimination based on racism. They have shown themselves to be one of the remaining, and nearly unassailable, bastions of institutionalized racism in this country. Through affirmative action, set asides, and quotas, they encourage and promote racism at all levels of society and government. The NAACP is a racist organization every bit as dedicated to the destruction of Martin Luther King's dream as the Klan. To the NAACP, color blindness is not an option. For every man to be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin is unacceptable.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Just their name strips them of any moral grounding for opposing racism. Their goal is to promote, to advance, the situation of the black race in America. And that is fine.

As long as they're honest about it.

They are actively promoting one race over another. That's racism. They just won't admit it.

I believe that part of the reason why they won't admit to it is because they are not actively promoting one race over another. They are promoting an ideology. They don't necessarily want to promote the advancement of black people, otherwise they would be supporting the nomination of Justice Brown, rather they only want to advance colored people who toe the party (usually coinciding with the Democratic Party) line.

If they admitted to being racist and to only being interested in the welfare of the black people in America, they would be between a rock and hard place. They would have to choose between supporting a Janice Rogers Brown and a Clarence Thomas, or admitting that they only cared about the advancement of liberal blacks. To avoid being exposed, it's easier to lie and dissemble. It's easier to try to push the racist tag off on someone else - usually a white person, someone most people are conditioned to accept as racist without question.

In the nomination of Justice Brown there was no race card in play, until the NAACP introduced it. Too bad they're not honest enough to admit it.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Reading along through Free Republic this morning, I came across a post linking to an article on some of the Congressional responses to the improving job market.

The responses were pretty much what you would have expected: Daschle tries to twist it into a negative, and Hastert tries to tie it directly to the tax cuts (although he is correct in asserting that raising taxes now would kill the recovery).

One of the commenters on the post really caught my eye though:

Expect to hear that the jobs created are merely "hamburger flipper" jobs and not of the same quality as those 'created' under Clinton.

I hate to say it, but his statement, obviously meant as a sarcastic one, is dead on accurate. The jobs being created right now are going to be, for the most part, minimum wage jobs - not the high salary jobs that came into being in the late 1990s. But it's not Bush's fault any more than the quality jobs were Clinton's.

Right now, we starting the climb out of a recession. As the economy begins the process of expansion, it is faced with a lack of consumers and a surplus of labor. So when companies hire, they tend to be very conservative. They hire people for minimum wage to try to keep costs contained.

As more people re-enter the workforce, consumer demand begins to expand pushing the economy solidly into the growth phase of the economic cycle. As demand for consumers increases, so will demand for labor until that point is reached where the economy is running at full employment.

Once full employment is reached, wages offered will begin to rise as the labor supply and demand curves cross. As wages rise, people begin job hopping and companies are forced to create "quality jobs" to recruit or maintain quality employees.

Eventually a point is reached where the whole process reverses itself, cost control becomes an issue for companies again, and the cycle starts into decline heading towards recession again.

It's simple economic cycle theory. Yes the jobs being created right now are "burger flipping" jobs. But the idea is that they will eventually lead to more spending (increasing the velocity of the money in the system) which will in turn lead to quality jobs. Like it or not, the burger flipping type jobs are the foundation of our economy. To build a strong economy, we have to start at the bottom.

Which is why I think if this recovery continues and if Bush is re-elected in '04, he will eventually end up being viewed as a President who "created" high quality jobs, just like Clinton is now.

And in neither case will the perception be accurate. They will both be the beneficiaries of an improving economy over which they exerted very little control. It's not accurate, but the perception is what it is. And in politics, perception is often more important than truth.

From Cuba To Iraq

Peter Foster had a very interesting column in the National Post yesterday in which he looked at how Kennedy handled Fidel Castro in light of Iraq and Saddam today.

Fidel is one of those little problems we should have dealt with properly a long time ago. He's nothing more than a two bit, banana republic tyrant with some friends in the right places to exert influence on public opinion (like the New York Times, Hollywood, France, etc.). The only thing Fidel has going for his is his charisma. It is how he controls the apparatus of government in Havana. His ideas are a intellectually bankrupt as his national treasury. Without the Soviet Union propping him up, militarily Cuba is a joke.

The man is a walking, talking human rights violation. He has destroyed a nation. He has enslaved the people. He is every bit as evil a loser as Saddam. So why do we let him run his little prison camp? Why don't we just go ahead and remove the cancer in the Caribbean?

He's hung around for 40 years already. He needs to go away. It is in the best interest of the United States if he does.

The Improving Economy

I've been seeing all kinds of articles about the "Bush Boom" as the current nascent recovery is being called in some quarters. And now, Gallup is reporting that a majority of people (53%) believe that the economy is improving. Count me among those that believe it is getting better.

I can say that because, after several months of looking, I finally found a new job. In two weeks, I'll finally be able to start a job, which pays more, but requires less responsibility. But it points to a larger problem in the economy today.

Unemployment has been getting better, jobless claims are down, but there is a growing issue with people who are underemployed. The underemployed are people like me, who have degrees, have experience, and yet can't find a job that takes advantage of and compensates us properly for our skills. This new job, while paying better than the one I'm leaving, doesn't pay as much as I made just 2 years ago and still doesn't allow me full rein to use all my knowledge and skills.

I know that I'm not the only person in this position. I've got friends who are in similar positions. Even the Gallup poll found that "73% of those surveyed said now is not a good time to be looking for a 'quality' job."

That means that there is a large segment of the employed population that is not being used in the most efficient and expedient manner possible. Which means that our economy, despite the improving GDP numbers, is still not firing on all cylinders. We could be doing a lot better.

I believe that if we don't start to see improvements in the quality of jobs available and a decline in the underemployed then the recovery will eventually stall out. I got lucky and was able to move up on the job quality matrix. Many others are not so lucky. There needs to be an across the board improvement.

Or else the economy could still be a big issue in '04.

Howard Dean: Smug Yankee Elitist

So the good doctor Dean is at it again. First, he went and pissed off the traditional Democratic base by saying he wanted to be the candidate for the Confederate flag on a pickup truck crowd. So how to follow up with his new following? Let's piss them off by telling them how they should vote.

Just who in the hell does Dean think he is? If God, guns and gays are the most important issues to someone, why shouldn't they vote for the person most in line with their feelings? If those are the issues, those are the issues and no amount of elitist condescension by Dr. Howard Dean, or Senator John Kerry, or Representative Dick Gephardt will change that. The issues are what the people say they are, not what the politicians want them to be.

Howard Dean getting the Democratic nomination has got to be the Republicans highest hopes. The man has not figured out how to speak responsibly.

Dean sticks his foot in his mouth through a complete ignorance of people. His backtracking, his "apology," and his waffling on the Stars and Bars comments, along with his talking down to Southerners have almost guaranteed that he will lose the South in '04. I thought Kathleen Parker summed it all up pretty well today:

The whole episode smacks of classism if not racism: Northern Nobility embraces Southern Idiocracy. How long before one of them says: "Why some of my best friends are Southerners"?...

But the Confederate flag is tricky among Southerners - a volatile issue, the nuances of which are often lost on Northerners and other visitors to the kudzu states. Not everyone with the battle flag in his home or on his truck is a dangerous racist, though some are...

For many others - well-educated, prosperous, thoughtful Southerners, as opposed to the undereducated, uninsured, vacant-staring Walker Evans sharecroppers Dean apparently envisions - the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern history, of battles fought and lost, of family members valiant and dead, of a person's right to express himself even if it offends others.

Gephardt, Dean, Lieberman and Kerry probably needn't waste too much time trying to court the Southern pickup crowd.

Dean might as well spend the rest of his campaign in all those blue states and the red ones north of the Mason-Dixon.

Dr. Howard Dean is no better than any of the other proponents of institutionalized prejudice in this campaign. He just happens to conceal his prejudices a little better.

More On Dean And The Flag

Howard Dean made his Confederate Flag comments the other day and managed to tick a lot of people off. Last night, during the Democratic debate, Dean had an opportunity to seperate himself from the other racists running for election. But instead, he manages to pander to the traditional Democratic constituancy while refusing to apologize. How he pulled that off, I don't know, but he did it. And in the process, probably ticked off even more people.

That wasn't the part that really got me though. I was really intrigued by this:

Asked whether they had ever used marijuana, Edwards, Dean and Sen. John Kerry said they have....Alone among the eight, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun declined to answer.

Why am I not surprised that Kerry used? Why? I guess I just find it hard to believe that someone could be that out there and not have fried a few brain cells with the wacky weed.

I tell you, these guys just look worse every time they open their mouths. There seems to be no discussion of real issues going on, which if it holds will make the campaign for the general election in 2004 a very ugly one indeed.

And An Era Comes To An End

It is the end of an era here in Florida. Bob Graham will not seek re-election in 2004. I would say that it's truly a shame that Florida's senior senator is retiring, but that would be lying. It's really about time.

So what is Bob Graham's legacy? Well, let's listen to what Rep. Peter Deutsch (D) of Lauderhill has to say about that:

"I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Graham as far as his career, which hasn't ended. And I look forward to the next 14 months in terms of him being a senator and whatever he does in the future. ... There's a living legacy of Bob Graham right now in our school system, in terms of the environment, in terms of the Everglades. I think today is really his day to really focus on what he's done for the people of Florida." (emphasis mine)

Oh boy. The Florida public school system in its current form is not what you would to have as a legacy. We seem to have spent the last fifteen to twenty years trying to fix the system. It fails the students and it fails the people of the state. About the only people who benefit from the current school system are the teacher's unions and the politicians who keep vowing to fix it.

We're graduating students that can't read. We're graduating students that can't do the basic arithmetic needed to run a cash register. We consistently appear at the bottom of nearly every measure of our educational system. And this is Bob Graham's "living legacy."

Heck, even if they want to forget about the screwup that is our school system, the other two legacies - our environment and the Everglades - aren't exactly doing much better.

A while back, I asked around among people who had been in this state for a while asking: What did Bob Graham do while Governor? Nobody could remember anything. He has no legacy in the state, at least none worth bragging about. Bob Graham leaving public service really won't change anything, as his greatest achievement seems to be his collection of diaries.

Not exactly a great loss in the grand scheme of things.

A Democratic Donnybrook

A "donnybrook." I like that.

The cause of this little flare-up? Howard Dean's comments that he would like to "be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks..."

OK, so he's pandering to the last group that is still officially allowed to be oppressed: poor Southern white males. Being a member of that group (sans the flag or the pickup) I really have no problem with his pandering. I think it's transparent, but hey - he's a politician trying to get elected. I don't really expect any different.

Dick Gephardt and John Kerry could not resist an opportunity to destroy their credibility with a fairly large potential voting block.

Gephardt:

...accused Dean of making a blatant move to win the votes of people "who disagree with us on bedrock Democratic values like civil rights."

"I don't want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Gephardt said in a statement. "I will win the Democratic nomination because I will be the candidate for guys with American flags in their pickup trucks."

It's a good thing that Dick doesn't want to represent the poor Southern white male.

From Merriam Webster OnLine: Racist: 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination (emphasis mine)

Dicky boy is assuming that all owners of pickups with Confederate flags are against civil rights. Given that this group will be comprised almost exclusively of white Southerners, it would seem that Dick is exactly what he is accusing the pickup truck crowd of being: racist. The only difference is that unlike Dean, he is pandering to a politically correct crowd: blacks.

Most every person that I've met who owns a pickup with a Confederate flag in the back window has no problem with civil rights or equality of opportunity. What they don't like (and neither do I) is the argument that civil rights justifies an imposition of equality of outcome or reverse racism in the name of "correcting past wrongs." Both are nothing more than rhetorically elevated hypocrisy, the kind that only a person without conviction - like Gephardt - could love.

Of course, as I said before, Gephardt wasn't the only one to make an ass out of himself with Dean's comments. John Kerry jumped in on the public self-immolation:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts contended that Dean's "pandering" to the National Rifle Association gave him an inroad to "pander to lovers of the Confederate flag."

Dean's comment was reported in story about Kerry's criticism of Dean's record on guns. The senator claimed that Dean was an NRA favorite who opposed a 1994 law that banned assault weapons to civilians.

"I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA," Kerry said in a statement.

As did Gephardt, Kerry uses racism as his springboard for jumping on the anti-racism bandwagon. He makes the same assumption about the flag/pickup crowd as does Gephardt. I'd put dollars to doughnuts that neither man has ever bothered to come out of their ivory towers long enough to actually meet real people. For being members of the "party of inclusion" they seem to be awfully exclusionary of those who might have grease under their nails or those whom taking the time to meet might involve getting dust on their neatly pressed pants.

Kerry and Gephardt are nothing more than racists with a different focus. Instead of Jim Crow, they support a racism of quotas, "affirmative action," and of cultural relativism - except when that culture happens to involve white men, particularly from the South. Our culture is evil and deserves to be stamped out, while the Wahabbi Islam of Bin Laden is to be embraced and understood.

Dean had a wonderful opportunity here to actually gain some ground with reaching out the most politically ignored (and one of the potentially more potent) voting blocs. But Dean, being a Democrat, found a way to blow it:

"I want people with Confederate flags on their trucks to put down those flags and vote Democratic — because the need for quality health care, jobs and a good education knows no racial boundaries.

"We have working white families in the south voting for tax cuts for the richest 1 percent while their children remain with no health care," Dean said. "The dividing of working people by race has been a cornerstone of Republican politics for the last three decades - starting with Richard Nixon. ...

The last thing the good ol' boys want to be told is that they need to give up their heritage, their flag, in the name of anything. No one asks any other group to set aside their flag in the name of "quality health care, jobs and a good education..." Why the special singling out?

I really love Dean's appeal to the conspiracy theorist in most people: "The dividing of working people by race has been a cornerstone of Republican politics for the last three decades - starting with Richard Nixon..." I love how he conveniently ignores that it has actually been a bi-partisan effort, with the NAACP (which has an incestuous relationship with the Democratic Party, at best), leading the charge for quotas and set asides - a divisive position if there ever was one. It also ignores the basic fact that race relations are quite a bit better than they were before Nixon and the Republicans initiated this divisive policy.

I seem to be getting mixed messages from all three of these guys. Well, actually, from Gephardt and Kerry, it's pretty clear: they want nothing to do with Southern white males who are too poor to make significant campaign contributions. Dean is sending a mixed message: he wants to represent us, as long as we'll give up our culture as a sop to the other interest groups he'll piss off in courting us.

Two racists and a waffle. What a group the Democrats are putting together for us this time.

As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a bunch of maroons."

Belief vs. Opportunity

I just read a Washington Times article which talks about how the Democratic strategists are recommending to the candidates that they move more towards the center. Specifically, they want the candidates to take more moderate, or even conservative, stances on such issues as gun control and abortion. Essentially, they want to co-op the Republican position on these issues to make them at best, a non-issue in the upcoming elections.

Politically, this is probably a wonderful short term move. But for the health of our nation and our political system, it is a huge mistake.

They aren't looking at move towards these new found positions out of conviction or reasoned belief. It is simply a matter of political expediency. A lie, if you will.

I realize that basically all politicians lie. I'm not that naive or pollyannish. But this is a lie on a different scale. This isn't a case of breaking a promise or of cutting a backroom backscratching deal. This is a flat out denial of core beliefs, a denial of who they are. How can you possibly vote for the person who will best represent you, when you don't even know who the candidates really are; what they really stand for?

By denying their core values and by lying about who they really are, they would only foster more distrust of the system than there already is. It's bad enough that we now assume that politicians are lying about promises to "work for their constituancy" or to "bring more money home for us." With this new degree of lying, we'd have to worry about socialists getting elected under the guise free-marketeers. We'd have to worry about appeasement pacifists getting elected as warmongers. All because the one position is more popular.

I really don't have a problem, per se, with someone being an appeaser, or a socialist, or anti-gun - so long as they're honest about it. I want to know what your positions truly are so that I can determine whether or not I'm going to vote for you based on that. Where I have a problem is where you deliberately mislead me on the major underpinnings of your belief system simply to get elected. That is just wrong.

I really hope that we don't see too many candidates trying to pull this off. Daschle has already done so voting to limit gun manufacturer's and retailer's liabilities and by voting for partial birth abortion because it was time to move on. If a position is truly important, truly a position of conviction, then there is no time to move on - that only comes when the position is one of expediency.

I can respect a person of conviction when they're opposed to me. I cannot stand a person who stands with me, simply because it is the path of least resistance.

Pro-Life Jeb

I like Jeb Bush, I really do. I voted for him, I think he's done a fairly good job as governor of Florida, and I'll probably vote for him again. One of the main things I like about Jeb is that I never doubt his conviction in a position. I may think it's absolutely ludicrous, but I don't doubt that he is sincere in his support for it.

Jeb is a pro-life governor, no doubt about it. No one who lives in this state who pays any attention to anything at all could ever doubt that. Jeb's most recent action, to issue an order under the new authority granted to him by the legislature restoring Terry Schiavo's feeding tube is completely consistent with his previous positions and stated beliefs. There are some on the other side of the debate who wish to make this conviction seem like some great evil. And that's all fine, too. They're entitled to their opinions and to express the fact that they think Jeb is too pro-life.

One of the reasons I believe Jeb has been so successful in this state is because, like his brother, he is very down-to-earth. He seems like the kind of guy you could walk up to and start up a conversation on anything - and he'd talk about it with you. He doesn't put on an appearance of being above the average citizen of Florida.

Or, at least he didn't. Until Tuesday that is.

"I'm probably the most pro-life governor in modern times"

I really don't care if Jeb is or isn't the most pro-life governor in modern times. I don't care if he thinks he's the most morally upstanding governor in modern times. All the chest-thumping and figurative fingers pointing to God here does nothing but polarize a tragic issue, as the linked article demonstrates.

Jeb was elected to be governor for all the people of this state. I appreciate the fact that he has taken a special, personal interest in specific cases in which his personal convictions ran strong. For that he should be commended. Taking a sometimes unpopular stand for what you believe in is a very difficult thing.

But he's taken his stand. He made things happen and he did his job. Once the State Senate passed the bill, Jeb should have shut up, signed it, issued the order, and moved on. He had done his duty for Terry Schiavo, it was time to get back to working for the rest of us again.

If Jeb wants to make a political issue of this, as I'm sure his opponents will, the time for him to go on the offensive with it is when he formally hits the campaign trail for re-election. Answering a few questions about it? Yeah, he'll have to do that beforehand - this is a "big" news story. But does he really need to go on the offensive to defend his action?

The governor's main responsibility is to, hang on here, govern. The nature of his position is such that there will always be people harping on something or other that he does. If he stops to defend against every attack, he will fail in his job. If he spends too much time defending against one attack, he will fail in his job. As governor. Jeb has one great advantage over his attackers: they are focused on but one issue. In almost every case, at any point, he can end the discussion by outflanking his opponents with the "big picture." He can point out that governing a state as diverse as Florida requires attention to more issues than one particular one whether it be education, transportation, taxation, Medicare, the Department of Children and Families, or a feeding tube. If others want to debate and discuss the issue ad nausieum, more power to them. He's going to move on to the job of governing everyone, not a special interest.

It's time for Jeb to "big picture" the whole Terry Schiavo affair. He did what he could. He contributed to and influenced the public debate. He staked out a position, defended it, and then followed through when given the power to exercise that position.

The longer Jeb stays involved in the mud-slinging, the more likely it becomes that he's going to lose the support of many folks like myself. The above quote sounds, to my ear at least, aristocratic, elitist if you will. Like Jeb is more moral, more ethical, more right, than any of the other previous governors the state has had. And he probably is. But smugness is not a trait of a down to earth man. Arrogance is not a trait of a man with whom you would want to discuss anything. If Jeb isn't careful, he's going to prove correct (to some people at least) all those liberal Bush-hating stories of the Bush family feeling aristocratic and above the rest of us.

It's time to find something else to do, Jeb. Maybe it's time to look at education or transportation again. Or maybe all the problems in nursing homes.

Do something other than thump your chest over your actions, no matter how honorable they may have been, in the Terry Schiavo affair.

The Right To Privacy

Earlier today, while waiting for the plumber to show up and fix the main sewer pipe at our house, I came across and interesting article about the importance of marriage.

The underlying premise of the article, the importance of the institution of marriage, is one that I agree with. However, I disagree quite a bit with the comments of Senator Rick Santorum and his assertation that the right to privacy is a manufactured right.

The "general welfare" is not about individual gain, said Santorum, but about the common good-what is beneficial to all Americans. In contrast, the so-called "right to privacy," which has been at the heart of many of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, has only self-interest in mind. The right to privacy-which is not even in the Constitution, but rather has been "found" by an activist court-started with the sexual revolution and has led to many so-called "rights" that are similarly self-centered. These include abortion and, now, with the Supreme Court's recent Lawrence decision, the right to any form of consensual sex. Santorum called the right to privacy a "me-centered" right.

I'll bypass the collectivization tone of that comment for now, as that is not really what I want to focus on. I want to look at the "right to privacy" and why it is not a found right, but like many other unwritten rights, it is addressed in the Constitution. Or more specifically, it is found in the Bill of Rights (how appropriate):

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I'll grant Senator Santorum that nowhere in the Constitution did the framers come out and explicitly say "The people will have a right or reasonable expectation of privacy." The Fourth Amendment, I believe, implies that citizens do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since the Constitution does not explicitly mention the concept of privacy anywhere, and therefore asserting governmental control over that right, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in effect reserve the right to privacy to the people. Maybe it's not as direct as Santorum thinks it should be, but there is a basis for the right belonging to the people.

Our nation was founded in part on the ideal of individual liberty. Individual liberty implies that people will act in their own best interest. You can call it selfish; you can call it "me-centered." But it is part of who we are culturally. We want to be individuals. Individualism requires privacy. It also requires a rejection of the collectivization being promoted by Santorum.

For some reason Santorum has never been one of my favorites. At times, like this demonstrates, he tends to act like a big government Democrat wrapped in family values and compassionate conservatism. He doesn't seem to accept the idea that individual liberty leads to individual accomplishment, which leads to an improvement in the general welfare.

I'll buy his argument that marriage promotes the general welfare and that it's good for society. I don't agree with his continuation that promoting male/female marriages is necessarily an affirmation of the founder's intent. For someone who is complaining about the "activist" court "finding" a right to privacy, I find it awfully ironic that he professes to know the position of the founders in respect to gay marriage, family values and the common good. It sounds like he's reading as much into the founders as the Court is reading into the Constitution.

Why Did We Go To War In Iraq?

Today, I got on a mailing list. This is funny for me, as me and mailing lists don't go together too well. I am on about 7 other lists, most of which I never even look at. I even run a mailing list of my own, although I haven't mailed anything in, oh, about a year and a half.

But this one showed promise on the very first email I received. It pointed me towards an article I never would have read otherwise. It was an article by Ben Domench in which he makes the argument that the war in Iraq was justified on moral grounds. This is, of course, the same reason I supported the war.

I made the argument verbally here, here, and here. I made the argument in via images here and here.

No matter what ever comes from the WMD hunt, whether they're found or not, it is nearly impossible to argue with the humanitarian basis for the war. How many more Iraqis would have died had Saddam still been in power? How many more would have been tortured? How many more would be living under absolute oppression and tyranny?

I spend a lot of my time during the day, arguing many of these points with a knee-jerk Bush hater at work. I always love when he says, "But think about how many Americans have died over there!"

He is also a moral relavist. According to him, no one nationality or group should be accorded more respect or consideration than another. Yet he values American lives more than Iraqi when it's convenient and equally when it's not.

This is, I think, why it is so easy to refute the argument that there was no humanitarian justification for going into Iraq. It is inconsistent with the general position of the anti-Bush liberal crowd.

Bush has gone on the offensive to remind people that we went into Iraq for more reasons than WMDs. Condi has also begun reminding people that it was the threat of WMDs, not their actual existence, that was another reason.

This is going to be a key topic in the upcoming election. Don't forget the real reasons why the war was justified and keep reminding those who do.

Why The Bush Tax Cuts Weren't Enough

Last night I mentioned how the Bush tax cuts were almost certainly not the cause of the current bull market in stocks. In fact, the Bush tax cuts, while a nice and kind gesture, won't have their effects felt for years, possibly even well into the next decade. So if they weren't enough to have a real lasting effect on the stock market, what good were they and what would be needed to create that kind of effect?

What good were the tax cuts? Well, they were certainly better than a swift poke in the eye. And they did provide a short-term boost to the economy, in the form of the rebate checks, at a time when it was really on the verge of a demand collapse. In that sense, they were good and well-timed, plus anything that reduces the government's confiscation of resources is good in and of itself.

The biggest problem with the Bush tax cuts is that they were too little, too targeted, and too phased. In short, they were a half measure compromise.

In order to effect a real and lasting economic boost, there needs to be a fundamental and profound structural change in the tax system. The marginal rates need to be reduced across the board, and it needs to be a real and significant reduction, not just a token cut here or there. The long term capital gains rate needs to be significantly reduced. I don't agree with eliminating it completely, but for long term gains it should be small, on the order of 5 or 10%, not the current 20%. The tax on dividends needs to be eliminated, or if that is politically unpalatable, reduced to the long term capital gains rate.

Before I go further on some of the fundamental changes that need to be made, I want to explain the dividend rate cut in a little more depth. I had a long discussion with my father about this last night and I think that there were a number of important points as to why it would be wise to cut the dividend tax rate.

The theory of financial rationality tells us that a company should always look for the most efficient use of capital in order to maximize the return to the shareholders. Some years the company may have investment opportunities that would lead to them retaining more earnings than in other years, all depending on the expected rate of return for those retained earnings. If the expected internal rate of return is less than what the investor could expect to earn on their money in another investment, then the company should pay a dividend. If the expected rate of return is greater than what an investor could expect to earn in another investment then the company should retain those earnings, invest the money, and maximize the return to the shareholder through capital gains. In an efficient market, where companies are driven by strict financial rationality, dividend payments would fluctuate wildly from year to year or even quarter to quarter.

Obviously we don't function in a world driven by financial rationality. There are companies, like Coca-Cola, GE, GM, and Kellogg that like to maintain a constant, stable dividend payout as a shareholder service. They have made a conscious decision that stability is more important than absolute financial rationality - and this is not to be unexpected in a market where there is such stiff competition for investing dollars.

But the current tax system, which taxes dividends as ordinary income, adds a third level of complexity to the decision. Now companies no longer just take into account their financial needs when making their dividend/retained earnings decisions, they now also try to balance the tax burden that they are imposing on their shareholders.

Eventually, this leads to a situation like you currently have with Microsoft. Microsoft is no longer a growth company. It has become a mature, stable company, not unlike a GE or a Boeing. It has grown to a size where the internal rate of return on retained earnings is no longer significantly greater than what investors would earn in other investments. It has grown to a size where the law of large numbers indicates that the growth rate has to slow down. Even in the annual report the company is indicating that it is having trouble finding adequate investment opportunities for the cash on hand. This is why it is now hold cash measured in tens of billions of dollars.

Financial rationality says it is time for Microsoft to start paying a dividend. The structure of the tax system, and the burden a dividend would levy on the shareholders, says not to pay it (there is also the desire to maintain the perception of Microsoft as a growth company that is almost certainly playing into the decision also).

When the company sits on large piles of cash like that, it reduces the overall return on assets for the company. That in turn allows more suspect and questionable projects to proceed, as they appear to exceed the corporate return on assets. Over time, this would serve to further drag down to corporate return on assets, until a point is reached, where the expected return is essentially the same as the return the company can receive on cash. This appears to be where Microsoft is now.

Cutting the dividend tax rate would make companies much more likely to return some of the excess capital to the shareholders in the form of dividends. The money could then be reinvested more wisely and more efficiently, with the end effect of improving the state of the economy.

The other big tax that needs to be eliminated is the estate tax. All that it is is a tax on success. The elimination of the death tax, as the estate tax is often called, would obviate the current need for tax havens and tax dodges. The amount of wealth lost every year to this sort of legal tax evasion is staggering. And every bit of that money is wasted, not going back into productive use in the economy, which helps to hold us back. Bush realized this with his tax cut proposal, but it only eliminates the death tax in the tenth year of the plan - the final year unless Congress chooses to make the cuts permanent.

My purpose with this post isn't to denigrate what Bush has tried to do with his tax cuts. The idea and the reasoning for the plan was sound, it is only in the implementation that it loses effectiveness, and the implementation was watered down into little half-measures through politics and compromise.

As a result, the cuts had a temporary effect on the economy - which likely kept us from falling into to a depression induced by a drop in demand. Over the long term though, they will be of minimal consequence as they do little to nothing to change the structural disincentives of the existing tax structure. Only a true overhaul, no half measures, no compromise solutions, will truly create a tax system that works for us, instead of against us. And that in turn is why I personally favor (somewhat lukewarmly, granted) a move to a National Sales Tax.

Arnie And Adolf

There has been much made lately of Arnold Schwarzenegger's supposed admiration of Adolf Hitler. I've kind of stayed away from the issue because I thought it was nothing more than a diversionary tactic being used by the anti-recall camp to deflect attention from the fact that they were losing. But now I've found two articles that make me want to post a little quick something on the matter.

First off, reading the original comments by Arnie, it would appear that he has a view of Hitler that is not too far out of line with that of most normal people who know anything about the history of the Third Reich: Hitler was an absolute monster - as close to pure evil as you could come, but he did achieve some good, like the autobahn or the Volkswagen. It is also fascinating to study how he figured out how to manipulate the German people through extremely charismatic public speaking and a great deal of pomp and circumstance. It is entirely possible to be fascinated with the man while still being revolted by his actions.

But even so, look at the reaction of the Jews in Arnie's hometown of Graz. They knew him during his formative years. They knew him before he ever would have really cared about his public persona. If he was at all a Hitlerite, the Jews of Graz would know. Yet they are dismissing the whole Hitler affair as "election propaganda."

And what of that Democratic demi-god Bill Clinton? He, too"...had a deep fascination for Adolf Hitler and his book 'Mein Kampf'..." Does this mean that Clinton, too, was an anti-Semite? Is in interest in how Hitler came to power an indication of Jew-hatred? Not in and of itself.

Arnold is handling himself pretty well throughout the campaign. He has managed to stay focused, even as others tried to degenerate the contest into a bout of ad hominem attacks. Arnie seems to be concentrating on what is best for the state of California and is not involving himself in national or foreign policy matters whenever he can avoid them (much to the chagrin of CAIR, who is upset because he won't talk to them).

Tomorrow is the day of decision. Here's hoping Schwazenegger does well.

Bye Bye, Bob

Aw, gee. It looks like Bob Graham is dropping out of the Presidential race.

I can't really say I'm disappointed, even though he's from Florida. As a native Floridian, I have to say that his campaign was an embarrassment. He was obsessive (the diaries?) and when he spoke, he made Al Gore sound like the Great Communicator. Florida deserved better from its Presidential candidate.

Bye bye Bob. Can't say I'm sorry to see you go.

Is Amtrak Trying To Commit Suicide?

Today when I got home from work I turned on the TV and found it on the local all news channel. One of the big stories they were talking about was the possibility of Amtrak workers walking out on Friday.

If you're an employee in a failing business that is in desperate need of a bailout, what do you do? Do you look for another job? Do you make sacrifices for the company? Or do you threaten to go on strike if the bankers don't give you enough money?

Someone needs to remind the TWU that Amtrak is not fighting for market share or for greater profits, it is fighting for relevance. If the Amtrak workers walk out, will very many people really care? If Amtrak stops operating, is it really going to have a significant impact on our nation's transportation grid?

The answer to both questions is "No."

When Eastern Airlines or Continental Airlines or Pan Am went through strikes there was a measure of sympathy that could be had for these great corporate icons. When the private railroads turned passenger rail operations over to Amtrak in 1971, there was a sense of loss as people realized it was the passing of an era.

If Amtrak suffers a strike that permanently shuts the company down there will be none of those feelings. Amtrak isn't a great company, it's been a ward of the state since inception. It won't lead to the mourning of the passing of an era as that would indicate that people actually felt nostalgic about the Amtrak era. Even among railbuffs Amtrak is referred to derisively as either Slamtrack or AmCrash.

I like riding passenger trains, I really do. I even support the idea that intercity passenger rail service should qualify for public funding as a common good. But Amtrak has been a government boondoggle since day one.

The only reason it has survived this long feeding from the public trough is because of political inertia and pork barrel politics. It operates too many money losing routes and misses the basic point of travel: it rarely takes anyone where they want to go.

There are entire states that have no rail service via Amtrak. There are other states that have only one or two stops. And then there is Florida where, on a good day, you have so many stops it takes at least four and half hours to go from Orlando to Ft. Lauderdale - a three and a half hour drive. No one ever rationalized the Amtrak route structure. No ever looked at real market demand. The trips cost too much, don't go where you want them to, and tend to drop you off in a fairly rough part of someplace you don't want to be when you get there.

And for the most part, they tend to accomplish all this with a surly, don't care attitude.

The TWU is claiming that they fear a major accident or disruption in the next year. OK, but why do they fear that? Excepting the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak doesn't own the rails they travel over. Is the union claiming that there will be some sort of equipment failure? If so, how will increasing the funding help? If it's a major wreck that they're anticipating, that tells me that it is because the equipment is simply worn out and needs replacement - something that most likely cannot be accomplished in one year or for even a billion dollars.

How would the TWU propose that Amtrak spend the extra money? Or are they going to simply propose that their members need to get paid more money so that these types of accidents don't happen?

I hate to say this, but if the workers walk out on Friday, it will almost certainly be the end of Amtrak. And I can't really say that I'll mourn it's passing.

It's long since been time to denationalize the passenger rail network anyway.

Should The Government Discriminate To Prevent Discrimination?

An openly gay Vineland, NJ student is protesting the use of Cumberland County College facilities by the Boy Scouts of America. He makes the claim that the Scouts should be banned from campus because they discriminate against gays and atheists.

Ignoring the obvious fun that could be had with this (he was intimidated by a Boy Scout ceremony?), I believe that he is absolutely wrong. Simply because the Boy Scouts legally, as a private organization, discriminate and the college receives public funding does not mean that the Scouts should automatically be banished from campus. To say that they should be is completely inconsistent with the concept of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech requires that sometimes public facilities get used for purposes, congregations, rallies, or events with which we disagree. And that is a principal that has been upheld by the courts time and time again. People burn flags in public parks. Are we to eject all flag burners and make them do their deed on private property? The KKK holds marches and rallies on public streets and in public parks. Taxpayers fund those streets and parks, just like they do the college. Is the Klan to be denied their right to hold public gatherings because allowing them to walk down the street might be construed as government sanction of the Klan position?

Even on campus, fraternities and sororities would be illegal as they are gender discriminatory. Sports like women's softball, women's soccer, and men's swimming would all become illegal because of gender discrimination. Book clubs would be taboo because they might discriminate against the illiterate. Engineering organizations would become illegit because they might discriminate against mathematically challenged liberal arts students. Atheist organizations would be a no-no because they would discriminate against believers. And gay organizations would be out because they might discriminate against heterosexual students.

Taken to the extreme, in an effort to protect Mr. Brandon's sensibilities (which I think are lacking - oops, sorry. I said I wouldn't do that. Bad, Chris. Bad!), we would essentially outlaw the freedom of association and the freedom of free speech in the very atmosphere where there is the greatest cry to protect those freedoms.

"If you select to discriminate against one organization because of its viewpoint," [David Perry, executive director of the Southern New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America] said, "you must do the same to all organizations with a viewpoint."

If the Boy Scouts have paid to use the facility and they are engaging in a perfectly legal activity, then the state has no right to coerce the Scouts to change their beliefs as a condition of use any more than they have the right to coerce the Klan to give up racial prejudice as a precondition of walking down the street in sheets and carrying signs. A private meeting in a public building is no different than a private congregation on a public road. So long as all the actions of the participants are legal, the state has no right to interfere with their freedom of association.

This is going to turn into a great waste of taxpayer money with there either being no change in policy or a new policy in which we take away basic fundamental freedoms from all in order to protect the sensibilities of one person.

Personal Responsibility & The Constitution

Well, I had a bunch of stories I was going to write about, but I let the kids play on the computer and that was the end of that. So instead, I'll look at another subject I've been wanting to touch on: personal responsibility and how it relates to the Constitution.

I'm one of those people who hates it when someone around me refuses to take responsibility for something they do. Honesty and integrity are important concepts to me and I view an ignorance or willful disregard of personal responsibility to be tantamount to lying. In my opinion, it simply unacceptable - it is one of my pet peeves (and I'll be the first to admit that I don't always live up to my own expectations in this regard - but there is a difference between an occasional slip and a generalized pattern).

So I found it interesting when I sat down the other night and began to read Securing Constitutional Government: The Perpetual Challenge by Suri Ratnapala (The Independent Review, Volume VIII, Number 1, Summer 2003 - sorry no link available). Dr. Ratnapala is a law professor in Australia, but many of the concepts discussed are consistent and relevant regardless of the nation or form of government.

Ignorance of personal responsibility is one of the greatest threats facing Constitutionally based governments today. Too often an individual or group of people will deny responsibility for their actions - or they will claim victimhood status - which will force the costs of their irresponsibility on to those of us who are responsible. Drug abusers who willfully refuse to reform and welfare abusers who survive by manipulating and exploiting the system are but two examples of groups that cost us more by denying any and all personal responsibility for their own health or well being.

But the denial of personal responsibility isn't restricted just to the drug and welfare abusers. It can also be found in the middle class, in businesses and in government.

Look at the current rise in personal bankruptcies. Why have people gotten themselves into these bankruptcy situations? Some have been laid off, sure. Some have had unforeseen medical issues. But what is almost always listed as the primary impetus for having declared personal bankruptcy? Excessive amounts of consumer debt - i.e.: credit cards, home equity loans, car loans, etc. I don't have statistics in front of me, but I'm guessing that less than 25% of all personal bankruptcies are as a result of medical bills.

Let's face it, in the middle classes, people have abdicated their personal financial responsibility. Look at this article from the Chicago Tribune (requires registration) in which a homeowner acknowledges that he took on too much housing debt. Yes, you can put blame on the lender for making money so readily available without having adequate lending criteria, but ultimately, it was the consumer that signed on the dotted line and took the money. No one held a gun to his head. He did it of his own free will. Personal responsibility.

There was a time in my life where I made about double what I do now. I was able to easily pay all my bills, save something for retirement, and have spending money. During that time, I took on two car payments and other debts that totaled up to about 25% of my gross annual salary. I could have gone further into debt, but I chose not to. Why? Because of the fear of what might happen if I lost my job, which I did in April of 2002. Because of my savings (and unemployment) I was able to survive until I found another job nearly 6 months later. But it only paid half of what I had been making when I took on the debts. I eventually ended up in a situation where I was having a great deal of trouble in making ends meet. Bankruptcy was one option, but so was working though a credit counseling service. Bankruptcy probably would have been cheaper for me in the end, but making good on the debts I had taken on was more important. In the end, it was the idea that I was responsible for my actions (including the conscious decision late in 2001 to not take on any more debt) that made my decision very easy for me.

But as the example of the homeowner in the Tribune article shows, businesses oftentimes fail to take responsibility for their actions. Now there is a degree of reciprocal causation going on here: the loan company extended the offer to the consumer who accepted the offer. The loan company then denies any responsibility claiming the debtor failed to repay and the debtor will deny responsibility claiming the company should have never made the offer knowing that the debtor was overextended. And they're both right in their assertation that the other is wrong. But in the end, who ends up paying? The consumer who now has to pay an extra 25 basis points on their mortgage - but who pays every payment on time. The cost of the failure on the part of the loan company and the debtor is passed off to the responsible debtor because he is the only one who is willing to pay.

The increased number of Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings is also symptomatic of the decline of "personal" responsibility in the corporate world. When companies go Chapter 11, they almost always claim that it is necessary to "respond to rapidly changing market conditions," "to restore competitiveness," or "to restore rationality to our labor costs." They never talk about how they failed to respond to data showing the market was changing from buggy whips to internal combustion, or that they're uncompetitive because they make an inferior product and try to charge too much money for it, or that their labor costs are out of line because of labor agreements that the company agreed to. Companies never go into Chapter 11 saying, "We screwed up and are going to try to reorganize to make the most of our second (or third or fourth) chance." No, they nearly always go into Chapter 11 because of some uncontrollable outside influence. No "personal" responsibility for the failure (I believe that this is part of the reason why there are so many companies that go into Chapter 11 multiple times - they never acknowledge that they're doing anything wrong).

And of course the welfare state government does nothing to help the situation either. Not only has it set up a system that almost encourages evasion of responsibility (welfare, social security, the tax code, etc.), but it actively works at assisting people of certain demographics in evade personal responsibility for personal gain.

The same issue of The Independent Review has another article Shame of the Cities: Setting Aside Justice for the "Disadvantaged" by Jonathan J. Bean which looks at the Small Business Administration’s Section 8(a) program which is supposed to help "disadvantaged minorities" by requiring set asides to compensate for their supposed inability to compete in the marketplace for racial or socio-economic reasons. The author proceeds to point out, detail by detail, how the SBA actively works against the concept of personal responsibility in their administration of the Section 8(a) program. The goal of Section 8(a) company is not to be able to actually perform the work or to be able to compete, rather the effective goal is to be able to rake in as much 8(a) money as possible, while contracting the actual work out to normally run, competitive businesses that actually complete the work. The owner of a Section 8(a) company has no real incentive to make his company competitive, only to keep the governmental gravy train running by perpetually claiming victimhood status and declaring that their inability to truly compete is not because they have never tried to run a business, but instead because they are being oppressed by some force.

The government also indirectly encourages the shirking of personal responsibility through the effects of unintended consequences. The welfare state and social security are two of the best examples of this in action. Neither was set up to be a retirement system or a sole means of support. They were both intended to be safety nets, there for times when people really needed them while they got back on their feet or for those times when someone might fall through the cracks of private charity. But of course there were some unscrupulous people who decided to exploit the loopholes in the system and the politicians, sensing opportunity to build a constituency, gladly helped to create more loopholes and more instances of laws designed to create a particular outcome.

Which brings us back 'round to Dr. Ratnapala's argument that one of the gravest threats facing Constitutional government is the move from classical law, which is characterized by being general and impersonal to positive law, which is specific, engineered towards creating a specific result and more importantly is made on a case by case basis. Dr. Ratnapala puts it very succulently:

The rule of law as classically understood requires (1) that all public and private actions are, in general, subject to law conceived as general and impersonal norms that are end independent in the sense that they are not directed to the achievement of specific outcomes; and (2) that citizens, in general, are not compelled to obey any dictate that does not take the form of a general, impersonal, and end-independent norm in the preceding sense.

These two elements are fundamentally linked; one cannot exist without the other. A great conceptual error in constitutional theory resulted from the belief that the first element could be maintained while the second was abrogated. An official who has the power to coerce a citizen by arbitrary command cannot at the same time be subject to a general law with respect to the province of that power. The power of arbitrary command can be generated only by the displacement of a general law. An official who fixes the price of goods does so without the guidance of an impersonal norm, and his determinations displace the norm that contracts freely concluded must be observed. The official who prohibits trade by denial of a license displaces the freedom of contract that not so long ago was a common-law doctrine. Derogations from the second element are automatically derogations from the first element because the officials who have power of arbitrary command are placed above the law. It is wrong to say that such officials act under the law. They make law for the individual case in derogation of general law. It is not sufficient for the rule of law that officials always act under the authority of the legislature. It is necessary that the legislature be constrained from authorizing arbitrary action. (pgs. 11-12)

So how do we overcome the threats that face us?

It's simple in theory, but difficult in practice. People, individuals, make up every step of the problem chain here. People need to start accepting personal responsibility for their actions, whether they be at home, at work, or in the voting booth. If someone can't pay their bills, they need to accept responsibility for it. If a company is uncompetitive or makes bad lending decisions, it needs to stand up and take responsibility for its failings. And the people who make up our government, whether they be Congressmen or bureaucrats; the President or the Judicial Branch, all need to stand up and accept responsibility for their actions - including those which have helped to reduce the perceived importance of personal responsibility in our society.

Only when the concept of personal responsibility is once again generally accepted will we see our government starting to move in the right direction - towards smaller, less restrictive, and less invasive government.

Sharpton In South Carolina

In my last post, I looked at an essay that discussed some of the reasons why people make ineffective arguments. Reading this article in The State about how Al Sharpton has been spending so much time in The Palmetto State.

Towards the end of the article, a political scientist from Clemson points out that:

Sharpton is good with one-liners and is going to get attention and be invited to speak because he is entertaining.

But as we get closer to the primary, voters are going to think seriously about their vote and its impact.

Which comes back to my point in the last posting. The voters want to hear a coherent, defensible message articulated. Sharpton is wonderful at articulation, but his message is lacking any real depth.

He'll make a splash in the polls and will have an effect on the outcome of the primary elections, but he won't have any real policy effect because his message is lacking.

Why The Right Is Losing The Debate

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post in which I touched on the fact that the conservative movement in America is starting to lose its ability to articulate a coherent position. Over the last few days, I've been having a rather interesting debate with Dr. Barry Mauer, a professor at the University of Central Florida, on the whether or not it is proper to have an American flag permanently displayed in every classroom on campus.

During the course of our debate (which is still ongoing as I write this), he pointed me towards an essay he wrote titled Speaking Freely in a Time of War.

The essay is written from a liberal point of view and looks primarily at free speech in a wartime environment and how it is challenged by fundamentally weak arguments by the right. I disagree with several of the details, such as the media is protecting Bush or that the Marshall Plan was likely a plan to spread US corporate power in the aftermath of WWII. But to focus on a few disagreeable details is to miss the bigger, and more accurate, picture. The defenders of the conservative movement in America are losing their ability to form a defensible and coherent argument.

In the years since the end of WWII, America has been working its way through a long term political cycle. From the end of the War right through the Johnson Administration, the Democrats, and their ideas, were the dominating influence on America. Even Eisenhower, nominally a Republican, went in for expansion of government (see the Interstate Highway System). The real peak of this Democratic wave hit during the Kennedy Administration.

Some people will debate the overall effectiveness or value of JFK's term in office, but for my purposes in this argument, Kennedy was the high water mark for the liberal/Democratic idea. More than any other Democrat before or after, he was able to articulate his ideas; he was able to articulate his thoughts; and he was able to inspire great dreams in Americans.

Kennedy was a communicator. The only reason that he was able to defeat Nixon was because he was able to articulate and defend a position when Nixon could not. Nixon may have been a better policy man than JFK; he may have been a better choice in 1960 (we'll never know), but in the end he lost the election because he could not effectively articulate the conservative position. (As for all the accusations of vote rigging and other irregularities, if Nixon had been an effective communicator, the election wouldn't have been close enough for any of that to matter.)

One of the side effects of the years of Democratic sway in the US was that the conservative movement began to find its voice. The right learned how to build and defend a position. And as they were doing so, the left began to think of themselves as infallible. Throughout the mid to late '60s, the balance of articulation shifted to the right.

The greatness articulated by Kennedy and his space program gave way to the despair of Johnson that brought on the Great Society. Johnson was never able to solidly articulate his reasoning behind the Great Society. His inarticulation, combined with the coherent messages being brought forth by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon on the national level, and by men like Ronald Reagan in some of the influential states, eventually signaled a fundamental shift in society from left to right.

Throughout the '70s, even taking into account Watergate and the Ford Administration, the right kept presenting the American people with a valid and believable message, while the left kept right on making irrational and indefensible arguments.

The administration of Ronald Reagan beginning in 1980, like the administration of Kennedy starting in 1960, signaled the real high point in the conservative movement since the end of WWII. Reagan, like Kennedy before him, was a great communicator. He knew how to talk to the American people. He knew how to reach them. And most importantly, he knew how to present the conservative position to them in a way that they understood.

The landslide reelection of Reagan in 1984 seemed to wake the liberal movement up to the fact that they were considered out of touch and clueless by the American populace. They understood at that point, that they had lost their ability to debate and that they were instead relying on many of the enthymemes that Dr. Mauer discusses in his essay.

It was in the mid to late '80s that many of our current crop of political commentators got their start. And they had argumentative biases set that still persist to this day.

On the conservative side, there was established a belief that the best way to argue with a liberal was to challenge them in the manner in which they challenged you. In other words, the current conservative commentators learned that they could effectively influence large numbers of people with weak, but good sounding, arguments. Fact and reason started to lose their prominence as the basis for argument and were instead replaced to a large degree by intellectually simple arguments that appealed to a large non-critically thinking segment of the population. Bill O'Reilly is one of the best examples of this trend. He can debate someone like Al Sharpton, who also uses these intellectually weak arguments, without any problem, but when it comes to debating a Harvard educated record executive his only response is the repetition of "But it's mind poison" (first noted here).

In contrast, Allan Colmes would have gotten his ideological grounding at about the same time, in the mid to late '80s. It is also obvious that he studied the faults of the hippie liberal generation and learned that in order to truly promote the liberal position, he had to do more than sloganeering. He learned to formulate positions and to make them defensible.

Watch Fox's Hannity and Colmes one night and you'll see an example of the diverging approaches used by each side right now. Sean Hannity is the more popular of the two hosts, but part of the reason why is because he uses intellectually simplistic arguments that, while indefensible, anyone can follow. Colmes on the other hand, suffers from constructing real arguments that require some intellectual effort to follow. And so his popularity suffers. It's also interesting to note, that Colmes is often written off by the left as a false liberal because his positions aren't far enough left to suit the powers that be. I think that this is more a reflection of the fact that a well thought out position, viewed from either perspective, will tend towards a moderate approach. But I'm digressing.

If we look at the Presidential elections since the end of the Reagan Administration, we see the same pattern continuing. Bush won in '88 because he was a more effective communicator than Dukakis. But in '92 the lessons the left had learned from their Reagan years in the political wilderness were brought onto the national stage full force by Bill Clinton.

Clinton was another communicator. There were large segments of the population that disagreed with nearly every policy decision he undertook, but in the end he was able to communicate his ideas and to inspire people that wanted to believe him. Clinton recognized that in Presidential elections, the voting public wants to hear thought out and theoretically defensible positions (this is why the Presidential debates do so well and are so heavily discussed whereas most people don't even realize that there are mayoral debates also). Clinton gave them that. Bush, Sr., thinking he could ride into another four years with intellectually easy arguments, did not. What were the big issues for each party in '92? For the Democrats it was health care. For the Republicans it was he's a dope-smoking, draft-dodging, womanizer.

In '96, Clinton once again out-communicated his opponent, Bob Dole.

The Republicans learned their lesson during the Clinton years and the election of GW Bush was as much a factor of communication as was true in the election of Kennedy over Nixon. Gore never articulated what he stood for, other than a continuation of Clinton. Bush put forth a reasoned and articulated argument for why we needed something different.

Since taking office, the Democrats have been getting frustrated by the fact that Bush can communicate with the common American. Like with Reagan, they can't understand why the American people will listen to someone is so obviously intellectually inferior.

But I can't bring myself to call Bush a communicator yet. He, like his father before him, falls prey to many of the weak techniques described by Dr. Mauer. If the Democrats can present and articulate a reasonable platform in '04, then it is very possible that Bush may lose.

Part of the reason why Howard Dean seems to have such staying power in the Democratic race is because he seems to be the sole candidate for the Democrats capable of building a true position. Many of his positions are disagreeable to me, but then again, so was the idea of nationalized health care. Dean may very well be able to win the election running on a platform of tax increases if he can present the American people with a reasonable argument for why they are necessary.

Of the other Democratic candidates, the only one who seems to have any skill of articulation is Al Sharpton, but as I said earlier he is too prone to taking the intellectually easy argument to be a true factor.

Bush has to develop a platform that consists of more than "I won the war in Iraq" and "More tax cuts." These arguments are incredibly weak, but they're all he's proposed so far. He's got to get on the ball. Otherwise, he may very well lose the election to an articulate Democrat.

The right does have time to right its ship before it ends up in a political Bermuda Triangle again like it was in during the '60s. The right hasn't completely lost its ability to formulate defensible positions and the left hasn't again perfected their ability to do so.

But if things keep shifting the way they have been over the last few years, the right will once again lose the debate.

Environmental Colonialism

As I mentioned last night, I bought a copy of The Independent Review and have been reading through it in between football games and spending time with the kids. Today I read through an excellent article by Robert H. Nelson that discusses how the environmentalist movement in Africa has taken on the attributes of being neo-colonialist.

He starts by examining the traits of the environmentalist movement which have brought us to this point. I have always been annoyed with the dismissal of fact in favor of fiction that the environmentalists are so good at, but I had never put my finger on exactly what it was that made me so uncomfortable with the environmentalist movement.

Mr. Nelson points it out very succinctly as the Messianic qualities of the environmentalist message:

For many of its followers today, environmentalism has been a substitute for fading mainline Christian and progressive faiths-its religious quality obvious to any close observer of its workings. Its language is often overtly religious: "saving" the earth from rape and pillage; building "cathedrals" in the wilderness; creating a new "Noah's Ark" with laws such as the Endangered Species Act; pursuing a new "calling" to preserve the remaining wild areas; and taking steps to protect what is left of the "Creation" on earth. At the heart of the environmental message is a story of the fall of mankind from a previous, happier, and more natural and innocent time-a secular vision of the biblical fall from the Garden of Eden.

It is this quality, the false religion, that bugs me more than anything else. Zealots, manipulators and charlatans create new religions to advance their goals. An honest person with an honest agenda doesn't need to hide behind a facade of false morality.

But the environmentalists have raised their cause to the level of being their religion, complete with vicious, unrelenting, and uncompromising attacks on any heretical thought that is counter to their ultimate purpose.

The fundamentalism of the environmentalists rivals that of the Iranian clerics. They have shown a willingness to silence their critics by any means necessary. They have taken to terrorism using the "righteousness" of their cause as their Machiavellian justification for the evil and deadly means. And most importantly, they have shown a complete and utter disregard for anyone who might be harmed or disadvantaged by the environmentalists’ actions.

The worst shame here is that the prosaic goals of environmentalism: cleaner air, protecting rare plants or animals, and acting as a counterbalance to unchecked expansion are all worthwhile causes and goals in and of themselves. If they were sought after in a reasoned and responsible manner it would be virtually impossible, except for the most cold-hearted person, to rationally object. But instead of the reasoned and responsible route, the goals have been hijacked and are now used, much like children by the Messianic For-The-Children cult (another group that annoys me to no end), to force people to accept otherwise unreasonable positions.

There is no justification for allowing people - human beings - to die because of a "need" to protect some particular species or landscape. Yet that is exactly what the environmentalists have been doing in Africa for years. They pursue policies that allow the tsetse fly to flourish while denying the native Africans the ability or right to use the land to provide for themselves. So the Africans starve as the environmentalists tell them that they cannot produce food in fertile and traditional areas. The environmentalists are issuing their edicts about what is permissible and what is not from their ivory towers without a care, concern, or shred of knowledge about what their actions are actually doing to the people - or to their beloved environment.

The neo-colonialist actions of the environmentalists are proving to be nearly as deadly to humans and as damaging to the environment as the hated colonialist actions were. And like their imperialist predecessors, they have no clue. They take the opinion that they, and they alone, are the sole arbiters of right and wrong when it comes to the environment.

And like their colonialist predecessors, they are wrong. In time they will be as hated as the British, French, and other colonial powers were. In time, the Africans will throw off the fundamentalist environmentalist yoke just like they did the colonialist yoke.

Hopefully it won't require as many dead before the Africans can have back their land again this time.

Perspective

OK, I've expressed support for Alabama Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments Monument a few times in the past, although my current position is that the courts have ordered it removed, so it needs to go.

Now this puts an interesting perspective to it. How many people would be willing to accept this instead of the Ten Commandments?

Now I don't agree with the comparison of Christians to insane cultists, but it does raise an interesting question: would there be as big a fight if this was the monument instead of the Ten Commandments?

Interesting mental perspective exercise.

The Perfect Gay Storm?

Has the gay movement achieved its "Perfect Storm," a confluence of events that just serve to create this monster that destroys everything in its path? There are some who are arguing that there is an "'overgaying' of America" taking place this summer.

OK, so we've had more focus on gay issues, on gay pride events and gay legal matters than we have in years past. And this summer the gay movement has been much more "in your face" about who they are and what they want.

I actually watched a little bit of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy the other night. It was amusing. But in describing Queer Eye, Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America says:

The other one involves five homosexual men doing a makeover of the life of a heterosexual man. They cut his hair, they make over his apartment — they basically tell him that he's culturally deficient and they are the arbiters of fashion and style.

OK. I work with gay men. I'm straight. I will freely admit that they have a much better sense of style about them than I do. So long as I have clothes on, I'm fine. They want more. But I always know that if I have a fashion or design question - they're the guys to go ask.

Like the five guys on Queer Eye, they think differently than I do. They see things a different way. If I know that their way is better, why wouldn't I ask them? I'd ask Bob Vila for tips on renovating a house, why not ask James for tips on renovating my wardrobe (besides the fact I don't want to dress like Liberace - inside joke)?

I can understand the frustration with events like Gay Days at Disney or the push for gay marriage as those really affect large swaths of society. But going after Queer Eye like it's the equivalent of a gay high school or a law requiring businesses to promote transgenderism? No. Not the same at all.

This is where the anti-gay movement starts to sound as out there as the gay movement itself. There are some things worth staking out a serious principled position on and then there's Queer Eye.

Fight the real fights and forget the fads. Otherwise you sound like a group screaming to try to become relevant.

One Cost Of Illegal Immigration

Yesterday, I came across an article discussing some of the social impacts of illegal immigration. Today, I came across this article which discusses the cost of educating illegals.

Over seven billion dollars per year. That is a huge number and a significant one.

That's seven billion dollars of our, US citizens, money that is going for the benefit of those who are breaking the law. That's seven billion dollars of additional foreign aid. That's seven billion dollars we can't spend on our own children or our own defense or anything that might benefit us.

Seven billion dollars.

Once before I had stated an opinion that there was a moral argument for educating the children of illegal immigrants. But seven billion dollars worth? Even assuming that this is overstated by a factor of two, it's still an outrageous amount.

We have to tighten the borders. This is getting ridiculous.

California An Apartheid State?

Illegal Immigration Turning Calif. Into 'Apartheid State,' Expert Warns

OK, the expert is Victor Davis Hanson and I don't really disagree with the premise that California is, in effect - not in a legal sense, becoming an apartheid state. Pretty much any border state is going to be in a similar situation. California just has the problem, like every other problem, on a much larger scale.

Now the effect is that of apartheid, but is it really? I don't think so.

Apartheid is defined by Merriam Webster as "racial segregation; specifically : a policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of So. Africa" or "Separation, Segregation."

The reason I don't believe that California is apartheid is that to say it is is to ignore that the segregated are segregated by choice. They chose to come here illegally. There is no policy to segregate Mexicans living in California legally. There is only a policy to remove those living in the state illegally.

Now the effect of INS and deportation is to force the illegals to live in segregated societies where they can provide for their common good. So while the official policy is not one of apartheid, there isn't much difference between illegal Mexicans in California and blacks under Jim Crow. Except that the Mexicans are there by choice.

Should we be concerned about the formation of an apartheid state in California (or Texas or New Mexico or Florida or Arizona or any other state)? We should. But not because it reflects some great racial inequality flaw in us. Rather we should be concerned because it exposes just how bad the problem of illegal immigration has become.

It shows that INS needs to do more. It shows that the Border Patrol needs help. It shows that our government is failing us in their duty to protect the intangible that is American citizenship.

Being an American citizen should mean more than just being able to carry a US passport. Yet we continue to allow the institution to be cheapened by granting the benefits without requiring any of the duties and responsibilities associated with it.

The formation of the "apartheid state" is our warning. The question is: are we listening?

GW & The Cubans

2004 is coming around pretty quickly. The campaigns for the Presidency are starting to heat up. And as usual, the Cuban-Americans of Florida are positioning themselves to play kingmaker.

Now I personally think that the Cuban-Americans have gotten a raw deal. For as long as I can remember, with every new election comes the hope that during this term the US will finally do something to get rid of Fidel. And by the third year of each election cycle, the Cuban-Americans are once again feeling betrayed and used, as well they should. Castro needs to go. The Cuban-Americans know it. Every politician promises it. And nothing happens.

The Cubans exiles of South Florida can really make a serious difference in the outcome of an election. They're involved. They're organized. They vote. They helped Clinton to win in both of his elections; they helped to push GW over the top in Florida in 2000.

Gov. Jeb has realized the importance of the Cuban bloc - he went as far as to publicly call out his brother on the lack of direction in Cuban policy.

But what's really surprising about the lack of direction is that GW has a Cuban born member of his cabinet - Mel Martinez. Granted, he's the head of HUD, but he still has a valuable input to add to the debate.

I don't think that GW is in danger of losing the Presidency in 2004, even if he loses the Cuban-American vote. He has done enough right to have probably secured himself a second term without Florida this time.

I understand the "wet feet/dry feet" policy of the government, but I don't think it's right. The Cubans that are trying to escape now are not the dregs of Cuban society. The people risking their lives on floating '51 Chevys are not the criminals and insane that Castro unleashed on us during Mariel. These are similar to the thousands upon thousands of other Cuban refugees that have come to our shores seeking refuge - they are hard-working people who want a chance.

GW wants to make the claim of being friendly to the Cubans, but he hasn't really done anything to be friendly. If he's not going to go after Castro like he did Saddam or Osama, then at the very least he needs to change the current "wet feet/dry feet" policy and put in place a policy that gives the Cubans a better chance at having a life.

But I still think that the best policy would be to get rid of Castro and give the Cubans an opportunity to rebuild their homeland. It would be more humanitarian and would quiet the anti-refugee crowd. The Cuban people, in America or in Cuba, deserve the opportunity to make Cuba great again.

Is It Time To Rein In The Judiciary?

Ninth Circuit in California rules the Pledge unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court sets aside the 15th Amendment while making a ruling. In Nevada the State Supreme Court ordered the legislature to act in contravention of the State Constitution.

They all raise the question of whether or not the judiciary is beginning to overstep its bounds. The Washington Times has a good commentary which makes just that argument and is well supported with examples.

Now I'll agree that the courts are becoming a bit too big for their britches. As the Nevada Supreme Court decision and the O'Connor opinion show, the courts are starting to seriously deviate from their Constitutional mandate. The judges are there to interpret and defend the Constitution - whether it be the State Constitution for a State Supreme Court or the US Constitution for the US Supreme Court. The justices cannot decide to set apart any portion of those documents because they're inconvenient to the wishes of the Court.

I have serious problems with things like O'Connor putting aside the 15th Amendment claiming a "compelling state interest." The only way that there could be a true "compelling state interest" is if the Congress or a Constitutional Convention were to pass an Amendment repealing the 15th Amendment or setting it aside in a specific instance. There is nothing that gives O'Connor the right, obligation or authority to set it aside because it doesn't suit her goal in writing a decision. The people are the state (remember the "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" line?). If the people have a compelling interest in changing the Constitution, they'll do so.

But I also have a problem with the author's argument against the Florida Supreme Court.

The Florida Supreme Court was wrong (great surprise there). A minor should not have the right to an abortion without parental consent.

The author argues that the court threw out a law requiring parents to be notified "despite overwhelming public support for such a common-sense provision."

I say that's good. I don't want the court system judging laws based on their popular appeal. I want them judging the laws based on their legality. Is the law a governmental overstep that is counter to the Constitution? That is the question that the Supreme Courts should be answering in constitutionality courses.

The author would have been much better off if he had argued that the law should have passed muster because a minor, by definition, is incapable of making decisions like getting an abortion (we're not talking about their actual decision making capacity, just the legal decision making one). It wasn't a question of popular opinion; it was a question of the legal definition of a minor. And the Florida Supreme Court blew it.

So how can we bring the judicial tyrants back into the fold? We actually have two choices, both of which are potentially dangerous. The first is to have Congress start invoking the exceptions clause. The second is for the President to refuse to heed the court.

Our government was set up around a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch of government got too powerful. It was easy to create the checks for the legislative and executive branches, but for the judiciary it is a bit tougher. To check the unbridled power of the judiciary requires that the other two branches of government selectively ignore it. It requires that the executive and legislative branches voluntarily police themselves for Constitutional compliance. It has happened before, but it is a dangerous precedent, and would have particular dangers in today's world of extremely powerful special interest groups.

Invoking the exceptions clause would deny the Supreme Court the ability to pass judgment on certain pieces of legislation or on certain executive enforcement actions. Now it seems like a nice and easy way to end judicial activism in any number of areas. No more attacks on the Pledge; no more interference in electoral matters. But again, as with many issues like this, where do we stop?

OK so we stop the attacks on the Pledge. How long before someone decides to "expand" the definition of the exception to include any attack on the establishment clause? And it can happen, especially on a hot button topic like religion. Just look at how the establishment clause has morphed into the no-religion-whatsoever-in-public-office clause.

The other alternative is to have the executive branch ignore the court's decision that certain laws are ok. Jefferson did it; so did Lincoln. So why don't we really want Bush to do it?

It's a big step - one that should only be undertaken in extreme circumstances. There has to be something incredibly egregious about a law before the executive branch deliberately refuses to enforce it. The problem comes in with where do you define "extreme?"

Was Dred Scott extreme? Lincoln thought so. Is Lawrence v. Texas extreme? Not in a Dred Scott or Alien and Sedition sort of way. Bush could win brownie points among the far right if he were to ignore the ruling - might even help his reelection bid. But Lawrence is not extreme enough, not reprehensible enough, to justify "executive nullification." If Lawrence were to be nullified, where does the line get drawn? Does the executive branch start to nullify whatever it wants?

And therein lies the problem with containing the judiciary. Invoking either the exceptions clause or using executive nullification requires that both Congress and the President be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the Constitution without the third check. But then that opens the door to the special interest groups.

The special interest groups don't care about the Constitution or the rights of others, they care only about their topic. The judiciary, being appointed and not elected, is really the one bulwark against the abuses of the extremist special interest groups.

Invoke exceptions or nullification and every interest group that can print letterhead and send spam will be screaming about how their concern is "special" and how this piece of legislation that they're proposing to rectify the problem that only they can see should be protected from the whims of that great evil judiciary.

We could, of course, try to find a way to remove the offending justices by way of a recall, but then we threaten the independence of the judiciary. The whole idea of appointments is that we don't want the judges to be beholden to the voters. They shouldn't have to campaign. They should be able to make tough and unpopular, even inflammatory, decisions without fear of backlash - assuming the decision is based in the Constitution.

We're at an interesting crossroads in our history. The judiciary is beginning to abuse its power and position, but the question of how we check them is an interesting one. Do we attempt to go the recall route? Or do we risk the republic to rein them in? Recalls are a safer route, but they are unlikely to succeed. We can risk the republic and use exceptions and nullification, but are we ready for the unintended consequences?

I don't think we're at the point of risking it all to stop the activists. I'd rather see us focus on taking out one through recall and maybe reminding the rest who they work for.

It's not the government. They work for the people.

Another Reason To Not Dump The Constitution

One of my great fears if we try to replace the US Constitution is that, given the current lack of brevity in the world today, we will end up with some wordy banana republic document that gets amended 100 times in 5 years before a military junta takes over. And when you look at the newly proposed EU Constitution and the US Constitution you can get an idea as to why I might be concerned.

Any more, it seems like we no longer want to define rights in terms of what the government can't do, but rather in terms of what we can expect from the government. The EU Constitution isn't a framework; it is a list of do's and don'ts for the people. In the EU people will only have the rights granted by the government; in the US, theoretically, the government is only allowed the rights granted to it by the people - through the Constitution.

The difference is small in that it is really only a change in the order of the words. But in practice, it is a huge and significant difference. And one that we need to protect.

That is why I think that we shouldn't even consider replacing the Constitution.

How Can Gray Davis Survive?

Quit listening to the Democratic Party. Some Democrats want him to stay low-profile; some like Pelosi want him to take charge.

Campaign consultants say he's doomed if he stays aggressive and in the spotlight. Pelosi believes he's doomed if he goes low-profile. So what do we learn from this?

If you sell out to special interests and ignore the voters, you're doomed either way.

I really hope other politicians are taking note of the real consequences of disrespecting their constituencies.

A Great Leap Backwards

Brown vs. Board of Education. The civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King.

Were they all about the elimination of the white supremacy movement in order to replace it with black racism against whites?

Or were they fighting to eliminate the same segregation that is now being touted as the best to address the needs of different students?

In Oberlin, Ohio, local school board president Tony Marshall argues that only black high school teachers should teach "black history." Non-black educators may be able to teach black students to write well, conduct research, and digest accurate facts and information. But arming black students with the same fundamentals that every other student needs to succeed is apparently not what Mr. Marshall wants for his kids: "A black teacher brings an experience and understanding of being black that no else can bring."

If Mr. Marshall had to choose between hiring white historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and black rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg, in other words, he would rather have the pot-smoking, profanity-spewing, gang-banging convicted felon in the classroom because of Snoop's skin-deep "experience and understanding."

Phyllis Yarber Hogan, a member of something called the Oberlin Black Alliance for Progress, agrees: "When you talk about slavery," she told the Cleveland Plain Dealer last week, "students need to understand it is not our fault. Our ancestors did nothing wrong to be enslaved. How do you work through that when the person teaching it is the same type of person who did the enslaving?"

Now is that the kind of spirit of understanding that the civil rights movement was trying to foster? Is this representative of the equality that so many people strove so hard for?

I'm sorry but I don't buy into this "black history" or "any-racial-group-here history" stuff. In school they should teach, maybe, three kinds of history: state history, US history, and world history. Those are what bind all of us as Americans.

It is wrong to Balkanize our kids through the elevation of some, while minimizing or disparaging the contributions of others.

And to declare a teacher unqualified to teach our history - not your history or my history, but the one that binds us all - because of their skin color, well that's just racist.

Will we need one teacher to teach white history, a second to teach black history, a third to teach Asian-American history, a fourth to teach male history, a fifth to teach women's history, a sixth to teach alternative religious history, a seventh to teach hippie history, etc? And what happens if we get something that is both black history and women's history? Will we need to get a black female to teach that?

It's ludicrous. A kid could end up hearing from five or six different teachers, just to get the same overview of WWII that I got from my one American History teacher. And he probably wouldn't know anywhere near as much about the war, except that a bunch of people got treated poorly and even killed to fight a nutty white guy who was alleged (but not proven to everyone's satisfaction) to have been killing an un-PC protected religious cult which is considered by some to a danger to world society.

Racial specialization of history is nuts. We don't need more history teachers, we need more good history teachers. Ones that know how to inspire thought and introspection. Ones that know how to make history interesting. A good history teacher can foster learning even with topics on which he is not of the identical racial makeup as a participant in the historical event.

You want to teach about Rosewood? Fine. But you don't need a black teacher to teach it. Want to teach about the Japanese-American interment camps of WWII? Great. But you don't need to have a Japanese-American teacher to explain the reasons or the horrors.

Whites are unqualified to teach blacks. Sounds like a great leap forward into the past to me.

One Day

Tuesday: the Hussein boys are discovering that their "paradise" isn't so peachy.

Wednesday: Newsweek Monday-morning quarterbacks the fight in Mosul that took out Uday and Qusay.

Thursday: Pictures of two bodies, still identifiable as human, are published, purported to be those of Uday and Qusay. (no link to the pictures as they're a bit macabre, but I found them on Yahoo! - look under our old friends of the disgusting, Reuters.)

Now I know that in the past I've been quick to take exception to something that I've seen as a mistake. But come on, look at this for a minute.

If you take them alive, yeah, you get the PR boost from Nuremberging these two (along with the cries from the human righters that you're flaunting the Geneva Conventions) and maybe they give up some really great intelligence on hidden WMDs or on Daddy Dearest before they melt off into the general inmate population at Leavenworth where they become accomplished artists who make great cultural contributions to the world through their jailhouse artwork.

Or maybe, you arrest them and they become the focal rallying point of every bin Laden wannabe kicking around. Maybe they turn their Nuremberg in a circus more offensive than the OJ trial. Maybe they get some judge that decides to let them off in a fit of moralistic relevancy ("well, murder was accepted in their family, so you can't hold them responsible for their upbringing").

You really can't say that having them alive is any better than having them dead. We don't know (and never will know now) what they might have been able to tell us, or what deception they might have tried to use against us. We said "dead or alive;" they're dead. End of story.

But what about this whole "excessive force" charge? How are we to judge whether or not the force used was excessive? And what gives some reporter, who wasn't there either, any right to judge?

Is it because he talked to an unnamed British intelligence source (who wasn't there) who said so? Or because a former Special Forces guy (wasn't there either!) said a SWAT team should have been able to do this?

Bottom line was that the officers on the scene knew that they needed to take the occupants of the house dead or alive. The occupants decided that they didn't like the alive part, so the officer on the scene obliged them with the dead option.

It's too bad that the little Husseins won't be able to be "exploited." But we have always maintained that we wanted them "dead or alive." We have maintained that pledge.

We did exactly what we said we were going to. Once the decision was cast that death was the operative choice, we should have expected our military to ensure that that decision was implemented without question.

This battle, more than any others in this war so far, was one that we could not afford to lose. To back off when four ordinary Iraqis hole up and start shooting is one thing, but when it's the "boys" compassion and negotiation were not options. Enforcement of our demands with extreme prejudice was required.

If you want to question our men in uniform, I think the only justifiable question is why more firepower wasn't used, because those two looked to be in way too good a shape for having just bitten the big one at the hand of two hundred members of the 101st.

One day for the media to start asking inane questions. Amazing.

Bush = Hitler?

So some psychological researchers have gotten together out at UC Berkeley and have come up with a study that links Hitler, Mussolini, Bush and Rush Limbaugh.

Now as soon as I saw whom the authors were trying to link, I dismissed the study as hopelessly flawed through bias. But as someone who collects books on wrecks, I couldn't pass up reading more of this intellectual train wreck.

So I kept reading and most of the study seems to be just the usual political rhetoric of the "liberals" (except for when they tried to label Stalin and Castro as conservative also - that's different). You know the drill, conservatives don't think, they're aggressive, they see things in black and white, etc.

And then came the usual "they're intolerant" argument.

A current example of conservatives' tendency to accept inequality, he said, can be seen in their policy positions toward "disadvantaged minorities" such as gays and lesbians.

Tendency to accept inequality.

Powerful statement. It's also true to a large extent. But why are conservatives so willing to accept inequality?

Inequality is personal opportunity. Inequality is individualism. Our nation was founded on the idea of equality of opportunity, not equality of man or outcome.

One of the great tensions of American society is that in order for everyone to be equal, we must be unequal. If everyone had the exact same outcome in life our great nation would cease to exist. Why do people come to the United States? Is it because we have a great welfare system (ok some do, but I'm not talking about them!)? Or do they come here because there is an opportunity to go as far as your ambition and willingness to work and learn will take you?

If twenty Cubans come over on a boat, it isn't so that they can all live in the same housing project in South Florida. It's because they want an opportunity to try to make something of their life. And they understand that of the twenty, some will make millions, some will struggle, but it will always be due to their own effort (or lack thereof).

Inequality is not bad. Not in the least. Discrimination is, but the two words are not synonyms. And to use them interchangeably, as the authors have done here, is to be intellectually dishonest and to cheapen the English language.

There are some things that could be a bit better in my life right now. But no matter, I still don't want to see enforced equality. Give me some more of that inequality. Overcoming obstacles can only make me stronger.

"Ils Ne Sont Pas Serieux"

It is interesting to see the Europeans getting worried about what they see as a growing anti-Europeanism in America. Many authors, like Mr. Ash have attempted to dissect the problem for their European audiences, but they have all failed to truly recognize the true reasoning behind the growing gulf between us.

Mr. Ash fairly quickly shows off his agenda as he tries to pigeonhole the "anti-European" trend as a conservative versus liberal phenomenon. He actually correctly identifies two of the main undercurrents in American society today that appear the anti-European: the resurgence of the Jacksonian influence and the difference in the belief of a common enemy. But rather than to delve more deeply into these issues, he tends to dismiss them as irrelevant as he searches for a liberal vs. conservative or an "American inferiority complex" answer to the rising anti-Europeanism he feels exists.

Most every aspect of the change in the American psyche recently can be boiled down, in essence, to a single word: terrorism.

Terrorism has brought out the Jacksonian influence in us. The gauntlet has been thrown down in a dirty fight and it is our intention to see that fight through. Appeasement is not an option for us. We cannot and will not back down, even though we know the road ahead is difficult and painful.

The Europeans, on the other hand, negotiate with and make concessions to the terrorists. They buy peace through appeasement.

Europeans have done something that no one has ever done before: create a zone of peace where war is ruled out, absolutely out. Europeans are convinced that this model is valid for other parts of the world. - Karl Kaiser

Neville Chamberlain declared at Munich that he had secured "peace in our time." Hitler used the time he was given through the appeasement to plan and prepare for the next phase of the fight he knew was coming. Do the European governments really think that the terrorists aren't using what peace they can find to plan and prepare their next attacks? Do they really believe that if the terrorists choose to make the next battlefield Paris or Berlin that the EU Constitution will stop them? In 1938, there was talk about concessions averting war, how Hitler was a reasonable man, and how appeasement was the true path to peace. Those who fail to learn from history....

But why are the Europeans so willing to sacrifice the unity of the "West" to appease the terrorists? After all a unified "West" was part of what helped to bring down the Soviet Union.

In the Soviet Union we had a clear and common enemy. They were ideologically opposed to the "West" and militarily they were potentially a world-ending (literally) threat. The military confrontation never came, but the ideological confrontation went on for nearly 40 years.

Part of the growing gulf between the US and Europe is due to the fact that there isn't, in Europe at least, the same feeling of ideological opposition as there was during the Soviet Union years.

This is partially due to the fact that while the Soviet Union lost the battle of the Cold War, much of its idealogical foundation is winning the war for various world governments.

Both the EU and the terrorists are yearning for a totalitarianistic form of government. To an extent, one could even argue that both are religiously based totalitarianism. The terrorists find justification in their cause from a sense of religious supremacy in which the Muslim religion is superior to all others; the EU is founded on an almost religious ideal of equality, no matter what the cost of achieving it. It is this similarity in goals that has "fractured" the unity of the West.

But there is also a difference of opinion about the threat posed by the terrorists. European tourists are gunned down in Egypt or blown up in suicide bombings in Israel and the best that the EU can come up with is a menacing scowl of disapproval. No real action has been taken to hold anyone to account for these deaths; they are viewed as an unfortunate tragedy that must be mourned and forgotten in the name of appeasement.

It is part of the reason why they don't understand our need to bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11. It's part of the reason why they don't understand our "fixation" on finding the party responsible for Danny Pearl. It's why they can't understand that we still remember Beirut.

They work to forget about their losses, not because they're unimportant, but because to remember would rock the boat and might expose them to more challenges. And each challenge to their security would demonstrate to the citizens of the EU the fact that their governments have failed them in providing for a common or national defense.

Ils ne sont pas serieux: they are not serious. Instead of making the tough decisions a government has to make, they have chosen to hide behind a facade of "internationalism." They have risked their citizens through appeasement and a desire to not make waves. They have not been serious in their job of protecting the national interests.

As we move forward on these different paths: the US following our Jacksonian instincts and Europeans following their Chamberlainistic tendencies, we will see more and more accusations of anti-Europeanism as the appeasers are fearful of being called out for being what they are.

American anti-Europeanism isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue; it is not an issue of perceived inferiority. Instead it is recognition of a fundamental difference in approach to the new global threats that face us both.

The Europeans don't understand what our motivations are. Mr. Ash has come closest, at least recognizing that the Jacksonian influence in America is significant and real. But until they understand that "nous sommes serieux" we will remain at loggerheads.

And the recriminations from both sides of anti-Otherism will continue.

Got To Admire Him

I've been watching the story of Judge Moore, the Ten Commandments judge in Alabama, with growing interest. In his latest move he has decided to defy a federal appeals court order to remove the monument from an Alabama courthouse.

As I said in an earlier post, I believe that the appeals court decision is correct in a legal sense, but it's not good for the moral fabric of the nation.

But let's look a little deeper here. What is the real problem?

Is it the actual text of the Ten Commandments? If so, which one? I find it hard to believe that someone could possibly have a problem with "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal."

The Ten Commandments aren't important because they are some special super secret Judeo-Christian bit of wisdom that no one else could ever possibly understand. No, the Ten Commandments are important because they are universal truths. They are the foundations of a civil society, of one based on laws.

So what is the problem with the monument in the courthouse?

I think that the major problem is that the words are carved into tablets, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

So remove the design of the tablets and leave the words. That would serve to leave the Commandments raised, but they would just be the words, not the symbols.

Perhaps around the periphery, along the recessed edges the judge could include universal wisdom from other philosophers, religions, or texts. Not major texts, but four or five word truths that apply to everyone regardless of color, creed, religion, or whatever. Then title the "new" monument "The Universal Truths" and let the ACLU try to kill it again.

I admire Judge Moore for standing up for his beliefs. And if he has another appeal planned, he should leave the monument as it is until all his legal options have been exhausted.

But if he finally loses, if he finally has to admit defeat, this suggestion would be a way for him to highlight the importance of the Commandments in our court system and our national moral character. He's absolutely correct in the need to educate more Americans about the values of the nation and I support him in that effort.

But as a judge, he should also respect the rule of law. If and when the game is up, he needs to either remove or modify the monument.

If it comes to that, I hope to be reading about his "diversity modifications." It would be a fair compromise, in my opinion.

A Timely Reminder

As we head in to the Fourth of July weekend, we find this reminder of just why it became "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

Taxation without representation.

For 227 years now we've fought to maintain our independence. For 227 years we've told those who wanted to control us to take a hike. For 227 years we've been our own nation, solely responsible for our choices and their consequences.

And it needs to stay that way.

We need to tell the EU in no uncertain terms where to stick their accusations of "taxation unfairness." We need to remind the WTO that without the US, it is the functional trade equivalent of the League of Nations.

We fought, in part, to end taxation without representation. It would be a tragedy to let it happen ever again.

The American Empire - Again??

There are a few things that get me really, really ticked off. Complaining about the "American Empire" is one of them.

If you look at my other site, you'll notice that most everything I have for sale is related to a real empire. The Romans knew how to run an empire. Even the Byzantines had a pretty decent empire for a while. But the United States has never even come close to acting similarly.

We are not out conquering for pride. We are not out conquering for tribute. We are not out conquering for food. We are not trying to support the social structure of a failing state.

The author contends that every empire has some great cultural idea to spread. That is false. The spread of a cultural idea is just a side effect of empire building. Rome didn't conquer Egypt to spread the idea of Republicanism or aqueducts, they conquered Egypt for food.

Food, tribute, security and pride are the foundations of any empire. The US has food, has the ability to provide for our own security (if we would ever put our minds to it), we don't need tribute - we actually pay other states, and if pride were a real issue for us we would have completely conquered the entire Western Hemisphere by now.

But we do have a great cultural idea to spread, one that is relatively unique in history. Liberty.

Not democracy. Not republicanism. Liberty.

Our great idea is more powerful than Islamic fundamentalism. It is more powerful than communism. It is an ideology that believes in humanity. Instead of trying to repress certain traits or to make everyone equal in outcome, liberty allows every person to make their life the way that they want. The other ideologies all presuppose that man is evil and must be given rules and controls to prevent him from hurting himself or others. Liberty presupposes that man is good and able of making rational decisions that will benefit both himself and others.

Neither absolute is completely true, but I believe that the basic assumptions of liberty are closer to the truth. And so do most other people. If man is evil, why would Iranian students be calling for liberty's twin sister, freedom? Fundamentalism runs contrary to the human spirit; liberty quenches the thirst of the spirit.

We must remember that our great idea is not a form of government. Our government, our economy, our way of life are all derived from that basic idea of liberty.

As I read the article on Free Republic this morning, I was reading through the comments after the post and noticed that some people were keying in on this phrase:

"...but democracy is a vehicle for resolving disputes. It is not an ideology like communism or Islamic fundamentalism..."

Democracy (by which most people actually mean republicanism) is a product of our idea - liberty. Liberty and totalitarianism don't go together. A liberal form of government is required to most fully realize our idea. Therefore, we ended up with republicanism as the best way of protecting our liberty from the whims of tyrants and from the tyranny of the majority.

When we engage in nation building around the world, everyone looks at what tangible traits we bring to the table and then they decry of imperialism. They never realize the power of the intangible we bring. If liberty is such a bad thing, why do the nations of Europe still have, for the moment, representative forms of government? Why hasn't Japan reverted back to the reign of the Emperor? Why did the nations of Eastern Europe all change to representative forms of government?

Because liberty is a more powerful idea than communism, fundamentalism or any other -ism that's out there. Liberty speaks to the soul. The -isms speak down to the mind.

In Iraq, they are just beginning to find out about the idea again. They have not reached the point of unfettered liberty yet, but economically, they're experiencing it. And they're loving it. Their standard of living is already on the way up. But notice, that they are currently paying no taxes. What real empire doesn't collect taxes (also called tribute)?

We are not an empire. To become one, we would have to sacrifice our national foundation - liberty. As a people, we're not ready to do that.

We want to spread our idea because we, as a people, believe in the basic goodness of man. But we cannot impose it, we can only expose it. It is up to the other party to embrace liberty as their own.

Iraq was/is an exercise in ensuring our security. Afghanistan is also. Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, wherever our travails take us next, we will bring our idea with us. If the people decide that they want to embrace it, we will support them in every way possible. If they don't want to, we will let them go the way of Western Europe, allowing them to establish a non-representative government. The choice is theirs, just as it always has been.

The American Empire. Great expansionist emperors like Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan and Hadrian would laugh at the "American Empire." They would be amazed at the empire building potential of the nation. They would be dumbfounded that we could let a little idea like liberty stand in the way of total domination of the known world. They didn't. They knew how to build and run an empire.

Like the author of the first article, they would never comprehend that we don't want an empire.

America is an idea, not an empire.

America's Decline?

You knew it had to be coming. As our economy continued to weaken, and in the aftermath of the War in Iraq, the envy of the world would be turned against us.

Pravda is the latest to try to take its shots at the US. One of their writers, Anton Golovin, has written an article in which he almost gleefully predicts the downfall of the US as a world superpower. He derides our victory in Iraq as being the fault of corrupt Iraqi officials and a need for the US to secure, essentially, tribute instead of loans.

The author fails to recognize two relevant points though.

One, everyone can copy us and narrow the gaps in economic efficiency, but when they copy they will never surpass us. Our nation is set up to reward inquiry and innovation. Most other nations are not. In order to actually surpass us they would have to leapfrog us in some way - and their systems (economic and political) don't sufficiently reward those kind of innovative efforts. So the likelihood of someone coming up with an innovation to put them ahead of the US is unlikely.

Second, with the exception of China, demographics are working against the other major "threats" of the EU and Russia. Both the EU and Russia are saddled with aging populations and heavily socialistic states. These nations, rather than being a threat to us, are on the verge of implosion. Their populations simply cannot support the social structure that has been imposed by the rampant spread of socialism since the end of WWII.

The US will also be coming up on a similar demographic problem, but we don't have quite the socialist social structure of the EU and Russia. We will strain our social fabric to the breaking point, but the problem is not as deep and the structure not as onerous as to cause a European style implosion.

And what about China? What's going to happen when their economy surpasses that of ours?

Not much. China's economy, measured on a per-capita basis, will still be tiny. And the composition of their economy isn't all too hot either. They do very, very well with manufacturing cheap, disposable consumer goods. Their getting better at the high tech end also, but they aren't anywhere near as innovative or efficient as the US.

Where they really fall down, as does most of the world, is in the very low tech, boring realm of food production. The US (and Canada) still feeds the world. It is only through our ability to produce copious quantities of food that the rest of the world can even begin to concentrate on the other parts of their economy. Other nations pay subsidies to encourage farmers to grow more food; we pay subsidies to encourage farmers to not grow anything.

If everyone stopped importing oil to us, it would severely hamper our economy, no doubt about it (it would also crush everyone else’s economies as well so it wouldn't be too bright). But we would figure out how to rebuild our national energy system to work without the massive supply of cheap oil. We'd use more coal and much more in the way of nuclear energy. But we would figure it out. That's the American spirit.

But what happens if our food exports stop? China, Russia and Europe have to make major reallocations of labor to try to feed themselves.

Which means that the US still holds the cards in the end. Even if China surpasses us in terms of absolute economic size, we will still hold the most economic influence of any nation simply because we can dictate major disruptive shifts in the economies of others.

I've noticed several articles coming out from people who are green with envy and who are looking for any American weakness to exploit as a salve for their own wounded egos.

Just remember, it's not a good idea to write off and dismiss as weak the United States of America.

A Primer On Wahhabi Islam

Excellent article from a few days ago over at Soldiers For The Truth, which really lays out the basis behind the argument that not all Islam is bad, just the extremist forms. The author Robert G. Williscroft explains, in detail, what Wahhabi Islam is and why it is so dangerous to the West.

Mr. Williscroft has laid out the foundations of the two major sects of Islam and of Shari'a, pointing out some details that I wasn't aware of. He also details out Wahhabi Islam in all its gory details. It is one of the harshest (and best supported) condemnations of Saudi Arabia that I've seen in a long, long time.

Wahhabi Islam is the extremist view of Islam. It is the basis on which all the radical movements are based. And it is 100% supported by the House of Saud.

But what is the key element? Education. Wahhabi Islam doesn't have real education (which I define as reading, writing and arithmetic), it only teaches religious absolutism and hatred for anything that is even slightly different. It isn't education; it's indoctrination into a cult of hate.

Until there is a real educational system in place in the Islamic states, there will be problems. At the beginning of the Renaissance in Europe there was a shift from nearly exclusively religious education to a more scientific, secular educational system. The shift from religious dogma to scientific inquiry helped to drag Europe out of the Dark Ages.

Islam is currently in its own version of the Dark Ages. There is virtually no progress in the Islamic world. Like the Church dominated Europe of old, Islam today is ruled by a backwards theocracy. Instead of moving forward, the religious leaders are dragging Islam backwards. Who will be the Islamic Galileo? Who will be the Da Vinci? Will there be an Islamic equivalent of Venice or Florence?

An Islamic Renaissance needs to happen and soon. Europe halted the spread of Islam when the continent was at its weakest intellectually and militarily. Since then, the West has experienced the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Technologically, we can do things that were not even conceived of during the last great incursion of Islam. Islam on the other hand, hasn't really changed. Intellectually, they are at the same point, still fighting the battle against scientific reason. Militarily they have moved from horse-mounted cavalry to steel tank, but there is still the lack of initiative or creativeness that allowed Charles Martel to defeat the Islamists at Poiters.

The House of Saud is the biggest impediment to the needed Islamic Renaissance. Their fanatical support of Wahhabism is repressing the necessary inquiry by denying large portions of the Arab world the tools needed to advance their civilization.

So what I want to know is why do we continue to support the House of Saud?

I know the anti-Bushies will come out and say that it's because of the family business and the family ties. But that can't be the explanation. This has been fermenting for the last few decades. Reagan was the last President who could use the Cold War excuse. Why did Clinton stand fast beside the brutal and repressive regime?

Even protecting our oil supply isn't worth supporting these guys. Was it to protect the military contracts? Was it because of their "support" in the fight against terrorism? Or was it because the US media and citizens chose to look the other way and accepted "blissful" ignorance instead of facing up to the facts?

No matter what the reason, this nation has supported the evil in Riyadh for way too long. Extremist Islam must be stamped out for the good of the world. Dumping the House of Saud is the best start we could make. Let the rest of the extremist wither away after their primary source of resources and recruits to the death cult is ceremoniously relegated to the dustbin of painful history.

Time to introduce them to what Neal Boortz refers to as the Church of the Painful Truth and the sermon on the failure of extremism.

Is Chretien Out Of Control?

Is Chretien out of control? That is the question being asked by many Canadians these days.

I don't think Chretien is out of control. Out of touch and egotistical, definitely, but not out of control. Out of control means to me that he would be making rash decisions with no frame of reference. Out of control means that he is making decisions that are totally devoid of any logical basis.

The author of the article states:

He always has been more interested in politics than government. While the legacy he claims to desire would be more logically secured by sound policy and effective legislation in any number of areas, Chretien's natural inclination is to work the political side.

He believes most Canadians are anti-American at heart. I think he hears a cheer somewhere in his head each time he takes a poke at the United States. There is a certain confidence and assurance in him when he is riding his anti-American hobbyhorse. Certainly there is an unbearable smugness about the whole extreme-left, anti-American portion of his cabinet when they are belittling President Bush.

That right there is why I don't think Chretien is out of control. His decisions make sense when viewed through the light of an anti-American constituent. Chretien is a politician, not a governor, so he plays to what he views as the views of the majority of Canadians.

And that's why he's out of touch. I don't believe that most Canadians are anti-American. They may think that we do some stupid stuff sometimes, but when it comes down to it, they know that they share a special relationship with the US, just like the British. Listen to the protests of friendship coming from the Canadians, especially those in the Western Provinces. Chretien is playing politics to a small, but vocal, minority.

I expect that the mutual animosity will pass soon after Chretien leaves office. We in the States have made poor choices in Presidents and we can understand that Chretien may not exactly be the favorite choice of most Canadians. Chretien will not destroy the relationship between the US and Canada, but another like him might.

Should the original article disappear off the Toronto Sun's website, a copy may be be found at Free Republic in this post, at least until FR dumps it out of their system.

Trade Sanctions To Fix The Economy?

I talked the other day about the potential benefits of depreciation in the value of the dollar. But it is wise to bear in mind that there is more than one way to work on staving off the threat of deflation.

William Hawkins of tradealert.org is proposing to raise punitive tariffs instead.

Raising tariffs does achieve the goal of reducing imports. In order to get the US economy kick started, we really need to start getting American consumers to buy American goods instead of imported ones. Depreciation and raising tariffs both work towards that goal.

Tariffs also have the additional benefit of being targeted. Depreciation affects all imports, no matter what they are or where they're from. Tariffs allow the targeting of certain industry segments or the products of certain nations.

So if both paths achieve the same goal and the tariff route affects fewer industries, products or people, why not use punitive tariffs to bring about the economic recovery that we need?

There are really two big reasons why the raising of tariffs is not the proper path: one is political the other is economic.

Politically, the raising of tariffs is a very dangerous thing. Other nations expect a certain level of stability in their dealings with the US. If we raise tariffs, we change the rules of trade midstream with introduces additional risks to trading with us. When a foreign company is unable to ascertain within reason their profits, they will be much more likely to avoid trading with us at all. And we have to remember that the idea is change American spending habits, not to discourage international trade.

Economically, the tariffs smack of a controlled economy. The dollar represents, like shares of a corporation, a degree of ownership in the US economy. And like a corporation, the US economy is subject to various cycles and pressures, some make the economy more valuable; some make it less valuable.

During the last five to ten years we have experienced foreign investors putting money into the US market because the opportunities offered elsewhere weren't all that great. The reward that was being offered overseas wasn't commensurate with the risk. As a result foreign investors were making investments in the US, not because of our strength, but because of weakness elsewhere.

Recently the Euro had depreciated to the point where investment in Europe started to look attractive again. The economies there are stumbling along, but the Euro had become so depreciated that the potential for outsized returns (in relation to dollar denominated investments) began to overcome the inertia of having to unwind positions in the US. As a result, investors having been buying Euro denominated investments, financed by the sale of dollar denominated investments. Hence we see the decline of the dollar and the rise of the Euro.

As the dollar depreciates and more consumers begin buying American goods, the US economy will begin to strengthen at the fundamental level. The combination of a cheap dollar and improving fundamentals will bring foreign investors in search of better returns back into the US capital markets.

Allowing the depreciation mechanism to run its course tends to lead to the economy correcting itself. Using tariffs imposes a correction that may not be supported or justified by the current economic state.

It was tariffs and protectionism, as exemplified by the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, which helped to propel us into the Great Depression. At the time the economic situation was not all that dissimilar: the US was coming down off a boom, Japan and the European economies were weak to the point of collapse. Hawley-Smoot really helped to tip the balance in a way that ultimately hurt the American workingman.

Tariffs are not the answer. Beating our trade partners into new, more favorable to us, trade agreements is not the answer. Only a fundamental rebuilding of the US economy is going to get us out of this mess.

Mr. Hawkins likens the imposition of tariffs to stopping the bleeding of the economy.

A Band-Aid doesn't really help on an infected wound. It may stop the bleeding temporarily, but the infection will eventually spread - and could be fatal.

We need to treat the problem, a weak US economy, not the symptom of a weak dollar.

The New EU Constitution

The EU has unveiled its new Constitution. Most of the larger European nations are generally happy with the new document; the smaller nations are not quite as enthusiastic, mainly because Britain and France still have veto rights over EU foreign policy. All in all it seems like they have at least come up with a decent starting point for further negotiations.

But the whole process is fundamentally flawed and is therefore likely to fail.

Constitutions work best when they are limited in scope. The US Constitution is timeless not because of what it says, but because of what it doesn't say.

The US Constitution allows certain rights to the government and reserves all the others for the people (or the states). It doesn't dictate how we are to achieve the ideals of our nation. It doesn't even dictate the form of our government, beyond the three branches and the concept of checks and balances. What was left unsaid has given the US the flexibility to adapt to a changing world.

The EU Constitution does the opposite. It proposes a philosophy and then details how to implement it. Instead of laying out the basic framework of a government, it goes into detail about the form and the workings that it should have.

Instead of allowing for flexibility in an ever-changing world, the EU Constitution restricts the ability of the government to react. Some actions will require unanimous consent; others will require majority votes. Some "states" have veto rights over the superior government. In other words, the government is already being made more complicated than the average person will want to deal with. A disconnect between the government and the governed is already being formed.

And that's just in foreign affairs. In domestic issues, it's even worse. The EU wants to establish Union wide labor laws and social policies. Instead of making the EU more competitive in the global economy, this vast exercise in social engineering will serve to raise the costs of EU products. In a time when deflation is a real concern, raising of costs is not a good thing.

Many nations have attempted to replicate the flexibility and timelessness of the US Constitution. Most have failed because they, like the EU, have failed to recognize that the US Constitution is great because it limits the rights of government, not the rights of the people.

The EU Constitution will eventually fail through its own inflexibility, unless significant changes are made.

Since that would require giving up the precious socialist experiments, I don't see that happening.

The Dollar "Meltdown"

Who knows more about the economy: Reuters or the Federal Reserve? Reuters is pretty sure that they know more than the Fed.

They are claiming that the current weakening dollar is threatening the US economy with inflation. The Fed and most knowledgeable economists are worrying more about deflation right now. Why the difference?

Reuters is correct in that depreciation can eventually lead to inflation. But to understand why, we need to really understand the mechanics of inflation and deflation.

Simply put inflation occurs when there are too many dollars chasing too few goods. Prices (or production) have to increase in order to keep the demand equation in balance.

Deflation is the opposite. There are too many goods out there and not enough money circulating. Prices (or production) have to drop in order to bring the equation back into balance.

With depreciation, our exports to foreign buyers become cheaper. So they buy more of them, increasing the supply of dollars in the US. More dollars without a corresponding increase in the availability of goods eventually leads to inflation.

So Reuters is right. Depreciation leads to inflation - eventually. And it is the eventually part that makes their advice of defending the dollar a bad idea.

Right now, the bigger threat is deflation.

Our economy has slowed too much. The job market is much, much too soft. Unemployment still isn't too bad, but underemployment - people working in jobs beneath their qualifications - is becoming a real problem. Due to the perceived weakness in the economy, people are unwilling to spend their money on anything besides the basic necessities.

We haven't entered the deflationary cycle yet, but we're coming pretty close. And we only need to look at a decade of economic suffering in Japan to know that we don't want to go down that route.

So how would a depreciatory regime help?

By depreciating the dollar, we make foreign goods more expensive here and American goods cheaper over there. Our imports will decrease and our exports will increase. That means more dollars going to American businesses and hopefully a trickle down effect from there.

The real risk comes in that what we actually accomplish is the exportation of the deflationary threat. Europe will be the primary recipient of the threat, as it is the Euro that has been strengthening the most against the dollar.

As the dollar depreciates, our goods would become cheaper in Europe. The flip side of our benefits is that in Europe, in the Eurozone, it would substantial pressure on the already shaky economies of Europe. If we push Europe into a deflationary cycle, it wouldn't take much to drag us into the cycle despite our efforts to avoid it.

So what to do?

The depreciation route is probably the best option right now. The best hope seems to be to try to jumpstart the US economy before the Eurozone economies collapse under the deflationary pressure. It's an extremely risky path, with a pretty substantial chance of failure. But the alternative is certain deflation.

This is not an election issue like the author of the story is claiming. This is a real threat to the health of the world economy. During the end of the '90s we got too far extended economically; we are now paying the price of our "irrational exuberance." It wouldn't matter who was running the country. It is almost certain that we'd be in this same situation.

It's a risky situation. The chance of failure is high. But at least this time, on this issue of deflation, it sounds like the Bush economic team has their ships sailing in the same direction. They are planning to take on the threat of deflation.

Even if it means depreciating the dollar.

Saudi Arabia High On The Hit List

I was talking to a friend today and we briefly talked about the bombing in Saudi Arabia and the war in Iraq. The more we talked, the more I became convinced that the Saudis are much higher on the hit list than most people think.

From Khobar to the Cole; from 9/11 to 5/13, we have suffered the slings and arrows of our Saudi friendship. Saudi citizens planned and/or participated in each of these attacks. The Saudi government has been less than enthusiastic in their attempts to reign in these folks. Each time, the government has come out and said “we feel your pain, but we cannot do anything as these people have popular support.”

OK, maybe the Saudi government believes in the concept of dissention enough to allow these groups to “protest” their lives and the government’s willingness to work with the Americans. Maybe the King and his clan believe that these dissenters are peace loving and only want the best for all the people of Saudi Arabia.

Or maybe the Saudi government knows that their hold on power is tenuous at best. Perhaps they have realized that there is only one stupid mistake separating them from their oil riches and the hangman’s noose.

Either way, the Saudi government has done virtually nothing to end the indoctrination of the terrorists. The madrissas are still open. The clerics still spew anti-American hatred in the mosques everyday. There is no public campaign to discredit the terrorists.

Their terrorists are like our football players. They are figures held in high esteem. They are heroes, with the consequent difficulties in revealing the truth of their nature. It’s sad, but true that as a race we don’t want to know of the humanity of our heroes. For a government grasping at the last straws of their reign, becoming a hero killer would be a recipe for regime suicide.

And so the terrorists become stronger in Saudi Arabia as the government fears to check them. And as the government cows in fear, we grow more and more impatient with their dithering.

The talk coming out of Washington lately has been of the potential of a free Iraq. The human potential, the industrial potential and most importantly the oil production potential. The more I hear the talk of Iraq’s potential, the more I see the pressure being applied to the Saudi government.

The Saudis are going to be concerned enough with the human and industrial potential of a free Iraq to their north. The Saudis know that they won’t be able to compete in the marketplace of ideas, which will lead to more instability in their government. They know that their workforce isn’t educated well enough in the ways of true science (not Islamic science) to be able to compete in a truly competitive region. The Iraqis, having been a more secular nation than Saudi Arabia, are ahead in the education game. And the longer the Saudis continue with the fundamentalist Islamic government, the wider the gap will get.

The Saudi method of dealing with this in the past has been to export terrorists. Get rid of the worst elements of society quietly and live life as though nothing happened. And so long as the US was dependant on Saudi oil, everyone was basically, sort of, happy.

But now we are openly talking about Iraq being capable of producing 5 million barrels of oil per day. In other words, we could bring Iraq up to its pre-sanction level of production and replace Saudi Arabia’s oil production.

All of the sudden, the old paradigm of Saudi/Western relations is now in doubt. If we don’t need Saudi oil, why do we need the Saudi government?

I believe that Washington has been trying to send that message over the last few days. The Saudi government has been put on notice that it’s time to shape up or we will make sure that they get shipped out.

Question is: did Riyadh get the message? Only time will tell. But time is not a friend of the Saudi monarchy.

We started a chain reaction with Iraq. The entire balance of power in the region has changed. In order to truly complete our mission of liberating Iraq, we will probably have to take care of a few other problem governments along the way.

Old methods of retaining power are no longer acceptable. We have challenged every Middle Eastern government to prove to us how they will fit into a stable and free region. Those governments that rise up to the challenge will survive. Those that hide from it will fail. The rules have changed and the process of natural selection has begun.

Does the Saudi government have what it takes to retain power in the new regional structure? I don’t think so. And it doesn’t sound like the Administration does either.

I’m guessing that if Bush gets re-elected, we will find out the true plan for ensuring the liberation of Iraq. And the Janus-faced Saudi regime will be near the top of list.

Rebasing The Military In Europe

This kind of serves as a good follow-on to my last post about the problems facing the EU economy. There is now bipartisan talk (link requires registration) of a foreign base committee to determine which overseas bases should be closed, consolidated, or moved. Simultaneously, we have Romania and Bulgaria talking at length about the benefits of basing a large chunk of the US military force in Europe in those two countries.

Germany may just be about to find out how damaging their collaboration with France could be. With their economy already on the brink of disaster, the removal of the US military - and it's economic boost - may be a crushing blow to their recovery.

Is the time right to pull out wholesale from Germany? Probably not. A slow draw down may be what is needed as we don't want to devastate them on the way out. But I see a withdrawal from Germany in the works.

Strategically, Germany isn't as important as it was during the Cold War. The threats have moved south and east. Bulgaria and Romania are better positioned to counter these threats. Plus they are politically more friendly than the current government in Berlin. Moving the bases makes sense.

It'll be a sad day when the last American forces leave Germany, but it's time to face the new geopolitical reality: Germany just isn't as important as they once were.

European Economic Disunion

I do love it when a plan comes together. But sometimes it can be more fun to watch one that has failed. The current state of a few of the EU member nations is providing some interesting watching these days.

In Germany, industrial output is falling. And In France, the national budget woes could put a strain on the EU.

So what's the bureaucratic answer to these problems, the one that is sent down by the EU itself?

Both nations have to make progress towards getting their budget deficits in line or they run the risk of EU intervention.

And how can they "make progress?"

By raising taxes and/or cutting spending, of course.

This points out the basic flaw of the EU's one-size-fits-all approach to fiscal management. Neither France nor Germany can afford to raise taxes or cut spending. Their economies are already heading into the tank as it is.

Economies today are driven almost as much by expectations as they are by real economic conditions. Short term, raising taxes or cutting spending has no real effect, but the change in the long term expectations for the economy (when the higher taxes and lower spending are figured in) would be enough to tip most of the EU nations into a severe recession, if not a depression.

The EU failed to recognize that it is impossible to prescribe one treatment for all patients. What works in Luxembourg and Belgium with their small responsive economies likely will not work in the larger, harder to turn, economies of France and Germany.

The state of the EU economy today is an economics case study in the making. It is looking increasingly like we are going to find out what happens when reverse Keynesian economic policies are instituted in a modern economy. Historically this type of policy has led to a boom in the black markets and a collapse of the official economy.

Should be an interesting experiment.

A Detour On The Roadmap

No one ever said that the road to peace was going to be an easy one. But it is looking increasingly like either the PA or Israel will have to do something to neutralize Hamas, the Al-Asqa Brigade and other terrorist organizations that will not be party to the process.

The depth of the indoctrination that some of these groups are engaged in, Hamas in particular, is amazing. Check out some of these quotes from a Hamas children's magazine:

"These days the pain of the Arab and Muslim nation is great. Blood and body parts in the fighting Palestine; destruction, betrayal, theft, looting, killing, and rape in Iraq: whose blood has been forsaken by the British, the Americans and the Jews."

"The people of this land have witnessed the events on the land of Iraq, whose blood was forsaken. They saw the aircraft setting everything ablaze, destroying homes with their residents, tearing down enormous buildings. They didn’t overlook one school, university, hospital, neighborhood, market or mosque. They rendered everything into dust and ashes."

Is it any wonder that the kids in Palestine are screwed up? Between reading this and Daddy dressing them up in gun belt and grenades, it’s a wonder that there aren't more kids wanting to jihad against the infidel.

The level of systematic child abuse in the territories is amazing. Kids are encouraged to physically harm themselves in religious "celebrations", they are mentally abused with lie after lie after lie and being told how inferior they are, then the parents and society encourage them to die, partly to "support the cause," partly because of the $25,000 payments that would help the family. It's child abuse and murder.

And these are the folks we have to convince to join the peace process.

The PA has it's work cut out for it in marginalizing these groups and making them appear to the Palestinians as the loony nutcase should be fringe groups that they are.

No one ever said that the roadmap would be simple or even a straight line. The terrorists are going to do everything possible to stop their demise through peace. It's put up or shut up time for Abu Mazen and company. Are they going to allow this "children's" magazine to pass without comment?

Or will they take a stand and show that they are capable of doing the right thing?

M.E.T.A.

And so the next war in the Middle East starts with the creation of a new Middle Eastern Trade Association.

With a speech at the University of South Carolina, Bush has begun the next battle for the Middle East - the economic one. Bush has proposed creating a free trade area in the region, but only for nations that meet certain requirements: they must have free economies and they must combat terrorism. To those that qualify comes the potential for unfettered trade with the United States.

Watching their neighbors get rich will become a powerful incentive to the uninformed and unreformed to join the world community.

And Iraq, right in the center of the darkness of oppression in the region, will become the Middle East's version of West Berlin. It will become the beacon of hope that only freedom and free trade can provide.

The next battle will not be a military one, it will be economic. The first shot has been fired; an economic civil war within Islam is about to begin.

Got to give Bush and his team credit for a pretty brilliant plan to reshape the region.

Bob Graham - Floridian

Well, it's official: Bob Graham hasn't got a clue. Well, actually he's officially tossed his hat in the ring as a Democratic candidate for President. But then again, that is the same as not having a clue.

For those of you who don't know Bob Graham from that weird guy down the street, let you clue you in as a lifelong Florida resident.

I don't know either.

He was Governor as I was really growing up, yet I remember nothing about him other than he was Governor. I asked my parents what they remembered. He was Governor. That's it.

Now the fact that we have virtually no memory of him could mean many things. It proves that he doesn't do real good at that "taking a public stand" thing - the war in Iraq was half over before the local news started reporting that Graham had voted against it. It may also be indicative of his inability to have any real influence on anything.

After all, if he couldn't royally screw up the State of Florida then he's not exactly a figure that would inspire fear in opponents. We have a county (Palm Beach) in which the people took to the streets in 2000 to protest that were too stupid to be able to vote. If you can't screw up with constituents like that, well then you're just not a real politician.

So Graham comes to the race as a virtual unknown - even in his home state. Maybe he can be a breath of fresh air. Something different, right? This was his opportunity to burst onto the scene and show people why they should vote for Bob Graham.

And what does he do?

He announces his candidacy during Bush's speech on the Lincoln. He rips Bush for the war and for slacking in the war on terrorism. He deplores that Bush has delivered and will be running on tax cuts.

Incredibly, he killed his candidacy during his announcement speech. He said nothing to distinguish himself from the other tax and spenders. He did nothing to promote an alternative foreign policy, he only whined about Bush's successful implementation of his. Graham did nothing to tell voters who he was or why they should vote for him.

Except that he was a Democrat running for President.

So once again, Florida has to suffer a political humiliation. First it was the election of 2000, now we actually have to claim Bob Graham. How much suffering should one state have to endure?

The only good that will come from Graham's candidacy is that he will lose his Senate seat. Now as long as we don't elect Lawton Chiles to the seat, we'll be good to go (hopefully).

Crossing The Line

So where exactly is the line between free speech and destructive anti-Americanism? It's one of the questions that we've been trying as a nation to answer since the founding of the Republic.

It's a very fine line, really. To question the government, to call for a wholesale change of the members of the government, or to say that the government is flat out wrong - those are all acceptable forms of dissent. They can be extremely poorly timed, as were many of the statements made as we went to war, but they are not some proof of the evil that lives in the speaker.

But to actively work to change the form of the government, say to an oppressive dictatorship or a Soviet style government, well that's a different story.

For someone to whip up a negative opinion of the US is not crossing the line. If you believe that the US is evil and is run by some kind of vast world domination conspiracy, it's your right to think that and to try to convert others to your beliefs. It may be stupid, but you do have the right to be stupid and to say stupid things.

Bill Clinton thinks that the world will be better when the US isn't the dominant force in the world. Is that stupid? Yes, name any other nation that has done so much good for the world. But does Clinton have a right to believe that? Yes.

Howard Dean thinks that the US military should be weaker than other nations militaries. Is that stupid? Absolutely, it is our military strength that gives Dean the right to be a moron. Does Dean have a right to call for the deliberate weakening of our military? Absolutely. In fact, it is a good thing as it points out another reason why he is unfit to serve in the office he seeks.

Are we imperialistic as a nation? In the traditional sense, no. We don't invade other nations to take their land or resources. We're already working to turn Iraq over to an Iraqi civilian government. Afghanistan has already been turned over.

Chirac thinks that we shouldn't be sovereign superpower and that we should subjugate ourselves to the UN. What gives Jacques the right to make such offensive statements? The US Army did. That is an example of American Imperialism. We spread our ideas of freedom and liberty. We conquer the mind and soul, not the body and the land. Jacques can say such things because he knows that we won't have him assassinated or deposed.

I really believe that people who are spreading vile idiocy like these three are proving themselves morons unfit to lead, but they have not crossed the line. Clinton is a windbag and Chirac is irrelevant in America. They can talk all they want, but they won't really make too much a difference.

Dean could be another story. If he were elected, he could start to actually act on his beliefs and would consequently do great harm to the nation. That is when he would cross the line.

Talking anti-American talk is one thing; taking anti-American actions that are actually harmful is another.

Rewrite Eminent Domain

The right of eminent domain is one of the potentially most dangerous rights given to government. For many years we were able to survive with minimal abuse of the right, but it seems that in recent years, the number and severity of the abuses of eminent domain have been increasing.

There are actually very few legitimate reasons for the use of eminent domain. The laws are specifically written to supposedly ensure that land is taken only for the "common good" which has traditionally been defined as something supporting a Constitutional mandate of government: education, roads, government offices, etc. Never was it supposed to be used by a private corporation for private gain.

But now it is being used for just that. Governments have started to cede their rights of eminent domain to organizations that are not responsible to the people of the town, city, or state.

Why are municipalities being allowed to do this? The government should not be allowed to give away its Constitutional powers. A city cannot contract its law enforcement out to Joe's Cop Shop. Why should the New London Development Corporation be allowed to enforce eminent domain any more than Joe is allowed to enforce state law?

Eminent domain was put in the legal codes to allow a government to acquire needed land without having to suffer an undue burden. Schools, fire stations, police stations are all recognized as being important and necessary to the government being able to fulfill its Constitutional mandate.

But eminent domain is also set up to protect the landowner. He is supposed to receive fair market value. He is also supposed to be able to take solace in the fact that his loss will provide for an expansion of governmental services that will help to support and better the community.

The landowner has a reasonable right, based on the language of the law, to expect that his land will be used for something to benefit everyone. But when a government comes in and condemns land to allow for the building of a shopping center, a golf course, or a hotel, then the landowner has a right to be upset.

The United States operates on a written contract between the government and the governed. It's called our legal system. When we violate our end of the bargain, there are consequences.

Unfortunately, the enforcement when the other side (the government) violates their end of the bargain is not anywhere near as swift or as sure. Many times, the government can get away with violations of the societal contract with impunity. That's not right.

The government has found a neat little tool of corruption that they can exploit for their benefit and the benefit of their friends. This has got to stop. A complete and total rewrite of the eminent domain laws is in order, before things get out of hand.

I'm starting to sense that there is getting to be a critical mass of abused citizens. Some of these governments need to be careful before the consequences of violating their citizens comes home very swiftly and very surely.

So What?

Matt Drudge is breathlessly reporting that the Democrats are going to hold a debate at a theater on the University of South Carolina campus named after the secessionist Augustus Longstreet. He has since updated and all but retracted the story. But his correction doesn't change the general tone of disapproval in the story. And my problem here isn't with the Democrats, but with Drudge and the political correctness police in society today.

As I view the situation, the Dems wanted to hold a debate in South Carolina (why not Georgia or Virginia - more important states electorially I don't know). They decided to hold the debate at the University, I'm guessing as a way of proving that they are all for promoting free speech and diversity of thought. So far so good.

The University would have examined their facilities and then determined that this theater, the Longstreet Theater, was the venue best suited to such an event. The naming of the theater probably never came up, as it shouldn't have. The University had decided at some point in the past that they wanted to honor Longstreet and did so.

The point is, the Democratic Party of today had nothing to do with the naming or selection of the theater as the place for the debate. The were looking for an adequate venue on a college campus and they found it. What's wrong with that?

Now Drudge in his story is implying that the Democrats are being hypocritical. I'm sure that argument would be along the lines of "Democrats 'fought' for equality and desegregation. It would be wrong for them to implicitly support those institutions by honoring the name of Longstreet by debating in a place named for him."

Longstreet is a historical figure and, at least according the people of South Carolina, an important one. Important enough that they named a building for him. But that was the people in South Carolina that named the building; not John Kerry; not Al Sharpton; not Carol Moseley-Braun. That fact that the State Democratic Party of South Carolina chose an "inappropriate" venue should not in any way reflect on those running for office.

Speaking at the Longstreet Theater would not imply a support for slavery. It wouldn't imply a support for secession from the Union. Those were the battles of seven score ago. To try to create a link between the two issues (speaking and slavery) is just wrong.

(My parents will hate this next part - sorry Dad.)

I'm Southern. I was born and raised in Florida. Both of my parents are from up north, but a pride in being Southern has taken hold in me. It is part of who I am.

And whether I like it or not, the legacy of the Confederacy is part of my history. Large parts of the story of the South disturb me. I don't like the history of slavery or segregation. I'm appalled by the Klan and Jim Crow.

But there are other parts of the Southern tradition that I love. The grace and dignity of men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The desire for decentralized government (though I didn't like their reasoning for it).

The history of the South, like that of any nation or region, has its high points and its lows. Failed nations like the Confederacy usually fail because the foundations are weak and as a consequence there are more lows to write about in histories than highs.

To use history as a lesson for the unreformed (see France) is acceptable. There are times, when the same mistake is being repeated again and again and again, that it is necessary to openly remind people of the consequences of repetitive stupidity (appeasement anyone?).

But the South has made great strides in reforming from our ways of 150 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Are we perfect? No. But is there a problem with slavery and secessionist movements? No.

The South has moved beyond that. It's not right that some people keep dragging out the slavery excuse every time they don't like something Southern.

I'm ticked at Drudge for not being honest with who he's mad at and for what reasons. He's mad at the Democrats for being Democrats. Fair enough. Drudge is politically motivated most of the time. I have no problem with that.

But if he is upset with the people of South Carolina for having named a theater after Longstreet, he needs to say so. I don’t think Drudge likes the legacy of Longstreet. That's fine. It's obvious that he really doesn't want a building named after a man like Longstreet. That's fine too.

But neither one of those problems is a problem of the Democratic Party. To say it is is disingenuous.

If you want to attack the Democrats, go right ahead; just don't drag out my history as a convenient evil for cheap potshots.

Is Kerry Too "Touché?"

Oh, oh. Looks like John Kerry is a little touchy (or should it be touché) about a Bush advisor saying that he "looks French."

Now I haven't really studied any pictures of Kerry, but at a quick glance, I could see him with a beret, sitting in a café, discussing who was more accurate: Lenin or Marx? But then again, I could say the same about Rumsfeld, too (though he'd probably be talking what great guys they both were).

Kerry's reaction to this massive sign of disrespect was actually pretty measured and maybe even reasonable. His wife's reaction was another story though.

I realize that she was just defending her husband against a political attack, but there was no need to drag the monkeys into it. Plus, if he aspires to be President, she needs to realize that there will be much more virulent attacks than calling her husband French. If she's going to lose it this much on a small comment, what will she do when Chirac accuses her husband of being, horror of horrors, "a typical jingoistic American President." A violent reaction could set back Franco-American relations several hours from where they are now.

Kerry exposed his political tone-deafness prior to the war with his spectacularly ill-timed remarks about a "regime change" in Washington. His wife has now proven that her skin is about as thick as torn tissue paper. Together they create a combination we need to keep as far away from the White House as possible in the interest of world relations.

"Sound Bites"

Couple of quickies before I get to bed:

Legends:

Why do have this great need as a society to disprove some of our most enduring legends? Take this article from the Telegraph. Apparently we aren’t satisfied with the legend that says Rome was founded by Romulus. Now some historians are trying to literally personify the goddess Roma to discredit the original legend.

Probably neither legend is exactly true and certainly neither can be proven one way or the other. Why not just let it be? The legend of Romulus has always been satisfactory in the past (it is the subject of one of the most collectible ancient Roman coins). It’s never hurt anyone and it can’t be completely discredited. Why must we tear down all of our heroes, institutions and legends? Life without mythology, religious or legendary, isn’t really all too exciting. Let some things be a pleasant mystery.

Stupid Pilot Tricks:

Speaking of heroes, is there a kid out there that doesn’t look at pilot at least once in their life and say “I wish I could do that.” For those of us lucky enough to have actually piloted an airplane, there is an appreciation of just how special a pilot’s job really is. And then to see one throw their special career away, it really makes me wonder if some people have any capacity to think. There, because of the grace of God, goes he.

Tony Blair:

Tony Blair continues to impress me. During the Clinton years, I really didn’t like Blair too terribly much, but after 9/11 he really proved himself to be leader up to the challenge of the time. I really don’t think that any British leader since Churchill (Thatcher excluded) would have been able to exhibit the leadership that Tony Blair has since November of last year.

Now, asking critics to hold their judgment to see how the rebuilding of Iraq goes. Blair believes that our true legacy in Iraq won’t be the prosecution of the war, but the establishment of a just and fair peace. I got to say, I agree with him here, too.

It’s hard to believe that this is the same man that used to pal around with Slick Willy.

Deny, Deny, Deny

The Saudis are starting to get desperate. They have started to recognize that being a victim isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The Saudis, and all Arabs in general, have consistently blamed all their problems on Israel. Didn't matter what it was. Poverty? Israel causes it. Homelessness? Israel. Financial problems? Don't you know about Israel's control of the world financial system? War? If they would just leave Palestine. Islamic extremists? Israel creates them. Any problem - same answer. Deny responsibility.

And for years, that system worked just fine. Saudi Arabia never had to face its problems, but they still got American money and military aid to help stave off the extremists and the communists. Plus, they could sell all the oil they wanted to. For the Saudi monarchy, it was the perfect deal.

But the system only worked because of the instability of the region. In a land of maniacs and mullahs, crazies and clerics, thugocracies and theocracies, a scapegoat was needed to deflect the anger of the oppressed. Israel was the perfect scapegoat for the anti-Semitic status quo.

The war in Iraq changed the status quo. It is very probable that there will no longer be a evil, repressive regime to the north of Saudi Arabia. There is a strong possibility of an Iraqi-Israeli cooperation, with great benefit to Iraq. The stereotypical scapegoat may be exposed as a charade. That is the underlying fear of the existing regimes.

The ruling parties of these Arab nations know that Israel is not the manifestation of evil that they try to pretend it is. They fear the exposure of Israelis as humans because then these brutal Arab regimes would have to answer for their mistakes and shortcomings.

I believe this is why you see the author of this article taking such an introspective approach for about half the article. He sees the handwriting on the wall. He knows that the Saudi Royal Family will have to answer for years of corruption, decadence and extremism. If the Royal Family is to have any hope of surviving the whirlwind, they have to be able to point to signs of real change. Hence the introspection.

The author knows that the Palestinian problem has nearly played out. As the Palestinian Authority loses support for violence from its more moderate Arab brothers, it will begin to seek a peaceful solution. As more and more Arab nations see the light, the pressure will grow and grow on the PA. The Palestinian problem will be solved, just not the way the Arabs want it to be.

One of the keys to enlightenment is to know thyself. Hopefully these are the first spasms of the Arab Renaissance that will pull the region out of its equivalent of the dark ages. This could be a small start.

The War With France

Say what you will about Francois Mitterand, but he was pretty perceptive at times. It's too bad that his died-in-the-wool socialism was passed down to his political heir, Jacques Chirac, but not his power of accurate observation. There is, however, still a glimmer of hope on the horizon for Jacques, if he can mend his ways.

I really don't know if it's funny or tragic that it has taken this long for the French to begin to get a clue about the world. They are starting to figure out the UN is "without relevance." The are starting to understand the need to be "pragmatic." The only concern is that he still views French public opinion as being a key power base in the world. That belief may just keep Jacques from acknowledging reality.

What is that new reality? The reality is that France's worst fears about the war in Iraq came true. France killed off the UN Security Council as a realistic alternative in the world. France supplied arms and support to the dictator. And Saddam still collapsed in three weeks. The people of Iraq still welcomed us into their nation as liberators (much like the French did in WWII). There were some humanitarian issues, but nothing of the genocidal scale that France and the UN were so worried about. In short, France was wrong on virtually every prediction of doom and gloom, save one, WMD, that is still being investigated and will be for months to come. Jacques made France irrelevant in the view of the United States. That is his new reality.

Jacques will continue to speak of "multipolarity" and of a "strong EU." He will continue to rail against US "imperialism" and "hegemony." And he will continue to attempt to bully, weasel or slither his way back into relevance. And as he did in his dire predictions of Iraq, he will be wrong and exposed as a charlatan again and again and again.

Jacques' only success has been in poisoning the Franco-American relationship. He wanted to prove his independence from Washington, but he is now finding out that being an enemy of the US is a mighty lonely place. His cohorts in animosity won't come to his defense in any way other than flowery firebrand rhetoric. His new friends in low places won't come to his aid if the Algerian Army of Islam marches on Paris. He's starting to understand that his prime benefactor and protector was Washington. He's also starting to understand that he may have permanently pissed away friendship with a nation that has liberated his country in the past because liberating France was the right thing to do.

But I don't think we're done seeing the depths of the idiocy that Jacques is capable of. He's starting to regret his flippant dismissal of the US, but his knee-jerk anti-Americanism is too deeply engrained for him to be able to avoid more political screwups.

U.S. officials fully expect the French to obstruct the next round of Iraq diplomacy at the United Nations. “What is their strategy?” asks one sarcastically. “Are they going to refuse to recognize the new Iraqi government? Are they going to recognize the government of Saddam Hussein?”

Let's see. Saddam's inner circle has fled to Syria. de Villepin makes a trip to Syria soon afterward. I can definitely see France refusing to recognize a new Iraqi government instead choosing to recognize Saddam's "government in exile," conveniently based out of Damascus.

Mitterand was right. America and France are at war. Under Mitterand, though, the war was cultural and economic. Jacques has chosen to expand the war and to open a new front - the foreign diplomacy front. But he forgot that part of foreign diplomacy is being able to back up your words with action. France has no capacity for action, only for rhetoric. By opening his new front, Jacques playing into our strengths. And now he is paying the price for his hubris.

It will be years before the French people can recover the damage Jacques has wrought on one of their most important foreign relationships. Jacques has taken Mitterand's war and turned it into another French Vietnam. Only this time, the Americans won't bail him out.

So What About The Germans?

Ryan Thompson of Young Conservatives has put forth an interesting argument that Germany has actually been supporting us all along and that we should cut them some slack and even view the current state of affairs as beneficial. He states several solid reasons for having this belief (military assistance, granting of passage and overflight rights, etc.). And while these are all good signs, we still need to pay attention to Mr. Schroeder's words and their effects.

Mr. Schroeder campaigned on an anti-American, anti-war platform. His rhetoric on the issue riled up his pacifist leaning population. The actions of Mr. Schroeder and the government may have belied a different stance than that which they spoke, but the German people bought into the rhetoric hook, line and sinker and have taken his words to heart. The actions of the German people indicate a growing gulf in understanding between America and Germany.

Is the gulf as wide as that between the Americans and the French? No. Not anywhere close. But is it there? Yes. And it is getting wider every day.

So how can we reverse the drifting apart of our two nations? The most important step that Schroeder could take would be to renounce the "alliance" with Paris and Moscow in the war against Iraq. Not to just edge away from it, but to come out and formally renounce it. And while renouncing the alliance, explain to the German pacifists why the United States is so important to their country and their freedoms. Explain the history and tell of the actions taken by the US GIs as compared to the Red Army. Talk about the Marshall plan and American forgiveness.

Schroeder needs to remind the Germans of the benevolence of the Americans. He needs to remind them that our ties go deeper than economics - they go to the most basic belief: freedom.

Schroeder needs to be pro-American if he wants to truly salvage the German-American relationship. He doesn't need to be our lackey, but he does need to be our friend.

How Much Is An Aircraft Carrier Worth?

It looks like our friends over in Brussels still aren't catching on too well. Javier Solona has made a speech in which he warns against a return to "cave-man" politics on the part of the US. It would seem to me that when you're trying to curry favor with someone, you don't do it by referring to them that way.

Mr. Solona is most certainly trying to curry favor for the EU. He complains about "cherry-picking" of allies from within the EU. He apparently feels that "The EU has capacities that it individual members lack." Since the EU only seems to have the capacity to be bureaucratic and obstructionist, we probably don't want to seek their "capacities;" we want to get things done rather than debating them until all parties involved are dead.

But along with all the EU diplo-speak in the article was this nugget:

But he defended Europe's peacekeeping approach. "How much additional security does an aircraft carrier bring? Is it more or less than spending the equivalent amount of money on peacekeeping or reconstruction of failed states?"

Let's see. A Nimitz carrier runs somewhere around $6 billion - we'll call it $10 billion with the aircraft and other assorted support stuff. We offered Turkey several billion more than that and what security did that buy us? How many nations are better off because we threw $10 billion at a kleptocratic government? How much of the money given to the Palestinian Authority has actually been spent on bettering their people's lives and how much has been stolen, spent on weapons, or used to teach racial hatred? Is the world really better off having suicide bombers and a couple of generations of people who believe that Israel will eventually be thrown back into the Med?

And certainly his implicit implication that our carriers don't provide security is accurate. In a crisis, we never ask "where are the carriers?" We always lead off "with how much money do we need to sink into this bottomless pit of hatred and despair before the world will be a happy place again?"

The carriers are, to this point in history, the ultimate tool for projecting power around the world. Is it really surprising that the two leading participants in the Iraq conflict are the two that actually put carriers to sea? Someone recently said (I wish I could remember where I saw this) that being able to put 1000 airplanes per day over Iraq is worth at least another armored division. The carriers in place are major contributors to that capability. And with them we can put up the same capacity over virtually any point on the globe in a very short time (certainly much less than is needed to get an actual armored division to the area and ready to fight).

When it's been necessary we have sent the carriers to various hotspots around the world, almost always with the same results. When the carriers went through the Straights of Taiwan, the mainland Chinese complained and blustered, but got the message and started behaving again. When a carrier parked itself off the Korean coast, the N.K.s complained and blustered, but they got the message and ratcheted down the rhetoric somewhat (although it is still at dangerous levels). The most fearsome sight for our enemy, even more so than the 16-inch gunned Iowas, is a Nimitz battle group steaming over the horizon towards them.

So would I rather spend $10 billion on a carrier or $10 billion trying to save a failing nation? I don't really see where there is any question. How much additional security does an aircraft carrier bring? Quite a bit.

Friends, Allies, & The UN

They must be piping drinking water into the UN building straight out of the East River or maybe the Mexicans brought their own water, but something is making our friends and allies go weird on us at the UN; first it was the Axis of Weasels, then Russia and now the Mexicans.

The Mexicans take over the Presidency of the Security Council next week. Now you would think that it would be good for us to have an ally in the Presidency rather than a nation that relies on a witchdoctor for foreign policy. But our friends to the south have decided that they have three goals: "to return multilateralism to the UN," to "find a way to reinsert the UN into Iraq," and to "revise and limit the power of veto."

Now the first two goals are wonderful politically correct throwaway statements. They make the socialist, one-world-government wackos happy. There is nothing wrong about spouting off that kind of useless rhetoric.

But that third goal, to "revise and limit the power of veto," that is a very dangerous undertaking - most of all for the UN. We provide a disproportionate share of the UN's resource, financial and otherwise. If we pull our funding out of the UN, it fails. Nobody else really cares enough about it to fund it like we do.

But other nations, and the UN itself, need to realize that with our excessive contribution comes certain rights. We have a defacto veto over anything stupid that the UN may come up with - we can just pull our funding. It would kill the organization if we did that, but if the action is egregious enough and we have no other procedural power - well it is valuable real estate that the headquarters building sits on.

We hold the "golden share" because we provide the gold. If the UN takes away our absolute veto and essentially tries to subjugate over national interests to that of a Libya, a North Korea, or a Guinea then the diplomats won't be watching too many more Broadway plays.

If the UN is serious about reform, they need to provide humanitarian aid to Iraq and forget about multilateral diplomacy and providing security. They need to work on the touchy feely stuff and leave the protection to the big boys who have the means to enforce their edicts.

Instead of worrying about France getting "their fair share" in the new Iraq, the UN needs to worry about Iraqis getting "their fair share" of food and water.

Instead of trying to force the coalition to bail out of governing Iraq in the immediate aftermath, they should be glad that for once they can distribute aid to the people of a nation rather than the kleptomaniacs that usually rule third world nations.

Or maybe instead of being arrogant, whiny, condescending and ungrateful, they should just step back and say "Thank you."

They should thank us for supporting this organization even when it worked against interest. They should thank us for having given the organization credibility. They should thank us for being willing to get dirt under our nails to make the organization work.

Reforming rules and trying to stick themselves into Iraq for anything other than humanitarian aid is not needed. A simple "Thank you" would suffice, thank you very much.

Who's better? Saudis or Turks?

The Sunday Telegraph has a great editorial called "Serious Consequences" coming in tomorrow's paper. It's a wonderful read, but I want to raise a minor issue with one point.

They mention that in this conflict the coalition has been better served by Saudi Arabia than it has been by NATO ally Turkey. Which is true - in this case. For this conflict, Saudi Arabia has done more for us than the Turks.

But when we step back and look at the bigger picture. Neither nation has been overly helpful over the long term. But Saudi Arabia has been actively spreading Wahhabi Islam, which is violently anti-American. Turkey, on the other hand, is a real Islamic democracy that works.

We need to be careful here. Saudi Arabia is an ally of convenience. Turkey is an ally of principle. In this case, our interest aligned with those of Saudi Arabia, while we had a difference of opinion with Turkey. Both situations are acceptable.

Turkey is a natural ally for us. We need to make sure that we don't allow a difference of opinion to permanently harm our relationship. That's not to say that we shouldn't be a little more cautious with them in the future, but this isn't relationship threatening. We need to remember who the real ally is and who the ally for now is.

The Airlines Are Whining Again

It looks like the airlines are whining again. They are complaining that the war in Iraq could push into bankruptcy and possibly even liquidation. Through the Air Transport Association, they are even floating a trial balloon for nationalization.

I said it twice before, here and here, that the problem is not a war in Iraq. The problem is one of poor management. The major airlines are not in a position to deal with a war because their expenses are too high, their service is too poor and their size prevents them from having any flexibility to react to a changing world. The only war that is "killing" the airlines is a fare war.

If United or USAir files for Chapter 7 liquidation, I'll be disappointed, but not surprised. And I certainly won't be complaining that they liquidate. The airline industry is suffering from a severe case of overcapacity and the sudden removal of a large chunk of capacity might just be the shot in the arm that entire industry needs. The short-term upheaval that liquidation would cause would be more than offset in the long term by better stability in the airline industry.

Nationalization is not what the airlines need. We have essentially tried nationalization once before (we called it regulation instead, but there was no difference, other than cosmetic, between regulation and nationalization) and we proved that it does not work and is not in the best interest of the traveling public. I am amazed that the hyper-competitive airline chieftains are so willing to subjugate themselves to governmental authority. It is absolutely bizarre.

If an airline goes under, that's unfortunate. But it is not the end of the world; it is not the collapse of the US airline industry. It's not even the fault of the war. It's just the result of poor management.

This is how friends act

I was over reading some posts on Free Republic and I came across this interesting article from the Asia Times. Essentially, it is speculated that we may be moving a significant force east out of Jordan and into Western Iraq. Supposedly the forces came in secretly through Aqaba and the Jordanian government has kept it quiet for internal political reasons.

The official Jordanian government line is that the only troops we have in country are the 2000 troops needed to run the three - yes three - Patriot missile batteries we have sent there for protection.

What's really interesting here is that no one seems to be questioning the fact that it takes over 600 people to run a Patriot battery - at least according to the Jordanian spokesman. Now I have not seen a Patriot battery up close, but I'm thinking that we can operate it with fewer people than we need to run a nuclear sub. Maybe I'm wrong, but........

This sounds like a blatant and unimpressive "cover-up" by the Jordanians. The population of Jordan is generally opposed to the war, but this sounds like the government understands where their true interest lies. So they clandestinely allow us to do what is needed and they spread obvious fictions to their people in order to maintain the peace.

King Abdullah, like his father before him, understands the importance of his country's relationship with the US. So he is doing what he needs to do to nurture that relationship. If this story is even a slight bit accurate, this would indicate the actions of a true friend. Maybe we should take the $15 billion that we were going to give to the Turks and give to the Jordanians. These actions would be worthy of a significant increase in foreign aid to our friends.

Why Are We Still Waiting?

So Tony Blair has won support from Commons to take the British into war with us. It's been a long hard fought battle to get the proper approvals for the British to be on board with us, but it's over. Now we can turn our full and complete attention to Iraq, where it should have been for a while now.

It has been interesting watching the debate in Britain. The MPs and Cabinet members seem to have much more conviction than do our members of Congress. They also seem to better understand the idea of there being a time for debate and a time for untiy, something our folks could learn better.

So where do we go from here? Right now, we have about 25 hours left on the 48 hour deadline from last night. I still believe that 25 hours is too long to wait. I mentioned this morning (see the update) that Tony Blair had earned the right to ask for more time. He has made the most of that time and has gotten the political cover he needed. The Korean wargames would be a nice deterrent, but I don't think it is worth waiting 20+ more hours to let them start. The risk is still too high.

I believe that we have the legal justification for going in. WindsofChange.net mentioned the loophole (and Bush's exact wording) in his WindsofWar post for today. I believe that that little loophole is just big enough to fit the entire US military through. Saddam has already refused our generous offer. We could commence military activity now, take back the initiative, put the Iraqi Army on the defensive from the word "GO"and most importantly, we could disperse our troops and reduce the effectiveness of Saddam's WMD.

It's currently 3 am in Iraq, give or take. If, we are already in the air, we can get this party started a little earlier than Saddam thinks. If we haven't gotten it going yet, we will have wasted 24 more hours and will have taken escalated our risks even more. Every minute makes an pre-emptive attack more likely. Every minute means a greater chance that we lose many more of our men than we need to. We're going to go in. We offered 48 hours; he refused. Let's go already.

Debate vs. War

I have been reading quite a few stories lately about Senator Daschle's critique of the President and the reaction to it. I'm not sure how I really feel about this.

On the one hand, I can understand the need for there to be a unified front as we go to war. The time for debate has passed. The Commander in Chief has made his decision and it's time for everybody to fall in line and support the military as it goes to do its job.

But Congress also has the responsibility to debate issues and to pr