Judicious Asininity

This is the Archive Page. Click Here for Main Page

Mon Feb 28, 2005

Syria is digging a hole for itself

Sponsoring terrorism doesn't work anymore

Almost everyone believes that Syria was behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri. The result has been that the Lebanese people are in open revolt against the Syrian occupation. The Syrians can not crack down as they might have in the past. The pressure on Syria to withdraw is inceasing daily.

There is also some evidence that Syria was behind the latest suicide bombing in Israel, at least according to this report noted by Powerline.

It has been no secret that Syria has been sheltering Iraqi Baathist leaders while they conduct their terrorist war again the people of Iraq. Syria has also been the gateway for Al Qaeda recruits answering the call to defend Islam from the great Satan in Iraq. While Syria may not have been directly implicated in the latest horrific bombing in Baghdad, it has facilitated terrorist operations in Iraq.

Perhaps sensing that it has created major problems for itself, Syria handed over Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan to Iraqi forces. When Assad reassesses Syria's strategic position, he will see that it has changed radically, and not in his favor. The terrorist groups operating in the Bekka valley are one outrage away from a violent Israeli response. They are also coming under increased US scrutiny because of their possible role in Iraq. Syrian forces in Lebanon protect those groups from attack. But that protection will not last much longer; the pressure on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon grows daily. Assad could save his skin by following Ghaddafi's example. It wouldn't surprise me. If Assad really wanted to be helpful he could hand over the WMD stockpiles that Saddam shipped there while the UN dithered. That would earn him lots of Brownie points.

Thu Feb 24, 2005

Light blogging ahead

Life gets in the way

I'm moving house. It's amazing how much crap you accumulate if you live in one place for 10 years. Most of it is printed material. If we were illiterate we wouldn't have that problem.

I'm changing jobs. After 10 years of consulting, it's time to seek regular employment.

I'm in the home stretch of my training for the Boston Marathon. Saturday I run 20 miles, most of it on hills that make Boston's infamous Heartbreak Hill seem like a pimple.

Being out of touch

The publisher of the New York Times is soooo out of touch, it's scary

This article on New York Times Co. chairman Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. in the St. Petersburg Times ends:

On the charge of liberal bias, Sulzberger laughed.

"I hear more complaints that the newspaper is in the pocket of the Bush administration than that it is too liberal," he said.

Who is he listening too? I don't thing he's listening to Cori Dauber, or Jeremy Brown posting at Michael Totten, or Roger Simon, to choose three middle-of-the road bloggers who recently had things to say about the NYT. He could only make such a comment if he only heard from the likes of Michael Moore, George Soros, Peter Lewis, Teddy Kennedy and Barbra Streisand.

This smart-ass comment by Sulzberger, if serious, indicates an organization completely out of touch with mainstream America.

Wed Feb 23, 2005

A deeply offensive cartoon

Rall has been outdone

I saw this Boondocks cartoon in this post at Hog Haven while cruising through my long list of blog favorites. I meant to return to it but forgot where I'd seen it. The brain damaged browser I'm using has gotten more senile over the ages and no longer records history. So this semi-senile blogger spent the better part of an hour trying to track down the post again. That meant it hadn't been spotted by the wider blogosphere. So I'm posting on it, to do my tiny bit. Eventually, I found it. It is a sick, sad commentary on the liberal mentality that they think this cartoon is funny, let alone close to reality. Here's the text that got me:

[Bush speaking to a black congregation]"on the one hand Colin Powell supports affirmative action. On the other hand, Condoleeza Rice was pushing for the death penalty for anyone who teaches a black person how to read".

That is so outrageous, I don't know where to begin.

Tue Feb 22, 2005

Fight AARP scare tactics

The time to fix Social Security (aka intergenerational Ponzi scheme) is now

From Chuck Muth:

AARP is using its members’ money to run full-page ads all across the
country today maintaining the screwed up Socialism Security system “is not in need of radical overhaul” and that allowing you to VOLUNTARILY put some of your OWN money into a retirement program of YOUR choice is an “extreme measure.”

In the ad, the far-left seniors’ group provides a TOLL-FREE phone number for folks to use to contact their congress-critter on the Social Security issue. So why not take this opportunity to give your member of Congress a little kick in the pants and urge them not to be intimidated
by AARP’s misleading liberal advertising campaign...on AARP’s dime!

The number to call is 1-800-307-8525.

The Democratic Party is being lost to the hard left

Moonbattery is now manifesting itself in the Democratic mainstream

Leftists and communists have always been good political organizers. What they can't win overtly, they take over covertly. Academia has fallen to its cause. Nobody asked the students, the parents, the alumni or the taxpayer if they wanted colleges and universities to be run by hard-left zealots devoted to indoctrination rather than academic freedom. But that is what happened over the last few decades. Ward Churchill is merely a sympton of a deeper malaise.

The Democratic party has suffered the same fate. A party dedicated to supporting the working class in a free market society has been taken over by hard-left zealots. The reflexive posture of too many Democrats is anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-military, anti-growth, and most of all, anti-Bush.

The left and the right both have their lunatic fringes. The right's has been marginalized while the left's has become mainstream. For proof, we just need to look at what leading Democrats have been saying.

First up, Congressman Maurice Hinchey. Powerline notes the complete moonbattery of attributing the forged TANG memos to Karl Rove, the evil genius behind Bush's stolen electoral victories.

Then there is the new DNC chairman, Howard (the scream) Dean, who said:

"I don't know. There are many, there are many theories about it, the most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory -- I can't think -- it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the President is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission."

Thanks to Belgravia Dispatch for the quote. That Dean statement would be equivalent to Thomas Dwey, the 1994 Republican presidential candidate, wondering if Roosevelt had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor while on the campaign trail.

Dean, as Krauthammer notes was merely following Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) into the swamp.

Senator Patty Murry (D-wa) is another mainstream Democrat living out in la-la land. L. Brent Bozell highlights her melt-down into moonbattery:

Sen. Patty Murray -- never known as one of the sharpest tools in the drawer -- was having a casual chat with honor students at a Vancouver, Washington high school on December 18 when this Democrat unleashed a series of real whoppers about Osama bin Laden. “Why are people so supportive of him in many countries?” she asked. “He has been in many countries that are riddled with poverty...He’s been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful.”

But all is not lost for the Democrats. Hillary has been moving to the right on abortion and foreign policy. She will gather the support of mainstream Democrats and its traditional constituents and she'll drag the party back to a more centrist position. I'd have to say that would be good for America.

Mon Feb 21, 2005

Bill O'Reilly captured

To a tee

Read this and may the Force be with you. Link from the rather forward-looking blog, Decision 08.

Sun Feb 20, 2005

How do I know we're in the right?

It's all about freedom

We let people like Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, the late Susan Sontag, Michael Moore, George Soros, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry say what they like, where they like, and when they like. We might not like what they say, and we'll reply in kind, but their freedom is our freedom.

How much tolerance do Muslim countries extend to people of opposing views, like, say Jews, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Bhuddists, Wiccans, Scientologists, Baha'i, Animists and any other non-Muslims? Not much. Muslims can go to Bethlehem; heck, it's Muslim territory, but God help a non-Muslim who tries to go to Mecca.

If the average Muslim is intolerant of other religious views, or lack thereof, then the radicals are far worse. For them, 9/11 was just a taste of what they'd like to inflict on us simply because we value our freedom above their "religion".

And, for a taste of how they're exploiting our freedom, check this post by Mary Madigan.

Andrew Sullivan demolished on Geneva Conventions and terrorism

Leave it to Heather Mac Donald to eviscerate stupidity with steely precision

I think Heather Mac Donald is so good yet she rarely gets the attention she deserves. Compare her to Andrew Sullivan, for example. And, for a perfect example, read what she had to say in City Journal on Sullivan's bloviating on Abu Ghraib and torture. One should always read everything she writes, but I'll extract two choice quotes:

In Sullivan’s account, the administration’s POW ruling led directly to the “torture” of prisoners. It was the “critical enabling decision” that made the “abuse of innocents almost inevitable.” This “torture narrative” ignores some inconvenient facts, however. First, the government ruled unequivocally that the Geneva conventions applied in Iraq, where the overwhelming majority of prisoner abuse occurred. In fact, that abuse had one cause and one cause only: the wholesale and inexcusable breakdown of military order in Iraq that allowed soldiers to violate their rules of engagement. Stomping on detainees, forcing them to masturbate, hitting them—these behaviors were obvious, gross infractions in every war zone. That breakdown of military order had nothing to do with any Geneva decisions pro or con, but resulted from Pentagon planners’ incompetent response to the insurgency. (The Schlesinger report, which supports the administration’s Geneva convention rulings and the resultant interrogation policies, reaches the same conclusion.) Moreover, nearly all the abuse had nothing to do with official interrogation, contrary to Sullivan’s claims. It was perpetrated by fighting soldiers at the point of capture and by military guards intent on punishing prisoners or simply abusing them for “fun.”

...

But the biggest flaw of Sullivan’s torture indictment is his casual disregard for the Geneva framework. He can’t be bothered to assess whether a combatant has met the conditions for prisoner of war status. Sullivan calls the “distinction between ‘prisoners of war’ and ‘unlawful combatants’ ” “so vague” as to make abuse inevitable. In fact, Article 4 of Geneva Convention III could not be clearer or more straightforward: under Article 4, terrorists could not possibly be covered. Sullivan accuses President Bush of not wanting to “stay . . . within the letter of the law”; in fact, it was the president who was following the literal language of the conventions, and Sullivan who ignores that language.

Personally, I think captured terrorists should be interrogated by all means possible to extract any useful information they have and then handed over to the relatives of their victims. But that's just me.

There again, the last time there was a real war, the Brits incinerated Dresden and demolished many other German cities in revenge for the Blitz, and the US fire-bombed Tokyo and nuked Ngasaki and Hiroshima in revenge for Pearl Harbor. By those standards, Mecca and Medina would no longer exist. The Islamic world is one WMD attack away from that fate.

Sat Feb 19, 2005

Jimmy Carter - Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Useless President and dangerous former President

Jim Miller has a few thoughts on Jimmy Carter, noting his bad habit of undermining later presidents by unauthorized diplomacy.

I especially object to his efforts to undermine George H. W. Bush's efforts to put together a coalition in the first Gulf War. Carter had every right to oppose Bush's policies openly, but he should not have been privately writing to other world leaders urging them to oppose Bush. (For what it is worth, Howard Dean backed Bush then, or at least now says he does.) Even worse, as far as consequences go, may have been Carter's showboating diplomacy with North Korea where he sabotaged Clinton's efforts to impose UN sanctions. If you have followed the news recently, you'll notice that Carter's agreement didn't exactly fix the problem of North Korean nukes.

Miller does not mention Jimmy Carter's latest efforts to undermine American and give aid and comfort to our enemies. Despite considerable evidence of widespread fraud in the Venezuelan election, Jimmy Carter decreed it fair and legitimate. This IHT article, referred to in the comments to this Michael J. Totten post, indicates that the election was almost certainly fraudulent:

he perception that a massive electronic fraud led to President Hugo Chávez's mandate not being cut short in the recall referendum on Sunday is rapidly gaining ground in Venezuela. All exit polls carried out on the day had given the opposition an advantage of between 12 percent and 19 percent. But preliminary results announced by the government-controlled National Electoral Council at 3:30 a.m. gave Chávez 58.2 percent of the vote, against 41.7 percent for the opposition.
.
At first people scratched their heads in disbelief, including many Chávez supporters, but accepted these figures after César Gaviria, secretary general of the Organization of American States, and former President Jimmy Carter said their own quick counts coincided with the electoral council's figures. Two days after the referendum, however, evidence is growing that the software of the touch-screen voting machines had been tampered with. The opposition has requested that the votes be recounted manually and that the boxes holding the voting papers, currently stored in army garrisons, be put under the custody of international observers.

Had Jimmy Carter done the job that should have been done, and cast doubt on the results of the election, Chavez may well have been forced from office. But, just as he did in North Korea, Carter put the Administration in an impossible position. The net result is that U.S. now has an oil-rich Castro clone running amok in Latin America. The Soviet Union could not achieve that result despite decades invested in Latin American revolutionary movements, but Jimmy Carter handed Chavez a free pass, just as he did the North Koreans. Thanks for nothing, President Carter.

There are already signs that Chavez is not helping Colombia in its ongoing campaign against FARC, the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party. More essential analysis by A. M. Mora y Leon can be found at the American Thinker. He concludes that:

With the aid of people like Hugo Chavez, terror's tentacles are spreading everywhere.

Venezuela has now replaced the Soviet Union as Cuba's economic life-line and Chavez is planning to ru(i)n Venezula on the Cuban model.

I see they just named an attack submarine after Carter. I hope that the good sub Jimmy Carter is on the front line when it comes time to launch attacks against freedom's enemies. That will make up for its namesake's treacherous efforts on behalf of our enemies.

Emissions Control: The Sensible Approach

Once Again, Common Sense Prevails, Maybe

Another sign that indeed the times they are a changin'.
The Kyoto accord has gone into effect with nearly every signatory in violation of its tenets and dark prospects for any future climate improvement due to pipe dreams and economic suicide. In the meantime, the United States, having avoided the pitfalls of being held to account by Kyototans who themselves fail to live up to their agreements, is showing signs of real progress in an area that can actually make a significant difference in our energy and emissions control policies.

But we can't rely on jawboning the public to sacrifice their lifestyle, or pipedreams about energy sources that can contribute only marginally to the vast amounts of energy our economy needs. The solution is one we're pursuing -- an emphasis on a proven, reliable technology that can provide massive amounts of electricity, affordably, with no greenhouse emissions.

There is a new mood in this country against the muddled thinking that's held back genuine progress in clean energy production.

Increasingly, there is evidence that we will meet the challenges head-on and meet them with a great deal of success.

That's right, nuclear power may actually be making a comeback in America. This energy source has the greatest potential of all realistic alternatives. It has the ability to not only free us from dependance on foreign sources of fuel but to also provide clean power to decades to come. That is, if common sense prevails and we actually overcome decades of paranoia that have stifled our power industry, held back real progress on many fronts, and left us way behind in modernizing our critical infrastructure services that we all depend on and take for granted. Maybe, just maybe, reason will prevail. IF so, we will continue to ignore the delusions of the few and move forward with an energy policy that actually improves not only the earth around us but our very way of life as well.

Fri Feb 18, 2005

Comments are available again

My anti-spammer measures were too restrictive

I had a plague of comment spammers -- may they rot in Hell -- and I put a few checks in to stop them. But I ended up stopping all comments for a while. Sorry about that.

Thu Feb 17, 2005

Lt. Ilario Pantano is in good hands

Check this Chuck Muth interview with Charles Gitten, Pantano's defense attorney

This Interview with Charles Gitten, the lawyer representing Lt. Ilario Pantano, gives a fascinating insight in how the military operates in CYA mode when mistakes happen.

Muth: So when, when folks see military personnel being prosecuted and charged with crimes and facing such severe possible penalties, if this is a new phenomenon - and I assume you’re going to agree with this but I want to get your opinion; I don’t want to put words in your mouth - is this going to have, in the long run, a detrimental effect on whether or not Americans sign up to serve in the military knowing that they face these types of circumstances if they get into a fix on the battlefield and make a mistake?

Gittins: I think it’s going to have a terrible effect on recruiting and on retention. You know, military people trust, and they’re required to trust, that if they’re put in a position where they have to make those split second decisions that they’ll be backed up by their leaders. Unfortunately that’s more the exception than the rule. The leaders run for cover and save their own careers and the low – it’s usually the lowest guy on the totem pole, who’s also the least culpable, who ends up holding the smelly bag.

Gittens talks about a number of high-profile cases as well as Pantano's pending case. Go read the whole interview. And click the link if you want to help Lt. Ilario Pantano.

Standing Up

Protestors Meet Uncivilized Brutes

Hmmmm......:

Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. “The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims,” a spokesman said.

So far, so good, right? Well it appears that this group of disrupters/protestors were met by equally determined traders:

What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”

Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”

“They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

Mr Beresford said: “They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”

Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion.

How rude! The sheer gall of those barbarian traders for not rolling over and allowing the disruption of their lives and livihoods by protestors. While the protestors whine about traders who are not "amenable to listening to our point of view" they fail to comprehend that other people have the right to exist and not have the enlightened points of view of such people forced on them. Well done, you Cockney barrow boy spivs. Have a pint on me, guys.

Wed Feb 16, 2005

Shooting yourself in the foot

Too many lawyers, not enough military sense

The charges against Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, based on the facts reported to date, have no merit. This Washington Times editorial lays out the case for dropping the charges. How many of our soldiers and marines will die if the case against Pantano goes forward? Will they be too scared of a murder charge to pull the trigger in the split second that separates life from death on the battlefield?

We've seen a lot of charges against soldiers doing the best they can in the face of an enemy that flouts the Geneva conventions. Lawyers have been let loose on the interrogation of terrorists and hamstrung the military's ability to gain information crucial to saving lives, whether it be finding the organizers of car-bombings in Iraq or uncovering a plot to use WMD on American soil. Our ever-treacherous Democrat politicians and their MSM allies have been highly critical of any non-PC behaviour towards terroroists. Heather MacDonald, in her usual brilliant style, exposed the severe limitations under which interrorgators are forced to work.

Perhaps the best example of what happens when you let lawyers loose on military matters occurred in the war on the Taliban. This account in NRO, if true, of lawyering getting in the way of winning:

According to Hersh, on the first night of our airborne assault against the Taliban in Afghanistan, an unmanned Predator reconnaissance aircraft, operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, "identified a group of cars and trucks fleeing" Kabul "as a convoy carrying Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader." The Predator in question is said to have been equipped with two powerful Hellfire missiles designed for use against tanks. Neither the CIA nor the command-and-control suite of the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain had authority to unleash the missiles on Osama bin Laden's accommodating host or to call in fighter-bombers. This decision was left to General Tommy R. Franks, the CENTCOM commander, who, upon being informed of the situation, consulted his Judge Advocate General and, on this lawyer's advice, opted not to attack.

The President himself needs to make the case that this is not a gentlemanly war, that our enemy has no respect for the Geneva conventions, or any other western values, for that matter, and pussy-footing around with Islamic terrorists will cost even more American lives.

Tue Feb 15, 2005

Tort Reform and Venue Shopping

One of many good reasons for "The Class Action Fairness Act"

James R. Copland at Point of Law has a damning statement from one of the leading trial lawyers. He quotes from his own WSJ piece:

Dickie Scruggs, one of the nation's foremost plaintiffs' lawyers, who pocketed hundreds of millions in the tobacco settlements, described it best at a conference last June: "[W]hat I call the 'magic jurisdiction' . . . [is] where the judiciary is elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected . . . . They've got large populations of voters who are in on the deal . . . . And so, it's a political force in their jurisdiction, and it's almost impossible to get a fair trial if you're a defendant in some of these places . . . . Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn't matter what the evidence or the law is."

That's straight from the horse's mouth. Scruggs is well connected politically. His brother-in-law is Trent Lott, former Republican Senate Majority leader. Scruggs made his hundreds of millions from Tobacco settlements.

Mon Feb 14, 2005

Our Worst Enemy

Look in the Mirror for a Clue

Mark Steyn looks at some of the luncacy that pervades western societies and points out the gravest threat we all face. That threat resides in the 'overlycivilized' quest for 'tolerance', 'enlightenment', and multiculturalism. Looking at the case of a boy who won an award for portraying Bush as Hitler, Steyn leaves us with this:

I'm not worried about Iraq. As they demonstrated on Jan. 30, they'll be just fine. The western front is the important one in this war, the point of intersection between Islam and a liberal democratic tradition so mired in self-loathing it would rather destroy our civilization just to demonstrate its multicultural bona fides. It's not that young Eden knows nothing, but that neither his teachers, judges nor furniture showroom proprietors do. By contrast, our enemies know us very well, at least when it comes to courtroom strategies and canny manipulation of the fetish of ''tolerance.''

It's an open question whether the West will survive this twilight struggle: Europe almost certainly won't, America might; on the other hand, the psychosis to which much of the culture is in thrall may eventually reach a tipping point into mass civilizational suicide. And then the new barbarians will inherit, and young Master Eden will end his days pining for the rosy-hued nostalgia for the Bushitler tyranny.

The left has waged their war on common sense well and has managed some important victories on their path to Steyn's "civilizational suicide". Fortunately for the rest of us, there seems to be an awakening going on that has begun to bring our greatest weapon to bear on our enemies. That weapon, common sense, may be the only thing that prevents us from joining the quagmire of self-destruction that afflicts so many of our European 'friends'. Maybe it's not too late for us.

Sun Feb 13, 2005

What do Environmental Activists do after 200,000 people die in a natural disaster?

They become very concerned

Here's how it plays.

Environmental Activist (EA): We're very concerned about Aceh.

Me: That's a start.

EA: About the injuries sustained while cleaning up after the disaster and searching for human remains.

Me: Well, OK. I mean, a bit more concern about the victims would be nice, but we have to be concerned about the rescuers, too.

EA: But I meant the elephants' injuries. They're getting cuts and scratches from glass and nails while they work to clear the wreckage left by the tsunami.

Me: (jaw hitting floor) $%$#$$%

According to this Associated Press Report printed by the Plain Dealer:

Since the Asian elephants began helping clear debris in Indonesia's Aceh province after the Dec. 26 tsunami, they have picked up minor on-the-job injuries. Officials and trainers say none of the wounds are serious, but conservationists and animal welfare activists say the endangered elephants shouldn't be working in the ruined city of Banda Aceh and want the practice ended.

"You are not going to get rusty nails in forests," said Ian Redmond, a wildlife biologist and elephant conservationist with the British group Born Free Foundation. Though the animals' health depends on the care they receive, "the potential for injuries in a disaster zone is more serious," he said.

Unbelievable. I'm all for preserving the natural habitat, fighting third-world slash-and-burn agriculture, and reducing pollution. But these guys have their priorities totally wrong. It seems like the only species they want extinct is Homo Sapiens. I just wish they'd volunteer to go first.

Fri Feb 11, 2005

Good news thrice over

Eason, Stewart and illegals immigrants all lose

First up, Eason Jordan has resigned. This CNN news executive first came to public notice for covering up Saddam's atrocities to ensure CNN retained access in Iraq. Last week, at the Davos conference, he claimed the US military had deliberately targeted journalists. The blogosphere got wind of that and pushed the story so hard that CNN could no longer stonewall.

Next up, Lynne Stewart was convicted on terrorism related charges. She facilitated communications between blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and his followers. He had been convicted for plotting to blow up NY buildings and assasinate the Egyptian president and was linked to the first WTC bombing and the massacre of 48 tourists and four Egyptians at Luxor.

Finally, illegal immigrants lose a "right". Congress has acted on limiting the use of the terrorists' carte blanche, a US Drivers licence.

Thu Feb 10, 2005

How a guest worker program should work

Tom Delay has it about right

According to Chuck Muth he said:

“House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday he favors passing a U.S. guest-worker program only if it requires illegal immigrants to return
to their home country before applying for temporary work visas. ‘What I understand as a guest-worker program is one where you apply for the guest-worker program in your country of origin, and you have a job when you apply,’ said Mr. DeLay, Texas Republican. ‘You cannot bring your family with you. You commit to work a certain period of time, and you go home. If you want to become a permanent resident or a citizen of the United States you have to get in line with everybody else.’"
- Washington Times, 2/9/05

Can't argue with that. But since their are so many illegals already living, working and voting in the U.S., it may be better to allow them to apply for guest-worker programs in the U.S. provided they pay a $1,000 (say) filing fee.

It seems the White House senses a backlash on immigration if they do not toughen up border security. That's why they have backed a bill to tighten up the use of drivers licences by illegals.

Tue Feb 08, 2005

Loving Losers

The Democratic Legacy Continues

Democrats seem bound and determined to continue the liberal trek to the left that has proven so successful at the polls. With Howard the Scream Dean as their leader, continued obstructionism in Congress, and the likes of Michael Moore and other Hollywood elites representing their idea of heartland America further confoundations of common sense should not be much of a surprise. But wait, it's budget time, the wailing has begun, and Democrats are sticking to their losing ways with bulldog tenacity. Take this for instance:

The leading House Democrat on transportation issues, Minnesota Rep. Jim Oberstar, on Tuesday predicted a "test of wills" over the Bush administration's proposal to eliminate subsidies to Amtrak.

"You're either for Amtrak or you're for letting it expire," said Oberstar, the top Democrat on the Transportation Committee.

Oberstar, joined by several other Democratic representatives at a news conference, noted that Congress has resisted previous attempts by the Bush administration to cut funding for Amtrak.

But he said this time was different.

"This is serious," he said. "They really intend to eliminate Amtrak. It's going to be a test of wills between the Congress and the administration to restore funding."

Oberstar said that in reviewing budget proposals for 40 years as a staffer and lawmaker, "Never have I seen one so harsh or crass as this ... It would cause widespread disruption and hardship."

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., said that Congress and the Bush administration engage in a game of chicken over Amtrak every year.

"The game has reached a new level," he said. "They're about to run Amtrak off a cliff ... We're gonna fight it, and we'll see who blinks first."

Off a cliff? This outfit went over that cliff the moment it was created. It doesn't take a Warren Buffet to understand the bottom line here. Having amassed an amazing financial record over thirty years or so that includes zero profitable years it would seem that some major changes are needed. That's right, Amtrak is batting 1.000 and is absolutely perfect, at losing. Take a look at these impressive figures. So, having never made a profit while milking American taxpayers out of billions of dollars, perhaps, just perhaps, it is time to kill this blood sucking beast and bring in a real, modern rail service. Congress had the right idea in the Amtrak Reform Act of 1997:

The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 ("the ARAA Act", P.L. 105-134) provides that if Amtrak does need such aid after FY2002, the Amtrak Reform Council ("Council"), created by that Act, will submit to Congress an Amtrak restructuring plan and Amtrak will submit to Congress an Amtrak liquidation plan. The requirement to produce these plans could be triggered by the Council at any time after December 2, 1999, if it concludes that Amtrak will not survive without federal operating assistance after FY2002.

So, what part of this act is it that Democrats and Congressional porkers do not understand?
Amtrak has had its chances, thirty losing years worth of subpar service. Defending this beast and attempting to continue its existance matches the Democratic demeanor to a tee. No wonder there are such ardent supporters of Amtrack among the Donkey Krew. Losing appears to have become their obsession and Amtrak epitomizes their refusal to end failures. It is time for the end of Amtrak and for the creation of a modern rail service that actually serves the needs of Americans in the 21st century. This aging loser will never be capable of providing a fiscally sound transportation system much less the world-class rail service Americans deserve. Put it out of its misery and start the process of modernizing our rail travel. Unless of course you like losing, losers, and never ending failures like our modern, enlightened Democratic party.

MSM induced cognitive dissonance

It comes from taking sides instead of reporting the truth

It is now obvious that the MSM manages the news and decides what's fit to print according to the agenda of its staff and management. On Iraq, the media adopted a policy of reporting the bad news and nothing but the bad news. Come election day in Iraq, they suddenly had to contend with the news that the elections were a popular success in Iraq. The smarter MSM consumers might have asked why, after two years of doom and gloom reporting, they suddenly saw the majority of the Iraqi people risking their lives to vote. Of course, it was back to doom and gloom reporting within a day or two, but the spell has been broken.

The MSM agenda, openly revealed during 2004, was to defeat Bush by any means possible. The Old Gray Lady decided that John Kerry was the best shot that the Democrats had to win. When Edwards threatened to block Kerry's path, the Old Gray Lady did itself proud with a hit-piece that exposed Edwards as a slime-ball trial lawyer:

n 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.

Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "

But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.

The report then notes that:

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

It goes on to tell the truth about cerebral palsy:

On the other side, insurance companies, business groups that support what they call tort reform and conservative commentators have accused Mr. Edwards of relying on questionable science in his trial work. Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.

When Kerry won the nomination and Edwards was selected as his VP choice, the NYT switched tack and lauded the Kerry/Edwards team at every juncture.

Kerry thinks he has a shot at 2008. But the Old Gray Lady will have other ideas and their favorite will be the junior Senator from New York. What's the bet that the OGL will do to Kerry what it it did to Edwards. The Swift Vets will gain instant credibility and Kerry will be portrayed as a loser with a shameful war record.

Sun Feb 06, 2005

Can nuclear power make a come-back?

It should

Jim Miller (one of my favoraite bloggers) notes that Toshiba is offering an Alaskan town a great deal on a mini-nuclear power station.

The last US nuclear power plants were built in the 1970s using the technology of the era.

Computer technology has advanced somewhat from that time. Back then, I was carting around tin trays of punched cards. Today, I carry around my computer life on a 1GB flash drive I carry around my neck. That's equivalent to 12,500,000 punched cards. I somewhat doubt I could carry that weight of paper around my neck.

Automotive technology has not avanced at nearly the same rate. The constraints are different. But, would you trade a 2005 car for a 1975 equivalent?

Advances in nuclear technology have gone ahead at a rate somewhere between these two extremes. So now we can think about neighorhood sized nuclear power stations. Safe, affordable and no green-house gases. Wow!!! You'd hope the Greenies would get on the program. But they are Luddites of the worst kind, so my hopes are slight.

I don't much worry about carbon dioxide emissions - I call that plant-food in the sky - but the idea of shifting US energy production away from oil has a lot of appeal

Super Bowl Highlights

A Red State Super Bowl

The tributes to the military in the pre-game show set the tone. The National Anthem was sung the way it should be sung by choirs from the military academies. It made a welcome change from talentless pop-tarts who use sporting events to show their lack of talent.

Paul McCartney, a rock star great who actually likes America, gave us an entertaining half-time show.

The ads were funny. But Budweiser did something wonderful. They depicted passengers at an airport showing their appreciation to our military. The blue staters must have squirmed but true Patriots would have appreciated how a corporation sacrificed a multi-million dollar slot to send a message of support to America. The cynics may say that it was a ploy to attract beer drinkers. But beer drinking crosses party lines. Some Democrats would have been offended, but then, they'd be the latte sipping, chardonnay guzzling elites; not the beer drinking union guys the Democrats used to rely upon.

Hey, I can speak Starbucks, I love good wine, I drink beer, I'm not religious, and I think W is a great President. How can the Democrats appeal to me? Dig up Roosevelt, Truman and JFK, extract their DNA, cross it with Zell Miller, remove the Socialist strains, and inject it into every one of their candidates. That'd work for me.

The game brought conflicting loyalties to my choice of who to root for. I ran my first marathon in Philly so that was a plus. I'm running my next in Boston, after improving my Philly time by an hour, so that's a plus. Bill Belichick used to coach the Modell era Browns, which was sort of a negative, except he's done such an admirable job since. So I stayed neutral and enjoyed a good, close game of football.

This time, the NFL did America proud.

Fri Feb 04, 2005

Maybe some journalists should be targeted

Especially if they are working for the enemy

Terrorism achieves its strategic objectives through fear and intimidation. When Bin Ladin's minions attacked America on 9/11/2001, his aim was to terrify Americans and force US forces out of the Middle East. That attack gained wide publicity for Al Qaeda and made Bin Ladin a hero in some areas of the Middle East, such as the West Bank and Gaza.

When terrorists in Iraq hack off a hostage's head they film the event and pass the videotape to the media. If it's CNN or Al Jazeera, the videotape gets air-time and the terrorists get the publicity they want. Potential hostages are deterred from working in Iraqi. Potential recruits are impressed by the terrorists' adherence to early Islamic practices, such as the mass be-heading of Jews. Any person that participates in publicising the murder, from the cameraman, through the courier, to the network executive who chooses to show the film, is working for the terrorists.

When journalists film and report terrorist attacks from the point of view of the terrorists, as has happened frequently in Iraq, then they are working for the terrorists. Take this report of an attack on a DHL plane taking off from Baghdad airport. Luckily, the skill of the pilots enabled them to survive a direct hit by a SAM. But this paragraph illustrates my point:

AFP reported on November 27 that Jerome Sessini, a photographer from a French weekly magazine named Paris Match, accompanied a journalist named Claudine Verniez-Palliez with a group of Iraqi fighters for several days. They claim they were not told they would witness an attack, but they did, and it was the attack against the DHL aircraft.

No surprise that the reporter and photographer were French, I suppose. But their filming and publicising a terrorist attack on a civilian cargo plane puts them on the terrorists' side. Morally, they are no better than the cameramen who recorded the beheadings of Danny Pearl and Nick Berg or the Iraqi network stringers who "happened" to witness the cold blooded murder of Iraqi election workers.

The US Military and Iraqi authorities would be fully justified in tracking down the journalists who have worked with terrorists and treating them as terrorist collaborators.

The truth about Social Security

It is an intergenerational Ponzi scheme

In 1919, Carlo Ponzi noticed that a postal coupon bought in Spain for about one cent in American funds was worth six American one-cent stamps when he exchanged it in America. That's a fantastic rate of return and he created a company called The Security Exchange Company to exploit it. He promised 50% interest in ninety days and the world wanted in on it. Of course, the logistics and delays and red-tape involved in trading postal coupons meant that the scheme could not be scaled up. But that didn't stop people flocking to invest in Ponzi's company. And sure enough, he paid out his investors within 45 days. That only drove more people to invest in his company. Ponzi becam a very rich man. Nobody figured out that Ponzi was simply paying out his obligations from the money coming in. While he was taking in more money than he needed to pay out earlier investors, he was ahead of the game. His scheme started on December 26, 1919. By August 10, 1920, the bubble had burst and Ponzi was bankrupt.

Social security is little different. While there are more people paying in than getting money out the scheme works. Like Ponzi, the Federal Government spends the surplus on itself. It then writes IOUs to itself that it places in the infamous lock box.

The President got to the heart of the problem in his state of the union address:

For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time. Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days people didn't live as long, benefits were much lower than they are today, and a half century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits. Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer — and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers — and over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.

Just like Ponzi found, there will come a time when there are too few young suckers paying in to support the AARP generation receiving benefits. Anyone who thinks Social security can survive in its current form - an intergenerational Ponzi scheme - is as delusional as Ponzi's original investors or a Democrat.

Thu Feb 03, 2005

Bush's Best State of the Union to date

He's using the momemtum created by the Iraq elections to push his agenda of freedom for the Middle East

These were the two key paragraphs in the foreign policy section of the speech:

To promote peace and stability in the broader Middle East, the United States will work with our friends in the region to fight the common threat of terror, while we encourage a higher standard of freedom. Hopeful reform is already taking hold in an arc from Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain. The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future. And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.

To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act — and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror — pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.

Saudia Arabia and Egypt, homelands of the 9/11 hijackers and their evil masters, received warnings that they too must move towards freedom. Syria and Iran are now on notice. Their leaders may have banked on a Kerry victory but now they must contend with a strong American president determined to reshape the Middle East.

Could anyone imagine Kerry making that speech? We would have heard blather about our wimpy European "allies", the United Nations, and exit strategies (read retreat) for Iraq. Bush killed that exit strategy "meme" with a few crisp sentences:

We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.

The full transcript can be found here.

Go to Main Page

Judicious Search

Asinine Stats

Most Popular Entries

Archives

Syndicate RSS

News Links

Contact Form

Your Email

Subject

Message