Judicious Asininity

This is the Archive Page. Click Here for Main Page

Fri Oct 31, 2003

A Week of Fire

Benefits of bureaucratic "process"

Daniel Henninger discusses the types of policies that have lead us to disaster after disaster after disaster:

It is too late for Southern California. Forest policy has become such a "diffuse, bureaucratic thing" that the addition of status quo environmental opposition made public leadership impossible. If we have learned anything, again, from this awful catastrophe, it is that not making a decision amid imminent threat is the worst form of public leadership.

With terrorism, it is not too late to avoid the same mistake. With next November's election, the American people have a chance to express their preference for a style of leadership in a complicated and dangerous world.

Ample room exists for disagreement and debate about terrorism and Iraq. But there is a real question to be asked whether modern liberalism has become so tied to belief in the benefits of bureaucratic "process" that the process itself has become an impediment to acting or a pretext for doing nothing, as it did with the fires. The result in either case has proven to be mortal risk for Americans.

When John Kerry, Wesley Clark and the rest are asked what they would have decided differently after September 11, and when in virtual unison they say they would work in partnership and cooperation with the United Nations, we are entitled to wonder why their foreign policy, like their forestry policy, would not place the war on terror into the hands of the exact equivalent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fall asleep on that.

Exactly. If our own liberal bureaucratic disasters are not enough for you, look to Europe and the U.N.
Failure after failure after failure. How many does it take?

Up in Smoke

Head in the Sand Environmental Policies

Here's a good rundown on the extreme nature of current environmental policy that has been forced upon the states by all knowing, all seeing, elitists:

It is now perfectly obvious that "habitat conservation plans" are to species protection what Soviet five-year plans were to steel production: A vast amount of wasted ink and money, signifying only the ideology and vanity of the planners. I have been a participant in many of these discussions, as a lawyer representing landowners, and know first hand the arrogance of the agencies that issue these orders and devise these grand schemes. Don't count on any apologies coming from their direction.

The post-mortem on the fires should lead to the most brutal review of the federal Endangered Species Act in its 30 year history. Nowhere more so than in southern California has more time and money has been invested in the idea that government bureaucrats (working with environmental activists, using the money scalped from landowners) can build a better nature than local governments and the market would otherwise deliver. The stubborn fact is California has never had fires of this magnitude. Now that the federal government is running a huge portion of land use, disaster strikes.

The core problem is that species protection prohibits many ordinary fire precautions. You cannot clear coastal sage scrub, no matter how dense, if a gnatcatcher nests within it--unless the federal government provides a written permission slip which is extraordinarily difficult to obtain. The same prohibition lurks behind every species designation, and can even apply to land on which no endangered species has ever been seen but about which allegations of "potential occupation" have been made.

The land that has passed into "conserved" status is at even greater risk of fire than private land that is home to a protected species because absolutely no one cares for its fire management policy. The scrum of planners, consultants, and G-11s that put together the plans should be monitoring these areas closely. Instead, they regulate and move on to savage the property rights of the next region.

THE MOST PRESSING QUESTION for the federal government after the fires are put out will be the number of acres of land burned which had already been set aside for species conservation purposes. Whatever that number is, it will be a challenge to the drafters of the plans to provide evidence that they had anticipated the conserved acres being charred. Of course they didn't, but that won't protect the guilty from intoning about the natural benefits of fire. In their acquisitiveness, the planners have focused only on locking up land against development, not in protecting it from devastating fire. The nakedness of their error is found in the very plans they developed, which lack comprehensive fire management programs and the means to carry them out.

The Bush administration, as in so many areas, inherited eight years of disastrous extremism dressed up as "science"--described by Bruce Babbitt as "walking lightly on the land." Babbitt's tenure as Secretary of the Interior, seen through the smoke of California and the charred remains from Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota, is clearly the most damaging to the environment in the history of the department.

Yeah, that's right, 'inherited'. Bush has had an absolute avalanche of these inherited problems. One right after the other. How long do you suppose it will take to undo all the damage done by the leftists and their agendas? Please go read the rest.

Urban Laboratory

Lessons in Failure

Henry Payne offers another example of the failed liberal agenda as evidenced by this 'urban laboratory', Detroit:

Run by Democrats' core union and activist African-American constituencies, Detroit is a living laboratory of the party's liberal agenda. Ruled by Democrats (a Republican has not served in city government since the late 1970s) in a majority-Democrat state, Detroit boasts a living-wage law, strict racial hiring quotas, a public-school system with one of the nation's highest per pupil expenditures, a generous welfare system, a highly paid union workforce, high tax rates, and city services delivered entirely by the public sector.

This Democratic experiment, however, has stimulated a growth of pathogens so noxious that Detroit has become a national symbol of urban blight. Not surprisingly then, the devastated city outside was rarely mentioned inside the Fox Theater during the 90-minute debate.

Things are really getting ugly for the Dems. The liberal agenda is uglier than Detroit, more bankrupt than California, hotter than an eco-induced forest fire, and making more news than all the Dems combined. Americans are getting a priceless lesson in failure that should serve them well in the years to come.

Right to Protest

Doesn't Include Right to Break Law and Infringe Upon Others

Keeping with the environmental nuts theme, there's this:

Greenpeace says a recent federal indictment against it is an unprecedented move that threatens the right of all activist organizations.

Calling the indictment "the greatest threat the organization has faced in 33 years," Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando said a decision against the environmental group could freeze its actions.

The July indictment charges Greenpeace with illegal boarding and conspiracy for organizing the boarding of a cargo ship just before it arrived in Miami's port in April 2002. The group believed the ship was carrying a load of contraband Amazon mahogany from Brazil.

Two Greenpeace employees boarded the APL Jade, while three boats whizzed in front of the ship until they were stopped by the Coast Guard.

Greenpeace does not deny activists broke laws when boarding the ship, and said its activists are often arrested during campaigns. Passacantando said Greenpeace activists "take their lumps" when they break the law.

Six Greenpeace members settled misdemeanor charges related to the boarding over the past year.

However, Passacantando said the organization objects to any threat to "its right to dissent." Calling its activism as American as jazz or baseball, he said he believes Greenpeace is being persecuted for its criticism of President Bush's environmental policies.

Now, he said, the fight has taken on bigger implications.

"I see us as fighting this fight for everyone's right to (protest)," he said.

No, you are not fighting for the right to protest. You are fighting to be able to break the law, infringe upon the rights of others, and in general, be a pain in the ass of the world. Hopefully this indictment will serve to remind you that your feelings, beliefs, and theories do not give you the right to harass other people. If we are really lucky, the Justice Department will find some new and more serious charges to lay on other 'environmentalists'. A little prison time should serve quite well to impress upon them that they are not the center of the universe, not smarter than all other people, and not immune from the consequences of violating other peoples' rights. You know, teach them a little R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

Are environmentalists endangering endangered species?

Unless the species happens to be fireproof, that's what's happening

This billboard says it all.

Thu Oct 30, 2003

Christians Awake!

Is the Catholic Church waking up to the threat of Islam?

LGF points to this article from the Jesuit magazine "La Civiltà Cattolica". Anyone familiar with Robert Spencer's books would not be surpised by the contents on the article. The reality is that the "religion of peace" has persecuted Christians and other religions for a millenium and continues to do so in the Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan and most Arab countries.

The situation in Sudan is terrible yet Western (Christian?) countries have virtually ignored the plight of non-Muslims in the Southern half of that country.

But the most tragic situation – and, unfortunately, forgotten by the Western world! – is that of Sudan, where the North is Arab and Muslim, and the South black and Christian, and in part, animist. Since the time of president G.M. Nimeiry, there has been a state of civil war between the North, which has proclaimed shari’a and intends to impose it with fierce violence on the rest of the country, and the South, which aims to preserve and defend its Christian identity. The North makes use of all of its military power – financed by oil exports to the West – to destroy Christian villages; prevent the arrival of humanitarian aid; kill the cattle, which are the means of sustenance for many South Sudanese; and carry out raids, for Christian girls in particular, who are brought to the North, raped, and sold as slaves or concubines to rich, older Sudanese men. According to the 2001 report of Amnesty International, “at the end of 2000, the civil war, which started again in 1983, had cost the lives of almost two million persons and had caused the forced evacuation of 4,500,000 more. Tens of thousands of persons have been compelled by terror to leave their homes in the upper Nile region, which is rich in oil, after aerial bombardments, mass executions, and torture.”

Unfortunately, the poor, black Christians and Animists don't control Sudan's oil wealth.

And one more question. If it's OK for Saudia Arablia to build Mosques and Islamic schools in Christian countries, why isn't it OK for Christians to build Churchs and Christian schools in Saudi Arabia?

Economic News

Big Pop in GDP

Bad news for Democrats:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter of 2003, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

If liberals had hearts you could hear them breaking with this news. In lieu of that, suffice it to say that there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth among certain members of the Democratic party.

If the sheer magnitude of this figure escapes anyone there's this little snippet:

Specifically, the advance Q3 GDP checked in at its highest level in almost 20 years, or 7.2% (consensus 6.0%) and benefited from a 6.6% increase in personal consumption and an 11.1% increase in investment spending... The Chain Deflator (at 1.7%) was a bit higher than the consensus of 1.4%, but the rate of inflation remains low...

Enough? Not yet:

The Initial Claims report checked in at 386K, for its third consecutive reading below the 400K level, indicative of payroll declines, and brought the 4-week average down to 389K from 394K last week.

Mercy!

Wed Oct 29, 2003

Environmental Enlightenment

The Wonders of Fire

Neil Boortz reports what some us already know and others seem to be figuring out:

At last ... some in the media are starting to question the role of environmentalists and environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and Earth First in the devastating California wildfires. It seems clear that the severity of these wildfires would have been reduced if proper forest management policies had been followed. These policies were blocked time after time by environmental radicals and the politicians who pander to them.

If there is any silver lining to this cloud of smoke over Southern California, it may be that environmentalists will be weakened and some common sense management of forests and areas prone to wildfires will occur.

There seems to be something about fire that gets people's attention. This problem has been known about for a long time but environmentalists and administrations have ignored the truth in their zeal to promote ideals that do more harm than good. This is just another sign that the 'we have had enough' brigade of Americans is growing larger and getting louder.

Democrats Have Good Ideas

They Just Don't Know It Yet

Judson Cox says that "democrats have good ideas". Such things as ensuring that the rich pay their fair share of taxes, which by the way, would result in a tax cut for wealthy people, are among the ideas discussed. Still, the bottom line returns to the fact that Dems are managing to alienate American voters with their current tactics:

Seriously though, one thing is clear: democrats have no clue how to fight the War on Terror. They seem to think that Osama bin Laden is personally responsible for all Islamic terrorism. They contend that we should curtail all efforts to prevent terrorism and focus on killing bin Laden. They speak as if he is carrying out attacks by mental telepathy; if we kill him, all the jihadists would become peaceful Muslims. This may be an effective strategy for gaining the democratic presidential nomination. A poll reported on Special Report With Britt Hume on Oct. 23 of this year, found that only 1% of democratic voters in the Iowa caucus, and only 2% of in the New Hampshire caucus believed terrorism to be an important issue.
Thankfully, democratic primary voters are not representative of the average American. The September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks scared the hell out of most of us. When President Bush vowed to not only take out those responsible for the attacks, but to act preemptively to prevent future attacks, we were thrilled. After the towers fell and the Pentagon was hit, most Americans thought it was a good idea to get them before they get us. Although there has been much disagreement over the way we should fight terrorism, most Americans would still rather prosecute the War on Terrorism than wait for another 3,000 Americans to be killed. Something beats nothing every time.

The democratic candidates are vehemently opposed to the Bush Doctrine, but they have no alternative plan. The best they have done so far is to claim that the billions spent on toppling the Hussein government and in rebuilding Iraq would have been better spent on domestic social programs. If that is the argument they wish to make, so be it. However, if a democrat becomes president, and another September 11th style attack occurs on American soil, that argument won't fly. Few Americans will be comforted knowing that their government chose not to fight terrorism but to prop up a US Postal Service that will be $7.3 billion in debt this year and still can't deliver a letter on time, pump a few billion more into a public education system that can't seem to teach its students to read, write or do basic math, and to create a prescription drug plan that provides Bill Gates with free medicine.

To the Democratic Party I say, get serious or lose and expect to be out of power for generations to come. Regardless of what partisans may say, a one party system would not be healthy for our republic. However, if the democrats continue as they have, a one party system is exactly what we will have.

It's a real conundrum for the Dems, a regular catch-22. They can't win without changing and they can't change without losing big. Interesting. Of course they might elect to maintain their present tactics in the hope that they can redefine enough words to fool Americans into believing that the Democratic party is looking out for our best interests. But, in this new age of information, that is increasingly unlikely.

Democrat for Bush

Zell Miller Stands Tall

In a sign that some Democrats will support Bush's re-election, Zell Miller speaks out:

SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA, the nation's most prominent conservative Democrat, said today he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to. Miller said Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern the country.

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."

Surely there are others.

Greens Distorting the Facts

Attack on Bush Policies

David Stirling clears up some potential misconceptions regarding the current administration's environmental policies:

The Bush administration certainly doesn't need defending by one frequently frustrated at its tortoise-like pace in restoring balance and common sense to the nation's environmental and natural resource policies. Yet the coordinated and unrelenting attacks on President Bush's programs by hardcore environmental organizations this early in the 2004 presidential campaign suggests that Bush's "people-friendly" environmental agenda is causing them chronic heartburn.

Looking at recent history gives some clues as to how a moderate position that attempts to balance people's needs with the protection of the environment is looked upon as being callous disregard for nature by some groups. The last administration was completely in the back pockets of eco-activists, now, a more balanced position is attacked vehemently by groups that resent a return to common sense policies:

A prime example of the partnership's calculated plan was Clinton's much ballyhooed signing of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Not only did Clinton's signature advance the environmental partnership's goal of a "nature first, people last" international environmental policy but it intentionally set the stage for massive worldwide condemnation of any Republican successor who later balked at international controls on the engine of America's economic well-being: business.

Although the full Senate (including all Democrats) unanimously rejected the protocol because of its certain damage to the economy, Clinton's signature at Kyoto established the extreme environmental standard against which the next president would be judged. It was no surprise that Bush's immediate and continuing rejection of Clinton's Kyoto-posturing triggered a barrage of criticism from the very eco-activists that generated Clinton's position initially.

Read it all.

Tue Oct 28, 2003

Terrorists Suicidal?

Cowardly Losers Find Courage?

Wisdom, Self-Command and Common Sense

Replaying an Oldie but Goodie

Teddy Roosevelt has some words of wisdom for the current Democratic leadership:

As a very young politician, Teddy Roosevelt experienced the frustrations inherent in leading a legislative minority — the New York state Assembly. Ten years after his stint in the Legislature, he wrote, “People cannot have free institutions if they lack the wisdom, self-command and common sense to make use of them; and the people who condone and approve filibustering show that they lack all these qualities, and to that extent have forfeited their claim to be considered capable of governing themselves."

And David Winston tries to help too:

Very little has changed since the 2002 Congressional election. Voters still perceive Democrats as offering few ideas while Democratic presidential candidates seem to have only one mantra — attack Bush. Ideas and solutions seem to have taken a back seat to bitter partisanship which has become a pervasive Democrat doctrine. The filibuster is just the latest incantation.

Daschle would be wise to listen to old Roosevelt and change course or risk another disastrous election in 2004.

Obviously, they just ain't 'got it' yet. Maybe next year.

Goose/Gander Sex Thang

Boy Tries To Infiltrate Female Domain

In a case of table turning that was bound to happen, a male is trying to force his way onto a female soccer team:

A Newport mom is arguing for boys to be allowed on high school girls soccer teams.
Sue Pifer's son, Allen, wanted to play on the Newport High girls team because there were not enough boys to form a boys team at the school. He was not allowed to play this season.
The season is over, but Pifer is continuing to make the fight to state officials, she said, so other boys don't face the same problem.
She said federal Title 9 law and state athletic guidelines allow coed teams when a school does not offer comparable activities for both genders.
School officials disagree with that interpretation.
The state Board of Education will have a hearing on the issue Tuesday.

Well, you knew it was bound to happen. With females forcing their way into nearly every male activitiy and organization the old saying about the goose and gander seems to be coming true.
Now, where else is there a clear double standard that needs some attention?
Mercy........where will it all end?

Apartheid in Africa

South Africa Following the Leader

It would seem that it's just a matter of time before South Africa joins the rest of the continent in a coalition of the world's worst countries:

WHEN Nelson Mandela came to power in 1994 he declared South Africa would be a "rainbow nation" free from the hatred brought by years of apartheid.

But now a very different African leader’s influence threatens to shatter the dream of a racially-tolerant country with increasing numbers of white farmers being murdered by impoverished blacks inspired by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s policy of taking away their land by force.

In South Africa, more than 1,500 white farmers have been killed since 1994, compared to 14 murdered by Mugabe’s supporters in three years of violence in neighbouring Zimbabwe.

Most have died during robberies, but, according to a devastating report commissioned by South African President Thabo Mbeki’s government, they are increasingly being killed by farm workers who want land of their own.

Well, the illusion was good while it lasted. Killing hard working white farmers who help fed the starving, disease ridden populations is guaranteed to put South Africa into the same category as the other failing countries in Africa. Enjoy.

Stand Firm

In the Face of Terror

The Sun has a good piece encouraging people to stand firm in the face of terror and ignore those who are playing political games with our future:

THE Not In My Name brigade are already blaming yesterday’s Baghdad bombings on the Americans — and by association, the British.

Let’s get one thing straight. The only people responsible are the people who did it.

They don’t care who they kill — Red Cross, UN, women, children. It’s all the same to them.

Whether the bombers are al-Qa’ida or the rump of Saddam’s gangsters is irrelevant.

If they weren’t attacking Western targets, they’d be stuffing Iraqis into tree shredders, poisoning Kurds, murdering Israelis or slaughtering fellow Muslims for the fun of it.

But their terror tactics are having a worrying effect on public opinion in Britain and in America, where I spent last week.

The cause in Britain hasn’t been helped by Blair’s habit of lying even when he’s in the right, or by the hounding to death of Dr Kelly.

But in the US, support for the war is also slipping as opportunist Democractic presidential wannabes pile in to President Bush.

This is exactly what the enemies of freedom and democracy want. They depend on fickle public opinion and fear in the West.

It needs to be restated again and again. The war on terror and tyranny isn’t an arcade game. It may last decades. It may never be over. But that’s no reason not to fight it.

Well, you wouldn't know that from the way the Democratic Desperatos are carrying on. They seem to believe that it is in their own best interest to weaken our resolve to defeat terrorism. This selfish 'me first' attitude is clear in many things that are going on in the deteriorating Democratic party. The good news is that Americans have noticed, taken names, and will hold these game players accountable.

Fair and Balanced

Versus Skewed and Blind

Chris Wallace speaks out regarding his joining Fox News:

"I had the same conception a lot of people did about Fox News, that they have a right-wing agenda," he said yesterday after being named the host of "Fox News Sunday." "I'm a straight-newsman -- I plead guilty."

But he became convinced after months of watching Fox News Channel that the network gets "an unfair rap. Its reporting is serious, thoughtful and evenhanded. . . . If they wanted someone to push a political agenda, they wouldn't have hired me."

Perhaps there are some people who have drifted so far left that 'fair and balanced' does indeed seem like the far right. This is a common affliction by many Democrats and unfortunately for them, they seem to be the last to understand just how far out their views are.

Is there any such thing as moderate Islam?

And if there isn't, can we afford to let any Muslim country have nukes?

Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the 10th session of the Islamic Summit Conference on Oct. 16 dropped these pearls of Islamic wisdom

We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.

...

We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also.

His audience apparently agreed with him. He got a standing ovation from fellow moderate Muslim leaders, including our erstwhile allies Ms Megawati, Hamid Karzai, Pervez Musharraf and Crown Prince Abdullah, and a free pass from NYT columnist Paul Krugman. Note how Mahathir seems to think it is right to persecute Jews but they were so cunning they promoted ideologies that made it appear to be wrong to persecute Jews. Under Islam Jews and Christians can only live in dhimmitude or subservience to Muslims, so Mahathir is taking an orthodox Muslim attitude towards Jews.

But the thrust of Mahathir's post-Nazi ramblings is even more disturbing:

Those weapons and horses cannot help to defend us any more. We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence.

...

It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategise and then to counter-attack.

He wants weapons to defend Islam against the Jews (and their proxies) and then to counter-attack. Since he did not actually use the N word, he is just one step away from radical Islamist Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president, who said last year that on the day the Muslim world gets nuclear weapons the Israeli question will be settled forever "since a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world."

There we have it, folks. Moderate and radical Islam share common cause - the defeat of the Jews and their proxies (us).

See this post for more analysis of Mahathir's speech.

Mon Oct 27, 2003

Republicans to Battle Obstructionism

Judicial Nomination Fight Requires More Effort

In a sign that Republicans may intend to raise the consciousness of voters about Democratic obstructionism of judicial nominations as well as actually fight for their choices, Bill Frist has a plan:

Now, Frist is about to mount a campaign in three phases, lasting through what's left of this year's session.

Phase One: Start this week with a cloture vote on the nomination of U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering Sr. of Mississippi for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. Pickering, bottled up in the Judiciary Committee during the 2001-02 Democratic interregnum, has just been sent to the Senate floor.

Phase Two: Next, order a cloture vote for the second time on Alabama State Attorney General William Pryor for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. Claims by opponents that Pryor's "deeply held beliefs" taint him for the court have produced accusations of anti-Catholicism.

Phase Three: Vote on three female nominees. Attempts to get cloture on Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen's nomination for the 5th Circuit has failed three times. California Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl's two-year-old nomination for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco is coming to the Senate floor for the first time. Just released by the Judiciary Committee and already threatened with a filibuster is California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American.

Failure to reach 60 votes for cloture on each of these three women is scheduled to be followed by consideration of the bill co-sponsored by Frist and conservative Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia. That measure would reduce the number of votes needed to end filibusters on nominations. That, too, will be filibustered in order to defeat it.

All this refocusing is intended to set the scene for a bitter battle in next year's session of Congress. At that time, an effort may be made to rule out of order a filibuster against judicial nominations -- the "so-called" nuclear solution. This would require only 51 votes, but Frist does not even have that many today because of reluctance to tamper with the traditions of the Senate.

Whether or not Bill Frist's offensive eventually places any of these well-qualified judges on the bench, it will sound a stentorian refusal to surrender. That means a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate have not acquiesced in letting Ted Kennedy determine the membership of the federal judiciary. The battle resumes today.

This is really a very simple issue. First, inform Americans about recent court decisions such as the one banning the use of 'in God we trust' in the Pledge. Second, identify those judges responsible for such anti-majority decisions. Third, identify the party responsible for appointing such activist judges who ignore tradition and the Constitution at will. Simple. This 'plan' will do more to get the attention of obstructionists than some behind the Senate wall skirmish. Inform the voters and let them decide if they want the Democratic party to rule this country via their judicial appointees. Take issue with the fact that Judges are issuing rulings that circumvent the will of the people, by-pass the legislation, and strip states of their rights. In other words, educate the people to such an extent that the '04 elections inflict much pain and gnashing of teeth among the current Dem leadership. Take a stance that ensures that judges are no longer political instruments of any party and are instead what they should be, unbiased arbiters of justice and sworn defenders of the Constitution as it is written.

California Fire

Neglecting Forest Management Brings High Costs

Californians have a number of people to thank for their current fire problem, including themselves:

One hundred years of fire suppression have altered the natural cycle of the forest, leaving the San Bernardino National Forest overstocked with trees. The density is complicated by the record drought and bark beetles, which increase in number and strength when the trees are weakened.

Four hundred-year-old trees have succumbed in recent months after withstanding centuries of wind and fire.

A decade ago, a group of forest experts led by professor Tom Bonnicksen studied ways to best address the failing health of the forest. Its report, "An Assessment of Fire Management Strategies for the San Bernardino Mountains," laid out a plan for the methodical thinning of the forest.

But the plan was never implemented. Citing a lack of support from the citizenry and opposition from environmentalists, Bonnicksen later called the plan a missed opportunity to restore the forest's health.

Crisis recognized

Then came the drought. And then swarms of beetles that perforated trees with so many holes, they look as if they were struck by machine-gun fire.

In March of last year, officials in San Bernardino and Riverside counties declared emergencies because of the bark beetles and the drought. They asked Gov. Davis to follow suit, but got no response at the time.

Late last year, area lawmakers including Sen. Jim Brulte, R-Rancho Cucamonga, and Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, began trying to pass legislation that would send money for fuels reduction and tree-removal programs.

The attempts were only marginally successful, with much of the money getting stuck in red tape while California was mired in the budget crisis.

In February, San Bernardino and Riverside county officials activated their respective emergency operation centers. In March, a year to the date after the counties asked for help from Sacramento, Davis signed a emergency proclamation. But with the budget problems, little funding was attached.

Davis appealed to the Bush administration for a national emergency declaration, but federal officials have said such measures usually are reserved for earthquakes, fires and hurricanes -- not drought and the mere threat of fire.

But now that hundreds of homes have burned, Jeff Griffin, the region's director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said he was expecting a White House response to the governor's disaster declaration. He said the presidential ruling could come in as few as two days.

This fire will most likely emit more air pollution than all the SUVs in the country could put out in 10 years. Where is the outrage from environmentalists? Where are the realists who were ignored by multiple govenment agencies when they warned of the fire problem?
In any event, now all parties will pay a high price for neglecting the proper management of this forest. There will be other fires until such time as proper management tools are used to increase the health of forests across the land. Red tape needs to be cut, meritless environmental lawsuits need to be dismissed quickly, and money spent to defend suits and otherwise battle environmentalists should be redirected towards doing what needs doing. While the debate goes on, forests burn, property disappears, and people die.

Sun Oct 26, 2003

Democratic Think Tank

Oxymoronic

Richard Rahn understands why the Democrats are desperate for their own 'think tanks' and lays out why it is oxymoronic to use the words 'Democrat' and 'Think Tank' together:

For more than 200 years, from the time of the French Revolution, almost an infinite variety of statist or socialist models have been tried. There were the various utopians, the Fabian socialists, the communists, the National Socialists (Nazis), and the almost endless varieties of social democrats. None were successful because of inherent contradictions that Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman and others so brilliantly described. The left, by starting with the premise that the solution to a problem must involve "state" control, so limit options they are bound to fail in the intellectual wars.

Well, yeah. History is surely a difficult opponent to overcome. The reason for the lack of success of Democratic think tanks is the fact that they insist on rehashing old ideas that are already proven failures. Instead of looking for new ideas, they waste time and energy in vain attempts to protect current and past ideas that are failing before their very eyes.

The problem with think tanks of the left, or closely affiliated with the Democratic Party, is that they are captives of the statist ideal or self-serving constituent groups, like unions. Hence, even though it is widely recognized public schools are failing in many places, a leftist think tank would likely be unable to set forth a voucher program or some other support for competing private schools because it would upset the teachers unions. The conservative think tanks are not so constrained, and hence they have provided proposals ranging from better management of public schools to support of only private schools.
Social Security is another issue where the left is impotent to find a solution. Serious scholars understand that, because of demographic changes, the existing Social Security system must be altered. Because those on the left are stuck in a mindset that only a government program is acceptable with no decrease in benefits, they are forced to promote a plan of never-ending tax increases to support the program, which at some point becomes self-defeating.

When a person or group insists on continuing failed programs they are reduced to 'thinking' about 'solutions' that merely prolong the inevitable. This refusal to face facts forces the Democrats to continue policies in order to avoid having to admit that they made a serious mistake. As such, 'Democratic Think Tank' is indeed oxymoronic. Americans have noticed and with an abundance of living and dead policy failures it is not likely that they will forget any time soon. In fact, with Europe as a living example of 'statist' failure there really should be no need whatsoever for a Democrat 'think tank' unless that party changes its attitude. This attitude change should begin with an admission that past policies have failed and a vow to avoid making the same mistakes that are documented by history, both past and present.

More Muslim Ignorance

Beyond Hope, Help, and Reason

On the Third Hand points out yet another example of the backwardness, ignorance, ruthlessness, and the evil mindset of our enemies with this article:

Squeezing droppers into the mouths of tearful toddlers, health workers launched an emergency drive yesterday to vaccinate Nigerians against polio, an effort impeded by rumors among Muslim fundamentalists that the vaccine was part of a U.S. plot to spread AIDS and render Muslims infertile.

Teams raced to immunize 15 million African children at immediate risk as a spreading outbreak — Nigeria has 192 known cases — threatened efforts to eradicate the disease.
"The Western world has never wished Muslims well," said Yakubu Husseini, a 20-year-old teacher coming out of Friday prayers in the northern city of Kano. "Why should they expect us to believe that vaccines they make these days are not another frontier to wage war against Muslims?"
Three predominantly Muslim states in northern Nigeria — Kano, Kaduna and Zamfara — have either delayed or refused permission for the vaccination drive. In addition, many Muslim families in the conservative north had warned health officials they would refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated.
...
Rumors gained further strength in August after Datti Ahmed, a Nigerian physician who leads a well-known Islamic fundamentalist pressure group, suggested WHO was covertly spreading anti-fertility drugs in its vaccines, an allegation the United Nations and Nigerian government have dismissed.

These are truly wonderful people.

Disappearing Penises

Suit Case Nukes and Cell Phone

Mark Steyn has some more info on the recent epidemic of penis disappearances in Sudan:

There's something pathetic about a culture so ignorant even its pathologies have to be imported. But what do you expect? The telling detail of the vanishing penis hysteria is that it was spread by text messaging. You can own a cell phone, yet still believe that foreigners are able with a mere handshake to cause your penis to melt away.

But, there's more. The bigger problem manifests itself when people who are as ignorant as this have modern weapons to inflict death and destruction upon the rest of us:

A handshake-fearing guy with a cell phone is one thing; what happens when the handshake-fearers have cell phones and a suitcase nuke? It's at the intersection of apparently indestructible ancient ignorance and cheap, widely available western technology that the dark imponderables of the future lie.

In 1898, after Kitchener slaughtered the dervishes at Omdurman, Hillaire Belloc wrote a characteristically pithy summation of the British technological advantage:

"Whatever happens
We have got
The Maxim gun
And they have not."

But the dervishes have cell phones now. Those and some dimestore boxcutters and a couple of ATM cards were all they needed to pull off 9/11.

And there are plenty of people out there willing to help them get the cheap knock-offs of the 21st century's Maxim gun.

These thoughts should really warm the cockles of your heart and instill a great sense of security for the future............unless of course......you are a realist.

Charter School in LaLaLand

It Just Had to Be California

Naturally this pertains to LaLaLand:

IF YOU TOOK every failed, trendy educrat idea, packaged them in a school and put radical animal-rights activists in charge of it, you'd end up with something like the Humane Education Learning Community -- a K-6 charter school approved by Sacramento's San Juan Unified School District.

Here's a clue as to how un-academic the K-6 school is likely to be if it opens next fall: "Mahatma Gandhi" -- the petition reads -- "once said, 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its non-human animals are treated.' ''(Clue: Gandhi did not use the term "non- human animal.")

While the petition promises rigorous academics, it's hard to find advanced math or literature buried under the avalanche of edu-jargon, as in "value of relationships," "a safe learning environment for students to speak about their own authentic feelings and experiences," "class bonding" and "constructivist and multicultural education and thematic, project-based learning."

Some of this sounds academic: Documents say social studies classes will "draw upon such disciplines as anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography,

history, law, philosophy, religion, sociology." Except the school is K-6: Many students will be beginning to learn to read -- or are supposed to be learning to read.

Where's the math? The kids may not know how to multiply, but math classes will help students "explore economic costs as they relate to environmental degradation, the loss of wildlife and companion animal overpopulation." (No indoctrination there.)

If I were to write a parody of something an animal nut/educrat would create, I would have written this document. The difference is: I would never inflict it upon innocent children. I'd know it was a joke.

Can you say 'brainwashing'? How about 'indoctrination'?

Sat Oct 25, 2003

Misguided Loyalty

Or Simple Stupidity?

Robert Prather says:

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them -- Their Sponsors Are Telling As Well

This is in reference to those ~~'anti-war'~~ anti-America war protestors reported in this article. Robert also has a few more words about these ~~great humanitarians~~ socialists, leftists, communists, peaceniks, hippies, actors, and other assorted types associated with the asshat sector of society:

Let's look at what they were protesting. True enough, they were indeed protesting against the war in Iraq. By extension they were also advocating one of two things:

The continuation of no-fly zones in Iraq and economic sanctions. In addition they are advocating Saddam's continued tyranny, i.e. stuffing human beings into industrial plastic shredders, political prisoners and the like.
The lifting of sanctions against Iraq with Saddam still in power and his ability to pump more oil and use it for horrible purposes such as stuffing human beings into industrial plastic shredders, political prisoners and increased state-sponsorship of terrorism. In short, disengagement.
These people are asshats, no question about it. If we had gone after another state-sponsor of terrorism, such as Stalinist North Korea, they would still be protesting. Why? In part, simple stupidity. The rest is demonstrated by their sponsor: ANSWER (or QUESTION, as I've heard others call it).

ANSWER is a Stalinist organization and if these protesters had any decency whatsoever they would disavow any connection with ANSWER and have future rallies organized by a better group. They've had several opportunities to do so, yet they haven't. Given that, one can only conclude they are sympathetic to ANSWER or stupid. Or both. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Obviously, 'stupid' applies and unless they are dumber than a brick 'sympathetic' fits the bill as well. So my final answer is 'both'.

Fox in the HenHouse

Perplexing Mysteries of Life

Traditional Values Coalition has this to report:

After only six months on the job, Patricia Ireland has been fired as head of the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). TVC is being credited by feminists for her ouster.

TVC was one of the first organizations to organize a campaign against Patricia Ireland within days after the YWCA announced it had hired her. TVC launched a petition and letter-writing campaign and published a special report on Ireland's radical pro-abortion, and pro-homosexual background.

This report revealed that Ireland had a decade-long lesbian partner in Washington, D.C., while maintaining a marriage to a man in Florida. It also revealed that Ireland is on the board of directors of GenderPac, a D.C. radical leftist transgender group that promotes cross-dressing and transsexualism.

We do not believe that a bisexual adulterer and a supporter of transgenderism is hardly a proper role model for young girls.

It would be hard to argue with the common sense of that position under many scenarios. Irregardless of Ms. Ireland's other qualifications, the matters of sexual preference and adultery should be considered. In that light it would be good to know if a man would be allowed to hold her position. Further, if a man did hold that postion could he teach manly values to little girls? Would this man appoint other like minded individuals to positions that would further expose little girls to points of view contrary to what is natural for the vast majority of females? The same principle should apply, and apparently has applied, to Ms. Ireland. She is obviously not the ideal role model for young girls and a further danger exists that she would use her position to hire other lesbians and compound the potential problem. Now this leads me to ask some questions about gay/straight interaction.
Given that it is socially mandated that the sexes be separate in such matters as bathrooms, locker rooms, and sleeping quarters, where does that leave homosexuals? Should we require 2 more sets of arrangements for such people? After all, their sexual orientation places them in exactly the same categories that require straight males and females to be separated. Shouldn't there be a requirement for separate bathrooms for gays? You know, like having 4 different facilities, Men, Women, Gays, Lesbians. After all, the same principle applies. And shouldn't there be separate living quarters for gays and lesbians at places that require straight people to keep to their own kind? Straight males and females are not allowed to bunk together, so why allow the homosexual foxes in the straight henhouse? It is questions like these that perplex a person. Can someone please help me out and explain why homosexuals should not be treated as two completely new, separate, and distinct sexes? Oh yeah, the YWCA thing. Is is proper to put the fox in charge of these young ladies? That's another perplexation. And what about transexuals? Where would they fit in? Perhaps another set of toilets and other sundry facilities is required. Hey, think before you answer. Separating males and females only makes sense if we further separate the sexes according to their sexual orientation. Then there are those that swing both ways. What about them? They obviously have the best of both worlds and that just ain't right.

Another Iraq-el Qaeda Connection?

It's starting to look that way as more information comes to light on Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim aka Abu Hajer al Iraqi

Stephen F. Hayes' article in the Weekly Standard gives you the rundown.

Salim, you see, is also known as Abu Hajer al Iraqi ("the Iraqi"). According to Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamin, two Clinton administration National Security Council appointees who wrote "The Sacred Age of Terror," Abu Hajer oversaw al Qaeda's efforts to produce and obtain weapons of mass destruction. Not coincidentally, say Bush administration officials familiar with intelligence reporting on Abu Hajer, he was one of the few deputies bin Laden trusted to maintain his relationship with Saddam Hussein throughout much of the 1990s.

Go read the whole thing. And while you are about it, check out Al Qaeda's New Base" by Jeffrey Bell.

A Lynch Mob Gathers, Part II

Filibusters, Obstructionism, Judicial Tyranny, Philosopher Kings, and Minority Rule

Thomas Sowell's part II of "A Lynch Mob Gathers" lays out the problems we face with our court system and a political party that insists on filibustering judicial nominees unless they appear to be willing to ignore the clear text of the Constitution and enact laws that circumvent the will of the people. It appears that nominee Janice Brown will face the same fate as others because she doesn't believe that judges should be "philosopher kings" who impose the will of the Democratics, Liberals, and Leftists on the majority of this country's citizens:

Justice Brown is just the opposite. Social agendas are not her business as a judge and the integrity of the law is. "The quixotic desire to do good, be universally fair and make everybody happy is understandable," she wrote in one of her opinions, where she dissented from a majority decision that she found "a little endearing." She added: "There is only one problem with this approach. We are a court."

Justice Brown has repudiated the notion of judges acting as if they were, in her words, "philosopher kings." Yet such expansive conceptions of the role of judges is what has enabled courts to enact so much of the liberal agenda over the past two generations, when the voting public would never have stood for such things as racial quotas or the creation of new "rights" for criminals out of thin air, if this had been done by elected officials.

The Democratic party must be made to pay a heavy price for their tactics in this area. Imposing the minority's will on the majority by using the courts for political purposes is clearly a tyranny that our founders warned us about. The time to act is now. Why is the Bush administration and the Republican party standing mute on this issue? They should be shouting from the roof tops and warning the public about this tactic of the Democrats. Maybe they figure that the public is becoming more and more aware of this type of game being played by Dems and intend to let the people make the ultimate choice at the polls. Based on recent history this is occurring and the election of '04 should prove quite painful for the minority party. A preview of coming events should occur in a few weeks as many states have their elections for governor and other state officials. After that, the Republicans should hammer the Dems for their clear obstructionism, lack of solutions, whining, griping, blocking, and weak positions on national defense. Throw in the neverending quest for higher and higher taxes by Dems, the results of the Great Liberal Experiment in California, and the rediculous cast of characters running for the Dem presidential nomination and the majority of Americans should have a clear idea what it is that they do not want. That will leave only one sensible choice in '04. We shall see.

Fri Oct 24, 2003

Scalia Speaks Out

A.P. Confirms His Truth Unintentionally

Here's a good one from Power Line:

Earlier today Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at a meeting of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, ridiculed his court's decision in the recent case finding a constitutional right to sodomy:

The ruling, Scalia said, "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter....Most of today's experts on the Constitution think the document written in Philadelphia in 1787 was simply an early attempt at the construction of what is called a liberal political order. All that the person interpreting or applying that document has to do is to read up on the latest academic understanding of liberal political theory and interpolate these constitutional understandings into the constitutional text." Well put.

What I really love in this Associated Press account, though, is this sentence: "Scalia is a hero of conservatives who favor a strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution." The "actual text"--as opposed to...what, exactly? The A.P. writer didn't mean to prove Scalia's point. But she did.

Such extremism to support the "Actual Text" of the Constitution. These people are truly dangerous and have to be stopped. Before you know they will insisting that the 'actual text' be applied to everyone equally.

Fungus

Muslim Time Bombs

Blackfive has a post you really should go read:

Simple answer: I don't think we can penetrate that kind of cultural and religious brainwashing.

Which is why, when I saw this article on the Malaysian Prime Minister's hateful words, I wasn't shocked. Not in the slightest.

It really is us against them. Us and the Israelis and a few others against 1.6 billion zealots.

Get used to the idea.

GO read it, please. And remember the Trojan Horse.

Xtreme Politics

Americans as Spectators

Daniel Henniger makes some good points discussing the 'culture war' and activist courts:

Beneath this history lies another argument, with which I agree, that the country's judges the past 30 years have made much law touching people's deepest beliefs about the ordering of public and private life, which previously was the first responsibility of elected legislatures. So internalized has the courts' legislative primacy become that seminars are now held to argue whether liberal or conservative judges are the more activist.

This may be the moment to put the courts and the culture at the center of a presidential campaign. Mr. Bush, now unable to get judges confirmed for reasons of cultural superstition, should make the case for returning the culture to legislative politics, and then make his Democratic opponent reply.

It would seem that the time is right for such a move. With judges now being appointed solely based upon their position on matters best left to the people to decide individually, we must return the judiciary to its intended function. This function is not to impose various political beliefs on the American people but to be impartial and fair dispensers of justice.

I think many people who don't get paid for waging politics are becoming quite frustrated with dysfunctional legislatures that are now polarized--as in Congress or in California--essentially along the cultural faultlines created by 30 years of allowing judges to pre-empt the broader community's ability to discover, or re-examine, its social beliefs. These legislators have become little more than clerks to judges and the complainants in their courts--the law as not much more than a brief. When this happens, citizens lose their status as voters or electors and become mere courtroom spectators. How can this be good?
Continuing to use the courts in this way--the ACLU boasting it will get a court to overthrow a law passed by Congress or any legislature--and then demanding that large portions of American society simply shut up and swallow it is a recipe for a kind of war much more serious than the mere chattering crossfire of talk shows.

Therein lies the problem. The majority is being tyranized by the minority via the courts. As has been said before, judicial activism needs to be halted before we find ourselves ruled by a tribunal of judges, appointed for life, with political agendas that attempt to mold our society into something none of us wants. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to remove issues such as abortion from the federal government. This type of decision can best be made at the individual and state level and our courts and national legislators should never have been allowed to politicize such issues. That politicization is what has lead us to the present state whereby judicial appointments are wars waged by the various special interests. These special interests are just that, special, different, and generally the minority. By appointing judges bound to uphold the best interest of these 'special' groups the majority gets the judicial shaft while the legislature watches helplessly as judges make policy decisions that were Constitutionally delegated to the people via their representatives. This helplessness will eventually lead to such a level of flustration that the majority is forced to take action and the war Mr. Henniger refers to becomes the only alternative to recover what the Constitution has given us all. The problem is clear, the evidence abounds, the courts grow ever more powerful, the special interests become more numerous, and the majority continues to be told to "simply shut up and swallow it". This type of arrogance tends to rub many people the wrong way and that rubbing is eventually going to result in a fire of rebellion. Our leaders need to take action now to limit the power of the courts, else, the people will indeed be forced to defend their rights alone. That would be a shame, and the fault would go to those whose political views are more important to them than truth, reality, and the Constitution.

Illegal Immigration Benefits.............

Democrats

In case there was any doubt why the problem of illegal immigration has yet to be properly addressed, here is one clue:

The heavy influx of immigrants cost the Republican Party nine House seats during the 2000 political redistricting process, according to a report released Thursday. At least one of those seats was lost as a result of illegal aliens being counted as part of the national population by the U.S. Census Bureau, the report's authors said.

According to Noah Pickus, the director of North Carolina's Institute for Emerging Issues and a participant in Thursday's panel discussion, the findings lend credence to the notion that states have a "perverse" incentive to attract larger populations of illegal aliens, which "undermines the very notion" of representative democracy on which the country was founded.

"The country faces a choice: either continue to have record amounts of illegal immigration and therefore continue to redistribute seats away from states comprised mostly of American citizens to states with large numbers of illegal and legal immigrants, or better enforce immigration laws so as to reduce if not eliminate illegal immigration," Camorata said.

What are the official party platforms on this issue?
Either way, the Democrats seem to be the primary beneficiaries of illegal immigration.
No wonder they have no interest in trying to fix this huge problem.
Of course, if those illegals were to switch parties......................

Thu Oct 23, 2003

Saving Money in the Long Run

Oh Yeah, Waste it Now, Save It Later

Stephen Pollard has a prime example of the 'save money in the long run' political scam:

Of the many lies told by politicians and policy experts with an axe to grind, the most pernicious is the most frequently proclaimed: “This will save money in the long run.” Since in the long run we are all dead, the sheer nonsense of most such claims is usually ignored.

The pattern is always the same. In the short term, ideas that supposedly save money in the long term cost a lot. Advocates call them “start-up costs”, as though such things can safely be ignored. In the medium term, spending rises still more. And in the long term, the idea that is going to save money ends up costing more than anyone imagined possible.

There are few clearer examples of such insanity than the current obsession with obesity. Yes, being fat is a bad thing, but the idea that, because obesity is bad, spending government money to try to tackle it is good is the perfect illustration of the this-will-save-money-in-the-long-run mantra. After all, since obesity makes us ill and costs the NHS and the economy, it stands to reason, doesn’t it, that we’ll save money overall if the Government tries to do something about it?

Fine. Now take a guess at how much of our money this Labour Government has spent on attempting to make us thinner: £100 million or so? £500 million? £750 million? £1 billion? Don’t be so stupid. It’s not possible.

Yes it is. The Department of Health claims that £9.6 billion has been spent on projects that reduce obesity across all government departments. You read that right. Nine point six billion pounds.

And guess what? Like all ideas that involve huge spending today to save money tomorrow, it has been spent to nil effect. All the figures show that we are becoming more, not less, obese. “We still need to raise awareness,” says Dame Yve Buckland, chairman of the Health Development Agency.

Of course she says that. That is because abject failure is taken as a sign, not that the idea should be scrapped, but that it needs more “investment” if it is to succeed.

Well yeah, there's more. Head on over and read how Tony Blair plans to try the double whammy 'saving money in the long run' scam.

TTLB New Weblog Showcase

Recent DOS Attacks Shut Down Bloggers

Here's what ya call killing 2 birds with one stone. Having neglected to vote in the TTLB New Weblog Showcase recently and interested in reporting the recent DOS attacks that knocked off a number of major blogs, this week's Showcase has an entry from Irreconcilable Musings that allows me to accomplish both:

"Having a sizable portion of the blogosphere taken down is annoying. But stop for a moment. The people who carried out this hack come from the same pool of radical Islam that brought 9-11 to us. The more I read about what Internet Haganha does, the more I came to realize that this weekend's DDoS attacks are nothing less than another front of the War on Terrorism.

Head on over and read the rest of the story.

The Party of Hate

Democrats are Simply Ate Up With It

Kevin Hassett<

Judicious Search

Asinine Stats

Most Popular Entries

Archives

Syndicate RSS

News Links

Contact Form

Your Email

Subject

Message