Friday, December 05, 2003

Scott wrote:

The curious thing is, people like the ACLU who are carrying the PC torch can never be found unless the symbol in question is associated with the majority of Americans. Do you think we'd here from these people if my niece's school started calling the holiday break Kwanzaa break? Of course not, and we'd all be branded as racists for trying to get it changed. Once again the transparent agenda of the left takes shape. You'd think that people who consider themselves intellectuals could do a little better than this.

Intellectual dishonesty anyone? Much like facts are facts whether you approve of the source or not, infringement of peoples right to expression (See 1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution) is infringement even if you do not agree with what is being expressed. Where were these civil libertarians when some University of Tennessee frat boys wore blackface at a party and were immediately disciplined by the school? Truth be told, if this stuff were approached with intellectual honesty we wouldn't have odious "hate crime" legislation. It's all about advancing a certain agenda under the guise of objectivity.
This has to be a frightening prospect for people like the bloggers in Iran and Iraq who are finally able to find an avenue to express their views. I can just imagine the limitations that would be implemented by UN bureaucrats.

Hat tip to Instapundit
Well spoken, Kerry. We're glad to have you back. That is good news about the manger scene in NH. As you know I'm not a religious guy, but all this PC crap regarding religious symbols is really getting to be too much. I can't name a single time that I've been offended by the display of a religious symbol. Not one. And I was raised Catholic, so I'm quite familiar with religious symbols. When I used to work for Turner Broadcasting in Atlanta GA, they had some pretty PC policies, but at least they allowed holiday decorations. You had to allow for the "big 3" (Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa- this is Atlanta remember) but you could still put up decorations. You have to wonder about someone who is offended by a friggin' Christmas tree. My father, who is on the board of the Independence Association, (an organization that helps the mentally handicapped,) said that a couple of years ago they had to stop calling the Christmas bonus a Christmas bonus. They switched to "holiday bonus," but had to change that to "end of the year bonus" this year because Mormons don't celebrate any holidays. My 16 year old niece told me that at her high school they are forbidden to refer to their holiday vacation as "Christmas break." I'm not just talking about the administrators of the school here. They don't allow the STUDENTS to make this reference. Of course, being her legal guardian, I told her to refer to the Christmas break in whatever terms she wants, and that I'll deal with any bozo from the school administration that would like to take this up with me.

The curious thing is, people like the ACLU who are carrying the PC torch can never be found unless the symbol in question is associated with the majority of Americans. Do you think we'd here from these people if my niece's school started calling the holiday break Kwanzaa break? Of course not, and we'd all be branded as racists for trying to get it changed. Once again the transparent agenda of the left takes shape. You'd think that people who consider themselves intellectuals could do a little better than this.

To donate to Lt. Colonel West's defense send checks here:

Alan West Defense Fund, c/o Angela West, 6823 Coleman Drive, Ft. Hood, Tex 76544.

Thursday, December 04, 2003

I don't care if the Thanksgiving turkey President Bush was holding in the photos from Baghdad was a prop or not, this is the effect it had on the troops who were actually there. God love him, the President cares for our men and women in uniform and it shows.
This really gets me going. It is becoming a trend in this country for local governments to trample on people's property rights in order to pad the tax base. This story is just one in a string of such cases where local governments are using unscrupulous means to find ways to oust homeowners so that their property can be made available to those who will pay higher property taxes. The attack on property rights is not just a local phenomenon either. While criticizing judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown, Diane Feinstein stated that she didn't like the fact that Judge Brown placed property rights on "too high a plane." It seems the Democrats have come up with an interpretation of the constitution where certain rights reside on a higher plane than others. How convenient for them when someone's property rights stand in the way of their political motives. This is just one step closer to socialist collectivism, where the "needs" of the state outweigh the rights of the individual. This would be fine if it weren't for the fact that a great deal of the constitution is dedicated to protecting the rights of the individual from people like Ms. Feinstein and the Norfolk housing authority. We can also blame the courts for this mess, as they have given city governments almost unlimited leeway in the interpretation of eminent domain laws. It's nice to see those checks and balances working to protect us.

Check out this site for information on fighting eminent domain abuse.


I couldn't agree more with your sentiments regarding Lt. Colonel West and Nathaniel Jones. The fact that the knee jerk reaction of the press is always to doubt the actions of those who's job it is to protect us is very disturbing. The fact that force (gasp) was used in both instances is what really puts this over the top for the liberals, who believe that force isn't necessary in a modern, sophisticated society (see the John Stuart Mill quote above.) I would like to hear what those crying foul in the case of Nathaniel Jones would have the police do in that situation. Here's a belligerent, doped up 350lb. man who was warned repeatedly to back off, and decided to attack a police officer anyway. Let's keep in mind that police officers carry guns, so when one is attacked like this, there always a chance of the gun being turned on them. While the first officer was being attacked, the second officer would have had every right to draw his gun and shoot Mr. Jones, as his partner's life was in danger. He chose to to use his night stick instead. The police officers eventually got the better of Jones, and could be seen on that tape going to great lengths to strike at Jones' legs and not his head and torso. They showed exemplary restraint in a situation where they would have been justified in using their firearms. Of course, none of this matters to the race warlords who only see a black man being beaten by two white police officers. If any disciplinary action is taken against these men, I will personally send them money. These are the cops I want in my neighborhood when there's trouble. Likewise for Lt. Colonel West. The liberal dream of a quagmire in Iraq would surely come true if we had a bunch of PC pansies over there who were more worried about ruffling the feathers of a Muslim than the lives of their fellow soldiers.

The liberal mindset suggests that force is always bad, but it is never worse then when used against someone of minority group status. A little history lesson is in order, as none of the groups that the left pretends to hold so dear achieved freedom without the use of force. Thankfully our country has always had an ample supply of real men and women who had a clear sense of right and wrong and were not afraid to take action and use force if necessary to protect our way of life.
One more for the Gipper.

Edit: I don't buy the part about Alzheimers in '85. I think that is part of the big lie regarding Reagan, it has been repeated over and over and people take it as fact.

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

Two recent events have really been bothering me. The first is the prosecution of Lt. Colonel West in Iraq who used some rather unorthodox methods to glean information regarding a plot to kill him and the soldiers under his command. Colonel West threatened to kill an Iraqi policeman who he believed had information on the pending plot. He fired two shots near the man's head to frighten him - it worked, the policeman divulged the names of several people involved as well as the place and time. Colonel West saved some lives that day. Call me crazy, but I cut people in a war zone a little extra slack. He included his actions in his official report and was suspended from command and is currently under investigation.

The second, more recent event was the death of Nathaniel Jones during an altercation with Cincinnati police. The initial reports I heard regarding this seemed bound and determined to make it Rodney King redux, the race aspect was definitely played up. Scott and I were discussing this over lunch today and he mentioned seeing the video on one of the big 3 channels showing one portion of the video without any context (he did mention that Foxnews aired the clip in its entirety). I watched the entire video and think Nathaniel Jones got what he deserved. I don't care what color Mr. Jones was, nor the pigmentation of the police officers. The event needs to be investigated to divulge whether or not the police acted appropriately, end of story.

The connection here, to me at least, is twofold. The first aspect involves the mindset that God forbid we upset the (insert appropriate Grievance Industry® minority here) community so we'll essentially hobble ourselves. In the West case we are fighting Muslims, sorry but there it is. American soldiers (and Iraqi civilians) lives are at stake here, if we offend some Muslims WHO HATE US ANYWAY, so be it. In the Nathaniel Jones case police were called to an incident involving a large, belligerent, drugged up man and resolved the situation when attacked. WHO CARES what color they were. The second and more important aspect here is that the work the police and the military perform is a very serious, very dangerous, and very necessary business. We cannot put these people in the situation of constantly being questioned and second guessed. They cannot perform their roles properly when they are not certain they will be supported when the going gets tough.

The sorts of incidents seem to be media driven in many cases, especially with the glut of information available at our fingertips in this day and age. The non-ending hype, speculation and spin seems to pressure police administrators or army brass into doing "something" which is usually the wrong thing. It is up to us as citizens to help effect changes that will allow the Colonel Wests and Cincinnati police to perform their jobs fully, safely and without worry of recrimination.

You're right, this was likely an intentional deception by the EU, as well as Bill Clinton, who jumped onto the feel good environment bandwagon knowing full well his administration wouldn't have to deal with the consequences of this flawed treaty. Those on the left will never delve into these facts, however. All you'll hear from them will be the the mainstream media headlines "Bush pulls out of Kyoto" and "EU blasts Bush for pulling out of Kyoto" repeated ad nauseum, until they become part of the collective consciousness of the left.

Environmentalists have pitted capitalism against environmentalism as if they were 100% incompatible. Therefore, they give no consideration to any economic concern associated with this treaty. All they know if that Bush backed out of an environmental agreement, which just adds to their "Bush is Satan" obsession. (Oh, wait, they don't believe in Satan.) A quick trip to the Sierra Club's website (I refuse to link) will show, if you can wade through the immature anti Bush cartoons and rhetoric, that each and every one of their pie in the sky environmental "solutions" is accompanied by a huge and expensive government agency or subsidy to carry out the solution. It seems that they believe that in order to be an environmentalist, one must also be socialist. Their true motivations are apparent, and thankfully we have leadership that doesn't pander to these clowns.

You're right; it was likely an intentional deception on the part of the EU, as well as from Bill Clinton who signed us up knowing his administration would not have to deal with the consequences of the treaty.

You touch on one of things that really annoys me about our lefty friends here in the US: The belief that Europeans are somehow more sophisticated and intelligent than Americans, and therefore should serve as a role model for us. A brief look at the 20th century (not to mention prior European history) shows us the result of European "sophistication." WWI and WWII both began with infighting between the "sophisticated" Europeans, and required US intervention to remedy. I can only imagine what would have resulted in the Cold War if the only thing between the Soviet Union and complete world domination was "sophisticated" Europe. We now have the current stagnation of the EU as a shining example of mediocrity. It would be wise for us to avoid using people as role models who have been unable to keep their houses in order for the whole of the 20th century, and are showing no signs of learning from hundreds of years of mistakes.

This is not to say I dislike Europeans. In fact, the opposite is true. On the whole, however, they choose lousy governments.

Perhaps I am misreading you, but I think you are giving the EU too much credit here. I believe that they deliberately signed Kyoto without any real intention of honoring it. As long as they professed the proper sentiments on the matter they were in the right, how they actually acted on it was not important. This sort of behavior seems to be par for the course with the EU(read: France and Germany). The EU Stability and Growth Pact furor leaps to mind.

What angers me is that President Bush was completely honest and forthcoming about why he would not sign the treaty and comes off in the world press as evil personified. Meanwhile the cynical EU members who said what was necessary to get good press with no intentions of acting on it, are defended to the end by those who honestly believe that a temperature change over 50 years of less than 1° C is catastrophic! Apparently this is what is meant by European "sophistication" - lying, while American "naivete" seems to equate to honesty. I'll take naivete any day of the week.
It looks like The Kyoto Protocol is dead. The irony here (and this will come as sour news to the lefties) is that the European Union, the most vocal Kyoto supporter, is on pace to miss it's emission targets. Remember the wailing that went on when Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol? Nobody whined louder than the EU, and now those hypocrites are breaking the same rules they shunned us for rejecting. No doubt that they have discovered what the President knew all along; that following the guidelines in this treaty would have a devastating effect on the world economy. With the EU in shaky economic condition to begin with, it looks like they simply cannot afford to take their own medicine.

I know this is becoming a mantra on this site, but once again we see the tendency of the left to make decisions based on what feels good versus what will actually be effective. The fact that the whole concept of the treaty is based on very sketchy science makes it that much more laughable. What the President has done for us here is to save us from the economic damage that the treaty would inevitably have caused us, as well as the political embarrassment that the EU is experiencing right now for not having the strength of their own convictions. Of course, to the left this will not matter. The EU made the politically correct decision, so this will shield them from all but some lip service criticism from environmentalists for failing to comply with Kyoto. Challenging their socialist pals in Europe would just be way to stressful for the environmental left. Better to stay nice and cozy in their bubble of obsessive Bush hatred and disdain for all things American.

Tuesday, December 02, 2003

Peter Ferrara outlines a simple cure for the illness that is our social security system (thanks to While I'd like to see much more privatization than this, It's truly amazing what a little dose of free market capitalism could do for our ridiculous Social Security system. Unfortunately, it will be an uphill battle to get anything like this passed, as it would decrease the population's dependence on the government, thus eroding the democratic power base. We certainly can't have people running around making decisions for themselves about their own future! Imagine the chaos! Our Social Security system is representative of what socialism always ends up becoming in practice: diluted, inefficient, and substandard services for everyone.

Monday, December 01, 2003


It sounds as if Sarah needs some real world experience, if I had to guess I'd wager she's a college student studying some form of "environmental sciences". My first thought on reading her diatribe was pretty much what Scott mentioned in his post below- facts are facts regardless of whether or not the source is agreeable to you. Sarah neatly sidestepped facts and went with the tried and true ad hominem attack. When in doubt attack individuals and impugn motives, but for God's sake don't address the issues! Unfortunately this approach has had much success in recent years, if you say something often enough people will begin to believe it or worse, repeat it without any thought whatsoever.

Nonetheless, her little rant came nowhere near the issue of the almost complete fiscal irresponsibility within Americorps. It is a program she supports and probably makes her "feel good", so instead of reading the Cato study and perhaps having her eyes opened she just starts swinging. Perhaps Americorps can be "fixed" (although I'll never support it) but with Sarah's attitude it will just limp on and siphon its little bit off the public teat. If enough people on both sides of the aisle looked at the facts regarding Americorps and were outraged and demanded change perhaps some real progress could be made.

Sarah's email and a few conversations I had over the last week bring me to something that has been bothering me more and more. I realize it is human nature to want to do something that makes us feel good, but this needs to be weighed against the long term impact and overall effect of such actions. So many liberals support issues that make them feel good (welfare programs, rights for illegal immigrants, ending "exploitation" of Third World employees, etc., ad nauseum) without considering the big picture and the long range consequences. Maybe that Third World employee is rather looking forward to weekly wages higher than he now earns in a year, or the fact that these jobs will eventually increase the standard of living across the board. They don't stop to think about the long-term effects of welfare programs that almost 2 generations of people have become dependent on. It all boils down to selfishness in the guise of altruism. I'm sick to death of it and will, as Scott suggests, be very vocal about it - "feelings" be damned.

Yes, Sara needs to stop by for some debate. I was pleased to see that her first reaction to the article was to attack the motive of The Cato Institute. Here we go again. Let's not even deal with the facts; let's spew fear uncertainty and doubt about Cato's motives so we don't have to face the facts they use to support their argument. Unfortunately for Sara, facts are facts, and they are equally valid no matter who decides to point them out. After all, discounting a fact based on the person who points it out would be discrimination, wouldn't it.

The Cato Institute is widely respected by people on both sides of the aisle in Washington as well as in countless other circles. You can hardly watch a couple of hours of TV news without seeing an interview with someone from Cato. I'm not talking about just Fox here; all of the major news outlets rely on Cato's scholars for analysis. Their research is impeccable and exhaustive, and even though I do not always agree with their conclusions, there is no denying the quality of the information that they provide. Calling them a totally biased conservative "research firm" (I love the scare quotes) shows how truly ignorant Sara is. If she would bother to take look at Cato's web site, she would realize that Cato's positions on a great many issues, including the war in Iraq, differ from that of the conservative mainstream. Sara would do well not to discount such a great organization. I'm sure there's good information on their site that would back many of her opinions. Sadly, all we get from Sara is a criticism of The Cato Institute, a few criticisms of Cato's findings, and some anti-republican rhetoric. She misses an opportunity to point Sue to some data that supports her viewpoint, which leads me to believe there isn't any, or she is unaware of it, which is even worse.

I do agree with her point that capitalism doesn't work as well when you mix in regulation and subsidies, as we are prone to do. We should not, however, accept these regulations as a given, as Sara seems to suggest. The more free we can make the market the greater the chances will be for everyone to find prosperity. This does not have to come at the expense of the environment, although I understand the environmental movement sees capitalism and environmentalism as incompatible. Ironically, The Cato institute has some good data to support the notion that a free economy is a friend to the environment, but don't expect the environmentalists to read, much less quote from, this information any time soon. Emerging from the ideological womb can be soooooo scary.
Kerry, your argument with the jihadist reflects a similar experience I had over the holiday discussing a multitude of issues with some liberals that I know. An underlying current is present in all of these discussions, as well as in the frothing at the mouth taking place at It is becoming more and more evident that a growing number of people are so entrenched ideologically that logic has no effect on them whatsoever. Unfortunately, their ideology is often based on assumption and empty rhetoric. You can paint them an absolutely clear picture of the facts, complete with multiple, reliable sources to back up your points, and their belief system will filter it all out. Again, we see the tendency to attack motive when the facts aren't on their side. President Bush, for one, is so hated by the left (and others) that he literally can do nothing to please them. No matter what he accomplishes, it will instantly be twisted and questioned and spun into a negative. This is out of fear, of course. If their sworn enemy turns out to know what he's talking about, then their whole house of cards belief system gets hit with a Daisy Cutter.

I for one am glad that the President, at least when it comes to Iraq, hasn't offered to "reach out" to the Democrats. He's going to be vilified anyway, so he might as well get some positive work done while he's at it. Unfortunately, those on the left are often too afraid to face up to the tough decisions in life, like what we face with Iraq. Their belief in a social utopia forces them to shun any decision that doesn't have the veneer of compassion and "doing the right thing" all over it, along with the promise of no "down side." To the left, the means justify the ends, and any attempt to apply logic to dislodge them from dreamland just leaves them rocking back and forth in the corner in fetal position.

My recent experiences with the emotional left have led me to a believe that the only way to actually convince them that they have it wrong would be for there to be an unprecedented period of prosperity in this country under non-Democratic leadership. I'm talking 25 years minimum. Of course there will always be hold outs, but it's hard to keep your heart bleeding when your own life and the lives of the people around you are going well. While this is certainly a pie in the sky scenario, I see it as the only way any real progress is going to be made in weaning people off the socialist mindset. Of course, this could backfire, as greater prosperity would just mean more available funds to plunder under the guise of "helping the less fortunate."

In the meantime, we should all speak often and loudly about these issues. As I learned over the past few days, feelings get hurt and egos get bruised, but this stuff is too important to avoid for the sake of keeping fragile emotions intact. If you can't hold it together for a discussion, then real life is going to pile drive you into oblivion. Let's not let the "think happy thoughts" crowd decide what's best for us.

Sunday, November 30, 2003

Warning:  Extreme Assclown          This guy is a complete assclown. Check out his endorsements page. I think it is rather telling that this extremist, leftwing pisswit balkanizes the people who endorse him into little politically correct groupings. It is a perfect microcosm of the entire leftwing philosophy. By subdividing further and further you can create more and more dissent between the various victims groups until EVERYONE is a victim and needs the government to redress their grievances.

EDIT: I almost did a spit-take when I read that Danny Glover (in the African-American category of course) is an "Actor, UN Messenger of Peace". I am NOT making this up.