Conflicting Opinions

Is this thing still on?

2008-03-18T11:58:00.002-05:00

Much has changed since we last wrote here, and I thought it might be a good time to get the engines going again. Presidential politics are in full swing, and this must not be ignored! This fall's choices have become increasingly clear during our little hibernation, and I think this deserves some commentary. I had intended to write a bit about John McCain and Hillary Clinton first, but in the interest of keeping my word count down, I think I'll stick to talking about Barack Obama for right now.

Obama amazes me. Seriously. I haven't quite been able to wrap my head around how this guy has achieved such a rock star following. Oh, I understand that he's young, black, decent looking, debates well and gives a great speech. That's certainly enough to get you plenty of attention in the political arena these days, but this guy has women swooning over him in a way that's reminiscent of Elvis or the Beatles. What is THAT all about? He's a politician, for crying out loud... and other than being black and one of the more eloquent Democrats since John Kennedy, he's a rather unremarkable politician. The fact that there are women fainting at political rallies and undressing for him on the internet is simply absurd. I think this phenomenon, and Obama's popularity in general, speaks mostly to the lacking political education of Americans in 2008. But more on that later. Let's talk a bit about why he ain't really all that and a bag of chips.

First off, no one disputes that Obama's rise has been anything less than meteoric. As recently as 2004, he was in the Illinois state legislature. I'm not inclined to go do the homework just yet, but I suspect you'd have to go back quite a ways to find a legitimate presidential candidate with less experience in national public service. Some of his supporters will say that his lack of a Washington pedigree is actually a positive, and that's a fine point. American voters love a presidential candidate who is a "Washington outsider." Don't forget, George Bush was an "outsider," too.

But Americans are usually careful to pick an outsider who has shown some proficiency in the requisite skill set of the Presidency. The desire for an outsider, along with the desire for some level of experience as an executive, are the two main reasons we usually prefer governors over senators when choosing a president. Senators make laws. Governors make decisions and important appointments, thus governors are more likely to have the appropriate skills necessary to being a successful president. Obama has none of the above.

Secondly, let us disabuse ourselves of the notion that Barack Obama is any sort of "moderate" who will be able to bridge the gap and magically unite a country that is divided quite clearly, and divided for very good reason. In his uber-brief Senate career, Mr. Obama has rarely ventured away from the Democratic party line with his vote. A quick Google search for "Obama liberal rating" will show that he is one of THE most reliably liberal votes in the Senate. Obama is a master of rhetoric, and has quite effectively portrayed himself as a middle of the road guy who is the logical choice to overcome the "forces of division" and unite the country. But he's not middle of the road. His voting record quite clearly shows that he's as far to the left as any Democratic candidate in recent history. That should be a concern to enlightened voters who are hoping for some kind of unification.

Finally, Obama is surrounded by and advised by some people with some very questionable views. That's not abnormal for a presidential candidate, of course. What voters need to know is whether or not the candidate agrees with the questionable views. Barack Obama's wife says that her husband's recent political success has caused her to feel pride in her country for the first time in her adult life. Michelle Obama is well into her 40s, so let's say she's been an adult for about 25 years now. It's quite a statement to say that nothing America has done in the last 25 years has caused her to feel pride in her country. Of course, Michelle Obama's views are somewhat irrelevant, but she is the candidate's wife, so her influence on him is great. I'd like to know when, or if, Barack Obama has been proud of his country in the last 25 years. So far, I've heard nothing from him on the subject.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Barack Obama's pastor and a close spiritual advisor. He is virulently anti-American and an anti-white racist. Among other things, Wright claims that America deserved 9/11 and that the U.S. government purposely spread drugs in the black community to keep the black man down. He has called America the "US-KKK-A" and has repeatedly used the phrase "God damn America." To his credit, Obama is making some attempt to distance himself from these comments, but not with any great urgency or sense of revulsion. And he continues to associate himself with Jeremiah Wright and his church.

Barack Obama must be asked if he disagrees with any of Jeremiah Wright's views, and if so, which ones. And he must be asked why he continues to associate with a pastor who promotes such hateful and anti-American views. Liberals get quite upset when conservatives question their patriotism. People like Barack Obama could stop conservatives from doing that by putting an end to the notion that the views of Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright are the same as those of mainstream liberals. As long as Obama continues to avoid repudiating those views in the strongest possible terms, enlightened voters should be concerned.

So, in summary, Barack Obama is a guy with highly questionable qualifications to be president. He is not moderate, but resides among the most liberal of today's Democrats. He is closely advised by people with views ranging from mildly to virulently anti-American and anti-white, and he has not strenuously stated that he opposes those views. He bases his campaign on little more than his rhetorical skills and his ability to demand "change," without going into any detail about what changes he has planned or how he plans to change things. People who accept rhetorical ability and empty promises of "change" as a basis for a political campaign, in my view, are too shallow to be given a vote. There must be something more.

So the question for Obama supporters is, how is an extremely liberal rookie senator with almost no executive or national public service experience going to deal with a divided Congress and a divided country to achieve "change"? What makes Obama a legitimate presidential candidate? What makes you think he's capable of putting his words into action? It will be interesting, in the coming months, to see if they can answer these questions without changing the subject.

An overlooked positive in NK

2007-11-06T11:46:00.000-06:00

A while back, April of this year to be exact, a Grammy Award winning Christian band by the name of Casting Crowns was invited by GRS to perform in North Korea. That's right, you read that correctly, a Christian band was invited to North Korea.

The event was NK's 25th Annual April Spring Art Festival. From what I've read, CC was the only native U.S. band to perform at the event.

"The band played at three standing-room-only shows on April 11-13, 2007, incorporating both their own popular music and some Korean favorites. The song Amazing Grace—for which Casting Crowns received a festival award—was particularly well-received, as was the Korean tune White Dove Fly High, recognized as an anthem for peace. The Vice Chairman of the festival Mr. Jang, Chol Sun personally shared his gratitude with Casting Crowns for participating, and especially for their beautiful performance of the Korean song. He expressed his hope that groups like GRS, Casting Crowns and the people of the DPRK can work together to bring unity and peace."

With all the bad news coming from that part of the world, it's nice to see a little good every now and then.

The following clip is a slide-show of CC performing in NK. The background music is the tune "White Dove Fly High", performed by CC but from what I understand written by a North Korean musician. It's incredible.

Hot Air

2007-10-26T08:03:00.000-05:00

Don't go bringing up anything Ann Coulter says, unless you want me to start in on all the wacko left wing liberal journalists and talking heads out there. Everybody knows she's all about shock value. And for every Ann Coulter, there are half a dozen liberal equivalents.

And in WHAT world are you a "conservative minded individual"??? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. You're less conservative than James Carville, and at least he's entertaining.

Wheels Off

2007-10-12T11:41:00.000-05:00

I think the wheels are officially off the bus. As a conservative minded individual, I think Ann Coulter does our ideals more harm than good.

October 12, 2007
Coulter: We want 'Jews to be perfected'
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Conservative commentator and best-selling author Ann Coulter may find herself in the midst of a controversy for comments Monday suggesting America would be better if everyone was Christian.

Asked by CNBC host Donny Deutsch what the U.S. looks like in her dreams, Coulter said it would look like the Republican National Convention in 2004

"People were happy,” she said, according to a transcript provided to CNN by CNBC. “They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America." (Video: Watch Coulter's comments on CNBC)

When Deutsch responded, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" Coulter said "Yeah."
Deutsch, himself Jewish, continued to press Coulter on her remarks, asking, "We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians then?"

"Yeah," Coulter responded, adding "Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track."

"You can't possibly believe that," Deutsch responded. “You can’t possibly. You’re too educated.”

"Do you know what Christianity is?" Coulter replied. "See, we believe your religion, but you have to obey. We have the fast track program."

Later in the interview Deutsch asked Coulter if she doesn't want any Jews in the world, Coulter responded, "No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say."

"Wow, you didn't really say that, did you," Deutsch said.

Another mission soon to be accomplished, hopefully:

2007-10-03T09:28:00.000-05:00

BEIJING - North Korea will provide a complete list of its nuclear programs and disable its facilities at its main reactor complex by Dec. 31, actions that will be overseen by a U.S.-led team, the six nations involved in disarmament talks said Wednesday.

Amateur hour strikes again...

Mission Accomplished!!!

2007-10-02T13:30:00.000-05:00

I think the knee-jerk conservatives here might have been beaten into submission. They can't even defend their leader's actions (/inaction) anymore.

I declare this : Mission Accomplished! (and I'm not even wearing a cod piece/ flight suit!!)

Cut and Run

2007-10-02T09:18:00.000-05:00

True story:

The President had sent US ground forces into an Arab country to help maintain a watchful eye over various Arab groups (often classified as terrorists) and to help maintain a fragile but peaceful status quo. One of those groups, supported by the Iranians, created a car bomb and then used it to blow up a building in which many of those troops were staying. The number of American servicemen killed was tremendous.

In response, the president called for retaliatory strikes against the training and staging areas of the terrorist group and its supporters. Various factions within the administration objected and no retaliation was made. Barely three months later the President withdrew the ground forces – a classic example of “cut and run.”

Obviously this is an example of Clinton’s experience with the bombing of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Right? Wrong. This is exactly what happened with conservative god, “The Great Communicator” when the marine barracks were bombed in Beruit.

I’m curious why chickenhawk right-wingers are so quick to call others that name, when their pillar of conservatism so quickly cut and ran back in 1983-84?

P.S. The French military was also bombed that morning in October 1983 and they conducted airstrikes in retaliation. Yes, the pussy ass French struck back!

Amateur Hour

2007-09-28T13:58:00.000-05:00

When it comes to dealing with other countries, the US has dozens of options. Short of military pressure or economic sanctions, diplomacy seems to be the most evident. Like most people, I have been a critic of the Bush administration’s apparent disdain for engaging in dialogue with those we disagree. Certainly there have been notable successes in which diplomacy yielded success; North Korea being the most obvious. Yet, this administration never ceases to amaze me in the staggering ignorance or flat incompetence with which it continues to operate, particularly in the area of diplomacy.

It starts with a president whose reputation has been founded on obstinacy, cowboy bravado and loyalty to bungling subordinates. His idea of diplomacy is, “Who needs it? America’s way is the only righteous way and everyone who isn’t with us can go eff themselves.” This diplomatic mantra is supported by what will likely be viewed as the most amateurish Sec. of State in our history: Condi Rice.

Earlier this week the military ruled government of Myanmar announced that it would raise the price of fuel. This increased cost caused an increase in the cost of public transportation which is used by most of the population. This ignited a protest initially about the price increase but slid into a general protest against the government’s repressive conduct. The government has reacted violently to the protest and the world is correctly screaming in anger. What to do?

As I said earlier, there are dozens of ways that the US could respond. It appears that the US response is limited to freezing the assets of few of the Myanmar government officials (a semi-economic response) and to directly or indirectly resorting to diplomacy. Both of these are entirely appropriate and some might argue necessary. In other words, I have no qualms with choices that the US has taken in response. Where I have a problem and where the continued ignorance and incompetence comes in to play is HOW the Bush administration effectuates those choices.

First, Rice has constantly referred to the Myanmar government as the “military regime.” The definition of a “regime” is “the government of a particular country, especially one that is considered to be oppressive.” So, while Rice’s description may be true, it seems obvious to me that if our government is going to resort to diplomatic pressure to resolve the problem it probably isn’t a good idea to refer to them to what is essentially playground name calling. Does anyone think that referring to them in the pejorative makes them amenable to diplomacy? Does Rice lose anything by referring to them as the “Myanmar government” instead of the military regime? Pakistan is ruled by a military junta (some might also refer to them a military regime), but Rice would never call them such! These seems so basic to me, but what do I know?

Second, it may not be fair to criticize Rice for her amateur hour when the president can’t even refer to the country by its proper name. “The world is watching the people of Burma take to the streets to demand their freedom, and the American people stand in solidarity with these brave individuals” Bush said. Later Rice was quoted as saying, “The U.S. is determined to keep an international focus on the travesty in Burma.” Here’s a new flash for Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb: The name of the country was officially changed to the Union of Myanmar in 1989. There has been no country called “Burma” in 18 years. Consequently, if the administration is going to exert some influence by talking to their leaders, maybe they should begin by at least referring to the country by the correct name. Doesn’t that seem very basic? Besides, despite the constant news story regarding the crack down on the protestors, I’d bet the farm that the vast majority of Americans never even heard of Myanmar, let alone knew where it was or cared about how shitty their government is to its people. Some solidarity. What is this Poland circa 1981?

This is embarrasing

2007-09-25T14:39:00.000-05:00

Between the decider and betrayus, this administration is making a mockery of our once proud military. I just heard about this one. What a joke. The United States is a lion, not a hyena. Disgraceful and bush (decider) league.

I guess thats what we have to expect when our "decider in chief" was unaccounted for and used his father's influence to skirt war while his countrymen died. Shameful.

U.S. Snipers Allegedly `Baited' Iraqis
Tuesday September 25, 2007 12:46 AM
By PAULINE JELINEK and ROBERT BURNS
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) - Army snipers hunting insurgents in Iraq were under orders to ``bait'' their targets with suspicious materials, such as detonation cords, and then kill whoever picked up the items, according to the defense attorney for a soldier accused of planting evidence on an Iraqi he killed.
Gary Myers, an attorney for Sgt. Evan Vela, said Monday his client had acted ``pursuant to orders.''
``We believe that our client has done nothing more than he was instructed to do by superiors,'' Myers said in a telephone interview.
Myers and Vela's father, Curtis Carnahan of Idaho Falls, Idaho, said in separate interviews that sworn statements and testimony in the cases of two other accused Ranger snipers indicate that the Army has a classified program that encourages snipers to ``bait'' potential targets and then kill whoever takes the bait.
The Army on Monday declined to confirm such a program exists.

McNabb...

2007-09-24T09:15:00.000-05:00

Yeah, that was a different looking McNabb.

I feel bad for all the fantasy football guys that benched him and put in their 2nd string this weekend.

DOH!

But... How 'bout them Cowboys!

Context

2007-09-21T06:56:00.001-05:00

As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

First off, it's a ridiculous idea that America needs to "get back on track," economically speaking. The economy is rolling pretty well for people of all incomes, and there's little dispute that the tax cuts were largely responsible. Thus, the tax cuts helped everybody, not just those who were "well enough off." That's a liberal myth.

But the "context" that PC asked for tells us this:

If you make more money than Hillary Clinton thinks you should make, then Hillary believes that your money is not your money. Hence, "We're not going to give it to you." Get that? She's not going to GIVE you the money that you earned. The default position of ALL your money is with the government, and the government decides how much of it you should get.

Context = Hillary Clinton is a Marxist, Socialist Democrat.

There is no dispute. Vote for Hillary in 2008, or most any other Democrat, and you will end up with less money in your pocket.

Double Standard

2007-09-18T16:56:00.001-05:00

Hmmm. Let's see about this.

Rush Limbaugh says that Donovan McNabb is overrated and treated with kid gloves because the media wants to see black QBs succeed. Limbaugh is crucified for his comments and gets fired.

McNabb says black QBs are at a disadvantage because they're black, and says "Nobody wants to see us play this position." Nobody says anything.

Different? Same? How?

True Colors

2007-09-18T15:02:00.001-05:00

Sorry for the strange typo stuff going on. I copied and pasted this from an e-mail I got. Interesting stuff.

Who said this?
(1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalfof the common good."**

(2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end togovernment of the few, by the few, and for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."**

(3) "(We) can't just let business as usual go on, andthat means something has to be taken away from some people."**

(4) "We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."**

(5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."**

(6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to whathas become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy - that they are being watched."**

Now you might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism, Karl Marx. And you would be on the right track in thinking so. But you would be wrong. These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from nonother than our very own, home-grown Marxist. . .

****Hillary Clinton!**

Comments made on:
(1) 6/29/04
(2) 5/29/07
(3) 6/4/07
(4) 6/4/07
(5) 6/4/07
(6) 9/2/05*

Crybabies and other failures of leadership

2007-09-18T09:02:00.000-05:00

On one hand, the dishonorable and playground politics of Moveon.org have provided both parties the opportunity to demonstrate true leadership. On the other hand, both parties are once again failing miserably. Every democratic candidate should be disavowing the comments of Moveon.org. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t – I just haven’t seen everyone’s response. Every republican candidate should also continue to criticize the comments, but also should admit that they are getting nothing more than “Swiftboated.”

I find it hilarious that republicans are screaming bloody murder now, when they all shamefully turned their heads when Kerry was getting attacked by similar lies (although Bush eventually did distance himself from the Swiftboat comments – long after the effect had already sunk in – what a principled leader!). I also find it shameful that democrats aren’t using this chance to demonstrate their ability not to swim in the shitty politics pool. They won’t of course; candidates like Clinton have been involved in the process their entire lives and from their perspective, “that’s just how politics works.”

Summary: laugh at the crying republicans, hang my head in disgust at the democrats. Man, will someone just step up and be different?

Disappointment

2007-09-14T07:12:00.000-05:00

Mark me down as unimpressed with Dubya's performance last night. I almost fell asleep.

Geez, man. Seven years to work on making a big speech, and the guy is still as inspiring as a tree stump. He actually looked like the caricatures of him that you see in the paper. You know... little monkey with big ears, etc. What a letdown.

This was a huge opportunity to tell America that the progress is real, we are winning this war and troops are coming home! Hallelujah, this is great news! Critics, shove it up your kiester! But instead of spicy enchiladas and beer, we get crackers and water. To be fair, he probably didn't want to leave himself open to more criticism like he got with "Mission Accomplished."

But good grief, George. You have no reason to be such a downer. Smile, be happy and tell Americans they have a reason to be encouraged. The liberals are wrong about this war, and we need somebody who can deliver that message with a right cross to the jawbone, not a kiss on the cheek. I like Bush's attitude toward terrorists, but with his enemies back home (and make no mistake, that is what they are) he's a wimp.

I normally get a good chuckle out of how much emphasis Gary places on charisma in a president. But holy cow... George could use just a little bit of Bill Clinton every now and then.

In the Pursuit of Happiness, Beware of the Work

2007-09-13T11:30:00.000-05:00

First off, I have to acknowledge how well written and well thought out the two previous posts were by Gary and Greg. You guys really have a talent for articulating your opinions about this subject.

I can relate to Gary's frustrations. I too feel like I have been let down by the Bush administration. I feel like there is so much more that could have been accomplished on his watch. However, as applied to this war and how it has been handled, I have to ask myself a few basic questions: Are my children and grandchildren safer as a result of having Bush in office? Has he made progress in confronting, disrupting, and neutralizing the threat that made it’s self so evident on 9/11? Is he actively pursuing a victory? I think he has helped lead the way to enormous gains in that regard.

But, as Greg points to in his post and in previous postings, radical Islamic Jihadists are not the only threat to our country. We have a very real and destructive force in this country that wants us to fail in being everything we were set up to be by our founding fathers. Gary gives an excellent example of that threat with the Moveon.org ad that ran in the NY Times (at a discounted rate no less).

My qualms with Bush are mostly with his total lack of leadership in addressing and confronting this threat head on. In lacking to do so, it has made ‘winning the war on terror’ seem like an unattainable goal. The voice of dissent and pessimism runs rampant and totally un-confronted by leadership of this nation.

But it isn't solely up to the President and his administration. As citizens of this country, the burden is mostly on our shoulders.

So I challenge anyone that finds them selves reading this: Check your inner most being and ask yourself where your thoughts and opinions are coming from. Are you sided with those who wish to be and do and achieve good things for this country? Or are you sided with those who only wish to point fingers, criticize, and blame others? If it’s the latter, it’s never too late to change sides.

If we are to win at remaining the worlds most cherished and coveted civilization, one that is so blessed by God that we are able to give incredible sums to poverty stricken nations across the globe, then we must come together and confront the challenges that we are faced with. If you or I can’t for whatever reason ‘get in the game’, then the least we can do is cheer on those who can.

So the next time we hear someone criticizing this administration, we have a choice: We can either jump on the beat-down band wagon, or we can instead try and open up a dialog that works toward a positive goal. A goal that helps secure the pursuit of happiness for our descendants.

Success is success... not irony.

2007-09-13T07:45:00.000-05:00

I agree with a lot of what you say, Gary. It's evident that you're making the effort to see things from all sides, and that is noted and appreciated. However, as usual, you're being a bit harsh on George. Remember when I say this that I am no longer George Bush's biggest fan. I'm ready for a change.

But if George Bush has no credibility for laying out a plan or a vision for the future, then at least PART of the blame for that lies with people such as yourself, who never thought he had any credibility in the first place. Most Bush haters think that he never should have beaten Al Gore, and have been judging him according to an unreasonable set of standards ever since. If a hypothetical President John Kerry, the candidate you most recently voted for, had done all the things Bush has done in this war, you'd be giving him every benefit of the doubt right now. But aside of the occasional compliment made through clenched teeth, it's quite evident that nothing Bush does will ever be good enough for you. If we were to find bin Laden, bring Iraq completely under control and make all of fanatical Islam bow in submission tomorrow, you people would find some way to say "yeah, BUT...."

Yes, Bush has made some mistakes and his credibility has rightly suffered for it. But you've done such a fine and extensive job of slandering the man that the balance on his credibility account is far lower than it should be. Congratulations, you've made his job of prosecuting this war even more difficult than it should have been.

In this case, you're continuing the slander by drastically overstating "how bad he has effed things up." How bad is that, exactly? Not in number of troops lost. Before this started, antiwar nuts were predicting 30,000 - 50,000 troops lost in a very short period of time. Five years later, we're at about a tenth of that number. So that didn't really pan out. Basically, you're complaining that this is all taking a lot longer than you would like. OK, that's fair. It's taking a lot longer than I would like, too. In hindsight, maybe it would have been better to flood Iraq with 500,000 troops and make the place into a parking lot. But that's hindsight, and for various reasons, that approach didn't seem like the best idea back when we started this thing. For one thing, the American people didn't want it... didn't think it was necessary. Most people thought this was going to be a lot easier than it has been, myself included. I suspect that on some level, you believed that yourself. Yes, I know you're a consistent proponent of "overwhelming force." Bully for you. So am I. But you and I are peons who can afford to be proponents of that kind of thing. Reality is different when you're the President of the United States and have to consider ramifications that you and I don't even know exist. We are armchair quarterbacks who have never even been on the field. It would be nice to see you admit that occasionally.

War is hell. War never goes as planned. And this enemy has been far more resourceful and resilient than we expected. So to sum up, you don't like how long this war is taking, and you don't like that George Bush wasn't better able to predict the future. Predicting the future is part of the President's job, but you can't expect a 100 percent success rate. You also don't like that he's been a little slow on the draw in some places, and I will agree with you there. He should have been quicker to change leaders and strategies when it was evident that it wasn't working. But you cannot say that he hasn't changed leaders and strategy, only that he's been slow. By and large, given the realities of war, he hasn't "effed this up" nearly as badly as you're portraying it. We are not being beaten here, and we never were. We just were never making the kind of progress that people expected until recently. And now that we're making that progress, you seem to be trying to water down the good news by saying "too late." Newsflash: It will never be too late to win this war. Good news is always good news. And if good news falls on deaf ears tonight, it is only because obstinate and unfair people don't want to get their hearing fixed.

Finally, as for the comment about being saddled with four more years of Bush's presidency, I don't think "saddled" is the applicable word. "Blessed" is more like it. For as badly as George Bush may or may not have performed since 2004, I will always believe we are in FAR better shape today than we would have been if we were currently staring at the prospect of another four years of President John Kerry. How many "summits" would we have had with Osama bin Laden by now, and what would we have conceded to him and other murderous terrorists? If Kerry had become president in 04, the entire Islamic terrorist world would have been convinced by now that we're a bunch of spineless wimps who won't avenge murdered Americans, or stand in the way of their goal of world domination.

Slander George Bush as much as you like. But at least our enemy knows that we're going to fight them. I only hope people consider that very heavily come November '08.

The Irony of Success and the Surge

2007-09-12T17:29:00.000-05:00

It is doubtful that even the most ardent supporter of the invasion of Iraq would argue that the Bush administration has any credibility when it comes to laying out an agenda or strategy for the future. The irony is that the credibility that the administration longs for resides only with the PRESENT military leadership. Anyone remotely associated with the planning and execution of the invasion up to the appointment of Petareus and Ambassador Crocker is tainted and is in no position to convince anyone of anything. Petareus has consistently been seen as a competent military leader (except for the idiots at Moveon.org) and Crocker as an experienced long time civil servant whose expertise in the Arab world insulates him from being lumped in with the obvious partisan and inexperienced civilian leaders that this administration has seen fit to send to Iraq in the past.

Now we have the report to Congress on the efficacy of the surge. And in military terms, the surge appears to have been a success by almost all measures. So why isn’t the administration enjoying the fruits of what appears to be an fine example that they finally “get it” and have learned their lesson?

Certainly part of the reason is the basic politics of hate that has become more pervasive since the early 90’s. Neither party can permit the other to experience success so they must do everything that they can to tear down each other. Your guess is as good as mine as to who is to blame for this.

Equally clear is the inarguable incompetence that the war has been waged up until six months ago. It is surely a damning shame that the success that has resulted from the surge cannot wash away the problems that have been built up over the past four years.

It is for these reasons that when Bush goes on television tomorrow night, his message will fall on deaf or skeptical ears. It is worthy to note that the administration has conspicuously danced around the apparent fact that the military success of the surge has not translated into similar political success (the only way this mess is going to end). The American public is no longer willing to simply accept the gains espoused by the administration without identifiable and measurable benchmarks of success. Consequently, his request for more time (and surely he will ask for this tomorrow night) will not be received with open arms by the public. He simply is in no position to make such a request with any force.

The sad fact is that if General Petareus went on TV and made the same request, I suspect that it wouldn’t be dismissed out of hand (which is exactly what a substantial portion of the country will do with Bush). Unfortunately, how would that look to have a general make such a request because the commander-in-chief’s credibility is so damaged that he cannot?

I wish the detractors of the surge could take their “blinders off” as Tony Snow has said and see the success (modest or otherwise) that it has been. It seems to me that such success can provide the breathing room that Bush has been asking for the last four years. I lament the fact that supporters of Bush’s handling of the war are only now waking up to how bad he eff’d this up and that we have been saddled with another four more years of his presidency. Yet, it seems that he may have finally gotten right. Too bad no one wants to listen now.

The Patriots

2007-09-12T13:32:00.001-05:00

I think the league should send a signal in punishing the Patriots for cheating. Nothing less than taking away a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round draft pick in the upcoming draft, and a fine that they will feel, something like ten million dollars, and further, Belichick is suspended from the sidelines and practice facilities for a period of 4 games. We'll see if that deters future teams from pulling this type of stuff. I bet it does.

And if anyone gives me the "other teams do it" excuse/ defense, I will personally sanction you for being stupid.

Here is another example of government over reach:

2007-09-12T12:11:00.000-05:00

Feds May Step In to Reduce Airline Delays

I sure wish the government would stop 'stepping' where it has no business stepping. If they would collectively open their eyes, they would recognize the most glaring fact of why delays exist.

Because the government has consistently bailed out the likes of American Airlines when they are on the verge of bankruptcy, the companies have continued to fester and get less and less productive. They operate less and less efficiently. And thus, are now almost completely incompetent in stepping up and producing what matters most: A product that leaves people feeling like they got their money's worth.

If a company can't run in a profitable manner, I say let them bankrupt and sell their assets on the courthouse steps. Someone with more passion for 'making it work' will step up and get the job done. If they can't run flights on time, open up the market for others players to try, don't bog it down even more with additional red tape governmental oversight.

I'm sorry, but if the candidates running for office are not proposing MAJOR change to the bureaucratic government, then they aren't worth the 30 seconds of my life I waste listening to their sound bytes. Why do we put up with this ridiculousness?

2007-09-12T11:06:00.001-05:00

Stand by the American Mission in Iraq

Everyone Chill

2007-09-11T17:52:00.001-05:00

My research of past blog posts has led me to a prospective resolution of our differences as they relate to the treatment of dogs.

Steve, Greg, how about if we allow "Water Boarding" of dogs, for those who need to coerce their animals into certain acts and ommissions. According to you guys, it should be OK, as it is not torturous.

I couldn't resist...

2007-09-11T16:56:00.000-05:00

Man. If this was a Republican he/she would be handcuffed, flown to the moon, and dropped without oxygen.

A new set of laws...

2007-09-11T12:18:00.000-05:00

Mount Dora, Florida has banned dog barking.

In light of this new ruling, since it is now law and I have no conscience of my own, I say any dog owner convicted of allowing their dog to bark should be arrested and confined in prison no shorter than 3 days. Their dogs shall be confiscated and put under the custody of the humane society where they will live out their remaining week as a jailed mutt.

Furthermore, if any dog owner tries to inhibit dog barking by the tortuous means of a shock collar, they shall be incarcerated for no shorter than 3 days and their dog confiscated and paraded on national television so that millions can join together and call for the dog owner to be imprisoned and stripped of his professional career.

Stupidity. Are we there yet?

The Death of Outrage

2007-09-10T13:53:00.000-05:00

Mike Vick got screwed, at least partially, because he's black. Just kidding, at least about the black thing, because I honestly believe he got screwed.

First two important notes regarding my beliefs as they relate to dogs:

1) I do not believe in the intentional torture of any animal, and I believe intentionally torturing any animal should be criminally prosecuted.

2) I do not believe any animal deserves the same rights and privileges as humans.

Secondly, my thoughts as to the prosecution of Mike Vick:

1) I have no problem with his prosecution if he broke existing laws, even though I've never been a big fan sensational indictments and media prosecutions.

2) My problem is with the law that makes fighting dogs a crime.

Now, I don't care about the racketeering and gambling aspects of this case. Every NCAA office pool that is conducting between states probably violates the same or similar laws. Vick's case is about fighting dogs, and the punishment for those who encourage and participate in the sport. You never heard it called the "Vick gambling probe" or the "Vick racketeering operation." Its always been called the "Vick dogfighting case"

Pit bulls were specifically bred to be fighting dogs. Generations of mating and culling exist which accentuates the violent and powerful physical and temperamental characteristics of these fighting dogs. Simply put, these dogs are born and bred to fight, and that is what they do. And on a side note, fighting is a very natural action for wild dogs. In nature, dogs fight all the time.

We are allowed to kill our dogs. Nobody disagrees with such a right. We are not, and should not be allowed to torture animals. In Vick's indictment we heard glamorous and horrible tales of dogs getting hung and electrocuted. Guess what, we hang and electrocute humans. The governments do not consider it to be torturous to do this to humans. If Vick intentionally tortured his dogs he should be punished. If he hanged and electrocuted them, he should not.

While it should not be encouraged, dog fighting, by itself, should not be a misdemeanor or a felony. Now, I opine only of the act of allowing two dogs to fight against one another, I did not say anything about all of the tangential practices related to dog fighting.

The dogs want to fight, and they are bred to fight. You are only letting them do what is natural. You don't prosecute people for their labrador's fetching ducks out of a pond. That's what the Lab is bred to do. The dog wants to fight, it fullfill's the dogs genetic needs. Fighting is in the dog's bones. And we impose criminal liability for this, and ruin people's lives for making unfashionable and outdated entertainment decisions.

Am I the only one that sees what is going on? This guy's life is forever ruined.

Where is the outrage? All of this fuss over a f*cking dog?

How about that

2007-09-05T07:32:00.000-05:00

Interesting story.

Violence in Iraq is at the lowest level in almost two years, and the Commanding Officer seems to be comfortable with the idea of reducing troop levels. Is the surge working? Will the critics admit it?

Larry the Cable Guy

2007-09-04T20:18:00.000-05:00

First off, kudos to PC for a rational, thoughtful, serious and coherent post. Keep doing that instead of making silly posts that compare the President of the United States to Hitler, Stalin, Castro, et al.... and I'll continue to participate here.

Senator Craig.... I don't know a whole lot about the case, but count me among the skeptics that he was framed. I don't see a Senator from Idaho spending enough time in the Minneapolis airport to develop the kind of reputation necessary to inspire that kind of ambush. Maybe the cop is a first class jerkwad, but I think it highly unlikely that even a first class jerkwad would invest that kind of time in setting up a gay Republican senator... from IDAHO of all places. Then again, Minnesota is a notoriously (even venomously) liberal state.

It would seem to me that the good senator probably just walked into a planned sting operation designed to keep people from (as Gary so eloquently puts it) "laying cable" in the men's room. DOH. This is why I say let people do what they want (sexually speaking) behind closed doors. But a public restroom ain't no place for that kind of thing. I think his resignation is appropriate. (Assuming that Idaho has a Republican governor...haha...)

I'll Join PC... (updated)

2007-08-31T14:16:00.000-05:00

I’ve read the police report and I’ve listened to the interrogation tape.

My offense with the Craig story is directed at the pathetic excuse for evidence the cop making the accusations brought to the table.

Having personally experienced the effects of unlimited authority vested to a psychopath, I think this cop’s badge should be yanked and him serve as an eight dollar an hour security guard at McDonald's.

Whether or not Craig is a homosexual, whether he has had sex in public restrooms, or whether he wears pink panties and dances on rose petals is not evidenced in this cop’s efforts. The only things that are evidenced is that Craig took a dump in a public restroom, and this cop is a lame excuse for a civil servant.

If I were Craig I would have this cop’s career flushed down the toilet, just as the euphoric media has flushed Craig’s.

As far as PC's values in leadership go, I disagree. If the people you are trying to lead value keeping your sex life inside of your marriage, then committing adultery will certainly hinder your ability to lead them. In other words, people follow leaders who share their values.

For Paris Hilton, the depth of her followers character reflects the depth of her own character. She cannot 'lead' anyone with an IQ over 10, because she doesn't have an IQ over 10.

Bill Clinton cannot 'lead' anyone who thinks marriage means one woman, because he doesn't live the life that one would live if they believed marriage meant one woman.

A homosexual cannot 'lead' someone who thinks gay sex is a disgusting act and completely unnatural.

And a United States Senator that is of the 'conservative party' cannot 'lead' a conservative constituency if they think he is a crazed homo looking for sex in a public restroom. Which is exactly what the liberal media has managed to label him as. So his resignation (assumed) will probably be the best thing that he could do for his constituency. The next best thing is to fight the media tooth and nail, along with the cop that made the arrest. Only that would leave him no time to do what he was elected to do.

Welcome to the strategy of the left.

Some 'wisemen' cry out "She's a witch!", and all the uneducated peasants pick up their tomatoes and merrily dance around as she's burned at the stake. Pathetic.

In Defense of Senator Craig (and glory holes)

2007-08-31T12:19:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you have all heard the bruhaha (sp?) surrounding Republican Senator Larry Craig. I'm not here to really address whether trying to glory hole at an airport is an appropriate thing for a Senator to do or not, simply because, as long as he wasn't trying to glory hole me, I don't really care. Just like I didn't care when President Clinton penetrated his intern with a Cuban cigar (although it seems like a waste of a perfectly good cigar), or when Barney Frank got a male hooker to play with.

My thinking is that we should spend more time looking at our leaders' results, rather than their private lives. Fifty years ago, Presidents would run around, and cornhole starlets like Fredo, but as long as they put men on the moon, and put boots on the ground in Southeast Asia, nobody really knew, and those who did, seemingingly did not care. The same things that make Paris Hilton famous are interferring with our system of government, and our leaders' collective ability to function as normal civilians without having to worry about ending up on Geraldo Nightly, or the Drudge Report. Like when the decider told Tony Blainr that "Hamas needs to cut this f*cking shit out" I didn't care. Because he's right, Hamas needs to cut this f*cking shit out.

All I'm saying is that while I've never visited a glory hole and generally do not support them, I think as long as Craig legally glory holes on his own time, and it does not affect his ability to lead, and if Idaho is a better place with him, then without him, let him lead.

Why would he?

2007-08-30T14:40:00.000-05:00

Gary said...
Well part of my point was that Bush gives only part of the truth. Yes they hate freedom, but they attack us because we mess with everyone's business. Bush never says that.

Of course he doesn't say that. Because there's no way to say that without sounding like we deserve to have terrorists attack us. The bottom line is that we mess with people's business in order to protect our own interests. And 99 times out of 100, the people and countries who we're messing with have completely earned our intrusion.

So a couple questions for you. If you were president would you mess with other people's business? And if you were attacked because of it, would you explain it to the American people by saying "Yeah, that's our fault. That only happened because we messed with their business." Please.

P.S. Your guy Clinton sure didn't explain the embassy bombings and the USS Cole by saying we messed with the terrorists' business.

Yes, but...

2007-08-30T13:40:00.000-05:00

I think that's almost entirely correct, with a couple minor quibbles. Bush says Radical Islamists hate freedom and democracy, because that's as strong a statement as he can make against them. He can't make a religious argument one way or the other, despite the fact that he's talking about crazy people who want to kill anybody who won't follow their crazy version of Islam. It's all about religion, but our media and our culture demand "acceptance and tolerance" of all religions, even the crazy ones. Even the radical, crazy version of Islam can't be called what it is. So Bush does the next best thing, and criticizes them for hating freedom and democracy. It's true, but it's only half the truth.

Secondly, on Bush's miserable failure to implement the "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force, that's much easier said than done, as evidenced by the fact that it just isn't done anymore. What president last followed a similar doctrine? Truman. This is a different day and age. I'd love it if the American people would tolerate what you're advocating. The simple truth is that they won't.

And I'm also a little puzzled at this concept being attributed to Colin Powell. Isn't he the one who talked the first George Bush into getting out of Iraq with Saddam still in place?

Why we're targets of Islamic terror and why Bush is right (sort of)

2007-08-30T10:41:00.000-05:00

I have long criticized Bush’s logic when it comes to explaining why we are the target of Islamic extremist. In a nutshell, he says that they attack us because they hate democracy and freedom. The obvious response is if that were true, then why doesn’t Switzerland and Iceland (for example) suffer similar attacks? To me such logic has been, well, Bush League and correspondences with why people don’t see him as the sharpest knife in the drawer.

With that said, I have been reading the Pulitzer Prize winning book “The Looming Tower.” It is about the origin of radical Islamic thought (in our modern time) and the development of extremist groups which has culminated in the founding of al-Qaeda. If what the author writes is true, then there are certain things that Bush is right about. The individuals that take an extremist view (and there are many different versions of extremist thought which focus on very different “enemies of Islam) are, in medical and scientific terms, EFFIN’ NUTS! No surprise you say?

Unlike the Bible, the Quran is an all encompassing instruction on how entire societies are to function. In other words, it is not merely the written word of God that forms the basis of faith. For instance, the Quran provides proper social responses to events as basic as someone sneezing and provides a specific set of laws to govern the society. As a general rule, all the different extremist versions want the same thing; they want a society governed by the words of the Quran and for there to be no hint of western influence. Consequently, they DO hate democracy and freedom as Bush has said. But it goes even further. As a general idea, they hate modernity (although anyone can point out a million instances where the extremist use and benefit from modern tools and ideas – religious hypocrisy, who would have thought?).

There are several countries whose government is based on the Quran – Saudi Arabia being the most well known. However, that isn’t apparently good enough because, no shock, the religious thought practiced by the Saudis is not the same extremist version sought by the radicals. This is why the Saudis and Egyptians, for example, fear radical Islamist as much as we do. In their version of an Islamic society, no man rules over another man by using man made law (this why they view democracy as an evil), but can only do so based only on laws made by God as written in the Quran.

So, my criticism of Bush’s statement that they hate democracy and freedom should be changed. I now understand why he says those things (I can see him surrounded by Islamic experts explaining these things to him). And to a certain extent his explanation that this why we are attack is true. The extremist see us (the sole remaining superpower) as the engine that drives western influence throughout the world. Combine this with our inarguable hypocritical foreign policies and now it is easy to see why we get attacked and Switzerland doesn’t. As I’ve said before, Switzerland doesn’t get mixed up in other people’s business the way we do.

The book as also solidified my position on how we should respond as well. Bush’s idea of preemption should become a bedrock of our foreign policy just like the Monroe Doctrine. However, in pursuing preemption, it is also necessary for our leaders to also follow the Powell doctrine (identify the military goal and then bring overwhelming force) – something this president has failed miserably. In the short term, these people’s religious zeal is no different than that held by members of this blog – they hold their beliefs just as strong as you do – and their never going to change. There is only one way to deal with them and that is to send them to their maker (quickly and by the boat load). In the long run, it appears that economics and a sense of hope play a huge role in why some fall into extremist groups. Everyone longs to be a part of something bigger than themselves, but unfortunately throughout history, to many Muslims have grown up in oppressive countries in which their leaders horde and squander the wealth and political power. In such circumstances, these young men see radical Islam (in their eyes revolutionary Islam) as a viable alternative to their shitty lives. Consequently, it seems we should do everything we can to boost the economies of countries in which radical Islam is bred. From my limited observation only, it seems that even Muslims like money, often more than their religious beliefs!

Newt Dog

2007-08-29T16:41:00.000-05:00

Some excerpts from one of Newt's speeches:

In order to define broken, there are three standards.

First, who do we serve? Second, what do we value? And third, how do we measure achievement?

It is clear that instead of serving the people, the machines of permanent government serve themselves. It is clear what they value is to get our money for their purpose, even without serving us. It is clear that their measures always excuse failure on their part.

…

I want to make this clear – this is not about reform. This system cannot work and cannot be reformed from within. Bureaucratism values process more than achievement, legalism values follow the rules more than achievement, and political correctness values avoiding embarrassment more than telling the truth about failures.

…

For example, while Detroit schools only graduate 21 percent of their entering freshmen on time, that would assume that their most important metric is how well they serve the students. But the fact is that the bureaucracy is paid on time. So from the standpoint of the bureaucracy, the Detroit schools are a very stunning success and they prove it every time they issue a check.

…

This system of self-reinforcing power can never be reformed from within, but that should not lead us to despair. Because the Founding Fathers provided for precisely this kind of problem to be solved by the will of the American people.

The proposition for this speech is simple – you cannot solve America’s problems within the structure of government and the structure of politics that currently exist and are broken. And no campaign that begins with these structures and accepts the principles of these structures has any hope of solving America’s problem.

The Founding Fathers understood that it was possible for the machinery to become broken and observed in our very founding document, the Declaration of Independence, the right of the people to fundamentally overhaul their system of government. Quote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Now that part almost all of us have heard routinely, but we seldom go beyond that:

That to secure these rights, government are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

…

When people go home and explain failure, we need to hire new people who are willing to change the failure. This was captured for me by Secretary Chertoff who said recently about the impending immigration bill that the proposal, quote, “bows to reality.” I think this was the most significant psychological revelation of a powerful figure recently. Bows to reality.

The American people are now being told we must bow to reality. But we Americans know that bowing to reality is the opposite of our tradition. We look at the failure of the border and say, “We refuse to bow.” We look at the failure to rebuild New Orleans and say, “We refuse to bow.” We look at the failure in New Jersey to identify three illegal terrorists who were here for 23 years, despite 75 interactions with the police in the last six years and say, “We refuse to bow.” We look at the holding of five American hostages in Iran and say, “We refuse to bow.”

All those who are willing to bow to failure after failure after failure have a current system they can work with. It will fail and they can bow. But for most Americans, this is not an acceptable future. Most Americans believe that we hire leaders to change reality so that it fits our values, not to change our values to fit the current failed reality.

American Solutions

2007-08-29T10:06:00.000-05:00

Guys, check out Newt's new website American Solutions.

I've been listening to some of his speeches and ideas on how to fix a few things in this country. This new website is to be a collaborative place to discuss ideas and ways to solve some of the major problems facing this country.

It's been a pretty refreshing alternative to the 30 second barforama sound bytes coming from our current political figures.

Jammin'

2007-08-28T13:44:00.000-05:00

Check out the band...

First performance after about a month of rehearsals. We've got some work to do, but I think there's a lot of potential...

Euthanasia

2007-08-23T15:01:00.001-05:00

Never mind what caused me to think on this topic but it recently came to mind there is such a huge dichotomy between our attitudes on euthanasia for people and our pets.

If you have a pet that’s suffering from cancer, it’s considered humane to put them out of their misery. You’re cruel and heartless if you keep them around longer than absolutely necessary.

On the other hand, with a person it’s illegal to help them achieve release from their suffering, even if they are begging. We’ll require our medical professionals to do anything to keep them alive, no matter how much they suffer.

It seems to me that we’d look at it the other way around. A dog can’t tell you what it wants. Maybe it wants nothing more than to spend as many days as possible with the family it’s lived with for so long no matter how much pain it’s in.

I guess is comes down to our own hubris. We deem humans to be so much more valuable than any other life form that we’ll put all things aside (even the wishes of the person in question) in order to extend their life, no matter the quality of that life.

Greetings from AK

2007-08-20T16:22:00.000-05:00

No time to write much, but thought y'all would enjoy a couple pictures....

What position does your horse take?

2007-08-16T15:49:00.000-05:00

Edwards: Bar lobbyists' money
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who has a policy of not accepting money from federal lobbyists, wants the Democratic Party's top fundraising organizations to adhere to a similar ban

The Edwards campaign on Thursday called on Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama to co-sign a letter to party leaders decrying the connection between political donations and Washington's lobbying industry.

"There are now more than 60 lobbyists for every member of Congress. The system is clearly rigged against the people who make our country great," Edwards wrote to Obama is seeking his support.

Edwards' maneuver is designed to reinforce the populist role he has embraced in this campaign and is an attempt to get a leg up on Obama, who also has a rule of not accepting money from federal lobbyists.

By putting the challenge to the Democratic Party committees, Edwards is effectively distancing himself from the party establishment. But the party's Washington leadership does not represent Edwards core support.

A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, citing the party's neutrality in the presidential contest, declined to comment.

Obama aides would not say whether he would sign onto Edwards' effort. But campaign spokesman Bill Burton called on Edwards and other candidates to join Obama in seeking to limit the role of lobbyists in Washington.

"It's not enough just to refuse their money, we have to curb their influence," Burton said in a statement.

Edwards and Obama have received some money from federal lobbyists, but the campaigns have returned those donations. They also accept money from lobbyists working at the state government level or from former lobbyists. Some Obama advisers are also lobbyists.
Both candidates also reject money from political action committees. But both have been successful fundraisers. Obama leads the presidential field in fundraising. He and Hillary Clinton have raised more than $50 million in the first six months of the year.

Edwards has raised $23 million. While eschewing lobbyists and PAC money, Edwards, a former trial lawyer, has benefited more than any other candidate from money from attorneys.

His campaign on Thursday, however, drew a distinction between money from lobbyists and that of other donors with possible special interests.

"There is one group of people whose job it is to influence government and that is lobbyists," deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince said. "The lobbyist are at the core of the way the system is rigged against regular folks. What we're saying is let's take the money out of the equation."

Obama aides noted that Obama was one of the main contributors to ethics legislation currently awaiting President Bush's signature. It would require lawmakers and political committees to disclose the names of lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them within a six-month period by bundling donations from many people.

The bill also would prevent lawmakers from accepting gifts from lobbyists or their clients. Former senators and top executive branch officials would have to wait two years before lobbying Congress; former House members would have to wait one year.

Leaders Playing Dress Up

2007-08-14T11:53:00.000-05:00

I've always been distrustful of presidents who like to play dress up in military costumes. So for you, my friends, I've assembled what I call Leaders Who Play Dress Up.

I guess they're right, great minds think alike.

Idi Amin

Benito Mussolini

Augusto Pinochet

Fidel Castro

Saddam Hussein

Adolf Hitler

Hugo Chavez

Chairman Mao Tze Tong

Mu'amar Qaddafi

The Decider

Hillary's answer to health care:

2007-08-10T15:59:00.000-05:00

Here is an article on subject:

After years of being criticized for the failed universal health-care plan she crafted during her husband's first term in office, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) apparently has had enough.

During a forum at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Las Vegas, Clinton was asked why as a candidate for president she is "still insisting" on bringing "socialized medicine" to the United States, when people are "pulling away" from similar systems in Canada and Great Britain. Worse, the questioner said, such systems hurt rather than help poor people.

"That was a string of misrepresentations about me and about the systems in other countries," Clinton started. "Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists here heard that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."

Nice re-writing of history...

Clinton's plan, which died in Congress in 1994, would have required employers to provide health-care coverage to employees through health-maintenance organizations. Insurance firms opposed the proposal, as did political conservatives who thought it removed health care -- a huge portion of the nation's economy -- from the competitive marketplace.

There is your creator of HMO’s, the things that conservatives opposed, but money hungry politicians pushed on thru. Do you like yours? If so, vote for Hillary, you will get more of the same lame options you have now.

"Do you think Medicare is socialized medicine?" Clinton asked her inquisitor, who did not identify himself.

"To a degree," he responded.

I certainly do.

"Well, then you are in a small minority in America," Clinton said to applause, before explaining that Medicare allows patients to choose their doctors even though the federal government foots the bill with money deducted from workers' paychecks.

And there is the sad part, she may well be right. It may well be just a small minority of people with enough common sense left to see thru her political BS. Hopefully, come November of 2008 we won’t find out for sure it’s true.

Clinton then asserted that "on balance," countries with uniform national systems of health care, including Japan, Australia and Canada, offer better health care than the United States. The answer left her questioner shaking his head in disagreement.

And me with mine. Could someone please explain what ‘better health care’ is? If it’s the most advanced techniques and talent in the world then she is flat wrong. If it is just simply access to a guy who graduated medical school, then she is probably right.

"I can give you the statistics, and you can shake your head," Clinton said sharply. "You come and introduce yourself to the staff. And we'll try to give you some information if you're interested in being educated instead of being rhetorical."

Well my hand is outstretched. I’m waiting for information...

Someone likes the circus...

2007-08-10T13:21:00.000-05:00

“If the answer to whether our government should help those that are less fortunate is “tough shit – get off your ass, get a better job and don’t expect anyone to do anything for you” as you assert, then your contribution is appreciated.”

That’s not my answer at all. If you re-read my post, my answer to that was, “With the exception of the mentally retarded and the physically handicapped, everyone in this country is presented with the same opportunities for health care.” And, “Yes, I understand that some people ‘are not able’ to pay their own way, but we have a multitude of systems already in place to benefit those, not to mention the endless amount of religious charities that are out there.”

“I was kind of hoping for a response to some of things that I’ve pointed out that seem inequitable. But I assume your view would still be, “Hey, life’s not fair. You need to take care of number #1.”

Things only seem inequitable to you because you are viewing things thru the prism of a victim. You’re right, life’s not fair, and the sooner people stop looking to government to make it fair for them, the sooner they will get what they want out of life and be happy. While taking care of #1 is important, it’s not nearly as important as reaching out to your community and doing something that affects it in a positive way, which is why I have made a battle cry several times on this board for all of us to do something more than just type blog postings and vote.

“As far as your empty tough guy challenge as to whether anyone can point out in the Constitution where it says the government is supposed to provide healthcare, I’ll get right on that as soon as you show me where it says the government is supposed to provide police or fire service, free universal secondary education, free library service or something as shockingly basic as granting Congress the right to regulate immigration. If you’re gonna talk shit, you probably ought to at least put yourself in a position to do it.”

I’m not trying to be a tough guy, or “talk shit”. I’m trying to shoot straight and be honest about things.

The constitution was used in our discussion about illegal immigrants and it quickly made the entire point moot. The same applies here. You challenge me to find in the constitution where it states the government’s role is to provide fire service, education, libraries, and immigration regulation. I challenge you to show me where I have defended the government providing them in the first place. At least we agree that the government has over stepped it's bounds.

You assert that the government should provide universal health care. I assert that there are plenty of avenues open for those not able to provide for themselves. You assert that we as a nation should take care of those less fortunate. I assert that we do, along with those less fortunate all over the globe.

You will not clearly define who you think are the ‘less fortunate’ among us, but you seem to assert that I don’t care about them. My reply to that is that I do care. I care enough to tell them to their face that they need to get up and go work, if they are able.

Government run health care will not be cheap. Someone has to pay the doctors, nurses, assistants, assistants to assistants, pencil pushers, paper pushers, auditors, auditors’ assistants, consultants, attorneys, water boys, and lackeys. You will be paying for all of those things instead of simply paying your doctor for his services. This is already evident in today’s form of health care the government has made a mess out of by making itself a part of it.

The health care circus act

2007-08-09T16:12:00.000-05:00

Hey guys, I’ve been out of town so let me jump right into this issue of health care now that I am back.

Let me just say right up front that I think the entire idea of universal health care sits on a flawed foundation system. So, with that said, Gary’s original question of “Why or why not?” doesn’t give me an option of how I really feel about the subject. Why not just simply does not represent my thoughts of what an utterly stupid idea it is.

With the exception of the mentally retarded and the physically handicapped, everyone in this country is presented with the same opportunities for health care. Granted, those with wealthy parents, or those with skin color of the minorities are presented with greater opportunities than others, but the fact remains: If you want to pursue a life that grants you wealth and prosperity (read: health benefits), all you have to do is work for it.

The idea of having a ‘universal health care system’ stems from nothing more than people not wanting to grow up and be responsible for themselves. Yes, I understand that some people ‘are not able’ to pay their own way, but we have a multitude of systems already in place to benefit those, not to mention the endless amount of religious charities that are out there.

A person not wanting to be responsible is nothing new. Governments have been established and evolved over time to fill in the needs (at a cost to freedom) that people decide they don’t want to fulfill themselves.

On insurance companies:

Their only negative role in the subject is that which our government has set them up for. Insurance companies are a business. Their goal is to make money. That’s how they operate. They are not meant to ‘provide health coverage’. They are meant to ‘provide an unexpected monetary benefit’. The government has bedded themselves with insurance companies because that’s how dirty politicians get campaign donations and other nice treats. That’s how the game is played. That’s why we have HMO’s. That’s why my doctors office, which used to consist of a doctor, a nurse, and a receptionist, now employs five to six additional administrative assistants to file claims with insurance companies, and handle all the additional beauracratic paperwork that the government has created.

Show me a doctor who accepts cash only, and I will show you a doctor who has either very affordable prices for his services, or has a huge profit margin.

On ‘Sicko’:

I haven’t seen it, don’t plan to. I can’t imagine seeing how Cuba’s (read: communist) healthcare system works will change my thoughts or enlighten me in any way. They still drive 1950’s automobiles, but somehow have better health care, right.

On one person having better access to health care than another:

This is the United States. If you want something, it’s yours if you’re willing to work for it. What people don’t seem to understand is by asking government to provide more services, they are losing more freedoms. They are taking away free markets ability to provide the best services in the world by allowing free thought and growth. They are making this country a worse place to live for their children and grand children.

On a company using bankruptcy laws to forgo pensions:

My heart goes out to them for their hard time, but this is what happens when you rely on someone or something to provide you security. You will never, ever, ever, ever, be 100% secure. You can plan your best, but something could always go wrong. For them, it was their pension. I don’t see how creating a government entity to provide healthcare will somehow provide anyone any security, nor save them from a loss.

So if we do end up with universal health coverage, what then?

Universal automobile coverage? Bob has access to a corvette, but I can only afford to ride the city bus. Universal housing coverage? Betty has access to a 4 bedroom on rodeo drive, but I live in an apartment on 6^th. What about universal food coverage? Mark gets to eat prime rib once a week, but I am limited to top ramen.

As you can probably tell by now, I am quite passionate about the subject of the government being my ‘nanny’. I do not want the government ‘fixing’ things that I can handle myself. I want them to keep Muhammad Ahkmanutjob from getting his hands on nukes and blowing up New York.

If we elect to send to Washington the ‘issue’ of health care (read: issue that they created in the first place), then we would simply be asking for higher taxes in the future coupled with crappier ‘out of the box’ health care services. This is not theory, it is time tested and proven fact, all you need to do is explore anything the government has removed from free market and turned into a mandated ‘right’ that all Americans deserve.

American health care is not getting better, it is getting worse. This has nothing to do with a lack of government involvement, but a mass influx of it. Our health care providers are getting dumber by the batch, just try going to a young MD in his 30’s and compare his knowledge to an older DO in his 70’s. Doctors are treating symptoms now, instead of treating the underlying illness (read: government in bed with the pharmaceutical companies). They are educating people to be more dependent on drugs, and less dependent on their own diet and exercise. Hey, there is money to be made selling patented drugs. Healthy people? Not very profitable. Chalk up some more campaign donations to your Senator for that oversight.

Who cares you might say? Why not just mooch off the nanny state government you say? Let the ‘rich’ foot the bill you say? Newsflash – the ‘rich’ don’t foot any bills, they collect rent. They pay their taxes in the form of lobbyist’s salaries and senators’ campaign donations. If the ‘rich’ ever feel a burden from over taxation, or Robin Hood economics, they will leave. They can afford to go put their feet up in the Cayman Islands.

When our founding fathers set up this country, they understood these ideas. That’s why I can confidently request any of the law guys on this blog to refer themselves to the constitution and post over here the part that states one of the three branches of government’s role is to provide health care benefits to all of its citizens, and know there will never be such a posting.

An inherently unfair system?

2007-08-08T13:55:00.000-05:00

I could be mistaken or buying into the propaganda. As I said, healthcare just wasn’t an issue that I paid attention to. I know that it is an issue in every election that I can remember. I know that it is a constant source of news articles in all forms of media. I know healthcare is an issue that has affected several members of my family (though to a great extent it appears that most in my family simply do not burden others with their problems and thus I have been sort of shielded from the issue). I know that when the issue is raised that it brings out similar forms of empty rhetoric as other issues. You could be absolutely right Greg; but since I know the things listed above exist, I am willing to consider the notion that there might actually be a problem. Clearly some people do.

I’m not in a position to know whether Americans as a whole receive better care than the rest of the world. Since I doubt Greg’s has experienced healthcare provided by other countries, I doubt he’s actually in any better position to make such an unequivocal statement either. Even if his assertion is true though, it doesn’t sound like that’s what people are bitching about. In other words, it doesn’t appear that people are complaining that state of the art medicine isn’t available, only that a significant portion of the population either doesn’t have it or has less access to it. Perfect example: Greg works for a very large company which means that comparatively speaking, he surely has better healthcare options/coverage/service than others who work for, say, my law firm. As I understand the coverage offered to our employees, it is essentially a catastrophic coverage plan – you’ll pay out the nose for basic service and the plan only is a benefit if you get your arm chopped off. Now Greg and our employees “have” health coverage, but clearly the cost/benefit between the two is not even in the ballpark. Fortunately, I’m on my wife’s plan thru FedEx (and equally large company with comparatively better benefits)!

This is the type of example that never occurred to me as having an impact on one’s life. Should an employee of our firm be penalized for working for a company that does not have the buying power of Lockheed Martin? Is an employee’s illness no less serious than an illness Greg would receive? Is the value of what Greg does for a living so much more beneficial that he should receive better coverage as compared to any other job (please note that I think Greg has a great job and I am flat envious of at least his every other Friday off!)?

Those that espouse the supposed evils of government run healthcare programs often (grudgingly) concede that there are “a very small fraction of people who have no health care or any means of acquiring it” but then offer no alternative for how these people are to be helped. Do we establish some means based Star Chamber to determine who is truly eligible? How extensive should there care be? Should preventative care be provided? Who will manage this? Who will pay? If the answer is not the government, then who?

At present, we have a system in which an estimated 45 million (about 15% of the population) have no coverage for whatever reason. For the rest of us, we have system that is driven by profit and inherently creates a system in which those with no bargaining power get lesser benefits (even though cancer doesn’t seem to care whether you have good benefits or not).

I stated from the beginning that I am very fortunate not to have had to rely on the coverage I have. Even so, the cost of my coverage has gone up every year and my benefits have thus become less valuable either because the insurance company has specifically cut my benefits or simply because the cost of providing the same benefit has gone up. And I’m one of the lucky ones that happened to marry a woman that worked for a big company with bargaining power. How is that fair to those that lead lives just like I do, that work for their paycheck just like I do?

Healthcare questions

2007-08-06T09:32:00.000-05:00

Several observations:

JR says, “Costs to those of us that have to fund it for the poor people should be kept to a minimum.” I’m not sure you get too much disagreement here. What do you say to those that assert “that the true measure of a society’s greatness is how they take care of their least fortunate”? As a solid member of the middleclass, aren’t you already subsidizing most of the functions of society? If so, why would this be any different?

Greg says, “Let's talk about how we can help these people pay for health care expenses within the private sector framework that already exists.” My question is why? What is so great about the present system? I thought everyone in this county agreed that the healthcare system as we know it is completely broken.

“We can accomplish this without getting the government into the business of running hospitals and doctors offices, and dictating to people how their personal healthcare issues will be addressed. What is any of this based on? None of the systems shown in the movie have any instance in which a government bureaucrat dictates healthcare issues. Not one. Now maybe the systems in Canada, England, and France are the exceptions, but if so, doesn’t this show that an efficient system can work? It seems to me that the one fact that we do know is that the present system DOES dictate what service you can receive and from what doctors you can treat. These decisions are made by employees of insurance companies who are profit minded and whose personal income is based on the amount of money that is saved. Do you know any insurance company in any industry that works differently?

I haven't seen sicko, nor do I plan to. But I'll bet a nickel that Michael Moore doesn't discuss the fact that it's quite common to wait 8-10 YEARS for an operation in Britain, France and Canada. You think your HMO is a pain in the ass? Just wait until it's a GHMO.” I was also aware of the many year myth healthcare benefit that had been put out there. On the other hand, the movie presented an example of a man that had health insurance and was denied benefits because his particular plan deemed the benefit experimental. Had he been a member of the several other plans identified in the movie, he would have received the benefit even though the other plans also considered the benefits experimental. How arbitrary or capricious is life that he enrolled in the ONLY plan that was available to him through his employment and ended up dying because of it.

“If people need help, then let's give it to them. But that doesn't mean Universal (aka Government Run) Healthcare.” So what does it mean? I still maintain that I don’t know enough to answer the question either, but the systems in Canada, England and France seemed to work for some reason.

“Because the simple fact is that government SUCKS at that kind of thing.” Interesting. Anyone that knows me knows that I’m no fan of the government under any administration. I do agree, as a general rule, that government screws up just about anything it touches. However, having never been a member of any government run healthcare system, I’m curious how Greg would know so explicitly that the government sucks in this instance. Because my dad was in the Army most of my life, my entire family was subject to government run healthcare. I don’t ever recall any complaints from my parents that the government sucked at providing healthcare. I don’t recall them jumping for joy either – but isn’t that the point? Make it just like you phone service: you know it’s there and assume it will do what it needs to do when it needs to do it.

Anonymous appears to identify the central theme of the movie: insurance companies are the root of the problems in all aspects of the healthcare system. It starts at enrollment where they look to either deny providing coverage or pin your health history down so that they can use a “failure to disclose” as a reason to deny a benefit. It continues during treatment when they limit the doctors you can see and limit the benefits you can receive since each medical provider has to obtain that ever important permission to treat from the insurance company.

Universal Healthcare. Why or why not?

2007-08-03T11:07:00.001-05:00

I do not doubt that many of the people that I associate with haven’t spent too much time considering whether there is a healthcare crises or not. I certainly haven’t. I don’t get sick (as I’m knocking on wood) and I’ve always had healthcare. It’s like my phone service: it’s there and I assume it will work when I need it.

I also don’t doubt that many people will specifically avoid seeing Michael Moore’s new movie for all sorts of reasons. I have enjoyed his previous movies. I think their genuinely entertaining (most of the time, they’re pretty damn funny). Yes they are smarmy and he takes easy shots that look good for the camera (beating up on a senile Charleston Hesston was hilarious in Bowling for Columbine, but really wasn’t fair). But every movie has made me consider a few things that I had not realized before. I’m not here to tout “Sicko.” But I do want to identify something that the movie raised for me.

It never occurred to me how much the issue of whether you have healthcare or not invades a person’s life.

It is obvious that not having healthcare can really, really screw your life up, but unless you or someone you know is faced with that fact, how does one truly understand the impact? The lack of healthcare also can put extreme limits on your ability to just live your life as well. Throughout the movie, Moore gives example after example of situations where people lives where just sunk because of a lack of healthcare. Some examples were people that had had health care but sometimes life deals you a bad set of cards. Others were people that had really never had healthcare and were dealing with that never ending consequence. Either way, it struck me how different there lives would be if they didn’t have to worry about preventative and basic healthcare.

Since the movie made me at least see the existence of the issue, it made me begin to think about the whole healthcare debate. In the past I’ve only half paid attention to the propaganda from each side.

From the right: “Government or universal healthcare is socialized medicine”

From the left: “The true measure of great society is how it takes care of the least fortunate”

I had always seen such empty slogans as words from politicians directed at those groups that I was not a member of. So, I’d like to open a debate here. For simplicity sake, maybe we could limit the debate to the pros and cons of a government sponsored universal healthcare system (I suppose not unlike the systems that exist in virtually every other country of the world – Moore focused on Canada, England and France though).

Gentlemen, what say you?

Robots with guns...

2007-08-03T10:10:00.001-05:00

It looks like robots have been fully armed and are on the ground in Iraq. Great news for our boys.

Check out the S.W.O.R.D.S.

It looks like all the kiddos that are playing Playstation will have a very effective role in the future of our military.

Watch it

2007-07-27T17:29:00.000-05:00

"Greg... who doesn't know anything about the man..."

What, you think I just make this stuff up?

Munley, James Martin Born 1936 in Scranton, PA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 4, 1998, to a seat vacated by William W. Caldwell; Confirmed by the Senate on October 21, 1998, and received commission on October 22, 1998.

I did look that up before I made the post. That's a pretty good indicator that he's a liberal, isn't it? Are Ginsburg and Breyer liberals? I suspect if I had the time or inclination to look at his other decisions, we'd find a pretty liberal tilt. Care to wager?

At any rate, I'm willing to hold off on further criticism of the decision for now. I'm still not sold on "due process" but it's reasonable to see how this could fall under equal protection, which I hadn't considered.

A misguided cut to the chase

2007-07-27T17:18:00.000-05:00

Steve the only part that you cite that is relevant is the 14^th Amendment language. Not exactly sure what you mean by “point out the truth in this argument” because the rest of what you cited was merely the outline of how the founding fathers wanted the judicial system to work and has no bearing on whether a city can enact laws depriving a person of Constitutional rights because they’re not citizens.

I thought I understood what conservatives meant when they said they were strict constructionist and railed against what they described as judicial activism. I understood that strict constructionist sought to have judges to stick to the words on the paper and not read into them a different meaning other than what is contained in the four corners of the page (as if the words are so clear that they could have the same meaning even in a modern world).

When the judge struck down a city’s attempt to restrict rights guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment, I logically assumed it would be seen as a the definition of strict constructionism. The judge did not read any new right. The judge didn’t make up any new law. The judge did exactly what a strict constructionist would want – HE FOLLOWED THE STRICT WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION! Does this result in a pat on the back for this judge by conservatives? Shockingly no!

Instead, the judge is labeled a liberal (how Greg would know that is beyond me since he doesn’t know anything about the man) and consequently must have been reading into the Constitution some new right. All anti-immigration advocates see is a city trying to do something about an issue that everyone agrees is a problem and being slapped down by the Man. They makes no effort to know why the decision was made nor take the time learn that the past 200 years of judicial rulings have all said that state and local governments have no authority to make any law restricting certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Despite protestations to the contrary, there nothing even remotely liberal about the ruling. In fact the exact opposite is true.

A cut to the chase:

2007-07-27T15:23:00.000-05:00

The words of the constitution:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Someone with a law degree please point out the truth in this argument.

There's some irony for you

2007-07-27T14:01:00.000-05:00

"So just because you don't want to have those "darned illegals" running around, you cannot fault a "liberal judge" for deferring to this Constitution thing. Trust me on this one, its important."

I'm not even going to address the racist BS and other hot air coming out your anus, because we all know you're all about throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. But are you really this ignorant? Do you really not understand the concept of constructionism vs. activism, and who is advocating which concept? Do you not understand that it's the people YOU support who don't want to DEFER to the Constitution, but would rather CHANGE it to fit their current whims? A liberal advocating deference to the Constitution is like an atheist advocating more prayer in public schools. Geez, man. At least Gary can throw out some legal mumbo jumbo and make me think a little bit. When you say stuff like this, I'm surprised you got through high school government, much less law school.

I'm all for deferring to the Constitution. It's you liberals who are stretching it beyond all imagination to make it say whatever you want it to say.

Hillary 180

2007-07-27T13:21:00.000-05:00

Hillary before Obama

Hillary after Obama

Politicians.

Greg! Don't Shoot! I Promise, I'm not a Mexican! -or- No Vaseline

2007-07-27T13:09:00.000-05:00

"So much for that idea...

Here's what happens when you try to crack down on businesses that hire illegal aliens:Some liberal judge says "you can't do that.""

Greg,

Sometimes I wonder if you are being serious about the things you write or whether you are just kidding, because often times your posts are quite amusing. Take the one cited above, for example.

Now, I understand you are anti-illegal [read:Mexican], but there are a couple things I believe, you, and the other similarly situated primates of the right wing (such as the incompetents who "run" Farmer's Branch) just cannot understand. For example, there is this thing called the Constitution of the United States. In this document, they lay out something known as "the law of the land." Now this "law of the land" thing allows, and disallows governmental units from engaging in certain activities.

Now, it does not matter how you feel about the Mexican, that is not relevant to this discussion. Believe it or not, the Constitution provides, even the Mexican, with certain rights that cannot be jacked with by ignorant (yes, ignorant) local governments. Things like something called "due process of law" or "equal protection." While I'd love to explain to you what those things mean, I'll save it for another time. Just rest assured they are things that local governments are powerless to alter.

So just because you don't want to have those "darned illegals" running around, you cannot fault a "liberal judge" for deferring to this Constitution thing. Trust me on this one, its important.

As much as you, and your cohorts in Farmer's Branch and Hazelton might hate the idea of living near the Mexican, your xenophobia cannot, and will not trump this pesky Constitution thing, so you'd better get used to it. (unless of course the decider decides otherwise, as he's been known to do)

BTW: I hear there are not many Mexicans in China. There also is not a pesky Constitution to work around either. Maybe you should move there.

An unlikely source of good sense

2007-07-27T09:50:00.000-05:00

“I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States president put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of [Venezuelan president Hugo] Chavez and [Cuban president Fidel] Castro and [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad,” Clinton told CNN Thursday.

I'll be danged. Common sense from Hillary Clinton. In my book, that puts her a notch above Barack "I'll kiss anyone's ace" Obama.

So much for that idea...

2007-07-26T13:49:00.001-05:00

Here's what happens when you try to crack down on businesses that hire illegal aliens:

Some liberal judge says "you can't do that."

Gen. Gary

2007-07-24T10:29:00.000-05:00

Just a few late comments to Gary’s Gen. Sherman post:

“Yet when it comes to fighting unconventional wars our western sense of morality seems to inhibit our ability to crush those that don’t fight “fair.” We are far to concerned about collateral damage and the deaths of so called innocent civilians.”

I suspect that it may stem from experience in battle. Our military institutions have several war victories under their belts. I would tend to think that over the years the practice of killing and maiming innocent women and children has had an extremely negative effect on the people actually committing the acts. And that those in authority who are educated by the history that has been written by soldiers and generals that have conducted missions with “collateral damage”, are making decisions based on 200 years of wisdom gained from those experiences. While you are willing to type messages such as these, are you willing to pick up a gun and hold it to the head of a 6 year old girl and pull the trigger simply because her father is a jihadist? Are you willing to do it twice? Ten times? Could you live with that guilt? If you couldn’t, why would you ask a 19 year old Marine to?

“Today, we condemn those that are fighting us in Iraq for not standing and fighting. We condemn them for placing cowardly IED in roads.”

I condemn them for doing things such as driving cars packed full of nails and propane tanks into crowded markets (with no military presence) and detonating them, killing everyone, without regard for innocent life. That makes them evil. Detonating a road side bomb when a humvee drives by is simply a battle tactic, as would be your example of torpedoing a British naval ship.

“Were you in a country occupied by a foreign army without the means to fight conventionally, would you do any different?”

From what I understand, and please correct me with evidence if I am wrong, their country of origin is not Iraq. I think a better question would be, “Why did they come to Iraq, and why are they fighting us?”

I have a fundamental disagreement with your continued comparison of this Iraq war to our own revolutionary war; I will try to be as clear as possible with these examples:

Iraq war: We were not, and are not subjecting the Iraqi people to unfair taxation and making them follow monarchical (is that a word?) law.

Revolutionary War: The British WERE subjecting us to unfair taxation and making us follow monarchical law.

Iraq war: The people DID NOT stand up and fight against the cruel and brutal despot that was Saddam.

Revolutionary War: We DID stand up and fight.

Iraq war: We came there to remove an evil dictator.

Revolutionary War: The British came here to whip us back into obedience and start paying taxes again.

Iraq war: The ‘insurgents’ are fighting against a liberating force.

Revolutionary War: The ‘insurgents’ were fighting against an occupying force.

Iraq war: Everything the ‘insurgents’ do is aimed at driving out democracy.

Revolutionary War: Everything the ‘insurgents’ did was aimed at furthering democracy.

“Mohammad the insurgent won’t have time to make IED if he’s worried about where he’s going to sleep tonight, where he’s going to get his next bite of food, or where his next drink of water will come from if we level the town he operates from.”

There have been times where leveling a town was required. I think that took place in Japan during WWII? (sarcasm) I also think the horror that we saw during that aftermath was enough to make any sane person sob like a baby.

In Iraq, where evil terrorists slip in and out of towns full of innocent people, your call for leveling that town would be no different (in my mind) from leveling Hurst, Euless, and Bedford simply because a guy that lived there assassinated the President.

“I submit that the application of maximum destructive force, ironically, is what saves lives in war.”

I agree with that statement, so long as the destructive force is aimed at people wielding weapons, making weapons, or otherwise aiding the enemy by some means other than feeding them and bandaging them.

The intentional use of maximum destructive force without regard for innocent life is evil (in my humble opinion), and if applied by our military would remove its ability to look itself in the mirror and like what it sees. I think what you are calling for is exactly what the ‘insurgents’ who are in Iraq would like to see, the U.S. wage war on Iraqi civilians.

A moment of clarity

2007-07-23T12:43:00.000-05:00

"...injecting ourselves in other people’s business involves making choices and
those choices will have consequences – some very severe. Surely you and I can
agree on this point, right?"

Absolutely. Your issue is actually with the people who always object to the U.S. injecting itself into other people's business. Right?

"I don’t believe that you believe that unending criticism of the war has
lead to our failure."

And you are correct. But I never said that was a reason for our failure. I said that unending criticism and opposition to war of any kind is one reason why we're afraid to use total force. Where is General Sherman today? Dead and buried, and his grave has been trampled on by a bunch of peaceniks who care more about their own ideals than they care about the general welfare of the United States of America.

Where is Gen. Sherman today?

2007-07-20T14:15:00.000-05:00

A fairly long time ago, Greg and I were discussing how things were going in Iraq. At the time I quoted a passage from a book describing a typical military operation in which a superior occupying force was constantly having to deal with a growing insurgency. In the passage, I replaced the names of the opposing forces with those of American units in Iraq and those of the terrorist/insurgents in Iraq and I asked Greg to comment on the passage. My recollection of his response was what you would expect anyone to say: it sounded like the American forces were having a tough time. It was only after the comments were made did I reveal that the passage came from the Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Washington’s Crossing” about Washington’s retreat from New York and ultimate victory at the Battle of Trenton.

My unsaid point was that I questioned whether western militaries could ever be successful against an insurgency fighting the way we fight. There isn’t any debate that western countries are militarily superior to all other countries in the world. Yet when it comes to fighting unconventional wars our western sense of morality seems to inhibit our ability to crush those that don’t fight “fair.” We are far to concerned about collateral damage and the deaths of so called innocent civilians.

While it is true that the American rebels during the Revolution had conventionally organized forces, they rarely faired well against Royal troops. However, actions conducted by loosely organized insurgent rebel forces remained a serious and constant problem for England for the entire war. Such actions bought the Americans enough time to convince France and Spain that siding with the upstart rebels may damage England’s economic and military global domination. In response to the insurgent tactics, England resorted to committing what we would certainly define as “atrocities” today. Not surprisingly, American rebels responded in kind with similar atrocities. Only the rebels rarely committed atrocities against British troops and preferred to prey on their unarmed (but loyal to the king) countrymen.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Today, we condemn those that are fighting us in Iraq for not standing and fighting. We condemn them for placing cowardly IED in roads. Were you in a country occupied by a foreign army without the means to fight conventionally, would you do any different? Of course not. One need only look back to our Revolution or even the War of 1812 to know exactly how we would act. In the spring of 1813, Congress actually passed a law called the “Torpedo Act” which said that any American that could devise an explosive device to sink British ships that were blockading all of the country’s major ports would be paid half of the value of the sunken ship. In some cases, this could be as much as $100,000 – unimaginable amount of money for an individual. Many American inventors came out of the wood work to invent floating bombs (Robert Fulton was one of them). Various improvised exploding devices were employed although none were really successful. One inventor, clearly about 200 years before his time, even loaded a small commercial boat with five hundred pounds of gunpowder and then set out toward the British battleship Ramillies anchored off of New London, Connecticut. The idea was that the British would surely stop the small boat and then hopefully would bring it along side and tie it to the battleship as a prize. When a boarding party would search the boat, they would trip the explosives in the boat and you could then scratch one battleship. Unfortunately for the British and Americans, the boat was stopped but was searched some distance from the battleship. When the Royal soldiers searched the boat, it did explode killing ten soldiers.

Does this sound familiar now?

Obviously, Western countries were not above using unconventional tactics. The problem is why have we stopped? And more importantly, why have we stopped responding to the use of unconventional tactics against us in the only way that insurgents understand that it is a lost cause – total and unrestricted use of force? I’ve said it a million times before: only the complete and unrestricted use of force will force an enemy to realize the cost of resistance out weighs the benefit of their goals.

We may not know who or where each insurgent/terrorist is, but we certainly know where they operate from. We may know who their friends and family are. Mohammad the insurgent won’t have time to make IED if he’s worried about where he’s going to sleep tonight, where he’s going to get his next bite of food, or where his next drink of water will come from if we level the town he operates from. He’ll be less inclined to blow up one of our Hummvees if he knew that we took his mom into custody and made her ride in vehicles out on patrol. I submit that the application of maximum destructive force, ironically, is what saves lives in war.

WHERE IS GENERAL SHERMAN TODAY?

“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.”

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”

“War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.”

“War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”

“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.”

“I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.”

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”

20,000% Tax Increase

2007-07-17T09:14:00.000-05:00

Another government beauty.... Tax the heck out of cigar smokers.

Back to the Bush Bashing

2007-07-16T15:08:00.000-05:00

Moderator: We’re here with President Bush and Abdullah the Terrorist talking about America’s continued presence in Iraq. Mr. President, why are we still in Iraq?

Bush: Iraq is now the central front of our war on terror. That is why we have to stay the course until the job is done. If we leave before the job is done, then the evil doers will follow us over here!

Terrorist: That’s right! We have no idea where America is, but we know that most of your military is in Iraq. So our strategy is to attack American soldiers in Iraq.

Moderator: (To the Terrorist) But you do know how to use a map don’t you? So why do you continue to fight in Iraq against people that can fight back when you could simply attack American civilians in America – people that probably couldn’t fight back?

Terrorist: Because you’re in Iraq!

Moderator: Well if we left Iraq where would you go?

Terrorist: We would follow your infidel soldiers home.

Bush: See, that’s what I been tellin’ ya’ll!

Moderator: Wait a minute. This doesn’t make sense. (to the Terrorist) Why would you forego attacking the US now when there are no soldiers here to stop you, but would rather attack soldiers in Iraq that can kill you in retaliation?

Terrorist: I already told you, we don’t know where America is!

Moderator: So then if our soldiers leave Iraq you’ll discover the location of America by following our soldiers home?

Terrorist: Exactly!

Bush: See, that’s why we have to stay in Iraq forever!

N. Korea and diplomacy

2007-07-16T09:45:00.000-05:00

Congratulations are in order for Bush. N. Korea announced this weekend that they had shut down their reactor. I don’t know whether we have confirmed that or not, but it sure sounds positive. This should be a lesson for Bush and any other chickenhawk – actually talking to our enemies BEFORE resorting to military action can actually pay dividends! Diplomacy, what a concept!

Excercise in Futility?

2007-07-13T16:26:00.001-05:00

Ok Greg, let's use that as a jumping off point.

You say someone is going to have to tell you what the policies and core beliefs are.

What are the policies and core beliefs you'd want in a third party.?

Maybe a fertile discussion topic for this forum is what would a political party look that would have all of us in it (well except for the people's champ because we really won't have room for someone that just throws shit and then runs and hides i.e. "I can prove all the white people here are racist" which I never saw the follow-up argument for)?

We have people on both sides of the middle here, if we can come to some sort of an agreement, maybe we'll really have something. Not to long ago Steve called for us to quit whining and get involved. I think everyone here is already more involved than the average American but what more could/should we do.

For example, Greg and Steve think the current abortion policy is too free. I won't speak for Gary but I know I've said I think the current policy is too liberal. Greg has also said he understands that some compromise on the issue is probably necessary. What if we all could come up with a policy we could all agree on.

This doesn't have be the first plank we decide on in our new platform, I'm just using it as an example

Easier said than done

2007-07-13T15:09:00.000-05:00

JR, I'm interested in a discussion about a third party. But somebody is going to have to tell me what policies this third party is going to stand for. It's not good enough to say "we're going to get things done." What is the platform? What are the core beliefs? This is where you're going to run into trouble. Because it's no accident that people are divided along the lines that they're divided. If you're going to try to start a third party, the first thing you're going to have to figure out is, which of the two main parties am I going to try to steal people from? I understand that you want people from both, but it seems to me that the majority of your support is going to have to come from one or the other.

Worn out.

2007-07-12T14:58:00.000-05:00

There's a lot of stuff to argue with here, and with JR's recent post as well. But I'm not going to bother, because Bush has not gotten the results that I expected to see by now. I'm ready to see somebody else give it a shot. Preferably someone like Giuliani, Thompson or maybe Romney. But I will say this for George Bush... results or not, at least he's trying. At least he's taking the fight to the terrorists, instead of letting it come to us.

That is more than can be said of the last two presidential candidates that Gary voted for, and it is more than can be said for 9 out of 10 Democrats out there. If Kerry, Gore or any current Democratic candidate were in office, we'd be doing next to NOTHING, and I suspect we'd be paying for it right here at home.

So, thanks for trying, George. I appreciate you. Keep on trying until January 2009, regardless of what the critics say. But I'm as ready for January 2009 as a Bush supporter can be. The critics have worn me out.

And we're winning the war on terror how?

2007-07-12T13:03:00.000-05:00

Oh great! After six years we are no closer to defeating Al Queda and the Taliban or of having a government capable of actually governing in Afghanistan. Five years later we’re no where near controlling anything in Iraq, let alone defeating anyone. Now a report out today says that Al Queda has returned to its pre 9/11 strength. That’s just perfect. Of course that flies in the face of comments his administration has made in the past. I saw three clips this morning, two from Bush and one from bucktoothed Rice. At one point he said “we’re winning.” In another clip he said “we’ve got them on the run.” She said that we’ve “broken them up.” And who could ever forget Cheney's infamous "final death throws" comment. You can stop laughing now!

So other than knocking off a government of goat herders and a despot, what exactly has Bush been successful at in his so called war on terror? I guess he and his few remaining supporters can always look on the bright side: Bush can always say, “Hey, our intelligence service has been known to be wrong. Real wrong!”

True, but...

2007-07-11T10:57:00.000-05:00

"I see many kids who are just doomed to horrible lives and it breaks my heart."

It breaks my heart too. But that doesn't mean we should kill them before they get the opportunity to overcome their circumstances. We're not trying to combat the overpopulation of puppies and kittens here. Ask any kid with a "horrible life" if he'd rather be dead, and see what he says.

Brave New World

2007-07-11T08:34:00.001-05:00

I just watched some news footage from Houston about a toddler who seems to be on drugs. Apparently as of the writing of this blog nothing clear has been determined whether or not the child was actually on drugs it reminds me of the guys in this area giving marijuana to kids that happened not to long ago.

I am very uncomfortable with the government getting involved in people's reproductive choices and so I am certainly not advocating any legislation that decides who can have kids or not BUT damn, some people should just not have or care for children.

This is also not an argument for legalized aborting. They should just get fixed from the get go.

I see many kids who are just doomed to horrible lives and it breaks my heart.

Is the tide turning?

2007-07-11T08:30:00.000-05:00

Listening to the new I'm getting the feeling that the tide in turning in Congress regarding the war in Iraq and pretty soon the President is going to be forced to start pulling out of Iraq.

I'm going on the record right now saying that while George W Bush may have created this mess in Iraq, Congress and more specifically the Democrats are about to make a whole heck of a lot worse if they force a troop withdrawal.

And what's worse if Bush will get blamed for the WHOLE thing.

Bush's surge -- just enough rope to hang himself?

2007-07-10T17:24:00.000-05:00

As I understand the surge that was implemented by Bush six months ago, the idea was to get the additional forces in place and completely ready to conduct offensive operations. Tony Snow says that all of the brigades included in the surge completed their preparation approximately two weeks ago.

The reports out yesterday indicate that the Iraqi government is no where near any of the criteria that Bush set forth as benchmarks for progress. Snow says that it is not fair to make any judgments right now since the whole idea was to establish a baseline of progress AFTER all of the brigades have become combat ready.

If all of this is true (and I am willing to accept this as fact at this point), then it is crazy for anyone to be making any big deal that the Iraqi’s haven’t accomplished anything yet. The baseline today is that the Iraqi’s are idiots and are incapable of taking care of themselves (what else is new?). Sometime in September, the military is required to report to congress what progress has been made by the Iraqis – the results of which will presumably affect our position going forward.

I say give the surge a chance. Bush knows he’s on the clock. He also knows that if the Iraqis haven’t made anymore progress by then, the only people that will even pretend to support him is his wife, daughters and their dog.

Believe me, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that we will see quantifiable success. Unfortunately, Bush’s track record in the chain of command leaves no one with any sense of confidence. Need an example? Here is a quote from him today while speaking in Cleveland:

"And finally, I'm going to spend some time talking about the war on terror and our need to succeed in Iraq. And I'm going to remind the people in the audience today that troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C., and that we've got a plan to lead to victory. “

First, its nice to see that the C-in-C has finally decided to remove political figures from dictating troop levels cause he sure as hell didn’t do that leading up to the war nor throughout its first five years. Not only was General Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff 2003) fired for telling congress that we would need several hundred thousand troops to be successful in Iraq, but Secretary of the Army at the time, Thomas White, was also removed for agreeing with Shinseki. Who set the troops levels? It wasn’t Tommy Franks leading up to the war! It wasn’t General Abizade or Casey after Bush declared mission accomplished! It was none other than the neocons best buddy Rumsfeld and his henchmen.

Second, we’ve heard Bush’s broken record “that we’ve got a plan to lead to victory.” He couldn’t pay someone to buy any credibility at this point. Who knows whether such a plan exists. What we do know is that the commander on the ground, General Patraeus, was quoted last week as saying that the surge plan is it. There is no other plan. There is no backup or Plan B. Using a confused gambling metaphor, he said, “We’re not doubling down here. We’re all in.”

Off the left edge of the earth...

2007-07-10T14:14:00.000-05:00

More reactions to Gary's ultra-liberal abortion position:

"I'd be curious to know what facts lead one to see the status quo as a "free for all." Maybe our definitions differ -- I see a free for all as unrestricted access to the procedure. Under no circumstances has that been the case for the last 34 years."
Don't know what planet you've been on for the last 34 years, but on my Earth, in this United States of America, anybody can get an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, for any reason she so chooses. The fact that a woman can get an abortion up until the moment of birth is the very reason that we have to discuss a horrendous procedure like partial birth abortion. I believe there are some states that have parental notification laws that are being vigorously attacked (as if this is a bad thing), but I'd say this is pretty much unrestricted access. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to how I'm wrong.

"Since I'm not unsatisfied with the present status of the law, with a few notable exceptions, I'd say I'm already on the give and take band wagon."
Every time you try to defend abortion, you bring up cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother as cases where you think it should/must be allowed. And I always say I'm willing to consider that if you'll help me restrict women from using abortion as birth control. Allowing abortion to kill a baby conceived out of one's own irresponsibility is the worst kind of free for all. And if you're not willing to compromise on that, then you're not "giving" anything... you're merely trying to "take" what I'm giving you with nothing in return. That puts you as far to the left on this issue as any wacked out liberal. Come on, give me something "moderate" to chew on.

"When, however, a president signs a law that does not allow for exceptions such as the one posted by PC or a state such as ND puts in place an all out ban, I'd say that kills whatever notion of give and take exists for those espousing moral authority."
Ah, here we go again. "Those espousing moral authority." Because THAT is what it's all about for you, isn't it? It's not whether abortion is right or wrong, it's that somebody has the nerve to TELL you it's wrong.

Compassion vs. Sacrifice, Honesty vs. Deception

2007-07-10T08:05:00.000-05:00

Gary says, in a comment to the previous post:

"There can be no better example than the one posted of this polarizing
subject. So while Steve dismisses the story as merely "sad," Greg dismisses the
story as an exception, and PC (presumably) asserts why abortion should be
permitted, neither side is willing to understand that one size doesn't fit all.
Bush's ban on "partial birth abortions" doesn't allow for examples such as the
one posted and I'd bet the farm that his, Steve's and Greg's tune would
instantly change if they walked one step in this woman's shoes.Does that mean we
should have an abortion free for all? Of course not, but doesn't simple
compassion, a trait supposedly preached by Jesus and followed by those in this
forum dictate at least some give and take?"

Alright, I guess we're going to roll around in this subject again for awhile.

First of all, just to give everybody some background, I've been married nearly five years and have thus far been unable to have children. But I do have a nephew who this woman probably would have aborted, had she known how he would "turn out." Yet even though he's not quite like other kids, he is the most precious child I have ever known and I cannot imagine him not being in my life. I would cherish the opportunity to raise a child just like him. So if God were to offer me the opportunity to "walk one step in this woman's shoes," I would not "instantly change my tune." I would gladly and gratefully take that opportunity, and I would kindly and tactfully find myself another doctor.

I don't blame this woman for reacting the way she did. As I've noted many times before, she's been conditioned by a sick society to think that this is a normal and responsible thing to do. I say it is not. I say people in this situation, all too often, listen to what society says, rather than what God says. I say ALL children are a gift from God, regardless of the circumstances of their parents, or of what the world thinks is "wrong" with them. The beginning of life is not an accident or the result of a magical sprinkling with fairy dust. It is the result of God's decision that you shall have a child. An abortion is not only the taking of a life, it is the human reversal of God's decision.

Teaching about compassion is not something that Jesus "supposedly" did, it's a recorded historical fact. He also taught a lot about sacrifice, and giving away yourself (your money, your time, your comfort, whatever...) for the benefit of others. The question is, who should get the compassion, and who should make the sacrifices? I happen to believe Jesus wants us to have compassion for the defenseless baby who had no part in making himself unwanted or abnormal. Jesus called for compassion for the weak, and for sacrifice by anyone in a position to give it. I don't believe Jesus would look at an unborn baby, created by God, as a clump of cells to be disposed of simply because that's the easiest thing for the adults to do. Jesus didn't have much regard for the comfort and convenience of anyone. He said serve God first, then other people, then yourself. Having an abortion is serving yourself. Having and raising a child that you know will have some difficulties is a sacrifice.

Now, all that being said, I realize that I live in a world where not all people serve God first. And I realize that I cannot force them to do so. And I realize that I live in a democracy where those people have rights and must be allowed to voice their opinions and even have their way occasionally. I realize that I must compromise with these people. So as I've said before, and contrary to what Gary says about me, I'm open to some give and take. Use the little "search" function at the top of the blog, and plug in "abortion," and you can go back and read all that I've said about it. But to specifically address what Gary has said here, no realistic person is actually trying to prevent every last abortion. We're simply trying to stop the free-for-all. Even a law against partial birth abortions, realistically, is going to have some exceptions. So to say that there's no give and take from my side, in my view, is dishonesty designed to distort my position, throw people off track, and ultimately preserve the abortion free-for-all.

If Gary or anybody else on the "pro-choice" side is open to true compromise, then they should stop talking about how my side isn't willing to compromise, and start talking about how THEIR side IS willing to compromise. Gary says we should "of course not" have an abortion free-for-all. The evidence I've seen thus far indicates that's little more than lip service. If that's the way Gary truly feels, then he should start talking about how he's willing to restrict the free-for-all. Because a free-for-all is exactly what it is, and has been for the last 34 years. Do you want to change that, or not?

Late TermAbortions

2007-07-06T12:15:00.000-05:00

My favorite topic, "partial birth" abortions. It helps explain, at least partially, my views on a woman's right to choose.

Its pretty long, but very entertaining and poignant.

Real Life: Why I Chose Abortion
The easiest choice I've ever made is also the hardest to live with.
By Gretchen Voss

Fireworks lit up the sky; great, big booming explosions of color. It was New Year's Eve 2002, and I'd just found out I was pregnant with my first child. Surrounded by a dozen friends on Cape Cod, I thought those fireworks were meant just for me.

We wanted to keep it a secret, my husband, Dave, and I, so I stealthily poured nonalcoholic O'Doul's into my frosty mug, trying to act like I was the same old person I was yesterday. That lasted about an hour. I've never been good with secrets, especially life-changing ones.

Four blissful months later, the lights dimmed and the screen brightened. My rounded belly was covered in slick, warm gel. As I lay back on the cushy examining table at my doctor's office in Lexington, MA, fuzzy gray images of our baby pulsed on the monitor. It was curled up like a question mark in my womb -- our baby -- and Dave and I oohed and aahed over its perfect little features. "Is it a boy or a girl?" I asked, giddy -- thinking, really, that the sole purpose of this routine full-fetal ultrasound was to determine what color to paint the nursery. The technician was quiet. Evasive. Her furrowed-brow focus finally brought an end to my bubbly chitchat, and I began to feel uncomfortable. Then she left the room, and I started to panic. Trying to distract myself as the seconds stretched into minutes, I stared up at the silly pictures of fuzzy kittens and kissing dolphins taped to the ceiling. When she returned, she said that our doctor wanted to see us upstairs. Dave murmured reassurances, but it did no good. I started crying. I could barely get my maternity clothes back on.

The waiting room upstairs, usually bustling with radiantly serene pregnant women devouring parenting magazines, was empty. My doctor -- young and trim, and usually quick with a smile -- was tight-lipped as she led us back to her office, the half-eaten contents of her lunch and photos of her own children scattered about the desk. The ultrasound, she said, indicated that the fetus had an "open neural tube defect," a spinal-cord condition with a range of severity from life-threatening to hardly noticeable. We had to go to Boston, she said, immediately, today, where a new, high-tech machine could tell us more. She directed someone to make an appointment and give us directions. Then she abruptly left us to cry.

There were no fuzzy kittens or dolphins in that stark white hospital room at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in downtown Boston. Just ominous-looking machines and monitors that beeped and whirred. Dave grasped my hand tightly as the technician squirted gel over my belly and rolled a cold wand across my roundness, gently punching it down here and there unexpectedly, trying to get the baby to move and provide a better view on the screen. I couldn't bear to see my baby in sharp, black-and-white relief -- What does a life-threatening spinal condition look like? -- so I stared at the technician, like a panicked airline passenger caught in a thunderstorm, taking her cues from the expression on a flight attendant's face. But the technician revealed nothing. She did not utter one syllable in 45 minutes.

And then she spoke words no pregnant woman wants to hear. Instead of "healthy" and "strong," our baby was discussed in clinical terms like "hydrocephalus" and "spina bifida." Like a defective zipper, the spine hadn't closed all the way, and a gaping hole was located near the brain -- the worst possible spot. What the doctors knew -- that the baby would be paralyzed and incontinent, its brain smushed against the base of the skull and the cranium filled with fluid -- was awful. What they didn't know -- whether it would live, and if so, the degree of mental and developmental defects -- was devastating. If the baby did live, countless surgeries would be required, and none of them would repair the damage that was already done.

I was numb with shock. It sounds naive now, but I'd never considered pregnancy a gamble. Nobody warned me that what was rooting around inside my body was a hope, not a promise.
Sitting in the genetic counselor's windowless office, I tried to read between the lines of complicated medical jargon, searching for answers that weren't there. But I already knew what I had to do. Even if our baby had a remote chance of surviving, it was not a life that we would choose for our child.

In Washington, DC, on the same day I decided to terminate my pregnancy, lawmakers gathered to discuss a new bill -- one that would effectively outlaw so-called partial-birth abortions, the term preferred by pro-lifers to put a decidedly graphic spin on abortions that occur after the first trimester. It wasn't an issue I'd given much thought to, since I'd long been ready to have children of my own. Although I'd always considered myself pro-choice, I just assumed that meant choosing whether or not to keep a baby after an accidental pregnancy, not whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after you'd already fallen in love with your child.

Looking back, I'm not sure which was worse: the three days leading up to the procedure (like most women who have gone through it, I've never called it an abortion) or the rip current of emotions following it.

Walking around with a belly full of broken dreams, I felt like I was drowning. I couldn't shower, because I didn't want to touch my stomach and accept that there was life in there; yet I couldn't bring myself to have a glass of wine to calm my nerves, because, of course, I knew there was.
My decision tortured me. This wasn't some mysterious clump of cells that would simply be sucked away in a vacuum. This was a 19-week-old baby, one that I desperately wanted, that would be pulled out of me bit by bit -- that's the way it works through the "dilation and evacuation" procedure.

I asked over and over, Are we doing the right thing? Our family -- even my Catholic father and Republican father-in-law, neither of whom were ever pro-choice -- assured us that we were. Politics suddenly became personal -- their daughter's heartbreak, their son's pain, their grandchild's suffering -- and that changed everything.

My regular obstetrician, who only handled healthy pregnancies, referred us to someone else. I was glad. Whereas she'd seemed cold and dismissive upon learning of my decision to terminate the pregnancy, I felt nothing but compassion from my new doctor, who reminded me in looks and manner of Dr. Larch in The Cider House Rules.

His eyes, the kindest, saddest I'd ever seen, teared up as Dave and I cried in front of him.
In his cramped and unfashionable private office in Brookline, he started the two-day termination process by inserting four laminaria sticks (made of dried seaweed) into my cervix. The pain was excruciating, like needles piercing my abdomen, and he apologized over and over as I cried out. Afterward, ghostly white and shaking, I could barely walk to the recovery room. The pain increased through the long night as the sticks collected fluids from my body and expanded, dilating my cervix as though I were in the beginning stages of labor.
More from Marie Claire

The next morning in the operating room, I was petrified and fought the anesthesia, clinging to my last moments of pregnancy. As I finally started to drift off, my doctor held one of my hands and an older, female nurse held the other, whispering in my ear, "You're going to be okay, I've been here before, lean on your husband." It's my last memory of the experience. When I woke up, it was all over. I was empty.

For the next week, my mother tried to bring me back to life with grilled-cheese sandwiches and chicken noodle soup. But I felt like a freak in a world of capable women having babies -- Why did my body betray me? -- and for months I quarantined myself from the world. I just couldn't bear well-meaning friends saying, "I'm so sorry."

I took that nurse's advice and leaned on my husband. He seemed so resolved in our decision, in a way that I just couldn't be. Perhaps it was guilt -- it was my body that had failed us all: my husband, myself, our baby. Dave was strong where I was weak. But then I found him one night, all alone, kneeling on the floor of our bathroom with the light off and the door half-closed, doubled over, bawling. It nearly killed me, and I realized then that I did not own this pain alone.
In an effort to pull myself together, I wrote my doctor a long note on my good wedding stationery. I thanked him for his compassion and said that it must be hard, what he does, but that I hoped he found consolation in the fact that he was helping women at their most vulnerable. When I went in for my six-week checkup, he told me that he kept my note, along with other letters of appreciation, in a large bundle, to remind him of why he does this difficult work. And he keeps that bundle right next to his stack of hate mail, which is about the same size.

Seven months later, in November 2003, 14 weeks into my second pregnancy, I gently rubbed my rounded belly, tears rolling down my cheeks as I watched George W. Bush sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on CNN. It would be at least two more weeks before I could learn via ultrasound if this baby squirming around inside my womb was healthy or not. Taking in the scene, I understood that if this baby were plagued with the same genetic defects as my last, any choices I had were being taken away from me.

Once the president signed the act -- the first federal ban on any abortion procedure in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and the first ban on a surgical technique in the history of this country -- the 400-strong crowd at the ceremony exploded in whoops and hollers. "For years a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches away from birth, while the law looked the other way," Bush said. It was time to "defend the life of the innocent."
I stared at the screen. The president was, in essence, calling me a baby killer. Even members of the Democratic Party -- 17 in all -- voted for the ban. One of my own senators, John Kerry, perhaps looking to dodge the liberal label in anticipation of his bid for the White House, conveniently missed one of the key votes (as did his future running mate, John Edwards).
According to the Bush administration, the new law would put an end to the "gruesome and inhumane" procedure used to kill healthy babies after the first trimester. But the language of the law was less clear. Essentially, legislators invented a previously nonexistent medical term -- "partial-birth abortion" -- and then banned it. By giving it a purposely vague definition, the term could feasibly apply to all abortions after the first trimester, including my own.
Legislators also made no mention of fetal viability (the point at which a fetus can live independently of its mother for an extended period of time) or gestational age. There were no exceptions for a fetus with severe birth defects incompatible with life (many of which cannot be detected until well into the second trimester). Nor for a mother who would be forced to have, for example, a kidney transplant or hysterectomy if she continued with the pregnancy.

"When we look to the unborn child," Bush said into the television cameras, "the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins."

Over the next 36 months, three federal courts -- as well as three appellate courts -- struck down the ban as unconstitutional. But on November 8, 2006, the eight men and one woman of the Supreme Court heard two new arguments on the ban -- both of which, experts predict, could result in expanding its reach. The Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in a ruling on April 18, 2007.

Maureen Britell used to stand outside a Planned Parenthood in Maryland shouting Hail Marys. A devout Irish Catholic, Britell was raised to believe "abortions were for bad girls who couldn't keep their legs closed," she says. Her husband, a major in the Air Force, flew F-15s for a living. Then, when she was five months pregnant with her second child, Britell found out their baby girl had anencephaly -- no brain or any chance of life.

"Could we have continued the pregnancy? I guess, but we'd have been on a death watch," Britell says today. Because they were Catholics, the Britells decided to have a labor induction instead of a surgical abortion so that they could baptize and bury their daughter whole. But, after 13 hours of labor, the baby came out breech, stuck in the birth canal with a too-short umbilical cord. Halfway delivered, the doctors had no choice but to cut the cord, an "overt act" that killed the baby while partially delivered. In other words: a partial-birth abortion.

As if the heartbreak weren't enough, CHAMPUS, the government-funded health insurance for military families, refused to pay Britell's $8,000 hospital bill, as it does not cover abortion unless the woman's life is in jeopardy. In the middle of the financial battle, the Britells went to church on Mother's Day, which was also the occasion of their 6-year-old daughter's First Communion. After the service, Britell was confronted by dozens of chanting protesters from the National Right to Life. Her pastor -- who knew about her baby girl -- had sold her out.

It's holiday season 2006, and I'm deep inside the concrete bowels of the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington. Down hidden elevators and along desolate corridors littered with abandoned filing cabinets, I see the sign I've been searching for: "H.O.P.E. Memorial Service," written on blue construction paper. It stands for Helping Other Parents Endure, a support group for families who've terminated a pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities. Tonight is its annual memorial service.

It has been three years since I ended my pregnancy. Gathering with strangers feels awkward. The room is too large for such an intimate gathering. The event organizer hands me a 14-page program, filled with beautiful poems and letters submitted by other parents. I didn't submit anything. She asks me to sign the guest book with my baby's name and take an ornament: pink angels for little girls, blue ones for little boys. I tell her I didn't know whether my baby was a boy or a girl, and we never gave it a name. She feels bad that she didn't consider that circumstance. I feel bad that maybe I didn't mourn properly.

After a few words by the chaplain, the social worker leads us through a door onto a dark concrete patio. In a tight circle, we light candles off one another with shaking hands. "I light this candle in honor of..." each person says, then recites the child's name. Abigail and Travis and Grady. I say, simply, "Baby Voss." "Now we'll blow out the candles," the social worker says. "But the light your child brought into your life will never be extinguished." I lower my head to blow out my candle, but the flame is already gone. The freezing wind blew right through my protective hand and took the light away from me.

It's an awkward process. Just a month before, I find myself sitting in the dining room of the Concord Country Club at a baby shower for a pregnant friend. Over plates of salmon, the foursome at my table shares hilarious tales of raising children. Then the woman next to me turns and says brightly, "I want a third child, don't you?"

I don't know what to say.

These women are aware only of the two healthy boys I've had in the past two years, not my first child, whom I will never know. As I sit in the members' dining room, I feel like an outsider. Pregnancy, for me, is an experience I associate with sheer terror. How do I explain to this woman that carrying my two sons to term left me exhausted from worrying? That as I consulted genetic counselors and gobbled down massive doses of folic acid, I floated in an emotional no-man's-land, completely unable to attach to the new life in my belly?

While I scramble to find some suitable answer to her question, I can feel the ears of a friend at the next table prick up. Last year, in her 18th week, she, too, terminated a pregnancy that had gone horribly wrong. She knew my story -- her parents and my in-laws are friends -- and she called me. I remember her asking through tears, "What am I going to tell everyone? What if people judge me?"

"Just tell them you lost the baby," I said. "It's nobody's business, anyway."

We talked for a long time that night. But we haven't talked about it since.

Turning to my cheerful tablemate, I briefly consider telling her the truth. Then, instead, I mumble something lame, like, "Kids are a handful -- I think we're all set with two." As the words leave my mouth, I feel like my silence is letting all of us down.

On one level, it's nobody's business, I realize. But on another, isn't it everybody's?

Fair enough

2007-07-06T10:57:00.000-05:00

Point taken, Daryoush. Though in all fairness, you're taking it out of context. The post you're referring to was essentially declining further comment on the subject.

"To answer your question, Steve, I've been struggling to come up with a
decent topic. Everybody knows I think Scooter Libby never should have been
charged in the first place, and everybody knows I think John Edwards is a sissy
and a complete fraud who shouldn't be lecturing anyone about "Two Americas" and the plight of the poor. What else can I say, really?"

At any rate, John Edwards ain't gonna win anything, and thus requires no further comment. Unless you bring him up, of course.

Gun control and me...

2007-07-06T10:09:00.000-05:00

What a great subject Greg, I’ll jump right in!

So we went to the coast for a few days week before last. We had a great time; fun in the sun. What we didn’t expect though was when we got home the mail man had some interesting news for us.

Evidently while we were out there were three ‘black men’ (I am assuming they weren’t of the Obama variety, but more of the 2-pac variety) that had hopped the fence and were in our back yard taking turns kicking our dog and just generally snooping around in places they shouldn’t have been. They fled when the mail man pulled up in his truck along side of our house.

After a little thought, my wife could recall the men clearly as they usually walk down our side street and throw things at our dog around mid afternoon.

What was particularly interesting though was the news that at least one of them had been arrested a few weeks before for breaking and entering a few blocks over. Evidently the MO of the ‘crew’ is to wait until the middle class folk are off at work in the middle of the day and then come into the back yard, kick in the back door, and make off with whatever they can carry. It was also startling that they had been looking for guns. How the mail man knows all this is beyond me. Hey, he’s the mail man, he knows everyone in the neighborhood, police included.

Back in the day this wouldn’t concern me too much and I’d figure my alarm system would take care of it, however now that I have a wife and kids that are in the house during the day, it is a little more nerve racking.

So this obviously led to some long overdue discussions of what my wife should do if suddenly confronted with three men breaking into the house during the kids’ naptime and I am 20 miles away at the office. 911? We couldn’t work that into a scenario that would protect her in that situation.

Then, a day before the 4^th, while my wife was home and I was at the office, one of the men rang our doorbell. Needless to say my wife didn’t answer. She peeked thru the peep hole in the front door and saw what could only be described as a gangster type black man; I’m sure trying to sell Girl Scout cookies or some such.

What I can only figure to be a reconnaissance mission, he rang three times, over the course of which he aggressively looked in the front window to see who or what was inside. My wife ducked behind some furniture to stay out of sight, but to keep an eye on him. He left, and my wife called me and then the police. The dispatcher said she would send someone over, they never showed.

So what to do? We are leaning, and I am currently shopping for a serious business hand gun that my wife can feel comfortable squeezing the trigger on.

Some people might say I’d be buying a gun out of fear. And as a Christian I have to seriously weigh whether or not it’s a trust in God issue. But what keeps sticking in my mind is the old joke that talks about the guy who gets stuck on his roof during a flood and prays for God to save him. Something like two boats and a helicopter come by and he refuses them saying he believes God will save him. Once he finally drowns and goes to heaven he asks God why he didn’t save him and God says “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?”

RE: Scooter, Hairboy, and Mitt

2007-07-06T09:56:00.000-05:00

This is classic:

"I think John Edwards is a sissy and a complete fraud who shouldn't be lecturing anyone about 'Two Americas'"

later on...

"I find it amusing that people are spending so much time bashing a guy who's polling a distant third among Republicans [read: Democrats]. He must be saying some stuff they really don't like, which makes me think that maybe he's got something going on after all."

Silly Greg. Sounds like the decider logic. Classic garble.

Excellent!

2007-07-06T08:54:00.000-05:00

Just got this in my e-mail. Love it. Number 11 is particularly poignant.

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

"Global Warming"..... riiiiiiiiiiight.

2007-07-06T06:37:00.000-05:00

It seems that Greenland used to be a jungle.

Scooter, Hairboy and Mitt

2007-07-05T15:37:00.000-05:00

To answer your question, Steve, I've been struggling to come up with a decent topic. Everybody knows I think Scooter Libby never should have been charged in the first place, and everybody knows I think John Edwards is a sissy and a complete fraud who shouldn't be lecturing anyone about "Two Americas" and the plight of the poor. What else can I say, really?

On the Romney stuff, I find it amusing that people are spending so much time bashing a guy who's polling a distant third among Republicans. He must be saying some stuff they really don't like, which makes me think that maybe he's got something going on after all.

Nice Piece

2007-07-05T10:21:00.000-05:00

Now we know he is as hypocritical and stubborn as the decider, but its not possible for him to be as ignorant...or is it?

Romney defends Bush's commutation move
Former Mass. governor denied every pardon request during his term

Nati Harnik / AP
Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney speaking in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Tuesday, said the Scooter Libby sentence commutation is "reasonable".

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor refused to pardon an Iraq war veteran's BB-gun conviction, on Tuesday called President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence "reasonable."
Defending Bush, Romney said at a campaign stop that "the president looked very carefully at the setting" before deciding to commute the 2 1/2-year sentence of Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was convicted in the CIA leak case.

The prosecutor in the case "went after somebody even when he knew no crime had been committed," Romney said. "Given that fact, isn't it reasonable for a commutation of a portion of the sentence to be made?"

As governor, Romney twice rejected a pardon for Anthony Circosta, who at age 13 was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun - a shot that didn't break the skin. Circosta worked his way through college, joined the Army National Guard and led a platoon of 20 soldiers in Iraq's deadly Sunni triangle.

In 2005, as he was serving in Iraq, he sought a pardon to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer.

In his presidential bid, Romney often proudly points out that he was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office. He says he refused pardons because he didn't want to overturn a jury.

During the four years Romney was in office, 100 requests for commutations and 172 requests for pardons were filed in the state. All were denied.

Zzzzzzzz....

2007-07-05T09:07:00.000-05:00

I know it's a holiday week and all, but where did everybody go?

We've had a presidential pardon, and a $1,250 Edwards haircut, and not one post!

Let's Get it On

2007-06-27T14:00:00.000-05:00

This conversation has my juices flowing a little bit. Let's have ourselves a little comparison. I will provide examples of what I consider to be liberal media bias, from supposedly unbiased sources. And I invite anyone to provide comparable examples of conservative bias from sources that are also supposedly objective. Bet you can't match me example for example.

Example 1:
In 2003, just months before the 2004 presidential election, "60 Minutes" ran a story about how George Bush supposedly "went AWOL" from his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War. It was transparently an attempt to influence the election to John Kerry. And that's bad enough. But what made it worse is that the whole story was based on documents that were supposed to have been created in the 1960s, yet were shown to have been created on current editions of Microsoft Word. The story was a fraud. When conservatives rightly (and loudly) protested, producer Mary Mapes was fired, and Dan Rather was shuffled off into retirement a few months later.

Here's what Mary Mapes has to say about the fraudulent documents and her own journalistic standards.

Reporter Brian Ross: "Mary Mapes was the woman behind the scenes, the producer
who researched, wrote and put together Dan Rather’s 60 Minutes report on
President Bush’s National Guard service, a report which Rather and CBS would
later apologize for airing...."

Ross to Mapes: "Do you still think that story was true?"

Ex-CBS producer Mary Mapes: "The story? Absolutely."

Ross: "This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say
you still find that story to be up to your standards."

Mapes: "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that
I haven’t seen."

Ross: "But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?"

Mapes: "Well, I think that’s what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false, yet."

Ross: "Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?"

Mapes: "No, I don’t think that’s the standard."
— ABC’s Good Morning America, November 9.

Liberal Media vs. Conservative "media"

2007-06-27T13:30:00.000-05:00

Anybody who'd like to take a serious and honest look at liberal media bias need only go here and hit some of the links for examples. Note how many of these examples are reporters like Brian Williams, Dan Rather, etc. These people are supposed to bring you an objective reading of the news.

Also note how whenever someone like Daryoush criticizes the "conservative media," the people they criticize are always commentators, like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. These people are paid to give their opinions.

John Podesta better seriously consider what he's asking for. Liberals are pretty darn well represented on the airwaves. Some might say they're a little TOO represented. Podesta might be opening up a can of worms he'll never be able to close.

Ignorant Biatch pt. 2

2007-06-27T10:10:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the liberal "sissy" media should be more like one of the conservative's champions, Ann Coulter, a real tough cookie. Not only did she call John Edwards a "faggot," but just this week she went further and said on Monday that instead of using more homophobic slurs to attack Edwards, she will just wish that he had been "killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Really?

Ignorant, stupid, f&$%g b*%(h.

For the most part, the conservative media is a bunch of idiots. Be it O'Reilly massaging the intern's breasts and hanging up on dissenters, the junkie, petty dope smuggler Rush, or now Ann Coulter, the ignorant biatch (pt. 2).

BTW The decider's wife is the original ignorant biatch.

Idiotic logic from a Dick

2007-06-27T09:42:00.000-05:00

In 2003 President Bush signed an executive order turning over the responsibility for determining the amount of secret material kept by the white house (particularly from those in the west wing) to an office within the National Archives. That office has conducted investigations on and off since that time (although it is not clear whether its efforts have met with any success). Such investigations included the office of VP.

Recently this office sought documents from Cheney’s office. In one of the most insane responses that has ever been received from this embarrassment of a VP, he claims that his office is not apart of the executive branch of the government! Who knew???? For over 200 years, every other person on this planet understood that the vice president was apart of the executive branch of our government. On Cheney’s planet, such rules don’t apply. They’ve never applied to him.

During the first term of our long American nightmare, Cheney rebuffed congressional attempts to make him disclose what private citizens he sought advice from and who comprised his “Energy Task Force.” Today, and at that time, I actually agreed with Cheney. Our executives should have the ability to seek the opinion of experts in various industries without having to expose them to the vicious political machine that Washington is. What was the basis of Cheney’s position? EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy is a either a crook, a liar, or is so incompetent in doing what’s best for the public that it is now beyond clear that his tenure will be an equal disaster of Rumsfeld’s tenure. There is an obvious reason why Cheney is shown as the progeny of Darth Vader on the “Lil’ Bush” cartoon on Comedy Central.

I took the next step to see whether there was any conservative websites who had the guts to defend Cheney’s tortured logic. I was sure that there would be some nut job neocon who would defend this (cause its against the neocon religion to admit their wrong or show fallibility of any kind). Shockingly, I couldn’t find one! Cheney’s position is so ludicrous that even his fans can’t defend him. Here’s an example.

Most pertinent part:

“Take the current argument over Cheney’s self-exemption from the rules on how classified documents should be handled. Instead of getting a waiver from the president, Cheney argued that he’s immune to executive orders because he’s also the president of the Senate and hence a member of the legislative branch too. Not only is this a goofy argument on its face, it does nothing to restore executive authority. It’s not like the vice presidency was an outpost of the legislative branch before Watergate. Cheney’s argument amounts to a convenient rationalization for his own secretive style.

Such opportunism undermines his more principled arguments and exhausts the goodwill of his defenders, precisely when Cheney needs that goodwill for bigger and better things. And it sends his detractors on the left around the bend, just like President Clinton’s abuses — real and perceived — drove many of us on the right to kick our TV sets. The fact is that Cheney’s cause isn’t helped when millions of Americans think he’s a comic-book villain.”

Sissies

2007-06-25T10:42:00.000-05:00

Liberals can't seem to come up with a good product that can compete in the talk radio market. Everybody and everything they put on the radio seems to completely bomb out. So what to do? Find somebody better than Al Franken, and try again, right? Either that, or get out of the game, right?

Wrong. When liberals can't compete, the preferred solution is to....
...make a law to help "level the playing field" in their favor.

A new blueprint for a government takedown of conservative talk radio comes
from the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, founded and run by
former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta. In a report entitled,
“The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio ,” the Center outlines a plan
that would, if implemented, do enormous damage not only to conservatives on talk
radio, but to freedom of speech as well.

Surveying 257 stations owned by the top-five commercial station groups, the
report’s authors found the unsurprising news that 91 percent of total weekday
talk programming is conservative, and just nine percent “progressive.” Rather
than attribute that imbalance to the generally conceded superiority of
conservative programming — most radio professionals would tell you that Rush
Limbaugh is simply better at what he does than any of the liberal opponents who
have tried to compete with him — the report finds a deeper, more sinister case.
“The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio,” it concludes, “is the
result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system."
According to Podesta’s Center, those structural problems can only be solved by
government action.

Sissies.

P.S. Before Gary gets on me for name calling, and also for making this post when I'm consistently complaining about liberal media bias... Let me just say that yes, I do believe the media tilts WAY left, and I do like to bring that to people's attention. But never have I said that this is the fault of the U.S. regulatory system, or that the government should get involved and do something to fix it.

Wenisblog

2007-06-25T06:55:00.000-05:00

Check out JR's "other" blog.

You gotta love the name. And the writing is pretty decent, too.

The Digest nails it...

2007-06-22T20:55:00.000-05:00

Yes, yes, yes!

For many Americans, talk of again "reforming" immigration is unacceptable until the national border is secure in fact, because immigration control in the absence of effective border control is unattainable.

Border security does not mean "throw money at the border" or "build a chain-link fence." It means establish to the public's satisfaction that the border is a reality.

Why must a secure border precede immigration reform? Won't a new amnesty and a guest worker program give immigrants the legal path to America they want and the low-cost unskilled labor force America needs? No. Without border security, these "reforms" will just lay the foundation for the next wave of illegal immigration.

Exactly. Just like 1986 laid the foundation for what we're having to deal with today.

Readers Digest version of security first?

2007-06-22T16:53:00.000-05:00

Greg -- is this a pretty good summary of your position?

When did "party" become a bad word?

2007-06-22T07:08:00.000-05:00

More thoughts on the bashing of politicians and political parties, which seems to be in fashion here. I think it's perfectly OK to bash politicians for corruption, for pandering to special interests and for sacrificing principle just to stay in office. But I don't think it's right to bash politicians for representing a school of thought or even a group of people. Political parties help to make that happen, and thus are not inherently bad things.

Along those lines, I thought this article was exceptionally well written.

Here are the important parts:

Moreover, political parties aren't the source of our disagreements, but the
vehicles by which we express them. For much of American history, political
parties weren't so ideologically distinct. Some of the most passionate liberals
- aka Progressives - were Republicans, and some of the most ardent conservatives
were Democrats. But we still had political disagreements.

Indeed, the Founders didn't really anticipate parties at all. But they
did expect what Alexander Hamilton called "factions," recognizing that our
democratic republic couldn't work without them. Oh, and every third-grader is
supposed to understand that Congress and the White House were designed to
compete with each other. Just Google "separation of powers" if you don't believe
me.

Democracy isn't about agreement, but disagreement. People have
different interests and ideals. Getting rid of parties - or "transcending" them
- won't get rid of disagreements. To believe otherwise is the height of
utopianism.

P.S. In answer to the question in the subject header, maybe the Communists did it.

Yeah, buddy

2007-06-21T11:52:00.000-05:00

Seriously good stuff from a reporter on the ground in Iraq. I love this part...

"The enemy in Baqubah is as good as any in Iraq, and better than most. That’s saying a lot. But our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I don’t want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and that’s the plan."

Nice to hear a reporter calling U.S. troops "our guys" and sounding like he'd actually prefer us to win.

That wasn't very nice of me.

2007-06-21T07:51:00.001-05:00

Yeck. Coming back here after a night's sleep, I can see that the tone of my last post was just a little too sarcastic and contentious. I apologize, Gary. You deserve better than that. Let me see if I can do a little bit better of a job at defending my position while using a more respectful tone.

I do not regard the use of the word "amnesty" to describe the provisions of this bill as an outright lie. When using that word, nobody is trying to deceive anybody else. We're just saying "look, this is essentially what this bill is." I will admit that it is not completely accurate to call it amnesty, if you insist upon using the strict definition of the word. I realize that amnesty by definition means "without penalty." But I maintain that this bill, as I understand it, would allow people to break our immigration laws and begin the path to citizenship, all in return for the payment of a fee. I don't believe a fee is a true penalty, and thus I believe that this is close enough to true amnesty to allow the use of that word, and to do so without the kind of criticism you're giving.

I believe we need some kind of immigration legislation, but I do not believe we must pass ANY legislation that our Senators and Congressmen can come up with. It has to be good law before it can be law. And I haven't heard anything yet that sounds like good law. I will admit that I'm ignorant of many of the small details, simply because there are so many small details. I'm not an immigration lawyer and I don't have the time to read all that stuff, much less to try and decipher it. The "summary" has about 50 different sections, for crying out loud. But I've yet to see any true benefit to what they're talking about doing. I understand that the status quo is not the best situation, and I'd love to come up with a solution. But absent a GOOD solution, what's wrong with leaving things as they are, and beginning a real effort to secure our borders and enforce our laws?

I'd like for somebody to tell me what GOOD this bill is going to accomplish.

Wasting Time

2007-06-20T10:50:00.000-05:00

OK, Gary. If you want to split hairs, then I'll split some with you.

I will concede that what our brilliant Senators are talking about doing might not fit the strict definition of amnesty as you find it in your dictionary. But it might as well fit the definition perfectly because the end result will be the same. The "punishment" that we're talking about giving to these people for blatantly disregarding our immigration laws is FAR from being merely "not a stiff enough penalty." It is SO inadequate and SO meaningless and SO encouraging of further disregard of our laws that it is an EFFECTIVE amnesty, and in the end it will accomplish the same thing that an across-the-board pardon and legalization would. Yet all you've done to defend it thus far is to rip me for daring to use the word amnesty in description. How bold.

As you spend your time excoriating me for stretching the definition of a word, and as you tapdance around the subject of whether or not you think it's a good idea to let lawbreaking of this magnitude off so easily, (even as you encourage passage of the bill that you won't personally endorse) I am at least attempting to take a stand on the most pressing issue of the day and saying this is a bad, bad idea. No such cojones from you yet. But congratulations on getting that whole amnesty definition thing settled for us. That was big.

All that being said, you'd better hope that you are able to stick to the strict definition of every word you use from now on, because I'm going to have my dictionary sitting right here. And I'll be watching for every little opportunity you take to stretch the meaning of a word to fit your political beliefs. Because you know you do that every bit as much as I do.

As for the propaganda of hate garbage that you continue to insist upon throwing out there, I'll use a phrase you've used on me once or twice. You're better than that. And if I'm advocating my position because I hate somebody, then you'd be better off ignoring me anyway.

Actual definitions? Who needs em'?

2007-06-20T09:33:00.000-05:00

As someone who started your early career as a journalist and an editor of various corporate produced publications, you of all people know that words have a meaning. I'd be willing to assert that there is no one on this blog with a better understanding or command of the English language than you. Entire laws and cases have been decided by the meaning of single word. And while you may dance around the concrete definition of “amnesty” because it doesn’t fit within your political opinion, the fact of the matter remains that anti-immigration advocates choose to use a lie as a means to persuade people. So what is a truly dishonest, weak and shameful ploy: the undeniable fact that I’m merely pointing out what the word means or the fact that you use a distorted, incorrect and improper definition to persuade others?

You would rip Clinton (rightfully so) for asking what the definition of “is” is, and then mock me for pointing out the lie in your position? It seems that you pick and choose when you are willing to accept the meaning of things. This is no surprise since you’ve already admitted that you choose to ignore what the definition of “torture” as defined by our federal laws and international laws.

When your side advocates a position based on a lie and the focus of that lie is pointed at one place (Mexicans), the result is propaganda of hate. Your position would have so much more credibility if you simply called it a “not enough punishment program” while advocating for an equally tall smooth-faced wall topped with barbed wire on the Canadian border.

Wait a minute

2007-06-20T08:06:00.000-05:00

JR, I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that conservatives are always right and liberals are always wrong. (I might believe that, but that's not the point.) The point is that even though liberals are at the north pole and conservatives are at the south pole, that does NOT mean that all truth, justice and anything else good and holy lies at the equator. I think too many people are too quick to dismiss an opinion simply because that opinion is usually identified with one political party or the other. Some people don't like to be identified that way, so they go OUT of their way to find the soggy middle.

If you think conservatives are wrong about some things and liberals are wrong about some things, and this is why you want a third party.... I think that's great. It's the people who have this extreme, obsessive desire to be "independent" who bug me. Because those "independent" people inevitably want other people to identify with THEIR opinions. Independent thinking is good, but that doesn't mean that a group of people who think alike can't come up with good ideas.

It's called 'a debate'

2007-06-20T07:55:00.001-05:00

Geez, let's split some hairs and debate meaningless semantics for awhile. Wouldn't that be fun? Gary says amnesty means forgiveness of a crime without ANY punishment whatsoever. Others define it as forgiveness of a crime, forgoing the APPROPRIATE punishment. Others might say that amnesty grants undeserved privileges to the offenders. There are plenty of people in this country who don't view a fine as any sort of real punishment at all, and who believe that illegal immigrants do not currently deserve the status we're talking about giving them, no matter what fine you may impose. The belief is that borders must be secured and current laws must be upheld BEFORE we can even discuss legalizing anyone who has purposely broken those laws. Thus, the belief is that we are granting amnesty to 12 million people, just as we did for several million back in 1986. This is not a difficult concept.

Gary, if you want to educate the masses about what this bill entails, go right ahead. I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand that there are fines and other "penalties" involved. But it is absolutely a waste of time to sit here and argue about whether or not this is amnesty as defined by a dictionary, because plenty of people (equally knowledgeable as you or me) genuinely believe that it IS amnesty, and it's not because they've failed to read their dictionary, or bought into any propaganda. They have a very good reason to hold that belief. The fact is that many people believe that you cannot possibly impose any penalty that justifies what you advocate once that "penalty" is paid, and to do so would be effectively granting amnesty. Once again, not a difficult concept.

More importantly, Gary's description of the word "amnesty" as being part of some sort of "propaganda of hate" is a piece of propaganda all in itself. The word amnesty is neither hateful, nor is it propaganda. Gary just doesn't like it because he knows that word is the strongest defense AGAINST what he advocates.... legalizing 12 million illegal immigrants. And evidently he's willing to throw out some hateful propaganda of his own to try to prevent people from using that word. Just because people oppose this bill, or believe that it is in fact amnesty, does not mean those people "hate" anybody. It is a dishonest, weak and shameful ploy on the part of the immigration advocates to say or imply that opposition to this bill is about hate. It is about security, and it is about enforcing our laws. To support this bill is to in effect say, "our laws mean nothing."

The bottom line is that some people are supporting a bill that will allow people to break our laws in exchange for a fee. I think that's wrong. I think that's amnesty. So sue me. But don't give me this junk about "hateful propaganda" unless you're prepared to demonstrate exactly what is hateful about this side of the argument.

I'll take the middle door, Bob

2007-06-19T23:03:00.001-05:00

Funny I always thought of myself as squarely in the middle and I never realized I was living in either fantasy land or a soggy swamp. There are so few things I view as an absolute and people who see things in absolute terms worry me. Mainly they worry me because they live in a fantasy land because they are usually in denial about the realities that stand in opposition to their point of view.
Liberals, for example go on and on about how horrible it is that there are poor people in America and how in the richest country in the world we should be able to make sure no one ever has to be hungry or homeless and I sympathize with that position but it denies some simple truths. Some people chose that life. I’ve seen them on the street panhandling right next to a fast food joint with a Now Hiring sign. When I managed a Little Caesars I offered to let some of the ones that came in my store looking for a handout do some dishes in return for a pizza and none of them took me up on it. Also, what does it say when we as a society reward people for not working. I make better than the average salary for the USA and frankly I’m averse to letting some person who doesn’t do a damn thing have any more of what I worked for. No one gave me anything. I didn’t get an education on someone else’s dollar. My dad helped some…some but the rest I paid for myself. Then I got out in the world and busted my hump to get a decent paying job. I have a degree in English and I manage IT projects for goodness sakes.
Environmental advocates go crazy over human induced global warming and run around like so many Chicken Littles when the evidence just doesn’t really support it. Sure, average temperatures are changing but talk to any geologist and they’ll tell you it’s been going on since long before mankind entered the scene.
Conservatives on the other hand, are all too eager to bomb the hell out of some country that we don’t get along with because they are pursuing nuclear energy. It doesn’t matter that we have both nuclear energy and the bomb and we gave both to Israel. We don’t like these guys and they are spouting a bunch of rhetoric that sounds crazy to us and so Conservatives say just bomb them. I think we shouldn’t be casting stones. Not only do we have the bomb but we’re the only country to use it in a time of war. To hell with the implications.
It seems to me if the Neo-Cons in Washington right now had looked at the complexities of the situation in the Middle East they wouldn’t have been so eager to go knock off Saddam and create the mess that’s going on there now. Nope, instead they had to barrel in with their absolute ideas of what was right and wrong and thump their chest a bit. So now, instead of just having Afghanistan as a training ground for terrorists we have Iraq to boot.
It seems to me those people politically to either extreme are the ones living in fantasy lands and it’s having to cater to their very squeaky wheels the creates the swamp of legislation and policy we so often find ourselves in these days and the vast majority in the middle just tend to stand around like deer in the headlights, unwilling to fight the very vocal extreme minorities.
But I suppose those in the middle who do nothing and don’t participate in the process get what they deserve for sticking their heads in the sand.

More and more I wish there was a legitimate 3rd party that was really in the middle that could at least wake up both the Repubs and Dems to see they are alienating the middle because frankly I’m tired of having to chose the lesser of two evils.

It's called a dictionary

2007-06-19T17:22:00.000-05:00

Maybe the author of the editorial could, in his infinite wisdom, take a bit of his own advice and look up the meaning of “amnesty.” He’d learn that it means forgiveness for a past crime without punishment. Despite every attempt from anti-immigration advocates to add to the propaganda of hate, the bill does not provide amnesty to anyone. They would be required to pay a fine (proposed to be $5000) and return to their country to obtain their immigrant visa (obviously some will incur the cost of flying across oceans to reach their home country). Anti-immigration advocates may argue that that is not a stiff enough penalty and I probably wouldn’t disagree, but it ain’t amnesty.

Buying into basic propaganda lies does not help the debate.

Nice...

2007-06-19T15:25:00.000-05:00

Immigration editorial in the Washington Times

Here are some of the best parts:

"...as we have said before, in this immigration fantasy land,
security never comes first, "comprehensive" means a rushed hodgepodge of poorly
understood provisions and the flow of illegals into the United States magically
shuts itself off. In other words, amnesty at all costs. People who favor
commonsensical, piecemeal immigration reform have come to learn that neither
party is the party of common sense when it comes to this subject."

"Thus, thanks to the "bargain," we're now set for
another Washington "do something" moment, in which the White House and Congress
proffer a cure worse than the disease. Here's a novel idea. Let's expect the
senators at least to describe the bill accurately this time around. This would
mean that senators not only need to know what the bill contains. It would also
mean that they would need to level with the public about the bill, starting with
the most important fact. This bill amounts to a rerun of the 1986 amnesty,
except with new buzzwords and new false promises for enforcement. Second, both
parties' leadership are responsible for it. Third, the supposed need for a
"comprehensive" bill is a convenient fabrication."

"Finally, consider President Bush. In a signal instance of the "do
something" mindset, Mr. Bush now argues that the "status quo is unacceptable."
We're glad to hear Mr. Bush agree after all these years, but his view is the
inverse of sense. The truth is, Mr. Bush is desperate for a domestic policy
"victory." He dealt away his party's hand by signaling that he would sign any
bill. He now questions the motives of critics within his own party, suggesting
xenophobia and hate when all ordinary citizens want is transparency and a chance
to see what is being rushed into law. "

Dang right. There is no need to "get some stuff passed" if that stuff ain't worth beans to begin with. If Momma needs a new pair of shoes, tell her to go to Wal Mart, not Congress.

The myth of the "middle"

2007-06-19T12:44:00.000-05:00

A writer I admire has this to say (very sarcastically) of another writer. Evidently there's not much love going on here.

"(This guy) honestly believes that if Democrats say 10 and Republicans say 0
then, according to some immutable law of the universe, the right and wise answer
must be 5."

Now first of all...I'll say it for the thousandth time. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative. So I'd like to see that quote changed out to read "liberals" and "conservatives" instead of "Democrats" and "Republicans." But I like the idea behind it anyway. Of course, as the quote implies, that concept is ludicrous. And I think that perfectly describes ENTIRELY too much thinking that goes on in this world, and by certain people that we all know and love around here. The "middle"... whatever that is.... is not holy ground.

The "middle," more often than not, is either a fantasy land that doesn't exist, or a soggy swamp where NOBODY is happy. Witness the fiasco of the current immigration bill for an example of the latter. In either case, the middle is no more honorable a position than left or right. Compromise is often necessary in a society like ours, but that doesn't always mean it's a good thing.

The motives behind a conspiracy theory

2007-06-19T11:02:00.000-05:00

My last post about the JFK assassination didn't get any response, so I hesitate to bore everyone by posting another. But I just read a really interesting article that takes a different angle altogether. Check this out.

It takes a bit of reading to get to it, but the main thrust of the article is that most of the "conspiracy nuts" are liberals who are trying to prove that somebody besides an anti-American communist killed the president. In other words, 44 years after the fact, the conspiracy theorists are still trying to blame JFK's assassination on the American right wing. I still think someone was on the grassy knoll, and that this person shot at JFK at about the same time that Oswald shot from the book depository building. And I still say this doesn't necessarily mean there was a conspiracy. But this article has come up with as good a reason to bash the "conspiracy nuts" as I've ever heard. :-)

Lame Duck? Bush says kiss my ace!

2007-06-15T13:44:00.000-05:00

Well alright! Maybe Dubyah's still got a little left in the tank! Now that it appears that he has brought the immigration bill back from the dead, let's see him put some of that rock star adulation (where was he Albania?) to work and get some shtuff passed. For me -- pass a bill deporting everyone or pass a bill making everyone legal -- either way, momma needs some new shoes and my operators will be standing by!